Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 40 [<< | >>]
Consequenter, post ea quae pertinent ad ingressum Christi in mundum vel ad eius principium, considerandum restat de his quae pertinent ad progressum ipsius.
|
Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 40 [<< | >>]
Article: 1 [<< | >>]
| Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod Christus non debuerit inter homines conversari, sed solitariam agere vitam. Oportebat enim quod Christus sua conversatione non solum se hominem ostenderet, sed etiam Deum. Sed Deum non convenit cum hominibus conversari, dicitur enim Dan. II, exceptis diis, quorum non est cum hominibus conversatio; et philosophus dicit, in I Polit., quod ille qui solitarius vivit, aut est bestia, si scilicet propter saevitiam hoc faciat, aut est Deus, si hoc faciat propter contemplandam veritatem. Ergo videtur quod non fuerit conveniens Christum inter homines conversari. | Objection 1: It would seem that Christ should not have associated with men, but should have led a solitary life. For it behooved Christ to show by His manner of life not only that He was man, but also that He was God. But it is not becoming that God should associate with men, for it is written (Dan. 2:11): "Except the gods, whose conversation is not with men"; and the Philosopher says (Polit. i) that he who lives alone is "either a beast"---that is, if he do this from being wild---"or a god," if his motive be the contemplation of truth. Therefore it seems that it was not becoming for Christ to associate with men. |
| Praeterea, Christus, dum in carne mortali vixit, debuit perfectissimam vitam ducere. Perfectissima autem vita est contemplativa, ut in secunda parte habitum est. Ad vitam autem contemplativam maxime competit solitudo, secundum illud Osee II, ducam eam in solitudinem, et loquar ad cor eius. Ergo videtur quod Christus debuerit solitariam vitam ducere. | Objection 2: Further, while He lived in mortal flesh, it behooved Christ to lead a most perfect life. But the most perfect is the contemplative life, as we have stated in the SS, Question [182], Articles [1],2. Now, solitude is most suitable to the contemplative life; according to Osee 2:14: "I will lead her into the wilderness, and I will speak to her heart." Therefore it seems that Christ should have led a solitary life. |
| Praeterea, conversatio Christi debuit esse uniformis, quia semper in eo debuit apparere quod optimum est. Sed quandoque Christus solitaria loca quaerebat, turbas declinans, unde Remigius dicit, super Matth., tria refugia legitur dominus habuisse, navim, montem et desertum, ad quorum alterum, quotiescumque a turbis comprimebatur, conscendebat. Ergo et semper debuit solitariam vitam agere. | Objection 3: Further, Christ's manner of life should have been uniform: because it should always have given evidence of that which is best. But at times Christ avoided the crowd and sought lonely places: hence Remigius [*Cf. Catena Aurea, Matth. 5:1], commenting on Matthew, says: "We read that our Lord had three places of refuge: the ship, the mountain, the desert; to one or other of which He betook Himself whenever he was harassed by the crowd." Therefore He ought always to have led a solitary life. |
| Sed contra est quod dicitur Baruch III, post haec in terris visus est, et cum hominibus conversatus est. | On the contrary, It is written (Baruch 3:38): "Afterwards He was seen upon earth and conversed with men." |
| Respondeo dicendum quod conversatio Christi talis debuit esse ut conveniret fini incarnationis, secundum quam venit in mundum. Venit autem in mundum, primo quidem, ad manifestandum veritatem, sicut ipse dicit, Ioan. XVIII, in hoc natus sum, et ad hoc veni in mundum, ut testimonium perhibeam veritati. Et ideo non debebat se occultare, vitam solitariam agens, sed in publicum procedere, publice praedicando. Unde, Luc. IV, dicit illis qui volebant eum detinere, quia et aliis civitatibus oportet me evangelizare regnum Dei, quia ideo missus sum. | I answer that, Christ's manner of life had to be in keeping with the end of His Incarnation, by reason of which He came into the world. Now He came into the world, first, that He might publish the truth. thus He says Himself (Jn. 18:37): "For this was I born, and for this came I into the world, that I should give testimony to the truth." Hence it was fitting not that He should hide Himself by leading a solitary life, but that He should appear openly and preach in public. Wherefore (Lk. 4:42,43) He says to those who wished to stay Him: "To other cities also I must preach the kingdom of God: for therefore am I sent." |
| Secundo, venit ad hoc ut homines a peccato liberaret, secundum illud I Tim. I, Christus Iesus venit in hunc mundum peccatores salvos facere. Et ideo, ut Chrysostomus dicit, licet in eodem loco manendo posset Christus omnes ad se attrahere, ut eius praedicationem audirent, non tamen hoc fecit, praebens nobis exemplum ut perambulemus et requiramus pereuntes, sicut pastor ovem perditam, et medicus accedit ad infirmum. | Secondly, He came in order to free men from sin; according to 1 Tim. 1:15: "Christ Jesus came into this world to save sinners." And hence, as Chrysostom says, "although Christ might, while staying in the same place, have drawn all men to Himself, to hear His preaching, yet He did not do so; thus giving us the example to go about and seek those who perish, like the shepherd in his search of the lost sheep, and the physician in his attendance on the sick." |
| Tertio, venit ut per ipsum habeamus accessum ad Deum, ut dicitur Rom. V. Et ita, familiariter cum hominibus conversando, conveniens fuit ut hominibus fiduciam daret ad se accedendi. Unde dicitur Matth. IX, factum est, discumbente eo in domo, ecce, multi publicani et peccatores venientes discumbebant cum Iesu et discipulis eius. Quod exponens Hieronymus dicit, viderant publicanum, a peccatis ad meliora conversum, locum invenisse poenitentiae, et ob id etiam ipsi non desperant salutem. | Thirdly, He came that by Him "we might have access to God," as it is written (Rm. 5:2). And thus it was fitting that He should give men confidence in approaching Him by associating familiarly with them. Wherefore it is written (Mt. 9:10): "It came to pass as He was sitting . . . in the house, behold, many publicans and sinners came, and sat down with Jesus and His disciples." On which Jerome comments as follows: "They had seen the publican who had been converted from a sinful to a better life: and consequently they did not despair of their own salvation." |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod Christus per humanitatem suam voluit manifestare divinitatem. Et ideo, conversando cum hominibus, quod est proprium hominis, manifestavit omnibus suam divinitatem, praedicando et miracula faciendo, et innocenter et iuste inter homines conversando. | Reply to Objection 1: Christ wished to make His Godhead known through His human nature. And therefore, since it is proper to man to do so, He associated with men, at the same time manifesting His Godhead to all, by preaching and working miracles, and by leading among men a blameless and righteous life. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod, sicut in secunda parte dictum est, vita contemplativa simpliciter est melior quam activa quae occupatur circa corporales actus, sed vita activa secundum quam aliquis praedicando et docendo contemplata aliis tradit, est perfectior quam vita quae solum contemplatur, quia talis vita praesupponit abundantiam contemplationis. Et ideo Christus talem vitam elegit. | Reply to Objection 2: As stated in the SS, Question [182], Article [1]; SS, Question [188], Article [6], the contemplative life is, absolutely speaking, more perfect than the active life, because the latter is taken up with bodily actions: yet that form of active life in which a man, by preaching and teaching, delivers to others the fruits of his contemplation, is more perfect than the life that stops at contemplation, because such a life is built on an abundance of contemplation, and consequently such was the life chosen by Christ. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod actio Christi fuit nostra instructio. Et ideo, ut daret exemplum praedicatoribus quod non semper se darent in publicum, ideo quandoque dominus se a turbis retraxit. Quod quidem legitur fecisse propter tria. Quandoque quidem propter corporalem quietem. Unde Marci VI dicitur quod dominus dixit discipulis, venite seorsum in desertum locum, et requiescite pusillum. Erant enim qui veniebant et redibant multi, et nec spatium manducandi habebant. Quandoque vero causa orationis. Unde dicitur Luc. VI, factum est in illis diebus, exiit in montem orare, et erat pernoctans in oratione Dei. Ubi dicit Ambrosius quod ad praecepta virtutis suo nos informat exemplo. Quandoque vero ut doceat favorem humanum vitare. Unde super illud Matth. V, videns Iesus turbas ascendit in montem, dicit Chrysostomus, per hoc quod non in civitate et foro, sed in monte et solitudine sedit, erudivit nos nihil ad ostentationem facere, et a tumultibus abscedere, et maxime cum de necessariis disputare oporteat. | Reply to Objection 3: Christ's action is our instruction. And therefore, in order to teach preachers that they ought not to be for ever before the public, our Lord withdrew Himself sometimes from the crowd. We are told of three reasons for His doing this. First, for the rest of the body: hence (Mk. 6:31) it is stated that our Lord said to His disciples: "Come apart into a desert place, and rest a little. For there were many coming and going: and they had not so much as time to eat." But sometimes it was for the sake of prayer; thus it is written (Lk. 6:12): "It came to pass in those days, that He went out into a mountain to pray; and He passed the whole night in the prayer of God." On this Ambrose remarks that "by His example He instructs us in the precepts of virtue." And sometimes He did so in order to teach us to avoid the favor of men. Wherefore Chrysostom, commenting on Mt. 5:1, Jesus, "seeing the multitude, went up into a mountain," says: "By sitting not in the city and in the market-place, but on a mountain and in a place of solitude, He taught us to do nothing for show, and to withdraw from the crowd, especially when we have to discourse of needful things." |
Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 40 [<< | >>]
Article: 2 [<< | >>]
| Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod Christum decuerit austeram vitam ducere in hoc mundo. Christus enim multo magis praedicavit perfectionem vitae quam Ioannes. Sed Ioannes austeram vitam duxit, ut suo exemplo homines ad perfectionem vitae provocaret, dicitur enim, Matth. III, quod ipse Ioannes habebat vestimentum de pilis camelorum, et zonam pelliceam circa lumbos suos, esca autem eius erant locustae et mel sylvestre; quod exponens Chrysostomus dicit, erat mirabile in humano corpore tantam patientiam videre, quod et Iudaeos magis attrahebat. Ergo videtur quod multo magis Christum decuerit austeritas vitae. | Objection 1: It would seem that it was becoming that Christ should lead an austere life in this world. For Christ preached the perfection of life much more than John did. But John led an austere life in order that he might persuade men by his example to embrace a perfect life; for it is written (Mt. 3:4) that "the same John had his garment of camel's hair and a leathern girdle about his loins: and his meat was locusts and wild honey"; on which Chrysostom comments as follows (Hom. x): "It was a marvelous and strange thing to behold such austerity in a human frame: which thing also particularly attracted the Jews." Therefore it seems that an austere life was much more becoming to Christ. |
| Praeterea, abstinentia ad continentiam ordinatur, dicitur enim Osee IV, comedentes non saturabuntur, fornicati sunt, et non cessaverunt. Sed Christus continentiam et in se servavit, et aliis servandam proposuit, cum dixit, Matth. XIX, sunt eunuchi qui se castraverunt propter regnum caelorum, qui potest capere, capiat. Ergo videtur quod Christus in se, et in suis discipulis, austeritatem vitae servare debuerit. | Objection 2: Further, abstinence is ordained to continency; for it is written (Osee 4:10): "They shall eat and shall not be filled; they have committed fornication, and have not ceased." But Christ both observed continency in Himself and proposed it to be observed by others when He said (Mt. 19:12): "There are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven: he that can take it let him take it." Therefore it seems that Christ should have observed an austere life both in Himself and in His disciples. |
| Praeterea, ridiculum videtur ut aliquis districtiorem vitam incipiat, et ab ea in laxiorem revertatur, potest enim dici contra eum quod habetur Luc. XIV, hic homo coepit aedificare, et non potuit consummare. Christus autem districtissimam vitam incoepit post Baptismum, manens in deserto et ieiunans quadraginta diebus et quadraginta noctibus. Ergo videtur non fuisse congruum quod post tantam vitae districtionem ad communem vitam rediret. | Objection 3: Further, it seems absurd for a man to begin a stricter form of life and to return to an easier life: for one might quote to his discredit that which is written, Lk. 14:30: "This man began to build, and was not able to finish." Now Christ began a very strict life after His baptism, remaining in the desert and fasting for "forty days and forty nights." Therefore it seems unbecoming that, after leading such a strict life, He should return to the common manner of living. |
| Sed contra est quod dicitur Matth. XI, venit filius hominis manducans et bibens. | On the contrary, It is written (Mt. 11:19): "The Son of Man came eating and drinking." |
| Respondeo dicendum quod sicut dictum est, congruum erat incarnationis fini ut Christus non ageret solitariam vitam, sed cum hominibus conversaretur. Qui autem cum aliquibus conversatur, convenientissimum est ut se eis in conversatione conformet, secundum illud apostoli, I Cor. IX, omnibus omnia factus sum. Et ideo convenientissimum fuit ut Christus in cibo et potu communiter se sicut alii haberet. Unde Augustinus dicit, contra Faustum, quod Ioannes dictus est non manducans neque bibens, quia illo victu quo Iudaei utebantur, non utebatur. Hoc ergo dominus nisi uteretur, non in eius comparatione manducans bibensque diceretur. | I answer that, As stated above (Article [1]), it was in keeping with the end of the Incarnation that Christ should not lead a solitary life, but should associate with men. Now it is most fitting that he who associates with others should conform to their manner of living; according to the words of the Apostle (1 Cor. 9:22): "I became all things to all men." And therefore it was most fitting that Christ should conform to others in the matter of eating and drinking. Hence Augustine says (Contra Faust. xvi) that "John is described as 'neither eating nor drinking,' because he did not take the same food as the Jews. Therefore, unless our Lord had taken it, it would not be said of Him, in contrast, 'eating and drinking.'" |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod dominus in sua conversatione exemplum perfectionis dedit in omnibus quae per se pertinent ad salutem. Ipsa autem abstinentia cibi et potus non per se pertinet ad salutem, secundum illud Rom. XIV, non est regnum Dei esca et potus. Et Augustinus dicit, in libro de quaestionibus Evang., exponens illud Matth. XI, iustificata est sapientia a filiis suis, quia scilicet sancti apostoli intellexerunt regnum Dei non esse in esca et potu, sed in aequanimitate tolerandi, quos nec copia sublevat nec deprimit egestas. Et in III de Doct. Christ., dicit quod in omnibus talibus non usus rerum, sed libido utentis in culpa est. Utraque autem vita est licita et laudabilis, ut scilicet aliquis a communi consortio hominum segregatus abstinentiam servet; et ut in societate aliorum positus communi vita utatur. Et ideo dominus voluit utriusque vitae exemplum dare hominibus. | Reply to Objection 1: In His manner of living our Lord gave an example of perfection as to all those things which of themselves relate to salvation. Now abstinence in eating and drinking does not of itself relate to salvation, according to Rm. 14:17: "The kingdom of God is not meat and drink." And Augustine (De Qq. Evang. ii, qu. 11) explains Mt. 11:19, "Wisdom is justified by her children," saying that this is because the holy apostles "understood that the kingdom of God does not consist in eating and drinking, but in suffering indigence with equanimity," for they are neither uplifted by affluence, nor distressed by want. Again (De Doctr. Christ. iii), he says that in all such things "it is not making use of them, but the wantonness of the user, that is sinful." Now both these lives are lawful and praiseworthy---namely, that a man withdraw from the society of other men and observe abstinence; and that he associate with other men and live like them. And therefore our Lord wished to give men an example of either kind of life. |
| Ioannes autem, sicut Chrysostomus dicit, super Matth., nihil plus ostendit praeter vitam et iustitiam. Christus autem et a miraculis testimonium habebat. Dimittens ergo Ioannem ieiunio fulgere, ipse contrariam incessit viam, ad mensam intrans publicanorum, et manducans et bibens. | As to John, according to Chrysostom (Hom. xxxvii super Matth.), "he exhibited no more than his life and righteous conduct . . . but Christ had the testimony also of miracles. Leaving, therefore, John to be illustrious by his fasting, He Himself came the opposite way, both coming unto publicans' tables and eating and drinking." |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod, sicut alii homines per abstinentiam consequuntur virtutem continendi, ita etiam Christus, in se et suis per virtutem suae divinitatis carnem comprimebat. Unde, sicut legitur Matth. IX, Pharisaei et discipuli Ioannis ieiunabant, non autem discipuli Christi. Quod exponens Beda dicit quod Ioannes vinum et siceram non bibit, quia illi abstinentia meritum auget cui potentia nulla inerat naturae. Dominus autem, cui naturaliter suppetebat delicta donare, cur eos declinaret quos abstinentibus poterat reddere puriores? | Reply to Objection 2: Just as by abstinence other men acquire the power of self-restraint, so also Christ, in Himself and in those that are His, subdued the flesh by the power of His Godhead. Wherefore, as we read Mt. 9:14, the Pharisees and the disciples of John fasted, but not the disciples of Christ. On which Bede comments, saying that "John drank neither wine nor strong drink: because abstinence is meritorious where the nature is weak. But why should our Lord, whose right by nature it is to forgive sins, avoid those whom He could make holier than such as abstain?" |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod, sicut Chrysostomus dicit, super Matth., ut discas quam magnum bonum est ieiunium, et qualiter scutum est adversus Diabolum, et quoniam post Baptismum non lasciviae, sed ieiunio intendere oportet, ipse ieiunavit, non eo indigens, sed nos instruens. Non autem ultra processit ieiunando quam Moyses et Elias, ne incredibilis videretur carnis assumptio. Secundum mysterium autem, ut Gregorius dicit, quadragenarius numerus exemplo Christi in ieiunio custoditur, quia virtus Decalogi per libros quatuor sancti Evangelii impletur, denarius enim quater ductus in quadragenarium surgit. Vel, quia in hoc mortali corpore ex quatuor elementis subsistimus, per cuius voluntatem praeceptis dominicis contraimus, quae per Decalogum sunt accepta. Vel, secundum Augustinum, in libro octogintatrium quaest., omnis sapientiae disciplina est creatorem creaturamque cognoscere. Creator est Trinitas, pater et filius et spiritus sanctus. Creatura vero partim est invisibilis, sicut anima, cui ternarius numerus tribuitur, diligere enim Deum tripliciter iubemur, ex toto corde, ex tota anima, ex tota mente, partim visibilis, sicut corpus, cui quaternarius debetur propter calidum, humidum, frigidum et siccum. Denarius ergo numerus, qui totam insinuat disciplinam, quater ductus, idest numero qui corpori tribuitur multiplicatus, quia per corpus administratio geritur, quadragenarium conficit numerum. Et ideo tempus quo ingemiscimus et dolemus, quadragenario numero celebratur. Nec tamen incongruum fuit ut Christus post ieiunium et desertum ad communem vitam rediret. Hoc enim convenit vitae secundum quam aliquis contemplata aliis tradit, quam Christum dicimus assumpsisse, ut primo contemplationi vacet, et postea ad publicum actionis descendat aliis convivendo. Unde et Beda dicit, super Marc., ieiunavit Christus, ne praeceptum declinares, manducavit cum peccatoribus, ut, gratiam cernens, agnosceres potestatem. | Reply to Objection 3: As Chrysostom says (Hom. xiii super Matth.), "that thou mightest learn how great a good is fasting, and how it is a shield against the devil, and that after baptism thou shouldst give thyself up, not to luxury, but to fasting---for this cause did He fast, not as needing it Himself, but as teaching us . . . And for this did He proceed no further than Moses and Elias, lest His assumption of our flesh might seem incredible." The mystical meaning, as Gregory says (Hom. xvi in Evang.), is that by Christ's example the number "forty" is observed in His fast, because the power of the "decalogue is fulfilled throughout the four books of the Holy Gospel: since ten multiplied by four amounts to forty." Or, because "we live in this mortal body composed of the four elements, and by its lusts we transgress the commandments of the Lord, which are expressed in the decalogue." Or, according to Augustine (Questions. lxxxiii, qu. 81): "To know the Creator and the creature is the entire teaching of wisdom. The Creator is the Trinity, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. Now the creature is partly invisible, as the soul, to which the number three may be ascribed, for we are commanded to love God in three ways, 'with our whole heart, our whole soul, and our whole mind'; and partly visible, as the body, to which the number four is applicable on account of its being subject to heat, moisture, cold, and dryness. Hence if we multiply ten, which may be referred to the entire moral code, by four, which number may be applied to the body, because it is the body that executes the law, the product is the number forty: in which," consequently, "the time during which we sigh and grieve is shown forth." And yet there was no inconsistency in Christ's returning to the common manner of living, after fasting and (retiring into the) desert. For it is becoming to that kind of life, which we hold Christ to have embraced, wherein a man delivers to others the fruits of his contemplation, that he devote himself first of all to contemplation, and that he afterwards come down to the publicity of active life by associating with other men. Hence Bede says on Mk. 2:18: "Christ fasted, that thou mightest not disobey the commandment; He ate with sinners, that thou mightest discern His sanctity and acknowledge His power." |
Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 40 [<< | >>]
Article: 3 [<< | >>]
| Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod Christus in hoc mundo non debuerit pauperem vitam ducere. Christus enim debuit eligibilissimam vitam assumere. Sed eligibilissima vita est quae est mediocris inter divitias et paupertatem, dicitur enim Proverb. XXX, mendicitatem et divitias ne dederis mihi, tribue tantum victui meo necessaria. Ergo Christus non debuit pauperem vitam ducere, sed moderatam. | Objection 1: It would seem that Christ should not have led a life of poverty in this world. Because Christ should have embraced the most eligible form of life. But the most eligible form of life is that which is a mean between riches and poverty; for it is written (Prov. 30:8): "Give me neither beggary nor riches; give me only the necessaries of life." Therefore Christ should have led a life, not of poverty, but of moderation. |
| Praeterea, exteriores divitiae ad usum corporis ordinantur quantum ad victum et vestitum. Sed Christus in victu et vestitu communem vitam duxit, secundum modum aliorum quibus convivebat. Ergo videtur quod etiam in divitiis et paupertate communem modum vivendi servare debuit, et non uti maxima paupertate. | Objection 2: Further, external wealth is ordained to bodily use as to food and raiment. But Christ conformed His manner of life to those among whom He lived, in the matter of food and raiment. Therefore it seems that He should have observed the ordinary manner of life as to riches and poverty, and have avoided extreme poverty. |
| Praeterea, Christus maxime homines invitavit ad exemplum humilitatis, secundum illud Matth. XI, discite a me, quia mitis sum et humilis. Sed humilitas maxime commendatur in divitibus, ut dicitur I ad Tim. ult., divitibus huius saeculi praecipe non altum sapere. Ergo videtur quod Christus non debuit ducere pauperem vitam. | Objection 3: Further, Christ specially invited men to imitate His example of humility, according to Mt. 11:29: "Learn of Me, because I am meek and humble of heart." But humility is most commendable in the rich; thus it is written (1 Tim. 6:11): "Charge the rich of this world not to be high-minded." Therefore it seems that Christ should not have chosen a life of poverty. |
| Sed contra est quod dicitur Matth. VIII, filius hominis non habet ubi caput reclinet. Quasi dicat, secundum Hieronymum, quid me propter divitias et saeculi lucra cupis sequi, cum tantae sim paupertatis ut nec hospitiolum quidem habeam, et tecto utar non meo? Et super illud Matth. XVII, ut non scandalizemus eos vade ad mare, dicit Hieronymus, hoc, simpliciter intellectum, aedificat auditorem, dum audit tantae dominum fuisse paupertatis ut unde tributa pro se et apostolo redderet, non habuerit. | On the contrary, It is written (Mt. 8:20): "The Son of Man hath not where to lay His head": as though He were to say as Jerome observes: "Why desirest thou to follow Me for the sake of riches and worldly gain, since I am so poor that I have not even the smallest dwelling-place, and I am sheltered by a roof that is not Mine?" And on Mt. 17:26: "That we may not scandalize them, go to the sea," Jerome says: "This incident, taken literally, affords edification to those who hear it when they are told that our Lord was so poor that He had not the wherewithal to pay the tax for Himself and His apostles." |
| Respondeo dicendum quod Christum decuit in hoc mundo pauperem vitam ducere. Primo quidem, quia hoc erat congruum praedicationis officio, propter quod venisse se dicit, Marc. I, eamus in proximos vicos et civitates, ut et ibi praedicem, ad hoc enim veni. Oportet autem praedicatores verbi Dei, ut omnino vacent praedicationi, omnino a saecularium rerum cura esse absolutos. Quod facere non possunt qui divitias possident. Unde et ipse dominus, apostolos ad praedicandum mittens, dicit eis, nolite possidere aurum neque argentum. Et ipsi apostoli dicunt, Act. VI, non est aequum nos relinquere verbum et ministrare mensis. | I answer that, It was fitting for Christ to lead a life of poverty in this world. First, because this was in keeping with the duty of preaching, for which purpose He says that He came (Mk. 1:38): "Let us go into the neighboring towns and cities, that I may preach there also: for to this purpose am I come." Now in order that the preachers of God's word may be able to give all their time to preaching, they must be wholly free from care of worldly matters: which is impossible for those who are possessed of wealth. Wherefore the Lord Himself, when sending the apostles to preach, said to them (Mt. 10:9): "Do not possess gold nor silver." And the apostles (Acts 6:2) say: "It is not reasonable that we should leave the word of God and serve tables." |
| Secundo quia, sicut mortem corporalem assumpsit ut nobis vitam largiretur spiritualem, ita corporalem paupertatem sustinuit ut nobis spirituales divitias largiretur, secundum illud II Cor. VIII, scitis gratiam domini nostri Iesu Christi, quoniam propter nos egenus factus est, ut illius inopia divites essemus. | Secondly, because just as He took upon Himself the death of the body in order to bestow spiritual life on us, so did He bear bodily poverty, in order to enrich us spiritually, according to 2 Cor. 8:9: "You know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ: that . . . He became poor for our [Vulg.: 'your'] sakes that through His poverty we [Vulg.: 'you'] might be rich." |
| Tertio ne, si divitias haberet, cupiditati eius praedicatio adscriberetur. Unde Hieronymus dicit, super Matth., quod, si discipuli divitias habuissent, videbantur non causa salutis hominum, sed causa lucri praedicasse. Et eadem ratio est de Christo. | Thirdly, lest if He were rich His preaching might be ascribed to cupidity. Wherefore Jerome says on Mt. 10:9, that if the disciples had been possessed of wealth, "they had seemed to preach for gain, not for the salvation of mankind." And the same reason applies to Christ. |
| Quarto, ut tanto maior virtus divinitatis eius ostenderetur, quanto per paupertatem videbatur abiectior. Unde dicitur in quodam sermone Ephesini Concilii, omnia paupera et vilia elegit, omnia mediocria et plurimis obscura, ut divinitas cognosceretur orbem terrarum transformasse. Propterea pauperculam elegit matrem, pauperiorem patriam, egens fit pecuniis. Et hoc tibi exponat praesepe. | Fourthly, that the more lowly He seemed by reason of His poverty, the greater might the power of His Godhead be shown to be. Hence in a sermon of the Council of Ephesus (P. iii, c. ix) we read: "He chose all that was poor and despicable, all that was of small account and hidden from the majority, that we might recognize His Godhead to have transformed the terrestrial sphere. For this reason did He choose a poor maid for His Mother, a poorer birthplace; for this reason did He live in want. Learn this from the manger." |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod superabundantia divitiarum et mendicitas vitanda videntur ab his qui volunt vivere secundum virtutem, inquantum sunt occasiones peccandi, abundantia namque divitiarum est superbiendi occasio; mendicitas vero est occasio furandi et mentiendi, aut etiam periurandi. Quia vero Christus peccati capax non erat, propter hanc causam, ex qua Salomon haec vitabat, Christo vitanda non erant. Neque tamen quaelibet mendicitas est furandi et periurandi occasio, ut ibidem Salomon subdere videtur, sed sola illa quae est contraria voluntati, ad quam vitandam homo furatur et periurat. Sed paupertas voluntaria hoc periculum non habet. Et talem paupertatem Christus elegit. | Reply to Objection 1: Those who wish to live virtuously need to avoid abundance of riches and beggary, in as far as these are occasions of sin: since abundance of riches is an occasion for being proud; and beggary is an occasion of thieving and lying, or even of perjury. But forasmuch as Christ was incapable of sin, He had not the same motive as Solomon for avoiding these things. Yet neither is every kind of beggary an occasion of theft and perjury, as Solomon seems to add (Prov. 30:8); but only that which is involuntary, in order to avoid which, a man is guilty of theft and perjury. But voluntary poverty is not open to this danger: and such was the poverty chosen by Christ. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod communi vita uti quantum ad victum et vestitum potest aliquis non solum divitias possidendo, sed etiam a divitibus necessaria accipiendo. Quod etiam circa Christum factum est, dicitur enim Lucae VIII, quod mulieres quaedam sequebantur Christum, quae ministrabant ei de facultatibus suis. Ut enim Hieronymus dicit, contra Vigilantium, consuetudinis Iudaicae fuit, nec ducebatur in culpam, more gentis antiquo, ut mulieres de substantia sua victum et vestitum praeceptoribus suis ministrarent. Hoc autem, quia scandalum facere poterat in nationibus, Paulus se abiecisse commemorat. Sic ergo communis victus poterat esse sine sollicitudine impediente praedicationis officium, non autem divitiarum possessio. | Reply to Objection 2: A man may feed and clothe himself in conformity with others, not only by possessing riches, but also by receiving the necessaries of life from those who are rich. This is what happened in regard to Christ: for it is written (Lk. 8:2,3) that certain women followed Christ and "ministered unto Him of their substance." For, as Jerome says on Mt. 27:55, "It was a Jewish custom, nor was it thought wrong for women, following the ancient tradition of their nation, out of their private means to provide their instructors with food and clothing. But as this might give scandal to the heathens, Paul says that he gave it up": thus it was possible for them to be fed out of a common fund, but not to possess wealth, without their duty of preaching being hindered by anxiety. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod in eo qui ex necessitate pauper est, humilitas non multum commendatur. Sed in eo qui voluntarie pauper est, sicut fuit Christus, ipsa paupertas est maximae humilitatis indicium. | Reply to Objection 3: Humility is not much to be praised in one who is poor of necessity. But in one who, like Christ, is poor willingly, poverty itself is a sign of very great humility. |
Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 40 [<< | >>]
Article: 4 [<< | >>]
| Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod Christus non fuerit conversatus secundum legem. Lex enim praecipiebat ut nihil operis in sabbato fieret, sicut Deus die septimo requievit ab omni opere quod patrarat. Sed ipse in sabbato curavit hominem, et ei mandavit ut tolleret lectum suum. Ergo videtur quod non fuerit secundum legem conversatus. | Objection 1: It would seem that Christ did not conform His conduct to the Law. For the Law forbade any work whatsoever to be done on the Sabbath, since God "rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done." But He healed a man on the Sabbath, and commanded him to take up his bed. Therefore it seems that He did not conform His conduct to the Law. |
| Praeterea, eadem Christus fecit et docuit, secundum illud Act. I, coepit Iesus facere et docere. Sed ipse docuit, Matth. XV, quod omne quod intrat in os, non coinquinat hominem, quod est contra praeceptum legis, quae per esum et contactum quorundam animalium dicebat hominem immundum fieri, ut patet Levit. XI. Ergo videtur quod ipse non fuerit secundum legem conversatus. | Objection 2: Further, what Christ taught, that He also did, according to Acts 1:1: "Jesus began to do and to teach." But He taught (Mt. 15:11) that "not" all "that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man": and this is contrary to the precept of the Law, which declared that a man was made unclean by eating and touching certain animals, as stated Lev. 11. Therefore it seems that He did not conform His conduct to the Law. |
| Praeterea, idem iudicium videtur esse facientis et consentientis, secundum illud Rom. I, non solum illi qui faciunt, sed qui consentiunt facientibus. Sed Christus consensit discipulis solventibus legem in hoc quod sabbato spicas vellebant, excusando eos, ut habetur Matth. XII. Ergo videtur quod Christus non conversatus fuerit secundum legem. | Objection 3: Further, he who consents to anything is of the same mind as he who does it, according to Rm. 1:32: "Not only they that do them, but they also that consent to them that do them." But Christ, by excusing His disciples, consented to their breaking the Law by plucking the ears of corn on the Sabbath; as is related Mt. 12:1-8. Therefore it seems that Christ did not conform His conduct to the Law. |
| Sed contra est quod dicitur Matth. V, nolite putare quoniam veni solvere legem aut prophetas. Quod exponens Chrysostomus dicit, legem implevit, primo quidem, nihil transgrediendo legalium; secundo, iustificando per fidem, quod lex per litteram facere non valebat. | On the contrary, It is written (Mt. 5:17): "Do not think that I am come to destroy the Law or the Prophets." Commenting on these words, Chrysostom says: "He fulfilled the Law . . . in one way, by transgressing none of the precepts of the Law; secondly, by justifying us through faith, which the Law, in the letter, was unable to do." |
| Respondeo dicendum quod Christus in omnibus secundum legis praecepta conversatus est. In cuius signum, etiam voluit circumcidi, circumcisio enim est quaedam protestatio legis implendae, secundum illud Galat. V, testificor omni homini circumcidenti se, quoniam debitor est universae legis faciendae. | I answer that, Christ conformed His conduct in all things to the precepts of the Law. In token of this He wished even to be circumcised; for the circumcision is a kind of protestation of a man's purpose of keeping the Law, according to Gal. 5:3: "I testify to every man circumcising himself, that he is a debtor to do the whole Law." |
| Voluit autem Christus secundum legem conversari, primo quidem, ut legem veterem comprobaret. Secundo, ut eam observando in seipso consummaret et terminaret, ostendens quod ad ipsum erat ordinata. Tertio, ut Iudaeis occasionem calumniandi subtraheret. Quarto, ut homines a servitute legis liberaret, secundum illud Galat. IV, misit Deus filium suum factum sub lege, ut eos qui sub lege erant redimeret. | And Christ, indeed, wished to conform His conduct to the Law, first, to show His approval of the Old Law. Secondly, that by obeying the Law He might perfect it and bring it to an end in His own self, so as to show that it was ordained to Him. Thirdly, to deprive the Jews of an excuse for slandering Him. Fourthly, in order to deliver men from subjection to the Law, according to Gal. 4:4,5: "God sent His Son . . . made under the Law that He might redeem them who were under the Law." |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod dominus super hoc se excusat a transgressione legis tripliciter. Uno quidem modo, quia per praeceptum de sanctificatione sabbati non interdicitur opus divinum, sed humanum opus, quamvis enim Deus die septima cessaverit a novis creaturis condendis, semper tamen operatur in rerum conservatione et gubernatione. Quod autem Christus miracula faciebat, erat operis divini. Unde ipse dicit, Ioan. V, pater meus usque modo operatur, et ego operor. | Reply to Objection 1: Our Lord excuses Himself from any transgression of the Law in this matter, for three reasons. First, the precept of the hallowing of the Sabbath forbids not Divine work, but human work: for though God ceased on the seventh day from the creation of new creatures, yet He ever works by keeping and governing His creatures. Now that Christ wrought miracles was a Divine work: hence He says (Jn. 5:17): "My Father worketh until now; and I work." |
| Secundo, excusat se per hoc quod illo praecepto non prohibentur opera quae sunt de necessitate salutis corporalis. Unde ipse dicit, Luc. XIII, unusquisque vestrum non solvet sabbato bovem suum aut asinum a praesepio, et ducit adaquare? Et infra, XIV, cuius vestrum asinus aut bos in puteum cadit, et non continuo extrahet illum die sabbati? Manifestum est autem quod opera miraculorum quae Christus faciebat, ad salutem corporis et animae pertinebant. | Secondly, He excuses Himself on the ground that this precept does not forbid works which are needful for bodily health. Wherefore He says (Lk. 13:15): "Doth not every one of you on the Sabbath-day loose his ox or his ass from the manger, and lead them to water?" And farther on (Lk. 14:5): "Which of you shall have an ass or an ox fall into a pit, and will not immediately draw him out on the Sabbath-day?" Now it is manifest that the miraculous works done by Christ related to health of body and soul. |
| Tertio, quia illo praecepto non prohibentur opera quae pertinent ad Dei cultum unde dicit, Matth. XII, an non legistis in lege quia sabbatis sacerdotes in templo sabbatum violant, et sine crimine sunt? Et Ioan. VII dicitur quod circumcisionem accipit homo in sabbato. Quod autem Christus paralytico mandavit ut lectum suum sabbato portaret, ad cultum Dei pertinebat, idest ad laudem virtutis divinae. Et patet quod sabbatum non solvebat. Quamvis hoc ei Iudaei falso obiicerent, dicentes, Ioan. IX, non est hic homo a Deo, qui sabbatum non custodit. | Thirdly, because this precept does not forbid works pertaining to the worship of God. Wherefore He says (Mt. 12:5): "Have ye not read in the Law that on the Sabbath-days the priests in the Temple break the Sabbath, and are without blame?" And (Jn. 7:23) it is written that a man receives circumcision on the Sabbath-day. Now when Christ commanded the paralytic to carry his bed on the Sabbath-day, this pertained to the worship of God, i.e. to the praise of God's power. And thus it is clear that He did not break the Sabbath: although the Jews threw this false accusation in His face, saying (Jn. 9:16): "This man is not of God, who keepeth not the Sabbath." |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod Christus voluit ostendere per illa verba quod homo non redditur immundus secundum animam ex usu ciborum quorumcumque secundum suam naturam, sed solum secundum quandam significationem. Quod autem in lege quidam cibi dicuntur immundi, hoc est propter quandam significationem. Unde Augustinus dicit, contra Faustum, si de porco et agno requiratur, utrumque natura mundum est, quia omnis creatura Dei bona est, quadam vero significatione agnus mundus, porcus immundus est. | Reply to Objection 2: By those words Christ wished to show that man is made unclean as to his soul, by the use of any sort of foods considered not in their nature, but only in some signification. And that certain foods are in the Law called "unclean" is due to some signification; whence Augustine says (Contra Faust. vi): "If a question be raised about swine and lambs, both are clean by nature, since 'all God's creatures are good'; but by a certain signification lambs are clean and swine unclean." |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod etiam discipuli, quando esurientes spicas sabbato vellebant, a transgressione legis excusantur propter necessitatem famis, sicut et David non fuit transgressor legis quando, propter necessitatem famis, comedit panes quos ei edere non licebat. | Reply to Objection 3: The disciples also, when, being hungry, they plucked the ears of corn on the Sabbath, are to be excused from transgressing the Law, since they were pressed by hunger: just as David did not transgress the Law when, through being compelled by hunger, he ate the loaves which it was not lawful for him to eat. |