Greco-Christian stream·Opera Omnia Sancti Thomae (Complete Works of Thomas Aquinas)·Summa Theologiae·Secunda Secundae·Q31. Beneficence
Source context
- Theme
- the moral obligation and proper ordering of beneficence toward others
- Soul-faculty
- Intellectual Soul
Steiner
not engaged in the GA corpus
Cross-tradition
- Aristotelian ethics (beneficence / liberality)Aristotle's treatment of liberality and doing good to others in the Nicomachean Ethics provides a structural parallel to Aquinas's scholastic ordering of beneficence as a secondary act of charity directed toward the neighbor's welfare.
- Stoic philosophy (oikeiôsis / kathêkon)The Stoic doctrine of oikeiôsis — the graduated extension of moral concern outward from self to family to community — shows cross-tradition congruence with Aquinas's ordering of beneficence by proximity and relationship in Q31.
Q31. Beneficence
Article 1
[II-II.q.31.a.1.arg.1] It would seem that beneficence is not an act of charity. For charity is chiefly directed to God. Now we cannot benefit God, according to Job 35:7: "What shalt thou give Him? or what shall He receive of thy hand?" Therefore beneficence is not an act of charity.
[II-II.q.31.a.1.arg.1] Ad primum sic proceditur. 1. Videtur quod caro Christi non fuerit sumpta ex Adam. Dicit enim Apostolus, I ad Corinth., xv, 47: Primus homo de terra terrenus, secundus homo de cælo cælestis. Primus autem homo est Adam, secundus rianum, fuisset suspicatus, nullo quidem modo hæretici verba curasset. 2 Implicite quidem; vide insuper comment. Super i Luc., § 19, col. 1640, et Super viii, § 60, col 1770, t. 2. est Christus. Ergo Christus non est ex Adam, sed habet ab eo distinctam originem.
[II-II.q.31.a.1.arg.2] Further, beneficence consists chiefly in making gifts. But this belongs to liberality. Therefore beneficence is an act of liberality and not of charity.
[II-II.q.31.a.1.arg.2] 2. Præterea, conceptio Christi debuit esse maxime miraculosa. Sed majus est miraculum formare corpus hominis ex limo terræ, quam ex materia humana, quæ de Adam trahitur. Ergo videtur quod non fuerit conveniens Christum ab Adam carnem sumpsisse. Ergo videtur quod corpus Christi non debuerit formari de massa humani generis derivata ab Adam, sed de aliqua alia materia.
[II-II.q.31.a.1.arg.3] Further, what a man gives, he gives either as being due, or as not due. But a benefit conferred as being due belongs to justice while a benefit conferred as not due, is gratuitous, and in this respect is an act of mercy. Therefore every benefit conferred is either an act of justice, or an act of mercy. Therefore it is not an act of charity.
[II-II.q.31.a.1.arg.3] 3. Præterea, Peccatum in hunc mundum intravit per unum hominem, scilicet per Adam; quia omnes in eo 4 originaliter existentes peccaverunt, ut patet Roman., v. Sed si corpus Christi fuisset ab Adam sumptum, ipse etiam in Adam originaliter fuisset, quando peccavit. Ergo peccatum originale contraxisset, quod non decebat Christi puritatem. Non ergo corpus Christi est formatum de materia sumpta ab Adam.
[II-II.q.31.a.1.sc] Charity is a kind of friendship, as stated above (23, 1). Now the Philosopher reckons among the acts of friendship (Ethic. ix, 1) "doing good," i.e. being beneficent, "to one's friends." Therefore it is an act of charity to do good to others.
[II-II.q.31.a.1.sc] Sed contra est quod Apostolus dicit ad Hebr., 11, 16: Nusquam angelos apprehendit, scilicet Filius Dei, sed semen Abrahæ apprehendit. Semen autem Abrahæ sumptum est ex Adam. Ergo corpus Christi fuit formatum de materia ex Adam sumpta.
[II-II.q.31.a.1.co] Beneficence simply means doing good to someone. This good may be considered in two ways, first under the general aspect of good, and this belongs to beneficence in general, and is an act of friendship, and, consequently, of charity: because the act of love includes goodwill whereby a man wishes his friend well, as stated above (23, 1; 27, 2). Now the will carries into effect if possible, the things it wills, so that, consequently, the result of an act of love is that a man is beneficent to his friend. Therefore beneficence in its general acceptation is an act of friendship or charity.
But if the good which one man does another, be considered under some special aspect of good, then beneficence will assume a special character and will belong to some special virtue.
[II-II.q.31.a.1.co] Respondeo dicendum, quod Christus humanam naturam assumpsit, ut eam a corruptione purgaret. Non autem purgatione indigebat natura humana nisi secundum quod infecta erat per originem vitiatam, qua ex Adam descendebat. Et ideo conveniens fuit ut carnem sumeret ex materia ab Adam derivata, ut ipsa natura per assumptionem curaretur.
[II-II.q.31.a.1.ad.1] According to Dionysius (Div. Nom. iv), "love moves those, whom it unites, to a mutual relationship: it turns the inferior to the superior to be perfected thereby; it moves the superior to watch over the inferior:" and in this respect beneficence is an effect of love. Hence it is not for us to benefit God, but to honor Him by obeying Him, while it is for Him, out of His love, to bestow good things on us.
[II-II.q.31.a.1.ad.1] Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod secundus homo, id est, Christus, dicitur esse de cœlo, non quidem quantum ad materiam corporis, sed vel quantum ad virtutem formativam corporis ejus, vel etiam quantum ad ipsam ejus divinitatem. Secundum autem materiam, corpus Christi fuit terrenum, sicut et corpus Adæ.
[II-II.q.31.a.1.ad.2] Two things must be observed in the bestowal of gifts. One is the thing given outwardly, while the other is the inward passion that a man has in the delight of riches. It belongs to liberality to moderate this inward passion so as to avoid excessive desire and love for riches; for this makes a man more ready to part with his wealth. Hence, if a man makes some great gift, while yet desiring to keep it for himself, his is not a liberal giving. On the other hand, as regards the outward gift, the act of beneficence belongs in general to friendship or charity. Hence it does not detract from a man's friendship, if, through love, he give his friend something he would like to I keep for himself; rather does this prove the perfection of his friendship.
[II-II.q.31.a.1.ad.2] Ad secundum dicendum, quod, sicut supra dictum est, mysterium Incarnationis Christi est quiddam miraculosum, non sicut ordinatum ad confirmationem fidei, sed sicut articulus fidei. Et ideo in mysterio Incarnationis non requiritur quid sit majus miraculum, sicut in miraculis quæ funt ad confirmationem fidei; sed quid sit divinæ sapientiae convenientius et magis expediens humanæ saluti, quod requiritur in omnibus quæ fidei sunt. Vel potest dici quod in mysterio Incarnationis non solum attenditur miraculum ex materia conceptus, sed magis ex modo conceptionis et partus; quia scilicet Virgo concepit et peperit Deum.
[II-II.q.31.a.1.ad.3] Just as friendship or charity sees, in the benefit bestowed, the general aspect of good, so does justice see therein the aspect of debt, while pity considers the relieving of distress or defect.
[II-II.q.31.a.1.ad.3] Ad tertium dicendum, quod, sicut supra dictum est, corpus Christi fuit in Adam secundum corpulentam substantiam: quia scilicet ipsa materia corporis Christi derivata est ab Adam; non autem fuit ibi secundum seminalem rationem, quia non est conceptum ex virili semine; et ideo non contraxit originale peccatum, sicut cæteri qui ab Adam per viam virilis seminis derivantur.
Article 2
[II-II.q.31.a.2.arg.1] It would seem that we are not bound to do good to all. For Augustine says (De Doctr. Christ. i, 28) that we "are unable to do good to everyone." Now virtue does not incline one to the impossible. Therefore it is not necessary to do good to all.
[II-II.q.31.a.2.arg.1] Ad secundum sic proceditur. 1. Videtur quod Christus non sumpserit carnem de semine David. Matthæus enim genealogiam Christi texens, eam ad Joseph perducit. Joseph autem non fuit pater Christi, ut supra dictum est. Non ergo videtur quod Christus de genere David descenderit.
[II-II.q.31.a.2.arg.2] Further, it is written (Sirach 12:5) "Give to the good, and receive not a sinner." But many men are sinners. Therefore we need not do good to all.
[II-II.q.31.a.2.arg.2] 2. Præterea, Aaron fuit de tribu Levi, ut patet Exodi, vi. Maria autem mater Christi cognata dicitur Elisabeth, quæ est filia Aaron, ut patet Luc., 1. Cum ergo fuerit de tribu Juda, ut patet Matth., 1, videtur quod Christus de semine David non descenderit.
[II-II.q.31.a.2.arg.3] Further, "Charity dealeth not perversely" (1 Corinthians 13:4). Now to do good to some is to deal perversely: for instance if one were to do good to an enemy of the common weal, or if one were to do good to an excommunicated person, since, by doing so, he would be holding communion with him. Therefore, since beneficence is an act of charity, we ought not to do good to all.
[II-II.q.31.a.2.arg.3] 3. Præterea, Jerem., xxii, 30, dicitur de Jechonia: Scribe virum istum sterilem: nec enim erit de semine ejus vir qui sedeat super solium David. Sed de Christo dicitur Isa., ix, 7: Super solium David sedebit. Ergo Christus non fuit de semine Jechoniæ, et per consequens nec de genere David: quia Matthæus a David per Jechoniam seriem generationum perducit. Potuit tamen Deus, ut ex Augustino, et Magistro, et aliis probatur, aliunde assumere hominem quam de progenie Adæ peccatoris.
[II-II.q.31.a.2.sc] The Apostle says (Galatians 6:10): "Whilst we have time, let us work good to all men."
[II-II.q.31.a.2.sc] Sed contra est quod dicitur Rom., 1, 3: Qui factus est ei ex semine David secundum carnem.
[II-II.q.31.a.2.co] As stated above (1, ad 1), beneficence is an effect of love in so far as love moves the superior to watch over the inferior. Now degrees among men are not unchangeable as among angels, because men are subject to many failings, so that he who is superior in one respect, is or may be inferior in another. Therefore, since the love of charity extends to all, beneficence also should extend to all, but according as time and place require: because all acts of virtue must be modified with a view to their due circumstances.
[II-II.q.31.a.2.co] Respondeo dicendum, quod Christus specialiter duorum antiquorum patrum filius dicitur esse, Abraham scilicet et David, ut patet Matth., 1. Cujus est multiplex ratio. Prima quidem, quia ad hos specialiter de Christo promissio facta est. Dictum est enim Abraham, Genes., xxii, 18: Benedicentur in semine tuo omnes gentes terræ; quod Apostolus de Christo exponit dicens, Gal., 11, 16: Abraham dictæ sunt promissiones et semini ejus. Non dicit: Et seminibus, quasi in multis, sed quasi in uno. Et semini tuo, qui est Christus. Ad David autem dictum est ps. cxxxx, 14: De fructu ventris tui ponam super sedem tuam. Unde et populi Judæorum, ut regem honorifice suscipientes, dicebant Matth., xxi, 9: Hosanna filio David. Secunda ratio est quod Christus futurus erat rex, propheta et sacerdos. Abraham autem sacerdos fuit, ut patet ex hoc quod Dominus dixit ad eum, Gen., xv, 9: Sume tibi * vaccam triennem, etc. Fuit etiam Propheta, secundum illud quod dicitur Genes., xx, 7: Propheta est et orabit pro te. David autem rex fuit et propheta. Tertia ratio est, quia in Abraham primo incæpit circumcisio; in David autem maxime manifesta est Dei electio, secundum illud quod dicitur I Reg., xiii, 14: Quæsivit Dominus sibi virum juxta cor suum. Et ideo utriusque filius Christus specialissime dicitur, ut ostendatur esse in salutem et circumcisioni, et electioni Gentilium.
[II-II.q.31.a.2.ad.1] Absolutely speaking it is impossible to do good to every single one: yet it is true of each individual that one may be bound to do good to him in some particular case. Hence charity binds us, though not actually doing good to someone, to be prepared in mind to do good to anyone if we have time to spare. There is however a good that we can do to all, if not to each individual, at least to all in general, as when we pray for all, for unbelievers as well as for the faithful.
[II-II.q.31.a.2.ad.1] Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod hæc objectio fuit Fausti Manichæi volentis probare Christum non esse filium David, quia non est conceptus ex Joseph, usque ad quem seriem generationis Matthæus, perducit. Contra quem Augustinus respondet, XXIII lib. Contra Faust., cap. viii, col. 471, t. 8, quod « cum idem Evangelista dicat et virum Mariæ esse Joseph, et Christum esse ex semine David; quid restat, nisi credere Mariam non fuisse extraneam a cognatione David, et eam Joseph conjugem non frustra appellam propter animorum confæderationem, quamvis ei non fuerit carne commixtus; et quod potius propter dignitatem virilem ordo generationum usque ad Joseph perducit? » Et mox, cap. ix: « Sic ergo nos credimus etiam Mariam fuisse in cognatione David, quia Scripturis credimus, quæ utrumque dicunt, et Christum ex semine David secundum carnem, et ejus matrem Mariam, non cum viro concumbendo, sed virginem. » Ut enim dicit Hieronymus Super i Matth., v. 18, col. 24, t. 7, « ex una tribu fuit Joseph et Maria; unde ex lege eam accipere cogebatur ut propinquam; propter quod et simul censentur in Bethleem, ut de una videlicet stirpe generati. »
[II-II.q.31.a.2.ad.2] In a sinner there are two things, his guilt and his nature. Accordingly we are bound to succor the sinner as to the maintenance of his nature, but not so as to abet his sin, for this would be to do evil rather than good.
[II-II.q.31.a.2.ad.2] Ad secundum dicendum quod huic objectioni Gregorius Nazianzenus, in Carm. xxxviii de genealog. Christi, respondet dicens, quod « hoc nutu superno contigit, ut regium genus sacerdotali stirpi jungeretur, ut Christus, qui rex est et sacerdos, ab utrisque nasceretur secundum carnem. » Unde et Aaron, qui fuit primus sacerdos secundum legem, duxit ex tribu Juda conjugem Elisabeth filiam Aminadab. Sic ergo potuit fieri ut pater Elisabeth aliquam uxorem habuerit de stirpe David, ratione cujus B. Virgo Maria, quæ fuit de stirpe David, esset Elisabeth cognata; vel potius e converso, quod pater B. Mariæ de stirpe David existens, uxorem habuerit de stirpe Aaron: vel sicut Augustinus dicit XXIII Contra Faustum, cap. ix, col. 471, t. 8, si Joachim pater Mariæ de stirpe Aaron fuit, ut Faustus hæreticus per quasdam scripturas apocryphas asserebat, credendum est quod mater Joachim fuerit de stirpe David, vel etiam uxor ejus, ita ut per aliquem modum Mariam dicamus fuisse de stirpe David.
[II-II.q.31.a.2.ad.3] The excommunicated and the enemies of the common weal are deprived of all beneficence, in so far as this prevents them from doing evil deeds. Yet if their nature be in urgent need of succor lest it fail, we are bound to help them: for instance, if they be in danger of death through hunger or thirst, or suffer some like distress, unless this be according to the order of justice.
[II-II.q.31.a.2.ad.3] Ad tertium dicendum, quod per illam auctoritatem propheticam, sicut Ambrosius dicit Super Lucam., l. III, § 42, etc, col. 690, t. 2, « non negatur ex semine Jechoniæ posteros nascituros; et ideo de semine ejus Christus est. Et quod regnavit Christus, non contra prophetiam est; ipse enim dixit: Regnum meum non est de hoc mundo. »
Article 3
[II-II.q.31.a.3.arg.1] It would seem that we are nor bound to do good to those rather who are more closely united to us. For it is written (Luke 14:12): "When thou makest a dinner or a supper, call not thy friends, nor thy brethren, nor thy kinsmen." Now these are the most closely united to us. Therefore we are not bound to do good to those rather who are more closely united to us, but preferably to strangers and to those who are in want: hence the text goes on: "But, when thou makest a feast, call the poor, the maimed," etc.
[II-II.q.31.a.3.arg.1] Ad tertium sic proceditur. 4. Videtur quod non sit magis benefaciendum his qui sunt nobis magis conjuncti. Dicitur enim Luc., xiv, 12: Cum facis prandium aut cœnam, noli vocare amicos tuos, neque fratres, neque cognatos. Sed isti sunt maxime conjuncti. Ergo non est magis benefaciendum conjunctis, sed potius extraneis et indigentibus: sequitur enim: Sed cum facis convivium, voca pauperes et debiles, etc.
[II-II.q.31.a.3.arg.2] Further, to help another in the battle is an act of very great goodness. But a soldier on the battlefield is bound to help a fellow-soldier who is a stranger rather than a kinsman who is a foe. Therefore in doing acts of kindness we are not bound to give the preference to those who are most closely united to us.
[II-II.q.31.a.3.arg.2] 2. Præterea, impossibile est unum hominem duos patres habere. Sed Matthæus dicit, cap. 1, 16, quod Jacob genuit Joseph virum Mariæ: Lucas autem dicit, cap. 111, Joseph fuisse filium Heli. Ergo contraria sibi invicem scribunt.
[II-II.q.31.a.3.arg.3] Further, we should pay what is due before conferring gratuitous favors. But it is a man's duty to be good to those who have been good to him. Therefore we ought to do good to our benefactors rather than to those who are closely united to us.
[II-II.q.31.a.3.arg.3] 3. Præterea, videntur in quibusdam a se invicem diversificari. Matthæus enim in principio libri incipiens ab Abraham descendendo usque ad Joseph quadraginta duas generationes enumerat. Lucas autem post baptismum Christi generationem Christi ponit, incipiens a Christo, et producens generationum numerum usque ad Deum, ponens generationes septuaginta septem, utroque extremo computato. Videtur igitur quod inconvenienter generationem Christi describant.
[II-II.q.31.a.3.arg.4] Further, a man ought to love his parents more than his children, as stated above (Question 26, Article 9). Yet a man ought to be more beneficent to his children, since "neither ought the children to lay up for the parents," according to 2 Corinthians 12:14. Therefore we are not bound to be more beneficent to those who are more closely united to us.
[II-II.q.31.a.3.arg.4] 4. Præterea, IV Reg., viii, legitur quod Joram genuit Ochoziam; cui successit Joas filius ejus: huic autem successit filius ejus Amasias; postea regnavit filius ejus Azarias qui appellatur Ozias, cui successit Joatham filius ejus. Matthæus autem dicit quod Joram genuit Oziam. Ergo videtur inconvenienter generationem Christi describere, tres reges in medio prætermittens.
[II-II.q.31.a.3.sc] Augustine says (De Doctr. Christ. i, 28): "Since one cannot do good to all, we ought to consider those chiefly who by reason of place, time or any other circumstance, by a kind of chance are more closely united to us."
[II-II.q.31.a.3.sc] Sed contra est auctoritas Scripturæ.
[II-II.q.31.a.3.co] Grace and virtue imitate the order of nature, which is established by Divine wisdom. Now the order of nature is such that every natural agent pours forth its activity first and most of all on the things which are nearest to it: thus fire heats most what is next to it. In like manner God pours forth the gifts of His goodness first and most plentifully on the substances which are nearest to Him, as Dionysius declares (Coel. Hier. vii). But the bestowal of benefits is an act of charity towards others. Therefore we ought to be most beneficent towards those who are most closely connected with us.
Now one man's connection with another may be measured in reference to the various matters in which men are engaged together; (thus the intercourse of kinsmen is in natural matters, that of fellow-citizens is in civic matters, that of the faithful is in spiritual matters, and so forth): and various benefits should be conferred in various ways according to these various connections, because we ought in preference to bestow on each one such benefits as pertain to the matter in which, speaking simply, he is most closely connected with us. And yet this may vary according to the various requirements of time, place, or matter in hand: because in certain cases one ought, for instance, to succor a stranger, in extreme necessity, rather than one's own father, if he is not in such urgent need.
[II-II.q.31.a.3.co] Respondeo dicendum, quod, sicut dicitur II ad Timoth., iii, 16: Omnis Scriptura sacra est divinitus inspirata. Quæ autem divinitus fiunt, ordinatissime fiunt, secundum illud Rom., xiii, 1: Quæ sunt, a Deo ordinata sunt. Unde convenienti ordine genealogia Christi est ab Evangelistis descripta 4.
[II-II.q.31.a.3.ad.1] Our Lord did not absolutely forbid us to invite our friends and kinsmen to eat with us, but to invite them so that they may invite us in return, since that would be an act not of charity but of cupidity. The case may occur, however, that one ought rather to invite strangers, on account of their greater want. For it must be understood that, other things being equal, one ought to succor those rather who are most closely connected with us. And if of two, one be more closely connected, and the other in greater want, it is not possible to decide, by any general rule, which of them we ought to help rather than the other, since there are various degrees of want as well as of connection: and the matter requires the judgment of a prudent man.
[II-II.q.31.a.3.ad.1] Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod, sicut Hieronymus dicit Super i Matth., col. 24, t. 7, Isaias loquitur de generatione divinitatis Christi; Matthæus autem enarrat generationem Christi secundum humanitatem, non quidem explicans modum Incarnationis, quia hoc etiam est ineffabile, sed enumerans patres, ex quibus Christus secundum carnem processit.
[II-II.q.31.a.3.ad.2] The common good of many is more Godlike than the good of an individual. Wherefore it is a virtuous action for a man to endanger even his own life, either for the spiritual or for the temporal common good of his country. Since therefore men engage together in warlike acts in order to safeguard the common weal, the soldier who with this in view succors his comrade, succors him not as a private individual, but with a view to the welfare of his country as a whole: wherefore it is not a matter for wonder if a stranger be preferred to one who is a blood relation.
[II-II.q.31.a.3.ad.2] Ad secundum dicendum, quod ad hanc objectionem, quam movit Julianus apostata, diversimodo ab aliquibus respondetur. Quidam enim, ut Gregorius Nazianzenus, vide Aug., l. II, QQ. Evang., qu. v, dicunt eosdem esse quos uterque Evangelista enumerat, sed sub diversis nominibus quasi binomios 2. Sed hoc stare non potest, quia Matthæus ponit unum filiorum David, scilicet Salomonem; Lucas autem ponit alium, scilicet Nathan, quos secundum historiam libri Regum constat fratres fuisse. Unde alii dixerunt quod Matthæus veram genealogiam Christi tradidit, Lucas autem putativam; unde incæpit: Ut putabatur filius Joseph. Erant enim aliqui ex Judæis, qui propter peccata regum Juda credebant Christum ex David non per reges, sed per aliam ejus stirpem hominum privatorum esse nasciturum. Alii vero dixerunt quod Matthæus posuit patres carnales, Lucas vero posuit patres spirituales, scilicet justos viros, qui dicuntur patres propter similitudinem honestatis. In libro vero De quæstionibus veteris et novi Testam., lvi, col. 2253, t. 3, op. Aug., respondetur quod non est intelligendum quod Joseph a Luca dicatur esse filius Heli, sed quod Heli et Joseph fuerunt patres Christi, diversimode a David descendentes. Unde de Christo dicitur quod putabatur Filius Joseph, et quod ipse etiam Christus fuit Heli filius, quasi diceret quod Christus ea ratione qua dicitur filius Joseph, potest dici filius Heli et omnium eorum qui ex stirpe David descenderunt, sicut Apostolus dicit Rom., ix, 5: Ex quibus, scilicet Judæis, est Christus secundum carnem. Augustinus vero in lib. II De quæstionibus evangel., quæst. v, col. 1335, t. 3, tripliciter solvit, dicens: « Tres causæ occurrunt, quarum aliquam Evangelista secutus est. Aut enim unus Evangelista patrem Joseph a quo genitus est, nominavit; alter vero vel avum maternum, vel aliquem de cognatis majoribus posuit; aut unus erat Joseph naturalis pater, et alter eum adoptaverat; aut more Judæo- 2 Ita Mss. et editi omnes. Edit. Patav. « byrum cum sine filiis unus decessisset, uxorem ejus propinquus accipiens, filium quem genuit, propinquo mortuo deputavit, » quod etiam quoddam genus adoptionis legalis est, ut ipse Augustinus dicit in II De consensu Evangel., cap. 111, col. 1072, t. 3. Et hæc ultima causa est verior, quam et Hieronymus Super i Matth., v. 16, col. 23, t. 7, ponit, et Eusebius Cesariensis in Ecclesiastica historia, lib. I, cap. vii, ab Aphricano historiographo traditam asserit. Dicunt enim quod Nathan et Melchi diversis temporibus de una eademque uxore Estha nomine singulos filios procreaverunt, quia Nathan, qui per Salomonem descendit, uxorem eam primum ceperat; et relicto filio uno Jacob nomine, defunctus est: post cujus obitum, quoniam lex viduam alii viro non vetat nubere, Melchi qui per Nathan genus ducit, cum esset ex eadem tribu, sed non ex eodem genere, relictam Nathan acceptit uxorem, ex qua etiam ipse suscepit filium nomine Heli; et sic ex diverso patrum genere efficiuntur Jacob et Heli uterini fratres: quorum alter, id est, Jacob, fratris sui Heli sine liberis defuncti ex mandato legis accipiens uxorem, genuit Joseph, natura quidem generis suum filium; secundum vero legis præceptum Heli efficitur filius. Et ideo Matthæus dicit: Jacob genuit Joseph; sed Lucas, quia legalem generationem describit, nullum nominat aliquem genuisse. Et quamvis Damascenus dicat, lib. IV Orth. fid., cap. xiv, col. 1158, t. 4, quod B. Virgo Maria Joseph attinebat secundum illam originem, qua pater ejus dicitur Heli, quia dicit eam ex Melchi descendisse, tamen credendum est quod etiam ex Salomone originem duxerit, secundum aliquem modum per illos patres quos enumerat Matthæus, qui carnalem Christi generationem dicitur enarrare; præsertim cum Ambrosius dicat, l. III In Luc., § 42, col. 1690, t. 2, Christum de semine Jechoniæ descendisse.
[II-II.q.31.a.3.ad.3] A thing may be due in two ways. There is one which should be reckoned, not among the goods of the debtor, but rather as belonging to the person to whom it is due: for instance, a man may have another's goods, whether in money or in kind, either because he has stolen them, or because he has received them on loan or in deposit or in some other way. In this case a man ought to pay what he owes, rather than benefit his connections out of it, unless perchance the case be so urgent that it would be lawful for him to take another's property in order to relieve the one who is in need. Yet, again, this would not apply if the creditor were in equal distress: in which case, however, the claims on either side would have to be weighed with regard to such other conditions as a prudent man would take into consideration, because, on account of the different particular cases, as the Philosopher states (Ethic. ix, 2), it is impossible to lay down a general rule.
The other kind of due is one which is reckoned among the goods of the debtor and not of the creditor; for instance, a thing may be due, not because justice requires it, but on account of a certain moral equity, as in the case of benefits received gratis. Now no benefactor confers a benefit equal to that which a man receives from his parents: wherefore in paying back benefits received, we should give the first place to our parents before all others, unless, on the other side, there be such weightier motives, as need or some other circumstance, for instance the common good of the Church or state. On other cases we must take to account the connection and the benefit received; and here again no general rule can laid down.
[II-II.q.31.a.3.ad.3] Ad tertium dicendum, quod, sicut dicit Augustinus in lib. II De consensu evang., cap. iv, § 8, 11 et 12, col. 1074, t. 3: « Matthæus regiam in Christo instituerat insinuare personam, Lucas autem sacerdotalem: unde in generationibus Matthæi significatur nostrorum susceptio peccatorum a Domino Jesu Christo; » inquantum scilicet per carnis originem similitudinem carnis peccati assumpsit; « in generationibus autem Lucæ significatur abolitio nostrorum peccatorum a Domino Christo. Et ideo generationes Matthæus descendens enumerat, Lucas autem ascendens. Inde etiam est quod Matthæus ab ipso David per Salomonem descendit, in cujus matre ille peccavit; Lucas vero ad ipsum David per Nathan ascendit, per cujus nominis prophetam Deus peccatum illius expiavit. Et inde est etiam quod quia Matthæus ad mortalitatem nostram Christum descendentem voluit significare, ipsas generationes ab Abraham usque ad Joseph, et usque ad ipsius Christi nativitatem descendendo commemoravit ab initio evangelii sui; Lucas autem non ab initio, sed a baptismo Christi generationes enarrat, nec descendendo, sed ascendendo, tamquam sacerdotem in expiandis peccatis magis assignans, ubii testimonium Joannes perhibuit dicens: Ecce qui tollit peccata mundi; ascendendo autem transit ad Abraham, et pervenit ad Deum, cui mundati et expiati reconciliamur. Merito etiam adoptionis originem ipse suscepit, quia per adoptionem efficimur filii Dei; per carnalem vero generationem Filius Dei filius hominis factus est. Satis autem demonstravit non se ideo dixisse Joseph filium Heli, quod de illo sit genitus, sed quod ab illo fuerit adoptatus, cum et ipsum Adam filium Dei dixerit, cum sit factus a Deo. » Numerus etiam quadragenarius ad tempus præsentis vitæ pertinet, propter quatuor partes mundi, in quo mortalem vitam ducimus sub Chris'o regnante. « Quadraginta autem quater habent decem; et ipsa decem, ab uno usque ad quatuor progrediente numero consummatur. » Posset etiam denarius ad Decalogum referri, et quaternarius ad præsentem vitam, vel etiam ad quatuor Evangelia, secundum quæ Christus regnat in nobis. Et ideo Matthæus regiam personam Christi commendans, quadraginta personas posuit, excepto ipso. Sed hoc intelligendum est, si sit idem Jechonias, qui ponitur in fine secundi quaternarii, et in principio tertii, ut Augustinus vult, loc. sup. cit., § 10, qui dicit factum esse ad significandum, quod « in Jechonia facta est quædam deflexio ad extraneas gentes, quando in Babyloniam transmi-gratum est, quod etiam præfigurabat Christum a circumcisione ad præputium migraturum. » Hieronymus autem dicit i Matt., v. 12, col. 23, t. 7, duos fuisse Joachim, id est, Jechonias, patrem scilicet et filium; quorum uterque in generatione Christi assumitur, ut constet distinctio generationum quas Evangelista per tres quaterdenarios distinguit, quod ascendit ad quadraginta duas personas. Qui etiam numerus sanctæ convenit Ecclesiæ: hic enim numerus consurgit ex senario, qui significat laborem præsentis vitæ, et septenario, qui significat quietem vitæ futuræ: sexies enim septem sunt quadraginta duo. Ipse etiam quaternarius, quia ex denario et quaternario constituitur per aggregationem, ad eamdem significationem pertinere potest, quæ attributa est quadragenario, qui consurgit ex eisdem numeris secundum multiplicationem. Numerus autem quo Lucas utitur in generationibus Christi significat universitatem peccatorum. Denarius enim tanquam justitiæ numerus, in decem præceptis legis ostenditur. Peccatum autem est legis transgressio, denarii vero numeri transgressio est undenarius. Septenarius autem significat universitatem, quia universum tempus septenario dierum numero volvitur. Septies autem undecim sunt septuaginta septem. Et ita per hoc significatur universitas peccatorum, quæ per Christum tolluntur.
[II-II.q.31.a.3.ad.4] Parents are like superiors, and so a parent's love tends to conferring benefits, while the children's love tends to honor their parents. Nevertheless in a case of extreme urgency it would be lawful to abandon one's children rather than one's parents, to abandon whom it is by no means lawful, on account of the obligation we lie under towards them for the benefits we have received from them, as the Philosopher states (Ethic. viii, 14).
[II-II.q.31.a.3.ad.4] Ad quartum dicendum, quod sicut Hieronymus Super i Matth., col. 22, t. 7, dicit, « quia Joram rex generi se miscerat impiissimæ Jezabelis, idcirco usque ad tertiam generationem ejus memoria tollitur, ne in sanctæ nativitatis ordine poneretur. » Et ita, ut Chrysostomus dicit, Hom. i Oper. 4 imperf., ante med., quanta benedictio facta est super Jehu, qui vindictam fecerat super domum Achab et Jezabel, tanta fuit maledictio super domum Joram propter filiam iniqui Achab et Jezabel, ut usque ad quartam generationem præcidantur filii ejus de numero regum, sicut scriptum est Exod., xx: Reddam peccatum parentum in filios usque ad tertiam et quartam generationem. » Et etiam attendendum quod et alii reges fuerunt peccatores, qui in genealogia Christi ponuntur; sed nonfuit eorum continuata impietas. Nam, ut dicitur in lib. Quæstionum veteris et novi Testamenti, quæst. Lxxxv, col. 2280, t. 3, « Salomon merito patris sui dimissus in regno est; Roboam merito Asa filii sui. Horum autem trium continuavit impietas.»
JSON: /api/sources/opera-omnia-aquinas/summa-theologiae/secunda-secundae/q031.json