No More Learning

iii. ): "The temptations of the devil assail those principally who
are sanctified, for he desires, above all, to overcome the holy. Hence
also it is written (Ecclus. 2): Son, when thou comest to the service of
God, stand in justice and in fear, and prepare thy soul for
temptation. "

Thirdly, in order to give us an example: to teach us, to wit, how to
overcome the temptations of the devil. Hence Augustine says (De Trin.
iv) that Christ "allowed Himself to be tempted" by the devil, "that He
might be our Mediator in overcoming temptations, not only by helping
us, but also by giving us an example. "

Fourthly, in order to fill us with confidence in His mercy. Hence it is
written (Heb. 4:15): "We have not a high-priest, who cannot have
compassion on our infirmities, but one tempted in all things like as we
are, without sin. "

Reply to Objection 1: As Augustine says (De Civ. Dei ix): "Christ was
known to the demons only so far as He willed; not as the Author of
eternal life, but as the cause of certain temporal effects," from which
they formed a certain conjecture that Christ was the Son of God. But
since they also observed in Him certain signs of human frailty, they
did not know for certain that He was the Son of God: wherefore (the
devil) wished to tempt Him. This is implied by the words of Mat. 4:2,3,
saying that, after "He was hungry, the tempter" came "to Him," because,
as Hilary says (Super Matth. , cap. iii), "Had not Christ's weakness in
hungering betrayed His human nature, the devil would not have dared to
tempt Him. " Moreover, this appears from the very manner of the
temptation, when he said: "If Thou be the Son of God. " Which words
Ambrose explains as follows (In Luc. iv): "What means this way of
addressing Him, save that, though he knew that the Son of God was to
come, yet he did not think that He had come in the weakness of the
flesh? "

Reply to Objection 2: Christ came to destroy the works of the devil,
not by powerful deeds, but rather by suffering from him and his
members, so as to conquer the devil by righteousness, not by power;
thus Augustine says (De Trin. xiii) that "the devil was to be overcome,
not by the power of God, but by righteousness. " And therefore in regard
to Christ's temptation we must consider what He did of His own will and
what He suffered from the devil. For that He allowed Himself to be
tempted was due to His own will. Wherefore it is written (Mat. 4:1):
"Jesus was led by the Spirit into the desert, to be tempted by the
devil"; and Gregory (Hom. xvi in Evang. ) says this is to be understood
of the Holy Ghost, to wit, that "thither did His Spirit lead Him, where
the wicked spirit would find Him and tempt Him. " But He suffered from
the devil in being "taken up" on to "the pinnacle of the Temple" and
again "into a very high mountain. " Nor is it strange, as Gregory
observes, "that He allowed Himself to be taken by him on to a mountain,
who allowed Himself to be crucified by His members. " And we understand
Him to have been taken up by the devil, not, as it were, by force, but
because, as Origen says (Hom. xxi super Luc. ), "He followed Him in the
course of His temptation like a wrestler advancing of his own accord. "

Reply to Objection 3: As the Apostle says (Heb. 4:15), Christ wished to
be "tempted in all things, without sin. " Now temptation which comes
from an enemy can be without sin: because it comes about by merely
outward suggestion. But temptation which comes from the flesh cannot be
without sin, because such a temptation is caused by pleasure and
concupiscence; and, as Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xix), "it is not
without sin that 'the flesh desireth against the spirit. '" And hence
Christ wished to be tempted by an enemy, but not by the flesh.
__________________________________________________________________

Whether Christ should have been tempted in the desert?

Objection 1: It would seem that Christ should not have been tempted in
the desert. Because Christ wished to be tempted in order to give us an
example, as stated above [4211](A[1]). But an example should be set
openly before those who are to follow it. Therefore He should not have
been tempted in the desert.

Objection 2: Further, Chrysostom says (Hom. xii in Matth. ): "Then most
especially does the devil assail by tempting us, when he sees us alone.
Thus did he tempt the woman in the beginning when he found her apart
from her husband. " Hence it seems that, by going into the desert to be
tempted, He exposed Himself to temptation. Since, therefore, His
temptation is an example to us, it seems that others too should take
such steps as will lead them into temptation. And yet this seems a
dangerous thing to do, since rather should we avoid the occasion of
being tempted.

Objection 3: Further, Mat. 4:5, Christ's second temptation is set down,
in which "the devil took" Christ up "into the Holy City, and set Him
upon the pinnacle of the Temple": which is certainly not in the desert.
Therefore He was not tempted in the desert only.

On the contrary, It is written (Mk. 1:13) that Jesus "was in the desert
forty days and forty nights, and was tempted by Satan. "

I answer that, As stated above (A[1], ad 2), Christ of His own
free-will exposed Himself to be tempted by the devil, just as by His
own free-will He submitted to be killed by His members; else the devil
would not have dared to approach Him. Now the devil prefers to assail a
man who is alone, for, as it is written (Eccles. 4:12), "if a man
prevail against one, two shall withstand him. " And so it was that
Christ went out into the desert, as to a field of battle, to be tempted
there by the devil. Hence Ambrose says on Lk. 4:1, that "Christ was led
into the desert for the purpose of provoking the devil. For had he,"
i. e. the devil, "not fought, He," i. e. Christ, "would not have
conquered. " He adds other reasons, saying that "Christ in doing this
set forth the mystery of Adam's delivery from exile," who had been
expelled from paradise into the desert, and "set an example to us, by
showing that the devil envies those who strive for better things. "

Reply to Objection 1: Christ is set as an example to all through faith,
according to Heb. 12:2: "Looking on Jesus, the author and finisher of
faith. " Now faith, as it is written (Rom. 10:17), "cometh by hearing,"
but not by seeing: nay, it is even said (Jn. 20:29): "Blessed are they
that have not seen and have believed. " And therefore, in order that
Christ's temptation might be an example to us, it behooved that men
should not see it, and it was enough that they should hear it related.

Reply to Objection 2: The occasions of temptation are twofold. one is
on the part of man---for instance, when a man causes himself to be near
to sin by not avoiding the occasion of sinning. And such occasions of
temptation should be avoided, as it is written of Lot (Gn. 19:17):
"Neither stay thou in all the country about" Sodom.

Another occasion of temptation is on the part of the devil, who always
"envies those who strive for better things," as Ambrose says (In Luc.
iv, 1). And such occasions of temptation are not to be avoided. Hence
Chrysostom says (Hom. v in Matth. [*From the supposititious Opus
Imperfectum]): "Not only Christ was led into the desert by the Spirit,
but all God's children that have the Holy Ghost. For it is not enough
for them to sit idle; the Holy Ghost urges them to endeavor to do
something great: which is for them to be in the desert from the devil's
standpoint, for no unrighteousness, in which the devil delights, is
there. Again, every good work, compared to the flesh and the world, is
the desert; because it is not according to the will of the flesh and of
the world. " Now, there is no danger in giving the devil such an
occasion of temptation; since the help of the Holy Ghost, who is the
Author of the perfect deed, is more powerful* than the assault of the
envious devil. [*All the codices read 'majus. ' One of the earliest
printed editions has 'magis,' which has much to commend it, since St.
Thomas is commenting the text quoted from St. Chrysostom. The
translation would run thus: 'since rather is it (the temptation) a help
from the Holy Ghost, who,' etc. ].

Reply to Objection 3: Some say that all the temptations took place in
the desert. Of these some say that Christ was led into the Holy City,
not really, but in an imaginary vision; while others say that the Holy
City itself, i. e. Jerusalem, is called "a desert," because it was
deserted by God. But there is no need for this explanation. For Mark
says that He was tempted in the desert by the devil, but not that He
was tempted in the desert only.
__________________________________________________________________

Whether Christ's temptation should have taken place after His fast?

Objection 1: It would seem that Christ's temptation should not have
taken place after His fast. For it has been said above ([4212]Q[40],
A[2]) that an austere mode of life was not becoming to Christ. But it
savors of extreme austerity that He should have eaten nothing for forty
days and forty nights, for Gregory (Hom. xvi inn Evang. ) explains the
fact that "He fasted forty days and forty nights," saying that "during
that time He partook of no food whatever. " It seems, therefore, that He
should not thus have fasted before His temptation.

Objection 2: Further, it is written (Mk. 1:13) that "He was in the
desert forty days and forty nights; and was tempted by Satan. " Now, He
fasted forty days and forty nights. Therefore it seems that He was
tempted by the devil, not after, but during, His fast.

Objection 3: Further, we read that Christ fasted but once. But He was
tempted by the devil, not only once, for it is written (Lk. 4:13) "that
all the temptation being ended, the devil departed from Him for a
time. " As, therefore, He did not fast before the second temptation, so
neither should He have fasted before the first.

On the contrary, It is written (Mat. 4:2,3): "When He had fasted forty
days and forty nights, afterwards He was hungry": and then "the tempter
came to Him. "

I answer that, It was becoming that Christ should wish to fast before
His temptation. First, in order to give us an example. For since we are
all in urgent need of strengthening ourselves against temptation, as
stated above [4213](A[1]), by fasting before being tempted, He teaches
us the need of fasting in order to equip ourselves against temptation.
Hence the Apostle (2 Cor. 6:5, 7) reckons "fastings" together with the
"armor of justice. "

Secondly, in order to show that the devil assails with temptations even
those who fast, as likewise those who are given to other good works.
And so Christ's temptation took place after His fast, as also after His
baptism. Hence since rather Chrysostom says (Hom. xiii super Matth. ):
"To instruct thee how great a good is fasting, and how it is a most
powerful shield against the devil; and that after baptism thou shouldst
give thyself up, not to luxury, but to fasting; for this cause Christ
fasted, not as needing it Himself, but as teaching us. "

Thirdly, because after the fast, hunger followed, which made the devil
dare to approach Him, as already stated (A[1], ad 1). Now, when "our
Lord was hungry," says Hilary (Super Matth. iii), "it was not because
He was overcome by want of food, but because He abandoned His manhood
to its nature. For the devil was to be conquered, not by God, but by
the flesh. " Wherefore Chrysostom too says: "He proceeded no farther
than Moses and Elias, lest His assumption of our flesh might seem
incredible. "

Reply to Objection 1: It was becoming for Christ not to adopt an
extreme form of austere life in order to show Himself outwardly in
conformity with those to whom He preached. Now, no one should take up
the office of preacher unless he be already cleansed and perfect in
virtue, according to what is said of Christ, that "Jesus began to do
and to teach" (Acts 1:1). Consequently, immediately after His baptism
Christ adopted an austere form of life, in order to teach us the need
of taming the flesh before passing on to the office of preaching,
according to the Apostle (1 Cor. 9:27): "I chastise my body, and bring
it into subjection, lest perhaps when I have preached to others, I
myself should become a castaway. "

Reply to Objection 2: These words of Mark may be understood as meaning
that "He was in the desert forty days and forty nights," and that He
fasted during that time: and the words, "and He was tempted by Satan,"
may be taken as referring, not to the time during which He fasted, but
to the time that followed: since Matthew says that "after He had fasted
forty days and forty nights, afterwards He was hungry," thus affording
the devil a pretext for approaching Him. And so the words that follow,
and the angels ministered to Him, are to be taken in sequence, which is
clear from the words of Matthew (4:11): "Then the devil left Him," i. e.
after the temptation, "and behold angels came and ministered to Him. "
And as to the words inserted by Mark, "and He was with the beasts,"
according to Chrysostom (Hom. xiii in Matth. ), they are set down in
order to describe the desert as being impassable to man and full of
beasts.

On the other hand, according to Bede's exposition of Mk. 1:12,13, our
Lord was tempted forty days and forty nights. But this is not to be
understood of the visible temptations which are related by Matthew and
Luke, and occurred after the fast, but of certain other assaults which
perhaps Christ suffered from the devil during that time of His fast.

Reply to Objection 3: As Ambrose says on Lk. 4:13, the devil departed
from Christ "for a time, because, later on, he returned, not to tempt
Him, but to assail Him openly"---namely, at the time of His Passion.
Nevertheless, He seemed in this later assault to tempt Christ to
dejection and hatred of His neighbor; just as in the desert he had
tempted Him to gluttonous pleasure and idolatrous contempt of God.
__________________________________________________________________

Whether the mode and order of the temptation were becoming?

Objection 1: It would seem that the mode and order of the temptation
were unbecoming. For the devil tempts in order to induce us to sin. But
if Christ had assuaged His bodily hunger by changing the stones into
bread, He would not have sinned; just as neither did He sin when He
multiplied the loaves, which was no less a miracle, in order to succor
the hungry crowd. Therefore it seems that this was nowise a temptation.

Objection 2: Further, a counselor is inconsistent if he persuades the
contrary to what he intends. But when the devil set Christ on a
pinnacle of the Temple, he purposed to tempt Him to pride or vainglory.
Therefore it was inconsistent to urge Him to cast Himself thence: for
this would be contrary to pride or vainglory, which always seeks to
rise.

Objection 3: Further, one temptation should lead to one sin. But in the
temptation on the mountain he counseled two sins---namely, covetousness
and idolatry. Therefore the mode of the temptation was unfitting.

Objection 4: Further, temptations are ordained to sin. But there are
seven deadly sins, as we have stated in the [4214]FS, Q[84], A[4]. But
the tempter only deals with three, viz. gluttony, vainglory, and
covetousness. Therefore the temptation seems to have been incomplete.

Objection 5: Further, after overcoming all the vices, man is still
tempted to pride or vainglory: since pride "worms itself in stealthily,
and destroys even good works," as Augustine says (Ep. ccxi). Therefore
Matthew unfittingly gives the last place to the temptation to
covetousness on the mountain, and the second place to the temptation to
vainglory in the Temple, especially since Luke puts them in the reverse
order.

Objection 6: Further, Jerome says on Mat. 4:4 that "Christ purposed to
overcome the devil by humility, not by might. " Therefore He should not
have repulsed him with a haughty rebuke, saying: "Begone, Satan. "

Objection 7: Further, the gospel narrative seems to be false. For it
seems impossible that Christ could have been set on a pinnacle of the
Temple without being seen by others. Nor is there to be found a
mountain so high that all the world can be seen from it, so that all
the kingdoms of the earth could be shown to Christ from its summit. It
seems, therefore, that Christ's temptation is unfittingly described.

On the contrary is the authority of Scripture.

I answer that, The temptation which comes from the enemy takes the form
of a suggestion, as Gregory says (Hom. xvi in Evang. ). Now a suggestion
cannot be made to everybody in the same way; it must arise from those
things towards which each one has an inclination. Consequently the
devil does not straight away tempt the spiritual man to grave sins, but
he begins with lighter sins, so as gradually to lead him to those of
greater magnitude. Wherefore Gregory (Moral. xxxi), expounding Job
39:25, "He smelleth the battle afar off, the encouraging of the
captains and the shouting of the army," says: "The captains are
fittingly described as encouraging, and the army as shouting. Because
vices begin by insinuating themselves into the mind under some specious
pretext: then they come on the mind in such numbers as to drag it into
all sorts of folly, deafening it with their bestial clamor. "

Thus, too, did the devil set about the temptation of the first man. For
at first he enticed his mind to consent to the eating of the forbidden
fruit, saying (Gn. 3:1): "Why hath God commanded you that you should
not eat of every tree of paradise? " Secondly [he tempted him] to
vainglory by saying: "Your eyes shall be opened. " Thirdly, he led the
temptation to the extreme height of pride, saying: "You shall be as
gods, knowing good and evil. " This same order did he observe in
tempting Christ. For at first he tempted Him to that which men desire,
however spiritual they may be---namely, the support of the corporeal
nature by food. Secondly, he advanced to that matter in which spiritual
men are sometimes found wanting, inasmuch as they do certain things for
show, which pertains to vainglory. Thirdly, he led the temptation on to
that in which no spiritual men, but only carnal men, have a
part---namely, to desire worldly riches and fame, to the extent of
holding God in contempt. And so in the first two temptations he said:
"If Thou be the Son of God"; but not in the third, which is
inapplicable to spiritual men, who are sons of God by adoption, whereas
it does apply to the two preceding temptations.

And Christ resisted these temptations by quoting the authority of the
Law, not by enforcing His power, "so as to give more honor to His human
nature and a greater punishment to His adversary, since the foe of the
human race was vanquished, not as by God, but as by man"; as Pope Leo
says (Serm. 1, De Quadrag. 3).

Reply to Objection 1: To make use of what is needful for self-support
is not the sin of gluttony; but if a man do anything inordinate out of
the desire for such support, it can pertain to the sin of gluttony. Now
it is inordinate for a man who has human assistance at his command to
seek to obtain food miraculously for mere bodily support. Hence the
Lord miraculously provided the children of Israel with manna in the
desert, where there was no means of obtaining food otherwise. And in
like fashion Christ miraculously provided the crowds with food in the
desert, when there was no other means of getting food.
But in order to
assuage His hunger, He could have done otherwise than work a miracle,
as did John the Baptist, according to Matthew (3:4); or He could have
hastened to the neighboring country. Consequently the devil esteemed
that if Christ was a mere man, He would fall into sin by attempting to
assuage His hunger by a miracle.

Reply to Objection 2: It often happens that a man seeks to derive glory
from external humiliation, whereby he is exalted by reason of spiritual
good. Hence Augustine says (De Serm. Dom. in Monte ii, 12): "It must be
noted that it is possible to boast not only of the beauty and splendor
of material things, but even of filthy squalor. " And this is signified
by the devil urging Christ to seek spiritual glory by casting His body
down.

Reply to Objection 3: It is a sin to desire worldly riches and honors
in an inordinate fashion. And the principal sign of this is when a man
does something wrong in order to acquire such things. And so the devil
was not satisfied with instigating to a desire for riches and honors,
but he went so far as to tempt Christ, for the sake of gaining
possession of these things, to fall down and adore him, which is a very
great crime, and against God. Nor does he say merely, "if Thou wilt
adore me," but he adds, "if, falling down"; because, as Ambrose says on
Lk. 4:5: "Ambition harbors yet another danger within itself: for, while
seeking to rule, it will serve; it will bow in submission that it may
be crowned with honor; and the higher it aims, the lower it abases
itself. "

In like manner [the devil] in the preceding temptations tried to lead
[Christ] from the desire of one sin to the commission of another; thus
from the desire of food he tried to lead Him to the vanity of the
needless working of a miracle; and from the desire of glory to tempt
God by casting Himself headlong.

Reply to Objection 4: As Ambrose says on Lk. 4:13, Scripture would not
have said that "'all the temptation being ended, the devil departed
from Him,' unless the matter of all sins were included in the three
temptations already related. For the causes of temptations are the
causes of desires"---namely, "lust of the flesh, hope of glory,
eagerness for power. "

Reply to Objection 5: As Augustine says (De Consensu Evang. ii): "It is
not certain which happened first; whether the kingdoms of the earth
were first shown to Him, and afterwards He was set on the pinnacle of
the Temple; or the latter first, and the former afterwards. However, it
matters not, provided it be made clear that all these things did take
place. " It may be that the Evangelists set these things in different
orders, because sometimes cupidity arises from vainglory, sometimes the
reverse happens.

Reply to Objection 6: When Christ had suffered the wrong of being
tempted by the devil saying, "If Thou be the Son of God cast Thyself
down," He was not troubled, nor did He upbraid the devil. But when the
devil usurped to himself the honor due to God, saying, "All these
things will I give Thee, if, falling down, Thou wilt adore me," He was
exasperated, and repulsed him, saying, "Begone, Satan": that we might
learn from His example to bear bravely insults leveled at ourselves,
but not to allow ourselves so much as to listen to those which are
aimed at God.

Reply to Objection 7: As Chrysostom says (Hom. v in Matth. ): "The devil
set Him" (on a pinnacle of the Temple) "that He might be seen by all,
whereas, unawares to the devil, He acted in such sort that He was seen
by none. "

In regard to the words, "'He showed Him all the kingdoms of the world,
and the glory of them,' we are not to understand that He saw the very
kingdoms, with the cities and inhabitants, their gold and silver: but
that the devil pointed out the quarters in which each kingdom or city
lay, and set forth to Him in words their glory and estate. " Or, again,
as Origen says (Hom. xxx in Luc. ), "he showed Him how, by means of the
various vices, he was the lord of the world. "
__________________________________________________________________

OF CHRIST'S DOCTRINE (FOUR ARTICLES)

We have now to consider Christ's doctrine, about which there are four
points of inquiry:

(1) Whether Christ should have preached to the Jews only, or to the
Gentiles also?

(2) Whether in preaching He should have avoided the opposition of the
Jews?

(3) Whether He should have preached in an open or in a hidden manner?

(4) Whether He should have preached by word only, or also by writing?

Concerning the time when He began to teach, we have spoken above when
treating of His baptism (Q[29], A[3]).
__________________________________________________________________

Whether Christ should have preached not only to the Jews, but also to the
Gentiles?

Objection 1: It would seem that Christ should have preached not only to
the Jews, but also to the Gentiles. For it is written (Is. 49:6): "It
is a small thing that thou shouldst be My servant to raise up the
tribes of Israel [Vulg. : 'Jacob'] and to convert the dregs of Jacob
[Vulg. : 'Israel']: behold, I have given thee to be the light of the
Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation even to the farthest part of
the earth. " But Christ gave light and salvation through His doctrine.
Therefore it seems that it was "a small thing" that He preached to Jews
alone, and not to the Gentiles.

Objection 2: Further, as it is written (Mat. 7:29): "He was teaching
them as one having power. " Now the power of doctrine is made more
manifest in the instruction of those who, like the Gentiles, have
received no tidings whatever; hence the Apostle says (Rom. 15:20): "I
have so preached the [Vulg. : 'this'] gospel, not where Christ was
named, lest I should build upon another man's foundation. " Therefore
much rather should Christ have preached to the Gentiles than to the
Jews.

Objection 3: Further, it is more useful to instruct many than one. But
Christ instructed some individual Gentiles, such as the Samaritan woman
(Jn. 4) and the Chananaean woman (Mat. 15). Much more reason,
therefore, was there for Christ to preach to the Gentiles in general.

On the contrary, our Lord said (Mat. 15:24): "I was not sent but to the
sheep that are lost of the house of Israel. " And (Rom. 10:15) it is
written: "How shall they preach unless they be sent? " Therefore Christ
should not have preached to the Gentiles.

I answer that, It was fitting that Christ's preaching, whether through
Himself or through His apostles, should be directed at first to the
Jews alone. First, in order to show that by His coming the promises
were fulfilled which had been made to the Jews of old, and not to the
Gentiles. Thus the Apostle says (Rom. 15:8): "I say that Christ . . .
was minister of the circumcision," i. e. the apostle and preacher of the
Jews, "for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the
fathers. "

Secondly, in order to show that His coming was of God; because, as is
written Rom. 13:1: "Those things which are of God are well ordered
[Vulg. : 'those that are, are ordained of God']" [*See Scriptural Index
on this passage]. Now the right order demanded that the doctrine of
Christ should be made known first to the Jews, who, by believing in and
worshiping one God, were nearer to God, and that it should be
transmitted through them to the Gentiles: just as in the heavenly
hierarchy the Divine enlightenment comes to the lower angels through
the higher. Hence on Mat. 15:24, "I was not sent but to the sheep that
are lost in the house of Israel," Jerome says: "He does not mean by
this that He was not sent to the Gentiles, but that He was sent to the
Jews first. " And so we read (Is. 66:19): "I will send of them that
shall be saved," i. e. of the Jews, "to the Gentiles . . . and they
shall declare My glory unto the Gentiles. "

Thirdly, in order to deprive the Jews of ground for quibbling. Hence on
Mat. 10:5, "Go ye not into the way of the Gentiles. " Jerome says: "It
behooved Christ's coming to be announced to the Jews first, lest they
should have a valid excuse, and say that they had rejected our Lord
because He had sent His apostles to the Gentiles and Samaritans. "

Fourthly, because it was through the triumph of the cross that Christ
merited power and lordship over the Gentiles. Hence it is written
(Apoc. 2:26, 28): "He that shall overcome . . . I will give him power
over the nations . . . as I also have received of My Father"; and that
because He became "obedient unto the death of the cross, God hath
exalted Him . . . that in the name of Jesus every knee should bow . .
. " and that "every tongue should confess Him" (Phil. 2:8-11).
Consequently He did not wish His doctrine to be preached to the
Gentiles before His Passion: it was after His Passion that He said to
His disciples (Mat. 28:19): "Going, teach ye all nations. " For this
reason it was that when, shortly before His Passion, certain Gentiles
wished to see Jesus, He said: "Unless the grain of wheat falling into
the ground dieth, itself remaineth alone: but if it die it bringeth
forth much fruit" (Jn. 12:20-25); and as Augustine says, commenting on
this passage: "He called Himself the grain of wheat that must be
mortified by the unbelief of the Jews, multiplied by the faith of the
nations. "

Reply to Objection 1: Christ was given to be the light and salvation of
the Gentiles through His disciples, whom He sent to preach to them.

Reply to Objection 2: It is a sign, not of lesser, but of greater power
to do something by means of others rather than by oneself. And thus the
Divine power of Christ was specially shown in this, that He bestowed on
the teaching of His disciples such a power that they converted the
Gentiles to Christ, although these had heard nothing of Him.

Now the power of Christ's teaching is to be considered in the miracles
by which He confirmed His doctrine, in the efficacy of His persuasion,
and in the authority of His words, for He spoke as being Himself above
the Law when He said: "But I say to you" (Mat. 5:22,28,32,34,39,44);
and, again, in the force of His righteousness shown in His sinless
manner of life.

Reply to Objection 3: Just as it was unfitting that Christ should at
the outset make His doctrine known to the Gentiles equally with the
Jews, in order that He might appear as being sent to the Jews, as to
the first-born people; so neither was it fitting for Him to neglect the
Gentiles altogether, lest they should be deprived of the hope of
salvation. For this reason certain individual Gentiles were admitted,
on account of the excellence of their faith and devotedness.
__________________________________________________________________

Whether Christ should have preached to the Jews without offending them?

Objection 1: It would seem that Christ should have preached to the Jews
without offending them. For, as Augustine says (De Agone Christ. xi):
"In the Man Jesus Christ, a model of life is given us by the Son of
God. " But we should avoid offending not only the faithful, but even
unbelievers, according to 1 Cor. 10:32: "Be without offense to the
Jews, and to the Gentiles, and to the Church of God. " Therefore it
seems that, in His teaching, Christ should also have avoided giving
offense to the Jews.

Objection 2: Further, no wise man should do anything that will hinder
the result of his labor. Now through the disturbance which His teaching
occasioned among the Jews, it was deprived of its results; for it is
written (Lk. 11:53,54) that when our Lord reproved the Pharisees and
Scribes, they "began vehemently to urge Him, end to oppress His mouth
about many things; lying in wait for Him, and seeking to catch
something from His mouth, that they might accuse Him. " It seems
therefore unfitting that He should have given them offense by His
teaching.

Objection 3: Further, the Apostle says (1 Tim. 5:1): "An ancient man
rebuke not; but entreat him as a father. " But the priests and princes
of the Jews were the elders of that people. Therefore it seems that
they should not have been rebuked with severity.

On the contrary, It was foretold (Is. 8:14) that Christ would be "for a
stone of stumbling and for a rock of offense to the two houses of
Israel. "

I answer that, The salvation of the multitude is to be preferred to the
peace of any individuals whatsoever. Consequently, when certain ones,
by their perverseness, hinder the salvation of the multitude, the
preacher and the teacher should not fear to offend those men, in order
that he may insure the salvation of the multitude. Now the Scribes and
Pharisees and the princes of the Jews were by their malice a
considerable hindrance to the salvation of the people, both because
they opposed themselves to Christ's doctrine, which was the only way to
salvation, and because their evil ways corrupted the morals of the
people. For which reason our Lord, undeterred by their taking offense,
publicly taught the truth which they hated, and condemned their vices.
Hence we read (Mat. 15:12, 14) that when the disciples of our Lord
said: "Dost Thou know that the Pharisees, when they heard this word,
were scandalized? " He answered: "Let them alone: they are blind and
leaders of the blind; and if the blind lead the blind, both fall into
the pit. "

Reply to Objection 1: A man ought so to avoid giving offense, as
neither by wrong deed or word to be the occasion of anyone's downfall.
"But if scandal arise from truth, the scandal should be borne rather
than the truth be set aside," as Gregory says (Hom. vii in Ezech. ).

Reply to Objection 2: By publicly reproving the Scribes and Pharisees,
Christ promoted rather than hindered the effect of His teaching.
Because when the people came to know the vices of those men, they were
less inclined to be prejudiced against Christ by hearing what was said
of Him by the Scribes and Pharisees, who were ever withstanding His
doctrine.

Reply to Objection 3: This saying of the Apostle is to be understood of
those elders whose years are reckoned not only in age and authority,
but also in probity; according to Num. 11:16: "Gather unto Me seventy
men of the ancients of Israel, whom thou knowest to be ancients . . .
of the people. " But if by sinning openly they turn the authority of
their years into an instrument of wickedness, they should be rebuked
openly and severely, as also Daniel says (Dan. 13:52): "O thou that art
grown old in evil days," etc.
__________________________________________________________________

Whether Christ should have taught all things openly?

Objection 1: It would seem that Christ should not have taught all
things openly. For we read that He taught many things to His disciples
apart: as is seen clearly in the sermon at the Supper. Wherefore He
said: "That which you heard in the ear in the chambers shall be
preached on the housetops" [*St. Thomas, probably quoting from memory,
combines Mat. 10:27 with Lk. 12:3]. Therefore He did not teach all
things openly.

Objection 2: Further, the depths of wisdom should not be expounded save
to the perfect, according to 1 Cor. 2:6: "We speak wisdom among the
perfect. " Now Christ's doctrine contained the most profound wisdom.
Therefore it should not have been made known to the imperfect crowd.

Objection 3: Further, it comes to the same, to hide the truth, whether
by saying nothing or by making use of a language that is difficult to
understand. Now Christ, by speaking to the multitudes a language they
would not understand, hid from them the truth that He preached; since
"without parables He did not speak to them" (Mat. 13:34). In the same
way, therefore, He could have hidden it from them by saying nothing at
all.

On the contrary, He says Himself (Jn. 18:20): "In secret I have spoken
nothing. "

I answer that, Anyone's doctrine may be hidden in three ways. First, on
the part of the intention of the teacher, who does not wish to make his
doctrine known to many, but rather to hide it. And this may happen in
two ways---sometimes through envy on the part of the teacher, who
desires to excel in his knowledge, wherefore he is unwilling to
communicate it to others. But this was not the case with Christ, in
whose person the following words are spoken (Wis. 7:13): "Which I have
learned without guile, and communicate without envy, and her riches I
hide not. " But sometimes this happens through the vileness of the
things taught; thus Augustine says on Jn. 16:12: "There are some things
so bad that no sort of human modesty can bear them. " Wherefore of
heretical doctrine it is written (Prov. 9:17): "Stolen waters are
sweeter. " Now, Christ's doctrine is "not of error nor of uncleanness"
(1 Thess. 2:3). Wherefore our Lord says (Mk. 4:21): "Doth a candle,"
i. e. true and pure doctrine, "come in to be put under a bushel? "

Secondly, doctrine is hidden because it is put before few. And thus,
again, did Christ teach nothing in secret: for He propounded His entire
doctrine either to the whole crowd or to His disciples gathered
together. Hence Augustine says on Jn. 18:20: "How can it be said that
He speaks in secret when He speaks before so many men? . . . especially
if what He says to few He wishes through them to be made known to
many? "

Thirdly, doctrine is hidden, as to the manner in which it is
propounded. And thus Christ spoke certain things in secret to the
crowds, by employing parables in teaching them spiritual mysteries
which they were either unable or unworthy to grasp: and yet it was
better for them to be instructed in the knowledge of spiritual things,
albeit hidden under the garb of parables, than to be deprived of it
altogether. Nevertheless our Lord expounded the open and unveiled truth
of these parables to His disciples, so that they might hand it down to
others worthy of it; according to 2 Tim. 2:2: "The things which thou
hast heard of me by many witnesses, the same command to faithful men,
who shall be fit to teach others. " This is foreshadowed, Num. 4, where
the sons of Aaron are commanded to wrap up the sacred vessels that were
to be carried by the Levites.

Reply to Objection 1: As Hilary says, commenting on the passage quoted,
"we do not read that our Lord was wont to preach at night, and expound
His doctrine in the dark: but He says this because His speech is
darkness to the carnal-minded, and His words are night to the
unbeliever. His meaning, therefore, is that whatever He said we also
should say in the midst of unbelievers, by openly believing and
professing it. "

Or, according to Jerome, He speaks comparatively---that is to say,
because He was instructing them in Judea, which was a small place
compared with the whole world, where Christ's doctrine was to be
published by the preaching of the apostles.

Reply to Objection 2: By His doctrine our Lord did not make known all
the depths of His wisdom, neither to the multitudes, nor, indeed, to
His disciples, to whom He said (Jn. 16:12): "I have yet many things to
say to you, but you cannot bear them now. " Yet whatever things out of
His wisdom He judged it right to make known to others, He expounded,
not in secret, but openly; although He was not understood by all.