Sermon

There is no one with a correct understanding who does not know that the community of God and angels and people is one community. The Apostle speaks of this in 2 Corinthians 1: the faithful God by whom you are called into the community of his Son, our Lord Jesus Christ (1 Cor 1:9). And John 1 reads: if we walk in the light, just as he also is in the light, we are in communion with one another (1 John 1:7). (Aquinas references this passage in Commentary on 1 Corinthians, at 1:9, ch. 1, lect. 1, n. 72.)

This is a community insofar as they share the same end, namely, happiness, (Thus this community (societas) is one in the sense that we are one with God through the Son, one with the other people of God and with the angels, and one in the sense that we are directed towards the same goal: happiness (beatitudo). It is also one in the sense that there is no other community like it; it is unique. Cf. how Thomas explains “one” in ST I.11, on the oneness of God.) for God is happy, and angels attain happiness by effort, and people do, too. But God has it by essence, whereas the others have it by participation. (ST I.26, resp.; I-II.5.1 and 3, and I-II.5.5–7.) Therefore, it says in 1 Timothy 6:15: in his time the happy and only powerful God will show us Jesus Christ.

Now, people who live together, in the sense that they have the same end, must share with one another what they are doing in such a way that those who have not yet reached the end are led to it. And therefore, we, the ones on the way to happiness, are led into it by words and examples. (Thomas says the same as for wisdom and knowledge; cf. Sermon 8, The Boy Jesus, section 3.2.3. One Latin text reads inducimus (“we lead”): we [Dominicans and Franciscans embarking upon preaching and teaching ministries] lead the ones on the way to happiness by words and examples. Another Latin version reads inducimur (“we are led”): we, the ones on the way to happiness, are led into it by words and examples [of the saints].) Whereas the ones who have already achieved the end help others to achieve it. And this is the reason why we celebrate the feasts of the saints who have already attained happiness, (And we pray to them: ST II-II.83.4.) so that we may be helped by their favors (Through their prayers: ST II-II.83.11.) and may be built up by their examples and stimulated by their rewards.

But since we cannot celebrate all the feasts of the individual saints, because their number is unknown to us (cf. Rev 7:9), and since in the solemnities that we do celebrate we neglect many things, the Church provides to our benefit that she celebrates the festivities of all the saints conjointly at the same time, so that what was not rendered to each individual saint would at least be rendered in this solemn feast, and everything that was neglected would be somehow replenished by it. (See Pseudo-Bede, Homily 71 (PL 94:452D–453A), which is read in the Dominican rite liturgy at the Matins of All Saints under the name “Rabani” (Rome, Santa Sabina AGOP XIV L 1, f. 221ra): ut quidquid humana fragilitas per ignorantiam vel negligentiam seu preoccupationem rei secularis in solemnitatibus sanctorum minus plene peregisset, in hac sancta observatione solveretur, “in order that whatever human weakness, through ignorance or negligence or preoccupation with worldly things, less fully accomplishes during the solemnities of the holy days, is absolved in this holy observance.”)

Therefore, since we have come now to the festivities of the community of the saints, the happy ones, (Beatus means “happy” as well as “saint,” someone who attained the ultimate happiness in patria, in heaven; thus societas beatorum is synonymous with societas sanctorum.) we are to speak about happiness.

1. So we must know that, although the affect of all people is directed towards happiness, (This view was already formulated by Augustine; cf. ST I-II.5.8; I.19.3; I.82.1; I.94.1; I-II, intr.; I-II.10.2; I-II.13.6; III.18.1, obj. 3.) still there are some people with a different idea about happiness, very many of whom err. (See Aristotle, Ethics 1.4, 1095a20–28; Aquinas, Commentary on the Ethics, bk. 1, lect. 4; Table of the Ethics, ch. 6, under the word felicitas; Commentary on the Psalms, at Psalm 32:12, n. 316: de beatitudine diversi diversa senserunt. Et secundum diversas opiniones de hac diversae sunt secte philosophorum; “different people think different things about happiness. And there are different philosophical sects according to these different opinions”; Sermon 20, Happy the Nation Whose Lord Is Its God. See also Jacobus de Voragine, Sermons concerning All the Saints, sermon 4, “Beati qui habitant,” ed. Augsburg and Krakow, 1760, bk. 2, p. 340: omnes homines naturaliter appetunt beatitudinem, sed circa ipsam beatitudinem diversi diversimode erraverunt, “all men naturally desire happiness, but different people have erred concerning this happiness in different ways” (cf. Johannes Baptist Schneyer, Repertorium der lateinischen Sermones des Mittelalters für die Zeit von 1150–1350, Beiträge zur Geschichte der Philosophie und Theologie des Mittelalters, band 43, 9 vols. [Münster: Aschendorff, 1969–80], bk. 3, p. 264, n. 571).) For some err concerning (1.1) the abode of happiness, (1.2) others concerning its duration, and (1.3) others again concerning the occupation or operation of the happy ones.

1.1. Some err concerning the abode of happiness because they think that happiness is in this world: either in corporeal things (ST I-II.2.1 and 2.5–6.) or in virtues or in knowing things. (ST I-II.2.7.) Against them the Lord says through Isaiah 3:12: my people, those who are calling you happy are deceiving you. And this is rightly spoken, (ST I-II.2.8, 5.5; Thomas describes the group of people who think that true happiness is something created, and thus within creation, and therefore consider it possible to grasp it.)

1.1.1. because this opinion is first of all at odds with the perfection of happiness. For, according to the Philosopher, happiness is the perfect good. (Aristotle, Ethics 1.7, 1097a24-b6; Aquinas, Commentary on the Ethics, bk. 1, lect. 9, n. 111. See also ST I.26.1, obj. 1, ad 1; I-II.3.1, obj. 2, ad 2; I-II.5.2, obj. 2, ad 2.) And since it is the ultimate end, it is absolutely necessary that it quiets desire. (SCG III.29: summum bonum oportet esse perfectum: cum quietet appetitum, “the supreme good must be perfect, for it satisfies the appetite.”) This would not be the case if, after these things have come into our possession, some desire would remain. In this life, however, neither can the perfection of the good be in the things of this world—because as people attain these things, they desire even more—nor can they be in virtues and knowing things, because for every man hitherto [the desire] remains to advance in virtue and knowledge. (Growth is a sign that one has not reached perfection yet; cf. the 4th way in ST I.2.3; also I.4.1, obj. 1, ad 1.) The psalmist says: your eyes have seen my imperfection (Ps 139:16). 1 Corinthians 13 reads: for we know in part, in part we prophesy (1 Cor 13:9).

1.1.2. Second, this opinion is at odds with the purity of happiness. For, since happiness is the highest good, it cannot be mixed with evil. (See SCG III.28; ST I.5.3, obj. 2.) For it is absolutely necessary that white be not at all mixed with black. Hence someone cannot be called happy who is subject to one or another misery, nor can someone at the same time be unhappy and happy. (At least, not concerning the same thing: ST III.46.8, obj. 1; see also SCG III.39: nemo enim simul miser et felix esse potest, “for no man can be at the same time happy and unhappy.”) Yet in this life no one can be found who is not subject to a particular misery, either insofar as it concerns discomfort as regards things or [insofar as it concerns discomfort as regards] friends or some person, through which also the realization of our virtue and knowledge is hindered. (ST III.5.3, where Thomas cites the same text from Job. Actus is translated here as “realization”: the development of the virtue and knowledge which we have in potentia, so that it becomes full-grown, in actu, is hindered, because of the fact that we are acted upon by things that are harmful or not helpful.) Hence Job says about man that he is filled with many miseries (Job 14:1).

1.1.3. Third, this opinion denies the stability of happiness. (See SCG III.39: id quod est summum hominis bonum, oportet esse stabilissimum in rebus humanis, “man’s supreme good must be supremely stable in human things.”) For happiness would not quiet our desire unless it were stable; the more we love the goods we possess, the more affliction they bring about as we fear losing them. (In ST II-II.19.2, Thomas calls this type of fear “human” or “worldly,” for it concerns what is worldly (humanus, mundanus). This fear is never a good (II-II.19.3); it is not a gift from the Holy Spirit (II-II.19.9); it diminishes our love (II-II.19.10) and will not remain in heaven (II-II.19.11), contrary to the holy fear of the Lord, which is a virtue: II-II.19.7 and II-II.9–12.) Therefore, according to the Philosopher, we must not think that a happy person is a chameleon which changes color at a glance; (Aristotle, Ethics* 1.10, 1100b4–7; Aquinas, Commentary on the Ethics, bk. 1, lect. 15, n. 186. See also Table of the Ethics, ch. 6, under the word felix; In II Sent. 7.1.1, s.c. 1: non enim aestimandum est felicem esse chamelaeonta quemdam, “for we should not regard one who is happy as being like a chameleon.”)* he must rather be unchangeable, something we cannot be in this life. For exterior things and the human body are subjected to various events, and no one is safeguarded against this, so that from experience we can learn that in this life there is no stability. (The idea that everything on earth changes all the time and nothing remains (the same)—as in the famous words πάντα ῥεῖ καὶ οὐδὲν μένει, attributed to Heraclitus—is based on our experience; cf. the first and third ways in ST I.2.3. God, however, who is not part of the creation but the Creator, is stable, unchangeable, and fully happy: ST I.4.1; I.9.1; I.26.1 and 4.) Thus it says in Job 14:2 that man never remains in the same state. And Proverbs 14:13 reads: the ends of joy are taken up by grief.

Therefore, if you ask the psalmist where the true abode of happiness is, he answers: happy those who live in your house, Lord (Ps 84:5).

1.2. Concerning the duration of happiness some people err, saying that the souls that have left the body attain happiness and that after a long course of years they return to a body and that they subsequently stop being happy because they are subjected [again] to the miseries of our present life. (The idea of reincarnation is not compatible with the Christian faith and is furthermore not appealing to Thomas: SCG IV.91.) And this is the error of Plato and his followers; (See Augustine, City of God, bk. 10, ch. 30 (CCSL 47:307; CSEL 40/1:500; PL 41:310): nam Platonem animas hominum post mortem revolui usque ad corpora bestiarum scripsisse certissimum est, “there is no question, for instance, that Plato wrote that human souls return after death, even entering the bodies of beasts.” See also Plato, Timaeus, 42BC.) even Origen fell into this error. (See Jerome, Against John of Jerusalem, para. 16 (PL 23:368BC); Epistle 124, Ad Avitum (CSEL 56/1:98; PL 22:1061); from Origen, On the Principles, bk 1, ch. 4, para. 1. See Aquinas, In IV Sent*. 44.1.1, qa. 1, resp.; SCG II.83; Commentary on Job, at 7:5, ch. 7, lect. 2; in 19:25, ch. 19, lect. 2; Compendium theologiae, bk. 1, ch. 153; ST I.46.2, ad 8; I-II.5.4, resp. See Jacobus de Voragine on the above passage (preface, p. 295).)* What is said in Wisdom 2:22 can be applied to them: they were of the opinion that the souls of the holy ones are not rewarded. And in Matthew 25:46 we read: these will go into the eternal punishment, but the just ones will enter eternal life. Well, this idea of theirs seems to be reprehensible for three reasons:

1.2.1. First, because it is at odds with the natural desire. For naturally there is in everything an appetite by which it conserves itself in being and in its perfection. (Cf. ST II-II.64.5 and 7. Although eventually it is God alone who conserves all things in being: ST I.9.2; I.14.1–2; I.46.1; III.13.2.) But there is a difference: things which lack the ability to consider [what perfection] in general [is], do not reach [for perfection]; their appetite is directed towards the here-and-now, so that their perfection is preserved. (ST I.62.1; I.63.3; I.75.6.) Yet a rational nature which surmises [what perfection] in general [is], (ST I.12.8, ad 4. Therefore, Thomas approaches “perfection” from different angles, for example, ST I.6.3 (in view of God), I.73.1 (in view of the substantial and accidental forma, the substance and the end), I-II.98.2, ad 1 (in view of the nature of a thing and the time when it is/was).) naturally has the appetite to conserve its perfection all the time. So, if the soul has not reached everlasting happiness, it is not satisfied by natural desire. Nor would it be true happiness with the ignorance of a defect to come or with the foreknowledge of misfortune to come. (Because the first is not stable and the second contains fear, which is incompatible with happiness. ST I.64.2; II-II.18.3; cf. I.102.2, ad 1.) Well, in view of this natural desire the Apostle says in 2 Corinthians 5:2: for we groan, longing to be clothed with our dwelling place from heaven, et cetera. (See Aquinas, ST I-II.5.4, resp.: naturaliter autem homo desiderat retinere bonum quod habet, et quod eius retinendi securitatem obtineat. . . . Requiritur igitur ad veram beatitudinem quod homo certam habeat opinionem bonum quod habet, nunquam se amissurum. . . . Non igitur iam vere erit beatus, si aliquod malum ei inest; “but a man naturally desires to hold on to the good that he has and to have a guarantee that he will keep it. . . . Therefore, what is required for genuine beatitude is that a man have the fixed opinion that he will never lose the good that he has. . . . Therefore, he will not have been truly blessed if some evil exists in him.”)

1.2.2. Second, because it is at odds with the perfection of grace, for everything that is totally filled with its own perfection is immovably preserved in it. (Cf. ST I.62.8; I-II.109.10, obj. 3; II-II.137.4.) Therefore, prime matter does not remain in the form of air forever, since such a form does not fill the total capacity of the matter. (ST I.66.1–2.) The intellect truly remains immovable in its thinking according to the first principles, because through them the intellect is filled insofar as it concerns that truth. It is not, however, completely filled with probable chains of reasoning, and so it does not think in an immovable way. (ST I.17.3, 85.6. So the principles may be clear, but as soon as our reasoning begins to depart from them, we may err.) But a happy soul is totally filled with happiness; otherwise, happiness would not be a perfect good. Therefore, we read in a psalm: you will fill me completely with joy when I see your face (Ps 16:11), et cetera. And because of this it continues: delights are in your right hand till the end (ibid.). And because the everlasting duration [of this] leads to such a fullness of grace, it says in Revelation 3:12: the one who will conquer, I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God, and he will not go out from it any more. (SCG III.62; ST I-II.5.4.)

1.2.3. Third, it goes against the equity of the divine justice, for through love a human being clings to God with the intention never to recede from him. (ST II-II.25.1; I-II.49.2, ad 3; the perfection of a Christian life consists in love (caritas): II-II.184.1.) Romans 8:35: who will separate us from the love of Christ? Hence it is not fully satisfying for love if it is at times removed from the enjoyment of God. Because of this John 6:37 says: I will not throw out who comes to me. (Likewise, it is in accordance with the divine justice that sinners are punished, for example, in ST I.49.2 and I.113.7. See Aquinas, ST I-II.5.4, resp.: similiter etiam non potest eam perdere, Deo subtrahente. Quia, cum subtractio beatitudinis sit quaedam poena, non potest talis subtractio a Deo, iusto iudice, provenire, “similarly, he cannot lose it by having God take it away from him. For since taking away beatitude would constitute a punishment, it could not come from God, the just judge.”)

So if you ask the psalmist what he thinks about this idea, he responds: they will praise you for ever and ever (Ps 84:5).

1.3. Jews and Muslims err about the happy ones’ occupation or what they do; they say that the happy people abandon themselves to excessive eating, drinking-bouts, and unions with women. (See SCG III.27. See also Jacobus de Voragine, on the above passage: preface, p. 269.) The Lord rejects this in Matthew 22: in the resurrection they neither marry nor are they given in marriage, but they are as God’s angels in heaven (Matt 22:30). (Cf. also ST I.98.2, obj. 1.) Indeed, their opinion is justly rejected, for it is,

1.3.1. first of all, against the privilege of mankind. Because, if happiness were according to the use of food and sensual things that are found in other living creatures too, not only mankind, but even animals ought to have happiness (See SCG III.27.)—although this still is the privilege of mankind, that among the lower creatures only the human being is capable of happiness. (The lower creatures are the creatures on earth, as distinct from the creatures in the heavens, like the angels, who are happy too; cf. ST I.62.1. ST I-II.2.5, s.c.: secundum beatitudinem homo excellit omnia alia animalia, “with respect to beatitude, man is more excellent than all the other animals”; ST I-II.3.3–4.) Hence the psalmist says: Lord, you will save people and yoked animals (Ps 36:7), that is, through the salvation of the bodies; yet only the children of the people will hope in the shelter of your wings (Ps 36:8).

1.3.2. Second, it goes against the nature of joy, for a higher nature is not made happy by something lower. (Cf. ST I-II.4.5 and 7; a human being is made perfectly joyful only by God: ST I-II.5.6; II-II.28.1, esp. ad 2.)

If, however, the happiness of mankind consisted in eating and drinking, then someone would also be made happy by the foods he eats, and thus these foods would be worth more than a human being.

Mankind, however, is still placed above all other lower natures, (See SCG III.27.) according to the psalmist: you have laid all things under his feet, sheep and cattle all over the world and furthermore the wild animals of the plain, the birds of the heaven, and the fish of the sea (Ps 8:7–9).

1.3.3. Third, it goes against the concentration on the virtues. Because, for a human being, virtue consists in being torn away from pleasures. (Virtues are certain perfections through which the reason is directed towards God, and all other powers in us are ordered in accordance with the reason: ST I.95.3; cf. I-II.55.1.) Hence the virtues that concern pleasures are named by what restricts them, like abstinence, temperance, and the like. On the other hand, there are the virtues that concern wearisome and difficult things, as we clearly see in regard to strength and magnanimity and the like. (These virtues correspond with respectively the so-called passiones concupiscibiles (ST I-II.26–39) and irascibiles (ST I-II.40–48).) Now if the happiness of mankind consisted in the pleasures of the flesh, virtue, which is the way of happiness, would not tear us away from the pleasures of the flesh, but would imply the pleasures. (See SCG III.27.) This happens in those about whom Philippians 3:19 says: their belly is their god, et cetera.

So, if we ask David (Psalm 84 is in fact attributed to the sons of Korah.) what he thinks that the occupation and action is of the happy ones, the saints, he would answer: they will praise you (Ps 84:5).

2. Now it remains to see how we can arrive at this happiness. We must know then that there are three types of happiness.

2.1. The first is worldly happiness, which consists in possessions and the enjoyment of worldly things. The psalmist says: they call the people that has these things happy (Ps 144:15). And indeed, this happiness consists primarily in honors, riches, and delightful things, (ST I-II.2.1–3 and 5–6.) because, as it is said in 1 John 2:16: all that is in the world: the concupiscence of the flesh, et cetera.

Yet, under honor we understand dignity and a good name, so that in this way these three include those five in which, according to Boethius, earthly happiness consists. (Those five . . . according to Boethius: in The Consolation of Philosophy, Boethius names wealth, power, honor, fame, and desire. Even if someone had all five, he says, it would not be perfect happiness, that is, the highest good, unless these were eternal. Boethius, The Consolation of Philosophy, bk. 3, prose 2, 12 (CCSL 94:39), as referenced in SCG I.102; ST I.26.4, resp.) Ambitious people strive after dignity by means of arrogance and money, as it is written in Ecclesiastes 10:19: all things obey money, and in Proverbs 19:6: many honor a person because of his riches. The Lord teaches [us], however, to arrive at dignity by the opposite way: by poverty and humility, (See ST I-II.69.3, resp.: unde prima beatitudo ponitur, Beati pauperes spiritu: quod potest referri vel ad contemptum divitiarum; vel ad contemptum honorum, quod fit per humilitatem, “hence, we have the first beatitude, ‘Blessed are the poor in spirit,’ which can be taken to refer either to the contempt for riches or to the contempt for honors that results from humility.”) because, as it says in Luke 2: he has brought down the mighty from their seat (Luke 1:52), and it is said in Matthew 5:3: happy the poor in spirit, for the kingdom of heaven is theirs. It says kingdom because it is precious among the honors.

Well, this happiness belongs foremost to Christ, (ST III.40.3.) for, because the old fathers [patriarchs] made use of riches, (For example, Abraham (Gen 24:34–35), Isaac (Gen 26:13–14), Jacob (Gen 32:6), David (2 Sam 12:30). King Solomon surpassed everyone: 2 Chronicles 9:22. Thomas frequently warns his pupils about riches, for example, in ST I-II.30.4; I-II.84.1; II-II.32.1, ad 4; II-II.118.4, obj. 3; II-II.186.3, ad 4; II-II.188.7; and III.41.4, ad 3. Since material goods are limited, excessive riches are a sin against the neighbor: ST II-II.118.1, obj. 2. See SCG III.63.) he was the first who preached and taught this, (Cf. ST I-II.108.3, obj. 4. Although we find a similar teaching in Proverbs 16:19: it is better to be humble with the meek than to plunder with the proud.) as we read in 2 Corinthians 8:9: you know the gracious gift of our Lord Jesus Christ, that, although he was rich, he became poor for your sake, so that by his poverty you might be rich; [compare] Matthew 2: if you want to be perfect, go and sell what you have and give to the poor, and you will have a treasure in heaven (Matt 19:21).

Yet people of this world often arrive at riches by quarrels or warfare or by somehow using violence in matters, (ST II-II.118.1, obj. 2.) as it says in James 4:2: you quarrel and wage war. (See SCG III.63; Commentary on Matthew, at 5:4, ch. 5, lect. 2, n. 420: multi enim litigant, ut possessiones acquirant, “for many go to court to acquire possessions.”) But God teaches the opposite way, (In what follows, Thomas presents the Beatitudes not only as a way to classify the saints in heaven, but also as the way to happiness for all people.) namely, the way of mildness, by which no one either angers or becomes angry. (ST II-II.157–58. Mildness belongs to the virtue of temperance (II-II.143.1).) And this is not astonishing, because, as it says in Proverbs 3:34: the kingdom will be given to the mild. (See the hymn in Vespers of Several Martyrs, Sanctorum meritis (Rome, Santa Sabina AGOP XIV L 1, f. 321vb). See also Sermon 20, Happy the Nation Whose Lord Is Its God*.)* And hence the Lord says, happy the meek for they will inherit the earth (Matt 5:5). And this happiness befits the martyrs, who were not angry with their persecutors, but rather prayed for them. Thus it says in 1 Corinthians 4: we are cursed, but we bless; we are persecuted, but we endure (1 Cor 4:12). Thus it is said about them: no groaning resounds, no complaint, et cetera. (From the fourth stanza of the hymn Sanctorum meritis inclyta gaudia, sungat the First Vespers for feast days of the apostles: caeduntur gladiis more bidentium: non murmur resonat, non quaerimonia; sed corde impavido mens beneconscia, conservat patientiam (translated in the Breviary as: “Like sheep their blood they poured: and without groan or tear, they bent before the sword for that their King most dear: Their souls, serenely blest, in patience they possessed and looked in hope towards their rest”).)

People strive to arrive at delights by various comforts. Thus it says in Job 21: they hold the tambourine and the harp and rejoice at the sound of the flute (Job 21:12). (See SCG III.63.) But the Lord teaches the opposite way: mourning; he says: happy they who mourn for they will be comforted (Matt 5:4). And concerning this, Tobit 3:22 (Vg) reads, after lamentation and tears you pour out exaltation. (These words are taken from Sarah’s prayer to God for mercy after being falsely accused of murdering her seven husbands as they died each time during the wedding night: Tobit 3:11–15.) And this happiness befits the ones who confessed their faith, who under much sighing and mourning have lived their life on earth, in accordance with Lamentations 3: for, many are our sighs (Lam 1:22).

2.2. The second happiness belongs to the political realm, (ST I-II.2.4: does the happiness of a person consist in power?) which consists in this: by acting with prudence someone governs his own actions well. The maximum of his ability is reached when he governs not only himself, but even a city and a kingdom. Hence this happiness befits in particular kings and princes. We read about this in Job 22: the hearing ear blesses (For Job in his misery this was history; Job refers to the past, when he was exceedingly wealthy (cf. Job 29:2–10). Accordingly the Vulgate text reads beatificabat, in the imperfect tense. Thomas uses the present tense form beatificat; apparently he considers it reality for the rulers of his day.) me (Job 29:11). Still, we must know that there is a difference between a king and a tyrant, (Cf. Sermon 5, Behold Your King, section 2.1.4.)

2.2.1. for a king is someone who is intent upon the good of the people by his reign. So, what a king issues is not discordant with the order of his wisdom (cf. Jer 23:5). Proverbs 8:15 reads: kings reign by me. But a tyrant is by his own wish intent upon being discordant with the divine order of wisdom, for he aims rather at the satisfaction of his own desire, so that he accomplishes everything as he pleases and is intent to arrive at this through greed, by plundering others unjustly. Hence it says in Proverbs 28:15: a godless prince over a poor people is a roaring lion and a hungry bear. (Hence the title “King” (Rex) for Christ (or for God: SCG III.64) is not problematic for Thoma; cf. also ST I-II.105.1, obj. 2. See Aristotle, Ethics* 8.11, 1161a1–14: regi quidem ad subditos in superabundantia beneficii. Benefacit enim subditis, si quidem bonus ens curam habet ipsorum ut bene operentur, quemadmodum pastor ovium; “the friendship of a king to his subjects is one of superiority in beneficence, for he confers benefactions on them if he is a good ruler, taking care that his subjects act virtuously; he is regarded as a shepherd of his flock”; 1161a32: in tyrannide enim nihil aut parvum amicitiae, “in a tyranny, no friendship, or very little, is found”; Aquinas, Commentary on the Ethics, bk. 8, lect. 11. See also Aristotle, Politics 3.7, 1279b6–7: tyrannis quidem igitur est monarchia ad conferens monarchizantis, “for tyranny is a kind of monarchy which has in view the interest of the monarch only”; Aquinas, Commentary on the Politics, bk. 3, lect. 6. See also Aquinas, In II Sent. 44.1.3, resp.: differt autem tyrannus a rege . . . quia rex ordinat praelationem suam ad bonum gentis cui praeest . . . tyrannus autem praelationem suam ordinat ad utilitatem propriam, “a tyrant differs from a king . . . because a king orders his preeminence to the good of the nation over which he is set . . . whereas a tyrant orders his preeminence to his own benefit”; Commentary on John, at 10:12, ch. 10, lect. 3, n. 1402: haec etiam differentia est inter regem et tyrannum . . . quia rex in suo regimine intendit utilitatem subditorum; tyrannus vero utilitatem propriam, “this is also the difference between a king and a tyrant . . . because when a king rules he intends to benefit his subjects, while a tyrant seeks his own interest”; Sermon 5, Behold Your King, section 2.1.4: quarto, requiritur in rege quod habeat iustitiae equitatem; aliter esset tyrannus convertens omnia ad suam utilitatem, quod non facit rex, sed procurat aliorum ex maxime sibi subditorum utilitatem, omnia ordinans ad bonum commune, “fourth, a king must be equitable, because otherwise he would be a tyrant. For a tyrant turns everything that is in his kingdom to his own benefit, whereas a king organizes his kingdom in view of the common good.”)* But the Lord teaches us to arrive [at happiness] by the contrary way: by justice. (ST II-II.50.1, ad 1: a king ought to be prudent (cf. section 2.2) and righteous (iustus).) Thus he says: happy they who hunger and thirst for justice, for they will be filled (Matt 5:6). And this is what is said in Proverbs 13:25: the just eats and is satisfied. Now, this happiness befits the old fathers [patriarchs], who with the greatest desire hungered for the perfect justice of Christ. We see this desire in Isaiah 64: O, that you would rend the heavens and come down (Isa 64:1).

2.2.2. Second, a tyrant is intent upon not being punished for the evils he has done; he does so by means of cruelty. He exerts himself to obtain this along this way, so that he may be feared so much that no one would contradict him. (Thomas is in favor of defending the common good and resisting evil, but he is not enthusiastic about a revolution against a tyrant or a tyrannical regime, even if he/it is unjust (ST II-II.42.2, ad 3, 118.8, obj. 5). For a revolution may well lead to greater chaos and cruelty. Therefore, the tyrant(s) should be brought down, indeed, for the sake of the common good, yet it ought to be done under the direction of a righteous neighboring king: ST II-II.40.1; II-II.42.2, ad 3.) The psalmist says about these tyrants: they have placed the dead bodies of your servants as bait for the birds of the sky (Ps 79:2).

But the Lord teaches a contrary way, in order to obtain the way of mercy, saying: happy are the merciful, for they will obtain mercy (Matt 5:7). And he continues in Matthew 6:14: for if you forgive the people their sins your heavenly Father will forgive you.

This happiness befits the angels, who, though they are without passion, appear so merciful to us, (In human beings, mercy (misericordia) is always with passio because we have a body (ST I.95.3; II-II.30.3, obj. 2); in God and in angels, who are without a material body, it must be without passio: ST I.21.3.) as they come to our assistance in our miseries. (The term compassio is used by Thomas in the sense of “suffering with,” whereas misericordia is more like what we call “compassion”: being touched (habens miserum cor), so that you reach out to take away your neighbor’s misery: ST I.21.3. Misery—not every weakness or suffering is misery—is contrary to happiness: ST I.21.4; II-II.30.1.) Thus we read in Isaiah 33:7: the angels of peace will cry bitterly.

2.3. The third happiness is a contemplative happiness that is in particular proper to those who apply themselves to acquiring the truth and especially divine truth. Sirach 14:20: happy the man who will abide in wisdom. Philosophers can only obtain this happiness if they are intent upon two things: learning the truth and obtaining authority. (Thomas says this with irony (cf. below). Real authority is found in the teachings of Sacred Doctrine: Scripture and the tradition; cf. ST I.1.5.)

They will only get to know the truth by studying. But God teaches a shorter way: by the cleanness of the heart, (Which is even necessary in order to focus on God: ST II-II.81.8; cf. II-II.180.2, obj. 2. Living a holy life is a source of knowledge and insight about God. In Thomas’s view it would be impossible to study theology while living as an unbeliever. What you learn must be practiced; otherwise, it is meaningless.) saying: happy the clean of heart, for they will see God (Matt 5:8). (Cf. ST II-II.8.7.) Wisdom 1:4 reads: Wisdom will not enter a malevolent soul, nor will she dwell in a body subjected to sin. And this happiness befits in particular the virgins who preserved a cleanness of mind and body.

Philosophers truly want to acquire authority by contentious debates. But, as it is said in 1 Corinthians 11:16: if someone wants to be contentious among you, we do not have such a custom and it is not proper to God’s Church. Thus the Lord teaches us to arrive at divine authority through peace, as a man may be considered by others the one in authority, according to what he has said to Moses in Exodus 7:1: I have placed you as lord over Pharaoh. And therefore it is said: happy the peacemakers, for they will be called the children of God (Matt 5:9). Well, this happiness befits especially the apostles, about whom 2 Corinthians 6 reads: he has placed in us the word of reconciliation (2 Cor 5:19), (Cf. ST I.43.7, obj. 6; I.117.2; III.64.2, obj. 3.) et cetera.

Now, the saying happy they who suffer persecution for the sake of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of the heavens (Matt 5:10) does not mention another happiness, but is said in order to strengthen the ones mentioned before. For, if someone is pulled away from happiness because of persecution, he is not strong in poverty, in mildness, and in the other virtues.

Therefore, all rewards mentioned before ought to be included in this happiness—and so he returns to what he said at the beginning [of the Beatitudes], saying: for theirs is the kingdom of the heavens (Matt 5:3, 10). (In ST II-II.124.1 and 5, Thomas cites this verse in the context of martyrdom.) And in a similar way we should understand because they will possess the earth (Matt 5:5), and likewise the other sayings. (ST I-II.69.3, ad 5.)

So the happiness of the saints contains something of any of the sayings mentioned insofar as we find anything praiseworthy in them.

Ad 2.1. For, compared to earthly happiness, the happiness of the saints has an abundant abode. Hence it says: happy those who live in your house (Ps 84:5).

This is the house of glory, about which the psalmist says: one thing I have asked from the Lord: to live in the house of the Lord all the days of my life (Ps 27:4).

In this house he will obtain whatever he may desire, because: we will be filled with the goods of your house (Ps 65:5), as the psalmist says. Revelation 1 reads: you have made us for our God a kingdom and priests (Rev 5:10).

There will be enough riches present there, as the psalmist testifies: glory and riches are in his house (Ps 112:3a).

There will be delights that refresh the total human being, according to the psalmist: they will be fed with the copiousness of your house and you will slake them from the brook of your will (Ps 36:9).

Ad 2.2. Compared to the happiness that belongs to the political life, they have continuity, for the ruler of a city ought to apply himself to preserve the good of the city all the time. Hence it says: and his justice remains for ever and ever (Ps 112:3b). For sure, this continuity comes forth from three things:

first, from living together with good people. The psalmist says: I will be satisfied when your glory appears (Ps 17:15). (Note that this is the final verse of a Psalm in which the Psalmist prays as he is persecuted by evil people. In ST I-II.69.2, ad 3, Thomas explains that this verse applies not only to the hereafter, but even, albeit not to the full, to life on earth.)

Second, from the removal of condemnable behavior, for, although [people on earth] are satisfied, they still hunger always, as we read in Sirach 22: those who eat me will still be hungry, and those who drink will still be thirsty (Sir 24:21).

Third, from the immunity to all evils and miseries, as in Revelation 7:16: they will no longer hunger or thirst, nor will the sun or any heat strike them.

Ad 2.3. Compared to the contemplative happiness, they will live in a way with the divine things, since contemplative happiness consists particularly in contemplation. And therefore it says: they will praise you (Ps 84:5), for they will see God without an intermediary and clearly, as it says in 1 Corinthians 13:12: now we see by means of a mirror, veiled in mystery, yet then face to face; now we know in part, yet then I will know as I also am known.

And like sons and daughters they will love him incessantly, for according to the Greeks “son” is derived from “to love.” (In Greek, a word for “son” is φίλος (philos), “to love” is φιλέω (phileo). See Papias, Papias vocabulista, under the word “filius” (Venice, 1496, reprinted Torino: Bottega d’Erasmo, 1966), p. 121b.) John 3 reads: see what love the Father has given to us, so that we may be called and are, indeed, God’s sons and daughters (1 John 3:1).

And as good sons and daughters they will honor God by praising him, in accordance with Isaiah 35:10: the ones who are redeemed by the Lord will return and enter Zion with praise, and an everlasting joy will be over their head. They will obtain joy and gaiety, and pain and moaning will flee.

Therefore, the psalmist only mentions this (Psalm 84:5: happy those who live in your house, O Lord.) with the things that are said above in mind, because what is praised is known and loved. (Cf. ST I-II.101.2.) Hence Augustine says in book 60 (The text reads LX, but it is in fact book 22 (XXII), the last book. Chapter 30 is its last chapter: it discusses the eternal happiness of the City of God and the perpetual Sabbath. In Sermon 20, Happy the Nation Whose Lord Is Its God, section 2.3.3, Thomas refers to the same chapter.) of the City of God: this task, this affection, this realization, (Actus: see note in section 1.1.2.) is, just like eternal life, for all people. (Augustine, City of God, bk. 22, ch. 30 (CCSL 48:863; CSEL 40/2:666; PL 41:802).) May we be led to it by the Son, et cetera.