Click *H for Haydock Commentary. *Footnote for footnote etc.
Click any word in Latin Greek or Hebrew to activate the parser. Then click on the display to expand the parser.
* Footnotes
- A.D. 60.
*H Now when Festus was come into the province, after three days, he went up to Jerusalem from Cesarea.
Ver. 1. Festus having arrived at his province, goes to Jerusalem to be inaugurated. The Jews took this opportunity of requesting S. Paul might be sent to Jerusalem, that they might accomplish the iniquitous purport of their vow. Such consequence did they attribute to the death of this one man, that they had no greater favour to ask of their new governor at his auspicious entry among them. Tirinus.
*H But Festus answered: That Paul was kept in Caesarea: and that he himself would very shortly depart thither.
Ver. 4. It would appear, from their first request being peremptorily denied them, how little solicitous their governors were to please them. The successors of Felix and Festus were not better disposed than their predecessors. Their extortions and oppressions were pushed so far, that the Jews attempted at last to deliver themselves by rebellion, which proved their utter ruin and extirpation. Indeed it was in vain to resist, for they already began to feel the truth of our Saviour's prediction, in their subjugation to the Gentiles. Josephus bears ample testimony to the fulfilment of the prophecy. De bel. Jud. lib. ii. c 16. &c. A.
*H Let them, therefore, saith he, among you that are able, go down with me and accuse him, if there be any crime in the man.
Ver. 5. Among you that are able.[1] It may signify, such as are powerful among you, or such as are able by health, and willing. Wi.
*H Paul making answer for himself: Neither against the law of the Jews, nor against the temple, nor against Caesar, have I offended in any thing.
Ver. 8. Paul making answer,[2] or his apology, by the Greek. In the Latin, giving an account. In like manner, (v. 16.) have liberty given to defend himself; in the Greek, to make his apology. In the Latin, till he take a place of defending himself.
*H Then Paul said: I stand at Caesar's judgment seat, where I ought to be judged. To the Jews I have done no injury, as thou very well knowest.
Ver. 10. S. Paul, seeing Festus only sought a plea to get rid of his cause, by putting it into the hands of the Sanhedrim, appeals to Cæsar. According to the ordinary rules of jurisprudence, appeals are only made after sentence is pronounced; but Roman citizens had a privilege of anticipating the sentence, when the judge did any thing contrary to justice; as Festus evidently did in this case, by wishing to deliver Paul, a Roman citizen, to the tribunal of his declared enemies, the Jews. The apostle knew he was secured by making this appeal: as the Roman law declared provincial governors violators of the public peace, who should either strike, or imprison, or put to death a Roman citizen, that appealed to the emperor. Calmet. — Hence Pliny sent some Christians to Rome for this same reason, as he writes himself in his epistles. Lib. x. ep. 97. Fuerunt alii similis amentiæ, quos, quia cives Romani erant, annotavi in urbem remittendos.
*H And after some days, king Agrippa and Bernice came down to Caesarea, to salute Festus.
Ver. 13. Agrippa. This was son of the king of the same name, who imprisoned S. Peter, and put S. James to death. Bernice was his sister, and one of the most infamous of women. Her character has merited her a place in one of Juvenal's satires, 5th.
* Summa
*S Part 3, Ques 67, Article 3
[II-II, Q. 67, Art. 3]
Whether a Judge May Condemn a Man Who Is Not Accused?
Objection 1: It would seem that a judge may pass sentence on a man who is not accused. For human justice is derived from Divine justice. Now God judges the sinner even though there be no accuser. Therefore it seems that a man may pass sentence of condemnation on a man even though there be no accuser.
Obj. 2: Further, an accuser is required in judicial procedure in order that he may relate the crime to the judge. Now sometimes the crime may come to the judge's knowledge otherwise than by accusation; for instance, by denunciation, or by evil report, or through the judge himself being an eye-witness. Therefore a judge may condemn a man without there being an accuser.
Obj. 3: Further, the deeds of holy persons are related in Holy Writ, as models of human conduct. Now Daniel was at the same time the accuser and the judge of the wicked ancients (Dan. 13). Therefore it is not contrary to justice for a man to condemn anyone as judge while being at the same time his accuser.
_On the contrary,_ Ambrose in his commentary on 1 Cor. 5:2, expounding the Apostle's sentence on the fornicator, says that "a judge should not condemn without an accuser, since our Lord did not banish Judas, who was a thief, yet was not accused."
_I answer that,_ A judge is an interpreter of justice. Wherefore, as the Philosopher says (Ethic. v, 4), "men have recourse to a judge as to one who is the personification of justice." Now, as stated above (Q. 58, A. 2), justice is not between a man and himself but between one man and another. Hence a judge must needs judge between two parties, which is the case when one is the prosecutor, and the other the defendant. Therefore in criminal cases the judge cannot sentence a man unless the latter has an accuser, according to Acts 25:16: "It is not the custom of the Romans to condemn any man, before that he who is accused have his accusers present, and have liberty to make his answer, to clear himself of the crimes" of which he is accused.
Reply Obj. 1: God, in judging man, takes the sinner's conscience as his accuser, according to Rom. 2:15, "Their thoughts between themselves accusing, or also defending one another"; or again, He takes the evidence of the fact as regards the deed itself, according to Gen. 4:10, "The voice of thy brother's blood crieth to Me from the earth."
Reply Obj. 2: Public disgrace takes the place of an accuser. Hence a gloss on Gen. 4:10, "The voice of thy brother's blood," etc. says: "There is no need of an accuser when the crime committed is notorious." In a case of denunciation, as stated above (Q. 33, A. 7), the amendment, not the punishment, of the sinner is intended: wherefore when a man is denounced for a sin, nothing is done against him, but for him, so that no accuser is required. The punishment that is inflicted is on account of his rebellion against the Church, and since this rebellion is manifest, it stands instead of an accuser. The fact that the judge himself was an eye-witness, does not authorize him to proceed to pass sentence, except according to the order of judicial procedure.
Reply Obj. 3: God, in judging man, proceeds from His own knowledge of the truth, whereas man does not, as stated above (A. 2). Hence a man cannot be accuser, witness and judge at the same time, as God is. Daniel was at once accuser and judge, because he was the executor of the sentence of God, by whose instinct he was moved, as stated above (A. 1, ad 1). _______________________
FOURTH
*H But had certain questions of their own superstition against him, and of one Jesus deceased, whom Paul affirmed to be alive.
Ver. 19. Their own superstition.[3] Their particular religion, and manner of worshipping their God. Wi.
*H But Paul, appealing to be reserved unto the hearing of Augustus, I commanded him to be kept, till I might send him to Caesar.
Ver. 21. Augustus Nero, who was then the Roman emperor.
*H And Agrippa said to Festus: I would also hear the man, myself. To-morrow, said he, thou shalt hear him.
Ver. 22. Agrippa has the same curiosity of hearing Paul, as Herod formerly had of seeing Jesus. The apostle's name had, no doubt, become famous enough to reach the ears, and arrest the attention of Agrippa. Curiosity is certainly not the best motive a person can bring with him to the investigation of religious truth: still it may occasionally become productive of good. The king was half persuaded to embrace the Christian faith. A better motive, or more serious attention, may induce some to embrace the truth, which accident may first have discovered to them. A.
*H Of whom I have nothing certain to write to my lord. For which cause, I have brought him forth before you, and especially before thee, O king Agrippa, that, examination being made, I may have what to write.
Ver. 26. To my lord. This was a title the emperors afterwards took, but which Augustus and Tiberius are said by Pliny, in his epistle to Trajan, and by Tertullian, to have refused, as too assuming and too high, ut nimis sublimem atque gloriosum. This was perhaps done, that none might bear the title at a time when the Lord of lords was to appear on the earth. Tirinus. — Whilst we can approve and admire the motives which actuated the emperors in refusing this title, we cannot go the lengths which some modern enthusiasts do, (mostly Americans, quakers, &c.) who pretend it is blasphemy to call a mortal man a lord, as if that name were incommunicable to any but the Creator of the universe. Whence they derive this article of faith it will not be easy for us to guess; certainly not from Scripture, in which the word Dominus or Lord, applied to man, occurs almost as frequently as King. Certainly not from our Saviour's words, who give both himself and others this title, (Mark xiv. 14. et alibi passim) nor from S. Paul's doctrine, who also uses this word indiscriminately through his epistles, Gal. iv. 1. Eph. vi. v. &c. Hence we are justified in retaining this practice, in opposition to their cavils; and in treating that opinion as superstitious and void of foundation, which makes it a necessary part of religion to use no titles. A.
* Summa
*S Part 3, Ques 131, Article 2
[II-II, Q. 131, Art. 2]
Whether Ambition Is Opposed to Magnanimity by Excess?
Objection 1: It seems that ambition is not opposed to magnanimity by excess. For one mean has only one extreme opposed to it on the one side. Now presumption is opposed to magnanimity by excess as stated above (Q. 130, A. 2). Therefore ambition is not opposed to it by excess.
Obj. 2: Further, magnanimity is about honors; whereas ambition seems to regard positions of dignity: for it is written (2 Macc. 4:7) that "Jason ambitiously sought the high priesthood." Therefore ambition is not opposed to magnanimity.
Obj. 3: Further, ambition seems to regard outward show: for it is written (Acts 25:27) that "Agrippa and Berenice . . . with great pomp (_ambitione_) . . . had entered into the hall of audience" [*'Praetorium.' The Vulgate has 'auditorium,' but the meaning is the same], and (2 Para. 16:14) that when Asa died they "burned spices and . . . ointments over his body" with very great pomp (_ambitione_). But magnanimity is not about outward show. Therefore ambition is not opposed to magnanimity.
_On the contrary,_ Tully says (De Offic. i) that "the more a man exceeds in magnanimity, the more he desires himself alone to dominate others." But this pertains to ambition. Therefore ambition denotes an excess of magnanimity.
_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 1), ambition signifies inordinate love of honor. Now magnanimity is about honors and makes use of them in a becoming manner. Wherefore it is evident that ambition is opposed to magnanimity as the inordinate to that which is well ordered.
Reply Obj. 1: Magnanimity regards two things. It regards one as its end, in so far as it is some great deed that the magnanimous man attempts in proportion to his ability. In this way presumption is opposed to magnanimity by excess: because the presumptuous man attempts great deeds beyond his ability. The other thing that magnanimity regards is its matter, viz. honor, of which it makes right use: and in this way ambition is opposed to magnanimity by excess. Nor is it impossible for one mean to be exceeded in various respects.
Reply Obj. 2: Honor is due to those who are in a position of dignity, on account of a certain excellence of their estate: and accordingly inordinate desire for positions of dignity pertains to ambition. For if a man were to have an inordinate desire for a position of dignity, not for the sake of honor, but for the sake of a right use of a dignity exceeding his ability, he would not be ambitious but presumptuous.
Reply Obj. 3: The very solemnity of outward worship is a kind of honor, wherefore in such cases honor is wont to be shown. This is signified by the words of James 2:2, 3: "If there shall come into your assembly a man having a golden ring, in fine apparel . . . and you . . . shall say to him: Sit thou here well," etc. Wherefore ambition does not regard outward worship, except in so far as this is a kind of honor. _______________________