Part III (Secunda Secundae) Part 152 (2/2)
Obj. 4: On the other hand, Chrysostom says (Hom. xliii in Matth.) [*Cf. the Opus Imperfectum in Matthaeum, among St. Chrysostom's works, and falsely ascribed to him]: ”Some wear round their necks a pa.s.sage in writing from the Gospel. Yet is not the Gospel read in church and heard by all every day? How then, if it does a man no good to have the Gospels in his ears, will he find salvation by wearing them round his neck? Moreover, where is the power of the Gospel? In the shapes of the letters or in the understanding of the sense? If in the shapes, you do well to wear them round your neck; if in the understanding, you will then do better to bear them in your heart than to wear them round your neck.”
_I answer that,_ In every incantation or wearing of written words, two points seem to demand caution. The first is the thing said or written, because if it is connected with invocation of the demons it is clearly superst.i.tious and unlawful. In like manner it seems that one should beware lest it contain strange words, for fear that they conceal something unlawful. Hence Chrysostom says [*Cf. the Opus Imperfectum in Matthaeum, among St. Chrysostom's works, falsely ascribed to him] that ”many now after the example of the Pharisees who enlarged their fringes, invent and write Hebrew names of angels, and fasten them to their persons. Such things seem fearsome to those who do not understand them.” Again, one should take care lest it contain anything false, because in that case also the effect could not be ascribed to G.o.d, Who does not bear witness to a falsehood.
In the second place, one should beware lest besides the sacred words it contain something vain, for instance certain written characters, except the sign of the Cross; or if hope be placed in the manner of writing or fastening, or in any like vanity, having no connection with reverence for G.o.d, because this would be p.r.o.nounced superst.i.tious: otherwise, however, it is lawful. Hence it is written in the Decretals (XXVI, qu. v, cap. Non liceat Christianis): ”In blending together medicinal herbs, it is not lawful to make use of observances or incantations, other than the divine symbol, or the Lord's Prayer, so as to give honor to none but G.o.d the Creator of all.”
Reply Obj. 1: It is indeed lawful to p.r.o.nounce divine words, or to invoke the divine name, if one do so with a mind to honor G.o.d alone, from Whom the result is expected: but it is unlawful if it be done in connection with any vain observance.
Reply Obj. 2: Even in the case of incantations of serpents or any animals whatever, if the mind attend exclusively to the sacred words and to the divine power, it will not be unlawful. Such like incantations, however, often include unlawful observances, and rely on the demons for their result, especially in the case of serpents, because the serpent was the first instrument employed by the devil in order to deceive man. Hence a gloss on the pa.s.sage quoted says: ”Note that Scripture does not commend everything whence it draws its comparisons, as in the case of the unjust judge who scarcely heard the widow's request.”
Reply Obj. 3: The same applies to the wearing of relics, for if they be worn out of confidence in G.o.d, and in the saints whose relics they are, it will not be unlawful. But if account were taken in this matter of some vain circ.u.mstance (for instance that the casket be three-cornered, or the like, having no bearing on the reverence due to G.o.d and the saints), it would be superst.i.tious and unlawful.
Reply Obj. 4: Chrysostom is speaking of the case in which more attention is paid the written characters than to the understanding of the words.
_______________________
QUESTION 97
OF THE TEMPTATION OF G.o.d (In Four Articles)
We must now consider the vices that are opposed to religion, through lack of religion, and which are manifestly contrary thereto, so that they come under the head of irreligion. Such are the vices which pertain to contempt or irreverence for G.o.d and holy things.
Accordingly we shall consider: (1) Vices pertaining directly to irreverence for G.o.d; (2) Vices pertaining to irreverence for holy things. With regard to the first we shall consider the temptation whereby G.o.d is tempted, and perjury, whereby G.o.d's name is taken with irreverence. Under the first head there are four points of inquiry:
(1) In what the temptation of G.o.d consists;
(2) Whether it is a sin?
(3) To what virtue it is opposed;
(4) Of its comparison with other vices.
_______________________
FIRST ARTICLE [II-II, Q. 97, Art. 1]
Whether the Temptation of G.o.d Consists in Certain Deeds, Wherein the Expected Result Is Ascribed to the Power of G.o.d Alone?
Objection 1: It would seem that the temptation of G.o.d does not consist in certain deeds wherein the result is expected from the power of G.o.d alone. Just as G.o.d is tempted by man so is man tempted by G.o.d, man, and demons. But when man is tempted the result is not always expected from his power. Therefore neither is G.o.d tempted when the result is expected from His power alone.
Obj. 2: Further, all those who work miracles by invoking the divine name look for an effect due to G.o.d's power alone. Therefore, if the temptation of G.o.d consisted in such like deeds, all who work miracles would tempt G.o.d.
Obj. 3: Further, it seems to belong to man's perfection that he should put aside human aids and put his hope in G.o.d alone. Hence Ambrose, commenting on Luke 9:3, ”Take nothing for your journey,”
etc. says: ”The Gospel precept points out what is required of him that announces the kingdom of G.o.d, namely, that he should not depend on worldly a.s.sistance, and that, taking a.s.surance from his faith, he should hold himself to be the more able to provide for himself, the less he seeks these things.” And the Blessed Agatha said: ”I have never treated my body with bodily medicine, I have my Lord Jesus Christ, Who restores all things by His mere word.” [*Office of St.
Agatha, eighth Responsory (Dominican Breviary).] But the temptation of G.o.d does not consist in anything pertaining to perfection.
Therefore the temptation of G.o.d does not consist in such like deeds, wherein the help of G.o.d alone is expected.
_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (Contra Faust. xxii, 36): ”Christ who gave proof of G.o.d's power by teaching and reproving openly, yet not allowing the rage of His enemies to prevail against Him, nevertheless by fleeing and hiding, instructed human weakness, lest it should dare to tempt G.o.d when it has to strive to escape from that which it needs to avoid.” From this it would seem that the temptation of G.o.d consists in omitting to do what one can in order to escape from danger, and relying on the a.s.sistance of G.o.d alone.
_I answer that,_ Properly speaking, to tempt is to test the person tempted. Now we put a person to the test by words or by deeds. By words, that we may find out whether he knows what we ask, or whether he can and will grant it: by deeds, when, by what we do, we probe another's prudence, will or power. Either of these may happen in two ways. First, openly, as when one declares oneself a tempter: thus Samson (Judges 14:12) proposed a riddle to the Philistines in order to tempt them. In the second place it may be done with cunning and by stealth, as the Pharisees tempted Christ, as we read in Matt. 22:15, sqq. Again this is sometimes done explicitly, as when anyone intends, by word or deed, to put some person to the test; and sometimes implicitly, when, to wit, though he does not intend to test a person, yet that which he does or says can seemingly have no other purpose than putting him to a test.
<script>