Having warned his listeners not to approach the their baptismal instructions-and, by implication, their baptism- out of mere curiousity (section 2), the Saint now tells the story of  a guest who shows  up to a wedding feast in unseemly dress and with bad manners.   He is clearly adopting and adapting Jesus’ parable of the wedding feast from Matthew 22:1-14.

A certain man in the Gospel once pried into the marriage feast, and took an unbecoming garment, and came in, and sat down, and ate: for the bridegroom permitted it.  But when he (the guest) saw them all clad in white, he ought to have assumed a garment of the same kind himself; for like the others he partook of the food but was unlike them in fashion and purpose.  The bridegroom, however, though bountiful, was not undiscerning; and in going round to each of the guests and observing them (for his care was not with their eating, but for their seemly behavior), he saw a stranger not having on a wedding garment, and said to him, “friend, how is it you came in looking like that?  In that color!  With what a conscience!  True, the door-keeper did not forbid you entrance because of my bounty; but were you ignorant of what fashion to wear to a wedding feast?  When you came in and beheld the glorious raiment of the guests, should this not have been a lesson to you?  Should you not have receded in good taste so as to return in good taste? (i.e. you should have gone home and changed, then represented yourself) But since you have come here and stayed without taste, tastelessly you shall be cast out.”  And so the Bridegroom ordered the servants to bind the feet he used to intrude; and to bind the hands he refused to use to put on fine garments; and he ordered him cast headlong into the outer darkness, for he was unworthy of the wedding torches.  Seeing, then, what happened to that man, make your own condition safe.

NOTES

The bountiful bridegroom.  The description of the bridegroom as bountiful or benefiecent was no doubt meant to recall to the listeners minds what was said in section 1: “For he does not lie who said, “to them that love God all things work together for good.” God is lavish in beneficence, yet he waits for each man’s genuine will…”  The saint clearly wants us to see the wedding guest as not acting with a good will.  “Like the others he partook of the food but was unlike them in fashion and purpose.”  The food  no doubt represents the instructions they are receiving.  Proper attire symbolizes the good will or purpose the saint had praised them for in section 1, and exhorted them to maintain in section 2.

 (The bridegroom went) round to each of the guests and observing them (for his care was not with their eating, but for their seemly behavior), he saw a stranger not having on a wedding garment, and said to him, “friend, how is it you came in looking like that?  In that color!  With what a conscience!  The watchful bridegroom who notices the man’s slovenly appearance and recognizes it as bad conscience calls to mind the warning at the end of section 2:  You must not tempt God’s grace so that no bitter root grow up and cause trouble. Let none of you come in saying, ‘let us see what the faithful are doing; let me go in and see, that I may leaarn what is being done.’ Do you expect to see and yet not be seen? Do you think that while you search out what is going on, God is not searching your heart?  

Should you not have receded in good taste so as to return in good taste? (i.e. you should have gone home and changed, then represented yourself) But since you have come here and stayed without taste, tastelessly you shall be cast out.  Normally, a bridegroom would not cast an invited guest out of his wedding feast, but should an inconsiderate guest expect considerations from the man who invited him? “the measure with whcih you measure shall be measured out to you.” (Mt 7:2).   Notice that the feet with which the guest walked in with, and the hands he refused to dress himself properly with, are bound.

he ordered him cast headlong into the outer darkness, for he was unworthy of the wedding torches.  Possibly an allusion to the parable of the ten virgins (Mt 25:1-13).  As noted at the beginning, the saint is making use of the parable of the wedding feast from Matthew 22:1-14.  This use of scripture as a warning reminds us of what was said earlier by the saint in relation to what happened to Simon Magus:  I make reference and indict this man for his fall so that you may not fall. Things such as this happen to serve as an example to you, and were written down as an admonition for those who would draw near (i.e. to baptism).

Did not Simon Magus once approach the laver and have himself baptized without being enlightened? Though he plunged his body into water his heart was not enlightened by the Holy Spirit. Though his body went down and came up again his soul was neither buried with Christ nor raised up with him. I make reference and indict this man for his fall so that you may not fall. Things such as this happen to serve as an example to you, and were written down as an admonition for those who would draw near (i.e. to baptism). You must not tempt God’s grace so that no bitter root grow up and cause trouble. Let none of you come in saying, ‘let us see what the faithful are doing; let me go in and see, that I may leaarn what is being done.’ Do you expect to see and yet not be seen? Do you think that while you search out what is going on, God is not searching your heart?

NOTES

“Did not Simon Magus once approach the laver?” The story of Simon Magus can be read in Acts 8:9-24. He was a Samaritan who became a believer and was baptised but latter fell away. St Cyril seems to suggest (wrongly, I think) that neither his faith or his baptism were on the up and up. In spite of this, the saint’s warnings to his hearers remains valid.

“Though he plunged his body into the water he was not enlightened by the Holy Spirit.” Light often has a spiritual meaning in the NT Jn 1:9; 1 Cor 4:5; 2 Cor 4:4-6; Eph 1:18; 2 Tim 1:10; Heb 6:4 and 10:32. The two passages from Hebrews were instrumental in the application of the term enlightened to baptism.

“Though his body went down and came up again his soul was neither buried with Christ nor raised up with him.” See Romans 6:1-11.

“Things such as this happen to serve as an example to you, and were written down as an admonition for those who would draw near” (i.e. to baptism). The saint is here alluding to 1 Cor 10:1-14; especially verse 11. A somewhat similar idea occurs in Romans 15:1-3.

“No bitter root grow up and cause trouble.” A reference to Hebrews 12:14-17: “See to it that no one fail to obtain the grace of God; that no “root of bitterness” spring up and cause trouble, and by it the many become defiled; that no one be immoral or irreligious like Esau, who sold his birthright for a single meal.
For you know that afterward, when he desired to inherit the blessing, he was rejected, for he found no chance to repent, though he sought it with tears.” (RSV)

“let none of you come in saying…” The saint warns them not to be baptized out of mere curiosity concerning what the faithful are doing.

NOTES

Already there is an odor of blessedness upon you, O you who are soon to be enlightened. The odor the saint is referring to is the blessings of baptism. Though they have not yet been “enlightened” (i.e. baptized) the blessing of baptism is said to surround them like a ladies fine perfume because the have made it through the initial stages of the catechumenate and are preparing for the 40 day test of Lent. Perhaps the blessing spoken of here is akin to that of the baptism of desire, for already they have gathered round the vestibule of the King’s palace, but they have not yet entered it; blossoms have appeared upon the trees, but not yet the fruit; and “to them that love God all things work together for good,” so it follows that those who have honesty of purpose, in both mind and heart, are called according to his purpose.

Enlightened: In the early Church this word was often associated with baptism. The story of the man born blind whom Jesus healed by sending him to wash in the pool of Siloam is often associated with this theme (see John 9:1-41, and note the themes of Jesus as light of the world and of the blindness of the pharisees).

The holy spirit has breathed upon you. Perhaps an allusion to God breathing into Adam’s nostrils to give him life (Gen 2:7; see also Jn 20:22).

You have gathered round the vestibule of the King’s palace; may you be led in also by the King! An image perhaps suggested by Psalm 45:11-16.

For blossoms have now appeared on the trees; may the fruit also be found perfect! Perhaps suggested by Mark 13:28, or its parallels.

Thus far there has been an inscription of your names… perhaps an allusion to passages such as Rev 13:8; 17:8; or Daniel 12:1.

torches of the bridal train.. Perhaps an allusion to the ten virgins parable of Matt 25:1-13.

A Synopsis of the introductory chapter

Click here for text 

Introductory- The subject of the treatise: the humiliation and incarnation of the Word. Presupposes the doctrine of creation, and that by the word. The father has saved the world by him through whom he first made it.

Paganism has been discussed in our former treatise (i.e. AGAINST THE HEATHEN), and the divinity of the Word, along with His function in respect of the creation of the world.

As the proper sequence to this we will now discuss the Incarnation and Divine manifestation of the Word, in order that on account of his humiliation he may be the more reverenced.

To the scoff of unbelievers He opposes proofs of His Divinity; immpossibilities through Him become possibilities; things unseemly become seemly; things human become divine. Heathen gods are overthrown by the cross, nd scoffers are insensibly won over to acknowledge him.

For a due treatment of the subject it is necessary to repeat what has already been said, in order to know-

1. The cause of the manifestation, and

2. The nature of the saviour’s assumption of humanity. For being incorporeal , he assumed a human body.

   The incarnation presupposses the creation; the restoration of fallen creation by its Creator fitly follows; for the Father worked out it re-creation in Him through whom He originally made it.

The testimony of tradition on the Holy Trinity is extensively treated in the history of dogma. Here we shall discuss only the more important questions relating to the difference between tradition in the ante-Nicene and post-Nicene periods. These questions have at all times been discussed in the Church, and St. Thomas himself wrote of them at length in his <Commentary on the Prologue of the Fourth Gospel>, where he speaks of Origen’s error about the Word, the Son of God, and in the <Summa>, where he says, “The Arians, for whom Origen was the source, taught that the Son was different from the Father by a diversity of substance,” and that the Word is said to be divine only metaphorically and not properly.[100]

At the outset it should be noted, as is evident from the New Testament, that from the beginning the Church believed explicitly in the mystery of the Trinity, professing in concrete terms that God the Father sent His only-begotten Son into the world and then the Holy Ghost came to sanctify men. This is the substance of the Apostles’ Creed itself. In defining this mystery the Church did not yet make use of such abstract terms as nature, person, and Trinity, but it was already clear that the words “Father” and “Son” were personal nouns. This should be kept in mind lest the earlier sublime simplicity of contemplation, which transcends the later technical terminology, be confused with a later attempt to debase this doctrine by a superficial and spurious simplicity. Some say that at first the faith of the Church was proposed in a popular manner and later more scientifically; it would be better to say that in the beginning the faith was expressed in a concrete manner, which in its sublimity surpassed the abstract technicality of a later age. In the transition from this concrete expression of the faith, particularly in the earliest Creeds, to the abstract expression as formulated against Arianism in the Council of Nicaea in 325, certain difficulties arose which were solved by the Nicene Council itself. Thus in this matter we distinguish two periods: the ante-Nicene and the post-Nicene periods. We see here how slowly man learns to abstract, how he slowly attains to the third stage of abstraction divorced from all matter, how at first his metaphysical notions are confused, and only later become clarified and distinct. Then the danger of the abuse of abstraction arises as in the decline of Scholasticism, when the mind receded too far from the concrete, from the documents of revelation, and from the vital contemplation of divine things.

Ante-Nicene Testimonies

In this period the documents which express the faith of the Church can easily be reconciled with the later definitions of the Council of Nicaea, which state the doctrine of the Trinity more explicitly. The writings of many ante-Nicene Fathers, however, with their mingling of faith and philosophical theory, are correct in their statement of the substance of the mystery, but the explanations they offer often contain inexact expressions, some of which seem to incline to Subordinationism, and others seem to favor Sabellianism or Modalism. We see here how the evolution of dogma is the progressive unfolding of the same truth, from the indistinct and concrete concepts to the more defined and distinct concepts.

We should not be surprised to learn that the early Fathers used such inexact expressions since they were confronted with the problem of refuting heresies which were mutually opposed; to show the real distinction between the persons against the Modalists they sometimes made use of expressions tainted with Subordinationism, and when they were intent on safeguarding the unity of God they sometimes weakened the distinction between the persons. Theologians have at all times carefully distinguished between the documents of faith proposed by the Church, in which tradition is found without any admixture of philosophical theory, and the writings of the Fathers which were more or less exact in their use of abstract and philosophical terminology.

The faith of the early Church about the Trinity was expressed chiefly in three ways: 1. in the manner of baptizing, 2. in the various Creeds, 3. in the doxologies.

1. Baptism was conferred by a triple immersion and with the invocation of the three divine persons. The manner of baptizing is given in the Didache (VII, I ff.): “Baptize in this manner: after you have said all these things, baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost with living water. Pour water on the head three times in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.” The same instruction is found in Tertullian, writing against Praxeas.[101] Praxeas was a Patripassian, admitting the existence of only one person, the Father, who had become incarnate. In his reply to Praxeas, Tertullian wrote: “We immerse not once but three times at each of the names and for each of the persons.” Further, the sign of the cross expresses three mysteries: the Trinity, the Incarnation, when the hand descends to the breast at the words “and of the Son,” and the Redemption by the form of the cross.

2. The faith of the Church in the Trinity is expressed in various creeds. St. Irenaeus tells us that in the second century the catechumens before they were baptized read or recited a certain rule of faith or profession of faith in the Trinity, which declared, “In one God, the almighty Father, who made heaven and earth and sea, and all that are in them; and in Jesus Christ, the Son of God, incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Ghost, who by the prophets preached the ordinances of God.”[102] This belief was developed in later creeds which can be found in Denzinger.[103]

3. The faith of the primitive Church in the Trinity is also enunciated in the doxologies, which were in use from the earliest times. Many of them are found in the epistles of St. Paul, who in the beginning or at the conclusion invokes and glorifies the three persons of the Trinity.[104]

Later, we read in the Acts of the Martyrdom of St. Polycarp, the disciple of St. John, that at his execution St. Polycarp exclaimed: “Lord God almighty, Father of Thy blessed and beloved Son Jesus Christ, I bless Thee,… I glorify Thee through the heavenly and eternal high priest Jesus Christ, Thy beloved Son, through whom there is to Thee with Him and the Holy Ghost glory now and in future ages. Amen.”[105]

As early as the second century the Church used the lesser doxology, “Glory be to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Ghost,” still recited in the Divine Office at the end of each psalm, and the greater doxology, “Glory to God in the highest,” in which the Church’s faith in the Trinity is expressed in greater detail. In the greater doxology we have an example of that sublime contemplation which assuredly will dispose us to an intimate union with the Blessed Trinity no less than many scholastic treatises on the Trinity. Often when celebrating Mass the priest recites this doxology in a mechanical manner as something prescribed by the rubrics. It is, however, an instance of profound contemplation of the mystery of the Trinity of great antiquity, for Pope St. Telesphorus (128-39) commanded that the Gloria be recited on the feast of the Nativity of our Lord.[106]

The greater doxology begins with the song of the angels, “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace to men of good will”; then the one God is adored, “We adore Thee, we glorify Thee”; the in we adore, “God the Father almighty,” our “Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son; O Lord God, Lamb of God, Son of the Father,” and finally the Holy Ghost, “together with the Holy Ghost, in the glory of God the Father. Amen.”

Many contemplative minds have not found a more beautiful expression of this mystery, and yet it is often recited mechanically as something already well known and worthy of no further consideration or contemplation. The result is a kind of materialization of divine worship. The great antiquity of this greater doxology shows how vivid was the early Christian’s faith in the Trinity, even though he spoke rather inexactly when he treated of the mystery in abstract and philosophical language.

In spite of some inexact expressions, the teaching of the ante-Nicene Fathers can easily be reconciled with the later definitions of the Council of Nicaea. At all times they held fast to the doctrine expressed in the earliest creeds concerning one God in three persons. Among the apostolic Fathers, St. Clement of Rome in his two letters to the Corinthians[107] says that the Father is the Creator, the Son is more excellent than the angels and is God Himself, and that the Holy Ghost spoke through the prophets. We find like expressions in the epistles of St. Ignatius Martyr to the Ephesians and to the Magnesians.[108] All the Fathers believed in one God in three persons, and those Fathers who opposed Modalism clearly asserted the real distinction between the persons. Thus St. Hippolytus,[109] wrote: “It is necessary that we confess that the Father is God almighty, and Jesus Christ the Son of God, God made man, and the Holy Ghost, and these are really three.”

Tertullian (213-25)[110] asserts the unity of substance no less clearly than the Trinity of persons. He says: “We should guard the sacredness of the economy (i. e., the sacred doctrine) which teaches that there is unity and trinity, three directing, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. Three, however, not in status but in degree… of one substance and one power, for it is one God from whom these degrees, these forms and species, in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, are derived.” It was difficult to find the proper abstract terms; the words “degree, form, species” are quite inadequate to express abstractly the distinction between the persons.

In asserting the distinction between the persons, the ante-Nicene Fathers generally avoided the language of the Subordinationists. Some, however, like Origen (202-54), leaned somewhat to Subordinationism, saying that the Son was in some manner inferior to the Father, and the Holy Ghost was inferior to the Son.[111] Misled by his philosophy, Origen seems to have come under the influence of Philo, and in his attempt to confute the Modalists he made use of inaccurate expressions and merited the criticism of later writers.[112]–Excerpted from the introduction to THE TRINITY AND GOD THE CREATOR by Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, a commentary on questions 27-83 of the Summa Theologica.  See the link to this work on my Theology Page.

Posted by Dim Bulb. Interested in the Bible? Please take a look at my other site.