{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_22295/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_22295","id":"gutenberg_22295","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/22295","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Religion/Spirituality","Contemplation","Prayer","Thomas, Aquinas, Saint, 1225?-1274"],"text":"Produced by Charlene Taylor, Ted Garvin, David King, and\nthe Online Distributed Proofreading Team at\nhttp://www.pgdp.net\n\n\n\n\n\nON PRAYER AND THE CONTEMPLATIVE LIFE\n\nBY\n\nS. THOMAS AQUINAS\n\nBY THE\n\nVERY REV. HUGH POPE, O.P., S.T.M.\n\nAUTHOR OF \"THE CATHOLIC STUDENT'S 'AIDS' TO THE BIBLE,\" ETC.\n\nWITH A PREFACE BY\n\nVERY REV. VINCENT McNABB, O.P., S.T.L.\n\nR. & T. WASHBOURNE, LTD.\nPATERNOSTER ROW, LONDON\nAND AT MANCHESTER, BIRMINGHAM, AND GLASGOW\n\n1914 _All rights reserved_\n\n\nNihil Obstat.\n  J.P. ARENDZEN, D.D.,\n    Censor Deputatus.\n\nImprimatur.\n  EDM. CAN. SURMONT,\n    Vicarius Generalis.\n\nWestmonasterii,\n    _Die 20 Septembris, 1913._\n\n\n  \"Te Trina Deitas unaque poscimus\n  Sic nos Tu visita, sicut Te colimus:\n  Per Tuas semitas duc nos quo tendimus,\n  Ad lucem, quam inhabitas!\"\n\n  S. Thomas's Hymn for Matins on the\n  _Feast of Corpus Christi_.\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE\n\n\nThe present generation in the fervour of its repentance is like to cast\noff too much. So many false principles and hasty deductions have been\noffered to its parents and grandparents in the name of science that it\nis becoming unduly suspicious of the scientific method.\n\nA century ago men's minds were sick unto death from too much science and\ntoo little mysticism. To-day the danger is that even the drawing-rooms\nare scented with a mysticism that anathematizes science.\n\nAt no time since the days of S. Thomas was the saint's scientific method\nmore lacking. Everywhere there is need for a mystic doctrine, which in\nitself is neither hypnotism nor hysteria, and in its expression is\nneither superlative nor apostrophic, lest the hungered minds of men die\nof surfeit following on starvation.\n\nThe message and method of S. Thomas are part of that strange rigidity of\nthe thirteenth century which is one of the startling paradoxes of the\nages of faith. It is surely a consolation that these ages of a faith\nwhich moved mountains, or at least essayed to remove the Turk, were\nminded to express their beliefs in the coat of mail of human reason! The\ngiants of those days, who in the sphere of literature were rediscovering\nverse and inventing rhyme, and who in every sphere of knowledge were\nbringing forth the sixteenth and nineteenth centuries, were not so\nblinded by the white light of vision as to disown the Greeks. They made\nthe _Ethics_ of Aristotle the four-square walls of the city of God; they\nexpressed the mysteries of the Undivided Three in terms of the\nSyllogism. Thus they refused to cut themselves off from the aristocracy\nof human genius. They laid hands--but not violent hands--on the heritage\nof the ages. No philosophers have ever equalled their bold and\nlowly-minded profession of faith in the solidarity of human reason. For\nthis cause S. Thomas, who is their spokesman, has now become an absolute\nnecessity of thought. Unless the great Dumb Ox is given a hearing, our\nmysticism will fill, not the churches, but the asylums and the little\nself-authorized Bethels where every man is his own precursor and\nmessiah.\n\nThat S. Thomas is to be accepted as a master of mysticism may be judged\nfrom the following facts in the life of a mystic of the mystics, S. John\nof the Cross:\n\n\"It has been recorded that during his studies he particularly relished\npsychology; this is amply borne out by his writings. S. John was not\nwhat one could term a scholar. He was, however, intimately acquainted\nwith the _Summa_ of S. Thomas Aquinas, as almost every page of his works\nproves.... He does not seem to have ever applied himself to the study of\nthe Fathers.... As has already been stated, the whole work (_The Ascent\nof Mount Carmel_) is based upon the view S. Thomas Aquinas takes of the\nessence and operations of the senses and of the faculties of the soul,\nand upon his treatise on the virtues.\"[1]\n\nS. Thomas hardly needs an imprimatur after six centuries of full trust.\nBut in the hard matters of mysticism, which he has treated as a scholar\nshould, it is reassuring to know that he has the approval, not only of\nthe scholars, but of the mystics.\n\nVINCENT McNABB, O.P.\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS\n\nINTRODUCTION\n\nQUESTION LXXXI\nOF THE VIRTUE OF RELIGION\n\nQUESTION LXXXII\nOF DEVOTION\n\nQUESTION LXXXIII\nOF PRAYER\n\nSUPPLEMENT--QUESTION LXXII\nOF THE PRAYERS OF THE SAINTS WHO ARE IN HEAVEN\n\nQUESTION CLXXIX\nOF THE DIVISION OF LIFE INTO THE ACTIVE AND THE CONTEMPLATIVE\n\nQUESTION CLXXX\nOF THE CONTEMPLATIVE LIFE\n\nQUESTION CLXXXI\nOF THE ACTIVE LIFE\n\nQUESTION CLXXXII\nOF THE COMPARISON BETWEEN THE ACTIVE AND THE CONTEMPLATIVE LIFE\n\nQUESTION CLXXXVI\nON THE RELIGIOUS STATE\n\nINDEX\n\nINDEX OF TEXTS QUOTED OR EXPLAINED\n\n\n\n\nINTRODUCTION\n\n\nThe pages which follow call for little introduction. S. Thomas has left\nus no formal treatise on Mystical Theology, though his teachings on this\nsubject have been collected from his various works and combined to form\nsuch a treatise. Especially noteworthy is the work of the Spanish\nDominican Valgornera.[2] No such synthesis has been attempted here. We\nhave simply taken from the _Summa Theologica_ the treatises on\n_Religion_, on _Devotion_, _Prayer_, and the _Contemplative Life_, and\npresented them in an English dress. When occasion offered we have added\nto each portion appropriate passages from S. Augustine, S. Thomas's\nmaster, and more rarely from the _Commentary_ on the _Summa_ by the\nillustrious Cardinal Cajetan.\n\nAnd we have been led to do this for several reasons. The Mystical life\nis the life of union with God, and it is based essentially on Prayer and\nContemplation. But prayer and contemplation, though simple in\nthemselves, are yet fraught with difficulties and dangers unless we be\nwisely guided. And as Father Faber shrewdly says: when we ask for\ninstruction in these things, let us by all means make appeal to those\nwhose names begin with S--let us, in other words, go to God's Saints.\nAnd the reason is simple: these Saints are no mere idle sign-posts who\npoint the way but stand still themselves; they themselves have been\nwhere they would have us go; they speak from no mere theoretical\nknowledge; they themselves have tasted and seen that the Lord is sweet!\n\nFurther, it would have been easy to cull from S. Thomas's writings the\nsalient points of his teaching on these points, and to have presented\nthem in an attractive form. But had we done so the teachings of the\nSaint would have lost much of their force, and readers might well have\ndoubted at times whether they really had before them the mind of S.\nThomas or that of the translator. It is preferable to read the Bible\nthan what men have said about the Bible. Unfortunately, it is the\nfashion nowadays to consider S. Thomas's writings \"out of date\"! If the\nperusal of these pages shall have induced some few at least to go to the\noriginal and study it for themselves they will have more than fulfilled\nthe translator's desires.\n\nAnother reason which has weighed much with the translator and encouraged\nhim to undertake this task has been the suddenly awakened interest in\nMysticism and Mystical studies during the last decade. It has become the\nfashion to talk about Mysticism, even to pose as Mystics, and--need it\nbe said?--those who talk the most on such subjects are those who know\nthe least. For those who have entered into the secret of the King are\never the most reticent on such matters. At the same time we may welcome\nthis recent development, if only as a set-off against the Spiritualism\nand occultism which have played such havoc with souls during a space of\nover fifty years. The human soul, \"naturally Christian,\" as Tertullian\nwould say, is also naturally Divine in the sense that, as S. Augustine\nso often insists, no rest is possible for it save in God. Now those who\nare familiar with the _Summa Theologica_ are aware that _Union with God_\nis its keynote, or rather is the dominant note which rings out clear\nagain and again with its ever-repeated _Sursum Corda_! It is this that\ngives such special value to the treatises here presented on Prayer and\nthe Contemplative Life. They flow from the pen of one who was literally\nsteeped in God and Divine things, and who is speaking to us of things\nwhich he had himself tasted and seen. It is this that gives such\nsimplicity and charm to the whole of his teaching. He is not\nexperimenting; he is not speaking of theories; he is portraying to us\nwhat was his everyday life.\n\nPerhaps one of the commonest errors regarding the Spiritual life is the\nconfusion between the ordinary and the extraordinary ways of God. For\nhow many does not the Contemplative Life mean the life of ecstasy and\nvision with which we are familiar in the lives of the Saints? For S.\nThomas, on the contrary, the Contemplative Life is but the natural life\nof a man who is serving God and who devotes a certain portion of his\ntime to the study and contemplation of Divine things. Ecstasy and vision\nhe treats of in another place. They occupy a sphere apart. They belong\nto God's extraordinary dealings with favoured souls, and while they\npresuppose prayer and contemplation on the part of those so visited they\nthemselves form no integral part of the Contemplative Life; indeed, they\nare the exception. Hence in these pages we shall find nought touching\nSupernatural manifestations, such as visions, ecstasies, and\nrevelations; but we shall find what is of far greater use to us--a\nCatechism on Devotion, Prayer, and Contemplation.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe main features of the Life of S. Thomas of Aquin are known to most of\nthose who are likely to read this book. His life at first sight seems of\nsuch an even tenor that there is but little to record. Yet when we\npenetrate beneath the surface we realize that he lived in stirring days,\nand that his short span of fifty years was passed in the full light of\nthe world of the thirteenth century. Thomas was born in the beginning of\nthe year 1225 in the castle of Rocca-Secca, the ancestral home of the\nCounts of Aquino, in the kingdom of Sicily. His future glory was\nforetold to his mother, the Countess Theodora, by a hermit of that\nneighbourhood who also foretold that his parents would endeavour to make\nhim a monk in the Benedictine Abbey of Monte Cassino, but that God had\nother designs for him, since he was to be a Friar Preacher, a member of\nthe Order of the great S. Dominic who had just gone to his reward. The\nprophecy was fulfilled to the letter. At the early age of five years he\nwas sent to the Abbey to be educated among the young nobles of the day,\nas was then the custom. Even thus early he showed a remarkable maturity\nof character, and his biographer, William of Tocco, dwells with delight\non the calm reserve of his childish days and on that eager seeking after\nGod which was to be his future glory.[3]\n\nFrom Monte Cassino Thomas passed to Naples to complete his studies. Here\nhe became conscious of his vocation, and offered himself to the\nDominicans. The Prior of the convent at Naples at that time was Father\nJohn of S. Julian, who later became Patriarch of Jerusalem[4]; he gave\nthe habit of the Order to Thomas, who was then but fourteen years of\nage. His parents were indignant at this step, and did all in their power\nto shake his determination. Fearing their recourse to the violent\nmethods then so common, the Dominicans sent Thomas to the convent of\nSanta Sabina at Rome. But S. Thomas's brothers, at their mother's\nbidding, seized upon the young man and carried him off in his religious\nhabit to his mother who kept him imprisoned for nearly two years.[5]\nDuring this time of anxiety nothing disturbed the Saint's equanimity,\nand he made good use of his time by studying the Bible, the _Book of the\nSentences_--the Theological Manual of those days--and also Aristotle's\nphilosophical treatises. It was at this time that the diabolical attempt\nupon his virtue was made--an attempt which the Saint resisted\neffectually; in reward for his constancy he was miraculously girded with\na cincture by two Angels from Heaven.[6] Failing in their attempt to\nshake his determination, his brothers permitted him to escape, and he\nreturned to the convent at Naples in 1245. Thence he was sent by his\nsuperiors to Rome, and shortly afterwards to Paris and Cologne to study\nunder Blessed Albert the Great. At Cologne he led the life of a simple\nstudent, a life of recollection, prayer, and study. But his\nextraordinary talents could not long remain hid. The post of Bachelor in\nthe famous House of Studies at Paris was vacant, and at the suggestion\nof Cardinal Hugo a S. Caro, himself a Dominican, S. Thomas was appointed\nby the Master-General of the Order to the vacant post. This was a blow\nto the Saint's humility, but he accepted it under obedience. The\nimpression made by his teaching was extraordinary, and the words of\nWilliam of Tocco on this point are worth transcribing: \"Erat enim novos\nin sua lectione movens articulos, novum modum et clarum determinandi\ninveniens, et novas reducens in determinationibus rationes: ut nemo qui\nipsum audisset nova docere, et novis rationibus dubia definire\ndubitaret, quod eum Deus novi luminis radiis illustrasset, qui statim\ntam certi c[oe]pisset esse judicii, ut non dubitaret novas opiniones\ndocere et scribere, quas Deus dignatus esset noviter inspirare.\" This\nnovelty in method was evidently remarkable, but, while provoking the\nattacks of some, it attracted an immense crowd to his lectures, and this\nnot simply by reason of the novelty which characterized them, but by\nreason of the supereminent sanctity of the teacher. \"Dilectus Deo!\"\ncries out his biographer. \"Qui scientiam tribuit; et acceptus hominibus,\nquibus quasi novis radiis veritatis illuxit.\"[7]\n\nIn 1253 or 1254 Thomas was, again much against his will, created Master\nin Sacred Theology, and the remaining twenty years of his life were\nwholly devoted to teaching, studying, and preaching, whether at Paris or\nat Naples. Dignities and honours were frequently offered him, but he\nsucceeded in avoiding them all. He felt that his vocation was to study\nand teach. And since his teaching was to be of things Divine, he felt\nthat he must needs be absorbed in such things, and that his life must be\nwholly spent with God. This feature of his life is insisted on by his\nbiographers: \"Men ever saw him of joyful mien, gentle and sweet, not\noccupying himself with worldly affairs, but ever given to study, to\nreading, to writing, and to prayer for the enlightening of the\nfaithful.\"[8] Thus we are told that when Brother Reginald, who had been\nBlessed Thomas's companion, returned from Fossa Nuova to Naples after\nthe Master's death to resume the lectures he had been giving there, he\nburst into tears as he stood before the Brethren, and said: \"Brothers, I\nwas forbidden by my Master to reveal during his life the marvels I had\nseen. One of those marvels was that his knowledge, which so wondrously\nsurpassed that of other men, was not due to any human skill, but to the\nmerits of his prayers. For whenever he would study, or dispute, or read,\nor write, or dictate, he would first betake himself to prayer in secret,\nand there with many tears would implore light wherewith to search\nrightly into the secret things of God. And by the merits of such prayer\nit came to pass that, whereas previous to his prayer he had been in\ndoubt about the subject of his study, he always returned from it\nillumined. And when any doubtful point occurred to him before he had had\nrecourse to prayer, he went to pray, and what had previously been\nobscure was then Divinely made clear to him.\"[9]\n\nTruly characteristic of our Saint are those three petitions he was wont\nto make: that he might never learn to love things of earth; that he\nmight never change his state of life; that God would reveal to him the\nstate of his brother Reginald, who had been put to death, unjustly, as\nThomas thought, by the Emperor Frederic. All three petitions were\ngranted, two of them, as he himself told Brother Reginald on his\ndeathbed, by the Blessed Virgin herself. \"She appeared to him,\" says\nWilliam of Tocco, \"and assured him regarding his life and his knowledge,\npromised him, too, that God would grant him whatsoever he should ask\nthrough her intercession, and told him, moreover, that he would never\nchange his state of life.\"[10]\n\nThe following story is well known, but is too illustrative of the\nSaint's character to be omitted: A dispute had arisen in the University\nof Paris regarding the Accidents of the Holy Eucharist, and the Doctors\nof the University decided to leave the decision with S. Thomas. The\nresponsibility was great, but the Saint according to his custom betook\nhimself to prayer and then wrote his answer to the difficulty. \"But\nsince he would not dare,\" says William of Tocco, \"to expound his opinion\nin the Schools before the Masters of the University without first\nconsulting Him of Whom he was treating and to Whom he had prayed that he\nmight teach correctly, he came to the altar and there spread out the\npages he had written before Him; then, lifting up his hands to the\nCrucifix, he prayed and said: 'O Lord Jesus Christ, Who art most truly\ncontained in this wondrous Sacrament and Who as Supreme Artificer ever\nwondrously workest, I seek to understand Thee in this Sacrament and to\nteach truly concerning Thee. Wherefore I humbly pray Thee that if what I\nhave written spring from Thee, and be true concerning Thee, then Thou\nwouldest enable me to declare it and clearly expound it. But if I have\nwritten ought which is not in harmony with Thy Faith and which accords\nnot with the Mysteries of this Sacrament, then I pray Thee that nought\nmay proceed from my mouth which deviates from the Catholic Faith.' Then\nthose who watched saw on a sudden Christ standing before the Saint and\non the paper he had written, and they heard Him say: 'Well hast thou\nwritten of Me in this Sacrament of My Body, and well and truly hast thou\nanswered the question put to thee, as far, that is, as it can be\nunderstood by man in this life, or expressed in human words.'\"[11]\n\nAnd it was ever the same throughout his life: in God he sought God.\nHence his incessant meditation on the Holy Scriptures; hence his\ndiligent study of the writings of the Fathers of the Church. \"Master,\"\nsaid a band of his students to him as they looked on Paris spread before\nthem--\"Master, see what a lovely city Paris is! Would you not like to be\nits owner?\" And with a Saint's simplicity he replied: \"Far rather would\nI have the Homilies of Chrysostom on S. Matthew! For if this city were\nmine then the task of governing it would take me away from the\ncontemplation of things Divine and deprive my soul of its\nconsolations!\"[12]\n\nAnd his companion Reginald has told us how he studied to know the things\nof God. For he tells us that when the Saint was occupied with his\nCommentary on Isaias and could not arrive at any satisfactory\nexplanation of a certain passage he gave himself up to fasting and\nprayer. Then one night Reginald heard voices in the Saint's cell, and\nwhilst he wondered what this might mean at that hour, S. Thomas came to\nhim and said: \"Reginald, get up, light a candle, and take the book in\nwhich you have been writing upon Isaias and make ready to write once\nmore.\" Then Reginald wrote whilst the Saint dictated as though he were\nreading out of a book, with such facility did he speak. And then, at\nReginald's insistent petition, he said to him: \"My son, you have seen\nthe affliction under which I have been of late owing to this passage of\nIsaias which I have just been expounding, and you know how I besought\nGod with tears that I might understand it. God, then, this very night\nhad pity upon me, and sent His Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul whom I\nhad prayed to intercede for me, and they have most fully explained it\nall!\"[13] How gladly would one know what passage of Isaias it was which\nwas thus Divinely interpreted!\n\nAnd so this truly marvellous life went on till the end drew near. Day by\nday he ascended the steps of the altar, his face bathed in tears; day by\nday he returned to his work more and more illumined regarding the\n_Mysterium Fidei_, and with his soul still more closely knit to its\nMaker. His ecstasies became more frequent, and in one of these he was\ntold that the close of his life was at hand. For it was at San Severino,\nnot far from Salerno, that he fell into so prolonged an ecstasy that his\nsister who was present appealed to Reginald to know what had happened to\nher brother. Even Reginald was astonished. \"He is frequently rapt in\nspirit,\" he said, \"but never before have I seen him thus abstracted!\"\n\"Then,\" says William of Tocco, \"Master Reginald went to him, and,\nplucking him by the cloak, roused him from this deep sleep of\ncontemplation. But he sighed and said: 'My son Reginald, I tell thee in\nsecret, and I forbid thee to reveal it to anyone during my life, the\nclose of my writing has come; for such things have been revealed to me\nthat all I have written and taught seems to me of small account. Hence I\nhope in my God that as there is an end to my writing, so too will\nspeedily come the end of my life.'\"[14]\n\nAnd S. Thomas was ready for the end, for not long previously, when he\nwas in the convent at Naples and was praying in the Church, there\nappeared to him Brother Romanus, whom he had left teaching at Paris.\nBrother Thomas said to him: \"Welcome! Whence dost thou come?\" But\nRomanus said to him: \"I have passed from this life, and I am allowed to\ncome to thee by reason of thy merits.\" Then Brother Thomas, summoning up\nhis courage, for he had been much disturbed by the sudden apparition,\nsaid to him: \"If it be pleasing to God, I adjure you by God to answer my\nquestions. First: How does it stand with me? and are my works pleasing\nto God?\" And the other answered: \"Thou art in a good state, and thy\nworks are pleasing to God.\" Then the Master continued: \"And what of\nthyself?\" And Romanus answered: \"I am in Eternal Life, but I was in\nPurgatory sixteen days because of some negligence of which I was guilty\nin the affair of a will which the Bishop of Paris entrusted to me for\nspeedy execution; but I, through mine own fault, was tardy in executing\nit.\" Lastly S. Thomas asked: \"What about that question we have so often\ndiscussed together: Do the habits we have acquired here abide with us\nwhen we are in our Fatherland?\" But the other replied: \"Brother Thomas,\nI see God, and you must ask me nought further on that question.\" But\nThomas at once said: \"Since you see God, tell me whether you see Him\nwith or without any intermediate image?\" But Romanus replied: \"_As we\nhave heard, so we have seen in the City of our God_,\"[15] and forthwith\ndisappeared. But the Master remained astonished at that marvellous and\nunwonted apparition, and filled with joy at his favourable replies. \"O\nBlessed Teacher!\" ejaculates William of Tocco, who has left us this\naccount, \"to whom Heaven's secrets were thus familiar, to whom Heaven's\ncitizens came with such sweet familiarity to lead him to those heavenly\nshores!\"[16]\n\nNor was this the only warning. For just as in earlier years at Paris he\nhad received Divine commendation for his writings, so now again at\nNaples. For Brother Dominic of Caserta tells us that at Naples he\nwatched S. Thomas praying at night. He saw him, he says, absorbed in\nprayer, and then lifted up into the air about the height of two cubits\nfrom the ground. And whilst for a long space he marvelled at this, he\nsuddenly heard this voice from the Crucifix: \"Thomas, well hast thou\nwritten of Me! What reward wilt thou have from Me for all thy labour?\"\nBut he replied: \"Lord, none save Thyself!\" At that time the Saint was\nengaged upon the _Third Part_ of the _Summa_, and was treating of the\nPassion and Resurrection of Christ. But after arriving at that point he\nwrote but little more by reason of the marvels that God had wondrously\nrevealed to him.[17]\n\nSince his soul, then, was thus united to God it is small wonder the\nBrethren saw him rapt in ecstasy and with his face bathed in tears as he\nstood in choir and sang the _Antiphon_ wont to be sung according to the\nDominican Office for Compline during Lent: \"_Ne projicias nos in tempore\nsenectutis: cum defecerit virtus nostra, ne derelinquas nos\nDomine_.\"[18]\n\nIn the year 1274 the Saint was summoned by Pope Gregory X. to the\nCouncil about to be held at Lyons. He set out, taking with him his\n_Treatise against the Errors of the Greek Schismatics_, for the great\nquestion which the Pope had at heart was the settlement of the Schism\nbetween the East and the West. But the Council was never to see Thomas,\nfor he fell ill when traversing the Campagna, and though he was able to\nreach the Cistercian Abbey of Fossa Nuova he reached it only to die.\n\"_This is my rest for ever and ever_,\" he said as he entered the gates.\n\"_Here will I dwell, for I have chosen it._\" And here, as he lay dying,\nhe expounded to the monks who stood round that most sublime of all the\nBooks of the Bible, the _Canticle of Canticles_: \"_Behold, my Beloved\nspeaketh to me: Arise, make haste, my love, my dove, my beautiful one,\nand come.... I sleep, and my heart watcheth; the voice of my Beloved Who\nis knocking!... My Beloved to me and I to Him Who feedeth among the\nlilies: till the Day break and the shadows retire!_\"\n\nAs the time of his summons drew on he asked for the Holy Viaticum. And,\nin the words of William of Tocco, \"when It was brought with devout\nreverence by the Abbot and the monks, he prostrated himself on the\nground, weak indeed in body but mighty in spirit, and so came to meet\nhis Lord with tears.\"\n\nAnd when the priest asked him--as it is the custom to ask all Christians\nat death touching their faith in this mighty Sacrament--whether he\nbelieved that That Consecrated Host was the True Son of God, Who came\nforth from the Virgin's womb, Who hung upon the tree of the Cross, Who\ndied for us and rose again on the third day:--with clear voice, with\nfull attention, and with tears, he replied: \"If fuller knowledge than\nthat of faith could be had in this life touching this Sacrament, in that\nknowledge I reply that I believe it to be true, and that I know for\ncertain that This is True God and Man, the Son of God the Father and of\nthe Virgin Mother: so I believe in my heart and so I confess in word.\"\nAfter some other devout expressions he received the Sacred Host, and\nthen said: \"I receive Thee, the Price of my soul's redemption, for love\nof Whom I have studied, watched, and toiled; Thee have I preached and\ntaught; nought contrary to Thee have I ever said, neither do I\nobstinately hold to any opinion of mine own. If, however, I have said\nought wrongly concerning this Sacrament, I submit it all to the\ncorrection of the Holy Roman Church in Whose obedience I now pass from\nthis life!\" \"O Blessed Teacher! who ran so swiftly in the race, who\nfought so manfully in the strife, who could so well say with the\nApostle: '_I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have\nkept the faith; as for the rest there is laid up for me a crown of\njustice_'; and such indeed had he truly won by his study of inspired\ndoctrine.\"[19]\n\n  O Sancte Thoma!\n  Scholarum Patrone,\n  Fidem invictam,\n  Charitatem fervidam,\n  Vitam castissimam,\n  Scientiam veram,\n  A Deo nobis obtine.\n  Per Christum Dominum nostrum. Amen.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nNo one who is at all familiar with the writings of S. Thomas can be\nsurprised to find many extracts from S. Augustine in the following\npages. For Augustine and Thomas are one. Their respective styles are\ndifferent, but their thoughts and teachings are the same on the great\nessential points of theological teaching. Cardinal Aguirre has well\nsaid: \"Owing to the clearness and acuteness of his angelic mind S.\nThomas sheds a flood of light on many most obscure matters, and brings\nout very clearly even the most profound teachings contained in the works\nof the Fathers, especially in those of S. Augustine. I speak simply from\nmy own experience, but I am certain that many another has felt the same:\nin controverted matters, if we look merely at the text of S. Augustine,\nwe are brought face to face with a flood of difficulties which seem\nwell-nigh insoluble; but the difficulty disappears and the solution\nbecomes clear the moment we set to work to find out what was S. Thomas's\nteaching on the question; for he is the surest and the easiest\ninterpreter of S. Augustine.\"[20]\n\nAnd indeed Augustine is a deep well! \"_Man shall come to a deep heart!_\"\nhe was fond of saying, and those words of the Psalmist might stand for a\nmotto at the head of his works. Traditionary art represents him with his\nheart in his hand, and the sentiment is true, for \"great-hearted\" is the\nepithet which best suits him, and those who use these pages for\nmeditation or spiritual reading will find that whereas S. Thomas teaches\nhow we ought to pray, S. Augustine makes us pray; not in vain had he\nstudied and taught rhetoric for so many years!\n\nThis likeness between the two great Saints forms the theme of one of the\n_Responsories_ for the Office for S. Thomas in the Dominican Breviary.\nIt is based on a famous vision. \"There appeared to me as I watched in\nprayer,\" said Brother Albert of Brescia in his deposition, \"two revered\npersonages clothed in wondrous splendour. One of them wore a mitre on\nhis head, the other was clad in the habit of the Friars Preachers. And\nthis latter bore on his head a golden crown; round his neck he wore two\nrings, one of silver, the other of gold; and on his breast he had an\nimmense precious stone, which filled the church with light. His cloak,\ntoo, was sewn with precious stones, and his tunic and his hood were of\nsnowy white. And the one who wore the mitre said to me: 'Brother Albert,\nwhy art thou thus filled with wonder? Thy prayers are heard;\nfor--listen: I am Augustine, the Doctor of the Church, and I am sent to\nthee to tell thee of the doctrine and of the glory of Brother Thomas of\nAquin who is here with me. For he is my son; he in all things has\nfollowed my doctrine and that of the Apostles, and by his teaching he\nhas illumined the Church of God. This is signified by the precious\nstones which you see, and especially by the one he carries on his\nbreast, for it signifies the upright intention which he ever had in view\nin his defence of the faith and which he showed in his words. These\nprecious stones, then, and especially that great one, signify the many\nbooks and works that he wrote, and they show that he is equal to me in\nglory save only that in the aureola of Virginity he surpasseth me.'\"[21]\n\nCardinal Cajetan, from whose famous Commentary on the _Summa_ we have\noccasionally quoted, is unfortunately too little known. Born in 1469,\nand dying in 1534, he was the contemporary of Luther and the Reformers,\nand, as was to be expected, their most formidable opponent. A great\nstudent, a man of prayer as well as a man of action, his was the\nstriking figure of the early portion of the sixteenth century. But his\nwas a bold and independent mind, and he was not afraid to advance views\nwhich, though now commonly accepted, brought his works into a certain\ndisfavour. This is especially to be regretted in the case of his\nCommentaries on the Bible. A thorough Greek scholar, possessing no mean\nacquaintance with Hebrew, he deserves, by reason of the clearness and\nprecision of his thought, the title of \"Prince of Commentators.\" Here,\nhowever, we are concerned with the devotional rather than with the\ncritical aspect of his writings, and the reader will gain from some of\nCajetan's terse and pithy comments a very great deal of instruction.\n\nIn conclusion, a few words may be desirable regarding the method of S.\nThomas.\n\nS. Thomas divides his _Summa Theologica_ into three main parts. The\n_First Part_ treats of _God, the Exemplar_.[22] The _Second_, of _man\nmade to the image of God_;[23] the _Third_, of _God Incarnate_, of His\n_Sacraments_ by which we attain to union with Him in this life, and of\n_Eternal Life_ to which we attain ultimately by our resurrection. Here\nwe are solely concerned with the _Second part_.[24] It is subdivided\ninto two portions, known as the _Prima Secundae_ and the _Secunda\nSecundae_ respectively, or as the _First_ and _Second_ portions of the\n_Second part_. In the _Prima Secundae_ the Saint treats of the\n_principles of Morals_--namely, of man's ultimate end and of the habits,\nacts, and principles by which he attains it. In the _Secunda Secundae_,\nafter having laid in the _Prima Secundae_ the foundations of Moral\nTheology, he proceeds to treat of the _individual virtues_, firstly of\nthe Theological Virtues, Faith, Hope, and Charity; then of the Cardinal\nVirtues, Prudence, Justice, Fortitude, and Temperance. Under each of\nthese heads he treats of the _Gifts_ corresponding to each Virtue, of\nthe _vices_ opposed to them, and of the _Precepts_ regarding them.[25]\nApropos of the Cardinal Virtue of Justice, he treats of the Moral Virtue\nof _Religion_, which is comprised under Justice, since Religion may be\ndefined as the offering to God the worship which is His due, _Question_\nLXXXI. He then treats of _Devotion_, _Question_ LXXXII., and then of\n_Prayer_, _Question_ LXXXIII. These three _Questions_ we here present in\nan English dress.\n\nAfter these Treatises on individual virtues, he passes to the\nconsideration of those virtues which concern, not men as a whole, but\nonly _certain classes of men_.[26] And first of all he treats of those\n_Gifts_ which are bestowed upon certain men not so much for their own\nbenefit as for the good of others--viz., of Prophecy, of Ecstasy, of the\nGift of Tongues, and of the Gift of Miracles. He then discusses the two\nkinds of _operations_ or \"lives\"--the _active_, namely, and the\n_contemplative_--which find a place in the Mystical Body of Christ,\nwhich is the Church. These treatises in reality constitute a commentary\non 1 Cor. xii. 4-11. _Question_ CLXXIX., _On the Division of Life into\nthe Active and the Contemplative_, is here given; as also _Question_\nCLXXX., _On the Contemplative Life_; _Question_ CLXXXI., _On the Active\nLife_; _Question_ CLXXXII., _On the Comparison of the Active with the\nContemplative Life_.\n\nS. Thomas then proceeds to treat of _various states of life_--viz., of\nthe state of perfection, of the Episcopal and of the Religious state.\nOnly one question raised in this connection concerns us here: _Whether_,\nnamely, _Contemplative Religious Orders are superior to Active Orders?_\n(_Question_ CLXXXVIII. 6).\n\nEach _Question_ is, as will be seen from the _Table of Contents_,\ndivided into _Articles_.\n\nThe framework of what is termed an \"article\" of the _Summa_ is familiar\nto those who use that work, but it may not be amiss to explain S.\nThomas's method in brief fashion. Each \"article\" is couched in the form\nof a question, thus: _Has contemplation its joys?_ And the Saint at once\nsets forth in succession three, sometimes more, arguments which seem to\nmilitate against the view he himself holds. These are commonly known as\nthe _objections_. He then gives us a short paragraph opening with the\nwords: _Sed contra_, or _But on the contrary_; and in this paragraph he\ngives some authority, generally that of Holy Scripture or one of the\nFathers, for the view he is going to hold. This paragraph is generally\nknown from its opening words as the _Sed contra_; there is no argument\nin it save from authority. He then proceeds to discuss the question from\nthe standpoint of pure reason. This portion is known as the _Corpus\narticuli_, or _Body of the Article_, and in it the Saint presents his\nreasoning in clear, precise fashion. It will be apparent, of course,\nthat many questions cannot be answered with a categoric _yes_ or _no_,\nbut the precise sense in which certain terms in the discussion are to be\nused has to be clearly ascertained; according to the diverse ways in\nwhich they may be understood the answer will be affirmative or negative.\nIt is important for those not familiar with S. Thomas' works to grasp\nthis point; they must not, for instance, presume that because the\nopening \"objections\" seem to uphold one point of view S. Thomas is\ntherefore going to hold the precise opposite. A good example of this\nwill be found in the Article: _Ought we to pray to God alone?_\n\nIn the Treatises here presented the argument, though clear and precise,\nis hardly what we should call subtle, and this for the simple reason\nthat the subject-matter does not call for subtle treatment. But what\ncannot fail to strike the most cursory reader is the tone of submission\nto authority and to the teachings of the Fathers which characterizes\nevery page: \"_Summe veneratus est sacros Doctores_,\" says Cajetan,\n\"_ideo intellectum omnium quodammodo sortitus est_.\"[27] And the natural\ncorollary of this is the complete self-effacement of the Saint. The\nfirst person is conspicuous by its absence all through the _Summa_,\nthough the reader of the following pages will find one exception to this\nrule.\n\nAnd the more we study these Articles of S. Thomas the more we marvel;\nthe thought is so concentrated and yet so limpid in its expression, that\nas we read it it seems as though no one could ever have thought\notherwise. But read it, and then try to reformulate the line of argument\nwhich you have been following with such ease--and your mind halts, your\ntongue stammers! It is one thing to understand the thought when\nexpressed, quite another to think such thoughts and express them. Hence\nthe declaration made by Pope John XXII. when the question of the holy\nDoctor's canonization was brought forward: \"Such teaching,\" he\nexclaimed, \"could only have been due to miracle!\" And on the following\nday in the Consistory: \"He has brought greater light to the Church than\nall other Doctors; by one year's study of his writings a man may make\ngreater profit than if he spend his whole life studying the writings of\nothers!\"[28]\n\nThe reader will sometimes feel inclined to smile at the quaint\netymologies which occur now and again. But he must remember that these\nare given by the Saint for what they are worth. It was not a\nphilological age, and S. Thomas made use of the _Book of Etymologies_\ndrawn up in the seventh century by S. Isidore of Seville.\n\nBesides the writings of S. Augustine, two Patristic works are cited with\nconsiderable frequency by S. Thomas in these pages: the _Opus\nImperfectum_ of S. Chrysostom on S. Matthew's Gospel, and the works of\nDenis the Areopagite. The former is almost certainly not the work of S.\nChrysostom, but rather of an Arian writer towards the close of the sixth\ncentury.[29] The writer known as Denis the Areopagite, owing to his\nbeing traditionally identified with S. Paul's convert at Athens,\nprobably wrote about the close of the fifth century. Few works of\nMystical Theology exercised a greater influence on the writers of the\nMiddle Ages.[30] A word must also be said about the _Gloss_ to which S.\nThomas so often refers, and which he quotes as an authority. The term\n\"Gloss\" was applied to the brief running commentaries on the Bible which\nwere in vogue in the Middle Ages. These brief paraphrases were also\nknown as _Postillae_, and they were frequently written in between the\nlines of the text of the Bible, whence the name _Interlinear Gloss_; or\nin the margins, whence the name _Marginal Gloss_. The _Glossa\nOrdinaria_, as it is called, is the best known of these commentaries. It\nis usually attributed to Walafrid Strabo, a monk of the Abbey of S.\nGall, who died in 849; but it is probable that Strabo took down his\nCommentary from the lips of Rabanus Maurus, a monk of the Abbey of\nFulda, and afterwards its abbot. Rabanus was a most prolific writer, and\nhas left Commentaries on nearly all the Books of the Bible. Even when\nAbbot he reserved to himself the Chair of Scripture;[31] he had had the\ngreat advantage of living for a time in Palestine. Another Biblical\nscholar to whom the _Glossa Ordinaria_ of S. Thomas's time apparently\nowed much, was Hugo a S. Caro, the Dominican Provincial in France, and\nafterwards Cardinal-Priest of S. Sabina. It was under his direction that\nthe first Concordance of the Bible was formed, in which task he is said\nto have had the assistance of five hundred Friars.[32] He owes his title\nof Glossator to his well-known _Postillae_, or Brief Commentaries on the\nwhole Bible. The _Glossa Interlinearis_ is due to Anselm, a Canon of\nLaudun, who died in 1117. Another famous Glossator was Nicolas de Lyra,\na Franciscan who died in 1340--some sixty-six years, that is, subsequent\nto S. Thomas. Lastly, we should mention Peter the Lombard, commonly\nknown as _The Master of the Sentences_, from his four books of\n_Sentences_, in which he presented the theological teaching of the\nFathers in Scholastic fashion. This treatise became the Scholastic\nmanual of the age. To him is due a Gloss on the Psalter and on Job, as\nwell as a series of brief notes on the Epistles of S. Paul taken from\nthe writings of the chief Fathers, S. Ambrose, S. Jerome, S. Augustine,\netc. And the authority accorded to these Glosses in general is due to\nthe fact that they constituted a running Commentary taken from the\nwritings of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church.\n\n  THE BREVIARY HYMN TO S. AUGUSTINE.\n\n  Magne Pater Augustine\n  Preces nostras suscipe,\n  Et per eas Conditori\n  Nos placare satage,\n  Atque rege gregem tuum\n  Summum decus praesulum.\n\n  Amatorem paupertatis\n  Te collaudant pauperes:\n  Assertorem veritatis\n  Amant veri judices:\n  Frangis nobis favos mellis,\n  De Scripturis disserens.\n\n  Quae obscura prius erant\n  Nobis plana faciens,\n  Tu de verbis Salvatoris\n  Dulcem panem conficis,\n  Et propinas potum vitae\n  De Psalmorum nectare.\n\n  Tu de vita clericorum\n  Sanctam scribis Regulam,\n  Quam qui amant et sequuntur\n  Viam tenent regiam,\n  Atque tuo sancto ductu\n  Redeunt ad Patriam.\n\n  Regi regum salus, vita,\n  Decus et imperium:\n  Trinitati laus et honor\n  Sit per omne saeculum:\n  Qui concives nos adscribat\n  Supernorum civium. Amen.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[1] _The Ascent of Mount Carmel by S. John of the Cross._ Prefatory\nEssay on the Development of Mysticism in the Carmelite Order, by\nBenedict Zimmerman, O.C.D., pp. 13-17. (London: Thomas Baker, 1906.)\n\n[2] Valgornera, O.P., _Mystica Theologia D. Thomae_, ed. Berthier. 2\nVols. Turin, 1890-91.\n\n[3] \"In aetate tam tenera et scibilium nescia, qui necdum se scire\npoterat, miro modo Deum adhuc nesciens, divino ductus instinctu scire\nquaerebat. De quo futurum erat, ut, dum sic anxius maturius Deum prae\naliis quaereret, clarius prae ceteris, quae scire futurus erat, scriberet,\nquae de Deo, ipso donante, studiosius et citius inveniret\" (William of\nTocco, _Vita B. Thomae_ in the _Bollandists_, March 7, No. 5). This\nWilliam of Tocco had seen and heard S. Thomas, and in 1319 took a\nprominent part in the Saint's canonization (see _Bollandists_, p. 653).\n\n[4] Bernard Guidonis, _Boll._, No. 7, p. 659, note.\n\n[5] _Boll._, Nos. 12 and 76.\n\n[6] _Ibid._, No. 11.\n\n[7] _Boll._, p. 661.\n\n[8] _Ibid._, p. 662.\n\n[9] _Boll._, p. 668.\n\n[10] _Boll._, pp. 668 and 710.\n\n[11] _Boll._, No. 53.\n\n[12] _Ibid._, p. 671.\n\n[13] _Boll._, p. 668.\n\n[14] _Boll._, p. 672.\n\n[15] Ps. xlvii.\n\n[16] _Boll._, p. 672.\n\n[17] _Boll._, p. 669.\n\n[18] _Ibid._, p. 667; _cp._ Ps. lxx, 20.\n\n[19] _Boll._, p. 675.\n\n[20] Touron, _Vie de S. Thomas d'Aquin_, Paris, 1740, p. 353.\n\n[21] _Boll._, p. 706; _cp._ p. 665.\n\n[22] _Prol._ to Ia., IIdae.\n\n[23] _Prol._ to III. _Pars._\n\n[24] _Prol._ to IIa., IIdae.\n\n[25] _Prol._ to IIa. IIdae.\n\n[26] _Prol._ to _Qu._ CLXXI. of the IIda., IIdae.\n\n[27] _Comment._ on IIa., IIae., cxlviii. 4.\n\n[28] _Boll._, p. 680.\n\n[29] See Bardenhewer, _Patrologie_, i. 319.\n\n[30] Smith and Wace, _Dict. of Christian Biography_, i. 847.\n\n[31] Fabricius, _Bibliotheca Latina_, _s.v._ Walafridus and Rabanus.\n\n[32] _Ibid._, _s.v._ Hugo a S. Caro.\n\n\n\n\nQUESTION LXXXI\n\nOF THE VIRTUE OF RELIGION\n\n   I. Does the Virtue of Religion Direct a Man To God Alone?\n       S. Augustine, _sermon_, cccxxxiv. 3\n              \" _on Psalm_ lxxvi. 32\n                     _sermon_, cccxi. 14-15\n  II. Is Religion a Virtue?\n III. Is Religion One Virtue?\n  IV. Is Religion a Special Virtue Distinct From Others?\n   V. Is Religion One of the Theological Virtues?\n  VI. Is Religion To Be Preferred To the Other Moral Virtues?\n VII. Has Religion, Or Latria, Any External Acts?\n        S. Augustine, _of Care for the Dead_, V.\nVIII. Is Religion the Same As Sanctity?\n        Cardinal Cajetan, on the Distinction Between\n          Sanctity and Religion\n\n\nI\n\nDoes the Virtue of Religion direct a Man to God Alone?\n\nCicero says[33]: \"Religion offers internal and external reverence to\nthat Superior Nature which we term the Divine.\"\n\nS. Isidore says[34]: \"A religious man is, as Cicero remarks, so called\nfrom _religion_, for he is occupied with and, as it were, reads through\nagain and again (_relegit_) the things that concern Divine worship.\"\nThus religion seems to be so called from reading again (_religendo_)\nthings concerning Divine worship; for such things are to be repeatedly\nrevolved in the mind, according to those words of Proverbs iii. 6: _In\nall thy ways think on Him._ At the same time _religion_ might be said to\nbe so called because \"we ought to choose again (_re-eligere_) those\nthings which through our negligence we have lost,\" as S. Augustine has\nnoted.[35] Or perhaps it is better derived from \"binding again\"\n(_religando_); thus S. Augustine says[36]: \"Let religion bind us once\nmore to the One Almighty God.\"\n\nBut whether religion be so called from frequent _reading_, or from\n_fresh election_ of Him Whom we have negligently lost, or from\n_rebinding_, it properly implies a certain relation to God. For it is He\nto Whom we ought to be especially _bound_ as our indefectible principle;\nto Him must we assiduously direct our _choice_ as our ultimate end; He\nit is Whom we negligently lose by sin and Whom we must regain by\nbelieving in Him and by professing our faith in Him.\n\nBut some deny that religion directs a man to God alone, thus:\n\n1. S. James says[37]: _Religion clean and undefiled before God and the\nFather is this: to visit the fatherless and widows in their tribulation;\nand to keep oneself unspotted from this world._ But _to visit the\nfatherless and widows_ indicates relation to our neighbour, and _to keep\noneself unspotted from this world_ refers to ourselves. Hence religion\nis not confined to our relationship with God.\n\n    But religion has two sorts of acts. Some belong to it properly\n    and immediately, those acts, namely, which it elicits and by\n    which man is directed to God alone, as, for instance, to offer\n    Him sacrifice, to adore Him, etc.\n\n    But there are other acts which religion produces through the\n    medium of the virtues which it controls, directing them, that\n    is, towards reverence to God; for that virtue which is concerned\n    with the end directs those virtues which have to do with the\n    means to the end. And in this sense _to visit the fatherless and\n    widows in their tribulation_ is said to be an act of religion\n    because commanded by it, though actually elicited by the virtue\n    of mercy. Similarly _to keep oneself unspotted from this world_\n    is an act commanded by religion, though elicited by temperance\n    or some other virtue.\n\n2. S. Augustine says[38]: \"Since according to the genius of the Latin\nspeech--and that not merely of the unlearned, but even of the most\nlearned--religion is said to be shown towards our human relatives and\nconnexions and intimates, this word 'religion' cannot be used without\nsome ambiguity when applied to the worship of God; hence we cannot say\nwith absolute confidence that religion is nought else but the worship of\nGod.\" Religion, then, is not limited to our relation to God, but\nembraces, our neighbour as well.\n\n    But it is only by an extension of the name \"religion\" that it is\n    made to embrace our relations towards our human kin, it is not\n    according to the proper signification of the word. Hence S.\n    Augustine prefaced the words quoted from him above with the\n    remark: \"Religion, strictly speaking, seems to mean, not any\n    kind of worship, but only that of God.\"\n\n3. Further, _latria_ seems to come under religion. But S. Augustine\nsays[39]: \"_Latria_ is interpreted as service.\" But we ought to serve\nnot God only, but our neighbour as well: _By charity of the spirit serve\none another._[40] Religion, then, implies relation to our neighbour.\n\n    But since a slave implies a master, it follows that where there\n    exists a peculiar and special title of dominion there also will\n    be found a peculiar and special ratio of servitude. It is clear,\n    however, that dominion belongs to God in a peculiar and special\n    fashion, since He it is Who has made all things and Who holds\n    the chief rule over all things. Consequently a special kind of\n    service is due to Him. And this service is by the Greeks\n    designated _latria_, which is, in consequence, properly\n    comprised under \"religion.\"\n\n4. Again, reverence comes under religion. But man has to reverence, not\nonly God, but his neighbour as well; as Cato says: \"Reverence parents.\"\nHence religion establishes a relation between ourselves and our\nneighbour as well as between ourselves and God.\n\n    But we are said to reverence those men whom we honour or\n    remember, or to whose presence we resort. So, too, even things\n    which are subject to us are said to be \"cultivated\" by us\n    (_coli_); thus husbandmen (_agricolae_) are so called because\n    they \"cultivate\" the fields; the inhabitants of a place, too\n    (_incolae_), are so called because they \"cultivate\" the spots\n    where they dwell. But since special honour is due to God as the\n    First Principle of all, a special kind of \"cultus\"[41] or\n    \"reverence\" is His due, and this the Greeks call _eusebia_ or\n    _theosebia_, as S. Augustine says.[42]\n\n5. Lastly, all who are in a state of salvation are subject to God. But\nnot all who are in a state of salvation are called \"religious,\" but\nthose only who bind themselves by certain vows and observances and who\nundertake to obey certain men. Hence religion does not seem to mean the\nrelationship of subjection of man to God.\n\n    But although, generally speaking, all those who worship God can\n    be termed \"religious,\" yet those are specially so called who\n    dedicate their whole lives to the Divine worship and cut\n    themselves off from worldly occupations.\n\n    Thus those are not termed \"contemplatives\" who merely\n    contemplate, but they who devote their lives to contemplation.\n    And such men do not subject themselves to men for man's sake,\n    but for God's, as the Apostle says: _You received me as an Angel\n    of God, even as Christ Jesus._[43]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n_S. Augustine_: We are to abide in Christ! How then shall That not be\nnow our possession Where we are then to abide and Whence we are to draw\nLife? Let Holy Scripture speak for us lest we should seem in mere\nconjecture to be saying things contrary to the teaching of the Word of\nGod. Hear the words of one who knew: _If God be for us who is against\nus?_[44] _The Lord_, he says, _is the portion of my inheritance._[45] He\nsaith not: Lord, what wilt Thou give me for mine inheritance? All that\nThou canst give me is worthless! Be Thou mine inheritance! Thee do I\nlove! Thee do I wholly love! With all my heart, with all my soul, with\nall my mind do I love Thee! What, then, shall be my lot? What wilt Thou\ngive me save Thyself? This is to love God freely. This is to hope for\nGod from God. This is to hasten to be filled with God, to be sated with\nHim. For He is sufficient for thee; apart from Him nought can suffice\nthee! (_Sermon_, cccxxxiv. 3).\n\n_S. Augustine_: I cried to the Lord with my voice.[46] Many cry to the\nLord that they may win riches, that they may avoid losses; they cry that\ntheir family may be established, they ask for temporal happiness, for\nworldly dignities; and, lastly, they cry for bodily health, which is the\npatrimony of the poor. For these and suchlike things many cry to the\nLord; hardly one cries for the Lord Himself! How easy it is for a man to\ndesire all manner of things from the Lord and yet not desire the Lord\nHimself! As though the gift could be sweeter than the Giver! (_on Ps._\nlxxvi.).\n\n_S. Augustine:_ Picture God as saying to you--He Who re-created you and\nadopted you: \"My son, why is it that day by day you rise and pray, and\ngenuflect, and even strike the ground with your forehead, nay, sometimes\neven shed tears, while you say to Me: 'My Father, my God! give me\nwealth!' If I were to give it to you, you would think yourself of some\nimportance, you would fancy you had gained something very great. Yet\nbecause you asked for it you have it. But take care to make good use of\nit. Before you had it you were humble; now that you have begun to be\nrich you despise the poor! What kind of a good is that which only makes\nyou worse? For worse you are, since you were bad already. And that it\nwould make you worse you knew not, hence you asked it of Me. I gave it\nto you and I proved you; you have found--and you are found out! You were\nhidden when you had nothing. Correct thyself! Vomit up this cupidity!\nTake a draught of charity!... Ask of Me better things than these,\ngreater things than these. Ask of Me spiritual things. Ask of Me\nMyself!\" (_Sermon_, cccxi. 14-15).\n\n\nII\n\nIs Religion a Virtue?\n\nA virtue is that which both renders its possessor, as also his work,\ngood. Hence we must say that every good act comes under virtue. And it\nis clear that to render to another what is his due has the character of\na good act; for by the fact that a man renders to another his due there\nis established a certain fitting proportion and order between them. But\norder comes under the ratio of good, just as do measure and species, as\nS. Augustine establishes.[47] Since, then, it belongs to religion to\nrender to some one, namely, God, the honour which is His due, it is\nclear that religion is a virtue.\n\nSome, however, deny this, thus:\n\n1. It belongs to religion to show reverence to God. But reverence is an\nact of fear, and fear is a gift.[48] Religion, then, is a gift, not a\nvirtue.\n\n    To reverence God is indeed an act of the gift of fear. But to\n    religion it belongs to do certain things by reason of our\n    reverence for God. Hence it does not follow that religion is the\n    same thing as the gift of fear, but it is related to it as to a\n    higher principle. For the gifts are superior to the moral\n    virtues.\n\n2. All virtue consists in the free-will, and hence virtue is called an\nelective or voluntary habit. But _latria_ belongs to religion, and\n_latria_ implies a certain servitude. Hence religion is not a virtue.\n\n    But even a servant can freely give to his master the service\n    that is his due and thus \"make a virtue of necessity\"[49] by\n    voluntarily paying his debt. And similarly the payment of due\n    service to God can be an act of virtue according as a man does\n    it voluntarily.\n\n3. Lastly, as is said in Aristotle's _Ethics_,[50] the aptitude for the\nvirtues is implanted in us by nature; hence those things which come\nunder the virtues arise from the dictates of natural reason; but it\nbelongs to religion to offer external reverence to the Divine Nature.\nCeremonial, however, or external reverence, is not due to the dictates\nof natural reason. Hence religion is not a virtue.\n\n    But it is due to the dictates of natural reason that a man does\n    certain things in order to show reverence to God. That he should\n    do precisely this or that, however, does not come from the\n    dictates of natural reason, but from Divine or human positive\n    law.\n\n\nIII\n\nIs Religion One Virtue?\n\nS. Paul says to the Ephesians[51]: _One God, one faith._ But true\nreligion maintains faith in one God. Consequently religion is one\nvirtue.\n\nHabits are distinguished according to the divers objects with which they\nare concerned. But it belongs to religion to show reverence for the One\nGod for one particular reason, inasmuch, namely, as He is the First\nPrinciple, the Creator and Governor of all things; hence we read in\nMalachi[52]: _If I am a Father, where is my honour?_ for it is the\nfather that produces and governs. Hence it is clear that religion is but\none virtue.\n\nBut some maintain that religion is not one virtue, thus:\n\n1. By religion we are ordained[53] to God. But in God there are Three\nPersons, and, moreover, divers attributes which are at least\ndistinguishable from one another by reason. But the diverse character of\nthe objects on which they fall suffices to differentiate the virtues.\nHence religion is not one virtue.\n\n    But the Three Divine Persons are but One Principle as concerns\n    the creation and the government of things. And consequently They\n    are to be served by one religion. And the divers attributes all\n    concur in the First Principle, for God produces all and governs\n    all by His Wisdom, His Will, and the power of His Goodness.\n    Hence religion is but one virtue.\n\n2. One virtue can have but one act; for habits are differentiated\naccording to their acts. But religion has many acts, _e.g._, to worship,\nto serve, to make vows, to pray, to make sacrifices, and many other\nsimilar things. Consequently religion is not one virtue.\n\n    But by one and the same act does man serve God and worship Him;\n    for worship is referred to God's excellence, to which is due\n    reverence: service regards man's subjection, for by reason of\n    his condition he is bound to show reverence to God. And under\n    these two heads are comprised all the acts which are attributed\n    to religion; for by them all man makes protestation of the\n    Divine excellence and of his subjection of himself to God,\n    either by offering Him something, or, again, by taking upon\n    himself something Divine.\n\n3. Further, adoration belongs to religion. But adoration is paid to\nimages for one reason and to God for another. But since diversity of\n\"reason\" serves to differentiate the virtues, it seems that religion is\nnot one virtue.\n\n    But religious worship is not paid to images considered in\n    themselves as entities, but precisely as images bringing God\n    Incarnate to our mind. Further, regarding an image precisely as\n    an image of some one, we do not stop at it; it carries us on to\n    that which it represents. Hence the fact that religious\n    veneration is paid to images of Christ in no sense means that\n    there are various kinds of _latria_, nor different virtues of\n    religion.\n\n\nIV\n\nIs Religion a Special Virtue Distinct From Others?\n\nReligion is regarded as a part of Justice, and is distinct from the\nother parts of Justice.\n\nSince virtue is ordained to what is good, where there exists some\nspecial ratio of good there must be some special corresponding virtue.\nBut the particular good towards which religion is ordained is the\nshowing due honour to God. Honour, however, is due by reason of some\nexcellency. And to God belongs pre-eminent excellence, since He in every\npossible way infinitely transcends all things. Hence special honour is\ndue to Him; just as we note that in human concerns varying honours are\ndue to the varying excellencies of persons; one is the honour of a\nfather, another that of a king, and so on. Hence it is manifest that\nreligion is a special virtue.\n\nSome, however, maintain that religion is not a special virtue distinct\nfrom others, thus:\n\n1. S. Augustine says[54]: \"True sacrifice is every work undertaken in\norder that we may be joined to God in holy fellowship.\" But sacrifice\ncomes under religion. Every work of virtue therefore comes under\nreligion. And consequently it is not a special virtue.\n\n    But every work of virtue is said to be a sacrifice in so far as\n    it is directed to showing God reverence. It does not thence\n    follow that religion is a general virtue, but that it commands\n    all the other virtues.\n\n2. The Apostle says to the Corinthians[55]: _Do all to the glory of\nGod._ But it belongs to religion to do some things for the glory of God.\nHence religion is not a special virtue.\n\n    But all kinds of acts, in so far as they are done for the glory\n    of God, come under religion; not, however, as though it elicited\n    them, but inasmuch as it controls them. Those acts, however,\n    come under religion as eliciting them which, by their own\n    specific character, pertain to the service of God.\n\n3. Lastly, the charity whereby we love God is not distinct from the\ncharity by which we love our neighbour. But in the _Ethics_[56] it is\nsaid: \"To be honoured is akin to being loved.\" Hence religion by which\nGod is honoured is not a specifically distinct virtue from those\nobservances, whether _dulia_ or piety, whereby we honour our neighbour.\nHence it is not a special virtue.\n\n    But the object of love is a _good_ thing; whereas the object of\n    honour or reverence is what is _excellent_. But it is God's\n    Goodness that is communicated to His creatures, not the\n    excellence of His Goodness. Hence while the charity wherewith we\n    love God is not a distinct virtue from the charity wherewith we\n    love our neighbour, yet the religion whereby we honour God is\n    distinct from the virtues whereby we honour our neighbour.\n\n\nV\n\nIs Religion One of the Theological Virtues?\n\nReligion is considered a part of Justice, and this is a moral virtue.\n\nReligion is the virtue whereby we offer to God His due honour. Two\nthings have therefore to be considered in religion. First we have to\nconsider what religion offers God, namely, worship: this may be regarded\nas the material and the object with which religion is concerned.\nSecondly, we have to consider Him to Whom it is offered, namely, God\nHimself. Now, when worship is offered to God it is not as though our\nworshipful acts touched God, though this is the case when we believe\nGod, for by believing in God we touch Him (and we have therefore said\nelsewhere[57] that God is the object of our faith not simply inasmuch as\nwe believe in God, but inasmuch as we believe God). Due worship,\nhowever, is offered to God in that certain acts whereby we worship Him\nare performed as homage to Him, the offering sacrifice, for instance,\nand so forth. From all which it is evident that God does not stand to\nthe virtue of religion as its object or as the material with which it is\nconcerned, but as its goal. And consequently religion is not a\ntheological virtue, for the object of these latter is the ultimate end;\nbut religion is a moral virtue, and the moral virtues are concerned with\nthe means to the end.\n\nBut some regard religion as a theological virtue, thus:\n\n1. S. Augustine says[58]: \"God is worshipped by faith, hope, and\ncharity,\" and these are theological virtues. But to offer worship to God\ncomes under religion. Therefore religion is a theological virtue.\n\n    But it is always the case that a faculty or a virtue whose\n    object is a certain end, controls--by commanding--those\n    faculties or virtues which have to do with those things which\n    are means to that end. But the theological virtues--_i.e._,\n    faith, hope, and charity--are directly concerned with God as\n    their proper object. And hence they are the cause--by commanding\n    it--of the act of the virtue of religion which does certain\n    things having relation to God. It is in this sense that S.\n    Augustine says that \"God is worshipped by faith, hope, and\n    charity.\"\n\n2. Those are called theological virtues which have God for their object.\nBut religion has God for its object, for it directs us to God alone.\nTherefore it is a theological virtue.\n\n    But religion directs man to God, not indeed as towards its\n    object, but as towards its goal.\n\n3. Lastly, every virtue is either theological or intellectual or moral.\nBut religion is not an intellectual virtue, for its perfection does not\nconsist in the consideration of the truth. Neither is it a moral virtue,\nfor the property of the moral virtues is to steer a middle course\nbetwixt what is superfluous and what is below the requisite; whereas no\none can worship God to excess, according to the words of\nEcclesiasticus[59]: _For He is above all praise._ Religion, then, can\nonly be a theological virtue.\n\n    But religion is neither an intellectual nor a theological\n    virtue, but a moral virtue, for it is part of justice. And the\n    _via media_ in religion lies, not between the passions, but in a\n    certain harmony which it establishes in the acts which are\n    directed towards God. I say \"a certain,\" not an absolute\n    harmony, for we can never show to God all the worship that is\n    His due; I mean, then, the harmony arising from the\n    consideration of our human powers and of the Divine acceptance\n    of what we offer. Moreover, there can be excess in those things\n    which have to do with the Divine worship; not indeed as regards\n    quantity, but in certain other circumstances, as, for example,\n    when Divine worship is offered to whom it should not, or at\n    times when it should not, or in other unfitting circumstances.\n\n\nVI\n\nIs Religion to be preferred to the Other Moral Virtues?\n\nIn Exodus[60] the commandments which concern religion are put first, as\nthough they were of primary importance. But the order of the\ncommandments is proportioned to the order of the virtues; for the\ncommandments of the Law fall upon the acts of the virtues. Hence\nreligion is chief among the moral virtues.\n\nThe means to an end derive their goodness from their relation to that\nend; hence the more nigh they are to the end the better they are. But\nthe moral virtues are concerned with those things which are ordained to\nGod as their goal. And religion approaches more nearly to God than do\nthe other moral virtues, inasmuch as it is occupied with those things\nwhich are directly and immediately ordained to the Divine honour. Hence\nreligion is the chief of the moral virtues.\n\nSome, however, deny that religion is pre-eminent among the moral\nvirtues, thus:\n\n1. The perfection of a moral virtue lies in this, that it keeps the due\nmedium.[61] But religion fails to attain the medium of justice, for it\ndoes not render to God anything absolutely equal to Him. Hence religion\nis not better than the other moral virtues.\n\n    But the praiseworthiness of a virtue lies in the will, not in\n    the power. Hence to fall short of equality--which is the midpath\n    of justice--for lack of power, does not make virtue less\n    praiseworthy, provided the deficiency is not due to the will.\n\n2. Again, in our service of men a thing seems to be praiseworthy in\nproportion to the need of him whom we assist; hence it is said in\nIsaias:[62] _Deal thy bread to the hungry._ But God needs nothing that\nwe can offer Him, according to the Psalmist: _I have said: Thou art my\nGod, for Thou hast no need of my goods._[63] Hence religion seems to be\nless praiseworthy than the other virtues, for by them man is succoured.\n\n    But in the service we render to another for his profit, that is\n    the more praiseworthy which is rendered to the most needy,\n    because it is of greater profit to him. But no service is\n    rendered to God for His profit--for His glory, indeed, but for\n    our profit.\n\n3. Lastly, the greater the necessity for doing a thing the less worthy\nit is of praise, according to the words: _For if I preach the Gospel, it\nis no glory to me, for a necessity lieth upon me._[64] But the greater\nthe debt the greater the necessity. Since, then, the service which man\noffers to God is the greatest of debts, it would appear that religion is\nthe least praiseworthy of all human virtues.\n\n    Where necessity comes in the glory of supererogation is\n    non-existent; but the merit of the virtue is not thereby\n    excluded, provided the will be present. Consequently the\n    argument does not follow.\n\n\nVII\n\nHas Religion, That is _Latria_,[65] any External Acts?\n\nIn Ps. lxxxiii. 3 it is said: _My heart and my flesh have rejoiced in\nthe living God._ Now interior acts belong to the heart, and in the same\nway exterior acts are referred to the members of the body. It appears,\nthen, that God is to be worshipped by exterior as well as by interior\nacts.\n\nWe do not show reverence and honour to God for His own sake--for He in\nHimself is filled with glory to which nought can be added by any created\nthing--but for our own sakes. For by the fact that we reverence and\nhonour God our minds are subjected to Him, and in that their perfection\nlies; for all things are perfected according as they are subjected to\nthat which is superior to them--the body, for instance, when vivified by\nthe soul, the air when illumined by the sun. Now the human mind\nneeds--if it would be united to God--the guidance of the things of\nsense; for, as the Apostle says to the Romans[66]: _The invisible things\nof Him are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made_.\nHence in the Divine worship it is necessary to make use of certain\ncorporal acts, so that by their means, as by certain signs, man's mind\nmay be stirred up to those spiritual acts whereby it is knit to God.\nConsequently religion has certain interior acts which are its chief ones\nand which essentially belong to it; but it has also external acts which\nare secondary and which are subordinated to the interior acts.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nSome deny, however, that exterior acts belong to religion or _latria_,\nthus:\n\n1. In S. John iv. 24 we read: _For God is a Spirit, and they that adore\nHim must adore Him in spirit and in truth._ External acts belong,\nhowever, rather to the body than to the spirit. Consequently religion,\nwhich comprises adoration, has no exterior acts, but only interior.\n\n    But here the Lord speaks only of that which is chiefest and\n    which is essentially intended in Divine worship.\n\n2. The end of religion is to show reverence and honour to God. But it is\nnot reverent to offer to a superexcellent person what properly belongs\nto inferiors. Since, then, what a man offers by bodily acts seems more\nin accordance with men's needs and with that respect which we owe to\ninferior created beings, it does not appear that it can fittingly be\nmade use of in order to show reverence to God.\n\n    But such external acts are not offered to God as though He\n    needed them, as He says in the Psalm: _Shall I eat the flesh of\n    bullocks? Or shall I drink the blood of goats?_[67] But such\n    acts are offered to God as signs of those interior and spiritual\n    works which God accepts for their own sakes. Hence S. Augustine\n    says: \"The visible sacrifice is the sacrament--that is, the\n    visible sign--of the invisible sacrifice.\"[68]\n\n3. Lastly, S. Augustine praises Seneca[69] for his condemnation of those\nmen who offered to their idols what they were wont to offer to men: on\nthe ground, namely, that what belongs to mortal men is not fittingly\noffered to the immortals. Still less, then, can such things be fittingly\noffered to the True God Who is _above all gods_.[70] Therefore to\nworship God by means of bodily acts seems to be reprehensible. And\nconsequently religion does not include bodily acts.\n\n    But idolaters are so called because they offer to their idols\n    things belonging to men, and this not as outward signs which may\n    excite in them spiritual affections, but as being acceptable by\n    those idols for their own sake. And especially because they\n    offered them empty and vile things.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n_S. Augustine:_ When men pray, they, as becomes suppliants, make use of\ntheir bodily members, for they bend the knee, they stretch forth their\nhands, they even prostrate on the ground and perform other visible acts.\nYet all the while their invisible will and their heart's intention are\nknown to God. He needs not these signs for the human soul to be laid\nbare before Him. But man by so doing stirs himself up to pray and groan\nwith greater humility and fervour. I know not how it is that whereas\nsuch bodily movements can only be produced by reason of some preceding\nact on the part of the soul, yet when they are thus visibly performed\nthe interior invisible movement which gave them birth is thereby itself\nincreased, and the heart's affections--which must have preceded, else\nsuch acts would not have been performed--are thereby themselves\nincreased.\n\nYet none the less, if a man be in some sort hindered so that he is not\nat liberty to make use of such external acts, the interior man does not\ntherefore cease to pray; in the secret chamber of his heart, where lies\ncompunction, he lies prostrate before the eyes of God (_Of Care for the\nDead_, v.).\n\n\nVIII\n\nIs Religion the Same as Sanctity?\n\nIn S. Luke's Gospel[71] we read: _Let us serve Him in holiness and\njustice._ But to serve God comes under religion. Hence religion is the\nsame as sanctity.\n\nThe word \"sanctity\" seems to imply two things. First, it seems to imply\n_cleanness_; and this is in accordance with the Greek word for it, for\nin Greek it is _hagios_,[72] as though meaning \"without earth.\"\nSecondly, it implies _stability_, and thus among the ancients those\nthings were termed _sancta_ which were so hedged about with laws that\nthey were safe from violation; similarly a thing is said to be\n_sancitum_ because established by law. And even according to the Latins\nthe word _sanctus_ may mean \"cleanness,\" as derived from _sanguine\ntinctus_, for of old those who were to be purified were sprinkled with\nthe blood of a victim, as says S. Isidore in his _Etymologies_.[73]\n\nAnd both meanings allow us to attribute sanctity to things which are\nused in the Divine worship; so that not men only, but also temples and\nvessels and other similar things are said to be sanctified by reason of\ntheir use in Divine worship. _Cleanness_ indeed is necessary if a man's\nmind is to be applied to God. For the mind of man is stained by being\nimmersed in inferior things, as indeed all things are cheapened by\nadmixture with things inferior to them--silver, for instance, when mixed\nwith lead. And for our minds to be knit to the Supreme Being they must\nneeds be withdrawn from inferior things. Without cleanness, then, the\nmind cannot be applied to God. Hence in the Epistle to the Hebrews[74]\nit is said: _Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no\nman shall see God._\n\n_Stability_ is also required if the mind is to be applied to God. For\nthe mind is applied to Him as to the Ultimate End and First Principle,\nand consequently must be immovable. Hence the Apostle says: _For I am\nsure that neither death nor life shall separate me from the love of\nGod._[75]\n\nSanctity, then, is said to be that whereby man's mind and its acts are\napplied to God. Hence sanctity does not differ from religion\nessentially, but in idea only. For by religion we mean that a man offers\nGod due service in those things which specially pertain to the Divine\nworship--sacrifices, for example, and oblations, etc.; but by sanctity\nwe mean that a man not only offers these things, but also refers to God\nthe works of the other virtues, and also that a man disposes himself by\ngood works for the Divine worship.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nSome, however, deny the identity of religion and sanctity, thus:\n\n1. Religion is a certain special virtue. But sanctity is called a\ngeneral virtue, for according to Andronicus,[76] sanctity is that which\n\"makes men faithful observers of what is justly due to God.\" Hence\nsanctity is not the same as religion.\n\n    But sanctity is in its essence a special virtue, and as such is,\n    in a sort, the same as religion. It has, however, a certain\n    general aspect in that, by its commands, it directs all the acts\n    of the virtues to the Divine Good. In the same way legal justice\n    is termed a general virtue in that it directs the acts of all\n    the virtues to the common good.\n\n2. Sanctity seems to imply cleanness, for S. Denis says[77]: \"Sanctity\nis freedom from all impurity; it is perfect and stainless cleanness.\"\nCleanness, however, seems to come under temperance, for this it is which\nprecludes bodily defilement. Since, then, religion comes under justice,\nsanctity cannot be identified with religion.\n\n    Temperance indeed worketh cleanness, but this has not the ratio\n    of sanctity except it be referred to God. Hence S. Augustine\n    says of virginity itself that \"not because it is virginity is it\n    held in honour, but because it is consecrated to God.\"[78]\n\n3. Lastly, things that are contradistinguished are not identical. But in\nall enumerations of the parts of justice sanctity is set against\nreligion.\n\n    But sanctity is set against religion because of the difference\n    aforesaid; they differ indeed in idea, not in substance.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n_Cajetan:_ Religion is directly concerned with those things which\nspecially pertain to the Divine worship--ceremonies, for example,\nsacrifices, oblations, etc. Whereas sanctity directly regards the mind,\nand through the mind the other virtuous works, including those of\nreligion ... for it makes use of them so as thereby to apply the\nmind--and by consequence all acts that proceed from the human mind--to\nGod. Thus we see that many religious people are not saints, whereas all\nsaints are religious. For people who devote themselves to ceremonies,\nsacrifices, etc., can be termed religious; but they can only be called\nsaints in so far as by means of these things they give themselves\ninteriorly to God (_on_ 2. 2. 81. 8).\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[33] _De invent. Rhetor._, ii. 53.\n\n[34] _Etymolog._, x. _sub litt._ R.\n\n[35] _Of the City of God_, x. 3.\n\n[36] _Of the True Religion_, lv.\n\n[37] St. Jas. i. 27.\n\n[38] _Of the City of God_, x. 1.\n\n[39] _Of the City of God_, x. 1.\n\n[40] Gal. v. 13.\n\n[41] The objection and its solution turn upon the Latin words _cultus_\nand _colere_, which cannot be consistently rendered in English;\n\"reverence\" is perhaps the most appropriate translation here.\n\n[42] _Of the City of God_, x. 1.\n\n[43] Gal. iv. 14.\n\n[44] Rom. viii. 31.\n\n[45] Ps. xv. 5.\n\n[46] Ps. lxxvi. 1.\n\n[47] _Of the Nature of Good_, iii.\n\n[48] _Fear_ is one of the \"Gifts\" of the Holy Ghost.\n\n[49] S. Jerome, _Ep._ LIV., _alias_ X., _ad Furiam_.\n\n[50] II., vi. 15.\n\n[51] iv. 5-6.\n\n[52] i. 6.\n\n[53] The Latin word _ordinare_ means \"to set in due order\"; there is no\nprecise English equivalent which can be consistently employed.\n\n[54] _Of the City of God_, x. 6.\n\n[55] II. x. 31.\n\n[56] VIII. viii. 1.\n\n[57] 2. 2. Qu. II., Art. 2.\n\n[58] _Enchiridion_, iii.\n\n[59] xliii. 33.\n\n[60] xx. 1-17.\n\n[61] _Ethics_, II. vi.\n\n[62] lviii. 7.\n\n[63] Ps. xv. 2.\n\n[64] 1 Cor. ix. 16.\n\n[65] See p. 30.\n\n[66] i. 20.\n\n[67] Ps. xlix. 13.\n\n[68] _Of the City of God_, x. 5.\n\n[69] _Ibid._, vi. 10.\n\n[70] Ps. xciv. 3.\n\n[71] i. 74-75.\n\n[72] Thus Origen, _Hom._ XI, i. _in Leviticum_, where, however, he is\nnot really giving an etymology.\n\n[73] X., _sub litt._ S.\n\n[74] xii. 14.\n\n[75] Rom. viii. 38-39.\n\n[76] _De Affectibus_.\n\n[77] _Of the Divine Names_, xii.\n\n[78] _Of Virginity_, viii.\n\n\n\n\nQUESTION LXXXII\n\nOF DEVOTION\n\n  I. Is Devotion a Special Kind of Act?\n       Cardinal Cajetan, On the Meaning of the Term \"Devotion\"\n       S. Augustine, _Confessions_, XIII. viii. 2\n II. Is Devotion an Act of the Virtue of Religion?\nIII. Is Contemplation, that is Meditation, the Cause of Devotion?\n       Cardinal Cajetan, On the Causes of Devotion\n           \" \" On the Devotion of Women\n IV. Is Joy an Effect of Devotion?\n       Cardinal Cajetan, On Melancholy\n       S. Augustine, _Confessions_, II. x.\n\n\nI\n\nIs Devotion a Special Kind of Act?\n\nIt is by our acts that we merit. But devotion has a peculiarly\nmeritorious character. Consequently devotion is a special kind of act.\n\nDevotion is so termed from \"devoting\" oneself. Hence the \"devout\" are so\nnamed because they \"devote\" themselves to God and thus proclaim their\ncomplete subjection to Him. Thus, too, among the heathen of old those\nwere termed \"devout\" who for the army's sake \"devoted\" themselves to\ntheir idols unto death, as Livy[79] tells us was the case with the two\nDecii. Hence devotion seems to mean nothing else than \"the will to give\noneself promptly to those things which pertain to God's service\"; thus\nit is said in Exodus[80]: _The multitude of the children of Israel ...\noffered first-fruits to the Lord with a most ready and devout mind._ It\nis clear, however, that a wish to do _readily_ what belongs to God's\nservice is a special act. Hence devotion is a special act of the will.\n\nBut some argue that devotion is not a special kind of act, thus:\n\n1. That which serves to qualify other acts cannot be itself a special\nact. But devotion appears to qualify certain other acts; thus it is said\nthat _all the multitude offered victims, and praises, and holocausts\nwith a devout mind_.[81]\n\n    But that which moves another gives a certain measure to the\n    latter's movement. The will, however, moves the other faculties\n    of the soul to their respective acts; and, moreover, the will,\n    as aiming at an end in view, moves itself to the means towards\n    that end. Consequently, since devotion is the act of a man who\n    offers himself to serve Him Who is the Ultimate End, it follows\n    that devotion gives a certain measure to human acts--whether\n    they be the acts of the will itself with regard to the means to\n    an end, or the acts of the other faculties as moved by the will.\n\n\n2. Again, no act which finds a place in different kinds of acts can be\nitself a special kind of act. But devotion is to be found in acts of\ndifferent kinds, both in corporal acts, for example, and in spiritual;\nthus a man is said to meditate devoutly, for instance, or to genuflect\ndevoutly.\n\n    But devotion does not find a place in different kinds of acts as\n    though it were a _species_ coming under different _genera_, but\n    in the same sense as the motive power of a moving principle is\n    virtually discoverable in the movements of the things it sets in\n    motion.\n\n3. Lastly, all special kinds of acts belong either to the appetitive or\nto the cognoscitive faculties. But devotion comes under neither of\nthese--as will be evident to anyone who will reflect upon the various\nacts of these faculties respectively.\n\n    But devotion is an act of the appetitive powers of the soul, and\n    is, as we have said above, a movement of the will.\n\n_Cajetan:_ With regard to the proper meaning of the term _devotion_,\nnote that since _devotion_ is clearly derived from _devoting_, and since\n_to devote_--derived in its turn from _to vow_--means to promise\nsomething spontaneously to God: it follows that the principle in all\nsuch promises is the will; and further, not the will simply as such, but\nthe will so affected as to be prompt. Hence in Latin those are said to\nbe _devoted_ to some superior whose will is so affected towards him as\nto make them prompt in his regard. And this seems to refer especially to\nGod and to those who in a sense stand in His place, as, for instance,\nour rulers, our fatherland, and our principles of action. Hence in the\nChurch's usage the term _devotion_ is especially applied to those who\nare so affected towards God as to be prompt in His regard and in all\nthat concerns Him. And so _devotion_ is here taken to signify the act of\na will so disposed, the act by which a man shows himself prompt in the\nDivine service.... Thus, then, _devotion_, the principal act of the\nvirtue of religion, implies first of all the prompt desire of the Divine\nhonour in our exercise of Divine worship; and hence comes the prompt\nchoice of appropriate means to this end, and also the prompt carrying\nout of what we see to be suitable to that end. And the proof of\npossession of such _devotion_ is that truly devout souls, the moment\nthey perceive that some particular thing (or other) ought to be done for\nthe service of God, are so promptly moved towards it that they rejoice\nin having to do or in actually doing it (_on_ 2. 2. 82. 1).\n\n_S. Augustine:_ Give me, O Lord, Thyself; grant Thyself to me! For Thee\ndo I love, and if my love be but weak, then would I love Thee more. For\nI cannot measure it so as to know how much my love falls short of that\nlove which shall make my life run to Thy embraces nor ever turn away\nfrom Thee till I be hid in the hiding-place of Thy countenance. This\nonly do I know: that it fares ill with me when away from Thee; and this\nnot merely externally, but within me; for all abundance which is not my\nGod is but penury for me! (_Confessions_, XIII. viii. 2).\n\n\nII\n\nIs Devotion an Act of the Virtue of Religion?\n\nDevotion is derived from \"devoting oneself\" or making vows. But a vow is\nan act of the virtue of religion. Consequently devotion also is an act\nof the virtue of religion.\n\nIt belongs to the same virtue to wish to do a thing and to have a prompt\nwill to do it, for the object of each of these acts is the same. For\nthis reason the Philosopher says[82]: \"Justice is that by which men will\nand perform just deeds.\" And it is clear that to perform those things\nwhich pertain to the Divine worship or service comes under the virtue of\nreligion. Consequently it belongs to the same virtue of religion to have\na prompt will to carry out these things--in other words, to be devout.\nWhence it follows that devotion is an act of the virtue of religion.\n\nBut some argue that devotion is not an act of the virtue of religion,\nthus:\n\n1. Devotion means that a man gives himself to God. But this belongs to\nthe virtue of charity, for, as S. Denis says[83]: \"Divine love causes\necstasy since it permits not that those who love should belong any more\nto themselves, but to those things which they love.\" Whence devotion\nwould seem to be rather an act of charity than of the virtue of\nreligion.\n\n    It is indeed through charity that a man gives himself to God,\n    clinging to Him by a certain union of soul; but that a man\n    should give himself to God and occupy himself with the Divine\n    service, is due directly to the virtue of religion, though\n    indirectly it is due to the virtue of charity, which is the\n    principle of the virtue of religion.\n\n2. Again, charity precedes the virtue of religion. But devotion seems to\nprecede charity; for charity is signified in Scripture by fire, and\ndevotion by the fat of the sacrifices--the material on which the fire\nfeeds. Consequently devotion is not an act of the virtue of religion.\n\n    But while the fat of the body is generated by the natural\n    digestive heat, that natural heat finds its nourishment in that\n    same fat. Similarly charity both causes devotion--since it is by\n    love that a man becomes prompt to serve his friend--and at the\n    same time charity is fed by devotion; just as all friendship is\n    preserved and increased by the practice of friendly acts and by\n    meditating upon them.\n\n3. Lastly, by the virtue of religion a man turns to God alone. But\ndevotion extends to men as well; people, for instance, are said to be\ndevoted to certain Saints, and servants are said to be devoted to their\nmasters, as S. Leo says of the Jews,[84] that being devoted to the Roman\nlaws, they said: _We have no king but Caesar._[85] Consequently devotion\nis not an act of the virtue of religion.\n\n    But the devotion which we have to the Saints of God, whether\n    living or dead, does not stop at them, but passes on to God,\n    since we venerate God in God's ministers. And the devotion which\n    subjects have to their temporal masters is of a different kind\n    altogether, just as the service of temporal masters differs from\n    the service of the Divine Master.\n\n\nIII\n\nIs Contemplation, that is Meditation, the Cause of Devotion?\n\nIn Ps. xxxviii. 4 it is said: _And in my meditation a fire shall flame\nout._ But spiritual fire causes devotion. Therefore meditation causes\ndevotion.\n\nThe extrinsic and principal cause of devotion is God Himself; thus S.\nAmbrose says[86]: \"God calls those whom He deigns to call; and whom He\nwills to make religious He makes religious; and had He willed it He\nwould have made the Samaritans devout instead of indevout.\"\n\nBut the intrinsic cause of devotion on our part is meditation or\ncontemplation. For, as we have said, devotion is a certain act of the\nwill by which a man gives himself promptly to the Divine service. All\nacts of the will, however, proceed from consideration, since the will's\nobject is good understood. Hence S. Augustine says[87]: \"The will starts\nfrom the understanding.\" Meditation must, then, be the cause of devotion\ninasmuch as it is from meditation that a man conceives the idea of\ngiving himself up to God.\n\nAnd two considerations lead a man to do this: one is the consideration\nof the Divine Goodness and of His benefits, whence the words of the\nPsalmist: _But for me it is good to cling close to my God, to put my\nhope in the Lord God._[88] And this consideration begets love, which is\nthe proximate cause of devotion. And the second is man's consideration\nof his own defects which compel him to lean upon God, according to the\nwords: _I have lifted up mine eyes to the mountains, from whence help\nshall come to me; my help is from the Lord Who made Heaven and\nearth._[89] This latter consideration excludes all presumption which, by\nmaking him lean upon himself, might prevent a man from submitting\nhimself to God.\n\nSome, however, argue that contemplation or meditation is not the cause\nof devotion, thus:\n\n1. No cause hinders its own effect. But subtle intellectual meditations\noften hinder devotion.\n\n    But it is the consideration of those things which naturally tend\n    to excite love of God which begets devotion; consideration of\n    things which do not come under this head, but rather distract\n    the mind from it, are a hindrance to devotion.\n\n2. Again, if contemplation were the real cause of devotion, it should\nfollow that the higher the matter of our contemplation the greater the\ndevotion it begot. But the opposite is the case. For it frequently\nhappens that greater devotion is aroused by the contemplation of the\nPassion of Christ and of the other mysteries of His Sacred Humanity than\nby meditation upon the Divine excellences.\n\n    It is true that things which concern the Godhead are of\n    themselves more calculated to excite in us love, and\n    consequently devotion, since God is to be loved above all\n    things; yet it is due to the weakness of the human mind that\n    just as it needs to be led by the hand to the knowledge of\n    Divine things, so also must it be lead to Divine love by means\n    of the things of sense already known to it; and the chief of\n    these things is the Humanity of Christ, as is said in the\n    _Preface_ of the Mass: _So that knowing God visibly in the\n    flesh, we may thereby be carried away to the love of things\n    invisible._ Consequently the things that have to do with\n    Christ's Humanity lead us, as it were, by the hand and are thus\n    especially suited to stir up devotion in us; though, none the\n    less, devotion is principally concerned with the Divinity.\n\n3. Lastly, if contemplation were the real cause of devotion, it ought to\nfollow that those who are the more fitted for contemplation are also the\nmore fitted for devotion; whereas the contrary is the case, for greater\ndevotion is often found among simple folk and in the female sex, where\ncontemplation is wanting.\n\n    But knowledge, as indeed anything which renders a person great,\n    occasions a man to trust in Himself, and hence he does not\n    wholly give himself to God. It is for this reason that knowledge\n    and suchlike things are sometimes a hindrance to a man's\n    devotion, whereas among women and simple folk devotion abounds\n    by the suppression of all elation. But if a man will only\n    perfectly subject to God his knowledge and any other perfection\n    he may have, then his devotion will increase.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n_Cajetan:_ Note these two intrinsic causes of devotion: one, namely,\nwhich arises from meditation upon God and His benefits, the other from\nmeditation on our own defects. Under the first head I must consider\nGod's goodness, mercy, and kindness towards mankind and towards myself;\nthe benefits, for instance, of creation according to His own Likeness,\nof Redemption, of Baptism, of His inspirations, of His invitations--\nwhether directly or through the medium of others; His patient waiting\ntill I do penance; His Holy Eucharist; His preserving me from so many\nperils both of body and soul; His care of me by means of His Angels; and\nHis other individual benefits. Under the second head come all my faults\nand the punishments due to me, whether in the past or now in the\npresent; my proneness to sin; my misuse of my own powers by habituating\nmy thoughts and desires--as well as the inclinations of my other various\nfaculties--to evil; my sojourning in a region far away from His\nFriendship and from His Divine conversation[90]; my perverted affections\nwhich make me think far more of temporal than of spiritual advantages or\ndisadvantages; my utter lack of virtue; the wounds of my ignorance, of\nmy malice, of my weakness, of my concupiscence; the shackles on my hands\nand feet, on my good works, that is; the shackles, too, on my\naffections, so that I dwell amidst darkness and rottenness and\nbitterness, and shrink not from it! My deafness, too, to the inner voice\nof my Shepherd; and, what is far worse, that I have chosen God for my\nenemy and my adversary as often as I have chosen mortal sin, and that I\nhave thus offered Him the grievous insult of refusing to have Him for my\nGod, and choosing instead my belly, or money, or false delights--and\ncalled them my God!\n\nMeditations such as these should be in daily use among spiritual and\nreligious people, and for their sake they should put aside the\n\"much-speaking\" of vocal prayer, however much it may appeal to them. And\nit is of such meditations that devotion and, by consequence, other\nvirtues, are begotten. And they who do not give themselves to this form\nof prayer at least once in the day cannot be called religious men or\nwomen, nor even spiritual people. There can be no effect without a\ncause, no end without means to it, no gaining the harbour on the island\nsave by a voyage in a ship; and so there can be no real religion without\nrepeated acts regarding its causes, the means to it, and the vehicle\nthat is to bring us thither (_on_ 2. 2. 82. 3).\n\n_Cajetan:_ Just as he who removes an obstacle is the occasion of the\nresulting effect--a man, for instance, who pulls down a pillar is the\noccasion of the resulting fall of what it supported, and a man who\nremoves a water-dam is the occasion of the consequent flood--so in the\nsame way have women and simple folk a cause of devotion within\nthemselves, for they have not that obstacle which consists in\nself-confidence. And because God bestows His grace on those who put no\nobstacle to it, the Church therefore calls the female sex \"devout.\"\nHence we are not to find fault with the learned for their knowledge, nor\nare we to praise women for womanly weakness; but that abuse of knowledge\nwhich consists in self-exaltation is blameworthy, just as the right use\nof women's weakness in not being uplifted is praiseworthy (_on_ 2. 2.\n82. 3).\n\n\nIV\n\nIs Joy an Effect of Devotion?\n\nIn the Church's _Collect_ for the Thursday after the Fourth Sunday of\nLent we say: _May holy devotion fill with joy those whom the fast they\nhave undertaken chastises._\n\nOf itself indeed, and primarily, devotion brings about a spiritual joy\nof the mind; but as an accidental result it causes sorrow. For, as we\nhave said above, devotion arises from two considerations. Primarily it\narises from the consideration of the Divine Goodness, and from this\nthought there necessarily follows gladness, in accordance with the\nwords: _I remembered God and was delighted._[91] Yet, as it were\naccidentally, this consideration begets a certain sadness in those who\ndo not as yet fully enjoy God: _My soul hath thirsted after the strong\nliving God_,[92] and he immediately adds: _My tears have been my bread._\n\nSecondarily, however, devotion arises from the consideration of our own\ndefects, for we thus reflect upon that from which a man, by devout acts\nof the will, turns away, so as no longer to dwell in himself, but to\nsubject himself to God.\n\nAnd this consideration is the converse of the former: for of itself it\ntends to cause sadness since it makes us dwell upon our defects;\naccidentally, however, it causes joy, for it makes us think of the hope\nwe have of God's assistance.\n\nHence joy of heart primarily and of itself follows from devotion; but\nsecondarily and accidentally there results a sadness which is unto God.\n\nSome, however, argue that joy is not an effect of devotion, thus:\n\n1. Christ's Passion, as said before, is especially calculated to cause\ndevotion. But from dwelling on it there follows a certain affliction of\nsoul: _Remember my poverty ... the wormwood and the gall_[93]--that is,\nthe Sacred Passion; and then follows: _I will be mindful, and remember,\nand my soul shall languish within me._\n\n    In meditation on the Passion of Christ there is food for\n    sadness--viz., the thought of the sins of men, and to take these\n    away Christ had need to suffer. But there is also food for\n    joy--viz., the thought of God's merciful kindness towards us in\n    providing us such a deliverance.\n\n2. Again, devotion principally consists in the interior sacrifice of the\nheart: _A sacrifice to God is an afflicted spirit_;[94] consequently\naffliction, rather than pleasure or joy, is the outcome of devotion.\n\n    But the soul which is on the one hand saddened because of its\n    shortcomings in this present life, is on the other hand\n    delighted at the thought of the goodness of God and of the hope\n    of Divine assistance.\n\n3. Lastly, S. Gregory of Nyssa says[95]: \"Just as laughter proceeds from\njoy, so are sorrow and groaning signs of sadness.\" But out of devotion\nsome burst into tears.\n\n    Yet tears spring not from sadness alone, but also from a certain\n    tenderness of feeling: and especially is this the case when we\n    reflect on something that, while pleasant, has in it a certain\n    admixture of sadness; thus men are wont to weep from loving\n    affection when they recover their children or others dear to\n    them whom they had thought lost. And it is in this sense that\n    tears spring from devotion.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n_Cajetan:_ Notice the proof here afforded that those are not devout\npersons who are habitually sad and gloomy, and who cannot mingle with\nothers without getting into difficulties or dissolving into tears. For\ndevout folk are cheerful, and are full of joy in their souls; and this\nnot solely by reason of the principal cause, as is stated in the text,\nbut also by reason of a secondary cause--the thought, namely, of their\nown failings. For the sadness of devout folk is _according to God_, and\njoy accompanies it; whence S. Augustine's remark: \"Let a man grieve, but\nlet him rejoice at his grief.\"[96] Therefore it is that we read of the\nSaints that they were joyful and bright; and rightly so, for they had\nbegun upon earth their \"heavenly conversation\"[97] (_on_ 2. 2. 82. 4).\n\n_S. Augustine:_ For Thee do I yearn, Justice and Innocence, Beautiful\nand Fair in Thy beauteous light that satisfies and yet never sates! For\nwith Thee is repose exceedingly and life without disquiet! He that\nenters into Thee enters into the joy of his Lord; he shall know no fear,\nand in the Best shall be best. But I have deserted Thee and have\nwandered away, O Lord, my God! Too far have I wandered from Thee, the\nSteadfast One, in my youth, and I have become to myself a very land of\nwant! (_Confessions_, II. x.).\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[79] VIII. 9 and X. 29.\n\n[80] xxxv. 20-21.\n\n[81] 2 Paral. xxix. 31.\n\n[82] _Ethics_, V. i. 3.\n\n[83] _Of the Divine Names_, chap. iv., part i., lect. 10.\n\n[84] _Sermon VIII.: On the Passion of Our Lord._\n\n[85] S. John xix. 15.\n\n[86] _Commentary on S. Luke_ ix. 55.\n\n[87] _De Trinitate_, ix. 12; xv. 23.\n\n[88] Ps. lxxii. 28.\n\n[89] Ps. cxx. 1, 2.\n\n[90] S. Luke xv. 13, 16.\n\n[91] Ps. lxxvi. 4.\n\n[92] Ps. xli. 3.\n\n[93] Lam. iii. 19.\n\n[94] Ps. i. 19.\n\n[95] _De Homine_, xii.\n\n[96] _De Vera et Falsa Poenitentia_, xiii.\n\n[97] Phil. iii. 20.\n\n\n\n\nQUESTION LXXXIII\n\nOF PRAYER\n\n  I. Is Prayer an Act of the Appetitive Powers?\n       Cardinal Cajetan, On Prayer based on Friendship\n II. Is it Fitting to Pray?\n       Cardinal Cajetan, On Prayer as a True Cause\n       S. Augustine, _On the Sermon on the Mount_, II. iii. 14\n             \" _On the Gift of Perseverance_, vii. 15\nIII. Is Prayer an Act of the Virtue of Religion?\n       Cardinal Cajetan, On the Humility of Prayer\n       S. Augustine, _On Psalm_ cii. 10\n             \" _Of the Gift of Perseverance_, xvi. 39\n IV. Ought We to Pray to God Alone?\n       S. Augustine, _Sermon_, cxxvii. 2\n  V. Should We in our Prayers ask for anything Definite from God?\n       S. Augustine, _De Catechizandis Rudibus_, xxv. 47\n             \" _Confessions_, X. xxix.\n             \" _Confessions_, XI. ii. 2\n VI. Ought We in our Prayers to ask for Temporal Things from God?\n       S. Augustine, _On Psalm_ xxxvii. 10\n             \" _Confessions_, I. xx. 2\n             \" _Confessions_, IX. iv. 12\n       S. Thomas is miraculously relieved from Toothache\n       S. Augustine, _Sermon_, lxxx. 7\n             \" _Sermon_, cccliv. 8\n VII. Ought We to Pray for Others?\nVIII. Ought We to Pray for our Enemies?\n        S. Augustine, _Sermon_, xv., on _Psalm_ xxv. 8\n  IX. On the Seven Petitions of the Lord's Prayer\n        Cardinal Cajetan, On the Grouping of these Petitions\n        S. Augustine, _Confessions_, VII. x. 2\n              \" _Sermon_, lvii., _on S. Matt._ vi. 7\n              \" _Sermon_, lvi. 9, _on S. Matt._ vi.\n              \" _Sermon_, lvi. 8, _on S. Matt._ vi.\n              \" _Of the City of God_, xix. 27\n        S. Thomas's Rhythm, _Adoro Te Devote_\n   X. Is Prayer Peculiar to Rational Creatures?\n  XI. Do the Saints in Heaven Pray for Us?\n        Cardinal Cajetan, On the Saints in Limbo\n XII. Should Prayer be Vocal?\n        Cardinal Cajetan, On the Conditions of Vocal Prayer\n        S. Augustine, _Confessions_, IX. iv. 8\n              \" _Confessions_, X. xxxiii. 50\n              \" _On Psalm_ cxviii., _Sermon_ xxix. 1\nXIII. Must Prayer necessarily be Attentive?\n        Cardinal Cajetan, On the Varieties of Attention at Prayer\n        S. Augustine, _On Psalm_ lxxxv. 7\n             \" _On Psalm_ cxlv. 1\n        S. Thomas, _On Distractions, Com. on 1 Cor._ xiv. 14\n XIV. Should our Prayers be Long?\n  XV. Is Prayer Meritorious?\n        S. Augustine, _On Psalm_ xxvi.\n             \" _Ep._ cxxx. _ad Probam._\n XVI. Do Sinners gain Anything from God by their Prayers?\nXVII. Can We rightly term \"Supplications,\" \"Prayers,\"\n          \"Intercessions,\" and \"Thanksgivings,\" parts of Prayer?\n        Cardinal Cajetan, On the Prayer of the Consecration\n        S. Augustine, _Of Divers Questions_, iv.\n\n\nI\n\nIs Prayer an Act of the Appetitive Powers?\n\nS. Isidore says[98]: \"To pray is the same thing as to speak.\" Speaking,\nhowever, belongs to the intellect. Hence prayer is not an act of the\nappetitive, but of the intellectual faculties.\n\nAccording to Cassiodorus, on those words of the Psalmist: _Hear my\nprayer, O Lord, and my supplication, give ear to my tears_,[99] prayer\nmeans \"the lips' reasoning.\" Now there is this difference between the\nspeculative and the practical reason, that the speculative reason merely\napprehends things, while the practical reason not only apprehends\nthings, but actually causes them. But one thing is the cause of another\nin two ways: in one way, perfectly--namely, as inducing a necessity--as\nhappens when the effect comes entirely under the power of a cause; in\nanother way, imperfectly--namely, by merely disposing to it--as happens\nwhen an effect is not entirely under the power of a cause.\n\nAnd so, too, reason is in two ways the cause of certain things: in one\nway as imposing a necessity; and in this way it belongs to the reason to\ncommand not merely the lower faculties and the bodily members, but even\nmen who are subject to us, and this is done by giving commands. In\nanother way as inducing, and in some sort disposing to, an effect; and\nin this way the reason asks for something to be done by those who are\nsubject to it, whether they be equals or superiors.\n\nBut both of these--namely, to command something, or to ask or beg for\nsomething to be done--imply a certain arrangement--as when a man\narranges for something to be done by somebody else. And in this respect\nboth of these acts come under the reason whose office it is to arrange.\nHence the Philosopher says[100]: \"Reason asks for the best things.\"\n\nHere, then, we speak of prayer as implying a certain asking or petition,\nfor, as S. Augustine says[101]: \"Prayer is a certain kind of petition\";\nso, too, S. John Damascene says[102]: \"Prayer is the asking of fitting\nthings from God.\"\n\nHence it is clear that the prayer of which we are here speaking is an\nact of the reason.\n\nSome, however, think that prayer is an act of the appetitive powers,\nthus:\n\n1. The whole object of prayer is to be heard, and the Psalmist says that\nit is our desires which are heard: _The Lord hath heard the desire of\nthe poor._[103] Prayer, then, is desire; but desire is an act of the\nappetitive powers.\n\n    But the Lord is said to hear the desires of the poor either\n    because their desire is the reason why they ask--since our\n    petitions are in a certain sense the outward expression of our\n    desires; or this may be said in order to show the swiftness with\n    which He hears them--even while things are only existing in the\n    poor man's desire; God hears them even before they are expressed\n    in prayer. And this accords with the words of Isaias: _And it\n    shall come to pass that before they shall call I will hear, as\n    they are yet speaking I will hear._[104]\n\n2. Again, Denis the Areopagite says: \"But before all things it is good\nto begin with prayer, as thereby giving ourselves up to and uniting\nourselves with God.\"[105] But union with God comes through love, and\nlove belongs to the appetitive powers; therefore prayer, too, would seem\nto belong to the appetitive powers.\n\n    But the will moves the reason to its end or object. Hence there\n    is nothing to prevent the reason, under the direction of the\n    will, from tending to the goal of charity, which is union with\n    God. Prayer, however, tends towards God--moved, that is, by the\n    will, which itself is motived by charity--in two ways: in one\n    way by reason of that which is asked for, since in prayer we\n    have particularly to ask that we may be united with God,\n    according to those words: _One thing I have asked of the Lord,\n    this will I seek after, that I may dwell in the house of the\n    Lord all the days of my life._[106] And in another way prayer\n    tends towards God--by reason, namely, of the petitioner himself;\n    for such a one must approach him from whom he asks something,\n    and this either bodily, as when he draws nigh to a man, or\n    mentally, as when he draws nigh to God.\n\n    Hence the same Denis says: \"When we invoke God in prayer we are\n    before Him with our minds laid bare.\" In the same sense S. John\n    Damascene says: \"Prayer is the ascent of the mind towards God.\"\n\n\n_Cajetan:_ Prayer demands of the petitioner a twofold union with God:\nthe one is general--the union, that is, of friendship--and is produced\nby charity, so that further on[107] we shall find the friendship arising\nfrom charity enumerated among the conditions for infallibly efficacious\nprayer. The second kind of union may be termed substantial union; it is\nthe effect of prayer itself. It is that union of application by which\nthe mind offers itself and all it has to God in service--viz., by devout\naffections, by meditations, and by external acts. By such union as this\na man who prays is inseparable from God in his worship and service, just\nas when one man serves another he is inseparable from him in his service\n(_on_ 2. 2. 83. 1).\n\n    \"And now, O Lord, Thou art our Father, and we are clay: and Thou\n    art our Maker, and we are all the works of Thy hands. Be not\n    very angry, O Lord, and remember no longer our iniquity: behold,\n    see we are all Thy people.\"[108]\n\n\nII\n\nIs It Fitting To Pray?\n\nIn S. Luke's Gospel we read: _We ought always to pray and not to\nfaint._[109]\n\nA threefold error regarding prayer existed amongst the ancients; for\nsome maintained that human affairs were not directed by Divine\nProvidence; whence it followed that it was altogether vain to pray or to\nworship God; of such we read: _You have said, he laboureth in vain that\nserveth God_.[110] A second opinion was that all things, even human\naffairs, happened of necessity--whether from the immutability of Divine\nProvidence, or from a necessity imposed by the stars, or from the\nconnection of causes; and this opinion, of course, excluded all utility\nfrom prayer. A third opinion was that human affairs were indeed directed\nby Divine Providence, and that human affairs did not happen of\nnecessity, but that Divine Providence was changeable, and that\nconsequently its dispositions were changed by our prayers and by other\nacts of religious worship. These views, however, have elsewhere been\nshown to be wrong.\n\nConsequently we have so to set forth the utility of prayer as neither to\nmake things happen of necessity because subject to Divine Providence,\nnor to suggest that the arrangements of Divine Providence are subject to\nchange.\n\nTo bring this out clearly we must consider that Divine Providence not\nmerely arranges what effects shall take place, but also from what causes\nthey shall proceed, and in what order.\n\nBut amongst other causes human acts are causes of certain effects. Hence\nmen must do certain things, not so that their acts may change the Divine\narrangement, but that by their acts they may bring about certain effects\naccording to the order arranged by God; and it is the same with natural\ncauses. It is the same, too, in the case of prayer. For we do not pray\nin order to change the Divine arrangements, but in order to win that\nwhich God arranged should be fulfilled by means of prayers; or, in S.\nGregory's words: \"Men by petitioning may merit to receive what Almighty\nGod arranged before the ages to give them.\"[111]\n\nSome, however, maintain that prayer is futile, thus:\n\n1. Prayer seems to be necessary in order that we may bring our wants to\nthe notice of Him to Whom we make the petition. But our Lord says: _Your\nFather knoweth that ye have need of all these things._[112]\n\n    But it is not necessary for us to set forth our petitions before\n    God in order to make known to Him our needs or desires, but\n    rather that we ourselves may realize that in these things it is\n    needful to have recourse to the Divine assistance.\n\n2. Again, by prayer the mind of him to whom it is made is prevailed upon\nto grant what is asked of him; but the mind of God is unchangeable and\ninflexible: _The Triumpher in Israel will not spare, and will not be\nmoved to repentance; for He is not a man that He should repent._[113]\nConsequently it is unavailing to pray to God.\n\n    But our prayers do not aim at changing the Divine arrangements,\n    but at obtaining by our prayers what God has arranged to give\n    us.\n\n3. Lastly, it is more generous to give to one who does not ask than to\none who asks, for, as Seneca remarks: \"Nothing is bought at a dearer\nprice than what is bought with prayers.\"[114] Whereas God is most\ngenerous.\n\n    God, indeed, bestows on us many things out of His generosity,\n    even things for which we do not ask; but He wishes to grant us\n    some things on the supposition that we ask for them. And this is\n    for our advantage, for it is intended to beget in us a certain\n    confidence in having recourse to God, as well as to make us\n    recognize that He is the Author of all good to us. Hence S.\n    Chrysostom says: \"Reflect what great happiness is bestowed upon\n    you, what glory is given you, namely, to converse in your\n    prayers with God, to join in colloquy with Christ, and to beg\n    for what you wish or desire.\"[115]\n\n_Cajetan:_ Notice how foolish are some Christians who, when desirous of\nreaching certain ends attainable by nature or art, are most careful to\napply such means, and would rightly regard their hopes as vain unless\nthey applied them; and yet at the same time they have quite false\nnotions of the fruits to be derived from prayer: as though prayer were\nno cause at all, or at least but a remote one! Whence it comes to pass\nthat, having false ideas about the causes, they fail to reap any fruit\n(_on_ 2. 2. 83. 2).\n\n_S. Augustine:_ But some may say: It is not so much a question whether\nwe are to pray by words or deeds as whether we are to pray at all if God\nalready knows what is needful for us. Yet the very giving ourselves to\nprayer has the effect of soothing our minds and purifying them; it makes\nus more fit to receive the Divine gifts which are spiritually poured out\nupon us. For God does not hear us because of a display of prayer on our\npart; He is always ready, indeed, to give us His light, not, indeed, His\nvisible light, but the light of the intellect and the spirit. It is we\nwho are not always prepared to receive it, and this because we are\npreoccupied with other things and swallowed up in the darkness resulting\nfrom desire of the things of earth. When we pray, then, our hearts must\nturn to God, Who is ever ready to give if only we will take what He\ngives. And in so turning to Him we must purify the eye of our mind by\nshutting out all thought for the things of time, that so--with\nsingle-minded gaze--we may be able to bear that simple light that shines\ndivinely, and neither sets nor changes. And not merely to bear it, but\neven to abide in it; and this not simply without strain, but with a\ncertain unspeakable joy. In this joy the life of the Blessed is truly\nand really perfected (_On the Sermon on the Mount_, II. iii. 14).\n\n_S. Augustine:_ He could have bestowed these things on us even without\nour prayers; but He wished that by our prayers we should be taught from\nWhom these benefits come. For from whom do we receive them if not from\nHim from Whom we are bidden to ask them? Assuredly in this matter the\nChurch does not demand laborious disputations; but note Her daily\nprayers: She prays that unbelievers may believe: God then brings them to\nthe Faith. She prays that the faithful may persevere: God gives them\nperseverance to the end. And God foreknew that He would do these things.\nFor this is the predestination of the Saints whom _He chose in Christ\nbefore the foundation of the world_[116] (_Of the Gift of Perseverance_,\nvii. 15).\n\n    \"Thou hast taught me, O God, from my youth; and till now I will\n    declare Thy wonderful works. And unto old age and grey hairs, O\n    God, forsake me not, until I shew forth Thy arm to all the\n    generation that is to come.\"[117]\n\n\nIII\n\nIs Prayer an Act of the Virtue of Religion?\n\nIn Ps. cxl. 2 we read: _Let my prayer be directed as incense in Thy\nsight_, and on these words the Gloss remarks: \"According to this figure,\nin the Old Law incense was said to be offered as an odour of sweetness\nto the Lord.\" And this comes under the virtue of religion. Therefore\nprayer is an act of religion.\n\nIt properly belongs to the virtue of religion to give due reverence and\nhonour to God, and hence all those things by which such reverence is\nshown to God come under religion. By prayer, however, a man shows\nreverence to God inasmuch as he submits himself to Him and, by praying,\nacknowledges that he needs God as the Author of all his good. Whence it\nis clear that prayer is properly an act of religion.\n\nSome, however, maintain that prayer is not an act of the virtue of\nreligion, thus:\n\n1. Prayer is rather the exercise of the Gift of Understanding than of\nthe virtue of religion. For the virtue of religion comes under Justice;\nit is therefore resident in the will. But prayer belongs to the\nintellectual faculties, as we have shown above.\n\n    But we must remember that the will moves the other faculties of\n    the soul to their objects or ends, and that consequently the\n    virtue of religion, which is in the will, directs the acts of\n    the other faculties in the reverence they show towards God. Now\n    amongst these other faculties of the soul the intellect is the\n    noblest and the most nigh to the will; consequently, next to\n    devotion, which belongs to the will itself, prayer, which\n    belongs to the intellective part, is the chief act of religion,\n    for by it religion moves a man's understanding towards God.\n\n2. Again, acts of worship fall under precept, whereas prayer seems to\nfall under no precept, but to proceed simply from the mere wish to pray;\nfor prayer is merely asking for what we want; consequently prayer is not\nan act of the virtue of religion.\n\n    Yet not only to ask for what we desire, but to desire rightly,\n    falls under precept; to desire, indeed, falls under the precept\n    of charity, but to ask falls under the precept of religion--the\n    precept which is laid down in the words: _Ask and ye shall\n    receive_.[118]\n\n3. Lastly, the virtue of religion embraces due worship and ceremonial\noffered to the Divinity; prayer, however, offers God nothing, but only\nseeks to obtain things from Him.\n\n    In prayer a man offers to God his mind, which he subjects to Him\n    in reverence, and which he, in some sort, lays bare before\n    Him--as we have just seen in S. Denis's words. Hence, since the\n    human mind is superior to all the other exterior or bodily\n    members, and also to all exterior things which have place in the\n    Divine worship, it follows that prayer, too, is pre-eminent\n    among the acts of the virtue of religion.\n\n_Cajetan:_ In prayer or petition there are three things to be\nconsidered: the thing petitioned for, the actual petition, and the\npetitioner. As far, then, as the thing petitioned for is concerned, we\ngive nothing to God when we pray; rather we ask Him to give us\nsomething. But if we consider the actual petition, then we do offer\nsomething to God when we pray. For the very act of petitioning is an act\nof subjection; it is an acknowledgment of God's power. And the proof of\nthis is that proud men would prefer to submit to want rather than humble\nthemselves by asking anything of others. Further, the petitioner, by the\nvery fact that he petitions, acknowledges that he whom he petitions has\nthe power to assist him, and is merciful, or just, or provident; it is\nfor this reason that he hopes to be heard. Hence petition or prayer is\nregarded as an act of the virtue of religion, the object of which is to\ngive honour to God. For we honour God by asking things of Him, and this\nby so much the more as--whether from our manner of asking or from the\nnature of what we ask for--we acknowledge Him to be above all things, to\nbe our Creator, our Provider, our Redeemer, etc. And this is what S.\nThomas points out in the body of the Article. But if we consider the\npetitioner: then, since man petitions with his mind--for petition is an\nact of the mind--and since the mind is the noblest thing in man, it\nfollows that by petitioning we submit to God that which is noblest in\nus, since we use it to ask things of Him, and thereby do Him honour.\nThus by prayer we offer our minds in sacrifice to God; so, too, by\nbending the knee to Him we offer to Him and sacrifice to Him our knees,\nby using them to His honour (_on_ 2. 2. 83. 3).\n\n_S. Augustine:_ I stand as a beggar at the gate, He sleepeth not on Whom\nI call! Oh, may He give me those three loaves! For you remember the\nGospel? Ah! see how good a thing it is to know God's word; those of you\nwho have read it are stirred within yourselves! For you remember how a\nneedy man came to his friend's house and asked for three loaves. And He\nsays that he sleepily replied to him: \"I am resting, and my children are\nwith me asleep.\" But he persevered in his request, and wrung from him by\nhis importunity what his deserts could not get. But God wishes to give;\nyet only to those who ask--lest He should give to those who understand\nnot. He does not wish to be stirred up by your weariness! For when you\npray you are not being troublesome to one who sleeps; _He slumbereth not\nnor sleeps that keepeth Israel._[119] ... He, then, sleeps not; see you\nthat your faith sleeps not! (_Enarr. in Ps._ cii. 10).\n\n_S. Augustine:_ Some there are who either do not pray at all, or pray\nbut tepidly; and this because, forsooth, they have learnt from the Lord\nHimself[120] that God knows, even before we ask Him, what is necessary\nfor us. But because of such folk are we to say that these words are not\ntrue and therefore to be blotted out of the Gospel? Nay, rather, since\nit is clear that God gives some things even to those who do not ask--as,\nfor instance, the beginnings of faith--and has prepared other things for\nthose only who pray for them--as, for instance, final perseverance--it\nis evident that he who fancies he has this latter of himself does not\npray to have it (_Of the Gift of Perseverance_, xvi. 39).\n\n    \"I will sing to the Lord as long as I live; I will sing praise\n    to my God while I have my being. Let my speech be acceptable to\n    Him; but I will take delight in the Lord.\"[121]\n\n\nIV\n\nOught We To Pray To God Alone?\n\nIn Job v. 1 we read: _Call, now, if there be any that will answer thee,\nand turn to some of the Saints._\n\nPrayer is addressed to a person in two ways: in one way as a petition to\nbe granted by him; in another way as a petition to be forwarded by him.\nIn the former way we only pray to God, for all our prayers ought to be\ndirected to the attaining of grace and glory, and these God alone gives:\n_The Lord will give grace and glory._[122] But in the latter way we set\nforth our prayers both to the holy Angels and to men; and this, not that\nthrough their intervention God may know our petitions, but rather that\nby their prayers and merits our petitions may gain their end. Hence it\nis said in the Apocalypse: _And the smoke of the incense of the prayers\nof the Saints ascended up before God from the hand of the Angel._[123]\nAnd this is clearly shown, too, from the style adopted by the Church in\nher prayers: for of the Holy Trinity we pray that mercy may be shown us;\nbut of all the Saints, whomsoever they may be, we pray that they may\nintercede for us.\n\nSome, however, maintain that we ought to pray to God alone, thus:\n\n1. Prayer is an act of the virtue of religion. But only God is to be\nworshipped by the virtue of religion. Consequently it is to Him alone\nthat we should pray.\n\n    But in our prayers we only show religious worship to Him from\n    Whom we hope to obtain what we ask, for by so doing we confess\n    Him to be the Author of all our goods; but we do not show\n    religious worship to those whom we seek to have as intercessors\n    with us before God.\n\n2. Again, prayer to those who cannot know what we pray for is idle. But\nGod alone can know our prayers, and this because prayer is frequently a\npurely interior act of which God alone is cognizant, as the Apostle\nsays: _I will pray with the spirit. I will pray also with the\nunderstanding_;[124] and also because, as S. Augustine says[125]: The\ndead know not, not even the Saints, what the living--not even excepting\ntheir own children--are doing.\n\n    It is true that the dead, if we consider only their natural\n    condition, do not know what is done on earth, and especially do\n    they not know the interior movements of the heart. But to the\n    Blessed, as S. Gregory says,[126] manifestation is made in the\n    Divine Word of those things which it is fitting that they should\n    know as taking place in our regard, even the interior movements\n    of the heart. And, indeed, it is most befitting their state of\n    excellence that they should be cognizant of petitions addressed\n    to them, whether vocally or mentally. Hence through God's\n    revelation they are cognizant of the petitions which we address\n    them.\n\n3. Lastly, some say: if we do address prayers to any of the Saints, the\nsole reason for doing so lies in the fact that they are closely united\nto God. But we do not address prayers to people who, while still living\nin this world, are closely knit to God, nor to those who are in\nPurgatory and are united to Him. There seems, then, to be no reason why\nwe should address prayers to the Saints in Paradise.\n\n    But they who are still in the world or in Purgatory do not as\n    yet enjoy the vision of the Divine Word so as to be able to know\n    what we think or say, hence we do not implore their help when we\n    pray; though when talking with living people we do ask them to\n    help us.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n_S. Augustine:_ It is no great thing to live long, nor even to live for\never; but it is indeed a great thing to live well. Oh, let us love\neternal life! And we realize how earnestly we ought to strive for that\neternal life when we note how men who love this present temporal life so\nwork for it--though it is to pass away--that, when the fear of death\ncomes, they strive all they can, not, indeed, to do away with death, but\nto put death off! How men labour when death approaches! They flee from\nit; they hide from it; they give all they have; they try to buy\nthemselves off; they work and strive; they put up with tortures and\ninconveniences; they call in physicians; they do everything that lies\nwithin their power! Yet even if they spend all their toil and their\nsubstance, they can only secure that they may live a little longer, not\nthat they may live for ever! If, then, men spend such toil, such\nendeavour, so much money, so much anxiety, watchfulness, and care, in\norder to live only a little longer, what ought we not to do that we may\nlive for ever? And if we call them prudent who take every possible\nprecaution to stave off death, to live but a few days more, to save just\na few days, then how foolish are they who so pass their days as to lose\nthe Day of Eternity! (_Sermon_, cxxvii. 2).\n\n    \"May God have mercy on us, and bless us: may He cause the light\n    of His countenance to shine upon us, and may He have mercy on\n    us. That we may know Thy way upon earth: Thy salvation in all\n    nations. Let people confess to Thee, O God: let all people give\n    praise to Thee. Let the nations be glad and rejoice: for Thou\n    judgest the people with justice, and directest the nations upon\n    earth. Let the people, O God, confess to Thee: let all the\n    people give praise to Thee: the earth hath yielded her fruit.\n    May God, our God bless us, may God bless us: and all the ends of\n    the earth fear Him.\"[127]\n\n\nV\n\nShould We in our Prayers ask for Anything Definite from God?\n\nOur Lord taught the disciples to ask definitely for the things which are\ncontained in the petitions of the Lord's Prayer: _Thus shalt thou\npray._[128]\n\nMaximus Valerius tells of Socrates[129] that he \"maintained that nothing\nfurther should be asked of the immortal gods save that they should give\nus good things; and this on the ground that they knew well what was best\nfor each individual, whereas we often ask in our prayers for things\nwhich it would be better not to have asked for.\" And this opinion has\nsome truth in it as regards those things which can turn out ill, or\nwhich a man can use well or ill, as, for example, riches which, as the\nsame Socrates says, \"have been to the destruction of many; or honours\nwhich have ruined many; or the possession of kingdoms, the issues of\nwhich are so often ill-fated; or splendid matrimonial alliances, which\nhave sometimes proved the ruin of families.\" But there are certain good\nthings of which a man cannot make a bad use--those, namely, which cannot\nhave a bad issue. And these are the things by which we are rendered\nblessed and by which we merit beatitude; these are the things for which\nthe Saints pray unconditionally: _Show us Thy Face and we shall be\nsaved_;[130] and again: _Lead me along the path of Thy\ncommandments_.[131]\n\nSome, however, say that we ought not in our prayers to ask for definite\nthings from God, thus:\n\n1. S. John Damascene defines prayer as \"asking from God things that are\nfitting\";[132] consequently prayer for things which are not expedient is\nof no efficacy, as S. James says: _You ask and receive not, because you\nask amiss_.[133] Moreover, S. Paul says: _We know not what we should\npray for as we ought_.[134]\n\n    But it is also true that though a man cannot of himself know\n    what he ought to pray for, yet, as the Apostle says in the same\n    place: _In this the Spirit helpeth our infirmity_--namely, in\n    that, by inspiring us with holy desires, He makes us ask aright.\n    Hence Our Lord says that the true adorers _must adore in spirit\n    and in truth_.[135]\n\n2. Further, he who asks from another some definite thing strives to bend\nthat other's will to do what the petitioner wants. But we ought not to\ndirect our prayers towards making God will what we will, but rather we\nshould will what He wills--as the Gloss says on the words of Ps. xxxii.\n1: _Rejoice in the Lord, O ye just!_ It would seem, therefore, that we\nought not to ask for definite things from God when we pray.\n\n    Yet when in our prayers we ask for things which appertain to our\n    salvation, we are conforming our will to the will of God, for of\n    His will it is said: _He will have all men to be saved_.[136]\n\n3. Lastly, evil things cannot be asked from God; and He Himself invites\nus to receive good things. But it is idle for a person to ask for what\nhe is invited to receive.\n\n    God, it is true, invites us to receive good things; but He\n    wishes us to come to them--not, indeed, by the footsteps of the\n    body--but by pious desires and devout prayers.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n_S. Augustine:_ Fly, then, by unwavering faith and holy habits, fly,\nbrethren, from those torments where the torturers never desist, and\nwhere the tortured never die; whose death is unending, and where in\ntheir anguish they cannot die. But burn with love for and desire of the\neternal life of the Saints where there is no longer the life of toil nor\nyet wearisome repose. For the praises of God will beget no disgust,\nneither will they ever cease. There will there be no weariness of the\nsoul, no bodily fatigue; there will there be no wants: neither wants of\nyour own which will call for succour, nor wants of your neighbour\ndemanding your speedy help. God will be all your delight; there will ye\nfind the abundance of that Holy City that from Him draws life and\nhappily and wisely lives in Him. For there, according to that promise of\nHis for which we hope and wait, we shall be made equal to the Angels of\nGod; and equally with them shall we then enjoy that vision of the Holy\nTrinity in which we now but walk by faith. For we now believe what we do\nnot see, that so by the merits of that same faith we then may merit to\nsee what we believe, and may so hold fast to it that the Equality of\nFather, Son, and Holy Ghost, and the Unity of the Trinity, may no longer\ncome to us under the garb of faith, nor be the subject of contentious\ntalk, but may rather be what we may drink in in purest and deepest\ncontemplation amid the silence of Eternity (_De Catechizandis Rudibus_,\nxxv. 47).\n\n_S. Augustine:_ O Lord, my God, give me what Thou biddest and then bid\nwhat Thou wilt! Thou biddest us be continent. _And I knew_, as a certain\none says, _that I could not otherwise be continent save God gave it, and\nthis also was a point of wisdom to know Whose gift it was_. Now by\ncontinence we are knit together and brought back into union with that\nOne from Whom we have wandered away after many things. For he loves Thee\nbut little who loves other things with Thee, and loves them not for\nThee! O Love that ever burnest and wilt never be extinguished! O\nCharity! O Lord, my God, set me on fire! Thou dost bid continence? Then\ngive me what Thou biddest and bid what Thou wilt! (_Confessions_, X.\nxxix.).\n\n_S. Augustine:_ O Lord, my God, listen to my prayer and mercifully hear\nmy desire! For my desire burns not for myself alone, but fraternal\ncharity bids it be of use. And Thou seest in my heart that it is so; for\nI would offer to Thee in sacrifice the service of my thoughts and of my\ntongue. Grant me then what I may offer to Thee. For I am needy and poor,\nand Thou art rich towards all that call upon Thee; for in peace and\ntranquillity hast Thou care for us. Circumcise, then, my lips, within\nand without, from all rashness and all untruthfulness. May Thy\nScriptures be my chaste delight; may I never be deceived in them nor\ndeceive others out of them. Attend, O Lord, and have mercy upon me, O\nLord, my God. Thou art the Light of the blind, the Strength of the weak,\nand so, too, art Thou the Light of them that see and the Strength of\nthem that are strong. Look, then, on my soul, and hear me when I cry\nfrom out the depths! (_Confessions_, XI. ii. 2).\n\n    \"Look down from Heaven, and behold from Thy holy habitation and\n    the place of Thy glory: where is Thy zeal, and Thy strength, the\n    multitude of Thy bowels, and of Thy mercies? they have held back\n    themselves from me. For Thou art our Father, and Abraham hath\n    not known us, and Israel hath been ignorant of us: Thou, O Lord,\n    art our Father, our Redeemer, from everlasting is Thy\n    Name.\"[137]\n\n\nVI\n\nOught We in our Prayers to ask for Temporal Things from God?\n\nWe have the authority of the Book of Proverbs for answering in the\naffirmative, for there we read[138]: _Give me only the necessaries of\nlife_.\n\nS. Augustine says to Proba[139]: \"It is lawful to pray for what it is\nlawful to desire.\" But it is lawful to desire temporal things, not\nindeed as our principal aim or as something which we make our end, but\nrather as props and stays which may be of assistance to us in our\nstriving for the possession of God; for by such things our bodily life\nis sustained, and such things, as the Philosopher says, co-operate\norganically to the production of virtuous acts.[140] Consequently it is\nlawful to pray for temporal things. And this is what S. Augustine means\nwhen he says to Proba: \"Not unfittingly does a person desire sufficiency\nfor this life when he desires it and nothing more; for such sufficiency\nis not sought for its own sake but for the body's health, and for a mode\nof life suitable to a man's position so that he may not be a source of\ninconvenience to those with whom he lives. When, then, we have these\nthings we must pray that we may retain them, and when we have not got\nthem we must pray that we may have them.\"[141]\n\nSome, however, argue that we ought not to pray for temporal things,\nthus:\n\n1. What we pray for we seek. But we are forbidden to seek for temporal\nthings, for it is said: _Seek ye therefore first the kingdom of God, and\nHis justice, and all these things shall be added unto you_,[142] those\ntemporal things, namely, which He says are not to be sought but which\nare to be added to the things which we seek.\n\n    But temporal things are to be sought secondarily not primarily.\n    Hence S. Augustine[143]: \"When He says the former is _to be\n    sought first_ (namely the kingdom of God), He means that the\n    latter (namely temporal good things) are to be sought\n    afterwards; not _afterwards_ in point of time, but _afterwards_\n    in point of importance; the former as our good, the latter as\n    our need.\"\n\n2. Again, we only ask for things about which we are solicitous. But we\nare not allowed to be solicitous about temporal concerns: _Be not\nsolicitous for your life, what ye shall eat_[144]....\n\n    But not all solicitude about temporal affairs is forbidden, only\n    such as is superfluous and out of due order.\n\n3. Further, we ought in prayer to uplift our minds to God. But by asking\nfor temporal things in prayer our mind descends to things beneath it,\nand this is contrary to the teaching of the Apostle: _While we look not\nat the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen. For\nthe things which are seen are temporal: but the things which are not\nseen are eternal._[145]\n\n    When our mind is occupied with temporal affairs so as to set up\n    its rest in them then it remains in them, and is depressed by\n    them; but when the mind turns to them as a means of attaining to\n    eternal life it is not depressed by them, but rather uplifted by\n    them.\n\n4. Lastly, men ought not to pray except for things useful and good. But\ntemporal possessions are at times hurtful, and this not merely\nspiritually but even temporally; hence a man ought not to ask them of\nGod.\n\n    But it is clear that since we do not seek temporal things\n    primarily or for their own sake, but with reference to something\n    else, we consequently only ask them of God according as they may\n    be expedient for our salvation.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n_S. Augustine: Lord, all my desire is before Thee, and my groaning is\nnot hid from Thee!_[146] It is not before men who cannot see the heart,\nbut _before Thee is all my desire_! And let your desires, too, be before\nHim, and your Father Who seeth in secret will repay thee. For your very\ndesire is a prayer, and if your desire is continual your prayer, too, is\ncontinual. Not without reason did the Apostle say: _Pray without\nceasing_.[147] Yet can we genuflect without ceasing? Can we prostrate\nwithout ceasing? Can we lift up our hands without ceasing? How, then,\ndoes he say: _Pray without ceasing_? If by _prayer_ he meant such things\nas these then I think we could not pray without ceasing. But there is\nanother prayer, an interior prayer, which is without ceasing--_desire_.\nWhatever else you do, if only you desire that _rest_[148] you cease not\nto pray. If you wish to pray without ceasing then desire without\nceasing. Your continual desire is your continual voice; but you will be\nsilent if you cease to love (_Enarr. in Ps._ xxxvii. 10).\n\n_S. Augustine:_ But all these things are the gifts of my God; I did not\ngive them to myself; they are good, and all these things am I. He then\nis good Who made me; nay, He Himself is my Good, and in Him do I rejoice\nfor all the good things which I had even as a boy! But in this did I sin\nthat, not in Him but in His creatures did I seek myself and other\npleasures, high thoughts and truths. Thus it was that I fell into\nsorrow, confusion, and error. Thanks be to Thee, my Sweetness, my Honour\nand my Trust, O my God! Thanks be to Thee for Thy gifts! But do Thou\nkeep them for me! For so doing Thou wilt be keeping me, and those things\nwhich Thou hast given me will be increased and perfected, and I myself\nshall be with Thee, for even that I should be at all is Thy gift to me!\n(_Confessions_, I. xx. 2).\n\n_S. Augustine:_ But I forget not, neither will I keep silence regarding\nthe severity of Thy scourge and the wondrous swiftness of Thy mercy.\nThou didst torture me with toothache; and when the pain had become so\ngreat that I could not even speak, it came into my mind to tell all my\nfriends who were there to pray to Thee for me, to Thee the God of all\nmanner of succour. And I wrote my request on a wax tablet and I gave it\nthem to read. And hardly had we bent the knee in humble prayer than the\npain fled! But what a pain it was! And how did it disappear? I was\nterrified, I confess it, O Lord my God! Never in all my life had I felt\nanything like it! (_Confessions_, IX. iv. 12).\n\nIt is narrated of S. Thomas that when at Paris it happened that having\nto lecture at the University on a subject which he had commenced the day\nbefore, he rose at night to pray as was his wont, but discovered that a\ntooth had suddenly pushed its way through his gums in such a way that he\ncould not speak. His companion suggested that since it was an\ninopportune time for procuring assistance a message should be sent to\nthe University stating what had happened and pointing out that the\nlecture could not be given till the tooth had been removed by a surgeon.\nBut S. Thomas, reflecting upon the difficulty in which the University\nwould be placed, considering also the danger which might arise from the\nremoval of the tooth in the way suggested, said to his companion: I see\nno remedy save to trust to God's Providence. He then betook himself to\nhis accustomed place of prayer, and for a long space besought God with\ntears to grant him this favour, leaving himself entirely in His hands.\nAnd when he had thus prayed he took the tooth between his fingers, and\nit came out at once without the slightest pain or wrench, and he found\nhimself freed from the impediment to his speech which it had caused.\nThis tooth he carried about with him for a long time as a reminder of an\nact of Divine loving-kindness such as he was anxious not to forget, for\nforgetfulness is the mother of ingratitude; he wished it, too, to move\nhim to still greater confidence in the power of prayer which had on that\noccasion been so quickly heard (see _Vita S. Thomae_, Bollandists, March\n7, vol. i., 1865, pp. 673, 704, 712).\n\n_S. Augustine:_ But temporal things are sometimes for our profit,\nsometimes for our hurt. For many poverty was good, wealth did them harm.\nFor many a hidden life was best, high station did them harm. And on the\nother hand money was good for some, and dignities, too, were good for\nthem--good, that is, for those who used them well; but such things did\nharm when not taken away from those who used them ill. Consequently,\nbrethren, let us ask for these temporal things with moderation, being\nsure that if we do receive them, He gives them Who knoweth what is best\nsuited to us. You have asked for something, then, and what you asked for\nhas not been given you? Believe in your Father Who would give it you if\nit were expedient for you (_Sermon_, lxxx. 7).\n\n_S. Augustine:_ Sometimes God in His wrath grants what you ask; at other\ntimes in His mercy He refuses what you ask. When, then, you ask of Him\nthings which He praises, which He commands, things which He has promised\nus in the next world, then ask in confidence and be instant in prayer as\nfar as in you lies, that so you may receive what you ask. For such\nthings as these are granted by the God of mercy; they flow not from His\nwrath but from His compassion. But when you ask for temporal things,\nthen ask with moderation, ask with fear; leave all to Him so that if\nthey be for your profit He may give them you, if they be to your hurt He\nmay refuse them. For what is for our good and what is to our hurt the\nPhysician knoweth, not the patient (_Sermon_, cccliv. 8).\n\n    \"Cast thy care upon the Lord, and He shall sustain thee; He\n    shall not suffer the just to waver for ever.\"[149]\n\n\nVII\n\nOught We To Pray for Others?\n\nS. James, in his Epistle, says[150]: _Pray for one another that ye may\nbe saved_.\n\nAs we said above, we ought in prayer to ask for those things which we\nought to desire. But we ought to desire good things not for ourselves\nonly but also for others, for this belongs to that charity which we\nought to exercise towards our neighbour. Hence charity demands that we\npray for others. In accordance with this S. Chrysostom says[151]:\n\"Necessity compels us to pray for ourselves, fraternal charity urges us\nto pray for others. But that prayer is more pleasing before God which\narises not so much from our needs as from the demands of fraternal\ncharity.\"\n\nSome, however, urge that we ought not to pray for others, thus:\n\n1. We are bound in our prayer to follow the norm which our Lord\ndelivered to us; but in the _Lord's Prayer_ we pray for ourselves and\nnot for others, for we say: _Give us this day our daily bread_, etc.\n\n    But S. Cyprian says:[152] \"We do not say _my_ Father, but _our_\n    Father, neither do we say Give _me_, but give _us_; and this\n    because the Teacher of Unity did not wish prayer to be made\n    privately, viz., that each should pray for himself alone; for He\n    wished one to pray for all since He in His single Person had\n    borne all.\"\n\n2. Again, we pray in order to be heard; but one of the conditions for\nour prayer to be heard is that a man should pray for himself. Thus on\nthe words: _If ye ask the Father anything in My Name He will give it\nyou_,[153] S. Augustine says:[154] \"All are heard for themselves, but\nnot for all in general, hence He does not say simply: _He will give it_,\nbut _He will give it you_.\"\n\n    But to pray for oneself is a condition attaching to prayer; not\n    indeed a condition affecting its merit, but a condition which is\n    necessary if we would ensure the attainment of what we ask. For\n    it sometimes happens that prayer made for another does not avail\n    even though it be devout and persevering and for things\n    pertaining to a man's salvation; and this is because of the\n    existence of some hindrance on the part of him for whom we pray,\n    as we read in Jeremias[155]: _If Moses and Samuel shall stand\n    before Me, My soul is not towards this people_. None the less,\n    such prayer will be meritorious on the part of him who prays,\n    for he prays out of charity; thus on the words, _And my prayer\n    shall be turned into my bosom_,[156] the Interlinear Gloss has:\n    \"That is, and even though it avail not for them, yet shall I not\n    be without my reward.\"\n\n3. Lastly, we are forbidden to pray for others if they are wicked,\naccording to the words: _Do not thou pray for this people ... and do not\nwithstand Me, for I will not hear thee_.[157] And, on the other hand, we\nought not to pray for them if they are good, for in that case they will\nbe heard when they pray for themselves.\n\n    But we have to pray even for sinners, that they may be\n    converted, and for the good, that they may persevere and make\n    progress. Our prayers for sinners, however, are not heard for\n    all, but for some. For they are heard for those who are\n    predestined, not for those who are foreknown as reprobate; just\n    in the same way as when we correct our brethren, such\n    corrections avail among the predestinate but not among the\n    reprobate, according to the words: _No man can correct whom He\n    hath despised._[158] Wherefore also it is said: _He that knoweth\n    his brother to sin a sin that is not unto death, let him ask,\n    and life shall be given to him who sinneth not to death._[159]\n    But just as we can refuse to no one, as long as he liveth on\n    this earth, the benefit of correction--for we cannot distinguish\n    between the predestinate and the reprobate, as S. Augustine\n    says[160]--so neither can we refuse to anyone the suffrage of\n    our prayers.\n\nAnd for good men we have to pray, and this for a threefold reason:\nfirstly, because the prayers of many are more easily heard; thus on the\nwords: _I beseech ye therefore, help me in your prayers for me_,[161]\nthe Ordinary Gloss of S. Ambrose says: \"Well does the Apostle ask his\ninferiors to pray for him; for even the very least become great when\nmany in number, and when gathered together with one mind; and it is\nimpossible that the prayers of many should not avail\" to obtain, that\nis, what is obtainable. And secondly, that thanks may be returned by\nmany for the benefits conferred by God upon the just, for these same\nbenefits tend to the profit of many--as is evident from the Apostle's\nwords to the Corinthians.[162] And thirdly, that those who are greater\nmay not therefore be proud, but may realize that they need the suffrages\nof their inferiors.\n\n    \"Father, I will that where I am they also whom Thou hast given\n    Me may be with Me; that they may see My glory, which Thou hast\n    given Me: because Thou hast loved Me before the foundation of\n    the world.\"[163]\n\n\nVIII\n\nOught We To Pray for Our Enemies?\n\n_But I say to you ... pray for them that persecute and calumniate\nyou._[164]\n\nTo pray for others is a work of charity, as we have said above. Hence we\nare bound to pray for our enemies in the same way as we are bound to\nlove them. We have already explained, in the _Treatise on Charity_, in\nwhat sense we are bound to love our enemies; namely, that we are bound\nto love their nature, not their fault; and that to love our enemies in\ngeneral is of precept; to love them, however, individually, is not of\nprecept save in the sense of being prepared to do so; a man, for\ninstance, is bound to be ready to love an individual enemy and to help\nhim in case of necessity, or if he comes to seek his pardon. But\nabsolutely to love our individual enemies, and to assist them, belongs\nto perfection.\n\nIn the same way, then, it is necessary that in our general prayers for\nothers we should not exclude our enemies. But to make special prayer for\nthem belongs to perfection and is not necessary, save in some particular\ncases.\n\nSome, however, argue that we ought not to pray for our enemies, thus:\n\n1. It is said in the Epistle to the Romans[165]: _What things soever\nwere written were written for our learning_. But in Holy Scripture we\nfind many imprecations against enemies; thus, for instance[166]: _Let\nall my enemies be ashamed, let them be turned back and be ashamed very\nspeedily_. From which it would rather seem that we ought to pray against\nour enemies than for them.\n\n    But the imprecations which find place in Holy Scripture can be\n    understood in four different ways: first of all according as the\n    Prophets are wont \"to predict the future under the figure of\n    imprecations,\" as S. Augustine says[167]; secondly, in that\n    certain temporal evils are sometimes sent by God upon sinners\n    for their amendment; thirdly, these denunciations may be\n    understood, not as demanding the punishment of men themselves,\n    but as directed against the kingdom of sin, in the sense that by\n    men being corrected sin may be destroyed; fourthly, in that the\n    Prophets conform their wills to the Divine Justice with regard\n    to the damnation of sinners who persevere in their sin.\n\n2. Further, to be revenged upon our enemies means evil for our enemies.\nBut the Saints seek to be avenged upon their enemies: _How long, O Lord,\ndost Thou not judge and revenge our blood on them that dwell on the\nearth?_[168] And in accordance with this we find them rejoicing in the\nvengeance taken upon sinners: _The just shall rejoice when he shall see\nthe revenge._[169] It would seem, then, that we ought rather to pray\nagainst our enemies than for them.\n\n    But, on the contrary, as S. Augustine says:[170] \"The vengeance\n    of the martyrs is the overthrow of the empire of sin under whose\n    dominion they suffered so much\"; or, as he says elsewhere[171]:\n    \"They demand vengeance, not by word of mouth, but by very\n    reason, just as the blood of Abel cried out from the earth.\"\n    Moreover, they rejoice in this vengeance, not for its own sake,\n    but because of the Divine Justice.\n\n3. Lastly, a man's deeds and his prayers cannot be in opposition. But\nmen sometimes quite lawfully attack their enemies, else all wars would\nbe illegal. Hence we ought not to pray for our enemies.\n\n    But it is lawful to assail our enemies that so they may be\n    hindered from sin; and this is for their good and for that of\n    others. In the same way, then, it is lawful to pray for temporal\n    evils for our enemies to the end that they may be corrected. In\n    this sense our deeds and our prayers are not in opposition.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n_S. Augustine:_ If there were no wicked folk, then for whom could we be\nsupposed to pray when we are told: _Pray for your enemies_? Perhaps you\nwould like to have good enemies. Yet how could that be? For unless you\nyourself are bad you will not have good people for enemies; and if, on\nthe contrary, you are good, then no one will be your enemy save the\nwicked folk (_Sermon_, xv., _on Ps._ xxv. 8).\n\n    \"Have mercy upon us, O God of all, and behold us, and shew us\n    the light of Thy mercies: And send Thy fear upon the nations,\n    that have not sought after Thee: that they may know that there\n    is no God beside Thee, and that they may shew forth Thy wonders.\n    Lift up Thy hand over the strange nations, that they may see Thy\n    power.\"[172]\n\n\nOn the Seven Petitions of the _lord's Prayer_.\n\nThe Lord's Prayer is the most perfect of all prayers, for, as S.\nAugustine says to Proba[173]: \"If we pray rightly and fittingly we can\nsay nothing else but what is set down in the _Lord's Prayer_.\" And since\nprayer is, in a sort, the interpreter of our desires before God, we can\nonly rightly ask in prayer for those things which we can rightly desire.\nBut in the _Lord's Prayer_ not only do we have petitions for all those\nthings which we can rightly desire, but they are set forth in the order\nin which they are to be desired. Hence this prayer not only teaches us\nhow to pray, but serves as the norm of all our dispositions of mind.\n\nFor it is clear that we desire first the end and then the means to the\nattainment of that end. But our end is God, towards Whom our desires\ntend in two ways: first, in that we desire God's glory; secondly, in\nthat we desire to enjoy that glory ourselves. The former of these\npertains to that love wherewith we love God in Himself, the latter to\nthat charity wherewith we love ourselves in God. Hence the first\npetition runs: _Hallowed be Thy Name_, wherein we pray for God's glory;\nand the second runs: _Thy kingdom come_, wherein we pray that we may\ncome to the glory of His kingdom.\n\nBut to this said end things lead us in two ways: viz., either\n_essentially_ or _accidentally_. Things which are useful for the\nattainment of that end _essentially_ lead us to it. But a thing may be\nuseful as regards that end which is the possession of God in two ways:\nnamely, _directly and principally_, that is, according to the merits by\nwhich we merit the possession of God by obeying Him; and in accordance\nwith this runs the petition: _Thy Will be done on earth as it is in\nHeaven_; also _instrumentally_ as assisting us to merit, whence the\npetition: _Give us this day our daily bread_. And this is true whether\nwe understand by this \"bread\" that Sacramental Bread, the daily use of\nWhich profits man, and in Which are comprised all the other Sacraments;\nor whether we understand it of material bread so that \"bread\" here means\nall that is sufficient for the support of life--as S. Augustine explains\nit to Proba.[174] For both the Holy Eucharist is the chief of\nSacraments, and bread is the chief of foods, whence in the Gospel of S.\nMatthew we have the term \"super-substantial\" or \"special\" applied to it,\nas S. Jerome explains it.[175]\n\nAnd we are lead, as it were, _accidentally_ to the possession of God by\nthe removal of impediments from our path. Now there are three things\nwhich impede us in our efforts after the possession of God. The first of\nthese is sin, which directly excludes us from the kingdom: _Neither\nfornicators, nor idolaters, ... etc., shall possess the kingdom of\nGod_;[176] hence the petition: _Forgive us our trespasses_.... And the\nsecond impediment is temptation which hinders us from obeying the Divine\nWill; whence the petition: _And lead us not into temptation_; in which\npetition we do not pray that we may not be tempted, but that we may not\nbe overcome by temptation, for this is the meaning of being led into\ntemptation. And the third hindrance lies in our present penal state\nwhich prevents us from having \"the sufficiency of life\"; and for this\nreason we say: _Deliver us from evil_.\n\nSome, however, argue that these seven petitions are not very\nappropriate, thus:\n\n1. It seems idle to pray that that may be hallowed which is already\nhallowed or holy. But the Name of God is holy: _And holy is His\nName_.[177] Similarly, His kingdom is everlasting: _Thy kingdom_, O\nLord, _is a kingdom of all ages_.[178] God's Will, too, is always\nfulfilled: _And all My Will shall be done_.[179] Hence it is idle to\npray that God's Name may be hallowed, that His kingdom may come, and\nthat His Will may be done.\n\n    But, as S. Augustine says,[180] when we say, _Hallowed be Thy\n    Name_, we do not make this petition as though God's Name were\n    not holy, but that It may be held holy by men; in other words,\n    that God's glory may be propagated amongst men. And when we say,\n    _Thy kingdom come_, it is not as though we meant that God did\n    not reign, but, as S. Augustine says to Proba[181]: \"We stir up\n    our desires for that kingdom, that it may come upon us and that\n    we may reign in it.\" Lastly, when we say, _Thy Will be done_,\n    this is rightly understood to mean: May Thy precepts be obeyed\n    _on earth as in Heaven_--that is, as by Angels, so by men. These\n    three petitions, then, will receive their perfect fulfilment in\n    the life to come; but the remaining four, as S. Augustine says,\n    refer to the necessities of the present life.[182]\n\n2. But further, to depart from evil must precede the pursuit of what is\ngood. Hence it hardly seems appropriate to place those petitions which\nare concerned with the pursuit of what is good before those which refer\nto the departing from evil.\n\n    Yet since prayer is the interpreter of our desires the order of\n    these petitions does not correspond to the order of attainment\n    but of desire or intention; in this order, however, the end\n    precedes the means to the end, the pursuit of good comes before\n    the departure from evil.\n\n3. But once more, we ask for something in order that it may be given us.\nBut the chief gift of God is the Holy Spirit and those things which are\ngiven us through Him. Hence these petitions do not seem to be very\nappropriate since they do not correspond to the Gifts of the Holy\nSpirit.\n\n    S. Augustine[183], however, adapts these seven petitions to the\n    Gifts of the Holy Spirit and to the Beatitudes; he says: \"If we\n    have the _fear of God_ by which the poor in spirit are blessed,\n    we pray that God's Name may be hallowed among men by chaste\n    fear. If we have _piety_, by which the meek are blessed, we pray\n    that His kingdom may come, that we may be meek, and that we may\n    not withstand It. If we have _knowledge_, by which they that\n    mourn are blessed, we pray that His will may be done, and that\n    so we may not mourn. If we have _fortitude_, by which they that\n    hunger are blessed, we pray that our daily bread may be given\n    us. If we have _counsel_, by which they that are merciful are\n    blessed, let us forgive our debtors that we ourselves may be\n    forgiven. If we have _understanding_, by which the clean of\n    heart are blessed, let us pray that we may not have a double\n    heart that pursues after temporal things whence temptations come\n    to us. If we have _wisdom_, whence the peace-makers are\n    blessed--for they shall be called the sons of God--let us pray\n    that we may be delivered from evil, for that very deliverance\n    will make us the free sons of God.\"\n\n4. Again, according to S. Luke,[184] there are only five petitions in\nthe Lord's Prayer. Hence it would seem superfluous to have seven in S.\nMatthew.\n\n    But, as S. Augustine says[185]: \"S. Luke only includes five\n    petitions and not seven in the Lord's Prayer, for he shows that\n    the third petition is, in a sense, only a repetition of the two\n    preceding ones; by omitting it he makes us see that God's will\n    is more especially concerned with our knowledge of His sanctity\n    and with our reigning with Him. But Luke has omitted Matthew's\n    last petition, _Deliver us from evil_, in order to show us that\n    we are delivered from evil just precisely as we are not led into\n    temptation.\"\n\n5. And lastly, it seems idle to try to stir up the benevolence of one\nwho is beforehand with his benevolence. But God does forestall us with\nHis benevolence, for _He hath first loved us_.[186] Consequently it\nseems superfluous to preface our petitions with the words _Our Father\nWho art in Heaven_, words which seem intended to stir up God's\nbenevolence.\n\n    But we must remember that prayer is not directed to God in order\n    to prevail upon Him, but in order to excite ourselves to\n    confidence in our petitions. And this confidence is especially\n    excited in us by consideration of His love towards us whereby He\n    wishes us well, wherefore we say, _Our Father_; and of His\n    pre-eminent power whereby He is able to assist us, whence we\n    say, _Who art in Heaven_.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n_Cajetan:_ The first three petitions of the _Lord's Prayer_ can also be\nreferred to that which we principally desire, so that all three regard\nmainly that love wherewith we love God in Himself, and secondarily that\nlove wherewith we love ourselves in God. And the proof of this is that\nin each of the first three we have the pronoun _Thine_, but in the last\nfour the pronoun _our_. Thus the first petition asks for the effective\nand enduring praise of God's Name; the second, that He--and not the\ndevil, nor the world, nor the flesh, nor sin--may reign effectively; the\nthird, that His Will may be effectively fulfilled. For these things are\nnot now absolutely so with God, and this by reason of the multitude of\nsins, and also because the mode of their present fulfilment is hidden.\nAnd the word _effectively_ is introduced into each clause by reason of\nthe subjoined qualification _on earth as it is in Heaven_, for this\nqualifies each of the foregoing clauses. Hence rightly do our desires\nfirst of all aim at, wish for, and pray that--even as something good for\nGod Himself--He may be sanctified in His Name; that He may be\npermanently uplifted above all things--on earth as in Heaven; that\nHe--not sin--may reign--on earth as in Heaven; that His Will--none\nother--may be done--on earth as in Heaven (_on_ 2. 2. 83. 9).\n\n_S. Augustine:_ O Eternal Truth, True Love and lovable Eternity! Thou\nart my God; for Thee do I sigh night and day! And when I first knew Thee\nThou didst snatch me up so that I saw that That really was Which I saw,\nand that I who saw was really not--as yet. And Thou didst beat back my\nweak gaze, pouring out Thy light upon me in its intensity; and I\ntrembled with love and with horror. For I found myself to be far away\nfrom Thee in a land that was unlike Thee; it was as though I heard Thy\nVoice from on high, saying: \"I am the Food of grown men, grow, and thou\nshalt eat Me, but thou shalt not be changed into Me\" (_Confessions_,\nVII. x. 2).\n\n_S. Augustine:_ And the faithful are well aware of that Spiritual Food\nWhich you, too, will soon know and Which you are to receive from God's\naltar. It will be your food, nay, your daily food, needful for this\nlife. For are we not about to receive the Eucharist wherein we come to\nChrist Himself, and begin to reign with Him for ever? The Eucharist is\nour daily Bread. But let us so receive it as to be thereby refreshed,\nnot in body merely but in mind. For the power which we know to be\ntherein is the power of Unity whereby we are brought into union with His\nBody and become His members. Let us be What we receive; for then It will\nbe truly our daily bread.\n\nAgain, what I set before you is your daily bread; and what you hear read\nday by day in the church is your daily bread; and the hymns you hear and\nwhich you sing--they are your daily bread. For these things we need for\nour pilgrimage. But when we get There are we going to hear a book read?\nNay, we are going to hear the Word Himself; we are going to see the Word\nHimself; we are going to eat Him, to drink Him, even as the Angels do\nalready. Do the Angels need books, or disputations, or readers? Nay, not\nso. But by seeing they read, for they see the Truth Itself and are sated\nfrom that Fount whence we receive but the sprinkling of the dew\n(_Sermon_, lvii., _on S. Matt._ vi. 7).\n\n_S. Augustine:_ When ye say _Give us this day our daily bread_, ye\nprofess yourselves God's beggars. Yet blush not at it! The richest man\non earth is God's beggar. The beggar stands at the rich man's door. But\nthe rich man in his turn stands at the door of one richer than he. He is\nbegged from, and he, too, has to beg. If he were not in need he would\nnot beseech God in prayer. But what can the rich man need? I dare to say\nit: he needs even his daily bread! For how is it that he abounds with\nall things, save that God gave them to him? And what will they have if\nGod but withdraw His hand? (_Sermon_, lvi. 9, _on S. Matt._ vi.).\n\n_S. Augustine:_ Think not that you have no need to say _Forgive us our\ntrespasses as we forgive them that trespass against us_.... He who looks\nwith pleasure at what he should not--sins. Yet who can control the\nglance of the eye? Indeed, some say that the eye is so called from its\nswiftness (_oculus a velocitate_). Who can control his eyes or his ears?\nYou can close your eyes when you like, but how quickly they open again!\nYou can shut your ears with an effort; put up your hand, and you can\ntouch them. But if someone holds your hands your ears remain open, and\nyou cannot then shut out cursing words, impure words, flattering and\ndeceitful words. When you hear something which you should not--do you\nnot sin with your ears? What when you hear some evil thing with\npleasure? And the death-dealing tongue! How many sins it commits!\n(_Sermon_, lvi. 8).\n\n_S. Augustine:_ Indeed, our whole righteousness--true righteousness\nthough it be, by reason of the True Good to Whom it is referred,\nconsists rather, as long as we are in this life, in the remission of our\nsins than in the perfection of our virtues. And the proof of this is the\nPrayer of the whole City of God which is in pilgrimage on this earth.\nFor by all Its members It cries to God: _Forgive us our trespasses as we\nforgive them the trespass against us_! And this Prayer is of no avail\nfor those whose faith is without works--dead; but only for those whose\nfaith worketh through charity. For though our reason is indeed subject\nto God, yet in this our mortal condition, in this corruptible body which\nweigheth down the soul, our reason does not perfectly control our vices,\nand hence such prayer as this is needful for the righteous (_Of the City\nof God_, xix. 27).\n\n    \"Father, the hour is come; glorify Thy Son, that Thy Son may\n    glorify Thee. As Thou hast given Him power over all flesh, that\n    He may give life everlasting to all whom Thou hast given Him.\n    And this is life everlasting, that they may know Thee, the only\n    true God, and Jesus Christ, Whom Thou hast sent.\"[187]\n\n\nRhythm in Honour of the Blessed Sacrament, said to have been composed by\nS. Thomas on his Death-Bed.[188]\n\n  Adoro Te devote, latens Deitas,\n  Quae sub his figuris vere latitas;\n  Tibi se cor meum totum subjicit,\n  Quia Te contemplans totum deficit.\n\n  Visus, tactus gustus, in Te fallitur,\n  Sed auditu solo tuto creditur;\n  Credo quidquid dixit Dei Filius,\n  Nil hoc verbo veritatis verius.\n\n  In cruce latebat sola Deitas,\n  At hic latet simul et humanitas;\n  Ambo tamen credens atque confitens,\n  Peto quod petivit latro poenitens.\n\n  Plagas, sicut Thomas, non intueor,\n  Deum tamen meum Te confiteor;\n  Fac me Tibi semper magis credere,\n  In Te spem habere, Te diligere.\n\n  O memoriale mortis Domini,\n  Panis vivus, vitam praestans homini,\n  Praesta meae menti de Te vivero,\n  Et Te illi semper dulce sapere.\n\n  Pie Pellicane Jesu Domine,\n  Me immundum munda Tuo Sanguine,\n  Cujus una stilla salvum facere\n  Totum mundum quit ab omni scelere.\n\n  Jesu Quem velatum nunc aspicio,\n  Oro fiat illud quod tam sitio,\n  Ut Te revelata cernens facie,\n  Visu sim beatus Tuae gloriae!\n\n(An Indulgence of 100 days for the recitation of this rhythm. _S. Congr.\nof Indulgences_, December 20, 1884.)\n\n\nX\n\nIs Prayer Peculiar to Rational Creatures?\n\nPrayer is an act of the reason, as we have shown above. And rational\ncreatures are so termed because of the possession of reason.\nConsequently prayer is peculiar to them.\n\nAs we have said above, prayer is an act of the reason by which a person\npleads with his superior, just in the same way as a command is an act of\nthe reason by which an inferior is directed to do something. Prayer,\nthen, properly pertains to one who has the use of reason and who also\nhas a superior with whom he can plead. The Persons of the Trinity have\nno superior; the brute animals have no reason. Hence prayer belongs\nneither to the Divine Persons nor to the brute creation, but is peculiar\nto rational creatures.\n\nSome, however, argue that prayer cannot be peculiar to rational\ncreatures, thus:\n\n1. To ask and to receive belong to the same person. But the Divine\nPersons receive: the Son, namely, and the Holy Spirit. Consequently They\ncan also pray; indeed it is the Son Himself Who says, _I will ask the\nFather_,[189] and the Apostle says of the Holy Spirit, _The Spirit\nHimself asketh for us_.[190]\n\n    But it belongs to the Divine Persons to receive by Their nature,\n    whereas to pray belongs to one who receives through grace. The\n    Son is said to ask or pray according to the nature He took upon\n    Himself--that is according to His Human, and not according to\n    His Divine, Nature; the Holy Spirit, too, is said to petition\n    because He makes us petition.\n\n2. But further, the Angels are superior to the rational creation since\nthey are intellectual substances; but it belongs to the Angels to pray,\nfor it is said in the Psalm[191]: _Adore Him, all ye His Angels_.\n\n    But the intellect and the reason are not different faculties in\n    us, though they do differ in the sense that one is more perfect\n    than the other. Consequently the intellectual creation, such as\n    are the Angels, is sometimes distinguished from the rational\n    creation, but at other times both are embraced under the one\n    term \"rational.\" And it is in this latter sense of the term\n    \"rational\" that prayer is said to be peculiar to the rational\n    creation.\n\n3. Lastly, he prays who calls upon God; for it is chiefly by prayer that\nwe call upon God. But the brute animals also call upon God, for the\nPsalmist says: _Who giveth to beasts their food, and to the young ravens\nthat call upon Him._[192]\n\n    But the young ravens are said to call upon God by reason of\n    those natural desires by which all things, each in their own\n    fashion, desire to obtain the Divine goodness. In the same way\n    brute animals are said to obey God by reason of the natural\n    instinct by which they are moved by God.\n\n    \"Reward them that patiently wait for Thee, that Thy Prophets may\n    be found faithful: and hear the prayers of Thy servants.\n    According to the blessing of Aaron over Thy people, and direct\n    us into the way of justice, and let all know that dwell upon the\n    earth, that Thou art God the beholder of all ages.\"[193]\n\n\nXI\n\nDo the Saints in Heaven Pray for Us?\n\n_This is he who prayeth much for the people and for all the holy city,\nJeremias the Prophet of God._[194]\n\nAs S. Jerome says,[195] Vigilantius's error lay in maintaining that\n\"while we live we can mutually pray for one another; but after we are\ndead no one's prayer for another is heard, and this is especially clear\nin the case of the Martyrs who were unable to obtain by their prayers\nvengeance for their blood.\"\n\nBut this is altogether false; for since prayer for others springs from\ncharity, the more perfect the charity of those who are in Heaven the\nmore they pray for those wayfarers on earth who can be helped by their\nprayers. And the more knit they are to God the more efficacious are\ntheir prayers; for the Divine harmony demands that the superabundance of\nthose who are in the higher position should redound upon those who are\nlower, just as the brightness of the sun renders the atmosphere itself\nluminous. Whence Christ Himself is said to be _Approaching of Himself to\nGod to intercede for us_.[196] Whence, too, S. Jerome's reply to\nVigilantius: \"If the Apostles and Martyrs, when they were still in the\nbody, and had still to be solicitous on their own account, prayed for\nothers, how much more when they have won the crown, when they have\ngained the victory and the triumph?\"\n\nYet some maintain that the Blessed in Heaven do not pray for us, thus:\n\n1. A man's acts are more meritorious for himself than for another. But\nthe Saints who are in Heaven neither merit for themselves nor pray for\nthemselves, for they have already attained the goal of their desires.\nHence neither do they pray for us.\n\n    But the Saints who are in our Fatherland lack no\n    Blessedness--since they are Blessed--save the glory of the body,\n    and for this they pray. But they pray for us who still lack the\n    ultimate perfection of Blessedness; and their prayers are\n    efficacious by reason of their previous merits and of the Divine\n    acceptation of their prayers.\n\n2. But once more: the Saints are perfectly conformed to the Will of God,\nand consequently will nothing but what He wills. But what God wills is\nalways fulfilled. Hence it is idle for the Saints to pray for us.\n\n    But the Saints obtain that which God wills should come about\n    through the medium of their prayers; and they ask for what they\n    think is, by God's Will, to be fulfilled through their prayers.\n\n3. And yet again: just as the Saints in Heaven are superior to us so\nalso are they who are in Purgatory--for they cannot sin. Those, however,\nwho are in Purgatory do not pray for us, but rather we for them. It\nfollows, then, that neither can the Saints in Heaven pray for us.\n\n    But though those who are in Purgatory are superior to us in that\n    they cannot sin, yet are they our inferiors as regards the\n    penalties they suffer; hence they are not in a state to pray for\n    us, but rather we for them.\n\n4. Once more: if the Saints in Heaven could pray for us it would follow\nthat the prayers of the holiest Saints would be the most efficacious,\nand that consequently we ought not to ask the inferior Saints to pray\nfor us, but only the greatest ones.\n\n    But God desires inferior things to be helped by all that are\n    superior, and consequently we have to implore the aid of not\n    only the chief Saints but also of the lesser; else it would\n    follow that we ought to implore mercy from God alone. And it may\n    sometimes happen that the petition made to a lesser Saint is\n    more efficacious, either because we ask him more devoutly, or\n    because God wishes thus to show forth his sanctity.\n\n5. Lastly, Peter's soul is not Peter. Consequently if the souls of the\nSaints could pray for us, we ought--as long as their souls are separated\nfrom their bodies--to appeal, not to Peter to help us, but to Peter's\nsoul; whereas the Church does the contrary. From which it would seem\nthat the Saints, at all events previous to the Resurrection, do not pray\nfor us.\n\n    But since the Saints merited when alive that they should pray\n    for us, we therefore call upon them by the names they bore when\n    here below, and by which they are best known to us; and we do\n    this, too, in order to show our faith in the Resurrection, in\n    accordance with the words _I am the God of Abraham_.[197]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n_Cajetan:_ The question arises: how could Jeremias, who in the days of\nthe Maccabees was not yet in our Fatherland but still in the Limbo of\nthe Fathers, pray for Jerusalem?\n\nBut if we carefully consider what it is at root which makes the prayers\nof the Saints in the Fatherland avail for us, we shall find that the\nsame reason holds for the Saints who were in Limbo as for those who\nenjoy the Beatific Vision. For it is their charity in their state of\nabsolute superiority to us which is the reason for their praying for us.\nHence, in the reply to the third difficulty, those who are in Purgatory\nare excluded from the number of those who pray for us because they are\nnot altogether our superiors, but by reason of their sufferings are\ninferior to us, and need our prayers.\n\nBut the Fathers in Limbo were, it is clear, confirmed in charity and\nwere incapable of sin, neither were they liable to any peculiar or fresh\nsuffering. For while the pain of loss was common to them and to the\nsojourners on earth, the former were free from all pain of sense, hence\nthey could pray for us. There is, however, this difference to be noted\nbetween them and the Saints in the Fatherland--viz., that whereas the\nformer had it in common with the latter to pray for those sojourning on\nearth, it is given only to the Saints in the Fatherland to see the\nprayers of us sojourners addressed to them. Hence Jeremias is here said\nto pray, he is not said to have heard their prayers or supplications\n(_on_ 2. 2. 83. 11).\n\n\nXII\n\nShould Prayer be Vocal?\n\n_I cried to the Lord with my voice, with my voice I made supplication to\nthe Lord._[198]\n\nPrayer is of two kinds: public and private. _Public_ or common prayer is\nthat which is offered to God by the Church's ministers in the person of\nthe whole body of the faithful. And it is necessary that such prayer\nshould be known to the body of the faithful for whom it is offered;\nthis, however, could not be unless it were vocal; consequently it is\nreasonably enacted that the Church's ministers should pronounce such\nprayers in a loud voice so as to reach the ears of all.\n\n_Private_ prayer, on the contrary, is that which is offered by private\nindividuals, whether for themselves or for others; and its nature does\nnot demand that it should be vocal. At the same time, we can use our\nvoices in this kind of prayer, and this for three reasons: Firstly, in\norder to excite interior devotion whereby our minds may, when we pray,\nbe lifted up to God; for men's minds are moved by external\nsigns--whether words or acts--to understand, and, by consequence, also\nto feel. Wherefore S. Augustine says to Proba[199]: \"By words and other\nsigns we vehemently stir ourselves up so as to increase our holy\ndesires.\" Hence in private prayer we must make such use of words and\nother signs as shall avail to rouse our minds interiorly. But if, on the\nother hand, such things only serve to distract the mind, or prove in any\nway a hindrance, then we must cease from them; this is especially the\ncase with those whose minds are sufficiently prepared for devotion\nwithout such incentives. Thus the Psalmist says: _My heart hath said to\nThee, My face hath sought Thee[200];_ and of Anna we are told that _she\nspoke within her heart_.[201]\n\nAnd secondly, we make use of vocal prayer in payment, as it were, of a\njust debt--in order, that is, to serve God with the entirety of what we\nhave received from Him; consequently not with our mind alone but with\nour body as well; and this, as the Prophet Osee says, is especially\nsuitable to prayer considered as a satisfaction for our sins: _Take away\nall iniquity and receive the good, and we will render the calves of our\nlips_.[202]\n\nAnd thirdly, we sometimes make use of vocal prayer because the soul\noverflows, as it were, on to the body by reason of the vehemence of our\nfeelings, as it is written: _My heart hath been glad, and my tongue hath\nrejoiced_.[203]\n\nBut it seems to some that prayer should not be vocal, thus:\n\n1. Prayer is, as we have said, principally directed to God, and God\nknows the heart's speech. Consequently to add vocal prayer is idle.\n\n    But vocal prayer is not employed in order to manifest to God\n    something which He did not know, but to stir up the mind of him\n    who prays, and of others, too, towards God.\n\n2. Again, man's mind is meant to rise by prayer towards God; but words,\nand other things pertaining to the senses, keep back a man from the\nascent of contemplation.\n\n    Words appertaining to other things than God do indeed distract\n    the mind and hinder the devotion of him who prays; but\n    devotional words stir up the mind, especially if it be less\n    devout.\n\n3. Lastly, prayer ought to be offered to God in secret, according to the\nwords: _But thou when thou shalt pray, enter into thy chamber, and\nhaving shut the door, pray to thy Father in secret_;[204] whereas to\npray vocally means to publish it abroad.\n\n    But, as S. Chrysostom says[205]: \"The Lord forbade us to pray in\n    public with a view to being seen by the public. Consequently,\n    when we pray we should do nothing novel to attract men's\n    attention, whether by uttering cries which may be heard by them,\n    or by openly beating our breasts, or by spreading out our hands,\n    for the crowd to see us.\" While, on the other hand, as S.\n    Augustine remarks[206]: \"To be seen by men is not wrong, but to\n    do things to be seen by men.\"\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n_Cajetan:_ Note carefully, ye who murmur at the Church's services, these\nthree points: the different kinds of vocal prayer, its necessity, and\nthe conditions attaching to it. For vocal prayer is divided into that\nwhich is in common and that which is private or individual.\n\nThe general necessity of vocal prayer arises from the fact that it is\noffered in the person of the Church. For since the Church is composed of\ncreated beings dependent on the senses, prayer made through the medium\nof the senses--_i.e._, vocal prayer--must needs be offered by its\nministers; else we should not know whether the worship of prayer was\nbeing offered by God's ministers, nor should we be conscious of the gift\nto God which was being offered by them in prayer; for the Church only\njudges from the things that appear externally.\n\nOur individual need of vocal prayer arises from the necessity of\nstirring up our own devotion, and preserving it.\n\nThe conditions of prayer in common are twofold: it must be vocal, and it\nmust be out loud. Hence those who say private Masses in such a low\ntone--and that consciously--as to be unintelligible to their hearers,\nappear to act unreasonably and are inexcusable, unless it should happen\nby accident that no one is present; in this case it is sufficient if\nthey can be heard by the server who is close at hand. This will also\nshow us what use we are to make of chant, or of recitation without\nchant, in prayer in common: it must be governed by our common devotion.\nAnd in whatever fashion such prayer may be made this rule must always be\nobserved: it must be said so intelligibly that the meaning of the words\nmay be distinctly perceived both by the reciters and by others, that so\nthe Church's devotion may be aroused.\n\nAnd reason tells us what conditions attach to our private prayer: viz.,\nour own private devotion. This shews, too, the error of those who, in\norder to complete the tale of a large number of private vocal prayers\neach day, lay aside meditation and mental prayer. They neglect the end\nfor the means (_on_ 2. 2. 83. 12).\n\n_S. Augustine:_ Oh! How I lifted up my voice to Thee, O Lord, when I\nsang the Psalms of David, those songs full of faith, those strains full\nof piety which soothed my swelling spirit! And I was then but\nuninstructed in Thy true love; a catechumen spending my leisure with\nAlypius, another catechumen. And my mother stayed with us: clad indeed\nin woman's garb, but with a man's faith, with a matron's calm, with a\nmother's love, with a Christian's piety. Oh! How I lifted up my voice in\nthose Psalms! How they inflamed my heart! How I yearned to recite them,\nif I could, to the whole world--as an answer to the pride of the human\nrace! Though, indeed, they are sung throughout the world, and none can\nhide himself from Thy heat! (_Confess._, IX. iv. 8).\n\n_S. Augustine:_ Sometimes, indeed, through immoderate fear of this\nmistake I err by excessive severity; nay, sometimes, though it is but\nrarely, I could almost wish to shut out from my ears and even from the\nChurch itself all those sweet-sounding melodies used in the\naccompaniment of David's Psalms. Sometimes it seems to me as though it\nwould be safer to do as I have often heard that Athanasius, the Bishop\nof Alexandria, did, for he made the reader of the Psalms so modulate his\nvoice that he came to be rather speaking than singing. Yet, on the other\nhand, when I remember the tears which I shed when I heard the Church's\nchant in the early days of my regaining the faith, and when I notice\nthat even now I am stirred--not so much by the chant as by the things\nthat are chanted--when, that is, they are chanted with clear intonation\nand suitable modulation, then once more I recognize the great value of\nthis appointed fashion (_Confess._, X. xxxiii. 50).\n\n_S. Augustine: I have cried with my whole heart, hear me, O Lord!_[207]\nWho can question but that when men pray their cry to the Lord is vain if\nit be nought but the sound of the corporeal voice and their heart be not\nintent upon God? But if their prayer come from the heart, then, even\nthough the voice of the body be silent, it may be hidden from all men,\nyet not from God. Whether, then, we pray to God with our voice--at times\nwhen such prayer is necessary--or whether we pray in silence, it is our\nheart that must send forth the cry. But the heart's cry is the earnest\napplication of our minds. And when this accompanies our prayer it\nexpresses the deep affections of him who yearns and asks and so despairs\nnot of his request. And further, a man cries _with his whole heart_ when\nhe has no other thought. Such prayers with many are rare; with few are\nthey frequent; I know not whether anyone's prayers are always so\n(_Enarr. in Ps._ cxviii., _Sermon_, xxix. 1).\n\n    \"Incline Thy ear, O Lord, and hear me; for I am needy and poor.\n    Preserve my soul, for I am holy: save Thy servant, O my God,\n    that trusteth in Thee. Have mercy on me, O Lord, for I have\n    cried to Thee all the day. Give joy to the soul of Thy servant,\n    for to Thee, O Lord, I have lifted up my soul. For Thou, O Lord,\n    art sweet and mild; and plenteous in mercy to all that call upon\n    Thee.\"[208]\n\n\nXIII\n\nMust Prayer necessarily be Attentive?\n\nThat even holy men sometimes suffer distraction of mind when at prayer\nis clear from the words: _My heart hath forsaken me!_[209]\n\nThis question particularly concerns vocal prayer. And for its solution\nwe must know that a thing is said to be necessary in two senses:\nfirstly, in the sense that by it a certain end is _more readily_\nattained, and in this sense attention is absolutely requisite in prayer.\nBut a thing is said to be necessary also because without it a certain\nthing cannot attain its object _at all_. Now the effect or object of\nprayer is threefold. Its first effect--an effect, indeed, which is\ncommon to all acts springing from charity--is _merit_; but to secure\nthis effect it is not necessarily required that attention should be kept\nup throughout the prayer, but the initial intention with which a man\ncomes to prayer renders the whole prayer meritorious, as, indeed, is the\ncase in all other meritorious acts.\n\nThe second effect of prayer is peculiar to it, and that is to _obtain\nfavours_; and for this, too, the primary intention suffices, and to it\nGod principally looks. But if the primary intention is wanting, prayer\nis not meritorious, neither can it win favours; for, as S. Gregory says,\nGod hears not the prayer of a man who when he prays does not give heed\nto God.[210]\n\nThe third effect of prayer is that which it immediately and actually\nbrings about, namely, the _spiritual refreshment of the soul_; and to\nattain this end attention is necessarily required in prayer. Whence it\nis said, _If I pray in a tongue my understanding is without fruit_.[211]\n\nAt the same time, we must remember that there is a threefold species of\nattention which may find place in our vocal prayer: one by which a man\nattends to the words he recites, and is careful to make no mistake in\nthem; another by which he attends to the meaning of the words; and a\nthird by which he attends to the end of all prayer--namely, God\nHimself--and to the object for which he is praying. And this species of\nattention is the most necessary of all, and one which even uninstructed\nfolk can have; sometimes, indeed, the intensity with which the mind is\nborne towards God is, as says Hugh of S. Victor, so overwhelming that\nthe mind is oblivious of all else.[212]\n\nSome, however, argue that prayer must of necessity be attentive, thus:\n\n1. It is said in S. John's Gospel[213]: _God is a spirit, and they that\nadore Him must adore Him in spirit and truth_. But inattentive prayer is\nnot _in spirit_.\n\n    But he prays _in spirit and in truth_ who comes to pray moved by\n    the impulse of the Spirit, even though, owing to human\n    infirmity, his mind afterwards wanders.\n\n2. But again, prayer is \"the ascent of the mind towards God.\" But when\nprayer is inattentive the mind does not ascend towards God.\n\n    But the human mind cannot, owing to Nature's weakness, long\n    remain on high, for the soul is dragged down to lower things by\n    the weight of human infirmity; and hence it happens that when\n    the mind of one who prays ascends towards God in contemplation\n    it suddenly wanders away from Him owing to his infirmity.\n\n3. Lastly, prayer must needs be without sin. But not without sin does a\nman suffer distraction of mind when he prays, for he seems to mock God,\njust as if one were to speak with his fellow-man and not attend to what\nhe said. Consequently S. Basil says[214]: \"The Divine assistance is to\nbe implored, not remissly, nor with a mind that wanders here and there;\nfor such a one not only will not obtain what he asks, but will rather be\nmocking God.\"\n\n    Of course, if a man purposely allowed his mind to wander in\n    prayer, he would commit a sin and hinder the fruit of his\n    prayer. Against such S. Augustine says in his _Rule_[215]: \"When\n    you pray to God in Psalms and hymns, entertain your heart with\n    what your lips are reciting.\" But that distraction of mind which\n    is unintentional does not destroy the fruit of prayer.\n\n    Hence S. Basil also says: \"But if through the weakness of sinful\n    nature you cannot pray with attention, restrain your imagination\n    as far as you can, and God will pardon you, inasmuch as it is\n    not from negligence but from weakness that you are unable to\n    occupy yourself with Him as you should.\"\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n_Cajetan:_ Does a man satisfy the precept of the Church if, being bound\nto the recitation of the Divine Office, he sets out with the intention\nof meditating upon the Divine Goodness or upon the Passion of Christ,\nand thus keeping his mind firmly fixed upon God? Clearly a man who\nstrives to keep his mind occupied during the whole of the Divine Office\nwith contemplation of and devout affections towards God and Divine\nthings fully satisfies his obligation. So, too, a man who aims at\nmeditation on the Passion of Christ and devout affections on it during\nthe whole Office, undoubtedly satisfies his obligation, for he is making\nuse of a better means for keeping in touch with the Divinity than if he\nmerely dwelt upon the meaning of the words. At the same time, he must be\nready to lay this aside if in the course of the Office he finds himself\nuplifted to Divine things, for at this he must primarily aim. One who so\nprays, then, must make the Passion of Christ a means and not an end; he\nmust, that is, be prepared to ascend thereby, if God grants it, to\nDivine things. In short, we may make use of any one of the species of\nattention enumerated above provided we do not exclude the higher forms.\nThus, for example, if a man feels that it is more suited to his small\ncapacity to aim simply at making no mistakes, and habitually makes use\nof this form of attention, he must still use it as a means only; he\nmust, that is, be at God's disposition, for God may have mercy upon him\nand grant him, by reason of his dispositions, some better form of\nattention.\n\nAgain, when a person prays for things needful for his support in life he\nmust not be so occupied with the thought of these things as to appear to\nsubordinate Divine things to human, as though prayer was but a means and\nhis daily living the end. We must bear in mind the doctrine laid down\nabove[216]--viz., that _all our prayers should tend to the attainment of\ngrace and glory_. We must occupy ourselves with the thought of eternal\nglory, or of the glory of the adoption of sons during this life, or with\nthe virtues as means to arriving at our eternal home, and as the\nadornment of the inhabitants of heaven, and the commencement here of\nheavenly \"conversation\"; such things as these must be counted as the\nhighest forms of attention (_on_ 2. 2. 83. 13).\n\n_S. Augustine: Give joy to the soul of Thy servant, for to Thee, O Lord,\nI have lifted up my soul. For Thou, O Lord, art sweet and mild._[217] It\nseems to me that he calls God \"mild\" because He endures all our\nvagaries, and only awaits our prayers that He may perfect us. And when\nwe offer Him our prayers He accepts them gratefully and hears them.\nNeither does He reflect on the careless way in which we pour them out,\nHe even accepts prayers of which we are hardly conscious! For, Brethren,\nwhat man is there who would put up with it if a friend of his began a\nconversation with him, and yet, just when he was ready to reply to what\nhis friend said, should discover that he was paying no attention to him\nbut was saying something to someone else? Or supposing you were to\nappeal to a judge and were to appoint a place for him to hear your\nappeal, and then suddenly, while you were talking with him, were to put\nhim aside and begin to gossip with a friend! How long would he put up\nwith you? And yet God puts up with the hearts of so many who pray to Him\nand who yet are thinking of other things, even evil things, even wicked\nthings, things hateful to God; for even to think of unnecessary things\nis an insult to Him with Whom you have begun to talk. For your prayer is\na conversation with God. When you read, God speaks to you; when you\npray, you speak to God.... And you may picture God saying to you: \"You\nforget how often you have stood before Me and have thought of such idle\nand superfluous things and have so rarely poured out to Me an attentive\nand definite prayer!\" But _Thou, O Lord, art sweet and mild_! Thou art\nsweet, bearing with me! It is from weakness that I slip away! Heal me\nand I shall stand; strengthen me and I shall be firm! But until Thou\ndost so, bear with me, for _Thou, O Lord, art sweet and mild_ (_Enarr.\nin Ps._ lxxxv. 7).\n\n_S. Augustine: Praise the Lord, O my soul!_[218] What mean these words,\nBrethren? Do we not praise the Lord? Do we not sing hymns day by day? Do\nnot our mouths, each according to their measure, sound forth day by day\nthe praises of God? And what is it we praise? It is a great Thing that\nwe praise, but that wherewith we praise is weak as yet. When does the\nsinger fill up the praises of Him Whom he sings? A man stands and sings\nbefore God, often for a long space; but oftentimes, whilst his lips move\nto frame the words of his song, his thoughts fly away to I know not what\ndesires! And so, too, our mind has sometimes been fixed on praising God\nin a definite manner, but our soul has flitted away, led hither and\nthither by divers desires and anxious cares. And then our mind, as\nthough from up above, has looked down upon the soul as it flitted to and\nfro, and has seemed to turn to it and address its uneasy\nwanderings--saying to it: _Praise the Lord, O my soul!_ Why art thou\nanxious about other things than Him? Why busy thyself with the mortal\nthings of earth? And then our soul, as though weighed down and unable to\nstand firm as it should, replies to our mind: _I will praise the Lord in\nmy life!_ Why does it say _in my life_? Why? Because now I am in my\ndeath!\n\nRouse yourself, then, and say: _Praise the Lord, O my soul!_ And your\nsoul will reply to you: \"I praise Him as much as I can, though it is but\nweakly, in small measure, and with little strength.\" But why so? Because\n_while we are in the body we are absent from the Lord_.[219] And why do\nyou thus praise the Lord so imperfectly and with so little fixity of\nattention? Ask Holy Scripture: _The corruptible body weigheth down the\nsoul, and the earthly_ _habitation presseth down the mind that museth\nupon many things._[220] O take away, then, my body which weigheth down\nthe soul, and then will I praise the Lord! Take away my earthly\nhabitation which presseth down the mind that museth upon many things, so\nthat, instead of many things I may be occupied with One Thing alone, and\nmay praise the Lord! But as long as I am as I am, I cannot, for I am\nweighed down! What then? Wilt thou be silent? Wilt thou never perfectly\npraise the Lord? _I will praise the Lord in my life!_ (_Enarr in Ps._\ncxlv. 1).\n\n    \"My spirit is in anguish within me; my heart within me is\n    troubled. I remembered the days of old, I meditated on all Thy\n    works; I meditated upon the works of Thy hands. I stretched\n    forth my hands to Thee; my soul is as earth without water unto\n    Thee. Hear me speedily, O Lord: my spirit hath fainted\n    away.\"[221]\n\n_S. Thomas:_ The fruits of prayer are twofold. For first there is the\nmerit which thereby accrues to a man; and, secondly, there is the\nspiritual consolation and devotion which is begotten of prayer. And he\nwho does not attend to, or does not understand his prayer, loses that\nfruit which is spiritual consolation; but we cannot say that he loses\nthat fruit which is merit, for then we should have to say that very many\nprayers were without merit since a man can hardly say the _Lord's\nPrayer_ without some distraction of mind. Hence we must rather say that\nwhen a person is praying and is sometimes distracted from what he is\nsaying, or--more generally--when a person is occupied with some\nmeritorious work and does not continuously and at every moment reflect\nthat he is doing it for God, his work does not cease to be meritorious.\nAnd the reason is that in meritorious acts directed to a right end it is\nnot requisite that our intention should be referred to that end at every\nmoment, but the influence of the intention with which we begun persists\nthroughout even though we now and again be distracted in some particular\npoint; and the influence of this initial intention renders the whole\nbody of what we do meritorious unless it be broken off by reason of some\ncontrary affection intruding itself and diverting us from the end we had\nfirst in view to some other end contrary to it.\n\nAnd it must be remembered that there are three kinds of attention. The\nfirst is attention to the words we are actually saying; and sometimes\nthis is harmful, for it may hinder devotion. The second is attention to\nthe meaning of the words, and this, too, may be harmful, though not\ngravely so. The third is attention to the goal of our prayer, and this\nbetter and almost necessary (_Commentary on 1 Cor._ xiv. 14).\n\n\nXIV\n\nShould our Prayers be Long?\n\nIt would seem that we ought to pray continuously, for our Lord said: _We\nought always to pray and not to faint[222];_ so also S. Paul: _Pray\nwithout ceasing_.[223]\n\nBut we must notice that when we speak of prayer we can mean either\nprayer _considered in itself_ or the _cause of prayer_. Now the _cause\nof prayer_ is the desire of the love of God; and all prayer ought to\nspring from this desire which is, indeed, continuous in us, whether\nactually or virtually, since this desire virtually remains in everything\nwhich we do from charity. But we ought to do all things for the glory of\nGod: _whether you eat or whether you drink, or whatsoever else you do,\ndo all to the glory of God_.[224] In this sense, then, prayer ought to\nbe continual. Hence S. Augustine says to Proba: \"Therefore by our faith,\nby our hope, and by our charity, we are always praying, for our desire\nis continued.\"\n\nBut _prayer considered in itself_ cannot be so continuous; for we must\nneeds be occupied with other things. Hence S. Augustine says in the same\nplace: \"At certain intervals, at divers hours and times, we pray to God\nin words so that by these outward signs of things we may admonish\nourselves, and may learn what progress we have made in this same desire,\nand may stir ourselves up to increase it.\"\n\nBut the quantity of a thing has to be determined by its purpose, just as\na draught has to be proportioned to the health of the man who takes it.\nConsequently it is fitting that prayer should only last so long as it\navails to stir up in us this fervour of interior desire. And when it\nexceeds this measure, and its prolongation only results in weariness, it\nmust not be prolonged further. Hence S. Augustine also says to Proba:\n\"The Brethren in Egypt are said to have had frequent prayers; but they\nwere exceedingly brief, hardly more than eager ejaculations; and they\nadopted this method lest, if they prolonged their prayer, that vigilant\nattention which is requisite for prayer should lose its keen edge and\nbecome dulled. And thus they clearly show that this same attention, just\nas it is not to be forced if it fails to last, so neither is it to be\nquickly broken off if it does last.\"\n\nAnd just as we have to pay attention to this in our private prayers, and\nhave to be guided by our powers of attention, so must we observe the\nsame principles in public prayer where we have to be governed by the\npeople's devotion.\n\nSome, however, argue that our prayers ought not to be continual, thus:\n\n1. Our Lord said[225]: _And when you are praying speak not much_. But it\nis not easy to see how a man can pray long without \"speaking much\"; more\nespecially if it is a question of vocal prayer.\n\n    But S. Augustine says to Proba: \"To prolong our prayer does not\n    involve 'much-speaking.' 'Much-speaking' is one thing; the\n    unceasing desire of the heart is another. Indeed we are told of\n    the Lord Himself that _He passed the whole night in the prayer\n    of God_[226]; and, again, that _being in an agony He prayed the\n    longer_,[227] and this that He might afford us an example.\" And\n    Augustine adds a little later: \"Much speaking in prayer is to be\n    avoided, but not much petition, if fervent attention lasts. For\n    'much-speaking' in prayer means the use of superfluous words\n    when we pray for something necessary; but much petition means\n    that with unceasing and devout stirrings of the heart we knock\n    at His door to Whom we pray; and this is often a matter rather\n    of groans than of words, of weeping than of speaking.\"\n\n2. Further, prayer is but the unfolding of our desires. But our desires\nare holy in proportion as they are confined to one thing, in accordance\nwith those words of the Psalmist[228]: _One thing I have asked of the\nLord, this will I seek after._ Whence it would seem to follow that our\nprayers are acceptable to God just in proportion to their brevity.\n\n    But to prolong our prayer does not mean that we ask for many\n    things, but that our hearts are continuously set upon one object\n    for which we yearn.\n\n3. Once more, it is unlawful for a man to transgress the limits which\nGod Himself has fixed, especially in matters which touch the Divine\nworship, according to the words: _Charge the people lest they should\nhave a mind to pass the limits to see the Lord, and a very great\nmultitude of them should perish_.[229] But God Himself has assigned\nlimits to our prayer by instituting the _Lord's Prayer_, as is evident\nfrom the words: _Thus shalt thou pray_.[230] Hence we ought not to\nextend our prayer beyond these limits.\n\n    But our Lord did not institute this prayer with a view to tying\n    us down exclusively to these words when we pray, but to show us\n    that the scope of our prayer should be limited to asking only\n    for the things contained in it, whatever form of words we may\n    use or whatever may be our thoughts.\n\n4. And lastly, with regard to the words of our Lord _that we ought\nalways to pray and not to faint_,[231] and those of S. Paul, _Pray\nwithout ceasing_,[232] we must remark that a man prays without ceasing,\neither because of the unceasing nature of his desire, as we have above\nexplained; or because he does not fail to pray at the appointed times;\nor because of the effect which his prayer has, whether upon\nhimself--since even when he has finished praying he still remains\ndevout--or upon others, as, for instance, when a man by some kind action\ninduces another to pray for him whereas he himself desists from his\nprayer.\n\n    \"Our soul waiteth for the Lord; for He is our helper and\n    protector. For in Him our hearts shall rejoice; and in His Holy\n    Name we have trusted. Let Thy mercy, O Lord, be upon us, as we\n    have hoped in Thee.\"[233]\n\n\nXV\n\nIs Prayer Meritorious?\n\nOn the words of the Psalmist, _My prayer shall be turned into my\nbosom_,[234] the interlinear Gloss has: \"And if it is of no profit to\nthem (for whom it is offered), at least I myself shall not lose my\nreward.\" A reward, however, can only be due to merit. Prayer, then, is\nmeritorious.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nAs we have said above, prayer has, besides the effect of spiritual\nconsolation which it brings with it, a twofold power regarding the\nfuture: the power, namely, of meriting, and that of winning favours. But\nprayer, as indeed every other virtuous act, derives its power of\nmeriting from that root which is charity, and the true and proper object\nof charity is that Eternal Good, the enjoyment of Which we merit. Now\nprayer proceeds from charity by means of the virtue of religion whose\nproper act is prayer; there accompany it, however, certain other virtues\nwhich are requisite for a good prayer--namely, faith and humility. For\nit belongs to the virtue of religion to offer our prayers to God; while\nto charity belongs the desire of that the attainment of which we seek in\nprayer. And faith is necessary as regards God to Whom we pray; for we\nmust, of course, believe that from Him we can obtain what we ask.\nHumility, too, is called for on the part of the petitioner, for he must\nacknowledge his own needs. And devotion also is necessary; though this\ncomes under religion of which it is the first act, it conditions all\nsubsequent effects.\n\nAnd its power of obtaining favours prayer owes to the grace of God to\nWhom we pray, and Who, indeed, induces us to pray. Hence S. Augustine\nsays[235]: \"He would not urge us to ask unless He were ready to give\";\nand S. Chrysostom says: \"He never refuses His mercies to them who pray,\nsince it is He Who in His loving-kindness stirs them up so that they\nweary not in prayer.\"\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nBut some say that prayer cannot be meritorious, thus:\n\n1. Merit proceeds from grace, but prayer precedes grace, since it is\nprecisely by prayer that we win grace: _Your Father from Heaven will\ngive the Good Spirit to them that ask Him_.[236]\n\n    But prayer, like any other virtuous act, cannot be meritorious\n    without that grace which makes us pleasing to God. Yet even that\n    prayer which wins for us the grace which renders us pleasing to\n    God must proceed from some grace--that is, from some gratuitous\n    gift; for, as S. Augustine says, to pray at all is a gift of\n    God.[237]\n\n2. Again, prayer cannot be meritorious, for if it were so it would seem\nnatural that prayer should especially merit that for which we actually\npray. Yet this is not always the case, for even the prayers of the\nSaints are often not heard; S. Paul, for example, was not heard when he\nprayed that the sting of the flesh might be taken away from him.[238]\n\n    But we must notice that the merit of our prayers sometimes lies\n    in something quite different from what we beg for. For whereas\n    merit is to be especially referred to the possession of God, our\n    petitions in our prayers at times refer directly to other\n    things, as we have pointed out above. Consequently, if what a\n    man asks for will not tend to his ultimate attainment of God, he\n    does not merit it by his prayer; sometimes, indeed, by asking\n    and desiring such a thing he may lose all merit, as, for\n    example, if a man were to ask of God something which was sinful\n    and which he could not reverently ask for. Sometimes, however,\n    what he asks for is not necessary for his salvation, nor yet is\n    it clearly opposed to his salvation; and when a man so prays he\n    may by his prayer merit eternal life, but he does not merit to\n    obtain what he actually asks for. Hence S. Augustine says[239]:\n    \"He who asks of God in faith things needful for this life is\n    sometimes mercifully heard and sometimes mercifully not heard.\n    For the physician knows better than the patient what will avail\n    for the sick man.\" It was for this reason that Paul was not\n    heard when he asked that the sting of the flesh might be taken\n    away--it was not expedient. But if what a man asks for will help\n    him to the attainment of God, as being something conducive to\n    his salvation, he will merit it, and that not only by praying\n    for it but also by doing other good works; hence, too, he\n    undoubtedly will obtain what he asks for, but when it is fitting\n    that he should obtain it: \"for some things are not refused to us\n    but are deferred, to be given at a fitting time,\" as S.\n    Augustine says.[240] Yet even here hindrance may arise if a man\n    does not persevere in asking; hence S. Basil says[241]: \"When\n    then you ask and do not receive, this is either because you\n    asked for what you ought not, or because you asked without\n    lively faith, or carelessly, or for what would not profit you,\n    or because you ceased to ask.\" And since a man cannot,\n    absolutely speaking, merit eternal life for another, nor, in\n    consequence, those things which belong to eternal life, it\n    follows that a man is not always heard when he prays for\n    another. For a man, then, always to obtain what he asks, four\n    conditions must concur: he must ask for himself, for things\n    necessary for salvation; he must ask piously and perseveringly.\n\n3. Lastly, prayer essentially reposes upon faith, as S. James says: _But\nlet him ask in faith, nothing wavering_.[242] But faith is not\nsufficient for merit, as is evident in the case of those who have faith\nwithout charity. Therefore prayer is not meritorious.\n\n    But while it is true that prayer rests principally upon faith,\n    this is not for its power of meriting--for as regards this it\n    rests principally on charity--but for its power of winning\n    favours; for through faith man knows of the Divine Omnipotence\n    and Mercy whence prayer obtains what it asks.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n_S. Augustine:_ Men, then, love different things, and when each one\nseemeth to have what he loves, he is called happy. But a man is truly\nhappy, not if he has what he loves, but if he loves what ought to be\nloved. For many become more wretched through having what they love than\nthey were when they lacked it. Miserable enough through loving harmful\nthings, more miserable through having them. And our Merciful God, when\nwe love amiss, denies us what we love; but sometimes in His anger He\ngrants a man what he loves amiss!... But when we love what God wishes us\nto love, then, doubtless, He will give it us. This is That One Thing\nWhich ought to be loved: that we may dwell in the House of the Lord all\nthe days of our life! (_Enarr. in Ps._ xxvi.).\n\n_S. Augustine:_ In those tribulations, then, which can both profit us\nand harm us, we know not what we should pray for as we ought. Yet none\nthe less since they are hard, since they are vexatious, since, too, they\nare opposed to our sense of our own weakness, mankind with one consent\nprays that they may be removed from us. But we owe this much devotion to\nthe Lord our God that, if He refuses to remove them, we should not\ntherefore fancy that we are neglected by Him, but, while bearing these\nwoes with devout patience, we should hope for some greater good, for\nthus is power perfected in infirmity. Yet to some in their impatience\nthe Lord God grants in anger what they ask, just as in His mercy He\nrefused it to the Apostle (_Ep._ cxxx. _ad Probam_).\n\n    \"Hear my prayer, O Lord, and my supplication; give ear to my\n    tears. Be not silent: for I am a stranger with Thee, and a\n    sojourner as all my fathers were. O forgive me, that I may be\n    refreshed; before I go hence, and be no more.\"[243]\n\n\nXVI\n\nDo Sinners gain Anything From God by their Prayers?\n\nS. Augustine says[244]: \"If God did not hear sinners, in vain would the\npublican have said, _God be merciful to me a sinner_\"; and S. Chrysostom\nsays[245]: \"_Every one that asketh receiveth_--that is, whether he be\njust man or sinner.\" Hence the prayers of sinners do win something from\nGod.\n\nIn a sinner we have to consider two things: his nature, which God loves;\nhis fault, which God hates. If, then, a sinner asks something of God\nformally as a sinner--that is, according to his sinful desires--God, out\nof His mercy, does not hear him, though sometimes He does hear him in\nHis vengeance, as when He permits a sinner to fall still farther into\nsin. For God \"in mercy refuses some things which in anger He concedes,\"\nas S. Augustine says.[246] But that prayer of a sinner which proceeds\nfrom the good desire of his nature God hears, not, indeed, as bound in\njustice to do so, for that the sinner cannot merit, but out of His pure\nmercy, and on condition, too, that the four above-mentioned conditions\nare observed--namely, that he prays for himself, for things needful for\nhis salvation, that he prays devoutly and perseveringly.\n\nSome, however, maintain that sinners do not by their prayers win\nanything from God, thus:\n\n1. It is said in the Gospel,[247] _Now we know that God doth not hear\nsinners_; and this accords with those words of _Proverbs[248]; He that\nturneth away his ears from hearing the law, his prayer shall be an\nabomination_. But a prayer which is \"an abomination\" cannot win anything\nfrom God.\n\n    But, as S. Augustine remarks,[249] the words first quoted are\n    due to the blind man as yet unanointed--viz., not yet perfectly\n    illumined--and hence they are not valid; though they might be\n    true if understood of a sinner precisely as such, and in this\n    sense, too, his prayer is said to be \"an abomination.\"\n\n2. Again, just men obtain from God what they merit, as we have said\nabove. Sinners, however, can merit nothing, since they are without\ngrace, and even without charity which, according to the Gloss[250] on\nthe words, _Having an appearance of piety, but denying the power\nthereof_, is \"the _power_ of piety.\" And hence they cannot pray piously,\nwhich, as we have said above, is requisite if prayer is to gain what it\nasks for.\n\n    But though a sinner cannot pray piously in the sense that his\n    prayer springs from the habit of virtue, yet his prayer can be\n    pious in the sense that he asks for something conducive to\n    piety, just as a man who has not got the habit of justice can\n    yet wish for some just thing, as we have pointed out above. And\n    though such a man's prayer is not meritorious, it may yet have\n    the power of winning favours; for while merit reposes upon\n    justice, the power of winning favours reposes upon grace.\n\n3. Lastly, S. Chrysostom says[251]: \"The Father does not readily hear\nprayers not dictated by the Son.\" But in the prayer which Christ\ndictated it is said: _Forgive us our debts as we also forgive our\ndebtors_, which sinners do not. Hence sinners either lie when they say\nthis prayer, and so do not deserve to be heard, or, if they do not say\nit, then they are not heard because they do not make use of the form of\nprayer instituted by Christ.\n\n    But, as we have explained above, the _Lord's Prayer_ is spoken\n    in the name of the whole Church. Consequently, if a man--while\n    unwilling to forgive his neighbour his debts--yet says this\n    prayer, he does not lie; for while what he says is not true as\n    regards himself, it yet remains true as regards the Person of\n    the Church outside of which he deservedly is, and he loses, in\n    consequence, the fruit of his prayer. Sometimes, however,\n    sinners are ready to forgive their debtors, and consequently\n    their prayers are heard, in accordance with those words of\n    Ecclesiasticus[252]: _Forgive thy neighbour if he hath hurt\n    thee, and then shall thy sins be forgiven to thee when thou\n    prayest._\n\n    \"With the Lord shall the steps of a man be directed, and he\n    shall like well his way. When he shall fall, he shall not be\n    bruised, for the Lord putteth His hand under him. I have been\n    young, and now am old; and I have not seen the just forsaken,\n    nor his seed seeking bread.\"[253]\n\n\nXVII\n\nCan We rightly term Supplications,\" \"Prayers,\" \"Intercessions,\" and\n\"Thanksgivings,\" parts of Prayer?\n\nThe Apostle says to Timothy[254]: _I desire therefore first of all that\nsupplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made by all\nmen._\n\nFor prayer three things are required: first of all, that he who prays\ncome nigh to God; and this is signified by the name _prayer_, for prayer\nis \"the uplifting of the mind towards God.\" Secondly, petition is\nrequired, and is signified by the word _postulation_; now a petition may\nbe set forth in definite terms--and this some term _postulation_,\nproperly so called; or it may be set forth in no express terms, as when\na man asks for God's help, and this some call _supplication_; or, again,\nthe fact in question may be simply narrated, as in S. John[255]: _He\nwhom Thou lovest is sick_, and this some call _insinuation_. And\nthirdly, there is required a reason for asking for what we pray for, and\nthis reason may be either on the part of God or on the part of the\npetitioner. The reason for asking on the part of God is His holiness, by\nreason of which we ask to be heard: _Incline Thine ear and hear ... for\nThine own sake, O my God_;[256] to this belongs _obsecration_--namely,\nan appeal to sacred things, as when we say: _By Thy Nativity, deliver\nus, O Lord_! But the reason for asking on the part of the petitioner is\nthankfulness, for by giving thanks for benefits already received we\nmerit to receive still greater ones, as is set forth in the Church's\n_Collect_.[257] Hence the Gloss[258] says that in the Mass\n\"_Obsecrations_ are the prayers which precede the Consecration,\" for in\nthem we commemorate certain sacred things; \"in the Consecration itself\nwe have _prayers_,\" for then the mind is especially uplifted towards\nGod; \"but in the subsequent petitions we have _postulations_, and at the\nclose _thanksgivings_.\" These four parts of prayer may be noticed in\nmany of the Church's _Collects_: thus in the _Collect_ for Trinity\nSunday, the words _Almighty and Everlasting God_ signify the uplifting\nof the soul in prayer to God; the words: _Who hast granted to Thy\nservants to acknowledge in their profession of the true faith the glory\nof the Eternal Trinity, and in the Power of Its Majesty to adore Its\nUnity_, signify giving of thanks; the words: _Grant, we beseech Thee,\nthat by perseverance in this same faith we may be ever defended from all\nadversities_, signify postulation; while the closing words: _Through our\nLord Jesus Christ_, etc., signify obsecration.\n\nIn the _Conferences of the Fathers_, however,[259] we read:\n\"_Obsecration_ is imploring pardon for sin; _prayer_ is when we make\nvows to God; _postulation_ is when we make petition for others; _giving\nof thanks_, those ineffable outpourings by which the mind renders thanks\nto God.\" But the former explanation is preferable.\n\nSome, however, object to these divisions of prayer, thus:\n\n1. _Obsecration_ is apparently _to swear by someone_, whereas Origen\nremarks[260]: \"A man who desires to live in accordance with the Gospel\nmust not swear by anyone, for if it is not allowed to swear, neither is\nit allowed to swear by anyone.\"\n\n    But it is sufficient to remark that _obsecration_ is not a\n    swearing by, or adjuring of God, as though to compel Him, for\n    this is forbidden, but to implore His mercy.\n\n2. Again, S. John Damascene says[261] that prayer is \"the asking God for\nthings that are fitting.\" Hence it is not exact to distinguish _prayers_\nfrom _postulations_.\n\n    But prayer, generally considered, embraces all the\n    above-mentioned parts; when, however, we distinguish one part\n    against another, _prayer_, properly speaking, means the\n    uplifting of the mind to God.\n\n3. Lastly, giving of thanks refers to the past, whereas the other parts\nof prayer refer to the future. Hence giving of thanks should not be\nplaced after the rest.\n\n    But whereas in things which are different from one another the\n    past precedes the future, in one and the same thing the future\n    precedes the past. Hence giving of thanks for benefits already\n    received precedes petition; yet those same benefits were first\n    asked for, and then, when they had been received, thanks were\n    offered for them. Prayer, however, precedes petition, for by it\n    we draw nigh to God to Whom we make petition. And _obsecration_\n    precedes _prayer_, for it is from dwelling upon the Divine\n    Goodness that we venture to approach to Him.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n_Cajetan:_ We might be asked how the mind can be especially elevated to\nGod at the moment of consecration. For in the consecration the priest\nhas to express distinctly the words of consecration, and consequently\ncannot have his mind uplifted towards God at that moment. Indeed, the\nmore his mind is uplifted to God, the less he thinks of inferior things,\nwords, and so forth.\n\nBut in the consecration of the Holy Eucharist--in which the priest in a\nsense brings God down upon earth--the very greatness of our uplifting of\nmind towards the Divine Goodness Which has thus deigned to come amongst\nus is the very reason for our attention to the words in the act of\nconsecration, and makes the priest pronounce them distinctly and\nreverently. Some scrupulous folk, however, concentrate their whole\nattention on being intent and attentive; but this is really a\ndistraction, and not attention, for its object is precisely the being\nattentive. The uplifting, then, of our minds to God in the consecration\nhas indeed to be the very greatest, not, indeed, intensively and by\nabstraction from the things of sense, but objectively and\nconcentrated--though always within the limits compatible with\nattention--on the endeavour to say the words as they should be said\n(_on_ 2. 2. 83. 17.)\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n_S. Augustine: And David went in and sat before the Lord[262]; and\nElias, casting himself down upon the earth, put his face between his\nknees._[263] By examples such as these we are taught that there is no\nprescribed position of the body in prayer provided the soul states its\nintention in the presence of God. For we pray standing, as it is\nwritten: _The Publican standing afar off_. We pray, too, on our knees,\nas we read in the Acts of the Apostles;[264] and we pray sitting, as in\nthe case of David and Elias. And unless it were lawful to pray lying\ndown, it would not be said in the Psalms[265]: _Every night I will wash\nmy bed, I will water my couch with my tears_. When, then, a man desires\nto pray, he settles himself in any position that serves at the time for\nthe stirring up of his soul. When, on the other hand, we have no\ndefinite intention of praying, but the wish to pray suddenly occurs to\nus--when, that is, there comes of a sudden into our mind something which\nrouses the desire to pray \"with unspeakable groanings\"--then, in\nwhatsoever position such a feeling may find us, we are not to put off\nour prayer; we are not to look about for some place whither we can\nwithdraw, for some place in which to stand or in which to make\nprostration. For the very intention of the mind begets a solitude, and\nwe often forget to which quarter of the heavens we were looking, or in\nwhat bodily position the occasion found us (_Of Divers Questions_, iv.).\n\n    \"Hear, O God, my prayer, and despise not my supplication; be\n    attentive to me and hear me. I am grieved in my exercise; and am\n    troubled at the voice of the enemy, and at the tribulation of\n    the sinner. For they have cast iniquities upon me, and in wrath\n    they were troublesome to me. My heart is troubled within me, and\n    the fear of death is fallen upon me. Fear and trembling are come\n    upon me, and darkness hath covered me. And I said: Who will give\n    me wings like a dove, and I will fly and be at rest?\"[266]\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[98] _Etymologies_, x., _sub litt._ O.\n\n[99] Ps. xxxviii. 13.\n\n[100] _Ethics_, I. xiii. 15.\n\n[101] Rabanus Maurus, _De Universis_, vi. 14.\n\n[102] _On the Orthodox Faith_, iii. 24.\n\n[103] Ps. x. 17.\n\n[104] Isa. lxv. 24.\n\n[105] _Of the Divine Names_, vi. 1.\n\n[106] Ps. xxvi. 4.\n\n[107] Art. XV.\n\n[108] Isa. lxiv. 8, 9.\n\n[109] xviii. 1.\n\n[110] Mal. iii. 14.\n\n[111] _Dialogue_, i. 8.\n\n[112] S. Matt. vi. 32.\n\n[113] 1 Kings xv. 29.\n\n[114] _Of Good Deeds_, ii. 1.\n\n[115] _Hom._ II., _On Prayer_; also _Hom._ XXX., _On Genesis_.\n\n[116] Eph. i. 4.\n\n[117] Ps. lxx. 17, 18.\n\n[118] S. Matt. vii. 7.\n\n[119] Ps. cxx. 4.\n\n[120] S. Matt. vi. 8.\n\n[121] Ps. ciii. 33, 34.\n\n[122] Ps. lxxxiii. 12.\n\n[123] viii. 4.\n\n[124] 1 Cor. xiv. 15.\n\n[125] _On Care for the Dead_, chaps, xiii., xv., xvi.\n\n[126] _Moralia in Job_, xii. 14.\n\n[127] Ps. lxvi.\n\n[128] S. Matt. vi. 9-13; S. Luke xi. 2-4.\n\n[129] _Of Socrates the Philosopher_, vii. 21.\n\n[130] Ps. lxxix. 4.\n\n[131] Ps. cxviii. 35.\n\n[132] _On the Orthodox Faith_, iii. 24.\n\n[133] iv. 3.\n\n[134] Rom. viii. 26.\n\n[135] S. John iv. 24.\n\n[136] 1 Tim. ii. 4.\n\n[137] Isa. lxiii. 15, 16.\n\n[138] xxx. 8.\n\n[139] _Ep._, CXXX., chap. xii.\n\n[140] _Ethics_, I. vii. 15.\n\n[141] _Ep._, CXXX., chap. vi.\n\n[142] S. Matt. vi. 33.\n\n[143] _On the Sermon on the Mount_, II. x. 1.\n\n[144] S. Matt. vi. 25.\n\n[145] 2 Cor. iv. 18.\n\n[146] Ps. xxxvii. 10.\n\n[147] 1 Thess. v. 17.\n\n[148] Heb. iv. 3.\n\n[149] Ps. liv. 23.\n\n[150] v. 16.\n\n[151] _Opus Imperf. in Matthaeum, Hom._ XIV.\n\n[152] _On the Lord's Prayer._\n\n[153] S. John xvi. 23.\n\n[154] _Tractatus in Joannem_, 102.\n\n[155] xv. 1.\n\n[156] Ps. xxxiv. 13.\n\n[157] Jer. vii. 16.\n\n[158] Eccles. vii. 14.\n\n[159] 1 John v. 16.\n\n[160] _De Correptionibus et Gratia_, cap. xv.\n\n[161] Rom. xv. 30.\n\n[162] 1 Cor. i. 11.\n\n[163] S. John xxii. 24.\n\n[164] S. Matt. v. 44.\n\n[165] xv. 4.\n\n[166] Ps. vi. 11.\n\n[167] _On the Sermon on the Mount_, i. 21.\n\n[168] Apoc. vi. 10.\n\n[169] Ps. lvii. 11.\n\n[170] _On the Sermon on the Mount_, i. 22, and _Questions on the\nGospels_, II., xlv.\n\n[171] _Questions on the Old and New Testament, Qu._ lxviii.\n\n[172] Ecclus. xxxvi. 1-3.\n\n[173] _Ep._ cxxx. 12.\n\n[174] _Ep._ cxxx. 11.\n\n[175] _Comment. on S. Matthew_, vi.\n\n[176] 1 Cor. vi. 9, 10.\n\n[177] S. Luke i. 49.\n\n[178] Ps. cxliv. 13.\n\n[179] Isa. xlvi. 10.\n\n[180] _On the Sermon on the Mount_, ii. 5.\n\n[181] _Ep._ cxxx. 11.\n\n[182] _Enchiridion_, 115.\n\n[183] _On the Sermon on the Mount_, ii. 11.\n\n[184] xi. 2-4.\n\n[185] _Enchiridion_, 116.\n\n[186] 1 John iv. 19.\n\n[187] S. John xvii. 1-3.\n\n[188] See Touron, O.P., _Vie de S. Thomas d'Aquin_, p. 254; Paris, 1740.\n\n[189] S. John xiv. 16.\n\n[190] Rom. viii. 26.\n\n[191] xcvi. 7.\n\n[192] Ps. cxlvi. 9.\n\n[193] Ecclus. xxxvi. 18, 19.\n\n[194] 2 Macc. xv. 14.\n\n[195] _Contra Vigilantium_, vi.\n\n[196] _Heb._ vii. 25. S. Thomas is quoting from memory.\n\n[197] Exod. iii. 6.\n\n[198] Ps. cxli. 1.\n\n[199] _Ep._ cxxx. 9.\n\n[200] Ps. xxvi. 8.\n\n[201] 1 Kings i. 13.\n\n[202] Osee xiv. 3.\n\n[203] Ps. xv. 9.\n\n[204] S. Matt. vi. 6.\n\n[205] _Opus Imperf. Hom. XIII. in Matt._\n\n[206] _On the Sermon on the Mount_, ii. 3.\n\n[207] Ps. cxviii. 145.\n\n[208] Ps. lxxxv. 1-5.\n\n[209] Ps. xxxix. 13.\n\n[210] Implicitly, _Moralia in Job_, xxii. 13; but see Hugh of S. Victor,\n_Exposition of the Rule of S. Augustine_, iii.\n\n[211] 1 Cor. xiv. 14.\n\n[212] _Of the Manner of Prayer_, ii.\n\n[213] iv. 24.\n\n[214] _On the Monastic Constitutions_, chap. i.\n\n[215] _Ep._ cxxi.\n\n[216] Art. IV.\n\n[217] Ps. lxxv. 4, 5.\n\n[218] Ps. cxlv. 1.\n\n[219] 2 Cor. v. 6.\n\n[220] Wisd. ix. 15.\n\n[221] Ps. cxlii. 4-7.\n\n[222] S. Luke xviii. 1.\n\n[223] 1 Thess. v. 17.\n\n[224] 1 Cor. x. 31.\n\n[225] S. Matt. vi. 7.\n\n[226] S. Luke vi. 12.\n\n[227] S. Luke xxii. 43.\n\n[228] Ps. xxvi. 4.\n\n[229] Exod. xix. 21.\n\n[230] S. Matt. vi. 9.\n\n[231] S. Luke xviii. 1.\n\n[232] 1 Thess. v. 17.\n\n[233] Ps. xxxii. 20-22.\n\n[234] Ps. xxxiv. 13.\n\n[235] _On the Sermon on the Mount_, Sermon CV. i.\n\n[236] St. Luke vi. 13.\n\n[237] _On Perseverance_, chap. xxiii.\n\n[238] 2 Cor. xii. 7-9.\n\n[239] S. Prosper, _The Book of Sentences gleaned from S. Augustine_,\nSent. 212.\n\n[240] _Tractatus in Joannem_, 102.\n\n[241] _Monastic Constitutions_, chap, i.\n\n[242] i. 6.\n\n[243] Ps. xxxviii. 13, 14.\n\n[244] _Tractatus in Joannem_, 44.\n\n[245] _Opus Imperf. in Matt., Hom._ XVIII.\n\n[246] _Tractatus in Joannem_, 73; and _De Verbis Domini_, Sermon cccliv.\n7.\n\n[247] S. John ix. 31.\n\n[248] xxviii. 8.\n\n[249] _Tractatus in Joannem_, 44.\n\n[250] Implicitly in the old interlinear Gloss on 2 Tim. iii. 5.\n\n[251] _Opus Imperf. in Matt., Hom._ XIV.\n\n[252] xxviii. 2.\n\n[253] Ps. xxxvi. 23-25.\n\n[254] 1 Tim. ii. 1.\n\n[255] xi. 3.\n\n[256] Dan. ix. 18, 19.\n\n[257] Friday in the September Ember days.\n\n[258] The Ordinary Gloss on the words _obsecrations_, _prayers_, etc.,\nin 1 Tim. ii. 1.\n\n[259] _Collat._, IX., chaps. xi-xiii.\n\n[260] _Tractatus_ xxxv. _in Matt._\n\n[261] _De Orthodoxa Fide_, iii. 24.\n\n[262] 2 Kings vii. 18.\n\n[263] 3 Kings xviii. 42.\n\n[264] vii. 59; xx. 36.\n\n[265] vi. 7.\n\n[266] Ps. liv. 1-7.\n\n\n\n\nFROM THE SUPPLEMENT TO THE SUMMA--QUESTION LXXII\n\nOF THE PRAYERS OF THE SAINTS WHO ARE IN HEAVEN\n\n  I. Are the Saints cognizant of our Prayers?\n II. Ought we to appeal to the Saints to intercede for us?\nIII. Are the Saints' Prayers to God for us always heard?\n\n\nI\n\nAre the Saints cognizant of our Prayers?\n\nOn those words of Job,[267] _Whether his children come to honour or\ndishonour, he shall not understand_, S. Gregory says: \"This is not to be\nunderstood of the souls of the Saints, for they see from within the\nglory of Almighty God, it is in nowise credible that there should be\nanything without of which they are ignorant.\"[268]\n\nAnd he says also: \"To the soul that sees its Creator all created things\nare but trifling; for, however little of the Creator's light he sees,\nall that is created becomes of small import to him.\"[269] Yet the\ngreatest difficulty in saying that the souls of the Saints know our\nprayers and other things which concern us, is their distance from us.\nBut since, according to the authority just quoted, this distance does\nnot preclude such knowledge, it appears that the souls of the Saints do\nknow our prayers and other things which concern us.\n\nFurther, if they did not know what concerned us, neither would they pray\nfor us, since they would not know our deficiencies. But this was the\nerror of Vigilantius, as S. Jerome says in his Epistle against him.[270]\nThe Saints, then, know what concerns us.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe Divine Essence, then, is a sufficient medium for knowing all things,\nas, indeed, is evident from the fact that God in seeing His own essence\nsees all things. Yet it does not follow that whoever sees the Essence of\nGod therefore sees all things, but those only who _comprehend_ the\nEssence of God; just in the same way as it does not follow that because\nwe know a principle we therefore know all that that principle contains,\nfor that would only be the case if we _comprehended_ the whole power of\nthe principle. Since, then, the souls of the Saints do not comprehend\nthe Divine Essence, it does not follow that they know everything which\ncould be known through the medium of that Divine Essence. Hence the\ninferior Angels are taught certain things by the higher Angels, though\nall see the Divine Essence. But each person in possession of the\nBeatific Vision only sees in the Divine Essence as much of other things\nas is necessitated by the degree of perfection of his beatitude; and for\nthe perfection of beatitude it is required that a man \"should have\nwhatever he wants, and should desire nothing in an inordinate\nfashion.\"[271] Each one, however, rightly desires to know those things\nwhich concern himself. Hence, since no rectitude is lacking to the\nSaints, they wish to know those things which concern themselves, and\nconsequently they must know them in the Word. But it belongs to their\nglory that they should be able to help on the salvation of those who\nneed it, for it is thus that they are made co-workers with God--\"than\nwhich there is nought more Divine,\" as Denis says.[272] It is clear,\nthen, that the Saints have a knowledge of those things which are\nrequisite for this end. And so, too, it is manifest that they know in\nthe Word the desires, the devout acts and the prayers, of men who fly to\nthem for help.\n\nSome, however, maintain that the Saints do not know our prayers, thus:\n\n1. On the words of Isaias,[273] _Thou art our Father, and Abraham hath\nnot known us, and Israel hath been ignorant of us_, the Interlinear\nGloss has: \"For the Saints who are dead know not what the living do,\neven their own children.\" This is taken from S. Augustine's treatise _On\nCare for the Dead_, xiii., where he quotes these words, and adds: \"If\nthese great Patriarchs were ignorant of what concerned those whom they\nhad begotten, how can the dead be concerned with knowing and assisting\nthe affairs and the deeds of the living?\" Hence it would seem that the\nSaints are not cognizant of our prayers.\n\n    But these words of S. Augustine are to be understood of the\n    natural knowledge of the souls separated (from this world); and\n    this knowledge is not obscured in holy men as it is in sinners.\n    Moreover, S. Augustine is not talking of that knowledge which is\n    in the Word, a knowledge which it is clear that Abraham had not\n    at the time that Isaias said these things; for anterior to\n    Christ's Passion no one had attained to the Vision of God.\n\n2. In 4 Kings xxii. 20, it is said to Josias the king:\n_Therefore_--because, that is, thou didst weep before Me--_I will gather\nthee to thy fathers ... that thy eyes may not see all the evils which I\nwill bring upon this place_. But the death of Josias would have been no\nrelief to him if he was to know after death what was going to happen to\nhis nation. The Saints, then, who are dead, do not know our acts, and\nconsequently cannot understand our prayers.\n\n    But although after this life the Saints know the things which\n    are done here below, we are not therefore to suppose that they\n    are filled with grief at the knowledge of the afflictions of\n    those whom they loved in the world. For they are so filled with\n    the joy of their beatitude that sorrow finds no place in them.\n    Hence, if they know after death the evil plight of those dear to\n    them, it is none the less a relief to their sorrow if they are\n    withdrawn from this world before those woes come on.\n\n    At the same time it is possible that souls not yet in glory\n    would feel a certain grief if they were made aware of the\n    sorrows of those dear to them. And since the soul of Josias was\n    not immediately glorified on its quitting the body, S. Augustine\n    endeavours to argue that the souls of the dead have no knowledge\n    of the deeds of the living.[274]\n\n3. Again, the more a person is perfected in charity the more ready he is\nto succour his neighbour in peril. But the Saints while still in the\nflesh had a care for their neighbours, and especially for their\nrelatives, when in peril. Since, then, they are after death far more\nperfected in charity, if they were cognizant of our deeds, they would\nhave now a much greater care for those dear to them or related to them,\nand would help them much more in their necessities; but this does not\nseem to be the case. Whence it would seem that they are not cognizant of\nour actions nor of our prayers.\n\n    But the souls of the Saints have their will perfectly conformed\n    to the Will of God, even in what they would will. Consequently,\n    while retaining their feelings of charity towards their\n    neighbour, they afford them no other assistance than that which\n    they see is arranged for them in accordance with Divine Justice.\n    Yet at the same time we must believe that they help their\n    neighbours very much indeed by interceding for them with God.\n\n4. Further, just as the Saints after death see the Word, so also do the\nAngels, for of them it is said: _Their Angels in Heaven always see the\nface of My Father Who is in Heaven_.[275] But the Angels, though seeing\nthe Word, do not therefore know all things, for the inferior Angels are\npurified of their ignorance by the superior Angels, as is evident from\nDenis.[276] Consequently, neither do the Saints, although they see the\nWord, know in It our prayers and other things which concern us.\n\n    But although it is not necessary that those who see the Word\n    should see all things in the Word, they none the less see those\n    things which belong to the perfection of their beatitude, as we\n    have said above.\n\n5. Lastly, God alone is the Searcher of hearts. But prayer is\nessentially an affair of the heart. Consequently God alone knows our\nprayers.\n\n    But God alone knows of Himself the thoughts of the heart; others\n    know them according as they are revealed to them either in their\n    vision of the Word or in any other way.\n\n\nII\n\nOught we to appeal to the Saints to intercede for us?\n\nIn the Book of Job,[277] it is said: _Call now, if there be any that\nwill answer thee; and turn to some of the Saints_. And on this S.\nGregory says: \"It is our business to call, and to beseech God in humble\nprayer.\"[278] When, then, we desire to pray to God, we ought to turn to\nthe Saints that they may pray for us.\n\nFurther, the Saints who are in the Fatherland are more acceptable in the\nsight of God than they were when upon earth. But we ought to ask the\nSaints even when on earth to be our intercessors with God, as the\nApostle shows us by his example when he says: _I beseech you, therefore,\nbrethren, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and by the charity of the Holy\nGhost, that you help me in your prayers for me to God_.[279] Much more,\nthen, should we ask the Saints who are in our Fatherland to help us by\ntheir prayers to God.\n\nMoreover, the common custom of the Church confirms this, since in her\nLitanies she asks the prayers of the Saints.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nIn the words of Denis,[280] \"there is this Divinely established harmony\nin things--that they which hold the lowest place should be brought to\nGod through them that come between them and God.\" Since, then, the\nSaints who are in our Fatherland are most nigh to God, the harmony of\nthe Divine Government demands that we who, abiding in the body, are\n\"absent from the Lord,\" should be led to Him by the Saints who stand\nmidway; and this is secured when through their means the Divine Goodness\npours out Its effects upon us. And since our return to God ought to\ncorrespond to the orderly way in which His goodnesses flow upon us--for\nHis benefits flow out upon us through the intervention of the Saints'\nsuffrages for us--so also ought we to be brought back to God through the\nintervention of the Saints, and thus once more receive His benefits.\nWhence it is that we make them our intercessors for us with God--and, as\nit were, mediators--by begging them to pray for us.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nBut some say that we should not ask the Saints to pray for us, thus:\n\n1. No one asks a man's friends to intercede for him except in so far as\nhe thinks that he can obtain a favour more easily through them. But God\nis infinitely more merciful than any Saint, and consequently His Will is\nmore readily inclined to hear us than is the will of any Saint. Whence\nit would seem superfluous to make the Saints mediators between ourselves\nand God, and so ask them to intercede for us.\n\n    But just as it is not by reason of any deficiency on the part of\n    the Divine Power that It works through the mediumship of\n    secondary causes, whereas it rather tends to the fulfilment of\n    the harmony of the universe that His Goodness should be more\n    copiously diffused upon things, so that things not only receive\n    from Him their own peculiar goodness, but themselves become a\n    source of goodness to other things as well; so in the same way\n    it is not by reason of any lack of mercy on His part that appeal\n    to His mercy by means of the prayers of the Saints is fitting;\n    but this is done in order that the aforesaid harmony may be\n    preserved.\n\n2. If we ought to ask the Saints to pray for us, it can only be because\nwe know that their prayers are acceptable to God. But the more saintly\nis a Saint, the more acceptable is his prayer to God. Consequently we\nought always to make the greater Saints our intercessors with God, and\nnever the lesser ones.\n\n    Yet although the greater Saints are more acceptable to God than\n    are the lesser ones, it is still useful to pray sometimes to the\n    lesser Saints. And this for five reasons: Firstly, because a man\n    sometimes has a greater devotion to some lesser Saint than to\n    one who is greater; and the efficacy of our prayers depends very\n    much on our devotion. Secondly, in order to avoid weariness; for\n    unremitting application to one thing begets distaste; but when\n    we pray to various Saints fresh devotional fervour is stirred up\n    in practically each case. Thirdly, because certain Saints are\n    appointed the patrons of certain particular cases, so S. Antony\n    for the avoidance of hell-fire. Fourthly, that so we may show\n    due honour to them all. Fifthly, because sometimes a favour may\n    be gained at the prayer of many which would not be gained at the\n    prayer of one alone.\n\n3. Christ, even as man, is termed _the Saint of Saints_;[281] and it\nbelongs to Him, as man, to pray. Yet we never ask Christ to pray for us.\nHence it is superfluous to make the Saints our intercessors with God.\n\n    But prayer is an act. And acts belong to individual beings.\n    Consequently, if we were to say, _Christ, pray for us_, we\n    should appear, unless we added something, to be referring this\n    to Christ's Person, and thus we might seem to fall into the\n    error of Nestorius who regarded the Person of the Son of Man as\n    distinct in Christ from the Person of the Son of God; or\n    perhaps, too, into the error of Arius who regarded the Person of\n    the Son as less than the Father. In order, then, to avoid these\n    errors, the Church does not say, _Christ, pray for us_, but\n    _Christ, hear us_, or _Christ, have mercy on us_.\n\n4. Once more, when one is asked to intercede for another, he presents\nthe latter's prayers to him with whom he has to intercede. But it is\nsuperfluous to present anything to Him to Whom all things are present.\nHence it is superfluous to make the Saints our intercessors with God.\n\n    But the Saints are not said to present our prayers to God as\n    though they were manifesting to Him something which He did not\n    know, but in the sense that they ask that these prayers may be\n    heard by God, or that they consult the Divine Truth concerning\n    them, so as to know what, according to His providence, ought to\n    be done.\n\n5. Lastly, that must be held superfluous which is done for the sake of\nsomething which, whether the former were done or not, would yet take\nplace--or not take place--all the same. But similarly, the Saints would\npray for us or not pray for us whether we asked them to do so or not.\nFor if we deserve that they should pray for us, they would pray for us,\neven though we did not ask them to do so; if, on the other hand, we are\nnot deserving that they should pray for us, then they do not pray for\nus--even though we ask them to do so. Hence to ask them to pray for us\nseems altogether superfluous.\n\n    But a man becomes deserving that some Saint should pray for him\n    from the very fact that with pure-hearted devotion he has\n    recourse to him in his needs. Hence it is not superfluous to\n    pray to the Saints.\n\n\nIII\n\nAre the Saints' Prayers to God for us always heard?\n\nIn 2 Maccabees xv. 14 it is said: _This is he that prayeth much for the\npeople, and for all the Holy City, Jeremias the prophet of God_; and\nthat his prayer was heard is evident from what follows, for _Jeremias\nstretched forth his right hand and gave to Judas a sword of gold,\nsaying: Take this holy sword, a gift from God_, etc.\n\nFurther, S. Jerome says[282]: \"You say in your book that while we live\nwe can pray for one another, but that after we are dead no one's prayer\nfor others will be heard\"; and S. Jerome condemns this statement thus:\n\"If the Apostles and Martyrs while still in the body could pray for\nothers while as yet solicitous for themselves, how much more when they\nhave won their crown, completed the victory, and gained their triumph?\"\n\nMoreover, the Church's custom confirms this, for she frequently asks to\nbe helped by the prayers of the Saints.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe Saints are said to pray for us in two ways: firstly, by express\nprayer, when they by their ardent desires appeal to the ears of the\nDivine Mercy for us; secondly, by interpretative prayer--namely, by\ntheir merits which, standing as the Saints do in the sight of God, not\nonly tend to their own glory but are, as it were, suffrages--and even\nprayers--for us; just as the Blood of Christ, shed for us, is said to\nask pardon for us. And in both ways the prayers of the Saints are, as\nfar as in them lies, efficacious in obtaining what they ask for. But\nthat we do not obtain the fruit of their prayers may be due to defects\non our part, according, that is, as they are said to pray for us in the\nsense that their merits avail for us. But according as they actually do\npray for us--that is, ask something for us by their desires--they are\nalways heard. For the Saints only wish what God wishes, and they only\nask for what they wish should be done; what God, however, wishes is\nalways done--unless, indeed, we are speaking of the _antecedent_ will of\nGod, according to which _He wills all men to be saved_: this will is not\nalways fulfilled. Hence it is not to be wondered at if what the Saints\nalso will according to this kind of will is not always fulfilled.\n\nBut some maintain that the Saints' prayers for us are not always heard,\nthus:\n\n1. If the Saints' prayers were always heard, they would be especially\nheard when they pray for those things which affect themselves. Yet they\nare not always heard as regards these things, for to the Martyrs who\nprayed for vengeance upon the inhabitants of the earth it was said _that\nthey should rest for a little time till_ the number of _their brethren\nshould be filled up_.[283] Much less, then, are their prayers heard for\nthings that do not concern them.\n\n    But this prayer of the Martyrs is nothing more than their desire\n    to obtain the garment of the body and the society of the Saints\n    who are to be saved; it expresses their agreement with the\n    Divine Justice which punishes the wicked. Hence on those words\n    of the Apocalypse,[284] _How long, O Lord_, the Ordinary Gloss\n    says: \"They yearn for a greater joy, and for the companionship\n    of the Saints, and they agree with the justice of God.\"\n\n2. It is said in Jeremias[285]: _If Moses and Samuel shall stand before\nMe, My soul is not towards this people_. The Saints, then, are not\nalways heard when they pray for us to God.\n\n    But God here speaks of Moses and Samuel according as they were\n    in this life, for they are said to have prayed for the people\n    and thus withstood the wrath of God. Yet none the less, had they\n    lived in Jeremias' time they would not have been able to appease\n    by their prayers God's wrath upon the people, so great was the\n    latter's wickedness. This is the meaning of that passage.\n\n3. The Saints in our Fatherland are said to be the equals of the\nAngels.[286] But the Angels are not always heard in their prayers to\nGod, as is evident from Daniel[287]: _I am come for thy words. But the\nPrince of the kingdom of the Persians resisted me one and twenty days._\nBut the Angel who spoke had not come to Daniel's assistance without\nasking his freedom from God; yet none the less the fulfilment of his\nprayer was hindered. In the same way, then, neither are the prayers of\nother Saints to God for us always heard.\n\n    But this contest of the good Angels is not to be understood in\n    the sense that they put forth contrary prayers before God, but\n    that they set before the Divine scrutiny conflicting merits on\n    either hand, and awaited the Divine decision. Thus S. Gregory,\n    expounding the above words of Daniel, says: \"These sublime\n    Spirits who rule over the nations in no sense strive for those\n    who do evil, but they scrutinize their deeds and judge justly;\n    hence, when the faults or the merits of any nation are submitted\n    to the Council of the Supreme Court, he who is set over that\n    particular nation is described as either losing or failing in\n    the contest. But the sole victory for all of them is the supreme\n    will of his Creator above him; and since they ever look towards\n    that Will, they never desire what they cannot obtain,\"[288] and\n    hence never ask for it. Whence it is clear that their prayers\n    are always heard.\n\n4. Whoever obtains something by prayer in a certain sense merits it. But\nthe Saints who are in our Fatherland are no longer capable of meriting.\nTherefore they cannot obtain anything for us from God by their prayers.\n\n    But although the Saints when once they are in our Fatherland are\n    not capable of meriting for themselves, they are still capable\n    of meriting for others, or rather of helping others by reason of\n    their own previous merits. For when alive they merited from God\n    that their prayers should be heard after death. Or we might say\n    that in prayer merit and the power to obtain what we ask do not\n    rest on the same basis. For merit consists in a certain\n    correspondence between an act and the end towards which it is\n    directed and which is given to it as its reward; but the\n    impetratory power of prayer rests upon the generosity of him\n    from whom we ask something. Consequently prayer sometimes wins\n    from the generosity of him to whom it is made what perhaps was\n    not merited either by him who asked nor by him for whom he\n    asked. And thus, though the Saints are no longer capable of\n    meriting, it does not follow that they are incapable of winning\n    things from God.\n\n5. Again, the Saints conform their will in all things to the Divine\nWill. Therefore they can only will what they know God wills. But no one\nprays save for what he wishes. Consequently they only pray for what they\nknow God wills. But what God wills would take place whether they prayed\nor not. Consequently their prayers have no power to obtain things.\n\n    But, as is evident from the passage of S. Gregory quoted above\n    in reply to the third difficulty, neither the Saints nor the\n    Angels will anything save what they see in the Divine Will. And\n    consequently they ask for nothing else save this. But it does\n    not follow that their prayers are without fruit, for, as S.\n    Augustine says in his treatise, _On the Predestination of the\n    Saints_,[289] and S. Gregory in his _Dialogues_,[290] the\n    prayers of the Saints avail for the predestinate, because\n    perhaps it was pre-ordained that they should be saved by the\n    prayers of those who interceded for them. And so, too, God wills\n    that by the prayers of the Saints should be fulfilled what the\n    Saints see that He wills.\n\n6. Lastly, the prayers of the entire Court of Heaven should, if they can\ngain anything at all, be far more efficacious than all the suffrages of\nthe Church on earth. But if all the suffrages of the Church on earth\nwere to be accumulated upon one soul in Purgatory, it would be entirely\nfreed from punishment. Since, then, the Saints who are in our Fatherland\nhave the same reason for praying for the souls in Purgatory as they have\nfor praying for us, they would by their prayers, if they could obtain\nanything for us, wholly deliver from suffering those who are in\nPurgatory. But this is false, for if it were true, then the suffrages of\nthe Church for the dead would be superfluous.\n\n    But the suffrages of the Church for the dead are, as it were,\n    satisfactions offered by the living in place of the dead, and\n    thus they free the dead from that debt of punishment which they\n    have not paid. But the Saints who are in our Fatherland are not\n    capable of making satisfaction. And thus there is no parity\n    between their prayers and the Church's suffrages.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[267] xiv. 21.\n\n[268] _Moralia in Job_, xii. 14.\n\n[269] _Dialogue_, li. 35.\n\n[270] _Contra Vigilant._, vi.\n\n[271] S. Augustine: _Of the Trinity_, xiii. 5.\n\n[272] _Of the Heavenly Hierarchy_, iii.\n\n[273] lxiii. 16.\n\n[274] _De Cura Mortuorum_, 13, 14, 15.\n\n[275] S. Matt, xviii. 10.\n\n[276] _Of the Heavenly Hierarchy_, vii.; and _Of the Ecclesiastical\nHierarchy_, vi.\n\n[277] v. 1.\n\n[278] _Moralia in Job_, v. 30.\n\n[279] Rom. xv. 30.\n\n[280] _Of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy_, v.\n\n[281] Dan. ix. 14.\n\n[282] _Ep. contra Vigilantium_, vi.\n\n[283] Apoc. vi. 11.\n\n[284] vi. 10.\n\n[285] xv. 1.\n\n[286] S. Matt. xxii. 30.\n\n[287] x. 12-13.\n\n[288] _Moralia on Job_, xvii. 12.\n\n[289] _De Dono Perseverantiae_, xxii.\n\n[290] i. 8.\n\n\n\n\nQUESTION CLXXIX\n\nOF THE DIVISION OF LIFE INTO THE ACTIVE AND THE CONTEMPLATIVE\n\n I. May Life be fittingly divided into the Active and\n        the Contemplative?\n      S. Augustine, _De Consensu Evangelistarum_, I., iv. 8\n          \" _Tractatus, cxxiv. 5, in Joannem_\nII. Is this division of Life into the Active and the\n        Contemplative a sufficient one?\n      S. Augustine, _Of the Trinity_, I., viii. 17\n\n\nI\n\nMay Life be fittingly divided into the Active and the Contemplative?\n\nS. Gregory the Great says[291]: \"There are two kinds of lives in which\nAlmighty God instructs us by His Sacred Word--namely, the active and the\ncontemplative.\"\n\nThose things are properly said to live which move or work from within\nthemselves. But what especially accords with the innermost nature of a\nthing is that which is proper to it and towards which it is especially\ninclined; consequently every living thing shows that it is living by\nthose very acts which are especially befitting it and towards which it\nis especially inclined. Thus the life of plants is said to consist in\ntheir growing and in their producing seed; the life of animals in their\nfeeling and moving; while that of man consists in his understanding and\nin his acting according to reason.\n\nHence among men themselves each man's life appears to be that in which\nhe takes special pleasure, that with which he is particularly occupied,\nthat, in fine, in which each one wishes to live with a friend, as is\nsaid in the _Ethics of Aristotle_.[292]\n\nSince, then, some men are especially occupied with the contemplation of\nthe truth while others are especially-occupied with external things,\nman's life may be conveniently divided into the active and the\ncontemplative.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nSome, however, repudiate this division, thus:\n\n1. The soul is by its essence the principle of life; thus the\nPhilosopher says[293]: \"For living things, to live is to be.\" But the\nsame soul with its faculties is the principle both of action and of\ncontemplation. Hence it would seem that life cannot be suitably divided\ninto the active and the contemplative.\n\n    But the peculiar nature of every individual thing--that which\n    makes it actually be--is the principle of its own proper action;\n    consequently _to live_ is said to be the very _being_ of living\n    things, and this because living things--by the very fact that\n    they exist through such a nature--act in such a way.\n\n2. Again, when one thing precedes another it is unfitting to divide the\nformer by differences which find place in the latter. But action and\ncontemplation, like speculation and practice, are distinctions in the\nintellect, as is laid down by the Philosopher.[294] But we live before\nwe understand; for life is primarily in living things by their\nvegetative soul, as also the Philosopher says.[295] Therefore life is\nnot fittingly divided according to contemplation and action.\n\n    But we do not say that life universally considered is divided\n    into the active and the contemplative, but that man's life is so\n    divided. For man derives his species from his intellect, hence\n    the same divisions hold good for human life as hold good for the\n    intellect.\n\n3. Lastly, the word \"life\" implies motion, as is clear from Denis the\nAreopagite.[296] But contemplation more especially consists in repose,\naccording to the words: _When I go into my house I shall repose myself\nwith her (Wisdom)_.[297]\n\n    But while contemplation implies a certain repose from external\n    occupations, it is still a certain motion of the intellect in\n    the sense that every operation is a motion; in this sense the\n    Philosopher says that to feel and to understand are certain\n    motions in the sense that motion is said to be the act of a\n    perfect thing.[298] It is in this sense, too, that Denis[299]\n    assigns three movements to the soul in contemplation: the\n    direct, the circular, and the oblique.[300]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n_S. Augustine:_ Two virtues are set before the human soul, the one\nactive, the other contemplative; the former shows the path, the latter\nshows the goal; in the one we toil that so the heart may be purified for\nthe Vision of God, in the other we repose and we see God; the one is\nspent in the practice of the precepts of this temporal life, the other\nis occupied with the teachings of the life that is eternal. Hence it is\nthat the one is a life of toil and the other a life of rest; for the\nformer is engaged in purging away its sins, the latter already stands in\nthe light of the purified. Hence, too, during this mortal life the\nformer is occupied with the works of a good life, whereas the latter\nrather stands in faith, and, in the case of some few, sees _through a\nmirror in a dark manner_, and enjoys _in part_ a certain glimpse of the\nUnchangeable Truth (_De Consensu Evangelistarum_, I., iv. 8).\n\n    \"The Lord is the portion of my inheritance and of my cup; it is\n    Thou that wilt restore my inheritance to me. The lines are\n    fallen unto me in goodly places; for my inheritance is goodly to\n    me.\"[301]\n\n_S. Augustine:_ There is another life, the life of immortality, and in\nit there are no ills; there we shall see face to face what we now see\n_through a glass and in a dark manner_ even when we have made great\nadvance in our study of the Truth. The Church, then, knows of two kinds\nof life Divinely set before Her and commended to Her; in the one we walk\nby faith, in the other by sight; the one is the pilgrimage of time, the\nother is the mansion of eternity; the one is a life of toil, the other\nof repose; in the one we are on the way, in the other in Our Father's\nHome; the one is spent in the toil of action, the other in the reward of\ncontemplation; the one _turneth away from evil and doth good_, the other\nhath no evil from which to turn away, but rather a Great Good Which it\nenjoys; the one is in conflict with the foe, the other reigns--conscious\nthat there is no foe; the one is strong in adversity, the other knows of\nno adversity; the one bridles the lusts of the flesh, the other is given\nup to the joys of the Spirit; the one is anxious to overcome, the other\nis tranquil in the peace of victory; the one is helped in temptations,\nthe other, without temptation, rejoices in its Helper; the one succours\nthe needy, the other dwells where none are needy; the one condones the\nsins of others that thereby its own sins may be condoned, the other\nsuffers naught that it can pardon nor does ought that calls for pardon;\nthe one is afflicted in sufferings lest it should be uplifted in good\nthings, the other is steeped in such fulness of grace as to be free from\nall evil that so, without temptation to pride, it may cling to the\nSupreme Good; the one distinguishes between good and evil, the other\nsees naught save what is good; the one therefore is good--yet still in\nmiseries, the other is better--and in Blessedness (_Tractatus_, cxxiv.\n5, _in Joannem_).\n\n  \"Jesu nostra Redemptio\n  Amor et Desiderium!\n  Deus Creator omnium,\n  Homo in fine temporum!\"\n\n\nII\n\nIs this division of Life into the Active and the Contemplative a\nsufficient one?\n\nThese two kinds of life are signified by the two wives of Jacob--namely,\nthe active life by Lia, the contemplative by Rachel. They are also\nsignified by those two women who afforded hospitality to the Lord: the\ncontemplative, namely, by Mary, the active by Martha, as S. Gregory\nsays.[302] But if there were more than two kinds of life, these\nsignifications would not be fitting.\n\nAs we have said above, the division in question concerns human life\nregarded as intellectual. And the intellect itself is divided into the\ncontemplative and the active, for the aim of intellectual knowledge is\neither the actual knowledge of the truth--and this belongs to the\ncontemplative intellect, or it is some external action--and this\nconcerns the practical or active intellect. Hence life is quite\nsufficiently divided into the active and the contemplative.\n\nBut some argue that this division is not a sufficient one, thus:\n\n1. The Philosopher[303] says that there are three specially excellent\nkinds of life: the pleasurable, the civil--which seems to be identified\nwith the active--and the contemplative.\n\n    But the pleasurable life makes its end consist in the pleasures\n    of that body which we have in common with the brute creation.\n    Hence, as the Philosopher says in the same place, this is a\n    bestial life. Consequently it is not comprised in our division\n    of life into the active and the contemplative.\n\n2. Again, S. Augustine[304] speaks of three different kinds of life: the\nlife of leisure, which is referred to the contemplative; the busy life,\nwhich is referred to the active life; and he adds a third composed of\nthese two.\n\n    But things which hold a middle course are compounded of the\n    extremes, and hence are virtually contained in them, as the\n    tepid in the hot and the cold, the pallid in the white and the\n    black. And similarly, under the active and the contemplative\n    lives is comprised that kind of life which is compounded of them\n    both. But just as in every mixture one of the simple elements\n    predominates, so in this mixed kind of life now the\n    contemplative, now the active predominates.\n\n3. Lastly, men's lives are diversified according to their various\noccupations. But there are more than two classes of human occupations.\n\n    But all classes of human occupations are, if they are concerned\n    with the necessities of this present life, and in accordance\n    with right reason, comprised under the active life which, by\n    properly regulated acts, takes heed for the needs of the present\n    life. But if these actions minister to our concupiscences, then\n    they fall under the voluptuous life which is not comprised in\n    the active life. But human occupations which are directed to the\n    consideration of the truth are comprised under the contemplative\n    life.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n_S. Augustine: Your life is hid with Christ in God. When Christ shall\nappear, Who is your life, then you also shall appear with Him in\nglory_;[305] but until that shall come to pass _we see now through a\nglass in a dark manner_--that is, in images as it were--_but then face\nto face_.[306] This, indeed, is the contemplation that is promised to\nus, the goal of all our actions, the eternal perfection of all our joys.\nFor _we are the sons of God, and it hath not yet appeared what we shall\nbe; we know that when He shall appear we shall be like Him, for we shall\nsee Him as He is_.[307] And as He said to His servant Moses: _I am Who\nam ... thus shalt thou say to the children of Israel: He Who is hath\nsent me to you_,[308] even that shall we contemplate when we live in\neternity. Thus, too, He says: _This is eternal life, that they may know\nThee, the only True God, and Jesus Christ Whom Thou hast sent_.[309] And\nthis shall be when the Lord shall come and _bring to light the hidden\nthings of darkness_,[310] when the gloom of our mortal corruption shall\nhave passed away. Then will be our \"morning,\" that \"morning\" of which\nthe Psalmist says: _In the morning I will stand before Thee and I will\nsee_.[311] ... Then, too, will come to pass that which is written: _Thou\nshall fill me with joy with Thy countenance_.[312] Beyond that joy we\nshall seek for nothing, for there is naught further to be sought. The\nFather will be shown to us, and that will suffice for us. Well did\nPhilip understand this when he said to the Lord: _Show us the Father,\nand it is enough for us!_[313] ... Such contemplation, indeed, is the\nreward of faith, and for this reward's sake are our hearts purified by\nfaith, as it is written: _Purifying their hearts by faith_[314] (_De\nTrinitate_, I., viii. 17).\n\n    \"Remember, O Lord, Thy bowels of compassion; and Thy mercies\n    that are from the beginning of the world. The sins of my youth\n    and my ignorances do not remember. According to Thy mercy\n    remember Thou me; for Thy goodness' sake, O Lord. The Lord is\n    sweet and righteous; therefore He will give a law to sinners in\n    the way. He will guide the mild in judgment; He will teach the\n    meek His ways. All the ways of the Lord are mercy and truth to\n    them that seek after His covenant and His testimonies. For Thy\n    Name's sake, O Lord, Thou wilt pardon my sin; for it is\n    great.\"[315]\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[291] Hom. XIV., _On Ezechiel_.\n\n[292] IX., xii. 21.\n\n[293] _De Anima_, II., iv. 4.\n\n[294] _De Anima_, III., x. 2.\n\n[295] _Ibid._, II., iv. 2.\n\n[296] _Of the Divine Names_, vi.\n\n[297] Wisd. viii. 16.\n\n[298] _De Anima_, III., vii. 1.\n\n[299] _Of the Divine Names_, IV., i. 7.\n\n[300] For a commentary on this passage of S. Denis, see Qu. CLXXX., Art.\n6, pp. 203-210.\n\n[301] Ps. xv. 5-6.\n\n[302] _Moralia in Job_, vi. 18; and _Hom._ XIV., _On Ezechiel_.\n\n[303] _Ethics_, I., v. 21.\n\n[304] _Of the City of God_, xix. 2 and 19.\n\n[305] Col. iii. 3-4.\n\n[306] 1 Cor. xiii. 12.\n\n[307] 1 John iii. 2.\n\n[308] Exod. iii. 14.\n\n[309] S. John xvii. 3.\n\n[310] 1 Cor. iv. 5.\n\n[311] Ps. v. 5.\n\n[312] Ps. xv. 11.\n\n[313] S. John xiv. 8.\n\n[314] Acts xv. 9.\n\n[315] Ps. xxiv. 6-11.\n\n\n\n\nQUESTION CLXXX\n\nOF THE CONTEMPLATIVE LIFE\n\n   I. Is the Contemplative Life wholly confined to the Intellect,\n            or does the Will enter into it?\n        S. Thomas, _On the Beatific Vision_, I., xii. 7\n            _ad 3m_\n  II. Do the Moral Virtues pertain to the Contemplative Life?\n        S. Augustine, _Of the City of God_, xix. 19\n III. Does the Contemplative Life comprise many Acts?\n        S. Augustine, _Of the Perfection of Human\n                    Righteousness_, viii. 18\n              \" _Ep._, cxxx. _ad probam_\n  IV. Does the Contemplative Life consist solely in the\n            Contemplation of God, or in the Consideration\n            of other Truths as well?\n        S. Augustine, _Sermon_, CLXIX., xiv. 17\n             \" _Ep._, cxxx. _ad probam_\n   V. Can the Contemplative Life attain, according to the State of\n            this Present Life, to the Contemplation\n            of the Divine Essence?\n        S. Augustine, _Of the Sermon on the Mount_, II.,\n                    ix. 35\n  VI. Is the Act of Contemplation rightly distinguished according\n            to the three kinds of Motion--Circular, Direct,\n            and Oblique?\n VII. Has Contemplation its Joys?\nVIII. Is the Contemplative Life lasting?\n        S. Augustine, _Sermon_, cclix., _On Low Sunday_\n\n\nI\n\nIs the Contemplative Life wholly confined to the Intellect, or does the\nWill enter into it?\n\nS. Gregory the Great says[316]: \"The contemplative life means keeping of\ncharity towards God and our neighbour, and fixing all our desires on our\nCreator.\" But desire and love belong to the affective or appetitive\npowers; consequently the contemplative life is not confined to the\nintellect.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nWhen men's thoughts are principally directed towards the contemplation\nof the truth, their life is said to be \"contemplative.\" But to \"intend\"\nor direct is an act of the will, since \"intention\" or direction is\nconcerned with the end in view, and the end is the proper object of the\nwill. Hence contemplation, having regard to the actual essence of it, is\nan act of the intellect; but if we consider that which moves us to the\nexercise of such an act, then contemplation is an act of the will; for\nit is the will which moves all the other faculties, including the\nintellect, to the exercise of their appropriate acts.\n\nBut the appetitive faculty--the will, that is--moves us to consider some\npoint either sensibly or intellectually, that is, sometimes out of love\nfor the thing itself--for _Where thy treasure is there is thy heart\nalso_,--and sometimes out of love of that very knowledge which follows\nfrom its consideration. For this reason S. Gregory[317] makes the\ncontemplative life consist in the love of God, since from love of God a\nman yearns to look upon His beauty. And since we are delighted when we\nobtain what we love, the contemplative life consequently results in\ndelight, and this resides in the affective powers, from which, too, love\ntook its rise.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nSome, however, urge that the contemplative life lies wholly in the\nintellect, thus:\n\n1. The Philosopher says[318]: \"The end of contemplation is truth.\" But\ntruth belongs wholly to the intellect.\n\n    But from the very fact that truth is the goal of contemplation\n    it derives its character of a desirable and lovable and pleasing\n    good, and in this sense it comes under the appetitive powers.\n\n2. Again, S. Gregory says[319]: \"Rachel, whose name is interpreted 'the\nBeginning seen,' signifies the contemplative life.\" But the vision of a\nprinciple, or beginning, belongs to the intellect.\n\n    But it is love of God which excites in us desire of the vision\n    of the First Principle of all--viz., God Himself--and hence S.\n    Gregory says[320]: \"The contemplative life, trampling underfoot\n    all cares, ardently yearns to look upon the face of the\n    Creator.\"\n\n3. S. Gregory says[321]: \"It belongs to the contemplative life to rest\nfrom all exterior action.\" But the affective or appetitive powers tend\ntowards external action. Hence it would seem that the contemplative life\ndoes not come under them.\n\n    But the appetitive powers not only move the bodily members to\n    the performance of external acts, but the intellect, too, is\n    moved by them to the exercise of contemplation.\n\n    \"Hear, you that are far off, what I have done, and you that are\n    near, know My strength. The sinners in Sion are afraid,\n    trembling hath seized upon the hypocrites. Which of you can\n    dwell with devouring fire? which of you shall dwell with\n    everlasting burnings? He that walketh in justices, and speaketh\n    truth, that casteth away avarice by oppression, and shaketh his\n    hands from all bribes, that stoppeth his ears lest he hear\n    blood, and shutteth his eyes that he may see no evil. He shall\n    dwell on high, the fortifications of rocks shall be his\n    highness: bread is given him, his waters are sure. His eyes\n    shall see the King in His beauty, they shall see the land far\n    off.\"[322]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n_S. Thomas:_ We do not enjoy all the things that we have; and this is\neither because they do not afford us delight, or because they are not\nthe ultimate goal of our desires, and so are incapable of satisfying our\nyearnings or affording us repose. But these three things the Blessed\nhave in God: for they see Him, and seeing Him they hold Him ever present\nto them, for they have it in their power always to see Him; and holding\nHim, they enjoy Him, satisfying their yearnings with That Which is The\nUltimate End (_Summa Theologica_, I., xii. 7, _ad 3m_).\n\n    \"As the hart panteth after the fountains of water: so my soul\n    panteth after Thee, O God. My soul hath thirsted after the\n    strong living God; when shall I come and appear before the face\n    of God? My tears have been my bread day and night, whilst it is\n    said to me daily: Where is thy God? These things I remembered,\n    and poured out my soul in me; for I shall go over into the place\n    of the wonderful tabernacle, even to the house of God. With the\n    voice of joy and praise; the noise of one feasting. Why art thou\n    sad, O my soul? and why dost thou trouble me? Hope in God, for I\n    will still give praise to Him: the salvation of my countenance,\n    and my God.\"[323]\n\n\nII\n\nDo the Moral Virtues pertain to the Contemplative Life?\n\nThe moral virtues are directed towards external actions, and S. Gregory\nsays[324]: \"It belongs to the contemplative life to abstain from all\nexternal action.\" Hence the moral virtues do not pertain to the\ncontemplative life.\n\nA thing may pertain to the contemplative life either essentially or by\nway of disposition towards it. Essentially, then, the moral virtues do\nnot pertain to the contemplative life; for the goal of the contemplative\nlife is the consideration of truth. \"Knowledge,\" says the Philosopher,\n\"which pertains to the consideration of truth, has little to do with the\nmoral virtues.\"[325] Hence he also says[326] that moral virtues pertain\nto active, not to contemplative happiness.\n\nBut dispositively the moral virtues do belong to the contemplative life.\nFor actual contemplation, in which the contemplative life essentially\nconsists, is impeded both by the vehemence of the passions which\ndistract the soul from occupation with the things of the intellect, and\ndivert it to the things of sense, and also by external disturbances. The\nmoral virtues, however, keep down the vehemence of the passions, and\ncheck the disturbance that might arise from external occupations.\n\nConsequently the moral virtues do pertain to the contemplative life, but\nby way of disposition thereto.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nBut some maintain that the moral virtues do pertain to the contemplative\nlife, thus:\n\n1. S. Gregory says[327]: \"The contemplative life means keeping charity\ntowards God and our neighbour with our whole soul.\" But all the moral\nvirtues--acts of which fall under precept--are reduced to love of God\nand of our neighbour; for _Love is the fulfilling of the Law_.[328]\nConsequently it would seem that the moral virtues do pertain to the\ncontemplative life.\n\n    But, as we have already said, the contemplative life is motived\n    by the affective faculties, and consequently love of God and of\n    our neighbour are required for the contemplative life. Impelling\n    causes, however, do not enter into the essence of a thing, but\n    prepare for it and perfect it. Hence it does not follow that the\n    moral virtues essentially pertain to the contemplative life.\n\n2. Again; the contemplative life is especially directed towards the\ncontemplation of God, as S. Gregory says: \"The soul, trampling all cares\nunderfoot, ardently yearns to see its Creator's face.\" But no one can\nattain to this without that cleanness of heart which the moral virtues\nprocure: _Blessed are the clean of heart, for they shall see God_,[329]\nand again: _Follow peace with all men with holiness, without which no\nman shall see God_.[330]\n\n    But holiness--that is, cleanness of heart--is produced by those\n    virtues which have to do with those passions which hinder the\n    purity of the reason. And peace is produced by justice--the\n    moral virtue which is concerned with our works: _The work of\n    justice shall be peace_[331] inasmuch, that is, as a man, by\n    refraining from injuring others, removes occasions of strife and\n    disturbance.\n\n3. Lastly, S. Gregory says[332]: \"The contemplative life is something\nbeautiful in the soul,\" and it is for this reason that it is said to be\ntypified by Rachel, for _She was well-favoured and of a beautiful\ncountenance_.[333] But the beauty of the soul, as S. Ambrose remarks,\ndepends upon the moral virtues and especially on that of\ntemperance.[334]\n\n    But beauty consists in a certain splendour combined with a\n    becoming harmony. Both of these points are radically to be\n    referred to the reason, for to it belongs both the light which\n    manifests beauty, and the establishment of due proportion in\n    others. Consequently in the contemplative life--which consists\n    in the act of the reason--beauty is necessarily and essentially\n    to be found; thus of the contemplation of Wisdom it is said:\n    _And I became a lover of her beauty_.[335] But in the moral\n    virtues beauty is only found by a certain participation--in\n    proportion, namely, as they share in the harmony of reason; and\n    this is especially the case with the virtue of temperance whose\n    function it is to repress those desires which particularly\n    obscure the light of reason. Hence it is, too, that the virtue\n    of chastity especially renders a man fit for contemplation, for\n    venereal pleasures are precisely those which, as S. Augustine\n    points out, most drag down the mind to the things of sense.[336]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n_S. Augustine:_ While it is true that any one of these three kinds of\nlife--the leisurely, the busy, and the life commingled of them both--may\nbe embraced by anybody without prejudice to his faith, and may be the\nmeans of leading him to his eternal reward, it is yet important that a\nman should take note of what it is that he holds to through love of the\ntruth, and should reflect on the nature of the work to which he devotes\nhimself at the demand of charity. For no man should be so addicted to\nleisure as for its sake to neglect his neighbour's profit; neither\nshould any man be so devoted to the active life as to forget the thought\nof God. For in our leisured life we are not to find delight in mere idle\nrepose, but the seeking and finding of the truth must be our aim; each\nmust strive to advance in that, to hold fast what he finds, and yet not\nto grudge it to his neighbour. Similarly, in the life of action: we must\nnot love honour in this life, nor power; for _all things are vain under\nthe sun_. But we must love the toil itself which comes to us together\nwith such honour or power if it be rightly and profitably used--as\ntending, that is, to the salvation under God of those under us.... Love\nof truth, then, seeks for a holy leisure; the calls of charity compel us\nto undertake the labours of justice. If no one lays on us this burden,\nthen must we devote our leisure to the search after and the study of the\ntruth; but if such burden be imposed upon us, we must shoulder it at the\ncall of charity; yet withal we must not wholly abandon the delights of\nthe truth, lest while the latter's sweetness is withdrawn from us, the\nburden we have taken up overwhelm us (_Of the City of God_, xix. 19).\n\n    \"O expectation of Israel, the Saviour thereof in time of\n    trouble: why wilt Thou be as a stranger in the land, and as a\n    wayfaring man turning in to lodge? Why wilt Thou be as a\n    wandering man, as a mighty man that cannot save? but Thou, O\n    Lord, art among us, and Thy Name is called upon us, forsake us\n    not.\"[337]\n\n\nIII\n\nDoes the Contemplative Life comprise many Acts?\n\nBy \"life\" is here meant any work to which a man principally devotes\nhimself. Hence if there were many acts or works in the contemplative\nlife, it would not be one life, but several.\n\nIt must be understood that we are speaking of the contemplative life as\nit concerns man. And between men and Angels there is, as S. Denis\nsays,[338] this difference--that whereas an Angel knows the truth by one\nsimple act of intelligence, man, on the contrary, only arrives at a\nknowledge of the simple truth by arguing from many premises. Hence the\ncontemplative life has only a single act in which it finds its final\nperfection--namely, the contemplation of the truth--and from this one\nact it derives its oneness. But at the same time it has many acts by\nmeans of which it arrives at this final act. Of these various acts, some\nare concerned with the establishment of principles from which the mind\nproceeds to the contemplation of truth; others, again, are concerned\nwith deducing from these principles that truth the knowledge of which is\nsought. But the ultimate act, the complement of the foregoing, is the\ncontemplation of truth.\n\nSome, however, maintain that many acts pertain to the contemplative\nlife, thus:\n\n1. Richard of S. Victor[339] distinguishes between contemplation,\nmeditation, and thought. But these all seem to belong to the\ncontemplative life.\n\n    But _thought_, according to Richard of S. Victor, seems to\n    signify the consideration of many things from which a man\n    intends to gather some single truth. Consequently, under the\n    term _thought_ may be comprised perceptions by the senses,\n    whereby we know certain effects--imaginations, too, as well as\n    investigation of different phenomena by the reason; in a word,\n    all those things which conduce to a knowledge of the truth we\n    are in search of. At the same time, according to S.\n    Augustine,[340] every operation of the intellect may be termed\n    _thought_. _Meditation_, again, seems to refer to the process of\n    reasoning from principles which have to do with the truth we\n    desire to contemplate. And _contemplation_, according to S.\n    Bernard,[341] means the same thing, although, according to the\n    Philosopher,[342] every operation of the intellect may be termed\n    \"consideration.\" But _contemplation_ is concerned with the\n    simple dwelling upon the truth itself. Hence Richard of S.\n    Victor says[343]: \"_Contemplation_ is the soul's clear, free,\n    and attentive dwelling upon the truth to be perceived;\n    _meditation_ is the outlook of the soul occupied in searching\n    for the truth; _thought _ is the soul's glance, ever prone to\n    distraction.\"\n\n2. Further, the Apostle says: _But we all, beholding the glory of the\nLord with open face, are transformed into the same image from glory to\nglory._[344] But this refers to the contemplative life; therefore,\nbesides the three things already mentioned--namely, contemplation,\nmeditation and thought,--_speculation_, too, enters into the\ncontemplative life.\n\n    But _speculation_, as S. Augustine's Gloss has it,[345] \"is\n    derived from _speculum_, a 'mirror,' not from _specula_, a\n    'watch-tower.'\" To see a thing in a mirror, however, is to see a\n    cause by an effect in which its likeness is shown; thus\n    _speculation_ seems reducible to _meditation_.\n\n3. Again, S. Bernard says[346]: \"The first and chiefest contemplation is\nthe marvelling at God's Majesty.\" But to \"marvel\" is, according to S.\nJohn Damascene,[347] a species of fear. Consequently it seems that many\nacts belong to contemplation.\n\n    But wonderment is a species of fear arising from our learning\n    something which it is beyond our powers to understand. Hence\n    wonderment is an act subsequent to the contemplation of sublime\n    truth, whereas contemplation reaches its goal in the affective\n    powers.\n\n4. Lastly, prayer, reading, and meditation seem to belong to the\ncontemplative life. Devout hearing, too, belongs to it, for it is said\nof Mary, who is the type of the contemplative life, that _sitting at the\nLord's feet, she heard His word_.[348]\n\n    Man, however, arrives at the knowledge of truth in two ways:\n    first of all, by receiving things from others; as regards, then,\n    the things a man receives from God: prayer is necessary,\n    according to the words: _I called upon God, and the spirit of\n    Wisdom came upon me_.[349] And as for the things he receives\n    from men: hearing is necessary if he receive them from one who\n    speaks, reading is necessary if it be question of what is handed\n    down in Holy Scripture. And secondly, a man arrives at the\n    knowledge of truth by his own personal study, and for this is\n    required meditation.\n\n\n  \"Uni trinoque Domino\n  Sit sempiterna gloria!\n  Qui vitam sine termino\n  Nobis donet in Patria!\"\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n_S. Augustine:_ As long, then, as _we are absent from the Lord, we walk\nby faith and not by sight_,[350] whence it is said: _The just man shall\nlive in his faith._[351] And this is our justice as long as we are on\nour pilgrimage--namely, that here now by the uprightness and perfection\nwith which we walk we strive after that perfection and fulness of\njustice where, in all the glory of its beauty, will be full and perfect\ncharity. Here we chastise our body and bring it into subjection; here we\ngive alms by conferring benefits and forgiving offences against\nourselves; and we do this with joy and from the heart, and are ever\ninstant in prayer; and all this we do in the light of that sound\ndoctrine by which is built up right faith, solid hope, and pure charity.\nThis, then, is our present justice whereby we run hungering and\nthirsting after the perfection and fulness of justice, so that hereafter\nwe may be filled therewith (_De Perfectione justitiae Hominis_, viii.\n18).\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n_S. Augustine:_ You know, then, I think, not only how you ought to pray,\nbut what you ought to pray for; and this not because I teach you, but\nbecause He teaches you Who has deigned to teach us all. The Life of\nBeatitude is what we have to seek; this we have to ask for from the Lord\nGod. And what Beatitude means is, with many, a source of much dispute.\nBut why should we appeal to the many and their many opinions? For\npithily and truly it is said in God's Scripture: _Happy is that people\nwhose God is the Lord!_[352] Oh, that we may be counted amongst _that\npeople_! Oh, that we may be enabled to contemplate Him, and may come one\nday to live with Him unendingly! _The end of the commandment is charity\nfrom a pure heart and a good conscience, and an unfeigned faith._[353]\nAnd among these three, hope stands for _a good conscience_. Faith,\ntherefore, with hope and charity, leads to God the man who prays--that\nis, the man who believes, who hopes, and who desires, and who in the\n_Lord's Prayer_ meditates what he should ask from the Lord (_Ep._ cxxx.\n_ad probam_).\n\n    \"For my heart hath been inflamed, and my reins have been\n    changed: and I am brought to nothing, and I knew not. I am\n    become as a beast before Thee; and I am always with Thee. Thou\n    hast held me by my right hand; and by Thy will Thou hast\n    conducted me; and with glory Thou hast received me. For what\n    have I in Heaven? and besides Thee what do I desire upon earth?\n    For Thee my flesh and my heart hath fainted away; Thou art the\n    God of my heart; and the God that is my portion for ever. For\n    behold they that go far from Thee shall perish; Thou hast\n    destroyed all them that are disloyal to Thee. But it is good for\n    me to adhere to my God, to put my hope in the Lord God: that I\n    may declare all Thy praises, in the gates of the daughter of\n    Sion.\"[354]\n\n\nIV\n\nDoes the Contemplative Life consist solely in the Contemplation of God,\nor in the Consideration of other Truths as well?\n\nS. Gregory says[355]: \"In contemplation it is the Principle--namely,\nGod--which is sought.\"\n\nA thing may come under the contemplative life in two ways: either\nprimarily, or secondarily--that is, dispositively. Now primarily the\ncontemplation of Divine Truth belongs to the contemplative life, since\nsuch contemplation is the goal of all human life. Hence S. Augustine\nsays[356]: \"The contemplation of God is promised to us as the goal of\nall our acts and the eternal consummation of all our joys.\" And this\nwill be perfect in the future life when we shall see God face to\nface--when, consequently, it will render us perfectly blessed. But in\nour present state the contemplation of Divine Truth belongs to us only\nimperfectly--namely, _through a glass and in a dark manner_; it causes\nin us now a certain commencement of beatitude, which begins here, to be\ncontinued in the future. Hence even the Philosopher[357] makes the\nultimate happiness of man consist in the contemplation of the highest\nintelligible truths.\n\nBut since we are led to a contemplation of God by the consideration of\nHis Divine works--_The invisible things of God ... are clearly seen,\nbeing understood by the things that are made_[358]--it follows also that\nthe contemplation of the Divine works belongs in a secondary sense to\nthe contemplative life--according, namely, as by it we are led to the\nknowledge of God. For this reason S. Augustine says[359]: \"In the study\nof created things we must not exercise a mere idle and passing\ncuriosity, but must make them a stepping-stone to things that are\nimmortal and that abide for ever.\"\n\nThus from what we have said it is clear that four things belong, and\nthat in a certain sequence, to the contemplative life: firstly, the\nmoral virtues; secondly, other acts apart from that of contemplation;\nthirdly, the contemplation of the Divine works; and fourthly--and this\nis the crown of them all--the actual contemplation of the Divine Truth.\n\nSome, however, say that the contemplative life is not merely confined to\nthe contemplation of God but is extended to the consideration of any\ntruth whatsoever, thus:\n\n1. In Ps. cxxxviii. 14 we read: _Wonderful are Thy works! My soul\nknoweth right well!_ But the knowledge of the works of God is derived\nfrom a certain contemplation of the truth. Whence it would seem that it\nbelongs to the contemplative life to contemplate not only the Divine\nTruth, but also any other truth we please.\n\n    But David sought the knowledge of God's works that he might\n    thereby be led to God Himself, as he says elsewhere: _I\n    meditated on all Thy works, I mused upon the works of Thy hands;\n    I stretched forth my hands to Thee._[360]\n\n2. Again, S. Bernard says[361]: \"The first point in contemplation is to\nmarvel at God's majesty; the second, at His judgments; the third, at His\nbenefits; the fourth, at His promises.\" But of these only the first\ncomes under the Divine Truth--the rest are effects of it.\n\n    But from the consideration of the Divine judgments a man is led\n    to the contemplation of the Divine justice; and from a\n    consideration of the Divine benefits and promises a man is led\n    to a knowledge of the Divine mercy and goodness, as it were by\n    effects either already shown or to be shown.\n\n3. Once more, Richard of S. Victor[362] distinguishes six kinds of\ncontemplation; the first is according to the imagination simply, when,\nnamely, we consider corporeal things; the second is in the imagination\ndirected by the reason, as when we consider the harmony and arrangement\nof the things of the senses; the third is in the reason, but based on\nthe imagination, as when by the consideration of visible things we are\nuplifted to the invisible; the fourth is in the reason working on the\nthings of the reason, as when the soul occupies itself with invisible\nthings unknown to the imagination; the fifth is above the reason, but\nnot beyond its grasp, when, for instance, we know by Divine Revelation\nthings which cannot be comprehended by the human reason; and the sixth\nis above the reason and beyond its grasp, as when by Divine illumination\nwe know things which are apparently repugnant to human reason--for\nexample, the things we are told concerning the mystery of the Holy\nTrinity.\n\nAnd only the last named of these seems to come under Divine Truth;\nconsequently contemplation of the truth is not limited to Divine Truth,\nbut extends also to those truths which we consider in created things.\n\n    But by these six are signified the steps by which we ascend\n    through created things to the contemplation of God. For in the\n    first we have the perception of the things of sense; in the\n    second, the progress from the things of sense to the things of\n    the intellect; in the third judgment upon the things of sense\n    according to intellectual principles; in the fourth, the simple\n    consideration of intellectual truths at which we have arrived by\n    means of the things of sense; in the fifth, the contemplation of\n    intellectual truths to which we could not attain by the things\n    of sense, but which can be grasped by reason; in the sixth, the\n    contemplation of intellectual truths such as the reason can\n    neither find nor grasp--truths, namely, which belong to the\n    sublime contemplation of the Divine Truth, in which\n    contemplation is finally perfected.\n\n4. Lastly, in the contemplative life the contemplation of truth is\nsought as being man's perfection. But any truth whatsoever is a\nperfection of the human intellect. Consequently the contemplative life\nconsists in the contemplation of any kind of truth whatsoever.\n\n    But the ultimate perfection of the human intellect is the Divine\n    Truth; other truths perfect the intellect by way of preparation\n    for the Divine Truth.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n_S. Augustine:_ Martha, Martha, thou hast chosen a good part, but Mary\nhath chosen the better. Yours is good--for it is good to busy oneself\nwith waiting on the Saints--but hers is better. What you have chosen\nwill pass away at length. You minister to the hungry, you minister to\nthe thirsty, you make the beds for them that would sleep, you find\nhouse-room for them that need it--but all these things will pass away!\nFor there will come a time when none will hunger, when none will thirst,\nwhen none will sleep. And then thy care will be taken from thee. But\nMary hath chosen the better part, which shall never be taken from her!\nIt shall not be taken away, for she chose to live the life of\ncontemplation, she chose to live by the Word. What kind of life will\nthat be that flows from the Word without spoken word? Here on earth she\ndrew life from the Word, but through the medium of the spoken word. Then\nwill be life, from the Word indeed, but with no spoken word. For the\nWord Himself is life. _We shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He\nis_[363] (_Sermon_, CLXIX., xiv. 17).\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n_S. Augustine: One thing I have asked of the Lord, this will I seek\nafter: that I may dwell in the house of the Lord all the days of my\nlife!_[364]\n\nWhosoever asks for This One Thing and seeks after It prays with sure and\ncertain confidence; nor need he fear lest, when he shall have obtained\nIt, he shall find It disagreeable to him, for without It naught that he\nprays for as he ought, and obtains, is of any avail. For this is the\none, true, and only Blessed Life--to contemplate the delights of the\nLord for eternity, in immortality and incorruptibility of body as well\nas soul. For the sake of This One Thing are all other things to be\nsought after, and only thus our petitions for them are rendered not\nunbecoming. Whosoever hath this One Thing will have all that he wishes\nfor, nor indeed will he be able to wish there for anything which is\nunfitting. For there is the Fountain of Life, for which we must now\nthirst in prayer as long as we live by hope--as long, too, as we see not\nWhat we hope for. For we dwell 'neath the shadow of His wings before\nWhom is all our desire, that so we _may be inebriated with the plenty\nof_ His _house, and may drink of the torrent of_ His _pleasure: for\nwith_ Him _is the Fountain of Life, and in_ His _light we shall see\nlight._[365] Then shall our desire be sated with all good things, then\nwill there be naught for us to seek for with groanings, but only What we\nshall cling to with joy. Yet none the less, since this is _the peace\nthat surpasseth all understanding_, even when praying for it _we know\nnot what we should pray for as we ought_[366] (_Ep._ cxxx. _ad probam_).\n\n    \"He shall cast death down headlong for ever: and the Lord God\n    shall wipe away tears from every face, and the reproach of His\n    people He shall take away from off the whole earth: for the Lord\n    hath spoken it. And they shall say in that day: Lo, this is our\n    God, we have waited for Him, and He will save us: this is the\n    Lord, we have patiently waited for Him, we shall rejoice and be\n    joyful in His salvation.\"[367]\n\n\nV\n\nCan the Contemplative Life attain, according to the State of this\nPresent Life, to the Contemplation of the Divine Essence?\n\nS. Gregory says[368]: \"As long as we live in this mortal flesh none of\nus can make such progress in the virtue of contemplation as to fix his\nmind's gaze on that Infinite Light.\"\n\nS. Augustine also says[369]: \"No one who looks on God lives with that\nlife with which we mortals live in the bodily senses; but unless he be\nin some sort dead to this life, whether as having wholly departed from\nthe body, or as rapt away from the bodily senses, he is not uplifted to\nthat vision.\"\n\nA man, then, can be \"in this life\" in two ways: he can be in it\nactually--that is, as actually using his bodily senses--and when he is\nthus \"in the body\" no contemplation such as belongs to this present life\ncan attain to the vision of the Essence of God; or a man may be \"in this\nlife\" potentially, and not actually; that is, his soul may be joined to\nhis body as its informing principle, but in such fashion that it neither\nmakes use of the bodily senses nor even of the imagination, and this is\nwhat takes place when a man is rapt in ecstasy: in this sense\ncontemplation such as belongs to this life can attain to the vision of\nthe Divine Essence.\n\nConsequently the highest degree of contemplation which is compatible\nwith the present life is that which S. Paul had when he was rapt in\necstasy and stood midway between the state of this present life and the\nnext.\n\nSome, however, say that the contemplative life can, even according to\nour present state of life, attain to the vision of the Divine Essence,\nthus:\n\n1. Jacob said: _I have seen God face to face, and my soul hath been\nsaved._[370] But the vision of the face of God is the vision of the\nDivine Essence. Whence it would seem that a man may by contemplation\nactually reach, even during this present life, to the vision of the\nEssence of God.\n\n    But S. Denis says[371]: \"If anyone saw God and understood what\n    he saw, then it was not God he saw, but something belonging to\n    Him.\" And similarly S. Gregory says[372]: \"Almighty God is never\n    seen in His Glory, but the soul gazes at something derived from\n    It, and thus refreshed, makes advance, and so ultimately arrives\n    at the glory of vision.\" Hence when Jacob said, _I saw God face\n    to face_, we are not to understand that he saw the Essence of\n    God, but that he saw some appearance--that is, some imaginary\n    appearance--in which God spoke to him; or, as the Gloss of S.\n    Gregory[373] has it, \"Since we know people by the face, Jacob\n    called knowledge of God His face.\"\n\n2. Further, S. Gregory says[374]: \"Contemplative men turn back within\nupon themselves in that they search into spiritual things, and do not\ncarry with them the shadows of things corporeal; or if perchance they\ntouch them, they drive them away with discreet hands. But when they\nwould look upon the Infinite Light, they put aside all images which\nlimit It, and in striving to arrive at a height superior to themselves,\nthey become conquerors of their nature.\" But a man is only withheld from\nthe vision of the Divine Essence, which is Infinite Light, by the\nnecessity he is under of turning to corporeal images. From this it would\nseem that contemplation can, even in this present life, arrive at the\nsight of the Infinite Essential Light.\n\n    But human contemplation according to this present state cannot\n    exist without recourse to the imagination, for it is in\n    accordance with man's nature that he should see intelligible\n    forms through the medium of pictures in the imagination, as also\n    the Philosopher teaches.[375] Yet intellectual knowledge does\n    not consist in such images, rather does the intellect\n    contemplate in them the purity of intelligible truth; and this\n    is not merely the case in natural knowledge, but also in those\n    things which we know by revelation. For S. Denis says: \"The\n    Divine Light manifests to us the Angelic hierarchies by means of\n    symbolical figures by force of which we are restored to the\n    simple ray,\" that is, to the simple knowledge of intelligible\n    truth. It is thus that we ought to understand S. Gregory's words\n    when he says: \"In contemplation men do not carry with them the\n    shadows of things corporeal,\" for their contemplation does not\n    abide in these things but rather in the consideration of\n    intelligible truth.\n\n3. Lastly, S. Gregory says[376]: \"To the soul that looks upon its\nCreator all created things are but narrow. Consequently the man of\nGod--namely, the Blessed Benedict--who saw in a tower a fiery globe and\nthe Angels mounting up to Heaven, was doubtless only able to see these\nthings by the light of God.\" But the Blessed Benedict was then still in\nthis life. Consequently contemplation, even in this present life, can\nattain to the vision of the Essence of God.\n\n    But we are not to understand from S. Gregory's words that the\n    Blessed Benedict saw the Essence of God in that vision; S.\n    Gregory wishes to show that since \"to him who looks upon his\n    Creator all created things are but as nothing,\" it follows that\n    certain things can easily be seen by the illumination afforded\n    by the Divine Light. Hence he adds: \"For, however little of the\n    Creator's Light he sees, all created things become of small\n    account.\"\n\n\n  Veni Sancte Spiritus\n  Et emitte coelitus\n  Lucis Tuae radium!\n\n  O Lux Beatissima\n  Reple cordis intima\n  Tuorum fidelium!\n\n\n_S. Augustine:_ And thus, the remaining burden of this mortal life being\nlaid aside at death, man's happiness will, in God's own time, be\nperfected from every point of view--that happiness which is begun in\nthis life, and to the attainment and securing of which at some future\ntime our every effort must now tend (_Of the Sermon on the Mount_, II.,\nix. 35).\n\n    \"The old error is passed away; Thou wilt keep peace: peace,\n    because we have hoped in Thee. You have hoped in the Lord for\n    evermore, in the Lord God mighty for ever. And in the way of Thy\n    judgments, O Lord, we have patiently waited for Thee: Thy Name,\n    and Thy remembrance are the desire of the soul. My soul hath\n    desired Thee in the night: yea, and with my spirit within me in\n    the morning early I will watch to Thee.\"[377]\n\n\nVI\n\nIs the Act of Contemplation Rightly Distinguished According to the Three\nKinds of Motion--Circular, Direct, and Oblique?\n\nS. Denis the Areopagite[378] does so distinguish the acts of\ncontemplation.\n\nThe operation of the intellect in which contemplation essentially\nconsists is termed \"motion\" in the sense that motion is the act of a\nperfect thing, according to the Philosopher.[379] And since we arrive at\na knowledge of intelligible things through the medium of the things of\nsense, and the operations of the senses do not take place without\nmotion, it follows that the operations also of the intellect are\ncorrectly described as a species of motion, and are differentiated\naccording to the analogy of divers motions. But the more perfect and the\nchiefest of bodily motions are local motions, as is proved by the\nPhilosopher.[380] Consequently the chief intellectual motions are\ndescribed according to the analogy of these latter.\n\nNow, there are three species of local motion: one is circular, according\nas a thing is moved uniformly about the same centre; another is direct,\naccording as a thing proceeds from one point to another; and a third is\noblique, compounded as it were from the two foregoing.\n\nHence in intelligible operations, that which simply has uniformity is\nattributed to circular motion; that intellectual motion by which a man\nproceeds from one thing to another is attributed to direct motion; while\nthat intellectual operation which has a certain uniformity combined with\nprogress towards different points, is attributed to oblique motion.\n\nAll, however, do not agree with this division, thus:\n\n1. Contemplation means a state of repose, as is said in _Wisdom_[381]:\n_When I go into my house I shall repose myself with Her._ And motion is\nopposed to repose. Consequently the operations of the contemplative life\ncannot be designated according to these different species of motion.\n\n    But whereas external bodily movements are opposed to that repose\n    of contemplation which is understood to be rest from external\n    occupations, the motion of intellectual operations belongs\n    precisely to the repose of contemplation.\n\n2. Again, the action of the contemplative life pertains to the intellect\nwherein man is at one with the Angels. But S. Denis does not apply these\nmotions to the Angels in the same way as he does to the soul; for he\nsays that the _circular_ motion of the Angels \"corresponds to the\nillumination of the beautiful and the good.\" But of the _circular_\nmotion of the soul he gives several definitions, of which the first is\n\"the return of the soul upon itself as opposed to external things\"; the\nsecond is \"a certain wrapping together of the powers of the soul whereby\nit is freed from error and from external occupation\"; and the third is\n\"the union of the soul with things superior to it.\" Similarly, he speaks\nin different terms of the _direct_ motion of the soul as compared with\nthat of the Angels. For he says that the _direct_ motion of an Angel is\n\"according as he proceeds to the care of the things subject to him\";\nwhile the _direct_ motion of the soul is made to consist in two things:\nfirst of all \"that it proceeds to those things which are around it\";\nsecondly, that \"from external things it is uplifted to simple\ncontemplation.\" And lastly, he explains the _oblique_ motion differently\nin each case. For he makes the _oblique_ motion of the Angels consist in\nthis that, \"while providing for those that have less than themselves,\nthey remain in the same attitude towards God\"; but the _oblique_ motion\nof the soul he explains as meaning that \"the soul is illumined by Divine\nknowledge rationally and diffusely.\"\n\nConsequently it does not appear that the operations of contemplation are\nfittingly distinguished according to the aforesaid species of motion.\n\n    But while man's intellect is generally the same with that of the\n    Angels, the intellectual powers of the latter are far higher\n    than in man. It was therefore necessary to assign the aforesaid\n    motions to human souls and to the Angels in different fashion in\n    proportion as their intellectual powers are not uniform. For the\n    Angelic intellect has uniform knowledge in two respects:\n    firstly, because the Angels do not acquire intelligible truth\n    from the variety of compound things; and secondly, because they\n    do not understand intelligible truth discursively, but by simple\n    intuition. Whereas the intellect of the human soul, on the\n    contrary, acquires intelligible truth from the things of sense,\n    and understands it by the discursive action of the reason.\n\n    Hence S. Denis assigns to the Angels circular motion in that\n    they uniformly and unceasingly, without beginning or end, gaze\n    upon God; just as circular motion, which has neither beginning\n    nor end, is uniformly maintained round the same central point.\n    But in the case of the human soul, its twofold lack of\n    uniformity must be removed before it can attain to the\n    above-mentioned uniformity. For there must first be removed that\n    lack of uniformity which arises from the diversity of external\n    things: that is, the soul must quit external things. And this S.\n    Denis expresses first of all in his definition of the circular\n    motion of the soul when he speaks of \"the return of the soul\n    upon itself as opposed to external things.\" And there must be\n    removed in the second place that second lack of uniformity which\n    arises from the discursive action of the reason. And this takes\n    place when all the operations of the soul are reduced to the\n    simple contemplation of intelligible truth. This forms the\n    second part of S. Denis's definition of this circular\n    motion--namely, when he speaks of the necessity of \"a certain\n    wrapping together of the powers of the soul,\" with the result\n    that, when discursive action thus ceases, the soul's gaze is\n    fixed on the contemplation of the one simple truth. And in this\n    operation of the soul there is no room for error, just as there\n    is no room for error in our understanding of first principles\n    which we know by simple intuition.\n\n    Then, when these first two steps have been taken, S. Denis puts\n    in the third place that uniformity, like to that of the Angels,\n    by which the soul, laying aside all else, persists in the simple\n    contemplation of God. And this he expresses when he says: \"Then,\n    as now made uniform, it, as a whole\"--that is, as conformed (to\n    God)--\"is, with all its powers unified, led by the hand to the\n    Beautiful and the Good.\"\n\n    But the _direct_ motion in the Angels cannot be understood in\n    the sense that, by considering, they proceed from one point to\n    another; but solely according to the order of their providential\n    care for others--according, namely, as the superior Angels\n    illumine the inferior through those who stand between. And this\n    is what S. Denis means when he says that the _direct_ motion of\n    an Angel is \"according as he proceeds to the care of the things\n    subject to him, taking in his course all things that are direct\"\n    following--that is, those things which are disposed in direct\n    order. But to the human soul S. Denis assigns _direct_ motion in\n    the sense that it proceeds from the exterior things of sense to\n    the knowledge of intelligible things.\n\n    And he assigns _oblique_ motion to the Angels--a motion, that\n    is, compounded of the _direct_ and the _circular_--inasmuch as\n    an Angel, according to his contemplation of God, provides for\n    those inferior to him. To the human soul, on the contrary, he\n    assigns this same _oblique_ motion, similarly compounded of the\n    _direct_ and the _circular_ motions, inasmuch as in its\n    reasonings it makes use of the Divine illuminations.\n\n3. Lastly, Richard of S. Victor[382] gives many other and different\nkinds of motion. For, following the analogy of the birds of the air, he\nsays of these latter that \"some at one time ascend on high, at another\nswoop down to earth, and they do this again and again; others turn now\nto the right, now to the left, and this repeatedly; others go in\nadvance, others fall behind; some sail round and round in circles, now\nnarrower and now wider; while others again remain almost immovably\nsuspended in one place.\" From all which it would seem that there are not\nmerely three movements in contemplation.\n\n    But all these diversities of motion which are expressed by, up\n    and down, to right and left, backwards and forwards, and in\n    varying circles, are reducible either to _direct_ or to\n    _oblique_ motion, for they all signify the discursive action of\n    the reason. For if this discursive action be from the genus to\n    the species or from the whole to the part, it will be, as\n    Richard of S. Victor himself explains, motion upwards and\n    downwards. If, again, it means argumentation from one thing to\n    its opposite, it will come under motion to right and left. Or if\n    it be deduction from cause to effect, then it will be motion\n    backwards and forwards. And finally, if it mean arguing from the\n    accidents which surround a thing, whether nearly or remotely, it\n    will be circuitous motion. But the discursive action of the\n    reason arguing from the things of sense to intelligible things\n    according to the orderly progress of the natural reason, belongs\n    to _direct_ motion. When, however, it arises from Divine\n    illuminations, it comes under _oblique_ motion, as we have\n    already said (in the reply to the second argument). Lastly, only\n    the immobility which he mentions will come under _circular_\n    motion.\n\n    Whence it appears that S. Denis has quite sufficiently, and with\n    exceeding subtlety, described the movements of contemplation.\n\n    \"For behold my witness is in Heaven, and He that knoweth my\n    conscience is on high. For behold short years pass away, and I\n    am walking in a path by which I shall not return.\"[383]\n\n\nVII\n\nHas Contemplation its Joys?\n\nIn Wisdom viii. 16 we read: _Her conversation hath no bitterness, nor\nHer company any tediousness, but joy and gladness._ And S. Gregory\nsays[384]: \"The contemplative life means a truly lovable sweetness.\"\n\nThere are two sources of pleasure in contemplation; for, firstly, there\nis the very act of contemplating, and everyone finds a certain pleasure\nin the performance of acts which are appropriate to his nature or to his\nhabits. And the contemplation of truth is natural to man as a rational\nanimal; hence it is that \"all men naturally desire to know,\" and\nconsequently find a pleasure in the knowledge of truth. And this\npleasure is enhanced according as a man has habits of wisdom and\nknowledge which enable him to indulge in contemplation without\ndifficulty.\n\nSecondly, contemplation is pleasurable owing to the object which we\ncontemplate, as when a man looks at something which he loves. And this\nholds good of even bodily vision, for not only is the mere exercise of\nthe visual faculties pleasurable, but the seeing people whom we love is\npleasurable.\n\nSince, then, the contemplative life especially consists in the\ncontemplation of God, to which contemplation we are moved by charity, it\nfollows that the contemplative life is not merely pleasurable by reason\nof the simple act of contemplating, but also by reason of Divine Love\nItself. And in both these respects the delights of contemplation exceed\nall other human delights. For on the one hand spiritual delights are\nsuperior to carnal delights; and on the other hand, the love of Divine\ncharity wherewith we love God exceeds all other love; whence it is said\nin the Psalm: _Taste and see that the Lord is sweet._[385]\n\nSome maintain, however, that contemplation is not pleasurable, thus:\n\n1. Pleasure belongs to the appetitive powers, whereas contemplation is\nmainly in the intellect.\n\n    But while the contemplative life mainly consists in the\n    intellect, it derives its principle from the affective powers,\n    since a man is moved to contemplation by love of God. And since\n    the end corresponds to the principle, it follows that the goal\n    and term of the contemplative life is in the affective powers,\n    in the sense, namely, that a man finds a pleasure in the sight\n    of a thing which he loves, and this very pleasure stirs up in\n    him a yet greater love. Hence S. Gregory says[386]: \"When a man\n    sees one whom he loves his love is yet more enkindled.\" And in\n    this lies the full perfection of the contemplative life: that\n    the Divine Truth should not only be seen but loved.\n\n2. Again, strife and contention hinder delight. But in contemplation\nthere is strife and contention, for S. Gregory says[387]: \"The soul,\nwhen it strives after the contemplation of God, finds itself engaged in\na species of combat; at one time it seems to prevail, for by\nunderstanding and by feeling it tastes somewhat of the Infinite Light;\nat other times it is overwhelmed, for when it has tasted it faints.\"\n\n    It is true indeed that contest and strife arising from the\n    opposition presented by external things prevent us from finding\n    pleasure in those same things. For no man finds a pleasure in\n    the things against which he fights. But he does find a pleasure,\n    other things being equal, in the actual attainment of a thing\n    for which he has striven; thus S. Augustine says[388]: \"The\n    greater the danger in the battle, the greater the joy in the\n    triumph.\" And in contemplation the strife and the combat do not\n    arise from any opposition on the part of the truth which we\n    contemplate, but from our deficient understanding and from the\n    corruptible nature of our bodies which ever draw us down to\n    things beneath us: _The corruptible body is a load upon the\n    soul, and the earthly habitation presseth down the mind that\n    museth upon many things._[389] Hence it is that when a man\n    attains to the contemplation of truth he loves it still more\n    ardently; but at the same time he more than ever hates his own\n    defects and the sluggishness of his corruptible body, so that\n    with the Apostle he cries out: _Unhappy man that I am! Who shall\n    deliver me from the body of this death?_[390] Hence, too, S.\n    Gregory says: \"When God is known by our desires and our\n    understanding, He causes all pleasures of the flesh to wither up\n    within us.\"[391]\n\n3. But again, delight follows upon a perfect work.[392] But\ncontemplation on this earth is imperfect, according to the words of the\nApostle: _We see now through a glass in a dark manner._[393] Hence it\nwould seem that the contemplative life does not afford delight.\n\n    It is indeed true that the contemplation of God during this life\n    is imperfect compared with our contemplation of Him in our\n    eternal home; and in the same way it is true that the delights\n    of contemplation here on earth are imperfect compared with the\n    delights of contemplation in that home, of which latter joys the\n    Psalmist says: _Thou shalt make them drink of the torrent of Thy\n    pleasure._[394] Yet, none the less, the contemplation of Divine\n    things here on earth is, although imperfect, far more perfect\n    than any other subject of contemplation howsoever perfect it may\n    be, and this by reason of the excellence of what we contemplate.\n    Whence the Philosopher says[395]: \"It may indeed be the case\n    that with regard to such noble existences and Divine substances\n    we have to be content with insignificant theories, yet even\n    though we but barely touch upon them, none the less so ennobling\n    is such knowledge that it affords us greater delight than any\n    other which is accessible to us.\" Hence, too, S. Gregory says:\n    \"The contemplative life has its most desirable sweetness which\n    uplifts the soul above itself, opens the way to heavenly things,\n    and makes spiritual things plain to the eyes of the soul.\"\n\n4. Lastly, bodily injuries are a hindrance to delight. But contemplation\nis productive of bodily injuries, for we read in Genesis[396] that\nJacob, after saying _I have seen God face to face, ... halted on his\nfoot ... because He touched the sinew of his thigh and it shrank_.\nWhence it would seem that the contemplative life is not pleasurable.\n\n    But after that contemplation Jacob halted on one foot because,\n    as S. Gregory says, \"it must needs be that as the love of this\n    world grows weaker, so a man grows stronger in his love of God,\"\n    and consequently, \"when once we have known the sweetness of God,\n    one of our feet remains sound while the other halts; for a man\n    who halts with one foot leans only on the one that is\n    sound.\"[397]\n\n\n  \"Tu esto nostrum gaudium\n   Qui es futurus Praemium.\n   Sit nostra in Te gloria\n   Per cuncta semper saecula!\"\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n_S. Gregory:_ Between the delights of the body and those of the heart\nthere is ever this difference that the delights of the body are wont,\nwhen we have them not, to beget a keen yearning for them; but when we\nhave them and eat our fill, they straightway beget disgust for them, for\nwe are sated therewith. Spiritual joys, on the contrary, when we have\nthem not are a weariness, but when we have them we desire them still\nmore, and the more we feed upon them the more we hunger after them. In\nthe case of the former, the yearning for them was a pleasure, trial of\nthem brought disgust. In the case of the latter, in desire we held them\ncheap, trial of them proved a source of pleasure. For spiritual joys\nincrease the soul's desire of them even while they sate us, for the more\ntheir savour is perceived, the more we know what it is we ought eagerly\nto love. Whence it comes to pass that when we have them not we cannot\nlove them, for their savour is unknown to us. For how can a man love\nwhat he is ignorant of? Wherefore the Psalmist admonishes us, saying: _O\ntaste and see that the Lord is sweet!_[398] As though he would say to us\nin plain terms: You know not His sweetness if ye have never tasted it;\ntouch, then, the Food of Life with the palate of your soul that so,\nmaking proof of Its sweetness, ye may be able to love It.\n\nThese joys man lost when he sinned in Paradise; he went out when he\nclosed his mouth to the Food of Eternal Sweetness. Whence we too, who\nare born amidst the toils of this pilgrimage, come without relish to\nthis Food; we know not what we ought to desire, and the sickness of our\ndisgust grows the more the further our souls keep away from feeding upon\nthat Sweetness; and less and less does our soul desire those interior\njoys the longer it has grown accustomed to do without them. We sicken,\nthen, by reason of our very disgust, and we are wearied by the\nlong-drawn sickness of our hunger (_Hom._ XXXVI., _On the Gospels_).\n\n\nVIII\n\nIs the Contemplative Life lasting?\n\nThe Lord said _Mary hath chosen the best part which shall not be taken\naway from her_[399] because, as S. Gregory says: \"Contemplation begins\nhere below that it may be perfected in our heavenly home.\"\n\nA thing may be termed \"lasting\" in two ways: from its very nature, or as\nfar as we are concerned. As far as its nature is concerned, the\ncontemplative life is lasting in two ways: for first of all it is\nconcerned with incorruptible and unchangeable things, and in the second\nplace there is nothing which is its contrary: for, as Aristotle\nsays[400]: \"To the pleasure which is derived from thought there is no\ncontrary.\"\n\nAnd also as far as we are concerned the contemplative life is lasting;\nand this both because it comes under the action of the incorruptible\nportion of our soul--namely, our intellect--and so can last after this\nlife; and also because in the work of the contemplative life there is no\nbodily toil, and we can consequently apply ourselves more continuously\nto such work, as also the Philosopher remarks.[401]\n\nSome, however, argue that the contemplative life is not lasting, thus:\n\n1. The contemplative life essentially concerns the intellect. But all\nthe intellectual perfections of this life will be _made void_, as we\nread: _Whether prophecies shall be made void, or tongues shall cease, or\nknowledge shall be destroyed._[402]\n\n    But the fashion of contemplation here and in our Father's home\n    is not the same; and the contemplative life is said \"to last\" by\n    reason of charity, which is both its principle and its end;\n    wherefore S. Gregory says: \"The contemplative life begins here\n    below that it may be perfected in our heavenly home, for the\n    fire of love which begins to burn here below, when it sees Him\n    Whom it loves, burns yet more strongly with love of Him.\"\n\n2. Again, men but taste the sweetness of contemplation here, snatching\nat it, as it were, and in passing: whence S. Augustine says: \"Thou\nintroducest me to a most unwonted affection within me, to an unspeakable\nsweetness; yet I fall back again as though dragged down by a grievous\nweight!\"[403] And S. Gregory, expounding those words of Job, _When a\nspirit passed before me_, says: \"The mind does not long remain\nsteadfastly occupied with the sweetness of intimate contemplation, for\nit is recalled to itself, stricken back by the immensity of that Light.\"\nThe contemplative life, then, is not lasting.\n\n    It is true indeed that no action can remain long at the pitch of\n    its intensity. And the goal of contemplation is to attain to the\n    uniformity of Divine contemplation, as Denis the Areopagite\n    says.[404] Hence, although in this sense contemplation cannot\n    last long, yet it can last long as regards its other acts.\n\n3. Lastly, what is not natural to a man cannot be lasting. \"But the\ncontemplative life,\" as the Philosopher says, \"is beyond man.\"[405]\n\n    But the Philosopher says that the contemplative life is \"beyond\n    man\" in the sense that it belongs to us according to what is\n    Divine in us--namely, our intellect; for our intellect is\n    incorruptible and impassible in itself, and consequently its\n    action can be more lasting.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n_S. Augustine:_ This day sets before us the great mystery of our eternal\nbeatitude. For that life which this day signifies will not pass away as\nto-day is to pass away. Wherefore, brethren, we exhort and beseech you\nby the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ by Whom our sins are forgiven, by\nHim Who willed that His Blood should be our ransom, by Him Who has\ndeigned that we who are not deserving to be called His slaves should yet\nbe called His brethren--we beseech you that your entire aim, that which\ngives you your very name of \"Christian,\" and by reason of which you bear\nHis Name upon your foreheads and in your hearts, may be directed solely\nto that life which we are to share with the Angels; that life where is\nto be unending repose, everlasting joy, unfailing happiness, rest\nwithout disturbance, joy without sadness, no death. What that life is\nnone can know save those who have made trial of it; and none can make\ntrial of it save those who have faith (_Sermon_, CCLIX., _On Low\nSunday_).\n\n    \"And thou shalt say in that day: I will give thanks to Thee, O\n    Lord, for Thou wast angry with me: Thy wrath is turned away, and\n    Thou hast comforted me. Behold, God is my Saviour. I will deal\n    confidently, and will not fear: because the Lord is my strength,\n    and my praise, and He is become my salvation. You shall draw\n    waters with joy out of the Saviour's fountains: And you shall\n    say in that day: Praise ye the Lord, and call upon His Name:\n    make His works known among the people: remember that His Name is\n    high. Sing ye to the Lord, for He hath done great things: shew\n    this forth in all the earth. Rejoice, and praise, O thou\n    habitation of Sion: for great is He that is in the midst of\n    thee, the holy One of Israel.\"[406]\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[316] _Moralia in Job_, vi. 18.\n\n[317] _Hom._ XIV., _On Ezechiel_.\n\n[318] _Metaphysics_, ii. 3.\n\n[319] _Moralia in Job_, vi. 18; and _Hom._ XIV., _On Ezechiel_.\n\n[320] _On Ezechiel, loc. cit._\n\n[321] _Hom._ XIV., _On Ezechiel_.\n\n[322] Isa. xxxiii. 13-17.\n\n[323] Ps. xli. 1-6.\n\n[324] _Moralia in Job_, vi. 18.\n\n[325] _Ethics_, II., iv. 3.\n\n[326] _Ibid._, X., viii. 1.\n\n[327] _Hom._ XIV., _On Ezechiel_.\n\n[328] Rom. xiii. 10.\n\n[329] S. Matt. v. 8.\n\n[330] Heb. xii. 14.\n\n[331] Isa. xxxii. 17.\n\n[332] _Hom._ XIV., _On Ezechiel_.\n\n[333] Gen. xxix. 17.\n\n[334] _De Officiis_, i. 43, 45, 46.\n\n[335] Wisd. viii. 2.\n\n[336] _Soliloquies_, i. 10.\n\n[337] Jer. xiv. 8, 9.\n\n[338] _Of the Divine Names_, vii. 2.\n\n[339] _On Contemplation_, i. 3 and 4.\n\n[340] _De Trinitate_, xiv. 7.\n\n[341] _De Consideratione_, ii. 2.\n\n[342] _De Anima_, II., i. 2.\n\n[343] _Loc. cit._, i. 4.\n\n[344] 2 Cor. iii. 18.\n\n[345] _De Trinitate_, xv. 8.\n\n[346] _De Consideratione_, v. 14.\n\n[347] _De Fide Orthodoxa_, ii. 15.\n\n[348] S. Luke x. 39.\n\n[349] Wisd. vii. 7.\n\n[350] 2 Cor. v. 6-7.\n\n[351] Hab. ii. 4.\n\n[352] Ps. cxliii. 15.\n\n[353] 1 Tim. i. 5.\n\n[354] Ps. lxxii. 21-28.\n\n[355] _Moralia in Job_, vi. 28.\n\n[356] _On the Trinity_, i. 8.\n\n[357] _Ethics_, X., vii. 2.\n\n[358] Rom. i. 20.\n\n[359] _De Vera Religione_, xxix.\n\n[360] Ps. cxlii. 5, 6.\n\n[361] _De Consideratione_, v. 14.\n\n[362] _Of Contemplation_, i. 6.\n\n[363] 1 John iii. 2.\n\n[364] Ps. xxvi. 4.\n\n[365] Ps. xxxv. 9, 10.\n\n[366] Phil. iv. 7; Rom. viii. 26.\n\n[367] Isa. xxv. 8, 9.\n\n[368] _Hom._ XIV., _On Ezechiel_.\n\n[369] _De Genesi ad Litt._, xii. 27.\n\n[370] Gen. xxxii. 30.\n\n[371] _Epistola I., to Caius the Monk._\n\n[372] _Hom._ XIV., _On Ezechiel_.\n\n[373] The _Glossa Ordinaria_, taken from S. Gregory's _Moralia in Job_,\nxxiv. 5.\n\n[374] _Moralia_, vi. 27.\n\n[375] _De Anima_, III., vii. 3.\n\n[376] _Dialogues_, ii. 35.\n\n[377] Isa. xxvi. 3, 4, 8, 9.\n\n[378] _Of the Divine Names_, IV., i. 7.\n\n[379] _De Anima_, III., vii. 1 and 2.\n\n[380] _Physica_, VIII., vii. 2.\n\n[381] viii. 16.\n\n[382] _Of Contemplation_, i. 5.\n\n[383] Job xvi. 20, 23.\n\n[384] _Hom._ XIV., _On Ezechiel_.\n\n[385] Ps. xxxiii. 9.\n\n[386] _Hom._ XIV., _On Ezechiel_.\n\n[387] _Ibid._\n\n[388] _Conf._, viii. 3.\n\n[389] Wisd. ix. 15.\n\n[390] Rom. vii. 24.\n\n[391] _Hom._ XIV., _On Ezechiel_.\n\n[392] _Ethics_, X., iv. 6.\n\n[393] 1 Cor. xiii, 12.\n\n[394] Ps. xxxv. 9.\n\n[395] _De Partibus Animalium_, i. 5.\n\n[396] xxxii. 30-32.\n\n[397] _Hom._ XIV., _On Ezechiel_.\n\n[398] Ps. xxxiii. 9.\n\n[399] S. Luke x. 42.\n\n[400] _Topics_, I., xiii. 5.\n\n[401] _Ethics_, X., vii. 2.\n\n[402] 1 Cor. xiii. 8.\n\n[403] _Conf._, x. 40.\n\n[404] _Of the Divine Names_, IV., i. 7; and _Of the Heavenly Hierarchy_,\niii.\n\n[405] _Ethics_, X., vii. 8.\n\n[406] Isa. xii. 1-6.\n\n\n\n\nQUESTION CLXXXI\n\nOF THE ACTIVE LIFE\n\n  I. Do all Acts of the Moral Virtues come under the Active Life?\n II. Does Prudence pertain to the Active Life?\nIII. Does Teaching belong to the Active or to the Contemplative\n       Life?\n IV. Does the Active Life continue after this Life?\n\n\nI\n\nDo all Acts of the Moral Virtues come under the Active Life?\n\nS. Isidore says[407]: \"In the active life all the vices are first of all\nto be removed by the practice of good works, so that in the\ncontemplative life a man may, with now purified mental gaze, pass to the\ncontemplation of the Divine Light.\" But all the vices can only be\nremoved by the acts of the moral virtues. Consequently the acts of the\nmoral virtues belong to the active life.\n\nAs we have said already,[408] the active and the contemplative lives are\ndistinguished by the different occupations of men who are aiming at\ndifferent ends, one being the consideration of Truth--the goal of the\ncontemplative life; the other external works with which the active life\nis occupied. But it is clear that the moral virtues are not especially\nconcerned with the contemplation of truth but with action; thus the\nPhilosopher says[409]: \"For virtue, knowledge is of little or no avail.\"\nIt is therefore manifest that the moral virtues essentially belong to\nthe active life; and in accordance with this the Philosopher[410] refers\nthe moral virtues to active happiness.\n\nSome, however, maintain that all the acts of the moral virtues do not\nbelong to the active life, thus:\n\n1. The active life seems to consist solely in those things which have to\ndo with our neighbour; for S. Gregory says[411]: \"The active life means\nbreaking bread to the hungry;\" and at the close, after enumerating many\nthings which have to do with our neighbour, he adds: \"And to provide for\neach according as they have need.\" But not by all the acts of the moral\nvirtues are we brought into contact with others, but only by justice and\nits divisions. Consequently all the acts of the moral virtues do not\nbelong to the active life.\n\n    But the chief of the moral virtues is justice, and by it a man\n    is brought into contact with his neighbour, as the Philosopher\n    proves.[412] We describe, then, the active life by those things\n    by means of which we are brought into contact with our\n    neighbour; yet we do not thereby mean that the active life\n    consists solely in these things, but chiefly in them.\n\n2. Again, S. Gregory says[413]: \"By Lia, who was blear-eyed but\nfruitful, is signified the active life which sees less clearly, since\noccupied with works; but when, now by word, now by example, it arouses\nits neighbour to imitation, it brings forth many children in good\nworks.\" But all this seems rather to come under charity, by which we\nlove our neighbour, than under the moral virtues. Consequently the acts\nof the moral virtues seem not to belong to the active life.\n\n    But a man can, by acts of all the moral virtues, lead his\n    neighbour to good works by his example; and this S. Gregory here\n    attributes to the active life.\n\n3. Lastly, the moral virtues dispose us to the contemplative life. But\ndisposition to a thing and the perfect attainment of that thing come\nunder the same head. Consequently the moral virtues do not belong to the\nactive life.\n\n    But just as a virtue which is directed towards the end of\n    another virtue passes over, in some sort, into the species of\n    that latter virtue, so also when a man uses those things which\n    belong to the active life precisely as disposing him to\n    contemplation, then those things which he so uses are comprised\n    under the contemplative life. But for those who devote\n    themselves to the works of the moral virtues as being good in\n    themselves and not as dispositive towards the contemplative\n    life, the moral virtues belong to the active life. Although at\n    the same time it might be said that the active life is a\n    disposition to the contemplative life.\n\n    \"O death, how bitter is the remembrance of thee to a man that\n    hath peace in his possessions, to a man that is at rest, and\n    whose ways are prosperous in all things, and that is yet able to\n    take meat! O death, thy sentence is welcome to the man that is\n    in need, and to him whose strength faileth, who is in a decrepit\n    age, and that is in care about all things, and to the\n    distrustful that loseth patience! Fear not the sentence of\n    death. Remember what things have been before thee, and what\n    shall come after thee: this sentence is from the Lord upon all\n    flesh. And what shall come upon thee by the good pleasure of the\n    Most High whether ten, or a hundred, or a thousand years.\"[414]\n\n\nII\n\nDoes Prudence pertain to the Active Life?\n\nThe Philosopher says[415] that prudence pertains to active happiness,\nand to this pertain the moral virtues.\n\nAs we have said above, when one thing is directed towards the attainment\nof another thing as its end, it--and this especially holds good in\nmorals--is, so to speak, drawn into the species of that towards which it\nis thus directed, thus: \"He who commits adultery in order to steal\" says\nthe Philosopher,[416] \"is rather a thief than an adulterer.\" Now it is\nclear that that knowledge which is prudence is directed to the acts of\nthe moral virtues as its end, for prudence is \"the right mode of\nprocedure in our actions;\"[417] hence, too, the ends of the moral\nvirtues are the principles of prudence, as the Philosopher also says in\nthe same work.[418] In the same way, then, as we said above that in the\ncase of a man who directs them to the repose of contemplation, the moral\nvirtues pertain to the contemplative life, so also the knowledge which\nis prudence, and which is by its very nature directed to the operations\nof the moral virtues, directly pertains to the active life--that is, of\ncourse, on the supposition that prudence is understood in the strict\nsense in which the Philosopher speaks of it.\n\nIf, however, prudence be understood in a broad sense--namely, as\nembracing all kinds of human knowledge--then prudence pertains, at least\nin certain of its aspects, to the contemplative life; thus Cicero\nsays[419]: \"The man who can see a truth the most clearly and quickly,\nand explain the reason of it, is rightly regarded as most prudent and\nmost wise.\"\n\nBut some maintain that prudence does not pertain to the active life,\nthus:\n\n1. Just as the contemplative life pertains to the cognoscitive powers,\nso does the active life pertain to the appetitive powers. But prudence\ndoes not pertain to the appetitive powers but rather to the\ncognoscitive. Consequently it does not pertain to the active life.\n\n    But moral acts derive their character from the end towards which\n    they are directed; consequently to the contemplative life\n    belongs that kind of knowledge which makes its end consist in\n    the very knowledge of truth. But the knowledge which is\n    prudence, and which is rather directed to the acts of the\n    appetitive powers, pertains to the active life.\n\n2. Again, S. Gregory says[420] \"The active life, occupied as it is with\nworks, sees less clearly,\" and hence is typified by Lia, who was\nblear-eyed. But prudence demands clear vision, so that a man may judge\nwhat is to be done. Whence it would seem that prudence does not pertain\nto the active life.\n\n    But occupation with external things only makes a man see less\n    clearly those intelligible truths which are not connected with\n    the things of sense; the external occupations of the active\n    life, however, make a man see more clearly in his judgment on a\n    course of action--and this is a question of prudence--for he has\n    experience, and his mind is attentive: \"When you are attentive,\"\n    says Sallust,[421] \"then mental acumen avails.\"\n\n3. Lastly, prudence comes midway betwixt the moral and the intellectual\nvirtues. But just as the moral virtues pertain to the active life, so do\nthe intellectual virtues pertain to the contemplative. Hence it would\nseem that prudence belongs neither to the active nor to the\ncontemplative life, but, as S. Augustine says, to a kind of life which\nis betwixt and between.[422]\n\n    But prudence is said to come betwixt the intellectual and the\n    moral virtues in the sense that, whereas it has the same subject\n    as the intellectual virtues, it yet coincides as regards its\n    object with the moral virtues. And that third species of life\n    comes betwixt and between the active and the contemplative life\n    as regards the things with which it is concerned, for at one\n    time it is occupied with the contemplation of truth, at another\n    time with external matters.\n\n    \"For what shall I do when God shall rise to judge? and when He\n    shall examine, what shall I answer Him? For I have always feared\n    God as waves swelling over me, and His weight I was not able to\n    bear.\"[423]\n\n\nIII\n\nDoes Teaching Belong to the Active or to the Contemplative Life?\n\nS. Gregory says[424]: \"The active life means breaking bread to the\nhungry; teaching words of wisdom to them that know them not.\"\n\nThe act of teaching has a twofold object: for teaching is by speaking,\nand speaking is the audible sign of an interior mental concept. One\nobject, therefore, of our teaching is the matter to be taught, the\nobject, that is, of our interior concepts; and in this sense teaching\nsometimes belongs to the active, sometimes to the contemplative life. It\nbelongs to the active life if a man forms interiorly some concept of a\ntruth with a view to thus directing his external acts; but it belongs to\nthe contemplative life if a man interiorly conceives some intelligible\ntruth and delights in the thought of it and the love of it. Whence S.\nAugustine says[425]: \"Let them choose for themselves the better\npart--that, namely, of the contemplative life; let them devote\nthemselves to the Word of God; let them yearn for the sweetness of\nteaching; let them occupy themselves with the knowledge that leads to\nsalvation\"--where he clearly says that teaching belongs to the\ncontemplative life.\n\nThe second object of teaching arises from the fact that teaching is\ngiven through the medium of audible speech and thus the hearer himself\nis the object of the teaching; and from this point of view all teaching\nbelongs to the active life to which pertain all external actions.\n\nSome, however, regard teaching as rather belonging to the contemplative\nthan to the active life, thus:\n\n1. S. Gregory says[426]: \"Perfect men declare to their brethren those\ngood things of Heaven which they themselves have been able to\ncontemplate at least 'through a glass,' and they thus kindle in their\nhearts the love of that hidden beauty.\" Yet what is this but teaching?\nTo teach, therefore, is an act of the contemplative life.\n\n    But S. Gregory expressly speaks here of teaching from the point\n    of view of the matter that is presented--that is, of teaching as\n    it is concerned with the consideration of and love of the truth.\n\n2. Again, acts and habits seem to belong to the same kind of life. But\nto teach is an act of wisdom, for the Philosopher says: \"The proof that\na man knows is that he is able to teach.\"[427] Since, then, wisdom--that\nis, knowledge--pertains to the contemplative life, it would seem that\nteaching also must pertain to the contemplative life.\n\n    But habits and acts agree in their object, and consequently the\n    argument just given is based upon the material of the interior\n    concept. For the capacity for teaching is possessed by a wise or\n    learned man just in proportion as he can express in outward\n    words the concepts of his mind and so be able to bring home a\n    truth to someone else.\n\n3. Lastly, prayer is an act of the contemplative life just in the same\nway as is contemplation itself. But prayer, even when one man prays for\nanother, belongs to the contemplative life. Hence it would seem that\nwhen one man brings to the knowledge of another some truth upon which he\nhas meditated, such an act pertains to the contemplative life.\n\n    But he who prays for another in no way acts upon him for whom he\n    prays; his acts are directed towards God alone, the Intelligible\n    Truth. But he who teaches another does act upon him by some\n    external action. Hence there is no parallel between the two\n    cases.\n\n\nIV\n\nDoes the Active Life continue after this Life?\n\nS. Gregory says[428]: \"The active life passes away with this present\nworld; the contemplative life begins here so as to be perfected in our\nheavenly home.\"\n\nAs already said, the active life makes its end consist in external\nactions, and these, if they are directed towards the repose of\ncontemplation, already belong to the contemplative life. But in the\nfuture life of the blessed all occupation with external things will\ncease; or if there are any external acts they will be directed towards\nthat end which is contemplation. Hence S. Augustine says, at the close\nof his _Of the City of God_: \"There we shall be at rest from toil, we\nshall gaze, we shall love, we shall praise.\" And he had just previously\nsaid: \"There will God be seen unendingly, be loved without wearying, be\npraised without fatigue; this duty, this disposition of soul, this act,\nwill be the lot of all.\"[429]\n\nSome, however, maintain that the active life will be continued after\nthis life, thus:\n\n1. To the active life belong the acts of the moral virtues. But the\nmoral virtues remain after death, as S. Augustine says.[430]\n\n    But the acts of the moral virtues which are concerned with the\n    means to the end will not remain after death, but only those\n    which have to do with the end itself. Yet it is precisely these\n    latter which go to form the repose of contemplation to which S.\n    Augustine alludes in the above-quoted passage where he speaks of\n    being \"at rest from toil\"; and this \"rest\" is not to be\n    understood of freedom from merely external disturbances, but\n    also from the internal conflict of the passions.\n\n2. Again, to teach others pertains to the active life. But in the next\nlife--where we shall be as the Angels--there can be teaching; for we see\nit in the case of the Angels of whom one illumines, clarifies, and\nperfects another, all of which refer to their reception of knowledge, as\nis clear from Denis the Areopagite.[431] Hence it seems that the active\nlife is to be continued after this life.\n\n    But the contemplative life especially consists in the\n    contemplation of God; and as regards this no Angel teaches\n    another, for it is said of the Angels of _the little\n    ones_[432]--Angels who are of an inferior choir--that _they\n    always see the face of the Father_. And similarly in the future\n    life: there no man will teach another about God, for we shall\n    all _see Him as He is_.[433] And this agrees with the words of\n    Jeremias[434]: _And they shall teach no more every man his\n    neighbour ... saying: Know the Lord; for all shall know Me from\n    the least of them even to the greatest._\n\n    But when it is question of dispensing the mysteries of God, then\n    one Angel can teach another by clarifying, illumining, and\n    perfecting. And in this sense the Angels do in some sort share\n    in the active life as long as this world lasts, for they are\n    occupied with ministering to the inferior creation. This is what\n    was signified by Jacob's vision of the Angels ascending the\n    ladder--whereby was meant the contemplative life--and descending\n    the ladder--whereby was meant the active life. At the same time,\n    as S. Gregory says[435]: \"Not that they so went out from the\n    Divine Vision as to be deprived of the joys of contemplation.\"\n    And thus in their case the active life is not distinguished from\n    the contemplative as it is in us who find the works of the\n    active life an impediment to the contemplative life. Moreover,\n    we are not promised a likeness to the Angels in their work of\n    administering to the inferior creation, for this does not belong\n    to us according to our nature, as is the case with the Angels,\n    but according to our vision of God.\n\n3. Lastly, the more durable a thing is the more capable it seems of\nlasting after this life. But the active life is more durable than the\ncontemplative, for S. Gregory says[436]: \"We can remain steadfast in the\nactive life, but in nowise can we maintain the mind's fixed gaze in the\ncontemplative life.\" Consequently the active life is much more capable\nof continuing after death than is the contemplative life.\n\n    But in our present state the durability of the active life as\n    compared with the contemplative life does not arise from any\n    feature of either of these kinds of life considered in\n    themselves, but from a defect on our part; for we are dragged\n    down from the heights of contemplation by the body's burden. And\n    thus S. Gregory goes on to say that, \"thrust back by its very\n    weakness from those vast heights, the soul relapses into\n    itself.\"\n\n    \"O bless our God, ye Gentiles: and make the voice of His praise\n    to be heard. Who hath set my soul to live: and hath not suffered\n    my feet to be moved. For Thou, O God, hast proved us; Thou hast\n    tried us by fire, as silver is tried. Thou hast brought us into\n    a net, Thou hast laid afflictions on our back; Thou hast set men\n    over our heads. We have passed through fire and water, and Thou\n    hast brought us out into a refreshment.\"[437]\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[407] _Of the Supreme Good_, III., xv.\n\n[408] _Qu._ CLXXIX. 1.\n\n[409] _Ethics_, II., iv. 3.\n\n[410] _Ibid._, X., viii. 1.\n\n[411] _Hom._ XIV., _On Ezechiel_.\n\n[412] _Ethics_, V., i. 15.\n\n[413] _Hom._ XIV., _On Ezechiel_.\n\n[414] Ecclus. xli. 1-6.\n\n[415] _Ethics._, X., viii. 2.\n\n[416] _Ibid._, V., ii. 4.\n\n[417] _Ethics_, VI., v. 4.\n\n[418] _Ibid._, X., viii. 2.\n\n[419] _De Officiis_, I., v.\n\n[420] _Hom._ XIV., _On Ezechiel_.\n\n[421] _Conjuratio Catilinae_, li.\n\n[422] _Of the City of God_, xix. 2, 3, and 19.\n\n[423] Job xxxi. 14, 23.\n\n[424] _Hom._ XIV., _On Ezechiel_.\n\n[425] _On the Words of the Lord, Sermon_ civ., _alias_ xxvii. 1.\n\n[426] _Hom._ V., _On Ezechiel_.\n\n[427] _Metaphysics_, I., i. 9.\n\n[428] _Hom._ XIV., _On Ezechiel_.\n\n[429] xxii. 30.\n\n[430] _On the Trinity_, xiv. 9.\n\n[431] _Of the Heavenly Hierarchy_, vii.\n\n[432] S. Matt. xviii. 10.\n\n[433] 1 John iii. 2.\n\n[434] xxxi. 34.\n\n[435] _Moralia in Job_, ii. 2.\n\n[436] _Hom._ V., _On Ezechiel_.\n\n[437] Ps. lxv. 8-12.\n\n\n\n\nQUESTION CLXXXII\n\nOF THE COMPARISON BETWEEN THE ACTIVE AND THE CONTEMPLATIVE LIFE\n\n  I. Is the Active Life preferable to the Contemplative?\n       Cardinal Cajetan, On Preparation for the Contemplative Life\n       S. Augustine, _Confessions_, X., xliii. 70\n             \" _On Psalm_ xxvi.\n II. Is the Active Life more Meritorious than the Contemplative?\nIII. Is the Active Life a Hindrance to the Contemplative Life?\n       Cardinal Cajetan, On the True Interior Life\n       S. Augustine, _Sermon_, CCLVI., v. 6\n IV. Does the Active Life precede the Contemplative?\n\n\nI\n\nIs the Active Life preferable to the Contemplative?\n\nThe Lord said: _Mary hath chosen the best part, which shall not be taken\naway from her._[438] And by Mary is signified the contemplative life,\nwhich is consequently to be preferred to the active.\n\nThere is no reason why one thing should not be in itself more excellent\nthan another while yet this latter is, for certain reasons, preferable\nto it. Absolutely speaking, then, the contemplative life is better than\nthe active. And the Philosopher[439] alleges eight proofs of this.\nFirstly, that the contemplative life pertains to that which is best in a\nman, namely his intellect and its proper objects, _i.e._ intelligible\ntruths, whereas the active life is concerned with external things. Hence\nRachel, who typifies the contemplative life, is interpreted as meaning\n\"the Beginning seen\"; while Lia, who was blear-eyed, typifies, according\nto S. Gregory, the active life.[440]\n\nSecondly, because the contemplative life can be more continuous, even\nthough we cannot maintain our contemplation at its highest pitch; thus\nMary, who is typical of the contemplative life, is depicted as sitting\never at the Lord's feet.\n\nThirdly, because the delights of the contemplative life surpass those of\nthe active life; whence S. Augustine says[441]: \"Martha was troubled,\nbut Mary feasted.\"\n\nFourthly, because in the contemplative life a man is more independent,\nsince for this kind of life he needs less; whence we read: _Martha,\nMartha, thou art careful, and art troubled about many things._[442]\n\nFifthly, because the contemplative life is loved rather for its own\nsake, whereas the active life is directed towards an end other than\nitself; whence it is said in Ps. xxvi. 4: _One thing I have asked of the\nLord, this will I seek after, that I may dwell in the house of the Lord\nall the days of my life._\n\nSixthly, because the contemplative life consists in a certain stillness\nand repose, as is said in Ps. xlv. 11: _Be still, and see that I am\nGod._\n\nSeventhly, because the contemplative life is occupied with Divine things\nwhereas the active life is occupied with human things; whence S.\nAugustine says[443]: \"In the beginning was the Word: see What Mary\nheard! The Word was made Flesh; see to What Martha ministered!\"\n\nEighthly, because the contemplative life pertains to that which is more\npeculiar to man--namely, his intellect--whereas in the works of the\nactive life our inferior powers--those, namely, which we share with the\nbrute creation--have a part; whence, in Ps. xxxv. 7, after saying:\n_Beasts and men Thou wilt preserve, O Lord_, the Psalmist adds what\nbelongs to men alone: _In Thy light we shall see light._\n\nAnd the Lord Himself gives a ninth reason when He says: _Mary hath\nchosen the best part which shall not be taken away from her_,[444] words\nwhich S. Augustine thus expounds: \"Not that thou, Martha, hast chosen\nbadly, but that Mary hath chosen better; and see in what sense she hath\nchosen better: because it _shall not be taken away from her_; for from\nthee shall one day be taken away the burden of necessity; but eternal is\nthe sweetness of truth.\"[445]\n\nBut in a certain sense, and in certain cases, the active life is to be\nchosen in preference to the contemplative, and this by reason of the\nneeds of this present life; as also the Philosopher says: \"To practise\nphilosophy is better than to become rich; but to become rich is better\nfor one who suffers need.\"[446]\n\nSome, however, think that the active life is preferable to the\ncontemplative, thus:\n\n1. \"The lot which falls to the better people seems to be the more\nhonourable and better,\" as the Philosopher says.[447] But the active\nlife is the lot of those who are in the higher position--of prelates,\nfor instance, who are placed in honourable and powerful positions; thus\nS. Augustine says[448]: \"In the life of action we must not love the\nhonour which belongs to this life, nor its power.\" Whence it would seem\nthat the active life is preferable to the contemplative.\n\n    But it is not the active life only which belongs to prelates,\n    they must needs excel in the contemplative life; whence S.\n    Gregory says in his _Pastoral Rule_[449]: \"Let the superior be\n    foremost in action, but before all let him be uplifted in\n    contemplation.\"\n\n2. Again, in all acts and habits the control belongs to the more\nimportant: the soldier, for instance--as being higher placed--directs\nthe saddle-maker. But it is the active life which directs and controls\nthe contemplative, as is clear from the words addressed to Moses: _Go\ndown and charge the people, lest they should have a mind to pass the\nlimits to see the Lord._[450] The active life is therefore more\nimportant than the contemplative.\n\n    But the contemplative life consists in a certain liberty of\n    spirit; for S. Gregory says[451]: \"The contemplative life means\n    passing over to a certain liberty of spirit since in it a man\n    thinks not of temporal but of eternal things.\" Similarly\n    Boethius says[452]: \"The human soul must needs be free when\n    occupied with the thought of the Divine Mind; not so when\n    distracted with the things of the body.\" From all this it is\n    clear that the active life does not directly guide the\n    contemplative, but by preparing the way for it it does direct\n    certain works pertaining to the contemplative life, and in this\n    sense the active life is rather the servant than the master of\n    the contemplative. And this S. Gregory expresses when he says:\n    \"The active life is termed a service, the contemplative life\n    freedom.\"[453]\n\n3. Lastly, no one should be withdrawn from what is greater in order to\napply himself to what is less; thus the Apostle says: _Be zealous for\nthe better gifts._[454] But some are withdrawn from the contemplative\nstate of life and are made to busy themselves with the affairs of the\nactive life; this is the case, for instance, with those who are placed\nin positions of authority. Whence it seems that the active life is of\nmore importance than the contemplative.\n\n    But though a man may happen to be called away from contemplation\n    to the works of the active life owing to the needs of the\n    present life, yet he is not thereby compelled completely to\n    relinquish his contemplation. Hence S. Augustine says:[455] \"The\n    love of truth asks for a holy leisure; the demands of charity\n    undertake honest toil--that, namely, of the active life. And if\n    no one imposes this latter burden on us, then we must devote\n    ourselves to the study and contemplation of the truth; if,\n    however, such a burden is imposed upon us, then must we\n    undertake it because of the demands of charity. Yet not even\n    then are we altogether to resign the joys flowing from the\n    contemplation of truth, lest the sweetness of such contemplation\n    be withdrawn from us and the burden we have assumed crush us.\"\n\n    Whence it appears that when a man is called from the\n    contemplative to the active life it is not so much that\n    something is withdrawn from him, but that an additional burden\n    is imposed upon him.\n\n    \"As we have heard, so have we seen, in the city of the Lord of\n    Hosts, in the city of our God: God hath founded it for ever. We\n    have received Thy mercy, O God, in the midst of Thy temple. For\n    this is God, our God unto eternity, and for ever and ever: He\n    shall rule us for evermore.\"[456]\n\n_Cajetan:_ Those whose duty it is to instruct others in spiritual\nprogress should note that they are bound to take great pains to exercise\nthem in the active life before they urge them to ascend the heights of\ncontemplation. For they must learn to subdue their passions by acquiring\nhabits of meekness, patience, generosity, humility, and tranquillity of\nsoul, before they ascend to the contemplative life. Through lack of\nthis, many, not so much walking in the way of God as leaping along it,\nfind themselves--after they have spent the greater portion of their life\nin contemplation--devoid of virtue, impatient, irascible, and proud, if\none but so much as touch them on this point! Such people have neither\nthe active nor the contemplative life, nor even a mixture of the two;\nthey have built upon sand! And would that such cases were rare! (_on_ 2.\n182. 1 2.).\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n_S. Augustine:_ Terrified by my sins and my weight of misery I was\ndisturbed within my soul and meditated flight into solitude. But Thou\ndidst forbid it and didst strengthen me and say: _Christ died for all,\nthat they also who live may not now live to themselves, but unto Him Who\ndied for them and rose again._[457] Behold, O Lord, I cast my care upon\nThee so that I may live, and I will meditate on the wondrous things of\nThy law. Thou knowest my lack of skill and my weakness; teach me and\nheal me! He--Thine Only-Begotten Son--in Whom lie hid all the treasures\nof wisdom and knowledge, He redeemed me with His blood. _Let not the\nproud calumniate me!_ When I think of my Ransom then I eat and I drink,\nand I pray, and in my poverty I yearn to be filled with Him, to be among\nthose who _eat and are filled_ and they _praise the Lord who seek Him_\n(_Conf._, X., xliii. 70).\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n_S. Augustine: He hath hid me in His tabernacle in the day of\nevils._[458]\n\nWherefore without any arrogance have I sought for That One Thing,\nneither doth my soul reproach me, saying: Why do you seek after It? From\nwhom do you seek It? Do you, a sinner, wickedly dare to ask something of\nGod? Do you, weak man, of unclean heart, dare to hope that you will one\nday attain to the contemplation of God? I dare! Not indeed of myself,\nbut because of His pleasure in me; not out of presumptuous trust in\nmyself, but from confidence in His promise. For will He Who gave such a\npledge to the pilgrim desert him when he comes to Him? _For He hath hid\nme in His tabernacle in the day of evils_ (_Enarr. in Ps._ xxvi.).\n\n\nII\n\nIs the Active Life more Meritorious than the Contemplative?\n\nS. Gregory says[459]: \"Great are the merits of the active life, but they\nare surpassed by those of the contemplative life.\"\n\nThe source of merit is charity. Charity, however, consists in the love\nof God and of our neighbour; and to love God is, in itself, more\nmeritorious than to love our neighbour. Consequently that which more\ndirectly pertains to the love of God is more meritorious in its nature\nthan something that directly pertains to the love of our neighbour for\nGod's sake. The contemplative life, however, directly and immediately\npertains to the love of God, as S. Augustine says[460]: \"The love of\ntruth asks for a holy leisure; that is the contemplative life,\" and this\ntruth is the Divine Truth on Which the contemplative life is centred.\nThe active life, on the other hand, is more immediately concerned with\nthe love of our neighbour, it is _busy about much serving_.[461] Hence\nof its very nature the contemplative life is more meritorious than the\nactive, as is well expressed by S. Gregory[462] when he says: \"The\ncontemplative life is more meritorious than the active, for the latter\ntoils in the wear and tear of present work by which it must needs help\nits neighbour; whereas the former, by a certain inward savour, already\nhas a foretaste of the repose to come\"--that is, in the contemplation of\nGod.\n\nIt may, however, chance that one man derives greater merit from the\nworks of the active life than another does from his contemplative life;\nas, for example, when, from the superabundance of the Divine love, in\norder to fulfil God's will, and for His greater glory, a man is content\nto be separated for a space from the sweetness of Divine contemplation,\nas the Apostle says: _I wished myself to be an anathema from Christ for\nmy brethren._[463] On these words S. Chrysostom[464] comments thus: \"The\nlove of Christ had so completely taken possession of his heart that he\ncould even despise that which he desired beyond all things--namely, to\nbe with Christ--and that because it was pleasing to Christ.\"\n\nYet some maintain that the active life is more meritorious than the\ncontemplative, thus:\n\n1. A thing is said to be meritorious because of the reward. But reward\nis due to work, as S. Paul says: _And every man shall receive his own\nreward according to his own labour._[465] Labour, however, belongs to\nthe active life, repose to the contemplative, as S. Gregory says[466]:\n\"Everyone who is converted to God must needs first labour in toil; he\nmust take Lia--that is, that so he may arrive at 'the vision of the\nBeginning'--that is, the embraces of Rachel.\" Whence it seems as though\nthe active life was more meritorious than the contemplative.\n\n    But while external toil makes for an increase of accidental\n    reward, the increase of merit as regards essential reward\n    consists mainly in charity, one proof of which is external toil\n    undertaken for Christ's sake; but a much greater proof of this\n    is given when a man puts aside all that pertains to this life\n    and delights in giving himself up solely to Divine\n    contemplation.\n\n2. Again, contemplative life is in some sort the commencement of future\nbliss; and consequently the words of S. John: _So will I have him to\nremain till I come_, S. Augustine comments as follows: \"This might be\nmore fully expressed thus: May perfect actions, modelled on the example\nof My Passion, follow Me; but may contemplation begun here on earth\nremain till I come, to be perfected when I come\"[467]; and similarly S.\nGregory says[468]: \"The contemplative life begins here below to be\nperfected in our heavenly home.\" But in that future life we shall not\nmerit, but shall receive the reward of our merits. Consequently the\ncontemplative life seems to have less of the ratio of merit than has the\nactive life; but it has more of the ratio of reward.\n\n    But in the state of future bliss a man has arrived at his\n    perfection and consequently there is no room left for merit; but\n    if there were room left his merits would be more efficacious\n    owing to the pre-eminence of his charity. The contemplation of\n    this present life, however, has some accompanying imperfection,\n    and consequently there is room for improvement; hence such\n    contemplation does not destroy the idea of meriting but makes\n    increase of merit in proportion as Divine charity is more and\n    more exercised.\n\n3. Lastly, S. Gregory says[469]: \"No sacrifice is more acceptable to God\nthan zeal for souls.\" But zeal for souls means that a man gives himself\nup to the works of the active life. Whence it seems that the\ncontemplative life is not more meritorious than the active.\n\n    But a sacrifice is spiritually offered to God when anything is\n    presented to Him; and of all man's good things God specially\n    accepts that of the human soul when offered to Him in sacrifice.\n    But a man ought to offer to God first of all his own soul,\n    according to the words of Ecclesiasticus[470]: _Have pity on\n    thine own soul, pleasing God_; secondly, the souls of others,\n    according to the words: _And he that heareth let him say:\n    Come._[471] But the more closely a man knits his own soul, or\n    his neighbour's soul, to God, the more acceptable to God is his\n    sacrifice; consequently it is more pleasing to God that a man\n    should give his soul, and the souls of others, to contemplation\n    than to action. When, then, S. Gregory says: \"No sacrifice is\n    more acceptable to God than zeal for souls,\" he does not mean\n    that the merit of the active life is greater than that of the\n    contemplative, but that it is more meritorious that a man should\n    offer to God his own soul and the soul of others than that he\n    should offer any other external gift whatsoever.\n\n    \"But thou, our God, art gracious and true, patient, and ordering\n    all things in mercy. For if we sin, we are Thine, knowing Thy\n    greatness: and if we sin not, we know that we are counted with\n    Thee. For to know Thee is perfect justice: and to know Thy\n    justice, and Thy power, is the root of immortality.\"[472]\n\n\nIII\n\nIs the Active Life a Hindrance to the Contemplative Life?\n\nS. Gregory says[473]: \"They who would hold the citadel of contemplation\nmust first needs exercise themselves on the battle-field of toil.\"\n\nWe may consider the active life from two points of view. For we may\nfirst of all consider the actual occupation with, and practice of,\nexternal works; and from this point of view it is clear that the active\nlife is a hindrance to the contemplative, for it is impossible for a man\nto be simultaneously occupied with external works, and yet at leisure\nfor Divine contemplation.\n\nBut we may also consider the active life from the standpoint of the\nharmony and order which it introduces into the interior passions of the\nsoul; and from this point of view the active life is an assistance to\ncontemplation since this latter is hindered by the disturbance arising\nfrom the passions. Thus S. Gregory says[474]: \"They who would hold the\ncitadel of contemplation must first needs exercise themselves on the\nbattle-field of toil; they must learn, forsooth, whether they still do\nharm to their neighbours, whether they bear with equanimity the harm\ntheir neighbours may do them; whether, when temporal good things are set\nbefore them, their minds are overwhelmed with joy; whether when such\nthings are withdrawn they are over much grieved. And lastly, they must\nask themselves whether, when they withdraw within upon themselves and\nsearch into the things of the spirit, they do not carry with them the\nshadows of things corporeal, or whether, if perchance they have touched\nupon them, they discreetly repel them.\"\n\nThus, then, the exercises of the active life are conducive to\ncontemplation, for they still those interior passions whence arise those\nimaginations which serve as a hindrance to contemplation.\n\nSome, however, maintain that the active life is a hindrance to the\ncontemplative, thus:\n\n1. A certain stillness of mind is needful for contemplation, as the\nPsalmist says: _Be still and see that I am God._[475] But the active\nlife implies anxiety: _Martha, Martha, thou art careful, and art\ntroubled about many things._[476]\n\n2. Again, a certain clearness of vision is called for in the\ncontemplative life. But the active life hinders this clearness of\nvision, for S. Gregory says[477]: \"Lia was blear-eyed and fruitful, for\nthe active life, since occupied with toil, sees less clearly.\"\n\n3. And lastly, things that are contrary hinder one another. But the\nactive and the contemplative life are contrary to one another; for the\nactive life is occupied with many things, whereas the contemplative life\ndwells upon one object of contemplation; they are, then, in opposite\ncamps.\n\n    But all these arguments insist upon the occupation with external\n    affairs which is but one feature in the active life, not upon\n    its other feature--namely, its power to repress the passions.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n_Cajetan: But the five foolish virgins, having taken their lamps, did\nnot take oil with them. But the wise took oil in their vessels with the\nlamps._[478]\n\nBy this oil is signified testimony to a man's goodness or love of God.\nFor there is this difference between people who perform good works, that\nthe only testimony which some men have to their goodness is\nwithout--namely, in the works themselves; within, however, they do not\nfeel that they love God with their whole heart, that they repent of\ntheir sins because they are hateful to God, or that they love their\nneighbour for God's sake. But there are others who so perform good works\nthat both their works that shine before men bear witness without to the\ngood soul within, and also within their own conscience the Holy Spirit\nHimself testifies to their spirit that they are the sons of God; for\nsuch men feel that they love God with their whole heart, that they\nrepent of their sins for God's sake, and that they love their neighbour\nand themselves for God's sake: in brief, they feel that God is the sole\nreason why they love, why they hope, fear, rejoice, or are sad: in a\nword, why they work both within and without: this is to have oil in\none's own vessels (_On S. Matt._ xxv. 3, 4).\n\n_S. Augustine:_ See the life that Mary chose! Yet was she but a type of\nthat life, she as yet possessed it not. For there are two kinds of life:\none means delight; the other means a burden. And the burdensome one is\ntoilsome, while the delightsome one is pleasurable. But enter thou\nwithin; seek not that delight without, lest ye swell with it and find\nyourself unable to enter by the narrow gate! See how Mary saw the Lord\nin the Flesh and heard the Lord by the voice of the Flesh--as ye have\nheard when the Epistle to the Hebrews has been read--as it were through\na veil. (_A new and living way which He hath dedicated to us through the\nveil, that is to say, His Flesh_.[479]) But when we shall see Him face\nto Face there will be no \"veil.\" Mary, then, sat--that is, she rested\nfrom toil--and she listened and she praised; but Martha was anxious\nabout much serving. And the Lord said to her: _Martha, Martha, thou art\ncareful and art troubled about many things; but one thing is\nnecessary[480]_ (_Sermon_, CCLVI., v. 6).\n\n    \"Bless the Lord, O my soul: and let all that is within me bless\n    His holy Name. Bless the Lord, O my soul, and never forget all\n    He hath done for thee. Who forgiveth all thy iniquities: Who\n    healeth all thy diseases. Who redeemeth thy life from\n    destruction: Who crowneth thee with mercy and compassion. Who\n    satisfieth thy desire with good things: thy youth shall be\n    renewed like the eagle's. The Lord doth mercies, and judgment\n    for all that suffer wrong. He hath made His ways known to Moses:\n    His wills to the children of Israel. The Lord is compassionate\n    and merciful: long suffering and plenteous in mercy. He will not\n    always be angry: nor will He threaten for ever. He hath not\n    dealt with us according to our sins: nor rewarded us according\n    to our iniquities. For according to the height of the Heaven\n    above the earth: He hath strengthened His mercy towards them\n    that fear Him. As far as the east is from the west, so far hath\n    He removed our iniquities from us. As a father hath compassion\n    on his children, so hath the Lord compassion on them that fear\n    Him: for He knoweth our frame. He remembereth that we are dust:\n    man's days are as grass, as the flower of the field so shall he\n    flourish.\"[481]\n\n\nIV\n\nDoes the Active Life precede the Contemplative?\n\nS. Gregory says[482]: \"The active life precedes the contemplative in the\norder of time, for from good works a man passes to contemplation.\"\n\nOne thing may precede another in two ways: firstly by its very nature;\nand in this sense the contemplative life precedes the active in that it\nis occupied with chiefer and better things, and hence it both moves and\ndirects the active life. For, as S. Augustine says,[483] the higher\nreason, which is destined for contemplation, is compared to the lower\nreason, which is destined for action, as man is compared to woman--she\nis to be governed by him.\n\nBut secondly, one thing may be prior to another as far as we are\nconcerned, it may, that is, precede it in the way of generation. And in\nthis sense the active life precedes the contemplative, for it conduces\nto it, as we have already said. In the order of generation disposition\nto a nature precedes that nature, though that nature is, simply speaking\nand considered in itself, prior to the disposition to it.\n\nBut some maintain that the active life does not precede the\ncontemplative, thus:\n\n1. The contemplative life is directly concerned with the love of God,\nthe active life with the love of our neighbour. But love of God precedes\nlove of our neighbour, for we have to love our neighbour for God's sake.\n\n    But the contemplative life is not concerned with merely any kind\n    of love of God, but with the perfect love of Him; the active\n    life, on the contrary, is necessary for any kind of love of our\n    neighbour, for S. Gregory says[484]: \"Without the contemplative\n    life men can gain admittance to their heavenly home if they have\n    not neglected the good works they could have done; but they\n    cannot enter without the active life, if they neglect the good\n    works they could do.\" Whence it appears that the active life\n    precedes the contemplative in the sense that that which is\n    common to everybody precedes in the order of generation that\n    which is peculiar to the perfect.\n\n2. Again, S. Gregory says[485]: \"You must know that just as the right\nprocedure is for a man to pass from the active to the contemplative\nlife; so, too, it is often profitable to the soul to return to the\nactive life.\" Consequently the active life is not absolutely speaking\nprior to the contemplative.\n\n    But while we proceed from the active life to the contemplative\n    by way of generation, we return from the contemplative to the\n    active by way of direction, in order, that is, that our active\n    life may be directed by the contemplative; just in the same way\n    as habits are generated by acts and then, as is said in the\n    _Ethics_, when the habit is formed we act still more\n    perfectly.[486]\n\n3. Lastly, things which accord with different characters do not seem to\nbe necessarily related. But the active and contemplative life are suited\nto different characters; thus S. Gregory says[487]: \"It often happens\nthat men who could have given themselves to peaceful contemplation of\nGod have been burdened with external occupations and so have made\nshipwreck; while, on the contrary, men who could have lived well had\nthey been occupied with human concerns, have been slain by the sword of\ntheir life of repose.\" Consequently the active life does not seem to\nprecede the contemplative.\n\n    But those who are subject to the influx of their passions\n    because of their natural eagerness in action, are for that very\n    reason more suited for the active life, and this because of the\n    restlessness of their temperament. Hence S. Gregory says[488]:\n    \"Some are so restless that if they desist from work they suffer\n    grievously, for the more free they are to think the worse\n    interior tumults they have to endure.\" Some, on the contrary,\n    have a natural purity of soul and a reposefulness which renders\n    them fit for the contemplative life; if such men were to be\n    applied wholly to the active life they would incur great loss.\n    Hence S. Gregory says[489]: \"Some men are of so slothful a\n    disposition that if they undertake any work they succumb at the\n    very outset.\" But he adds: \"Yet often love stirs up even\n    slothful souls to work, and fear exercises a restraining\n    influence on souls which suffer a disturbing influence in their\n    contemplation.\" Hence even those who are more suited for the\n    active life, may, by the exercise of it, be prepared for the\n    contemplative; and, on the contrary, those who are more suited\n    for the contemplative life may profitably undertake the labours\n    proper to the active life, that so they may be rendered still\n    more fit for contemplation.\n\n    \"I have cried to Thee, for Thou, O God, hast heard me: O incline\n    Thy ear unto me, and hear my words. Show forth Thy wonderful\n    mercies; Thou Who savest them that trust in Thee. From them that\n    resist Thy right hand keep me, as the apple of Thy eye. Protect\n    me under the shadow of Thy wings.\"[490]\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[438] S. Luke x. 42.\n\n[439] _Ethics_, x. 7 and 8.\n\n[440] _Moralia in Job_, vi. 18.\n\n[441] _Of the Words of the Lord, Sermon_ ciii., _alias_ xxvi. 2.\n\n[442] S. Luke x. 41.\n\n[443] _Of the Words of the Lord, Sermon_ civ., _alias_ xxvii. 2.\n\n[444] S. Luke x. 42.\n\n[445] _Sermon_ ciii., _alias_ xxvi. 4.\n\n[446] _Topica_, III., ii. 21.\n\n[447] _Ibid._, III., i. 12.\n\n[448] _Of the City of God_, xix. 19.\n\n[449] ii. 1.\n\n[450] Exod. xix. 21.\n\n[451] _Hom._ III., _On Ezechiel_.\n\n[452] _Of Consolation_, v. 2.\n\n[453] _Hom._ III., _On Ezechiel_.\n\n[454] 1 Cor. xii. 31.\n\n[455] _Of the City of God_, xix. 19.\n\n[456] Ps. xlvii. 9, 10, 15.\n\n[457] 2 Cor. v. 15.\n\n[458] Ps. xxvi. 5.\n\n[459] _Moralia in Job_, vi. 18.\n\n[460] _Of the City of God_, xix. 19.\n\n[461] S. Luke x. 40.\n\n[462] _Hom._ III., _On Ezechiel_.\n\n[463] Rom. ix. 3.\n\n[464] _Of Compunction_, i. 7.\n\n[465] 1 Cor. iii. 8.\n\n[466] _Hom._ XIV., _On Ezechiel_.\n\n[467] _Tractat._, 124, _On St. John_, xxi. 22.\n\n[468] _Hom._ XIV., _On Ezechiel_.\n\n[469] _Hom._ XII., _On Ezechiel_.\n\n[470] xxx. 24.\n\n[471] Apoc. xxii. 17.\n\n[472] Wisd. xv. 1-3.\n\n[473] _Moralia in Job_, vi. 17.\n\n[474] _Ibid._\n\n[475] Ps. xlv. 11.\n\n[476] S. Luke x. 41.\n\n[477] _Hom._ XIV., _On Ezechiel_.\n\n[478] S. Matt. xxv. 3, 4.\n\n[479] Heb. x. 20.\n\n[480] S. Luke x. 41, 42.\n\n[481] Ps. cii. 1-15.\n\n[482] _Hom._ III., _On Ezechiel_.\n\n[483] _On the Trinity_, xii. 12.\n\n[484] _Hom._ III., _On Ezechiel_.\n\n[485] _Hom._ XIV., _On Ezechiel_.\n\n[486] ii. 1, 2.\n\n[487] _Moralia in Job_, vi. 17.\n\n[488] _Moralia_, vi. 17.\n\n[489] _Ibid._, vi. 37.\n\n[490] Ps. xvi. 6-9.\n\n\n\n\nQUESTION CLXXXVI\n\nON THE RELIGIOUS STATE\n\n  Are Contemplative Orders superior to Active Orders?\n\n\nAre Contemplative Orders superior to Active Orders?\n\nThe Lord declared that Mary's was _the best part_, and she is the type\nof the contemplative life.[491]\n\nReligious Orders differ from one another primarily according to the ends\nthey have in view, but secondarily according to the works they practise.\nAnd since one thing cannot be said to be superior to another save by\nreason of the differences between them, it will follow that the\nsuperiority of one Religious Order to another must depend primarily upon\ntheir respective ends, secondarily upon the works they practise.\n\nAnd these two grounds of comparison are not of equal value; for the\ncomparison between them from the point of view of their respective ends\nis an absolute one, since an end is sought for its own sake; whereas the\ncomparison arising from their respective works is a relative one, since\nworks are not done for their own sake but for the sake of the end to be\ngained.\n\nConsequently one Religious Order is superior to another if its end is\nabsolutely a superior one, either as being in itself a greater good, or\nas being of wider scope. On the supposition, however, that the ends of\nany two Orders are the same, then the superiority of one to the other\ncan be gauged, not by the quantity of works they undertake, but by the\nproportion these bear to the end in view. Thus it is that we find\nintroduced into the _Conferences of the Fathers_[492] the opinion of S.\nAntony, who preferred that discretion by which a man moderates all\nthings to fasts and watchings and similar observances.\n\nThe works, then, of the active life are twofold. There is one which\nsprings from the fulness of contemplation: teaching, for example, and\npreaching. Whence S. Gregory says[493]: \"It is said of perfect men that\non their return from contemplation: _They shall pour forth the memory of\nThy sweetness._\" And this is preferable to simple contemplation. For\njust as it is a greater thing to shed light than to be full of light, so\nis it a greater thing to spread abroad the fruits of our contemplation\nthan merely to contemplate. And the second work of the active life is\nthat which wholly consists in external occupation, such as giving alms,\nreceiving guests, etc. And such works are inferior to the works of\ncontemplation, except it be in some case of necessity.\n\nConsequently, then, those Religious Orders are in the highest rank which\nare devoted to teaching and preaching. And these, too, approach most\nnearly to the perfection of the Episcopate; just as in other things,\ntoo, the ends of those in the first place are, as S. Denis says, close\nknit to the principles of those in the second place.[494] The second\nrank is occupied by those Orders which are devoted to contemplation. And\nthe third with those devoted to external works.\n\nAnd in each of these grades there is a certain superiority according as\none Order aims at acts of a higher order than does another, though of\nthe same class. Thus in the works of the active life it is a greater\nthing to redeem captives than to receive guests; in the contemplative\nlife, too, it is a greater thing to pray than to study. There may also\nbe a certain superiority in this that one is occupied with more of such\nworks than another; or again, that the rules of one are better adapted\nto the attainment of their end than are those of another.\n\nSome, however, maintain that the contemplative Orders are not superior\nto the active Orders, thus:\n\n1. In the Canon Law[495] it is said: \"Since the greater good is to be\npreferred to the less, so, too, the common gain is to be preferred to\nprivate gain; and in this sense teaching is rightly preferred to\nsilence, anxious care for others to contemplation, and toil to repose.\"\nBut that Religious Order is the better which is directed to the\nattainment of the greater good. Hence it seems that Orders which are\ndevoted to an active life are superior to those which aim solely at\ncontemplation.\n\n    But this Decretal speaks of the active life as concerned with\n    the salvation of souls.\n\n2. All Religious Orders aim at the perfection of charity. But on those\nwords in the Epistle to the Hebrews,[496] _Ye have not yet resisted unto\nblood_, the Gloss has: \"There is no more perfect charity in this life\nthan that to which the holy Martyrs attained, for they strove against\nsin even _unto blood_.\" But to strive _unto blood_ belongs to the\nMilitary Religious Orders, and they lead an active life. It would seem,\nthen, that these latter are the highest form of Religious Order.\n\n    But these Military Orders are more concerned with shedding the\n    blood of their enemies than with shedding their own, which is\n    the feature of the Martyrs. At the same time, there is nothing\n    to preclude these Religious from at times winning the crown of\n    martyrdom and thus attaining to a greater height than other\n    Religious; just as in some cases active works are to be\n    preferred to contemplation.\n\n3. Lastly, the stricter an Order the more perfect it seems to be. But\nthere is nothing to preclude active Orders from being stricter in their\nobservance than some contemplative Orders.\n\nBut strictness of observance is not that which is especially commendable\nin Religious life, as S. Antony has already told us, and as is also said\nin Isaias[497]: _Is this such a fast as I have chosen, for a man to\nafflict his soul for a day?_ Strictness of observance is, however, made\nuse of in Religious Orders for the subjection of the flesh; but if such\nstrictness is carried out without discretion there is danger lest it\nshould come to naught, as S. Antony says. Hence one Religious Order is\nnot superior to another because its observances are stricter, but\nbecause its observances are directed to the end of that Order with\ngreater discretion. Thus, for example, abstinence from food and drink,\nwhich means hunger and thirst, are more efficacious means for preserving\nchastity than wearing less clothing, which means cold and nakedness;\nmore efficacious, too, than bodily labour.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[491] S. Luke x. 42.\n\n[492] _Conf._, ii. 2.\n\n[493] _Hom._ V., _On Ezechiel_.\n\n[494] _Of the Divine Names_, vii.\n\n[495] _Extrav. Of Regulars and of those who pass to the Religious\nOrders_, cap. _Licet_.\n\n[496] xii. 4.\n\n[497] lviii. 5.\n\n\n\n\nINDEX\n\n\nAbiding in Christ, 32\n\nAbraham in Limbo, 155\n\nAccidents of the Holy Eucharist, 9\n\nActive Life, the: its meaning, 170, 174, 176, 221, 229;\n  typified in Jacob's Vision, 231;\n  typified by Lia, 174, 222, 225, 234, 242, 246;\n  two features of the Active Life, 221, 241, 247;\n  in what sense it is distinct from the Contemplative Life, 220;\n  how less meritorious than the Contemplative Life, 240-244;\n  not preferable to the Contemplative Life, 233-240;\n  it involves less sacrifice than the Contemplative Life, 244;\n  in what sense it precedes the Contemplative Life, 223, 237, 245,\n    249-252;\n  how far it is necessary, 186, 221, 239, 245, 250;\n  contrasted with the Contemplative Life, 172, 173;\n  how far it is more stable than the Contemplative Life, 232;\n  its dangers, 136, 147, 186;\n  it is a burden super-imposed upon the Contemplative Life, 238;\n  all are not meant for it, 186, 251, 252;\n  it will not persist after this life, 229-232;\n  the Active Life of the Angels, 231;\n  how far the Active Life is inferior to the Contemplative, 233-240;\n  occasions when it must be embraced, 186, 235, 239;\n  the part which the Moral Virtues play in it, 191, 220-223;\n  it is a preparation for the Contemplative Life, 176, 177, 220, 237,\n    245;\n  prudence is requisite for it, 186, 223-226;\n  how far the teaching life pertains to the Active Life, 226-229, 230;\n  it will pass away, 177, 191, 229-232;\n  it is the Purgative way, 220;\n  Prelates and the Active Life, 236\n\nActive Religious Orders, they are inferior to the Contemplative, 253-257\n\nAdjure God, in what sense we are said to do so in our prayers, 148\n\nAdoration of the Cross, 37\n\n_Adoro Te Devote_, the rhythm of St. Thomas in honour of the Holy\n  Eucharist, 112\n\nAlbert of Brescia, O.P., 18\n\nAlbert the Great, Blessed, 6\n\nAlypius, St. Augustine's friend, 123\n\nAmbrose, St.: on God as the cause of devotion, 57;\n  that the beauty of the soul depends on the Moral Virtues, 184\n\nAndronicus on the meaning of sanctity, 49\n\nAngels, the: how they are differentiated from men, 113, 114, 187, 206;\n  the knowledge of the Angels, 157, 187, 205, 208, 230;\n  the Beatific Vision of the Angels, 231;\n  the intelligence of the Angels, 187, 230;\n  the intercession of the Angels, 165;\n  their conformity to the will of God, 165, 167;\n  the Angelic Hierarchies, 201, 230;\n  the teaching of the Angels 230, 231;\n  the Active Life of the Angels, 231;\n  we shall be like to the Angels, how, 230, 231;\n  Angels gird St. Thomas, 6\n\nAnselm of Laudun, 25\n\nAntony, St.: a patron against Hell-fire, 160;\n  on discretion, 154, 157\n\nAreopagite. _Cf. s.v._ Denis the Areopagite\n\nAristotle: on the aptitude for virtue, 35;\n  on honour, 39;\n  that the perfection of the moral virtues lies in their mean, 43;\n  on Justice, 55, 221;\n  that \"reason asks for the best things,\" 69;\n  on the need of temporal things, 89;\n  that \"each man's life is that which he would wish to share with his\n    friend,\" 170;\n  that \"to live is to be,\" 170;\n  on action and contemplation as distinctions in the intellectual life,\n    171;\n  that life is primarily in the vegetative soul, 171;\n  on three kinds of lives, 175;\n  that knowledge has little to do with the moral virtues, 182, 221;\n  that every act of the intellect may be termed \"consideration,\" 188;\n  that the ultimate happiness of man consists in the contemplation of\n    the highest truth, 193;\n  of man's dependence on the imagination, 201;\n  that motion is the act of a perfect thing, 203;\n  on local motion as the chief of bodily motions, 204;\n  that delight follows upon a perfect work, 213;\n  on the nobility of science, 214;\n  that there is no pleasure contrary to that derived from thought, 217;\n  on application to the Contemplative Life, 217;\n  that the Contemplative Life is \"beyond man,\" 218;\n  that prudence pertains to active happiness, 223;\n  that he who commits adultery to steal is more a thief than an\n    adulterer, 223;\n  that prudence is the right mode of procedure in our actions, 224;\n  that the ends of the moral virtues are the principles of prudence,\n    224;\n  that the proof of the possession of wisdom is the power to teach, 228;\n  eight proofs that the Contemplative Life is superior to the Active,\n    234, 235;\n  on the better lot, 236;\n  that habits produce perfect acts, 251\n\nArius, his error regarding the Person of Christ, 161\n\nAthanasius, St., on the chanting of the Psalms, 123\n\nAttention: mental, 225;\n  in prayer, 125-133;\n  three kinds of, 128, 129, 133\n\nAttitudes in prayer, 150, 151\n\nAugustine, St.: St. Thomas's kinship with him in doctrine, 17-19;\n  they are seen in a vision together, 18;\n  the Breviary Hymn to, 26;\n  definition of religion, 28, 29, 30;\n  on _Latvia_, 30;\n  on _Eusebeia_, 31;\n  on abiding in Christ, 32;\n  on the desire of God, 32;\n  on prayer for wealth, 33;\n  on sacrifice, 32, 46;\n  of true worship, 40;\n  of idolatry, 46;\n  on the value of external acts in prayer, 46;\n  of virginity, 50;\n  on \"God alone,\" 54, 92, 108, 142, 197, 189, 203, 219;\n  on the will and the understanding, 57;\n  on true grief, 65;\n  prayer defined, 69;\n  why we should pray, 75;\n  on the prayers of the Church, 76;\n  when we pray we are God's beggars, 79, 110;\n  of those who say \"He knows already; why then pray?\" 80;\n  of the knowledge the dead have of our affairs, 82;\n  on shrinking from death, 83;\n  on avoidance of Hell, 86;\n  of the Beatific Vision, 87, 229;\n  a prayer for continence, 87;\n  and for the knowledge of Holy Scripture, 88;\n  it is lawful to pray for what it is lawful to desire, 89;\n  on prayer for \"sufficiency of life,\" 89;\n  on \"seeking first the Kingdom of God,\" 90;\n  on prayer \"without ceasing,\" 91;\n  of the prayer of desire, 92, 134;\n  his prayer for deliverance from toothache, 92;\n  why temporal favours are sometimes not granted, 94, 95;\n  on prayer for others, 96;\n  that we cannot here distinguish between the predestinate and the\n    reprobate, 97;\n  on the imprecations in Holy Scripture, 100, 101;\n  on prayer for the wicked, 101;\n  on the Lord's Prayer, that it is the most perfect form of prayer, 102;\n  on \"our Daily Bread,\" 103, 109;\n  \"hallowed be Thy Name,\" 104;\n  \"Thy kingdom come,\" 105;\n  \"Thy will be done,\" 105;\n  \"forgive us our trespasses,\" 110, 111;\n  of the Lord's Prayer and the gifts of the Holy Spirit, 106;\n  of the two versions of the Lord's Prayer in St. Matthew and St. Luke,\n    107;\n  on true righteousness, 111;\n  on exterior religion, 119;\n  on the chanting of the Psalter, 123;\n  on the prayer of the heart, 124;\n  on distractions, 129-131;\n  on prayer at definite times, 134;\n  on the brief prayers of the hermits of old, 134;\n  on \"much speaking\" in prayer, 135;\n  that God urges us to pray, 138, 139;\n  that prayer is a gift of God, 139;\n  on unheard prayers, 140, 142;\n  on prayers heard in anger, 142, 143;\n  in what sense the prayers of sinners are heard, 143, 144;\n  on the attitudes to be adopted in and of the time and place for\n    prayer, 127, 150, 151;\n  of the knowledge of the Saints in Limbo, 154-156;\n  why the prayers of the Saints are heard, 167;\n  the Contemplative contrasted with the Active Life, 172-174, 186;\n  the three \"lives,\" 175, 185;\n  the \"mixed\" life, 226;\n  of the final possession and vision of God, 176, 177, 191, 203;\n  on the use of leisure, 186;\n  the claims of the two lives, the Active and the Contemplative, 186,\n    248;\n  of the Active Life, 236;\n  of the Active Life as opposed to the Contemplative, 238;\n  that every operation of the intellect may be termed \"thought,\" 188;\n  of the derivation of the term \"speculation,\" 189;\n  of our present perfection, 190, 191;\n  on the pleasures of sense, 185;\n  that the contemplation of God is the goal of all our acts, 193;\n  that we must use created things as stepping-stones to the things that\n    abide for ever, 193;\n  on Mary's \"better part,\" 196, 197;\n  on Martha and Mary, 234, 235, 248;\n  that in contemplation we do not see God Himself, 199;\n  the greater the danger in the battle, the greater the joy in the\n    triumph, 212;\n  on the transitory nature of our present contemplation, 218;\n  on the beauty of the teaching life, 227;\n  how the moral virtues remain after death, 230;\n  of the repose of Contemplation, 230, 241;\n  of his desire for solitude, yet he feels that he must work for others,\n    239;\n  he dare hope for the Contemplative Life, 240;\n  of the higher reason, 249\n\nBasil, St.: on distractions, 127, 128;\n  on unheard prayers, 141\n\nBeatific Vision, the, 87, 153, 172, 176, 177, 180, 181, 193, 198-203,\n  217\n\nBeatitude, in what it consists, 172, 176, 177, 181, 191, 198, 218, 219,\n  229\n\nBeatitude, a prayer for, 192\n\nBeauty, definition of, 185\n\nBenedict, St., the vision of, 202\n\nBernard, St.: on the meaning of contemplation, 188, 189;\n  of the steps in contemplation, 194\n\nBestial Life, the, 175\n\nBirds, the movements of, 209\n\nBlood of Christ, the, 163\n\nBoethius, on the liberty needful for contemplation, 237\n\n\nCajetan, O.P., Cardinal, 19, 20;\n  on the meaning of Religion, 50;\n  on the meaning of devotion, 53, 54;\n  on its causes, 60;\n  on devotion as opposed to gloom, 64;\n  of the \"devout female sex,\" 62;\n  of the need of meditation, 61;\n  of prayer as the cause of union with God, 71;\n  of prayer as a real cause, 74;\n  on three points to be considered in prayer, 78;\n  on prayer as a sacrifice, 79;\n  of the divisions of the Lord's Prayer, 107, 108;\n  how those in Limbo can hear prayers, 118;\n  on vocal prayer, 121, 123;\n  on the tone to be employed in saying Mass, 122;\n  the function of ecclesiastical chant, 122, 124;\n  on attention in recitation of Divine Office, 128;\n  on attention to the words of Consecration, 149, 150;\n  of the need of the moral virtues in the Contemplative Life, 239;\n  the Parable of the Ten Virgins, 247;\n  on the real object of prayer, 129\n\nCanticle of Canticles, the, 14\n\nCassian, the Conferences of: on St. Antony and discretion, 254, 257;\n  on different kinds of prayer, 148\n\nCassiodorus on Ps. xxxviii. 13, 68\n\nCato on respect for parents, 30\n\nCeremonial, the value of, 35\n\nChant of the Church, the Public, 122, 123\n\nCharity as the principle of religion, 56.\n  _Cf. s.v._ Theological virtues\n\n\"Christ, pray for us,\" why we do not say, 160, 161\n\nChrist, the Name of, on the foreheads of Christians, 219\n\nChrysostom, St.: the _Opus Imperfectum in Matthaeum_ falsely attributed\n    to him, 24;\n  on prayer as a conversation with God, 74;\n  on prayer for others, 95;\n  in public, 121;\n  on prayer for sinners, 143;\n  on prayer through Jesus Christ, 145;\n  on the zeal of S. Paul, 242\n\nChurch customs, 158, 163\n\nChurch, the prayers of the, 81\n\nCicero, on religion, 27;\n  on prudence and intellectual quickness, 224\n\nCircular movement of the soul, 172, 203-210\n\nCleanness, 47, 184\n\n_Colere_, 31\n\nCollect for Friday in September Ember Week, 147;\n  for Trinity Sunday, 147, 148\n\nCompline, St. Thomas's devotion at, 14\n\nCommunion of Saints, 158, 164\n\nConformity to the will of God, 86\n\nConsecration, the Prayer of the, 147, 149, 150\n\nContemplation and the Contemplative Life: the meaning of\n    _contemplation_, 188, 189, 196, 201, 202, 211, 230, 234, 235, 237;\n  it is something beautiful in the soul, 184;\n  not purely an affair of the intellect, 179-182, 189;\n  its relation to the affective powers, 211;\n  the place which reason occupies in contemplation, 195, 210, 211, 225,\n    226, 249;\n  the place occupied by the imagination, 195;\n  in what sense contemplation involves many acts, 187-192;\n  how far contemplation may be described according to the three species\n    of motion--circular, direct, and oblique, 172, 203-210;\n  contemplation is natural to man, 210;\n  it is pleasurable, 211;\n  it is primarily concerned with God, 180, 241, 250;\n  it does not, in this present life, fall on the Divine Essence as such,\n    199-203;\n  its ultimate goal, 180, 184, 187, 193, 194, 196, 198, 203, 229;\n  its ultimate goal in this life, 212, 220;\n  how it is distinguished from meditation and thought, 188;\n  and from speculation, 189;\n  four integral parts of contemplation, 193, 194;\n  four phases in it, 194;\n  six steps in it, 195, 196;\n  the contemplation of this present life, 193, 213, 214;\n  not on earth as in Heaven, 176, 177, 217, 243;\n  it is \"beyond man,\" 218;\n  a busy life does not exclude it, 238;\n  it is lawful to desire it, 240;\n  contemplation and ecstasy, 200;\n  four subjects of contemplation, 194;\n  the repose of contemplation, in what it consists, 204, 205, 234, 235,\n    246\n\n_The Contemplative Life_: its meaning, 184, 186, 237, 250;\n  how it is distinguished from the Active Life, 169, 173, 220, 234, 235;\n  it is superior to the Active Life, 233-240;\n  it is more meritorious than it, 240-244;\n  its great merit, 242;\n  it is prepared for in the Active Life, 239, 245-249;\n  the Active Life precedes it, 249-252;\n  the Contemplative Life directs the Active, 251;\n  the relation of the Contemplative Life to the Theological virtues,\n    192;\n  and to the Moral virtues, 182-186, 221, 222, 239;\n  it demands temperance, 184, 185;\n  and chastity, which it in turn fosters, 184, 185;\n  it calls for the subjection of the passions, 184, 185;\n  it results in the subjugation of the passions, 213;\n  it involves a certain liberty of spirit, 234, 237;\n  it is often distasteful, 215, 216;\n  it means the sacrifice of our own soul, 244;\n  its joys, 177, 197, 210-216, 234, 248;\n  its combats, 212, 213;\n  it is imperfect here on earth, 243;\n  it is not incompatible with Prelacy, 236;\n  its relation to the office of teaching, 236-239;\n  it is not meant for all, 235, 236, 239, 241, 251, 252;\n  reading is sometimes necessary for it, 190;\n  how far it refrains from all external actions, 182;\n  it is typified by Rachel, 174, 180, 184, 234, 242;\n  also by Mary of Bethany, 174, 190, 197, 234, 235, 248;\n  it is foreshown in Jacob's Vision, 231\n\nContemplative Religious Orders: in what sense they are the best, 253-257\n\nContemplatives, 32\n\nContinence, a prayer for, 87\n\nConversation, sins of, 110\n\nCorrection, fraternal, 97\n\nCreated things must serve as stepping-stones, 193\n\nCross, Adoration of the, 37\n\n_Cultus_, 31\n\nCyprian, St., on _Our_ Father, not _My_ Father, 96\n\n\nDamascene, St. John: on Wonderment, 189;\n  definitions of prayer, 69, 71, 85, 142, 148\n\nDead, Prayers for the, 167, 168\n\nDeath, fear of, 83\n\nDecii, the, 52\n\nDefects, the thought of our, causes devotion, 63, 64\n\nDelights, earthly, as opposed to heavenly, 215, 216\n\nDenis the Areopagite, 24;\n  on sanctity, 49;\n  on ecstasy, 55;\n  on beginning all with prayer, 70;\n  on being co-workers with God, 154;\n  of the knowledge of the Angels, 157;\n  of the harmony in Divine things, 158;\n  that life implies motion, 171;\n  on the three movements of the soul, 172, 203-210;\n  of the difference between the Angelic and the human intellect, 186;\n  that the goal of contemplation is to attain to the uniformity of the\n    Divine contemplation, 218;\n  that in contemplation here on earth we do not see the Divine Essence,\n    200;\n  on the illumination of the Angels, 230;\n  of the Divine harmony, 255\n\nDesires, their function and necessity, 77, 91, 105\n\nDevotion: defined, 51, 53, 55, 57, 64;\n  is a special act, 51;\n  is due to an act of the will, 53, 57;\n  is an act of the virtue of Religion, 57;\n  is the principal act of the virtue of Religion, 54;\n  involves sacrifice of the heart, 64;\n  it gives a certain measure to human acts, 52;\n  it means promptitude, 53, 55, 56, 57;\n  two causes of it, 57, 62, 63;\n  caused by meditation, 57;\n  especially by meditation on the Sacred Passion, 59, 63;\n  on the goodness of God, 58, 60;\n  on our own defects, 58, 60;\n  obstacles to it, 62;\n  how far it may be hindered by learning, 60;\n  it is productive of sorrow, 62-64;\n  but is not therefore to be confounded with gloominess, 64, 65;\n  it produces joy, 62, 63;\n  devotion to the Saints, 57;\n  the devotion of women, 59, 62;\n  the \"devout female sex,\" 62\n\nDirect movement of the soul, the, 172, 210-213\n\nDiscretion, St. Antony on, 254, 257\n\nDistractions, 127. _Cf. s.v._ Prayer, distractions in\n\nDivine Office, attention in the recitation of, 128\n\n_Dulia_, 39\n\n\nEcstasy, 4;\n  Denis the Areopagite on, 55;\n  that of St. Paul, 199, 200\n\nEjaculatory prayers, 134, 135\n\nEnemies, prayer for, 99;\n  love of our, 99\n\nEternity: the \"repose\" of, 86, 87, 92;\n  the \"silence\" of, 87\n\nEtymologies, those of St. Thomas and St. Isidore, 24\n\nEucharist, the Holy: the Accidents of, 9;\n  St. Thomas's reception of It as Viaticum, 15;\n  the \"Chief\" of the Sacraments, 103;\n  our \"Daily Bread,\" 103, 109;\n  the rhythm, _Adoro Te Devote_, 112\n\n_Eusebeia_, 31\n\nExample, the force of, 222\n\nExterior religion, 45\n\nExternal actions, 182, 183\n\nExtraordinary ways of God, the, 3\n\n\nFaber, Father, 2\n\nFaith, 191, 192\n\nFaith and Vision, 87\n\nFasting, 63\n\nFear, 189;\n  the gift of fear, 34;\n  fear of death, 23;\n  of Hell, 36\n\nFemale sex, the \"devout,\" 62\n\n\"Forgive us our trespasses,\" 110, 111\n\nFossa Nuova, 14\n\nFrederic, the Emperor, 8\n\nFriendship, 56\n\n\nGifts of God, 92;\n  of the Holy Spirit, 105, 106\n\nGloom, not a characteristic of the Saints, 64, 65\n\nGloss, the, on Holy Scripture, 24, 25\n\nGod: God alone, 92, 247;\n  in what sense we \"adjure\" Him in our prayers, 148;\n  by prayer we become His beggars, 79, 110;\n  He is not changed by our prayers, 86, 107;\n  does not need our external acts of religion, 43, 46;\n  His foreknowledge involves no compulsion, 72;\n  His goodness is a reason for prayer, 107, 149;\n  His Holiness is a reason for prayer, 147;\n  the harmony of Divine things, 158, 159;\n  He knows beforehand what we seek, 80, 161;\n  He knows the heart, 157;\n  the majesty of God, 189;\n  the Patience of God, 130;\n  we do not pray to Him alone, 80-84;\n  He does not always hear our prayers, 142, 143;\n  why He wishes us to pray, 74, 86, 107, 138;\n  He does not profit by our service, 43;\n  on seeking after God, 54, 134, 179, 180, 183, 192;\n  He is the First Principle, 180;\n  the Ultimate End, 182;\n  ultimate union with Him, 109, 191;\n  union with Him, 69, 208;\n  we can hope for it, 240;\n  hindrances to it, 103, 104;\n  the Vision of God, 153, 155, 163, 172, 177, 180, 181.\n  _Cf. s.v._ Beatific Vision; the Antecedent Will of God, 163\n\n_Greeks, On the Errors of the_, St. Thomas's treatise on, 14\n\nGregory the Great, St.: on Lia as the type of the Active Life, 222, 225,\n    234, 242, 246;\n  of Martha and Mary as types of the Active and the Contemplative Life\n    respectively, 174;\n  on attention at prayer, 126;\n  on the intercession of the Angels, 165;\n  on the conformity of the Angels to God's Will, 167;\n  how the prayers of the Saints avail, 167;\n  that the Contemplative Life is occupied with God alone, 180, 184, 192;\n  that contemplation in this life does not attain to the Divine Essence,\n    199, 200;\n  that contemplation excludes all images, 201;\n  of St. Benedict's vision, 202;\n  on the true sweetness of contemplation, 210;\n  contemplation springs from and leads to love of God, 212;\n  on the combats of the Contemplative Life, 212;\n  that knowledge of God brings about the death of all carnal desires,\n    213;\n  of the joys of the spiritual life, 215, 216;\n  on disgust for spiritual things 215, 216;\n  of the Active Life, 221, 225;\n  on teaching as falling under the Active Life, 226;\n  as due to contemplation, 227;\n  that the Active Life passes away, not so the Contemplative Life, 229;\n  of the Contemplation of the Angels, 231;\n  on the instability of our present contemplation, 232, 243;\n  of the merits of the Contemplative Life, 240, 241;\n  that those who are Superiors can still practise the Contemplative\n    Life, 236;\n  that the Active Life precedes the Contemplative, 224, 245, 249;\n  of zeal for souls, 243, 244;\n  of the necessity of the Active Life, 250;\n  _contemplata aliis tradere_, 254;\n  that the Blessed in Heaven know our needs, 82;\n  not all are called to the Contemplative Life, 251, 252\n\nGregory of Nyssa, St., of joys and sorrows, 64\n\nGregory X., Pope, 14\n\nGuidonis, Bernard, 6\n\n\nHabits, 35, 251\n\nHarmony of Divine things, 158, 159\n\nHarmony of reason, the, 183\n\nHeaven: there will be no books in, 111;\n  it is our \"Fatherland,\" 166-168, 173\n\nHoliness, 184\n\nHope, 191, 192\n\nHugo a St. Caro, 6, 25\n\nHugh of St. Victor's: on attention at prayer, 126;\n  on intensity, 126\n\n\nIdolatry, 46\n\nImages, veneration of, 37\n\nImagination, its function, 195, 201\n\nImprecations in Holy Scripture, 100\n\nIndulgences, 168\n\nIngratitude, 94\n\n\"Insinuation\" in prayer, 141\n\nIntelligence, quickness of, 224\n\nIntellect, the noblest part of man, 79, 80\n\nIntention, 133\n\n\"Intercession\" as a part of prayer, 146\n\nIntercession of the Saints, 161\n\nInterior Spirit, the true, 247\n\nInterpretive prayer, 163\n\nIsaias, St. Thomas's Commentary on, 10\n\nIsidore of Seville, St.: his etymologies, 24;\n  on religion, 27;\n  on the word _sanctus_, 48;\n  on prayer, 68\n\n\nJacob's Vision, 231\n\nJeremias prays for the people, though he is in Limbo, 115, 118, 162\n\nJerome, St.: on the error of Vigilantius, who said the prayers of the\n    Martyrs were not heard, 115, 162;\n  on making \"a virtue of necessity,\" 35;\n  on the term \"super-substantial\" Bread, 103\n\nJohn of St. Julian, O.P., 5\n\nJohn XXII., Pope, 23\n\nJosias, King of Juda, in Limbo, 155\n\nJoy as an effect of devotion, 62\n\nJoys of Contemplation, the, 210-216\n\nJustice, the chief of the Moral Virtues, 37, 55, 221\n\n\nKnowledge, its relation to the Moral Virtues, 182\n\n\n_Latria_, 30, 34, 44\n\nLeo the Great, St., on the Jews, 56\n\nLia, the type of the Active Life, 222, 225, 234, 242, 246\n\nLiberty of Spirit, 237\n\nLife: definitions of, 169, 170, 171, 187;\n  considered as intellectual, life may be divided into the Active and\n    the Contemplative, 171, 174;\n  _cf. s.v._ Contemplative Life and Active Life;\n  the Active and Contemplative Life compared, 233-257;\n  the two Lives distinguished, 169-177;\n  their relative order, 249-252;\n  the \"mixed\" life, 175, 185;\n  the Life of Beatitude, 191;\n  the bestial life, 175;\n  the busy life, 175;\n  the civil life, 175;\n  the leisurely life, 175, 185;\n  the pleasurable life, 175;\n  the life of repose, 172, 173;\n  the life of toil, 172, 173;\n  the voluptuous life, 176\n\nLimbo, 118, 154-156\n\nLitany of the Saints, 158\n\nLiving for Eternity, on, 83\n\nLivy on the Decii, 51\n\nLombard, Peter, 25\n\nLord's Prayer, the: the seven petitions of, 105-111;\n  the most perfect form of prayer, 105;\n  distractions in saying it, 132;\n  why we say _Our_ Father, and not _My_ Father, 96;\n  this prayer is recited in the name of the whole Church, 145;\n  in what sense we are tied to this restricted form of prayer, 136, 137;\n  the Lord's Prayer as a subject of meditation, 192\n\nLyons, the Council of, St. Thomas summoned to it, 14\n\nLyra, Nicolas de, his Gloss, 25\n\n\nMartyrs: the prayers of the, 162-164;\n  merits of the Martyrs, 256\n\nMarvel, what it is to, 189\n\nMass, the: to be said distinctly, 122;\n  the Prayers of, 147;\n  the Prayer of the Consecration in the Mass, 149, 150\n\nMaximus Valerius, _On Socrates_, 84\n\nMeditation, 188, 190;\n  causes devotion, 57;\n  produces sadness as well as joy, 62-65;\n  the need of it, 61;\n  not to be neglected for vocal prayer, 123;\n  fruitful subjects for, 60;\n  meditation on the Sacred Passion, 59;\n  on choosing subtle subjects for meditation, 58, 60, 61\n\nMelancholy, no fruit of devotion, 64, 65\n\nMerit:\n  definition of, 166;\n  source of, 240;\n  merits and rewards, 242;\n  none in Heaven, 166, 243;\n  of the Active and Contemplative Life, 240-244;\n  the merit of prayer, 141;\n  those of the Saints, 163;\n  how we can merit for others, 141\n\nMilitary Religious Orders, 256\n\nMonica, St., 123\n\nMonte Cassino, 4\n\nMoral Acts, their nature, 225\n\nMoral Virtues, the:\n  Justice is the chief of the moral virtues, 221;\n  requisites for the moral virtues, 41;\n  their place in the Contemplative Life 182-186;\n  their function, 41, 43, 183-185;\n  their part in the Active Life, 220-226;\n  how far they remain after death, 230\n\nMovements of the soul, the three, 172, 203-210\n\nMysticism, 1-3\n\n\nNecessity, to make a virtue of, 35, 44\n\nNestorius's error concerning the Person of Christ, 161\n\nNovelty of St. Thomas's teaching, 6, 7\n\n\n\"Obsecration\" as a part of prayer, 147-149\n\nObservance, strictness of, 257\n\nOccultism, 3\n\nOffice, attention at the Divine, 128\n\nOrigen on sanctity, 47;\n  on not swearing, 148\n\n\nPassion, Meditation on the Sacred, 59, 63, 128\n\nPerfection, 44\n\nPeter Lombard, 25\n\nPhilosophy is better than riches, 236\n\n_Postillae_, 24\n\nPrayer to St. Thomas before study, A, 16\n\nPrayer: _defined_, 68, 69, 76, 78, 85, 102, 1O5, 127, 136, 148;\n  it is an act, 161;\n  not an act of the appetitive powers, 68, 71, 77;\n  it is an act of the virtue of religion, 76-80, 161;\n  after devotion, prayer is the highest act of the virtue of religion,\n    77;\n  it is a conversation with God, 74;\n  by it we become God's beggars, 110;\n  it is peculiar to the rational creation, 112-114;\n  in what sense the brute creatures pray, 114;\n  prayer is a gift from God, 139;\n  three requisites for prayer, 146;\n  four requisites for prayer, 138;\n  the real meaning of \"petition,\" 78, 79;\n  the prayer of desire, 92, 105;\n  in what sense desire is not prayer, 77, 78;\n  prayer is a real cause, 72, 74, 166\n    _Why we should pray:_\n  prayer is reasonable, 71-76, 107, 120, 147;\n  the merit of prayer, 125, 137-143;\n  the effects of prayer, 71, 120, 125, 132, 138;\n  prayer causes union with God, 70, 71\n    _Errors concerning prayer:_\n  in general, 72;\n  it is not an adjuring of God, 148;\n  it never wearies God, 79, 80;\n  \"much speaking\" in prayer, 135;\n  it cannot change God's decrees, 72, 73, 86, 107, 161;\n  it does not \"bend\" His will, 86;\n  God knows beforehand what we would pray for, 73, 75, 80, 86, 120\n    _Of prayers heard and unheard:_\n  the condition necessary if our prayers are to be heard, 89, 96, 141,\n    144;\n  of prayers heard in anger, 142, 143;\n  in what sense the prayers of sinners are heard, 143-146;\n  the prayers of the poor are speedily heard, 69;\n  how the prayers of the Saints are heard, 162, 168;\n  the prayers of the Martyrs and Apostles, 162, 163;\n  why prayers are not heard, 142;\n  of unheard prayers, 140;\n  why our prayers for others are sometimes not heard, 96;\n  in what sense the prayers of sinners are heard, 143-146\n    _How we should pray:_\n  at regular intervals, 134;\n  our attitude in prayer, 150, 151;\n  beginning occupations with prayer, 70;\n  prayer \"without ceasing,\" 91, 137;\n  attention at prayer, 125;\n  three kinds of attention, 120, 133;\n  distractions, 121, 127-133;\n  the length of our prayers, 133-137;\n  hindrances to prayer, 75;\n  the recitation of Psalms, 123;\n  prayer \"in spirit and in truth,\" 126;\n  weariness in prayer, 134\n    _What we should pray for:_\n  the impetratory value of prayer, 138, 141;\n  what we should pray for in general, 129, 142;\n  for Beatitude, 85-87;\n  prayer for definite things, 84-88;\n  for \"sufficiency of life,\" 89;\n  against death, 83;\n  for continence, 87;\n  for knowledge of Holy Scripture, 88;\n  for deliverance from toothache, 92, 94;\n  for others, 95, 97, 98, 229;\n  for the wicked, 97;\n  for the good, 98;\n  for our inferiors, 98;\n  for temporal blessings, 89-95;\n  for the predestinate, 167;\n  for our enemies, 99-102;\n  the Saints in Heaven pray for the resurrection of their bodies, 116\n    _To whom we should pray:_\n  not to God alone, 80-84;\n  to the Angels, 81;\n  to the Saints, 157-161;\n  to the lesser Saints, 117\n    _Who pray for us, and how:_\n  the Angels pray for us, how, 114;\n  in what sense the Son and the Holy Spirit are said to pray, 113, 115;\n  how the Holy Spirit helps our prayers, 85;\n  the Saints pray for us, 115-118;\n  how, 156, 163, 166, 167;\n  how we merit the prayers of the Saints, 162;\n  how our prayers are known to the Saints, 152-157;\n  those in Limbo prayed for those on earth, 118;\n  those in Purgatory cannot pray for us, 117\n    _Divers forms of prayer:_\n  vocal prayer, 119-125;\n  ejaculatory prayer, 134, 135;\n  prayer in secret, 121;\n  prayer of the heart, 124;\n  thanksgiving as a part of prayer, 149;\n  postulations as a part of prayer, 146-148\n    _The Lord's Prayer:_\n  we say not \"my Father,\" but \"our Father,\" 96;\n  the seven petitions of the Lord's Prayer, 102-111;\n  the Lord's Prayer not said without distractions, 132;\n  in what sense we are tied to the Lord's Prayer as a formula, 136, 137\n    _The Church's prayers:_\n  in general, 76, 147, 158;\n  public and private prayers, 119, 121, 122, 135;\n  how the prayer \"of many\" avails, 98;\n  the prayer of the Consecration at Mass, 149, 150\n\nPrelates and Contemplative Life, 236\n\nProsper, St., the _Book of Sentences Gleaned from St. Augustine_, 140\n\nPrudence: its relation to the other Moral Virtues, 224;\n  it is requisite for the Active Life, 223-226\n\nPurity of soul, 252\n\nPurgatory: why the suffrages of the Church do not empty it at once, 167,\n    168;\n  the souls in Purgatory do not know our needs, 83;\n  neither do they pray for us, 83, 116, 118;\n  Brother Romanus passed sixteen days in Purgatory, 12\n\nRabanus Maurus: his Gloss, 25;\n  on Prayer, 69\n\nRachel, a type of the Contemplative Life, 163, 174, 180, 184, 234, 242\n\nReading necessary for prayer, 190\n\nReason: its function, 206;\n  the higher and the lower, 249;\n  the speculative and the practical, 68\n\nReligion: the virtue of, 27-50;\n  that it is a virtue, 34;\n  definition of, 27-31, 39, 49;\n  its principle is charity, 56;\n  it is one virtue, 35;\n  and a Moral Virtue, 40;\n  and a special virtue, 37-39;\n  not a Theological Virtue, 39;\n  the _via media_ in, 41;\n  the harmony of, 42;\n  is superior to the other Moral Virtues, 42;\n  is not for God's profit, but for ours, 43;\n  demands external acts, 44;\n  how far it is identified with sanctity, 47-50\n\nReligious Orders, the Active and Contemplative compared, 253-257\n\nReligious people, 31, 50, 61;\n  they are not always Saints, 50\n\nReposeful characters, 252\n\nRomanus, Brother, appears to St. Thomas, 12\n\n\nSacrifice, the real nature of, 38, 46, 244\n\nSaints, the: what it is to be a Saint, 50;\n  they are not gloomy, 64, 65;\n  their knowledge of our needs, 82, 152-157;\n  their prayers for us, 115-118;\n  they feel no grief for us on earth, 155;\n  their wills are perfectly conformed to that of God, 116, 156, 163,\n    165, 167;\n  the Communion of Saints, 158, 164;\n  we ought to pray to them, 157-161;\n  of devotion to the Saints, 57;\n  to the lesser Saints, 117, 160;\n  they are co-workers with God, 154;\n  in what sense their prayers are always heard, 158, 162-168;\n  their merits, 163, 166;\n  how they pray for us, 163, 167\n\n\"Saint of Saints, The,\" 160\n\nScripture, prayer for knowledge of Holy, 88\n\nSeneca: on petitions, 74;\n  on idolatry, 46\n\nSentences, the Book of, 6, 25\n\nSinners, prayer for: 97;\n  the prayers of sinners, 143-146\n\nSins of conversation, 110\n\nSocrates on prayer, 84\n\nSolicitude, how far it is forbidden, 90\n\nSorrow, as an effect of devotion, 62, 64\n\nSpeculation, 189\n\nSpirit, the Holy, how He helps us to pray, 85\n\n\"Spirit and truth,\" prayer in, 126, 127\n\nSpiritualism, 3\n\nStability implied in the notion of sanctity, 49\n\nStrabo, Walafrid, his Gloss, 24\n\nStrictness of life not an end in itself, 257\n\n\"Sufficiency of life,\" prayer for, 89\n\nSuffrages for the Dead, 167, 168\n\n_Summa Theologica_: the broad divisions of, 19, 20;\n  the method employed in, 21, 22;\n  the _Tertia Pars_, 13\n\nSuperiors and Contemplation, 238\n\nSupererogation, works of, 44\n\nSuperstition, 42\n\nSupersubstantial Bread, 103\n\nSupplications as a part of prayer, 146\n\nSwearing, Origen on, 148\n\n\nTeaching: in what it consists, 227, 228;\n  due to Contemplation, 227;\n  how far it belongs to the Active Life, 226-229;\n  the beauty of the teaching life, 227;\n  how the Angels teach, 231\n\nTemperance: a necessity for the Contemplative Life, 184, 185;\n  how far it is identical with sanctity, 50\n\nTemporal things: the part they play in our life, 89;\n  they are \"stepping-stones\" to Heaven, 91;\n  how far they may be asked for, 89-95\n\nThanksgivings as part of prayer, 147\n\nTheological Virtues, the, 39-41, 191, 192\n\n_Theosebeia_, 31\n\nThomas Aquinas, St.: born at Rocca Secca, 4;\n  his early occupation with Divine things, 5;\n  goes to Monte Cassino, 4;\n  to Naples University, 5;\n  receives the habit of the Friars Preachers, 5;\n  is sent to Santa Sabina, 5;\n  is imprisoned, and studies the Bible, the _Sentences_, and the\n    Philosophy of Aristotle, 6;\n  is created Bachelor in Theology, 6;\n  the novelty of his teaching, 7, 8;\n  created Master in Theology, 7;\n  says he would prefer to possess St. Chrysostom's Commentaries on the\n    Gospel according to St. Matthew to the possession of the city of\n    Paris, 10;\n  hears from Our Lord's lips, _Bene scripsisti de Me, Thoma_, 10;\n  his three petitions, 8;\n  his prayer before study, 8-11;\n  is visited by St. Peter and St. Paul, who explain to him a passage of\n    Isaias, 11;\n  Brother Romanus appears to him, 12;\n  his approaching end is revealed to him, 12, 13;\n  the Crucifix speaks to him, 13;\n  he ceases to write, 14;\n  his emotion on hearing the words, _Ne projicias nos_, sung, 14;\n  is summoned to the Council of Lyons, 14;\n  his faith in the Holy Eucharist, 9, 15;\n  his dying words, 15;\n  his rhythm, _Adoro Te Devote_, 112;\n  the method of his teaching, 19;\n  his teaching is regarded as miraculous, 23;\n  his use of the works of the Fathers, 16, 18, 23;\n  his teaching and that of St. Augustine, 16-18;\n  his self-effacement, 23\n\nTocco, William of, biographer of St. Thomas, 5 _note_, 6, 8, 9, 11, 15\n\nToothache: St. Thomas's deliverance from it, 93;\n  St. Augustine's deliverance from it, 93\n\nTrinity, the Holy: how to pray to, 81;\n  the _Collect_ for Trinity Sunday, 147\n\n\nUnion with God, 3, 197, 198.\n_Cf. s.v._ God\n\n\nValgornera, _Theologia Mystica_, 1\n\n_Via media_ in religion, 41\n\nVigilantius's errors regarding prayer, 117, 162\n\nVirginity, 50\n\nVirgins, the five wise and the five foolish, 247\n\nVirtue: definition of, 34;\n  its praiseworthy character, 43;\n  it lies in the will, 43\n\n\nWalafrid Strabo, his Gloss, 24\n\nWill: the object of the, 57;\n  its functions, 52, 70;\n  the part it plays in the Contemplative Life, 179-181\n\nWomen, the natural devotion of, 59\n\nWorship: in what it consists, 41\n\n\nZeal for souls, 243, 244\n\n\n\n\nINDEX OF TEXTS QUOTED OR EXPLAINED\n\n\nGenesis.\nxxix. 17; 184\nxxxii. 30-32; 200, 214\n\nExodus.\niii. 6; 117\niii. 14; 176\nxiii. 6; 117\nxix. 21; 136, 237\nxx. 1-17; 42\nxxxv. 20, 21; 52\n\n1 Kings.\ni. 18; 120\nxv. 19; 73\n\n2 Kings.\nvii. 18; 150\n\n3 Kings.\nxviii. 42; 150\n\n4 Kings.\nxxii. 50; 155\n\n2 Paralipomenon.\nxxix. 31; 52\n\nJob.\nv. 1; 80, 157\nxiv. 21; 152\nxvi. 20-23; 210\nxxxi. 14; 226\nxxxi. 23; 236\n\nPsalms.\nv. 5; 177\nvi. 7; 151\nvi. 11; 99\nx. 17; 69\nxv. 2; 43\nxv. 5; 32\nxv. 5, 6; 172\nxv. 9; 120\nxv. 11; 177\nxvi. 6-9; 252\nxxiv. 6-11; 177\nxxvi. 4; 70, 136, 197\nxxvi. 5; 240\nxxvi. 8; 120\nxxxii. 20, 21; 137\nxxxiii. 9; 211, 216\nxxxiv. 13; 97, 137\nxxxv. 7; 235\nxxxvi. 23-25; 146\nxxxvii. 10; 91\nxxxviii. 4; 57\nxxxviii. 13; 68, 143\nxxxix. 13; 120\nxli. 3; 63\nxli. 1-6; 182\nxlv. 11; 235, 246\nxlvii. 9; 13\nxlvii. 9, 10, 15; 238\nxlix. 13; 46\nl. 19; 64\nliv. 1-7; 150\nliv. 23; 95\nlvii. 11; 100\nlviii. 7; 43\nlxv. 8-12; 232\nlxvi.; 84\nlxx. 17, 18; 76\nlxx. 20; 14\nlxxii. 21-28; 192\nlxxii. 28; 58\nlxxv. 4, 5; 129\nlxxvi. 1; 32\nlxxvi. 4; 62\nlxxix. 4; 85\nlxxxiii. 3; 44\nlxxxiii. 12; 81\nlxxxv. 1-5; 125\nxciv. 3; 46\nxcvi. 7; 113\ncii. 1-15; 249\nciii. 33, 34; 80\ncxviii. 35; 85\ncxviii. 145; 124\ncxx. 1, 2; 58\ncxx. 4; 80\ncxxxviii. 14; 194\ncxl. 2; 76\ncxli. 1; 119\ncxlii. 4-7; 132\ncxlii. 5, 6; 194\ncxliii. 15; 191\ncxliv. 13; 104\ncxlv. 1; 130\ncxlvi. 9; 114\n\nProverbs.\nxxviii. 8; 144\nxxx. 8; 89\n\nEcclesiastes.\nvii. 14; 97\n\nWisdom.\nvii. 7; 190\nviii. 2; 185\nviii. 16; 171, 204, 210\nix. 15; 132, 213\nxv. 1-3; 244\n\nEcclesiasticus.\nxxviii. 2; 146\nxxx. 24; 244\nxxxvi. 1-3; 102\nxxxvi. 16-19; 114\nxli. 1-6; 223\nxliii. 33; 41\n\nIsaias.\nxii. 1-6; 219\nxxv. 8, 9; 198\nxxvi. 3,4,8,9; 201\nxxxii. 17; 184\nxxxiii. 13-17; 181\nxlvi. 10; 104\nlviii. 5; 256\nlxiii. 15, 16; 88, 154\nlxiv. 8, 9; 71\nlxv. 24; 70\n\nJeremias.\nvii. 16; 97\nxiv. 8,9; 186\nxv. 1; 96, 164\nxxxi. 34; 231\n\nLamentations.\niii. 19; 63\n\nDaniel.\nix. 14; 160\nix. 18, 19; 147\nx. 12, 13; 165\n\nOsee.\nxiv. 3; 120\n\nHabacuc.\nii. 4; 190\n\nMalachi.\ni. 6; 36\niii. 14; 72\n\n2 Maccabees\nxv. 14; 115, 162\n\nSt. Matthew.\nv. 8; 184\nv. 44; 99\nvi. 6; 121\nvi. 7; 135\nvi. 8; 80\nvi. 9; 136\nvi. 9-13; 84\nvi. 25; 90\nvi. 32; 73\nvi. 33; 90\nvii. 7; 78\nxviii. 10; 157, 231\nxxii. 30; 165\nxxv. 3, 4; 247\n\nSt. Luke.\ni. 49; 104\ni. 74, 75; 47\nvi. 12; 135\nvi. 13; 139\nix. 55; 57\nx. 39; 190\nx. 40; 241\nx. 41; 234, 248\nx. 42; 216, 233, 248, 253\nx. 43; 235\nxi. 2-4; 84, 106\nxv. 13-16; 61\nxviii. 1; 71, 133, 137\nxxii. 43; 135\n\nSt. John.\niv. 24; 45, 85, 126\nv. 16; 95\nix. 31; 144\nxi. 3; 146\nxiv. 8; 177\nxiv. 16; 113\nxvi. 23; 96\nxvii. 1-5; 111, 177\nxvii. 24; 98\nxix. 1-5; 56\nxxi. 22; 243\n\nActs.\nvii. 59; 151\nxv. 9; 177\nxx. 36; 151\n\nRomans.\ni. 20; 45, 193\nvii. 24; 213\nviii. 26; 85, 113, 198\nviii. 31; 32\nviii. 38, 39; 48\nix. 3; 241\nxiii. 10; 183\nxv. 4; 99\nxv. 30; 98, 158\n\n1 Corinthians.\ni. 11; 98\niii. 8; 242\niv. 5; 177\nvi. 9, 10; 104\nix. 16; 44\nx. 31; 134\nxii. 31; 237\nxiii. 8; 217\nxiii. 12; 176, 213\nxiv. 14; 126\nxiv. 15; 82\n\n2 Corinthians.\niii. 18; 189\niv. 18; 90\nv. 6; 131\nv. 6, 7; 190\nv. 15; 239\nx. 31; 38\nxii. 7-9; 139\n\nGalatians.\niv. 14; 32\nv. 13; 30\n\nEphesians.\ni. 4; 76\niv. 5, 6; 35\n\nPhilippians.\niii. 20; 65\niv. 7; 198\n\nColossians.\niii. 3, 4; 176\n\n1 Thessalonians.\nv. 17; 91, 133, 137\n\n1 Timothy.\ni. 5; 191\nii. 1; 146, 147\nii. 4; 86\n\n2 Timothy.\niii. 5; 144\n\nHebrews.\niii., iv., v.; 92\nvii. 25; 115\nx. 20; 248\nxii. 4; 256\nxii. 14; 48, 184\n\nSt. James.\ni. 6; 141\ni. 27; 28\niv. 3; 85\nv. 16; 95\n\n1 St. John.\niii. 2; 176, 197, 231\niv. 19; 107\nv. 16; 97\n\nApocalypse.\nvi. 10; 100, 164\nvi. 11; 164\nviii. 4; 81\nxv. 1; 164\nxxii. 17; 244\n\n\nTHE END\n\n_Printed in England_","title":"On prayer and the contemplative life","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":73720}