And again, since Nathanael was a person so holy, as the Lord says, and also most skilled in the Law: it seems that the Lord ought to have appointed such a one as an Apostle.
If you say that he wished to choose simple men: then if "every action of Christ is our instruction," it seems that we ought to choose simple and unlearned prelates.
To this the Apostle teaches us to respond in 1 Corinthians 1: Not many wise according to the flesh, not many powerful, not many noble, but God chose the foolish things of the world, and the things that are not. And the reason for this is so that he might confound the lofty things of the world, and that no flesh might glory in his sight, and so that it might be shown that everything accomplished through the Apostles is of divine power, not of human prudence. Hence it is that he chose Galileans as Apostles, and fishermen and simple rustics; because, as Chrysostom says, Galilee has rustic inhabitants. Hence also it is that he called Philip, the simple one, by himself, and through him the wise brother. Hence also it is that he did not make Nathanael, a great doctor of the Law, an Apostle. Hence it is that he did not call Paul among the first Apostles; but last of all he appeared also to him, as to one born out of due time, so that he might be humbled.
Therefore, as to what you object, that we ought to choose simple men: it must be answered that the Lord chose simple men in order to make them wise; but because it is not in our power to make men wise, therefore we ought to set over ourselves those who have been made wise.
102. Question IV. Likewise, it is asked about the obedience of the Apostles, because they followed immediately, having seen no signs. It seems that they were foolishly moved, as is said here of Philip and of the others: whence heretics reproach Matthew.
It can be answered that they were illuminated interiorly; or also it must be said that they were led exteriorly, some by testimony, as Andrew and his companion; some by miracle, as is said of Peter in Luke 5; some by example, and thus Philip, because he saw Peter and Andrew, his fellow countrymen, following, whom he knew to be good men.
103. Quest. V. Likewise Bede asks: since Nathanael calls Christ the Son of God, whence is it that he himself calls himself the Son of Man?
Bede responds that "by a just governance of dispensation this was done, so that, when both natures are commemorated, he himself would confess his own lowliness, while the other would confess his exaltedness"; so that through this both natures in Christ might become known, and an example of humility might be given, whence man might always recognize and declare lowly things in himself. This is especially against those who, having certain noble relatives, when asked about their origin, do not answer with the name of their father, but of an uncle or some famous kinsman. Our Lord Jesus Christ, although he is noble on the part of the Father but lowliest on the part of the Mother, calls himself the Son of Man often, rarely the Son of God, unless compelled by necessity. And note, as distinct from others, that others are called sons of men, who are begotten from the mingling of seeds; but Christ had only a single parent, and therefore rightly calls himself the Son of Man.