The Project Gutenberg EBook of On Prayer and The Contemplative Life, by 
St. Thomas Aquinas

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
almost no restrictions whatsoever.  You may copy it, give it away or
re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org


Title: On Prayer and The Contemplative Life

Author: St. Thomas Aquinas

Translator: Hugh Pope

Release Date: August 10, 2007 [EBook #22295]

Language: English

Character set encoding: ISO-8859-1

*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK ON PRAYER ***




Produced by Charlene Taylor, Ted Garvin, David King, and
the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at
http://www.pgdp.net





ON PRAYER AND THE CONTEMPLATIVE LIFE

BY

S. THOMAS AQUINAS

BY THE

VERY REV. HUGH POPE, O.P., S.T.M.

AUTHOR OF "THE CATHOLIC STUDENT'S 'AIDS' TO THE BIBLE," ETC.

WITH A PREFACE BY

VERY REV. VINCENT McNABB, O.P., S.T.L.

R. & T. WASHBOURNE, LTD.
PATERNOSTER ROW, LONDON
AND AT MANCHESTER, BIRMINGHAM, AND GLASGOW

1914 _All rights reserved_


Nihil Obstat.
  J.P. ARENDZEN, D.D.,
    Censor Deputatus.

Imprimatur.
  EDM. CAN. SURMONT,
    Vicarius Generalis.

Westmonasterii,
    _Die 20 Septembris, 1913._


  "Te Trina Deitas unaque poscimus
  Sic nos Tu visita, sicut Te colimus:
  Per Tuas semitas duc nos quo tendimus,
  Ad lucem, quam inhabitas!"

  S. Thomas's Hymn for Matins on the
  _Feast of Corpus Christi_.




PREFACE


The present generation in the fervour of its repentance is like to cast
off too much. So many false principles and hasty deductions have been
offered to its parents and grandparents in the name of science that it
is becoming unduly suspicious of the scientific method.

A century ago men's minds were sick unto death from too much science and
too little mysticism. To-day the danger is that even the drawing-rooms
are scented with a mysticism that anathematizes science.

At no time since the days of S. Thomas was the saint's scientific method
more lacking. Everywhere there is need for a mystic doctrine, which in
itself is neither hypnotism nor hysteria, and in its expression is
neither superlative nor apostrophic, lest the hungered minds of men die
of surfeit following on starvation.

The message and method of S. Thomas are part of that strange rigidity of
the thirteenth century which is one of the startling paradoxes of the
ages of faith. It is surely a consolation that these ages of a faith
which moved mountains, or at least essayed to remove the Turk, were
minded to express their beliefs in the coat of mail of human reason! The
giants of those days, who in the sphere of literature were rediscovering
verse and inventing rhyme, and who in every sphere of knowledge were
bringing forth the sixteenth and nineteenth centuries, were not so
blinded by the white light of vision as to disown the Greeks. They made
the _Ethics_ of Aristotle the four-square walls of the city of God; they
expressed the mysteries of the Undivided Three in terms of the
Syllogism. Thus they refused to cut themselves off from the aristocracy
of human genius. They laid hands--but not violent hands--on the heritage
of the ages. No philosophers have ever equalled their bold and
lowly-minded profession of faith in the solidarity of human reason. For
this cause S. Thomas, who is their spokesman, has now become an absolute
necessity of thought. Unless the great Dumb Ox is given a hearing, our
mysticism will fill, not the churches, but the asylums and the little
self-authorized Bethels where every man is his own precursor and
messiah.

That S. Thomas is to be accepted as a master of mysticism may be judged
from the following facts in the life of a mystic of the mystics, S. John
of the Cross:

"It has been recorded that during his studies he particularly relished
psychology; this is amply borne out by his writings. S. John was not
what one could term a scholar. He was, however, intimately acquainted
with the _Summa_ of S. Thomas Aquinas, as almost every page of his works
proves.... He does not seem to have ever applied himself to the study of
the Fathers.... As has already been stated, the whole work (_The Ascent
of Mount Carmel_) is based upon the view S. Thomas Aquinas takes of the
essence and operations of the senses and of the faculties of the soul,
and upon his treatise on the virtues."[1]

S. Thomas hardly needs an imprimatur after six centuries of full trust.
But in the hard matters of mysticism, which he has treated as a scholar
should, it is reassuring to know that he has the approval, not only of
the scholars, but of the mystics.

VINCENT McNABB, O.P.




CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION

QUESTION LXXXI
OF THE VIRTUE OF RELIGION

QUESTION LXXXII
OF DEVOTION

QUESTION LXXXIII
OF PRAYER

SUPPLEMENT--QUESTION LXXII
OF THE PRAYERS OF THE SAINTS WHO ARE IN HEAVEN

QUESTION CLXXIX
OF THE DIVISION OF LIFE INTO THE ACTIVE AND THE CONTEMPLATIVE

QUESTION CLXXX
OF THE CONTEMPLATIVE LIFE

QUESTION CLXXXI
OF THE ACTIVE LIFE

QUESTION CLXXXII
OF THE COMPARISON BETWEEN THE ACTIVE AND THE CONTEMPLATIVE LIFE

QUESTION CLXXXVI
ON THE RELIGIOUS STATE

INDEX

INDEX OF TEXTS QUOTED OR EXPLAINED




INTRODUCTION


The pages which follow call for little introduction. S. Thomas has left
us no formal treatise on Mystical Theology, though his teachings on this
subject have been collected from his various works and combined to form
such a treatise. Especially noteworthy is the work of the Spanish
Dominican Valgornera.[2] No such synthesis has been attempted here. We
have simply taken from the _Summa Theologica_ the treatises on
_Religion_, on _Devotion_, _Prayer_, and the _Contemplative Life_, and
presented them in an English dress. When occasion offered we have added
to each portion appropriate passages from S. Augustine, S. Thomas's
master, and more rarely from the _Commentary_ on the _Summa_ by the
illustrious Cardinal Cajetan.

And we have been led to do this for several reasons. The Mystical life
is the life of union with God, and it is based essentially on Prayer and
Contemplation. But prayer and contemplation, though simple in
themselves, are yet fraught with difficulties and dangers unless we be
wisely guided. And as Father Faber shrewdly says: when we ask for
instruction in these things, let us by all means make appeal to those
whose names begin with S--let us, in other words, go to God's Saints.
And the reason is simple: these Saints are no mere idle sign-posts who
point the way but stand still themselves; they themselves have been
where they would have us go; they speak from no mere theoretical
knowledge; they themselves have tasted and seen that the Lord is sweet!

Further, it would have been easy to cull from S. Thomas's writings the
salient points of his teaching on these points, and to have presented
them in an attractive form. But had we done so the teachings of the
Saint would have lost much of their force, and readers might well have
doubted at times whether they really had before them the mind of S.
Thomas or that of the translator. It is preferable to read the Bible
than what men have said about the Bible. Unfortunately, it is the
fashion nowadays to consider S. Thomas's writings "out of date"! If the
perusal of these pages shall have induced some few at least to go to the
original and study it for themselves they will have more than fulfilled
the translator's desires.

Another reason which has weighed much with the translator and encouraged
him to undertake this task has been the suddenly awakened interest in
Mysticism and Mystical studies during the last decade. It has become the
fashion to talk about Mysticism, even to pose as Mystics, and--need it
be said?--those who talk the most on such subjects are those who know
the least. For those who have entered into the secret of the King are
ever the most reticent on such matters. At the same time we may welcome
this recent development, if only as a set-off against the Spiritualism
and occultism which have played such havoc with souls during a space of
over fifty years. The human soul, "naturally Christian," as Tertullian
would say, is also naturally Divine in the sense that, as S. Augustine
so often insists, no rest is possible for it save in God. Now those who
are familiar with the _Summa Theologica_ are aware that _Union with God_
is its keynote, or rather is the dominant note which rings out clear
again and again with its ever-repeated _Sursum Corda_! It is this that
gives such special value to the treatises here presented on Prayer and
the Contemplative Life. They flow from the pen of one who was literally
steeped in God and Divine things, and who is speaking to us of things
which he had himself tasted and seen. It is this that gives such
simplicity and charm to the whole of his teaching. He is not
experimenting; he is not speaking of theories; he is portraying to us
what was his everyday life.

Perhaps one of the commonest errors regarding the Spiritual life is the
confusion between the ordinary and the extraordinary ways of God. For
how many does not the Contemplative Life mean the life of ecstasy and
vision with which we are familiar in the lives of the Saints? For S.
Thomas, on the contrary, the Contemplative Life is but the natural life
of a man who is serving God and who devotes a certain portion of his
time to the study and contemplation of Divine things. Ecstasy and vision
he treats of in another place. They occupy a sphere apart. They belong
to God's extraordinary dealings with favoured souls, and while they
presuppose prayer and contemplation on the part of those so visited they
themselves form no integral part of the Contemplative Life; indeed, they
are the exception. Hence in these pages we shall find nought touching
Supernatural manifestations, such as visions, ecstasies, and
revelations; but we shall find what is of far greater use to us--a
Catechism on Devotion, Prayer, and Contemplation.

       *       *       *       *       *

The main features of the Life of S. Thomas of Aquin are known to most of
those who are likely to read this book. His life at first sight seems of
such an even tenor that there is but little to record. Yet when we
penetrate beneath the surface we realize that he lived in stirring days,
and that his short span of fifty years was passed in the full light of
the world of the thirteenth century. Thomas was born in the beginning of
the year 1225 in the castle of Rocca-Secca, the ancestral home of the
Counts of Aquino, in the kingdom of Sicily. His future glory was
foretold to his mother, the Countess Theodora, by a hermit of that
neighbourhood who also foretold that his parents would endeavour to make
him a monk in the Benedictine Abbey of Monte Cassino, but that God had
other designs for him, since he was to be a Friar Preacher, a member of
the Order of the great S. Dominic who had just gone to his reward. The
prophecy was fulfilled to the letter. At the early age of five years he
was sent to the Abbey to be educated among the young nobles of the day,
as was then the custom. Even thus early he showed a remarkable maturity
of character, and his biographer, William of Tocco, dwells with delight
on the calm reserve of his childish days and on that eager seeking after
God which was to be his future glory.[3]

From Monte Cassino Thomas passed to Naples to complete his studies. Here
he became conscious of his vocation, and offered himself to the
Dominicans. The Prior of the convent at Naples at that time was Father
John of S. Julian, who later became Patriarch of Jerusalem[4]; he gave
the habit of the Order to Thomas, who was then but fourteen years of
age. His parents were indignant at this step, and did all in their power
to shake his determination. Fearing their recourse to the violent
methods then so common, the Dominicans sent Thomas to the convent of
Santa Sabina at Rome. But S. Thomas's brothers, at their mother's
bidding, seized upon the young man and carried him off in his religious
habit to his mother who kept him imprisoned for nearly two years.[5]
During this time of anxiety nothing disturbed the Saint's equanimity,
and he made good use of his time by studying the Bible, the _Book of the
Sentences_--the Theological Manual of those days--and also Aristotle's
philosophical treatises. It was at this time that the diabolical attempt
upon his virtue was made--an attempt which the Saint resisted
effectually; in reward for his constancy he was miraculously girded with
a cincture by two Angels from Heaven.[6] Failing in their attempt to
shake his determination, his brothers permitted him to escape, and he
returned to the convent at Naples in 1245. Thence he was sent by his
superiors to Rome, and shortly afterwards to Paris and Cologne to study
under Blessed Albert the Great. At Cologne he led the life of a simple
student, a life of recollection, prayer, and study. But his
extraordinary talents could not long remain hid. The post of Bachelor in
the famous House of Studies at Paris was vacant, and at the suggestion
of Cardinal Hugo à S. Caro, himself a Dominican, S. Thomas was appointed
by the Master-General of the Order to the vacant post. This was a blow
to the Saint's humility, but he accepted it under obedience. The
impression made by his teaching was extraordinary, and the words of
William of Tocco on this point are worth transcribing: "Erat enim novos
in sua lectione movens articulos, novum modum et clarum determinandi
inveniens, et novas reducens in determinationibus rationes: ut nemo qui
ipsum audisset nova docere, et novis rationibus dubia definire
dubitaret, quod eum Deus novi luminis radiis illustrasset, qui statim
tam certi c[oe]pisset esse judicii, ut non dubitaret novas opiniones
docere et scribere, quas Deus dignatus esset noviter inspirare." This
novelty in method was evidently remarkable, but, while provoking the
attacks of some, it attracted an immense crowd to his lectures, and this
not simply by reason of the novelty which characterized them, but by
reason of the supereminent sanctity of the teacher. "Dilectus Deo!"
cries out his biographer. "Qui scientiam tribuit; et acceptus hominibus,
quibus quasi novis radiis veritatis illuxit."[7]

In 1253 or 1254 Thomas was, again much against his will, created Master
in Sacred Theology, and the remaining twenty years of his life were
wholly devoted to teaching, studying, and preaching, whether at Paris or
at Naples. Dignities and honours were frequently offered him, but he
succeeded in avoiding them all. He felt that his vocation was to study
and teach. And since his teaching was to be of things Divine, he felt
that he must needs be absorbed in such things, and that his life must be
wholly spent with God. This feature of his life is insisted on by his
biographers: "Men ever saw him of joyful mien, gentle and sweet, not
occupying himself with worldly affairs, but ever given to study, to
reading, to writing, and to prayer for the enlightening of the
faithful."[8] Thus we are told that when Brother Reginald, who had been
Blessed Thomas's companion, returned from Fossa Nuova to Naples after
the Master's death to resume the lectures he had been giving there, he
burst into tears as he stood before the Brethren, and said: "Brothers, I
was forbidden by my Master to reveal during his life the marvels I had
seen. One of those marvels was that his knowledge, which so wondrously
surpassed that of other men, was not due to any human skill, but to the
merits of his prayers. For whenever he would study, or dispute, or read,
or write, or dictate, he would first betake himself to prayer in secret,
and there with many tears would implore light wherewith to search
rightly into the secret things of God. And by the merits of such prayer
it came to pass that, whereas previous to his prayer he had been in
doubt about the subject of his study, he always returned from it
illumined. And when any doubtful point occurred to him before he had had
recourse to prayer, he went to pray, and what had previously been
obscure was then Divinely made clear to him."[9]

Truly characteristic of our Saint are those three petitions he was wont
to make: that he might never learn to love things of earth; that he
might never change his state of life; that God would reveal to him the
state of his brother Reginald, who had been put to death, unjustly, as
Thomas thought, by the Emperor Frederic. All three petitions were
granted, two of them, as he himself told Brother Reginald on his
deathbed, by the Blessed Virgin herself. "She appeared to him," says
William of Tocco, "and assured him regarding his life and his knowledge,
promised him, too, that God would grant him whatsoever he should ask
through her intercession, and told him, moreover, that he would never
change his state of life."[10]

The following story is well known, but is too illustrative of the
Saint's character to be omitted: A dispute had arisen in the University
of Paris regarding the Accidents of the Holy Eucharist, and the Doctors
of the University decided to leave the decision with S. Thomas. The
responsibility was great, but the Saint according to his custom betook
himself to prayer and then wrote his answer to the difficulty. "But
since he would not dare," says William of Tocco, "to expound his opinion
in the Schools before the Masters of the University without first
consulting Him of Whom he was treating and to Whom he had prayed that he
might teach correctly, he came to the altar and there spread out the
pages he had written before Him; then, lifting up his hands to the
Crucifix, he prayed and said: 'O Lord Jesus Christ, Who art most truly
contained in this wondrous Sacrament and Who as Supreme Artificer ever
wondrously workest, I seek to understand Thee in this Sacrament and to
teach truly concerning Thee. Wherefore I humbly pray Thee that if what I
have written spring from Thee, and be true concerning Thee, then Thou
wouldest enable me to declare it and clearly expound it. But if I have
written ought which is not in harmony with Thy Faith and which accords
not with the Mysteries of this Sacrament, then I pray Thee that nought
may proceed from my mouth which deviates from the Catholic Faith.' Then
those who watched saw on a sudden Christ standing before the Saint and
on the paper he had written, and they heard Him say: 'Well hast thou
written of Me in this Sacrament of My Body, and well and truly hast thou
answered the question put to thee, as far, that is, as it can be
understood by man in this life, or expressed in human words.'"[11]

And it was ever the same throughout his life: in God he sought God.
Hence his incessant meditation on the Holy Scriptures; hence his
diligent study of the writings of the Fathers of the Church. "Master,"
said a band of his students to him as they looked on Paris spread before
them--"Master, see what a lovely city Paris is! Would you not like to be
its owner?" And with a Saint's simplicity he replied: "Far rather would
I have the Homilies of Chrysostom on S. Matthew! For if this city were
mine then the task of governing it would take me away from the
contemplation of things Divine and deprive my soul of its
consolations!"[12]

And his companion Reginald has told us how he studied to know the things
of God. For he tells us that when the Saint was occupied with his
Commentary on Isaias and could not arrive at any satisfactory
explanation of a certain passage he gave himself up to fasting and
prayer. Then one night Reginald heard voices in the Saint's cell, and
whilst he wondered what this might mean at that hour, S. Thomas came to
him and said: "Reginald, get up, light a candle, and take the book in
which you have been writing upon Isaias and make ready to write once
more." Then Reginald wrote whilst the Saint dictated as though he were
reading out of a book, with such facility did he speak. And then, at
Reginald's insistent petition, he said to him: "My son, you have seen
the affliction under which I have been of late owing to this passage of
Isaias which I have just been expounding, and you know how I besought
God with tears that I might understand it. God, then, this very night
had pity upon me, and sent His Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul whom I
had prayed to intercede for me, and they have most fully explained it
all!"[13] How gladly would one know what passage of Isaias it was which
was thus Divinely interpreted!

And so this truly marvellous life went on till the end drew near. Day by
day he ascended the steps of the altar, his face bathed in tears; day by
day he returned to his work more and more illumined regarding the
_Mysterium Fidei_, and with his soul still more closely knit to its
Maker. His ecstasies became more frequent, and in one of these he was
told that the close of his life was at hand. For it was at San Severino,
not far from Salerno, that he fell into so prolonged an ecstasy that his
sister who was present appealed to Reginald to know what had happened to
her brother. Even Reginald was astonished. "He is frequently rapt in
spirit," he said, "but never before have I seen him thus abstracted!"
"Then," says William of Tocco, "Master Reginald went to him, and,
plucking him by the cloak, roused him from this deep sleep of
contemplation. But he sighed and said: 'My son Reginald, I tell thee in
secret, and I forbid thee to reveal it to anyone during my life, the
close of my writing has come; for such things have been revealed to me
that all I have written and taught seems to me of small account. Hence I
hope in my God that as there is an end to my writing, so too will
speedily come the end of my life.'"[14]

And S. Thomas was ready for the end, for not long previously, when he
was in the convent at Naples and was praying in the Church, there
appeared to him Brother Romanus, whom he had left teaching at Paris.
Brother Thomas said to him: "Welcome! Whence dost thou come?" But
Romanus said to him: "I have passed from this life, and I am allowed to
come to thee by reason of thy merits." Then Brother Thomas, summoning up
his courage, for he had been much disturbed by the sudden apparition,
said to him: "If it be pleasing to God, I adjure you by God to answer my
questions. First: How does it stand with me? and are my works pleasing
to God?" And the other answered: "Thou art in a good state, and thy
works are pleasing to God." Then the Master continued: "And what of
thyself?" And Romanus answered: "I am in Eternal Life, but I was in
Purgatory sixteen days because of some negligence of which I was guilty
in the affair of a will which the Bishop of Paris entrusted to me for
speedy execution; but I, through mine own fault, was tardy in executing
it." Lastly S. Thomas asked: "What about that question we have so often
discussed together: Do the habits we have acquired here abide with us
when we are in our Fatherland?" But the other replied: "Brother Thomas,
I see God, and you must ask me nought further on that question." But
Thomas at once said: "Since you see God, tell me whether you see Him
with or without any intermediate image?" But Romanus replied: "_As we
have heard, so we have seen in the City of our God_,"[15] and forthwith
disappeared. But the Master remained astonished at that marvellous and
unwonted apparition, and filled with joy at his favourable replies. "O
Blessed Teacher!" ejaculates William of Tocco, who has left us this
account, "to whom Heaven's secrets were thus familiar, to whom Heaven's
citizens came with such sweet familiarity to lead him to those heavenly
shores!"[16]

Nor was this the only warning. For just as in earlier years at Paris he
had received Divine commendation for his writings, so now again at
Naples. For Brother Dominic of Caserta tells us that at Naples he
watched S. Thomas praying at night. He saw him, he says, absorbed in
prayer, and then lifted up into the air about the height of two cubits
from the ground. And whilst for a long space he marvelled at this, he
suddenly heard this voice from the Crucifix: "Thomas, well hast thou
written of Me! What reward wilt thou have from Me for all thy labour?"
But he replied: "Lord, none save Thyself!" At that time the Saint was
engaged upon the _Third Part_ of the _Summa_, and was treating of the
Passion and Resurrection of Christ. But after arriving at that point he
wrote but little more by reason of the marvels that God had wondrously
revealed to him.[17]

Since his soul, then, was thus united to God it is small wonder the
Brethren saw him rapt in ecstasy and with his face bathed in tears as he
stood in choir and sang the _Antiphon_ wont to be sung according to the
Dominican Office for Compline during Lent: "_Ne projicias nos in tempore
senectutis: cum defecerit virtus nostra, ne derelinquas nos
Domine_."[18]

In the year 1274 the Saint was summoned by Pope Gregory X. to the
Council about to be held at Lyons. He set out, taking with him his
_Treatise against the Errors of the Greek Schismatics_, for the great
question which the Pope had at heart was the settlement of the Schism
between the East and the West. But the Council was never to see Thomas,
for he fell ill when traversing the Campagna, and though he was able to
reach the Cistercian Abbey of Fossa Nuova he reached it only to die.
"_This is my rest for ever and ever_," he said as he entered the gates.
"_Here will I dwell, for I have chosen it._" And here, as he lay dying,
he expounded to the monks who stood round that most sublime of all the
Books of the Bible, the _Canticle of Canticles_: "_Behold, my Beloved
speaketh to me: Arise, make haste, my love, my dove, my beautiful one,
and come.... I sleep, and my heart watcheth; the voice of my Beloved Who
is knocking!... My Beloved to me and I to Him Who feedeth among the
lilies: till the Day break and the shadows retire!_"

As the time of his summons drew on he asked for the Holy Viaticum. And,
in the words of William of Tocco, "when It was brought with devout
reverence by the Abbot and the monks, he prostrated himself on the
ground, weak indeed in body but mighty in spirit, and so came to meet
his Lord with tears."

And when the priest asked him--as it is the custom to ask all Christians
at death touching their faith in this mighty Sacrament--whether he
believed that That Consecrated Host was the True Son of God, Who came
forth from the Virgin's womb, Who hung upon the tree of the Cross, Who
died for us and rose again on the third day:--with clear voice, with
full attention, and with tears, he replied: "If fuller knowledge than
that of faith could be had in this life touching this Sacrament, in that
knowledge I reply that I believe it to be true, and that I know for
certain that This is True God and Man, the Son of God the Father and of
the Virgin Mother: so I believe in my heart and so I confess in word."
After some other devout expressions he received the Sacred Host, and
then said: "I receive Thee, the Price of my soul's redemption, for love
of Whom I have studied, watched, and toiled; Thee have I preached and
taught; nought contrary to Thee have I ever said, neither do I
obstinately hold to any opinion of mine own. If, however, I have said
ought wrongly concerning this Sacrament, I submit it all to the
correction of the Holy Roman Church in Whose obedience I now pass from
this life!" "O Blessed Teacher! who ran so swiftly in the race, who
fought so manfully in the strife, who could so well say with the
Apostle: '_I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have
kept the faith; as for the rest there is laid up for me a crown of
justice_'; and such indeed had he truly won by his study of inspired
doctrine."[19]

  O Sancte Thoma!
  Scholarum Patrone,
  Fidem invictam,
  Charitatem fervidam,
  Vitam castissimam,
  Scientiam veram,
  A Deo nobis obtine.
  Per Christum Dominum nostrum. Amen.

       *       *       *       *       *

No one who is at all familiar with the writings of S. Thomas can be
surprised to find many extracts from S. Augustine in the following
pages. For Augustine and Thomas are one. Their respective styles are
different, but their thoughts and teachings are the same on the great
essential points of theological teaching. Cardinal Aguirre has well
said: "Owing to the clearness and acuteness of his angelic mind S.
Thomas sheds a flood of light on many most obscure matters, and brings
out very clearly even the most profound teachings contained in the works
of the Fathers, especially in those of S. Augustine. I speak simply from
my own experience, but I am certain that many another has felt the same:
in controverted matters, if we look merely at the text of S. Augustine,
we are brought face to face with a flood of difficulties which seem
well-nigh insoluble; but the difficulty disappears and the solution
becomes clear the moment we set to work to find out what was S. Thomas's
teaching on the question; for he is the surest and the easiest
interpreter of S. Augustine."[20]

And indeed Augustine is a deep well! "_Man shall come to a deep heart!_"
he was fond of saying, and those words of the Psalmist might stand for a
motto at the head of his works. Traditionary art represents him with his
heart in his hand, and the sentiment is true, for "great-hearted" is the
epithet which best suits him, and those who use these pages for
meditation or spiritual reading will find that whereas S. Thomas teaches
how we ought to pray, S. Augustine makes us pray; not in vain had he
studied and taught rhetoric for so many years!

This likeness between the two great Saints forms the theme of one of the
_Responsories_ for the Office for S. Thomas in the Dominican Breviary.
It is based on a famous vision. "There appeared to me as I watched in
prayer," said Brother Albert of Brescia in his deposition, "two revered
personages clothed in wondrous splendour. One of them wore a mitre on
his head, the other was clad in the habit of the Friars Preachers. And
this latter bore on his head a golden crown; round his neck he wore two
rings, one of silver, the other of gold; and on his breast he had an
immense precious stone, which filled the church with light. His cloak,
too, was sewn with precious stones, and his tunic and his hood were of
snowy white. And the one who wore the mitre said to me: 'Brother Albert,
why art thou thus filled with wonder? Thy prayers are heard;
for--listen: I am Augustine, the Doctor of the Church, and I am sent to
thee to tell thee of the doctrine and of the glory of Brother Thomas of
Aquin who is here with me. For he is my son; he in all things has
followed my doctrine and that of the Apostles, and by his teaching he
has illumined the Church of God. This is signified by the precious
stones which you see, and especially by the one he carries on his
breast, for it signifies the upright intention which he ever had in view
in his defence of the faith and which he showed in his words. These
precious stones, then, and especially that great one, signify the many
books and works that he wrote, and they show that he is equal to me in
glory save only that in the aureola of Virginity he surpasseth me.'"[21]

Cardinal Cajetan, from whose famous Commentary on the _Summa_ we have
occasionally quoted, is unfortunately too little known. Born in 1469,
and dying in 1534, he was the contemporary of Luther and the Reformers,
and, as was to be expected, their most formidable opponent. A great
student, a man of prayer as well as a man of action, his was the
striking figure of the early portion of the sixteenth century. But his
was a bold and independent mind, and he was not afraid to advance views
which, though now commonly accepted, brought his works into a certain
disfavour. This is especially to be regretted in the case of his
Commentaries on the Bible. A thorough Greek scholar, possessing no mean
acquaintance with Hebrew, he deserves, by reason of the clearness and
precision of his thought, the title of "Prince of Commentators." Here,
however, we are concerned with the devotional rather than with the
critical aspect of his writings, and the reader will gain from some of
Cajetan's terse and pithy comments a very great deal of instruction.

In conclusion, a few words may be desirable regarding the method of S.
Thomas.

S. Thomas divides his _Summa Theologica_ into three main parts. The
_First Part_ treats of _God, the Exemplar_.[22] The _Second_, of _man
made to the image of God_;[23] the _Third_, of _God Incarnate_, of His
_Sacraments_ by which we attain to union with Him in this life, and of
_Eternal Life_ to which we attain ultimately by our resurrection. Here
we are solely concerned with the _Second part_.[24] It is subdivided
into two portions, known as the _Prima Secundæ_ and the _Secunda
Secundæ_ respectively, or as the _First_ and _Second_ portions of the
_Second part_. In the _Prima Secundæ_ the Saint treats of the
_principles of Morals_--namely, of man's ultimate end and of the habits,
acts, and principles by which he attains it. In the _Secunda Secundæ_,
after having laid in the _Prima Secundæ_ the foundations of Moral
Theology, he proceeds to treat of the _individual virtues_, firstly of
the Theological Virtues, Faith, Hope, and Charity; then of the Cardinal
Virtues, Prudence, Justice, Fortitude, and Temperance. Under each of
these heads he treats of the _Gifts_ corresponding to each Virtue, of
the _vices_ opposed to them, and of the _Precepts_ regarding them.[25]
Apropos of the Cardinal Virtue of Justice, he treats of the Moral Virtue
of _Religion_, which is comprised under Justice, since Religion may be
defined as the offering to God the worship which is His due, _Question_
LXXXI. He then treats of _Devotion_, _Question_ LXXXII., and then of
_Prayer_, _Question_ LXXXIII. These three _Questions_ we here present in
an English dress.

After these Treatises on individual virtues, he passes to the
consideration of those virtues which concern, not men as a whole, but
only _certain classes of men_.[26] And first of all he treats of those
_Gifts_ which are bestowed upon certain men not so much for their own
benefit as for the good of others--viz., of Prophecy, of Ecstasy, of the
Gift of Tongues, and of the Gift of Miracles. He then discusses the two
kinds of _operations_ or "lives"--the _active_, namely, and the
_contemplative_--which find a place in the Mystical Body of Christ,
which is the Church. These treatises in reality constitute a commentary
on 1 Cor. xii. 4-11. _Question_ CLXXIX., _On the Division of Life into
the Active and the Contemplative_, is here given; as also _Question_
CLXXX., _On the Contemplative Life_; _Question_ CLXXXI., _On the Active
Life_; _Question_ CLXXXII., _On the Comparison of the Active with the
Contemplative Life_.

S. Thomas then proceeds to treat of _various states of life_--viz., of
the state of perfection, of the Episcopal and of the Religious state.
Only one question raised in this connection concerns us here: _Whether_,
namely, _Contemplative Religious Orders are superior to Active Orders?_
(_Question_ CLXXXVIII. 6).

Each _Question_ is, as will be seen from the _Table of Contents_,
divided into _Articles_.

The framework of what is termed an "article" of the _Summa_ is familiar
to those who use that work, but it may not be amiss to explain S.
Thomas's method in brief fashion. Each "article" is couched in the form
of a question, thus: _Has contemplation its joys?_ And the Saint at once
sets forth in succession three, sometimes more, arguments which seem to
militate against the view he himself holds. These are commonly known as
the _objections_. He then gives us a short paragraph opening with the
words: _Sed contra_, or _But on the contrary_; and in this paragraph he
gives some authority, generally that of Holy Scripture or one of the
Fathers, for the view he is going to hold. This paragraph is generally
known from its opening words as the _Sed contra_; there is no argument
in it save from authority. He then proceeds to discuss the question from
the standpoint of pure reason. This portion is known as the _Corpus
articuli_, or _Body of the Article_, and in it the Saint presents his
reasoning in clear, precise fashion. It will be apparent, of course,
that many questions cannot be answered with a categoric _yes_ or _no_,
but the precise sense in which certain terms in the discussion are to be
used has to be clearly ascertained; according to the diverse ways in
which they may be understood the answer will be affirmative or negative.
It is important for those not familiar with S. Thomas' works to grasp
this point; they must not, for instance, presume that because the
opening "objections" seem to uphold one point of view S. Thomas is
therefore going to hold the precise opposite. A good example of this
will be found in the Article: _Ought we to pray to God alone?_

In the Treatises here presented the argument, though clear and precise,
is hardly what we should call subtle, and this for the simple reason
that the subject-matter does not call for subtle treatment. But what
cannot fail to strike the most cursory reader is the tone of submission
to authority and to the teachings of the Fathers which characterizes
every page: "_Summe veneratus est sacros Doctores_," says Cajetan,
"_ideo intellectum omnium quodammodo sortitus est_."[27] And the natural
corollary of this is the complete self-effacement of the Saint. The
first person is conspicuous by its absence all through the _Summa_,
though the reader of the following pages will find one exception to this
rule.

And the more we study these Articles of S. Thomas the more we marvel;
the thought is so concentrated and yet so limpid in its expression, that
as we read it it seems as though no one could ever have thought
otherwise. But read it, and then try to reformulate the line of argument
which you have been following with such ease--and your mind halts, your
tongue stammers! It is one thing to understand the thought when
expressed, quite another to think such thoughts and express them. Hence
the declaration made by Pope John XXII. when the question of the holy
Doctor's canonization was brought forward: "Such teaching," he
exclaimed, "could only have been due to miracle!" And on the following
day in the Consistory: "He has brought greater light to the Church than
all other Doctors; by one year's study of his writings a man may make
greater profit than if he spend his whole life studying the writings of
others!"[28]

The reader will sometimes feel inclined to smile at the quaint
etymologies which occur now and again. But he must remember that these
are given by the Saint for what they are worth. It was not a
philological age, and S. Thomas made use of the _Book of Etymologies_
drawn up in the seventh century by S. Isidore of Seville.

Besides the writings of S. Augustine, two Patristic works are cited with
considerable frequency by S. Thomas in these pages: the _Opus
Imperfectum_ of S. Chrysostom on S. Matthew's Gospel, and the works of
Denis the Areopagite. The former is almost certainly not the work of S.
Chrysostom, but rather of an Arian writer towards the close of the sixth
century.[29] The writer known as Denis the Areopagite, owing to his
being traditionally identified with S. Paul's convert at Athens,
probably wrote about the close of the fifth century. Few works of
Mystical Theology exercised a greater influence on the writers of the
Middle Ages.[30] A word must also be said about the _Gloss_ to which S.
Thomas so often refers, and which he quotes as an authority. The term
"Gloss" was applied to the brief running commentaries on the Bible which
were in vogue in the Middle Ages. These brief paraphrases were also
known as _Postillæ_, and they were frequently written in between the
lines of the text of the Bible, whence the name _Interlinear Gloss_; or
in the margins, whence the name _Marginal Gloss_. The _Glossa
Ordinaria_, as it is called, is the best known of these commentaries. It
is usually attributed to Walafrid Strabo, a monk of the Abbey of S.
Gall, who died in 849; but it is probable that Strabo took down his
Commentary from the lips of Rabanus Maurus, a monk of the Abbey of
Fulda, and afterwards its abbot. Rabanus was a most prolific writer, and
has left Commentaries on nearly all the Books of the Bible. Even when
Abbot he reserved to himself the Chair of Scripture;[31] he had had the
great advantage of living for a time in Palestine. Another Biblical
scholar to whom the _Glossa Ordinaria_ of S. Thomas's time apparently
owed much, was Hugo à S. Caro, the Dominican Provincial in France, and
afterwards Cardinal-Priest of S. Sabina. It was under his direction that
the first Concordance of the Bible was formed, in which task he is said
to have had the assistance of five hundred Friars.[32] He owes his title
of Glossator to his well-known _Postillæ_, or Brief Commentaries on the
whole Bible. The _Glossa Interlinearis_ is due to Anselm, a Canon of
Laudun, who died in 1117. Another famous Glossator was Nicolas de Lyra,
a Franciscan who died in 1340--some sixty-six years, that is, subsequent
to S. Thomas. Lastly, we should mention Peter the Lombard, commonly
known as _The Master of the Sentences_, from his four books of
_Sentences_, in which he presented the theological teaching of the
Fathers in Scholastic fashion. This treatise became the Scholastic
manual of the age. To him is due a Gloss on the Psalter and on Job, as
well as a series of brief notes on the Epistles of S. Paul taken from
the writings of the chief Fathers, S. Ambrose, S. Jerome, S. Augustine,
etc. And the authority accorded to these Glosses in general is due to
the fact that they constituted a running Commentary taken from the
writings of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church.

  THE BREVIARY HYMN TO S. AUGUSTINE.

  Magne Pater Augustine
  Preces nostras suscipe,
  Et per eas Conditori
  Nos placare satage,
  Atque rege gregem tuum
  Summum decus præsulum.

  Amatorem paupertatis
  Te collaudant pauperes:
  Assertorem veritatis
  Amant veri judices:
  Frangis nobis favos mellis,
  De Scripturis disserens.

  Quæ obscura prius erant
  Nobis plana faciens,
  Tu de verbis Salvatoris
  Dulcem panem conficis,
  Et propinas potum vitæ
  De Psalmorum nectare.

  Tu de vita clericorum
  Sanctam scribis Regulam,
  Quam qui amant et sequuntur
  Viam tenent regiam,
  Atque tuo sancto ductu
  Redeunt ad Patriam.

  Regi regum salus, vita,
  Decus et imperium:
  Trinitati laus et honor
  Sit per omne sæculum:
  Qui concives nos adscribat
  Supernorum civium. Amen.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] _The Ascent of Mount Carmel by S. John of the Cross._ Prefatory
Essay on the Development of Mysticism in the Carmelite Order, by
Benedict Zimmerman, O.C.D., pp. 13-17. (London: Thomas Baker, 1906.)

[2] Valgornera, O.P., _Mystica Theologia D. Thomæ_, ed. Berthier. 2
Vols. Turin, 1890-91.

[3] "In ætate tam tenera et scibilium nescia, qui necdum se scire
poterat, miro modo Deum adhuc nesciens, divino ductus instinctu scire
quærebat. De quo futurum erat, ut, dum sic anxius maturius Deum præ
aliis quæreret, clarius præ ceteris, quæ scire futurus erat, scriberet,
quæ de Deo, ipso donante, studiosius et citius inveniret" (William of
Tocco, _Vita B. Thomæ_ in the _Bollandists_, March 7, No. 5). This
William of Tocco had seen and heard S. Thomas, and in 1319 took a
prominent part in the Saint's canonization (see _Bollandists_, p. 653).

[4] Bernard Guidonis, _Boll._, No. 7, p. 659, note.

[5] _Boll._, Nos. 12 and 76.

[6] _Ibid._, No. 11.

[7] _Boll._, p. 661.

[8] _Ibid._, p. 662.

[9] _Boll._, p. 668.

[10] _Boll._, pp. 668 and 710.

[11] _Boll._, No. 53.

[12] _Ibid._, p. 671.

[13] _Boll._, p. 668.

[14] _Boll._, p. 672.

[15] Ps. xlvii.

[16] _Boll._, p. 672.

[17] _Boll._, p. 669.

[18] _Ibid._, p. 667; _cp._ Ps. lxx, 20.

[19] _Boll._, p. 675.

[20] Touron, _Vie de S. Thomas d'Aquin_, Paris, 1740, p. 353.

[21] _Boll._, p. 706; _cp._ p. 665.

[22] _Prol._ to Ia., IIdæ.

[23] _Prol._ to III. _Pars._

[24] _Prol._ to IIa., IIdæ.

[25] _Prol._ to IIa. IIdæ.

[26] _Prol._ to _Qu._ CLXXI. of the IIda., IIdæ.

[27] _Comment._ on IIa., IIæ., cxlviii. 4.

[28] _Boll._, p. 680.

[29] See Bardenhewer, _Patrologie_, i. 319.

[30] Smith and Wace, _Dict. of Christian Biography_, i. 847.

[31] Fabricius, _Bibliotheca Latina_, _s.v._ Walafridus and Rabanus.

[32] _Ibid._, _s.v._ Hugo à S. Caro.




QUESTION LXXXI

OF THE VIRTUE OF RELIGION

   I. Does the Virtue of Religion Direct a Man To God Alone?
       S. Augustine, _sermon_, cccxxxiv. 3
              " _on Psalm_ lxxvi. 32
                     _sermon_, cccxi. 14-15
  II. Is Religion a Virtue?
 III. Is Religion One Virtue?
  IV. Is Religion a Special Virtue Distinct From Others?
   V. Is Religion One of the Theological Virtues?
  VI. Is Religion To Be Preferred To the Other Moral Virtues?
 VII. Has Religion, Or Latria, Any External Acts?
        S. Augustine, _of Care for the Dead_, V.
VIII. Is Religion the Same As Sanctity?
        Cardinal Cajetan, on the Distinction Between
          Sanctity and Religion


I

Does the Virtue of Religion direct a Man to God Alone?

Cicero says[33]: "Religion offers internal and external reverence to
that Superior Nature which we term the Divine."

S. Isidore says[34]: "A religious man is, as Cicero remarks, so called
from _religion_, for he is occupied with and, as it were, reads through
again and again (_relegit_) the things that concern Divine worship."
Thus religion seems to be so called from reading again (_religendo_)
things concerning Divine worship; for such things are to be repeatedly
revolved in the mind, according to those words of Proverbs iii. 6: _In
all thy ways think on Him._ At the same time _religion_ might be said to
be so called because "we ought to choose again (_re-eligere_) those
things which through our negligence we have lost," as S. Augustine has
noted.[35] Or perhaps it is better derived from "binding again"
(_religando_); thus S. Augustine says[36]: "Let religion bind us once
more to the One Almighty God."

But whether religion be so called from frequent _reading_, or from
_fresh election_ of Him Whom we have negligently lost, or from
_rebinding_, it properly implies a certain relation to God. For it is He
to Whom we ought to be especially _bound_ as our indefectible principle;
to Him must we assiduously direct our _choice_ as our ultimate end; He
it is Whom we negligently lose by sin and Whom we must regain by
believing in Him and by professing our faith in Him.

But some deny that religion directs a man to God alone, thus:

1. S. James says[37]: _Religion clean and undefiled before God and the
Father is this: to visit the fatherless and widows in their tribulation;
and to keep oneself unspotted from this world._ But _to visit the
fatherless and widows_ indicates relation to our neighbour, and _to keep
oneself unspotted from this world_ refers to ourselves. Hence religion
is not confined to our relationship with God.

    But religion has two sorts of acts. Some belong to it properly
    and immediately, those acts, namely, which it elicits and by
    which man is directed to God alone, as, for instance, to offer
    Him sacrifice, to adore Him, etc.

    But there are other acts which religion produces through the
    medium of the virtues which it controls, directing them, that
    is, towards reverence to God; for that virtue which is concerned
    with the end directs those virtues which have to do with the
    means to the end. And in this sense _to visit the fatherless and
    widows in their tribulation_ is said to be an act of religion
    because commanded by it, though actually elicited by the virtue
    of mercy. Similarly _to keep oneself unspotted from this world_
    is an act commanded by religion, though elicited by temperance
    or some other virtue.

2. S. Augustine says[38]: "Since according to the genius of the Latin
speech--and that not merely of the unlearned, but even of the most
learned--religion is said to be shown towards our human relatives and
connexions and intimates, this word 'religion' cannot be used without
some ambiguity when applied to the worship of God; hence we cannot say
with absolute confidence that religion is nought else but the worship of
God." Religion, then, is not limited to our relation to God, but
embraces, our neighbour as well.

    But it is only by an extension of the name "religion" that it is
    made to embrace our relations towards our human kin, it is not
    according to the proper signification of the word. Hence S.
    Augustine prefaced the words quoted from him above with the
    remark: "Religion, strictly speaking, seems to mean, not any
    kind of worship, but only that of God."

3. Further, _latria_ seems to come under religion. But S. Augustine
says[39]: "_Latria_ is interpreted as service." But we ought to serve
not God only, but our neighbour as well: _By charity of the spirit serve
one another._[40] Religion, then, implies relation to our neighbour.

    But since a slave implies a master, it follows that where there
    exists a peculiar and special title of dominion there also will
    be found a peculiar and special ratio of servitude. It is clear,
    however, that dominion belongs to God in a peculiar and special
    fashion, since He it is Who has made all things and Who holds
    the chief rule over all things. Consequently a special kind of
    service is due to Him. And this service is by the Greeks
    designated _latria_, which is, in consequence, properly
    comprised under "religion."

4. Again, reverence comes under religion. But man has to reverence, not
only God, but his neighbour as well; as Cato says: "Reverence parents."
Hence religion establishes a relation between ourselves and our
neighbour as well as between ourselves and God.

    But we are said to reverence those men whom we honour or
    remember, or to whose presence we resort. So, too, even things
    which are subject to us are said to be "cultivated" by us
    (_coli_); thus husbandmen (_agricolæ_) are so called because
    they "cultivate" the fields; the inhabitants of a place, too
    (_incolæ_), are so called because they "cultivate" the spots
    where they dwell. But since special honour is due to God as the
    First Principle of all, a special kind of "cultus"[41] or
    "reverence" is His due, and this the Greeks call _eusebia_ or
    _theosebia_, as S. Augustine says.[42]

5. Lastly, all who are in a state of salvation are subject to God. But
not all who are in a state of salvation are called "religious," but
those only who bind themselves by certain vows and observances and who
undertake to obey certain men. Hence religion does not seem to mean the
relationship of subjection of man to God.

    But although, generally speaking, all those who worship God can
    be termed "religious," yet those are specially so called who
    dedicate their whole lives to the Divine worship and cut
    themselves off from worldly occupations.

    Thus those are not termed "contemplatives" who merely
    contemplate, but they who devote their lives to contemplation.
    And such men do not subject themselves to men for man's sake,
    but for God's, as the Apostle says: _You received me as an Angel
    of God, even as Christ Jesus._[43]

       *       *       *       *       *

_S. Augustine_: We are to abide in Christ! How then shall That not be
now our possession Where we are then to abide and Whence we are to draw
Life? Let Holy Scripture speak for us lest we should seem in mere
conjecture to be saying things contrary to the teaching of the Word of
God. Hear the words of one who knew: _If God be for us who is against
us?_[44] _The Lord_, he says, _is the portion of my inheritance._[45] He
saith not: Lord, what wilt Thou give me for mine inheritance? All that
Thou canst give me is worthless! Be Thou mine inheritance! Thee do I
love! Thee do I wholly love! With all my heart, with all my soul, with
all my mind do I love Thee! What, then, shall be my lot? What wilt Thou
give me save Thyself? This is to love God freely. This is to hope for
God from God. This is to hasten to be filled with God, to be sated with
Him. For He is sufficient for thee; apart from Him nought can suffice
thee! (_Sermon_, cccxxxiv. 3).

_S. Augustine_: I cried to the Lord with my voice.[46] Many cry to the
Lord that they may win riches, that they may avoid losses; they cry that
their family may be established, they ask for temporal happiness, for
worldly dignities; and, lastly, they cry for bodily health, which is the
patrimony of the poor. For these and suchlike things many cry to the
Lord; hardly one cries for the Lord Himself! How easy it is for a man to
desire all manner of things from the Lord and yet not desire the Lord
Himself! As though the gift could be sweeter than the Giver! (_on Ps._
lxxvi.).

_S. Augustine:_ Picture God as saying to you--He Who re-created you and
adopted you: "My son, why is it that day by day you rise and pray, and
genuflect, and even strike the ground with your forehead, nay, sometimes
even shed tears, while you say to Me: 'My Father, my God! give me
wealth!' If I were to give it to you, you would think yourself of some
importance, you would fancy you had gained something very great. Yet
because you asked for it you have it. But take care to make good use of
it. Before you had it you were humble; now that you have begun to be
rich you despise the poor! What kind of a good is that which only makes
you worse? For worse you are, since you were bad already. And that it
would make you worse you knew not, hence you asked it of Me. I gave it
to you and I proved you; you have found--and you are found out! You were
hidden when you had nothing. Correct thyself! Vomit up this cupidity!
Take a draught of charity!... Ask of Me better things than these,
greater things than these. Ask of Me spiritual things. Ask of Me
Myself!" (_Sermon_, cccxi. 14-15).


II

Is Religion a Virtue?

A virtue is that which both renders its possessor, as also his work,
good. Hence we must say that every good act comes under virtue. And it
is clear that to render to another what is his due has the character of
a good act; for by the fact that a man renders to another his due there
is established a certain fitting proportion and order between them. But
order comes under the ratio of good, just as do measure and species, as
S. Augustine establishes.[47] Since, then, it belongs to religion to
render to some one, namely, God, the honour which is His due, it is
clear that religion is a virtue.

Some, however, deny this, thus:

1. It belongs to religion to show reverence to God. But reverence is an
act of fear, and fear is a gift.[48] Religion, then, is a gift, not a
virtue.

    To reverence God is indeed an act of the gift of fear. But to
    religion it belongs to do certain things by reason of our
    reverence for God. Hence it does not follow that religion is the
    same thing as the gift of fear, but it is related to it as to a
    higher principle. For the gifts are superior to the moral
    virtues.

2. All virtue consists in the free-will, and hence virtue is called an
elective or voluntary habit. But _latria_ belongs to religion, and
_latria_ implies a certain servitude. Hence religion is not a virtue.

    But even a servant can freely give to his master the service
    that is his due and thus "make a virtue of necessity"[49] by
    voluntarily paying his debt. And similarly the payment of due
    service to God can be an act of virtue according as a man does
    it voluntarily.

3. Lastly, as is said in Aristotle's _Ethics_,[50] the aptitude for the
virtues is implanted in us by nature; hence those things which come
under the virtues arise from the dictates of natural reason; but it
belongs to religion to offer external reverence to the Divine Nature.
Ceremonial, however, or external reverence, is not due to the dictates
of natural reason. Hence religion is not a virtue.

    But it is due to the dictates of natural reason that a man does
    certain things in order to show reverence to God. That he should
    do precisely this or that, however, does not come from the
    dictates of natural reason, but from Divine or human positive
    law.


III

Is Religion One Virtue?

S. Paul says to the Ephesians[51]: _One God, one faith._ But true
religion maintains faith in one God. Consequently religion is one
virtue.

Habits are distinguished according to the divers objects with which they
are concerned. But it belongs to religion to show reverence for the One
God for one particular reason, inasmuch, namely, as He is the First
Principle, the Creator and Governor of all things; hence we read in
Malachi[52]: _If I am a Father, where is my honour?_ for it is the
father that produces and governs. Hence it is clear that religion is but
one virtue.

But some maintain that religion is not one virtue, thus:

1. By religion we are ordained[53] to God. But in God there are Three
Persons, and, moreover, divers attributes which are at least
distinguishable from one another by reason. But the diverse character of
the objects on which they fall suffices to differentiate the virtues.
Hence religion is not one virtue.

    But the Three Divine Persons are but One Principle as concerns
    the creation and the government of things. And consequently They
    are to be served by one religion. And the divers attributes all
    concur in the First Principle, for God produces all and governs
    all by His Wisdom, His Will, and the power of His Goodness.
    Hence religion is but one virtue.

2. One virtue can have but one act; for habits are differentiated
according to their acts. But religion has many acts, _e.g._, to worship,
to serve, to make vows, to pray, to make sacrifices, and many other
similar things. Consequently religion is not one virtue.

    But by one and the same act does man serve God and worship Him;
    for worship is referred to God's excellence, to which is due
    reverence: service regards man's subjection, for by reason of
    his condition he is bound to show reverence to God. And under
    these two heads are comprised all the acts which are attributed
    to religion; for by them all man makes protestation of the
    Divine excellence and of his subjection of himself to God,
    either by offering Him something, or, again, by taking upon
    himself something Divine.

3. Further, adoration belongs to religion. But adoration is paid to
images for one reason and to God for another. But since diversity of
"reason" serves to differentiate the virtues, it seems that religion is
not one virtue.

    But religious worship is not paid to images considered in
    themselves as entities, but precisely as images bringing God
    Incarnate to our mind. Further, regarding an image precisely as
    an image of some one, we do not stop at it; it carries us on to
    that which it represents. Hence the fact that religious
    veneration is paid to images of Christ in no sense means that
    there are various kinds of _latria_, nor different virtues of
    religion.


IV

Is Religion a Special Virtue Distinct From Others?

Religion is regarded as a part of Justice, and is distinct from the
other parts of Justice.

Since virtue is ordained to what is good, where there exists some
special ratio of good there must be some special corresponding virtue.
But the particular good towards which religion is ordained is the
showing due honour to God. Honour, however, is due by reason of some
excellency. And to God belongs pre-eminent excellence, since He in every
possible way infinitely transcends all things. Hence special honour is
due to Him; just as we note that in human concerns varying honours are
due to the varying excellencies of persons; one is the honour of a
father, another that of a king, and so on. Hence it is manifest that
religion is a special virtue.

Some, however, maintain that religion is not a special virtue distinct
from others, thus:

1. S. Augustine says[54]: "True sacrifice is every work undertaken in
order that we may be joined to God in holy fellowship." But sacrifice
comes under religion. Every work of virtue therefore comes under
religion. And consequently it is not a special virtue.

    But every work of virtue is said to be a sacrifice in so far as
    it is directed to showing God reverence. It does not thence
    follow that religion is a general virtue, but that it commands
    all the other virtues.

2. The Apostle says to the Corinthians[55]: _Do all to the glory of
God._ But it belongs to religion to do some things for the glory of God.
Hence religion is not a special virtue.

    But all kinds of acts, in so far as they are done for the glory
    of God, come under religion; not, however, as though it elicited
    them, but inasmuch as it controls them. Those acts, however,
    come under religion as eliciting them which, by their own
    specific character, pertain to the service of God.

3. Lastly, the charity whereby we love God is not distinct from the
charity by which we love our neighbour. But in the _Ethics_[56] it is
said: "To be honoured is akin to being loved." Hence religion by which
God is honoured is not a specifically distinct virtue from those
observances, whether _dulia_ or piety, whereby we honour our neighbour.
Hence it is not a special virtue.

    But the object of love is a _good_ thing; whereas the object of
    honour or reverence is what is _excellent_. But it is God's
    Goodness that is communicated to His creatures, not the
    excellence of His Goodness. Hence while the charity wherewith we
    love God is not a distinct virtue from the charity wherewith we
    love our neighbour, yet the religion whereby we honour God is
    distinct from the virtues whereby we honour our neighbour.


V

Is Religion One of the Theological Virtues?

Religion is considered a part of Justice, and this is a moral virtue.

Religion is the virtue whereby we offer to God His due honour. Two
things have therefore to be considered in religion. First we have to
consider what religion offers God, namely, worship: this may be regarded
as the material and the object with which religion is concerned.
Secondly, we have to consider Him to Whom it is offered, namely, God
Himself. Now, when worship is offered to God it is not as though our
worshipful acts touched God, though this is the case when we believe
God, for by believing in God we touch Him (and we have therefore said
elsewhere[57] that God is the object of our faith not simply inasmuch as
we believe in God, but inasmuch as we believe God). Due worship,
however, is offered to God in that certain acts whereby we worship Him
are performed as homage to Him, the offering sacrifice, for instance,
and so forth. From all which it is evident that God does not stand to
the virtue of religion as its object or as the material with which it is
concerned, but as its goal. And consequently religion is not a
theological virtue, for the object of these latter is the ultimate end;
but religion is a moral virtue, and the moral virtues are concerned with
the means to the end.

But some regard religion as a theological virtue, thus:

1. S. Augustine says[58]: "God is worshipped by faith, hope, and
charity," and these are theological virtues. But to offer worship to God
comes under religion. Therefore religion is a theological virtue.

    But it is always the case that a faculty or a virtue whose
    object is a certain end, controls--by commanding--those
    faculties or virtues which have to do with those things which
    are means to that end. But the theological virtues--_i.e._,
    faith, hope, and charity--are directly concerned with God as
    their proper object. And hence they are the cause--by commanding
    it--of the act of the virtue of religion which does certain
    things having relation to God. It is in this sense that S.
    Augustine says that "God is worshipped by faith, hope, and
    charity."

2. Those are called theological virtues which have God for their object.
But religion has God for its object, for it directs us to God alone.
Therefore it is a theological virtue.

    But religion directs man to God, not indeed as towards its
    object, but as towards its goal.

3. Lastly, every virtue is either theological or intellectual or moral.
But religion is not an intellectual virtue, for its perfection does not
consist in the consideration of the truth. Neither is it a moral virtue,
for the property of the moral virtues is to steer a middle course
betwixt what is superfluous and what is below the requisite; whereas no
one can worship God to excess, according to the words of
Ecclesiasticus[59]: _For He is above all praise._ Religion, then, can
only be a theological virtue.

    But religion is neither an intellectual nor a theological
    virtue, but a moral virtue, for it is part of justice. And the
    _via media_ in religion lies, not between the passions, but in a
    certain harmony which it establishes in the acts which are
    directed towards God. I say "a certain," not an absolute
    harmony, for we can never show to God all the worship that is
    His due; I mean, then, the harmony arising from the
    consideration of our human powers and of the Divine acceptance
    of what we offer. Moreover, there can be excess in those things
    which have to do with the Divine worship; not indeed as regards
    quantity, but in certain other circumstances, as, for example,
    when Divine worship is offered to whom it should not, or at
    times when it should not, or in other unfitting circumstances.


VI

Is Religion to be preferred to the Other Moral Virtues?

In Exodus[60] the commandments which concern religion are put first, as
though they were of primary importance. But the order of the
commandments is proportioned to the order of the virtues; for the
commandments of the Law fall upon the acts of the virtues. Hence
religion is chief among the moral virtues.

The means to an end derive their goodness from their relation to that
end; hence the more nigh they are to the end the better they are. But
the moral virtues are concerned with those things which are ordained to
God as their goal. And religion approaches more nearly to God than do
the other moral virtues, inasmuch as it is occupied with those things
which are directly and immediately ordained to the Divine honour. Hence
religion is the chief of the moral virtues.

Some, however, deny that religion is pre-eminent among the moral
virtues, thus:

1. The perfection of a moral virtue lies in this, that it keeps the due
medium.[61] But religion fails to attain the medium of justice, for it
does not render to God anything absolutely equal to Him. Hence religion
is not better than the other moral virtues.

    But the praiseworthiness of a virtue lies in the will, not in
    the power. Hence to fall short of equality--which is the midpath
    of justice--for lack of power, does not make virtue less
    praiseworthy, provided the deficiency is not due to the will.

2. Again, in our service of men a thing seems to be praiseworthy in
proportion to the need of him whom we assist; hence it is said in
Isaias:[62] _Deal thy bread to the hungry._ But God needs nothing that
we can offer Him, according to the Psalmist: _I have said: Thou art my
God, for Thou hast no need of my goods._[63] Hence religion seems to be
less praiseworthy than the other virtues, for by them man is succoured.

    But in the service we render to another for his profit, that is
    the more praiseworthy which is rendered to the most needy,
    because it is of greater profit to him. But no service is
    rendered to God for His profit--for His glory, indeed, but for
    our profit.

3. Lastly, the greater the necessity for doing a thing the less worthy
it is of praise, according to the words: _For if I preach the Gospel, it
is no glory to me, for a necessity lieth upon me._[64] But the greater
the debt the greater the necessity. Since, then, the service which man
offers to God is the greatest of debts, it would appear that religion is
the least praiseworthy of all human virtues.

    Where necessity comes in the glory of supererogation is
    non-existent; but the merit of the virtue is not thereby
    excluded, provided the will be present. Consequently the
    argument does not follow.


VII

Has Religion, That is _Latria_,[65] any External Acts?

In Ps. lxxxiii. 3 it is said: _My heart and my flesh have rejoiced in
the living God._ Now interior acts belong to the heart, and in the same
way exterior acts are referred to the members of the body. It appears,
then, that God is to be worshipped by exterior as well as by interior
acts.

We do not show reverence and honour to God for His own sake--for He in
Himself is filled with glory to which nought can be added by any created
thing--but for our own sakes. For by the fact that we reverence and
honour God our minds are subjected to Him, and in that their perfection
lies; for all things are perfected according as they are subjected to
that which is superior to them--the body, for instance, when vivified by
the soul, the air when illumined by the sun. Now the human mind
needs--if it would be united to God--the guidance of the things of
sense; for, as the Apostle says to the Romans[66]: _The invisible things
of Him are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made_.
Hence in the Divine worship it is necessary to make use of certain
corporal acts, so that by their means, as by certain signs, man's mind
may be stirred up to those spiritual acts whereby it is knit to God.
Consequently religion has certain interior acts which are its chief ones
and which essentially belong to it; but it has also external acts which
are secondary and which are subordinated to the interior acts.

       *       *       *       *       *

Some deny, however, that exterior acts belong to religion or _latria_,
thus:

1. In S. John iv. 24 we read: _For God is a Spirit, and they that adore
Him must adore Him in spirit and in truth._ External acts belong,
however, rather to the body than to the spirit. Consequently religion,
which comprises adoration, has no exterior acts, but only interior.

    But here the Lord speaks only of that which is chiefest and
    which is essentially intended in Divine worship.

2. The end of religion is to show reverence and honour to God. But it is
not reverent to offer to a superexcellent person what properly belongs
to inferiors. Since, then, what a man offers by bodily acts seems more
in accordance with men's needs and with that respect which we owe to
inferior created beings, it does not appear that it can fittingly be
made use of in order to show reverence to God.

    But such external acts are not offered to God as though He
    needed them, as He says in the Psalm: _Shall I eat the flesh of
    bullocks? Or shall I drink the blood of goats?_[67] But such
    acts are offered to God as signs of those interior and spiritual
    works which God accepts for their own sakes. Hence S. Augustine
    says: "The visible sacrifice is the sacrament--that is, the
    visible sign--of the invisible sacrifice."[68]

3. Lastly, S. Augustine praises Seneca[69] for his condemnation of those
men who offered to their idols what they were wont to offer to men: on
the ground, namely, that what belongs to mortal men is not fittingly
offered to the immortals. Still less, then, can such things be fittingly
offered to the True God Who is _above all gods_.[70] Therefore to
worship God by means of bodily acts seems to be reprehensible. And
consequently religion does not include bodily acts.

    But idolaters are so called because they offer to their idols
    things belonging to men, and this not as outward signs which may
    excite in them spiritual affections, but as being acceptable by
    those idols for their own sake. And especially because they
    offered them empty and vile things.

       *       *       *       *       *

_S. Augustine:_ When men pray, they, as becomes suppliants, make use of
their bodily members, for they bend the knee, they stretch forth their
hands, they even prostrate on the ground and perform other visible acts.
Yet all the while their invisible will and their heart's intention are
known to God. He needs not these signs for the human soul to be laid
bare before Him. But man by so doing stirs himself up to pray and groan
with greater humility and fervour. I know not how it is that whereas
such bodily movements can only be produced by reason of some preceding
act on the part of the soul, yet when they are thus visibly performed
the interior invisible movement which gave them birth is thereby itself
increased, and the heart's affections--which must have preceded, else
such acts would not have been performed--are thereby themselves
increased.

Yet none the less, if a man be in some sort hindered so that he is not
at liberty to make use of such external acts, the interior man does not
therefore cease to pray; in the secret chamber of his heart, where lies
compunction, he lies prostrate before the eyes of God (_Of Care for the
Dead_, v.).


VIII

Is Religion the Same as Sanctity?

In S. Luke's Gospel[71] we read: _Let us serve Him in holiness and
justice._ But to serve God comes under religion. Hence religion is the
same as sanctity.

The word "sanctity" seems to imply two things. First, it seems to imply
_cleanness_; and this is in accordance with the Greek word for it, for
in Greek it is _hagios_,[72] as though meaning "without earth."
Secondly, it implies _stability_, and thus among the ancients those
things were termed _sancta_ which were so hedged about with laws that
they were safe from violation; similarly a thing is said to be
_sancitum_ because established by law. And even according to the Latins
the word _sanctus_ may mean "cleanness," as derived from _sanguine
tinctus_, for of old those who were to be purified were sprinkled with
the blood of a victim, as says S. Isidore in his _Etymologies_.[73]

And both meanings allow us to attribute sanctity to things which are
used in the Divine worship; so that not men only, but also temples and
vessels and other similar things are said to be sanctified by reason of
their use in Divine worship. _Cleanness_ indeed is necessary if a man's
mind is to be applied to God. For the mind of man is stained by being
immersed in inferior things, as indeed all things are cheapened by
admixture with things inferior to them--silver, for instance, when mixed
with lead. And for our minds to be knit to the Supreme Being they must
needs be withdrawn from inferior things. Without cleanness, then, the
mind cannot be applied to God. Hence in the Epistle to the Hebrews[74]
it is said: _Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no
man shall see God._

_Stability_ is also required if the mind is to be applied to God. For
the mind is applied to Him as to the Ultimate End and First Principle,
and consequently must be immovable. Hence the Apostle says: _For I am
sure that neither death nor life shall separate me from the love of
God._[75]

Sanctity, then, is said to be that whereby man's mind and its acts are
applied to God. Hence sanctity does not differ from religion
essentially, but in idea only. For by religion we mean that a man offers
God due service in those things which specially pertain to the Divine
worship--sacrifices, for example, and oblations, etc.; but by sanctity
we mean that a man not only offers these things, but also refers to God
the works of the other virtues, and also that a man disposes himself by
good works for the Divine worship.

       *       *       *       *       *

Some, however, deny the identity of religion and sanctity, thus:

1. Religion is a certain special virtue. But sanctity is called a
general virtue, for according to Andronicus,[76] sanctity is that which
"makes men faithful observers of what is justly due to God." Hence
sanctity is not the same as religion.

    But sanctity is in its essence a special virtue, and as such is,
    in a sort, the same as religion. It has, however, a certain
    general aspect in that, by its commands, it directs all the acts
    of the virtues to the Divine Good. In the same way legal justice
    is termed a general virtue in that it directs the acts of all
    the virtues to the common good.

2. Sanctity seems to imply cleanness, for S. Denis says[77]: "Sanctity
is freedom from all impurity; it is perfect and stainless cleanness."
Cleanness, however, seems to come under temperance, for this it is which
precludes bodily defilement. Since, then, religion comes under justice,
sanctity cannot be identified with religion.

    Temperance indeed worketh cleanness, but this has not the ratio
    of sanctity except it be referred to God. Hence S. Augustine
    says of virginity itself that "not because it is virginity is it
    held in honour, but because it is consecrated to God."[78]

3. Lastly, things that are contradistinguished are not identical. But in
all enumerations of the parts of justice sanctity is set against
religion.

    But sanctity is set against religion because of the difference
    aforesaid; they differ indeed in idea, not in substance.

       *       *       *       *       *

_Cajetan:_ Religion is directly concerned with those things which
specially pertain to the Divine worship--ceremonies, for example,
sacrifices, oblations, etc. Whereas sanctity directly regards the mind,
and through the mind the other virtuous works, including those of
religion ... for it makes use of them so as thereby to apply the
mind--and by consequence all acts that proceed from the human mind--to
God. Thus we see that many religious people are not saints, whereas all
saints are religious. For people who devote themselves to ceremonies,
sacrifices, etc., can be termed religious; but they can only be called
saints in so far as by means of these things they give themselves
interiorly to God (_on_ 2. 2. 81. 8).

FOOTNOTES:

[33] _De invent. Rhetor._, ii. 53.

[34] _Etymolog._, x. _sub litt._ R.

[35] _Of the City of God_, x. 3.

[36] _Of the True Religion_, lv.

[37] St. Jas. i. 27.

[38] _Of the City of God_, x. 1.

[39] _Of the City of God_, x. 1.

[40] Gal. v. 13.

[41] The objection and its solution turn upon the Latin words _cultus_
and _colere_, which cannot be consistently rendered in English;
"reverence" is perhaps the most appropriate translation here.

[42] _Of the City of God_, x. 1.

[43] Gal. iv. 14.

[44] Rom. viii. 31.

[45] Ps. xv. 5.

[46] Ps. lxxvi. 1.

[47] _Of the Nature of Good_, iii.

[48] _Fear_ is one of the "Gifts" of the Holy Ghost.

[49] S. Jerome, _Ep._ LIV., _alias_ X., _ad Furiam_.

[50] II., vi. 15.

[51] iv. 5-6.

[52] i. 6.

[53] The Latin word _ordinare_ means "to set in due order"; there is no
precise English equivalent which can be consistently employed.

[54] _Of the City of God_, x. 6.

[55] II. x. 31.

[56] VIII. viii. 1.

[57] 2. 2. Qu. II., Art. 2.

[58] _Enchiridion_, iii.

[59] xliii. 33.

[60] xx. 1-17.

[61] _Ethics_, II. vi.

[62] lviii. 7.

[63] Ps. xv. 2.

[64] 1 Cor. ix. 16.

[65] See p. 30.

[66] i. 20.

[67] Ps. xlix. 13.

[68] _Of the City of God_, x. 5.

[69] _Ibid._, vi. 10.

[70] Ps. xciv. 3.

[71] i. 74-75.

[72] Thus Origen, _Hom._ XI, i. _in Leviticum_, where, however, he is
not really giving an etymology.

[73] X., _sub litt._ S.

[74] xii. 14.

[75] Rom. viii. 38-39.

[76] _De Affectibus_.

[77] _Of the Divine Names_, xii.

[78] _Of Virginity_, viii.




QUESTION LXXXII

OF DEVOTION

  I. Is Devotion a Special Kind of Act?
       Cardinal Cajetan, On the Meaning of the Term "Devotion"
       S. Augustine, _Confessions_, XIII. viii. 2
 II. Is Devotion an Act of the Virtue of Religion?
III. Is Contemplation, that is Meditation, the Cause of Devotion?
       Cardinal Cajetan, On the Causes of Devotion
           " " On the Devotion of Women
 IV. Is Joy an Effect of Devotion?
       Cardinal Cajetan, On Melancholy
       S. Augustine, _Confessions_, II. x.


I

Is Devotion a Special Kind of Act?

It is by our acts that we merit. But devotion has a peculiarly
meritorious character. Consequently devotion is a special kind of act.

Devotion is so termed from "devoting" oneself. Hence the "devout" are so
named because they "devote" themselves to God and thus proclaim their
complete subjection to Him. Thus, too, among the heathen of old those
were termed "devout" who for the army's sake "devoted" themselves to
their idols unto death, as Livy[79] tells us was the case with the two
Decii. Hence devotion seems to mean nothing else than "the will to give
oneself promptly to those things which pertain to God's service"; thus
it is said in Exodus[80]: _The multitude of the children of Israel ...
offered first-fruits to the Lord with a most ready and devout mind._ It
is clear, however, that a wish to do _readily_ what belongs to God's
service is a special act. Hence devotion is a special act of the will.

But some argue that devotion is not a special kind of act, thus:

1. That which serves to qualify other acts cannot be itself a special
act. But devotion appears to qualify certain other acts; thus it is said
that _all the multitude offered victims, and praises, and holocausts
with a devout mind_.[81]

    But that which moves another gives a certain measure to the
    latter's movement. The will, however, moves the other faculties
    of the soul to their respective acts; and, moreover, the will,
    as aiming at an end in view, moves itself to the means towards
    that end. Consequently, since devotion is the act of a man who
    offers himself to serve Him Who is the Ultimate End, it follows
    that devotion gives a certain measure to human acts--whether
    they be the acts of the will itself with regard to the means to
    an end, or the acts of the other faculties as moved by the will.


2. Again, no act which finds a place in different kinds of acts can be
itself a special kind of act. But devotion is to be found in acts of
different kinds, both in corporal acts, for example, and in spiritual;
thus a man is said to meditate devoutly, for instance, or to genuflect
devoutly.

    But devotion does not find a place in different kinds of acts as
    though it were a _species_ coming under different _genera_, but
    in the same sense as the motive power of a moving principle is
    virtually discoverable in the movements of the things it sets in
    motion.

3. Lastly, all special kinds of acts belong either to the appetitive or
to the cognoscitive faculties. But devotion comes under neither of
these--as will be evident to anyone who will reflect upon the various
acts of these faculties respectively.

    But devotion is an act of the appetitive powers of the soul, and
    is, as we have said above, a movement of the will.

_Cajetan:_ With regard to the proper meaning of the term _devotion_,
note that since _devotion_ is clearly derived from _devoting_, and since
_to devote_--derived in its turn from _to vow_--means to promise
something spontaneously to God: it follows that the principle in all
such promises is the will; and further, not the will simply as such, but
the will so affected as to be prompt. Hence in Latin those are said to
be _devoted_ to some superior whose will is so affected towards him as
to make them prompt in his regard. And this seems to refer especially to
God and to those who in a sense stand in His place, as, for instance,
our rulers, our fatherland, and our principles of action. Hence in the
Church's usage the term _devotion_ is especially applied to those who
are so affected towards God as to be prompt in His regard and in all
that concerns Him. And so _devotion_ is here taken to signify the act of
a will so disposed, the act by which a man shows himself prompt in the
Divine service.... Thus, then, _devotion_, the principal act of the
virtue of religion, implies first of all the prompt desire of the Divine
honour in our exercise of Divine worship; and hence comes the prompt
choice of appropriate means to this end, and also the prompt carrying
out of what we see to be suitable to that end. And the proof of
possession of such _devotion_ is that truly devout souls, the moment
they perceive that some particular thing (or other) ought to be done for
the service of God, are so promptly moved towards it that they rejoice
in having to do or in actually doing it (_on_ 2. 2. 82. 1).

_S. Augustine:_ Give me, O Lord, Thyself; grant Thyself to me! For Thee
do I love, and if my love be but weak, then would I love Thee more. For
I cannot measure it so as to know how much my love falls short of that
love which shall make my life run to Thy embraces nor ever turn away
from Thee till I be hid in the hiding-place of Thy countenance. This
only do I know: that it fares ill with me when away from Thee; and this
not merely externally, but within me; for all abundance which is not my
God is but penury for me! (_Confessions_, XIII. viii. 2).


II

Is Devotion an Act of the Virtue of Religion?

Devotion is derived from "devoting oneself" or making vows. But a vow is
an act of the virtue of religion. Consequently devotion also is an act
of the virtue of religion.

It belongs to the same virtue to wish to do a thing and to have a prompt
will to do it, for the object of each of these acts is the same. For
this reason the Philosopher says[82]: "Justice is that by which men will
and perform just deeds." And it is clear that to perform those things
which pertain to the Divine worship or service comes under the virtue of
religion. Consequently it belongs to the same virtue of religion to have
a prompt will to carry out these things--in other words, to be devout.
Whence it follows that devotion is an act of the virtue of religion.

But some argue that devotion is not an act of the virtue of religion,
thus:

1. Devotion means that a man gives himself to God. But this belongs to
the virtue of charity, for, as S. Denis says[83]: "Divine love causes
ecstasy since it permits not that those who love should belong any more
to themselves, but to those things which they love." Whence devotion
would seem to be rather an act of charity than of the virtue of
religion.

    It is indeed through charity that a man gives himself to God,
    clinging to Him by a certain union of soul; but that a man
    should give himself to God and occupy himself with the Divine
    service, is due directly to the virtue of religion, though
    indirectly it is due to the virtue of charity, which is the
    principle of the virtue of religion.

2. Again, charity precedes the virtue of religion. But devotion seems to
precede charity; for charity is signified in Scripture by fire, and
devotion by the fat of the sacrifices--the material on which the fire
feeds. Consequently devotion is not an act of the virtue of religion.

    But while the fat of the body is generated by the natural
    digestive heat, that natural heat finds its nourishment in that
    same fat. Similarly charity both causes devotion--since it is by
    love that a man becomes prompt to serve his friend--and at the
    same time charity is fed by devotion; just as all friendship is
    preserved and increased by the practice of friendly acts and by
    meditating upon them.

3. Lastly, by the virtue of religion a man turns to God alone. But
devotion extends to men as well; people, for instance, are said to be
devoted to certain Saints, and servants are said to be devoted to their
masters, as S. Leo says of the Jews,[84] that being devoted to the Roman
laws, they said: _We have no king but Cæsar._[85] Consequently devotion
is not an act of the virtue of religion.

    But the devotion which we have to the Saints of God, whether
    living or dead, does not stop at them, but passes on to God,
    since we venerate God in God's ministers. And the devotion which
    subjects have to their temporal masters is of a different kind
    altogether, just as the service of temporal masters differs from
    the service of the Divine Master.


III

Is Contemplation, that is Meditation, the Cause of Devotion?

In Ps. xxxviii. 4 it is said: _And in my meditation a fire shall flame
out._ But spiritual fire causes devotion. Therefore meditation causes
devotion.

The extrinsic and principal cause of devotion is God Himself; thus S.
Ambrose says[86]: "God calls those whom He deigns to call; and whom He
wills to make religious He makes religious; and had He willed it He
would have made the Samaritans devout instead of indevout."

But the intrinsic cause of devotion on our part is meditation or
contemplation. For, as we have said, devotion is a certain act of the
will by which a man gives himself promptly to the Divine service. All
acts of the will, however, proceed from consideration, since the will's
object is good understood. Hence S. Augustine says[87]: "The will starts
from the understanding." Meditation must, then, be the cause of devotion
inasmuch as it is from meditation that a man conceives the idea of
giving himself up to God.

And two considerations lead a man to do this: one is the consideration
of the Divine Goodness and of His benefits, whence the words of the
Psalmist: _But for me it is good to cling close to my God, to put my
hope in the Lord God._[88] And this consideration begets love, which is
the proximate cause of devotion. And the second is man's consideration
of his own defects which compel him to lean upon God, according to the
words: _I have lifted up mine eyes to the mountains, from whence help
shall come to me; my help is from the Lord Who made Heaven and
earth._[89] This latter consideration excludes all presumption which, by
making him lean upon himself, might prevent a man from submitting
himself to God.

Some, however, argue that contemplation or meditation is not the cause
of devotion, thus:

1. No cause hinders its own effect. But subtle intellectual meditations
often hinder devotion.

    But it is the consideration of those things which naturally tend
    to excite love of God which begets devotion; consideration of
    things which do not come under this head, but rather distract
    the mind from it, are a hindrance to devotion.

2. Again, if contemplation were the real cause of devotion, it should
follow that the higher the matter of our contemplation the greater the
devotion it begot. But the opposite is the case. For it frequently
happens that greater devotion is aroused by the contemplation of the
Passion of Christ and of the other mysteries of His Sacred Humanity than
by meditation upon the Divine excellences.

    It is true that things which concern the Godhead are of
    themselves more calculated to excite in us love, and
    consequently devotion, since God is to be loved above all
    things; yet it is due to the weakness of the human mind that
    just as it needs to be led by the hand to the knowledge of
    Divine things, so also must it be lead to Divine love by means
    of the things of sense already known to it; and the chief of
    these things is the Humanity of Christ, as is said in the
    _Preface_ of the Mass: _So that knowing God visibly in the
    flesh, we may thereby be carried away to the love of things
    invisible._ Consequently the things that have to do with
    Christ's Humanity lead us, as it were, by the hand and are thus
    especially suited to stir up devotion in us; though, none the
    less, devotion is principally concerned with the Divinity.

3. Lastly, if contemplation were the real cause of devotion, it ought to
follow that those who are the more fitted for contemplation are also the
more fitted for devotion; whereas the contrary is the case, for greater
devotion is often found among simple folk and in the female sex, where
contemplation is wanting.

    But knowledge, as indeed anything which renders a person great,
    occasions a man to trust in Himself, and hence he does not
    wholly give himself to God. It is for this reason that knowledge
    and suchlike things are sometimes a hindrance to a man's
    devotion, whereas among women and simple folk devotion abounds
    by the suppression of all elation. But if a man will only
    perfectly subject to God his knowledge and any other perfection
    he may have, then his devotion will increase.

       *       *       *       *       *

_Cajetan:_ Note these two intrinsic causes of devotion: one, namely,
which arises from meditation upon God and His benefits, the other from
meditation on our own defects. Under the first head I must consider
God's goodness, mercy, and kindness towards mankind and towards myself;
the benefits, for instance, of creation according to His own Likeness,
of Redemption, of Baptism, of His inspirations, of His invitations--
whether directly or through the medium of others; His patient waiting
till I do penance; His Holy Eucharist; His preserving me from so many
perils both of body and soul; His care of me by means of His Angels; and
His other individual benefits. Under the second head come all my faults
and the punishments due to me, whether in the past or now in the
present; my proneness to sin; my misuse of my own powers by habituating
my thoughts and desires--as well as the inclinations of my other various
faculties--to evil; my sojourning in a region far away from His
Friendship and from His Divine conversation[90]; my perverted affections
which make me think far more of temporal than of spiritual advantages or
disadvantages; my utter lack of virtue; the wounds of my ignorance, of
my malice, of my weakness, of my concupiscence; the shackles on my hands
and feet, on my good works, that is; the shackles, too, on my
affections, so that I dwell amidst darkness and rottenness and
bitterness, and shrink not from it! My deafness, too, to the inner voice
of my Shepherd; and, what is far worse, that I have chosen God for my
enemy and my adversary as often as I have chosen mortal sin, and that I
have thus offered Him the grievous insult of refusing to have Him for my
God, and choosing instead my belly, or money, or false delights--and
called them my God!

Meditations such as these should be in daily use among spiritual and
religious people, and for their sake they should put aside the
"much-speaking" of vocal prayer, however much it may appeal to them. And
it is of such meditations that devotion and, by consequence, other
virtues, are begotten. And they who do not give themselves to this form
of prayer at least once in the day cannot be called religious men or
women, nor even spiritual people. There can be no effect without a
cause, no end without means to it, no gaining the harbour on the island
save by a voyage in a ship; and so there can be no real religion without
repeated acts regarding its causes, the means to it, and the vehicle
that is to bring us thither (_on_ 2. 2. 82. 3).

_Cajetan:_ Just as he who removes an obstacle is the occasion of the
resulting effect--a man, for instance, who pulls down a pillar is the
occasion of the resulting fall of what it supported, and a man who
removes a water-dam is the occasion of the consequent flood--so in the
same way have women and simple folk a cause of devotion within
themselves, for they have not that obstacle which consists in
self-confidence. And because God bestows His grace on those who put no
obstacle to it, the Church therefore calls the female sex "devout."
Hence we are not to find fault with the learned for their knowledge, nor
are we to praise women for womanly weakness; but that abuse of knowledge
which consists in self-exaltation is blameworthy, just as the right use
of women's weakness in not being uplifted is praiseworthy (_on_ 2. 2.
82. 3).


IV

Is Joy an Effect of Devotion?

In the Church's _Collect_ for the Thursday after the Fourth Sunday of
Lent we say: _May holy devotion fill with joy those whom the fast they
have undertaken chastises._

Of itself indeed, and primarily, devotion brings about a spiritual joy
of the mind; but as an accidental result it causes sorrow. For, as we
have said above, devotion arises from two considerations. Primarily it
arises from the consideration of the Divine Goodness, and from this
thought there necessarily follows gladness, in accordance with the
words: _I remembered God and was delighted._[91] Yet, as it were
accidentally, this consideration begets a certain sadness in those who
do not as yet fully enjoy God: _My soul hath thirsted after the strong
living God_,[92] and he immediately adds: _My tears have been my bread._

Secondarily, however, devotion arises from the consideration of our own
defects, for we thus reflect upon that from which a man, by devout acts
of the will, turns away, so as no longer to dwell in himself, but to
subject himself to God.

And this consideration is the converse of the former: for of itself it
tends to cause sadness since it makes us dwell upon our defects;
accidentally, however, it causes joy, for it makes us think of the hope
we have of God's assistance.

Hence joy of heart primarily and of itself follows from devotion; but
secondarily and accidentally there results a sadness which is unto God.

Some, however, argue that joy is not an effect of devotion, thus:

1. Christ's Passion, as said before, is especially calculated to cause
devotion. But from dwelling on it there follows a certain affliction of
soul: _Remember my poverty ... the wormwood and the gall_[93]--that is,
the Sacred Passion; and then follows: _I will be mindful, and remember,
and my soul shall languish within me._

    In meditation on the Passion of Christ there is food for
    sadness--viz., the thought of the sins of men, and to take these
    away Christ had need to suffer. But there is also food for
    joy--viz., the thought of God's merciful kindness towards us in
    providing us such a deliverance.

2. Again, devotion principally consists in the interior sacrifice of the
heart: _A sacrifice to God is an afflicted spirit_;[94] consequently
affliction, rather than pleasure or joy, is the outcome of devotion.

    But the soul which is on the one hand saddened because of its
    shortcomings in this present life, is on the other hand
    delighted at the thought of the goodness of God and of the hope
    of Divine assistance.

3. Lastly, S. Gregory of Nyssa says[95]: "Just as laughter proceeds from
joy, so are sorrow and groaning signs of sadness." But out of devotion
some burst into tears.

    Yet tears spring not from sadness alone, but also from a certain
    tenderness of feeling: and especially is this the case when we
    reflect on something that, while pleasant, has in it a certain
    admixture of sadness; thus men are wont to weep from loving
    affection when they recover their children or others dear to
    them whom they had thought lost. And it is in this sense that
    tears spring from devotion.

       *       *       *       *       *

_Cajetan:_ Notice the proof here afforded that those are not devout
persons who are habitually sad and gloomy, and who cannot mingle with
others without getting into difficulties or dissolving into tears. For
devout folk are cheerful, and are full of joy in their souls; and this
not solely by reason of the principal cause, as is stated in the text,
but also by reason of a secondary cause--the thought, namely, of their
own failings. For the sadness of devout folk is _according to God_, and
joy accompanies it; whence S. Augustine's remark: "Let a man grieve, but
let him rejoice at his grief."[96] Therefore it is that we read of the
Saints that they were joyful and bright; and rightly so, for they had
begun upon earth their "heavenly conversation"[97] (_on_ 2. 2. 82. 4).

_S. Augustine:_ For Thee do I yearn, Justice and Innocence, Beautiful
and Fair in Thy beauteous light that satisfies and yet never sates! For
with Thee is repose exceedingly and life without disquiet! He that
enters into Thee enters into the joy of his Lord; he shall know no fear,
and in the Best shall be best. But I have deserted Thee and have
wandered away, O Lord, my God! Too far have I wandered from Thee, the
Steadfast One, in my youth, and I have become to myself a very land of
want! (_Confessions_, II. x.).

FOOTNOTES:

[79] VIII. 9 and X. 29.

[80] xxxv. 20-21.

[81] 2 Paral. xxix. 31.

[82] _Ethics_, V. i. 3.

[83] _Of the Divine Names_, chap. iv., part i., lect. 10.

[84] _Sermon VIII.: On the Passion of Our Lord._

[85] S. John xix. 15.

[86] _Commentary on S. Luke_ ix. 55.

[87] _De Trinitate_, ix. 12; xv. 23.

[88] Ps. lxxii. 28.

[89] Ps. cxx. 1, 2.

[90] S. Luke xv. 13, 16.

[91] Ps. lxxvi. 4.

[92] Ps. xli. 3.

[93] Lam. iii. 19.

[94] Ps. i. 19.

[95] _De Homine_, xii.

[96] _De Vera et Falsa Poenitentia_, xiii.

[97] Phil. iii. 20.




QUESTION LXXXIII

OF PRAYER

  I. Is Prayer an Act of the Appetitive Powers?
       Cardinal Cajetan, On Prayer based on Friendship
 II. Is it Fitting to Pray?
       Cardinal Cajetan, On Prayer as a True Cause
       S. Augustine, _On the Sermon on the Mount_, II. iii. 14
             " _On the Gift of Perseverance_, vii. 15
III. Is Prayer an Act of the Virtue of Religion?
       Cardinal Cajetan, On the Humility of Prayer
       S. Augustine, _On Psalm_ cii. 10
             " _Of the Gift of Perseverance_, xvi. 39
 IV. Ought We to Pray to God Alone?
       S. Augustine, _Sermon_, cxxvii. 2
  V. Should We in our Prayers ask for anything Definite from God?
       S. Augustine, _De Catechizandis Rudibus_, xxv. 47
             " _Confessions_, X. xxix.
             " _Confessions_, XI. ii. 2
 VI. Ought We in our Prayers to ask for Temporal Things from God?
       S. Augustine, _On Psalm_ xxxvii. 10
             " _Confessions_, I. xx. 2
             " _Confessions_, IX. iv. 12
       S. Thomas is miraculously relieved from Toothache
       S. Augustine, _Sermon_, lxxx. 7
             " _Sermon_, cccliv. 8
 VII. Ought We to Pray for Others?
VIII. Ought We to Pray for our Enemies?
        S. Augustine, _Sermon_, xv., on _Psalm_ xxv. 8
  IX. On the Seven Petitions of the Lord's Prayer
        Cardinal Cajetan, On the Grouping of these Petitions
        S. Augustine, _Confessions_, VII. x. 2
              " _Sermon_, lvii., _on S. Matt._ vi. 7
              " _Sermon_, lvi. 9, _on S. Matt._ vi.
              " _Sermon_, lvi. 8, _on S. Matt._ vi.
              " _Of the City of God_, xix. 27
        S. Thomas's Rhythm, _Adoro Te Devote_
   X. Is Prayer Peculiar to Rational Creatures?
  XI. Do the Saints in Heaven Pray for Us?
        Cardinal Cajetan, On the Saints in Limbo
 XII. Should Prayer be Vocal?
        Cardinal Cajetan, On the Conditions of Vocal Prayer
        S. Augustine, _Confessions_, IX. iv. 8
              " _Confessions_, X. xxxiii. 50
              " _On Psalm_ cxviii., _Sermon_ xxix. 1
XIII. Must Prayer necessarily be Attentive?
        Cardinal Cajetan, On the Varieties of Attention at Prayer
        S. Augustine, _On Psalm_ lxxxv. 7
             " _On Psalm_ cxlv. 1
        S. Thomas, _On Distractions, Com. on 1 Cor._ xiv. 14
 XIV. Should our Prayers be Long?
  XV. Is Prayer Meritorious?
        S. Augustine, _On Psalm_ xxvi.
             " _Ep._ cxxx. _ad Probam._
 XVI. Do Sinners gain Anything from God by their Prayers?
XVII. Can We rightly term "Supplications," "Prayers,"
          "Intercessions," and "Thanksgivings," parts of Prayer?
        Cardinal Cajetan, On the Prayer of the Consecration
        S. Augustine, _Of Divers Questions_, iv.


I

Is Prayer an Act of the Appetitive Powers?

S. Isidore says[98]: "To pray is the same thing as to speak." Speaking,
however, belongs to the intellect. Hence prayer is not an act of the
appetitive, but of the intellectual faculties.

According to Cassiodorus, on those words of the Psalmist: _Hear my
prayer, O Lord, and my supplication, give ear to my tears_,[99] prayer
means "the lips' reasoning." Now there is this difference between the
speculative and the practical reason, that the speculative reason merely
apprehends things, while the practical reason not only apprehends
things, but actually causes them. But one thing is the cause of another
in two ways: in one way, perfectly--namely, as inducing a necessity--as
happens when the effect comes entirely under the power of a cause; in
another way, imperfectly--namely, by merely disposing to it--as happens
when an effect is not entirely under the power of a cause.

And so, too, reason is in two ways the cause of certain things: in one
way as imposing a necessity; and in this way it belongs to the reason to
command not merely the lower faculties and the bodily members, but even
men who are subject to us, and this is done by giving commands. In
another way as inducing, and in some sort disposing to, an effect; and
in this way the reason asks for something to be done by those who are
subject to it, whether they be equals or superiors.

But both of these--namely, to command something, or to ask or beg for
something to be done--imply a certain arrangement--as when a man
arranges for something to be done by somebody else. And in this respect
both of these acts come under the reason whose office it is to arrange.
Hence the Philosopher says[100]: "Reason asks for the best things."

Here, then, we speak of prayer as implying a certain asking or petition,
for, as S. Augustine says[101]: "Prayer is a certain kind of petition";
so, too, S. John Damascene says[102]: "Prayer is the asking of fitting
things from God."

Hence it is clear that the prayer of which we are here speaking is an
act of the reason.

Some, however, think that prayer is an act of the appetitive powers,
thus:

1. The whole object of prayer is to be heard, and the Psalmist says that
it is our desires which are heard: _The Lord hath heard the desire of
the poor._[103] Prayer, then, is desire; but desire is an act of the
appetitive powers.

    But the Lord is said to hear the desires of the poor either
    because their desire is the reason why they ask--since our
    petitions are in a certain sense the outward expression of our
    desires; or this may be said in order to show the swiftness with
    which He hears them--even while things are only existing in the
    poor man's desire; God hears them even before they are expressed
    in prayer. And this accords with the words of Isaias: _And it
    shall come to pass that before they shall call I will hear, as
    they are yet speaking I will hear._[104]

2. Again, Denis the Areopagite says: "But before all things it is good
to begin with prayer, as thereby giving ourselves up to and uniting
ourselves with God."[105] But union with God comes through love, and
love belongs to the appetitive powers; therefore prayer, too, would seem
to belong to the appetitive powers.

    But the will moves the reason to its end or object. Hence there
    is nothing to prevent the reason, under the direction of the
    will, from tending to the goal of charity, which is union with
    God. Prayer, however, tends towards God--moved, that is, by the
    will, which itself is motived by charity--in two ways: in one
    way by reason of that which is asked for, since in prayer we
    have particularly to ask that we may be united with God,
    according to those words: _One thing I have asked of the Lord,
    this will I seek after, that I may dwell in the house of the
    Lord all the days of my life._[106] And in another way prayer
    tends towards God--by reason, namely, of the petitioner himself;
    for such a one must approach him from whom he asks something,
    and this either bodily, as when he draws nigh to a man, or
    mentally, as when he draws nigh to God.

    Hence the same Denis says: "When we invoke God in prayer we are
    before Him with our minds laid bare." In the same sense S. John
    Damascene says: "Prayer is the ascent of the mind towards God."


_Cajetan:_ Prayer demands of the petitioner a twofold union with God:
the one is general--the union, that is, of friendship--and is produced
by charity, so that further on[107] we shall find the friendship arising
from charity enumerated among the conditions for infallibly efficacious
prayer. The second kind of union may be termed substantial union; it is
the effect of prayer itself. It is that union of application by which
the mind offers itself and all it has to God in service--viz., by devout
affections, by meditations, and by external acts. By such union as this
a man who prays is inseparable from God in his worship and service, just
as when one man serves another he is inseparable from him in his service
(_on_ 2. 2. 83. 1).

    "And now, O Lord, Thou art our Father, and we are clay: and Thou
    art our Maker, and we are all the works of Thy hands. Be not
    very angry, O Lord, and remember no longer our iniquity: behold,
    see we are all Thy people."[108]


II

Is It Fitting To Pray?

In S. Luke's Gospel we read: _We ought always to pray and not to
faint._[109]

A threefold error regarding prayer existed amongst the ancients; for
some maintained that human affairs were not directed by Divine
Providence; whence it followed that it was altogether vain to pray or to
worship God; of such we read: _You have said, he laboureth in vain that
serveth God_.[110] A second opinion was that all things, even human
affairs, happened of necessity--whether from the immutability of Divine
Providence, or from a necessity imposed by the stars, or from the
connection of causes; and this opinion, of course, excluded all utility
from prayer. A third opinion was that human affairs were indeed directed
by Divine Providence, and that human affairs did not happen of
necessity, but that Divine Providence was changeable, and that
consequently its dispositions were changed by our prayers and by other
acts of religious worship. These views, however, have elsewhere been
shown to be wrong.

Consequently we have so to set forth the utility of prayer as neither to
make things happen of necessity because subject to Divine Providence,
nor to suggest that the arrangements of Divine Providence are subject to
change.

To bring this out clearly we must consider that Divine Providence not
merely arranges what effects shall take place, but also from what causes
they shall proceed, and in what order.

But amongst other causes human acts are causes of certain effects. Hence
men must do certain things, not so that their acts may change the Divine
arrangement, but that by their acts they may bring about certain effects
according to the order arranged by God; and it is the same with natural
causes. It is the same, too, in the case of prayer. For we do not pray
in order to change the Divine arrangements, but in order to win that
which God arranged should be fulfilled by means of prayers; or, in S.
Gregory's words: "Men by petitioning may merit to receive what Almighty
God arranged before the ages to give them."[111]

Some, however, maintain that prayer is futile, thus:

1. Prayer seems to be necessary in order that we may bring our wants to
the notice of Him to Whom we make the petition. But our Lord says: _Your
Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things._[112]

    But it is not necessary for us to set forth our petitions before
    God in order to make known to Him our needs or desires, but
    rather that we ourselves may realize that in these things it is
    needful to have recourse to the Divine assistance.

2. Again, by prayer the mind of him to whom it is made is prevailed upon
to grant what is asked of him; but the mind of God is unchangeable and
inflexible: _The Triumpher in Israel will not spare, and will not be
moved to repentance; for He is not a man that He should repent._[113]
Consequently it is unavailing to pray to God.

    But our prayers do not aim at changing the Divine arrangements,
    but at obtaining by our prayers what God has arranged to give
    us.

3. Lastly, it is more generous to give to one who does not ask than to
one who asks, for, as Seneca remarks: "Nothing is bought at a dearer
price than what is bought with prayers."[114] Whereas God is most
generous.

    God, indeed, bestows on us many things out of His generosity,
    even things for which we do not ask; but He wishes to grant us
    some things on the supposition that we ask for them. And this is
    for our advantage, for it is intended to beget in us a certain
    confidence in having recourse to God, as well as to make us
    recognize that He is the Author of all good to us. Hence S.
    Chrysostom says: "Reflect what great happiness is bestowed upon
    you, what glory is given you, namely, to converse in your
    prayers with God, to join in colloquy with Christ, and to beg
    for what you wish or desire."[115]

_Cajetan:_ Notice how foolish are some Christians who, when desirous of
reaching certain ends attainable by nature or art, are most careful to
apply such means, and would rightly regard their hopes as vain unless
they applied them; and yet at the same time they have quite false
notions of the fruits to be derived from prayer: as though prayer were
no cause at all, or at least but a remote one! Whence it comes to pass
that, having false ideas about the causes, they fail to reap any fruit
(_on_ 2. 2. 83. 2).

_S. Augustine:_ But some may say: It is not so much a question whether
we are to pray by words or deeds as whether we are to pray at all if God
already knows what is needful for us. Yet the very giving ourselves to
prayer has the effect of soothing our minds and purifying them; it makes
us more fit to receive the Divine gifts which are spiritually poured out
upon us. For God does not hear us because of a display of prayer on our
part; He is always ready, indeed, to give us His light, not, indeed, His
visible light, but the light of the intellect and the spirit. It is we
who are not always prepared to receive it, and this because we are
preoccupied with other things and swallowed up in the darkness resulting
from desire of the things of earth. When we pray, then, our hearts must
turn to God, Who is ever ready to give if only we will take what He
gives. And in so turning to Him we must purify the eye of our mind by
shutting out all thought for the things of time, that so--with
single-minded gaze--we may be able to bear that simple light that shines
divinely, and neither sets nor changes. And not merely to bear it, but
even to abide in it; and this not simply without strain, but with a
certain unspeakable joy. In this joy the life of the Blessed is truly
and really perfected (_On the Sermon on the Mount_, II. iii. 14).

_S. Augustine:_ He could have bestowed these things on us even without
our prayers; but He wished that by our prayers we should be taught from
Whom these benefits come. For from whom do we receive them if not from
Him from Whom we are bidden to ask them? Assuredly in this matter the
Church does not demand laborious disputations; but note Her daily
prayers: She prays that unbelievers may believe: God then brings them to
the Faith. She prays that the faithful may persevere: God gives them
perseverance to the end. And God foreknew that He would do these things.
For this is the predestination of the Saints whom _He chose in Christ
before the foundation of the world_[116] (_Of the Gift of Perseverance_,
vii. 15).

    "Thou hast taught me, O God, from my youth; and till now I will
    declare Thy wonderful works. And unto old age and grey hairs, O
    God, forsake me not, until I shew forth Thy arm to all the
    generation that is to come."[117]


III

Is Prayer an Act of the Virtue of Religion?

In Ps. cxl. 2 we read: _Let my prayer be directed as incense in Thy
sight_, and on these words the Gloss remarks: "According to this figure,
in the Old Law incense was said to be offered as an odour of sweetness
to the Lord." And this comes under the virtue of religion. Therefore
prayer is an act of religion.

It properly belongs to the virtue of religion to give due reverence and
honour to God, and hence all those things by which such reverence is
shown to God come under religion. By prayer, however, a man shows
reverence to God inasmuch as he submits himself to Him and, by praying,
acknowledges that he needs God as the Author of all his good. Whence it
is clear that prayer is properly an act of religion.

Some, however, maintain that prayer is not an act of the virtue of
religion, thus:

1. Prayer is rather the exercise of the Gift of Understanding than of
the virtue of religion. For the virtue of religion comes under Justice;
it is therefore resident in the will. But prayer belongs to the
intellectual faculties, as we have shown above.

    But we must remember that the will moves the other faculties of
    the soul to their objects or ends, and that consequently the
    virtue of religion, which is in the will, directs the acts of
    the other faculties in the reverence they show towards God. Now
    amongst these other faculties of the soul the intellect is the
    noblest and the most nigh to the will; consequently, next to
    devotion, which belongs to the will itself, prayer, which
    belongs to the intellective part, is the chief act of religion,
    for by it religion moves a man's understanding towards God.

2. Again, acts of worship fall under precept, whereas prayer seems to
fall under no precept, but to proceed simply from the mere wish to pray;
for prayer is merely asking for what we want; consequently prayer is not
an act of the virtue of religion.

    Yet not only to ask for what we desire, but to desire rightly,
    falls under precept; to desire, indeed, falls under the precept
    of charity, but to ask falls under the precept of religion--the
    precept which is laid down in the words: _Ask and ye shall
    receive_.[118]

3. Lastly, the virtue of religion embraces due worship and ceremonial
offered to the Divinity; prayer, however, offers God nothing, but only
seeks to obtain things from Him.

    In prayer a man offers to God his mind, which he subjects to Him
    in reverence, and which he, in some sort, lays bare before
    Him--as we have just seen in S. Denis's words. Hence, since the
    human mind is superior to all the other exterior or bodily
    members, and also to all exterior things which have place in the
    Divine worship, it follows that prayer, too, is pre-eminent
    among the acts of the virtue of religion.

_Cajetan:_ In prayer or petition there are three things to be
considered: the thing petitioned for, the actual petition, and the
petitioner. As far, then, as the thing petitioned for is concerned, we
give nothing to God when we pray; rather we ask Him to give us
something. But if we consider the actual petition, then we do offer
something to God when we pray. For the very act of petitioning is an act
of subjection; it is an acknowledgment of God's power. And the proof of
this is that proud men would prefer to submit to want rather than humble
themselves by asking anything of others. Further, the petitioner, by the
very fact that he petitions, acknowledges that he whom he petitions has
the power to assist him, and is merciful, or just, or provident; it is
for this reason that he hopes to be heard. Hence petition or prayer is
regarded as an act of the virtue of religion, the object of which is to
give honour to God. For we honour God by asking things of Him, and this
by so much the more as--whether from our manner of asking or from the
nature of what we ask for--we acknowledge Him to be above all things, to
be our Creator, our Provider, our Redeemer, etc. And this is what S.
Thomas points out in the body of the Article. But if we consider the
petitioner: then, since man petitions with his mind--for petition is an
act of the mind--and since the mind is the noblest thing in man, it
follows that by petitioning we submit to God that which is noblest in
us, since we use it to ask things of Him, and thereby do Him honour.
Thus by prayer we offer our minds in sacrifice to God; so, too, by
bending the knee to Him we offer to Him and sacrifice to Him our knees,
by using them to His honour (_on_ 2. 2. 83. 3).

_S. Augustine:_ I stand as a beggar at the gate, He sleepeth not on Whom
I call! Oh, may He give me those three loaves! For you remember the
Gospel? Ah! see how good a thing it is to know God's word; those of you
who have read it are stirred within yourselves! For you remember how a
needy man came to his friend's house and asked for three loaves. And He
says that he sleepily replied to him: "I am resting, and my children are
with me asleep." But he persevered in his request, and wrung from him by
his importunity what his deserts could not get. But God wishes to give;
yet only to those who ask--lest He should give to those who understand
not. He does not wish to be stirred up by your weariness! For when you
pray you are not being troublesome to one who sleeps; _He slumbereth not
nor sleeps that keepeth Israel._[119] ... He, then, sleeps not; see you
that your faith sleeps not! (_Enarr. in Ps._ cii. 10).

_S. Augustine:_ Some there are who either do not pray at all, or pray
but tepidly; and this because, forsooth, they have learnt from the Lord
Himself[120] that God knows, even before we ask Him, what is necessary
for us. But because of such folk are we to say that these words are not
true and therefore to be blotted out of the Gospel? Nay, rather, since
it is clear that God gives some things even to those who do not ask--as,
for instance, the beginnings of faith--and has prepared other things for
those only who pray for them--as, for instance, final perseverance--it
is evident that he who fancies he has this latter of himself does not
pray to have it (_Of the Gift of Perseverance_, xvi. 39).

    "I will sing to the Lord as long as I live; I will sing praise
    to my God while I have my being. Let my speech be acceptable to
    Him; but I will take delight in the Lord."[121]


IV

Ought We To Pray To God Alone?

In Job v. 1 we read: _Call, now, if there be any that will answer thee,
and turn to some of the Saints._

Prayer is addressed to a person in two ways: in one way as a petition to
be granted by him; in another way as a petition to be forwarded by him.
In the former way we only pray to God, for all our prayers ought to be
directed to the attaining of grace and glory, and these God alone gives:
_The Lord will give grace and glory._[122] But in the latter way we set
forth our prayers both to the holy Angels and to men; and this, not that
through their intervention God may know our petitions, but rather that
by their prayers and merits our petitions may gain their end. Hence it
is said in the Apocalypse: _And the smoke of the incense of the prayers
of the Saints ascended up before God from the hand of the Angel._[123]
And this is clearly shown, too, from the style adopted by the Church in
her prayers: for of the Holy Trinity we pray that mercy may be shown us;
but of all the Saints, whomsoever they may be, we pray that they may
intercede for us.

Some, however, maintain that we ought to pray to God alone, thus:

1. Prayer is an act of the virtue of religion. But only God is to be
worshipped by the virtue of religion. Consequently it is to Him alone
that we should pray.

    But in our prayers we only show religious worship to Him from
    Whom we hope to obtain what we ask, for by so doing we confess
    Him to be the Author of all our goods; but we do not show
    religious worship to those whom we seek to have as intercessors
    with us before God.

2. Again, prayer to those who cannot know what we pray for is idle. But
God alone can know our prayers, and this because prayer is frequently a
purely interior act of which God alone is cognizant, as the Apostle
says: _I will pray with the spirit. I will pray also with the
understanding_;[124] and also because, as S. Augustine says[125]: The
dead know not, not even the Saints, what the living--not even excepting
their own children--are doing.

    It is true that the dead, if we consider only their natural
    condition, do not know what is done on earth, and especially do
    they not know the interior movements of the heart. But to the
    Blessed, as S. Gregory says,[126] manifestation is made in the
    Divine Word of those things which it is fitting that they should
    know as taking place in our regard, even the interior movements
    of the heart. And, indeed, it is most befitting their state of
    excellence that they should be cognizant of petitions addressed
    to them, whether vocally or mentally. Hence through God's
    revelation they are cognizant of the petitions which we address
    them.

3. Lastly, some say: if we do address prayers to any of the Saints, the
sole reason for doing so lies in the fact that they are closely united
to God. But we do not address prayers to people who, while still living
in this world, are closely knit to God, nor to those who are in
Purgatory and are united to Him. There seems, then, to be no reason why
we should address prayers to the Saints in Paradise.

    But they who are still in the world or in Purgatory do not as
    yet enjoy the vision of the Divine Word so as to be able to know
    what we think or say, hence we do not implore their help when we
    pray; though when talking with living people we do ask them to
    help us.

       *       *       *       *       *

_S. Augustine:_ It is no great thing to live long, nor even to live for
ever; but it is indeed a great thing to live well. Oh, let us love
eternal life! And we realize how earnestly we ought to strive for that
eternal life when we note how men who love this present temporal life so
work for it--though it is to pass away--that, when the fear of death
comes, they strive all they can, not, indeed, to do away with death, but
to put death off! How men labour when death approaches! They flee from
it; they hide from it; they give all they have; they try to buy
themselves off; they work and strive; they put up with tortures and
inconveniences; they call in physicians; they do everything that lies
within their power! Yet even if they spend all their toil and their
substance, they can only secure that they may live a little longer, not
that they may live for ever! If, then, men spend such toil, such
endeavour, so much money, so much anxiety, watchfulness, and care, in
order to live only a little longer, what ought we not to do that we may
live for ever? And if we call them prudent who take every possible
precaution to stave off death, to live but a few days more, to save just
a few days, then how foolish are they who so pass their days as to lose
the Day of Eternity! (_Sermon_, cxxvii. 2).

    "May God have mercy on us, and bless us: may He cause the light
    of His countenance to shine upon us, and may He have mercy on
    us. That we may know Thy way upon earth: Thy salvation in all
    nations. Let people confess to Thee, O God: let all people give
    praise to Thee. Let the nations be glad and rejoice: for Thou
    judgest the people with justice, and directest the nations upon
    earth. Let the people, O God, confess to Thee: let all the
    people give praise to Thee: the earth hath yielded her fruit.
    May God, our God bless us, may God bless us: and all the ends of
    the earth fear Him."[127]


V

Should We in our Prayers ask for Anything Definite from God?

Our Lord taught the disciples to ask definitely for the things which are
contained in the petitions of the Lord's Prayer: _Thus shalt thou
pray._[128]

Maximus Valerius tells of Socrates[129] that he "maintained that nothing
further should be asked of the immortal gods save that they should give
us good things; and this on the ground that they knew well what was best
for each individual, whereas we often ask in our prayers for things
which it would be better not to have asked for." And this opinion has
some truth in it as regards those things which can turn out ill, or