Tertia Pars · The Life of Christ

Of Christ's Doctrine

III, q. 42 · Four articles

Prooemium · Thomas's plan for this question

Deinde considerandum est de doctrina Christi. Et circa hoc quaeruntur quatuor. Primo, utrum Christus debuerit praedicare solum Iudaeis, vel etiam gentibus. Secundo, utrum in sua praedicatione debuerit turbationes Iudaeorum vitare. Tertio, utrum debuerit praedicare publice, vel occulte. Quarto, utrum solum debuerit docere verbo, vel etiam scripto. De tempore autem quo docere incoepit, supra dictum est, cum de Baptismo eius ageretur.

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).

  1. 1 Whether Christ Should Have Preached Not Only to the Jews, but Also to the Gentiles?
  2. 2 Whether Christ Should Have Preached to the Jews Without Offending Them?
  3. 3 Whether Christ Should Have Taught All Things Openly?
  4. 4 Whether Christ Should Have Committed His Doctrine to Writing?

Articulus I

Whether Christ Should Have Preached Not Only to the Jews, but Also to the Gentiles?

Arg. 1 Objection 1

Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod Christus non solum Iudaeis, sed etiam gentibus debuerit praedicare. Dicitur enim Isaiae XLIX, parum est ut sis mihi servus ad suscitandas tribus Israel et faeces Iacob convertendas, dedi te in lucem gentium, ut sis salus mea usque ad extrema terrae. Sed lumen et salutem Christus praebuit per suam doctrinam. Ergo videtur parum fuisse si solum Iudaeis, et non gentibus praedicavit.

It would seem that Christ should have preached not only to the Jews, but also to the Gentiles. For it is written (Isa. 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.

Arg. 2 Objection 2

Praeterea, sicut dicitur Matth. VII, erat docens eos sicut potestatem habens. Sed maior potestas doctrinae ostenditur in instructione illorum qui penitus nihil audierunt, quales erant gentiles, unde apostolus dicit, Rom. XV, sic praedicavi Evangelium, non ubi nominatus est Christus, ne super alienum fundamentum aedificarem. Ergo multo magis Christus praedicare debuit gentilibus quam Iudaeis.

Further, as it is written (Matt. 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.

Arg. 3 Objection 3

Praeterea, utilior est instructio multorum quam unius. Sed Christus aliquos gentilium instruxit, sicut mulierem Samaritanam, Ioan. IV, et Chananaeam, Matth. XV. Ergo videtur quod, multo fortius, Christus debuerit multitudini gentium praedicare.

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

Sed contra On the contrary

Sed contra est quod dominus dicit, Matth. XV, non sum missus nisi ad oves quae perierunt domus Israel. Sed Rom. X dicitur, quomodo praedicabunt nisi mittantur? Ergo Christus non debuit praedicare gentibus.

On the contrary, our Lord said (Matt. 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.

Respondeo I answer that

Respondeo dicendum quod conveniens fuit praedicationem Christi, tam per ipsum quam per apostolos, a principio solis Iudaeis exhiberi. Primo quidem, ut ostenderet per suum adventum impleri promissiones antiquitus factas Iudaeis, non autem gentilibus. Unde apostolus dicit, Rom. XV, dico Christum ministrum fuisse circumcisionis, idest apostolum et praedicatorem Iudaeorum, propter veritatem Dei, ad confirmandas promissiones patrum. Secundo, ut eius adventus ostenderetur esse a Deo. Quae enim a Deo sunt, ordinata sunt, ut dicitur Rom. XIII. Hoc autem debitus ordo exigebat, ut Iudaeis, qui Deo erant propinquiores per fidem et cultum unius Dei, prius quidem doctrina Christi proponeretur, et per eos transmitteretur ad gentes, sicut etiam et in caelesti hierarchia per superiores Angelos ad inferiores divinae illuminationes deveniunt. Unde super illud Matth. XV, non sum missus nisi ad oves quae perierunt domus Israel, dicit Hieronymus, non hoc dicit quin ad gentes missus sit, sed quod primum ad Israel missus est. Unde et Isaiae ult. dicitur, mittam ex eis qui salvati fuerint, scilicet ex Iudaeis, ad gentes, et annuntiabunt gloriam meam gentibus. Tertio, ut Iudaeis auferret calumniandi materiam. Unde super illud Matth. X, in viam gentium ne abieritis, dicit Hieronymus, oportebat primum adventum Christi nuntiari Iudaeis, ne iustam haberent excusationem, dicentes ideo se dominum reiecisse, quia ad gentes et Samaritanos apostolos miserit. Quarto, quia Christus per crucis victoriam meruit potestatem et dominium super gentes. Unde dicitur Apoc. II, qui vicerit, dabo ei potestatem super gentes, sicut et ego accepi a patre meo. Et Philipp. II, quod, quia factus est obediens usque ad mortem crucis, Deus exaltavit illum, ut in nomine Iesu omne genu flectatur, et omnis lingua ei confiteatur. Et ideo ante passionem suam noluit gentibus praedicari suam doctrinam, sed post passionem suam dixit discipulis, Matth. ult., euntes, docete omnes gentes. Propter quod, ut legitur Ioan. XII, cum, imminente passione, quidam gentiles vellent videre Iesum, respondit, nisi granum frumenti cadens in terram mortuum fuerit, ipsum solum manet, si autem mortuum fuerit, multum fructum affert. Et, sicut Augustinus dicit ibidem, se dicebat granum mortificandum in infidelitate Iudaeorum, multiplicandum in fide populorum.

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']." 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 Matt. 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 (Isa. 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 Matt. 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 (Matt. 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" (John 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."

Ad 1 Reply to Objection 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod Christus fuit in lumen et salutem gentium per discipulos suos, quos ad praedicandum gentibus misit.

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

Ad 2 Reply to Objection 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod non est minoris potestatis, sed maioris, facere aliquid per alios, quam per seipsum. Et ideo in hoc maxime potestas divina in Christo monstrata est, quod discipulis suis tantam virtutem contulit in docendo, ut gentes, quae nihil de Christo audierant, converterent ad ipsum. Potestas autem Christi in docendo attenditur et quantum ad miracula, per quae doctrinam suam confirmabat; et quantum ad efficaciam persuadendi; et quantum ad auctoritatem loquentis, quia loquebatur quasi dominium habens super legem, cum diceret, ego autem dico vobis; et etiam quantum ad virtutem rectitudinis quam in sua conversatione monstrabat, sine peccato vivendo.

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" (Matt. 5:22, 28, 32, 34, 39, 44); and, again, in the force of His righteousness shown in His sinless manner of life.

Ad 3 Reply to Objection 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod, sicut Christus non debuit a principio indifferenter gentilibus suam doctrinam communicare, ut Iudaeis tanquam primogenito populo deditus observaretur; ita etiam non debuit gentiles omnino repellere, ne spes salutis eis praecluderetur. Et propter hoc aliqui gentilium particulariter sunt admissi, propter excellentiam fidei et devotionis eorum.

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.

Articulus II

Whether Christ Should Have Preached to the Jews Without Offending Them?

Arg. 1 Objection 1

Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod Christus debuerit Iudaeis sine eorum offensione praedicare. Quia, ut Augustinus dicit, in libro de agone Christiano, in homine Iesu Christo se nobis ad exemplum vitae praebuit filius Dei. Sed nos debemus vitare offensionem, non solum fidelium, sed etiam infidelium, secundum illud I Cor. X, sine offensione estote Iudaeis et gentibus et Ecclesiae Dei. Ergo videtur quod etiam Christus in sua doctrina offensionem Iudaeorum vitare debuerit.

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.

Arg. 2 Objection 2

Praeterea, nullus sapiens debet facere unde effectum sui operis impediat. Sed per hoc quod sua doctrina Christus Iudaeos turbavit, impediebatur effectus doctrinae eius, dicitur enim Luc. XI, quod, cum dominus Pharisaeos et Scribas reprehenderet, coeperunt graviter insistere, et os eius opprimere de multis, insidiantes ei et quaerentes aliquid capere ex ore eius ut accusarent eum. Non ergo videtur conveniens fuisse quod eos in sua doctrina offenderet.

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 (Luke 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.

Arg. 3 Objection 3

Praeterea, apostolus dicit, I Tim. V, seniorem ne increpaveris, sed obsecra ut patrem. Sed sacerdotes et principes Iudaeorum erant illius populi seniores. Ergo videtur quod non fuerint duris increpationibus arguendi.

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.

Sed contra On the contrary

Sed contra est quod Isaiae VIII fuerat prophetatum quod Christus esset in lapidem offensionis et petram scandali duabus dominus Israel.

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

Respondeo I answer that

Respondeo dicendum quod salus multitudinis est praeferenda paci quorumcumque singularium hominum. Et ideo, quando aliqui sua perversitate multitudinis salutem impediunt, non est timenda eorum offensio a praedicatore vel doctore, ad hoc quod multitudinis saluti provideat. Scribae autem et Pharisaei et principes Iudaeorum sui malitia plurimum impediebant populi salutem, tum quia repugnabant Christi doctrinae, per quam solam poterat esse salus; tum etiam quia pravis suis moribus vitam populi corrumpebant. Et ideo dominus, non obstante offensione eorum, publice veritatem docebat, quam illi odiebant, et eorum vitia arguebat. Et ideo dicitur, Matth. XV, quod, discipulis domino dicentibus, scis quia Iudaei, audito hoc verbo, scandalizati sunt? Respondit, sinite illos. Caeci sunt duces caecorum. Si caecus caeco ducatum praestet, ambo in foveam cadunt.

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 (Matt. 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."

Ad 1 Reply to Objection 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod homo sic debet esse sine offensione omnibus ut nulli det suo facto vel dicto minus recto occasionem ruinae. Si tamen de veritate scandalum oritur, magis est sustinendum scandalum quam veritas relinquatur, ut Gregorius dicit.

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.).

Ad 2 Reply to Objection 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod per hoc quod Christus publice Scribas et Pharisaeos arguebat, non impedivit, sed magis promovit effectum suae doctrinae. Quia cum eorum vitia populo innotescebant, minus avertebatur a Christo propter verba Scribarum et Pharisaeorum, qui semper doctrinae Christi obsistebant.

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.

Ad 3 Reply to Objection 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod illud verbum apostoli est intelligendum de illis senioribus qui non solum aetate vel auctoritate, sed etiam honestate sunt senes, secundum illud Num. XI, congrega mihi septuaginta viros de senioribus Israel, quos tu nosti quod senes populi sint. Si autem auctoritatem senectutis in instrumentum malitiae vertant publice peccando, sunt manifeste et acriter arguendi, sicut et Daniel dixit, Dan. XIII, inveterate dierum malorum, et cetera.

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.

Articulus III

Whether Christ Should Have Taught All Things Openly?

Arg. 1 Objection 1

Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod Christus non omnia publice docere debuit. Legitur enim multa seorsum discipulis dixisse, sicut patet in sermone caenae. Unde et Matth. X dixit, quod in aure audistis in cubilibus, praedicabitur in tectis. Non ergo omnia publice docuit.

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 Matt. 10:27 with Luke 12:3]. Therefore He did not teach all things openly.

Arg. 2 Objection 2

Praeterea, profunda sapientiae non sunt nisi perfectis exponenda, secundum illud I Cor. II, sapientiam loquimur inter perfectos. Sed doctrina Christi continebat profundissimam sapientiam. Non ergo erat imperfectae multitudini communicanda.

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.

Arg. 3 Objection 3

Praeterea, idem est veritatem aliquam occultare silentio, et obscuritate verborum. Sed Christus veritatem quam praedicabat, occultabat turbis obscuritate verborum, quia sine parabolis non loquebatur ad eos, ut dicitur Matth. XIII. Ergo pari ratione poterat occultari silentio.

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" (Matt. 13:34). In the same way, therefore, He could have hidden it from them by saying nothing at all.

Sed contra On the contrary

Sed contra est quod ipse dicit, Ioan. XVIII, in occulto locutus sum nihil.

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

Respondeo I answer that

Respondeo dicendum quod doctrina alicuius potest esse in occulto tripliciter. Uno modo, quantum ad intentionem docentis, qui intendit suam doctrinam non manifestare multis, sed magis occultare. Quod quidem contingit dupliciter. Quandoque ex invidia docentis, qui vult per suam scientiam excellere, et ideo scientiam suam non vult aliis communicare. Quod in Christo locum non habuit, ex cuius persona dicitur, Sap. VII, quam sine fictione didici, et sine invidia communico, et honestatem illius non abscondo. Quandoque vero hoc contingit propter inhonestatem eorum quae docentur, sicut Augustinus dicit, super Ioan., quod quaedam sunt mala quae portare non potest qualiscumque pudor humanus. Unde de doctrina haereticorum dicitur, Prov. IX, aquae furtivae dulciores sunt. Doctrina autem Christi non est neque de errore neque de immunditia. Et ideo dominus dicit, Marci IV, nunquid venit lucerna, idest vera et honesta doctrina, ut sub modio ponatur? Alio modo aliqua doctrina est in occulto, quia paucis proponitur. Et sic etiam Christus nihil docuit in occulto, quia omnem doctrinam suam vel turbae toti proposuit, vel omnibus suis discipulis in communi. Unde Augustinus dicit, super Ioan., quis in occulto loquitur, cum coram tot hominibus loquitur? Praesertim si hoc loquitur paucis, quod per eos velit innotescere multis? Tertio modo aliqua doctrina est in occulto, quantum ad modum docendi. Et sic Christus quaedam turbis loquebatur in occulto, parabolis utens ad annuntianda spiritualia mysteria, ad quae capienda non erant idonei vel digni. Et tamen melius erat eis vel sic, sub tegumento parabolarum, spiritualium doctrinam audire, quam omnino ea privari. Harum tamen parabolarum apertam et nudam veritatem dominus discipulis exponebat, per quos deveniret ad alios, qui essent idonei, secundum illud II Tim. II, quae audisti a me per multos testes, haec commenda fidelibus hominibus, qui idonei erunt et alios docere. Et hoc significatum est Num. IV, ubi mandatur quod filii Aaron involverent vasa sanctuarii, quae Levitae involuta portarent.

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 John 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 John 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.

Ad 1 Reply to Objection 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, sicut Hilarius dicit, super Matth., exponens illud verbum inductum, non legimus dominum solitum fuisse noctibus sermocinari, et doctrinam in tenebris tradidisse, sed hoc dicit, quia omnis sermo eius carnalibus tenebrae sunt, et verbum eius infidelibus nox est. Itaque quod ab eo dictum est, inter infideles cum libertate fidei et confessionis est loquendum. Vel, secundum Hieronymum, comparative loquitur, quia videlicet erudiebat eos in parvo Iudaeae loco, respectu totius mundi, in quo erat per apostolorum praedicationem doctrina Christi publicanda.

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.

Ad 2 Reply to Objection 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod dominus non omnia profunda suae sapientiae sua doctrina manifestavit, non solum turbis, sed nec etiam discipulis, quibus dixit, Ioan. XVI, adhuc habeo vobis multa dicere, quae non potestis portare modo. Sed tamen quaecumque dignum duxit aliis tradere de sua sapientia, non in occulto, sed palam proposuit, licet non ab omnibus intelligeretur. Unde Augustinus dicit, super Ioan., intelligendum est ita dixisse dominum, palam locutus sum mundo, ac si dixisset, multi me audierunt. Et rursus non erat palam, quia non intelligebant.

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 (John 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. Hence Augustine says on John 18:20: "We must understand this, 'I have spoken openly to the world,' as though our Lord had said, 'Many have heard Me' . . . and, again, it was not 'openly,' because they did not understand."

Ad 3 Reply to Objection 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod turbis dominus in parabolis loquebatur, sicut dictum est, quia non erant digni nec idonei nudam veritatem accipere, quam discipulis exponebat. Quod autem dicitur quod sine parabolis non loquebatur eis, secundum Chrysostomum intelligendum est quantum ad illum sermonem, quamvis alias et sine parabolis multa turbis locutus fuerit. Vel, secundum Augustinum, in libro de quaest. Evang., hoc dicitur, non quia nihil proprie locutus est, sed quia nullum fere sermonem explicavit ubi non per parabolam aliquid significaverit, quamvis in eo aliqua proprie dixerit.

As stated above, our Lord spoke to the multitudes in parables, because they were neither able nor worthy to receive the naked truth, which He revealed to His disciples.

And when it is said that "without parables He did not speak to them," according to Chrysostom (Hom. xlvii in Matth.), we are to understand this of that particular sermon, since on other occasions He said many things to the multitude without parables. Or, as Augustine says (De Qq. Evang., qu. xvii), this means, "not that He spoke nothing literally, but that He scarcely ever spoke without introducing a parable, although He also spoke some things in the literal sense."

Articulus IV

Whether Christ Should Have Committed His Doctrine to Writing?

Arg. 1 Objection 1

Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod Christus doctrinam suam debuerit scripto tradere. Scriptura enim inventa est ad hoc quod doctrina commendetur memoriae in futurum. Sed doctrina Christi duratura erat in aeternum, secundum illud Luc. XXI, caelum et terra transibunt, verba autem mea non transibunt. Ergo videtur quod Christus doctrinam suam debuerit scripto mandare.

It would seem that Christ should have committed His doctrine to writing. For the purpose of writing is to hand down doctrine to posterity. Now Christ's doctrine was destined to endure for ever, according to Luke 21:33: "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but My words shall not pass away." Therefore it seems that Christ should have committed His doctrine to writing.

Arg. 2 Objection 2

Praeterea, lex vetus in figura Christi praecessit, secundum illud Heb. X, umbram habet lex futurorum bonorum. Sed lex vetus a Deo fuit descripta, secundum illud Exod. XXIV, dabo tibi duas tabulas lapideas, et legem ac mandata quae scripsi. Ergo videtur quod etiam Christus doctrinam suam scribere debuerit.

Further, the Old Law was a foreshadowing of Christ, according to Heb. 10:1: "The Law has [Vulg.: 'having'] a shadow of the good things to come." Now the Old Law was put into writing by God, according to Ex. 24:12: "I will give thee" two "tables of stone and the law, and the commandments which I have written." Therefore it seems that Christ also should have put His doctrine into writing.

Arg. 3 Objection 3

Praeterea, ad Christum, qui venerat illuminare his qui in tenebris et in umbra mortis sedent, ut dicitur Luc. I, pertinebat erroris occasionem excludere, et viam fidei aperire. Sed hoc fecisset doctrinam suam scribendo, dicit enim Augustinus, in I de Consens. Evang., quod solet nonnullos movere cur ipse dominus nihil scripserit, ut aliis de illo scribentibus necesse sit credere. Hoc enim illi vel maxime Pagani quaerunt qui Christum culpare aut blasphemare non audent, eique tribuunt excellentissimam sapientiam, sed tamen tanquam homini. Discipulos vero eius dicunt magistro suo amplius tribuisse quam erat, ut eum filium Dei dicerent, et verbum Dei, per quod facta sunt omnia. Et postea subdit, videntur parati fuisse hoc de illo credere quod de se ipse scripsisset, non quod alii de illo pro suo arbitrio praedicassent. Ergo videtur quod Christus ipse doctrinam suam scripto tradere debuerit.

Further, to Christ, who came to enlighten them that sit in darkness (Luke 1:79), it belonged to remove occasions of error, and to open out the road to faith. Now He would have done this by putting His teaching into writing: for Augustine says (De Consensu Evang. i) that "some there are who wonder why our Lord wrote nothing, so that we have to believe what others have written about Him. Especially do those pagans ask this question who dare not blame or blaspheme Christ, and who ascribe to Him most excellent, but merely human, wisdom. These say that the disciples made out the Master to be more than He really was when they said that He was the Son of God and the Word of God, by whom all things were made." And farther on he adds: "It seems as though they were prepared to believe whatever He might have written of Himself, but not what others at their discretion published about Him." Therefore it seems that Christ should have Himself committed His doctrine to writing.

Sed contra On the contrary

Sed contra est quod nulli libri ab eo scripti habentur in canone Scripturae.

On the contrary, No books written by Him were to be found in the canon of Scripture.

Respondeo I answer that

Respondeo dicendum conveniens fuisse Christum doctrinam suam non scripsisse. Primo quidem, propter dignitatem ipsius. Excellentiori enim doctori excellentior modus doctrinae debetur. Et ideo Christo, tanquam excellentissimo doctori, hic modus competebat, ut doctrinam suam auditorum cordibus imprimeret. Propter quod dicitur Matth. VII, quod erat docens eos sicut potestatem habens. Unde etiam apud gentiles Pythagoras et Socrates, qui fuerunt excellentissimi doctores, nihil scribere voluerunt. Scripta enim ordinantur ad impressionem doctrinae in cordibus auditorum sicut ad finem. Secundo, propter excellentiam doctrinae Christi, quae litteris comprehendi non potest, secundum illud Ioan. ult., sunt et alia multa quae fecit Iesus, quae si scribantur per singula, nec ipsum arbitror mundum capere eos qui scribendi sunt libros. Quos, sicut Augustinus dicit, non spatio locorum credendum est mundum capere non posse, sed capacitate legentium comprehendi non posse. Si autem Christus scripto suam doctrinam mandasset, nihil altius de eius doctrina homines existimarent quam quod Scriptura contineret. Tertio, ut ordine quodam ab ipso doctrina ad omnes perveniret, dum ipse scilicet discipulos suos immediate docuit, qui postmodum alios verbo et scripto docuerunt. Si autem ipsemet scripsisset, eius doctrina immediate ad omnes pervenisset. Unde et de sapientia dicitur, Prov. IX, quod misit ancillas suas vocare ad arcem. Sciendum tamen est, sicut Augustinus dicit, in I de Consens. Evang., aliquos gentiles existimasse Christum quosdam libros scripsisse continentes quaedam magica, quibus miracula faciebat, quae disciplina Christiana condemnat. Et tamen illi qui Christi libros tales se legisse affirmant, nulla talia faciunt qualia illum de libris talibus fecisse mirantur. Divino etiam iudicio sic errant ut eosdem libros ad Petrum et Paulum dicant tanquam epistolari titulo praenotatos, eo quod in pluribus locis simul eos cum Christo pictos viderunt. Nec mirum si a pingentibus fingentes decepti sunt. Toto enim tempore quo Christus in carne mortali cum suis discipulis vixit, nondum erat Paulus discipulus eius.

I answer that, It was fitting that Christ should not commit His doctrine to writing. First, on account of His dignity: for the more excellent the teacher, the more excellent should be his manner of teaching. Consequently it was fitting that Christ, as the most excellent of teachers, should adopt that manner of teaching whereby His doctrine is imprinted on the hearts of His hearers; wherefore it is written (Matt. 7:29) that "He was teaching them as one having power." And so it was that among the Gentiles, Pythagoras and Socrates, who were teachers of great excellence, were unwilling to write anything. For writings are ordained, as to an end, unto the imprinting of doctrine in the hearts of the hearers.

Secondly, on account of the excellence of Christ's doctrine, which cannot be expressed in writing; according to John 21:25: "There are also many other things which Jesus did: which, if they were written everyone, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written." Which Augustine explains by saying: "We are not to believe that in respect of space the world could not contain them . . . but that by the capacity of the readers they could not be comprehended." And if Christ had committed His doctrine to writing, men would have had no deeper thought of His doctrine than that which appears on the surface of the writing.

Thirdly, that His doctrine might reach all in an orderly manner: Himself teaching His disciples immediately, and they subsequently teaching others, by preaching and writing: whereas if He Himself had written, His doctrine would have reached all immediately.

Hence it is said of Wisdom (Prov. 9:3) that "she hath sent her maids to invite to the tower." It is to be observed, however, that, as Augustine says (De Consensu Evang. i), some of the Gentiles thought that Christ wrote certain books treating of the magic art whereby He worked miracles: which art is condemned by the Christian learning. "And yet they who claim to have read those books of Christ do none of those things which they marvel at His doing according to those same books. Moreover, it is by a Divine judgment that they err so far as to assert that these books were, as it were, entitled as letters to Peter and Paul, for that they found them in several places depicted in company with Christ. No wonder that the inventors were deceived by the painters: for as long as Christ lived in the mortal flesh with His disciples, Paul was no disciple of His."

Ad 1 Reply to Objection 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, sicut Augustinus dicit, in eodem libro, omnibus discipulis suis tanquam membris sui corporis Christus caput est. Itaque, cum illi scripserunt quae ille ostendit et dixit, nequaquam dicendum est quod ipse non scripserit. Quandoquidem membra eius id operata sunt quod, dictante capite, cognoverunt. Quidquid enim ille de suis factis et dictis nos legere voluit, hoc scribendum illis tanquam suis manibus imperavit.

As Augustine says in the same book: "Christ is the head of all His disciples who are members of His body. Consequently, when they put into writing what He showed forth and said to them, by no means must we say that He wrote nothing: since His members put forth that which they knew under His dictation. For at His command they, being His hands, as it were, wrote whatever He wished us to read concerning His deeds and words."

Ad 2 Reply to Objection 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod, quia lex vetus in sensibilibus figuris dabatur, ideo etiam convenienter sensibilibus signis scripta fuit. Sed doctrina Christi, quae est lex spiritus vitae, scribi debuit, non atramento, sed spiritu Dei vivi, non in tabulis lapideis, sed in tabulis cordis carnalibus, ut apostolus dicit, II Cor. III.

Since the old Law was given under the form of sensible signs, therefore also was it fittingly written with sensible signs. But Christ's doctrine, which is "the law of the spirit of life" (Rom. 8:2), had to be "written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in the fleshly tables of the heart," as the Apostle says (2 Cor. 3:3).

Ad 3 Reply to Objection 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod illi qui Scripturae apostolorum de Christo credere nolunt, nec ipsi Christo scribenti credidissent, de quo opinabantur quod magicis artibus fecisset miracula.

Those who were unwilling to believe what the apostles wrote of Christ would have refused to believe the writings of Christ, whom they deemed to work miracles by the magic art.

Showing Thomas's answers only.