Click *H for Haydock Commentary. *Footnote for footnote etc.
Click any word in Latin Greek or Hebrew to activate the parser. Then click on the display to expand the parser.
* Footnotes
- A.D. 33.
-
*
Mark
10:32
And they were in the way going up to Jerusalem: and Jesus went before them. And they were astonished and following were afraid. And taking again the twelve, he began to tell them the things that should befall him.
-
*
Luke
18:31
Then Jesus took unto him the twelve and said to them: Behold, we go up to Jerusalem; and all things shall be accomplished which were written by the prophets concerning the Son of man.
*H The kingdom of heaven is like to an householder, who went out early in the morning to hire labourers into his vineyard.
Ver. 1. For the kingdom. The participle for, is found in the Greek, and connects the present parable with the last verse of the preceding chapter: indeed it is a comment on that text, and describes to us the gospel dispensation. Thus the conduct of God in the choice he makes of members for his spiritual kingdom, the Church, and of his elect for the kingdom of heaven, is not unlike that of the father of a family, who hires workmen to labour in his vineyard. There are various opinions respecting who are meant by the first, and by the last, in this parable. Many of the fathers suppose that the saints of different states and degrees are here designed, whose reward will suffer no diminution from the circumstances of their having come to the service of Christ at a late age of the world, according to SS. Hilary, Gregory, and Theophylactus; or, at a late age of life, according to SS. Basil, Jerom, and Fulgentius. In the latter case, however, we must understand that their greater fervour in co-operating with divine grace, in the latter part of their life, has supplied and compensated for the defect of their preceding negligence; hence it may sometimes happen that the reward of such as enter late in life on the service of God, will exceed that of the less fervent who have entered at an earlier period. But as Christ rather seems to speak here of his militant than his triumphant Church, many commentators explain the parable of the Jews and Gentiles. For the Jews, after bearing the yoke of the Mosaic law for so many ages, received nothing more than what was promised to the observance of that law; whilst Christians receive a more plentiful reward for their more easy labour under the sweet yoke of the gospel. In which sense Christ says to the Jews, Luke xiii. 29: Publicans and harlots shall go before you into the kingdom of heaven. "And, strangers shall come from the east, and from the west, and the north, and the south, and shall sit down in the kingdom of God. And behold they are last that shall be first, and they are first that shall be last." Ibid. 30. — Hence the Jews may be supposed to murmur, that they who are first in their vocation to be the people of God, and first in the observance of his law, should not be preferred to others, who in these respects have been far posterior to them. T. — By the vineyard, says S. Chrysostom, we here understand, the commandments of God. The time for labour is the present life. In the first, third, sixth, ninth, and eleventh hours, i.e. in infancy, youth, manhood, declining years, and extreme decrepitude of age, many individuals, yielding to the effective call of God, labour in the exact performance of the divine commandments. Hom. lxv.
*Lapide
CHAPTER 20 The kingdom of heaven is like. That is, God acts in the kingdom of Heaven like a master hiring labourers into his vineyard; for strictly speaking, the kingdom of Heaven is not like the householder himself, but like his house and family. Christ's purpose is by means of this parable to prove the truth of His last saying in the preceding chapter, many that are first shall be last , c., and to shew that by the grace of God, without any injustice or injury to anyone it will cpme to pass that those who here seemed to have the first place will in the Day of Judgment have the last, and those who seemed to have the last will then have the first; that is, that the Apostles and the despised faithful who followed Christ will in the kingdom of Heaven be preferred to the Scribes and Pharisees; and the believing Gentiles to the Jews, who were called by the Lord that they might obtain the first place in the kingdom of God, that is, in the Church both militant and triumphant; or, that the Sons of the New Testament, and especially the Apostles who are to sit on twelve thrones in the Day of Judgment, will be preferred to the Sons of the Old Testament, who under the shadows of legal sacrifices performed a laborious service, because, trusting in the works of the Law, they falsely claimed the kingdom of God for themselves, and rejected Christ. Whence they deservedly lost the kingdom; while the others submitted with humility to Christ, and zealously co-operated with Him, and therefore were elected in preference to the Jews both to grace and glory. That this is the scope of the parable is evident. 1. From the saying which precedes and follows it, many that are first , c. 2. From S. Luke, who in chap. Luk 13:29-30 , explains these same words of the admission of the Gentiles and the exclusion of the Jews. 3. Because otherwise we cannot explain the murmurings of those who were first called, for in Heaven among the blessed there is no murmuring, but only in hell among-the damned. By the vineyard we are to understand the Church; by the market place the world; by those called at the first, third, and sixth hour, the Jews, called in their fathers, Abraham, Jacob, and Moses, to the faith and worship of God; by those called at he eleventh hour, we are to understand the Gentiles; by the evening, the Day of Judgment, in which each will receive his reward, either already given in this life (as it was given to the Jews), or to be then given, as in the case of the Gentiles in Heaven. By the penny (denarius) is signified a whole day's pay. The denarius was a common coin, of which there were many different kinds; for there was the copper, the silver, and the gold denarius. And it is clear, that the pay given to the labourers was unequal, because the last were preferred to the others who came at the first, third, and sixth hour, for although the latter had laboured for a longer time, yet the former had laboured with greater grace, diligence and zeal. You will say then, that to the greater labourer the less reward is given. I answer: True, but not to the greater merit ; for to this a greater reward is always due, and is always given. Moreover, it is not the greater labourer that makes the merit greater, but grace, and co-operation with grace. The Apostles had greater grace than the Scribes, Christians than Jews, and co-operated more with grace, and therefore the greater denarius, i.e ., the greater reward was promised them. For to the Jews the denarius promised by God was a temporal reward, an abundance of temporal blessings; but to the Gentile Christians was promised by Christ a denarius far more noble, namely eternal life. The Jews therefore received a denarius of copper or silver, the Christians one of gold. For otherwise if the denarius signified exactly the same reward, it would not agree with the words which precede and follow the parable the first shall be last , and the last first. In a word, the parable signifies that the Gentiles who believe in Christ will be preferred to the Jews who despise Christ. And this is what S. Paul teaches in many places, and especially in his Epistle to the Romans. And Christ Himself says, The publicans and harlots go into the Kingdom of God before you. (See also S. Mat 8:11-12Mat 8:11-12 , and S. Luk 13:28-30Luk 13:28-30 .) According to this sense, the first will be saved, the last will he damned. But in another sense, the first who will be the last are those who were first called but arrive at their reward last; while the last who will be the first are those who though called last become the first in reward. Whence the Fathers, doctors, and schoolmen commonly explain this parable as if Christ intended to say that the first as well as the last, i.e ., Jews as well as Christians, who serve God, will receive the same eternal life; nor will it be to the injury of anyone that he has been called at the end of the world or of his own life; yea, rather he will be preferred in heavenly glory before others who were called long before, if with greater labour and zeal he co-operated with the greater grace given him by God. This is the interpretation of S. Jerome, S. Augustine, S. Chrysostom, S. Thomas, Maldonatus, Gregorius de Valentia, Bellarmine ( Lib. iii . de Justificatione, cap. 16), and Suarez. And this interpretation is very probable, and it is much in its favour, that it is better explained in this way how the same denarius is given to all the labourers. For the Fathers everywhere by the denarius understand eternal life. You will say, how is it that in this denarius the first and the last are equal, since the first excel the last in the felicity and glory of eternal life? I answer, that the same denarius denotes the same blessing generically and objectively, i.e ., the same Divine essence which constitutes the blessedness of the saints; for this is one and the same, but nevertheless the fruition of it is different according to their different degrees of merit; for those who have served God with greater grace and labour, as those did who were called last, will behold God in a clearer and more perfect vision, and therefore will have a fuller fruition of His love, and will be more blessed than those who served God with less grace and labour. So S. Gregory, S. Augustine, S. Jerome, S. Thomas ( Part I., quæst. 15, art. 6), and others explain it. To these may be added Bellarmine in the place already quoted: for that denarius , he says, signifies an equality of eternity, not of glory. Again, this opinion is favoured by the words of Christ (chap. xix. 21, and following), which are closely connected with this payable. And now to explain the several points of the parable according to this sense: By the day is to be understood the course of this world; by the various hours the different ages of the world; so that the first hour is the age from Adam to Noah, the second that from Noah to Abraham, the third from Abraham to Moses, the sixth from Moses to Christ, the eleventh from Christ to the end of the world. Thus S. Hilary, S. Gregory, and Theophylact explain it. Or the day is the life of each man; the first hour being infancy; the third, youth; the sixth, manhood; the ninth, old age; the eleventh, decrepitude. So S. Jerome and S. Basil explain it. By the murmuring, understand with Theophylact, Suarez, and others, the surprise of the saints when those who shall be less in glory, and yet (as the Jews) had laboured more here will wonder that others, who laboured less here, but excelled them in the measure of grace, are preferred to them in glory. To conclude: the sense will be complete and adequate, if this second meaning is taken in conjunction with the first; for as I said at the end of the preceding chapter, the last can be taken in both ways either as meaning the last, in the sense of the damned, or the last in Heaven itself, and therefore saved. The first sense applies to those who were first called, and clearly explains their murmuring; while the second sense applies to those last called, and in their case clearly explains the denarius, how the same denarius i.e ., eternal life is given to all. Wherefore, the second sense supplies the first, and the first supplies what is wanting in the second. Tropologically. The vineyard is the soul which each man has to cultivate. Morally, therefore, we learn that we are called to labour in the vineyard, i.e ., our own souls and the Church of God. The cultivators of this vineyard are not held in honour for the time during which they have laboured, but for the diligence, the zeal, and the spirit with which they have laboured. S. Jerome ( Epist. 13, ad Paul ): Hence the Spouse in the Canticles says, They have made me keeper of the vineyards, mine own vineyard have I not kept. The essence of the soul is the vineyard, planted in the soil of the body; its faculties are the vines, and works of charity are its wine; the vines are to be fastened to the Cross, at the foot of which we make a grave, against the approach of our death and burial. This vineyard must be kept from the wild boar out of the wood (Ps. lxxx.) i.e ., from lustful pleasure; and from the singular wild beast (Vulg . ) i.e ., from the sin of pride, which makes a man singular; from the fox of cunning flattery; from the wolf of greediness; from the dog of detraction. We must pray the Lord to send upon this His vineyard the rain of His doctrine, and the warmth of His charity, and dung i.e ., the memory of the death of His Son and of the holy martyrs. The soul is green like a vineyard with flowers and leaves, that is, with holy desires and edifying speech; it pours forth the tears of compunction; it sheds forth the sweet odour of virtue; it bears the ripe grapes of good works. Again, the faithful man performs in his own soul the same works as the vine-dresser in the vineyard. He prunes, hoes, transplants, disentangles, c.; the faithful does the same mystically in his own soul. And now to explain each verse briefly.*H And having agreed with the labourers for a penny a day, he sent them into his vineyard.
Ver. 2. The Roman penny, or denarius, was the 8th part of an ounce; which, at the rate of 5s. per ounce, is 7½d. It is put here for the usual hire of a day-labourer.
*Lapide
. When he had agreed with the labourers. Jovian and Calvin have asserted that all the just are equal in reward, i.e ., in the denarius of eternal life, and that therefore they are equal in merit, and all good works are equal. But I have already answered that all are equal generally in eternal life; but in this there will be degrees, for some will have a clearer and others a dimmer vision of God, and therefore the one will be more and the others less blessed and glorious.*H And going out about the third hour, he saw others standing in the marketplace idle.
Ver. 3. About the third hour. As the Jews divided their nights into four watches, each watch comprehending three hours, so they divided their days into four greater hours, from sunrise to sunset, and each of these great hours contained three lesser hours; so that the whole day from sunrise to sunset, consisted of 12 hours, as also did the night. The first of the great hours, comprehending the three first lesser hours, contained half of the space betwixt the rising of the sun and mid-day; and the end of this time was called the third hour. The next great hour was from that time till mid-day, called the sixth hour. The following great hour contained half of the time betwixt noon and the setting of the sun, the end of which was called the ninth hour. The fourth great hour comprehended the last three lesser hours remaining till sunset, so that at the end of the eleventh hour, mentioned here, v. 6, began the last lesser hour of the twelve hours of the day; of which our Saviour said, (Jo. xi. 9,) are there not twelve hours in the day? — As to the moral sense of the parable, by the day is commonly expounded all the time from the creation to the end of the world, and so the third hour is reckoned from Adam to Noe; the sixth from Noe to Abraham; the ninth from Abraham to Moses; and from the ninth to the eleventh, was from Moses till Christ's coming; and the time from Christ to the end of the world, is the 12th hour. Other interpreters, by the day understand human life; and by the different hours, infancy, youth, the age of manhood, old age, and the last hour man's decrepit age. God is master and disposer of all, who by his grace calls some sooner, some later. The market-place, in which men are so often found idle, as to the great concern of their eternal salvation, is the world. The design of this parable was to shew that the Gentiles, though called later than the Jews, should be made partakers of the promises made to the Jews; this is also the meaning of verse 16, where it is said: the last shall be first, and the first last. Wi.
*Lapide
And he went out about the third hour . The Romans and the Jews used to divide the night as well as the day into twelve hours reckoned in four periods which in the night were called watches. The first hour began at sunrise, the sixth at midday. Again, in winter the hours were shorter in the day and longer in the night, and the reverse in summer.*H And he said to them: Go you also into my vineyard, and I will give you what shall be just.
Ver. 4. I will give you what shall be just. The prospect of a reward is therefore a good motive, authorized here by Christ himself.
*Lapide
And He said unto them, go ye also. To these He does not promise a denarius, but what is right ( just , Vulg.) By this is signified the merit of good works, which according to justice merits a reward, which God promises to each work according to distributive justice.*Lapide
Again He went out , This shews the carefulness of God who is desirous that all men should be workers in the vineyard of their own souls, and of the Church, that both may be adorned with fruits of every kind.*Lapide
About the eleventh hour . This is the last hour of the day, and those called at this hour are Christians. Origen says that Adam was called at the first hour, Paul at the eleventh.*H They say to him: Because no man hath hired us. He saith to them: Go ye also into my vineyard.
Ver. 7. No man hath hired us. S. Chrys. again puts us in mind, that in parables all the parts are not significant, but some things are to be taken as mere ornaments of parabolical discourses, as here murmurings, which cannot be found in heaven: nor can men pretend they are not hired into God's service; God hath given lights, called, hired, and promised heaven to all. The rewards in heaven are also different. And they who are last called, if they labour with greater fervour, may deserve a greater reward than others called before them. Wi. — The Greek text finishes with, you shall receive what is reasonable. — We must observe here, says S. Chrys. on the words, because no man hath hired us, that this is the voice of the labourers only, in excuse for their not having entered upon their work before this late hour; for the master of the vineyard had shewn his willingness to hire them all, by going out early for that purpose. Though the fault was their own, he does not upbraid them, but abstains from all harshness and severity, that he may the more easily engage them. Hom. lxv.
*Lapide
Because no man hath hired us. This is the vain excuse, S. Chryostom says, of slothful men; for God calls all to virtue from childhood. But again S. Chrysostom says the hiring is the promise of eternal life: but the Gentiles knew neither God nor the promises of God, so they say that they had not been hired, or called, though they had been called by the law and light of nature.*Lapide
And when the evening was come . The evening is the end of the world and the Day of Judgment. Symbolically , Origen understands by the steward the holy Angels, as S. Michael; but Remigius understands Christ, Who as man is the steward of God the Father, and in His name will judge the quick and dead. Irenæus ( Lib. iv . contr. hær. c. 70) understands the Holy Spirit who dispenses both gifts and graces, and glory and rewards. The Gentiles had more grace, and co-operated with grace more than the Jews who were first called, and therefore they obtain a higher place in Heaven. We may learn from this that a man may easily gain an increase of merit and glory if he practise frequent acts of charity, and perform all external works from charity and the love of God; for thus he will merit more even than the religious who undergo hard penances, if he practise his works with greater charity than they do, although they be less difficult, Beginning with the last. S. Gregory says, Those who are called at the end of life are often times rewarded before others, inasmuch as they depart out of the body into the kingdom before those who were called in childhood.* Summa
*S Part 2, Ques 114, Article 4
[I-II, Q. 114, Art. 4]
Whether Grace Is the Principle of Merit Through Charity Rather Than the Other Virtues?
Objection 1: It would seem that grace is not the principle of merit through charity rather than the other virtues. For wages are due to work, according to Matt. 20:8: "Call the laborers and pay them their hire." Now every virtue is a principle of some operation, since virtue is an operative habit, as stated above (Q. 55, A. 2). Hence every virtue is equally a principle of merit.
Obj. 2: Further, the Apostle says (1 Cor. 3:8): "Every man shall receive his own reward according to his labor." Now charity lessens rather than increases the labor, because as Augustine says (De Verbis Dom., Serm. lxx), "love makes all hard and repulsive tasks easy and next to nothing." Hence charity is no greater principle of merit than any other virtue.
Obj. 3: Further, the greatest principle of merit would seem to be the one whose acts are most meritorious. But the acts of faith and patience or fortitude would seem to be the most meritorious, as appears in the martyrs, who strove for the faith patiently and bravely even till death. Hence other virtues are a greater principle of merit than charity.
_On the contrary,_ Our Lord said (John 14:21): "He that loveth Me, shall be loved of My Father; and I will love him and will manifest Myself to him." Now everlasting life consists in the manifest knowledge of God, according to John 17:3: "This is eternal life: that they may know Thee, the only true" and living "God." Hence the merit of eternal life rests chiefly with charity.
_I answer that,_ As we may gather from what has been stated above (A. 1), human acts have the nature of merit from two causes: first and chiefly from the Divine ordination, inasmuch as acts are said to merit that good to which man is divinely ordained. Secondly, on the part of free-will, inasmuch as man, more than other creatures, has the power of voluntary acts by acting by himself. And in both these ways does merit chiefly rest with charity. For we must bear in mind that everlasting life consists in the enjoyment of God. Now the human mind's movement to the fruition of the Divine good is the proper act of charity, whereby all the acts of the other virtues are ordained to this end, since all the other virtues are commanded by charity. Hence the merit of life everlasting pertains first to charity, and secondly, to the other virtues, inasmuch as their acts are commanded by charity. So, likewise, is it manifest that what we do out of love we do most willingly. Hence, even inasmuch as merit depends on voluntariness, merit is chiefly attributed to charity.
Reply Obj. 1: Charity, inasmuch as it has the last end for object, moves the other virtues to act. For the habit to which the end pertains always commands the habits to which the means pertain, as was said above (Q. 9, A. 1).
Reply Obj. 2: A work can be toilsome and difficult in two ways: first, from the greatness of the work, and thus the greatness of the work pertains to the increase of merit; and thus charity does not lessen the toil--rather, it makes us undertake the greatest toils, "for it does great things, if it exists," as Gregory says (Hom. in Evang. xxx). Secondly, from the defect of the operator; for what is not done with a ready will is hard and difficult to all of us, and this toil lessens merit and is removed by charity.
Reply Obj. 3: The act of faith is not meritorious unless "faith . . . worketh by charity" (Gal. 5:6). So, too, the acts of patience and fortitude are not meritorious unless a man does them out of charity, according to 1 Cor. 13:3: "If I should deliver my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing." ________________________
FIFTH
* Summa
*S Part 2, Ques 5, Article 2
[I-II, Q. 5, Art. 2]
Whether One Man Can Be Happier Than Another?
Objection 1: It would seem that one man cannot be happier than another. For Happiness is "the reward of virtue," as the Philosopher says (Ethic. i, 9). But equal reward is given for all the works of virtue; because it is written (Matt. 20:10) that all who labor in the vineyard "received every man a penny"; for, as Gregory says (Hom. xix in Evang.), "each was equally rewarded with eternal life." Therefore one man cannot be happier than another.
Obj. 2: Further, Happiness is the supreme good. But nothing can surpass the supreme. Therefore one man's Happiness cannot be surpassed by another's.
Obj. 3: Further, since Happiness is "the perfect and sufficient good" (Ethic. i, 7) it brings rest to man's desire. But his desire is not at rest, if he yet lacks some good that can be got. And if he lack nothing that he can get, there can be no still greater good. Therefore either man is not happy; or, if he be happy, no other Happiness can be greater.
_On the contrary,_ It is written (John 14:2): "In My Father's house there are many mansions"; which, according to Augustine (Tract. lxvii in Joan.) signify "the diverse dignities of merits in the one eternal life." But the dignity of eternal life which is given according to merit, is Happiness itself. Therefore there are diverse degrees of Happiness, and Happiness is not equally in all.
_I answer that,_ As stated above (Q. 1, A. 8; Q. 2, A. 7), Happiness implies two things, to wit, the last end itself, i.e. the Sovereign Good; and the attainment or enjoyment of that same Good. As to that Good itself, Which is the object and cause of Happiness, one Happiness cannot be greater than another, since there is but one Sovereign Good, namely, God, by enjoying Whom, men are made happy. But as to the attainment or enjoyment of this Good, one man can be happier than another; because the more a man enjoys this Good the happier he is. Now, that one man enjoys God more than another, happens through his being better disposed or ordered to the enjoyment of Him. And in this sense one man can be happier than another.
Reply Obj. 1: The one penny signifies that Happiness is one in its object. But the many mansions signify the manifold Happiness in the divers degrees of enjoyment.
Reply Obj. 2: Happiness is said to be the supreme good, inasmuch as it is the perfect possession or enjoyment of the Supreme Good.
Reply Obj. 3: None of the Blessed lacks any desirable good; since they have the Infinite Good Itself, Which is "the good of all good," as Augustine says (Enarr. in Ps. 134). But one is said to be happier than another, by reason of diverse participation of the same good. And the addition of other goods does not increase Happiness, since Augustine says (Confess. v, 4): "He who knows Thee, and others besides, is not the happier for knowing them, but is happy for knowing Thee alone." ________________________
THIRD
*H And receiving it they murmured against the master of the house,
Ver. 11. And when they received it. By those who laboured all the day in the vineyard, we are to understand such as have spent their whole lives in the service of God; but we are not thence to infer, that in the kingdom of heaven, where all receive their just reward, there is envy, discontent, or any complaint. By these words, Christ wishes to convey to our minds an idea of the immense honours that will be heaped upon all such as return with sincerity, though at the decline or even verge of life, to the Almighty. So exceeding great will be their reward, that it would excite envy, were it possible, even in the elect. S. Chrys. hom. lxv.
*Lapide
. But He answered , c. An evil eye is an envious eye. The sense is, Since I have bestowed a favour of grace on those who came at the eleventh hour by giving them a denarius, I have done thee no wrong. The Master might have made answer to the murmurer, Those who came at the eleventh hour worked with greater grace and zeal, and accomplished more in one hour than thou didst in the whole day, and therefore merited more, as the first have received a better denarius. But it did not become the Master to contend on an equality with His servant, but rather to silence his murmuring by asserting his own right of ownership, liberality, and grace. You will object, that S. Prosper here seems to take away all merit: for ( lib. 2, de Vocat. Gent. c. 5) speaking of this parable, he says. "We read that the same reward was given to all the labourers, in order that those who laboured much without receiving more than the last might understand that they had received a gift of grace, not a reward of work." Bellarmine answers: "S. Prosper considers eternal life is the reward which is the same and equal in the case of all the blessed: and God bestows this eternal life as a gift of grace, not a reward of works, in that sense of which S. Augustine speaks, 'God crowns His own gifts, not thy merits;' and therefore He willed to bestow eternal life on those who had laboured much and on those who had laboured little; that those who labour much may not glory in their own strength." Take that thine is. Take, O Pharisee, thy wealth and honours which I have given thee in this life and which thou didst desire more than eternal life; be content with them, and go thy way. But Remigius explains the words thus: "Take thy reward, and enter into glory." I will give unto this last ( i.e ., the Gentiles), according to his merit, even as unto thee. But Origen says: "Perhaps He says to Adam, Friend, I do thee no wrong, c." One may reasonably suppose that this last is the Apostle Paul, who laboured one hour. Others interpret: "Take thy damnation due to thee on account of thy murmuring, and go thy way to hell." So the last shall be first. According to the first sense of the parable, the last who will be the first in Heaven are the elect; but the first who will be the last are the called only, who have not followed their calling or who have abandoned it, and are therefore damned. These are many, if they are compared with the elect, who are few (S. Mat 7:14 ). But according to the second sense, which I have given above, it is not easy to connect the latter clause, "Many are called, c.," with the first, "so the last shall he first." Maldonatus thus connects them. "From the particular sentence in which He said that the first should be last and the last first, He draws a more general conclusion that not all who are called will receive a reward, because very many when called will not come." Suarez considers that it is an argument a fortiori You will not be astonished that the first will be last and the last first, since many are called but few chosen, and therefore all the rest will be damned, which is more to be wondered at and dreaded; for if many are called who are not saved, what wonder is it that many are called who are not first in reward, although they may obtain something? Again many, i.e ., all are called to eternal life, yet He says many, because all are many and because He opposes them to the few who are elect: "live therefore like the few," says Cassian, "that with the few you may merit election and a place in Heaven." Lastly, some explain thus, many, i.e ., all are called to grace and to the keeping of the commandments, but few are chosen to extraordinary grace, and to the keeping of the Evangelical counsels. Of this opinion are those schoolmen who hold that there are two classes of the elect. 1. The ordinary class consisting of those who upon the pre-knowledge of their merits are elected to glory; the other, consisting of those who are elected to glory before their merits are pre-known, whom they call extraordinarily predestinated and suppose to be here intended, when it is said, "few are chosen." Among these few are the Blessed Virgin, the Apostles, and a few others; but the former are far more numerous, and therefore of them it is, many are called. The Arabic version renders How many are called , c., as if the words were an exclamation of Christ moved with wonder and pity at the multitude of the called and the fewness of the elect, and consequently at the multitude of the damned. Here is brought to conclusion the narration of the event of the third year of Christ's ministry; for a short time after this He raised Lazarus, which event took place in March, after which in the same month and year He was crucified.*H Take what is thine, and go thy way: I will also give to this last even as to thee.
Ver. 14. I will also give. Some are called to the service of their God, and to a life of virtue, from their infancy, whilst others, by a powerful call from above, are converted late in life, that the former may have no occasion to glory in themselves, or to despise those who, even in the 11th hour, enter upon the path of rectitude; and that all might learn that there is time sufficient, however short, left them to repair by their diligence and fervour their past losses. S. Chry. hom. lxv. — Jesus Christ does not count so much the number of years, as the fervour and diligence we employ in his service. Calvin is rather unhappy in his choice of this parable to prove his favourite tenet, that salvation is not the reward of good works, but of faith alone, or predestination, since Jesus Christ represents heaven as given wholly as a just reward of meritorious labour in the vineyard, though some labour a shorter, and others a longer time, and God of his great goodness may give more to some than to others, while to all He gives at least their due. And a truly humble Christian will be ever satisfied with his lot, without envying that of others. A. — As star differeth from star in glory in the firmament, (1 Cor. xv. 41,) so will there be different degrees of glory in heaven. S. Aug. de virgin. c. xxvi.
* Summa
*S Part 1, Ques 23, Article 5
[I, Q. 23, Art. 5]
Whether the Foreknowledge of Merits Is the Cause of Predestination?
Objection 1: It seems that foreknowledge of merits is the cause of predestination. For the Apostle says (Rom. 8:29): "Whom He foreknew, He also predestined." Again a gloss of Ambrose on Rom. 9:15: "I will have mercy upon whom I will have mercy" says: "I will give mercy to him who, I foresee, will turn to Me with his whole heart." Therefore it seems the foreknowledge of merits is the cause of predestination.
Obj. 2: Further, Divine predestination includes the divine will, which by no means can be irrational; since predestination is "the purpose to have mercy," as Augustine says (De Praed. Sanct. ii, 17). But there can be no other reason for predestination than the foreknowledge of merits. Therefore it must be the cause of reason of predestination.
Obj. 3: Further, "There is no injustice in God" (Rom. 9:14). Now it would seem unjust that unequal things be given to equals. But all men are equal as regards both nature and original sin; and inequality in them arises from the merits or demerits of their actions. Therefore God does not prepare unequal things for men by predestinating and reprobating, unless through the foreknowledge of their merits and demerits.
_On the contrary,_ The Apostle says (Titus 3:5): "Not by works of justice which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us." But as He saved us, so He predestined that we should be saved. Therefore, foreknowledge of merits is not the cause or reason of predestination.
_I answer that,_ Since predestination includes will, as was said above (A. 4), the reason of predestination must be sought for in the same way as was the reason of the will of God. Now it was shown above (Q. 19, A. 5), that we cannot assign any cause of the divine will on the part of the act of willing; but a reason can be found on the part of the things willed; inasmuch as God wills one thing on account of something else. Wherefore nobody has been so insane as to say that merit is the cause of divine predestination as regards the act of the predestinator. But this is the question, whether, as regards the effect, predestination has any cause; or what comes to the same thing, whether God pre-ordained that He would give the effect of predestination to anyone on account of any merits.
Accordingly there were some who held that the effect of predestination was pre-ordained for some on account of pre-existing merits in a former life. This was the opinion of Origen, who thought that the souls of men were created in the beginning, and according to the diversity of their works different states were assigned to them in this world when united with the body. The Apostle, however, rebuts this opinion where he says (Rom. 9:11,12): "For when they were not yet born, nor had done any good or evil . . . not of works, but of Him that calleth, it was said of her: The elder shall serve the younger."
Others said that pre-existing merits in this life are the reason and cause of the effect of predestination. For the Pelagians taught that the beginning of doing well came from us; and the consummation from God: so that it came about that the effect of predestination was granted to one, and not to another, because the one made a beginning by preparing, whereas the other did not. But against this we have the saying of the Apostle (2 Cor. 3:5), that "we are not sufficient to think anything of ourselves as of ourselves." Now no principle of action can be imagined previous to the act of thinking. Wherefore it cannot be said that anything begun in us can be the reason of the effect of predestination.
And so others said that merits following the effect of predestination are the reason of predestination; giving us to understand that God gives grace to a person, and pre-ordains that He will give it, because He knows beforehand that He will make good use of that grace, as if a king were to give a horse to a soldier because he knows he will make good use of it. But these seem to have drawn a distinction between that which flows from grace, and that which flows from free will, as if the same thing cannot come from both. It is, however, manifest that what is of grace is the effect of predestination; and this cannot be considered as the reason of predestination, since it is contained in the notion of predestination. Therefore, if anything else in us be the reason of predestination, it will outside the effect of predestination. Now there is no distinction between what flows from free will, and what is of predestination; as there is not distinction between what flows from a secondary cause and from a first cause. For the providence of God produces effects through the operation of secondary causes, as was above shown (Q. 22, A. 3). Wherefore, that which flows from free-will is also of predestination. We must say, therefore, that the effect of predestination may be considered in a twofold light--in one way, in particular; and thus there is no reason why one effect of predestination should not be the reason or cause of another; a subsequent effect being the reason of a previous effect, as its final cause; and the previous effect being the reason of the subsequent as its meritorious cause, which is reduced to the disposition of the matter. Thus we might say that God pre-ordained to give glory on account of merit, and that He pre-ordained to give grace to merit glory. In another way, the effect of predestination may be considered in general. Thus, it is impossible that the whole of the effect of predestination in general should have any cause as coming from us; because whatsoever is in man disposing him towards salvation, is all included under the effect of predestination; even the preparation for grace. For neither does this happen otherwise than by divine help, according to the prophet Jeremias (Lam. 5:21): "convert us, O Lord, to Thee, and we shall be converted." Yet predestination has in this way, in regard to its effect, the goodness of God for its reason; towards which the whole effect of predestination is directed as to an end; and from which it proceeds, as from its first moving principle.
Reply Obj. 1: The use of grace foreknown by God is not the cause of conferring grace, except after the manner of a final cause; as was explained above.
Reply Obj. 2: Predestination has its foundation in the goodness of God as regards its effects in general. Considered in its particular effects, however, one effect is the reason of another; as already stated.
Reply Obj. 3: The reason for the predestination of some, and reprobation of others, must be sought for in the goodness of God. Thus He is said to have made all things through His goodness, so that the divine goodness might be represented in things. Now it is necessary that God's goodness, which in itself is one and undivided, should be manifested in many ways in His creation; because creatures in themselves cannot attain to the simplicity of God. Thus it is that for the completion of the universe there are required different grades of being; some of which hold a high and some a low place in the universe. That this multiformity of grades may be preserved in things, God allows some evils, lest many good things should never happen, as was said above (Q. 22, A. 2). Let us then consider the whole of the human race, as we consider the whole universe. God wills to manifest His goodness in men; in respect to those whom He predestines, by means of His mercy, as sparing them; and in respect of others, whom he reprobates, by means of His justice, in punishing them. This is the reason why God elects some and rejects others. To this the Apostle refers, saying (Rom. 9:22, 23): "What if God, willing to show His wrath [that is, the vengeance of His justice], and to make His power known, endured [that is, permitted] with much patience vessels of wrath, fitted for destruction; that He might show the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He hath prepared unto glory" and (2 Tim. 2:20): "But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and silver; but also of wood and of earth; and some, indeed, unto honor, but some unto dishonor." Yet why He chooses some for glory, and reprobates others, has no reason, except the divine will. Whence Augustine says (Tract. xxvi. in Joan.): "Why He draws one, and another He draws not, seek not to judge, if thou dost not wish to err." Thus too, in the things of nature, a reason can be assigned, since primary matter is altogether uniform, why one part of it was fashioned by God from the beginning under the form of fire, another under the form of earth, that there might be a diversity of species in things of nature. Yet why this particular part of matter is under this particular form, and that under another, depends upon the simple will of God; as from the simple will of the artificer it depends that this stone is in part of the wall, and that in another; although the plan requires that some stones should be in this place, and some in that place. Neither on this account can there be said to be injustice in God, if He prepares unequal lots for not unequal things. This would be altogether contrary to the notion of justice, if the effect of predestination were granted as a debt, and not gratuitously. In things which are given gratuitously, a person can give more or less, just as he pleases (provided he deprives nobody of his due), without any infringement of justice. This is what the master of the house said: "Take what is thine, and go thy way. Is it not lawful for me to do what I will?" (Matt. 20:14,15). _______________________
SIXTH
*S Part 3, Ques 63, Article 1
[II-II, Q. 63, Art. 1]
Whether Respect of Persons Is a Sin?
Objection 1: It would seem that respect of persons is not a sin. For the word "person" includes a reference to personal dignity [*Cf. I, Q. 29, A. 3, ad 2]. Now it belongs to distributive justice to consider personal dignity. Therefore respect of persons is not a sin.
Obj. 2: Further, in human affairs persons are of more importance than things, since things are for the benefit of persons and not conversely. But respect of things is not a sin. Much less, therefore, is respect of persons.
Obj. 3: Further, no injustice or sin can be in God. Yet God seems to respect persons, since of two men circumstanced alike He sometimes upraises one by grace, and leaves the other in sin, according to Matt. 24:40: "Two shall be in a bed [Vulg.: 'field'] [*'Bed' is the reading of Luke 17:34], one shall be taken, and one shall be left." Therefore respect of persons is not a sin.
_On the contrary,_ Nothing but sin is forbidden in the Divine law. Now respect of persons is forbidden, Deut. 1:17: "Neither shall you respect any man's person." Therefore respect of persons is a sin.
_I answer that,_ Respect of persons is opposed to distributive justice. For the equality of distributive justice consists in allotting various things to various persons in proportion to their personal dignity. Accordingly, if one considers that personal property by reason of which the thing allotted to a particular person is due to him, this is respect not of the person but of the cause. Hence a gloss on Eph. 6:9, "There is no respect of persons with God [Vulg.: 'Him']," says that "a just judge regards causes, not persons." For instance if you promote a man to a professorship on account of his having sufficient knowledge, you consider the due cause, not the person; but if, in conferring something on someone, you consider in him not the fact that what you give him is proportionate or due to him, but the fact that he is this particular man (e.g. Peter or Martin), then there is respect of the person, since you give him something not for some cause that renders him worthy of it, but simply because he is this person. And any circumstance that does not amount to a reason why this man be worthy of this gift, is to be referred to his person: for instance if a man promote someone to a prelacy or a professorship, because he is rich or because he is a relative of his, it is respect of persons. It may happen, however, that a circumstance of person makes a man worthy as regards one thing, but not as regards another: thus consanguinity makes a man worthy to be appointed heir to an estate, but not to be chosen for a position of ecclesiastical authority: wherefore consideration of the same circumstance of person will amount to respect of persons in one matter and not in another. It follows, accordingly, that respect of persons is opposed to distributive justice in that it fails to observe due proportion. Now nothing but sin is opposed to virtue: and therefore respect of persons is a sin.
Reply Obj. 1: In distributive justice we consider those circumstances of a person which result in dignity or right, whereas in respect of persons we consider circumstances that do not so result.
Reply Obj. 2: Persons are rendered proportionate to and worthy of things which are distributed among them, by reason of certain things pertaining to circumstances of person, wherefore such conditions ought to be considered as the proper cause. But when we consider the persons themselves, that which is not a cause is considered as though it were; and so it is clear that although persons are more worthy, absolutely speaking, yet they are not more worthy in this regard.
Reply Obj. 3: There is a twofold giving. One belongs to justice, and occurs when we give a man his due: in such like givings respect of persons takes place. The other giving belongs to liberality, when one gives gratis that which is not a man's due: such is the bestowal of the gifts of grace, whereby sinners are chosen by God. In such a giving there is no place for respect of persons, because anyone may, without injustice, give of his own as much as he will, and to whom he will, according to Matt. 20:14, 15, "Is it not lawful for me to do what I will? . . . Take what is thine, and go thy way." _______________________
SECOND
* Footnotes
-
*
Mark
10:31
But many that are first shall be last: and the last, first.
-
*
Luke
13:30
And behold, they are last that shall be first: and they are first that shall be last.
*H So shall the last be first and the first last. For many are called but few chosen.
Ver. 16. Few chosen: only such as have not despised their caller, but followed and believed him; for men believed not, but of their own free will. S. Aug. l. i, ad Simplic. q. ii. B. — Hence the rejection of the Jews and of negligent Christians, and the conversion of strangers, who come and take their place, by a conversion both of faith and morals. On the part of God all are called. Mat. xi. 28. Come to me all, &c. In effect, many after their call, have attained to faith and justification; but few in comparison are elected to eternal glory, because the far greater part do not obey the call, but refuse to come, whilst many of those who come fall away again; and thus very few, in comparison with those that perish, will at the last day be selected for eternal glory. T.
*Lapide
. And Jesus going up , c. This was the last journey of Christ to Jerusalem. From S. John xi. 54., c., it is clear that after raising Lazarus He had departed to the city of Ephraim, to escape the hatred of the Pharisees, and now from that city on the approach of that Passover, when He was put to death by the Jews, He went up to Jerusalem according to the law. And truly He went up that He might accept, and, as it were, eagerly seize the cross and death appointed for Him in Jerusalem, and prepared by the decree of the Father for the redemption of the world.*H Behold we go up to Jerusalem, and the Son of man shall be betrayed to the chief priests and the scribes: and they shall condemn him to death.
Ver. 18. Behold we go, &c. Jesus here, for the third time, foretells his death; (the first time, Mat. xvi. 21; the second time, Mat. xvii. 21.) Our salvation and happiness are owing to the death of Christ; neither is there any thing that more loudly calls for our gratitude than his sufferings and death. Jesus takes the 12 apart, and reveals to them the mystery of his passion. He had previously declared it in public, but in ambiguous terms, saying: destroy this temple, &c. A sign shall not be given, but the sign of Jonas the prophet; but here he manifestly expounds to his disciples the mystery: behold we go up to Jerusalem, &c. This discourse of our Saviour is remarkable for an energetic strength of expression. S. Chrys. — Jesus had repeatedly spoken to his apostles of his passion; but as much of what he had said had escaped their memory, now that he is upon the road to Jerusalem in company with his disciples, he brings it back to their recollection, to fortify them against the scandal they might take at his ignominious death. S. Jerom.
*Lapide
. We go up . That is, because Jerusalem, and especially the temple were on Mount Sion. Again, we go up , in order to submit to the Cross, according to that saying, "I, if I be lifted up from the earth, c." Again He says " we go up " to mark this stedfast purpose, as S. Chrysostom paraphrases, "Ye see how I go of My free will to death; when then ye shall see Me hung upon the Cross, think not that I am no more than man: for though to be able to die is human, yet to be willing to die is more than human." Lastly, we go up , as if to our triumph on the citadel of Jerusalem and Calvary; for on the cross Christ triumphed over death, sin, the devil and hell; as the Apostle teaches, Col 2:15 . The Son of Man is betrayed , c. "For," says Rabanus, "Judas betrayed the Lord to the Jews, and they delivered Him to the Gentiles, i.e ., to Pilate and the Romans. To this end the Lord refused prosperity in this world, but chose rather to suffer affliction, that He might shew us who have fallen by delights through what bitterness we must needs return; whence it follows to mock, and to scourge, and to crucify ." "The whole salvation of men," says S. Chrysostom, "rests on the death of Christ; wherefore there is nothing for which we are more bound to render thanks to God than for His death. He imparted the mystery of His death to His Apostles in secret, because the more precious treasure is ever committed to the more worthy vessels." And again, "when sorrow comes at a time we are looking for it, it is found lighter than it would have been had it come upon us suddenly." To mock , and to scourge , and to crucify. These were the three principal parts of the passion of Christ. And the third day He shall rise again. This is the honey of the resurrection in which is hidden the gall of the passion. Whence S. Augustine ( De Civ. l. 18) says "In His passion He shews us how we ought to suffer for the truth; in His resurrection we ought to hope in the Trinity, whence He says 'and on the third day He shall rise again. '" And S. Chrysostom "This was said, that when they should see the sufferings, they should look for the resurrection." And S. Augustine adds the reason "For one death, that namely of the Saviour according to the body, was to us a salvation from two deaths, both of soul and body; and this one resurrection gained for us two resurrections." Morally , Christ often repeats the mention of His passion, that He might commend His love to them, and they might love Him in return, and repay love for love, blood for blood, death for death. For the Cross of Christ is the furnace and fire of love. Wherefore S. Bernard ( De Quad. Deb .) says "Thou owest to Jesus Christ thy whole life, because He laid down His life for thine, and endured bitter torments that thou mightest not endure eternal torments;" and in conclusion he says, "When therefore I have given Him all that I am, and all that I can, is it not like only a drop compared to a river, or a grain of sand to a heap?" And again he says ( Tract. de dilig. Deo ) "If I owe my whole self in return for my creation, what can I add now for my re-creation, and for my re-creation in such a manner? For it was more easy to create me than to re-create me. For He who created me at once and with a word only, in re-creating me spoke many words, and performed wonderful acts, and endured afflictions, and not only afflictions, but indignities: in His first work He gave me to myself, in His second He gave Himself to me; and when He gave Himself He restored me to myself. For my creation and for my re-creation I owe myself for myself, and that doubly. What shall I give to God for Himself? for even if I could repay myself 2 thousand times over, what am I compared with God?" For the sake of Christ therefore we should not refuse to endure reproaches, crosses and flames; for to Him belongs our life and all that we are, for He Himself bought and redeemed us not with gold, but with the Divine price of His own blood. S. Leo ( Serm. 8, de Pass .) says, "Thy cross, O Christ, is the fountain of all blessings, by which is given to them that believe strength out of weakness, glory out of reproach, life out of death." Then came to Him the mother , c. Then, when they had heard from Christ that His death was at hand, and after death His Resurrection, after which they expected the glorious kingdom of Christ; wherefore they lose no time in making a request that they may themselves obtain the chief place in it above the other Apostles. The mother of Zebedee's children. By name Salome. See S. Mar 15:40 . , S. Mat 27:56 . S. Mark says that the petition came not from the mother but from the sons. The petition of the mother proceeded from the petition of the sons, so that the sons spoke by the mouth of their mother. A certain thing ; saying, as S. Mark has it, we would that Thou shouldst do for us whatsoever we shall desire , for they feared that if they expressed their desire for the first place Christ would at once refuse it. They wish therefore to bind Christ by a general petition, which if He granted He would be unable to refuse the particular petition. This is the manner of women. In the same way Bathsheba introduced her petition to Solomon to give Abishag to Adonijah in marriage, 1Ki 2:21 , Solomon consented; but afterwards when she made her request known he refused, saying, Ask for him the kingdom.*H And shall deliver him to the Gentiles to be mocked and scourged and crucified: and the third day he shall rise again.
Ver. 19. The third day he shall rise again. We may take notice, that as often as Christ mentioned his sufferings and death, he also joined his resurrection, that they might take notice, and not lose their faith. Wi. — Like the rest of the Jews, the apostles were so fully prepossessed with the idea that the Messias would be immortal, that they could not understand what Jesus Christ said to them. He, however, did reveal these things, that, on a future day, recollecting how their Lord and Master had foreseen and foretold to them the most material circumstances relating to his passion and death, they might believe more firmly in him, and be convinced that he suffered of his own free choice. A.
* Summa
*S Part 4, Ques 47, Article 4
[III, Q. 47, Art. 4]
Whether It Was Fitting for Christ to Suffer at the Hands of the Gentiles?
Objection 1: It would seem unfitting that Christ should suffer at the hands of the Gentiles. For since men were to be freed from sin by Christ's death, it would seem fitting that very few should sin in His death. But the Jews sinned in His death, on whose behalf it is said (Matt. 21:38): "This is the heir; come, let us kill him." It seems fitting, therefore, that the Gentiles should not be implicated in the sin of Christ's slaying.
Obj. 2: Further, the truth should respond to the figure. Now it was not the Gentiles but the Jews who offered the figurative sacrifices of the Old Law. Therefore neither ought Christ's Passion, which was a true sacrifice, to be fulfilled at the hands of the Gentiles.
Obj. 3: Further, as related John 5:18, "the Jews sought to kill" Christ because "He did not only break the sabbath, but also said God was His Father, making Himself equal to God." But these things seemed to be only against the Law of the Jews: hence they themselves said (John 19:7): "According to the Law He ought to die because He made Himself the Son of God." It seems fitting, therefore, that Christ should suffer, at the hands not of the Gentiles, but of the Jews, and that what they said was untrue: "It is not lawful for us to put any man to death," since many sins are punishable with death according to the Law, as is evident from Lev. 20.
_On the contrary,_ our Lord Himself says (Matt. 20:19): "They shall deliver Him to the Gentiles to be mocked, and scourged, and crucified."
_I answer that,_ The effect of Christ's Passion was foreshown by the very manner of His death. For Christ's Passion wrought its effect of salvation first of all among the Jews, very many of whom were baptized in His death, as is evident from Acts 2:41 and Acts 4:4. Afterwards, by the preaching of Jews, Christ's Passion passed on to the Gentiles. Consequently it was fitting that Christ should begin His sufferings at the hands of the Jews, and, after they had delivered Him up, finish His Passion at the hands of the Gentiles.
Reply Obj. 1: In order to demonstrate the fulness of His love, on account of which He suffered, Christ upon the cross prayed for His persecutors. Therefore, that the fruits of His petition might accrue to Jews and Gentiles, Christ willed to suffer from both.
Reply Obj. 2: Christ's Passion was the offering of a sacrifice, inasmuch as He endured death of His own free-will out of charity: but in so far as He suffered from His persecutors it was not a sacrifice, but a most grievous sin.
Reply Obj. 3: As Augustine says (Tract. cxiv in Joan.): "The Jews said that 'it is not lawful for us to put any man to death,' because they understood that it was not lawful for them to put any man to death" owing to the sacredness of the feast-day, which they had already begun to celebrate. or, as Chrysostom observes (Hom. lxxxiii in Joan.), because they wanted Him to be slain, not as a transgressor of the Law, but as a public enemy, since He had made Himself out to be a king, of which it was not their place to judge. Or, again, because it was not lawful for them to crucify Him (as they wanted to), but to stone Him, as they did to Stephen. Better still is it to say that the power of putting to death was taken from them by the Romans, whose subjects they were. _______________________
FIFTH
*S Part 4, Ques 53, Article 2
[III, Q. 53, Art. 2]
Whether It Was Fitting for Christ to Rise Again on the Third Day?
Objection 1: It would seem unfitting that Christ should have risen again on the third day. For the members ought to be in conformity with their head. But we who are His members do not rise from death on the third day, since our rising is put off until the end of the world. Therefore, it seems that Christ, who is our head, should not have risen on the third day, but that His Resurrection ought to have been deferred until the end of the world.
Obj. 2: Further, Peter said (Acts 2:24) that "it was impossible for Christ to be held fast by hell" and death. Therefore it seems that Christ's rising ought not to have been deferred until the third day, but that He ought to have risen at once on the same day; especially since the gloss quoted above (A. 1) says that "there is no profit in the shedding of Christ's blood, if He did not rise at once."
Obj. 3: The day seems to start with the rising of the sun, the presence of which causes the day. But Christ rose before sunrise: for it is related (John 20:1) that "Mary Magdalen cometh early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre": but Christ was already risen, for it goes on to say: "And she saw the stone taken away from the sepulchre." Therefore Christ did not rise on the third day.
_On the contrary,_ It is written (Matt. 20:19): "They shall deliver Him to the Gentiles to be mocked, and scourged, and crucified, and the third day He shall rise again."
_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 1) Christ's Resurrection was necessary for the instruction of our faith. But our faith regards Christ's Godhead and humanity, for it is not enough to believe the one without the other, as is evident from what has been said (Q. 36, A. 4; cf. II-II, Q. 2, AA. 7, 8). Consequently, in order that our faith in the truth of His Godhead might be confirmed it was necessary that He should rise speedily, and that His Resurrection should not be deferred until the end of the world. But to confirm our faith regarding the truth of His humanity and death, it was needful that there should be some interval between His death and rising. For if He had risen directly after death, it might seem that His death was not genuine and consequently neither would His Resurrection be true. But to establish the truth of Christ's death, it was enough for His rising to be deferred until the third day, for within that time some signs of life always appear in one who appears to be dead whereas he is alive.
Furthermore, by His rising on the third day, the perfection of the number "three" is commended, which is "the number of everything," as having "beginning, middle, and end," as is said in De Coelo i. Again in the mystical sense we are taught that Christ by "His one death" (i.e. of the body) which was light, by reason of His righteousness, "destroyed our two deaths" (i.e. of soul and body), which are as darkness on account of sin; consequently, He remained in death for one day and two nights, as Augustine observes (De Trin. iv).
And thereby is also signified that a third epoch began with the Resurrection: for the first was before the Law; the second under the Law; and the third under grace. Moreover the third state of the saints began with the Resurrection of Christ: for, the first was under figures of the Law; the second under the truth of faith; while the third will be in the eternity of glory, which Christ inaugurated by rising again.
Reply Obj. 1: The head and members are likened in nature, but not in power; because the power of the head is more excellent than that of the members. Accordingly, to show forth the excellence of Christ's power, it was fitting that He should rise on the third day, while the resurrection of the rest is put off until the end of the world.
Reply Obj. 2: Detention implies a certain compulsion. But Christ was not held fast by any necessity of death, but was "free among the dead": and therefore He abode a while in death, not as one held fast, but of His own will, just so long as He deemed necessary for the instruction of our faith. And a task is said to be done "at once" which is performed within a short space of time.
Reply Obj. 3: As stated above (Q. 51, A. 4, ad 1, 2), Christ rose early when the day was beginning to dawn, to denote that by His Resurrection He brought us to the light of glory; just as He died when the day was drawing to its close, and nearing to darkness, in order to signify that by His death He would destroy the darkness of sin and its punishment. Nevertheless He is said to have risen on the third day, taking day as a natural day which contains twenty-four hours. And as Augustine says (De Trin. iv): "The night until the dawn, when the Lord's Resurrection was proclaimed, belongs to the third day. Because God, who made the light to shine forth from darkness, in order that by the grace of the New Testament and partaking of Christ's rising we might hear this--'once ye were darkness, but now light in the Lord'--insinuates in a measure to us that day draws its origin from night: for, as the first days are computed from light to darkness on account of man's coming fall, so these days are reckoned from darkness to light owing to man's restoration." And so it is evident that even if He had risen at midnight, He could be said to have risen on the third day, taking it as a natural day. But now that He rose early, it can be affirmed that He rose on the third day, even taking the artificial day which is caused by the sun's presence, because the sun had already begun to brighten the sky. Hence it is written (Mk. 16:2) that "the women come to the sepulchre, the sun being now risen"; which is not contrary to John's statement "when it was yet dark," as Augustine says (De Cons. Evang. iii), "because, as the day advances the more the light rises, the more are the remaining shadows dispelled." But when Mark says "'the sun being now risen,' it is not to be taken as if the sun were already apparent over the horizon, but as coming presently into those parts." _______________________
THIRD
* Footnotes
-
*
Mark
10:35
And James and John, the sons of Zebedee, come to him, saying: Master, we desire that whatsoever we shall ask, thou wouldst do it for us.
*H Then came to him the mother of the sons of Zebedee with her sons, adoring and asking something of him.
Ver. 20. Then came to him. Upon Christ's informing his apostles that he should die and rise again, they conceived that he would immediately reign in Jerusalem with great glory and power; and it was this made the mother of the sons of Zebedee petition that they might take precedence, and be honoured by the other apostles. But Christ answers them that they knew not what they asked, for honours were to be bestowed not on relationship, but on merit: in like manner, the dignities of the Church are not to be conferred upon relatives, but upon the worthy. Nic. de Lyran. — On comparing the 27th chapter of S. Mat. with the 15th of S. Mark, it will appear that she was the same as Salome. — In S. Mark x. 35, we find that the sons themselves made this petition: both the sons and their mother might make it; at least the sons may be said to have done what they got their mother to desire for them; and therefore Christ directed his answer to them: you know not what you ask. You think, says S. Chrys. of temporal preferments, of honours, and crowns, when you should be preparing yourselves for conflicts and battles. Wi. — Our Lord suffers these occasional weaknesses in his apostles, that he might, from his instructions and corrections, render his doctrines more intelligible to them and to posterity. S. Jer.
*Lapide
. And He said unto her , c. Christ wisely refuses the general petition, and would have her express it particularly, lest she should be asking for something foolish and unworthy, which He foresaw she would do, in order that He might teach us to do like He did. She said to Him , c. S. Chrysostom says, "They wished, since they had heard that the disciples should sit upon twelve thrones, to obtain the primacy of that seat, and they knew that they would be preferred before the rest with the exception of Peter; but fearing that Peter was preferred before them, they dared to say, 'Grant that one of us may sit on Thy right hand and the other on Thy left.'" We may learn from this how bold and blind and insatiable ambition is to which she incited these two Apostles, because they had seen that in the Transfiguration which was the beginning of Christ's kingdom they were preferred by Christ to the other Apostles. But the mother is to be excused because she makes her request of Christ, her kinsman according to the flesh, for her sons whom she loved, even more than herself. So S. Jerome says, "The mother asks this from womanly error, and affectionate piety, not knowing what she was asking." In the same way or manner S. Chrysostom excuses her sons. "Let not any one," he says, "be disturbed at our saying that the Apostles were so imperfect, for the mystery of the Cross had not yet been consummated; the grace of the Spirit had not yet been infused into their hearts. Wherefore if you wish to learn what their virtues were, consider what they were after the Spirit had been given, and you will see that all restlessness of mind was removed from them. For this reason only their imperfection is made known that you may perceive clearly what they were suddenly made by grace." Ye know not what ye ask. Because ye know not, in the first place, of what sort My kingdom is namely, a spiritual and heavenly one, not a carnal and an earthly one. Secondly, because ye are asking for the triumph before the victory; "for the kingdom of Heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force." Thirdly, because you suppose that this kingdom is given by right of blood to those who seek it, whereas it is given only to those who deserve and strive. Let bishops and princes, then, follow this example of Christ, and make answer to their friends, their sons, and to importunate women, when they ask them for prebends, dignities, and appointments for which they are unfitted, "Ye know not what ye ask." My prebends and appointments are not mine to give as I please, and because I so choose, to my relations and servants; I am a steward, not an owner; God will require an exact account of my stewardship. For great is the injury to Christ and His Church, and it is the cause of many evils, if appointments and benefices are given on account of relationship and friendship, to unworthy persons. Ye know not what ye ask. First, because ye think that My kingdom is an earthly one, and one of outward show, like that of David and Solomon; whereas it is spiritual and heavenly. So S. Chrysostom says: "He says this to show that they were seeking nothing spiritual." Secondly, because they were asking for what had already been promised namely, to sit with Christ, and with Him to judge the twelve tribes of Israel. So S. Hilary: "They know not what they ask, because there was no doubt about the glory of the Apostles, for His former discourse had made it clear to them that they should judge the world." But among these thrones they seemed to have asked for the first, and the next to Christ, though they had not yet been specially promised by Christ to them. Thirdly, because they were asking for what exceeded the measure of their gifts and merits. Bede says: "They know not what they ask when they ask for a throne of glory which they had not yet merited." For the first thrones in Heaven belong to those who are of greater yea, of the greatest-merit. Fourthly, because they were asking at an unsuitable time, when the Passion of Christ was at hand. As S. Chrysostom says: "Ye speak of honour, but I speak of labours and toil; for this is no time for rewards, but rather for slaughter, battles, and perils." Fifthly, because they were asking for what was contrary to their vocation; for they were called to follow Christ in His poverty and cross, not to strive after honours. Sixthly, because they ought to have sought for the labours of the cross, by which they might merit honours. Seventhly, because they asked to sit on the left hand as well as on the right. For those condemned in the judgment will stand on Christ's left hand; which is, says S. Chrysostom, as it were to say, "I have called you to My right hand, and you wilfully are hastening from My right hand to My left." But this is a mystical meaning; the most suitable meanings are the first, the third, and the sixth. Are ye able , c. Through the Cross and Passion the way lies for Me to My kingdom, therefore the same way might be trodden by you if you desire it. S. Bernard says, that "Christ like a good and wise physician first drank the draught Himself which He was preparing for His own, i.e ., He underwent His Passion and Death, and so He became immortal and impassible; thus teaching His own how they might confidently drink the draught which produces soundness and life." S. Chrysostom and Theophylact say that Christ called His Passion a cup, because He so willingly endured, and, as it were, drained it, as a thirsty man would a cup of wine. In Scripture, and among profane writers, the cup signifies the lot, whether good or evil, which God appoints, and as it were administers to each man. S. Cyprian, understanding martyrdom by the cup, says, "A fiercer conflict is now at hand (for God had revealed to him that the Valerian persecution was coming), for which the soldiers of Christ ought to prepare themselves with firm courage, considering that for that very reason they daily drink the cup of the blood of Christ, so that they may also themselves be able to shed their blood for the sake of Christ." For at that time they used to communicate daily, and that under both kinds, bread and wine. S. Chrysostom remarks how "Christ encourages and draws them on by the way in which He puts the question. For He did not say, can ye shed your blood, but can ye drink the cup ? Then, drawing them on, He says, which I shall drink of , so that by sharing with Him in His labours they may be rendered more ready to undergo the same." Christ also calls His Passion a baptism, because in it He was wholly immersed and plunged, i.e ., He died. They say , We are able . John and James seem to have understood the meaning of the cup; and yet as they had shown their ambition in asking for the primacy, so they rashly answer, that they can drink the cup, whereas, in truth, they could not yet do so; but afterwards they were able, through the grace of Christ given by the Holy Ghost on the Day of Pentecost.*H And Jesus answering, said: You know not what you ask. Can you drink the chalice that I shall drink? They say to him: We can.
Ver. 22. The chalice. It is a metaphor signifying Christ's sufferings and death. See Psal. x. 7. and lxxiv. 9. Isai. li. 17. The apostles replied, we can drink thy cup. Their answer shewed their readiness, but want of humility. Wi.
*H He saith to them: My chalice indeed you shall drink; but to sit on my right or left hand is not mine to give to you, but to them for whom it is prepared by my Father.
Ver. 23. Of my chalice indeed you shall drink. S. James was the first apostle that suffered martyrdom at Jerusalem. Acts xii. 2. And S. John at Rome was put into a cauldron of boiling oil, and banished into Patmos. — Is not mine to give you.[1] The Arians objected these words against Christ's divinity. S. Aug. answers that the words are true if taken of Christ, as he was man. The easier answer is, that it was not his to give to them, while they were in those dispositions of pride and ambition. So that the distinction made, is not betwixt the Father and his eternal Son, as if the Father could give what the Son could not, but betwixt persons worthy, and not worthy of such a favour. It is true the word you, is now wanting in the Greek MSS. and must have been wanting in some of them in the fourth, or at least the fifth century, since we find them not in S. Chrysostom. S. Aug. also in one place omits it, but sometimes lays great stress upon it; Christ's meaning being no more, than that heaven was not his to give them; that is, to the proud, &c. S. Amb. reads it; and what is still of greater weight, S. Jerom hath it in the text of the New Testament, which he corrected from the best Greek MSS. Wi. — In your present state there is no exception of persons with God; for, whosoever is worthy of heaven, shall receive it as the reward of his merits. Therefore Christ answers them, it is not mine to bestow the kingdom of heaven upon you, because you are not yet deserving, on account of your pride in seeking to have yourselves preferred before my other apostles. But be ye humble, and heaven is prepared for you, as well as for all others, who are properly disposed. Nic. de Lyra. — Greatness in the next life will be proportioned to humility in this.
*Lapide
. And He saith to them , c. Christ here foretells the martyrdom of James and John. For S. James, preaching Christ more fervently than the other Apostles, first suffered martyrdom for Him, being slain by Herod with the sword. S. John also drank of this cup when he was plunged by Domitian, at Rome, before the Latin Gate, into a cauldron of boiling oil, and came forth renewed in strength; so that by a new miracle he was a martyr by living rather by dying. Again, not only Prochorus, S. John's disciple, in his Life of S. John (the truth of which is rightly suspected by Baronius), but also S. Isidore declares that S. John really drank the cup of poison, but that he also drank it without harm; whence also he is generally represented in pictures holding a cup. And, lastly, we may say that the whole life of S. John was a continual martyrdom, for he lived a very long time after all the Apostles, to the year of our Lord 101; and this long absence from Christ, his beloved after Whom he was continually longing was a lengthened martyrdom to him, as it was also to the Blessed Virgin, to whom he had been given as a son by Christ on the Cross. Again, S. John underwent a special martyrdom while he stood with the Blessed Virgin by the Cross on Mount Calvary, and beheld Christ his Life, Whom he loved more than his own life suffering the bitter pains of the Cross for three hours. But to sit on my right hand , c. The Arians thought that it is here said that it was not in the power of Christ to give this, but of the Father, and consequently, that Christ was not equal (Greek, όμοούσιος ) to the Father; but they are in error. For Christ is here putting an antithesis, not between Himself and the Father, but between James and John (who were ambitiously seeking the first place in His kingdom) and those to whom it of right belonged. The point of the argument lies in the word you , which is read in the Vulgate, though not in the Greek and other versions. Whence Remigius says: "It is not Mine to give to you i.e ., to proud men, such as you are, but to the humble." Again: It is not Mine to give to you as My kinsmen according to the flesh; for it is given not to the person, but to the life (as S. Jerome says), not from favour, but according to merit. Mark, that Christ does not grant what these two ask for, that the rest of the Apostles may not be provoked through being excluded; nor does He refuse it, so as to make these two sad. So S. Jerome. "He said not, 'Ye shall not sit there,' that He might not discourage the two brethren; neither did He say, 'Ye shall sit there,' that He might not stir the others to anger;" but by holding up the prize before all, He might encourage all to strive for Him. So a just king, presiding over a contest instituted by him, if his kinsmen and friends should come to him and say, "Give us the prize," justly makes answer " It is not mine to give the prize to you, but to those for whom it is prepared and decreed, namely, to those who strive in the contest and gain the mastery." Again it is clear from S. Luk 22:29-30 , that this kingdom is Christ's to bestow. I appoint unto you a kingdom as My Father hath appointed unto Me, that ye may eat and drink at My table in My kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the Twelve tribes of Israel. Christ, however, says here that it belongs rather to the Father, both because as man He was always subject to the Father, and also that by giving them a proper reason He might send them away from Himself and refer them to the Father, so that they might humble themselves before Him; and be prevented by shame from asking for it; and also lastly because as wisdom and works of wisdom are proper to the Son and works of goodness to the Holy Spirit, so works of power and providence, to which it belongs to predestinate men to the kingdom, are proper to the Father. But to those for whom it is prepared of My Father. The interpretation of Euthymius is narrow, who explains those as being Peter and Paul. Narrower still is the interpretation of Hilary who says that Moses and Elias are meant; for he thinks that the Transfiguration is alluded to in which Moses and Elias saw the glory of Christ in His kingdom and shared in it. Narrowest of all is the interpretation of S. Chrysostom, who says that the place on the right hand and on the left will be given to none; because no one, he says, can be exalted to the right hand of Christ, since He alone sits at the right hand of the Father. But these interpretations are too narrow, for Christ speaks generally of all the elect. Wherefore the highest places in the kingdom of Heaven are prepared by God for those who after striving most earnestly gain the victory. Wherefore by the right and left hand are to be understood pre-eminence in the kingdom, which will be granted to those who are first in humility, charity, patience, and zeal in preaching the Gospel. The Abbot Athanasius, we read, was caught up into Heaven and heard the choirs of the blessed singing the praises of God, and when he would join their company he heard a voice which said to him "no one enters here who has lived carelessly, go thy way, strive diligently, and despise the vanities of the world." It is also related of the holy Furseus ( Bede, Hist. Ang. lib. 3, cap. 19) that he was caught up to Heaven and heard the angels and saints singing: "They shall go from strength to strength: unto the God of gods shall they appear in Sion." Let us advance therefore from strength to strength, and we shall ascend from glory to glory, from angels to Cherubim and Seraphim, from the lowest to the highest throne in Heaven. And when the ten heard it , c. You will ask how it was that the other Apostles heard the request of the two brethren. The most probable opinion is that of Francis Lucas, who says that Salome and her sons spoke privately with Christ, but that He answered so that the rest should hear what He said and understand from His answer what the two had asked for. For He knew that they were all suffering from the same disease of ambition, and He wished to heal them all. Also since they were infected with the same desire, they detected the desire of the others: for every one measures others by himself, and imagines that they have the same desires and ambition as himself The ten were not so much displeased at the ambition of James and John as troubled with the fear that they would be placed after them; for they too desired the first place; so dogs, though at other times friendly, are angry and snarl at each other when they are gnawing the same bone. Ambition indeed begets envy, and envy begets anger in him who desires the same honour lest it be taken from him by another. S. Basil, in his homily against envy, mentions an effectual remedy against this vice, "not to set a high value on anything belonging to this world, such as wealth or glory; for he who has succeeded in subjecting all worldly things to his reason, and has devoted himself to the pursuit of the true beauty and honour, will be very far from esteeming any one happy, or to be envied on account of any worldly advantages; and he who is of such a spirit as never to admire anything belonging to this life will never be under the dominion of envy." Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles , c. Christ here does not find fault with the civil or ecclesiastical power which is exercised by princes and bishops, as the Anabaptists maintain; for this is needful in every commonwealth for good government. A tyrant does not care for the interests of those under him, but consults only his own advantage and honour. Whereas true princes seek the good of their subjects, and are the servants rather than the lords of the commonwealth, as Aristotle says. And they that are great , c. That is, they rule imperiously, and exercise an irresponsible power over those subject to them. It shall not be so among you , c. The Vulgate reads in verse 27, will be your servant , and with it agree the Syriac, Egyptian, and Æthiopic versions. In these words Christ teaches not so much the way and means by which a man may obtain the primacy in the Church as how one who is a primate ought to behave himself in the Church, namely as the least of all; and by setting before them this rule of humility He deters the Apostles from ambitiously seeking the chief place. It is plain that this is the meaning because this verse is in antithesis with the preceding: for He contrasts His own gentle, benignant and wholesome rule with the imperious and tyrannical authority that is exercised over the Gentiles. S. Gregory ( Pastor. part 2, c. 6), teaches how a prelate ought to unite authority with gentleness, and act with authority against the refractory and with gentleness towards the obedient, "Let a ruler," he says, "be a companion in humility to those who do well, but let him be firmly opposed with a righteous zeal against the faults of delinquents." At the same time Christ shows in these words by what way we ought to advance towards the highest place in Heaven, namely, by the way of humility. And for this reason the Pope prefers this title, Servant of the servants of Christ. This is what S. Peter, the Vicar of Christ taught the pastors of the Church, "Feed the flock of God, which is among you, c. (1 Epist. v. 2.) Likewise on account of this saying of Christ, S. Francis wished the prelates of his Order to be called ministers and brothers minor (minorite friars), both that he might employ the very words of the Gospel, which he had promised to observe, and that his disciples might learn by their very name that they had come to the school of Christ to learn humility. For Christ, the Teacher of humility, that He might give His disciples a perfect rule of humility said, "Whosoever will be chief among you let him be your minister, c." Even as the Son of Man , c. S. Francis Xavier furnished a rare example of this humility of Christ, and recalled it to this age when it had, as it were, gone out of fashion. For when he was appointed by the Pope Apostolic Legate of India, he would have no servant, although the Viceroy of the King of Portugal offered him several, and urged him to accept them; but he ministered to all, both in bodily and spiritual services. He used himself to hear the confessions of the sick, and comfort the sorrowful; he used to administer medicines to the sick, and cleanse their bodies and wash their bandages, and catechise the ignorant and children; and besides he used to attend to and feed the horses of his companions. and when some one said that these things were unworthy of an Apostolic Legate, he answered that there was nothing more worthy than Christian charity and humility which became all things to all men that it may gain all: which Christ through His whole life continually enjoined by word and deed. So that by this conduct he did not lose, but increased his authority. Moreover Christ himself while on earth had not even one servant, but made himself the servant of all. S Chrysostom ( Hom. 40, the Epis. to the Cors .) says, "Listen to Paul; these hands , he says, have ministered to my necessities and to them that were with me. That teacher of the world, and man worthy of heaven, scrupled not to serve innumerable mortals; while you think it a disgrace unless you have your herds of servants in your train: not seeing that this is a great disgrace to you. God gave us hands and feet that we might do without servants. What is the use of crowds of servants?" A ransom for many. Not as if Christ died only for the predestinated, as the heretics formerly called Predestinarians, and Calvin, in recent times, maintained: for that Christ suffered and died for all men S. Paul clearly teaches (2Co 5:142Co 5:142Co 5:14 . and S. John 1Jn 2:21Jn 2:2 ). The words for most are put for all , Euthymius says, because these all were not few but many. So many is taken for all in this chapter v. 16 ( Mat 20:16 ), and chapter Mat 26:28 , and Rom 5:19 , and elsewhere. Or for many ; because although Christ died for all, and obtained for all and bestowed upon all means sufficient for salvation, yet the fruit of His death, and salvation in its completeness falls to the share of the just only and those who persevere until death in righteousness. So S. Jerome, Maldonatus and others. And as they departedfrom Jericho. Christ was going from the city of Ephrem, through Jericho which lay between, to Jerusalem to the death of the Cross. Jericho was distant from Jerusalem one hundred and fifty stadia, and from Ephem on the Jordan sixty stadia, according to Josephus. The journey to Jericho is easy and along a plain, but from Jericho to Jerusalem it is mountainous, steep and difficult. Jericho in Hebrew is derived from ירח , the moon , because it is of the form of the moon, or from ריח , odour or scent , because the balsam, a plant of very sweet odour, grows there. Symbolically. Rabanus says that Jericho, which is interpreted "the moon," denotes the infirmity of our changefulness and mortality, and therefore these blind men were found there. Again S. Gregory ( Hom. 12, in Evangel .) says, "Jericho is interpreted 'the moon,' and the moon in Scripture is put for the infirmity of the flesh. While therefore our Creator is drawing nigh to Jericho, the blind man is returning to the light; because while Divinity takes upon itself the infirmity of our flesh, the human race regained the light which it had lost." Mystically. Origen says, "By Jericho is understood the world into which Christ descended. Those who are in Jericho know not how to escape from the wisdom of the world, unless they see not Jesus only coming out of Jericho, but His disciples. This when they saw, great multitudes despised the world and all worldly things, that under the guidance of Christ they might go up to the Heavenly Jerusalem." Behold two blind men , c. This is the same history that S. Mark relates ( Mar 10:46 ); he mentions only one blind man, Bartimæus. S. Augustine ( lib. 2 de cons. Evang. ch. 65) says that there were two blind men, one of whom was very well known in that city; "for Bartimæus, the son of Timæus," he says, "had sunk from great wealth, and was now sitting, not only as blind, but as a beggar. For this reason then Mark chose to mention him alone, because the restoration of his sight procured fame to this miracle in proportion to the notoriety of the fact of his blindness." Moreover, S. Augustine, Jansen, and others, are of opinion that this blind man was not the same as the one of whom S. Luke speaks, Luk 28:35 , because S. Luke says that he was healed as they drew near to Jericho, while this one was healed as they came out. But since S. Luke's narrative agrees in all points with that of S. Matthew and S. Mark, we must suppose that it was one and the same blind man whose prayer to Christ for the restoration of his sight was not heard on account of the crowd, and Christ made as though He heard him not, that he might quicken his faith and hope, and then on the following day he repeated his prayer as Christ went out and obtained it. So S. Ambrose, Maldonatus, and others explain it. Allegorically. Origen and S. Ambrose say that the two blind men were Judah and Israel, who before the coming of Christ were blind because they saw not the true Word which was contained in the law and the prophets. But Rabanus, with S. Augustine, says that they were the Jews and the Gentiles, for they were both ignorant of the way of salvation. But S. Chrysostom understands them of the Gentiles only, who are descended partly from Ham and partly from Japhet. Tropologically , by the two blind men we may understand the two-fold blindness of the affections and of the understanding. Have mercy on us , c. That is, "O Messiah, of whom the prophets foretold that He should be born of David: it is a mark of the Messiah to have mercy on the miserable, and to give sight to the blind ( Isa 35:5 ). We believe that Thou art the Messiah; therefore give us sight that all may know that Thou art the Messiah, and may believe and worship Thee." The multitude rebuked , c. That they being mean men should not disturb Christ, who perhaps was teaching; or delay Him on this journey. So Euthymius. Mystically : S. Gregory ( Hom. 2, in Evang. ) understands by the multitude the crowds of carnal desires, which before Jesus comes to our heart, by their temptations dissipate our meditation, and drown the voice of the heart in prayer. But they cried the more , c. Because there was need of a louder cry that they might be heard by Christ above the noise of the crowd. Morally. S. Augustine ( de Verb. Dom. Ser. 18), explains it thus, "Every Christian who has begun to live well, and to despise the world, at the commencement of his new life has to endure the censures of cold Christians, but if he perseveres, those who at first hindered him will soon comply." The fear of man then must be overcome by one who wishes to serve God. The first virtue of a Christian, as S. Jerome says, is to despise and to be despised. S. Hilary says, "Faith, when it is called, is the more inflamed, and so in the midst of dangers it is secure, and in the midst of security, it is endangered." And Jesus stood still , c. S. Jerome says, "Jesus stood still because they being blind could not see their way: about Jericho there were many pits, crags, and steep places, therefore the Lord stands still that they might come to Him." S. Gregory ( Hom. 2, in Evang .) interprets symbolically , "to pass by is the property of the human nature, to stand still of the Divine. The Lord as He passed by heard the cry of the blind man, but when He restored his sight He stood still. Anagogically. , S. Augustine ( Lib. 1. quæst. Evang. c. 8), "Faith in His temporal Incarnation prepares us for the understanding of things eternal; for things temporal pass by, but things eternal stand still." And called them. S. Jerome says. "He commands that they be called, that the multitude may not hinder them; and He asks what they would, that by their answer their necessity may be made clear, and His power be known in their healing." What will ye ? He was not ignorant of their desire, but though He knew it, He wills to hear their confession of it. They say unto Him , c. Nothing is naturally so much desired by man as to see; so that to see seems like life, and not to see like death and continual sorrow. S. Augustine, writing on these words, says: "The whole object of life is the healing of the eyes of the heart so that we may behold. To this end the sacred mysteries are celebrated, the Word of God is preached, the moral exhortations of the Church are made that is, those which pertain to the correction of morals, and to the renunciation of this world; not in word only, but by a change of life. To this end the Divine Scriptures direct their aim, that our inward eye may be purged from that thing whatever it is which hinders us from beholding God." Let the man, then, who is blinded by sin and concupiscence say, Grant me, O Lord, to see the baseness of sin, the vileness of concupiscence, the worthlessness of pleasure, the fierceness of hell-fire; the beauty of virtue, the blessedness of Paradise, the eternity of glory; so that I may despise all concupiscence, and aim at the practice of virtue. So Jesus had compassion on them. S. Jerome says: "Jesus considering their ready will, rewards it by fully granting their desire. Whence He says in another place, Whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive ." And they followed Him . "These blind men," S. Chrysostom says, "as before this bounty they were persevering, so after receiving it they were not ungrateful." for, when healed, they offered a good service to Christ in following Him. For this is what God requires of thee "to walk circumspectly (Vulg., sollicitum ) with thy God."* Summa
*S Part 4, Ques 58, Article 4
[III, Q. 58, Art. 4]
Whether It Is Proper to Christ to Sit at the Right Hand of the Father?
Objection 1: It would seem that it is not proper to Christ to sit at the right hand of the Father, because the Apostle says (Eph. 2:4, 6): "God . . . hath raised us up together, and hath made us sit together in the heavenly places through Christ Jesus." But to be raised up is not proper to Christ. Therefore for like reason neither is it proper to Him to sit "on the right hand" of God "on high" (Heb. 1:3).
Obj. 2: Further, as Augustine says (De Symb. i): "For Christ to sit at the right hand of the Father, is to dwell in His beatitude." But many more share in this. Therefore it does not appear to be proper to Christ to sit at the right hand of the Father.
Obj. 3: Further, Christ Himself says (Apoc. 3:21): "To him that shall overcome, I will give to sit with Me in My throne: as I also have overcome, and am set down with My Father in His throne." But it is by sitting on His Father's throne that Christ is seated at His right hand. Therefore others who overcome likewise, sit at the Father's right hand.
Obj. 4: Further, the Lord says (Matt. 20:23): "To sit on My right or left hand, is not Mine to give to you, but to them for whom it is prepared by My Father." But no purpose would be served by saying this, unless it was prepared for some. Consequently, to sit at the right hand is not proper to Christ.
_On the contrary,_ It is written (Heb. 1:13): "To which of the angels said He at any time: Sit thou on My right hand, i.e. 'in My mightier gifts,'" or "'as my equal in the Godhead'"? [*The comment is from the gloss of Peter Lombard] as if to answer: "To none." But angels are higher than other creatures. Therefore, much less does it belong to anyone save Christ to sit at the Father's right hand.
_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 3), Christ is said to sit at the Father's right hand inasmuch as He is on equality with the Father in respect of His Divine Nature, while in respect of His humanity, He excels all creatures in the possession of Divine gifts. But each of these belongs exclusively to Christ. Consequently, it belongs to no one else, angel or man, but to Christ alone, to sit at the right hand of the Father.
Reply Obj. 1: Since Christ is our Head, then what was bestowed on Christ is bestowed on us through Him. And on this account, since He is already raised up, the Apostle says that God has, so to speak, "raised us up together with Him," still we ourselves are not raised up yet, but are to be raised up, according to Rom. 8:11: "He who raised up Jesus from the dead, shall quicken also your mortal bodies": and after the same manner of speech the Apostle adds that "He has made us to sit together with Him, in the heavenly places"; namely, for the very reason that Christ our Head sits there.
Reply Obj. 2: Since the right hand is the Divine beatitude, then "to sit on the right hand" does not mean simply to be in beatitude, but to possess beatitude with a kind of dominative power, as a property and part of one's nature. This belongs to Christ alone, and to no other creature. Yet it can be said that every saint in bliss is placed on God's right hand; hence it is written (Matt. 25:33): "He shall set the sheep on His right hand."
Reply Obj. 3: By the "throne" is meant the judiciary power which Christ has from the Father: and in this sense He is said "to sit in the Father's throne." But other saints have it from Christ; and in this respect they are said "to sit on Christ's throne"; according to Matt. 19:28: "You also shall sit upon twelve seats, judging the twelve tribes of Israel."
Reply Obj. 4: As Chrysostom says (Hom. lxv in Matth.), "that place," to wit, sitting at the right hand, "is closed not only to all men, but likewise to angels: for, Paul declares it to be the prerogative of Christ, saying: 'To which of the angels said He at any time: Sit on My right hand?'" Our Lord therefore "replied not as though some were going to sit there one day, but condescending to the supplication of the questioners; since more than others they sought this one thing alone, to stand nigh to Him." Still it can be said that the sons of Zebedee sought for higher excellence in sharing His judiciary power; hence they did not ask to sit on the Father's right hand or left, but on Christ's. _______________________
* Footnotes
-
*
Mark
10:41
And the ten, hearing it, began to be much displeased at James and John.
*H And the ten, hearing it, were moved with indignation against the two brethren.
Ver. 24. The ten . . . were moved with indignation against the two brothers, who had petitioned for the first and chief places. Wi. — The disciples understood from our Lord's answer, that the request came in the first instance from the two disciples; but as they saw them much honoured by Christ, they did not dare openly to accuse them. S. Chry. — The other ten apostles were as much wrong in their anger and jealousy as the former two were in their untimely petition. In his answer to both, we cannot sufficiently admire the wonderful meekness of our blessed Saviour's character. Jansenius.
* Footnotes
-
*
Luke
22:25
And he said to them: The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and they that have power over them are called beneficent.
*H But Jesus called them to him and said: You know that the princes of the Gentiles lord it over them; and that they that are the greater, exercise power upon them.
Ver. 25. Princes of the Gentiles lord it over them: tyrannize over those that are under them, by arbitrary and violent proceedings. Wi. — Our Lord wishing to extinguish the indignation conceived against the two brothers, lays before them the difference of secular and ecclesiastical princes, shewing that precedency in the Church is neither to be sought for by him who is not possessed of it, nor too eagerly loved by him who has it; for secular princes are lords of their subjects, keeping them under subjection, and govern them in every particular according to their will; but ecclesiastical princes are honoured with precedency, that they may be servants of their inferiors, administer to them whatever they have received from Christ, neglect their own convenience for the good of their neighbour, and be willing even to die for the spiritual good of their subjects. It is neither just nor reasonable, therefore, to desire precedency in the Church, without these qualifications. No prudent man is willing to subject himself to such servitude and danger, as to take upon himself the obligation of having to give an account of the wickedness and perversity of others, unless fearless of the divine judgments, he abuse his ecclesiastical superiority. S. Chrys.
* Summa
*S Part 3, Ques 185, Article 1
[II-II, Q. 185, Art. 1]
Whether It Is Lawful to Desire the Office of a Bishop?
Objection 1: It would seem that it is lawful to desire the office of a bishop. For the Apostle says (1 Tim. 3:1): "He that desires [Vulg.: 'If a man desire'] the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work." Now it is lawful and praiseworthy to desire a good work. Therefore it is even praiseworthy to desire the office of a bishop.
Obj. 2: Further, the episcopal state is more perfect than the religious, as we have said above (Q. 184, A. 7). But it is praiseworthy to desire to enter the religious state. Therefore it is also praiseworthy to desire promotion to the episcopal state.
Obj. 3: Further, it is written (Prov. 11:26): "He that hideth up corn shall be cursed among the people; but a blessing upon the head of them that sell." Now a man who is apt, both in manner of life and by knowledge, for the episcopal office, would seem to hide up the spiritual corn, if he shun the episcopal state, whereas by accepting the episcopal office he enters the state of a dispenser of spiritual corn. Therefore it would seem praiseworthy to desire the office of a bishop, and blameworthy to refuse it.
Obj. 4: Further, the deeds of the saints related in Holy Writ are set before us as an example, according to Rom. 15:4, "What things soever were written, were written for our learning." Now we read (Isa. 6:8) that Isaias offered himself for the office of preacher, which belongs chiefly to bishops. Therefore it would seem praiseworthy to desire the office of a bishop.
_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xix, 19): "The higher place, without which the people cannot be ruled, though it be filled becomingly, is unbecomingly desired."
_I answer that,_ Three things may be considered in the episcopal office. One is principal and final, namely the bishop's work, whereby the good of our neighbor is intended, according to John 21:17, "Feed My sheep." Another thing is the height of degree, for a bishop is placed above others, according to Matt. 24:45, "A faithful and a wise servant, whom his lord hath appointed over his family." The third is something resulting from these, namely reverence, honor, and a sufficiency of temporalities, according to 1 Tim. 5:17, "Let the priests that rule well be esteemed worthy of double honor." Accordingly, to desire the episcopal office on account of these incidental goods is manifestly unlawful, and pertains to covetousness or ambition. Wherefore our Lord said against the Pharisees (Matt. 23:6, 7): "They love the first places at feasts, and the first chairs in the synagogues, and salutations in the market-place, and to be called by men, Rabbi." As regards the second, namely the height of degree, it is presumptuous to desire the episcopal office. Hence our Lord reproved His disciples for seeking precedence, by saying to them (Matt. 20:25): "You know that the princes of the gentiles lord it over them." Here Chrysostom says (Hom. lxv in Matth.) that in these words "He points out that it is heathenish to seek precedence; and thus by comparing them to the gentiles He converted their impetuous soul."
On the other hand, to desire to do good to one's neighbor is in itself praiseworthy, and virtuous. Nevertheless, since considered as an episcopal act it has the height of degree attached to it, it would seem that, unless there be manifest and urgent reason for it, it would be presumptuous for any man to desire to be set over others in order to do them good. Thus Gregory says (Pastor. i, 8) that "it was praiseworthy to seek the office of a bishop when it was certain to bring one into graver dangers." Wherefore it was not easy to find a person to accept this burden, especially seeing that it is through the zeal of charity that one divinely instigated to do so, according to Gregory, who says (Pastor. i, 7) that "Isaias being desirous of profiting his neighbor, commendably desired the office of preacher."
Nevertheless, anyone may, without presumption, desire to do such like works if he should happen to be in that office, or to be worthy of doing them; so that the object of his desire is the good work and not the precedence in dignity. Hence Chrysostom* says: "It is indeed good to desire a good work, but to desire the primacy of honor is vanity. For primacy seeks one that shuns it, and abhors one that desires it." [*The quotation is from the Opus Imperfectum in Matth. (Hom. xxxv), falsely ascribed to St. John Chrysostom.]
Reply Obj. 1: As Gregory says (Pastor. i, 8), "when the Apostle said this he who was set over the people was the first to be dragged to the torments of martyrdom," so that there was nothing to be desired in the episcopal office, save the good work. Wherefore Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xix, 19) that when the Apostle said, "'Whoever desireth the office of bishop, desireth a good work,' he wished to explain what the episcopacy is: for it denotes work and not honor: since _skopos_ signifies 'watching.' Wherefore if we like we may render _episkopein_ by the Latin _superintendere_ (to watch over): thus a man may know himself to be no bishop if he loves to precede rather than to profit others." For, as he observed shortly before, "in our actions we should seek, not honor nor power in this life, since all things beneath the sun are vanity, but the work itself which that honor or power enables us to do." Nevertheless, as Gregory says (Pastor. i, 8), "while praising the desire" (namely of the good work) "he forthwith turns this object of praise into one of fear, when he adds: It behooveth . . . a bishop to be blameless," as though to say: "I praise what you seek, but learn first what it is you seek."
Reply Obj. 2: There is no parity between the religious and the episcopal state, for two reasons. First, because perfection of life is a prerequisite of the episcopal state, as appears from our Lord asking Peter if he loved Him more than the others, before committing the pastoral office to him, whereas perfection is not a prerequisite of the religious state, since the latter is the way to perfection. Hence our Lord did not say (Matt. 19:21): "If thou art perfect, go, sell all [Vulg.: 'what'] thou hast," but "If thou wilt be perfect." The reason for this difference is because, according to Dionysius (Eccl. Hier. vi), perfection pertains actively to the bishop, as the "perfecter," but to the monk passively as one who is "perfected": and one needs to be perfect in order to bring others to perfection, but not in order to be brought to perfection. Now it is presumptuous to think oneself perfect, but it is not presumptuous to tend to perfection. Secondly, because he who enters the religious state subjects himself to others for the sake of a spiritual profit, and anyone may lawfully do this. Wherefore Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xix, 19): "No man is debarred from striving for the knowledge of truth, since this pertains to a praiseworthy ease." On the other hand, he who enters the episcopal state is raised up in order to watch over others, and no man should seek to be raised thus, according to Heb. 5:4, "Neither doth any man take the honor to himself, but he that is called by God": and Chrysostom says: "To desire supremacy in the Church is neither just nor useful. For what wise man seeks of his own accord to submit to such servitude and peril, as to have to render an account of the whole Church? None save him who fears not God's judgment, and makes a secular abuse of his ecclesiastical authority, by turning it to secular uses."
Reply Obj. 3: The dispensing of spiritual corn is not to be carried on in an arbitrary fashion, but chiefly according to the appointment and disposition of God, and in the second place according to the appointment of the higher prelates, in whose person it is said (1 Cor. 4:1): "Let a man so account of us as of the ministers of Christ, and the dispensers of the mysteries of God." Wherefore a man is not deemed to hide spiritual corn if he avoids governing or correcting others, and is not competent to do so, neither in virtue of his office nor of his superior's command; thus alone is he deemed to hide it, when he neglects to dispense it while under obligation to do so in virtue of his office, or obstinately refuses to accept the office when it is imposed on him. Hence Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xix, 19): "The love of truth seeks a holy leisure, the demands of charity undertake an honest labor. If no one imposes this burden upon us, we must devote ourselves to the research and contemplation of truth, but if it be imposed on us, we must bear it because charity demands it of us."
Reply Obj. 4: As Gregory says (Pastor. i, 7), "Isaias, who wishing to be sent, knew himself to be already cleansed by the live coal taken from the altar, shows us that no one should dare uncleansed to approach the sacred ministry. Since, then, it is very difficult for anyone to be able to know that he is cleansed, it is safer to decline the office of preacher." _______________________
SECOND
*Lapide
, will be your servant , and with it agree the Syriac, Egyptian, and Æthiopic versions. In these words Christ teaches not so much the way and means by which a man may obtain the primacy in the Church as how one who is a primate ought to behave himself in the Church, namely as the least of all; and by setting before them this rule of humility He deters the Apostles from ambitiously seeking the chief place. It is plain that this is the meaning because this verse is in antithesis with the preceding: for He contrasts His own gentle, benignant and wholesome rule with the imperious and tyrannical authority that is exercised over the Gentiles. S. Gregory ( Pastor. part 2, c. 6), teaches how a prelate ought to unite authority with gentleness, and act with authority against the refractory and with gentleness towards the obedient, "Let a ruler," he says, "be a companion in humility to those who do well, but let him be firmly opposed with a righteous zeal against the faults of delinquents." At the same time Christ shows in these words by what way we ought to advance towards the highest place in Heaven, namely, by the way of humility. And for this reason the Pope prefers this title, Servant of the servants of Christ. This is what S. Peter, the Vicar of Christ taught the pastors of the Church, "Feed the flock of God, which is among you, c. (1 Epist. v. 2.) Likewise on account of this saying of Christ, S. Francis wished the prelates of his Order to be called ministers and brothers minor (minorite friars), both that he might employ the very words of the Gospel, which he had promised to observe, and that his disciples might learn by their very name that they had come to the school of Christ to learn humility. For Christ, the Teacher of humility, that He might give His disciples a perfect rule of humility said, "Whosoever will be chief among you let him be your minister, c." Even as the Son of Man , c. S. Francis Xavier furnished a rare example of this humility of Christ, and recalled it to this age when it had, as it were, gone out of fashion. For when he was appointed by the Pope Apostolic Legate of India, he would have no servant, although the Viceroy of the King of Portugal offered him several, and urged him to accept them; but he ministered to all, both in bodily and spiritual services. He used himself to hear the confessions of the sick, and comfort the sorrowful; he used to administer medicines to the sick, and cleanse their bodies and wash their bandages, and catechise the ignorant and children; and besides he used to attend to and feed the horses of his companions. and when some one said that these things were unworthy of an Apostolic Legate, he answered that there was nothing more worthy than Christian charity and humility which became all things to all men that it may gain all: which Christ through His whole life continually enjoined by word and deed. So that by this conduct he did not lose, but increased his authority. Moreover Christ himself while on earth had not even one servant, but made himself the servant of all. S Chrysostom ( Hom. 40, the Epis. to the Cors .) says, "Listen to Paul; these hands , he says, have ministered to my necessities and to them that were with me. That teacher of the world, and man worthy of heaven, scrupled not to serve innumerable mortals; while you think it a disgrace unless you have your herds of servants in your train: not seeing that this is a great disgrace to you. God gave us hands and feet that we might do without servants. What is the use of crowds of servants?" A ransom for many. Not as if Christ died only for the predestinated, as the heretics formerly called Predestinarians, and Calvin, in recent times, maintained: for that Christ suffered and died for all men S. Paul clearly teaches (2Co 5:142Co 5:142Co 5:14 . and S. John 1Jn 2:21Jn 2:2 ). The words for most are put for all , Euthymius says, because these all were not few but many. So many is taken for all in this chapter v. 16 ( Mat 20:16 ), and chapter Mat 26:28 , and Rom 5:19 , and elsewhere. Or for many ; because although Christ died for all, and obtained for all and bestowed upon all means sufficient for salvation, yet the fruit of His death, and salvation in its completeness falls to the share of the just only and those who persevere until death in righteousness. So S. Jerome, Maldonatus and others. And as they departedfrom Jericho. Christ was going from the city of Ephrem, through Jericho which lay between, to Jerusalem to the death of the Cross. Jericho was distant from Jerusalem one hundred and fifty stadia, and from Ephem on the Jordan sixty stadia, according to Josephus. The journey to Jericho is easy and along a plain, but from Jericho to Jerusalem it is mountainous, steep and difficult. Jericho in Hebrew is derived from ירח , the moon , because it is of the form of the moon, or from ריח , odour or scent , because the balsam, a plant of very sweet odour, grows there. Symbolically. Rabanus says that Jericho, which is interpreted "the moon," denotes the infirmity of our changefulness and mortality, and therefore these blind men were found there. Again S. Gregory ( Hom. 12, in Evangel .) says, "Jericho is interpreted 'the moon,' and the moon in Scripture is put for the infirmity of the flesh. While therefore our Creator is drawing nigh to Jericho, the blind man is returning to the light; because while Divinity takes upon itself the infirmity of our flesh, the human race regained the light which it had lost." Mystically. Origen says, "By Jericho is understood the world into which Christ descended. Those who are in Jericho know not how to escape from the wisdom of the world, unless they see not Jesus only coming out of Jericho, but His disciples. This when they saw, great multitudes despised the world and all worldly things, that under the guidance of Christ they might go up to the Heavenly Jerusalem." Behold two blind men , c. This is the same history that S. Mark relates ( Mar 10:46 ); he mentions only one blind man, Bartimæus. S. Augustine ( lib. 2 de cons. Evang. ch. 65) says that there were two blind men, one of whom was very well known in that city; "for Bartimæus, the son of Timæus," he says, "had sunk from great wealth, and was now sitting, not only as blind, but as a beggar. For this reason then Mark chose to mention him alone, because the restoration of his sight procured fame to this miracle in proportion to the notoriety of the fact of his blindness." Moreover, S. Augustine, Jansen, and others, are of opinion that this blind man was not the same as the one of whom S. Luke speaks, Luk 28:35 , because S. Luke says that he was healed as they drew near to Jericho, while this one was healed as they came out. But since S. Luke's narrative agrees in all points with that of S. Matthew and S. Mark, we must suppose that it was one and the same blind man whose prayer to Christ for the restoration of his sight was not heard on account of the crowd, and Christ made as though He heard him not, that he might quicken his faith and hope, and then on the following day he repeated his prayer as Christ went out and obtained it. So S. Ambrose, Maldonatus, and others explain it. Allegorically. Origen and S. Ambrose say that the two blind men were Judah and Israel, who before the coming of Christ were blind because they saw not the true Word which was contained in the law and the prophets. But Rabanus, with S. Augustine, says that they were the Jews and the Gentiles, for they were both ignorant of the way of salvation. But S. Chrysostom understands them of the Gentiles only, who are descended partly from Ham and partly from Japhet. Tropologically , by the two blind men we may understand the two-fold blindness of the affections and of the understanding. Have mercy on us , c. That is, "O Messiah, of whom the prophets foretold that He should be born of David: it is a mark of the Messiah to have mercy on the miserable, and to give sight to the blind ( Isa 35:5 ). We believe that Thou art the Messiah; therefore give us sight that all may know that Thou art the Messiah, and may believe and worship Thee." The multitude rebuked , c. That they being mean men should not disturb Christ, who perhaps was teaching; or delay Him on this journey. So Euthymius. Mystically : S. Gregory ( Hom. 2, in Evang. ) understands by the multitude the crowds of carnal desires, which before Jesus comes to our heart, by their temptations dissipate our meditation, and drown the voice of the heart in prayer. But they cried the more , c. Because there was need of a louder cry that they might be heard by Christ above the noise of the crowd. Morally. S. Augustine ( de Verb. Dom. Ser. 18), explains it thus, "Every Christian who has begun to live well, and to despise the world, at the commencement of his new life has to endure the censures of cold Christians, but if he perseveres, those who at first hindered him will soon comply." The fear of man then must be overcome by one who wishes to serve God. The first virtue of a Christian, as S. Jerome says, is to despise and to be despised. S. Hilary says, "Faith, when it is called, is the more inflamed, and so in the midst of dangers it is secure, and in the midst of security, it is endangered." And Jesus stood still , c. S. Jerome says, "Jesus stood still because they being blind could not see their way: about Jericho there were many pits, crags, and steep places, therefore the Lord stands still that they might come to Him." S. Gregory ( Hom. 2, in Evang .) interprets symbolically , "to pass by is the property of the human nature, to stand still of the Divine. The Lord as He passed by heard the cry of the blind man, but when He restored his sight He stood still. Anagogically. , S. Augustine ( Lib. 1. quæst. Evang. c. 8), "Faith in His temporal Incarnation prepares us for the understanding of things eternal; for things temporal pass by, but things eternal stand still." And called them. S. Jerome says. "He commands that they be called, that the multitude may not hinder them; and He asks what they would, that by their answer their necessity may be made clear, and His power be known in their healing." What will ye ? He was not ignorant of their desire, but though He knew it, He wills to hear their confession of it. They say unto Him , c. Nothing is naturally so much desired by man as to see; so that to see seems like life, and not to see like death and continual sorrow. S. Augustine, writing on these words, says: "The whole object of life is the healing of the eyes of the heart so that we may behold. To this end the sacred mysteries are celebrated, the Word of God is preached, the moral exhortations of the Church are made that is, those which pertain to the correction of morals, and to the renunciation of this world; not in word only, but by a change of life. To this end the Divine Scriptures direct their aim, that our inward eye may be purged from that thing whatever it is which hinders us from beholding God." Let the man, then, who is blinded by sin and concupiscence say, Grant me, O Lord, to see the baseness of sin, the vileness of concupiscence, the worthlessness of pleasure, the fierceness of hell-fire; the beauty of virtue, the blessedness of Paradise, the eternity of glory; so that I may despise all concupiscence, and aim at the practice of virtue. So Jesus had compassion on them. S. Jerome says: "Jesus considering their ready will, rewards it by fully granting their desire. Whence He says in another place, Whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive ." And they followed Him . "These blind men," S. Chrysostom says, "as before this bounty they were persevering, so after receiving it they were not ungrateful." for, when healed, they offered a good service to Christ in following Him. For this is what God requires of thee "to walk circumspectly (Vulg., sollicitum ) with thy God."* Footnotes
-
*
Philippians
2:7
But emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men, and in habit found as a man.
*H Even as the Son of man is not come to be ministered unto, but to minister and to give his life a redemption for many.
Ver. 28. A redemption for many; i.e. for all, as it is sometimes the style of the Scriptures. See S. Paul, 1 Tim. ii. 6. Wi. — Certain Puritans pretend from this part of holy Scripture, that all superiority is forbidden; but it is merely pride, ambition, and haughtiness, not superiority, that is here proscribed. Jesus Christ himself, as Son of man, was their and our Superior, Lord, and Master, notwithstanding his humility. B. — For the divine appointment of both civil and ecclesiastical government, see Rom. xiii. 2. and 1 Cor. xii. 28. Heb. c. xiii. 7, 17.
* Footnotes
-
*
Mark
10:46
And they came to Jericho. And as he went out of Jericho with his disciples and a very great multitude, Bartimeus the blind man, the son of Timeus, sat by the way side begging.
-
*
Luke
18:35
Now it came to pass, when he drew nigh to Jericho, that a certain blind man sat by the way side, begging.
*H And behold two blind men sitting by the way side heard that Jesus passed by. And they cried out, saying: O Lord, thou son of David, have mercy on us.
Ver. 30. Two blind men. S. Mark, (x. 46.) when he seems to relate the same passage, mentions but one, called Bartimeus; perhaps because he was the more famous of the two. Wi. — These were very opportunely presented to our Lord, that they might go up to Jerusalem with him, after they had received sight from his divine hands, and appear there as witnesses of the divinity of his mission. S. Chrys. hom. lxvi, in Matt. — We may here consider, if the blindness of the body be looked upon as a very great misfortune, how much greater must be the darkness of the soul. The former is only a privation of the light of day, the other is a privation of the light of grace and glory. The light of this world, though a great blessing, is enjoyed in common with the brute creation; it serves only to distinguish material objects. The light which Christ communicates to the soul, enables us to know God and his sacred truths, as revealed to his holy Catholic Church; it elevates us above all inferior creatures, it dissipates the spiritual darkness caused by sin and our unruly passions, and conducts us to the true light of eternal glory. Oh what unspeakable joy must then fill and overwhelm the elect, when in the light of God they see light itself, the bright countenance of their loving and beloved Father!!!