Saint Matthew- Chapter 10
 |
| Christ's exhortation to the Apostles. J-J Tissot |
And having called his twelve disciples together, he gave them power over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of diseases, and all manner of infirmities.
And when He had called, &c. Observe that Christ, out of all His disciples, chose principally twelve, as S. Luke shows more at length (16:13.) He chose twelve Apostles that they should be His chief legates, whom He invested with plenary authority and power, and sent them forth into all the world to proclaim His Gospel unto all nations. He chose also seventy-two others; but these He called disciples, not Apostles, although they too, are spoken of by ancient writers as Apostles, that is legates or ambassadors of Christ. And such in fact they were, but with less power, as being subject and subordinate to the twelve Apostles. These twelve Christ now sends forth, that they may begin to discharge the office to which they were called, that they may serve their novitiate under Himself as their master, that afterwards being made priests and bishops, they may after His death fully accomplish their office and ministry. Wherefore Christ made the Apostles the Princes of His Church, and superior to all the faithful, both martyrs, confessors, and virgins, not only in office and dignity, but also in grace and sanctity. For upon them he has founded His Church, as we may learn from Ephesians 2:20, and Rev. 21:19.
Moreover the power of the Apostles was the greatest in the Church, far greater than that of Bishops; for the Apostles were chosen and sent forth directly by Christ the Lord, as it were legates a latere of Christ, with absolute power through the whole world, not only to preach the Gospel, and confirm it by miracles, but also by writing. For the Apostles had the power of writing canonical books (as in fact Matthew and John wrote Gospels), canonical epistles and the Apocalypse. They also had power to found churches everywhere, and to institute and ordain priests and bishops, and the whole hierarchical order, together with ceremonies of the Eucharistic Sacrifice and all the Sacraments.
Observe that in this triple power the Apostles were all equal among themselves and with S. Peter. Yet were they subordinate to him as their head and superior. This is why Peter (ver. 2) is placed and named first amongst them.
And heal all manner of sickness, &c. Gr. νόσον, i.e., disease. Both this power, and that of casting out devils was given to the Apostles, after the manner of an abiding habit. God did not endue them with a physical faculty of healing diseases; but His omnipotent power was promised to them so as always to assist them, in such a way that as often as they willed to do these things, immediately God cast out the devils, and bestowed healing. This power was given them for the confirmation of their preaching, that by this means they might convince the people.
[2] Duodecim autem Apostolorum nomina sunt haec. Primus, Simon, qui dicitur Petrus : et Andreas frater ejus,
And the names of the twelve apostles are these: The first, Simon who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother,
Now the names, &c. The reason why Christ chose exactly twelve Apostles, neither more nor less, was that they should correspond to the twelve Patriarchs, sons of Jacob. For as these were of the Jews, so were the Apostles the parents of all Christians. So SS. Jerome, Austin, and all the Fathers. Rabanus speaks of other mysteries in this number, and following him, S. Thomas (in Catena) says: This number twelve is made by multiplying three into four, and signifies that they should preach belief in the Trinity in the four quarters of the world. They were typified by the:
twelve sons of Jacob, twelve princes of the children of Israel, twelve wells of Elim, twelve stones of the breast-plate, twelve loaves of the shew-bread, twelve spies, the twelve stones taken out of Jordan, twelve oxen that supported the brazen sea, twelve stars in the crown of the bridegroom in the Apocalypse, twelve foundations of the city, twelve gates.The first, Simon, who is called Peter, &c. Beza, that he may get rid of the primacy of Peter and the Bishops of Rome who have succeeded him, thinks that first is a spurious reading, and ought to be expunged. But it is the uniform reading of all the codices and versions.—Greek, Latin, Syriac, and Hebrew. And it is incredible that the passage should have been corrupted by the later Greeks, who are schismatics, and deny the primacy of Peter. Rather would they have expunged the word first, if they could colourably have done so. In short, wherever the names of all the Apostles are given in Scripture, Peter is placed first, Judas last; whilst with respect to the rest the order varies, as is plain from Mark 3:16, Luc. 6:14, Acts 1:13.
Moreover, Peter is called the first of the Apostles:
not in age, for Andrew was older than he, as Epiphanius testifies (Hæres 51);
not in vocation, for Andrew was called before him (S. John 1:41);
not in love, for Christ loved S. John above all the rest, and therefore he leaned upon His breast at His last Supper.
It remains, therefore, that Peter was the first of the Apostles in excellence and authority, being, indeed, their head and ruler. Thus it is that the names of the rest are not given in any uniform order, nor one called second, another third, because all were equal, and all equally subject to Peter. From this word first, in Latin primus, comes the expression Primacy of Peter, which all the ancient Greeks and Latins acknowledged. Hear S. Chrysostom, “Peter was the first and, as it were, the head of all the Apostles.” S. Jerome (lib. I. contra Jovin. c. 17), “Among the twelve Apostles, one is chosen, that a head being appointed, occasion of schism may be taken away.” Ambrosiaster (in 2 Cor. c. 12), Andrew followed the Saviour before Peter, and yet not Andrew, but Peter, received the Primacy. Peter, therefore, as the Primate of the Apostles, had power to admonish and correct them if they erred in faith or morals, to put an end to contentions, to assign them their provinces, to substitute others in their place if they fell, as he substituted Matthias in the room of the traitor, Judas. For this subordination of the Apostles, of bishops, and all the faithful under one head was necessary for the unity, stability, and good government of the Church, as S. Cyprian teaches—Hæres. 2. Peter alone among the Apostles had ordinary jurisdiction, to which in due order the Roman Pontiffs succeed. For Peter set up his Pontifical Chair at Rome, where he died a martyr. But the Apostles had delegated jurisdiction from Christ, to which there were no successors.
You will say, the bishops are said to be the successors of the Apostles. I reply, this is only said by way of analogy, because bishops share with the Apostles in episcopal order and jurisdiction, and because bishops are superior to other priests in the same way that the twelve Apostles were superior to the seventy-two disciples. But bishops do not possess that three-fold Apostolic power of which I spoke in the beginning of this chapter. The power of bishops only extends to their own dioceses, but that of the Apostles to all nations throughout the whole world.
Andrew his brother. Mark places James and John before Andrew, making him the fourth. Luke does the same in Acts 1:13, but in his Gospel he places him before them as Matthew does. These variations in the order of the names is to show that the Apostles are all equal in dignity and office. Whence Cajetan says upon this passage “Peter alone has the distinction of being called first, in order to intimate that it closely pertains to Christian knowledge to recognise the Primacy of Peter, and that it is of no consequence to know the order of the Apostles among themselves.”
[3] Jacobus Zebedaei, et Joannes frater ejus, Philippus, et Bartholomaeus, Thomas, et Matthaeus publicanus, Jacobus Alphaei, et Thaddaeus,
James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother, Philip and Bartholomew, Thomas and Matthew the publican, and James the son of Alpheus, and Thaddeus,
S. John in the Apocalypse, in describing the twelve Apostles as the twelve foundations of the heavenly Jerusalem, assigns to each his place with their own peculiar precious stones—The first foundation was jasper; the second, sapphire; the third, a chalcedony; the fourth, an emerald; the fifth, a sardonyx; the sixth, sardius; the seventh, chrysolyte; the eighth, beryl; the ninth, a topaz; the tenth, a chrysoprasus; the eleventh, a jacinth; the twelfth, an amethyst, (Rev. 21:19).
The first, jasper, denotes Peter, on account of the firmness of his faith; the second, a sapphire, Andrew, because of his heavenly life and love; the third, a chalcedony, or carbuncle, James, burning with zeal; the fourth, an emerald, John, blooming and a virgin; the fifth, a sardonyx, Philip, on account of the whiteness of his mind; the sixth, the ruddy sardius, Bartholomew, flayed alive; the seventh, a chrysolyte, the colour of the sea, Matthew, a penitent; the eighth, a polished beryl, Thomas, polished and established by Christ in the faith of his Resurrection; the ninth, a topaz, James the less, radiant with sanctity; the tenth, a chrysoprasus, Judas Thaddæus, who, by his acute wisdom, was hostile to heretics, as it were an onion, for πρὰσον means an onion; the eleventh, a jacinth, Simon the Canaanite, on account of the sweetness of his manners; the twelfth, the lowly Matthias, and the least.
Paul and Barnabas are not reckoned among these twelve Apostles, because they were called by Christ to the Apostolate, not whilst He was upon earth, but when He was reigning in heaven. They had equal power, and an equal measure of the Spirit, with the twelve Apostles.
Andrew is a Greek word, and means manly, strong, heroic. Many of the Jews, after they became subject to Alexander’s successors, learnt Greek, and took Greek names. Andrew was, what his name signifies—brave and heroic in his preaching and passion, from the strength of his love to Christ, panting for his cross. He was, says Gaudentius, the first of all the disciples of John the Baptist, and being by him sent to Christ, first began to know Him.
James, the son of Zebedee: he was surnamed the Greater. He was the patron and Apostle of Spain, and was the first of the Apostles who suffered martyrdom, being beheaded by Herod Agrippa.
John, his brother. This is the beloved disciple of Christ, of whom I have spoken at length in the prefaces to his Gospel, Epistles, and Apocalypse.
Philip is Greek; φίλος ἵππων, a lover of horses, meaning a knight, warlike. For Philip was as a war-horse of Christ against the Jews and infidels. Concerning this, see the Apoc. (6:2), “and behold a white horse, and he that sat upon him had a bow, and a crown was given unto him, and he went forth conquering and to conquer.”
Bartholomew has been explained to mean the son of him who suspendeth the waters, from bar, a son, thala, he suspended, marim, waters. Whence Ruperti and Osorius think that Christ turned water into wine upon the occasion of Bartholomew’s wedding at ?Cana of Galilee, as though he had been the bridegroom. Others reject this. For Bartholomew is the same as son of Tolmai. Tolmai was a common name among the Hebrews, as is plain from Josh. 15:14, and 2 Sam. 3:3. Less aptly, some interpret Bartholomew as son of Ptolemy, as though he had been sprung from the Ptolemies, kings of Egypt.
Thomas, in Gr. Didymus, a twin. Concerning him, see on Jo. 20:24.
Matthew, the publican. Note S. Matthew’s humility, who when the other Evangelists were silent about his being a publican, publicly announced himself a sinner.
James, the son of Alphæus: Alphæus means in Hebrew, learned, or a doctor. This Alphæus, the father of James, was a different person from Alphæus, the father of Matthew (Mark 2:14). For this Alphæus, the father of James, was the husband of Mary of Cleopas, who is called the sister of Mary, the mother of the Lord (Jo. 19:25). Whence Helecas, Bishop of Saragossa, and others, think Alphæus is the same as Cleopas. Alphæus begat James and Jude of Mary. This was James the Less, of whom I speak at length in the Preface to his Epistle.
Thaddæus: this is the same as Jude, the author of a canonical Epistle. Of him also I have spoken in the Preface to his Epistle.
[4] Simon Chananaeus, et Judas Iscariotes, qui et tradidit eum.#
Simon the Cananean, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him.
Simon the Canaanite. This Simon is not so called because he was sprung from the Canaanites, as some wrongly imagine, for all the Apostles were Jews, but because he was born at Cana of Galilee. Hence Nicephorus (lib. 8, c. 30) and Baronius think that he was the ?bridegroom at the marriage feast when Christ turned the water into wine. Because Cana in Heb. means zeal, S. Jerome says he was called the Canaanite, i.e. Zealotes, the Zealot, with a double allusion to the city of Cana and his zeal.
And Judas Iscariot: as though Ish keriot: i.e., a man of Carioth, a city of the tribe of Judah. (See Josh. 15:25.) So Angelus Caninius on Hebrew names (cap. 13.) Others, with greater probability, are of opinion that he was so called because he came from the village of Iscarioth, in the tribe of Ephraim, not far from Samaria. So S. Jerome in this place, and on Is. 28:1, Maldonatus and Adrichomius. Iscariot means in Hebrew the same as mercenary, for sachar is merchandise. And this well agrees with Judas, who made merchandise of Christ. Christ chose Judas, although He knew that he would prove a traitor, because He was willing to bear his treachery, and to add it to the weight of His Passion, for He wished His Passion to be in all respects complete. He willed to suffer every kind of torment, and from all sorts of men, to teach us to do good, not only to the good and thankful, but also to the evil and the unthankful. Hear S. Ambrose (lib. 5 in Luc.): “Judas is chosen, not through imprudence, but through providence, since Christ willed to be betrayed by him, in order that thou, if thou art forsaken by thy friend, or even if betrayed by thy friend, mayest bear patiently the error of thy judgment, the loss of thy kindness.” (See S. Jerome on Is. 28:1.) “Woe to the crown of pride, the drunkards of Ephraim, and the fading flower, the glory of his exaltation” (Vulg.), which the Sept. translates, “Woe to the crown of wrong, the mercenaries of Ephraim, a flower falling from glory upon the top of the fat mountain.” S. Jerome understands this mystically of Judas, the traitor; “who was,” he says, “of the tribe of Ephraim, of one of its villages, Iscarioth. He indeed sold the Lord for a price. He indeed, as a flower, fell from the glory of his Apostleship upon that most fat mountain of which we suppose it is spoken, ‘Jacob hath eaten and drunk, and is filled; and the beloved hath grown fat and kicked:’ or, according to the Heb., upon ‘the valley of the fat ones,’ i.e., Gethsemane, by which also is signified the name of the place in which Judas betrayed the Lord.” After a little, he adds, “The traitor was drunken, not with wine, but with avarice, and the incurable madness of asps, even the food of the devil; who, after the morsel, entered into him and wholly devoured him, because ‘his prayer was turned into sin,’ and not, even in repentance, had he the fruit of salvation.”
[5] Hos duodecim misit Jesus, praecipiens eis, dicens : In viam gentium ne abieritis, et in civitates Samaritanorum ne intraveritis :
These twelve Jesus sent: commanding them, saying: Go ye not into the way of the Gentiles, and into the city of the Samaritans enter ye not.
Note, first, Christ combines together all his Apostles, and assigns to each his companion, making six pairs. With Peter He joins Andrew, and so on; that each may derive help and confirmation from his companion in his preaching. And for this cause He sent them out two and two (Luc. 10:1.)
Again, among His Apostles, Christ chose three pairs of brethren, viz., Peter and Andrew, James and John, James the Less and Jude; some add Simon the Canaanite who, they say, was a brother of James and Jude. He did this to teach how dear to Him is brotherly love, according to that saying in Eccles. (25:1): “In these things hath my spirit delight, which are approved before God and man, the concord of brethren, the love of neighbours, and a husband and wife agreeing together.” Also Prov. 18:19, “a brother who is helped by a brother is as a strong city.”
Observe, secondly, several of the Apostles were relations of Christ, as James and John, James the Less and Jude. For Christ chose His Apostles, not to be sleek and wealthy princes, but to endure labours, poverty, crosses, torments, and martyrdom. Whence He gave them abundance of good things—not temporal but spiritual—even as the order of charity requires, according to which it is right to wish and care for greater grace for parents and relations than for others.
I may add, it behoved the WORD, when He took our flesh, to unite those who were most near to Him in the flesh more closely to His Divinity also, by grace. And this He did, so that His mother was the holiest of all, then S. Joseph, after him Joachim and Anna, as His grandparents: also John the Baptist and his mother, James and John, James the Less, and Jude, as His relations and kinsfolk. For these, because by fleshly relationship they were nearer Christ’s humanity, so also were they brought into chosen connection with His Divinity through grace. Therefore this was not in Christ the fault of accepting persons, as it is in Prelates, who, contrary to what is right, burden rather than truly honour their nephews and kinsmen with dignities, prebends and riches.
Lastly, there were three chief Apostles, viz., Peter, James and John, whom Christ took as the witnesses of His transfiguration, His Passion in the Garden, and other secrets, whence these are, as it were, the pillars of the Church, and the Triumvirs of the Apostles.
Go not into the way of the Gentiles. Syriac has, of the profane: Way of the G. is a Hebraism for, to the Gentiles. Similar is Jer. 2:18. “And now what hast thou to do in the way of Egypt?” That is, “Why art thou going into Egypt?”
[6] sed potius ite ad oves quae perierunt domus Israel.
But go ye rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
This is the first precept of Christ, by which sending His Apostles forth to preach, He bids them go not to the Gentiles or the Samaritans, but to the Jews. The reason was, because they were the children of the Kingdom, and sons of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, to whom the Messiah, that is Christ, had been promised by God. Had not Christ acted thus, the Jews might have taken exception against him and the Apostles, and said, “Thou art not the true Messiah, for thou preachest the Gospel to the Gentiles and Samaritans. Our Messiah was promised by the Prophets to the Jews, not to the Gentiles.” This precept, however, was only temporary. It only lasted during the life of Christ on earth. After His Resurrection Christ sent His Apostles to evangelize the nations throughout the whole world. Then was taken away the distinction between Jews and Gentiles, and of both there was made one Fold and one Shepherd. So S. Jer., Chrys., and others. S. Paul puts the command of Christ in this verse in another form, when he says, “For I say that Christ Jesus was the Minister of the circumcision for the truth of God to confirm the promises made unto the fathers.”
[7] Euntes autem praedicate, dicentes : Quia appropinquavit regnum caelorum.
And going, preach, saying: The kingdom of heaven is at hand.
And as ye go, preach, saying, &c. This is the second and the chief command of Christ to His Apostles, viz., that they should traverse Judea, and preach the Kingdom of Heaven, and invite, yea compel men to come into it. It was as though Christ said, In a short time I will, by My death, open Heaven to men, which has been shut for so many thousands of years by Adam’s sin, and I will open the way of entrance into it. Invite all therefore to enter upon this way that they may gain the Kingdom. This was the sum and substance of Christ’s preaching.
[8] Infirmos curate, mortuos suscitate, leprosos mundate, daemones ejicite : gratis accepistis, gratis date.
Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out devils: freely have you received, freely give.
Heal the sick, &c. This is the third precept of Christ, by which He bids them use freely the power which had been given them of working miracles to persuade men to believe in Christ, that their souls might be healed of unbelief.
Freely ye have received, &c. For freely the Greek has, δωρεὰν, as a gift, gratis in the Vulgate. This is Christ’s fourth precept. By using the word gratis, he takes away the occasion of pride, says S. Chrys., since they know that they have not this power of themselves; but by God’s free gift have received it, without merit of their own. In like manner this word gratis excludes all avarice and simony, that they may not sell their miracles for money. Again, they are admonished to be liberal in exercising this power, keeping as the end in view the benefit of others, like fountains, which the more water they send forth abroad, the more they interiorly receive. This is what Isaiah foretold concerning Christ. “Ho! every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters. Come ye, buy wine and milk without money and without price.” For this liberality became the King of kings, that is Christ the Lord, and therefore He willed His Apostles to be altogether opposed to every appearance, yea, even shadow, of simony and covetousness, that they should not receive any gift, lest men should think they were seeking their own wealth, and so be turned away from the faith of Christ. The Apostles would have sinned and broken the command of Christ if they had received gifts on account of their preaching. Thus S. Hilarion, as S. Jerome testifies in his life, healed very many sick persons, but would not receive any gifts from them, not so much as a morsel of bread; for he was wont to say, “Gratis ye have received, gratis give.” He replied to a certain nobleman whose name was Orion, whom he had delivered from a legion of devils, and who urgently pressed him to receive a gift, at least that he might distribute it among the poor, “Be not grieved, my son, at what I do, for I do it for thy sake and my sake. If I should receive this I should offend God, and the legion would return to thee.”
A provincial council of Constantinople in a Synodical Epistle expounds, Gratis ye have received, &c., of the priesthood, that it must not be simoniacally sold.
Observe, the precise reason why the Apostles were bound to bestow gratis the Charismata given to them by God was not merely because they had received them gratis from God. For he who has received knowledge, or some natural skill infused into him by God, like Bezaleel, the architect of the Tabernacle,—such an one, I say, may lawfully sell it, and teach it to others for money, as some masters of arts do. The precise reason, therefore, is because this thing is so sublime, and of such a nature that it cannot be acquired by human industry, but can only be received by the free grace of God; because it is indeed divine, and therefore far surpassing and transcending all price. This is the meaning of gratis ye have received. Wherefore to wish to estimate it at a price, and to sell it, is to treat it unworthily and profane it. It is to do a grievous indignity to it and to God, from Whom it has its sanctity: and therefore it is the crime of simony and sacrilege.
You will say, Then by parity of reasoning, he who exchanges one sacred thing for another is guilty of simony by the law of nature, and by the Divine law, because he does not give it gratis. Adrian admits this (quodlib. 9 ad 4, couclus. lit. E.). But I reply by denying the consequence. For in this place, to give gratis is to give without temporal hire or reward. This may be collected from what follows: Provide (Gr. Possess) neither gold, &c. For things sacred have no temporal price. And this is neither given nor received when one sacred thing is exchanged for another. So SS. Jer., Chrys., and others. (See Lessius, Tract. de Simonia, dub. 3.) Let religious and apostolic men follow closely this precept of Christ, for it very greatly conduces to His glory and the salvation of souls, as I have learned by an experience of forty years. S. Ignatius, the Founder of our Society (Reg. 17, Sum. Constit.) thus wisely lays down: “Let all who are under obedience to this Society remember that they ought to give gratis what they have gratis received, neither asking nor receiving pay, nor any alms, by which masses, or confessions, or sermons, or any other offices whatsoever of the things which the Society, according to our institution, is able to exercise, may seem to be compensated; that thus it may be able to advance with greater freedom both in the Divine service and the edification of our neighbours.”
Once, when S. Antony was on a journey, he saw an immense piece of gold. He admired the size of the glittering piece of metal, and ran as fast as he could to his mountain, as though he were running from a fire. Whenever money was offered to S. Vincent Ferrar as he was preaching through the villages, he refused it, and forbade his companions accepting it. S. Francis was wont to say that “money to the servants of God is nothing else than a devil, and a poisonous snake.”
[9] Nolite possidere aurum, neque argentum, neque pecuniam in zonis vestris :
Do not possess gold, nor silver, nor money in your purses:
Provide neither gold, &c., in your purses, Gr. in your girdles; for formerly they attached purses to their girdles, or wove them into their girdles. This was especially the case with soldiers and travellers. Whence the proverb, “He has lost his girdle,” said of him who has no money. Hence also coffers have been called girdles.
This is the fifth precept of Christ given to His Apostles concerning not possessing money. It was given for three reasons.
1. That being free from all earthly affections and cares, they should depend entirely upon God’s providence.
2. That they should be wholly intent upon preaching the Gospel, and give all their thoughts and cares to that.
3. That they might give to all nations an illustrious example of simplicity, poverty, contempt of riches, whereby—by means of this angelical life—they might draw all men to love and admire them. There is nothing, says Euthymius, which makes men so admirable as a frugal life, and to be contented with whatever comes to hand.
Symbolically, S. Jerome says, “gold, we often read, is to be taken for understanding, silver for speech, brass for voice. These cannot be received by us from others, but are given to us as a possession by the Lord.”
You will inquire whether those precepts of Christ concerning not possessing money, shoes, staff, and two tunics, or coats, were given to the Apostles in perpetuity, or were only temporary? S. Hilary, S. Jerome, S. Ambrose, S. Austin, and after them Maldonatus, are of opinion that they were perpetual; so that the Apostles in all their travels, in which they preached to the Gentiles, were tied to this form and species of poverty. The common opinion is that these precepts were only temporarily binding, that is to say, only whilst they were preaching to the Jews during Christ’s earthly life.
First, I say that this latter opinion is the correct one. It is plainly so from Christ’s saying, Go ye not into the way of the Gentiles, &c. For the Messiah must be first shown to the Jews, that if they received Him, the Gentiles might the more readily accept Him.
2. It is plain from Luc. 22:35, where Christ, speaking retrospectively of this mission and precept, says, When I sent you without bag and scrip and shoes, lacked ye anything? And they said, Nothing. He saith unto them, But now. &c. This word now shows that he was giving them a different precept, viz., that they should take a scrip, and buy a sword.
3. The Apostles in going to the Gentiles were preaching to infidels who were likely at first to be prejudiced against them as enemies of their gods, and who would not deign to give them food and hospitality. Before, therefore, they could persuade them to believe, they must provide themselves with the means of living, especially as they were often accompanied by a large number of catechists, interpreters, and other coadjutors. Thus, when Paul was going to Jerusalem, there accompanied him Sopater, Aristarchus, Secundus, Timotheus, Caius, Tychicus and Trophimus (See Acts, 20:4).
The Apostles were accustomed to allow a pious and wealthy woman to accompany them, to provide for them. This clearly appears from 1. Cor., 9:5: “Have we not power to carry about a woman, a sister (Vulg.), even as the other Apostles?” Christ Himself did the same thing, who permitted Magdalen, and other pious women whom he had converted, to accompany Him to provide for Himself and His followers (see Luc. 8:3). Yea, Judas had coffers (Vulg.), and bore what was put into them. And in the 6th of John, the disciples say to Christ: “Whence shall we buy bread that these may eat?”
You may say that Christ did not Himself keep the precept which He gave to His Apostles concerning not carrying money. I answer that Christ did observe it at the commencement of His ministry. He was then without any coffers, as appears from His words, “Foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man hath not where to lay His head.” It was with the object of providing for His twelve Apostles and seventy Disciples, whom He took about with Him, that He permitted Judas to carry coffers (Vulg.). For who could exercise hospitality towards so great a number of people? Who could, or would, sustain them for a continuance? But Christ sent His Apostles throughout Judea only in pairs. And two people could easily find hospitality from anyone piously disposed. In like manner when S. Francis Xavier was going to the Indies, be took no provision for his journey into the ship. Indeed, he refused what was offered him by the King of Portugal. He daily begged his bread from the sailors and passengers, because he was alone. But now, at the present time, when fifties and hundreds from the Society of Jesus and other Orders are often sent out to preach the Gospel in the Indies, it is only right that they should carry some provision with them for their voyage. For where are the sailors or passengers who could or would supply all these persons during a six months’ voyage? So S. Vincent Ferrer (1350-1419), who went through the countries of Europe in an apostolic manner evangelizing, was wont to have hundreds, yea thousands of people accompanying him. And so he had his purveyors, who provided food and other necessaries for all; for the ordinary inhabitants could not have borne the burden.
I say, however, in the second place, that these precepts, so far as their substance and scope are concerned, which were to exhibit a mind free from covetousness, and to place before it a great contempt of all earthly things, and a firm trust in the providence of God; these are the things, I say, which Christ wished to impress upon His Apostles by these precepts. And these the Apostles in very deed fulfilled, when, having received the Holy Ghost at Pentecost, they thought, spoke, and treated of nothing except heavenly things. And so these precepts of Christ, not merely as to their scope, but as to their very letter, whenever and wherever it was possible to do so, were fulfilled by them. Yea, to these precepts Paul added the determination that he would not receive from the faithful the expense of his maintenance, but would procure a livelihood by the labour of his hands. And this is all that is meant by the Fathers who were cited at the commencement of this discussion. S. Francis imitated this example of Apostolic poverty when he sent out his brethren two by two to preach, and gave them this as their only viaticum, “Cast thy care upon the Lord, and He will nourish thee.”
[10] non peram in via, neque duas tunicas, neque calceamenta, neque virgam : dignus enim est operarius cibo suo.
Nor scrip for your journey, nor two coats, nor shoes, nor a staff; for the workman is worthy of his meat.
Nor scrip, &c. The scrip is a pouch, or traveller’s bag, in which wayfarers put bread and food to eat on the way, hence the adage, “The beggar’s bag is not full.”
Neither two coats: understand two pairs of coats, or tunics, says S. Thomas, for a change, that you may put on, now one, now the other. For Christ does not here forbid the putting on of two garments at the same time on account of cold or other necessity, for Christ Himself was clothed with two garments, as appears from John 19:23. So S. Jerome, &c.
More simply, Lyra, Toletus and Barradi understand a single tunic to be here meant. For one coat in so hot a country as Judea is sufficient. Wherefore Christ had only one outer coat, for that seamless garment was an inner one, or a shirt. Over the outer garment it was afterwards the custom to throw a pallium, or cloke.
Neither shoes: not two pair of shoes, say S. Thomas and Cajetan: but the more simple way of taking it is to understand that such shoes as cover the whole foot are forbidden, not sandals, which only protect the soles of the feet from being hurt by stones. S. Mark (6:9) shows that these were allowed to the Apostles. For Palestine is a rough and stony country as well as a hot one. So S. Jer., Enthym., Tolet, Jansen, and S. Austin understand the passage. But shoes confine and, as it were, imprison the feet, and make them less expeditious in travelling, and sometimes too hot. Christ then forbade shoes to His Apostles, as they were travelling about Palestine, that they might make greater expedition in their journeys, and to take away undue care of their feet. Shoes are called by the Greeks ὑποδήματα, i.e., what is bound, or tied, because they were formerly bound or tied with strings above, as is still the custom with many. That the Apostles after Christ’s Ascension made use of sandals, appears from Acts 12, where the Angel says to Peter, Bind on thy sandals. Of such a kind is S. Andrew’s sandal in the Cathedral of Treves, which has been shown me by the Reverend, the Provost. Such were the sandals worn by the prophets Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel, as appears from their ancient pictures preserved at Rome in the Codex of the Emperor Basil Porphyrogenitus, in the Vatican. Such too may be seen in the picture of the Blessed Virgin, painted by S. Luke, and preserved at Rome. The Child Jesus is there represented in her arms. He is shod with sandals which are bound about the feet above, with strings, in such a way that the toes and upper portion of the feet are entirely uncovered. Nothing is covered except the sole of the foot.
Many of the early Christians followed this example of Christ and His Apostles, and went without shoes. Lucian shows this in his Philopator, where describing a Christian’s dress, he says, “He wears a ragged cloke, without hat or shoes, with unkempt hair.” Similarly Plato, says S. Jerome, “bade that the two extremities of the body, the head and the feet should be left uncovered, that they may not become tender. For when these are strong, the other parts of the body will be robust.” On the cloke of the Christians there was the old proverb, Gone from the toga to the pallium, meaning that a man had gone over from heathenism to Christianity. For heathens wore the toga, Christians the pallium, or cloke. Whence Tertullian (lib. de Pallio c. 5), “we say nothing about shoes, about the peculiar torment of the toga, the most unclean protection of the feet, albeit false enough, For how is it not expedient that the barefooted man should be stift with cold and heat, like the crook-footed man in shoes! Vast assistance is there in walking from the cobbler’s stall! The inventors had an eye to the votaries of Venus!” Very excellently says Clement of Alexandria (lib. 2. Pædagog. cap. 11), “Most becoming is it in a man not to have any shoes, unless he be a soldier. For a man that is shod has no small resemblance to one who is fettered. It is the best kind of exercise, and conduces to health and expedition to go with naked feet, unless necessity prevent: but if we are not going on a journey, and are unable to walk with bare feet, we must use the sort of shoes which the Athenians call Κονίποδας, because, as I conjecture, the feet are near the ground. John is a sufficient witness of the advantage of being lightly and simply shod. He said that he was not worthy to unloose the latchet of the Lord’s sandals. He had no finely worked shoes, who exhibited to the Hebrews the pattern of true philosophy.”
Symbolically, S. Austin (lib. 2. de Consens. Evangel, c. 30.), says, “Mark saith they were to be shod with sandals, by which the foot is neither covered above, nor yet bare on the ground. For verily it was the Lord’s will that the Gospel should neither be hid, nor yet that it should rely upon earthly advantages.” The Gloss., “By an Apostle must be cast away gold, that is, worldly wisdom; silver, that is, eloquence; money in the purse, that is, hidden wisdom; a scrip, that is the burden of the world; shoes, that is, the examples of dead works.”
Nor yet staves. The Gr., followed by the Vulg., has staff in the singular. You will say, Mark (6:9), says differently, viz., a staff only. I reply, Mark is speaking of the Heb. mischan, a rod, or a staff, on which to lean. For this was the symbol of poor travellers, who relieve their weariness by leaning on a staff. This was how Jacob journeyed to Mesopotamia. But Matthew is here speaking of matte, i.e., a rod for defence, or punishment. This was what Christ forbade His Apostles carrying. Observe that the Greek ῥάβδος, a rod, has three meanings. First. The symbol of honour and power, such as the sceptre of monarchs, the fasces of consuls, the rod of prætors and judges. This is called in Hebrew, scebet, whence sceptre. As David says in Ps. 2, “Thou shalt rule them with a rod (scebet) of iron.” And Ps. 45, “The sceptre of Thy kingdom is a right sceptre.” And Is. 14:5, “The Lord hath broken the staff of the wicked, and the sceptre of the rulers.” Hence also: ῥαδοφόροι, that is, rod-bearers, was the name given to lictors and officers, by whom the magistrates executed their sentences. The rod which they bore was the sign of their office. So also the Jewish Doctors were wont to carry a rod, or wand in their hands, says Lyra, as the mark of their teaching, in the same way that schoolmasters now make use of a ferula. Christ forbids this practice to His Apostles. He bids them carry before them modesty, humility; not imperious authority and power. It was such a rod as that of which I have been speaking that Moses, the lawgiver of the stiff-necked Israelites, bore, and with which he smote Pharaoh with the ten plagues, and chastised the rebellious Jews. Christ, whose law is the spirit of love and sweetness, hath another rod.
Second. Ῥάβδος, rod, or staff, hath the same meaning as matte, in the sense of a rod with which you strike or beat a person, as teachers scourge their scholars. Thus Ps. 89, “I will visit their iniquities with a rod.” And Exod. 21:20, “He who smiteth his manservant, or his maidservant with a rod.” So the arms of rustics are sticks and rods. David went against Goliath with no other arms than his staff and his sling. And Ezek. (c. 39), speaking of the slaughter of Gog, says “They shall burn the arms, the shield, and the spear, the bows and arrows, the staves and the javelins.” Also Is. 20, “Asshur, the rod of mine anger.” So that in this place by staff, arms of any kind are forbidden by Christ to His Apostles. He bids them trust not in arms but in God, and that they should be preachers of Divine protection, and propagate the faith, not by fighting, but by suffering. “For he who has the Lord for his help, what need hath he of a staff?” says S. Jerome.
Third. Ῥάβδος signifies mischan, a staff on which to lean. This Christ allowed to His Apostles.
Lastly. Johannes Alba (lib. elect p. 337), by staff here understands one on which cut some mark or sign of mutual friendship, so that it was what was called a tessera, or pledge of friendship, which people were accustomed to show when they went to personally unknown friends, that they might be received to hospitality by them. Wherefore when men renounced friendship, they were said to break the tessera of friendship. So that Christ’s meaning in this place would be, “Rely not upon human help, bear not the tessera of friendship as the guarantee for your reception. God will provide you with hospitality.” But this sense is a strained one.
Symbolically, the staff or rod denotes the power of the Apostles. S. Austin.
The workman is worthy, &c. He gives the reason why He forbids the carrying a viaticum. “Let preachers,” says S. Chrys., “receive their support from the people, but their reward or their hire from God.” In other places this support is called wages, or hire, from the similitude of those workmen, to whom food is given as a part of their wages. Yet in the case of preachers it is not properly wages, for preaching far transcends all price, and all human wages. S. Paul (in 1 Cor. 9) calls this support of preachers, their pay or stipend, from the similitude of soldiers, to whom it is not given as wages; for what is it in comparison with the perils they undergo? but as the support which is their due. “Labour therefore in the Lord’s vineyard, O ye Apostles, and preach zealously. Be not anxious about sustenance, about food and raiment, for God will abundantly provide for you either by your hosts, or from some other of the rich treasures of His Providence.”
[11] In quamcumque autem civitatem aut castellum intraveritis, interrogate, quis in ea dignus sit : et ibi manete donec exeatis.
And into whatsoever city or town you shall enter, inquire who in it is worthy, and there abide till you go thence.
Into whatsoever city, &c. Worthy, that is, apt and meet to receive the Gospel, one who fears God, and leads a good life, who desires salvation, who shows hospitality to poor and pious people, especially preachers; one who knows, as S. Jerome says, “that he is receiving a favour, rather than conferring one.”
This is the sixth precept which Christ gives to His Apostles concerning hospitality, when they were going to preach to the Jews, that they should not lodge with any one who was opposed to faith in Christ, or of evil report, lest his infamy should bring discredit upon themselves. “A host,” says S. Jerome, “should be chosen for his reputation among the people, and from his character with his neighbours; lest the worthiness of preaching should be besmirched by the infamy of the preacher’s host.”
And there abide, &c. Why? First, lest if the Apostles should go about from one host to another, they should appear changeable and inconstant. So S. Chrys. Secondly, not to grieve their first host, and do him a dishonour by migrating to one worthier. Thirdly, lest any one should call them gluttonous, seekers after the luxurious boards of the rich. It must be understood that this precept applies only when they did not remain very long in the same place, so as to become burdensome to their host; for in such a case charity and prudence would recommend a change of hostel.
And when you come into the house, salute it, saying: Peace be to this house.
When ye enter into a house, &c. This was the ancient method of salutation among the Hebrews, by which they prayed for the peace and prosperity of the master of the house and his family. The Hebrews understood it of temporal blessings, but Christ of spiritual. For Christ came to the world to make peace between God, man, and angels. Wherefore when He was born the angels sang, “Peace on earth, to men of goodwill” (Vulg.).
This is the seventh precept—that they should pray for peace for their host, and by their prayer discover if he were worthy and suitable. The Apostles, therefore, pray for peace for their host, first with God, secondly with his family and neighbours and all other persons. S. Chrys. says that this salutation of the Apostles was not a mere naked and verbal one, but real and efficacious, and had the power of conferring upon their host (if he were worthy) actual peace—that is to say, grace, faith, and salvation.
[13] Et siquidem fuerit domus illa digna, veniet pax vestra super eam : si autem non fuerit digna, pax vestra revertetur ad vos.
And if that house be worthy, your peace shall come upon it; but if it be not worthy, your peace shall return to you.
And if the house be worthy, &c. That is, if—as He had said a little before—the host be worthy, that is, a lover of peace and salvation.
But if it be not worthy, &c. If the host refuse and reject your salutation of peace, your peace shall return unto you—Gr. ἐπιστραφήτω, let it return, in the sense of shall return. For the Heb. often uses the imperative instead of the future. Note the personification. Peace is here introduced as a person rejected by a host, and going elsewhere, and carrying the Apostles with him. If the host rejects your salutation of peace, your salutation shall not therefore be unfruitful, for there shall come to yourselves what you prayed for him, that is, peace and all prosperity. Thus shall your peace, repulsed by this unworthy host, come back to you, and lead you to some worthy host who will eagerly receive you and believe your preaching. There is a similar mode of expression in Ps. 35:12, 13, to which Christ here makes an allusion: “They rewarded me evil for good,” &c.; “And my prayer shall return into mine own bosom.” So Eusebius, S. Athanasius, and Hesychius on this Psalm expound it. The latter says, “Into the bosom of Christ, i.e., the Church of the Gentiles, the prayer of Christ (turned away by the Jews) falleth.” This is what S. Paul said to the Jews: “It behoved that the Word of God should be spoken first unto you, but since ye reject it, and count yourselves unworthy of eternal life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles.”
[14] Et quicumque non receperit vos, neque audierit sermones vestros : exeunte foras de domo, vel civitate, excutite pulverem de pedibus vestris.
And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words: going forth out of that house or city shake off the dust from your feet.
And whosoever shall not receive you, &c.… the dust of your feet. Luke and Mark add, for a testimony against them. Abul. says that the Apostles were to do this twice, once in the city and once outside the city. They were to do it by striking their sandals against the ground, or by knocking, or rubbing them upon a stone, to brush off the dust.
You will ask, Why was this? 1. S. Jerome says, dust is shaken off as a testimony of labour, to show that they had entered the city, and the Apostolic preaching had reached it. And as Theophylact.: “They testify that for their sakes they had made so long a journey, and it had profited them nothing.”
2. Shake off the dust, as impious, on account of the impious inhabitants, that ye may signify that they are, as it were, anathema, and that ye will have nothing, not even their dust in common with them, as being doomed to eternal condemnation. So S. Jer. Theophyl., Ambrose, &c.
3. That this dust shaken off may be a witness in the day of judgment against their unbelief and wickedness. And this is why Luke adds, for a testimony to them, i.e., against them.
By this, which is the 8th precept of Christ, He tacitly bids His Apostles be of good courage, and not to be distressed, when they saw the Jews rejecting the Gospel, but as God’s avengers to rise up boldly against them.cc
Cf [19] In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread till thou return to the earth, out of which thou wast taken: for dust thou art, and into dust thou shalt return.
In sudore vultus tui vesceris pane, donec revertaris in terram de qua sumptus es : quia pulvis es et in pulverem reverteris.
[Gen iii]
Saint Luke - Chapter 9
[1] Convocatis autem duodecim Apostolis, dedit illis virtutem et potestatem super omnia daemonia, et ut languores curarent.
Then calling together the twelve apostles, he gave them power and authority over all devils, and to cure diseases.
[2] Et misit illos praedicare regnum Dei, et sanare infirmos.
And he sent them to preach the kingdom of God, and to heal the sick.
[3] Et ait ad illos : Nihil tuleritis in via, neque virgam, neque peram, neque panem, neque pecuniam, neque duas tunicas habeatis.
And he said to them: Take nothing for your journey; neither staff, nor scrip, nor bread, nor money; neither have two coats.
[4] Et in quamcumque domum intraveritis, ibi manete, et inde ne exeatis.
And whatsoever house you shall enter into, abide there, and depart not from thence.
[5] Et quicumque non receperint vos : exeuntes de civitate illa, etiam pulverem pedum vestrorum excutite in testimonium supra illos.
And whosoever will not receive you, when ye go out of that city, shake off even the dust of your feet, for a testimony against them.
[6] Egressi autem circuibant per castella evangelizantes, et curantes ubique.
And going out, they went about through the towns, preaching the gospel, and healing everywhere.
Totus tuus ego sum
Et omnia mea tua sunt;
Tecum semper tutus sum:
Ad Jesum per Mariam
Ad Jesum per Mariam
No comments:
Post a Comment