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 80 of 253 · 20 per page

• From The History of Christianity II: From the Reformation to the Modern Megachurch (2017)

  õ Finally, the revolutionary government closed the churches altogether to convert them into buildings like stables and warehouses. And they didn’t stop there—if a street was named for a Christian saint, it got a new republican name. The revolutionaries even ditched the seven-day week, with its Christian day of rest on Sunday, for a new 10-day week. They were really trying to scrub every last trace of Catholicism from the country. õ The approach of the left-wing leader Maximilien Robespierre was an interesting case. Robespierre was happy to guillotine any Catholic priest in the interest of his cause, but he didn’t want France to become a godless country. Like the American Founding Fathers, he believed religion had a social purpose. The people of France, whose lives had revolved around Catholic rituals and holidays for centuries, needed something to take the church’s place. õ Robespierre’s solution was to found a new official state religion: the Cult of the Supreme Being. This religion stressed the immortality of the soul, because Robespierre was convinced that people are more likely to behave themselves when they believe they’ll face consequences after death. õ The Cult of the Supreme Being also offered the French people a God who supported the revolution and hated the king. As Robespierre himself put it:“[God] did not create priests to harness us, like vile animals, to the chariots of kings and to give to the world examples of baseness, pride, perfidy, avarice, debauchery, and falsehood.” Lecture 16—Religion and Revolution in the 18th Century 157 õ But Robespierre fell from power in the summer of 1794, and his cult never quite caught on. Despite all that popular resentment against the church, extinguishing the Catholic faith was easier said than done. SUGGESTED READING Ellis, American Sphinx. Noll, America’s God. Schama, Citizens. QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER ä How do 21st-century Americans understand “religious freedom,” and how do their ideas compare to those of the 18th century? ä Could a political alliance between evangelicals and secular liberal politicians happen in America today? ä What is at stake in debates about “secularism” and “religious freedom” in America and France? 158 The History of Christianity II LECTURE 17 THE SECOND GREAT AWAKENING The Second Great Awakening was a wave of revivals that swept North America and Britain from the turn of the 19th century. They flamed up, died down, and flamed up again for about 50 years. Evangelists who were brave enough to leave the more settled areas along the North American coast and travel inland learned that it was not easy to get pioneers to focus on worship and holy living when they were worried about just surviving. But the most talented and charismatic preachers found that if they were good at what they did, their revivals would be the only form of mass entertainment and social life available on the frontier. 159

• From The History of Christianity II: From the Reformation to the Modern Megachurch (2017)

  74The History of Christianity II õPuritans also obeyed the church covenant, in which regenerate Christians meet and satisfy each other of their faith, then create a church. In Puritan New England, each church was an autonomous unit. Another term for this way of organizing a church is congregationalism, meaning that each congregation is autonomous, not subject to the authority of any higher body. DISSENTERS õAnother faction, the Baptists, emerged from Protestant communities that refused to conform to the rules of the Church of England. More specifically, the denomination goes back to the English separatist John Smyth, who met some Mennonites in Holland and admired the Anabaptist practice of baptizing adult believers after a confession of faith. õThe first Baptist church in America was founded in Rhode Island by Roger Williams in 1638. Williams became a Baptist because he got fed up with the Puritans, but he was a Baptist only for a few months before he decided that no church on earth really practiced true Christianity. õPrior to founding his church, Williams had lived for a time in Massachusetts, where his sermons against the church leadership caused all kinds of headaches for the Puritan town fathers. His most problematic claim had to do with Christian law. õPuritan society worked on the principle that even if you were not a converted member of the church, you could still be held accountable to Puritan law and forced to attend church. The Puritans believed

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

  ATHANASIUS. Or herein our Lord teaches the greatness of His gift, as if He said, All created things may be confined by place, but the Word of God has incomprehensible power. Say not then, I will follow thee whithersoever thou goest. But if thou wouldest be a disciple, cast off 1 foolish things, for it is impossible for him who remains in foolishness to become a disciple of the Word. AMBROSE. Or, He compares foxes to heretics, because they are indeed a wily animal, and, ever intent upon fraud, commit their robberies by stealth. They let nothing be safe, nothing be at rest, nothing secure, for they hunt their prey into the very abodes of men. The fox again, an animal full of craft, makes no hole for itself, yet likes to lie always concealed in a hole. So the heretics, who know not how to construct a house for themselves, circumscribe and deceive others. This animal is never tamed, nor is it of use to man. Hence the Apostle, A heretic after the first and second admonition reject. (Tit. 3:10.) But the birds of the air, which are frequently brought in to represent spiritual wickedness, build as it were their nests in the breasts of the wicked, and as long as deceit reigns over the affections, the divine principle has no opportunity to take possession. But when a man has proved his heart to be innocent, upon him Christ leans in some measure the weight of His greatness, for by a more abundant shedding of grace He is planted in the breasts of good men. So then it does not seem reasonable that we should think him faithful and simple, who is rejected by the judgment of the Lord, notwithstanding that he promised the service of unwearied attendance; but our Lord cares not for this kind of service, but only purity of affection, nor is his attendance accepted whose sense of duty is not proved. For the hospitality of faith should be given with circumspection, lest while opening the interior of our house to the unbelieving, through our imprudent credulity we fall a snare to the treachery of others. Therefore that you may be aware that God despises not attendance upon him but deceit, He who rejected the deceitful man chose the innocent. For it follows, And he said unto another, Follow me. But He says this to him, whose father He knew to be dead. Hence it follows, But he said, Lord, suffer me first to go and bury my father. BEDE. He did not refuse the discipleship, but his wish was, having fulfilled the filial duty of burying his father, to follow Christ more freely.

• From The History of Christianity II: From the Reformation to the Modern Megachurch (2017)

  297Lecture 30—The Gospel and Global Civil Rights SOUTH AFRICA õNext, this lecture turns to South Africa and the rise and fall of apartheid. The term Apartheid is an Afrikaans word meaning “separateness.” It describes the system of laws and land distribution used to protect the privileges of white South Africans. õModern Afrikaners are whites descended from Dutch colonists who began settling South Africa in the 17 th century. From the earliest colonial days, Europeans had viewed native Africans as a cheap labor force, culturally and intellectually inferior to white people. But apartheid became a formal, nationally integrated, more elaborate policy when an Afrikaner political party known as the National Party won the election of 1948. õThe National Party divided South Africans into four groups: whites, blacks, Indians (immigrants from the Indian subcontinent), and coloureds, who had a mixed racial background. They used a combination of legislation and coerced resettlement to force people to live only with others in their own racial category. They banned mixed marriages and created a separate and vastly inferior education system for blacks. õFrom the 1950s onward, the government implemented a strategy to disenfranchise blacks and make sure that whites remained the majority voting population. Eventually, they declared that blacks were not citizens of South Africa, but citizens of so-called homelands known as the Bantustans, situated on the worst farmland. CHRISTIAN COMPLICITY õSupporters of apartheid understood it as a Christian ideology, supported by the Dutch Reformed Church, which was the church of most Afrikaners. Afrikaners imported some of the key ideas of the Dutch Calvinist revival, especially an idea called sphere sovereignty, which emphasized granting different communities their own educational systems, trade unions, newspapers, and so on.

• From Born a Crime: Stories from a South African Childhood (2016)

  The women in Tzaneen had a multitude of jobs during the day. They prepared breakfast, prepared tea, prepared lunch, did the washing and the cleaning. The men had been working all year in the city to support the family, so this was their vacation, more or less. They were at leisure, waited on by the women. They might slaughter a goat or something, do whatever manly tasks needed to be done, but then they would go to an area that was only for men and hang out and drink while the women cooked and cleaned. But my mom had been working in the city all year, too, and Patricia Noah didn’t stay in anyone’s kitchen. She was a free-roaming spirit. She insisted on walking to the village, going where the men hung out, talking to the men as equals. The whole tradition of women bowing to the men, my mom found that absurd. But she didn’t refuse to do it. She overdid it. She made a mockery of it. The other women would bow before men with this polite little curtsy. My mom would go down and cower, groveling in the dirt like she was worshipping a deity, and she’d stay down there for a long time, like a really long time, long enough to make everyone very uncomfortable. That was my mom. Don’t fight the system. Mock the system. To Abel, it looked like his wife didn’t respect him. Every other man had some docile girl from the village, and here he’d come with this modern woman, a Xhosa woman no less, a culture whose women were thought of as particularly loudmouthed and promiscuous. The two of them fought and bickered the whole time, and after that first trip my mother refused to go back. Up to that point I’d lived my whole life in a world run by women, but after my mom and Abel were married, and especially after Andrew was born, I watched him try to assert himself and impose his ideas of what he thought his family should be. One thing that became clear early on was that those ideas did not include me. I was a reminder that my mom had lived a life before him. I didn’t even share his color. His family was him, my mom, and the new baby. My family was my mom and me. I actually appreciated that about him. Sometimes he was my buddy, sometimes not, but he never pretended our relationship was anything other than what it was. We’d joke around and laugh together. We’d watch TV together. He’d slip me pocket money now and again after my mother said I’d had enough. But he never gave me a birthday present or a Christmas present. He never gave me the affection of a father. I was never his son. Abel’s presence in the house brought with it new rules. One of the first things he did was kick Fufi and Panther out of the house.

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

  THEOPHYLACT. When He was about to raise the dead He put all out, as teaching us to be free from vain-glory, and to do nothing for show, for when any one ought to perform miracles, he must not be in the midst of a great many, but alone and apart from the other. As it follows, And when he came into the house, he suffered no man to go in, save Peter, and James, and John. Now these only He permitted to enter as the Heads of His disciples, and able to conceal the miracle. For He did not wish to be revealed to many before His time, perhaps on account of the envy of the Jews. So also when any one envies us, we ought not to make known to him our righteousness, lest we give him an occasion of greater envy.

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

  BEDE. Christ had told the Pharisees not to boast of their own righteousness, but to receive penitent sinners, and to redeem their sins by almsgiving. But they derided the Preacher of mercy, humility, and frugality; as it is said, And the Pharisees also, who were covetous, heard these things; and derided him: it may be for two reasons, either because He commanded what was not sufficiently profitable, or cast blame upon their past superfluous actions. THEOPHYLACT. But the Lord detecting in them a hidden malice, proves that they make a pretence of righteousness. Therefore it is added, And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men. BEDE. They justify themselves before men who despise sinners as in a weak and hopeless condition, but fancy themselves to be perfect and not to need the remedy of almsgiving; but how justly the depth of deadly pride is to be condemned, He sees who will enlighten the hidden places of darkness. Hence it follows, But God knoweth your hearts. THEOPHYLACT. And therefore ye are an abomination to Him because of your arrogance, and love of seeking after the praise of men; as He adds, For that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God. BEDE. Now the Pharisees derided our Saviour disputing against covetousness, as if He taught things contrary to the Law and the Prophets, in which many very rich men are said to have pleased God; but Moses also himself promised that the people whom he ruled, if they followed the Law, should abound in all earthly goods. (Deut. 28:11.) These the Lord answers by shewing that between the Law and the Gospel, as in these promises so also in the commands, there is not the slightest difference. Hence He adds, The Law and the Prophets were until John. AMBROSE. Not that the Law failed, but that the preaching of the Gospel began; for that which is inferior seems to be completed when a better succeeds. CHRYSOSTOM. (Hom. 37. in Matt. Pseudo-Chrys. Hom. 19. op. imp.) He hereby disposes them readily to believe on Him, because if as far as John’s time all things were complete, I am He who am come. For the Prophets had not ceased unless I had come; but you will say, “how” were the Prophets until John, since there have been many more Prophets in the New than the Old Testament. But He spoke of those prophets who foretold Christ’s coming. EUSEBIUS. Now the ancient prophets knew the preaching of the kingdom of heaven, but none of them had expressly announced it to the Jewish people, because the Jews having a childish understanding were unequal to the preaching of what is infinite. But John first openly preached that the kingdom of heaven was at hand, as well as also the remission of sins by the laver of regeneration. Hence it follows, Since that time the kingdom of heaven is preached, and every one presseth into it.

• From The History of Christianity II: From the Reformation to the Modern Megachurch (2017)

  248 The History of Christianity II õ In 1905, Lenin published an essay describing religion as “spiritual booze” that taught people “to be submissive and patient while here on earth, and to take comfort in the hope of a heavenly reward.” But he called for religion to be treated as a “private affair,” and said people should be able to choose any religion, or none at all. õ However, the Orthodox Church was an obvious rival to the Bolsheviks for the loyalties of the people. And the Bolsheviks took aim almost immediately. They didn’t officially ban the church, but they seized church property and rounded up any priest or bishop who didn’t profess total loyalty to the Russian Revolution—and even some who did. õ Some clergy ended up in prison camps and mental hospitals—and those were the lucky ones. Others were tortured and executed as enemies of the revolution. In the 1920s, as the chaos in the provinces led to widespread famine, the Bolsheviks whipped up resentment against the church by charging that priests and bishops had refused to turn over their valuables to be sold to help feed the people. They capitalized on that long history of church privilege at the expense of ordinary believers. õ As for the dissenters who got a break after the 1905 law on religious toleration: The Bolsheviks put an end to that and turned out to be just as zealous in persecuting religious minorities as the tsars had ever been. Religious minorities fled where they could. RELIGION UNDER STALIN õ In 1929, five years after Lenin died and his successor Joseph Stalin took power, the government enacted the Law on Religious Associations, which set the rules for all religious worship, Orthodox or otherwise. õ To form a religious organization, a group of at least 20 adults had to come together and seek permission from the local magistrate to perform their “cult” in an approved building, and only in that space. No religious festivals, evangelizing, religious education, charity work, or anything else outside the registered building was allowed. 249Lecture 25—The Church and the Russian Revolution õ Meanwhile, the Soviet government tried to lure believers away from traditional churches by establishing a rival organization called the Living Church. Clergy of this temple of propaganda preached that the Bolshevik program was essentially the fulfillment of Christianity. The message appealed to some Christian socialists, but the Living Church was so obviously an arm of the state that it failed to win many sincere believers.

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

  HILARY. Thus did He at that present refute the Jews, who seeing Christ’s works to be of power more than human, would notwithstanding not allow the hand of God. And at the same time He convicts all future errors of the faith, such as that of those who taking away from the Lord His divinity, and communion of the Father’s substance, have fallen into divers heresies; having their habitation neither under the plea of ignorance as the Gentiles, nor yet within the knowledge of the truth. He figures Himself as a tree set in the body, seeing that through the inward fruitfulness of His power sprung forth abundant richness of fruit. Therefore either must be made a good tree with good fruits, or an evil tree with evil fruits; not that a good tree is to be made a bad tree, or the reverse; but that in this metaphor we may understand that Christ is either to be left in fruitlessness, or to be retained in the fruitfulness of good works. But to hold one’s self neuter, to attribute some things to Christ, but to deny Him those things that are highest, to worship Him as God, and yet to deny Him a common substance with the Father, is blasphemy against the Spirit. In admiration of His so great works you dare not take away the name of God, yet through malevolence of soul you debase His high nature by denying His participation of the Father’s substance. AUGUSTINE. (Serm. 72. 1.) Or this is an admonition to ourselves that we should be good trees that we may be able to bring forth good fruit; Make the tree good, and its fruit good, is a precept of health to which obedience is necessary. But what He says, Make the tree corrupt, and its fruit corrupt, is not a command to do, but a warning to take heed, spoken against those who being evil thought that they could speak good things, or have good works; this the Lord declares is impossible. The man must be changed first, that his works may be changed; for if the man remains in that wherein he is evil, he cannot have good works; if he remains in that wherein he is good, he cannot have evil works. Christ found us all corrupt trees, but gave power to become sons of God to them that believe on His name.

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

  9:23–2623. And when Jesus came into the ruler’s house, and saw the minstrels and the people making a noise, 24. He said unto them, Give place: for the maid is not dead, but sleepeth. And they laughed him to scorn. 25. But when the people were put forth, he went in, and took her by the hand, and the maid arose. 26. And the fame hereof went abroad into all that land. GLOSS. (non occ.) After the healing of the woman with the issue of blood, follows the raising of the dead; And when Jesus was come into the ruler’s house. CHRYSOSTOM. We may suppose that He proceeded slowly, and spake longer to the woman whom He had healed, that He might suffer the maid to die, and thus an evident miracle of restoring to life might be wrought. In the case of Lazarus also He waited till the third day. And when he saw the minstrels and the people making a noise; this was a proof of her death. AMBROSE. (in Luc. 8. 52.) For by the ancient custom minstrels were engaged to make lamentation for the dead. CHRYSOSTOM. But Christ put forth all the pipers, but took in the parents, that it might not be said that He had healed her by any other means; and before the restoring to life He excites their expectations by His words, And he said, Give place: for the maid is not dead, but sleepeth. BEDE. (in Luc.) As though He had said, To you she is dead, but to God who has power to give life, she sleeps only both in soul and body. CHRYSOSTOM. By this saying, He soothes the minds of those that were present, and shews that it is easy to Him to raise the dead; the like He did in the case of Lazarus, Our friend Lazarus sleepeth. (John 11:11.) This was also a lesson to them not to be afraid of death; forasmuch as He Himself also should die, He made His disciples learn in the persons of others confidence and patient endurance of death. For when He was near, death was but as sleep. When He had said this, They mocked him. And He did not rebuke their mocking; that this mocking, and the pipes and all other things, might be a proof of her death. For ofttimes at His miracles when men would not believe, He convicted them by their own answers; as in the case of Lazarus, when He said, Where have ye laid him? so that they that answered, Come and see, and, He stinketh, for he hath now been dead four days, could no longer disbelieve that He had raised a dead man. JEROME. They that had mocked the Reviver were not worthy to behold the mystery of the revival; and therefore it follows, And when the multitude was put forth, he entered, and took her by the hand, and the maid arose.

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

  GREGORY. (28. Mor. c. 12.) Or else; By the name body each particular action is understood which follows its own intention, as it were the eye of the spectators. Therefore it is said, The light of the body is the eye, because by the ray of a good intention the deserving parts of an action receive light. If then thy eye be single, thy whole body will be full of light, for if we intend rightly in singleness of heart, we accomplish a good work, even though it seem not to be good. And if thy eye be evil, thy whole body will be full of darkness, because when with a crooked intention even a right thing is done, although it appears to glitter in men’s sight, yet before the bar of the internal judge it is covered with darkness. Hence too it is rightly added, Take heed therefore that the light which is in thee be not darkness. For if what we think we do well we cloud by a bad intention, how many are the evils themselves which even when we do them we know to be evil? BEDE. Now when He adds, If thy whole body therefore, &c. by the whole of our body He means all our works. If then thou hast done a good work with a good intention, having in thy conscience nothing approaching to a dark thought, though it chance that thy neighbour is injured by thy good actions, nevertheless for thy singleness of heart shalt thou be rewarded with grace here, and with glorious light hereafter; which he signifies, adding, And as the bright shining of a candle shall it give thee light. These words were especially directed against the hypocrisy of the Pharisees, who sought for signs that they might catch him. 11:37–4437. And as he spake, a certain Pharisee besought him to dine with him, and he went in, and sat down to meat. 38. And when the Pharisee saw it, he marvelled that he had not first washed before dinner. 39. And the Lord said unto him, Now do ye Pharisees make clean the outside of the cup and the platter; but your inward part is full of ravening and wickedness. 40. Ye fools, did not he that made that which is without make that which is within also? 41. But rather give alms of such things as ye have; and, behold, all things are clean unto you. 42. But woe unto you, Pharisees! for ye tithe mint and rue and all manner of herbs, and pass over judgment and the love of God: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone. 43. Woe unto you, Pharisees! for ye love the uppermost seats in the synagogues, and greetings in the markets. 44. Woe unto you, Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are as graves which appear not, and the men that walk over them are not aware of them.

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

  CHRYSOSTOM. But their words are full of hypocrisy and irony. But now they were railing against Him, saying that He had a dæmon; now they fawn upon Him, calling Him, Master. Wherefore the Lord rebukes them severely; He answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign. When they railed on Him, He had answered them mildly; now they approached Him with smooth and deceitful words, He rebukes them sharply; shewing that He was above either affection, and was neither moved to anger by evil speaking, nor was to be gained by flattery. What He says is this; What wonder that ye do thus to Me who am unknown to you, when you have done the same to the Father, of whom ye have had such large knowledge, in that, despising Him ye went after dæmons? He calls them an evil generation, because they have ever been ungrateful to their benefactors, and were made worse when they received benefits, which is the extreme of wickedness. JEROME. Excellently is that said, and adulterous, seeing she has put away her husband, and, according to Ezekiel, has joined herself to many lovers. CHRYSOSTOM. Which also proves Him to be equal to the Father, if not to believe in Him makes them adulterous. RABANUS. Then He begins to answer them, giving them a sign not from heaven, which they were unworthy to see, but giving it them from the deep beneath. But to His own disciples He gave a sign from heaven, to whom He shewed the glory of His blessed eternity both in a figure on the mount, and after in verity when He was taken up into heaven. Wherefore it follows, And there shall no sign he given it, but the sign of the Prophet Jonas.

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

  CHRYSOSTOM. (Hom. lxxxiii) He did not say, He has sinned and is worthy of death; yet release Him at the feast; but acquitting Him in the first place, he does more than he need do, and asks it as a favour, that, if they are unwilling to let Him go as innocent, they will at any rate allow Him the benefit of the season: But ye have a custom, that I should release one unto you at the passover. BEDE. This custom was not commanded in the law, but had been handed down by tradition from the old fathers, viz. that in remembrance of their deliverance out of Egypt, they should release a prisoner at the passover. Pilate tries to persuade them: Will ye therefore that I release unto you the King of the Jews. AUGUSTINE. (Tr. cxv) He could not dismiss the idea from his mind, that Jesus was King of the Jews; as if the Truth itself, whom he had just asked what it was, had inscribed it there as a title. THEOPHYLACT. Pilate is judicious in replying that Jesus had done nothing wrong, and that there was no reason to suspect Him of aiming at a kingdom. For they might be sure that if He set Himself up as a King, and a rival of the Roman empire, a Roman prefect would not release Him. When then He says, Will ye that I release unto you the King of the Jews? he clears Jesus of all guilt, and mocks the Jews, as if to say, Him whom ye accuse of thinking Himself a King, the same I bid you release: He does no such thing. AUGUSTINE. (Tr. cxv) Upon this they cried out: Then cried they all again, saying, Not this man, but Barabbas. Now Barabbas was a robber. We blame you not, O Jews, for releasing a guilty man at the passover, but for killing an innocent one. Yet unless this were done, it were not the true passover. BEDE. Inasmuch then as they abandoned the Saviour, and sought out a robber, to this day the devil practises his robberies upon them. ALCUIN. The name Barabbas signifies, The son of their master, i. e. the devil; his master in his wickedness, the Jews’ in their perfidy. CHAPTER 19 19:1–51. Then Pilate therefore took Jesus, and scourged him. 2. And the soldiers platted a crown of thorns, and put it on his head, and they put on him a purple robe, 3. And said, Hail, King of the Jews! and they smote him with their hands. 4. Pilate therefore went forth again, and saith unto them, Behold, I bring him forth to you, that ye may know that I find no fault in him. 5. Then came Jesus forth, wearing the crown of thorns, and the purple robe. And Pilate saith unto them, Behold the man!

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

  527. A false notion inasmuch as it is false is the notion of something non-existent. Hence every notion is false when applied to something other than that of which it is true; for example, the notion of a circle is false when applied to a triangle. Now of each thing there is in a sense one notion, which is its essence; but there are also in a sense many, since the thing itself and the thing with a modification are in a sense the same, as Socrates and musical Socrates. But a false notion is absolutely speaking not the notion of anything. And it is for this reason that Antisthenes entertained a silly opinion when he thought that nothing could be expressed except by its proper notion—one term always for one thing. From this it would follow that there can be no contradiction and almost no error. It is possible, however, to express each thing not only by its own notion but also by that which belongs to something else not only falsely but also truly, as eight may be said to be double through the notion of two. These are the ways, then, in which things are said to be false. 528. A false man is one who chooses such thoughts not for any other reason but for themselves; and one who is the cause of such thoughts in others; just as we say that those things are false which produce a false image or impression. 529. Hence, the speech in the Hippias, which says that the same man is true and false, is refuted; for it assumes that that man is false who is able to deceive, even though he is knowing and prudent. 530. And further it assumes that one who is capable of willing evil things is better. And this false opinion is arrived at by way of induction. For one who limps voluntarily is better than one who does so involuntarily; and by limping we mean imitating a limp. For if a man were to limp voluntarily, he would be worse in this way, just as he would be in the case of moral character. Chapter 30

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

  BEDE. (bysso.) Purple, the colour of the royal robe, is obtained from sea shells, which are scraped with a knife. Byssus is a kind of white and very fine linen. GREGORY. (Hom. 40. in Ev.) Now if the wearing of fine and precious robes were not a fault, the word of God would never have so carefully expressed this. For no one seeks costly garments except for vainglory, that he may seem more honourable than others; for no one wishes to be clothed with such, where he cannot be seen by others. CHRYSOSTOM. (ut sup.) Ashes, dust, and earth he covered with purple, and silk; or ashes, dust, and earth bore upon them purple and silk. As his garments were, so was also his food. Therefore with us also as our food is, such let our clothing be Hence it follows, And he fared sumptuously every day. GREGORY. (Hom. 40. in Ev.) And here we must narrowly watch ourselves, seeing that banquets can scarcely be celebrated blamelessly, for almost always luxury accompanies feasting; and when the body is swallowed up in the delight of refreshing itself, the heart relaxes to empty joys. It follows, And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus. AMBROSE. This seems rather a narrative than a parable, since the name is also expressed. CHRYSOSTOM. (ut sup.) But a parable is that in which an example is given, while the names are omitted. Lazarus is interpreted, “one who was assisted.” For he was poor, and the Lord helped him. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA. Or else; This discourse concerning the rich man and Lazarus was written after the manner of a comparison in a parable, to declare that they who abound in earthly riches, unless they will relieve the necessities of the poor, shall meet with a heavy condemnation. But the tradition of the Jews relates that there was at that time in Jerusalem a certain Lazarus who was afflicted with extreme poverty and sickness, whom our Lord remembering, introduces him into the example for the sake of adding greater point to His words. GREGORY. (Moral. 1. c. 8.) We must observe also, that among the heathen the names of poor men are more likely to be known than of rich. Now our Lord mentions the name of the poor, but not the name of the rich, because God knows and approves the humble, but not the proud. But that the poor man might be more approved, poverty and sickness were at the same time consuming him; as it follows, who was laid at his gale full of sores.

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

  CHRYSOSTOM. As if He said, Ye must not be disturbed at having to share My sufferings; for ye are not better than I. AUGUSTINE. (Tract. lxxxviii. 1) The servant is not greater than his Lord. Here the servant is the one who has the purified fear, which abideth for ever. CHRYSOSTOM. (Hom. lxxvii. 2) Then follows another consolation, viz. that the Father is despised and injured with them: But all these things will they do unto you for My name’s sake, because they know not Him that sent Me. AUGUSTINE. (Tract. lxxxviii. 2) All these things, viz. what He had mentioned, that the world would hate them, persecute them, despise their word. For My Name’s sake, i. e. in you they will hate Me, in you persecute Me, your word they will not keep, because it is mine. They who do these things for His name’s sake are as miserable, as they who suffer them are blessed: except when they do them to the wicked as well; for then both they who do, and they who suffer, are miserable. But how do they do all these things for His name’s sake, when they do nothing for Christ’s name’s sake, i. e. for justice sake? We shall do away with this difficulty, if we take the words as applying to the righteous; as if it were, All these things will ye suffer from them, for My name’s sake. If, for My name’s sake, mean this, i. e. My name which they hate in you, justice which they hate in you; of the good, when they persecute the wicked, it may be said in the same way, that they do so both for righteousness’ sake, which they love, which love is their motive in persecuting, and for unrighteousness’ sake, the unrighteousness of the wicked, which they hate. Because they know not Him that sent Me, i. e. know not according to that knowledge of which it is said, To know Thee is perfect righteousness. (Wisd. 15:3) 15:22–2522. If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin: but now they have no cloke for their sin. 23. He that hateth me hateth my Father also. 24. If I had not done among them the works which none other man did, they had not had sin: but now have they both seen and hated both me and my Father. 25. But this cometh to pass, that the word might be fulfilled that is written in their law, They hated me without a cause. CHRYSOSTOM. (Hom. lxxvii. 2) Then by way of another consolation, He declares the injustice of these persecutions both towards Him and them: If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin.

• From The Laws of Human Nature (2018)

  far the wealthiest man in the world, the first billionaire on the planet, but the stories of the way he had conducted his battles and the monopoly he had forged made them wonder about his character. He was a notorious recluse, and few knew anything concrete about him. Then some among his many enemies initiated a series of court cases to break up the Standard Oil monopoly. Rockefeller was forced to testify, and to the public’s amazement, he was not at all like the devil they had imagined. As one newspaper writer reported: “He seems the embodiment of sweetness and light. His serenity could not be disturbed. . . . At times his manner was mildly reproachful, at others tenderly persuasive, but never did he betray an ill temper or vexation.” As he emerged as the world’s most generous philanthropist, and as the public came to appreciate the cheap oil he provided, they changed their opinion of him. After all, as the major shareholder in Standard Oil he had immense influence, and he had agreed to the breakup of the Standard Oil monopoly. Little did they know that behind the scenes he operated as he always had done: finding loopholes in the law, keeping the monopoly together through secret agreements, and maintaining his control. He would not allow anyone to block his path, and certainly not the government. • • • Interpretation: The story of the rise to power of John D. Rockefeller has to be considered one of the most remarkable in history. In a relatively short period of time (some twenty years), he rose from the bottom of society (his family had suffered periods of poverty) to become the founder and owner of the largest corporation in America, and shortly after that to emerge as the wealthiest man in the world. In the process, as so often happens in such cases, his story became shrouded in all kinds of myths. He was either a demon or a god of capitalism. But lost in all of these emotional responses is the answer to a simple question: how did one man—with little help—accumulate so much power in so little time? If we examine him closely, we must conclude that it wasn’t through supreme intelligence or some particular talent or creative vision. He had some of those qualities, but nothing strong enough to account for his outrageous success. In truth, what we can attribute it to more than anything is the sheer relentless force of will that he possessed to utterly dominate every situation and rival he encountered, and to exploit every opportunity that crossed his path. We shall call this aggressive energy . Such energy can have productive purposes (see the last section in the chapter for more on this), and certainly Rockefeller had some achievements that benefited the society of his time. But as so often happens with highly aggressive people, this energy pushed him to monopolize virtually all

• From The Laws of Human Nature (2018)

  The Intriguer: These individuals can be particularly difficult to recognize. They seem intensely loyal to the boss and to the group. No one works harder or is more ruthlessly efficient. But this is a mask they wear; behind the scenes they are continually intriguing to amass more power. They generally have a disdain for the boss that they are careful to conceal. They feel they could do the job better, and they yearn to prove this. Perhaps they had competitive issues in childhood with the father figure. In the court of Richard Nixon, Alexander Haig (1924–2010) epitomized this type. A graduate of West Point and a decorated war hero in Vietnam, he was hired as one of several assistants to Henry Kissinger, Nixon’s national security adviser. Kissinger’s own little court was filled with men with brilliant academic backgrounds. Haig could not compete on this level; he stayed away from policy arguments. Instead, he so expertly tailored himself to the desires and needs of Kissinger that he quickly rose from within. He organized Kissinger’s desk, streamlined his schedule, and would do the lowliest task, even helping his boss dress for an important evening. He silently suffered Kissinger’s numerous and volcanic temper tantrums. But what Kissinger did not realize was the depth of Haig’s ambitions and his contempt for his boss. He was continually playing to the real boss in the game, Nixon himself. While Kissinger was out most evenings attending some party, Nixon would see the light on in Haig’s office at all hours. Nixon, a workaholic himself, could not help but admire this. Of course, Haig made sure he worked evenings when Nixon was there and would notice him. Soon Nixon was borrowing him for his own tasks. In 1973, as the Watergate scandal blossomed, Nixon appointed Haig as his chief of staff. This infuriated Kissinger—not only did he feel Haig had used him for his own purposes, but he was now having to report to Haig as a superior. To make matters worse, Haig had seen up close all of Kissinger’s weaknesses and had a lot of dirt on him, and Kissinger was certain he would be sharing this information with Nixon, who loved such gossip. To colleagues Haig could be chummy and even disarming. But behind the scenes he undercut almost everyone in his path, wiretapping their phones, putting his name on their ideas and memos. As the Watergate crisis deepened and Nixon fell into a depression, Haig slowly took over operations, with a zeal that surprised and disgusted many. For several months, he became the de facto president. This pattern repeated throughout his career. As Ronald Reagan’s secretary of state, after the assassination attempt on the president in 1981, Haig told reporters, “I am in control here.” In identifying this type, you must look behind the efficient and loyal front and even the charm. Keep your eye instead on their maneuvers and their impatience to rise from within. Look at their past record for signs of intrigue.

• From The Laws of Human Nature (2018)

  But over the years he began to dread and despise her. She was the main obstacle to his goal of reestablishing the dominance of Catholicism, and he would have to humble her. In his mind, she was not the legitimate Queen of England. He began sneaking Jesuit priests into England to spread the Catholic faith and secretly foment rebellion. He built up his navy and stealthily prepared for what was known as the Enterprise of England, a massive invasion that would overwhelm the island and restore it to Catholicism. The execution of Mary, Queen of Scots, was the final straw—it was time for the invasion. Philip felt supremely confident in the success of the Enterprise. Over the years, he had taken the measure of his great rival. She was crafty and clever, but she had one overwhelming disadvantage—she was a woman. As such, she was unsuited to lead a war. In fact, she seemed to be afraid of armed conflict, always negotiating and finding ways to avoid it. She had never paid much attention to her military. The English navy was relatively small, its ships not nearly as large and powerful as the great Spanish galleons. England’s army was quite pitiful compared with Spain’s. And Philip had the gold from the New World to help finance the effort. He planned for the invasion to take place in the summer of 1587, but that year Sir Francis Drake raided the Spanish coast and destroyed many of its ships in the harbor of Cádiz, while seizing great treasures of gold. Philip postponed the invasion to the following year, the costs slowly mounting for maintaining his army and building more galleons. Philip had overseen every detail of the invasion. He would launch an invincible armada of some 130 ships, manned by over thirty thousand men. They would easily destroy the English navy, link up with a large Spanish force in the Netherlands, cross the Channel, and sweep their way to London, where they would capture the Queen and put her on trial for the execution of Mary Queen of Scots; he would then put his own daughter on the throne of England. Finally, the armada was launched in May of 1588, and by July the Spanish fleet was maneuvering around the southwestern coast of England. The Spanish galleons had perfected a certain form of warfare: they were so large they would maneuver close to the enemy ships, grapple, and board them with a virtual army. But they had never done battle with the much smaller and faster English ships, with their long-range cannons, and in waters much rougher than the Mediterranean. They did not do well.

• From The History of Christianity II: From the Reformation to the Modern Megachurch (2017)

  56 The History of Christianity II õ For example, in 1537, Pope Paul III declared the right of Indians to liberty and property. And two years later, a Dominican friar and lawyer named Francisco de Vitoria gave lectures at the University of Salamanca questioning whether the Spanish conquests were legitimate. õ Yet even those missionaries with good intentions usually did not see the native peoples as fully equal to European Christians, and they could sometimes be naïve about the goals and characters of both the natives and the Europeans. Moreover, most of them were racist by modern- day standards; they had compassion for non-whites but didn’t really believe they deserved the same treatment or were capable of the same understanding as Europeans. õ Their goal was essentially to establish a Christian theocracy in which the native people obeyed the church and lived in perfect submission and harmony. Missionaries in the American Southwest coerced the Indians to leave their villages and consolidate into fewer, larger pueblos because these were easier to control. LIFE UNDER THE SPANISH õ The missionaries weren’t really the ones in charge. Real power lay in the hands of the crown’s representatives, the civil and military authorities. They imposed an economic model called the encomienda system. õ This was kind of like European feudalism: The Spanish crown granted territory in the New World to certain elite individuals called encomenderos. Each encomendero then had control over the people on his territory. He received annual tribute of corn, cloth, or hides from the natives who lived on his land. These residents also owed him their labor—they had to till his land, work in his mines, or do whatever else he wanted. õ Technically, slavery of Native Americans was banned in the Spanish empire in the 1540s, but this was truer on paper than in reality. The Spanish kings were coming to depend on their colonial empire for a lot of their income, especially the tax they levied on silver mined in