Contempt

Passages

Every passage tagged with this emotion in the Vela corpus. Search the body text, narrow by source or register, click through to a book’s profile to see how the passage sits with the rest of the work.

Page 107 of 253 · 20 per page

• From Saint Thomas Aquinas Collection (22 Books) (2016)

  Refutation of the Errors of Those Who Presume to Detract From the Merit of Obedience, Or of VowsSATAN, in his jealousy of human perfection, has raised up several foolish and misleading men, who, by their teaching, have shown themselves hostile to the different modes of perfection of which we have been speaking. Vigilantius attacked the first counsel of perfection. St. Jerome thus combats his objections to it: “Some men hold that they act more virtuously who keep the use of their fortune, and divide the fruit of their possessions piecemeal among the poor, than they do who sell their goods, and, at once, give all they possess to the poor. The fallacy of this assertion is proved not by my words but by those of the Lord Himself, “If you would be perfect, go, sell all that you have and give to the poor, and come follow me.” Christ is here speaking to one who desires to be perfect, and who, with the Apostles, leaves father, ship, and net. The man who is praised for retaining the use of his possessions, is in the second or third degree of perfection; and we know that the first degree is preferable to either the second or the third.” Hence, in order to exclude error on this point, we find in the book, De ecclesiasticis dogmatibus the following words: “It is good to distribute one’s goods prudently among the poor; but it is better if it be done with the intention of following the Lord, to give them all away at once, and, in our dealings with Christ, to be free from all earthly solicitude.” Jovinian argued against the second counsel of perfection, and declared that marriage was equal in merit to virginity. St. Jerome refuted his opinions, in the book which he wrote against him. St. Augustine, likewise, thus speaks of his error, in his book Retractationum: “The heresy of Jovinian asserted that the merit of consecrated virgins was equalled by conjugal chastity. Hence, it is said that in Rome, certain nuns who had not hitherto been suspected of immorality, contracted marriage. Our holy mother the Church has always stoutly resisted this error. In the book De ecclesiasticis dogmatibus we find the following declaration: “It is not Christian but Jovinian to set virginity on a level with matrimony, or to deny an increase of merit to those who, for the sake of mortifying the flesh, refrain from wine or flesh meat.”

• From Saint Thomas Aquinas Collection (22 Books) (2016)

  PSEUDO-JEROME. But in a mystic sense, Jesus was stripped of His clothes, that is, of the Jews, and is clothed in a purple robe, that is, in the Gentile church, which is gathered together out of the rocks. Again, putting it off in the end, as offending, He again is clothed with the Jewish people, for when the fulness of the Gentiles is come in, then shall all Israel be saved. (Rom. 11:25.) BEDE. Or else, by the purple robe, with which the Lord is clothed, is meant His flesh itself, which He gave up to suffering, and by the thorny crown which He carried is meant, the taking upon Him of our sins. THEOPHYLACT. Let us also put on the purple and royal robe, because we must walk as kings treading on serpents and scorpions, and 1 having sin under our feet. For we are called Christians, that is, anointed ones, just as kings were then called anointed. Let us also take upon ourselves the crown of thorns, that is, let us make haste to be crowned with a strict life, with self-denials and purity. BEDE. (ubi sup.) But they smite the head of Christ, who deny that He is very God. And because men are wont to use a reed to write with, they, as it were, smite the head of Christ with a reed, who speak against His divinity, and endeavour to confirm their error by the authority of Holy Writ. They spit in His face, who spit from them by their accursed words the presence of His grace. There are some also in this day, who adore Him, with a sure faith, as very God, but by their perverse actions, despise His words as though they were fabulous, and think the promises of that word inferior to worldly allurements. But just as Caiaphas said, though he knew not what it meant, It is expedient for us that one man should die for the people, (John 11:50) so also the soldiers do these things in ignorance. 15:20–2820. —And led him out to crucify him. 21. And they compel one Simon a Cyrenian, who passed by, coming out of the country, the father of Alexander and Rufus, to bear his cross. 22. And they bring him unto the place Golgotha, which is, being interpreted, The place of a scull. 23. And they gave him to drink wine mingled with myrrh: but he received it not. 24. And when they had crucified him, they parted his garments, casting lots upon them, what every man should take. 25. And it was the third hour, and they crucified him. 26. And the superscription of his accusation was written over, THE KING OF THE JEWS. 27. And with him they crucify two thieves; the one on his right hand, and the other on his left. 28. And the Scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was numbered with the transgressors.

• From Saint Thomas Aquinas Collection (22 Books) (2016)

  GLOSS. (non occ.) Which indeed he was accustomed to do, to obtain favour with the people, and above all, on the feast day, when the people of the whole province of the Jews flocked to Jerusalem. And that the wickedness of the Jews might appear the greater, the enormity of the sin of the robber, whom they preferred to Christ, is next described. Wherefore there follows: And there was one Barabbas, who lay bound with them that had made insurrection with him, who had committed murder in the insurrection. In which words their wickedness is shewn both from the heinousness of his signal crime, in that he had committed murder, and from the way in which he did it, because he had in doing it raised a sedition and disturbed the city, and also because his crime was notorious, for he was bound with seditious persons. It goes on: And the multitude, when it had come up, began to desire him to do as he had ever done unto them. AUGUSTINE. (ubi sup.) No one can feel it a difficulty that Matthew is silent as to their asking some one to be released unto them, which Mark here mentions; for it is a thing of no consequence that one should mention a thing which another leaves out. There follows: But Pilate answered them, saying, Will ye that I release unto you the King of the Jews? For he knew that the Chief Priests had delivered him for envy. Some one may ask, which were the words of which Pilate made use, those which are related by Matthew, or those which Mark relates; for there seems to be a difference between, Whom will ye that I release unto you? Barabbas, or Jesus which is called Christ? as Matthew has it; and, Will ye that I release unto you the King of the Jews? (Matt. 27:17) as is here said. But since they gave to kings the name of Christs, he who said this man or that must have asked whether they wished the King of the Jews to be released unto them, that is, Christ. It makes no difference to the sense that Mark has said nothing of Barabbas, wishing only to mention what belonged to the Lord, since by their answer he sufficiently shewed whom they wished to have released to them. For there follows, But the Chief Priests moved the people that he should rather release unto them Barabbas.

• From Heptaméron (1559)

  There was at St. Martin-des-Champs, at Paris, a prior, whose name I will not mention, because of the friendship I once bore him. He led so austere a life until the age of fifty, and the fame of his sanctity was so strong throughout the kingdom, that there was no prince or princess who did not receive him with venera- tion when he paid them a visit. No monastic reform was effected in which he had not part ; and he received the name of the " Father of true monasticism." He was elected visitor of the celebrated society of the Ladies of Fontevrault, who were in so much awe of him that when he came to any of their convents the nuns trembled with fear, and treated him just as they might have treated the king, hoping thereby to soften his rigour towards them. At first, he did not wish that such deference should be paid him ; but as he approached his fifty-fifth year, he at last came to like the honours he had refused in the beginning ; and coming by degrees to regard himself as the public property of the religious societies, he was more careful to preserve his health than he had been. Though he was bound by the rules of his order never to eat meat, he granted himself a dispensation in that respect, a thing he would never do for anyone else, alleging as his reason that the whole burden of the brethren's spiritual interests rested upon him. Accord- ingly, he pampered himself, and to such good purpose 2 I 5 TFIE HEPTAMRRON OF THE [ATovel 22. that from being a very lean monk he became a very fat one. With the change in his manner of living a change took place in his heart also, and he began to look at faces on which he had before made it matter of con- science to cast his eyes casually. By dint of looking at beauties, rendered more desirable by their veils, he be- gan to lust after them. In order to satisfy his unholy passion he changed from a shepherd into a wolf ; and if he found an Agnes in any of the convents under his jurisdiction, he failed not to corrupt her. After he had long led this wicked life, Divine goodness, taking pity on the poor misused sheep, was pleased to unmask the villain, as you shall hear.

• From New Testament Words (1964)

  Speaking with deliberate attempt to insult and to give offence is hubris (ibid. 1125a 9). Hubris is that completely deliberate way of slighting a man, which is bound to beget anger (ibid. 1149a 32). Hubris is fundamentally a perverted and morbid thing (ibid. 1148b 30). But the most terrible thing about hubris was the pleasure it takes in inflicting injury. It is wanton insolence done simply for the pleasure it gives to see someone else suffer (ibid. 1149b 22). The Greeks drew a clear distinction between three things. Anger is not deliberate; a man blazes into anger because he cannot help it. Revenge is taken with the clear intention of getting something back; vengeance is for the sake of retaliation. But hubris, wanton insolence, is the spirit which hurts someone in a cold, detached way, and then stands back to see the other person wince. It is hurting for hurting’s sake, and it always involves deliberate humiliation of the person injured. Aristotle describes it fully (Rhetoric 2.2.3); ‘Insolence (hubris) is another form of slight, as being an act of injury or annoyance involving the disgrace of the sufferer, not for the sake of any benefit to the agent beyond the mere fact of its having been done, but only for his personal gratification; for the requital of injuries is not insolence (hubris), but revenge. The source of the pleasure found in insolent action is the feeling that in injuring others we are claiming an exceptional superiority to them.’ It can easily be seen that to the Greek hubris was the cruellest of all sins. It came from allowing the passions to overthrow the reason, as Plato saw it. Aristotle saw it in an even worse light. For him it came from sheer contempt. The insolent man treated his fellow men as some one might squash, or tear the wings from, a fly. It came from the sheer delight in inflicting needless and useless pain. It came from sheer pleasure in seeing people wince, and knowing that their hearts had been wounded. It always aimed at the public humiliation of the person injured. It is wickedness at its most cruel. These words acquired a certain almost standard usage in colloquial Greek contemporary with the NT, and that usage we must now go on to investigate. In the contemporary colloquial Greek in the time of the NT, in the papyri, this group of words has a special flavour and a special connexion. They are consistently used in connexion with insulting, outrageous and humiliating conduct. A man complains that he was grossly insulted (hubrizein) by a certain Apollodorus. A wife lays a complaint against her husband that he has consistently ill-treated and insulted her, and he has had recourse even to physical violence. A man complains he has been bound, stripped naked and maltreated. A man appeals to the emperor, who writes back: ‘Your citizenship will in nowise be injured, nor will you be subjected to corporal punishment’ (hubrizein).

• From New Testament Words (1964)

  It was not so very dangerous for a man to lay claim to a business or a fortune which he did not possess; but in the days of the NT there were men who made claims which were exceedingly dangerous. These men were the Sophists. The Sophists were Greek wandering teachers who claimed to sell knowledge; and, in effect, the knowledge they claimed to sell was the knowledge of how to be a success in life. The Greeks loved words; and the Sophists claimed to give men subtle skill in words, so that, in the famous phrase ‘they could make the worse appear the better reason’. They claimed to give men that magic of words which would make the orator the master of men. Aristophanes pillories them in The Clouds. He says the whole object of their teaching was to teach men to fascinate the jury, to win impunity to cheat, and to find an argument to justify anything. Isocrates, the great Greek teacher, hated them. ‘They merely try,’ he said, ‘to attract pupils by low fees and big promises’ (Isocrates, Sophist 10. 193a). He said: ‘They make impossible offers, promising to impart to their pupils an exact science of conduct by means of which they will always know what to do. Yet for this science they charge only £15 or £20.... They try to attract pupils by the specious titles of the subjects which they claim to teach, such as Justice and Prudence. ‘But the Justice and Prudence which they teach are of a very peculiar sort, and they give a meaning to the words quite different from that which ordinary people give; in fact they cannot be sure about the meaning themselves, but can only dispute about it. Although they profess to teach justice, they refuse to trust their pupils, and make them deposit the fees with a third party before the course begins’ (Isocrates, Sophist 4. 29Id). Plato savagely attacks them in his book called The Sophist: ‘Hunters after young men of wealth and position, with sham education as their bait, and a fee for their object, making money by a scientific use of quibbles in private conversation, while quite aware that what they are teaching is wrong.’ It is these men, and the like of them, of whom the NT is thinking, and against whom it warns the Christian. The warning is against the false teacher who claims to teach men the truth, and who does not know it himself. The world is still full of these people who offer men a socalled wisdom, who shout their wares wherever men meet, who claim to have the cure and the solution to everything. How can we distinguish these men? (i) Their characteristic is pride.

• From New Testament Words (1964)

  It is these men, and the like of them, of whom the NT is thinking, and against whom it warns the Christian. The warning is against the false teacher who claims to teach men the truth, and who does not know it himself. The world is still full of these people who offer men a socalled wisdom, who shout their wares wherever men meet, who claim to have the cure and the solution to everything. How can we distinguish these men? (i) Their characteristic is pride. In the Testament of Joseph, Joseph tells how he treated his brethren: ‘My land was their land, and their counsel my counsel. And I exalted myself not among them in arrogance (alazoneia) because of my worldly glory, but I was among them as one of the least’ (Testament of Joseph 17.8). The alazōn is the teacher who struts as he teaches, and who is fascinated by his own cleverness. (ii) Their stock in trade is words. The Sophist defended himself to Epictetus that the young men came to him looking for someone to teach them. ‘To teach them to live?’ demands Epictetus. And then he answers his own question: ‘No, fool; not how to live, but how to talk; which is also the reason why he admires you’ (Epictetus, Discourses 3.23). The alazōn seeks to substitute clever words for fine deeds. (iii) Their motive is profit. The alazōn is out for what he can get. Prestige for his reputation and money for his pocket is his aim. The programme he preaches is designed to return his party to power and himself to office. The alazōn is not dead. There are still the teachers who offer worldly cleverness instead of heavenly wisdom; who spin fine words which never end in any lovely action; whose teaching is aimed at self-advancement and whose desire is profit and power. APECHEINPAYMENT IN FULLIn the NT there are certainly three, and perhaps five, extremely interesting technical usages of the word apechein. The main part of the word is the verb echein, which means ‘to have’.

• From New Testament Words (1964)

  So in Greek the word came to mean a pretentious braggart. The Platonic Definitions define alazōneia as ‘the claim to good things which a man does not really possess’. Aristotle defines the alazōn as the man ‘who pretends to praiseworthy qualities which he does not possess, or possesses in a lesser degree than he makes out’ (Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics 1127a 21). Again in the Rhetoric (1384a 6) he says that ‘it is the sign of alazoneia to claim that things it does not possess belong to it’. Plato uses the word alazōn to describe the ‘false and boastful words’ which can get into a young man’s mind and drive out ‘the pursuits and true words which are the best guardians and sentinels in the minds of men who are dear to the gods’ (Plato, Republic 560c). In the Gorgias Plato draws a picture of the souls of men before the judge in the afterworld, souls ‘where every act has left its smirch, where all is awry through falsehood and imposture, alazoneia, and nothing straight because of a nurture that knew not the truth’ (Plato, Gorgias 525a). Xenophon tells how Cyrus the Persian king, who knew men, defined the alazōn: ‘The name alazōn seems to apply to those who pretend that they are richer than they are, or braver than they are, and to those who promise to do what they cannot do, and that, too, when it is evident that they do this only for the sake of getting something or making some gain’ (Xenophon, Cyropaedia 2.2.12). In the Memorabilia he tells how Socrates utterly condemned such imposters. Socrates said they are found in every walk of life, but they were worst of all in politics. ‘Much the greatest rogue of all, is the man who has gulled his city into the belief that he is fit to direct it’ (Xenophon, Memorabilia 1.7.5). Theophrastus has a famous character sketch of the alazōn. ‘Alazoneia’, he begins, ‘would seem to be, in fact, pretension to advantages which one does not possess’. The alazōn is the man who will stand in the market-place and talk to strangers about the argosies he has at sea and his vast trading enterprises when his bank balance is precisely tenpence! He will tell of the campaigns he served with Alexander the Great, and how he was on terms of personal intimacy with him. He will talk about the letters which the chiefs of the state write to him for help and advice. When he is living in lodgings he will pretend that the house in which his room is situated is the family mansion, and that he is thinking of selling it because it is not commodious enough for the entertaining which he has to do (Theophrastus, Characters 23).

• From New Testament Words (1964)

  The conversation is not ended and the lads are unwilling to go. Plato goes on: ‘Suddenly we were interrupted by the paidagōgoi of Lysis and Menexenus, who came upon us like an evil apparition with the lads’ brothers, and bade them go home as it was getting late. At first we and the bystanders drove them off; but afterwards, as they paid no attention, but only went on shouting in their barbarous dialect, and got angry and kept calling the boys—they seemed to us to have been drinking rather too much at the Hermaea, which made them difficult to manage—we fairly gave way and broke up the company.’ It is not a pretty picture, the picture of uncouth, drunken slaves with no pretensions either to morals or to culture. It is true that the other side sometimes appears. In a third century papyrus a mother writes to her son: ‘Let you and your paidagōgos see to it that you go to a fitting teacher,’ and she ends the letter, ‘Salute your much honoured paidagōgos, Eros.’ But the balance is very much the other way. In any event the paidagōgos existed for no other reason than to make his charge independent of his care. Xenophon in his work on Sparta (3.1) writes: ‘Whenever they emerge from childhood to youth, they cease from paidagôgoi, they cease from teachers. No one governs them any more, but they let them go as masters of themselves.’ When Paul spoke of the law as our paidagōgos to bring us to Christ, in the very phrase he affirmed that the law was an inadequate, unsatisfactory thing, doomed to come to an end. It was another way of saying that Christ is the end of the law. PARAGGELIA AND PARAGGELLEIN THE WORDS OF COMMAND Paraggelia and paraggellein are characteristically words of command. Paraggelia is a noun which means an order, an instruction, a charge, a command; and paraggellein is a verb which means to charge, to instruct, to give or to pass on an order. The great interest of these words lies in the background against which they are used. They have five different areas and spheres within which they are used. (i) First and foremost, they are military words. Paraggelia is distinctively a command issued to soldiers. Paraggellein is distinctively the word used of a general issuing a word of command, and of that word of command being passed from commander to commander, from rank to rank and from man to man. Xenophon tells how in battle Cyrus armed himself, and passed the word to others to do the same (Xenophon, Anabasis 1.8.3).

• From Saint Thomas Aquinas Collection (22 Books) (2016)

  They who put forward the eleventh objection, are plainly led astray by the folly of Vigilantius, against whom St. Jerome thus writes, “Those who assert that it is more perfect to keep the use of their own goods and to distribute their income among the poor in driblets, rather than to renounce and give away all their possessions at once, must take their answer, not from me, but from the Lord, who said, ‘If you would be perfect, go, sell all that you have, and give to the poor, and come follow me.’ He is speaking to those who desire to be perfect, and who, with the Apostles, leave father, boat, and net. He whose example you praise, is in the second or third rank of perfection.” Further, it is incorrect to say that archdeacons and parish priests are more perfect than monks, because they show hospitality and monks do not. For, as religious renounce all that they possess, they have no means of entertaining guests. The twelfth argument, viz. that the most agreeable offering that can be made to God is zeal for souls, is undoubtedly true. But a certain order must be observed in this zeal. A man must, first, have zeal for his own soul, and strip it of all earthly affections in accordance with those words of the wise man (Eccles. xxx. 24), “Have pity on thine own soul, pleasing God.” This duty is pointed out by St. Augustine (XXI. De civitate Dei). Now, if a man, having arrived at contempt for earthly concerns, and even for himself, proceed, further, to zeal for the soul of others, he will, thereby, offer a more perfect sacrifice to God, than he would have presented by zeal only for his own salvation. But the most perfect of all offerings that can be made to the Almighty, is the obligation, whereby bishops and religious are bound, by vow or profession, to live a life of zeal for souls.

• From Saint Thomas Aquinas Collection (22 Books) (2016)

  BEDE. (ubi sup.) But the Chief Priests shewed that those things which the Lord had spoken were true; which is proved from what follows: And they sought to lay hold on him; for He Himself is the heir, whose unjust death He said was to be revenged by the Father. Again, in a moral sense, each of the faithful, when the Sacrament of Baptism is intrusted to him, receives on hire a vineyard, which he is to cultivate. But the servant sent to him is evil intreated, beaten, and cast out, when the word is heard by him and despised, or, what is worse, even blasphemed; further, he kills, as far as in him lies, the heir, who has trampled under foot the Son of God. The evil husbandman is destroyed, and the vineyard given to another, when the humble shall be enriched with that gift of grace, which the proud man has scorned. And it happens daily in the Church, that the Chief Priests wishing to lay hands on Jesus, are held back by the multitude, when some one, who is a brother only in name, either blushes or fears to attack the unity of the faith of the Church, and of its peace, though he loves it not, on account of the number of good brethren who dwell together within it. 12:13–1713. And they send unto him certain of the Pharisees and of the Herodians, to catch him in his words. 14. And when they were come, they say unto him, Master, we know that thou art true, and carest for no man; for thou regardest not the person of men, but teachest the way of God in truth: Is it lawful to give tribute to Cæsar, or not? 15. Shall we give, or shall we not give? But he, knowing their hypocrisy, said unto them, Why tempt ye me? bring me a penny, that I may see it. 16. And they brought it. And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription? And they said unto him, Cæsar’s. 17. And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Cæsar the things that are Cæsar’s, and to God the things that are God’s. And they marvelled at him. BEDE. (ubi sup.) The Chief Priests though they sought to take Him, feared the multitude, and therefore they endeavoured to effect what they could not do of themselves, by means of earthly powers, that they might themselves appear to be guiltless of His death; and therefore it is said, And they send, unto him certain of the Pharisees and of the Herodians, to catch him in his words.

• From Talk Dirty to Me: An Intimate Philosophy of Sex (1994)

  Adam fell when Eve fed him. Sex is food, and food is sex. Hunger leads to sin, and one solution is to eat again—this time, the Body of God. The Christian Eucharist blends with the Hindu prayer: Tat tvam asi—This is my body, Thou art It, That Thou art. To live is to kill, to live is to eat, to eat is to live. “My mouth on her body, my tongue savoring her crevices was like plunging my face into a bowl of ripe summer fruits and inhaling their mingled fragrances—peaches, apples, pears,” wrote Richard Rhodes. “All of her was fresh. All of her was beautiful.” Yet a certain kind of man insults another man by calling him a pussy, or a pussy eater. Porn often creates distance; with porn we are always looking, especially looking at genitalia, two steps back. Oral sex almost completely eliminates distance; in oral sex we are too close to focus, too close to see. Oral sex is ancient and perpetually condemned as excessive, abnormal, and wicked. Oral sex breaks too many boundaries, disintegrates the everyday cosmos too far by using body parts for new and disturbing things. James to Nora, August 1909: “How I would love to surprise you sleeping now! There is a place I would like to kiss you now, a strange place, Nora. Not on the lips, Nora. Do you know where?” The vagina is a mouth and the mouth a vagina. The penis becomes food. The emotional impression of an image of fellatio is often very soiled; she (or he) is eating, like an animal, beastly, abandoned. He can hold her down and smother her if he wants; she can castrate him with a single bite. Cunnilingus, fellatio, and the doubling of oral sex, what we call 69, as though it could be dismissed as lightly and neutrally as a number, were immortalized on Hindu temples, in shunga, in the Kama Sutra, everywhere in the ancient world. Then these obsessions went away, forbidden and rarely discussed, in the face of psychoanalysis and mental hygiene. The mouth and genitals, sex and words. “Language and sexuality are what distinguish humanity from the angel,” writes Thompson. “The ‘higher’ consciousness of language thus has to be crossed with the ‘lower’ consciousness of sexuality.” But this doesn’t mean that to rid ourselves of sex would turn us into angels. It might instead make us gibbering clones. Thompson’s reading of cultural history tells him that oral sex is an act laden with symbolism and social implication; he considers this “mysteriously compelling act” to be a behavior of the educated class.

• From Saint Thomas Aquinas Collection (22 Books) (2016)

  THEOPHYLACT. For His answer is doubtful, since it may mean, Thou sayest, but I say not so. 1And observe that He does somewhere answer Pilate, who condemned Him unwillingly, but does not choose to answer the priests and great men, and judges them unworthy of a reply. It goes on: And the Chief Priests accused him of many things. AUGUSTINE. (de Con. Evan. iii. 8) Luke has also laid open the false charges which they brought against Him; for he thus relates it: And they began to accuse him, saying, We found this fellow perverting the nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Cæsar, saying that he himself is Christ a King. (Luke 23:2) There follows: And Pilate asked him, saying, Answerest thou nothing? behold how many things they witness against thee. BEDE. (ubi sup.) He indeed who condemns Jesus is a heathen, but he refers it to the people of the Jew’s as the cause. There follows: But Jesus yet answered nothing; so that Pilate marvelled. He was unwilling to give an answer, lest He should clear Himself of the charge, and be acquitted by the judge, and so the gain resulting from the Cross should be done away. THEOPHYLACT. But Pilate wondered, because, though He was a teacher of the law, and eloquent, and able by His answer to destroy their accusations, He did not answer any thing, but rather bore their accusations courageously. 15:6–156. Now at that feast he released unto them one prisoner, whomsoever they desired. 7. And there was one named Barabbas, which lay bound with them that had made insurrection with him, who had committed murder in the insurrection. 8. And the multitude crying aloud began to desire him to do as he had ever done unto them. 9. But Pilate answered them, saying, Will ye that I release unto you the King of the Jews? 10. For he knew that the Chief Priests had delivered him for envy. 11. But the Chief Priests moved the people, that he should rather release Barabbas unto them. 12. And Pilate answered and said again unto them, What will ye then that I shall do unto him whom ye call the King of the Jews? 13. And they cried out again, Crucify him. 14. Then Pilate said unto them, Why, what evil hath he done? And they cried out the more exceedingly, Crucify him. 15. And so Pilate, willing to content the people, released Barabbas unto them, and delivered Jesus, when he had scourged him, to be crucified. BEDE. (ubi sup.) Pilate furnished many opportunities of releasing Jesus, in the first place contrasting a robber with the Just One. Wherefore it is said, Now at that feast he released unto them one prisoner, whomsoever they desired.

• From Saint Thomas Aquinas Collection (22 Books) (2016)

  THEOPHYLACT. Now they finding nothing else to support their calumny, have resort to the aid of clamour, for it follows, And they were the more fierce, saying, He stirreth up the people, teaching throughout all Jewry, beginning from Galilee to this place. As if they said, He perverts the people, not in one part only, but beginning from Galilee He arrives at this place, having passed through Judæa. I think then that they purposely made mention of Galilee, as desirous to alarm Pilate, for the Galilæans were of a different sect and given to sedition, as, for example, Judas of Galilee who is mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles. BEDE. But with these words they accuse not Him, but themselves. For to have taught the people, and by teaching to have roused them from their former idleness, and doing this to have passed through the whole land of promise, was an evidence not of sin, but of virtue. AMBROSE. Our Lord is accused and is silent, for He needs no defence. Let them cast about for defence who fear to be conquered. He does not then confirm, the accusation by His silence, but He despises it by not refuting it. Why then should He fear who does not court safety? The Safety of all men forfeits His own, that He may gain that of all. 23:6–126. When Pilate heard of Galilee, he asked whether the man were a Galilæan. 7. And as soon as he knew that he belonged unto Herod’s jurisdiction, he sent him to Herod, who himself also was at Jerusalem at that time. 8. And when Herod saw Jesus, he was exceeding glad: for he was desirous to see him of a long season, because he had heard many things of him; and he hoped to have seen some miracle done by him. 9. Then he questioned with him in many words; but he answered him nothing. 10. And the chief priests and scribes stood and vehemently accused him. 11. And Herod with his men of war set him at nought, and mocked him, and arrayed him in a gorgeous robe, and sent him again to Pilate. 12. And the same day Pilate and Herod were made friends together: for before they were at enmity between themselves. BEDE. Pilate having determined not to question our Lord concerning the above-mentioned accusation, is the rather glad now that an opportunity offers to escape from passing judgment upon Him. Hence it is said, When Pilate heard of Galilee, he asked whether the man were a Galilæan. And lest he should be compelled to pass sentence against one whom he knew to be innocent, and delivered for envy, sends Him to be heard by Herod, preferring that he who was the Tetrarch of our Lord’s country might be the person either to acquit or punish Him; for it follows, And as soon as he knew that he belonged to Herod’s jurisdiction.

• From Saint Thomas Aquinas Collection (22 Books) (2016)

  THEOPHYLACT. But how did the devil shew Him all the kingdoms of the world? Some say that he presented them to Him in imagination, but I hold that he brought them before Him in visible form and appearance. TITUS BOSTRENSIS. Or, the devil described the world in language, and as he thought brought it vividly before our Lord’s mind as though it were a certain house. AMBROSE. Truly in a moment of time, the kingdoms of this world are described. For here it is not so much the rapid glance of sight which is signified as is declared the frailty of mortal power. For in a moment all this passes by, and oftentimes the glory of this world has vanished before it has arrived. It follows, And he said unto him, I will give thee all this power. TITUS BOSTRENSIS. (non occ.) He lied in two respects. For he neither had to give, nor could he give that which he had not; he gains possession of nothing, but is an enemy reduced to fight. AMBROSE. For it is elsewhere said, that all power is from God. (Rom. 13:1.) Therefore from God’s hands comes the disposal of power, the lust of power is from the evil one; power is not itself evil, but he who evilly uses it. What then; is it good to exercise power, to desire honour? Good if it is bestowed upon us, not if it is seized. We must distinguish however in this good itself. There is one good use of the world, another of perfect virtue. It is good to seek God; it is a good thing that the desire of becoming acquainted with God should be hindered by no worldly business. But if he who seeks God, is from the weakness of the flesh, and the narrowness of his mind, often tempted, how much more is he exposed who seeks the world? We are taught then to despise ambition, because it is subject to the power of the devil. But honour abroad is followed by danger at home, and in order to rule others a man is first their servant, and prostrates himself in obedience that he may be rewarded with honours, and the higher he aspires the lower he bends with feigned humility; whence he adds, If thou will fall down and worship me. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA. And dost thou, whose lot is the unquenchable fire, promise to the Lord of all that which is His own? Didst thou think to have Him for thy worshipper, from dread of whom the whole creation trembles?

• From New Testament Words (1964)

  Stobaeus preserves a fragment of a writer called Callicratides: ‘It is inevitable that those who have great possessions should become inflated with pride; then that being inflated with pride they should become boastful (alazōn); then that being boastful they should become arrogant (huperēphanos), and think that there is no one like themselves’ (Stobaeus, 85.15). Aristotle, in his Constitution of Athens (5.3), quotes a saying of Solon, the great Greek lawgiver: ‘Commonly the blame for trouble in a state attaches to the rich.’ So at the very beginning of his elegy he said that he feared above all covetousness and arrogance, because enmity always arose because of them. In his Art of Rhetoric (1390b 33) Aristotle returns to the same point: ‘The characters which accompany wealth are plain for all to see. The wealthy are insolent and arrogant, being mentally affected by the acquisition of wealth, for they seem to think that they possess all good things; for wealth is a kind of standard of value of everything else, so that everything seems purchasable by it.’ In the papyri a letter speaks of a man who has come to despise his friends because he has grown wealthy. Another writer, writing to a former friend who has dropped him, says: ‘You doubtless had better things to do; that was why you neglected us.’ Huperēphania is the pride which comes from possessions; the arrogance of the man who is rich and who believes that his money can buy him anything; the insolent pride of the man who believes that every thing and every man has a price, and that he can pay it. (ii) But huperēphania can go even further than that. Huperēphania can become the pride and arrogance which in the end despise God. The literature of the Jews between the Old and the New Testaments has much to say of this word and this characteristic. ‘Huperēphania is hateful before God and men.... The beginning of huperēphania is when a man departs from the Lord, and when his heart forsakes him who made him’ (Ecclus. 10.7, 12). It is the very opposite of that humble spirit which alone can learn true wisdom. We read that ‘wisdom is far from huperēphania’ (Ecclus. 15.8). Huperēphania was the characteristic of the proud men who so lifted themselves up that God sent the flood upon the earth (Wisdom 14.6). Of two men especially did the Jews use this word, for both these men had been guilty of the most terrible sacrilege, the sacrilege of entering the Holy of Holies, where none but the High Priest might go. They used the word of Antiochus Epiphanes who in insolence and arrogance tried to obliterate Jewish religion, and who entered the Holy Place and defiled the Temple (II Mac. 9.7). ‘In his huperēphania he entered into the sanctuary’ (I Mac.

• From Saint Thomas Aquinas Collection (22 Books) (2016)

  The objection made to intercourse between seculars and religious, on matters bearing on study and teaching, are altogether frivolous. They are based on wholly untenable grounds; and they only serve to show the ignorance of their authors. For, as we have already said, a society means a union of men, assembled together for one and the same purpose. Hence as everything ought to be judged with regard to the end for which it is ordained, the different societies which exist ought to be distinguished and judged according to the purpose for which they are formed. Aristotle, (VIII Ethics) classifies different “communications”. By this term he means associations formed for divers objects, wherein the members hold communication one with the other. The Philosopher distinguishes friendships according to these communications. He refers to the friendship of those brought up together, or that based on commercial transactions, or the friendship of men engaged in the same business, Hence arises the distinction between public and private societies. A public society is that wherein men assemble for purposes connected with the commonweal. Thus fellow citizens or compatriots form a public society and become one city or one kingdom. A private society is one established by a few persons for some private end. Thus two or three enter into partnership in a mercantile negotiation. Now each of these classes of society may be either temporary or perpetual. Sometimes a number of men, or only two or three individuals, band together in a perpetual society. This, is the case with those, who, when they become citizens of some city, form an association, choosing that city for their dwelling-place for ever. They thus establish a political society. Again, there may be a perpetual private society, formed between husband and wife, or master and slave, based upon the durable nature of the tie binding together the members of such a society. This is called an economical society. But, when men associate in order to engage in some temporary business, as, for example, to hold a fair, they form a temporary and public society. Or, when two friends are engaged in the management of the same inn, the society which they establish is private, and at at the same time temporary. Now these various classes of association, must be judged by different standards. To apply the name of association or society indiscriminately to all is to prove one’s own ignorance. For this, reason, we shall have no difficulty in answering the objections brought at the association of seculars and religious.

• From Saint Thomas Aquinas Collection (22 Books) (2016)

  3. It is said again that in the early days of the Church an order was sent from Rome to the Bishops of Gaul, commanding them to rebuke those who, under a pretext of humility, chose to wear contemptible garments unlike the ordinary dress of the time. This decree is said to be preserved in the register of the Roman Church, although there are no traces of it in the body of the decretals. This alleged Papal command is held to be a proof that men, at least those who live in the world, are not justified in wearing garments unfitted to their station. 4. St. Augustine says (III De doctrina Christiana), “Whoever makes a more limited use of temporal things than is customary with those among whom he lives, is guilty either of superstition or of indiscretion.” Hence he who wears clothing, meaner than that worn by those around him, is deserving of blame. 5. St. Jerome, writing to Nepotianus, says: “Wear neither sad-coloured, nor white garments. Sumptuous apparel and slovenly dress are equally to be avoided. For the one denotes luxury, and the other vain glory.” Hence we see the error of dressing in a beggarly fashion. 6. St. Paul says (Rom. xiv. 17), “The Kingdom of God is not meat and drink.” On these words, the Gloss observes: “It matters little of what quality our food may be, or what quantity we may consume, so long as our nourishment is adapted to the condition of those with whom we live and of our own, and to the requirements of our health.” For the same reason, the fashion of a man’s clothing has no connection with virtue, provided that he wear what is becoming to his condition. Hence it is no mark of a truly religious man to wear a mean dress as a sign of contempt of the world. 7. Hypocrisy would seem to be the worst of all sins. For, our Lord inveighed more forcibly against hypocrites than against any other class of sinner. St. Gregory says (Pastoral.), “ None do more harm in the Church than sinners who have a reputation for, or appearance of, sanctity.” Hypocrisy lurks under shabby clothing, just as costliness of attire betokens luxury or stimulates men to pride. It is more sinful, therefore, to exceed the limits of discretion by poverty of attire than by gaudiness of apparel. 8. Our Lord Jesus Christ gave us an example of the perfection of holiness and of religion. But, he wore a precious garment, namely, a coat woven throughout (John xix. 23). Such clothes are normally sewn with silk and gold. The fact that the soldiers would not divide it, but cast lots for it, is a proof that it must have been costly. Hence wearing mean clothing can be no part of religion.

• From New Testament Words (1964)

  (ii) It is a wisdom of words. It is a wisdom of words which in the end do nothing but obscure the Cross (I Cor. 1.17). Paul refuses to preach with the enticing words of man’s wisdom (I Cor. 2.1, 4, 5, 13). When Paul so strongly condemned the worldly wisdom of words, he was speaking out of the situation of the world of his day. The Greeks had always loved words; and one of the well-known figures of the Greek world was the Sophist. The Sophist was the orator who was as famous as a film star. The Sophist had two faults. He was much more concerned with how he said a thing than with what he was saying. It was cleverness of speech with which he was primarily concerned; and his first aim was to provoke applause. His one desire was to display himself. Dio Chrysostom said of the Sophists: They are all agapē for the murmur of the crowd…. Like men walking in the dark, they move always in the direction of the clapping and the shouting.’ (Dio Chrysostom, Oration 33). One of them said to Epictetus: ‘I want your praise.’ ‘What do you mean by my praise?’ asked Epictetus. ‘I want you to say Bravo! and Wonderful!’ said the Sophist (Epictetus, Discourses 3.23.24). Epictetus describes the scene as the professor went round after the lecture was done. ‘What did you think of me today?’ ‘Upon my life I thought you were admirable.’ ‘What did you think of my best passage?’ ‘What was that?’ ‘Where I described Pan and the Nymphs.’ ‘Oh, it was excessively well done’ (Epictetus, Discourses 3.23.11). He describes another scene. ‘A much larger audience today, I think,’ says the professor. ‘Yes, much larger.’ ‘Five hundred, I should guess.’ ‘Oh, nonsense, it could not have been less than a thousand.’ ‘Why, that is more than Dio ever had; I wonder why it was: they appreciated what I said, too.’ ‘Beauty, sir, can move even a stone.’ Paul knew the preachers and the teachers who were more concerned with epigrams than truth, whose one desire was to display their own cleverness and to awaken the applause of the crowd. He knew the preacher and the teacher who was thinking more of what men were thinking of him than what God was thinking of him. He knew the preacher and the teacher who was more concerned that men should look at him than that men should look at Christ. That is what Paul meant by the wisdom of this world. It is not yet completely dead.

• From The Triumph of Christianity (2018)

  < 70 < Lecture 10  The Christian Mission to the Jews `Some Jews—probably most—who expected the messiah thought he would be a latter-day David, a great warrior-king who would destroy the enemy with a Jewish army and establish Judea once again as a sovereign state that ruled all the lands surrounding it. Other, more apocalyptically minded Jews anticipated that this messiah would be a cosmic figure, a divine judge sent from heaven to destroy God’s enemies with a supernatural show of power. `Yet others were more focused on the ways and customs of Judaism as the only things that ultimately mattered. They maintained that the powerful ruler to come would be a priest who would interpret God’s law and enforce his interpretations by making all obedient. Some Jews thought there would be two messiahs: a king and a priest. `The one thing all these various expectations had in common was that the messiah would be a great and powerful figure who overwhelmed the enemy and brought about God’s great kingdom on earth with a show of strength. Before Jesus’s arrest and execution, his followers may have believed he was the future warrior-king. And after his death, they became quite outspoken: Jesus indeed was the powerful messiah predicted by God. `Most Jews considered this view ludicrous. Everyone knew who Jesus was. He was a lower-class self-styled preacher who got on the wrong side of the law and was executed for crimes against the state. In their view, he wasn’t a powerful figure who destroyed God’s enemies. `Paul himself originally thought the claim that Jesus was the messiah was absurd and blasphemous. He changed his mind because he claimed Christ appeared to him, living, years later. `The vast majority of Jews never had any such experience and, if they had ever heard of Paul, didn’t believe he had either. However, Christians persisted in their claims. `They started saying that Jesus would fulfill what people thought of the messiah. He was coming back a second time to fulfill the prophecies about the powerful ruler of Israel. His suffering was simply part of the picture others hadn’t recognized.