Chapter 2: On Christ’s Teaching through Parables

The Parables of Sown Fields and Vineyards

Matthew and Mark say that Jesus spoke many things to the crowds in parables and did not speak to them without parables. This appears to be understood as applying generally, and this was so that what had been said through the prophet David might be fulfilled: “I shall open my mouth in parables; I shall utter things hidden from the foundation of the world.”

A parable means a likeness, the word Luke uses. A likeness is proposed of something that either happened or at least could have happened, according to the Philosopher’s saying in the Ethics: “We set forth examples not because they are so, but so that learners may perceive,” that is, understand through guidance by such examples and likenesses.

Jerome says that it is customary among the Palestinians—that is, in those parts where Jesus preached—to introduce a likeness into every discourse, so that what cannot be retained through a proposition may at least be retained through a likeness.

From this it is inferred that examples are to be used frequently when preaching to crowds so that they may understand, and that one should conform to the country’s customs in matters conducive to usefulness.

As Matthew relates, Jesus spoke these things while remaining in a boat beside the seashore, where the crowds stood to hear. For the preacher ought to leave the land, that is, affection for earthly things, and be separated from the press of people rather than mingle among the crowds.

Jesus said: “The sower went out to sow his seed.” Matthew, Mark, and Luke record this parable and agree substantially. The soil sown is presented under a fourfold difference: muddy, rocky, thorny, and fruitful. These can occur in one field in its different parts. Only in the fourth part did perfect fruit follow, with variation—thirtyfold, sixtyfold, and a hundredfold—according to the differing goodness of that soil’s parts.

The one who went out from the heavenly house is principally the Son of God, who says in John 16: “I came forth from the Father and came into the world,” namely through the Incarnation, without abandoning his union of substance with the Father.

He came to sow the word of truth. He himself says in John 18: “For this I came into the world, that I should bear witness to the truth.” This is his seed, because he is truth itself. Whoever preached or preaches the truth in the Old or New Testament, Christ is the beginning or principal sower. Hence he says in Luke 10: “He who hears you hears me.”

The preacher is like the basket or sack that the sower uses in sowing. Hence Augustine says: “What am I but the sower’s basket? Christ himself deigned to place in me the seed that I scatter for you. Do not attend to the basket’s low worth, but to the sower’s nobility.”

A prelate of the Church ought to observe the Apostle’s command in 2 Timothy 4: “Preach the word; be urgent in season and out of season.” Gregory says there: “Before saying ‘out of season,’ he first said ‘in season,’ because in the hearer’s mind importunity destroys itself by its own disadvantage if it does not know how to preserve seasonableness.” This is in Distinction 43, chapter Sit rector.

Pope Nicholas says: “The dispensation of heavenly seed has been entrusted to us. Woe to us if we do not scatter it; woe if we remain silent.” This is in the same distinction.

Augustine shows the seed of God’s word to be of such nobility and usefulness when he says in Cause 1, Question 1: “I ask you, brothers and sisters, which seems greater to you: the word of God or the body of Christ? If you truly wish to answer, you ought to say that the word of God is no less than Christ’s body. Therefore, with as much care as we take when the body of Christ is ministered to us, lest any of it fall from our hands to the ground, let us take equal care lest, while we think or speak about something else, the word of Christ bestowed upon us perish from a pure heart.”

As the gloss says, as regards its effect the word is not only no less but greater, because people are converted through the preached word, not through the Eucharist.

The sown field is the world, or the assembly of hearers, which falls under a fourfold difference.

Some are devoted to wantonness and curiosity, going to sermons to look at women or hear something curious. These are the muddy ground beside the road, which is trampled by passersby along the paths through fields in rainy weather. So their minds are trampled by frequent thoughts and various vanities.

When they hear, therefore, because their minds are directed elsewhere, the birds of heaven—that is, the demons ranging through the air—come and snatch the word from their hearts. Although they hear the word, the devil works so that it is not understood or retained in the mind.

The second are hard and dry through pride and insensibility, signified by rocky ground. Although they hear sermons, retain them in mind, and begin to proceed outwardly to good works, yet because they lack sufficient earth of humility and moisture of grace, when the heat of great tribulation or temptation comes they fail in their good purpose and perseverance in the virtues and wither away from grace. Hence they do not bear the fruit of eternal salvation, for Christ says: “Not he who begins, but he who perseveres to the end shall be saved.”

The third are the covetous, signified by thorny ground. Although temporal goods seem to delight, they truly prick the mind like thorns with continual anxieties and cares unto the shedding of blood, that is, to the commission of sins. For because of avarice there arise thefts, frauds, usuries, and other evils.

When such people hear sermons, they are sometimes pierced with compunction and propose to produce fruits worthy of penance, beginning fasts, almsgiving, confessions, and the like. But the thorns of covetous desires spring up and grow so greatly that they choke the good purpose. They neither restore what they have wrongfully taken nor refrain from acquiring more wrongfully.

The fourth are well disposed. Hearing devoutly, they receive the seed—that is, a good purpose—with humility and retain it through meditation. With the rain of compunction falling and the solar ray of grace coming upon them, they truly bear fruit.

That they obtain the fruit of salvation appears as by a sign in the patience they possess in tribulations and temptations. According to the goodness of their disposition, however, they bear more or less fruit. Hence Matthew and Mark add what Luke omitted: that one bears thirtyfold, another sixtyfold, and another a hundredfold.

Here the threefold state of the good is designated. The married state is good when a person keeps what he hears and possesses patience; the thirtyfold fruit corresponds to it. When the number thirty is represented by the hands it shows the marital joining, since two fingers are joined in designating it. Because it is composed of three and ten, it intimates observance of the Ten Commandments in faith in the Trinity.

The second is the widowed state. One who lives continently and patiently, with more perfect observance of the commandments and faith, is better, other things being equal. This state therefore renders the sixtyfold fruit, which is twice as great as the first. When this number is represented by the hands, one finger presses upon another, signifying the oppression and affliction of such a state.

The third is the virginal state, which is most perfect. Hence, according to the system of finger-counting, this number is placed on the right hand rather than the left, where the other lower numbers are placed. For, as Jerome says, to live in the flesh beyond the flesh, which is the life of virgins, is angelic rather than human. The state of the angels, that is, of the heavenly homeland, is signified by the right hand. This state therefore renders a more abundant fruit of merit and reward, provided that it is maintained as it ought to be.

After Christ spoke the parable to the crowds, he cried out: “He who has ears to hear, let him hear.” He cried out because sometimes the preacher must cry aloud with his voice according to the subject. He must always cry out in mind, that is, with a desire not for praise or gain but for the conversion of souls.

He means: “He who hears with the bodily ear should also hear with the ear of the heart,” namely by understanding spiritually and acting.

As Matthew relates, the disciples asked him: “Why do you speak in parables,” namely without explaining them? “Explain at least this parable to us.” The twelve apostles said this when he was alone—that is, alone with them.

Assigning the reason, Christ said to them: “To you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God,” that is, the secrets of the Scriptures and the Church; “but to the others in parables,” that is, only supernaturally, not with inward savor—to the others, namely those separated from your unity and virtue—“so that seeing they may not see, and hearing they may not understand, lest at any time they be converted and their sins be healed,” as Mark says.

This, like the earlier passage, is understood consecutively, not causally. Christ did not speak in parables in order to obscure their minds. Rather, because of their indisposition, this result followed from Christ’s manner of speaking: hearing with the ear, they did not hear by performing the deed; seeing, that is, understanding superficially, they did not see spiritually.

Thus the prophecy of Isaiah, introduced by Matthew, is fulfilled: “Hearing you shall hear and shall not understand; seeing you shall see and shall not see,” and so forth. The Apostle expounded the aforesaid parable.

Note here that not all things are to be preached to everyone. Cruder things are to be preached to the unlearned and more perfect spiritual things to the spiritually mature. Concerning this, see Cause 8, Question 1, chapter Oportet eum.

§ I. Another Parable, of the Good Seed and the Tares

Matthew alone relates that after the foregoing Christ presented another parable, saying: “The kingdom of heaven is like a man who was the father of a household and sowed good seed in his field. While the men slept, an enemy came and oversowed tares in the midst of the wheat. When the wheat had sprung up, the tares also appeared, growing with it.

“The servants asked their lord: ‘Lord, did you not sow good seed in your field? Whence then does it have tares?’ The lord answered: ‘An enemy has done this.’ The servants said: ‘Do you wish us to go and gather them?’ He answered: ‘No, lest perhaps in uprooting the tares you uproot the wheat with them. Let both grow until the harvest. Then I shall say to the reapers: Gather the tares first into bundles to be burned, but gather the wheat into my barn.’”

Christ afterward expounded this parable to the disciples in the house. First, the statement “The kingdom of heaven is like a man who was the father of a household,” and so forth, is understood in this way: what occurs in the Church, which is called the kingdom of heaven, is like what is related in this likeness.

This man is God, the father through creation of every family in heaven, on earth, and beneath the earth. His field, as Christ himself explained, is the world. His enemy is the devil, who is called a man because he is rational or intellectual, as a human being is. The father’s servants, who dwell with him in the house of the Church, are holy men. The time of harvest is the end of the world.

It remains to consider the good seed. The good seed can be expounded in three ways, with three kinds of tares corresponding by opposition. There is good seed from the truth of doctrine, good seed from the virtue of law, and good seed from the holiness of the Church. Over the first are sown the tares of falsehood; over the second, the tares of vice; and over the third are scattered the tares of the whole multitude of the wicked. This accords with Romans.

Christ appears to expound the parable according to the last sense, yet with reference to the first and second as well. God placed good seed in the field of the world, namely good human beings—good according to nature and grace, which he infused into our first parents. Similarly, he placed good angels in the empyrean heaven.

Although through original sin the devil oversowed tares by tempting our first parents, God cleansed that sin through various remedies and placed within his Church people good through infused grace, as is evident in Abel and other holy men descended from him.

The devil, however, oversowed tares, that is, wicked people, by suggesting malice to some, not by compelling them to evil. These wicked people were among the good: Chaym and his descendants, for example. Thus Ham was found like tares among Noah’s good sons Shem and Japheth; in Abraham’s house, Ishmael was found like tares alongside Isaac, the good seed; in Isaac’s family, Jacob was the good seed and Esau the tares; among David’s sons, Solomon and Nathan were good seed, while Amon and Absalom were tares.

After the Babylonian transmigration, Mattathias and his sons were good seed, while Menelaus, Jason, and others were tares. In Christ’s school, the other apostles were good seed while Iudas Scharioth was tares. In the primitive Church, the apostles’ disciples and six of the deacons were good seed, while the seventh, Nicolas, was tares.

Sometimes this mixture occurs through the sleep of men, that is, the negligence of prelates and rulers who do not punish crimes. Thus the wheat, the good seed, and the tares, which are called darnel, arise and grow together—that is, the good together with the wicked.

For the householder’s servants to ask whence the tares came into the field although he had sown good seed, and to ask whether he wishes the tares uprooted, is for good men in the Church to marvel at such a mixture in the Church, although God himself has prepared both all good people and all good things—sacraments, teachings, and the like—for the salvation of all, and to desire, if it pleased God, that the wicked be exterminated lest they harm the good.

But God does not will this; rather, he permits this mixture of the wicked with the good until the harvest, that is, the end of the world, lest the wheat be uprooted with the tares.

For some people are tares for a time who afterward become the finest wheat, as Saul afterward became Paul, a vessel of election. If such persons, while evil but destined afterward to become good, were called out of the world while they were tares, the wheat too—that is, what they would later become—would be uprooted with them.

The second reason is that such tares sometimes possess secular power and a following. If the Church wished to uproot them, that is, punish and separate them by sentences, the wheat too would be uprooted, because they would act maliciously against the good and could procure many evils of body and soul. Augustine notes this in Cause 23, Question 4, chapter Non potest esse, and in Distinction 50, chapter Ut constitueretur.

The third reason is that people wicked in their conduct serve to exercise the good, so that patience may be increased in them. Hence Gregory says in Cause 7, Question 1, in the penultimate section: “The iron of our mind cannot reach the sharp edge of virtue unless the file of another’s wickedness wears against it. He who is not exercised by Cain’s malice does not know how to be Abel.” Thus, if the tares were removed, the wheat too would be uprooted as regards its advancement.

The fourth reason is that if the good wished to separate themselves from the tares—that is, from wicked people who are tolerated by the Church, beyond detestation of their vices—a schism would follow among them. In such a separation the wheat too would be uprooted, because the good themselves would become evil by being divided from the unity of the Church.

Augustine teaches this in Cause 23, Question 4, saying upon John: “Dearest brothers, what did our Lord Jesus Christ wish to admonish his Church when he willed to have one traitor among the twelve, except that we should tolerate the wicked lest we divide Christ’s body?”

The Lord’s words through the prophet to his servants, “Depart from there,” namely from wicked people, “go out and do not touch the unclean,” are not, as Augustine explains, to be understood as separation from communion with wicked people while they are tolerated and have not been cast out by censures.

Rather, as he explains in Cause 23, Question 4, “To depart and not touch the unclean is not to consent to the sins of others among whom we live. To go out from the midst of Babylon is to do what pertains to correcting them, so far as it can be done in peace according to each person’s rank and condition.”

Departure can also be understood as avoiding domestic association with such people when someone is weak in mind, according to the saying: “With the perverse you will be perverted.”

This also accords with what Augustine says: “How great is the swelling of arrogance, how great the forgetfulness of humanity and frailty, and how great the boast of pride, that someone should believe himself able to do what the Lord did not grant even to the apostles: that he can distinguish the tares from the wheat.” This is in Cause 23, Question 4, chapter Quantus.

Note that this does not prevent wicked members of the faithful from being excommunicated for just causes and thus separated from the faithful, because excommunication is not directed to the uprooting of salvation but to conversion.

Hence Pope Urban says beautifully: “It must be noted that some say we act against the Gospel parable, in which the Lord commanded that the tares not be uprooted, when we subject some who deserve excommunication to excommunication. They say that Saint Augustine too contradicts this in the place where he says that the tares are not to be cut off: the wicked are to be borne, not cast away.

“To these it must first be answered: if heretics and the wicked are not to be excommunicated, why did that same holy father Augustine, together with the legates of the Holy Roman Church and with his holy bishops, excommunicate Pelagius and Celestinum, who were introducing a new heresy into the Church, and separate them from God’s Church? He acted similarly against the Donatists.

“The Lord himself, who here speaks parabolically about the tares, elsewhere openly commands that excommunication be imposed: ‘If he is corrected by the Church and does not obey, let him be to you as a heathen and a publican.’ Hence it plainly appears that excommunication is one thing and uprooting another. A person is excommunicated so that his spirit may be saved. Thus excommunication is discipline, not uprooting.” This is in Cause 24, Question 3, chapter Notandum.

He is not therefore uprooted, because the Church does not intend simply to separate him from the land of the living. Rather, through excommunication, when he is convicted and does not amend, he is in some measure cut off so that he may be amended and at least may not harm others by evil example.

Until the harvest, therefore—that is, death or the Last Judgment—God permissively wills the wicked to be mixed with the good. Then he says to the reapers, who shall gather the wheat, namely the good, and the tares, namely the wicked, by performing their ministry in preparing the remains of the dead, that they are to separate the wheat from the tares, one from another.

He says: “Gather the tares into bundles to be burned.” First, their removal from earthly things is intimated, because “gather” means by separating them from the earth, according to Job’s saying: “When the rich man dies, he shall take nothing with him.”

Second, the gathering of the reprobate is intimated. The wicked are called tares because they are useless to themselves and harmful to others. Just as they were gathered here by living together in vices, so they will be placed together in bundles amid torments: the avaricious with the avaricious, the wanton with the wanton, and likewise the rest, as Gregory says in the Moralia.

Third, their torment is set forth, because they are gathered “to be burned.”

“But gather the wheat into my barn.” Here, first, the property of the elect is designated. Wheat falls to the earth through humility; if it dies through the extinction of vices, and if it shall have been consonant, as Jerome says, grain sprouts in the soil through moisture and warmth. Thus it bears much fruit. The moisture is devotion and the warmth is love.

Second, the angels’ cooperation is intimated: “Gather,” namely, you reapers—that is, all the angels—direct them into one place, “into my barn.” There their happiness and security are signified, because they cannot lose these things.

Concerning the seed of truth, the Lord says: “I planted you, my vineyard, wholly true seed,” namely, I placed all true seed in it through the patriarchs, the Law, the prophets, and the Gospel.

Hence Cyprian says: “Having abandoned error, let us follow truth, because in Esdras truth prevails, lives, and endures forever and ever.” “Your word is truth,” John 6, both concerning what is to be believed, what is to be done, and what is to be desired, as is evident in the Scriptures.

But the devil oversowed the tares of errors and falsehoods. This is no wonder, because he is a liar and their father and did not stand in the truth, John 8. He incited Ninus and other kings to invent false gods so that people would believe in them; philosophers, poets, and orators to treat many crimes as lawful acts; and heretics, Jews, and pagans to invent errors.

These tares are mixed with the wheat because, according to Bede, no doctrine is so false that it does not have some truth inserted into it. God does not permit the whole field of the Church to be cleansed of every tare. I call the Church the faithful in number, not in merit.

All heresies have arisen from wicked members of the faithful at the devil’s instigation. Although many have failed, new ones nevertheless arise from time to time. God permits this so that the doctors who labor to refute them may be sharpened and better exercised in Sacred Scripture.

Many errors are also not known to the prelates, and they must therefore be left. Only at the end will all the truth of the faith be declared and falsehood condemned.

Concerning the second seed, that of virtuousness, Ecclesiastes says: “In the morning sow your seed, and in the evening let not your hand cease,” that is, act virtuously in youth and old age.

Seneca says that seeds have been scattered within us, namely inclinations toward the virtues. Because, as the Philosopher says in the Ethics, a habit is generated from frequent acts, the seed of acquired virtues advances and grows from those acts.

If the infused virtues bestowed by God are added, then, as the Psalm says, “His seed shall be mighty upon the earth”: the seed of one who fears God and ardently observes his commandments. Although all these virtues are in habit equally in the same degree, nevertheless one person shines forth more than another in their outward acts, according to the acts of the different virtues, as Thomas says in the Summa.

But when people sleep—that is, give themselves over to the body and negligence—the devil oversows the tares of vices, such as pride, envy, anger, and the like. The field of our mind, however greatly it abounds in the wheat of virtues, is never without the tares of vices, at least venial ones.

God permits this and does not allow them to be wholly uprooted because sometimes the wheat too would be uprooted through pride. Therefore, so that people may preserve themselves in humility, God permits these tares. At the harvest, that is, death, they are cast into the fire—namely, that of purgatory—if people die with them, while the wheat of the virtues is rewarded in heaven.

Mark alone sets down another parable spoken by Jesus about seed, saying: “The kingdom of God is as if a man should cast seed into the earth and sleep and rise night and day, and the seed should sprout and grow while he knows not how. For the earth bears fruit of itself: first the blade, then the ear, and then the full grain in the ear. When it has produced fruit of itself, he immediately puts in the sickle, because the harvest has come.”

Gregory expounds this likeness beautifully upon Ezekiel, in On Penance, Distinction 2, chapter Dum sanctam: “Every virtue is increased as though by certain stages and is led through increases of merits to the summit. The beginnings of virtue are one thing, its advancement another, and its perfection another. The Lord describes these stages under the name of the harvest, saying: ‘So is the kingdom of God,’” and so forth.

“A man casts seed into the earth when he plants a good intention in his heart, namely when he resolves to live virtuously and love God above all things, which intention he received from God according to the Apostle’s saying: ‘God gives seed to the sower.’ After casting the seed, he sleeps when he rests in the hope of a good work.

“He rises by night and by day because he advances amid adversity and prosperity. The seed sprouts and grows while he does not know it, because he cannot yet measure its increases. Virtue, once begun, is led onward to advancement.

“The earth bears fruit of itself because, when grace comes first, a person’s mind rises spontaneously to the fruit of good work. But the earth first produces the blade, then the ear, and afterward the full grain. To produce the blade is to possess the tenderness of a good beginning. Virtue comes to the ear when it draws itself onward to advancement in good work. It is brought to full grain when virtue advances so far that it can belong to a robust and perfect work.

“God puts in the sickle and reaps the harvest when, after he has brought a person to perfect works according to his fixed appointment, he cuts off temporal life by a sentence sent forth, so that he may bring his grain to the heavenly barns.” Thus Gregory, who also gives examples concerning Peter.

They add another parable spoken by Christ, about a grain of mustard seed, which is the least of all seeds but, once sown, grows so that it becomes greater than all garden plants, and the birds rest in its branches and beneath its shade. Christ compares the kingdom of God to this.

It is the humble, steadfast, and fervent faith of the Church. In the beginning it was least in the number of those who received it, since only Christ’s disciples received it. All sects of doctrine had, as it were, more followers at their beginnings. But this faith, once sown—that is, preached—grew throughout the world above all sects.

Thus in its branches, that is, in princes, prelates, and doctors who are branches scattered through the different regions, the birds of heaven—angels or contemplatives—and other peoples rest in their exemplary lives and are protected by them.

Christ said to his disciples: “Fear not, little flock, for it has pleased your Father to give you the kingdom.” But to hear how greatly it grew, listen to Jerome: “Gaul, Britain, Africa, Persia, the East, and India adore one Christ and follow one rule of truth.” This is in Distinction 93, chapter Legimus.

Matthew adds another parable: “The kingdom of heaven is like leaven that a woman took and hid in three measures of meal until the whole was leavened.” This leaven is evangelical teaching. Hence, when Christ said to the disciples, “Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees,” they afterward understood that he was speaking of the Pharisees’ teaching.

The woman, therefore, that is, the Church, put this leaven of doctrine into three measures, that is, among the people inhabiting Asia, Africa, and Europe. Thus the whole was leavened, because many from every part of the world received evangelical teaching.

§ II. The Parable of the Vineyard to Which Many Were Called at Different Hours

Matthew alone sets down this parable. The householder, the vineyard’s owner, is God, who continually governs those whom he created. The Church is his vineyard, according to Isaiah’s saying: “The vineyard of the Lord of hosts is the house of Israel.” Nothing can be done virtuously except in the vineyard of the Church.

Hence Pope Lutius says: “Do not depart from the right faith of the Church and the apostolic path, that is, action according to the apostles’ teaching, on account of any disturbance, knowing according to the Savior’s saying that blessed are those who suffer persecution for righteousness,” that is, for acting well, whether in themselves or in others. For righteousness is cultivated in this vineyard, and while cultivating it one suffers persecution from the flesh, the devil, and the world.

Pope Lutius’s authority continues: “This is the living tradition of the apostles; this is the true charity that is to be preached and especially loved and fostered, and confidently held by all. This holy apostolic Church, the mother of all Christ’s churches, is shown by the grace of almighty God never to have strayed from the path of apostolic tradition nor to have succumbed to corruption by heretical novelties, but remains unblemished just as it received the faith from its first authors, Christ’s apostles.” This is in Cause 24, Question 1, chapter A recta.

The gloss there says that “the Church” here means the collection of good faithful people, which will always exist and cannot fail because Christ prayed for it.

Hence Pope Dyonisius says: “Let each person remain content within his own bounds and so guard the church and people entrusted to him that he may render an account of all things before the tribunal of the eternal Judge and receive not judgment but glory for his deeds.” This is in Cause 13, Question 1, chapter Ecclesias.

This is to cultivate and guard: to instruct, correct, and provide examples. As Gregory says, “Because the Church has had righteous people from the beginning until now, it has produced as many shoots as it has had such people.”

The vineyard’s cultivators are those who have cultivated others, as though with an iron tool, by their teaching and example of life so that they might produce the fruit of good works. Or they are all the elect, who have cultivated themselves within this vineyard by pruning their lives and practicing virtues.

It is not incongruous for the same persons to be both the vineyard and its cultivators under different relations. Insofar as they receive such cultivation within themselves through good works, they are the vineyard; they are cultivators because they themselves act voluntarily.

The first hour was the world’s first age, in which God went out—not locally, but efficiently—to hire laborers into his vineyard, that is, people acting well and teaching others in the Church, such as Abel, Seth, Enoch, and others. He promised to give them the daily denarius in the evening, though only in the sixth age, not from condign merit, because, as the Apostle says in Romans 8, “The sufferings of this time are not worthy of the glory to come,” but from congruous merit. For it is fitting that one who labors faithfully for God be rewarded. No reward can quiet a human being except God.

The third hour was the second age, which extends from Noah to David. In it God sent Noah, Shem, arbaham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph to instruct the world; they taught people to worship the true God and to govern themselves.

The sixth hour lasted from David until the transmigration, during which many prophets taught the Lord’s way. The ninth was from the Babylonian transmigration until Christ; during it the holy machabei and the prophets aggeus, Zechariah, Malachi, or Esdras instructed others.

The eleventh hour was and is the sixth age in which we live. In it God found many standing idle in the marketplace—that is, Gentiles performing no meritorious good—and reproved them. They excused themselves because no one had hired them, namely because they had no laws or prophets to instruct them in the worship of God and the governance of themselves. God sent these too into the vineyard when they were converted to the faith, so that they might work well.

Evening, which is the day’s end, is the end of the world, or the end of human life for each person, as Gregory says.

The laborers are summoned by the steward to receive their wage because, at the Lord God’s disposition, the eternal wage is given to us through Christ, who is called the steward. By the merit of his Passion he opened the gate of heaven to us.

The steward is commanded to begin paying the wage from the last because those who die under the New Testament, signified by those called at the eleventh hour, immediately fly upward and receive the wage of glory if no obstacle of sin is present in those faithful people. But those who died under the Old Testament, in the first, third, sixth, and ninth hours, did not fly upward but descended to limbo.

When the earlier laborers saw these last receive the denarius—that is, the vision of glory and complete repose—they thought that more would be given to them because they had labored more, that is, longer. But they received only the denarius, that is, the vision and enjoyment of God, which is the one essential reward of all the saints.

Yet within this reward, one who loved more perfectly in the world beholds more clearly and enjoys more delightfully. Thus star differs from star in brightness, although each person is most fully put at rest and made happy. According to the greater or lesser labors endured here for God, however, the accidental reward, a certain joy concerning a created thing, is greater or lesser, according to the Apostle’s saying: “Each shall receive his own wage according to his labor.”

The statement that the earlier cultivators of the vineyard murmured when they saw that they received no more than the last, as though a worthy wage were not paid to them although they had labored more than the others, is hypothetical speech, that is, it proceeds from a supposition, even of an impossible thing. As Gregory says, it is impossible for anyone in glory to murmur or for a murmurer to reach that place.

But if one supposes impossibly that the fathers of the Old Testament murmured because they thought themselves rewarded less than justly, it is shown that they cannot complain. What was promised to them is given: the denarius, that is, heavenly glory, which alone suffices for all things and is beyond condign merit.

If God wishes freely to give someone who labored little the same wage, or even more, he does no injury to the former laborer. The quantity of the wage of glory is given according to the quantity of a person’s love, and it can happen that someone reaches greater charity in a very brief time after conversion than another does by laboring long in good works.

If someone from his own property and liberality gave one person a hundred florins and another of equal condition only ten, he would certainly not be said to injure the second, because he withholds nothing owed to him. Indeed, the ten that he did not owe the second man he gave freely; therefore that man has reason to love him and give thanks.

So too the Lord God, who is indebted to no one to give grace but gives from his goodness to whomever he gives, cannot be accused of respect of persons for giving to one and not another, or more to one than another. “Is it not lawful,” it is said, “for me to do what I will” in conferring nature, grace, and glory? “Is your eye”—that is, your mind—“wicked” in murmuring against me “because I am good” by giving someone more than seems just to you? It is as though he said: “You have no just cause for complaint.”

“Thus the last shall be first and the first last.” This means that the fathers of the New Testament, who were called last to labor in the vineyard of the Church, will be first to receive the wage because, unless something else obstructs it, they can receive it when they die. The first, the fathers of the Old Testament, were last because they received the wage of glory later.

Or, to confound the hardness of the Jews, the last—that is, the Gentiles who were called to Christ’s faith in the last age, from which the wage comes to us through the apostles’ preaching—will be first to be converted and receive the wage. The first—that is, the Jews who had earlier been called through the prophets and patriarchs, and finally to faith through Christ’s preaching—will generally be last among the Jews to be converted to the faith, according to the Psalm: “They shall be converted in the evening and shall suffer hunger like dogs,” and so forth. Then those converted to the faith will receive the wage, which will occur at the end.

Therefore the text fittingly continues: “Many are called,” namely to faith through preaching—Jews and Gentiles—“but few are chosen,” because few Jews were converted, not all Gentiles were converted, and among those converted to the faith few labor as they ought in the Church’s vineyard through works of righteousness. Therefore few are chosen to receive the wage.

The denarius signifies the essential heavenly reward: by reason of its material, because it is made of metal, which endures; by reason of its form, because its round or circular shape is the most capacious of all and that reward contains all good things; by reason of the figure visible upon it, namely the emperor’s, for the whole wage is vision, and the better-disposed eye sees more subtly as that vision becomes clearer; and by reason of what it contains, because it holds the value of ten coins and is given to one who observes the Ten Commandments.

Concerning “Many are called,” Cyprian says: “As the Lord finds you when he calls you,” namely through death, “so he judges you.” This is in On Penance, Distinction 1, chapter Numquid.

“Many are called, but few are chosen,” because, as Gregory says in On Penance, Distinction 3, “many begin well who finish their lives in evil.” Gratian says there that one who does not work in charity does not begin well.

Augustine says in his book On Rebuke and Grace: “Because of the hidden nature of this humility, we must believe that some of the children of perdition, without receiving the gift of perseverance to the end, begin to live in the faith that works through love and afterward fall.” This is in On Penance, Distinction 3, chapter Idem.

“Can this man who still refuses to be corrected,” namely from his vices, “say: ‘What did I do, since I did not receive the gift of perseverance?’ He is known to have received living faith, and through his own fault to have lost what he had received, because by his own will he relapsed from a good life into an evil one.”

The chosen can therefore be called those who persevere, and these are few. The called are not only the wicked, but also the good who do not persevere.

Hence Gregory, speaking upon Ezekiel about the condition of the elect, says: “‘They did not turn back when they went,’ namely, those living creatures he had seen in the vision, which signify the righteous. For,” Gregory says, “all the elect so tend toward good things that they do not return to perpetrating evil.” “He who perseveres to the end shall be saved.” This is in On Penance, Distinction 2, chapter Pennata.

This vineyard can also be expounded morally of each soul. Its vines are the powers of the soul and its fruits are works. God’s call to act virtuously is his sending laborers into it at different hours to cultivate it: at the first hour in childhood, the third in adolescence, the sixth in youth, the ninth in mature age, and the eleventh in old age. Evening is the end of life, and the wage repaid for labor is the reward.

Sometimes those converted later die sooner. If they have labored perfectly during that short time, they are rewarded sooner than those called in childhood, and sometimes even more abundantly if they cultivated better. Those converted younger cannot complain, because everything comes from the Lord’s liberality.

§ III. Another Parable of a Vineyard

Mark, Matthew, and Luke relate another parable preached by Christ concerning a vineyard, by which he reproves the hardness and ingratitude of the Jews and foretells their rejection. He spoke it near the time of his Passion.

“A certain man planted a vineyard, surrounded it with a hedge, dug a winepress in it”—which Mark calls a vat—“and built a tower in its midst. After leasing it to tenant farmers, he went abroad,” and so forth.

This man signifies God, who planted the vineyard—that is, the Jewish people—when he led it out of Egypt and chose it from all nations to become his peculiar people, according to the Psalm: “You transplanted a vineyard from Egypt; you cast out the nations,” namely from the promised land, “and planted it.”

The hedge with which he surrounded it was the guardianship of angels that defended that people. The winepress, which presses, was fear of the Law, through which they guarded themselves from evils lest they incur the Law’s penalties. The tower was the Lord’s most noble temple; through the prayers and sacrifices made there they were protected against their adversaries.

He leased it to tenant farmers when he ordained that this people be ruled and governed by priests and doctors of the Law. They were to procure for the Lord the fruit of good works that the people bore by their cultivation, not reserve it for themselves.

He went abroad, not by abandoning that people but by leaving both priests and people in the freedom of their choice.

The vineyard’s lord then sent his servants to the tenant farmer. Matthew speaks of servants in the plural, while Mark and Luke speak of a servant in the singular. There appears to be no contradiction, because as regards what they signified they were one through unity of purpose: the prophets sought one thing, namely that the vineyard—that people—should bear fruit for the Lord. Personally, however, they were many.

God therefore sent Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel to instruct that people and reprove its doctors and rulers, so that it might produce the fruits of good works to God’s honor. But they killed one with an iron saw, namely Isaiah; they stoned another, Jeremiah; and they killed another, Ezekiel.

Again he sent more servants, to whom they did similar things, neither receiving nor hearing them. Hence Stephen said to them in Acts 6: “You stiff-necked and uncircumcised in hearts and ears, you have always resisted the Holy Spirit. Which of the righteous did your fathers not persecute?”

At last, eager for the fruitfulness of his vineyard, that is, of that people, he says by way of the effect: “I shall send my beloved Son,” namely through the Incarnation, so that he may teach them the way of salvation and they may bear fruit for the Lord.

Note that Luke does not merely say, as Matthew does, “They will reverence my Son,” but also adds “perhaps”—as though to say: it will be in their freedom to hear and reverence him or not. He does not say “perhaps” as though he did not know what they would do or that they would not be converted by his words, but to show that God’s foreknowledge of the things that people were to do did not compel them to those deeds.

Hence Augustine says in Cause 23, Question 4, chapter Nabuchddonosor: “It is most foolishly said that God’s predestination—that is, foreknowledge—works in all things, whether toward good or toward evil, so that some necessity seems to impel people to either. In good acts, the will is to be understood as not without grace; in evil acts, the will is to be understood as without grace: namely, as the cause of our good or evil work.”

“Having therefore one most beloved son,” Mark says, he sent nothing dearer or more precious than him to him, because he determined that he should be incarnate. Once incarnate and living among them, preaching and performing miracles, the Son admonished the people to bear fruit for the Lord. He reproved the vineyard’s tenants—the scribes and Pharisees—who sought for that people signified by the vineyard to bear fruit for themselves in tithes and offerings, but did not care that the people should bear fruit for God through good works.

When the vineyard’s tenants saw him—that is, when they perceived his works—they recognized him as the Son of God or the Messiah promised in the Law. This does not mean that they truly acknowledged him, but that they saw such works of his that, from those works and according to the prophecies given to them, they could have recognized him as the promised Messiah and the Son of God.

But their malice blinded them, as Wisdom 2 says. Hence ignorance did not and does not excuse them from the sin of unbelief, as is said in Cause 1, Question 4, in the last section.

The vineyard’s tenants therefore said to one another: “Come, let us kill him, and we shall have this vineyard, which is his inheritance.” Once this man was killed, who by his teaching turned the people toward bearing fruit, the vineyard would remain to them with its customary tithes, offerings, rites, and sacrifices.

They cast him outside the vineyard and killed him, because the Lord Jesus suffered outside the gate of Jerusalem, where this vineyard—the people—was.

Concluding the parable, Christ said: “When the lord of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those tenant farmers?” How will he treat them for such cruelty and ingratitude?

The simple people in the crowd answered this question as reason teaches should be done in such a case: “He will miserably destroy those wicked men and lease his vineyard to other tenant farmers.” Matthew says that they told him this. But the scribes and Pharisees, maliciously understanding that he spoke against them, added what Luke reports, saying: “God forbid,” namely, that he should miserably destroy them as the crowds had said.

Christ showed that those crowds had spoken truly. Confirming the point, he himself said: “He will miserably destroy those wicked men,” and so forth. As Mark says, he miserably destroyed the obstinate wicked Jews temporally in Jerusalem’s destruction by Titus and Vespasian, because through their unbelief they all descend to hell.

He leased the vineyard—that is, the Church, which once existed among that people because they alone worshiped the true God while all others declined into idolatry—to others. That is, he committed it to be ruled and cultivated by prelates converted from the Gentile world. By true admonitions and holy examples, they caused the peoples entrusted to them to bear fruit for the Lord.

Through the prophet David in the Psalm, Christ nevertheless shows himself over both the Jewish people and the Gentile people, to whom the vineyard was to be transferred in its cultivation as regards those converted to faith from both peoples.

Hence Jesus said: “Have you never read in the Scriptures, ‘The stone that the builders rejected,’” and so forth? Because David lived before the building of the temple made by his son Solomon, he appears to have prophesied both the figure and the thing figured.

The Master of the Scholastic History says that while Solomon’s temple was being built, a certain notable stone came to the builders’ hands. Although they repeatedly tried to place it among the other stones in the walls, they could not, because it did not fit with the others. Sometimes it was found larger and sometimes smaller than was needed.

At last they placed it at the temple’s summit, at the temple’s corner, where and from which two walls were joined. It was so well desired there that all marveled as though this had been done by the Lord.

This stone is Christ, as the Apostle says. The builders of Solomon’s temple are the same as the vineyard’s tenants, namely the spiritual governors of the Jewish people. The stones were the people whom they instructed to observe God’s Law.

The stone Christ came into their hands when he lived among them. They wished to build him in with the others, that is, to regard him as a mere man and subject him to the ceremonies of the Law that they taught to others. But he could not fit suitably, because he did things beyond the powers—that is, the manner—of human beings.

Hence the chief priests, who were the builders, rejected that stone and treated him as rejected. But God exalted him and gave him the name above every name, establishing him at the summit of the Church’s temple as its head, in whom two walls are joined into one: the Jewish and Gentile peoples, as regards those converted in unity of faith and love.

“He who falls upon this stone shall be broken; but upon whomever it falls, it shall crush him.” Christ speaks metaphorically of the differing falls of the Jews who stumble against this stone, Christ. The difference is that some fall upon the stone, while the stone falls upon others.

If an earthen vessel falls upon a stone, it is broken but only into large pieces and can be restored with iron. But if a great stone falls upon an earthen vessel, it is completely shattered and crushed so that it cannot be repaired.

One who gravely offends Christ falls upon the stone. Although such a person is broken from the integrity of a good life, he can nevertheless amend until the end of life and be restored by the iron of penance.

But if he waits until the stone falls upon him—that is, until the judgment of death is inflicted—he is then crushed so that he is irreparable. It is as though Christ wished to say: “And if you stumble against me by not believing, take care not to remain in unbelief until the end.”

All three Evangelists say that when the chief priests recognized that this parable was directed against them, they sought to seize and kill him. But they omitted to do so because they feared the people, who were affectionate and devoted to him, lest they snatch him from their hands.

Morally, the vineyard is the soul; the vines are its powers and the fruits its works. God planted it when he created it. He places the hedge of angelic guardianship around it. The winepress is the remorse of conscience that presses it. The tower is reason, by which it can distinguish friends from enemies and good things from evil.

He leases it to cultivators when he infuses the soul into the body so that it may cultivate it. He goes abroad by leaving it in freedom of choice. The time for bearing fruit approaches when it is in the middle of childhood and begins to possess a spark of reason.

Then God sends his servants—whether people exhorting it to good, angels, or inspirations inciting it to good—so that it may render to God the fruit of good works. But some people despise these things and as though kill them by not following them. God sends further inspirations, exhortations, or tribulations, all of which they similarly despise.

Finally, he himself approaches by grace, inducing them to true conversion. But such a person sometimes becomes so ungrateful and wicked that he kills Christ himself by depriving himself of his grace. Of such people the Apostle says in Hebrews: “Crucifying again the Son of God within themselves and holding him up to contempt.” Therefore, when the Lord comes to such people in death, he will miserably destroy those wicked men, and so forth.

§ IV. Another Parable

Matthew alone relates this parable, which Christ pronounced immediately after the foregoing vineyard parable. A man who owned a vineyard told his elder son to go cultivate it. The son answered that he would, but did nothing. When the father commanded the other son to do the same, he refused to go but afterward went.

When Jesus asked which of them did the father’s will more fully, they answered: “The second,” because he went to cultivate even though at first he contradicted.

This vineyard is the Church, to cultivate which God sent two sons: the Jewish people and the Gentile people. He commanded each through the natural law that each possessed.

The elder, the Jewish people, promised God that it would go when, after the Law was given to it—which in its moral part was a certain explanation of the natural law—they said to Moses: “We shall do everything the Lord has commanded us, and we shall obey him.” Yet they did not cultivate this vineyard, that is, by observing the Law’s precepts.

Although the Lord commanded the other people, the Gentiles, through the implanted natural law to cultivate the vineyard, because they did not bind themselves to or receive the Law of the Decalogue they as though refused to go. Instructed by the apostles’ preaching, however, they entered the Church’s vineyard and cultivated it with great diligence. They therefore obey God the Father.

This can also be expounded morally of ecclesiastical persons—clerics and religious—who are called to labor in the Church and promise to do many things, such as observe chastity, poverty, and the like, but through negligence do not do them. Others of lesser condition, namely laypeople, do not promise these things but sometimes perform them. Thus these latter are obedient, not the former.

Hence Jerome says in Cause 8, Question 1: “I fear that, just as the queen of the south, coming from the ends of the earth, will judge the people of her time, and the Ninevites likewise,” and so forth, “so many among the peoples will judge bishops who do not perform what befits their office.”

Jerome therefore says: “Not only bishops, priests, and deacons ought to take great care that they excel in conduct and speech all the people over whom they preside, but also those of lower rank, because it greatly destroys God’s Church when laypeople are better than clerics.” This is in Cause 8, Question 1, chapter Qualis.

Luke alone relates another parable concerning a vineyard in which its lord planted a fig tree. When it bore no fruit after three years, the lord said to the vineyard’s cultivator: “Behold, for three years I have come seeking fruit on this fig tree and find none. Cut it down, therefore. Why does it also occupy the ground?”

The cultivator answered: “Lord, leave it for this year, until I dig around it and put manure about it. If it does not bear fruit in the future, you shall cut it down.”

This vineyard is the Church, in which different nations are planted like various trees. Among the rest, however, the Jewish people were planted like a sweeter tree. Although they were awaited for the fruit of full conversion for three years—the time of the Mosaic Law, the time of the prophets, and the time of grace—they have still not produced the fruit of true faith.

For this reason the Lord God as though showed that he wished to cut them down when he destroyed that people through Titus and Vespasian. Nevertheless, the vineyard’s cultivators, the prelates and doctors, considering that even within this third year, the time of grace, its fruitfulness is foretold by the prophecies to occur at the end, say to the Lord in desire that it should still be awaited for fruit, by digging and applying manure.

§ V. Three Parables in Which the Kingdom of Heaven Is Compared to a Treasure, a Pearl, and a Net

Matthew alone relates these three parables spoken by Christ.

He says: “The kingdom of heaven is like a treasure hidden in a field,” and so forth. This treasure is knowledge of divine wisdom, namely of the supreme good, together with the savor of grace. Wisdom 7 says of it: “It is an infinite treasure to human beings,” namely wisdom, and so forth.

This treasure is hidden in the field of humility. Through humility a person humbles himself, taking his understanding captive in obedience to Christ in matters of faith, attributing no good to himself, unlike the philosophers, who said, “Our lips are our own,” and became fools. He subjects himself to obey God’s will and commandments.

The treasure is found there. Whoever finds it sells all things to buy the field itself: that is, he places everything second—substance, honor, knowledge, and life—to attain that humility and wisdom, and thus obtains the treasure.

Again, “The kingdom of heaven is like a man seeking fine pearls,” and so forth. These pearls are goods regarded as beautiful and precious and naturally desired and sought: riches, honors, powers, knowledge, pleasures of the flesh, a moral life, and the like.

While a person seeks these by desire, if he finds one pearl that he understands to be more precious than all because it contains the virtue and worth of all the others—true blessedness in the heavenly homeland—he surrenders all to attain it. He deprives himself of all those other goods in order to obtain it because he places affection for it before all the foregoing things and withdraws any one of them from himself whenever it would hinder him from attaining it.

Again, “The kingdom of heaven is like a net cast into the sea,” and so forth. What is related in this likeness resembles what occurs in the Church, which is called the kingdom of heaven.

This net is the Church’s preaching, woven from the authorities of the saints, which are bound to one another because of their agreement. The fishermen are the prelates and doctors who cast the nets of sermons into the sea of worldly life, where human beings are like fish, according to Abacuh: “You make human beings like the fishes of the sea.”

Not all fish but many are caught in these nets, namely those who receive the faith. Among them, some are good fish and some bad, all within the one net of the Church’s teaching. At last, when the net is drawn in at the end, the good faithful will be separated from the wicked by the angels’ ministry at the Last Judgment; the good will be taken into rest and the wicked cast outside.

Christ then adds: “Every scribe learned in the kingdom of heaven is like a householder who brings forth from his treasure new things and old” to govern his household. So too the prelate and doctor who casts the net must bring forth from the treasure of his wisdom, to catch many fish and lead them to faith—even though some will prove wicked—new things in his preaching, namely examples and sayings from the New Testament, and old things from the Old Testament.

Or the old things are those belonging to the old life, namely sins, which he preaches are to be avoided; the new are those belonging to newness of life, namely virtues, which he teaches are to be loved. Or sometimes he adduces old things from the Gentiles, and especially new things from the Church’s doctors.

Or from the treasure of his prudence he brings forth new things and old, namely deeds and words by which, so far as he can, he may meet the needs of both good and wicked people, not separating them from each other in the present, until the net is full—that is, until the number of faithful people foreknown and predestined by God, fixed and known to him alone, is complete.

Meanwhile, as Augustine says: “Not knowing who belongs to the number of the predestined and who does not, we ought to be so moved toward everyone by an affection of charity that we wish all to be saved.” This is in Cause 24, Question 3, chapter Corripiantur.

Therefore prelates, preachers, and other faithful people ought not to separate themselves from wicked people who are tolerated, because this is to be done at the end of the world, when the net is full. Hence Augustine says: “We commit a greater evil by separation from the good than we avoid by association with the wicked.”

God imputes to such a person neither his own sins, because he did not commit them, nor the sins of others, because he did not approve them; nor negligence, because he did not remain silent; nor pride, because he remained in unity.

Augustine likewise says upon the Psalm: “‘Who will give me wings like a dove?’ He does not say, ‘like a raven.’ Although the dove seeks to fly away from troubles, it does not abandon love but always begets [read: groans].” So a good person wishes to be separated in body, but not in love, from those whom he cannot benefit.

If he is sometimes bound to them not by the birdlime of desire but by care and duty, so that he cannot abandon them, let him then say with the Apostle: “I desire to be dissolved and to be with Christ, but it is necessary to remain in the flesh for your sake.” Thus there is merit from the desire.

“Behold, I have gone far away in flight,” says the Psalm. Augustine expounds this as flight not in place, lest the charity of the good be broken and the exercise supplied by the wicked be lost; God mingles the wicked among them, as he mingled Judas with the disciples. All these are Augustine’s words in Cause 7, Question 1, in the section Cum autem, before the final chapter.

§ VI. Parables Showing God’s Great Kindness and Mercy in Receiving Converted and Penitent Sinners

Luke successively sets down three parables of this kind: concerning the ninety-nine sheep left in the desert to seek the wandering one; concerning the woman’s joy when she found ten drachmas [read: one of ten drachmas]; and concerning the prodigal who returned to his father and was immediately received.

The Evangelist says: “Publicans and sinners were drawing near to Jesus to hear him.” The Psalm teaches: “Salvation”—which certainly comes from Jesus, whose name is also interpreted “Savior”—“is far from sinners.” Jesus is not far in spatial distance, because he is everywhere according to his divinity, but in dissimilarity of virtue; the worse a sinner is, the farther away he is.

Likewise, according to the Psalm, “The Lord is near to all who act innocently toward him in truth [read: all who call upon him in truth]”; and the prophet Joel says: “Whoever calls upon the Lord’s name shall be saved.” This is not to be understood of outward or vocal invocation alone, but, as Augustine says, “of one who calls upon him by serving him, not contradicting him.” This is in On Penance, Distinction 3, chapter Adhuc. For “lord” and “servant” are correlatives.

Such a person draws near to Jesus, desiring salvation and disposing himself to hear and obey.

The scribes and Pharisees murmured. The scribes were doctors of the Law; the Pharisees were a sect of Jews who lived more austerely and religiously than the rest, just as religious do now.

Murmuring is a certain complaint accompanied by impatience, especially against superiors, and is therefore called a sin. Distinction 90 says: “Let him who murmurs be a stranger to the unity of the brethren.”

This murmuring was prefigured in the murmuring of Maria, Aaron’s sister, against Moses because of the Ethiopian wife he had taken. As Gratian says, Miriam signifies the synagogue, or others who murmur against Christ because he took as wife the Church from the Gentiles, previously blackened by vices; or because Christ and other prelates and doctors receive sinners into their familiarity in order to produce from them children of good works.

Because they murmur unjustly, they are therefore struck by God with the leprosy of unbelief or another sin. This is in Cause 2, Question 7, in the section before chapter Paulus.

The Evangelist expresses their murmuring by saying: “This man receives sinners and eats with them.” It was as though they said: “This shows that he is a great sinner. For, as the Wise Man says, ‘Every animal loves its own likeness’ and inclines toward it,” namely to associate with it.

“But this Jesus shows great affection for the greatest and most manifest sinners, because he receives them, speaks familiarly with them, and eats with them. Therefore he is a sinner like them, for if he were just, he would shrink from and avoid them.”

They argued badly and falsely. Christ did not love them or show them familiarity insofar as they were sinners—that is, on account of their sins—but because they were disposing themselves toward amendment and works of virtue, and therefore approached him to hear the teaching of salvation. Christ received them as a physician frequents the sick, not because their sickness delights him but in order to expel it.

Hence Augustine says in his book On Penance: “From this it is evident that sins greatly displease him,” namely God, “for he is always ready to destroy them. If he loved them, he would not always destroy but preserve them and cherish them as his own gifts. But he destroys the sins he finds, lest what he created be dissolved and what he loved be corrupted.” This is in On Penance, Distinction 3, chapter Adhuc.

Their murmuring did not proceed from zeal for true justice because sin displeased them, but from the zeal of envy and pride. It came from envy because they begrudged Christ’s growing fame, not only among the just but also among sinners who devoutly followed and heard him, and sought to diminish it by such disparagement.

It also came from pride because, being proud and considering themselves just, they did not deign to associate with sinners, as though the sinners were unworthy even of their speech. In this way they wished to accuse Christ of appearing unlike themselves.

Hence Gregory says in a homily: “True justice has compassion, but false justice has disdain. Although the just rightly tend to be indignant with sinners, what is done through the swelling of pride is one thing and what is done through zeal for discipline another. The just are indignant, yet do not disdain; they stir persecution, yet love.

“But, on the contrary, those of false justice tend to be proud, despise all others, show no merciful condescension to the weak, and become worse because they do not believe themselves sinners.” This is in Distinction 45, chapter Vera.

Jerome says to the same effect upon Jeremiah: “Such people say, ‘Depart,’ namely, ‘you polluted people. Depart, go away. Do not touch us. Do not communicate with us.’ Such speech does not illuminate the eye, heal the sick, or cure the infirm; rather, it kills them and casts them into despair.

“Good rulers, considering the weakness of others from their own weakness, strive more through humility and meekness to rescue sinners from the snare of error than through austerity to drive them, swimming, into savage destruction.” This is in the same distinction, chapter Recedite.

The Lord afterward showed with what affection, diligence, and joy a sinner should be received to penance and how one should work toward this, speaking this parable: “Who among you, if he has a hundred sheep and loses one,” and so forth?

This man is God, both God and man, the creator of the world, feeding his sheep in heaven through enjoyment and on earth through interior consolation.

The hundred sheep are angels and innocent human beings created by him. The ninety-nine are the nine orders of angels. Ninety signifies their perfection because it results from nine multiplied ten times. Ten, because it is the first boundary of numbers, signifies perfection, while nine signifies the number of orders.

The hundredth sheep is human nature. It wandered, according to the Psalm: “I have wandered like a sheep that has perished,” when our first parents transgressed God’s command. Because all human beings existed within them according to seminal power, all sinned and perished in Adam.

Seeking this wandering sheep, namely the human race, the heavenly shepherd as though left the ninety-nine in the desert when God was made man—not in the desert, that is, heaven, which is called a desert because it had been abandoned by the evil angel and by man, but in the world. He did not abandon the angels according to his divinity, but differed from them in the humanity he assumed.

He sought it by laboring greatly in teaching, healing the sick, traveling about, suffering many things, and instituting sacraments for this sheep. At last, having found it, he placed it upon his shoulders when he himself bore our sins in his body—that is, the punishment for sins—upon the wood of the cross, “that, being dead to sins, we might live to righteousness,” as Peter says in his canonical epistle.

He brought it back to the desert of heaven with the others when he ascended into heaven in our nature and opened heaven to others. With his friends, the holy souls, and his neighbors, the holy angels, he held great joy and festivity over repaired human nature.

He concludes concerning every sinner converted to penance: “So I say to you, there is joy in heaven over one sinner doing penance more than over ninety-nine just persons who need no penance.”

This is understood in two ways. In one way, it refers to the falsely just who consider themselves just and not in need of penance, though they are not just. What is said is then clear. Cause 11, Question 3, chapter Iniustum, says: “Humble confession in evil deeds is better than proud glorying in good ones.”

In another way, it can refer to people who are truly just but imperfect, and to a converted sinner who through fervor ascends to great perfection. Other things being equal, there should be greater joy over a just person remaining in innocence than over a penitent sinner.

Matthew adds: “It is not my Father’s will that one of these little ones should perish.” This is understood of the elect; or, if said of all, it is understood of the antecedent will, not the consequent will, which was treated above in the First Part under the title on eternal law.

This example shows that compassion and mercy are to be used toward sinners wishing to return to penance. Hence Cause 26, Question 7 says: “One who repents from the heart ought to be received as the Lord showed when he summoned his friends and neighbors, saying, ‘Rejoice with me, because I have found the sheep I had lost.’”

Ambrose likewise says in his book On Paradise: “The shepherd in the Gospel is read to have carried the loose sheep [read: the weary sheep], not cast it away.” Solomon says: “Do not be less just.” Moderation ought to temper justice. For how can a person be offered to you for healing if you regard with loathing the one who supposes that he will be an object not of compassion but of contempt to his physician?

Ambrose likewise speaks in the person of Christ: “I pardon willingly; for your sake I forgive. I prefer mercy to sacrifice, because by sacrifice the just person is commended, while by mercy the sinner is redeemed. I came not to call the just but sinners. In the Law there is sacrifice; in the Gospel, mercy. The Law was given through Moses; through me, grace.” Thus Ambrose, in On Penance, Distinction 1, chapter Serpens.

Christ adds another parable on the same subject, related by Luke alone: “What woman, having ten drachmas, if she loses one, does not light a lamp,” and so forth?

As Gregory explains, this woman is divine Wisdom, who possessed ten drachmas, that is, ten kinds of creatures marked with her image. Nine were the nine orders of angels. The tenth, lost through the sin of our first parents, was human nature, as though unknown—that is, deprived of the vision of divine Wisdom.

To find it, Wisdom lit a lamp when, by God’s operation, the Word became flesh. In Christ’s person, as in a lamp of the kind made both anciently and now for the poor, Christ’s flesh was the earth, assumed from our earthly flesh; his most pure soul, filled with the oil of grace, was like a white wick with oil; and his divinity was like the fire. For, as Deuteronomy says, “Our God is a consuming fire.”

When the lamp was lit through the Incarnation of the Son of God, Wisdom overturned the house of human conduct by changing morals through Christ’s teaching and examples. She sought diligently, working those things through which human nature would be found and seen approvingly by God through the infusion of grace.

When it was found, she summoned her neighbors and friends to rejoice with her, namely the angelic creatures and holy souls, by manifesting the deed to them through its effect and granting them joy over it.

She concludes: “So I say to you, there is joy before God’s angels over one sinner doing penance.”

Jerome says: “Because the divine nature is merciful and kind and more inclined to pardon than to vengeance, because it does not desire the sinner’s death but that he be converted and live, if anyone after a fall into sins is converted to true penance, he will quickly obtain pardon from the merciful Judge.” This is in On Penance, Distinction 1, chapter Idem.

Jerome continues: “It is possible that, just as the Church, which formerly had spot, wrinkle, and uncleanness, was afterward restored, so too the sinner should run to the physician, because the healthy have no need of a physician but those who are ill, so that he may heal his wounds, and he shall become part of the Church, which is the body.”

And again, lest perhaps those remembering their sin return more slowly, he says: “I shall cause you still to dwell in tabernacles as in the days of festivity, so that what baptism does, penance too may do, and they may dwell in the Savior’s tabernacles in the Church.” This is in On Penance, Distinction 1.

§ VII. The Prodigal Received Most Joyfully by His Father

Luke alone relates this most beautiful parable. “A certain man,” he says, “had two sons. The younger said: ‘Father, give me the portion of the substance that falls to me,’” and so forth.

It has two expositions. The first, which I shall touch upon very briefly, concerns two peoples: the Jewish people as elder because of their dignity, and the Gentile people as younger, under one common father, God, through creation and governance.

The younger, the Gentile people, departed from the Father through idolatry and fell into many crimes and a want of truth. Nor could the teachings of the philosophers and poets, signified by husks—as in Distinction 37, section Hinc etiam—satisfy the stomach of its mind. It was otherwise with the Jewish people, who remained with God the Father through knowledge and worship of the true God.

At last the Gentile people came to itself and recognized its misery from the teaching of the Gospel offered to it. It returned to the heavenly Father through conversion to the faith and was received with great joy and ornaments into grace.

Perceiving this, the elder son, the Jewish people, was indignant and would not enter the Father’s house, the Church. Although the heavenly Father exhorts it to do so through the Scriptures, it still remains outside in unbelief.

Morally, the parable signifies two states: that of the just but proud, and that of converted sinners. God is nevertheless the father and governor of both states.

Because every age is prone to evil from its youth, at the beginning of the use of reason, when carnal concupiscence incites a person toward pleasurable things, someone of that age desires liberty, so that he may be shaken free from the yoke of subjection to parents and teachers under whom he had previously been placed. This is the young man asking his father to give him a portion of the substance.

The heavenly Father’s substance is whatever we possess of natural, spiritual, and temporal goods.

“For what do you have that you did not receive?” says the Apostle in Romans. The young man therefore asks—that is, longs and desires at that age—to use freedom of choice concerning the aforesaid goods, supposing that this will conduce to his good.

The heavenly Father divides the substance because he grants freedom of choice and the ability to use the goods bestowed either well or badly. Jerome says in his book Against Jovinian: “God created us with free choice. We are drawn by necessity neither to virtues nor to vices; otherwise, where there is necessity there is no crown.” This is in On Penance, Distinction 2, chapter Si enim.

People commonly begin in adolescence to use freedom of choice badly, because “the number of fools is infinite,” Ecclesiastes 1. Departing from the heavenly Father through the loss of grace, they travel into a distant country by entering the state of the wicked, which is unlike God’s goodness.

From the Gospel text one can note the incursion of such a sinner into the seven capital sins.

When the young man asks his father for his portion of the substance, the pride of presumption is indicated, as though God were bound to him and he presumed that he could govern himself well by himself.

When he goes into a country distant from his father, envy is indicated. Nothing is so distant from God as envy, since God is goodness and charity itself, to which envy is contrary.

When he dissipates his substance by living wantonly, lust is plainly indicated, which rules adolescents before the other sins and more openly. Although the spiritual substance of virtues is dissipated in every mortal judgment, in lust not only grace but also temporal substance, reputation, and especially natural substance are dissipated.

When it is said that, after a famine arose in that country, he began to be in need, avarice is indicated. As Jerome says, “The unbeliever”—that is, the avaricious man, which according to the Apostle is the service of idols—“needs even a penny,” because he seems to himself to need everything.

Note that a great famine arises in that country distant from the Father, that is, in the state of sin. Because rest of mind is found neither in lust nor in the other vices, there remains the desire for the true and supreme good implanted in human minds, as Boethius says. This is spiritual hunger.

When it is said that he went and attached himself to one of the citizens of that country, anger is signified. The citizens of that distant country are demons obstinate in malice. One of them is called Abador, a name interpreted “destroyer,” who tempts concerning anger. One made like him adheres to him. Chrysostom says that an angry man resembles a demoniac who acts furiously, and the same writer says that there is nothing between anger and madness.

When it is said that this citizen sent him to the farm to feed swine, sloth is intimated. Commonly, citizens and nobles, as this man was, remain idle on a farm, and he was to feed swine because the slothful and idle person feeds and nourishes unclean and wanton thoughts, figured by swine.

Finally, when it is said that he desired to fill his stomach with husks, gluttony is intimated, which sins even in the vilest foods by desiring them too ardently or beyond measure.

Next is intimated the manner of his conversion to penance through contrition, confession, and satisfaction. Seneca says that the beginning of salvation is knowledge of oneself, which occurs through interior consideration. Hence the Evangelist says: “But returning to himself.”

A person remains outside himself while he is wrapped in sins and does not use reason. But the Lord says through the prophet: “Return to the heart, O transgressors.”

A person turns away from God in four ways and, while remaining outside himself, goes farther and farther away. The first, as Jerome says, is to have thought things that are evil; the second, to have acquiesced in perverse thoughts; the third, to have resolved in the mind to fulfill them in deed; the fourth, not to do penance but to take pleasure in one’s sin. This is Jerome in On Penance, Distinction 1, chapter Super tribus.

At the first stage a mortal sin can also be noted, namely through lingering pleasure without consent to the deed. Therefore, inviting the soul to penance four times, God says in the Song: “Return, return, O Sunamitis; return, return, that we may behold you.” According to Jerome, “Sunamitis” is interpreted “wretched,” “captive,” or “mortified,” all of which suit the sinful soul.

Return, therefore, by departing from those four stages. Return within yourself by considering both the state of the good and the state of sinners. Hence the text says that, returning to himself, he said: “How many hired servants in my father’s house abound in bread.”

In the Father’s house, which is the Church, the hired servants are those who serve God. Although they serve principally from love of the Father, they nevertheless hope without doubt to obtain the greatest reward from him. Even now, beyond their hoped-for wage, they abound in the bread of spiritual consolation within their very works. These consolations surpass every human consolation, and the things that could be related about them are omitted.

“But I perish here with hunger,” namely in this state of sin. What refreshment is there in it, when even the Philosopher says that every wicked person is filled with regret and is drawn now this way and now that by his passions toward diverse and contrary things? Augustine says: “You commanded, Lord, and so it came to be, that every disordered mind should be its own punishment.”

Here a person suffers a deficiency through hunger, deprived of spiritual goods; in the other life, deprived of heavenly goods. How many evils he endures and incurs through sin is not to be discussed here.

“I shall arise,” by ceasing from the act of sinning, “and go to my father,” directing myself toward God through fear and hope, and at every step recalling my sins and crushing myself with remorse. “I shall say to him: Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you.”

In confession, this means disclosing to the priest both manifest sins, which are said to be before heaven, and hidden sins, which are said to be before God because he alone knows them. All this is to be done with humility, so that the penitent says it with feeling: “I am now unworthy to be called your son.”

He should resolve to make satisfaction according to God’s and the confessor’s command, saying effectively: “Make me like one of your hired servants,” that is: “Just as you command them to do what you will, so impose it upon me too, and I am ready. Just as you refresh them with spiritual foods, so console me too, though unworthy.”

If a sinner is truly converted, he carries out in deed what he conceives in mind. “He arose,” therefore, departing from the purpose of sinning. Pope Callistus says: “A man is changed from sin and rises by God’s grace from his fall.” This is in Distinction 50, chapter Ponderet.

“He came toward his father’s house,” the Church, grieving over the deeds he recalls. Ambrose says: “There is nothing of such great sorrow as when someone placed under the captivity of sin remembers from where he has slipped, from what state he has fallen, and that from the fair and beautiful appearance of the divine constitution he has flowed downward toward these earthly and bodily things.” This is in On Penance, Distinction 1, chapter Sunt qui arbitrantur.

“While he was still far away,” because, although worn down by imperfect sorrow, he was not yet contrite, “his father saw him” with the eye of mercy. With this eye the Lord looked upon Peter after he denied him and made him weep bitterly over his sin.

The Lord says through Malachi: “Be converted to me,” by disposing and fitting yourselves for grace, “and I shall be converted to you” by conferring it.

Jerome says: “God’s moderation and kindness seek only our return and desire to save us through his long-suffering goodness.” This is in Distinction 93, chapter Diaconi.

Pope Leo says: “We cannot set a measure upon God’s mercy or define times for it, for conversion suffers no delays with him.” Hence the text continues: “Moved with mercy for him, he ran to meet him.” The Psalm says: “His mercy shall come before me,” by infusing first grace, which is called prevenient because it is bestowed without any preceding merit.

Jerome says: “That, though great, you may regard the little; that, though a rich shepherd, you may not despise the sick sheep: Christ took the thief from the cross into paradise. And lest anyone think conversion ever too late, he made the punishment for homicide into martyrdom. Christ, I say, joyfully embraces the returning prodigal and, leaving the ninety-nine sheep, carries upon the devout shepherd’s shoulders the one little sheep that remained.

“Where the sinner recognizes his wound and brings himself to the physician for healing, there the rod is not needed, but the spirit of gentleness.” This is in On Penance, Distinction 1, chapter Importuna.

“He fell upon his neck,” embracing him, by which union through love is intimated. Love, according to Dionysius, has a unitive power. Hence the Apostle says in 1 Corinthians 6: “He who adheres to God” through charity “is one spirit with him.”

“He kissed him,” reconciling to himself the one who had formerly been his enemy. The Apostle says in Romans 5: “When we were enemies” through sins against God, “we were reconciled through the death of his Son,” from which penance and the other sacraments possess their power. A kiss is a sign of reconciliation and peace.

Having forgiven the offense, he restored the merits the man had acquired by bringing his mortified good works back to life. Hence Augustine says in On Penance, Distinction 3: “It is devout to believe, and faith demands, that when Christ’s grace has destroyed the former evils, it also rewards the good things. When it destroys what it did not find as its own, it loves and cherishes what it planted in the sinner.”

“The son spoke,” namely by confessing aloud. Hence Ambrose says in a sermon: “Behold, now the acceptable time is present, in which confession frees the soul from death. Confession opens paradise. Confession grants the hope of salvation. Hence Scripture says: ‘Declare your iniquities, that you may be justified.’” Thus Ambrose, in On Penance, Distinction 1.

“Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you.” The priest is called father. Gregory says in Distinction 96: “Who doubts that Christ’s priests are accounted the fathers and teachers of all the faithful?” Let the penitent therefore confess to him all sins committed against God—this is to sin against heaven—and those committed against people—this is to sin before you. Or “against heaven” means hidden sins, known in heaven, that is, to God; “before you” means manifest sins, known to people.

Pope Leo says: “God’s manifold mercy so aids human falls that hope of eternal life is restored not only through the mercy of baptism but also through the medicine of penance, so that those who have violated baptism’s gifts may, by condemning themselves through their own judgment”—namely by confessing to a priest—“come to forgiveness of their crimes.” This is in On Penance, Distinction 1.

“I am now unworthy to be called your son.” I do not ask to be treated indulgently as a son, but to be afflicted with penances. Augustine says that the penitent should place himself at the judge’s discretion in the priest’s judgment, reserving nothing of himself to himself, so that at the priest’s command he may do everything to recover the soul’s life that he would do to avoid bodily death—and this with joy, because he recovers an infinite life. Thus Augustine, in On Penance, Distinction 5, chapter 1.

The same Augustine says in a sermon on penitents: “It is not enough to change one’s conduct for the better and depart from former evils unless satisfaction is made for what has been done through the sorrow of penance, through the groaning of humility—that is, humble confession—through the sacrifice of a contrite heart, with alms and fasts cooperating.” This is in On Penance, Distinction 1. Understand this as applying, when the ability is present, to confession and satisfaction.

In Cause 26, Question 7 it is said: “Let the penitent receive within himself the disposition possessed by the man who said: ‘I have hated and abhorred iniquity.’” And the Apostle says of those who were made sorrowful according to God: “What great care it has worked in you, and what defense, zeal, and punishment; in all things you have shown yourselves careful in the matter.” Even in the very things in which he sinned, let the penitent do many contrary deeds, as Zache did. Thus the canon.

The father said to the servants: these are either the angels who cooperate in bringing sinners back to God and procuring good things for them; or preachers, who in their sermons ought to give confidence of pardon to those converted to penance, for the Lord says in Ezekiel: “Is the death of the wicked my will, and not rather that he be converted and live?” And again: “If the wicked man turns away from his wickedness, I shall remember none of his iniquities.”

Or the servants are the ministers of the sacraments, who ought to be ready to minister penance to all penitents, especially at death. Hence Cause 26, Question 6 says: “If a priest denies penance to the dying,” when they do what they ought, “he is guilty of their souls, because the Lord says: ‘On whatever day the sinner is converted to penance, he shall live and shall not die.’ True confession can occur at the final moment, because the Lord examines not only time but also the heart, just as the thief merited to be in paradise through the penance of one moment.”

“Quickly bring forth the first robe,” that is, declare and by your ministry work to this end, that the purity lost through crimes may be restored. For true penance, Augustine says, strives to bring the confessor back to baptismal purity. This is in On Penance, Distinction 3, chapter Sunt plures.

John Chrysostom speaks most devoutly in his book On the Restoration of the Fallen: “Believe me, such is God’s mercy toward human beings. It never rejects a person’s penance if it is offered sincerely and simply. Even if someone has reached the summit of evils, nevertheless, if he wishes to return from there to the way of virtue, God receives him, willingly embraces him, and does everything to recall him to his former state.

“What is still more excellent and eminent, even if someone cannot fulfill the whole order of satisfaction, God does not reject whatever little penance he performs, even in however brief a time.” Thus Chrysostom, in On Penance, Distinction 3. He gives the examples of Achab, Manassen, and those in the Lives of the Fathers.

“Quickly bring forth the first robe and clothe him.” As Ambrose says: “When wickedness is renounced, virtue immediately stands by, for the departure of malice effects the entrance of virtue.”

This first robe, that is, the chief and principal virtue, can be understood as charity, which is the wedding garment. It is the first virtue restored through penance and it covers the multitude and ugliness of sins. Stripped of it by sin, our first parents recognized themselves to be naked, whereas they had previously been clothed in it.

“Clothe him,” that is, teach the converted sinner to show this charity also in his outward conduct.

“Give a ring for his hand.” The ring is faith, by which we are espoused to God. Hence the prophet Oseas says: “I shall espouse you to me in faith.” Give it on his finger, not in his purse—that is, instruct him to show it by works.

Hence Augustine says: “In the body of the one and immaculate dove,” namely the Church, “neither a heretic nor a wicked Christian is found. Just as if someone’s hand were withered, it would indeed be a true member, although ineffective and dead for want of blood, so faith, although true, is dead without works.” This is in Cause 1, Question 1, chapter Sicut urgeri.

“And shoes for his feet.” Shoes, which are made from the skins of dead animals, are the examples of the saints, especially those whom the Lord made living from among the dead after they had been mortified through penance.

These examples should be proposed so that the feet of the affections may be shod: lest, if bare, they stumble against the stone of obstinacy and pride through despair; be wounded by the thorns of avarice; or be befouled by the mud of former lusts.

Instead, having conceived hope of pardon, let the penitent walk confidently in the house of the Church through the examples of the penitent sinful woman, the publican, the praying and persevering Canaanite woman, the persecuting Paul, and the confessing thief.

Ambrose says: “No one can worthily do penance who has not hoped for pardon.” This is in On Penance, Distinction 1. Indeed, he should hope even for glory, since the penitent thief was told, “Today you shall be with me in paradise,” and heavenly glory was shown to Paul after his conversion.

“Bring the fatted calf,” that is, admit him to the sacrament of the Eucharist and set it before the penitent. In it is Christ, signified by the fatted calf that was offered under the Law.

Pope Leo says: “The mediator of God and human beings, the man Christ Jesus, delivered to the rulers of the Church this power: that they should give the satisfaction of penance to those confessing and, when they had been cleansed by that saving satisfaction, admit them to the communion of the sacraments through the gate of reconciliation.” This is in On Penance, Distinction 1, chapter Multiplex.

“And kill it,” that is, show that Christ, the calf, was killed for his sins, which is represented in the sacrament. Hence the book of Prosper’s Sentences says: “Christ was sacrificed once in himself, and yet a representation of that sacrifice occurs daily in the sacrament. True God and true man, he hung only once upon the cross, offering himself to the Father as a living, passible, and mortal victim, efficacious for the redemption of the living and the dead”—namely, those whom the depth of divine counsel judged, foreknew, predestined, and called to be redeemed. This is in On Consecration, Distinction 2, chapter Semel.

“Let us eat and feast.” Revelation 3 says: “If anyone opens the door to me,” namely through confession, “I shall enter to him and sup with him, and he with me.”

Priests cannot feast upon those who offer themselves deceitfully to penance. Their food, Origen says, is the remission of sins. Hence the true priest also says: “My food is to do my Father’s will,” that is, that converted and penitent sinners be saved. This is in On Penance, Distinction 3, chapter Inter haec, the first chapter.

“Because this son of mine was dead and has come to life again.” Gratian says: “Obstinacy of mind and contempt for confession are a certain death of impiety and leprosy of pride. A person comes to life again from them when, through grace, sorrow for sin and the desire for confession are inspired in him.” This is in On Penance, Distinction 1.

“He had perished and has been found.” The Psalm says: “I wandered like a sheep that has perished; seek your servant, Lord.” Above it was said: “I have found my sheep that I had lost.”

“And they began to feast,” because there is joy in the heaven of the Church—both militant and triumphant—over one sinner doing penance.

When the elder son heard these things, he was indignant, remained outside, and did not wish to rejoice with his father, brother, and the rest of the household. He signifies certain proud people who seem to themselves just and innocent because they have not withdrawn from the Church’s house through great and manifest crimes like great sinners, and who labor in the Father’s field through works belonging to the class of good things.

They are troubled and grow ill because God receives great sinners, if penitent, into pardon and bestows on them fervent and abundant gifts of grace, more than upon themselves, as is evident in Paul and many others.

Yet through the Scriptures the most merciful Father shows such people that his goodness speaks in this way and that nothing is thereby subtracted from their paternal inheritance. Even if the indignant person remains so, the best Father nevertheless does not desist from restoring the sinner.

This was also figured in the raising of the four-days-dead Lazarus. The chief priests and Pharisees, who appeared just and learned to themselves, were indignant against the Lord because of it and sought to kill Lazarus himself.

But Christ, invited with his disciples, came to a supper where Lazarus himself was a guest with others, and the whole house was filled with the fragrance of the poured-out ointment. Ambrose touches upon this mystery, saying: “However great the stench of the dead man, namely the sinner—that is, his infamy—may be, it is immediately wholly abolished when the sacred ointment of penance gives forth fragrance.

“The dead man rises through grace, and his bonds, namely those of sins, are commanded to be loosed by the Church’s ministers. The veil is taken from his face, because one whose sin has been forgiven has nothing for which he should blush.

“When everyone ought to rejoice in so great a grace of the Lord and so great a miracle of the divine gift, the wicked were disturbed and prepared a plan against Christ. Do you not recognize that you are deservedly their successors, whose hardness you have inherited?

“For if you are indignant and conceive a plan against the Church because you see the dead return to life in the Church and sinners be raised through pardon, then, insofar as it lies in you, through envy you wish to kill again those who have been raised.

“But Jesus does not revoke his favor; rather, he heaps up liberality. He carefully keeps those whom he raised alive, and, when the glory of the resurrection has been celebrated, he joyfully comes to the supper.” Thus Ambrose, in On Penance, Distinction 1, chapter Quantulibet.

There were certain heretics who said that sins could not be purged more than once through penance. Against them Augustine argues through reasons and examples in On Penance, Distinction 3, chapter Adhuc isti perfidi.

Because a preacher’s intention ought to be to lead sinners back to penance, this parable would be excellent material for preaching throughout Lent.

First, in one part of Lent, one could speak of the capital sins with their offspring, by which a person is estranged from God, as treated above. Second, in another part, one could speak of revelation unto penance, and there of contrition, confession, and satisfaction. Next, one could speak of the restoration of the virtues, hope, and charity, as has been noted. Finally, one could speak of Communion and the Passion, and at the end of the Resurrection, the banquet of heavenly glory, the resurrection, and so forth.

§ VIII. Parables by Which Christ Shows God’s Immense Kindness and Diligence in Calling People to the Banquet of the Church Militant and Triumphant

First, concerning the Church militant, Matthew alone relates the parable, saying: “The kingdom of heaven is like a man who was a king and made a wedding feast for his son,” and so forth.

That is, what occurs in the Church, which is called the kingdom of heaven, is like what is related in this likeness. The good faithful are called heavens because they are raised from the earth through contempt of temporal things; God reigns and dwells in them through grace.

Note that because all our cognition takes its origin from the senses, and spiritual and divine things cannot be understood by human beings—especially those devoted to sensible things, as commonly happens—unless they are eaten through examples and likenesses drawn from sensible things they know, Sacred Scripture in both the Old and New Testaments therefore speaks of spiritual and divine matters through likenesses of bodily things, so that they may be grasped more fittingly.

People are accustomed to rejoice and delight especially in banquets, foremost among which are those held at weddings, and at such events they desire to find themselves present. Therefore, to express in some small degree the spiritual joy and refreshment possessed by the elect not only in future glory but also here in the Church militant, Scripture speaks of it under the parable of a royal wedding banquet.

It does so to incite people to seek such spiritual refreshment, since all incline toward joys and delights, and spiritual delights incomparably surpass and are more perfect than all bodily ones. Hence Bernard says: “Once the sweetness of the spirit has been tasted, all flesh loses its savor.”

This man is God the Father. He is called a man because of intellect, although his intellect is otherwise and incomparably more excellent than that of a human being or angel. He “dwells in inaccessible light,” says the Apostle. He is a king because he continually governs those whom he created. The Psalm says: “The Lord is a great God and a great king above all gods.”

His Son is the Father’s only-begotten. Hence we first “saw his glory, as of the only-begotten of the Father.” The Father made a wedding feast for his Son when he decreed that he should become incarnate.

The Son took human nature as his bride, from which the Church comes, whose head he is. He united that nature to himself in the unity of the Word’s person: the Word was made flesh, a human being being assumed, not God consumed.

The Virgin’s womb was the bridal chamber of this union, according to the Psalm: “Like a bridegroom proceeding from his bridal chamber, he rejoiced like a most mighty giant,” from a twofold substance, divine and human, “to run his course,” that is, cheerfully and eagerly, as though he ran most swiftly. He made his way from heaven to earth.

Those in the heavenly homeland rejoice exceedingly over this mystery of the Incarnation, figured in the wedding of hester and assueri, saying in Revelation: “Let us rejoice and exult, for the wedding of the Lamb has come.”

“He called many.” It does not say all, because little children of any nation, even Christian, who die uncleansed from original sin and without the use of reason are not called to the Church’s wedding feast.

All others are called, and these are many, because they come from every nation under heaven. Even before the wedding was celebrated in act—that is, before the mystery was accomplished through the act of the Incarnation—all were called at least through the natural law. By observing it, they were also called through hidden inspiration or revelation to believe at least that God exists and that he rewards those who seek him, namely through good works; that reward was procured in this wedding.

Such persons entered this wedding feast ecclesiastically as members of the Church, although they were very few, like Job, to whom this wedding mystery was also more fully revealed.

The Jewish people were called in a special way through the Mosaic Law, the prophets, and the examples of the saints of that time.

“He sent his servants to call those invited,” for the most part, when God willed certain holy men, his true servants who perfectly obeyed him, to exist in the world and solicit others by words and examples toward good conduct according to the natural or written Law, such as patriarchs, prophets, and Gentiles.

“They would not come,” because, as the Psalm says, “All turned aside” from the right way; “together they became useless; there is none who does good.” All the Gentiles had declined into idolatry, and the Jews into disobedience to the Law, according to Jeremiah: “From of old you broke the yoke” of the natural law; “you burst the bonds” of the commandments of the written Law; “you said, ‘I will not serve,’” namely by obeying God.

“Again he sent other servants,” namely his apostles, disciples, and martyrs, and even the Church’s bridegroom himself, their teacher in his humanity, teaching and inviting people to the wedding feast, that is, to the faith.

“The Lord sent me,” he himself says through Isaiah, “and his Spirit, to evangelize the poor,” to preach an acceptable year of the Lord and a day of repayment of good things for evils.

Through these servants he said: “Tell those invited: Behold, I have prepared my banquet.” The banquet of spiritual refreshment had been promised in the Old Testament, according to Isaiah: “The Lord shall make on this mountain a banquet of fat things, a banquet of marrow, a banquet of purified vintage, and shall cast death down forever.” Christ and the apostles announced that it had been prepared.

Jesus says: “Come to me, all you who labor and are burdened, and I shall refresh you,” Matthew 11. Again he says: “I appoint to you that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom,” Luke 22.

The Psalm shows how much strength the food of this royal wedding table grants, saying: “You have prepared a table before me against those who trouble me,” a table refreshing and strengthening me against the devil, the flesh, and the world.

The Apostle intimates how exquisite these feasts are in 1 Corinthians 2: “Eye has not seen, nor ear heard, nor has it entered into the human heart, what God has prepared for those who love him.”

The prince of the apostles says: “God has regenerated us into a living hope, into an incorruptible, undefiled, and unfading inheritance, preserved in heaven in us who are guarded by God’s power through faith for a salvation prepared to be revealed in the last time.” And below: “Believing in him, you shall exult with unutterable and glorified joy,” 1 Peter 1.

Faith in this mystery already accomplished, namely the Incarnation, and hope of reaching the glory thereby prepared for us are the spiritual refreshment of this banquet of the Church.

“Behold,” he says of the present, “I have prepared my banquet; my oxen and fatlings are killed.” The oxen signify the fathers of the Old Testament and the fatlings the saints of the New Testament. The examples of those already dead are set before us for imitation and refresh us at the banquet of the Church militant.

Hence Gregory says in a homily: “What is signified by the oxen except the fathers of the Old Testament? For when, by permission, they had received leave to strike their adversaries by repaying hatred, what else, so to speak, were they but oxen who struck their enemies with the horn of bodily power?

“What is figured by the fatlings except the fathers of the New Testament, who, while receiving the richness of inward grace and separating themselves from earthly desires, raise themselves to the heights as though by the wing of contemplation?”

This is in Cause 23, Question 4, canon Cum in lege.

It is to be noted, Gregory says, that in the first invitation nothing is said about oxen and fatlings, but in the second the oxen and fatlings are now recalled as slaughtered. For when we refuse to hear his words, almighty God adds examples, so that everything we believe impossible may become easier for us to hope for, insofar as we hear that others have passed through these things.

Or, according to Origen, the banquet is God’s discourse. The oxen are the strong teachings there; the fatlings are the sweet and delightful ones.

“And all things are ready”: namely, all that pertains to the mystery of the Lord’s Passion and our redemption, according to Chrysostom.

Or, according to the Gloss, all things are ready in that the entrance to the kingdom, formerly closed, has been opened through faith in my Incarnation.

Or, according to Chrysostom, all things are ready because whatever is required for salvation has already been fulfilled in the Scriptures. One who is ignorant finds there what he may learn; one who is stubborn finds there what he may fear; and one who labors finds there promises by which he may be stirred to work.

Or all things are ready because nothing necessary or conducive to salvation and spiritual refreshment is lacking from the Church’s banquet. There are the sacraments, which purge sins, increase virtues, and cause spiritual joys. There is the food of angels, bread from heaven possessing every savor of sweetness; and what is better than the Lord’s body and blood? Jerome says this in Cause 1, Question 1, canon Multi.

There too, namely in the Church, are the teachings of the Scriptures, of which the Psalm says: “How sweet are your words to my palate, sweeter than honey to my mouth.” There are the divine offices, the chants and instruments of the sweetly sounding Church.

“Come therefore to the wedding,” namely the Church’s wedding, the apostles said as they traveled throughout the world, for “their sound has gone forth into all the earth.” What they sounded forth in their preaching follows: “He has placed his tabernacle in the sun,” that is, the mystery of the Incarnation. They taught how people might come to the wedding through the law, namely the spotless law of the Lord, concerning which it follows: “The law of the Lord is spotless”—by receiving the law and evangelical doctrine and observing the law of charity.

“But they neglected it,” for the most part. For only a few were converted to the faith by Christ, the apostles, and the first preachers of the Gospel, in comparison with those who remained in unbelief. Those who did not believe therefore did not come to the wedding, although invited by the preachers.

The cause of this neglect was either a disordered affection for bodily pleasures, an excessive appetite for temporal riches, or a faithless contempt for divine things. These are indicated when it says: “One went away to his farm,” and so forth.

Citizens go to a farm for bodily recreation, which is not in itself unlawful. But when someone seeks bodily pleasures and recreations in such a way that on their account he neglects to approach the Church’s banquet by the way of the virtues, he is deprived both of it and of his own salvation.

Those therefore who, lest he admit the pleasures of the flesh [read: lest they lose the pleasures of the flesh], did not wish to receive the apostles’ teaching, which opposed them. Peter says: “I beseech you, as strangers and pilgrims, to abstain from carnal desires, which wage war against the soul.” So too now there are many whose god is their belly, giving themselves to lust like the horse and mule. These neglected to approach the wedding.

“Another went to his business.” Business properly occurs when a thing is bought so that, without being changed in substance or quality, it may be sold more dearly at another time or place, as Chrysostom says in Distinction 88, canon Eiciens.

Although this can be made honorable by its purpose when it is conducted for a good end—such as the support of oneself and one’s household, provision for the commonwealth, or assistance to the poor—and in the proper manner, nevertheless of itself it appears to serve greed, because it knows no limit when it is conducted for profit. Avarice, to which merchants commonly devote themselves, is therefore signified by it.

We cannot adhere to the author of good things through living faith unless we utterly cast out greed, which is the root of all evils, Gregory says in Distinction 47, canon Bonorum, “Insofar as the love of temporal substance is preferred to God.”

Many therefore did not hear by assenting to the preaching of the Lord’s disciples, because they were devoted to avarice. Hence Paul also said in 1 Timothy 6: “Charge the rich not to be high-minded, nor to hope in the uncertainty of their riches,” and so forth.

Alternatively, according to Hilary, the one man’s farm and the other’s business are explained thus: by worldly ambition people occupy themselves as though with a farm, since a man has lordship over and possession of his farm; but more people are detained in business by desire for money.

Or, according to Gregory, the farm signifies the exercise of earthly labor and business signifies other worldly activities. Therefore, whoever is intent upon earthly labor or devoted to worldly activities, and neglects to ponder the mystery of the Lord’s Incarnation and to live according to it, refuses to come to the wedding, as though going to his farm or business.

“But the rest abused and killed” the servants who invited them. These were the malicious and very wicked men who killed Christ, the apostles, and other martyrs who preached the truth. The first among them were the Jews who persecuted the Church, and afterward other Gentile tyrants, Roman emperors, and other unbelieving princes of the world.

“When the king heard this, he was angry.” Anger is not said to be in God properly, but figuratively, after the likeness of people who are called angry when they punish. Hence Augustine says: “God’s anger is not, as man’s is, a disturbance of an agitated mind, but the tranquil establishment of a just punishment.” This is in On Penance, Distinction 3, canon Productior.

“And sending his armies, he destroyed those murderers.” According to Gregory, the armies of the heavenly king are the ranks of angels. Among human beings, every judgment of his is carried out through angels. Through their ministry, therefore, God destroyed the persecutors of the Church who had killed the apostles and martyrs in order to extinguish evangelical doctrine: temporally, by ending badly, and eternally, by consigning them to damnation.

“And he burned their city with fire,” because, according to Gregory, not only their souls but also the bodies in which they had dwelt will be tormented in the fire of Gehenna.

Or, according to Origen, the city of these impious men is the perverse and manifold doctrine of unbelievers, which is consumed and eradicated by fire.

It should be noted, however, that according to certain doctors the first and second call of the servants to the wedding are explained with reference to the Jewish people. Thus the first call began with Abraham, to whom the special promise of the Incarnation was made: “In your seed all nations shall be blessed,” and it continued through the other patriarchs.

The invitation preceding this call seems to mean the implanted natural law, which urges one toward the good and naturally seeks happiness. The second call is understood to have begun with the law given through Moses and to have continued through the prophets who followed, down to Christ and the apostles preaching in Judea.

By those who neglected the invitation and went to their farm, Chrysostom understands the common people among the Jews, whom delight in the world separated from Christ. By those who went to their business he understands the priests of that people and the other ministers of the Temple, who were devoted to avarice. Christ said to them: “Do not make my Father’s house a house of business.” Thus they were separated from the true faith.

Those who, out of the hatred and envy of malice, killed Christ and the apostles are signified by the murderers. Against them the heavenly king, angry at their obstinacy in unbelief, sent his armies: according to Jerome, the Romans under the rulers Titus and Vespasian. He destroyed them, scattered the remnants who survived, burned their chief city Jerusalem, and reduced it to nothing.

The Romans and their rulers are called God’s armies, although they were unbelievers, because they were stirred up to punish the Jews by God’s command and disposition, as is said in Cause 23, Question 5, the final section and what follows.

What follows—“Then the king said: Go to the ends of the roads, and call everyone,” and so forth—is explained of the call made when the Jews drove the apostles from their territories, and the apostles dispersed throughout the world to preach to the Gentiles.

The second call can nevertheless be explained more generally, as has been said: it is called one that began with Christ and the apostles and ended with the peace granted to the Church when Constantine was converted to the faith.

God’s purpose and predestination cannot fail or be frustrated, because he has his appointed number of the elect in the Church militant and afterward in the Church triumphant. Hence the king said to his ministers—that is, to the Church’s prelates or to the angels set over the calling of the Gentiles, to whom he reveals his secrets and ordinances. This is what it means to tell them: “My wedding is ready, but those who were invited were not worthy.” It is as though he said: spiritual and eternal refreshment has been prepared through the mystery of the Incarnation, and many had been invited and called, especially the Jews, through preachers, examples, and displayed miracles. But they made themselves unworthy through either their negligence or their malice, not through anything on God’s part, for “God wills all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth,” says the Apostle.

“Go therefore to the ends of the roads,” you preachers—that is, according to Remigius, to the Gentiles, who were at the ends of the roads, namely in errors lying outside the way of truth.

Or, according to Chrysostom, go to all sinners of whatever condition, who are outside the way of the virtues that leads to God and are in various vices that lead to the devil.

Or, according to Gregory, since actions of human beings are called “ways” in Sacred Scripture, the ends of the roads can be understood as failures of action. Those whom no earthly success accompanies in their activities come more readily to God.

“And call to the wedding all whom you find.” Ambrose says: “God excludes no crime, since he has forgiven all sins,” in On Penance, Distinction 1, canon Nemo: that is, no one who comes to this wedding through baptism and penance. One comes not on foot, but by faith and conduct.

“The servants went out”: either the apostles, going from Judea to the city of the Gentiles, are understood; or the angels, going from the inner places of divine counsel—where they comprehend the mysteries to be performed—to the ends of the roads, that is, to people living according to diverse rites outside the true worship of God.

“They gathered all whom they found, good and bad.” According to Jerome, there was infinite diversity among the Gentiles. Some were devoted to honorable and moral life, although they were unbelievers, and these are called good. Others were devoted to crimes, and these are called bad. Yet people from both classes were converted to the faith and gathered into the Church’s wedding.

Or the “good” are those truly converted to the faith, and the “bad” those who approached deceitfully, like Simon Magus. Nevertheless, the Church’s prelates—the ministers of this king—admitted both together to the sacraments, because the bad displayed themselves as good and their deceit was unknown.

Or the good and bad are the elect and the reprobate. Even if the latter were truly converted, they afterward entangled themselves in vices, as did Nicholas, one of the seven deacons.

“And the wedding was filled with guests,” because the Church was filled with those converted to the faith. This occurred especially when peace had been granted to the Church after the persecutions of the unbelieving emperors, and Constantine granted the faculty and freedom to build churches, celebrate the offices publicly, destroy idols, assemble councils, and preach publicly. The house of the Church was filled, yet with good and evil intermingled.

Hence Gregory says in a homily: “This life, which is situated between heaven and hell, just as it subsists in the middle, commonly receives citizens from both sides. Holy Church now receives them indiscriminately, but afterward distinguishes them at their departure. Therefore, if you are good, tolerate the wicked with equanimity for as long as you subsist here, because whoever does not tolerate the wicked bears witness against himself through his intolerance that he is not good.” This is in Cause 23, Question 4, canon Haec vita.

Gregory likewise says: “That bridegroom who was going to call good and evil people to the wedding, wished to be born from both good and evil people. By his example they may learn that the iniquity of their parents cannot harm them.” This is in Distinction 56, canon Impletae sunt nuptiae.

According to Origen, the wedding was filled with good and bad because both good and bad had to be called—not so that the bad should remain bad, but so that they might put off garments contrary to the wedding and put on wedding garments, concerning which the Apostle says: “Clothe yourselves with heartfelt mercy and kindness,” and so forth.

“But the king entered to see the guests.” Chrysostom says that this is not said because God is not somewhere, but because wherever he wishes to look through judgment, there he is said to be present; and wherever he does not wish to look through judgment, there he is said to be absent, namely for that time. The day of inspection, therefore, is the day of judgment, when he will visit the Christians who now recline at the tables of the Scriptures or the sacraments.

He is said there to have “seen a man,” because at the final universal judgment he makes everyone see the wicked together with their acts of malice. Hence it follows: “not clothed in a wedding garment.” It says “a man” in the singular because, according to Origen, all who preserve malice after the faith they had possessed belong to one class.

According to Gregory, the wedding garment means charity, because the Lord possessed it when he came to unite the Church to himself. Therefore, one who has faith in the Church but does not have charity enters the wedding without a wedding garment. Concerning this garment of charity the Psalm says of the Church: “The queen stood at your right hand in gilded clothing,” through which, namely, she is joined to the good.

Or, according to Augustine, one comes to the wedding without a wedding garment when he seeks there not the Bridegroom’s glory but his own.

Or, according to Hilary, the wedding garment is the grace of the Holy Spirit and the splendor of a heavenly habit, that is, purity, concerning which Ecclesiastes says: “Let your garments always be white,” that is, let your conduct be clean.

Or, according to Jerome, the wedding garment is observance of the Law and the Gospel, as though it were the garment of the new man. Whoever under the Christian name does not possess it on the day of judgment will be rebuked.

Hence it follows: “And he said to him: Friend, how did you enter here without having a wedding garment?” He calls him a friend because he was invited to the wedding as a friend through faith. He enters and remains there because he is numbered with the other Christians and admitted to the sacraments. But he is charged with shamelessness, because with a filthy garment he pollutes the wedding purity.

For just as God is honored and the Church adorned through the good, so through evil believers the Lord is blasphemed because of their sins, as the Apostle says, and the Church is disfigured.

“But he was speechless.” Origen says that one who sins and has not put on the Lord Jesus by receiving faith and baptism appears to have some excuse of ignorance or the like. But a Christian has none, since he knew how he ought to conduct himself, and therefore he is struck speechless.

The unbeliever also, because he has already been judged and his condemnation is known, is neither arraigned at judgment nor his life examined, but is only condemned. The wicked Christian, however, is examined and questioned about how he entered without a wedding garment. He is nevertheless speechless because his conscience points out his evil works to him and that he is justly to be condemned.

Because it is no longer the time for repenting or changing the will, the king therefore says to his ministers: “Bind his hands and feet.” The hands are works and the feet are affections. They are then said to be bound because the ability to do or will meritorious good is taken away.

His ministers are the angels, concerning whom Matthew 13 says: “The angels shall go out and separate the wicked from among the just, and shall cast them into the furnace of fire.”

“Cast him into the exterior darkness,” that is, into hell, a land of gloom covered by the shadow of death. For although tormenting fire is there, it does not shine for them, but is dark, as though smoky and somewhat old.

Or, according to Gregory, the feet and hands are then bound by the rigor of the sentence, since the wicked were unwilling now to bind them from depraved works through the amendment of life. Or punishment then binds those whom guilt now bound from good works. We call blindness of mind “interior darkness,” but eternal damnation “exterior darkness.”

“There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” Jerome says that the magnitude of the torments is shown through a metaphor from bodily members. Or the members are also described to prove the truth of the resurrection of bodies.

Thus, according to Gregory, teeth of the body shall gnash there which delighted here in gluttony. Eyes shall weep there which there [read: here] were occupied with unlawful desires, so that the individual members may be subjected to punishment there, since here they served in subjection to the corresponding individual vices.

Because at the wedding banquet it is not the beginning but the end that is sought, it therefore follows: “Many are called, but few are chosen.” Hilary says: “To have been invited without exception is the public kindness of humanity, but from among the invited and called, election on account of the judgment of meritorious uprightness.”

Some, Gregory says, do not even begin good things, while others by no means persevere in the good things they began. Therefore, let each person fear and humble himself all the more, insofar as he does not know whether he is chosen.

“He chose us,” says the Apostle, “before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and immaculate”: that is, without the stain of mortal sin, and holy—that is, firm and persevering. Because this is proper to the elect, and because many enter the Church’s wedding through faith when called, but few are without mortal sin and persevering in good, therefore many are called and few are chosen.

§ IX. The Parable of the Talents Granted by the Lord in Different Numbers to His Servants

Matthew alone relates this parable, which Christ preached to the Jews near the time of his Passion, saying: “A man setting out for a distant country called his servants,” and so forth.

Here the rigor of justice is shown in demanding an account of the goods granted to us, whether in the particular judgment through death or in the universal judgment at the end of the world. First, therefore, the various bestowal of goods by God is set out; second, the diverse employment by man of what has been bestowed; third, the fitting recompense of what has been employed.

It says: “A certain man setting out for a distant country.” According to Gregory, this man is our Redeemer, who in the flesh he had assumed went away into heaven. For the proper place of flesh is earth, and it is said to go, as it were, into a distant country when it is placed in heaven by our Redeemer.

Or, according to Origen, it can be said that God travels abroad in us who walk by faith and not by sight. For “while we are in this body,” says the Apostle, “we are absent from the Lord.”

“He called his servants”: whether the apostles, all believers, or all human beings, who in different ways are called his servants—either through obedience to his commandments, the service of latria, or universal providence.

“He delivered his goods to them.” All the goods we possess are the Lord’s. “For what do you have that you did not receive?” says the Apostle.

“To one he gave five talents, to another two, and to another one.” Hilary understands the diverse graces delivered to each person in the five, two, and one talents.

These talents, however, are explained more particularly by different authors in different ways. Some explain them only as the doctrine delivered to the apostles and to others to be communicated to the peoples. Origen, for example, says that some received from Christ a greater dispensation of God’s utterances, others less—as it were, not understanding the affairs of the world even by half in comparison with their betters—and still others less, as though one talent.

One receives five talents when he can lead all the sensible things of the Scriptures to more divine senses. One receives two when he has been instructed in bodily doctrine, that is, in the literal sense. For two appears to be a carnal number, namely in the married state. If one has still less ability, the master of the household gave him one talent.

Gregory explains it otherwise in a homily: “To one he gave five talents,” and so forth. By five talents is expressed the gift of knowledge through the five exterior senses: a great knowledge and administration of temporal things, which are apprehended through the senses. By two talents understanding and action are designated. By the name of one talent understanding alone is expressed.

The one who had received five talents doubles them by trading. Jerome says that one who received the earthly senses doubled for himself the knowledge of heavenly things, understanding the Creator from creatures and incorporeal things from corporeal things.

Or, according to Gregory, he is one who rises through knowledge of temporal things more perfectly into knowledge of divine things, using and directing them to the contemplation and love of God; or one who duly exercises the administration of temporal things.

According to Gregory, one receives and multiplies two talents when, although unable to penetrate mystical and sublime things, he nevertheless teaches whatever he can from what he has received, for the aim of the heavenly homeland; and when he keeps himself from pleasures and other vices, he restrains others from them also by admonishing them.

Or one receives two talents when he receives both the virtue of acting well and understanding of heavenly things, according to Gregory.

Hilary explains it otherwise. “To one he gave five talents.” The one who received five talents is the people of those believing from the Law, that is, the Jewish people; progressing from the Law, they doubled its very fear by fulfilling it in the operation of evangelical faith. For there are five books of the Mosaic Law.

The people of the Gentiles is the one who received two talents, justified by faith and by confession of the Son and of the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ; they confessed our Lord Jesus Christ as God and man, from spirit and flesh. Just as the Jewish people doubled through faith in the Gospel the entire mystery that they had known in the five talents, that is, in the Law, so the Gentile people merited understanding and action through the increase of the two talents.

The one who received one talent and hid it in the ground is the people persisting in the Law, who because of envy at the salvation of the Gentiles hid the talent received in the earth. To hide a talent in the earth is to conceal the glory of the new preaching under detraction concerning the Passion of the body.

It may also be explained otherwise: “To one he gave five talents,” and so forth. By the five talents can be understood five kinds of goods that God bestows on some of his servants.

The first is a good of nature, namely body and soul with their powers. The second is a good of fortune, such as riches, power, glory, and the like. The third is the good of sanctifying grace, with the virtues and gifts. The fourth is the good of grace gratuitously given, such as prophecy, the working of miracles, and the like. The fifth is the good of glory, that is, the Eucharist, where God himself is truly present, which is the consummation and end of all the sacraments—that is, the faculty of confecting and administering it, as in priests.

God gave these five kinds of goods to some. They multiplied them insofar as, by duly exercising themselves in them, they increased their merit of grace and glory.

One receives two talents when he receives both the goods of nature and the goods of sanctifying grace, even if the others are lacking, or little of those goods common to all in baptism and afterward once more in true penance. They double them when they use them rightly or refer them to the love of God and neighbor.

One talent, namely the good of nature, is received by all and denied to none. One hides even this when he does not follow the judgment of reason, but hides it in the earth when he obscures reason, entangling himself in earthly things.

“He gave to each according to his own ability.” As regards talents of doctrine and knowledge, God gives according to the ability to comprehend; as regards talents of grace and virtues, he gives according to the strength of one’s endeavor to receive them.

“And he immediately set out.” The Gloss says that he did not change place, but permitted them free power to act and left them to their own choice.

“Therefore, the one who had received five talents worked with them and gained another five.” He does so when, by exercising himself in the goods received—in teaching; in the bodily senses and powers of the soul; in temporal goods; in the virtues and graces gratuitously given; and in the sacraments—he multiplies his merits. Likewise, the one with two gains the same amount. One who does not exercise the one talent is a person who wastes away in idleness and omission.

“But after a long time.” Jerome says that this is stated because a great span of time lies between the Savior’s Ascension and his second coming. “Here too,” Chrysostom says, “see that the Lord does not everywhere demand an account at once, so that you may learn his patience.”

Or, according to Origen, “after a long time” means after he had sent away those fit to trade for the salvation of souls. And perhaps for this reason one does not easily find anyone among those fit for such a work who passes swiftly from this life, as is evident from the fact that the apostles grew old, as is clear of Peter and Paul.

“The lord of those servants came.” Origen says: “Observe in this place that the servants do not go to the lord to be judged, but the lord comes to them when the time—namely the foreordained time—has been fulfilled.”

“And he settled accounts with them.” Jerome says: “In the settling of accounts there is the examination of judgment.” Augustine says: “Animals,” namely brutes, “will render no account of their deeds, because they do not possess reason. Human beings, however, because they were made rational, will render an account to God concerning themselves and all the things they received for the use of the present life, and according to the quality of their acts they shall receive either punishment or glory.” This is in Cause 15, Question 1, section Ex eo.

Gregory says in a homily: “This reading admonishes us to consider lest those who are seen to have received more than others in this world be judged more severely by the author of the world. For when gifts are increased, accounts for the gifts also grow. Therefore, each person ought to be the humbler because of the gift, the more he perceives himself obligated in rendering an account.”

“And the one who had received five talents approached.” Origen says: “Confidence made him dare to approach the Lord first.” This servant, who returned the talents doubled, is praised by the Lord and brought to eternal reward. Hence it follows: “Well done, good and faithful servant.”

Rabanus says: “Well done” is an interjection of rejoicing, through which the Lord expresses his joy and invites the servant who has labored well to eternal joy, concerning which the prophet says: “You shall gladden us with joy before your face.”

“Good servant.” Chrysostom says: “One who speaks of the good that pertains to his neighbor.” “Faithful,” because he appropriated to himself none of the things that belong to God.

“Because you were faithful over a few things.” Jerome says this is because everything we possess in the present, although it appears great and abundant, is nevertheless small and little in comparison with future things.

“I shall place you over many things.” According to Gregory, one is then placed over many things when, every distress of corruption having been conquered, he glories in eternal joys in that heavenly dwelling. He is then also perfectly admitted into his Lord’s joy when, taken up into that eternal homeland and into the companies of the angels, he rejoices so inwardly in the gift that nothing remains outside to grieve him through corruption.

Jerome says: “What greater thing can be given to a faithful servant than to be with the Lord and to see his Lord’s joy?” Chrysostom says that through this word he shows every beatitude. Augustine says: “This shall be our full joy, than which there is no greater: to enjoy God the Trinity, in whose image we were made.”

“The one who had received two also approached,” and so forth. Origen says: “Understand this approach as the passage from this world to the other.” Jerome says that the same speech of the master of the household caresses both servants—the one who had made ten from five talents and the one who had made four from two—and receives both with similar joy, considering not the magnitude of the gain but the will shown in their diligence.

Hence Origen says that because the same things were said to both—namely, “Enter into joy”—perhaps one who had lesser ability but exercised the whole of what he had as he ought will possess nothing less before God than the one who had greater ability. For this alone is sought: that a person use for God’s glory everything he has from God.

This, however, must be understood so that all who act virtuously, although one does so more abundantly and perfectly than another, enjoy a similar joy in kind, because all enjoy God and are altogether at rest in the vision of God. Yet in particular, those who loved God more ardently here see him more clearly and enjoy him more fully; and those who labored more for God here receive more accidental joy.

“But the one who had received one talent also approached.” Jerome says: “What is written is indeed true: in excusing sins, this servant too incurs the sin of pride together with sloth and negligence.”

For he ought simply to have confessed his inactivity and begged the master of the household. Instead, he slanders him and says that he acted with prudent counsel, lest, while seeking gains on the money, he put even the principal at risk. Hence he says: “Lord, I know that you are a hard man,” and so forth.

Origen says: “The Lord is truly hard toward those who abuse his mercy for negligence and not for conversion.” Jerome says: “If we are not converted, if we are stiff-necked, if we persevere in evils continually to the end, God does not have mercy on those continually sinning.” This is in Distinction 93, canon Diaconi.

“You reap where you have not sown and gather where you have not scattered.” Origen says: “We understand that our Lord truly reaps where he has not sown, because the just person sows in the spirit, from which the Lord reaps eternal life. He also gathers where he has not scattered, because he accounts as bestowed upon himself whatever has been sown among the poor.”

Or, according to Jerome, through this we also understand the good life of the Gentiles and philosophers, which the Lord receives, namely in order to lead them to faith.

“For I feared you.” Gregory says: “There are many within the Church, whose image this servant bears, who fear to enter upon the ways of a better life, yet do not fear to lie idle in the sloth of their body. Although they consider themselves sinners, they tremble to take up the ways of holiness.”

Or, according to Hilary, by this servant is understood the Jewish people persisting in the Law, saying, “I feared you,” as though through fear of the ancient precepts it abstained from the use of evangelical liberty and said: “Behold what is yours,” namely the talent, as though it had remained among the things commanded by the Lord. Yet it knew that the fruits of justice were to be reaped where the Law had not been sown, and that those from the Gentiles who were not dispersed from Abraham’s stock were to be gathered.

But what he thought he had said as an excuse, Jerome says, is turned into his own fault. Hence it follows: “His lord answered him: Wicked and slothful servant.” Jerome says that he is called a wicked servant because he slandered his lord, and slothful because he was unwilling to double the talent, so that he is condemned for pride in the one and negligence in the other.

“You ought therefore to have entrusted my money to the money changers.” Jerome says: “If you knew me to be hard and cruel and to pursue such things—that is, if you ought to have known that I would seek my own more diligently—you should have given my money to the money changers.”

The money is the preaching of the Gospel and the divine word, which ought to have been given to money changers—that is, to other teachers, as the apostles did when they ordained priests and bishops throughout the individual provinces—or to all believers, who can double the money and return it with interest by fulfilling in deed what they learned in speech.

Hence it is said: “And upon coming I would have exacted what was mine with interest.” Gregory says: “Just as the peril of teachers is considered if they retain the Lord’s money, that is, his doctrine, so too is that of their hearers, because what they heard is required from them with interest: from what they hear they are to strive also to understand what they have not heard.” Add also that they are to put it into practice.

Hence Pope Nicholas says: “Just as no slight danger lies upon bishops for having kept silent about what is fitting, so too—and may it not be—is there no middling danger for those who disdain to obey when they ought.” This is in Distinction 43, canon Dispensatio.

“I would have exacted it with interest”: he calls the spiritual multiplication of the goods granted “interest.” Concerning this spiritual interest Pope Leo says: “We ought to practice lending at interest through the ground and to look: that what we mercifully bestow here, we may be able to receive from the Lord, who gives increase both manifold and everlasting.” This is in Distinction 46, canon Sicut non suo.

Let us hear with what sentence the Lord strikes the slothful servant. The Lord says: “Take the talent away from him and give it to the one who has ten talents.” Gregory says: “It seemed fitting that it should be given to the one who had received two talents rather than to the one who had received five, for it ought to have been given to the one who had less. But since knowledge of exterior things is designated by the five talents, while understanding and action are designated by two, the one who received two had more than the one who received five. For the one who merited the administration of exterior things through the five talents was still empty of the understanding of eternal things. Therefore, the one talent, by which we said understanding was signified, ought to be given to the one who had administered well the exterior things he had received. We see this daily in Holy Church, so that those who faithfully administer exterior things also become powerful in inward understanding.”

Or, according to Jerome, the talent is given to the one who had made ten so that we may understand that, although the joy is equal in the labor of each—the one who doubled five talents and the one who doubled two—a greater reward is nevertheless owed to those who labor more with the Lord’s money. It is understood as equal in kind, as was said above.

“For to everyone who has, it shall be given,” and so forth. Chrysostom says: “The person who has the grace of speech and teaching for making progress, but does not use it, loses the grace. But one who applies effort draws a greater gift to himself; and from one who does not have, even what he has shall be taken away.”

Jerome says: “Many who are naturally wise and possess sharpness of intellect corrupt this good of nature if they are negligent and idle, and the reward promised to them appears to pass to others.”

It can also be understood thus: one who has faith and a good will in the Lord shall receive from the good judge, even if he has something less in deed, as a human being. But one who does not have faith shall lose even the other virtues that he appeared naturally to possess.

Or again, according to Gregory, one who does not possess charity loses even those things he appeared to have received.

Chrysostom says that the wicked servant is punished not only by loss but also by unbearable punishment. Hence it follows: “Cast the useless servant into the exterior darkness.” Origen says: “Perhaps there is no illumination there, not even bodily illumination; nor is there any regard from God there, as toward those unworthy of contemplating God.”

Hence Chrysostom says that not only one who seizes another’s property or acts wickedly is punished, but also one who does not do good things.

§ X. The Parable of the Ten Virgins, Five Wise and Five Foolish

Matthew alone relates this parable. From it is shown that it is not enough to perform things that belong to the class of good works unless they are done in the proper manner: in charity; or with spiritual joy, which proceeds from purity of intention in good works; or with mercy and the other virtues, each of which is signified by the oil.

Therefore Jesus says: “Then”—namely at the future judgment of which he was speaking—“the kingdom of heaven,” that is, the present Church according to Gregory, “shall be like ten virgins who went out to meet the bridegroom and the bride,” and so forth.

This is explained in many ways by different authors. According to Chrysostom, the Lord places the parable in the persons of virgins to show that, although virginity is a great thing—for it is the highest degree in the chastity that ought to be in the faithful, whether conjugal, widowed, or virginal—nevertheless, if it is destitute of works of mercy, it will be cast outside with adulterers.

Hence Jerome also says: “One who does not possess clemency and is not clothed with heartfelt mercy and tears has not yet fulfilled the law of Christ, however spiritual he may appear.” This is in Distinction 86.

They are called ten, of whom five are wise and five foolish, because, according to Gregory, each person subsists through the five bodily senses. Five doubled makes ten, which number is the first limit of numbers and therefore signifies universality. Because the multitude of the faithful is gathered from both sexes, Holy Church is declared like ten virgins. Since the good are mingled there with the wicked and the elect with the reprobate, five of these ten virgins are called wise and five foolish.

Or, according to Origen, all who have received the word of God, that is, the faith, are called virgins. Since God’s word is supreme purity—that is, without falsity—it imparts of its purity to those who receive it, that is, believe, so that they may be free from the worship of idols and other errors.

Or, according to Jerome, five are called wise and five foolish. The wise are those who possess the five senses while hastening toward heavenly things and desiring those above. For John spoke of spiritual sight, hearing, and touch: “What we have seen, what we have heard, what we have beheld with our eyes, and what our hands have touched, concerning the Word of life.” Of taste the Psalm says: “Taste and see that the Lord is sweet.” Of smell it is said in the Song of Songs: “We run in the fragrance of your ointments.”

Others gape after earthly fruits: thinking earthly things in their minds, which is to see; loving them, which is to touch; receiving them from others, which is to hear; inclining themselves toward the stench of evil examples, which is to smell; and delighting in vices, which is to taste. These are signified by the five foolish virgins.

Or, according to Augustine in a homily, the five wise and five foolish virgins signify the fivefold continence from the allurements of the body. The soul’s appetite must be restrained from the pleasure of the eyes, ears, smell, taste, and touch. But this continence can be found in both the good and the wicked.

In part it is practiced before God by those who restrain themselves from these things so that they may please him in the inward joy of conscience, which arises from a pure intention—namely, of pleasing God and the like. These are the wise virgins. For prudence especially regards the proper end, according to the saying: “Act prudently and consider the end.”

In part, however, this continence called virginity is observed before human beings alone, because one abstains from pleasures of the senses in this way for the sake of human glory. These are the five foolish virgins, who do not judge the end rightly.

Yet both groups are virgins; just as one who possesses one form of this continence possesses them all, so all the senses mutually follow one another. Therefore, all five senses must be either wise or all foolish.

Or, according to Hilary, the discourse—that is, the statement without qualification—is framed in the five wise and five foolish virgins concerning believers and unbelievers. According to this interpretation, the oil in the vessel is faith with works in the conscience, which unbelievers do not possess.

Thus the five wise virgins took oil in their vessels with their lamps, but the foolish took no oil. This oil is understood differently according to the different interpretations proposed.

According to the first, it signifies charity, or mercy according to its effect, following the saying of Ecclesiastes: “Let oil not fail from your head,” that is, your mind. According to the second, it signifies devotion, following Matthew 5 [read: Matthew 6]: “Anoint your head.” According to the third, which is Augustine’s, it signifies spiritual joy proceeding from pure intention, following the Psalm: “God has anointed you with the oil of gladness.” According to the fourth, Hilary’s, it signifies faith together with its work.

The vessels signify hearts or conscience. A lamp, from which light appears, signifies works. Oil is put from the vessel into the lamp to nourish the light, because from charity, devotion, spiritual joy, or true faith habituated in the mind, one proceeds to a good act so that they may shine for others through example. The good do this, but the wicked do not, because their oil fails.

Or again, according to Chrysostom, the oil signifies the word of teaching by which the vessels of souls are filled, for nothing strengthens as does moral discourse. It preserves the light of faith and the fire of charity.

The wise virgins therefore receive enough oil for the delay of their departure, that is, death. Although the foolish received lamps that were lit at first, nevertheless, because they did not receive enough oil to last them to the end—being negligent about the continued teaching that strengthens faith and the light of good deeds—their lamps were therefore extinguished.

It is said of both groups: “They went out to meet the bridegroom and the bride.” According to Hilary, the bridegroom and bride can be called the two natures in Christ: one person, namely the Word, as bridegroom, and the human nature united to him as bride.

Or the bridegroom is Christ and the bride the Church triumphant. The Apocalypse says: “I saw the holy city Jerusalem descending from heaven as a bride.” They go out to meet Christ at his coming because we are continually tending toward death, through which some of us are admitted to the heavenly wedding and others excluded.

“But while the bridegroom delayed, they all became drowsy and slept.” This delay is the time by which the end of human life, or the end of the world, is deferred. According to Gregory, to sleep is to die. To become drowsy before sleep is to languish from health before death, because one comes through the weight of sickness to the sleep of death.

Or, with respect to each person’s particular end, to sleep and become drowsy is to rest in expectation of reward. This happens in greater or lesser degree.

Or, according to Origen, while the bridegroom delays until the consummation of life, some senses suffer drowsiness, behaving as though in the night of the world; and they sleep, acting more remissly, as it were, from that vital sense. Yet the wise virgins did not lose their lamps or despair of preserving their oil.

Hence it follows: “But at midnight a cry was made.” Jerome says: “It is a tradition of the Jews that Christ will come at midnight, in likeness to the time in Egypt when the Passover was celebrated and the destroyer came. Hence I also think that the apostolic tradition remained that on the day of the Easter vigil it was not permissible to dismiss the people before midnight, while they awaited Christ’s coming.”

Or “at midnight” means when no one hopes for or knows it. Hence Jerome says: “Suddenly, therefore, as though in the dead of night when all are secure and sleep is deepest, Christ’s coming shall resound through the cry of the angels and the trumpets of the powers going before him. ‘Behold, the bridegroom comes.’”

Hilary says: “When the trumpet awakens them, that is, by divine power, they proceed to meet the bridegroom alone. For bridegroom and bride will then already be one—that is, flesh and God—because the humility of the flesh will have been transformed into spiritual glory.”

Or, according to Augustine, where it says that the virgins come to meet the bridegroom—“Go out to meet him”—I think it should be understood so that the one called the bride is constituted from the virgins themselves. It is as though, when all Christians in the Church run together, the children were said to run to their mother, although the one called the mother is constituted from the children themselves gathered together. For now the Church is betrothed and is a virgin who is to be led to the wedding. At that time, when all mortality in her has passed away, she shall be held in a mortal union [read: an immortal union].

Or, according to Origen, “at midnight,” that is, at the height of remiss negligence, “a cry was made,” that is, the prompting of angels and a good thing crying out among the senses of those who were sleeping, namely the negligent. Everyone hears this prompting and rises, but not everyone fittingly places adornment upon the lamps—only the wise.

Hence it is said: “Then all the virgins arose.” Gregory says: “All the virgins arise because all, both elect and reprobate, are awakened from the sleep of their death. They trim their lamps because they count with themselves the works for which they expect eternal beatitude.”

Or, according to Augustine, “they trimmed them” because they prepared the accounts to be rendered for their works.

Or, according to Hilary, taking up the lamps is the return of souls into bodies, and their light is the shining forth of the conscience of a good work, which is contained in the vessels of the bodies.

“But the foolish said to the wise,” and so forth, “because our lamps are going out.” The foolish virgins’ lamps go out because their works, which had appeared bright outwardly to human beings, are darkened within at the coming of the judge.

“Give us some of your oil.” Gregory says: “What does it mean that they ask the wise for oil, except that at the coming of the judge, when they find themselves empty within, they seek testimony from without? As though, deceived by their own confidence, they were to say to their neighbors: ‘Because you see us rejected as though without works, say of our works what you saw.’”

Augustine says: “Those whose deeds are supported by another’s praise fail when that praise is withdrawn.” Hence, from the fact that they complain their lamps are going out, they show that these lamps shine in part, yet they do not have unfailing light or enduring works.

Therefore, if anyone has a virginal soul and is a lover of chastity, he ought not to be content in a middling fashion with those things that grow quickly and quickly wither in the heat, but should pursue perfect virtues so that he may have everlasting light.

These foolish virgins were foolish not only when they departed from here lacking mercy, but also when they thought that they would receive it there, where they asked at an inopportune time. Although nothing is more merciful than those wise virgins, who were approved because of mercy, nevertheless they were not foolishly petitioned in their request.

Hence it follows: “The wise answered, saying: Lest perhaps there not be enough,” and so forth. From this we learn that none of us will be able to add anything there to the works with which we shall be found.

According to Jerome, this reply of the wise is not from avarice but from fear, nor can the virtues of some support the vices of others on the day of judgment. They nevertheless give counsel that the others ought not to meet the bridegroom without oil.

Jerome says: “This oil is sold and is bought at a great price and acquired by difficult labor.” We understand this not only of alms, but of all the virtues and the counsels of teachers.

The wise say: “Lest perhaps there not be enough for us and for you,” because, according to Augustine, no one is aided before God by another’s testimony, since the secrets of the heart are manifest to him. Each person’s own conscience bears witness to him, and scarcely suffices for him.

“Go rather to those who sell,” that is, according to Origen, to the teachers, “and buy for yourselves,” that is, receive from them; its price is perseverance, love of learning, and the diligence and labor of those who desire to speak.

Or, according to Augustine, “Go rather,” and so forth. From this statement they should not be thought to have given counsel, but indirectly to have recalled the others’ crime. For flatterers sell oil: whether praising false things or things unknown, they lead souls into errors and, by counseling vain joys to those foolish souls, receive from them some reward of temporal advantage. Therefore it is said: “Go to those who sell and buy for yourselves,” that is: Let us now see how those accustomed to sell you praises may assist you.

But because, as Jerome says, the time for buying had already passed, when the day of judgment arrived there was no place for penance or for performing new works; rather, they were compelled to settle the account of their former works. Hence it follows: “While they went to buy, the bridegroom came.”

Here, according to Chrysostom, it is shown that even if we become merciful after death, we shall gain nothing from it toward escaping punishment. Thus it did not benefit the rich man that after death he became merciful and concerned for those who belonged to him.

Or, according to Origen, “While they went to buy,” and so forth. One can find certain people who neglected to learn something useful when they ought to have done so. At the very departure from their life, while they arrange to learn, they are overtaken by death.

Or, according to Augustine, “While they went to buy,” and so forth—that is, while they inclined themselves toward things outside and sought to rejoice in accustomed things because they had not known inward joys—the one who judges came.

“And those who were ready entered with him into the wedding,” that is, according to Augustine, those for whom conscience bore testimony before God. They entered with him into the wedding, where the pure soul is joined fruitfully to the pure and perfect Word of God.

“And the door was shut,” because, according to Jerome, after the day of judgment no opportunity for good works and justice remains. For, Augustine says, once those numbered among the angelic life have been received, the entrance to the kingdom of heaven is closed.

“At last the remaining virgins also came.” Augustine says: “It is not said that they had bought oil.” They are therefore to be understood, when no joy from others’ praises now remains, as returning amid distress and great afflictions to implore God. But great is his severity after judgment, whose ineffable mercy was extended before judgment.

They therefore say: “Lord, Lord, open to us.” Jerome says: “This excellent naming of the Lord is a confession and judgment of faith. But what does it profit to invoke with the voice the one whom you deny by works?”

Or, according to the Gloss, compelled by the grief of exclusion they repeat the name of dominion, not calling him Father, whose mercy they despised during their life.

“And he answered: Amen I say to you, I do not know you.” Augustine explains this from the rule that God’s art, that is, his wisdom, does not admit into joy those who endeavored to perform something according to his commandments not before God, but in order to please human beings.

Jerome says: “The Lord knows those who are his,” that is, he approves the good; and one who does not know, namely necessary things, will be unknown—that is, rejected. According to the Philosopher, every wicked person is ignorant, namely in the act of choosing sin. Although they are virgins either through bodily purity or confession of the true faith, nevertheless, because they do not have oil—namely charity or spiritual joy from a pure intention—they are unknown to the bridegroom.

He concludes: “Watch therefore, because you know neither the day nor the hour.” Jerome says: “All the things said before are understood by this: because we do not know the day of judgment, let us solicitously prepare good works for ourselves.”

Augustine says: “Each person knows not only the day and hour of that final time when the bridegroom will come, but also the day and hour of his own falling asleep. Whoever is ready for that will also be ready when the voice sounds by which all shall be awakened.”

The petition of the foolish virgins to the wise and afterward to God can also be understood hypothetically, that is, by supposition. For since all the reprobate know on the day of judgment that there is no place for repenting or means of obtaining anything, they will not ask. Nevertheless, on the supposition that they were to seek the saints’ suffrages or God’s mercy for deliverance, they would receive nothing.

Hence Jerome says: “In the present age we know that we can assist one another either with prayers or counsels. But when we come before Christ’s tribunal, neither Job nor Daniel nor Noah will be able to pray for anyone; rather, each person shall carry his own burden.” This is in Cause 13, Question 2, canon In praesenti.

§ XI. The Lord Exhorts to Watchfulness by the Examples of the Householder and the Servant-Steward

The Lord also exhorted to this watchfulness in Matthew 24, saying: “Watch, because you do not know at what hour your Lord will come.”

Augustine says that he told not only the apostles to watch, but their successors also, and everyone until his final coming. That final day of judgment about which Christ spoke will come for each person when the day of his death comes, so that he departs from here in the state in which he is to be judged at that judgment. Thus every Christian ought to watch, lest the Lord’s coming find him unprepared. For that day of the final judgment will find unprepared the person whom the last day of his life finds unprepared.

“You do not know at what hour.” Origen says: “All are vain who either profess to know when the consummation of the world will occur or boast that they know the end of their own life, which no one can know unless illuminated by the Holy Spirit,” namely in such matters.

“Watch,” Gregory says. “One watches who keeps the eyes open to the hope of the true light. One watches who preserves in action what he believes. One watches who repels from himself the darkness of torpor and negligence.”

Christ introduces an example for these things, saying: “Know this, that if the householder knew at what hour the thief was to come, he certainly would not allow his house to be broken into.”

Origen says: “The householder is the sense of a human being, that is, reason; his house is the soul; the thief is the devil.” Every contrary discourse that enters the soul of the negligent not by a natural entrance is like a burglar of the house: first destroying, as it were, the soul’s natural structures, namely natural understandings, and entering through that breach, it plunders the soul like a house.

Sometimes, however, someone finds the thief in the very act of breaking in and, apprehending him, kills him by thrusting in a word that strikes him. That is, perceiving the impulse of temptation, he conquers the temptation with the sword of God’s word prohibiting that evil, and so, as it were, kills the devil.

The thief does not come in the day, namely when the soul of a diligent person is illuminated by the sun of justice, but in the night, namely when one remains in malice or negligence, or in a time of temptations or tribulations. Although in that night one does not possess the sun’s light, if he has at least the lamp of the word, namely of God—that is, divine discourse—a resolution toward better things and watchfulness, his resolution will not be broken through and he will not be plundered, but will drive the thief away.

Or, according to Gregory, the thief is death. When it finds the householder, that is, the spirit, sleeping and unprepared, it destroys the house of the body by killing it and snatches the unwitting soul away to punishments.

Therefore he says: “Be ready, because you know neither the day nor the hour.” Our Lord wished the final hour to be unknown so that it could always be suspected, and so that, since we cannot foresee it at all, we may prepare ourselves for it without interruption.

Christ also adds the example of the faithful servant, saying: “Who, do you think, is the faithful and prudent servant whom his lord appointed over his household to give them food at the proper time?”

Hilary says that above the Lord had exhorted every heart to the unwearied care of watchfulness, but now he especially commands the rulers of the people to be solicitous in expectation of his coming. For he signifies the faithful and prudent servant appointed over the household when he says: “Who, do you think,” and so forth.

This does not imply ignorance in the Lord, nor, according to Remigius, the impossibility of attaining virtue, but difficulty or rarity, according to Gratian in On Penance, Distinction 1, section Quod autem omni.

According to the Gloss, three good qualities of prelates are noted in these words. The first is fidelity, when he says, “Faithful.” A servant is faithful to the Lord when he serves for the Lord’s sake and feeds Christ’s sheep not for profit but for love of Christ. He is faithful who makes nothing belonging to his lord his own and wastes nothing of his lord’s goods vainly or uselessly.

The second is discretion, when it says, “Prudent.” A prudent servant examines the capacity, life, and conduct of his subjects. He is prudent who knows the reason according to which the things given ought to be dispensed. Origen says: “To give food at the proper time requires prudence; not to take away the food of the needy requires fidelity.”

The third is avoidance of ambition, when it says, “Whom his lord appointed”: namely one who, according to the Gloss, was called by God, not one who intruded himself.

Pope Leo says: “A principate that fear extorted or ambition seized, even if it does not offend by its acts or conduct, is nevertheless pernicious by the example of its beginning. And it is difficult for things begun from a bad origin to be brought to a good end.” This is in Cause 1, Question 1, canon Principatus.

According to Origen, an ecclesiastical prelate is also called faithful and prudent concerning the Church’s revenues: so that he does not devour what belongs to widows, remembers the poor, and retains no more for himself than those who suffer need.

He is understood as prudent when he understands the circumstances of the needy on account of which they are needy. For one who wishes to dispense ecclesiastical revenues needs great wisdom; and what is found in Distinction 86, canon Non satis, directs one toward this manner and consideration.

What Jerome says in Cause 12, Question 2, canon Gloria episcopi, and in Cause 16, Question 1, also pertains to fidelity: whatever clerics possess belongs to the poor.

Again, according to Origen, he is called faithful and prudent so that he does not pour out rational and spiritual food upon those for whom it is not fitting, wishing to show himself prudent. Instead, to those who have greater need of a word that may edify their conduct and order their life than of one that illuminates with the light of knowledge, he gives the former; nor does he shrink from expounding higher things to those able to hear more acutely, lest those naturally gifted in intellect or sharpened through practice in secular wisdom despise one who expounds trivial things.

What is said in Distinction 43, canon In mandatis; in canon Sit rector, the final section; and in Cause 8, Question 1, canon Oportet, also pertains to this.

Chrysostom says that this parable also applies to secular princes. Each person ought to use what he possesses for the common benefit, not for the injury of servants or his own destruction, whether he possesses wisdom, a principate, or anything else.

Although, Basil says, it is difficult to find fidelity and prudence in one person, it is nevertheless not impossible.

For the Lord would not call a servant blessed who could not be found. For he says: “Blessed is that servant whom, when he comes,” and so forth.

“He shall appoint him over all his goods”: according to Origen, so that he may reign together with Christ, to whom the Father delivered all his goods, and so that they too may be stewards over every creature.

Or, according to Hilary, “over all his goods” means that he shall be placed in God’s glory, because beyond it there is nothing better.

According to Rabanus, this is not so that they alone, but so that they more than others, may have eternal rewards—that is, greater ones—both for their own life and for keeping watch over the flock.

“But if that wicked servant shall say,” and so forth. Chrysostom says that the Lord teaches his hearer not only by the honor that awaits the good, but also by the punishment with which he threatens the wicked, when he says: “If he shall say,” and so forth.

“My lord delays his coming.” First he describes this servant’s conduct by his vain confidence in a long life. As Jerome says: “Security begets negligence, and negligence offense.” This is in On Penance, Distinction 1, canon Praedixerat.

“And he began to strike his fellow servants.” Here note pride, for he strikes them so that he may be feared and may show that he rules among the clergy. What is found in Distinction 45, canon Licet, together with the following canon, pertains excellently to this.

Or, according to Rabanus, to strike one’s fellow servants is to corrupt the consciences of the weak by word or example. In the final canon of Distinction 45 it is also said: “A teacher who strikes the consciences of the weak with useless speech is a striker.”

“And to eat and drink with drunkards.” According to Augustine, lust and pleasure are noted here. Jerome says: “To you, O priest, it is permitted to live from the altar, not to live luxuriously.”

“The lord will come on a day he does not expect.” Augustine says to Hesychius that of three servants of God preparing themselves for Christ’s coming—one saying that he will come sooner, the second later, and the third that he does not know either alternative, namely whether he will come sooner or later—the third is more consonant with the Gospel. He hopes for what the first says, endures what the second thinks, and errs in neither, because he affirms or denies none of them.

For if the Lord does not come as the first says or believes, that servant not only erred but also falls into danger of believing that he will never come, because he did not come when the servant said. The second also can err if the Lord comes soon and also appears to give an occasion for negligence.

“The lord will divide him.” Jerome says that this is not to be understood as though he cuts him apart with a sword, but that he separates him from the fellowship of the saints.

Or, according to Origen, he divides him when he takes away from him his spirit—that is, the spiritual gift of power or knowledge bestowed on him—and sends his knowledge with his body into Gehenna.

The same Lord shows how such servants ought to be prepared in different watches, saying to the disciples, as Luke 12 relates: “Watch.” Mark too relates that the Lord said: “Watch, for you do not know when the lord comes: in the evening, at midnight, at cockcrow, or in the morning, lest when he comes suddenly he find you sleeping.”

Jerome says: “One who sleeps attends not to true bodies but to phantasms, and upon waking is empty of the things he had seen. Such indeed are those whom the love of the world carries away during life: they leave behind at death the life they dreamed to be real.”

Theophilus says: “He concealed from us the time of his coming because this was expedient for us. For if we do not take care now when we do not know our end, what would we do if we knew it? We would defer our acts of malice to the very end.”

One departs in the evening when he dies in old age, at midnight when he dies in the middle of youth, and at cockcrow when reason is completed in us. For when a child begins to live according to reason, then the cock cries out in him—the instinct of reason awakening him from the sleep of sensuality. Morning is childhood.

§ XII. The Parable of the Unforgiving Servant

Matthew alone relates the parable of the servant whose lord, when the servant humbled himself, forgave him ten thousand talents, but who afterward refused to grant his fellow servant, who owed him one hundred denarii, a delay in which to pay. The lord, angry against him, demanded the whole debt he had remitted and delivered him to the torturers for this reason.

Here are shown the fullness of divine clemency, the magnitude of fraternal hatred, and the punitude of gratitude [read: the punishment of ingratitude].

First is shown God’s immense clemency in forgiving the sins of penitents. For immediately before this, Peter asked whether he ought to forgive a brother who sinned against him as many as seven times, and Christ answered: “I do not say to you seven times, but as many as seventy-seven times,” that is, all transgressions.

Augustine derives this meaning as follows. The Law is signified by the number ten because it is commended in the Ten Commandments, while sin is signified by eleven because it transgresses ten. Seven signifies universality because time unfolds in seven days. Seven multiplied by eleven—that is, seven times eleven—makes seventy-seven. Therefore Christ wished all sins to be forgiven to one who truly repents.

He introduces the parable for this purpose, saying: “The kingdom of heaven is like a man who was a king and wished to settle accounts with his servants.”

Origen says that just as the Son of God is wisdom, justice, and truth, so he himself is the kingdom—not of any of those who are below, but of all those who are above, in whose senses justice and the other virtues reign. They have been made heavens because they bear the image of the heavenly Christ. Thus this kingdom of heaven, that is, the Son of God, when made in the likeness of sinful flesh, was then made like a man who was a king, joining human beings to himself.

Or, according to Remigius, the Church is called the kingdom of heaven, because in it the Lord works what is described in this parable. This king, therefore, is God, ruling and governing everything he created. By the servants are designated all human beings, whom he created to praise him and to whom he gave the law of nature. He wishes to settle accounts with them when he examines the life, conduct, and acts of each.

Origen says: “At the end of our life an account is to be settled before the king. Nor do we say this so that there should be a suspicion that such a necessary matter might require a long time. For when God wishes to examine the minds of all, by some ineffable power he will quickly cause everything done by all at every time to come into the mind of each individual.”

“And when he began to settle accounts, one was brought to him who owed ten thousand talents.” Augustine says this is because the Law commends obligation in the Ten Commandments: the debt of ten thousand talents is the complete transgression of all the commandments.

“And since he had nothing with which to repay,” a person who sins voluntarily and of his own accord cannot rise again in any way by his own effort. He has nothing from which to repay because he finds nothing within himself by which he may free himself from sins.

“Therefore his lord commanded that he, his wife, his children, and everything he possessed be sold, and payment made.” The sinner’s wife is folly and the pleasure or desire of the flesh. According to Augustine, therefore, through this it is signified that the transgressor of the Decalogue ought to pay penalties because of desire and wicked works, as though through wife and children. This is his price, for the price of the person sold is the punishment of the person condemned.

Chrysostom says that he ordered this not out of cruelty but out of ineffable affection.

For he wishes to frighten him by these threats so that the servant may supplicate and not be sold. This occurred, and therefore it follows: “But that servant, falling down,” and so forth.

Here it should be noted that this king, God, wishes to settle accounts and begins to settle them with his servants in this life, at the future particular judgment in death, and afterward at the universal judgment in the final resurrection.

In the future, indeed, there is no place there for penance or mercy. As Cyprian says: “As the Lord finds you when he calls you,” namely through death, “so also he judges you.” This is in On Penance, Distinction 1, canon Numquid.

Of those who die impenitent Gratian says that the Psalm’s words are to be understood: “He shall not give God his appeasement, and he shall labor forever for the price of his soul’s redemption.” This is in Cause 13, Question 2, section Verum.

In the present, this king now begins to settle accounts with the servant liable for a great debt when, by infusing compunction into the transgressor of all the commandments, he shows him the multitude and gravity of his sins. Because of them, as is clear in the Scriptures, he commands that the sinner be sold together with his wife, his evil will; his children, namely his works; and all his powers, and that payment be made—that is, that at the demand of divine justice he be tormented in Gehenna for his demerits.

Understanding this, the sinner knows that he is justly to be condemned. Yet, trusting in the king’s clemency in this life, this servant falls prostrate upon the earth, humbling himself and recognizing that he is earth and has been given like earth as food to the serpent. He does not excuse himself concerning his demerit, but asks that mercy be shown him, promising with a purpose for the future that he will make satisfaction.

Hence he says: “Have patience with me,” namely by waiting, “and I shall repay you everything,” namely by making satisfaction. According to Anselm, to make satisfaction is to repay the honor owed to God which one took away by sinning, namely by withdrawing through evil living the time in which he ought continually to have served God. By afterward doing works of satisfaction to which he was not otherwise bound, he compensates, as it were, for what was taken away.

Jerome says: “Whoever you are who are conscious of some error, for as long as you know that you erred, for as long as you sinned, humble yourself for no less time and make satisfaction to him in the confession of penance. For if you amend yourself, if you correct yourself, the Lord is kind and merciful, and he tempers vengeance for one who anticipates it by repenting.” This is in On Penance, Distinction 1.

Hence Augustine says: “Great is God’s mercy, that he forgives sins upon the promise alone,” that is, upon the purpose of confessing and making satisfaction. This is in On Penance, Distinction 1.

Remigius says that God’s kindness and clemency toward converted sinners are generous, because he is always ready to forgive sins through baptism or penance. Hence it follows: “But his lord, taking pity on him, released him and forgave him the debt.”

Chrysostom says: “See the superabundance of divine love. The servant asks only for a delay of time, but the king gave him more than he asks: his release and the remission of the entire loan.” The king did not forgive the debt before the servant rendered an account because he wished to teach him from how great a debt he was freed, so that at least in this way he might become gentler toward his fellow servants. But what he afterward did was unworthy of what had gone before.

For it follows: “That servant went out.” Chrysostom says that by the word “went out” it is shown that not much time passed, but immediately, while the benefit was still in his ears, he wickedly abused the liberation to what had not been given to him.

“For he found one of his fellow servants who owed him one hundred denarii.” Augustine says that sin is found in each debt: in the one liable for ten thousand talents and in the one obligated for ten denarii [read: one hundred denarii]. For the denarius is the number of the Law, and ten times ten times one hundred makes ten thousand. Therefore each is a debtor and each a petitioner for pardon. For every human being is both a debtor to God and has his neighbor as a debtor.

Chrysostom says: “The difference between sins committed against a human being and sins committed against God is as great as the difference between ten denarii [read: one hundred denarii] and ten thousand talents—indeed, also much less, which is evident from the difference between the persons and from the fewness of those sinning. For when a human being sees us, we cease and are reluctant to sin; but although God sees us, we do not cease on any day, but do and speak everything without fear.

“Sins against God appear graver not only from this, but also from the benefit we have obtained from him. For he caused us to exist and worked all things for our sake. He breathed a rational soul into us, sent his Son, opened heaven to us, and made us his sons. Therefore, even if we died for him every day, would we repay him anything worthy? By no means; indeed, this too would again conduce to our benefit. But we, on the contrary, transgress his laws.”

Thus, according to Remigius, the debtor of ten thousand talents signifies one who commits greater sins against God, while the debtor of one hundred denarii signifies one who commits lesser sins against his neighbor.

But that ungrateful servant, Augustine says, was unwilling to show to the other what had been shown to him, though unworthy. For it follows: “And seizing him, he choked him, saying: Repay what you owe.” Remigius explains: that is, he pressed him more harshly, so as to exact vengeance from him.

Origen says: “I think he choked him because he had departed from the king. For he would not have choked his fellow servant if he had not departed from the king.”

“And his fellow servant, falling down, begged him, saying: Have patience with me, and I shall repay you everything.” Augustine says: “What is owed, even if it is kindly forgiven, is nevertheless not unjustly demanded. But one who exacts the debt beyond measure sins,” as this servant did when he inflicted violence upon one who was then unable to pay. This is in Cause 14, Question 1.

“But he would not,” that is, he persisted against him. He maintained the intention that the other should suffer punishments. “But he went and cast him into prison”: that is, according to Remigius, he burned with great anger so that he might exact vengeance from the one from whom he had received an injury, which is the debt of ten denarii [read: one hundred denarii].

“Until he should repay the debt”: that is, according to Remigius, once his brother had been seized, he exacted vengeance from him for the injury.

Chrysostom says: “See the Lord’s charity and the servant’s cruelty. Here the servant receives total release from the Lord; there his fellow servant asked only for delay from a servant, yet he did not grant even this.”

It follows: “But his fellow servants, seeing what was done, were exceedingly grieved.” Augustine understands the Church by the fellow servants, for it looses and binds him.

Or, according to Remigius, perhaps the angels, the preachers of the Church, or any believers are to be understood by the fellow servants. When they see that some brother who has obtained remission of sins is unwilling to have mercy on his fellow servant, they are grieved at his perdition.

“And they came and told their lord.” According to Remigius, to tell this to their lord is to show the sorrows and contrition in their affection.

“Then his lord called him,” namely through the sentence of death, commanded him to depart from this world, and said to him: “Wicked servant, I forgave you all the debt,” and so forth.

Chrysostom says: “When he owed his lord ten thousand talents, the lord did not call him wicked or revile him, but had pity. But when he became ungrateful toward his fellow servant, then he calls him wicked.”

“Should you not also have had mercy on your fellow servant, just as I had mercy on you?”

Augustine says: “Forgive, and it shall be forgiven you. I forgave first; forgive at least afterward. For if you do not forgive, I shall recall you and lay again upon you whatever I had forgiven.” This is in On Penance, Distinction 4.

Here it should also be noted that the servant gave no answer, because immediately after this life the argument of excuse will cease. Since he was not made better by the benefit, it remains that he be corrected by punishment.

“And being angry, he delivered him to the torturers.” It was not said that he was angry when he ordered him to be sold, because that was not an act of anger but rather of love directed toward correction. Now, however, it is a sentence of torment and punishment.

The torturers are said to be demons, because they are always prepared to receive lost souls and torture them in the punishment of eternal damnation.

“Until he should repay the whole debt”: Remigius says that the finite is placed for the infinite, and the meaning is that he will always pay and never finish paying; therefore, he will always suffer punishment.

Christ concludes: “So also shall my heavenly Father do to you,” namely just as this servant’s lord did to him.

Hence Augustine says: “One who, forgetful of the divine benefit, wishes to avenge his own injuries will not only fail to merit pardon for future sins, but the sins he rejoiced had been forgiven him will be imputed to him for punishment.” This is in On Penance, Distinction 4.

Gregory likewise says in that distinction: “It is clear from the Gospel sayings that if we do not forgive from the heart what is committed against us, then what we rejoiced had been forgiven us through penance is required from us again.” Hence Christ says: “Unless each one of you forgives his brother from your hearts.”

According to Peter, three things commonly arise from an injury inflicted upon someone. The first is rancor in the heart, that is, hatred, and this must be forgiven immediately—that is, it must never be held.

The second is a sign of rancor, such as avoidance of speech, greeting, and the like. This must be remitted especially when the one who inflicted the injury seeks pardon.

The third is prosecution of the injuries, and one is not bound to abandon this unless due satisfaction has been made.

From this parable a question is raised by the theologians in Book Four, Distinction 22, and by the canonists throughout On Penance, Distinction 4: whether sins forgiven through penance return to the soul through a subsequent mortal sin. Many opinions are set out both in the text and in the Gloss.

But blessed Thomas answers more perfectly on Book Four at the stated distinction and determines simply that they return neither as regards guilt nor as regards punishment, but as regards a certain effect of ingratitude. Through that ingratitude for the pardon already received for sins, the subsequent sin is graver and must be punished with a more severe penalty than if that circumstance of ingratitude were absent. According to this effect, sins are said to return in the cited canons.

§ XIII. Christ Shows the Magnitude of His Mercy toward Penitent Sinners by Examples in Both Sexes

He shows this not only through parables, but through examples. First he shows it in the sinful woman, of whom Luke alone says: “A certain Pharisee asked Jesus to eat with him.”

First it should be noted that the Apostle says: “God, though rich in his mercy, became poor for our sake, so that he might enrich us by his poverty.” For although he was Lord of all, the Son of Man had nowhere to lay his head: neither house nor field, but he retained for his own necessities and those of his companions the few alms offered to him.

Hence, when invited by this Pharisee, he came as a poor man to the meal, not unaware that the sinful woman would come and offer him a better banquet of penance. “And entering the Pharisee’s house, he reclined at table.”

Gregory of Nyssa says: “Luke, more a physician of souls than of bodies, shows God himself and our most merciful Savior visiting others, not so that he may obtain something from their riches, but so that he may impart of his own justice.”

Below it is said that he went about, traveling from place to place. Hence Gregory Nazianzen says: “He goes from place to place not only to gain more people, but also to dedicate many places. He sleeps and labors so that he may sanctify sleep and labor. He weeps so that he may give value to tears. He preaches heavenly things so that he may exalt his hearers.”

“And behold, a woman who was a sinner in the city.” Cyril says: “A woman of a dishonorable life, displaying nevertheless a faithful affection, comes to Christ as though asking that pardon for what she had committed be generously granted.”

A Greek author says: “The four evangelists say that Christ was anointed with ointment by a woman. I think that there were three women, because of the character of the persons, their manner of acting, and the difference in times. John relates of Mary, Lazarus’s sister, that six days before Passover she anointed Jesus’s feet in her own home. But Matthew, after saying, ‘You know that after two days the Passover will occur,’ adds that in Bethany, in the house of Simon the leper, a woman poured ointment over the Lord’s head; she did not anoint his feet as Mary did. Mark speaks similarly to Matthew. Luke, however, relates this not near the time of the Passion, but in the middle of his Gospel.”

Chrysostom asserts that there were two such women: one contained in John, and the other presented by the other three evangelists.

Ambrose leaves it doubtful, saying that the woman who anointed the feet may not be the same as the one who afterward anointed the head, lest the evangelists appear to have contradicted one another. It can also be resolved through a difference in merit and time: then she was still a sinner, but later she was more perfect.

Augustine, in On the Harmony of the Evangelists, says: “I think it must be understood that the same Mary did this twice. Once was what Luke related, when on first approaching with humility and tears she merited remission of sins. Hence John too, when he began to speak of Lazarus being raised, said: ‘Mary was the one who had anointed the Lord with ointment and wiped his feet with her hair, whose brother Lazarus was sick.’ But what she did again in Bethany, near the time of the Passion, is something else that does not pertain to Luke’s narrative, but is related by the other three.”

Gregory, in a homily, supposes that she was the same woman and one Mary, namely Mary Magdalene: first the sinner of whom Luke speaks here, then converted and perfectly anointing Christ’s head and feet in Bethany, and the one to whom, according to Luke, Mark, and John, he first appeared after rising.

Hence Luke himself, immediately after the account of this event—the conversion of the sinful woman who washed Jesus’s feet with her tears—states that as Jesus traveled to preach, several women followed him, among whom was Mary Magdalene, from whom seven demons had gone out. Mark too writes this in his final chapter.

Bede says on Luke that this Magdalene is the same sinful woman whose penance Luke had related immediately before. Gregory says in a homily that Mary had possessed seven demons because she was full of every vice, for the number seven signifies universality.

Thomas, in his postil on John, says that Jerome, Chrysostom, and Origen hold that this sinful woman of whom Luke speaks here was not Mary Magdalene, Lazarus’s sister, who afterward anointed Jesus’s feet with ointment in Bethany, but another woman whose name is not given. Gregory, Augustine, and Bede say she was one and the same person: the sinful woman Mary Magdalene, Lazarus’s sister, who anointed his feet now and again in Bethany. Ambrose reports both opinions and prefers neither. Nevertheless, the common opinion is the one just stated of Gregory, Augustine, and Bede, and Thomas appears to incline to it in the stated postil, chapter 12.

“Who was a sinner in the city.” Here a question arises: on the supposition that this woman was Mary Magdalene, Lazarus’s sister, was she a public prostitute? It appears so, both because prostitutes are commonly called sinful women and because certain holy doctors say this.

Chrysostom says: “The prostitute was made more honorable than virgins. For after she was inflamed by penance, she burned with love of Christ.” Pope Leo says: “When this woman went out from the brothel, the disciple,” namely Judas, “entered Gehenna.”

Others have thought that she was a virgin in body, although not in mind, according to John Damascene, and that Christ cast seven demons from her—that is, one capital vice together with the other six: lust as regards thought. Through assent to this thought she was ruled by it, but not through the deed.

A middle way appears more reasonable: she was neither a public prostitute nor a virgin in body, but was dishonorable in mind and body within her own house, as happens among many noble and wealthy women.

That she was a public prostitute does not appear likely: both because she was the wealthy lady of the castle of Magdala, and because it was expressly contrary to the law of Moses, where it is commanded: “There shall be no prostitute among the daughters of Israel,” of which people she was a member. Moreover, she had Lazarus, a most noble citizen, as her own brother and Martha as her honorable sister. They would never have endured such great infamy in their own city, Jerusalem.

In answer to the position of the doctors who call her a prostitute, it can be said that they speak by exaggeration. It is also often said of a dishonorable woman that she is a prostitute, even if she does not dwell in a public place.

Properly speaking, however, “sinful woman” does not signify this. It is a verbal noun conveying a habit or frequency of sin. Just as a male is called a sinner not only when lustful, but when entangled in other vices, so a woman devoted to various vices is called a sinful woman.

That she was a virgin in body does not appear likely either. Hence it is said of her in the hymn: “Mary, sister of Lazarus, who committed so many crimes,” and afterward: “After the scandals of wanton flesh, from a cauldron she is made a daughter,” and so forth.

Nor in her offices is the versicle said that is used of virgins—“Virgins shall be brought to the king after her”—but in its place: “Her many sins are forgiven.” Nevertheless, none of these matters has been determined by the Church.

“When she knew that Jesus had reclined at table in the Pharisee’s house.” Although the Gospel does not state how Mary was induced to penance, it can piously be believed that it was from hearing Christ’s preaching. For when a very great multitude from every class of people, even young people, gathered for his sermons, Mary—who was beautiful, vain, and curious, desiring to be seen and loved by worldly people—went to places where people gathered so that she might be seen.

Therefore, when she went to hear Christ preach, Jesus saw her and, foreknowing her future conversion, began to speak against the vanities of the world and about the punishments that would follow. Mary was thereby moved to compunction, and when the sermon ended and she heard where he was going to dine, she brought an alabaster vessel of ointment.

Bede says: “Alabaster is a kind of white marble interspersed with various colors, which is customarily suitable for ointment vessels because it is said to preserve ointments very well.” Supply: she entered the house where Jesus was.

Gregory says: “Because this woman saw the stains of her shame, she ran to wash them at the fountain of mercy. She was not ashamed of the guests, for because she was gravely ashamed of herself within, she believed there was nothing that should shame her without. Learn with what grief she burned, since she was not ashamed to weep amid a feast.”

“And standing behind him beside his feet.” Gregory of Nyssa says: “Showing her unworthiness, she stood behind his back and before him with downcast eyes and loosened hair, embracing his feet and pouring tears over them. Through these things she showed her sorrowful soul while imploring pardon.”

“She began to water his feet with tears and wiped them with her hair; she kissed his feet and anointed them with ointment.” Gregory says in a homily: “As many delights as she had possessed in herself, so many holocausts she found from herself. She converted the number of her crimes into the number of virtues, so that everything in her by which she had despised God in sin might now serve him anew in penance.

“She had desired earthly things with her eyes and gazed vainly, but now, wearing them down through penance, she wept. She had displayed her hair for the adornment of her face, but now she wiped away tears with that hair. She had spoken proud and perhaps shameful things with her mouth, but now, kissing the Lord’s feet, she fixed it upon the footprints of her Redeemer. She had employed ointment for herself for the shameful fragrance of the flesh, but now she offered it laudably to God.”

The Pharisee, seeing these things, despises not only the sinful woman coming to the Lord, but also rebukes the Lord who receives her. Hence it follows: “But the Pharisee who had invited him, seeing this, said within himself: If this man were a prophet, he would surely know who and what sort of woman is touching him, for she is a sinner.”

Gregory says: “Behold, the Pharisee, truly proud within himself and falsely just, rebukes the sick woman for her sickness and the physician for giving assistance. If that woman had come to the Pharisee’s feet, she would assuredly have departed driven away with kicks. For he would have believed himself defiled by another’s sin, because true justice did not fill his own footsteps.

“Thus too certain men placed in priestly office, if perhaps they have acted justly in exterior things or in small matters, despise their neighbors and subjects and disdain whatever sinners are placed among the people. It is necessary, however, that when we behold any sinners, he will not permit them. First let us mourn ourselves in their calamity, because perhaps we have either fallen into similar things or can fall.”

The physician Christ therefore stood among two sick people, namely Mary and Simon. One was held by a fever in his senses; the other had lost the sense of his mind.

The Lord, Titus says, heard not his words but beheld his thoughts, and showed himself the Lord of the prophets. Hence it follows: “And Jesus, answering”—namely Simon’s thought—“said: Simon, I have something to say to you.” Made more attentive by these words, Simon says: “Master, speak.”

But Jesus proposes an illustration concerning two debtors, saying: “Two debtors owed a certain moneylender,” and so forth. Titus says, as though Christ said: Neither are you without debt. Why, therefore, do you grow proud even if you are held for fewer things? For you too need pardon.

Hence he adds concerning pardon: “When they had nothing with which to repay, he forgave them both.” The Gloss says: “No one can be freed from the debt of sin unless he obtains divine grace.”

He is then asked which one loves the giver who forgave the debt more: the one to whom five hundred were forgiven, or the one to whom fifty were forgiven. The Pharisee at once replies: “I suppose that it is the one to whom he forgave more.” Here it should be noted that while the Pharisee is convicted by his own sentence, he is like a madman carrying the rope by which he is bound.

But Jesus says: “You have judged rightly.” Turning toward the woman, he said: “Do you see this woman?” and so forth. The good deeds of the sinful woman, which she had performed toward him from love, and the evil deeds of the falsely just man, which he had committed from neglect, are enumerated.

“I entered your house,” and so forth. Titus says, as though Christ said: The use of water is easy, but the outpouring of tears is not easy. You did not use what was readily available, while she poured out what was not readily available, washing my feet with tears.

Chrysostom says: “Just as serenity comes when a violent storm has broken forth, so when tears have been poured out, tranquility appears and the darkness of guilt passes away. And just as through water and the Spirit, so through tears and confession we are made new again.”

Hence it follows: “Her many sins are forgiven, because she loved much.” Gregory says: “The rust of sin is consumed all the more, the more the sinner’s heart burns in the great fire of charity.”

Titus says: “It happens more often that one who has sinned greatly is purified through confession, while one who sins little does not come to the remedy of confession because of arrogance.”

“But one to whom less is forgiven loves less.” Chrysostom says: “Therefore we need a fervent soul, because nothing prevents a person from becoming great. Let no one among the fallen despair, therefore, and let no virtuous person sleep or trust in what he has, for often a prostitute precedes him.”

Hence it follows: “But he said to her: Your sins are forgiven you.” Behold, the sick woman who had come to the physician has been healed. Yet others are still sick because of her salvation. Hence it follows: “And those who reclined at table with him began to say within themselves: Who is this who even forgives sins?”

Gregory says: “But the heavenly physician pays no regard to the sick people whom he saw becoming even worse because of the medicine. He confirms the woman he had healed by a sentence of his kindness, saying: ‘Your faith has saved you.’” Gregory adds: because she did not doubt that she could receive what she sought.

Theophilus says that the one through whom Christ forgave sins does not stop at the remission of sin, but adds the performance of good. Hence it follows: “Go in peace,” that is, in justice. For justice is the peace of the human being with God, just as sin is enmity between the human being and God. It is as though he said: Perform everything that leads you toward peace.

Mystically, this woman signifies the Gentile world devoted to every vice. When it heard that Christ had reclined through the Incarnation in the house of Simon the leper, that is, among the Jewish people, it was converted through preaching and approached the Lord Jesus through faith: weeping for its sins, anointing him through devotion, and venerating the feet, that is, Christ’s humanity. On a second occasion it also anointed the head, that is, adored his divinity, now better taught and advancing in virtue.

But the Pharisee, that is, the Jewish people, murmurs at such a conversion and reception. Christ, however, shows that after its conversion the Gentile people displayed greater signs of love toward him than did the Jewish people, and therefore its sins were forgiven. The comparison introduced concerning the two debtors pertains to this.

For the Jewish people was a debtor to God, who is called a moneylender because he wishes the goods bestowed upon us as though by a loan to be repaid to him by our acknowledging that they come from him, using them for his honor, and multiplying merits.

The Jewish people was a debtor for fifty, which is the number of the Jubilee, in which there occurred remission of debts, liberation from servitude, and rest from cultivating the land. Even as regards its elect, that people was a debtor to God through the debt of original sin, its nature not yet purified; through the debt of servitude to the devil; and through the debt of eternal rest, which it could not possess although it was created for it. All these things were forgiven it by Christ through his Passion, as regards those converted to the faith, or virtually.

The Gentile people was a debtor for five hundred, a number resulting from fifty multiplied by ten, because it was liable to God not only through original sin, served the devil, and was estranged from the rest of heavenly beatitude, but was also a debtor through actual sins committed against the Ten Commandments.

Each people was forgiven as regards the elect. But where transgression abounded, says the Apostle, there the grace of remission will also abound, devotion, and love, namely among the converted Gentile people.

A notable example of his mercy also appears in the adulterous woman, to whom he said: “Neither do I condemn you. Go, and now sin no more.”

It must nevertheless be observed that Christ possessed absolute power over even the greatest criminals in both forums. Hence he could simply remit the penalty of death owed for adultery in the contentious forum without imposing another punishment, and in the penitential forum could forgive guilt and punishment without any confession or satisfaction, because he possessed the power of excellence in the sacraments.

It must nevertheless be believed that he then infused such great contrition into the adulterous woman that it sufficed for the destruction of all guilt and punishment, just as he had done for Magdalene.

Therefore, since human beings do not possess such absolute power either in the forum of causes or in the forum of souls, a judge could not and ought not absolve the guilty person without imposing some punishment, whether in the contentious forum or the penitential forum. For, as Ambrose says, “A good judge pronounces according to the laws and rights.” This is in Cause 3, Question 7, canon Iudicet.

§ XIV. His Immense Clemency Is Also Manifested toward Sinful Men

This appears not only in Peter when he denied Christ and in all the apostles when they withdrew from faith in his divinity at the time of the Passion, but also in Zacchaeus, who was a chief of the publicans.

For Luke relates: “When Jesus was walking through Jericho.” Jericho is interpreted as “moon” and signifies the world, full of changes like the moon. Jesus’s walking through it is his Incarnation. There, just as the blind man was illuminated, so Zacchaeus was separated from an immoderate affection for earthly things, because through Christ’s Incarnation the world—which had been blind, darkened by many errors, and wholly devoted to the love of earthly things—was illuminated and freed from desires by God’s grace and teaching.

It follows: “Behold, a man named Zacchaeus.” His name is expressed so that the account may be understood as true history and not a parable.

“A chief of the publicans.” Cyril says: “A publican is a greedy man, unrestrained toward another’s supnum, a lover, for this is the publicans’ office.” Or “publican” means a public sinner. He was chief of such people, as though worse than the others.

Who, therefore, should despair of himself when this man comes to Christ—a man whose wealth, Alcuin says, arose from fraud, although he nevertheless made restitution for that fraud, as is clear below?

“And he was rich,” so that you may understand that all rich people are commonly avaricious. Jerome says: “Every rich person is either unjust or heir to an unjust person.”

“And he sought to see who Jesus was.” Titus says: “The seed of salvation had sprouted in him because he desired to see Jesus. Since he had not yet seen him, when he had seen him he departed, as it were, from the madness of the publican. For one who sees Jesus cannot persist in wicked deeds.”

“And he could not because of the crowd, since he was small in stature.” Titus says that there were two impediments to this vision. The people hindered him—not so much a crowd of men as one of sins—and he was small in stature.

Ambrose explains him as small in malice, that is, through a defect of the goodness which is greatness of soul; or small in faith.

“And running ahead, he climbed a sycamore tree so that he might see him.” Cyril says: “The crowd is the confusion of an unskilled multitude, which cannot see the summit of wisdom. Therefore, as long as Zacchaeus is in the crowd he does not see Christ; but when he has passed beyond the people he merits the justice he desired to behold in the sycamore tree.”

Bede says: “The sycamore is a tree like the mulberry in its leaves, but surpassing it in height, whence it is called celsa by the Latins. It is called the foolish fig tree and signifies the cross. For the Lord’s cross nourishes believers like a fig tree, but is mocked as foolish by unbelievers. Zacchaeus, small in stature, climbs this tree so that he may be exalted together with it, when each humble person, conscious of his own weakness, cries: ‘Far be it from me to glory except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ.’”

“Because Jesus was to pass that way.” Ambrose says: “The evangelist beautifully adds that Jesus was to pass that way—either where the sycamore stood, or where Zacchaeus would believe—so that he might preserve the mystery and sow grace. For he had come in such a way that he would pass from the Jews to the Gentiles.”

“And when he came to the place, Jesus looked up and saw him.” Cyril says: “He saw the man’s soul striving most readily toward holy living and converted him to rest.”

Bede says: “The Lord walking through the city comes to the place where Zacchaeus had climbed the sycamore, because, when preachers in whom he himself both spoke and journeyed had been sent throughout the world, he came to the people of the nations, who were already exalted by faith in his Passion. Looking up, he saw them because he chose them through grace.”

Or, according to Ambrose, Zacchaeus is above the tree because he is above the Law.

“And Jesus said to him.” Ambrose says: “He takes him and, though not himself invited, invites himself. For he knew that his host’s reward would be abundant. Although he had not heard the voice of one inviting him, he had nevertheless heard his affection.”

Therefore he said: “Zacchaeus, make haste and come down, because today I must remain in your house.” Titus says: “He desired only to see him, but the one who knows how to do more than we ask gave him beyond what he expected, namely that he should receive him in his house.”

Bede says: “Behold, the camel, having laid aside the burden of its hump, passed through the eye of the needle. That is, the rich man and publican, abandoning the love of riches and despising the wealth of this age, received the blessing of the Lord’s reception.”

Hence it follows: “And he made haste and came down.” Bede says: “He who is ordered to come down from the sycamore and thus prepare a dwelling in his house—this is what the Apostle says: ‘Even if we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know him no longer.’ And: ‘Although he was crucified through weakness, yet he lives by the power of God.’”

“And he received him rejoicing.” Chrysostom says: “Consider the Savior’s exceeding goodness. The innocent one associates with the guilty; the fountain of justice with avarice, which is the material of wickedness. Entering the publican’s house, he suffers no injury from the cloud of avarice, but by the brilliance of justice destroys avarice.”

But biting accusers and lovers of recrimination attempt to inveigh against the things he did. For it follows: “And when all saw it, they murmured, saying that he had turned aside to a sinful man.”

Chrysostom says: “Although accused as a glutton and friend of publicans, he scorned it in order to complete his purpose. For even a physician, unless he endures the pus of the sick, does not free them from disease.” This also occurred then, because the publican was converted and made better.

For it follows: “Zacchaeus stood and said to Jesus.” Chrysostom says: “Hear a wonder: he has not yet learned, and he obeys. Just as the sun, pouring its rays into a house, illuminates not by word but by deed, so the Savior, by the rays of justice, drove away the darkness of wickedness.”

“Behold,” he says, “I give half of my goods to the poor.” Chrysostom says that it must be considered more carefully that Zacchaeus’s wealth was not only unjust, acquired through frauds and robberies, but had also been gathered in part from his patrimony. Otherwise, how could he restore fourfold what had been unjustly extorted? He knew the Law commanding fourfold restitution.

Therefore he adds: “If I have defrauded anyone, I restore fourfold.” Augustine says: “Whatever anyone has taken against the right of human fellowship by thefts, robberies, calumnies, oppressions, or invasions, we judge ought to be restored rather than given away, according to the example of Zacchaeus the publican.” This is in Cause 14, Question 5, canon Non sane.

That he restored to those defrauded what he had defrauded was required by the debt of justice; that he restored it fourfold was supererogation; that he gave half of his goods to the poor was perfection. Once what had been wrongly taken was restored, he distributed to the poor what remained there.

According to Theophilus, it should be noted that he does not say, “I shall give” and “I shall restore,” promising to do so in the future, but “I give half” and “I restore fourfold,” doing so in the present. This is against those who resolve and do not act.

“And Jesus answered him: Today salvation has been made for this house.” By this he signified that Zacchaeus himself attained salvation through the good inhabitant.

“Because he too is a son of Abraham.” Bede says: “He is called a son of Abraham not because he was born from Abraham’s stock, but because he imitated his faith. Just as Abraham left his paternal land and household, so Zacchaeus left his goods to be divided among the poor.”

He beautifully says “he too,” so that he might show that not only those who had lived justly, but also those who recover their senses after injustice, belong to the children of promise.

“For the Son of Man came to seek and save what had perished.” Since some murmured because he stayed with a sinful man, he said this to restrain them: “The Son of Man came,” and so forth. According to Chrysostom, it is as though he said: “Why do you accuse me if I set sinners right? So far am I from hatred of sinners that I came for their sake. For I came as a physician, not as a judge. For this reason I endure the reproaches of the sick and their stench, so that I may offer remedies.”

Someone asks here how Paul commands that if a brother is insolent, avaricious, or the like, one should not even take food with such people, while Christ was a table companion of publicans. The answer is that by then these publicans had advanced so as to become brothers. Yet the Apostle commanded avoidance of brothers only while they persisted in evil; these men, however, had already changed. This is Chrysostom’s explanation.

Mystically, Bede says, Zacchaeus—whose name is interpreted “justified”—signifies the believing people from the Gentiles, depressed and made small through preoccupation with temporal things, but sanctified by the Lord. When the Lord entered Jericho, they wished to see the Savior, seeking to participate in the faith he brought to the world.

§ XV. “Let Your Loins Be Girded and Your Lamps Burning”

Theophilus says: “Loins,” that is, always ready to perform the works of our Lord. “Burning lamps,” that is, do not lead your life in darkness. But let the light of reason be with us, showing us the things to be done and avoided.

For the world is night. Those who carry out practical activity have their loins girded, for such is the habit of ministers, who must also possess burning lamps, that is, the gift of discretion. Thus the practical person may know not only what he ought to do, but also how; otherwise, people are on a precipice.

Theophilus speaks of lamps in the plural: “Let us have two burning lamps: the conception of the mind continually shining in the soul, by which we are illuminated, and the teaching by which we illuminate others.”

Or, according to Gregory, we gird our loins when we restrain the flesh from lust. For lust is in the loins of men, since seed descends from there. We have lamps in our hands when we show shining examples in our works.

Or, according to Augustine, he teaches us to gird our loins through continence from the love of earthly things, and to have burning lamps so that we may do this itself for a true end and with right intention. But if both these things are done, it remains that we place our whole hope in the Redeemer’s coming.

Hence it follows: “And you, be like men waiting for their lord when he returns from the wedding.” The Lord went to the wedding because, ascending into heaven as a new man, he joined to himself the heavenly multitude of angels.

Theophilus says: “The Lord also daily administers in heaven the souls of the saints, whom Paul or another like him offers to him as a chaste virgin.” He returns from the wedding celebrated in heaven, perhaps universally at the consummation of the entire Church when he will come from heaven in the Father’s glory, or perhaps at individual hours as he stands by the unexpected consummation of each person.

“So that when he comes and knocks,” and so forth. Gregory says: “The Lord comes when he hastens to judgment; he knocks when through sickness he now announces that death is near. We open to him at once when we receive him with love. For one who fears to depart from the body does not wish to open to the judge when he knocks and dreads seeing as his judge the one whom he despised. One opens at once when, having recognized the time of approaching death, he grows cheerful from hope, based on good deeds performed, concerning the glory of recompense.”

“Blessed are those servants whom, when the Lord comes, he finds watching.” Gregory says: “One watches who keeps the eyes of the mind open to the sight of the true light, who preserves in action what he believes, and who repels from himself the darkness of torpor and negligence.”

“Amen I say to you, that he shall gird himself.” Origen says: “For justice shall be a girdle around his loins according to Isaiah, through which he girds himself,” that is, prepares himself for recompense.

Or, according to Theophilus, he girds himself because he does not lavish the entire abundance of good things, but restrains it according to a certain measure. For who can contain God in all his greatness? Hence even the seraphim are said to be veiled because of his excellence.

“And he shall make them recline,” that is, rest completely. Just as the whole body rests when one reclines, so in future glory the entire blessed person will at last rest in body and soul. He shall make those wearied recline, refreshing them and setting spiritual delights before them.

“And passing, he shall minister to them,” that is, granting an equal life to them, so that just as they ministered to him, he ministers to them.

According to Gregory, he is called “passing” when he returns from judgment to the kingdom. Or the Lord passes when he lifts us from the form of his humanity to contemplation of his divinity.

According to Gregory, the first watch is childhood, the second youth, and the third old age, and so forth.

§ XVI. The Rich Banqueter and Lazarus the Beggar

According to Bede, this is not merely a parable, that is, a similitude, but an example of something that happened; and according to Ambrose it is the account of a true history, because a proper name is expressed. Nevertheless, it is also called a parable or similitude so that others may be admonished by it.

For, as Cyril relates from a tradition of the Jews, there was at that time in Jerusalem a certain Lazarus oppressed by extreme want and sickness. Christ remembered him, introducing him as an example for the greater manifestation of his discourse.

From this it is openly intimated that by God’s wondrous providence the good are oppressed and afflicted in many ways in this age while the wicked prosper, but in the other age the wicked are tormented in hell and the good remain in the rest of felicity.

Hence he says: “There was a certain rich man.” Because in the present the wicked are preeminent over the good in lordship, the life of the wicked rich man is therefore set out first.

He is called a “man” insofar as the word is derived from humus, earth—not insofar as he is a rational animal, for with his whole affection he was devoted to earthly desires and did not use reason.

He is called “a certain” man, and his proper name is not expressed, so that he may be tormented in that in which he sinned. For he was among the number of those who, according to the Psalm, “called their names upon their own lands”; therefore, after the passage of this life he loses his name.

His name is also passed over as though Christ did not know him, because Christ is said not to know sinners, that is, not to approve their deeds. Christ also passes over his name, although he knew it, so as not to scandalize his hearers. For, as John Damascene relates, this rich man is said to have been a blood relative of Zechariah, the father of the Baptist, and known to many.

“He was rich.” He is not rich now, but poor, blind, and naked. He “was” rich because all those things have passed away like a shadow.

Ambrose says: “Riches are not criminal in themselves, but luxury brings riches into disgrace.” Jerome says: “Every rich person is either unjust or avaricious.” According to Augustine, the worm of the rich is pride.

For avarice consists not only in acquiring unlawfully, but also in retaining tenaciously and not helping the poor when one ought, as this banqueter did. In addition, it consists in the order of loving: in establishing one’s final end in riches, according to Thomas in the Summa.

“Who was clothed in purple and fine linen.” Behold the boastfulness of pride. According to Bede, purple is the color of royal dress, produced from sea-shells cut around with iron, while fine linen is a kind of very white and very soft flax.

Gregory says: “If the cultivation of subtle and costly clothing were not a fault, divine speech would by no means express this so vigilantly, placing it as a cause of his condemnation. For no one seeks costly clothing except for vainglory.” The Gloss of Thomas adds: costly clothing means clothing exceeding the quality of one’s station.

“And he feasted splendidly every day.” The feasts denote superfluity; “every day,” continuity; “splendidly,” sumptuous solicitude.

Chrysostom says: “He covered ash and dust with purple. And what garments, what banquets, for a body to be gnawed by worms!” Gregory says: “It must be considered carefully that banquets can scarcely be celebrated without fault, for pleasure almost always accompanies feasts.”

Jerome says: “The belly and the genitals are neighboring members, so that from the nearness of the members the alliance of the vices may be understood.” This is in Distinction 44, section 1.

Next Lazarus’s condition is set out, and therefore it follows: “There was a certain beggar.” His begging and all his misery have passed away; he is not poor now, but exceedingly rich.

“Named Lazarus.” His name is given because such people are known to God, that is, approved and pleasing in their works, because they are supported by God’s grace. Thus Lazarus is interpreted “one aided,” namely aided by God’s grace.

“Full of sores,” so that his merit might increase further. He had not only beggary, which is extreme poverty seeking alms—whence mendicus, beggar, means one who speaks with his hand—but also a grave illness. Because he was full of sores, he had not one but many, so much so that he lay helpless.

Despised by all, he found no house or hospice to receive him, but lay in the street. “For he lay before the rich man’s gate.”

It is remarkable that this proud and avaricious rich man allowed him to remain before his house and did not drive him away. But this is believed to have been done wholly by divine dispensation, both so that the crown of patience might thereby be prepared for the poor man, who daily saw that wicked man prosper so greatly while he himself, free from those crimes, was held in such calamity—and hence could be tempted—and so that judgment of damnation might be prepared for the rich man, since, seeing such want every day, he did not assist even in the smallest things.

For, as it follows, “the beggar desired to be filled,” not with meats and costly things, but “with the crumbs that fell from the rich man’s table.” Amid so many wounds he does not recall the pains of his sores, but hunger, as though he said to him: Give me as alms what you throw away from the table; make loss into gain. “But no one gave to him.”

For the cruel master also had cruel servants. Thus Chrysostom says: “The rich are so forgetful of the human condition that, as though they were above nature, they take from the miseries of the poor incitements to their own desires. They laugh at the needy, insult the indigent, and take from those whom they ought to pity.”

Yet God does not desert his own even when afflicted. Hence it follows: “The dogs came and licked his sores.” Chrysostom says: “The wounds which no human being deigned to wash and touch, savage beasts lick.”

Next the departure of each is set out. The Lord says: “And it came to pass that the beggar died.” It came to pass, namely by divine dispensation working so that a reward might be rendered to the needy man.

“That the beggar died.” Lazarus did not die, but the beggar did—his poverty and misery. He himself, as regards the soul, lives forever and in rest. Hence it follows: “And he was carried by the angels.”

Chrysostom says: “Such punishment is suddenly exchanged for delights. He is carried after so many labors because he had failed, lest he should labor even by walking.” But this carrying is not bodily support, since neither a soul nor an angel is corporeal, but joyful companionship and defense from the devil’s snares.

Chrysostom says: “One angel would have sufficed to carry the poor man. But several come so that they may make a choir of rejoicing. Each angel rejoices to touch such a burden. Gladly are they burdened with such loads, so that they may lead human beings to the kingdoms of heaven.”

“Into Abraham’s bosom.” Chrysostom says: “He is carried into Abraham’s bosom so that Abraham may caress and refresh him.” Abraham’s bosom is now paradise, Chrysostom says.

For in the Old Testament Abraham’s bosom was the limbo of the fathers. It is so called because, just as a bosom is a place of safety and rest—for we place in our bosom what we wish to be safe lest we lose it, and little children rest in their mother’s bosom—so the souls descending to limbo were secure of their salvation and rested there. They were not afflicted by the punishment of fire, although they did not see God.

It is called Abraham’s bosom because the souls of the faithful descended there. Abraham is called their father and the father of faith, because he was the first to confess the true God publicly among the idolatrous Chaldeans, and worship of the true God remained in his household alone. With great faith he believed that, when he was already one hundred years old and his wife sterile, a son would be born from him in whom the nations would be saved.

The rich banqueter’s death follows. “And the rich man also died,” because his riches failed him. As the Psalm says: “When the rich man dies, he shall not take everything, nor shall the glory of his house descend with him.”

Chrysostom says: “He was indeed then dead in body, but his soul had been dead before. For he performed none of the soul’s works, since all his fervor arising from love of neighbor had expired, and he was deader than the dead.”

No one is said to have ministered at the rich man’s burial, as was said for Lazarus. For as long as the rich man delighted in the broad way he had many flattering attendants, but when he reached the end he was deprived of all. Let us hear what his soul received.

“He was buried in hell,” namely with the burial Jeremiah describes concerning King Jehoiakim: “He shall be buried with the burial of an ass.” This burial is as follows.

When an ass dies, three parts are made from it. Its masters receive its skin. So too the rich man’s relatives receive temporal or exterior goods, signified by the skin. And just as drums are made from an ass’s skin, at whose sound people rejoice and dance, so the survivors use the riches of sinners for vain rejoicings.

The flesh of an ass is gnawed and consumed by worms; so too a human corpse. But its bones are exposed to heat and cold, enduring. The souls of sinners also, remaining with their powers, will pass “from the waters of snow to excessive heat” in hell, where there is no redemption, as Job says.

Basil says: “Hell is a certain common place in the depths of the earth, shadowed and dark on every side. It has a kind of opening extending into the deep, through which there can be descent for souls condemned to punishment.” Augustine says: “Burial in hell is the depth of punishments, which devours the proud and unmerciful after this life.”

Finally his punitive recompense is set out. Hence it follows: “But lifting up his eyes when he was in torments.” Gregory says: “The eyes which guilt closed, punishment now opens. During life he refused to open the eyes of mercy toward the beggar; now, under punishment, he is compelled to open them toward that beggar when consoled.”

Chrysostom says: “For after the rich man’s death, his reclining in Gehenna and his sight of Lazarus’s delight increased his ruin, so that he might experience punishment more unbearably not only from the nature of the torments, but also by comparison with the other’s honor.”

Hence it says, “when he was in torments.” Chrysostom says: “It does not say ‘in torment,’ but ‘in torments.’ Infinite torments possess him”—the Gloss adds, infinite in duration—and also, beyond our comprehension here, he was wholly in torments. He had only his eyes free so that he might behold another’s joy and thereby be tormented more.

“He saw Abraham afar off.” Gregory says: “If Abraham had not then been in the lower regions, this rich man placed in torments would not have seen him.” For after departing the flesh, the confines of hell—that is, of limbo—held those who followed the ways of the heavenly homeland, not so that the punishment of fire might afflict them as sinners, but so that guilt for the first sin might keep them, resting in more remote places, from entering the kingdom, because the Mediator’s intercession had not yet arrived.

“And Lazarus in his bosom.” Chrysostom says: “There were many just poor people there, but the one who lay at his gate met his sight for his sorrow.” From this it becomes known that all whom we offend will be cast before our sight.

“And crying out, he said.” Chrysostom says: “The magnitude of the punishment produced a great cry.” “Father Abraham”: he calls Abraham father by nature, because he recognized that he descended from Abraham’s race. But he was not his son by imitation, because Abraham was charitable and this man cruel.

The former remained before the doors of his tent so that he might receive travelers; this man, however, noticed even those who remained before his house without showing mercy.

Chrysostom says: “Yet he does not address his speech to Lazarus, but to Abraham, perhaps because he was ashamed, or because he thought Lazarus remembered his wrongs, judging him by himself.”

“Have mercy on me.” Chrysostom says: “In vain do you practice repentance where there is no place for repentance. Torments compel you, not the affection of the mind. I do not know whether one who is in the kingdom of heaven can have mercy on one who is in hell.”

“Send Lazarus.” Chrysostom says: “You err, wretched man. Abraham cannot send Lazarus, but he can receive him. You did not deem Lazarus worthy to be seen, and now you desire his finger. What you ask, you ought to have done for him while you were still alive. You desire water, although before you disdained delicately prepared foods.”

Chrysostom says: “The situation is changed, and it is made known to everyone who was rich and who was poor. For just as in a theater, when evening comes and those present depart, stripping themselves and putting aside their costumes, those who had seemed to everyone to be kings and praetors are afterward seen as they are, so also when death comes and the spectacle is ended, and all have laid aside the masks of poverty and riches, they are judged from their works alone: who are truly rich, who poor, who glorious, and who inglorious.”

Gregory says: “The rich man begged for a drop of water, he who in this life denied crumbs of bread.”

The mention here of members such as eyes, tongue, and finger must not be understood materially as referring to members of the body, but tropically. For such things are also said of God, in whom there is nothing corporeal. That rich man and Lazarus were in the lower regions in soul, not in body. Since the soul is a spirit, it does not have a corporeal tongue or finger. Rather, his sight is his knowledge; his tongue is the guilt of his evil speech in the world; his speech is an intellectual conception or its manifestation; the tip of the finger is the smallest work; and the water, according to Augustine, is some relief from punishment.

Hence he adds: “That he may cool my tongue.” Gregory says: “Why does one placed in torments ask for his tongue to be cooled more than another part, except that he had sinned through loquacity at banquets,” such as by detraction, derision, and speaking vain and shameful things? Therefore he burned especially in his tongue, that is, he was specially tormented for the sin of the tongue.

Chrysostom says: “For his tongue spoke many proud things. Where the sin was, there also is the punishment. And because he sinned most greatly there, he is therefore tormented there more severely.”

Or, according to Augustine, the fact that he wishes his tongue to be cooled although he burned throughout in the flame signifies what is written: “Death and life are in the hands of the tongue,” and that confession by the mouth is made unto salvation, which that man had not done.

The tip of the finger signifies even the smallest work by which help is given through the Holy Spirit. “Because,” he says, “I am tormented in this flame.” Although that fire or flame is material, it does not act upon the soul—which is a spirit and naturally nobler than it—except as the instrument of divine justice, supernaturally afflicting the soul by way of detention, according to Thomas in the Fourth Book, or even by way of infliction, according to Peter of La Palu. According to Augustine, in Distinction 25, section Alias ea, it exceeds every punishment of the present life.

“Because I am tormented,” and so forth. Basil says: “A fitting recompense is rendered to the rich man: that fire and infernal punishment, a parched tongue; groaning in place of the sounding lyre; desire for a drop in place of drink; deep darkness in place of monstrous spectacles; and the ever-wakeful worm in place of an unceasing retinue.”

Chrysostom says: “He was tormented not because he was rich, but because he showed no mercy.” Gregory says: “From this one must gather with what punishment a person who seizes the property of others is to be chastised, if one who does not distribute his own is punished by the damnation of hell.” This is in Cause 12, Question 2, canon Et si illi.

Ambrose says that he is also tormented because being deprived of delights is punishment for the luxurious person. Water, however, is no refreshment for a soul placed amid pains. But because, Gregory says, the rich man had not shown mercy to the poor man lying at his gate, he is not heard when he himself needs mercy.

Hence it follows: “And Abraham said to him: Son, remember.” Chrysostom says: “Observe the patriarch’s goodness. He calls him son, but offers no assistance to one who had deprived himself of a remedy.”

“Remember,” he says; that is, attend to the past, and do not forget how many times you were delighted by riches. “You received good things in your life.” Chrysostom says: “Those things, namely, which you thought were true goods and believed that there were no others. Therefore, because you are filled with them, no other goods remain for you to possess.”

“And Lazarus evil things,” that is, things which you thought were true evils, although they were not: even if they were evils for the body, they were not evils for the soul.

Ambrose says: “Those things are not evils which neither entangle the mind in crime nor bind the conscience. Hence no wise person will call poverty, low birth, sickness, or death evils.” This is in Cause 15, Question 1, canon Illa cavenda.

“You received good things,” and so forth. Chrysostom says: “An evil person cannot be evil in everything, but has some good things,” namely works good in their kind. Nor can a good person be good in everything, but he has some evils, namely sins. Therefore, when an evil person receives prosperity, it is to his own harm. For when he receives recompense here for those few good things, he will be punished more severely there. This is in On Penance, Distinction 3, canon Quid ergo. And when a good person endures evils, that is, adversities, he is cleansed from sins through them.

“But now he is comforted here.” The Apostle says: “If we suffer together, we shall also reign together”; and, “If we are companions in sufferings, we shall also be companions in consolation.” The Psalmist also says: “According to the multitude of my sorrows,” and so forth.

“But you are tormented.” Jerome says: “It is difficult—indeed, impossible—for anyone to enjoy both present and future goods, and to pass from delights to delights, so that he appears glorious in both ages, filling his belly here and his mind there.” He speaks this way, however, about enjoyment.

Gregory says: “Whenever you have fared well in this age, when you recall that you have done good things, fear greatly concerning those very things, lest the prosperity granted to you be the recompense for those good things. And when you see poor people commit some blameworthy acts, consider that perhaps the furnace of poverty purges those whom the smallest superficial stain of wickedness defiles.”

“And besides all these things,” and so forth. Chrysostom says: “After this life, hope must be placed in God’s mercy but, as regards salvation, in one’s own endeavors, not in naming friends or relatives as witnesses. For a brother does not redeem.” Jerome says the same in Cause 13, Question 2, canon In praesenti, with the section following.

“A great chaos has been fixed.” Theophilus says: “The great chaos signifies the difference between the just and sinners. For just as their affections had been different in life, so their dwelling places differ by no small degree.” It is said to be “fixed” because, according to Chrysostom, it cannot be dissolved, disturbed, or shaken.

Ambrose says: “A fixed chaos stood between the rich man and the poor man, because after death merits cannot be changed.” Hence it follows: “So that those who wish to pass from here to you cannot, nor can they cross from there to here.”

Chrysostom says: “It is as though he said: We can see, but cannot cross. We see what we have escaped, and you see what you have lost. Our joys increase your torments, and your torments increase our joys.”

Gregory says: “Just as the reprobate desire to pass to the elect, that is, to migrate from the affliction of their punishments, so for the just to pass to those afflicted and placed in torments is to go to them in mind through mercy and to wish to free them,” namely by a certain natural instinct, which is called the will as nature.

But although the souls of the just possess mercy through the goodness of their nature, they are nevertheless so bound by rectitude, being united to the author of justice, that they are moved by no compassion for the reprobate. Therefore the unjust do not pass to the saints because they are not freed from perpetual damnation, nor do the just pass to the reprobate because they show them no mercy through compassion in any way.

When the saints are said to rejoice in the punishments of the damned, this must be understood not as though they rejoice in their misery, but as rejoicing in the fulfillment of divine justice and in their own escape from a similar punishment.

Theophilus says: “From this you may draw an argument against Origen, who said that, since an end must be imposed upon punishments, there will be a time when sinners will be gathered to the just and to God.” Against this also stands what Christ says in Matthew 25: “Depart, accursed ones, into eternal fire.”

“And he said: I ask you, therefore, father.” Gregory says: “After hope concerning himself is taken away from the burning rich man, his mind turns to the relatives whom he had left behind. Hence he says: ‘I ask you, therefore, father.’”

Chrysostom says: “Observe his perversity. Not even his very punishments hold him to the truth. If Abraham is his father, how does he say, ‘Send him to my father’s house’?”

Augustine says: “He asks that Lazarus be sent because he perceived himself to be unworthy to bear witness to the truth. And because he had not obtained even a little cooling, much less did he believe that he could be released from hell to preach the truth.”

He adds: “That he may testify to them, lest they too come into this place of torments.” Here it must be observed that the rich man was moved to make this request not by charity for his brothers, which he did not possess, but by self-love. For because his brothers were abusing the riches which he had left to them indiscriminately, the rich man’s punishment in hell was increased by their evil works in abusing those riches, insofar as he had provided them an occasion to sin. Therefore, so that his punishment might not increase daily, he asked that Lazarus be sent to correct them, lest they use the riches badly or imitate him in evils.

“Send him to my father’s house,” and so forth. Gregory says: “In this matter it must be observed how greatly the punishments of the burning rich man are multiplied. For both knowledge and memory are preserved for his punishment. He recognized Lazarus, whom he had despised, and remembered the brothers whom he had left. For so that sinners may be punished more greatly in torment, they see the glory of those whom they despised and are tormented by the punishment of those whom they loved fruitlessly.”

Augustine also asks here whether the dead know the things that are done here, because the rich man spoke about his brothers, and whether the elect know them too, because Abraham spoke about the life Lazarus and the rich man had lived here and about Moses. He answers that Abraham could have learned these things after their deaths through Lazarus’s report, lest what is written—“Abraham did not know us”—be false. The dead can also hear some things from the angels who are present to the affairs conducted here. They can also know, by the revelation of God’s Spirit, some things that it is necessary for them to know, not only past things but even future ones. Augustine says the same more fully in Cause 13, Question 2, canon Fatendum. He adds that many of the dead are believed to come to certain living persons.

Abraham answered him: “They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.” Chrysostom says: “Do not now care more for your brothers than does God, who created them and appointed teachers for them to solicit and admonish them.” Here “Moses and the prophets” means the writings of Moses and the prophets.

Ambrose says: “In this passage the Lord declares that the Old Testament belongs to faith, beating back the faithlessness of the Jews and the wickedness of heretics.”

Gregory says: “But because the man who had despised God’s words supposed that his followers could not hear them, he says in reply: ‘No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will do penance.’”

Chrysostom says: “Because he had scorned the Scriptures when he heard them and considered them fables, he judged his brothers too from the things he himself had suffered.”

Gregory of Nyssa says: “We are also taught another doctrine: Lazarus’s soul is not concerned about present things and does not turn itself back toward anything it left behind, while the rich man, as though caught in a kind of birdlime, is held fast by the carnal life even after death. For if anyone becomes wholly carnal in mind, not even after his body has burned away is he freed from his passions.”

But a truthful sentence is immediately returned to the rich man. For Abraham says to him: “If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they believe if someone has risen from the dead.”

Gregory says: “Those who despise the words of the Law will fulfill the precepts of the Redeemer who rose from the dead all the more difficultly, the more subtle they are.”

Chrysostom says: “That this is true is shown by the Jews, who at one time wished to kill Lazarus and at another attacked the apostles, although some had risen from the dead at the hour of the cross, that is, when Christ rose.”

“But also consider this: every dead person is a servant, whereas the one who speaks through the Scriptures is the Lord. Hence, even if a dead person should rise and an angel descend from heaven, the Scriptures are more worthy than them all. For the Lord of angels, of the dead, and of the living established them. If God had known that the dead, by rising, would benefit the living, he who treats every single thing for our benefit would not have omitted this. But if the dead rose frequently, this too would eventually be despised. And the devil would easily introduce perverse doctrines, fashioning them through his own instruments—not truly raising the dead, but deceiving the observers’ sight by certain deceptions, or contriving for certain persons to feign death.”

Allegorically, Gregory says that Lazarus signifies the Gentile people, full of the sores of sins, whose dogs—that is, preachers—licked its sores, that is, cleansed away its sins. Having died to sins, this people rests in Abraham’s faith. The rich man signifies the Jewish people, glorying in the Law and despising the Gentile people, who was finally rejected because of unbelief.

§ XVII. The Parable of the Steward Accused of Squandering His Master’s Goods and His Shrewdness in Providing for Himself

Luke alone relates that Jesus said to his disciples: “There was a certain rich man.” Bede says: “Because the most suitable order of preaching is that almsgiving should be urged after penance, therefore, after Luke related three parables about penitents received into grace through God’s immense clemency, he adds the parable about giving alms, saying: ‘There was a certain man,’” and so forth.

This man signifies the Lord God, who is rich toward all who call upon him, and to whom belong the earth and its fullness. This man had a steward. Jerome says: “For a steward is the governor of an estate.”

Hence he is called a villicus from a villa. An oeconomus is accordingly the administrator of the lord’s money, produce, and all his goods. These are Jerome’s words.

And because, in relation to our homeland and heavenly city, this world inhabited by mortals can be called an estate, every mortal can therefore be called a steward. All the goods given to him by God, whether natural, temporal, or spiritual, have been conferred upon him to be administered—that is, to be used well for the advantage of the Lord, namely his glory, and not for the person’s own profit. Among these are riches, if he possesses them, which one ought to distribute to the poor rather than retain tenaciously for oneself or spend badly.

It follows: “And he was accused before him as though he had squandered his goods.” Chrysostom says: “A certain erroneous opinion generated by mortals increases their crimes, because we possess whatever we possess for use in the present life as though we were its lords, and therefore seize it inopportunely as our principal goods. But the contrary is true. For we have not been placed in the present life as lords in our own home, but as guests and strangers, and we are led where we do not wish and at a time we do not expect. One who is rich now becomes a beggar in a short while. Therefore, whoever you are, know that you are an administrator of another’s possessions, and that rights of transitory and brief use have been conceded to you. Casting aside from your soul the pride of ownership, therefore, assume the humility and moderation of a good steward rather than a squanderer.”

For this man is said to have been accused because he had squandered his master’s goods, and so forth. Theophilus says: “When we do not administer wealth according to the lord’s will, but abuse it for our own enticements, we are criminal stewards.” Hence this man was accused.

Here it is also shown that an inquiry into crimes ought to take place after a report has preceded it. This is in Extra, title On Accusations, chapter Qualiter et quando.

“And his lord called him.” This call of the lord does not seem to be understood as a call through death, because then one is removed from the administration of things committed to him in such a way that he cannot provide for his salvation in the other life if he administered badly and dies amid that bad administration. Rather, it seems that it must be understood as an interior call, by which God illuminates the mind to recognize itself and its defects, showing the person that he deserves to have everything taken from him and to be deprived even of life.

“And he said to him: What is this that I hear of you?” He does not say this as though he does not know by himself the evil deeds of human beings, even hidden ones, and learns them from the report of others. Rather, he says it to show that the deeds of certain sinners are such that many know them.

“Give an account of your stewardship,” that is, of your administration: how, namely, you have used the goods conceded to you by God while neglecting the human beings committed to you as subjects.

“For now you will no longer be able to be steward.” This is said to the sinner’s mind when, being pierced with compunction because God is offended with him, he recognizes that he deserves the withdrawal of all goods, even life. The sinner therefore considers what he must do, lest he perish from eternal hunger when it happens that he dies, because then he will be removed from his stewardship.

“And he said: What shall I do, because my lord takes the stewardship away from me?”—lest, namely, I afterward perish from hunger.

“Give an account of your stewardship,” and so forth. Chrysostom says: “Daily the Lord cries such things aloud to us through their effects, showing us one who enjoyed health at midday lifeless before evening, and another expiring amid dinner; and in diverse ways we depart from this stewardship. But the faithful administrator who trusts in his own administration desires with Paul to be dissolved and to be with Christ, whereas the one whose desires—that is, whose beloved things—are earthly is troubled at his departure.”

“I cannot dig; I am ashamed to beg.” That is: in the other life I cannot provide for myself by digging, namely through contrition and confession, because there is no time for repentance there; nor through begging from others, because there is no time for showing mercy. Even if I asked for help, it would be denied me, as happened to the foolish virgins.

Therefore, I must provide for myself now. And so, with God inspiring him, he says: “I know what I shall do, so that they may receive me into their houses,” namely into the eternal mansions. Those mansions may be owed to me either by reason of an injury received or by reason of a temporal obligation, although those people are nevertheless more principally debtors of the Lord God, because all our possessions are his. I shall remit at least a part to them, because an injury of this sort against one’s neighbor is in this respect an offense against God insofar as it pertains to him.

Let him therefore remit to his neighbor who sins against him the vengeance, namely by not desiring it; let him humble himself by asking pardon from him; and let him give generous alms from his goods, although through this he dispenses from the goods of his lord.

Chrysostom says: “As often as anyone, perceiving his own end, lightens by beneficence the burden of his offenses—either by remitting debts to debtors or, by giving abundance from his resources, distributing the things that belong to the Lord—he gains many friends for himself. Before the judge they will bear witness to his goodness, not by words but by the manifestation of good works; indeed, they will prepare for him a dwelling place of refreshment.”

Nothing, however, belongs to us, but all things belong to divine dominion. Therefore he calls them the debtors of his lord.

“A hundred measures of oil.” Bede says: “A cadus in Greek is an amphora in Latin. A cor of wheat is a chorus, which is filled by thirty modii. How much a modius contains is unknown.”

“And the lord praised the steward of iniquity.” Augustine says: “We ought not assume that everything written is to be imitated. For fraud must not be committed against any lord in order that we may make alms from that very fraud.”

“He praised him because he had acted prudently.” Origen says: “It must be observed that prudence is sometimes and properly taken for right reason concerning things to be done, according to the saying, ‘The Lord established the heavens’”—that is, holy men—“‘in prudence.’ Sometimes it is also taken improperly in an evil sense, that is, for shrewdness and cunning invention for attaining an intended end, according to the saying, ‘The serpent was more prudent than all the animals,’” that is, more shrewd and cunning.

The lord therefore did not praise the steward by way of true commendation, just as evil people, when they are praised for their acuteness in doing evil, are praised not for their wickedness but for their skill.

Augustine says: “These similitudes are stated by way of contrast, so that we may understand: if this man who committed fraud could gain praise from his lord, how much more will those please God who perform works according to his commands?” Therefore the lord praised him not for the fraud committed against him, but for the provision he had made for himself.

“Because the children of this age are more prudent in their generation than the children of light.” Bede says: “They are called children of light and children of this age here, just as they are also called children of the kingdom and children of perdition. For whatever one’s works are, he is reckoned as belonging to that source and is its child, as though begotten from light or from the age.”

Theophilus says: “He calls those who think about and seek advantages for themselves principally upon earth the children of this age, but those who manage spiritual riches with a view to divine love the children of light. In human administrations, however, we are found prudently arranging our own affairs and striving with the utmost effort so that, if we are removed from the administration, we may have a refuge for life. But when we ought to administer divine things, we do not consider beforehand the things that will afterward profit us.”

“In their generation.” Origen says: “He does not call them wiser, but more prudent; nor does he call them more prudent simply and absolutely, but ‘in their generation,’” that is, in their own affairs.

Gregory says in the Moralia: “Therefore, so that each person may find after death whatever he places in his own hand, before death let him place his riches, through alms, into the hands of the poor.”

Hence the Lord adds: “And I say to you: Make friends for yourselves from the mammon of iniquity.” Augustine says: “Mammon in Hebrew or Syriac is translated ‘riches’ in Latin.”

Some people, understanding this badly, think that by seizing the property of others and distributing alms from it to the poor, they are observing this command. But that understanding must be corrected. For alms are to be given from just labors. “Therefore, do not wish,” Augustine also says, “to make alms from interest and usury.” This is in Cause 14, Question 5. For if anyone gives the whole of what he took from others to the poor, sin is increased rather than diminished. Augustine says the same in the same Question, canon Forte.

Once that false interpretation—that someone should receive unjustly in order to give to the poor—has been removed, this saying can be explained well in many ways.

These temporal riches are called riches of iniquity, first, because they have been acquired unjustly in such a way that recovery or restitution is due. Then we make friends for ourselves from them when we restore them to those from whom we received them, not to the poor; or when things acquired in this way are given to the poor because their owners are unknown or cannot be found, provided the manner and form that are due are certainly observed, as will appear in the Second Part.

Second, they are called riches of iniquity because they are acquired through unjust and prohibited acts, as when things are acquired through magic, divination, prostitution, gambling, and the like. We make poor people our friends from these when such things are given to them, provided that such works are avoided thereafter. Concerning this, see Cause 14, Question 5, canon Qui habetis.

Third, they are called riches of iniquity because, even if justly acquired, they are acquired with much labor and excessive solicitude of mind, which excessive anxiety is called iniquity. Gratian explains it this way in Cause 14, Question 5, section Sed etiam multipliciter. We make poor people our friends from riches of this kind when we give them alms from them.

Fourth, riches are called riches of iniquity, according to Augustine, because these temporal goods are not regarded as riches—that is, as great goods—except by wicked people who have their hope and affection immersed in them. The just, however, regard spiritual and heavenly goods as riches.

Fifth, according to Basil, they are called riches of iniquity as though riches of inequality, because they are not distributed equally among human beings. For more are given to one person and fewer to another, although by God’s just dispensation or permission, even if this is unknown to us.

Sixth, according to Ambrose, they are called riches of iniquity not because they are evil in themselves, but because affection for them tempts our souls with various enticements, so that we wish to serve riches. “For pride,” Augustine says, “is the worm of the rich.”

Seventh, according to Basil: “If you have succeeded to riches by inheritance, you have received things amassed by unjust people. For among many predecessors it is necessary that someone be found who unjustly seized the property of others. Suppose that neither your father extorted it; but from where is the gold you possess? If you say, ‘From me,’ you are ignorant of God and have no knowledge of the Creator. But if it is from God, tell us the reason for which you received it. Is not the earth the Lord’s, and its fullness? Therefore, if our possessions belong to the common Lord, they will also belong to our fellow servants.” These are his words.

Thus they are called riches of iniquity because even goods justly acquired are retained unjustly when those in need are not helped through them. It is therefore evident that riches are called riches of iniquity in seven ways, and from them we ought to make friends for ourselves: by restoring them as regards the first way, and by giving alms to the poor as regards the other ways.

“So that when you fail, they may receive you into eternal tabernacles.” Gregory says: “If by the friendship of those to whom we give we acquire eternal tabernacles, those who give ought to consider how great are the goods they bestow upon the needy.”

Or, according to Augustine: “Who are those who will possess eternal tabernacles except the saints? And who are those who are to be received by them into eternal tabernacles except those who served their need and cheerfully supplied what they required? These are those least ones of Christ who left all their possessions and followed him, and distributed whatever they possessed to the poor so that, freed from worldly fetters, they might serve God.”

Or otherwise, according to Ambrose: “Make friends for yourselves from unjust mammon, so that by giving to the poor we may obtain for ourselves the favor of the angels and of the other saints.”

Chrysostom says: “The Lord did not say that they should receive us ‘into their own mansions,’ but ‘into eternal tabernacles,’ because the friendship of the saints will not protect us by itself unless good works accompany us.” Almsgiving, therefore, is the art of arts. For almsgiving does not build earthen houses for us, but bestows everlasting life.

§ XVIII. The Temptation of Christ

Concerning this, Matthew 4 says: “Jesus was led into the desert,” and so forth.

First, it must be observed that three evangelists—Matthew, Mark, and Luke—mention Christ’s temptation, but John does not. According to Origen, the reason is that John began his Gospel from God, saying: “In the beginning was the Word.” God, however, is not tempted. In the other three evangelists, Christ’s generation or manner of life as a human being is presented; a human being is the one who is tempted, and therefore they mention it, although in diverse ways.

For Mark states only in general that Christ was tempted by Satan. Matthew and Luke, however, specify the things by which he was tempted, though in different ways. Matthew places the temptation on the pinnacle—that is, concerning vainglory or pride—in the second position, but Luke in the third. And the temptation on the mountain, concerning avarice, which Matthew places in the third position, Luke places in the second.

Augustine says: “It is uncertain to us which of these happened first. Nevertheless, falsehood ought not for this reason to be imputed to either evangelist, because it makes no difference whether one thing happened first or later, provided that the things themselves occurred.”

It can also be said that this was done mysteriously, so that one evangelist would put this temptation first and the other another, to signify that vainglory and avarice beget one another, as Maximus says.

Or, according to Gregory, Luke simply preserved the order of the event, while Matthew presented the order by correspondence with the temptation of our first parents. For the devil tempted both: he conquered the first Adam, but was conquered by the second, namely Christ.

As the Master also notes in the Second Book of the Sentences, the devil first tempted Adam concerning gluttony, saying, “On whatever day you eat from it,” suggesting that it was to be eaten. Second, he tempted him concerning pride when he promised them likeness to divinity, adding: “You shall be like gods.” Third, he tempted him concerning avarice, taking it broadly insofar as it denotes an immoderate desire to possess knowledge, dominion, and riches. Hence he added: “Knowing good and evil.” According to this order, Matthew took care to present the progress of the order of Christ’s temptation.

Second, it must be observed that Christ was tempted in one way and we in another. For since a temptation of the devil is a certain suggestion or proposal of some evil act, which he offers to our mind under the hope of some good, this can happen through a threefold progression, as Gregory notes in Distinction 5, canon Ad eius.

First, it occurs through the sudden representation of some thing to be done. These are called first movements, and by others “first-first” movements. In this there is no sin, but rather material for exercise and, if it is resisted, a crown of merit.

Second, such a suggestion advances to sensual pleasure, but short of consent, and there is venial sin.

Third, the consent of reason sometimes follows, so as deliberately to desire the evil that is suggested, or to delight in it lingeringly and not repel it from the mind. There is mortal sin at this point if the thing is against the commands of God or the Church.

Therefore, although Christ was tempted in the first way, namely through suggestion, the temptation nevertheless advanced no further, for it did not reach even sensual pleasure, where venial sin exists. Even the perfect frequently sin at this second degree.

This is what Gregory says: “When we are tempted, we frequently either consent or at least delight according to the flesh,” that is, with that sensual pleasure. “But when Christ was tempted, no delight in sin bit him.”

Third, it must be known that according to some people this temptation occurred only through the imagination, so that these conversations took place with no visible form appearing, but these representations were made only to Christ’s imagination. It was like the occurrence to us of thoughts about certain things to be done, in which we answer ourselves while deliberating whether to do or not do the thing proposed to the mind.

Accordingly, as to the statement, “The tempter approached and said,” this approach was not local but occurred through a suggestion to the imagination. The Gloss, however, says the contrary, as will be stated; so do Chrysostom and Gregory.

Others say that it occurred through a visible form, the devil taking the form of a human being with a body formed from air, as happens in apparitions of good or evil angels made to human beings. They suppose, as it were, that he assumed the form of a hermit approaching Christ in the desert by way of visitation and speaking to him in that form.

The Gloss expressly says this: that these works occurred before the bodily senses and that the devil appeared in the form of a human being. His leading Christ into the city or onto the mountain could have occurred by way of persuasion—for example, by saying to him, “Let us go to the city,” and afterward, “onto the mountain”—and Christ went with him, not compelled but voluntarily, so that he might conquer him and thereby help us in our temptations through the merit and example of his victory.

Or, if he permitted himself to be carried not over the ground but through the air, he nevertheless did not permit himself to be seen by others, as Chrysostom says. Nor, Gregory says, ought it appear unworthy to us if for an hour he permitted himself to be carried by the devil, since he permitted himself to be seized, mocked, and crucified by the devil’s members, namely Caiaphas, Pilate, and the Jews. This exposition is more common and more suitable for preaching to the people.

Fourth, it must be observed that immediately after baptism Christ went to the desert, a place of penance, giving himself to fasting rather than delights, and there he was tempted and conquered. According to Chrysostom, this intimates that after baptism or true penance no one ought to trust so greatly in the grace received that he gives himself to idleness and delights. Rather, he ought to exercise himself in bodily austerities, flee occasions of evils, devote himself to solitude of mind and meditation, and so prepare himself to resist the devil’s temptations, according to Ecclesiasticus 2: “When you approach the service of God, stand in justice and fear, and prepare your soul for temptation.”

For the more anyone devotes watchful attention to better pursuits, the more the ancient enemy assails him. Hence Pope Leo says: “Let no one trust in the purity of his heart. For that ever-watchful enemy strikes with sharper snares those whom he knows especially to abstain from sins. From whom would the impulse of his wickedness restrain him, when he dared to attack the Lord of majesty?”

Fifth, it must be observed that, although the devil knew that the Son of God was to be incarnate and to free the world—that is, the human race—from his hands, he did not know the time or manner. Therefore, he diligently watched to see whether perhaps he could recognize him and impede our liberation.

Thus, whenever he saw certain holy men perform great things, he watched to see whether perhaps they were he. And because he perceived defects and sins in them all, he judged that none of the earlier men was he.

But when he saw Christ come into the world, he did not know the manner. For although a virgin had conceived, because he saw that she had a spouse, namely Joseph, he judged that Christ had been conceived by him. For this reason God willed that she be betrothed, so that this mystery would be hidden from the devil. And the Virgin’s holiness was so great that the devil could not learn how she had conceived.

When Christ had been born, Satan certainly heard the angels singing in the air, “Glory to God in the highest”; saw a new star appear to the Magi; and saw the shepherds going to adore him and making their announcement. Dumbfounded in mind, he judged almost firmly, and said to himself, that this was the Son of God.

But when he considered the circumstances of the newborn child—namely, that like other little infants he wailed, lamented, sucked the breasts, and suffered cold in a shelter—recovering his mental confidence, he answered himself: “Who would not laugh to hear that God wails or weeps and sucks the breasts? These things belong to a human being, not to God. Therefore, this man is a human being, not God, even if these are indications of great holiness.”

Then, perceiving the adoration of the Magi and the great testimonies of Simeon and Anna when Christ was presented in the Temple, he was sufficiently alarmed concerning his divinity. But when he considered that Christ fled into Egypt like a mere human being for fear that Herod would kill him, he said to himself: “Does God fear human beings? He is not God.”

And when Christ came for baptism, he heard the voice from heaven saying: “This is my beloved Son.” And he said: “I am confounded. What is clearer than this testimony?” But seeing him baptized with sinners, he answered himself: “Why would this man be baptized if he were God? For God is without sin, and John gives baptism for the repentance of sinners. That voice therefore indicates that he is a son of God through the excellence of great holiness, not that he is the natural Son of God.”

And when Jesus afterward performed many miracles, greater and more numerous than those of earlier men, not by entreating but by commanding, the demons cried out, not from certainty but from forceful conjecture: “You are the Son of God.” Christ, however, concealed his divinity from them by adding something that belonged to humanity, such as eating with others, becoming hungry, and the like.

Therefore, when the devil now saw that Christ had remained in the desert for forty days without food, which is contrary to the human condition, he began to be driven to suspect that perhaps he was God himself. But when he noticed him becoming hungry, he cast aside that suspicion, saying: “God cannot hunger. Nor is he the only person who has done what he did by remaining without food, for Moses and Elijah, who were mere human beings, also did this. Therefore this man is not God, but a very holy man like them.”

“Yet I have deceived many most holy men—Adam, Moses, and David—in diverse ways. I shall therefore approach him to see whether I might gain something with him by inducing him to some sin, or at least recognize more certainly whether he is the Son of God.”

Christ, however, knowing his wickedness, went to the place of temptation, namely the desert, so that in the very battle of temptation the devil might be weakened and Christ’s power in our temptations might also hand on to us the pattern for conquering him.

Therefore the evangelist says: “Jesus was led into the desert,” and so forth. The devil presses temptation more strongly when he sees people alone. Hence in the beginning he tempted the woman when he found her without her husband.

“Into the desert.” The Gloss says: “This place is between Jerusalem and Jericho, where robbers dwelt, and where the man who went down from Jerusalem to Jericho fell among robbers.” He bore the figure of Adam, who was conquered by demons. It was therefore fitting that Christ should conquer the devil there where, under a figure, the devil had conquered the human being.

“By the Spirit”—certainly not by an evil spirit, but by his own spirit, that is, by reason impelling him toward virtuous works. Therefore, this leading occurred through reason’s persuasion, not the compulsion of violence. Gregory and others say this. And this is how what Mark says must be understood: “The Spirit drove him into the desert.”

Basil says: “Not provoking the enemy by word but entering by deed, he seeks the desert. For the devil delights in the desert; he does not suffer himself to be in cities, since civic concord saddens him.”

Chrysostom says: “Not only was Christ led into the desert, but so are all the children of God who possess the Holy Spirit. For they are not content to remain idle, but the Holy Spirit urges them to undertake some great work. This is in the desert as regards the devil, because the injustice in which the devil delights is not there. Every good thing is also outside the flesh and the world, because it is not according to the will of the flesh and the world. Therefore, all the children of God go out into such a desert so that they may be tempted,” understanding this consecutively, not that they act for this purpose, but that this follows from it: they are tempted there by the devil.

“That he might be tempted by the devil.” Cyril says: “Behold, he who commands contests among the athletes and crowns the heads of the saints has become one of the athletes.”

Origen says: “Jesus is tempted by the devil for forty days. What the temptations were we do not know,” namely other temptations besides these, which perhaps were passed over because they were greater than soldiers would believe.

“And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights.” Basil says: “He fasted, showing us that sobriety is necessary for the one who wishes to gird himself for the battle of temptations.”

Lest this fast of Christ be believed similar to ours, in which we eat once in a natural day, Luke adds: “And he ate nothing.”

“That he might be tempted by the devil.” Chrysostom says: “Whoever you are, if after baptism you endure greater temptations, do not be disturbed. For you received arms for this reason, not that you may be idle, but that you may fight.”

God does not prevent temptation from coming to you for five reasons. First, so that you may learn that you have been made much stronger. Second, so that you may not be exalted by the greatness of the gifts. Third, so that the devil may learn by experience that you have departed from him completely. For when a tyrant sees a fortress rebelling against him, he applies absolutely every exertion of battle to subject it to himself again.

Fourth, so that through this you may be made stronger. For through exercise in some art a person is made more capable and stronger for its works. Fifth, so that of the treasure entrusted to you, you may receive the sign of the treasure. For the devil would not come upon you to tempt you unless he saw that you had been established in greater honor.

Hilary says: “For the devil’s temptations rage especially among those who have been sanctified, because victory over the saints is more greatly desired by him.”

“And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights.” Chrysostom says: “Christ fasted not because he needed it, but to instruct us. And so that he might establish the measure of our Lenten fast, he fasted for that length of time. But he did not proceed in fasting beyond Moses and Elijah, forty days, lest his assumption of flesh appear incredible.”

Gregory says: “The author of human beings himself took no food for forty days and nights, which Luke states expressly. But insofar as we are able, during the season of Lent let us afflict our flesh through abstinence,” namely by fasting and being content with one meal each day.

The number forty is observed because the power of the Decalogue is fulfilled through the four books of the Gospel; ten multiplied by four rises to forty. For in this mortal body we subsist from four elements, and through its pleasure we transgress the Lord’s commands, which were received through the Decalogue. Therefore, because through the desires of the flesh we have despised the commandments of the Decalogue, it is fitting that we afflict that same flesh four times ten.

Other reasons for the Lenten fast are also assigned; they are contained in the Second Part. Concerning the manner of fasting, you also have material in On Consecration, Distinction 5, canons Quadragesima and Ieiunium.

“Afterward he was hungry.” Hilary says: “He was hungry not during the forty days, but after forty days. Therefore, when the Lord hungered, it was not that hunger stole upon him; rather, the miraculous operation left the human being to his own nature. The devil was to be conquered not by God, but by the flesh.”

Chrysostom says: “The Lord knew the devil’s thought, that he wished to tempt him. Therefore the Lord proceeded against him not as God, but as a human being—or rather as God and a human being. For not to hunger for forty days did not belong to a human being. Moses and Elijah, while fasting for forty days, hungered as mere human beings, but endured, strengthened by God. Christ, however, did not hunger during those days, which belongs to the divine nature; but to hunger at some time did not belong to God.”

Therefore, he hungered lest he be manifestly recognized as God and thus extinguish the devil’s hope of tempting him and impede his own victory. But after the devil perceived him hungering, he resumed his hope of tempting him.

Hence it follows: “The tempter approached and said to him.” Chrysostom says: “Therefore, if you have fasted and are tempted, do not say, ‘I have lost the fruit of my fast.’ For even if your fast does not profit you so that you are not tempted, it will nevertheless profit you so that you are not conquered by temptations.”

The devil says: “Command that these stones be made bread.” Ambrose says: “He began from the point at which he had already conquered,” namely our first parents, that is, from gluttony. “What does the beginning of such an address intend, except that he had learned that the Son of God was to come, but did not think he had come through bodily weakness? It belongs to one who investigates in one respect and tempts in another: he professes that he believes in God and strives to mock the human being.”

Hilary says: “Therefore, in tempting him he proposed that condition of a work through which he might recognize the power of deity from the transformation of stones into bread, and through the enticement of food mock the patience of the hungry human being.”

Jerome says: “But you are caught between two contrary alternatives, O devil. For if by his power stones can be made bread, you tempt in vain one who has such great power. But if he cannot do it, you suspect in vain that he is the Son of God.”

Chrysostom says: “Just as he blinded all human beings, so now he was invisibly blinded by Christ, so that neither would Christ acquiesce in his temptation nor would he recognize him as the Son of God, although he intended at least one of these two outcomes.”

But if it is asked how the devil tempted him through gluttony by these words, since to hunger, to desire food when one needs it, and to eat are natural and lawful in themselves, the answer is that, although this is lawful in itself, it can become unlawful through some circumstance. For example, it would be so if one did something unbecoming to satisfy such an appetite—as if a hungry religious ate without the blessing being said, or before the proper hour, and the like.

Thus, when anyone needs food, it would be a sin to seek that a miracle be performed when he can provide for himself in another way. Since Christ could provide for his need by going to nearby places, it would have appeared superfluous and vain for him, without an urgent cause, to make stones be changed into bread for eating.

But Jesus answered and said to him. Gregory says: “When tempted by the devil, the Lord answers with the precepts of sacred Scripture. Although he could have plunged his tempter into the abyss, he did not display the power of his might, so that he might give us an example: whenever we suffer any evil from a wicked person, we should be aroused toward teaching rather than vengeance.”

For he says: “It is written,” namely in Deuteronomy. Rabanus says: “Therefore, if anyone is not fed by the word of God, he does not live. For just as the human body does not live without bodily food, so the soul does not live without the word of God.” The word is said to proceed from God’s mouth when he reveals his will through the testimonies of the Scriptures.

And he adds what is written there in chapter 6: “A human being does not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.”

Jerome says: “Christ’s purpose was to conquer through humility. Hence he also conquered his adversary with the testimonies of the Law, not by the power of his might, so that through this very thing he might honor human beings more and punish the adversary more, since the enemy of the human race was conquered as if by a human being rather than by God.”

Chrysostom says: “He did not say, ‘I do not live by bread alone,’ but, ‘A human being lives,’ so that the devil could say: ‘If he is the Son of God, he hides himself lest he show what he can do; if he is a human being, he excuses himself shrewdly lest he show that he cannot do it.’”

It can be explained that, since a human being consists of the twofold substance of soul and body, and the soul is nobler, he ought to care more for spiritual food, which is the word of God observed and not merely heard. Hence it is unbecoming that, in providing for bodily food, the soul should be deprived of its own food, namely by acting against God’s word in doing what you advise, where no necessity urges it.

Daily the devil says these things to human minds: “If you are a son of God”—if, because you are a son of God through grace—“command that these stones be made bread”; that is, let such great abstinence and such great hardness of rigor be changed into softness under the appearance of bodily necessity. But one must have recourse to the testimonies of the Scriptures.

Chrysostom says that, since from this response of Christ the devil could receive nothing certain about whether he was God or a human being, the devil took him up for another temptation, saying to himself: “This man who does not die from hunger, even if he is not the Son of God, is nevertheless a holy man. Holy men can avoid being conquered by hunger, but they sometimes fall through vainglory.” Therefore, he turned himself to this temptation.

“Then he took him up into the holy city,” that is, into Jerusalem. According to Rabanus, it is called holy because the Temple of God, the Holy of Holies, and the worship of the true God were there, and it was afterward consecrated by Christ’s blood.

According to Remigius, it is shown from this that the devil plots against Christ’s faithful even in holy places. “And he set him upon a pinnacle of the Temple.”

Remigius says: “The pinnacle was the seat of the teachers. For the Temple did not have a peak rising upon its roof like our houses, but was flat above in the custom of the Palestinians. In the Temple itself there were three levels, and on each of them was a pinnacle like a pulpit or chair for preaching or reading, from which the teachers announced the Law to the people.” Therefore, he placed him upon one of those high pinnacles, from which there was a great precipice.

“He therefore set him upon a pinnacle.” The Gloss says: “The devil always leads toward high places, elevating a person through boasting so that he may cause him to fall.” Because he had deceived many teachers in their chair through vainglory, he therefore thought that this man, placed in a teacher’s seat, could be exalted by vainglory.

Hence he said to him: “If you are the Son of God, cast yourself down.” Chrysostom says: “Through this proposition, how could he learn whether he was the Son of God or not? For to fly through the air is not properly a work of God, because it is useful to no one. But if anyone flies when provoked to do so for display, he does this from the devil rather than from God.”

“Cast yourself down.” Jerome says: “This is the devil’s voice, for he always desires that human beings fall downward. But he can persuade; he cannot cast them down.”

The devil thought within himself: “If this man throws himself down, because he is a holy man, he will suffer no injury. But human beings, seeing this miracle, will venerate him as holy, and from this honor and praise perhaps he will fall into vainglory. Or from some other result it will become known whether he is the Son of God.”

And because Christ had cited authorities of Scripture above, the devil, lest he appear ignorant of it, adds in confirmation of what he was advising: “For it is written in the Psalms: God has commanded his angels concerning you,” and so forth.

Ambrose says: “For the devil transforms himself into an angel of light, and even from the divine Scriptures themselves prepares a snare for the faithful. He uses testimonies of Scripture not to teach, but to deceive.” Hence, according to Jerome, what he cites is a prophecy not about Christ, but about a holy man.

The devil interprets Scripture badly. Heretics do likewise when they cite Scriptures to confirm their errors.

Therefore, according to the Gloss, that authority of Scripture must be explained as referring to every good human being in this way: God commands the angels that in their hands—that is, by their own aids—they are to lift him up, help him, and guard him, lest he strike his foot—that is, the affection of the mind—against a stone, that is, against the Old Law written upon tablets of stone. Or by the stone can be understood every occasion of sin or ruin.

Chrysostom says: “Truly, the Son of God is not carried in the hands of angels; rather, he himself carries the angels. And even if he is carried in the hands of angels, this is not so that, as though infirm, he may not strike his foot against a stone, but for the honor due him as Lord. But, O devil, how is it that you have read that the Son of God is carried in the hands of angels, yet have not read that he treads upon the asp and the basilisk? You bring forward the former example in your pride, but in your cunning you keep silent about the latter.” Nor does the text that was written advise him to throw himself down.

Jerome says: “He breaks the devil’s false arrows drawn from the Scriptures with the shields of the true Scriptures.” Hence it follows: “It is written,” namely in Deuteronomy, “You shall not tempt the Lord your God.”

The Gloss says: “He does not say, ‘You shall not tempt me,’ but, ‘the Lord your God,’ which any person who is tempted could say, since even one who tempts a man of God tempts a man.”

Augustine says: “It pertains to sound doctrine, when a human being has something he can do, not to tempt the Lord his God.” This certainly happens when someone can provide for a danger or necessity by a human means, but, omitting that means, seeks a miraculous effect from God, as in this case. Christ could descend from the pinnacle by stairs; it was not necessary for him to cast himself down.

The devil passes to the third temptation, namely avarice, according to Chrysostom. “For he took him up onto a very high mountain,” higher than the others, so that he could see more expanses from it, “and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory.”

Chrysostom says: “He did this in a general way, for example, pointing with his finger: ‘In that direction toward the east is such a kingdom, with such noble cities in it and such riches, gold, silver, precious stones, and the like; and toward the west are such kingdoms, cities, and precious things,’ and likewise concerning the others.”

Luke relates that the devil said that all these things were in his power and that he gave them to whomever he wished. He spoke a lie, and this is no wonder, because he is a liar and the father of lies; but all things have been placed in the Lord’s dominion. How can he give kingdoms when he could not enter swine unless Christ granted permission?

Unless we say that the kingdoms of the world are the multitudes of human beings in whom the devil ruled through diverse vices as though through diverse kingdoms, such as pride, lust, and the like.

“He showed him all the kingdoms.” Chrysostom says: “It was not that the devil could enlarge his sight or show him something unknown. Rather, by displaying in words the vanity of worldly pomp, which he himself loved, as though it were beautiful and desirable, he wished to suggest that Christ come to love those things.”

And he said: “All these things I shall give you.” Jerome says: “Arrogant and proud, he speaks from boasting. The devil cannot give all kingdoms, since God has given kingdoms to holy men. But the devil gives those things that are produced through iniquity in the world; for example, he gives riches acquired through theft and other injustices.”

Remigius says: “The devil’s rashness and madness are also astonishing. He promised to give earthly kingdoms to the one who gives heavenly kingdoms to his faithful, and the world’s glory to the one who is the Lord of heavenly glory.”

“If, falling to the ground, you will adore me.” Ambrose says: “Ambition possesses a domestic danger: in order to rule others, it first serves; it bends itself through submission so that it may be presented with honor; and while it wishes to be higher, it becomes lower.”

“If, falling to the ground, you will adore me.” The Gloss says: “Behold the devil’s ancient pride. Just as in the beginning he wished to make himself like God, so now he wished to usurp divine worship for himself, saying: ‘If, falling down, you will adore me.’ Therefore, one who is about to adore the devil first falls.”

It follows: “Then Jesus said to him: Go, Satan.” Chrysostom says: “In this he sets an end to the devil’s temptation, lest he proceed further.”

Jerome says: “It is not, as many think, by the same sentence that Satan and Peter are condemned. For to Peter it is said, ‘Go behind me, Satan,’ that is, ‘Follow me, you who are contrary to my will.’ But to this one it is said, ‘Go, Satan,’ and ‘behind’ is not added, so that ‘into eternal fire’ may be understood.”

Or, according to other copies, Remigius says, “Go behind,” that is: “Remember in how great a glory you were created and into how great a misery you have fallen.”

According to Chrysostom, it must be observed that when Christ suffered an injury from the devil saying, “If you are the Son of God, cast yourself down,” or, “Command that the stones,” and so forth, he was not disturbed and did not rebuke the devil. But now, when the devil usurped for himself the honor due to God, Christ became angry and repelled him, saying: “Go, Satan.” Thus we learn from his example to endure our own injuries magnanimously, but not to suffer injuries to God even as far as hearing them. For to be patient amid one’s own injuries is praiseworthy, but to dissemble injuries to God is excessively impious.

And it follows: “It is written,” namely in Deuteronomy: “You shall adore the Lord your God, and him alone shall you serve.” Augustine says: “The one Lord our God is the Trinity itself, to whom alone we owe the service of piety.”

And in the book The City of God, Augustine says: “By the word ‘service’ is understood the worship owed to God. For latria, which is a Greek word, wherever it has been placed in the holy Scriptures, our translators have rendered as ‘service.’ But that service which we owe to human beings, according to which the Apostle commands servants to be subject to their masters, is usually called dulia in Greek. Latria, however, always—or so frequently that it is almost always—means the service that pertains to worshiping God.”

Chrysostom says: “The devil did not withdraw as though obeying a command, but Christ’s divinity, which was in him, cast the devil out.” Hence it is added: “Then the devil left him.”

This, as Chrysostom says, contributes to our consolation, because the devil does not tempt the people of God for as long as he wishes, but for as long as Christ permits. And although he permits him to tempt for a little while, he nevertheless repels him because of our weakness.

Consolation follows victory over temptation. For it follows: “And behold, angels approached.” Chrysostom says: “It does not say that the angels descended, to show that they were always on earth for his ministry. But at the Lord’s command they had withdrawn from him so that a place might be given to the devil against Christ, lest perhaps, seeing the angels around him, he would not approach him.”

“They ministered to him,” perhaps bringing food to strengthen the hungry human being.

Luke says: “And when every temptation had been completed.” Ambrose says: “Scripture would not have said that every temptation had been completed unless all the material of offenses were contained in the three temptations, because the causes of temptations are the causes of desires,” namely the enticement of the flesh, the hope of glory, and the greed for power.

“The devil withdrew from him.” Athanasius says: “He had approached him as a human being, but, finding in him no sign of his ancient seed, he withdrew.”

“He withdrew from him.” Ambrose says: “You therefore see that the devil himself is not persistent in his effort. He is accustomed to yield to true virtue. Although he does not cease to envy, he nevertheless fears to press on because he flees being defeated more frequently.”

“Until a time.” Ambrose says: “For afterward he came not to tempt him, but to fight him openly.”

Or, according to Theophilus, because Christ had triumphed over pleasure in the desert, the devil withdrew from him until the time of the cross, at which he was to tempt him through sadness.

Or, according to Maximus, in the desert the devil had suggested preferring the world’s matter to divine love. Afterward he tried to make Christ a transgressor of love for one’s neighbor, when, as he later preached the truth, the scribes and Pharisees set snares for him and disparaged him, so that he might thereby be provoked to hatred against them.

Or “until a time,” namely the time of the Passion. For then he also approached Christ, searching to see whether he might find anything of his own in him. Hence Christ said: “The prince of this world,” that is, the devil, “comes, and in me he has nothing,” that is, he will have nothing.

He tempted Christ when he said through the mouths of the scribes and Pharisees: “If he is the Christ, let him descend from the cross, and we will believe him,” as though inciting him to descend from the cross for their conversion, so that the liberation of the human race might thereby be impeded.