Matthew 12 Hebrew Latin Greek English Bible Interlinear

Prev Matthew Chapter 12 Next

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

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.

12:1 In illo tempore abiit Jesus per sata sabbato : discipuli autem ejus esurientes coeperunt vellere spicas, et manducare.

* Footnotes

A.D. 31.
* Mark 2:23
And it came to pass again, as the Lord walked through the corn fields on the sabbath, that his disciples began to go forward and to pluck the ears of corn.
* Luke 6:1
And it came to pass on the second first sabbath that, as he went through the corn fields, his disciples plucked the ears and did eat, rubbing them in their hands.

*H At that time Jesus went through the corn on the sabbath: and his disciples being hungry, began to pluck the ears, and to eat.

Ver. 1. And his disciples being hungry. How truly admirable is the conduct of the apostles, who would not depart from the company of Jesus, though pressed by the greatest hunger and fatigue, not even to take a little refreshment for the body. S. Chrys. — It is remarked by S. Jerom, that the Pharisees did not accuse the disciples of theft, but of a breach of the sabbath. S. Luke calls this sabbath, Sabbatum secundo primum, which is differently explained by interpreters. Ribeira, following S. Chrysostom and Theophilactus, thinks that every sabbath was so called, which followed immediately any feast. Maldonatus is of opinion that some particular sabbath is pointed out by this name, and conjectures that it was the sabbath of Pentecost, because it is the second of the great feasts, viz. the Passover, Pentecost, Scenopegia, or of the Tabernacles. — In the Greek, sabbath is in the plural, and means the days of the sabbath or rest, which were a part of the feast. The three great feasts lasted a whole week each. They were all three called πρωτα , i.e. great, solemn feasts. The first was that of the Passover, with the seven days of unleavened bread, called πρωτοπρωτον , the first-first sabbath by excellence: the second was the great feast of Pentecost, δευτεροπρωτον , the second-first sabbath, (which seems to have been the feast meant by the evangelist in this place, as at this season the corn was ripe in Palestine) and the third was the feast of tabernacles, τριτοπρωτον , the third-first great sabbath. Many, however, are of opinion, that by the second-first sabbath is meant the octave day of the feast, which was ordered to be equally solemnized with the first day of the feast. Liv. xxiii. 36. 39. and Num. xxix. 35.

*Lapide

CHAPTER 12. At that time Jesus went through the corn fields (Through the crops of corn becoming white, or ripe), c. Luke adds that this Sabbath was the first from the second ( Vulg .); which I will explain in the proper place. Again there is here a Hysterologia; for these things appear to have happened after the Mission of the Apostles, and therefore before the Sermon on the Mount, as may be gathered from Mark ii. 22, and Luke vi. 1. That they rubbed the ears of corn in their hands, and satisfied their hunger is, says S. Jerome, a mark of their austere life. But when the Pharisees saw it , c. Luk 7:2 , has, they said unto them, i.e ., to the disciples of Christ, because they brought forward the objection first against the disciples, afterwards against Christ. Observe, they do not find fault with the disciples for plucking ears of corn, or grapes; for this was permitted by the law, Deut. xxiii 25, but because they did it on the Sabbath. For to pluck ears seems a servile work, and therefore, a violation of the rest and sanctity of the Sabbath. Allegorically. SS. Hilary, Ambrose, and Bede think that it is signified by this that the Apostles in the second Sabbath from the first, i.e ., in the time of the gospel would gather grains from the seed and crops of preaching, i.e ., the elect faithful, from among all nations, by whose faith and piety they should be fed, until they should lay them up with themselves in the heavenly barn. But the Pharisees seeing the Gentiles preferred to themselves in the Gospel envied them, and vainly murmured against the Apostles. Tropologically : Bede says, "Those walk with the Lord, through the corn fields, who delight to meditate on the sacred oracles. They hunger, when they desire to find therein the bread of life; and that on the Sabbath, when they are glad to rest with a mind free from disturbing thoughts. They rub the ears, and purify them from the husks that they may reach the grain, when they take up the testimonies of Scripture, and dwell upon them until they find in them, as it were the marrow of love. But this refreshment of the mind is displeasing to fools, and is approved by the Lord." But He said unto them, Have ye not read And they that were with Him ? This last seems to be at variance with 1Sa 21 , where it is said, David was alone. I answer, David flying from Saul, went alone to Ahimelech, whom Mark calls Abiathar, the high priest; and asked, and received the loaves from him, which he brought to the companions of his flight, whom he had left, elsewhere, waiting for him, as is plain both from this passage, as well as from 1Sa 21:2 , where David says to the priest, "I have appointed to the young men for such and such a place. So S. Jerome." How he entered , c. The shew-bread. The shew-bread were loaves always set forth in the Holy Place, before the Holy of Holies, which was, as it were, the throne of God, sitting upon the Mercy-seat; they were loaves, therefore, set forth before the face of God. Whence the LXX. has άρτους ε̉νωπίους , i.e ., panes faciales , Syriac, the bread of the Lord's table. In Heb. they are called, לתסי פנים lachme panim, that is, loaves of faces. They were twelve, six on one side of the table and six on the other side, as there are two cheeks on a face. By these twelve loaves, the twelve tribes of Israel confessed that they were continually fed and nourished by God. Wherefore frankincense was put upon them (see Lev. xxiv.); for frankincense was the symbol that they were the Lord's, and were offered to Him. In return, God, from His satisfaction at the offering of these loaves made manifest that He always remembered the twelve tribes, and had them before His face continually. See what has been said on Exo 25:30 . God had commanded these sacred loaves to be renewed every Sabbath. New loaves were placed upon the table, and the old were taken away. They were eaten by the priests only, and that only in the Tabernacle, as is plain from Lev 24:8-9 . The force of the argument is this: David, a man after God's own heart, made use of the holy shew-bread, in the necessity of his hunger loaves which it was not lawful for laymen to eat because he wisely judged, that this positive law concerning laymen not eating them ought to yield to the law of nature, which dictates that in grave necessity of famine life ought to be preserved by eating any bread whatsoever, even loaves consecrated to God. Thus, SS. Paulinus and Laurence, and others, sold chalices and vessels consecrated to God, that by the money which they fetched they might afford help to the poor in their hunger and necessity. Therefore, saith Christ in effect, "Much rather is it lawful for Me and My disciples to pluck ears of corn on the Sabbath, that by the grains extracted from them we may relieve our hunger. For the sanctity of the Sabbath, forbidding servile work, such as plucking ears of corn, is a divine positive law, and ought to yield to the law of nature, which dictates that in hunger it is our duty to sustain life by any kind of food." Or have ye not read , c. Profane, viz., by slaying and skinning and cutting up the victims, by laying the wood in order, and by kindling a fire, by which the victims might be burnt in God's honour. These works, considered merely in themselves, are servile, and would profane the Sabbath unless piety excused them, and, instead of servile and profane, made them sacred and divine. The meaning is, As necessity excused David and piety the priests, so do both excuse My disciples from a breach of the Sabbath, for this plucking of the ears. For they follow Me as the Messiah, and are so intent upon My sacred doctrine that they have forgotten to prepare food. Observe the expression, have ye not read ? The following words are nowhere found literally in Scripture, but they occur in sense in Numb. xxviii. and elsewhere, where the rites of sacrificing on the Sabbath are sanctioned. Hence it is an axiom of the Jews, "there is no Sabbath in the temple;" that is, no cessation from work, because of the slaying and burning the sacrifices. But I say unto you , c. For Christ, Who here speaks, allows His disciples to pluck the ears. Christ speaks of Himself in the third person out of modesty. The meaning is, If the sanctity of the temple frees from blame the sacrificing priests who break the Sabbath, a like cause excuses My disciples, for I am greater and holier than the temple. Yea, I am the Lord of the temple, to whom, in truth, all the victims in the temple were offered and sacrificed. But if ye had known what that meaneth , c. Syriac, ye would not have condemned them (my disciples), since they are guiltless . He cites Hosea vi. 6, which see. The force of the argument is, mercy is more powerful, and better than sacrifice or Sabbath, therefore for its sake it is lawful to violate the rest of the Sabbath. Wrongly, therefore, O ye Scribes, do ye condemn My disciples in this matter, for they are innocent, and free from all blame therein, because of the mercy which is here exercised. The mercy is that I have permitted My hungry servants to pluck these ears on the Sabbath. Moreover, I enjoin upon them by My word, as well as by My example, that they should have compassion upon so many wretched perishing souls, and should procure their salvation, by teaching, admonishing, and praying for them, with zeal and care. To this applies that golden sentence of Simeon the just (this is he who, as the Hebrews think, took Christ in His arms, and sang his last song, Lord now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace ) in Pirke Aboth, i.e ., Tne sentences of the Fathers, "The world rests upon, and is supported by three things, 1. by the law, 2. by Divine worship, 3. by mercy." For the Son of man , c. I, who by nature am the Son of God, and have deigned to become the Son of Man, i.e ., man, am by this very circumstance, the Lord, that is the author and lawgiver of the whole Mosaic Law, and consequently also of the Sabbath. Therefore I am able to give to My disciples a dispensation with respect to it. And when he had passed over from thence , c. Luke adds, that this was done on another Sabbath. For Christ designedly chose the Sabbath day for a fresh miracle, that he might, again and again, refute the error of the Scribes, that it was unlawful to heal sick persons on the Sabbath. And behold a man having his hand withered , c. S. Jerome adds, "in the Gospel, which the Nazareni and Ebionites use, which we have lately translated from Hebrew into Greek, and which is called by very many Persons the original ( authenticum ) of Matthew, this man, who had the withered hand, is called a mason. And he prayed for help in these words, I was a mason, gaining my livelihood by my hands: I beseech Thee, O Jesus, that Thou wouldst restore me to soundness, that I may not shamefully beg my bread." By the word hand understand arm : for χεὶρ , i.e ., hand , is made by Hippocrates to extend from the shoulder to the fingers. This man's arm was affected by a double disease. 1. A convulsion of the nerves. 2. Atrophy, for it was dried up for want of aliment, and was therefore naturally incurable. And they asked him, i.e ., the Scribes and Pharisees asked Christ, whether it were lawful to heal on the Sabbath day? Then, as Mark relates (iii. 4), Christ in turn asked the Scribes another question, which was the solution of their own, i.e ., whether it were lawful to do good on the Sabbath, and heal the withered hand; or to do evil, i.e ., not to heal, and do harm? He intimates, not to do good to one who is in misery, when it is in your power, is to do him an injury; and not to save life, or a soul, when you can, is to destroy it. Since, therefore, this is a command of the law of nature, it is not forbidden by the positive law of the Sabbath; for that would be unreasonable. That they might accuse Him , to the common people, as being either powerless, or unmerciful, if He did not heal the sick man; but to the chief priests, as a violator of the Sabbath, if He did heal him. But he said unto them , c. He means to say, ye Scribes teach the Sabbath is not broken, if any one pull out a sheep fallen into a ditch on the Sabbath day that the sheep may not remain in the ditch and suffer hunger, on the Sabbath. Much more therefore is it lawful to release on the Sabbath a man afflicted with sickness. Thus thought the Scribes in the time of Christ, but now some Jews observe the rest of the Sabbath so superstitiously that they are not willing on that day to pull a man out of a ditch or sewer, nor to suffer themselves, if they have fallen in, to be drawn out. Volater ( lib . 3, Geograph .) relates an amusing thing, which happened in the reign of Henry III. of England. A certain Jew fell into a drain at Tewkesbury on the Sabbath, and on account of his religion would not be drawn out. The Christian earl of the place, seeing it, would not allow him to be pulled out on the next day, through reverence for Sunday. Thus the man was choked, and died before he was drawn out. The Jew said "With putrid mud I'd rather choke, Than Jewish Sabbath should be broke." To whom the earl replied, "The Christian Sabbath keep thou too, Friend Solomon, thou faithless Jew." How much rather is a man better (more worthy, noble, excellent), c. If it is lawful to release a sheep from calamity on the Sabbath, why not a man? Especially since in lifting out the sheep there would be need of considerable labour; but Christ was about to effect the healing of the sick man by a single word. How could this be a servile work? Wherefore Mark adds, looking round about upon them with anger, being grieved at the hardness of their hearts. Then He saith to the man, c. Christ first by reason, now by a deed, viz., a miracle, confutes the ignorance of the Scribes, and makes manifest His own wisdom and goodness. Hear S. Athanas. ( Hom. de Semente, sub fin. tom .), "Then Jesus saith to him, Stretch forth thine hand, for I do not touch thee, lest the Jews should have wherewith to accuse Me, lest with them, to touch, should be the same as to work. I act by word alone, for it has not been forbidden by God to speak on the Sabbath. If, then, a word performs the work, let him who says this word be held in admiration by you. Observe, too, the different way in which miracles are wrought. When Peter healed the paralytic at the Beautiful Gate of the Temple, he took him by the right hand, and lifted him up. The Lord, on the other hand, only commands, saying, Stretch forth thine hand, I give thee power to be healed. Thus He spake, thus He did, and the hand was restored." Allegorically . 1. Beda says, Adam plucking the forbidden fruit, dried up the hand of the human race, i.e ., he deprived man of the power to be fruitful in good works. Christ restored that power by stretching forth His own hands upon the cross. 2. S. Jerome: "Until the coming of the Saviour, the hand of the Jews was withered in the synagogue, and the works of God were not done in it. Afterwards He came on earth, and the right hand of believers was restored by the Apostles, and rendered fit to do the first works." Tropologically. Hear S. Anselm: "The hand that is withered, and is to be healed, is ordered to be stretched out, because the weakness of an unfruitful soul can be cured no better manner than by the liberality of alms-giving. Wherefore John the Baptist advised the multitudes who asked him what they should do that they should not like dried trees be cast into the fire, do this one thing, 'He who hath two coats, let him impart to him that hath none; and he who hath food, let him do likewise.' And in Eccluis. iv. 36, 'In vain does a man stretch forth his hands to God, to beg remission of his sins who does not extend the same hands to confer a benefit upon the poor man who asks him. '" Going out , c. The Pharisees went out of the synagogue and left the multitude, in whose presence they did not dare to murmur against Christ. And He commanded them, that they should not make Him known. Commanded, Gr. ε̉πετίμησε , i.e ., He rebuked, threatened, commanded with threats, that they should not make known the miracles which He did, as well that He might not offend the Scribes, and excite them to greater envy and wrath, as that He might show how far removed He was from seeking glory of men. Behold My servant (Vulg. puer meus ) ( Messias , Chald.), c. I will put my spirit c. I will endow Him with the gifts of the Holy Ghost in His conception. The Heb. is, אכדי Abdi , i.e., My servant, from whence it is plain Isaiah here speaks of Christ, not as He is God, but as He is man, for as such He is God's servant. It proves that Christ, by teaching and healing the sick, fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah concerning Himself, and His modesty, mercy, and equity; and therefore showed that He was the very Messiah foretold by Isaiah, and renowned for these gifts as by certain marks. Instead of, whom I have chosen, the Hebrew is, I will receive Him; LXX., I will take Him up ; Chaldee, I will move Him. And he shall show judgment , c. i.e ., what is just and equal: for this is the judgment of righteous judges. For Christ, as a law giver, shall preach the Evangelical law, not only to the Jews, like Moses, but, by the Apostles, to all nations wha soever. He shall not strirve, c. the meekness of Christ, and His gentle method of teaching, are here noted. A bruised reed, c. Syriac and Arabic, and He shall not extinguish a lamp verging on extinction. This is a genuine proverb, meaning that Christ will not contentiously rebuke and oppress those who are weak in faith, hope, and love, but will strengthen and kindle them by His own meekness, gentleness, and patience. Listen to the Fathers. S. Jerome says, "He who does not stretch out his hand to a sinner, nor carry a brother's burden, breaks the bruised reed; he who despises a spark of faith in the little ones, quenches the smoking flax." S. Hilary: "He shows that He might easily break the persecutors as a broken reed, and quench their fury;" but, says S. Augustine, "He spares them because He came not to judgment." Rabanus says, "The bruised nations were not broken, but were reserved for salvation: neither were the Jews, who were agitated by the wind, condemned immediately, but were patiently borne with." Until he bring forth , c., i.e ., until He lead judgment, i.e ., justice, or faith, and gospel sanctity, to victory, so that it may indeed have dominion over the whole world. Wherefore, the Vulgate in Isaiah translates He will place (as though a lord and conqueror) judgment in the earth (as it were a queen and lady governing all). The Hebrew is, He shall bring forth judgment unto truth , i.e ., He shall bring true judgment. And in His name, c. Instead of Gentiles, the Hebrew has islands, meaning most remote nations, dwelling in islands, who shall place all their hope in Christ the Saviour. I have expounded all this more at length on Isaiah xlii. 1, which see. Then there was brought unto Him a man having a devil. Luke ( Luk 11:14 ) says only that he was dumb: whence S. Augustine ( L. 2 de Consens. Evang. sec. 37) is of opinion that Luke is speaking of another demoniac; but Luke does not say that he was not blind. Now the man was not blind and dumb from birth, or by disease, as Abul. and Barradi think, but was deprived of the use of his eyes and ears through the demoniacal possession. The demon, therefore, had not made him blind, nor taken away the faculty of speech, but only hindered the exercise of both. Whence, when the demon was cast out, without any other miraculous operation, the man began both to speak and to see. Thus S. Chrysostom, Enthym., Lyra, Jansen, Maldonatus. Hear S. Chrysostom: "O pestiferous craft of the devil! he seized upon, and obstructed both the ways, sight and hearing by which the man might believe." Hence S. Luke says that demon was dumb , c., in its effects, because it made the man dumb whom it possessed. There was, then, in this miracle a threefold effect. For, as S. Jerome says, "In this one man three signs were wrought at one and the same time; the blind sees, the dumb speaks, the possessed of the devils is delivered." Tropologically : S. Jerome says, "What was then done literally is daily fulfilled in the conversion of believers, that, when the devil has been driven out they may first behold the light of faith, and then open their mouths to speak the praises of God." Then S. Augustine says, "He, having a devil, is blind and dumb, who does not believe: and he is a slave of the devil, who does not understand, and does not confess the true faith, or who does not give praise to God." ( Lib . 1. quæst. Evangel. q. 3.) The devil then makes men dumb lest they should confess their sins and expel their poison; lest they should praise God; lest they should instruct their neighbours: but Christ by His grace, looses their mouths to confess, to praise, to teach. Wisely saith S. Bernard ( in Senteentiis ) "Why art thou ashamed to speak of thy sin, when thou wast not ashamed to do it? or why dost thou blush to confess to God, from whose eyes thou canst not be hid? And if thou art so grievously ashamed to expose thy sin to one man, a sinner himself, what wilt thou do in the day of judgment, when thy consciousness of guilt will be exposed to all?" And all the multitudes were amazed, c. ε̉ξίσταντο , i.e ., were astonished and admired so that they, as it were, were rapt out of themselves in an ecstasy, at seeing so many and so great miracles of Christ; wherefore they said, No Prophet hath done so many miracles as Jesus hath. Therefore He is greater than them all. Consequently, He is the Son of David, the Messiah promised to David, whom we are all eagerly expecting. When the Pharisees heard it, c. The Pharisees were so blinded by their envy and hatred of Christ, that when they could not deny His miracles so clearly attested, they slanderously said, that they were magical, and not wrought by power of God, but by Beelzebub. They made Christ to be a magician who had a familiar demon, by whose power He wrought miracles. But if Satan cast out Satan , c. It means the kingdom of Satan upon earth could not stand, if Satan, i.e ., one devil were constantly to rise up against another devil, and fight with him, so that the inferior should be continually striving to cast out his superior from men. Thus you, O ye Scribes, behold Me, continually and assiduously, with hostility punish the devils, and expel them from the souls and bodies of men. Therefore, not by the help of Beelzebub, but by the power of God, I cast them out. Neither indeed is Beelzebub so foolish as to send the devils who are subject to him, to drive out one the other. For by so doing he would destroy his and their kingdom. So also mutinous soldiers, when they rebel against their prince are closely and intimately united among themselves, for they know, if they should disagree, they would easily be overthrown by their prince. I have spoken of Christ's hostility to the devils; because Apollonius of Tyana, as Philostratus testifies in his life, and magicians cast out devils, but by collusion with them, that they may entice men to sorcerers, and to sorcery, i.e ., fellowship with the devil. But Christ proves by what follows, that He had no fellowship with the devil. I spoke also of habitual warfare; for frequently strife and battle will arise among the devils for the possession of a man. An aged priest, worthy of credit, who had discharged the office of exorcist for many years and expelled devils at Rome, once told me he had seen with his eyes, and heard with his ears, two men possessed with devils, contending and fighting with one another, in the Church of S. Matthew. The devil who possessed one of the men was of a higher order and superior to the other; and he wished to cast out the other devil, as an inferior, from the man whom he possessed. But the inferior devil resisted, and greatly abused his superior; and among other things, he said to him, "Thou art an infernal devil, and by the just judgment of God being banished to hell, art far more heavily punished than I am, who am not an infernal devil, but am permitted to live here in the air, because I did not rebel against God as thou didst, but only clave and consented to Lucifer, as a subject to my superior." But such things as this are very uncommon and are succeeded by peace, even as these two devils after a short time laid aside their contention, and rested, and held their peace. For although those who are damned, and the devils, burn with pride, wrath, and hatred one against another, and quarrel, and tear one another in hell like dogs; nevertheless, on earth they must agree among themselves, in order that they may establish their kingdom and dominion over men. But if I beg Beelzebub , c. This is Christ's second proof, by which He shows, that he cast out devils by the help of God not of Satan, By your sons, in the first place, SS. Hilar., Chrys., Theoph., Enthym. understand, your Apostles, for they were sons of the Jews. These writers think that this happened after Christ sent forth the Apostles, when the Apostles, by the help of Christ, cast out devils, and wrought many miracles. But it is more probable that this happened before the mission of the Apostles. Hence it is better to understand by your sons, Jewish exorcists, who, by the method handed down by Solomon, expelled demons. ( See Joseph. Lib . 8, cap. 2.) Such exorcists were the seven sons of Sceva, a chief of the priests ( Act 19:14 ). So Jansen, Tolet, and others. Therefore they shall be your judges. In the day of judgment, they shall, by their deeds, condemn you, because ye have passed so perverted a judgment upon Me, namely that they have cast out devils by the help of God, but I by the assistance of Satan; although ye behold far greater proofs of the presence and operation of God in Me, than in your own exorcists. For who of them has healed so many sick, and raised so many dead persons as I have done? Who of them has preached such sublime and Divine doctrine as I preach? Therefore shall the Queen of Sheba and the Ninevites, by their faith and repentance in the day of judgment condemn the unbelieving Jews. But if I by the Spirit of God , c. If I by the power of God and the Holy Ghost not of Beelzebub, cast out devils, then that is true (and the Holy Ghost himself manifestly attests it by his concurrence) which I and John Baptist have put forward as the head and sum of our preaching the kingdom of Heaven is at hand. Ye see the kingdom of the devil by Me everywhere destroyed by My words, and by what I effect in the bodies and souls of men: and thus God's kingdom is begun by grace. This is what John says (1 Epist . iii. 8), In this the Son of God was manifested that he might destroy the works of the devil. For as S. Leo says, "Those nails which pierced the Lord's hands and feet inflicted eternal wounds upon the devil; and the Punishment of His holy limbs was the death of the hostile powers." Or how can one enter into the strong man's house , c. Instead of, or, the Gr. has ὴ ,which Pagninus translates otherwise ; the Arab. and ; others, for. A new reason is here given, the third, whereby Christ proves that He casts out devils by the help of God, not of Beelzebub. The argument is drawn from a comparison, thus: As he who attacks the castle of any strong or valiant man, like Samson or Hercules, to spoil it, is not able to accomplish it unless he first vanquish and bind the strong man; so in like manner, I Christ, who spoil the kingdom of Satan by leading sinners, his subjects, to repentance and salvation, must needs overcome and bind Satan himself; for, otherwise, he would not allow this spoliation. Satan therefore is My enemy, and has been overthrown by Me. He is not My friend or ally in casting out demons, as ye calumniously assert. The strong man then, in this passage, is the devil; the house is the world; the vessels are his arms; his goods, his instruments. The arms of the devil are fraud and deceit by which he entices men to sin; his arms are wealth, honours, riches. They are also inferior demons and wicked men, says S. Chrysostom. These the devil makes use of against us, to tempt and vex us. His goods are the souls of sinners, and the bodies of the possessed; yea the souls of the fathers detained in Limbus before Christ. All these Christ took away from the devil, and bound him in hell. Moreover, the devil is here called a strong one, because he goeth about like a roaring lion seeking whom he may devour, as S. Peter saith. Job (40 and 41) depicts his strength and might under the figures of Behemoth and Leviathan. By the strong man understand Lucifer, the prince of the devils, the antagonist of Christ and S. Michael. For Lucifer, being conquered by Christ on the Cross, was thrust down to hell, that there he should remain, personally bound, until the day of judgment. Then he will be loosed for a little space, as John says ( Apoc. xx.). Nevertheless, Lucifer is so bound in hell, that he is not only able to go forth himself, but even by means of his demons, whom he sends forth into the world. Yet he is not able to hurt men as much as he was before. For Christ has greatly restrained and diminished the power and might of the demons. S. Anthony was taught this by long experience, as S. Athanas. testifies in his Life : "The devil" he says, "was hooked by the Lord, like a dragon, by the hook of the Cross; and was taken in a drag-net, and was bound like a fugitive slave, and his lips were perforated by a ring and a bracelet, and he is not permitted to devour any of the faithful. Now, like a wretched sparrow, he is made sport of by Christ; now he groans at his companions, being trodden like serpents and scorpions under the heels of Christians. He who boasted that he drank up every sea, he who pretended that he held the world in the hollow of his hand, lo! he is conquered by you; lo! he is not able to prevent my entering the lists against him." And he confirms this by the devil's own confession ( cap . 20). "I saw," he said, "a man of enormous height, whose head reached unto Heaven. When I asked him who he was, he said, I am Satan. And I, What seekest thou here? He answered, Why do all Christian people curse me? I answered, Hast thou not read, 'Because the swords of the enemy have failed at the end, and thou hast destroyed their cities?' ( Vulg .) He said, Lo, now have I no place, I possess no city, I have no arms: the name of Christ sounds throughout all nations and all provinces, and the wilderness is peopled with choirs of monks. Let them, I beseech you, look at themselves, and not wound me without cause." He who is not with Me is against Me. First, SS. Hilary, Jerome, Chrysostom, Theophylact expound of the strong man, i.e ., the devil. The devil is not with Me, in such manner that he is against Me: and the things which I gather, he strives to disperse. This, therefore, is a fourth argument of Christ against the Scribes. Its force is as follows: They whose works are contrary, are themselves contrary. But My works and the devil's are contrary; therefore, I and he are contrary to each other. For, as S. Jerome says, "He, the devil, desires to hold captive the souls of men, but the Lord to deliver them. He preaches idolatry, Christ, the knowledge of the one God; the one draws to vice, the other recalls to virtue. How, then, can they have agreement between themselves, whose works are contrary?" 2. You may take the passage more simply with S. Chrysostom, with an application to the Pharisees, thus: As when a sedition arises in a kingdom or city, and one part rises against another part, so that evil-disposed men endeavour to seize upon the commonwealth, and spoil it, as Catiline with his fellow-conspirators did at Rome; then it is necessary for good citizens to defend the state, and he who does not, but desires to be neutral, is looked upon as an enemy and a companion of the seditious: because, under those circumstances, all citizens are bound to help the city or republic with all their might. Thus, in like manner, I, who have proclaimed universal war with Satan, that I may expel him from his dominion over the world, look upon all men as it were citizens of the world, as subjects of Me, their true Prince. If, therefore, they are not with Me in this war, and if they do not fight under My banner, they are contrary to Me, and My enemies, and, as such, I shall treat them, and punish them. Such, therefore, are you, O ye Pharisees, who ought above all, as my subjects, and better instructed than other men, to receive Me as the Messiah, the Christ prophesied of in your law and the prophets, and to commend Me as such to the people; notwithstanding, ye are secretly My adversaries, and openly ye dissimulate as though ye were judges appointed to make inquisition concerning My life and doctrine. Thus this saying of Christ is not opposed to what He says in Luke ix. 50 He who is not against you, is on your part : for there He is speaking of one who is really in doctrinal agreement with the Apostles, and therefore is with them and for them, although for some just reason he does not profess as much openly. Therefore I say unto you, every sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven a man : but the blasphemy of the Spirit shall not be forgiven. The word Spirit is in the genitive case, as is plain from the Greek πνεύματος. The blasphemy therefore of the Spirit is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. Whence the Arabic translates, Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit ; Syriac, Blasphemy against the Spirit of Holiness. You will ask, what is this blasphemy? 1. Philastrius ( On the Heresy of Rotorius ) thinks it is heresy, especially that of Eunomius, who said that the Holy Ghost was not God. Thus also S. Ambrose ( Lib . 1, de Spir. Sanc. sec . 3). 2. S. Hilary thinks that blasphemy against the Holy Ghost is when a man denies that Christ is God. "The sin against the Holy Ghost," he says, "is to deny to God the power of virtue, and to take away from Christ His eternal substance, by which, because God came into man, man shall in turn come to God; since God grants pardon to all other things, whilst this only is without forgiveness." 3. S. Ambrose ( L . 2, de pœniten. see. 4) thinks it is schism; also Simony, the sin whereby, for example, Simon Magus wished to buy the Holy Spirit of S. Peter. 4. Origen says it is every mortal sin after Baptism; committed, that is, after the grace of the Holy Spirit received in Baptism. Moreover, Pope Gelasius ( de Anath. vinc .) understands by it sins which are not forgiven, either in this world, or in the world to come. But he thinks it refers to sinners who do not wish to repent. For he says, that man makes the sentence against himself irrevocable who wills to continue in such a state as that he cannot truly be forgiven. 5. S. Cyprian ( L . 3, ad Quirinal, N. 28) says, blasphemy against the Holy Ghost is every sin committed against God: but blasphemy against the Son of Man is every sin committed against man. 6. The same Saint ( L 3, Epist. 14) thinks blasphemy against the Holy Ghost is denial of the faith in persecution. 7. Richard of S. Victor says, it is to hate and revile God. I have summarily embraced eighteen expositions of the Fathers (viz., eleven of the Latin Fathers and seven of the Greek) in the foregoing paragraphs. Lastly, theologians and from them, catechists out of various expositions of S. Augustine, collect six sins against the Holy Ghost; namely, presumption, despair, striving against known truth, envy of fraternal charity, impenitence, and obstinacy. They say that these are called sins against the Holy Ghost, because they are committed through undoubted wickedness against the goodness of God, which is an attribute of the Holy Ghost. Thus, likewise, sins which are committed through infirmity are said to be done against God the Father, because power is one of His especial attributes. And sins which are done through ignorance, are said to be done against the Son, because of His attribute of wisdom. Note, therefore, that Christ is here speaking not of every sin against the Holy Ghost, but only of blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, which may take place by words; and the same reasoning will apply to thoughts and actions, as when anyone reviles works manifestly divine and miraculous, which God works for the salvation of men, by which He confirms faith and truth. Such a work is the casting out of devils; and because such works proceed from the goodness and holiness of God, they are attributed to the Holy Ghost, who proceeds from the Father and the Son by procession and inspiration, as Love, Goodness, and Holiness. When, therefore, anyone calumniates such things, and knowingly out of malice ascribes them to an unclean spirit (as these Pharisees did), such an one is said to commit blasphemy against the Holy Ghost; for such an one directly fights against God and takes from Him His holiness and purity. The whole argument is expressed in the following syllogism: The author of the miracles which Christ performs is, according to you, O ye Scribes, Beelzebub: But God the Holy Ghost is, in truth, the Author of these miracles : Therefore, according to you, God and the Holy Ghost are Beelzebub. What more horrible can possibly be said? What greater blasphemy can be imagined? S. Basil adds that there are such persons even now, who ascribe the fruits and actions of the Holy Ghost to the opposing unclean spirit. We many of us do this, when we call earnestness ambition, and impute the calumny of anger to one who is only moved by zeal and righteous indignation. Moreover, Christ opposes this blasphemy against God and the Holy Ghost to that blasphemy against the Son of Man by which some who were offended at Christ's human conversation, calumniated what He did as man, as when they called Him a wine bibber , and a friend of Publicans and sinners. This was something more excusable, and less unworthy of forgiveness, because it had respect to Christ as Man rather than as God. Shall not be forgiven : Arab. Shall not be relaxed, i.e., shall with difficulty, and seldom be forgiven. For this blasphemy against the Holy Ghost is most horrible, inexcusable, and altogether unworthy of pardon, and, considered simply in itself, takes away and excludes all medicine, and means of obtaining forgiveness. For such a blasphemer places himself in diametrical opposition to the Holy Ghost, and drives Him from him, yea blasphemes Him: the Holy Ghost, I say, by whom alone he could be absolved, healed, and sanctified. Similarly, we call an incurable disease one which does not admit of medicine, and rejects every kind of food. Nevertheless a blasphemer does not shut up the hand of God, so that God cannot have mercy upon him, although unworthy; and convert him, as He converted S. Paul, who confesses that he had been a blasphemer against God ( 1Ti 1:13 ). And whosoever shall speak a word , c. Christ declares the same truth in still clearer words. A word, anything injurious, reviling, blasphemous, it shall be forgiven him, it is remissible, and is readily forgiven to the penitent. From hence, it is plain against the Novatians, that all persons who have lapsed into heinous sins, should he admitted to penance. But whosoever shall speak against the Holy Ghost, c. Syriac, whosoever shall revile the Holy Ghost. Here, first, Origen is condemned, who extended repentance, pardon, and salvation, to all sinners, after this life. For he said, after the great year of Plato, all things would be restored afresh, and that Judas would be saved; and Lucifer, together with the devils and the damned, would be brought back to heaven. 2. S. Aug. (21 Civit. 24), S. Greg. (4 dialog. 39), Isidore, Bede, S. Bern., and others, quoted by Bellarmine ( Lib . 2. de Purgat. sec. 4), prove from this passage, that there is a Purgatory after this life. For it would be unmeaning to say, shall not be forgiven nor in the world to come, if there were no remission of sins in the world to come. Thus a person would speak vainly who said, I will never marry a wife, neither in this world, nor in the world to come, since no wife can be married in the world to come. Mark adds, and gives greater force to the saying: but shall be guilty of eternal damnation. Moreover mortal sins are expiated in Purgatory, so far only as pertains to their punishment, but venial sins as regards both fault and punishment. Either make the tree good , c. This is Christ's fifth argument, and as S. Jerome says, forms a dilemma, from which it is impossible to escape. 1. And plainly, this tree is Christ. Make , i.e., appoint, assert. Either approve and praise Me, together with My works, which seem to you to be laudable; or condemn Me, with My works as a bad tree. He means, you, O ye Pharisees, praise My works, and yet condemn Me the author of them. But if ye praise the works, ye ought likewise to praise their author. Or if ye condemn the author, ye ought also to condemn the works. Otherwise ye flatly contradict your own selves. 2. S. Jerome by tree understands the devil, to whom the Scribes attributed the works and miracles of Christ. As thus, "If ye praise My works, then ye ought also to praise the devil to whom ye ascribe them; which is most absurd." 3. S. Aug. ( Serm. 12. de Verb. Dom .), by tree understands the Pharisees themselves . If ye wish to be, and to be accounted good, do good works, namely, praise good men and good things. For if ye do evil, as in truth ye do, when ye condemn Me and My Divine works, ye must needs confess yourselves to be bad and wicked calumniators, for a calumniator is known by his calumnies, as a tree is known by its fruit. From hence S. Aug. gathers the moral argument. "First," he says, "a man must be changed, that his works may be changed. For if a man remained in that which is bad, he cannot have good works: if he remain in that which is good, he cannot have bad works." O generation of vipers , c. Christ here calls the Pharisees vipers, for this special reason, that they, like vipers, uttered viperous words and calumnies, by which they endeavoured to defame Christ and cut Him off. For they had a viper's heart, that is a heart full of the poison of envy, pride, hatred and malice against Christ, from which they belched forth those viperous and deadly calumnies. Out of the abundance of the heart , c., i.e ., from that which abounds in the heart, which the heart of en thinks about and loves, that, the mouth speaketh. If the heart, i.e ., the mind and the will, abound in goodness and charity, a man speaks good and loving things; if in the gall of malice and envy, he speaks words of gall and envy and bitterness; as ye do against Me, O ye Pharisees. Whence S. Chrysostom says, "if the words spoken by them are so evil, how great malice, think ye, do they have in their hearts, where God is the only witness? Wherefore, when thou hearest a man speaking evil, much greater may you consider is the wickedness which his words demonstrate. For what is spoken outwardly is but the super-effluence of that which is within, with which he has vehemently attacked you. For if what is spoken by them is so evil, how great is the root of thought which imagines the words? Do you wish then to know what any one has in his heart, consider what he says; what he has most frequently on his lips, for in that his heart abounds." A good man, c. He explains the abundance of the heart by a treasure, that is, a heap and accumulation. A good man, therefore, from the good heap of good thoughts and affections which he accumulates in his mind, brings forth good words and works. But an evil man, from the evil treasure and heap of evil affections, brings forth evil words and works. Hear S. Chrysostom, "He shows, either that the Jews themselves, blaspheming God, make manifest from what treasure house they draw their blasphemy; or else, the sentence is connected with what went before, that as a good man cannot bring forth evil things, nor an evil man good things; so neither can Christ do bad works, nor the devil good works." But I say unto you, for every idle word . . . give an account (Arab. an answer ). Give an account , i.e ., to Christ the judge. Christ shall require of them an account of idle words; and if they are not able to render it, He will punish them. There is here a catachresis, as appears from the following verse. So SS. Hilary, Chrysostom, Jerome, and others. It is a Hebrew construction. For the Hebrews put the relative, with its antecedent, in the nominative case. The meaning then is, as S. Jerome says, "If he who speaks an idle word, which by no means edifies the hearers, is not without peril to him who speaks it, and if in the day of judgment every one shall give an account of his words; how much more shall ye, who blaspheme the works of the Holy Ghost, and say that I cast out devils through Beelzebub, give an account of your calumny? Again, like idle words, so too every idle thought, wish, and action, is at least a venial sin." You will ask, what is meant by an idle word ? The Gr. is α̉ργόν , as if α̉εργόν , that is inert, without art and work, lacking fruit and utility. First, Theophylact and Euthymius translate idle, calumnious. With them S. Chrysostom agrees, who says, "It is an idle word because it is false." He adds, "Some say, because it is vain, such as gives rise to inordinate laughter: or shameful or immodest." 2. And genuinely, an idle word is one that is vain, frivolous, ludicrous, which brings good neither to the speaker, nor to the hearer, even though it be injurious to no one, nor, in itself, reprehensible. Thus S. Jerome, "an idle word is what is spoken without profit either to the speaker, or the hearer, if omitting to speak of serious things we speak of what are frivolous and old wives' fables. But a man who utters what is scurrilous, or anything immodest, will be accounted guilty, not of idle, but of wicked words." S. Greg. ( Hom . 6. in Evang. sub finem ), says: "An idle word is one which is devoid of right usefulness, or the reason of just necessity. Turn ye therefore your idle words into endeavours after edification. Consider how swiftly the time of this life passes away; how swiftly the strict judge shall come." S. Bern. says, in his sermon of the threefold keeping of the hand, the tongue and the heart: "An idle word is one of which we can give no reasonable account, one which is without reason. Let none of us, brethren, think lightly of the time we spend in idle words. For now is the accepted time, now is the day of salvation. The word flies, and cannot be recalled. Time flies, and cannot be recovered; nor does foolish man consider what he loses. Let us chat, they say, to pass away the time. O meanwhile the hour, the time is passing away, which the mercy of thy Maker is giving thee to repent, to obtain pardon, to acquire grace, to gain eternal glory; the time is passing, in which you ought to propitiate the Divine mercy, to hasten to the society of the angels, to sigh for thy lost inheritance, to breathe after the promised felicity, to stir up thy weak will, to weep for the sins thou hast committed." An idle word then, according to S. Bern., is one spoken without reasonable cause. Such therefore is not one which is spoken pleasantly, to console the afflicted, or to exhilarate those who are sick and sad. Neither is it one which teaches human wisdom, as when the words and deeds of others are related, with this end, that, from them, we may learn to act and speak prudently. S. Basil goes further, and says that for a word not to be idle, a pious intention is required. But he is speaking to Religious, whose profession calls them to deal with and speak of holy things. He says: "An idle word is one which is not for edification in the Lord; for such grieves the Holy Ghost." For like as it is the part of a human being to act and speak according to the rule of right reason, and of a Christian according to the law of Christ, so it is the part of a Religious to speak according to the dictates of religion and piety. Whence S. Bern. says: "Thou hast consecrated thy mouth to the Gospel; it is no longer lawful for thee to open it for jests." 1. Then a pious intention is not required absolutely, that a word should not be idle. It is sufficient that it should, in some manner, be conducive to use, and human prudence. For thus the sailor speaks of the winds, the ploughman tells of oxen. Were it otherwise, nearly every word of artificers, of merchants, and men of the world would be idle. 2. Gabriel Vasquez (1. 2. disp . 52. in fine .) teaches that an idle word is not one uttered with this end only in view, that a man should give counsel with respect to any infirmity or want of nature: As for example, if one should say, when he is cold, I am frozen; I desire the fire, that I may drive away the cold. This idleness of thoughts, words, and works is, as it were, a wastefulness of time and human actions, which, other things being equal, is worse than waste of riches and fortune. For a small portion of time has been given us by God, in which to provide for a blessed eternity: and every moment of it we may, by thinking, speaking, and acting well, be acquiring for ourselves the greatest degrees and treasures of glory and blessedness, all which treasures are wasted by this idleness of words and works, as S. Bern. has rightly remarked. Everyone is bound to do and say all things in such manner as that they may be fitly referred to God, that is to say, that they should be adapted to please and obey Him, according to those words of the Apostle, "Whether ye eat or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God." (1Co 10:31 .) Otherwise they are idle, i.e ., useless for the final end of man. But for this it is required that they should be directed by right reason, and should be honest. For everything that is honest, and nothing but what is honest is pleasing to God. God has given us a mouth, that we should pray to Him and praise Him; and that we should speak what is useful and salutary to ourselves, or to our neighbours. But he who speaks what is idle and unprofitable, abuses his mouth, contrary to the mind and appointmerit of God. "For neither," as S. Ambrose says (in Psa 119 Serm. 22) "is it of small peril to speak of worldly and idle things, when we have such wonderful works of God to speak about. Let the righteous man be resolved to say with holy David, My tongue shall speak of Thy word, for all Thy commandments are equity (Vulg,); and thus let him shut out all idle words." From what has been said, it is plain that many idle things are done and said by most men, of which they will have to render an account to God. Wherefore, that they may provide a remedy against this evil, let them accustom themselves to do and say nothing without premeditation. In the second place, let them learn to speak sparingly, and only about good and useful things. 3. Let them for some days collect their mind and thoughts, and consider seriously the actions, reasons, objects, and intentions of their life; that if they be depraved or idle, they may correct them, and aim at some definite end for their whole life and all their actions, that in all they may seek God's glory and their own salvation and perfection. Moreover, let them each morning daily conceive this intention, and offer it to God, and frequently renew it through the day; that thus they may gain a habit of referring all their words and actions to this end. By this means they will at length always have this end (virtually) in sight, even though they may not actually think about it. For a good intention changes our words and actions, so that from being indifferent or idle they become honest, holy, and are rewarded with heavenly glory. Cassian tells of the Abbot Machetes, who, when idle things were being related, fell asleep; but, when spiritual things were spoken of, was always wakeful. He used to say that the devil was the author of idle words, and that he had found it out by the following proof: When he was discoursing about spiritual things, almost every one fell asleep; by-and-bye if he related some idle tale, he saw them all wake up. This caused him to groan, saying, Who is the author of this, unless it be he to whom idle things are pleasing, spiritual things displeasing-that is, the devil? For by thy words , c. Not only of works, but also of words, must we have a great care, since of both account must be given to God. They are both the fruit of the same tree that is, of the will whether it be good or bad. Wherefore thy words, no less than thy works, shall justify thee, if they be righteous and holy; or shall condemn thee, if they be depraved and perverse. They shall justify, I say that is, shall not only declare thee just, but shall also make thee just, or more just, if they proceed from the love of God and true repentance. But they shall condemn, and render thee liable to punishment if they be idle, wanton, quarrelsome, and so on. For those who are condemned by Christ in the Day of Judgment shall be punished, not only on account of mortal, but also of venial sins; yet, according to the gravity and desert of each, more or less severely. Then certain of the Scribes a sign , c. S. Luke ( Luk 11:16 ) adds, from Heaven. These were some of those men who brought the false accusation against Christ, that He cast out devils by the help of Beelzebub. This is plain from S. Luke xi. 16. When they had been refuted by Christ, because they did not wish to seem overcome and convicted of falsehood, they pressed Him to confirm what He said by a sign, that is, by some celestial miracle. As thus: Thou sayest that Thou workest miracles by the help of God; if it be so, cause that God may attest that this is true by some sign from Heaven, by which He may signify that Thou art sent by Him, and dost cast out devils by His power. But the many diseases which were healed, the many dead who were raised up by Christ, with this object that He might show them that He was the Messiah, sent by God the Father ought to have been sufficient for them. But for the unbelieving and false accusers nothing is sufficient; and if one thing be granted, they ask, as a subterfuge, another and another. The meaning is this: Thy miracles, O Christ, are in the earth and of the earth, but we wish to see celestial miracles in Heaven. For God, Whom Thou assertest to be the Author of these miracles, dwells in Heaven. Cause, therefore, that fire may come down from Heaven, as Elias did; or that the sky may flash with new and marvellous thunders and lightnings, as Samuel did (1 Sam. vii. 10); or that the sun should stand still, as Joshua did. Thus S. Jerome: Tacitly, therefore, they scoff at Christ's miracles done on earth, as though they were tokens of Satanic influence; and they tempt Christ, that they may falsely accuse Him. But although He had shown such a sign in Heaven, they would immediately have sought a subterfuge, and would have required some other sign. For this is the disposition of all curious and cavilling persons, especially infidels and heretics. He answered and said an evil generation and, that is, but , c. generation (Gr. γενεα̉ , i.e, nation, race ) adulterous , i.e., faithless and unbelieving , because leaving God their husband to whom they had been betrothed by circumcision, they clave to the devil. Hence infidelity and idolatry are often called adultery by Ezekiel (Ezek cap. 16) and others. So Theoph. says, "He calls them an adulterous generation, because they forsook God, and clave to the devil." 2 Adulterous, i.e ., degenerate from the faith and character of Abraham, Isaac and the rest of the Patriarchs. For they believed in Messiah, but these would not acknowledge Him when He was present, and proving Himself by so many miracles to be Messiah. For Messiah was the husband of the synagogue of the Jews, and is now the Spouse of the Christian Church, as is plain from Eph 5:32 . For thus the Hebrews called spurious, i.e ., degenerate children, bene nechar , i.e., strange children, or rather, children of a strange, that is to say, an adulterous father. But no sign , c. This perverse nation of the Jews asks of me a sign from Heaven, but I will not give it a sign, except a sign from the earth, that is, from the deep. I will not grant to the Jews any other sign than what I formerly promised, when I said, "Destroy this temple, and I will raise it up;" but He spake of the temple of His body (S. Joh 2:19-21 ). (He meant the sign of the Resurrection, which is the sign of the prophet Jonah, because it was prefigured by Jonah.) For this Jonah clearly showed, who I am, why I died, why I am crucified, in respect of which they are offended; in truth that I am Messiah, the Tamer of Death and Sin, the Saviour of the World, and the Lord of Heaven and Earth. For the keepers of the sepulchre told the Jews that Christ was risen from the tomb; the Jews themselves saw the empty sepulchre, and the Apostles proved Christ's resurrection by many miracles. Wherefore many Jews at the time, and afterwards all nations, believed in Christ raised from death. For the Jews did not expect a humble and poor Messiah, but one who was rich and glorious. Such they beheld Christ in His Resurrection, Ascension, and Mission of the Holy Ghost. Whence they at that time acknowledged Him, and accepted Him as Messiah, according to what He said in Joh 8:28 . When ye have lifted up the Son of Man, on the Cross, then ye shall know that I am He : for I shall rise gloriously from the cross and death. But the unbelieving Jews were likewise compelled to acknowledge that Christ was Messiah, for after His Resurrection He sent Titus and Vespasian, who destroyed Jerusalem and Judea, because of His unjust death at the hands of the Jews. Thus S. Chrysostom, for at that time there was a complete destruction of the nation, although it still endures, and shall endure until the end of the world. A righteous and avenging God brought this upon them on account of their crowning wickedness in killing Christ. This destruction is the most evident token that the Jesus whom the Jews put to death was the Messiah. Wherefore Christ brings forward this sign of Jonah, as it were a sign of the condemnation of the Jews by the Ninevites, for the Ninevites believed Jonah and repented, but the Jews would not believe Christ, and were therefore cut off. Maldonatus thinks that Christ gave the Jews who sought a sign from Heaven, a sign from earth, that they might be condemned; for it behoved that they who sought a sign deceitfully should be confounded.

Ἐν ἐκείνῳ τῷ καιρῷ ἐπορεύθη ὁ Ἰησοῦς τοῖς σάββασιν διὰ τῶν σπορίμων· οἱ δὲ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ ἐπείνασαν, καὶ ἤρξαντο τίλλειν στάχυας καὶ ἐσθίειν."

* Summa

*S Part 4, Ques 40, Article 4

 [III, Q. 40, Art. 4]
Whether Christ Conformed His Conduct to the Law?
Objection 1: It would seem that Christ did not conform His conduct to the Law. For the Law forbade any work whatsoever to be done on the Sabbath, since God "rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done." But He healed a man on the Sabbath, and commanded him to take up his bed. Therefore it seems that He did not conform His conduct to the Law.
Obj. 2: Further, what Christ taught, that He also did, according to Acts 1:1: "Jesus began to do and to teach." But He taught (Matt. 15:11) that "not" all "that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man": and this is contrary to the precept of the Law, which declared that a man was made unclean by eating and touching certain animals, as stated Lev. 11. Therefore it seems that He did not conform His conduct to the Law.
Obj. 3: Further, he who consents to anything is of the same mind as he who does it, according to Rom. 1:32: "Not only they that do them, but they also that consent to them that do them." But Christ, by excusing His disciples, consented to their breaking the Law by plucking the ears of corn on the Sabbath; as is related Matt. 12:1-8. Therefore it seems that Christ did not conform His conduct to the Law.
_On the contrary,_ It is written (Matt. 5:17): "Do not think that I am come to destroy the Law or the Prophets." Commenting on these words, Chrysostom says: "He fulfilled the Law . . . in one way, by transgressing none of the precepts of the Law; secondly, by justifying us through faith, which the Law, in the letter, was unable to do."
_I answer that,_ Christ conformed His conduct in all things to the precepts of the Law. In token of this He wished even to be circumcised; for the circumcision is a kind of protestation of a man's purpose of keeping the Law, according to Gal. 5:3: "I testify to every man circumcising himself, that he is a debtor to do the whole Law."
And Christ, indeed, wished to conform His conduct to the Law, first, to show His approval of the Old Law. Secondly, that by obeying the Law He might perfect it and bring it to an end in His own self, so as to show that it was ordained to Him. Thirdly, to deprive the Jews of an excuse for slandering Him. Fourthly, in order to deliver men from subjection to the Law, according to Gal. 4:4, 5: "God sent His Son . . . made under the Law that He might redeem them who were under the Law."
Reply Obj. 1: Our Lord excuses Himself from any transgression of the Law in this matter, for three reasons. First, the precept of the hallowing of the Sabbath forbids not Divine work, but human work: for though God ceased on the seventh day from the creation of new creatures, yet He ever works by keeping and governing His creatures. Now that Christ wrought miracles was a Divine work: hence He says (John 5:17): "My Father worketh until now; and I work."
Secondly, He excuses Himself on the ground that this precept does not forbid works which are needful for bodily health. Wherefore He says (Luke 13:15): "Doth not every one of you on the Sabbath-day loose his ox or his ass from the manger, and lead them to water?" And farther on (Luke 14:5): "Which of you shall have an ass or an ox fall into a pit, and will not immediately draw him out on the Sabbath-day?" Now it is manifest that the miraculous works done by Christ related to health of body and soul.
Thirdly, because this precept does not forbid works pertaining to the worship of God. Wherefore He says (Matt. 12:5): "Have ye not read in the Law that on the Sabbath-days the priests in the Temple break the Sabbath, and are without blame?" And (John 7:23) it is written that a man receives circumcision on the Sabbath-day. Now when Christ commanded the paralytic to carry his bed on the Sabbath-day, this pertained to the worship of God, i.e. to the praise of God's power. And thus it is clear that He did not break the Sabbath: although the Jews threw this false accusation in His face, saying (John 9:16): "This man is not of God, who keepeth not the Sabbath."
Reply Obj. 2: By those words Christ wished to show that man is made unclean as to his soul, by the use of any sort of foods considered not in their nature, but only in some signification. And that certain foods are in the Law called "unclean" is due to some signification; whence Augustine says (Contra Faust. vi): "If a question be raised about swine and lambs, both are clean by nature, since 'all God's creatures are good'; but by a certain signification lambs are clean and swine unclean."
Reply Obj. 3: The disciples also, when, being hungry, they plucked the ears of corn on the Sabbath, are to be excused from transgressing the Law, since they were pressed by hunger: just as David did not transgress the Law when, through being compelled by hunger, he ate the loaves which it was not lawful for him to eat. _______________________

12:2 Pharisaei autem videntes, dixerunt ei : Ecce discipuli tui faciunt quod non licet facere sabbatis.

*H And the Pharisees seeing them, said to him: Behold thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do on the sabbath days.

Ver. 2. That which is not lawful to do on the sabbath-days. The Pharisees blame not the disciples for plucking the ears of corn, as they passed by, (this being allowed, Deut. xxiii. 25.) but for doing it on a sabbath-day, as if it had been a breach of the sabbath. Wi. — Behold, &c. The Pharisees here mildly rebuked our Lord; but afterwards, when he restored the withered hand, they rose up against him with such rage, that they formed upon the spot designs of killing him, as in v. 14. When there is nothing great or sublime, they are more quiet, but when with his word only he restores health to the infirm, like furious beasts, they grow enraged. S. Chrysos. hom. xl.

Οἱ δὲ Φαρισαῖοι ἰδόντες εἶπον αὐτῷ, Ἰδού, οἱ μαθηταί σου ποιοῦσιν ὃ οὐκ ἔξεστιν ποιεῖν ἐν σαββάτῳ."

12:3 At ille dixit eis : Non legistis quid fecerit David, quando esuriit, et qui cum eo erant :

* Footnotes

* 1_Kings 21:6
The priest therefore gave him hallowed bread: for there was no bread there, but only the loaves of proposition, which had been taken away from before the face of the Lord, that hot loaves might be set up.

*H But he said to them: Have you not read what David did when he was hungry, and they that were with him:

Ver. 3. What David, &c.[1] Christ shews them that the law need not always be taken according to the bare letter. — Into the house of God; i.e. where the tabernacle was then kept: not into the temple, which at that time was not built. — Eat the loaves, &c. Christ speaks of those loaves which were ordered to be placed on a table within the tabernacle, and changed from time to time. This translation seems as literal as may be, and more intelligible than loaves of proposition, or shew-bread. Wi. — To refute this calumny of the Jewish leaders, Jesus reminds them of the conduct of David when pursued by Saul, who, reduced to the like extremity, eat of that bread which the priests alone were allowed to touch. Achimelec, the high priest, thinking it a more pleasing sacrifice to God to preserve the life of man, than to make an offering of bread. S. Jerom. — And they that were with him. In the place alluded to, (1 K. xxi.) it is said, that he was alone. It may be answered, that no one was with him when he received the loaves. M.

Ὁ δὲ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς, Οὐκ ἀνέγνωτε τί ἐποίησεν Δαυίδ, ὅτε ἐπείνασεν αὐτὸς καὶ οἱ μετ’ αὐτοῦ·"

* Summa

*S Part 2, Ques 100, Article 8

 [I-II, Q. 100, Art. 8]
Whether the Precepts of the Decalogue Are Dispensable?
Objection 1: It would seem that the precepts of the decalogue are dispensable. For the precepts of the decalogue belong to the natural law. But the natural law fails in some cases and is changeable, like human nature, as the Philosopher says (Ethic. v, 7). Now the failure of law to apply in certain particular cases is a reason for dispensation, as stated above (Q. 96, A. 6; Q. 97, A. 4). Therefore a dispensation can be granted in the precepts of the decalogue.
Obj. 2: Further, man stands in the same relation to human law as God does to Divine law. But man can dispense with the precepts of a law made by man. Therefore, since the precepts of the decalogue are ordained by God, it seems that God can dispense with them. Now our superiors are God's viceregents on earth; for the Apostle says (2 Cor. 2:10): "For what I have pardoned, if I have pardoned anything, for your sakes have I done it in the person of Christ." Therefore superiors can dispense with the precepts of the decalogue.
Obj. 3: Further, among the precepts of the decalogue is one forbidding murder. But it seems that a dispensation is given by men in this precept: for instance, when according to the prescription of human law, such as evil-doers or enemies are lawfully slain. Therefore the precepts of the decalogue are dispensable.
Obj. 4: Further, the observance of the Sabbath is ordained by a precept of the decalogue. But a dispensation was granted in this precept; for it is written (1 Macc. 2:4): "And they determined in that day, saying: Whosoever shall come up to fight against us on the Sabbath-day, we will fight against him." Therefore the precepts of the decalogue are dispensable.
_On the contrary,_ are the words of Isa. 24:5, where some are reproved for that "they have changed the ordinance, they have broken the everlasting covenant"; which, seemingly, apply principally to the precepts of the decalogue. Therefore the precepts of the decalogue cannot be changed by dispensation.
_I answer that,_ As stated above (Q. 96, A. 6; Q. 97, A. 4), precepts admit of dispensation, when there occurs a particular case in which, if the letter of the law be observed, the intention of the lawgiver is frustrated. Now the intention of every lawgiver is directed first and chiefly to the common good; secondly, to the order of justice and virtue, whereby the common good is preserved and attained. If therefore there be any precepts which contain the very preservation of the common good, or the very order of justice and virtue, such precepts contain the intention of the lawgiver, and therefore are indispensable. For instance, if in some community a law were enacted, such as this--that no man should work for the destruction of the commonwealth, or betray the state to its enemies, or that no man should do anything unjust or evil, such precepts would not admit of dispensation. But if other precepts were enacted, subordinate to the above, and determining certain special modes of procedure, these latter precepts would admit of dispensation, in so far as the omission of these precepts in certain cases would not be prejudicial to the former precepts which contain the intention of the lawgiver. For instance if, for the safeguarding of the commonwealth, it were enacted in some city that from each ward some men should keep watch as sentries in case of siege, some might be dispensed from this on account of some greater utility.
Now the precepts of the decalogue contain the very intention of the lawgiver, who is God. For the precepts of the first table, which direct us to God, contain the very order to the common and final good, which is God; while the precepts of the second table contain the order of justice to be observed among men, that nothing undue be done to anyone, and that each one be given his due; for it is in this sense that we are to take the precepts of the decalogue. Consequently the precepts of the decalogue admit of no dispensation whatever.
Reply Obj. 1: The Philosopher is not speaking of the natural law which contains the very order of justice: for it is a never-failing principle that "justice should be preserved." But he is speaking in reference to certain fixed modes of observing justice, which fail to apply in certain cases.
Reply Obj. 2: As the Apostle says (2 Tim. 2:13), "God continueth faithful, He cannot deny Himself." But He would deny Himself if He were to do away with the very order of His own justice, since He is justice itself. Wherefore God cannot dispense a man so that it be lawful for him not to direct himself to God, or not to be subject to His justice, even in those matters in which men are directed to one another.
Reply Obj. 3: The slaying of a man is forbidden in the decalogue, in so far as it bears the character of something undue: for in this sense the precept contains the very essence of justice. Human law cannot make it lawful for a man to be slain unduly. But it is not undue for evil-doers or foes of the common weal to be slain: hence this is not contrary to the precept of the decalogue; and such a killing is no murder as forbidden by that precept, as Augustine observes (De Lib. Arb. i, 4). In like manner when a man's property is taken from him, if it be due that he should lose it, this is not theft or robbery as forbidden by the decalogue.
Consequently when the children of Israel, by God's command, took away the spoils of the Egyptians, this was not theft; since it was due to them by the sentence of God. Likewise when Abraham consented to slay his son, he did not consent to murder, because his son was due to be slain by the command of God, Who is Lord of life and death: for He it is Who inflicts the punishment of death on all men, both godly and ungodly, on account of the sin of our first parent, and if a man be the executor of that sentence by Divine authority, he will be no murderer any more than God would be. Again Osee, by taking unto himself a wife of fornications, or an adulterous woman, was not guilty either of adultery or of fornication: because he took unto himself one who was his by command of God, Who is the Author of the institution of marriage.
Accordingly, therefore, the precepts of the decalogue, as to the essence of justice which they contain, are unchangeable: but as to any determination by application to individual actions--for instance, that this or that be murder, theft or adultery, or not--in this point they admit of change; sometimes by Divine authority alone, namely, in such matters as are exclusively of Divine institution, as marriage and the like; sometimes also by human authority, namely in such matters as are subject to human jurisdiction: for in this respect men stand in the place of God: and yet not in all respects.
Reply Obj. 4: This determination was an interpretation rather than a dispensation. For a man is not taken to break the Sabbath, if he does something necessary for human welfare; as Our Lord proves (Matt. 12:3, seqq.). ________________________
NINTH 

*S Part 3, Ques 122, Article 4

 [II-II, Q. 122, Art. 4]
Whether the Third Precept of the Decalogue, Concerning the Hallowing of the Sabbath, Is Fittingly Expressed?
Objection 1: It seems that the third precept of the decalogue, concerning the hallowing of the Sabbath, is unfittingly expressed. For this, understood spiritually, is a general precept: since Bede in commenting on Luke 13:14, "The ruler of the synagogue being angry that He had healed on the Sabbath," says (Comment. iv): "The Law forbids, not to heal man on the Sabbath, but to do servile works," i.e. "to burden oneself with sin." Taken literally it is a ceremonial precept, for it is written (Ex. 31:13): "See that you keep My Sabbath: because it is a sign between Me and you in your generations." Now the precepts of the decalogue are both spiritual and moral. Therefore it is unfittingly placed among the precepts of the decalogue.
Obj. 2: Further, the ceremonial precepts of the Law contain "sacred things, sacrifices, sacraments and observances," as stated above (I-II, Q. 101, A. 4). Now sacred things comprised not only sacred days, but also sacred places and sacred vessels, and so on. Moreover, there were many sacred days other than the Sabbath. Therefore it was unfitting to omit all other ceremonial observances and to mention only that of the Sabbath.
Obj. 3: Further, whoever breaks a precept of the decalogue, sins. But in the Old Law some who broke the observances of the Sabbath did not sin--for instance, those who circumcised their sons on the eighth day, and the priests who worked in the temple on the Sabbath. Also Elias (3 Kings 19), who journeyed for forty days unto the mount of God, Horeb, must have traveled on a Sabbath: the priests also who carried the ark of the Lord for seven days, as related in Josue 7, must be understood to have carried it on a Sabbath. Again it is written (Luke 13:15): "Doth not every one of you on the Sabbath day loose his ox or his ass . . . and lead them to water?" Therefore it is unfittingly placed among the precepts of the decalogue.
Obj. 4: Further, the precepts of the decalogue have to be observed also under the New Law. Yet in the New Law this precept is not observed, neither in the point of the Sabbath day, nor as to the Lord's day, on which men cook their food, travel, fish, and do many like things. Therefore the precept of the observance of the Sabbath is unfittingly expressed.
_On the contrary,_ stands the authority of Scripture.
_I answer that,_ The obstacles to true religion being removed by the first and second precepts of the decalogue, as stated above (AA. 2, 3), it remained for the third precept to be given whereby man is established in true religion. Now it belongs to religion to give worship to God: and just as the Divine scriptures teach the interior worship under the guise of certain corporal similitudes, so is external worship given to God under the guise of sensible signs. And since for the most part man is induced to pay interior worship, consisting in prayer and devotion, by the interior prompting of the Holy Ghost, a precept of the Law as necessary respecting the exterior worship that consists in sensible signs. Now the precepts of the decalogue are, so to speak, first and common principles of the Law, and consequently the third precept of the decalogue describes the exterior worship of God as the sign of a universal boon that concerns all. This universal boon was the work of the Creation of the world, from which work God is stated to have rested on the seventh day: and sign of this we are commanded to keep holy seventh day--that is, to set it aside as a day to be given to God. Hence after the precept about the hallowing of the Sabbath the reason for it is given: "For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth . . . and rested on the seventh day."
Reply Obj. 1: The precept about hallowing the Sabbath, understood literally, is partly moral and partly ceremonial. It is a moral precept in the point of commanding man to aside a certain time to be given to Divine things. For there is in man a natural inclination to set aside a certain time for each necessary thing, such as refreshment of the body, sleep, and so forth. Hence according to the dictate of reason, man sets aside a certain time for spiritual refreshment, by which man's mind is refreshed in God. And thus to have a certain time set aside for occupying oneself with Divine things is the matter of a moral precept. But, in so far as this precept specializes the time as a sign representing the Creation of the world, it is a ceremonial precept. Again, it is a ceremonial precept in its allegorical signification, as representative of Christ's rest in the tomb on the seventh day: also in its moral signification, as representing cessation from all sinful acts, and the mind's rest in God, in which sense, too, it is a general precept. Again, it is a ceremonial precept in its analogical signification, as foreshadowing the enjoyment of God in heaven. Hence the precept about hallowing the Sabbath is placed among the precepts of the decalogue, as a moral, but not as a ceremonial precept.
Reply Obj. 2: The other ceremonies of the Law are signs of certain particular Divine works: but the observance of the Sabbath is representative of a general boon, namely, the production of all creatures. Hence it was fitting that it should be placed among the general precepts of the decalogue, rather than any other ceremonial precept of the Law.
Reply Obj. 3: Two things are to be observed in the hallowing of the Sabbath. One of these is the end: and this is that man occupy himself with Divine things, and is signified in the words: "Remember that thou keep holy the Sabbath day." For in the Law those things are said to be holy which are applied to the Divine worship. The other thing is cessation from work, and is signified in the words (Ex. 20:11), "On the seventh day . . . thou shalt do no work." The kind of work meant appears from Lev. 23:3, "You shall do no servile work on that day [*Vulg.: 'You shall do no work on that day']." Now servile work is so called from servitude: and servitude is threefold. One, whereby man is the servant of sin, according to John 8:34, "Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin," and in this sense all sinful acts are servile. Another servitude is whereby one man serves another. Now one man serves another not with his mind but with his body, as stated above (Q. 104, AA. 5, 6, ad 1). Wherefore in this respect those works are called servile whereby one man serves another. The third is the servitude of God; and in this way the work of worship, which pertains to the service of God, may be called a servile work. In this sense servile work is not forbidden on the Sabbath day, because that would be contrary to the end of the Sabbath observance: since man abstains from other works on the Sabbath day in order that he may occupy himself with works connected with God's service. For this reason, according to John 7:23, "a man [*Vulg.: 'If a man,' etc.] receives circumcision on the Sabbath day, that the law of Moses may not be broken": and for this reason too we read (Matt. 12:5), that "on the Sabbath days the priests in the temple break the Sabbath," i.e. do corporal works on the Sabbath, "and are without blame." Accordingly, the priests in carrying the ark on the Sabbath did not break the precept of the Sabbath observance. In like manner it is not contrary to the observance of the Sabbath to exercise any spiritual act, such as teaching by word or writing. Wherefore a gloss on Num 28 says that "smiths and like craftsmen rest on the Sabbath day, but the reader or teacher of the Divine law does not cease from his work. Yet he profanes not the Sabbath, even as the priests in the temple break the Sabbath, and are without blame." On the other hand, those works that are called servile in the first or second way are contrary to the observance of the Sabbath, in so far as they hinder man from applying himself to Divine things. And since man is hindered from applying himself to Divine things rather by sinful than by lawful albeit corporal works, it follows that to sin on a feast day is more against this precept than to do some other but lawful bodily work. Hence Augustine says (De decem chord. iii): "It would be better if the Jew did some useful work on his farm than spent his time seditiously in the theatre: and their womenfolk would do better to be making linen on the Sabbath than to be dancing lewdly all day in their feasts of the new moon." It is not, however, against this precept to sin venially on the Sabbath, because venial sin does not destroy holiness.
Again, corporal works, not pertaining to the spiritual worship of God, are said to be servile in so far as they belong properly to servants; while they are not said to be servile, in so far as they are common to those who serve and those who are free. Moreover, everyone, be he servant or free, is bound to provide necessaries both for himself and for his neighbor, chiefly in respect of things pertaining to the well-being of the body, according to Prov. 24:11, "Deliver them that are led to death": secondarily as regards avoiding damage to one's property, according to Deut. 22:1, "Thou shalt not pass by if thou seest thy brother's ox or his sheep go astray, but thou shalt bring them back to thy brother." Hence a corporal work pertaining to the preservation of one's own bodily well-being does not profane the Sabbath: for it is not against the observance of the Sabbath to eat and do such things as preserve the health of the body. For this reason the Machabees did not profane the Sabbath when they fought in self-defense on the Sabbath day (1 Macc. 2), nor Elias when he fled from the face of Jezabel on the Sabbath. For this same reason our Lord (Matt. 12:3) excused His disciples for plucking the ears of corn on account of the need which they suffered. In like manner a bodily work that is directed to the bodily well-being of another is not contrary to the observance of the Sabbath: wherefore it is written (John 7:23): "Are you angry at Me because I have healed the whole man on the Sabbath day?" And again, a bodily work that is done to avoid an imminent damage to some external thing does not profane the Sabbath, wherefore our Lord says (Matt. 12:11): "What man shall there be among you, that hath one sheep, and if the same fall into a pit on the Sabbath day, will he not take hold on it and lift it up?"
Reply Obj. 4: In the New Law the observance of the Lord's day took the place of the observance of the Sabbath, not by virtue of the precept but by the institution of the Church and the custom of Christian people. For this observance is not figurative, as was the observance of the Sabbath in the Old Law. Hence the prohibition to work on the Lord's day is not so strict as on the Sabbath: and certain works are permitted on the Lord's day which were forbidden on the Sabbath, such as the cooking of food and so forth. And again in the New Law, dispensation is more easily granted than in the Old, in the matter of certain forbidden works, on account of their necessity, because the figure pertains to the protestation of truth, which it is unlawful to omit even in small things; while works, considered in themselves, are changeable in point of place and time. _______________________
FIFTH 

12:4 quomodo intravit in domum Dei, et panes propositionis comedit, quos non licebat ei edere, neque his qui cum eo erant, nisi solis sacerdotibus ?

* Footnotes

* Leviticus 24:9
And they shall be Aaron's and his sons', that they may eat them in the holy place: because it is most holy of the sacrifices of the Lord by a perpetual right.

*H How he entered into the house of God, and did eat the loaves of proposition, which it was not lawful for him to eat, nor for them that were with him, but for the priests only?

Ver. 4. How he entered, &c. The house of God was then at Nobe. In S. Mark, the high priest is called Abiathar. See C. ii. 26. To this difficulty some answer, that the father and son bore these two names, Achimelec and Abiathar. This they attempt to prove from 2 K. viii. 19, and 1 Paral. xxiv. 3. Others say that Abiathar, son of Achimelec, was present, and sanctioned the action of his father, thus making it his own. Others again contend, that it ought to have been translated, in the chapter called Abiathar, instead of under Abiathar: for the Jews divided the Scripture into parts, and called them by the names of the most remarkable person or thing spoken of in them. Thus Romans, ii. 2. In Elias, means in the part called Elias. — The loaves of proposition. So were called the twelve loaves which were placed before the sanctuary, in the temple of God. Ch. — These were exposed every sabbath, on the golden table, before the Lord. V.

πῶς εἰσῆλθεν εἰς τὸν οἶκον τοῦ θεοῦ, καὶ τοὺς ἄρτους τῆς προθέσεως ἔφαγεν, οὓς οὐκ ἐξὸν ἦν αὐτῷ φαγεῖν, οὐδὲ τοῖς μετ’ αὐτοῦ, εἰ μὴ τοῖς ἱερεῦσιν μόνοις;"

* Summa

*S Part 2, Ques 102, Article 4

 [I-II, Q. 102, Art. 4]
Whether Sufficient Reason Can Be Assigned for the Ceremonies Pertaining to Holy Things?
Objection 1: It would seem that no sufficient reason can be assigned for the ceremonies of the Old Law that pertain to holy things. For Paul said (Acts 17:24): "God Who made the world and all things therein; He being Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made by hands." It was therefore unfitting that in the Old Law a tabernacle or temple should be set up for the worship of God.
Obj. 2: Further, the state of the Old Law was not changed except by Christ. But the tabernacle denoted the state of the Old Law. Therefore it should not have been changed by the building of a temple.
Obj. 3: Further, the Divine Law, more than any other indeed, should lead man to the worship of God. But an increase of divine worship requires multiplication of altars and temples; as is evident in regard to the New Law. Therefore it seems that also under the Old Law there should have been not only one tabernacle or temple, but many.
Obj. 4: Further, the tabernacle or temple was ordained to the worship of God. But in God we should worship above all His unity and simplicity. Therefore it seems unbecoming for the tabernacle or temple to be divided by means of veils.
Obj. 5: Further, the power of the First Mover, i.e. God, appears first of all in the east, for it is in that quarter that the first movement begins. But the tabernacle was set up for the worship of God. Therefore it should have been built so as to point to the east rather than the west.
Obj. 6: Further, the Lord commanded (Ex. 20:4) that they should "not make . . . a graven thing, nor the likeness of anything." It was therefore unfitting for graven images of the cherubim to be set up in the tabernacle or temple. In like manner, the ark, the propitiatory, the candlestick, the table, the two altars, seem to have been placed there without reasonable cause.
Obj. 7: Further, the Lord commanded (Ex. 20:24): "You shall make an altar of earth unto Me": and again (Ex. 20:26): "Thou shalt not go up by steps unto My altar." It was therefore unfitting that subsequently they should be commanded to make an altar of wood laid over with gold or brass; and of such a height that it was impossible to go up to it except by steps. For it is written (Ex. 27:1, 2): "Thou shalt make also an altar of setim wood, which shall be five cubits long, and as many broad . . . and three cubits high . . . and thou shalt cover it with brass": and (Ex. 30:1, 3): "Thou shalt make . . . an altar to burn incense, of setim wood . . . and thou shalt overlay it with the purest gold."
Obj. 8: Further, in God's works nothing should be superfluous; for not even in the works of nature is anything superfluous to be found. But one cover suffices for one tabernacle or house. Therefore it was unbecoming to furnish the tabernacle with many coverings, viz. curtains, curtains of goats' hair, rams' skins dyed red, and violet-colored skins (Ex. 26).
Objection 9: Further, exterior consecration signifies interior holiness, the subject of which is the soul. It was therefore unsuitable for the tabernacle and its vessels to be consecrated, since they were inanimate things.
Objection 10: Further, it is written (Ps. 33:2): "I will bless the Lord at all times, His praise shall always be in my mouth." But the solemn festivals were instituted for the praise of God. Therefore it was not fitting that certain days should be fixed for keeping solemn festivals; so that it seems that there was no suitable cause for the ceremonies relating to holy things.
_On the contrary,_ The Apostle says (Heb. 8:4) that those who "offer gifts according to the law . . . serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things. As it was answered to Moses, when he was to finish the tabernacle: See, says He, that thou make all things according to the pattern which was shown thee on the mount." But that is most reasonable, which presents a likeness to heavenly things. Therefore the ceremonies relating to holy things had a reasonable cause.
_I answer that,_ The chief purpose of the whole external worship is that man may give worship to God. Now man's tendency is to reverence less those things which are common, and indistinct from other things; whereas he admires and reveres those things which are distinct from others in some point of excellence. Hence too it is customary among men for kings and princes, who ought to be reverenced by their subjects, to be clothed in more precious garments, and to possess vaster and more beautiful abodes. And for this reason it behooved special times, a special abode, special vessels, and special ministers to be appointed for the divine worship, so that thereby the soul of man might be brought to greater reverence for God.
In like manner the state of the Old Law, as observed above (A. 2; Q. 100, A. 12; Q. 101, A. 2), was instituted that it might foreshadow the mystery of Christ. Now that which foreshadows something should be determinate, so that it may present some likeness thereto. Consequently, certain special points had to be observed in matters pertaining to the worship of God.
Reply Obj. 1: The divine worship regards two things: namely, God Who is worshipped; and men, who worship Him. Accordingly God, Who is worshipped, is confined to no bodily place: wherefore there was no need, on His part, for a tabernacle or temple to be set up. But men, who worship Him, are corporeal beings: and for their sake there was need for a special tabernacle or temple to be set up for the worship of God, for two reasons. First, that through coming together with the thought that the place was set aside for the worship of God, they might approach thither with greater reverence. Secondly, that certain things relating to the excellence of Christ's Divine or human nature might be signified by the arrangement of various details in such temple or tabernacle.
To this Solomon refers (3 Kings 8:27) when he says: "If heaven and the heavens of heavens cannot contain Thee, how much less this house which I have built" for Thee? And further on (3 Kings 8:29, 20) he adds: "That Thy eyes may be open upon this house . . . of which Thou hast said: My name shall be there; . . . that Thou mayest hearken to the supplication of Thy servant and of Thy people Israel." From this it is evident that the house of the sanctuary was set up, not in order to contain God, as abiding therein locally, but that God might be made known there by means of things done and said there; and that those who prayed there might, through reverence for the place, pray more devoutly, so as to be heard more readily.
Reply Obj. 2: Before the coming of Christ, the state of the Old Law was not changed as regards the fulfilment of the Law, which was effected in Christ alone: but it was changed as regards the condition of the people that were under the Law. Because, at first, the people were in the desert, having no fixed abode: afterwards they were engaged in various wars with the neighboring nations; and lastly, at the time of David and Solomon, the state of that people was one of great peace. And then for the first time the temple was built in the place which Abraham, instructed by God, had chosen for the purpose of sacrifice. For it is written (Gen. 22:2) that the Lord commanded Abraham to "offer" his son "for a holocaust upon one of the mountains which I will show thee": and it is related further on (Gen. 22:14) that "he calleth the name of that place, The Lord seeth," as though, according to the Divine prevision, that place were chosen for the worship of God. Hence it is written (Deut. 12:5, 6): "You shall come to the place which the Lord your God shall choose . . . and you shall offer . . . your holocausts and victims."
Now it was not meet for that place to be pointed out by the building of the temple before the aforesaid time; for three reasons assigned by Rabbi Moses. First, lest the Gentiles might seize hold of that place. Secondly, lest the Gentiles might destroy it. The third reason is lest each tribe might wish that place to fall to their lot, and strifes and quarrels be the result. Hence the temple was not built until they had a king who would be able to quell such quarrels. Until that time a portable tabernacle was employed for divine worship, no place being as yet fixed for the worship of God. This is the literal reason for the distinction between the tabernacle and the temple.
The figurative reason may be assigned to the fact that they signify a twofold state. For the tabernacle, which was changeable, signifies the state of the present changeable life: whereas the temple, which was fixed and stable, signifies the state of future life which is altogether unchangeable. For this reason it is said that in the building of the temple no sound was heard of hammer or saw, to signify that all movements of disturbance will be far removed from the future state. Or else the tabernacle signifies the state of the Old Law; while the temple built by Solomon betokens the state of the New Law. Hence the Jews alone worked at the building of the tabernacle; whereas the temple was built with the cooperation of the Gentiles, viz. the Tyrians and Sidonians.
Reply Obj. 3: The reason for the unity of the temple or tabernacle may be either literal or figurative. The literal reason was the exclusion of idolatry. For the Gentiles put up various temples to various gods: and so, to strengthen in the minds of men their belief in the unity of the Godhead, God wished sacrifices to be offered to Him in one place only. Another reason was in order to show that bodily worship is not acceptable of itself: and so they restrained from offering sacrifices anywhere and everywhere. But the worship of the New Law, in the sacrifice whereof spiritual grace is contained, is of itself acceptable to God; and consequently the multiplication of altars and temples is permitted in the New Law.
As to those matters that regarded the spiritual worship of God, consisting in the teaching of the Law and the Prophets, there were, even under the Old Law, various places, called synagogues, appointed for the people to gather together for the praise of God; just as now there are places called churches in which the Christian people gather together for the divine worship. Thus our church takes the place of both temple and synagogue: since the very sacrifice of the Church is spiritual; wherefore with us the place of sacrifice is not distinct from the place of teaching. The figurative reason may be that hereby is signified the unity of the Church, whether militant or triumphant.
Reply Obj. 4: Just as the unity of the temple or tabernacle betokened the unity of God, or the unity of the Church, so also the division of the tabernacle or temple signified the distinction of those things that are subject to God, and from which we arise to the worship of God. Now the tabernacle was divided into two parts: one was called the "Holy of Holies," and was placed to the west; the other was called the "Holy Place" [*Or 'Sanctuary'. The Douay version uses both expressions], which was situated to the east. Moreover there was a court facing the tabernacle. Accordingly there are two reasons for this distinction. One is in respect of the tabernacle being ordained to the worship of God. Because the different parts of the world are thus betokened by the division of the tabernacle. For that part which was called the Holy of Holies signified the higher world, which is that of spiritual substances: while that part which is called the Holy Place signified the corporeal world. Hence the Holy Place was separated from the Holy of Holies by a veil, which was of four different colors (denoting the four elements), viz. of linen, signifying earth, because linen, i.e. flax, grows out of the earth; purple, signifying water, because the purple tint was made from certain shells found in the sea; violet, signifying air, because it has the color of the air; and scarlet twice dyed, signifying fire: and this because matter composed of the four elements is a veil between us and incorporeal substances. Hence the high-priest alone, and that once a year, entered into the inner tabernacle, i.e. the Holy of Holies: whereby we are taught that man's final perfection consists in his entering into that (higher) world: whereas into the outward tabernacle, i.e. the Holy Place, the priests entered every day: whereas the people were only admitted to the court; because the people were able to perceived material things, the inner nature of which only wise men by dint of study are able to discover.
But with regard to the figurative reason, the outward tabernacle, which was called the Holy Place, betokened the state of the Old Law, as the Apostle says (Heb. 9:6, seqq.): because into that tabernacle "the priests always entered accomplishing the offices of sacrifices." But the inner tabernacle, which was called the Holy of Holies, signified either the glory of heaven or the spiritual state of the New Law to come. To the latter state Christ brought us; and this was signified by the high-priest entering alone, once a year, into the Holy of Holies. The veil betokened the concealing of the spiritual sacrifices under the sacrifices of old. This veil was adorned with four colors: viz. that of linen, to designate purity of the flesh; purple, to denote the sufferings which the saints underwent for God; scarlet twice dyed, signifying the twofold love of God and our neighbor; and violet, in token of heavenly contemplation. With regard to the state of the Old Law the people and the priests were situated differently from one another. For the people saw the mere corporeal sacrifices which were offered in the court: whereas the priests were intent on the inner meaning of the sacrifices, because their faith in the mysteries of Christ was more explicit. Hence they entered into the outer tabernacle. This outer tabernacle was divided from the court by a veil; because some matters relating to the mystery of Christ were hidden from the people, while they were known to the priests: though they were not fully revealed to them, as they were subsequently in the New Testament (cf. Eph. 3:5).
Reply Obj. 5: Worship towards the west was introduced in the Law to the exclusion of idolatry: because all the Gentiles, in reverence to the sun, worshipped towards the east; hence it is written (Ezech. 8:16) that certain men "had their backs towards the temple of the Lord, and their faces to the east, and they adored towards the rising of the sun." Accordingly, in order to prevent this, the tabernacle had the Holy of Holies to westward, that they might adore toward the west. A figurative reason may also be found in the fact that the whole state of the first tabernacle was ordained to foreshadow the death of Christ, which is signified by the west, according to Ps. 67:5: "Who ascendeth unto the west; the Lord is His name."
Reply Obj. 6: Both literal and figurative reasons may be assigned for the things contained in the tabernacle. The literal reason is in connection with the divine worship. And because, as already observed (ad 4), the inner tabernacle, called the Holy of Holies, signified the higher world of spiritual substances, hence that tabernacle contained three things, viz. "the ark of the testament in which was a golden pot that had manna, and the rod of Aaron that had blossomed, and the tables" (Heb. 9:4) on which were written the ten commandments of the Law. Now the ark stood between two "cherubim" that looked one towards the other: and over the ark was a table, called the "propitiatory," raised above the wings of the cherubim, as though it were held up by them; and appearing, to the imagination, to be the very seat of God. For this reason it was called the "propitiatory," as though the people received propitiation thence at the prayers of the high-priest. And so it was held up, so to speak, by the cherubim, in obedience, as it were, to God: while the ark of the testament was like the foot-stool to Him that sat on the propitiatory. These three things denote three things in that higher world: namely, God Who is above all, and incomprehensible to any creature. Hence no likeness of Him was set up; to denote His invisibility. But there was something to represent his seat; since, to wit, the creature, which is beneath God, as the seat under the sitter, is comprehensible. Again in that higher world there are spiritual substances called angels. These are signified by the two cherubim, looking one towards the other, to show that they are at peace with one another, according to Job 25:2: "Who maketh peace in . . . high places." For this reason, too, there was more than one cherub, to betoken the multitude of heavenly spirits, and to prevent their receiving worship from those who had been commanded to worship but one God. Moreover there are, enclosed as it were in that spiritual world, the intelligible types of whatsoever takes place in this world, just as in every cause are enclosed the types of its effects, and in the craftsman the types of the works of his craft. This was betokened by the ark, which represented, by means of the three things it contained, the three things of greatest import in human affairs. These are wisdom, signified by the tables of the testament; the power of governing, betokened by the rod of Aaron; and life, betokened by the manna which was the means of sustenance. Or else these three things signified the three Divine attributes, viz. wisdom, in the tables; power, in the rod; goodness, in the manna--both by reason of its sweetness, and because it was through the goodness of God that it was granted to man, wherefore it was preserved as a memorial of the Divine mercy. Again, these three things were represented in Isaias' vision. For he "saw the Lord sitting upon a throne high and elevated"; and the seraphim standing by; and that the house was filled with the glory of the Lord; wherefrom the seraphim cried out: "All the earth is full of His glory" (Isa. 6:1, 3). And so the images of the seraphim were set up, not to be worshipped, for this was forbidden by the first commandment; but as a sign of their function, as stated above.
The outer tabernacle, which denotes this present world, also contained three things, viz. the "altar of incense," which was directly opposite the ark; the "table of proposition," with the twelve loaves of proposition on it, which stood on the northern side; and the "candlestick," which was placed towards the south. These three things seem to correspond to the three which were enclosed in the ark; and they represented the same things as the latter, but more clearly: because, in order that wise men, denoted by the priests entering the temple, might grasp the meaning of these types, it was necessary to express them more manifestly than they are in the Divine or angelic mind. Accordingly the candlestick betokened, as a sensible sign thereof, the wisdom which was expressed on the tables (of the Law) in intelligible words. The altar of incense signified the office of the priest, whose duty it was to bring the people to God: and this was signified also by the rod: because on that altar the sweet-smelling incense was burnt, signifying the holiness of the people acceptable to God: for it is written (Apoc. 8:3) that the smoke of the sweet-smelling spices signifies the "justifications of the saints" (cf. Apoc. 19:8). Moreover it was fitting that the dignity of the priesthood should be denoted, in the ark, by the rod, and, in the outer tabernacle, by the altar of incense: because the priest is the mediator between God and the people, governing the people by Divine power, denoted by the rod; and offering to God the fruit of His government, i.e. the holiness of the people, on the altar of incense, so to speak. The table signified the sustenance of life, just as the manna did: but the former, a more general and a coarser kind of nourishment; the latter, a sweeter and more delicate. Again, the candlestick was fittingly placed on the southern side, while the table was placed to the north: because the south is the right-hand side of the world, while the north is the left-hand side, as stated in _De Coelo et Mundo_ ii; and wisdom, like other spiritual goods, belongs to the right hand, while temporal nourishment belongs on the left, according to Prov. 3:16: "In her left hand (are) riches and glory." And the priestly power is midway between temporal goods and spiritual wisdom; because thereby both spiritual wisdom and temporal goods are dispensed.
Another literal signification may be assigned. For the ark contained the tables of the Law, in order to prevent forgetfulness of the Law, wherefore it is written (Ex. 24:12): "I will give thee two tables of stone, and the Law, and the commandments which I have written: that thou mayest teach them" to the children of Israel. The rod of Aaron was placed there to restrain the people from insubordination to the priesthood of Aaron; wherefore it is written (Num. 17:10): "Carry back the rod of Aaron into the tabernacle of the testimony, that it may be kept there for a token of the rebellious children of Israel." The manna was kept in the ark to remind them of the benefit conferred by God on the children of Israel in the desert; wherefore it is written (Ex. 16:32): "Fill a gomor of it, and let it be kept unto generations to come hereafter, that they may know the bread wherewith I fed you in the wilderness." The candlestick was set up to enhance the beauty of the temple, for the magnificence of a house depends on its being well lighted. Now the candlestick had seven branches, as Josephus observes (Antiquit. iii, 7, 8), to signify the seven planets, wherewith the whole world is illuminated. Hence the candlestick was placed towards the south; because for us the course of the planets is from that quarter. The altar of incense was instituted that there might always be in the tabernacle a sweet-smelling smoke; both through respect for the tabernacle, and as a remedy for the stenches arising from the shedding of blood and the slaying of animals. For men despise evil-smelling things as being vile, whereas sweet-smelling things are much appreciated. The table was placed there to signify that the priests who served the temple should take their food in the temple: wherefore, as stated in Matt. 12:4, it was lawful for none but the priests to eat the twelve loaves which were put on the table in memory of the twelve tribes. And the table was not placed in the middle directly in front of the propitiatory, in order to exclude an idolatrous rite: for the Gentiles, on the feasts of the moon, set up a table in front of the idol of the moon, wherefore it is written (Jer. 7:18): "The women knead the dough, to make cakes to the queen of heaven."
In the court outside the tabernacle was the altar of holocausts, on which sacrifices of those things which the people possessed were offered to God: and consequently the people who offered these sacrifices to God by the hands of the priest could be present in the court. But the priests alone, whose function it was to offer the people to God, could approach the inner altar, whereon the very devotion and holiness of the people was offered to God. And this altar was put up outside the tabernacle and in the court, to the exclusion of idolatrous worship: for the Gentiles placed altars inside the temples to offer up sacrifices thereon to idols.
The figurative reason for all these things may be taken from the relation of the tabernacle to Christ, who was foreshadowed therein. Now it must be observed that to show the imperfection of the figures of the Law, various figures were instituted in the temple to betoken Christ. For He was foreshadowed by the "propitiatory," since He is "a propitiation for our sins" (1 John 2:2). This propitiatory was fittingly carried by cherubim, since of Him it is written (Heb. 1:6): "Let all the angels of God adore Him." He is also signified by the ark: because just as the ark was made of setim-wood, so was Christ's body composed of most pure members. More over it was gilded: for Christ was full of wisdom and charity, which are betokened by gold. And in the ark was a golden pot, i.e. His holy soul, having manna, i.e. "all the fulness of the Godhead" (Col. 2:9). Also there was a rod in the ark, i.e. His priestly power: for "He was made a . . . priest for ever" (Heb. 6:20). And therein were the tables of the Testament, to denote that Christ Himself is a lawgiver. Again, Christ was signified by the candlestick, for He said Himself (John 8:12): "I am the Light of the world"; while the seven lamps denoted the seven gifts of the Holy Ghost. He is also betokened in the table, because He is our spiritual food, according to John 6:41, 51: "I am the living bread": and the twelve loaves signified the twelve apostles, or their teaching. Or again, the candlestick and table may signify the Church's teaching, and faith, which also enlightens and refreshes. Again, Christ is signified by the two altars of holocausts and incense. Because all works of virtue must be offered to us to God through Him; both those whereby we afflict the body, which are offered, as it were, on the altar of holocausts; and those which, with greater perfection of mind, are offered to God in Christ, by the spiritual desires of the perfect, on the altar of incense, as it were, according to Heb. 13:15: "By Him therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise always to God."
Reply Obj. 7: The Lord commanded an altar to be made for the offering of sacrifices and gifts, in honor of God, and for the upkeep of the ministers who served the tabernacle. Now concerning the construction of the altar the Lord issued a twofold precept. One was at the beginning of the Law (Ex. 20:24, seqq.) when the Lord commanded them to make "an altar of earth," or at least "not of hewn stones"; and again, not to make the altar high, so as to make it necessary to "go up" to it "by steps." This was in detestation of idolatrous worship: for the Gentiles made their altars ornate and high, thinking that there was something holy and divine in such things. For this reason, too, the Lord commanded (Deut. 16:21): "Thou shalt plant no grove, nor any tree near the altar of the Lord thy God": since idolaters were wont to offer sacrifices beneath trees, on account of the pleasantness and shade afforded by them. There was also a figurative reason for these precepts. Because we must confess that in Christ, Who is our altar, there is the true nature of flesh, as regards His humanity--and this is to make an altar of earth; and again, in regard to His Godhead, we must confess His equality with the Father--and this is "not to go up" to the altar by steps. Moreover we should not couple the doctrine of Christ to that of the Gentiles, which provokes men to lewdness.
But when once the tabernacle had been constructed to the honor of God, there was no longer reason to fear these occasions of idolatry. Wherefore the Lord commanded the altar of holocausts to be made of brass, and to be conspicuous to all the people; and the altar of incense, which was visible to none but the priests. Nor was brass so precious as to give the people an occasion for idolatry.
Since, however, the reason for the precept, "Thou shalt not go up by steps unto My altar" (Ex. 20:26) is stated to have been "lest thy nakedness be discovered," it should be observed that this too was instituted with the purpose of preventing idolatry, for in the feasts of Priapus the Gentiles uncovered their nakedness before the people. But later on the priests were prescribed the use of loin-cloths for the sake of decency: so that without any danger the altar could be placed so high that the priests when offering sacrifices would go up by steps of wood, not fixed but movable.
Reply Obj. 8: The body of the tabernacle consisted of boards placed on end, and covered on the inside with curtains of four different colors, viz. twisted linen, violet, purple, and scarlet twice dyed. These curtains, however, covered the sides only of the tabernacle; and the roof of the tabernacle was covered with violet-colored skins; and over this there was another covering of rams' skins dyed red; and over this there was a third curtain made of goats' hair, which covered not only the roof of the tabernacle, but also reached to the ground and covered the boards of the tabernacle on the outside. The literal reason of these coverings taken altogether was the adornment and protection of the tabernacle, that it might be an object of respect. Taken singly, according to some, the curtains denoted the starry heaven, which is adorned with various stars; the curtain (of goats' skin) signified the waters which are above the firmament; the skins dyed red denoted the empyrean heaven, where the angels are; the violet skins, the heaven of the Blessed Trinity.
The figurative meaning of these things is that the boards of which the tabernacle was constructed signify the faithful of Christ, who compose the Church. The boards were covered on the inner side by curtains of four colors: because the faithful are inwardly adorned with the four virtues: for "the twisted linen," as the gloss observes, "signifies the flesh refulgent with purity; violet signifies the mind desirous of heavenly things; purple denotes the flesh subject to passions; the twice dyed scarlet betokens the mind in the midst of the passions enlightened by the love of God and our neighbor." The coverings of the building designate prelates and doctors, who ought to be conspicuous for their heavenly manner of life, signified by the violet colored skins: and who should also be ready to suffer martyrdom, denoted by the skins dyed red; and austere of life and patient in adversity, betokened by the curtains of goats' hair, which were exposed to wind and rain, as the gloss observes.
Reply Obj. 9: The literal reason for the sanctification of the tabernacle and vessels was that they might be treated with greater reverence, being deputed, as it were, to the divine worship by this consecration. The figurative reason is that this sanctification signified the sanctification of the living tabernacle, i.e. the faithful of whom the Church of Christ is composed.
Reply Obj. 10: Under the Old Law there were seven temporal solemnities, and one continual solemnity, as may be gathered from Num. 28, 29. There was a continual feast, since the lamb was sacrificed every day, morning and evening: and this continual feast of an abiding sacrifice signified the perpetuity of Divine bliss. Of the temporal feasts the first was that which was repeated every week. This was the solemnity of the "Sabbath," celebrated in memory of the work of the creation of the universe. Another solemnity, viz. the "New Moon," was repeated every month, and was observed in memory of the work of the Divine government. For the things of this lower world owe their variety chiefly to the movement of the moon; wherefore this feast was kept at the new moon: and not at the full moon, to avoid the worship of idolaters who used to offer sacrifices to the moon at that particular time. And these two blessings are bestowed in common on the whole human race; and hence they were repeated more frequently.
The other five feasts were celebrated once a year: and they commemorated the benefits which had been conferred especially on that people. For there was the feast of the "Passover" in the first month to commemorate the blessing of being delivered out of Egypt. The feast of "Pentecost" was celebrated fifty days later, to recall the blessing of the giving of the Law. The other three feasts were kept in the seventh month, nearly the whole of which was solemnized by them, just as the seventh day. For on the first of the seventh month was the feast of "Trumpets," in memory of the delivery of Isaac, when Abraham found the ram caught by its horns, which they represented by the horns which they blew. The feast of Trumpets was a kind of invitation whereby they prepared themselves to keep the following feast which was kept on the tenth day. This was the feast of "Expiation," in memory of the blessing whereby, at the prayer of Moses, God forgave the people's sin of worshipping the calf. After this was the feast of "Scenopegia" or of "Tents," which was kept for seven days, to commemorate the blessing of being protected and led by God through the desert, where they lived in tents. Hence during this feast they had to take "the fruits of the fairest tree," i.e. the citron, "and the trees of dense foliage" [*Douay and A. V. and R. V. read: 'Boughs of thick trees'], i.e. the myrtle, which is fragrant, "and the branches of palm-trees, and willows of the brook," which retain their greenness a long time; and these are to be found in the Land of promise; to signify that God had brought them through the arid land of the wilderness to a land of delights. On the eighth day another feast was observed, of "Assembly and Congregation," on which the people collected the expenses necessary for the divine worship: and it signified the uniting of the people and the peace granted to them in the Land of promise.
The figurative reason for these feasts was that the continual sacrifice of the lamb foreshadowed the perpetuity of Christ, Who is the "Lamb of God," according to Heb. 13:8: "Jesus Christ yesterday and today, and the same for ever." The Sabbath signified the spiritual rest bestowed by Christ, as stated in Heb. 4. The Neomenia, which is the beginning of the new moon, signified the enlightening of the primitive Church by Christ's preaching and miracles. The feast of Pentecost signified the Descent of the Holy Ghost on the apostles. The feast of Trumpets signified the preaching of the apostles. The feast of Expiation signified the cleansing of the Christian people from sins: and the feast of Tabernacles signified their pilgrimage in this world, wherein they walk by advancing in virtue. The feast of Assembly or Congregation foreshadowed the assembly of the faithful in the kingdom of heaven: wherefore this feast is described as "most holy" (Lev. 23:36). These three feasts followed immediately on one another, because those who expiate their vices should advance in virtue, until they come to see God, as stated in Ps. 83:8. ________________________
FIFTH 

12:5 aut non legistis in lege quia sabbatis sacerdotes in templo sabbatum violant, et sine crimine sunt ?

* Footnotes

* Numbers 28:9
And on the sabbath day you shall offer two lambs of a year old without blemish, and two tenths of flour tempered with oil in sacrifice, and the libations,

*H Or have ye not read in the law, that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple break the sabbath, and are without blame?

Ver. 5. Break the sabbath; i.e. they do that, which if the divine worship did not require, would not be allowed on the sabbath, as the work they do, of its own nature, is servile.

Ἢ οὐκ ἀνέγνωτε ἐν τῷ νόμῳ, ὅτι τοῖς σάββασιν οἱ ἱερεῖς ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ τὸ σάββατον βεβηλοῦσιν, καὶ ἀναίτιοί εἰσιν;"

* Summa

*S Part 3, Ques 122, Article 4

 [II-II, Q. 122, Art. 4]
Whether the Third Precept of the Decalogue, Concerning the Hallowing of the Sabbath, Is Fittingly Expressed?
Objection 1: It seems that the third precept of the decalogue, concerning the hallowing of the Sabbath, is unfittingly expressed. For this, understood spiritually, is a general precept: since Bede in commenting on Luke 13:14, "The ruler of the synagogue being angry that He had healed on the Sabbath," says (Comment. iv): "The Law forbids, not to heal man on the Sabbath, but to do servile works," i.e. "to burden oneself with sin." Taken literally it is a ceremonial precept, for it is written (Ex. 31:13): "See that you keep My Sabbath: because it is a sign between Me and you in your generations." Now the precepts of the decalogue are both spiritual and moral. Therefore it is unfittingly placed among the precepts of the decalogue.
Obj. 2: Further, the ceremonial precepts of the Law contain "sacred things, sacrifices, sacraments and observances," as stated above (I-II, Q. 101, A. 4). Now sacred things comprised not only sacred days, but also sacred places and sacred vessels, and so on. Moreover, there were many sacred days other than the Sabbath. Therefore it was unfitting to omit all other ceremonial observances and to mention only that of the Sabbath.
Obj. 3: Further, whoever breaks a precept of the decalogue, sins. But in the Old Law some who broke the observances of the Sabbath did not sin--for instance, those who circumcised their sons on the eighth day, and the priests who worked in the temple on the Sabbath. Also Elias (3 Kings 19), who journeyed for forty days unto the mount of God, Horeb, must have traveled on a Sabbath: the priests also who carried the ark of the Lord for seven days, as related in Josue 7, must be understood to have carried it on a Sabbath. Again it is written (Luke 13:15): "Doth not every one of you on the Sabbath day loose his ox or his ass . . . and lead them to water?" Therefore it is unfittingly placed among the precepts of the decalogue.
Obj. 4: Further, the precepts of the decalogue have to be observed also under the New Law. Yet in the New Law this precept is not observed, neither in the point of the Sabbath day, nor as to the Lord's day, on which men cook their food, travel, fish, and do many like things. Therefore the precept of the observance of the Sabbath is unfittingly expressed.
_On the contrary,_ stands the authority of Scripture.
_I answer that,_ The obstacles to true religion being removed by the first and second precepts of the decalogue, as stated above (AA. 2, 3), it remained for the third precept to be given whereby man is established in true religion. Now it belongs to religion to give worship to God: and just as the Divine scriptures teach the interior worship under the guise of certain corporal similitudes, so is external worship given to God under the guise of sensible signs. And since for the most part man is induced to pay interior worship, consisting in prayer and devotion, by the interior prompting of the Holy Ghost, a precept of the Law as necessary respecting the exterior worship that consists in sensible signs. Now the precepts of the decalogue are, so to speak, first and common principles of the Law, and consequently the third precept of the decalogue describes the exterior worship of God as the sign of a universal boon that concerns all. This universal boon was the work of the Creation of the world, from which work God is stated to have rested on the seventh day: and sign of this we are commanded to keep holy seventh day--that is, to set it aside as a day to be given to God. Hence after the precept about the hallowing of the Sabbath the reason for it is given: "For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth . . . and rested on the seventh day."
Reply Obj. 1: The precept about hallowing the Sabbath, understood literally, is partly moral and partly ceremonial. It is a moral precept in the point of commanding man to aside a certain time to be given to Divine things. For there is in man a natural inclination to set aside a certain time for each necessary thing, such as refreshment of the body, sleep, and so forth. Hence according to the dictate of reason, man sets aside a certain time for spiritual refreshment, by which man's mind is refreshed in God. And thus to have a certain time set aside for occupying oneself with Divine things is the matter of a moral precept. But, in so far as this precept specializes the time as a sign representing the Creation of the world, it is a ceremonial precept. Again, it is a ceremonial precept in its allegorical signification, as representative of Christ's rest in the tomb on the seventh day: also in its moral signification, as representing cessation from all sinful acts, and the mind's rest in God, in which sense, too, it is a general precept. Again, it is a ceremonial precept in its analogical signification, as foreshadowing the enjoyment of God in heaven. Hence the precept about hallowing the Sabbath is placed among the precepts of the decalogue, as a moral, but not as a ceremonial precept.
Reply Obj. 2: The other ceremonies of the Law are signs of certain particular Divine works: but the observance of the Sabbath is representative of a general boon, namely, the production of all creatures. Hence it was fitting that it should be placed among the general precepts of the decalogue, rather than any other ceremonial precept of the Law.
Reply Obj. 3: Two things are to be observed in the hallowing of the Sabbath. One of these is the end: and this is that man occupy himself with Divine things, and is signified in the words: "Remember that thou keep holy the Sabbath day." For in the Law those things are said to be holy which are applied to the Divine worship. The other thing is cessation from work, and is signified in the words (Ex. 20:11), "On the seventh day . . . thou shalt do no work." The kind of work meant appears from Lev. 23:3, "You shall do no servile work on that day [*Vulg.: 'You shall do no work on that day']." Now servile work is so called from servitude: and servitude is threefold. One, whereby man is the servant of sin, according to John 8:34, "Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin," and in this sense all sinful acts are servile. Another servitude is whereby one man serves another. Now one man serves another not with his mind but with his body, as stated above (Q. 104, AA. 5, 6, ad 1). Wherefore in this respect those works are called servile whereby one man serves another. The third is the servitude of God; and in this way the work of worship, which pertains to the service of God, may be called a servile work. In this sense servile work is not forbidden on the Sabbath day, because that would be contrary to the end of the Sabbath observance: since man abstains from other works on the Sabbath day in order that he may occupy himself with works connected with God's service. For this reason, according to John 7:23, "a man [*Vulg.: 'If a man,' etc.] receives circumcision on the Sabbath day, that the law of Moses may not be broken": and for this reason too we read (Matt. 12:5), that "on the Sabbath days the priests in the temple break the Sabbath," i.e. do corporal works on the Sabbath, "and are without blame." Accordingly, the priests in carrying the ark on the Sabbath did not break the precept of the Sabbath observance. In like manner it is not contrary to the observance of the Sabbath to exercise any spiritual act, such as teaching by word or writing. Wherefore a gloss on Num 28 says that "smiths and like craftsmen rest on the Sabbath day, but the reader or teacher of the Divine law does not cease from his work. Yet he profanes not the Sabbath, even as the priests in the temple break the Sabbath, and are without blame." On the other hand, those works that are called servile in the first or second way are contrary to the observance of the Sabbath, in so far as they hinder man from applying himself to Divine things. And since man is hindered from applying himself to Divine things rather by sinful than by lawful albeit corporal works, it follows that to sin on a feast day is more against this precept than to do some other but lawful bodily work. Hence Augustine says (De decem chord. iii): "It would be better if the Jew did some useful work on his farm than spent his time seditiously in the theatre: and their womenfolk would do better to be making linen on the Sabbath than to be dancing lewdly all day in their feasts of the new moon." It is not, however, against this precept to sin venially on the Sabbath, because venial sin does not destroy holiness.
Again, corporal works, not pertaining to the spiritual worship of God, are said to be servile in so far as they belong properly to servants; while they are not said to be servile, in so far as they are common to those who serve and those who are free. Moreover, everyone, be he servant or free, is bound to provide necessaries both for himself and for his neighbor, chiefly in respect of things pertaining to the well-being of the body, according to Prov. 24:11, "Deliver them that are led to death": secondarily as regards avoiding damage to one's property, according to Deut. 22:1, "Thou shalt not pass by if thou seest thy brother's ox or his sheep go astray, but thou shalt bring them back to thy brother." Hence a corporal work pertaining to the preservation of one's own bodily well-being does not profane the Sabbath: for it is not against the observance of the Sabbath to eat and do such things as preserve the health of the body. For this reason the Machabees did not profane the Sabbath when they fought in self-defense on the Sabbath day (1 Macc. 2), nor Elias when he fled from the face of Jezabel on the Sabbath. For this same reason our Lord (Matt. 12:3) excused His disciples for plucking the ears of corn on account of the need which they suffered. In like manner a bodily work that is directed to the bodily well-being of another is not contrary to the observance of the Sabbath: wherefore it is written (John 7:23): "Are you angry at Me because I have healed the whole man on the Sabbath day?" And again, a bodily work that is done to avoid an imminent damage to some external thing does not profane the Sabbath, wherefore our Lord says (Matt. 12:11): "What man shall there be among you, that hath one sheep, and if the same fall into a pit on the Sabbath day, will he not take hold on it and lift it up?"
Reply Obj. 4: In the New Law the observance of the Lord's day took the place of the observance of the Sabbath, not by virtue of the precept but by the institution of the Church and the custom of Christian people. For this observance is not figurative, as was the observance of the Sabbath in the Old Law. Hence the prohibition to work on the Lord's day is not so strict as on the Sabbath: and certain works are permitted on the Lord's day which were forbidden on the Sabbath, such as the cooking of food and so forth. And again in the New Law, dispensation is more easily granted than in the Old, in the matter of certain forbidden works, on account of their necessity, because the figure pertains to the protestation of truth, which it is unlawful to omit even in small things; while works, considered in themselves, are changeable in point of place and time. _______________________
FIFTH 

*S Part 4, Ques 40, Article 4

 [III, Q. 40, Art. 4]
Whether Christ Conformed His Conduct to the Law?
Objection 1: It would seem that Christ did not conform His conduct to the Law. For the Law forbade any work whatsoever to be done on the Sabbath, since God "rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done." But He healed a man on the Sabbath, and commanded him to take up his bed. Therefore it seems that He did not conform His conduct to the Law.
Obj. 2: Further, what Christ taught, that He also did, according to Acts 1:1: "Jesus began to do and to teach." But He taught (Matt. 15:11) that "not" all "that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man": and this is contrary to the precept of the Law, which declared that a man was made unclean by eating and touching certain animals, as stated Lev. 11. Therefore it seems that He did not conform His conduct to the Law.
Obj. 3: Further, he who consents to anything is of the same mind as he who does it, according to Rom. 1:32: "Not only they that do them, but they also that consent to them that do them." But Christ, by excusing His disciples, consented to their breaking the Law by plucking the ears of corn on the Sabbath; as is related Matt. 12:1-8. Therefore it seems that Christ did not conform His conduct to the Law.
_On the contrary,_ It is written (Matt. 5:17): "Do not think that I am come to destroy the Law or the Prophets." Commenting on these words, Chrysostom says: "He fulfilled the Law . . . in one way, by transgressing none of the precepts of the Law; secondly, by justifying us through faith, which the Law, in the letter, was unable to do."
_I answer that,_ Christ conformed His conduct in all things to the precepts of the Law. In token of this He wished even to be circumcised; for the circumcision is a kind of protestation of a man's purpose of keeping the Law, according to Gal. 5:3: "I testify to every man circumcising himself, that he is a debtor to do the whole Law."
And Christ, indeed, wished to conform His conduct to the Law, first, to show His approval of the Old Law. Secondly, that by obeying the Law He might perfect it and bring it to an end in His own self, so as to show that it was ordained to Him. Thirdly, to deprive the Jews of an excuse for slandering Him. Fourthly, in order to deliver men from subjection to the Law, according to Gal. 4:4, 5: "God sent His Son . . . made under the Law that He might redeem them who were under the Law."
Reply Obj. 1: Our Lord excuses Himself from any transgression of the Law in this matter, for three reasons. First, the precept of the hallowing of the Sabbath forbids not Divine work, but human work: for though God ceased on the seventh day from the creation of new creatures, yet He ever works by keeping and governing His creatures. Now that Christ wrought miracles was a Divine work: hence He says (John 5:17): "My Father worketh until now; and I work."
Secondly, He excuses Himself on the ground that this precept does not forbid works which are needful for bodily health. Wherefore He says (Luke 13:15): "Doth not every one of you on the Sabbath-day loose his ox or his ass from the manger, and lead them to water?" And farther on (Luke 14:5): "Which of you shall have an ass or an ox fall into a pit, and will not immediately draw him out on the Sabbath-day?" Now it is manifest that the miraculous works done by Christ related to health of body and soul.
Thirdly, because this precept does not forbid works pertaining to the worship of God. Wherefore He says (Matt. 12:5): "Have ye not read in the Law that on the Sabbath-days the priests in the Temple break the Sabbath, and are without blame?" And (John 7:23) it is written that a man receives circumcision on the Sabbath-day. Now when Christ commanded the paralytic to carry his bed on the Sabbath-day, this pertained to the worship of God, i.e. to the praise of God's power. And thus it is clear that He did not break the Sabbath: although the Jews threw this false accusation in His face, saying (John 9:16): "This man is not of God, who keepeth not the Sabbath."
Reply Obj. 2: By those words Christ wished to show that man is made unclean as to his soul, by the use of any sort of foods considered not in their nature, but only in some signification. And that certain foods are in the Law called "unclean" is due to some signification; whence Augustine says (Contra Faust. vi): "If a question be raised about swine and lambs, both are clean by nature, since 'all God's creatures are good'; but by a certain signification lambs are clean and swine unclean."
Reply Obj. 3: The disciples also, when, being hungry, they plucked the ears of corn on the Sabbath, are to be excused from transgressing the Law, since they were pressed by hunger: just as David did not transgress the Law when, through being compelled by hunger, he ate the loaves which it was not lawful for him to eat. _______________________

12:6 Dico autem vobis, quia templo major est hic.

*H But I tell you that there is here a greater than the temple.

Ver. 6. A greater than the temple: so what can be done for the temple without a sin, may be done for him without a crime. V.

Λέγω δὲ ὑμῖν ὅτι τοῦ ἱεροῦ μεῖζόν ἐστιν ὧδε.

12:7 Si autem sciretis, quid est : Misericordiam volo, et non sacrificium : numquam condemnassetis innocentes :

* Footnotes

* 1_Kings 15:22
And Samuel said: Doth the Lord desire holocausts and victims, and not rather that the voice of the Lord should be obeyed? For obedience is better than sacrifices: and to hearken rather than to offer the fat or rams.
* Osee 6:6
For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice: and the knowledge of God more than holocausts.

*H And if you knew what this meaneth: I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: you would never have condemned the innocent.

Ver. 7. Mercy, and not sacrifice. Osee vi. 6. The meaning of this is, if you then approve of the mercy of the high priest, who refreshed the famished fugitive David, why do you condemn my disciples? S. Jerom.

Εἰ δὲ ἐγνώκειτε τί ἐστιν, Ἔλεον θέλω καὶ οὐ θυσίαν, οὐκ ἂν κατεδικάσατε τοὺς ἀναιτίους."

* Summa

*S Part 3, Ques 30, Article 4

 [II-II, Q. 30, Art. 4]
Whether Mercy Is the Greatest of the Virtues?
Objection 1: It would seem that mercy is the greatest of the virtues. For the worship of God seems a most virtuous act. But mercy is preferred before the worship of God, according to Osee 6:6 and Matt. 12:7: "I have desired mercy and not sacrifice." Therefore mercy is the greatest virtue.
Obj. 2: Further, on the words of 1 Tim. 4:8: "Godliness is profitable to all things," a gloss says: "The sum total of a Christian's rule of life consists in mercy and godliness." Now the Christian rule of life embraces every virtue. Therefore the sum total of all virtues is contained in mercy.
Obj. 3: Further, "Virtue is that which makes its subject good," according to the Philosopher. Therefore the more a virtue makes a man like God, the better is that virtue: since man is the better for being more like God. Now this is chiefly the result of mercy, since of God is it said (Ps. 144:9) that "His tender mercies are over all His works," and (Luke 6:36) Our Lord said: "Be ye . . . merciful, as your Father also is merciful." Therefore mercy is the greatest of virtues.
_On the contrary,_ The Apostle after saying (Col. 3:12): "Put ye on . . . as the elect of God . . . the bowels of mercy," etc., adds (Col. 3:14): "Above all things have charity." Therefore mercy is not the greatest of virtues.
_I answer that,_ A virtue may take precedence of others in two ways: first, in itself; secondly, in comparison with its subject. In itself, mercy takes precedence of other virtues, for it belongs to mercy to be bountiful to others, and, what is more, to succor others in their wants, which pertains chiefly to one who stands above. Hence mercy is accounted as being proper to God: and therein His omnipotence is declared to be chiefly manifested [*Collect, Tenth Sunday after Pentecost].
On the other hand, with regard to its subject, mercy is not the greatest virtue, unless that subject be greater than all others, surpassed by none and excelling all: since for him that has anyone above him it is better to be united to that which is above than to supply the defect of that which is beneath. [*"The quality of mercy is not strained./'Tis mightiest in the mightiest: it becomes/The throned monarch better than his crown." Merchant of Venice, Act IV, Scene i.]. Hence, as regards man, who has God above him, charity which unites him to God, is greater than mercy, whereby he supplies the defects of his neighbor. But of all the virtues which relate to our neighbor, mercy is the greatest, even as its act surpasses all others, since it belongs to one who is higher and better to supply the defect of another, in so far as the latter is deficient.
Reply Obj. 1: We worship God by external sacrifices and gifts, not for His own profit, but for that of ourselves and our neighbor. For He needs not our sacrifices, but wishes them to be offered to Him, in order to arouse our devotion and to profit our neighbor. Hence mercy, whereby we supply others' defects is a sacrifice more acceptable to Him, as conducing more directly to our neighbor's well-being, according to Heb. 13:16: "Do not forget to do good and to impart, for by such sacrifices God's favor is obtained."
Reply Obj. 2: The sum total of the Christian religion consists in mercy, as regards external works: but the inward love of charity, whereby we are united to God preponderates over both love and mercy for our neighbor.
Reply Obj. 3: Charity likens us to God by uniting us to Him in the bond of love: wherefore it surpasses mercy, which likens us to God as regards similarity of works. _______________________

12:8 dominus enim est Filius hominis etiam sabbati.

*H For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath.

Ver. 8. Lord . . of the sabbath. He proves that he can dispense with the observation of the feast, because he is master of the feast. In S. Mark (ii. 27.) it is written, the sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath; i.e. man's salvation is to be preferred to the observation of the sabbath. M. — In the concurrence of two incompatible precepts, we must give the preference to that which is the end and object of the other; thus we must prefer the preservation of life to the observance of the sabbath. A. — These loaves were twelve, corresponding to the twelve tribes of Israel. They were set six and six, one upon another, at each end of the table. Upon the uppermost loaf of each heap stood a vessel, smoking with the sweetest incense. These loaves at the week's end were, according to God's order, eaten by the priests only, when they were replaced by twelve fresh ones, made like them, with the finest flour, tempered with oil. This offering of the shew-bread before the Lord, was a continual sacrifice, as the holy Fathers observe, and a figure of a more excellent kind of shew-bread, viz. Jesus Christ himself in the holy eucharist. A.

Κύριος γάρ ἐστιν τοῦ σαββάτου ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου.

12:9 Et cum inde transisset, venit in synagogam eorum.

*H And when he had passed from thence, he came into their synagogues.

Ver. 9. He came into the synagogue. This happened some days later, but again on a sabbath. M.

¶Καὶ μεταβὰς ἐκεῖθεν ἦλθεν εἰς τὴν συναγωγὴν αὐτῶν.

12:10 Et ecce homo manum habens aridam, et interrogabant eum, dicentes : Si licet sabbatis curare ? ut accusarent eum.

* Footnotes

* Mark 3:1
And he entered again into the synagogue: and there was a man there who had a withered hand.
* Luke 6:6
And it came to pass also, on another sabbath, that he entered into the synagogue and taught. And there was a man whose right hand was withered.

*H And behold there was a man who had a withered hand, and they asked him, saying: Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath days? that they might accuse him.

Ver. 10. Is it lawful? His enemies perceiving in what manner he excused his disciples, have recourse to a fresh stratagem. S. Jerom. — By this question they did not seek learning or improvement, but merely an occasion to ensnare Jesus in his words. If he answered in the affirmative, they would accuse him of violating the repose of the sabbath, enjoined by the law of Moses; if in the negative, of cruelty and want of feeling, and would infallibly have objected his own practice against him, as he had before justified his disciples for plucking corn on the sabbath. Jesus seeing their malice, avoids their captious question by proposing one to them, as we read in S. Mark. Is it lawful to do good or ill on the sabbath? As if he had said, whether is it better to assist your neighbor on the sabbath, or to abandon him in his distress, when you are able to afford him relief? Unable to give an answer, that would not be a justification of his actions, they remain silent; but he still presses the subject, by retorting their own actions upon themselves. They afforded relief to brute animals that stood in need of it on the sabbath. It was therefore cruelty, or mere malice, to cavil at his relieving the sick man on the sabbath. Jans.

Καὶ ἰδού, ἄνθρωπος ἦν τὴν χεῖρα ἔχων ξηράν· καὶ ἐπηρώτησαν αὐτόν, λέγοντες, Εἰ ἔξεστιν τοῖς σάββασιν θεραπεύειν; ἵνα κατηγορήσωσιν αὐτοῦ."

12:11 Ipse autem dixit illis : Quis erit ex vobis homo, qui habeat ovem unam, et si ceciderit haec sabbatis in foveam, nonne tenebit et levabit eam ?

* Footnotes

* Deuteronomy 22:4
If thou see thy brother's ass or his ox to be fallen down in the way, thou shalt not slight it, but shalt lift it up with him.

But he said to them: What man shall there be among you, that hath one sheep: and if the same fall into a pit on the sabbath day, will he not take hold on it and lift it up?

Ὁ δὲ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς, Τίς ἔσται ἐξ ὑμῶν ἄνθρωπος, ὃς ἕξει πρόβατον ἕν, καὶ ἐὰν ἐμπέσῃ τοῦτο τοῖς σάββασιν εἰς βόθυνον, οὐχὶ κρατήσει αὐτὸ καὶ ἐγερεῖ;"

* Summa

*S Part 3, Ques 122, Article 4

 [II-II, Q. 122, Art. 4]
Whether the Third Precept of the Decalogue, Concerning the Hallowing of the Sabbath, Is Fittingly Expressed?
Objection 1: It seems that the third precept of the decalogue, concerning the hallowing of the Sabbath, is unfittingly expressed. For this, understood spiritually, is a general precept: since Bede in commenting on Luke 13:14, "The ruler of the synagogue being angry that He had healed on the Sabbath," says (Comment. iv): "The Law forbids, not to heal man on the Sabbath, but to do servile works," i.e. "to burden oneself with sin." Taken literally it is a ceremonial precept, for it is written (Ex. 31:13): "See that you keep My Sabbath: because it is a sign between Me and you in your generations." Now the precepts of the decalogue are both spiritual and moral. Therefore it is unfittingly placed among the precepts of the decalogue.
Obj. 2: Further, the ceremonial precepts of the Law contain "sacred things, sacrifices, sacraments and observances," as stated above (I-II, Q. 101, A. 4). Now sacred things comprised not only sacred days, but also sacred places and sacred vessels, and so on. Moreover, there were many sacred days other than the Sabbath. Therefore it was unfitting to omit all other ceremonial observances and to mention only that of the Sabbath.
Obj. 3: Further, whoever breaks a precept of the decalogue, sins. But in the Old Law some who broke the observances of the Sabbath did not sin--for instance, those who circumcised their sons on the eighth day, and the priests who worked in the temple on the Sabbath. Also Elias (3 Kings 19), who journeyed for forty days unto the mount of God, Horeb, must have traveled on a Sabbath: the priests also who carried the ark of the Lord for seven days, as related in Josue 7, must be understood to have carried it on a Sabbath. Again it is written (Luke 13:15): "Doth not every one of you on the Sabbath day loose his ox or his ass . . . and lead them to water?" Therefore it is unfittingly placed among the precepts of the decalogue.
Obj. 4: Further, the precepts of the decalogue have to be observed also under the New Law. Yet in the New Law this precept is not observed, neither in the point of the Sabbath day, nor as to the Lord's day, on which men cook their food, travel, fish, and do many like things. Therefore the precept of the observance of the Sabbath is unfittingly expressed.
_On the contrary,_ stands the authority of Scripture.
_I answer that,_ The obstacles to true religion being removed by the first and second precepts of the decalogue, as stated above (AA. 2, 3), it remained for the third precept to be given whereby man is established in true religion. Now it belongs to religion to give worship to God: and just as the Divine scriptures teach the interior worship under the guise of certain corporal similitudes, so is external worship given to God under the guise of sensible signs. And since for the most part man is induced to pay interior worship, consisting in prayer and devotion, by the interior prompting of the Holy Ghost, a precept of the Law as necessary respecting the exterior worship that consists in sensible signs. Now the precepts of the decalogue are, so to speak, first and common principles of the Law, and consequently the third precept of the decalogue describes the exterior worship of God as the sign of a universal boon that concerns all. This universal boon was the work of the Creation of the world, from which work God is stated to have rested on the seventh day: and sign of this we are commanded to keep holy seventh day--that is, to set it aside as a day to be given to God. Hence after the precept about the hallowing of the Sabbath the reason for it is given: "For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth . . . and rested on the seventh day."
Reply Obj. 1: The precept about hallowing the Sabbath, understood literally, is partly moral and partly ceremonial. It is a moral precept in the point of commanding man to aside a certain time to be given to Divine things. For there is in man a natural inclination to set aside a certain time for each necessary thing, such as refreshment of the body, sleep, and so forth. Hence according to the dictate of reason, man sets aside a certain time for spiritual refreshment, by which man's mind is refreshed in God. And thus to have a certain time set aside for occupying oneself with Divine things is the matter of a moral precept. But, in so far as this precept specializes the time as a sign representing the Creation of the world, it is a ceremonial precept. Again, it is a ceremonial precept in its allegorical signification, as representative of Christ's rest in the tomb on the seventh day: also in its moral signification, as representing cessation from all sinful acts, and the mind's rest in God, in which sense, too, it is a general precept. Again, it is a ceremonial precept in its analogical signification, as foreshadowing the enjoyment of God in heaven. Hence the precept about hallowing the Sabbath is placed among the precepts of the decalogue, as a moral, but not as a ceremonial precept.
Reply Obj. 2: The other ceremonies of the Law are signs of certain particular Divine works: but the observance of the Sabbath is representative of a general boon, namely, the production of all creatures. Hence it was fitting that it should be placed among the general precepts of the decalogue, rather than any other ceremonial precept of the Law.
Reply Obj. 3: Two things are to be observed in the hallowing of the Sabbath. One of these is the end: and this is that man occupy himself with Divine things, and is signified in the words: "Remember that thou keep holy the Sabbath day." For in the Law those things are said to be holy which are applied to the Divine worship. The other thing is cessation from work, and is signified in the words (Ex. 20:11), "On the seventh day . . . thou shalt do no work." The kind of work meant appears from Lev. 23:3, "You shall do no servile work on that day [*Vulg.: 'You shall do no work on that day']." Now servile work is so called from servitude: and servitude is threefold. One, whereby man is the servant of sin, according to John 8:34, "Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin," and in this sense all sinful acts are servile. Another servitude is whereby one man serves another. Now one man serves another not with his mind but with his body, as stated above (Q. 104, AA. 5, 6, ad 1). Wherefore in this respect those works are called servile whereby one man serves another. The third is the servitude of God; and in this way the work of worship, which pertains to the service of God, may be called a servile work. In this sense servile work is not forbidden on the Sabbath day, because that would be contrary to the end of the Sabbath observance: since man abstains from other works on the Sabbath day in order that he may occupy himself with works connected with God's service. For this reason, according to John 7:23, "a man [*Vulg.: 'If a man,' etc.] receives circumcision on the Sabbath day, that the law of Moses may not be broken": and for this reason too we read (Matt. 12:5), that "on the Sabbath days the priests in the temple break the Sabbath," i.e. do corporal works on the Sabbath, "and are without blame." Accordingly, the priests in carrying the ark on the Sabbath did not break the precept of the Sabbath observance. In like manner it is not contrary to the observance of the Sabbath to exercise any spiritual act, such as teaching by word or writing. Wherefore a gloss on Num 28 says that "smiths and like craftsmen rest on the Sabbath day, but the reader or teacher of the Divine law does not cease from his work. Yet he profanes not the Sabbath, even as the priests in the temple break the Sabbath, and are without blame." On the other hand, those works that are called servile in the first or second way are contrary to the observance of the Sabbath, in so far as they hinder man from applying himself to Divine things. And since man is hindered from applying himself to Divine things rather by sinful than by lawful albeit corporal works, it follows that to sin on a feast day is more against this precept than to do some other but lawful bodily work. Hence Augustine says (De decem chord. iii): "It would be better if the Jew did some useful work on his farm than spent his time seditiously in the theatre: and their womenfolk would do better to be making linen on the Sabbath than to be dancing lewdly all day in their feasts of the new moon." It is not, however, against this precept to sin venially on the Sabbath, because venial sin does not destroy holiness.
Again, corporal works, not pertaining to the spiritual worship of God, are said to be servile in so far as they belong properly to servants; while they are not said to be servile, in so far as they are common to those who serve and those who are free. Moreover, everyone, be he servant or free, is bound to provide necessaries both for himself and for his neighbor, chiefly in respect of things pertaining to the well-being of the body, according to Prov. 24:11, "Deliver them that are led to death": secondarily as regards avoiding damage to one's property, according to Deut. 22:1, "Thou shalt not pass by if thou seest thy brother's ox or his sheep go astray, but thou shalt bring them back to thy brother." Hence a corporal work pertaining to the preservation of one's own bodily well-being does not profane the Sabbath: for it is not against the observance of the Sabbath to eat and do such things as preserve the health of the body. For this reason the Machabees did not profane the Sabbath when they fought in self-defense on the Sabbath day (1 Macc. 2), nor Elias when he fled from the face of Jezabel on the Sabbath. For this same reason our Lord (Matt. 12:3) excused His disciples for plucking the ears of corn on account of the need which they suffered. In like manner a bodily work that is directed to the bodily well-being of another is not contrary to the observance of the Sabbath: wherefore it is written (John 7:23): "Are you angry at Me because I have healed the whole man on the Sabbath day?" And again, a bodily work that is done to avoid an imminent damage to some external thing does not profane the Sabbath, wherefore our Lord says (Matt. 12:11): "What man shall there be among you, that hath one sheep, and if the same fall into a pit on the Sabbath day, will he not take hold on it and lift it up?"
Reply Obj. 4: In the New Law the observance of the Lord's day took the place of the observance of the Sabbath, not by virtue of the precept but by the institution of the Church and the custom of Christian people. For this observance is not figurative, as was the observance of the Sabbath in the Old Law. Hence the prohibition to work on the Lord's day is not so strict as on the Sabbath: and certain works are permitted on the Lord's day which were forbidden on the Sabbath, such as the cooking of food and so forth. And again in the New Law, dispensation is more easily granted than in the Old, in the matter of certain forbidden works, on account of their necessity, because the figure pertains to the protestation of truth, which it is unlawful to omit even in small things; while works, considered in themselves, are changeable in point of place and time. _______________________
FIFTH 

12:12 Quanto magis melior est homo ove ? itaque licet sabbatis benefacere.

How much better is a man than a sheep? Therefore it is lawful to do a good deed on the sabbath days.

Πόσῳ οὖν διαφέρει ἄνθρωπος προβάτου. Ὥστε ἔξεστιν τοῖς σάββασιν καλῶς ποιεῖν.

12:13 Tunc ait homini : Extende manum tuam. Et extendit, et restituta est sanitati sicut altera.

*H Then he saith to the man: Stretch forth thy hand; and he stretched it forth, and it was restored to health even as the other.

Ver. 13. Stretch forth. Our Saviour places the man that had the withered hand in the midst of the Jews, and looking round upon the multitude, (according to S. Mark) he ordered him to stretch out his hand, that by these several ways, he might excite the pity of the stiff-necked people; but no sooner had he performed this act of charity, than they, swelling with anger, went out, meditating destruction. So ruinous and pestiferous is the vice of envy! S. Chrys. hom. xli. — S. Matthew having mentioned this miracle, takes occasion to narrate others which Christ performed on his second return from Judea. We have frequently to mention that the particle tunc, then, and such like, do not always relate to what immediately goes before. A soul in sin may be said to resemble the withered hand, but obedience with faith to God's commands can and will restore it to its pristine state. Jesus bids him stretch out his hand, and power accompanies the command; he stretches it forth, and it is made whole like the other. A.

*Lapide

, sec. 2). It would have been otherwise if any of the Apostles had consecrated the Eucharist during the triduum of the Passion. For then the Body and Blood of Christ would have been in it separated from His Soul, for in this manner they were in Christ Himself now buried. For Christ was then dead, not alive. I say then, that the expression three days and three nights is here only a periphrasis and description of a natural day. The two integral parts of such a day are day and night, or light and darkness. Christ makes use of this periphrasis because Jonah, His antetype, did the same. (Joh 1:17 .) We must not understand that these days are three artificial days as opposed to nights, as if during three days, in which the sun is above the horizon, Christ lay in the tomb; for this was not the case. You must consider these three natural days to be not whole days but parts of days, namely, the latter part of Friday; when Christ being taken down from the Cross, was laid in the sepulchre, the whole of Saturday, and part of the Lord's day. For although the Hebrews reckoned their civil days from one sun-rise to another, like the Chaldeans and the Persians ( Beda de ration. temp .), yet they computed their sacred days, such as the Passover, from evening to evening. Thus S. Jerome, Theophyl., Euthym., and S. Aug. and commentators, passim , explain the meaning of these three days. Hence Christ is constantly spoken of as rising on the third day, or after three days, without any mention of nights. But in this place, according to this computation, there were but two nights in which Christ lay in the tomb, viz. Friday and Saturday nights, and yet three nights are expressly mentioned. Others therefore answer more fully and plainly; that these three days and nights are reckoned according to the Roman computation. For the Romans were at that time, masters of Judea, and had introduced their own methods of computing time in civil affairs. The Romans reckoned from midnight to midnight, as Christians do in their fasts and festivals. ( See Macrob. L. 1. Saturni c. Gell. L. 3. c. 2. Pliny. L. 2. c. 77. and others ). According to this reckoning it is clear Christ remained in the tomb during a part of three days and three nights. He was buried on Friday before sunset; and was in the tomb until the midnight of that day. After that He was in the tomb during the entire day and night of the Sabbath; and from the midnight of Sunday for about six hours until that dawning of the Lord's Day on which He arose. For the Passover was at that time about the equinox, when the days and nights are equal, each being about twelve hours long. But the Soul of Christ, immediately when He expired upon the Cross at the ninth hour, i.e ., at three o'clock in the afternoon, descended into Limbus, and there remained with the Fathers until the dawn of Easter Day. Now that the Jews made use of the Roman method of computing time may be learnt as well from other things, as because they borrowed the four watches of the night from the practice in use among the Roman armies. ( See Mat 15:25Mat 15:25 and elsewhere .) Different nations had different methods of reckoning the beginning of the day. The Persians and Babylonians reckoned from sunrise to sunrise. The Athenians and Italians, from sunset to sunset. Astronomers from midday to midday. But the Egyptians and Roman priests reckoned from midnight to midnight: and this method has continued in the Roman Church. The Hebrews then in the time of Christ followed the method of the Romans, to whom they were subject. Franc. Lucas teaches that the Jews did not compute their Festivals from midnight as Christians do. The explanation given above is that of S. Anselm, in Loco . Isidore of Pelusium ( L . 1 . Epist 114 and 212), D. Thom., (3. p. q. 46. art . 9), Suarez (3. p. q. 53. disp . 46. sect. 3. in fine .), and Baronius. ( A. C. 34.). The men of Nineveh shall rise up , c. That is to say the Ninevites, who, with their king Sardanapalus, had thrown themselves into wickedness, and given themselves up entirely to the lusts of the flesh, when they heard Jonah thundering against them, and threatening them with destruction, believed him, and did penance. They therefore, in the day of judgment, shall accuse and condemn the Scribes and the Jews who would not believe Christ, their God and Lord, working so many miracles. They shall condemn them, I say, not so much in word as by their deeds, namely, by the example of their faith and repentance. It does not follow from hence that the Ninevites were saved; for shortly afterwards they returned to their sins like a dog to his vomit. (See what I have said in the Prefaces to Jonah and Nahum.) And behold a greater than Jonah is here. For Jonah was a prophet and a servant: Christ is Messiah and the Lord. Jonah, remaining alive in the fish, alive came forth: Christ rose again from death and the grave, and restored to life, came forth. Jonah preached unwillingly. Christ of His own accord. Jonah was a foreigner among the Ninevites: Christ was of the same race as the Jews. Jonah threatened the destruction of Nineveh. Christ promised the kingdom of Heaven. Jonah did no miracle: Christ did very many. All the prophets prophesied of Christ: none of Jonah. Jonah cried aloud, "Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown." Christ cried by His Apostles, "Yet forty years and Jerusalem shall be destroyed by Titus." Euseb. of Emissa ( Hom . 2. de Pasch .), and S. Aug. ( Epist. 49. 6), have collected further analogies between Jonah and Christ. The Queen of the South shall rise , c. Aegypt. The Southern Queen . Persian, Queen of Thema (Theman with the Hebrews and Orientals signifies the south). Ethiopic, Queen Aseb. The naine, therefore, of this queen appears to have been Aseb, and to have been taken from the name of her kingdom, Saba, Sabæa. This is the opinion of some. But I maintain that Aseb is Ethiopic for the south, as Ethiopians at Rome have assured me. This is the Queen of Sheba, which is south of Judea ( 1Ki 10:1-13 ). Sheba, or Saba, is a country, and has two meanings. One Sheba was in the neighbouring Arabia; the other in remote Ethiopia, the capital of which was afterwards called by Cambyses Meroë, after the name of his sister. This queen is thought by many to have come from the Ethiopian, rather than the Arabian Sheba: because the Ethiopian Sheba was furthest off, and because Josephus calls her Queen of Ethiopia and Egypt. Wherefore afterwards the knowledge of scripture, and of the true God of the Hebrews, remained among the Ethiopians. From among them there came to Jerusalem, to worship God, a eunuch of Candace, Queen of the Ethiopians. ( Acts viii.) Pliny ( Lib . 6, c. 29) says, that queens reigned over the Ethiopians, and bore the general name of Candace. Indeed, the Emperor of the Ethiopians, or Abyssinians calls himself the Son of Solomon. For the Ethiopian tradition is that their queen was married to Solomon, by whom she had a son, from whom the Abyssinian kings, who are now called Prete-Tannes , are descended. Pineda, however, refutes this tradition. The Abyssinians add that this queen Aseb reigned in Tigris, which is the largest province of Abyssinia, and that her son was called Menile , or like, because he was very like his father Solomon. Thus Euthymius, Jansen, Maldonatus, Toletus, Barrad, and others, think this queen came from Ethiopia; but others, with more probability think she came from Saba, which is in Arabia Felix, where are the Homeritæ, in whose country spices and gold as well as camels are abundant. Again, she is said to have come from the uttermost parts of the earth ; for Arabia Sabaea is distant from Jerusalem 606 leagues. It is, moreover, the furthest land in the direction of the Mare Indicum , or Arabian Gulf, for there the land ends, and the sea begins. Hence it is often called in scripture, a land very far off, as Jer. vi. Isaiah xliii. and elsewhere. Whence Nicephorus ( l . 8, c . 35) says, Arabia Felix is Sabaea, and its boundaries extend to the ocean. Thus SS. Jerome, Cyril, Theodorus, Salmeron and others, whom Pineda quotes and follows. To hear the wisdom of Solomon; and behold a greater than Solomon is here. Christ speaks of Himself in the third person out of modesty. This comparison between the Jews and the Queen of Sheba has much emphasis, which is well brought out by Franc. Lucas. "The woman," he says, "was a Gentile, not brought up in God's discipline, but immersed in the business of a great empire; yet she was attracted by the fame of Solomon's wisdom, and undertook a most difficult journey from the remotest parts of the earth to Jerusalem, that she might make trial of his wisdom. This wisdom she wondered at above measure, and received Solomon's counsel, although he only discoursed concerning earthly things. But the Jews, the scholars of the Divine Law, would not receive Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God, in whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge, the only teacher of the mysteries of eternal salvation, which had been hid from ages and generations, when He offered Himself to them, and asked and invited them to come to Him. Yea, they altogether rejected Him, although He gave them the most wonderful sign of the Resurrection. How much, therefore, did the Queen of Sheba excel the Jews! and with what justice and with what power, will she, in the Day of Judgment, rebuke them to their face for their obstinate ingratitude, unbelief, and disobedience to Christ!" The same reasoning will apply to the Ninevites. Therefore let priests, religious and others, who are abundantly supplied with God's grace, take heed that they use it rightly and diligently; for otherwise, the more they have received, the more severely will they be punished. Yea, in the Day of Judgment, laymen will triumph over them, even as Heathens and Turks will upbraid bad Christians, because if they had had their graces, they would have lived far more holily and religiously. When the unclean spirit is gone out of a man , c. Observe, Christ still continues to treat of the subject of demoniacal possession: for the possessed, whom He healed, were corporeally possessed by a demon, but the Scribes and the Jews, who reviled Christ's miracles, were spiritually possessed. Christ here speaks parabolically, after the manner of the Syrians. The meaning is: As a man who is an exile wanders through arid and desert places, so the devil when driven by the law of God from man, that is to say, from you, O ye Jews, who were the people of God, amongst whom God dwelt, and manifested Himself by prophecies and miracles, wanders through desert places, and seeks rest. But when he cannot find it save in man, and when he sees that ye despise God's grace, which I offer you, then he eagerly returns to you as to a house that is empty and swept, as to a place prepared and adorned for him. Then he takes seven, i.e ., many other companions, more wicked than himself, and they joyfully inhabit that house, i.e ., your souls; and that they may not be again expelled, and that they may make you more wicked, with that object in view they cause you to blaspheme Me, My doctrine, and My miracles, and to say that I cast out devils by Beelzebub, and that ye may at length crucify Me, which is of all wickedness the chief and the greatest. Wherefore God will punish you with utter destruction by Titus, and will cause you to be without God, without Messiah, without law, or temple, or sacrifice, and without faith yea, that ye shall think your own perfidy and blindness to be the true faith and the true light. Moreover, the house, that is the soul, is empty, because it is without God, and devoid of His grace. It is swept with besoms ( Vulg .) because all virtue, piety and goodness have been driven out of it, and the poison of impurity has been scattered in it, and the tapestry of pride hung about it. For such adornment as this is the adornment of uncleanness, and is pleasing to the devil who delights in nothing but what is impure and filthy. Again, the devils are driven by God and His Saints into desert places, that they may not injure men. Thus Raphael bound Asmodeus in the deserts of Upper Egypt. ( Tobit 8.) So also Isaiah says, (Isaiah xiii. and xxxiv.) that Babylon should be wasted and rendered a desert; and that hairy creatures, Satyrs and Onocentauri , i.e. demons in the shape of goats and monsters should dwell there. But the devil does not find rest in such places, for, as Abul. says, "The devil cannot rest, because he shall be tormented eternally, but he seeks the rest of his own evil will: for he is envious, and loves to injure men: and when he is able to injure them he rests after a fashion." He acts thus, partly from envy, because he grudges man the happiness of heaven, from which he himself has fallen; partly from hatred of God: and because he cannot injure God himself, he would injure man who is God's creature and image, that he may thus, as far as he can, do an injury to God. Mystically, dry places are the souls of the Gentiles, in which, by the grace of Christ, the moisture of concupiscence is dried up. Hear S. Jerome, "The unclean spirit went forth from the Jews, when they received the law, and being driven from them, walked in the wilderness of the Gentiles. But when the Gentiles had believed in the Lord-finding no place among them, the devil said, I will go back to the Jews." And the last state of that man, c. This is the end and scope of the parable. Christ shows that relapsing into sin is worse than falling into it at first; even as a relapse into a disease of the body is worse than the original disease. S. Augustine says ( Epist . 137), "I confess unfeignedly, before the Lord our God, who is the witness of my soul, from the time when I began to serve God, that I have not found any who have made greater progress in religion than those in monasteries. So too, in like manner, I have never found worse men than those who have fallen, being monks. And this is why I believe it has been written in the Apocalypse ( ch . xxii.) 'He that is just, let him become more just; and he that is filthy, let him become more filthy. '" Thus Lucifer, who was the most fair of all the angels, became the worst of the devils. So too Judas, from an Apostle, became an Apostate, and the betrayer of Christ. So also Nestorius, Eutyches, Pelagius, Arius, and in our time Luther, Calvin, and the rest, their companions, from monks and priests, became apostates and heresiarchs. As it is commonly said, "the best wine makes the sourest vinegar." While He was yet speaking to the multitude, behold His mother , c. You will ask, who were those who, in the Gospels, are called the brethren of Christ? The impure heresiarch, Helvidius, answered that they were children of the blessed Virgin who were born after Christ. For he denied Her perpetual virginity. But S. Jerome sharply and learnedly refutes him, in the work which he wrote against him. 2. The Greeks generally, with Euseb. ( H.E. ii. 1), and of the Latins, SS. Hilary and Ambrose, think that they were children of Joseph, by a former marriage. But Joseph never had any other wife except the Blessed Virgin Mary. Peter Damian ( Epist. 11, c . iv. ad Nicol. Rom. Pont .) says that this is the faith of the Church. 3. Hugh of S. Victor thinks they were descendants of S. Ann, the mother of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and that S. Ann, besides Joakim the father of the Virgin, had two other husbands, of whom, those who are called the Lord's brethren, were begotten. But S. Hippolytus ( Ap. Niceph. 2, 3) teaches that S. Annn had only one husband, Joakim. I say, therefore, that these persons were not properly the brethren of Christ, nor the offspring of the Blessed Virgin Mary, nor Joseph, nor S. Ann, but are called brethren, i.e ., cousins or relations of Christ, by a mode of expression common in Hebrew. In sooth, they were cousins, or really brothers of S. Joakim, or S. Ann, or rather brother's children, or sistes's children of SS. Joakim and Ann, probably children of Cleophas, who was a brother of Joseph, the husband of the blessed Virgin Mary, according to the testimony of Hegesippus ( Eus. H.E. iii. 11). For Joseph and Cleophas were sons of Jacob, the brother of S. Ann. Hear S. Jerome on the passage, "We, as it is in the book which we have written against Helvidius, say, that the Lord's brethren were not children of Joseph, but cousins of the Saviour, and children of Mary, the maternal aunt of the Lord, who is called the mother of James and Joseph and Jude." Stood without. They sent a messenger into the house, to Christ, to call Him out. Seeking to speak with Him. Not out of ambition and pride, that they might appear to be relations of so great a Teacher and Prophet, as S. Chrysostom and Theophylact think; but that they might take Him with them, and bring Him to Nazareth. For they said that He was beside Himself (Mar 3:21Mar 3:21 ). "For neither did His brethren believe in Him" (Joh 7:5Joh 7:5 ). Whether they said this because they really thought He was mad; or feignedly, in order that they might deliver Him out of the hands of the Pharisees. That for some such cause the Blessed Virgin called Christ forth, no pious person would doubt. But if they wished to take Him as a madman, they must have concealed their opinion from the Blessed Virgin Mary, and taken her with them that they might the more easily draw Christ away. For it is certain she knew perfectly that Christ was of sound mind. Wherefore she accompanied these brethren or relations of Christ from the desire of beholding Him. But one said to Him, Behold Thy mother , c. This person was the messenger whom the brethren of Christ sent to call Him out. But he said : Who is My mother , c. Observe, Christ speaks thus, not as denying that He really had a mother, as if Christ were not a true man, but a phantasm born of a phantasm, as Marcion and the Manichees taught; nor yet as though He were ashamed of His mother and poor brethren, but either because this messenger was interrupting Him with too great boldness and importunity, by calling Him away from the preaching which He had begun; or rather, as S. Ambrose says, that He might show that He must be more intent upon the ministry given Him by His Father, than upon His affection for His mother; and that He must prefer spiritual to carnal relationships, where there is neither sex nor rank, but all are most nearly related to Christ, and by every tie, as though they were father, sister, and brother. For this is what Matthew adds concerning Christ, And stretching forth His hand , c. The Arab. trans., He pointed with His hand towards His disciples. For whosoever shall do, c. Spiritually, as I have already said, not carnally. He speaks of brother and sister, because of either sex. The faithful soul is also the mother of Christ, because by teaching, exhorting, and counselling, she brings forth Christ in herself and others. Hear S. Gregory ( Hom. 8 in Evang .), "We must know that he who is the brother and sister of Christ through believing, is made his mother by preaching. For he, as it were, brings forth the Lord, whom he infuses into the heart of his hearer." He subjoins the example of S. Felicitas, who by the spirit bore to God the seven sons, to whom she had given birth in the flesh, because she strengthened them in persecution, and animated them for martyrdom. These words of Christ were also exemplified in S. Victoria, a virgin martyr under Diocietian. She said to the pro-consol, who asked her, "Wilt thou go with Fortunatianus, thy brother?" who was a heathen; "No, for I am a Christian; and those are my brethren, who keep the commandments of God." Wherefore she was shut up in prison, and perishing by hunger, obtained the martyr's crown.

Τότε λέγει τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ, Ἔκτεινον τὴν χεῖρά σου. Καὶ ἐξέτεινεν, καὶ ἀποκατεστάθη ὑγιὴς ὡς ἡ ἄλλη."

12:14 Exeuntes autem pharisaei, consilium faciebant adversus eum, quomodo perderent eum.

And the Pharisees going out made a consultation against him, how they might destroy him.

Οἱ δὲ Φαρισαῖοι συμβούλιον ἔλαβον κατ’ αὐτοῦ ἐξελθόντες, ὅπως αὐτὸν ἀπολέσωσιν."

12:15 Jesus autem sciens recessit inde : et secuti sunt eum multi, et curavit eos omnes :

But Jesus knowing it, retired from thence: and many followed him, and he healed them all.

Ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς γνοὺς ἀνεχώρησεν ἐκεῖθεν· καὶ ἠκολούθησαν αὐτῷ ὄχλοι πολλοί, καὶ ἐθεράπευσεν αὐτοὺς πάντας,"

12:16 et praecepit eis ne manifestum eum facerent.

And he charged them that they should not make him known.

καὶ ἐπετίμησεν αὐτοῖς, ἵνα μὴ φανερὸν αὐτὸν ποιήσωσιν·"

12:17 Ut adimpleretur quod dictum est per Isaiam prophetam, dicentem :

That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Isaias the prophet, saying:

ὅπως πληρωθῇ τὸ ῥηθὲν διὰ Ἠσαΐου τοῦ προφήτου, λέγοντος,"

12:18 [Ecce puer meus, quem elegi, dilectus meus, in quo bene complacuit animae meae. Ponam spiritum meum super eum, et judicium gentibus nuntiabit.

* Footnotes

* Isaias 42:1
Behold my servant, I will uphold him: my elect, my soul delighteth in him: I have given my spirit upon him, he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles.

*H Behold my servant whom I have chosen, my beloved in whom my soul hath been well pleased. I will put my spirit upon him, and he shall shew judgment to the Gentiles.

Ver. 18. Behold my servant, &c. The words are out of the prophet Isaias, C. xli. 1. And it is observed that the Jews, before the coming of Jesus, used to expound them of their Messias. Wi. — Our Lord Jesus Christ may be called the Servant of the Almighty, because, as himself assures us, he came down not to be served, but to serve; or, as S. Remigius says, not on account of his divinity, but on account of his humanity, which he received from the pure flesh and blood of the immaculate Virgin. Ex D. Thoma. There is some difference in the text of Isaias, whence this is taken. The apostles and evangelists did not confine themselves to cite the very words of the text, but only the sense. V.

Ἰδού, ὁ παῖς μου ὃν ᾑρέτισα· ὁ ἀγαπητός μου εἰς ὃν εὐδόκησεν ἡ ψυχή μου· θήσω τὸ πνεῦμά μου ἐπ’ αὐτόν, καὶ κρίσιν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν ἀπαγγελεῖ."

12:19 Non contendet, neque clamabit, neque audiet aliquis in plateis vocem ejus :

*H He shall not contend, nor cry out, neither shall any man hear his voice in the streets.

Ver. 19. He shall not contend. These words do not occur in the prophet, but are added by S. Matthew to express more fully the sense, because he offered himself up to the will of his heavenly Father, and delivered himself into the hands of those who persecuted him. Aquin. Nor cry out; because, like a lamb, in the hands of the shearer, he opened not his mouth.

Οὐκ ἐρίσει, οὐδὲ κραυγάσει· οὐδὲ ἀκούσει τις ἐν ταῖς πλατείαις τὴν φωνὴν αὐτοῦ."

12:20 arundinem quassatam non confringet, et linum fumigans non extinguet, donec ejiciat ad victoriam judicium :

*H The bruised reed he shall not break: and smoking flax he shall not extinguish: till he send forth judgment unto victory.

Ver. 20. The bruised reed. The prophet here shews the mildness of our Saviour, who, though he could have broken them like a reed, and as a bruised reed, yet would not do it; and though he could have easily extinguished their rage and anger, yet he bore with it for a while, with singular clemency, till he should send forth judgment unto victory, i.e. till justice shall have appeared triumphant, till Christ shall have fulfilled all things, and raised his most illustrious trophy: till the Gentiles shall have placed their confidence in his most adorable name, and the Jews have no plea, notwithstanding their unparalleled obduracy, to make in reply. S. Chrys. hom. xli. — Judgment unto victory. S. Jerom and S. Hilary expound these words in conformity with their interpretation of the two foregoing verses, as follows: "The Lord will cherish and support the infirm and weak in this time of penance and probation, inviting them to greater strength, and light, and perfect charity, till the power of death be taken away, till he return to judge the world, when his judgment shall be victorious; though, in the mean while, it often may appear suppressed, and even subdued by the obstinate will of man." But the exposition, most conformable to the literal sense of the prophet, is: he will support the weak by his mildness, until it come to pass that his judgment, which he came to announce to the Gentiles, be led to victory, by his truth becoming universally triumphant over the world, and in his name all nations shall hope. Jansenius. — Thus will he bear with the little light and virtue of his enemies, till the bright light of his faith, and the warmth and strength of his grace, obtain in their hearts, and triumph over every opposition. A.

Κάλαμον συντετριμμένον οὐ κατεάξει, καὶ λίνον τυφόμενον οὐ σβέσει· ἕως ἂν ἐκβάλῃ εἰς νῖκος τὴν κρίσιν."

12:21 et in nomine ejus gentes sperabunt.]

*H And in his name the Gentiles shall hope.

Ver. 21. In his name the Gentiles. Here are two words differing from those used by the prophet: in the Hebrew text we have, in his law the islands shall hope: probably the oversight of the amanuensis substituting ονομα for νομω ; the latter variation is of still less moment, as the prophets understand by islands, countries far removed; and also the poet,

Καὶ τῷ ὀνόματι αὐτοῦ ἔθνη ἐλπιοῦσιν.

12:22 Tunc oblatus est ei daemonium habens, caecus, et mutus, et curavit eum ita ut loqueretur, et videret.

Then was offered to him one possessed with a devil, blind and dumb: and he healed him, so that he spoke and saw.

¶Τότε προσηνέχθη αὐτῷ δαιμονιζόμενος, τυφλὸς καὶ κωφός· καὶ ἐθεράπευσεν αὐτόν, ὥστε τὸν τυφλὸν καὶ κωφὸν καὶ λαλεῖν καὶ βλέπειν."

12:23 Et stupebant omnes turbae, et dicebant : Numquid hic est filius David ?

And all the multitudes were amazed, and said: Is not this the son of David?

Καὶ ἐξίσταντο πάντες οἱ ὄχλοι καὶ ἔλεγον, Μήτι οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ υἱὸς Δαυίδ;"

12:24 Pharisaei autem audientes, dixerunt : Hic non ejicit daemones nisi in Beelzebub principe daemoniorum.

* Footnotes

* Mark 3:22
And the scribes who were come down from Jerusalem, said: He hath Beelzebub, and by the prince of devils he casteth out devils.
* Luke 11:15
But some of them said: He casteth out devils by Beelzebub, the prince of devils.

But the Pharisees hearing it, said: This man casteth not out devils but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils.

Οἱ δὲ Φαρισαῖοι ἀκούσαντες εἶπον, Οὗτος οὐκ ἐκβάλλει τὰ δαιμόνια, εἰ μὴ ἐν τῷ Βεελζεβοὺλ ἄρχοντι τῶν δαιμονίων."

* Summa

*S Part 4, Ques 43, Article 2

 [III, Q. 43, Art. 2]
Whether Christ Worked Miracles by Divine Power?
Objection 1: It would seem that Christ did not work miracles by Divine power. For the Divine power is omnipotent. But it seems that Christ was not omnipotent in working miracles; for it is written (Mk. 6:5) that "He could not do any miracles there," i.e. in His own country. Therefore it seems that He did not work miracles by Divine power.
Obj. 2: Further, God does not pray. But Christ sometimes prayed when working miracles; as may be seen in the raising of Lazarus (John 11:41, 42), and in the multiplication of the loaves, as related Matt. 14:19. Therefore it seems that He did not work miracles by Divine power.
Obj. 3: Further, what is done by Divine power cannot be done by the power of any creature. But the things which Christ did could be done also by the power of a creature: wherefore the Pharisees said (Luke 11:15) that He cast out devils "by Beelzebub the prince of devils." Therefore it seems that Christ did not work miracles by Divine power.
_On the contrary,_ our Lord said (John 14:10): "The Father who abideth in Me, He doth the works."
_I answer that,_ as stated in the First Part (Q. 110, A. 4), true miracles cannot be wrought save by Divine power: because God alone can change the order of nature; and this is what is meant by a miracle. Wherefore Pope Leo says (Ep. ad Flav. xxviii) that, while there are two natures in Christ, there is "one," viz. the Divine, which shines forth in miracles; and "another," viz. the human, "which submits to insults"; yet "each communicates its actions to the other": in as far as the human nature is the instrument of the Divine action, and the human action receives power from the Divine Nature, as stated above (Q. 19, A. 1).
Reply Obj. 1: When it is said that "He could not do any miracles there," it is not to be understood that He could not do them absolutely, but that it was not fitting for Him to do them: for it was unfitting for Him to work miracles among unbelievers. Wherefore it is said farther on: "And He wondered because of their unbelief." In like manner it is said (Gen. 18:17): "Can I hide from Abraham what I am about to do?" and Gen. 19:22: "I cannot do anything till thou go in thither."
Reply Obj. 2: As Chrysostom says on Matt. 14:19, "He took the five loaves and the two fishes, and, looking up to heaven, He blessed and brake: It was to be believed of Him, both that He is of the Father and that He is equal to Him . . . Therefore that He might prove both, He works miracles now with authority, now with prayer . . . in the lesser things, indeed, He looks up to heaven"--for instance, in multiplying the loaves--"but in the greater, which belong to God alone, He acts with authority; for example, when He forgave sins and raised the dead."
When it is said that in raising Lazarus He lifted up His eyes (John 11:41), this was not because He needed to pray, but because He wished to teach us how to pray. Wherefore He said: "Because of the people who stand about have I said it: that they may believe that Thou hast sent Me."
Reply Obj. 3: Christ cast out demons otherwise than they are cast out by the power of demons. For demons are cast out from bodies by the power of higher demons in such a way that they retain their power over the soul: since the devil does not work against his own kingdom. On the other hand, Christ cast out demons, not only from the body, but still more from the soul. For this reason our Lord rebuked the blasphemy of the Jews, who said that He cast out demons by the power of the demons: first, by saying that Satan is not divided against himself; secondly, by quoting the instance of others who cast out demons by the Spirit of God; thirdly, because He could not have cast out a demon unless He had overcome Him by Divine power; fourthly, because there was nothing in common between His works and their effects and those of Satan; since Satan's purpose was to "scatter" those whom Christ "gathered" together [*Cf. Matt. 12:24-30; Mk. 3:22; Luke 11:15-32]. _______________________
THIRD 

12:25 Jesus autem sciens cogitationes eorum, dixit eis : Omne regnum divisum contra se desolabitur : et omnis civitas vel domus divisa contra se, non stabit.

* Footnotes

* Luke 11:17
But he seeing their thoughts, said to them: Every kingdom divided against itself shall be brought to desolation; and house upon house shall fall.

*H And Jesus knowing their thoughts, said to them: Every kingdom divided against itself shall be made desolate: and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand.

Ver. 25. Every kingdom. Strong as a kingdom may appear, it is easily overturned by divisions; and lest it should be objected, that ruin was brought upon it by a multiplicity of clashing affairs, it is added that cities and families share the same fate, if subject to similar divisions. S. Chrys. hom. xlii. — The Pharisees, on a former occasion, had laid a similar accusation against him. Then indeed he did not correct them, wishing them to discover his virtue from the miracles he performed, and the dignity of his character from the doctrines he delivered; but as they still continue the old accusation, he now wishes to convince them of their error. Envy does not so much seek how to speak, as what to speak. Yet Christ does not despise them, but answers them in the most meek and humble manner, teaching us to be charitable to our enemies, though they behave to us in the most inimical manner. By this also, our divine Saviour evidently demonstrates the falsity of the accusation; for it is never in the power of a possessed person to know another's thoughts, nor give so mild an answer. And as his enemies did not dare, from fear of the people, openly to broach this base calumny, seeing their thoughts, he answered them; still he does not expose to public infamy the malice of their hearts, but gives them a private solution of their difficulty. S. Chrys. ex D. Thom.

Εἰδὼς δὲ ὁ Ἰησοῦς τὰς ἐνθυμήσεις αὐτῶν εἶπεν αὐτοῖς, Πᾶσα βασιλεία μερισθεῖσα καθ’ ἑαυτῆς ἐρημοῦται· καὶ πᾶσα πόλις ἢ οἰκία μερισθεῖσα καθ’ ἑαυτῆς οὐ σταθήσεται."

* Summa

*S Part 2, Ques 105, Article 1

 [I-II, Q. 105, Art. 1]
Whether the Old Law Enjoined Fitting Precepts Concerning Rulers?
Objection 1: It would seem that the Old Law made unfitting precepts concerning rulers. Because, as the Philosopher says (Polit. iii, 4), "the ordering of the people depends mostly on the chief ruler." But the Law contains no precept relating to the institution of the chief ruler; and yet we find therein prescriptions concerning the inferior rulers: firstly (Ex. 18:21): "Provide out of all the people wise [Vulg.: 'able'] men," etc.; again (Num. 11:16): "Gather unto Me seventy men of the ancients of Israel"; and again (Deut. 1:13): "Let Me have from among you wise and understanding men," etc. Therefore the Law provided insufficiently in regard to the rulers of the people.
Obj. 2: Further, "The best gives of the best," as Plato states (Tim. ii). Now the best ordering of a state or of any nation is to be ruled by a king: because this kind of government approaches nearest in resemblance to the Divine government, whereby God rules the world from the beginning. Therefore the Law should have set a king over the people, and they should not have been allowed a choice in the matter, as indeed they were allowed (Deut. 17:14, 15): "When thou . . . shalt say: I will set a king over me . . . thou shalt set him," etc.
Obj. 3: Further, according to Matt. 12:25: "Every kingdom divided against itself shall be made desolate": a saying which was verified in the Jewish people, whose destruction was brought about by the division of the kingdom. But the Law should aim chiefly at things pertaining to the general well-being of the people. Therefore it should have forbidden the kingdom to be divided under two kings: nor should this have been introduced even by Divine authority; as we read of its being introduced by the authority of the prophet Ahias the Silonite (3 Kings 11:29, seqq.).
Obj. 4: Further, just as priests are instituted for the benefit of the people in things concerning God, as stated in Heb. 5:1; so are rulers set up for the benefit of the people in human affairs. But certain things were allotted as a means of livelihood for the priests and Levites of the Law: such as the tithes and first-fruits, and many like things. Therefore in like manner certain things should have been determined for the livelihood of the rulers of the people: the more that they were forbidden to accept presents, as is clearly stated in Ex. 23:8: "You shall not [Vulg.: 'Neither shalt thou'] take bribes, which even blind the wise, and pervert the words of the just."
Obj. 5: Further, as a kingdom is the best form of government, so is tyranny the most corrupt. But when the Lord appointed the king, He established a tyrannical law; for it is written (1 Kings 8:11): "This will be the right of the king, that shall reign over you: He will take your sons," etc. Therefore the Law made unfitting provision with regard to the institution of rulers.
_On the contrary,_ The people of Israel is commended for the beauty of its order (Num. 24:5): "How beautiful are thy tabernacles, O Jacob, and thy tents." But the beautiful ordering of a people depends on the right establishment of its rulers. Therefore the Law made right provision for the people with regard to its rulers.
_I answer that,_ Two points are to be observed concerning the right ordering of rulers in a state or nation. One is that all should take some share in the government: for this form of constitution ensures peace among the people, commends itself to all, and is most enduring, as stated in _Polit._ ii, 6. The other point is to be observed in respect of the kinds of government, or the different ways in which the constitutions are established. For whereas these differ in kind, as the Philosopher states (Polit. iii, 5), nevertheless the first place is held by the _kingdom,_ where the power of government is vested in one; and _aristocracy,_ which signifies government by the best, where the power of government is vested in a few. Accordingly, the best form of government is in a state or kingdom, where one is given the power to preside over all; while under him are others having governing powers: and yet a government of this kind is shared by all, both because all are eligible to govern, and because the rules are chosen by all. For this is the best form of polity, being partly kingdom, since there is one at the head of all; partly aristocracy, in so far as a number of persons are set in authority; partly democracy, i.e. government by the people, in so far as the rulers can be chosen from the people, and the people have the right to choose their rulers.
Such was the form of government established by the Divine Law. For Moses and his successors governed the people in such a way that each of them was ruler over all; so that there was a kind of kingdom. Moreover, seventy-two men were chosen, who were elders in virtue: for it is written (Deut. 1:15): "I took out of your tribes wise and honorable, and appointed them rulers": so that there was an element of aristocracy. But it was a democratical government in so far as the rulers were chosen from all the people; for it is written (Ex. 18:21): "Provide out of all the people wise [Vulg.: 'able'] men," etc.; and, again, in so far as they were chosen by the people; wherefore it is written (Deut. 1:13): "Let me have from among you wise [Vulg.: 'able'] men," etc. Consequently it is evident that the ordering of the rulers was well provided for by the Law.
Reply Obj. 1: This people was governed under the special care of God: wherefore it is written (Deut. 7:6): "The Lord thy God hath chosen thee to be His peculiar people": and this is why the Lord reserved to Himself the institution of the chief ruler. For this too did Moses pray (Num. 27:16): "May the Lord the God of the spirits of all the flesh provide a man, that may be over this multitude." Thus by God's orders Josue was set at the head in place of Moses; and we read about each of the judges who succeeded Josue that God "raised . . . up a saviour" for the people, and that "the spirit of the Lord was" in them (Judges 3:9, 10, 15). Hence the Lord did not leave the choice of a king to the people; but reserved this to Himself, as appears from Deut. 17:15: "Thou shalt set him whom the Lord thy God shall choose."
Reply Obj. 2: A kingdom is the best form of government of the people, so long as it is not corrupt. But since the power granted to a king is so great, it easily degenerates into tyranny, unless he to whom this power is given be a very virtuous man: for it is only the virtuous man that conducts himself well in the midst of prosperity, as the Philosopher observes (Ethic. iv, 3). Now perfect virtue is to be found in few: and especially were the Jews inclined to cruelty and avarice, which vices above all turn men into tyrants. Hence from the very first the Lord did not set up the kingly authority with full power, but gave them judges and governors to rule them. But afterwards when the people asked Him to do so, being indignant with them, so to speak, He granted them a king, as is clear from His words to Samuel (1 Kings 8:7): "They have not rejected thee, but Me, that I should not reign over them."
Nevertheless, as regards the appointment of a king, He did establish the manner of election from the very beginning (Deut. 17:14, seqq.): and then He determined two points: first, that in choosing a king they should wait for the Lord's decision; and that they should not make a man of another nation king, because such kings are wont to take little interest in the people they are set over, and consequently to have no care for their welfare: secondly, He prescribed how the king after his appointment should behave, in regard to himself; namely, that he should not accumulate chariots and horses, nor wives, nor immense wealth: because through craving for such things princes become tyrants and forsake justice. He also appointed the manner in which they were to conduct themselves towards God: namely, that they should continually read and ponder on God's Law, and should ever fear and obey God. Moreover, He decided how they should behave towards their subjects: namely, that they should not proudly despise them, or ill-treat them, and that they should not depart from the paths of justice.
Reply Obj. 3: The division of the kingdom, and a number of kings, was rather a punishment inflicted on that people for their many dissensions, specially against the just rule of David, than a benefit conferred on them for their profit. Hence it is written (Osee 13:11): "I will give thee a king in My wrath"; and (Osee 8:4): "They have reigned, but not by Me: they have been princes, and I knew not."
Reply Obj. 4: The priestly office was bequeathed by succession from father to son: and this, in order that it might be held in greater respect, if not any man from the people could become a priest: since honor was given to them out of reverence for the divine worship. Hence it was necessary to put aside certain things for them both as to tithes and as to first-fruits, and, again, as to oblations and sacrifices, that they might be afforded a means of livelihood. On the other hand, the rulers, as stated above, were chosen from the whole people; wherefore they had their own possessions, from which to derive a living: and so much the more, since the Lord forbade even a king to have superabundant wealth to make too much show of magnificence: both because he could scarcely avoid the excesses of pride and tyranny, arising from such things, and because, if the rulers were not very rich, and if their office involved much work and anxiety, it would not tempt the ambition of the common people; and would not become an occasion of sedition.
Reply Obj. 5: That right was not given to the king by Divine institution: rather was it foretold that kings would usurp that right, by framing unjust laws, and by degenerating into tyrants who preyed on their subjects. This is clear from the context that follows: "And you shall be his slaves [Douay: 'servants']": which is significative of tyranny, since a tyrant rules is subjects as though they were his slaves. Hence Samuel spoke these words to deter them from asking for a king; since the narrative continues: "But the people would not hear the voice of Samuel." It may happen, however, that even a good king, without being a tyrant, may take away the sons, and make them tribunes and centurions; and may take many things from his subjects in order to secure the common weal. ________________________
SECOND 

*S Part 3, Ques 37, Article 2

 [II-II, Q. 37, Art. 2]
Whether Discord Is a Daughter of Vainglory?
Objection 1: It would seem that discord is not a daughter of vainglory. For anger is a vice distinct from vainglory. Now discord is apparently the daughter of anger, according to Prov. 15:18: "A passionate man stirreth up strifes." Therefore it is not a daughter of vainglory.
Obj. 2: Further, Augustine expounding the words of John 7:39, "As yet the Spirit was not given," says (Tract. xxxii) "Malice severs, charity unites." Now discord is merely a separation of wills. Therefore discord arises from malice, i.e. envy, rather than from vainglory.
Obj. 3: Further, whatever gives rise to many evils, would seem to be a capital vice. Now such is discord, because Jerome in commenting on Matt. 12:25, "Every kingdom divided against itself shall be made desolate," says: "Just as concord makes small things thrive, so discord brings the greatest things to ruin." Therefore discord should itself be reckoned a capital vice, rather than a daughter of vainglory.
On the contrary stands the authority of Gregory (Moral. xxxi, 45).
_I answer that,_ Discord denotes a certain disunion of wills, in so far, to wit, as one man's will holds fast to one thing, while the other man's will holds fast to something else. Now if a man's will holds fast to its own ground, this is due to the act that he prefers what is his own to that which belongs to others, and if he do this inordinately, it is due to pride and vainglory. Therefore discord, whereby a man holds to his own way of thinking, and departs from that of others, is reckoned to be a daughter of vainglory.
Reply Obj. 1: Strife is not the same as discord, for strife consists in external deeds, wherefore it is becoming that it should arise from anger, which incites the mind to hurt one's neighbor; whereas discord consists in a divergence in the movements of wills, which arises from pride or vainglory, for the reason given above.
Reply Obj. 2: In discord we may consider that which is the term _wherefrom,_ i.e. another's will from which we recede, and in this respect it arises from envy; and again we may consider that which is the term _whither,_ i.e. something of our own to which we cling, and in this respect it is caused by vainglory. And since in every moment the term _whither_ is more important than the term _wherefrom_ (because the end is of more account than the beginning), discord is accounted a daughter of vainglory rather than of envy, though it may arise from both for different reasons, as stated.
Reply Obj. 3: The reason why concord makes small things thrive, while discord brings the greatest to ruin, is because "the more united a force is, the stronger it is, while the more disunited it is the weaker it becomes" (De Causis xvii). Hence it is evident that this is part of the proper effect of discord which is a disunion of wills, and in no way indicates that other vices arise from discord, as though it were a capital vice. _______________________

12:26 Et si Satanas Satanam ejicit, adversus se divisus est : quomodo ergo stabit regnum ejus ?

And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself: how then shall his kingdom stand?

Καὶ εἰ ὁ Σατανᾶς τὸν Σατανᾶν ἐκβάλλει, ἐφ’ ἑαυτὸν ἐμερίσθη· πῶς οὖν σταθήσεται ἡ βασιλεία αὐτοῦ;"

* Summa

*S Part 2, Ques 98, Article 2

 [I-II, Q. 98, Art. 2]
Whether the Old Law Was from God?
Objection 1: It would seem that the Old Law was not from God. For it is written (Deut. 32:4): "The works of God are perfect." But the Law was imperfect, as stated above (A. 1). Therefore the Old Law was not from God.
Obj. 2: Further, it is written (Eccles. 3:14): "I have learned that all the works which God hath made continue for ever." But the Old Law does not continue for ever: since the Apostle says (Heb. 7:18): "There is indeed a setting aside of the former commandment, because of the weakness and unprofitableness thereof." Therefore the Old Law was not from God.
Obj. 3: Further, a wise lawgiver should remove, not only evil, but also the occasions of evil. But the Old Law was an occasion of sin, as stated above (A. 1, ad 2). Therefore the giving of such a law does not pertain to God, to Whom "none is like among the lawgivers" (Job 36:22).
Obj. 4: Further, it is written (1 Tim. 2:4) that God "will have all men to be saved." But the Old Law did not suffice to save man, as stated above (A. 1). Therefore the giving of such a law did not appertain to God. Therefore the Old Law was not from God.
_On the contrary,_ Our Lord said (Matt. 15:6) while speaking to the Jews, to whom the Law was given: "You have made void the commandment of God for your tradition." And shortly before (verse 4) He had said: "Honor thy father and mother," which is contained expressly in the Old Law (Ex. 20:12; Deut. 5:16). Therefore the Old Law was from God.
_I answer that,_ The Old Law was given by the good God, Who is the Father of Our Lord Jesus Christ. For the Old Law ordained men to Christ in two ways. First by bearing witness to Christ; wherefore He Himself says (Luke 24:44): "All things must needs be fulfilled, which are written in the law . . . and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning Me": and (John 5:46): "If you did believe Moses, you would perhaps believe Me also; for he wrote of Me." Secondly, as a kind of disposition, since by withdrawing men from idolatrous worship, it enclosed (_concludebat_) them in the worship of one God, by Whom the human race was to be saved through Christ. Wherefore the Apostle says (Gal. 3:23): "Before the faith came, we were kept under the law shut up (_conclusi_), unto that faith which was to be revealed." Now it is evident that the same thing it is, which gives a disposition to the end, and which brings to the end; and when I say "the same," I mean that it does so either by itself or through its subjects. For the devil would not make a law whereby men would be led to Christ, Who was to cast him out, according to Matt. 12:26: "If Satan cast out Satan, his kingdom is divided" [Vulg.: 'he is divided against himself']. Therefore the Old Law was given by the same God, from Whom came salvation to man, through the grace of Christ.
Reply Obj. 1: Nothing prevents a thing being not perfect simply, and yet perfect in respect of time: thus a boy is said to be perfect, not simply, but with regard to the condition of time. So, too, precepts that are given to children are perfect in comparison with the condition of those to whom they are given, although they are not perfect simply. Hence the Apostle says (Gal. 3:24): "The law was our pedagogue in Christ."
Reply Obj. 2: Those works of God endure for ever which God so made that they would endure for ever; and these are His perfect works. But the Old Law was set aside when there came the perfection of grace; not as though it were evil, but as being weak and useless for this time; because, as the Apostle goes on to say, "the law brought nothing to perfection": hence he says (Gal. 3:25): "After the faith is come, we are no longer under a pedagogue."
Reply Obj. 3: As stated above (Q. 79, A. 4), God sometimes permits certain ones to fall into sin, that they may thereby be humbled. So also did He wish to give such a law as men by their own forces could not fulfill, so that, while presuming on their own powers, they might find themselves to be sinners, and being humbled might have recourse to the help of grace.
Reply Obj. 4: Although the Old Law did not suffice to save man, yet another help from God besides the Law was available for man, viz. faith in the Mediator, by which the fathers of old were justified even as we were. Accordingly God did not fail man by giving him insufficient aids to salvation. ________________________
THIRD 

12:27 Et si ego in Beelzebub ejicio daemones, filii vestri in quo ejiciunt ? ideo ipsi judices vestri erunt.

*H And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children cast them out? Therefore they shall be your judges.

Ver. 27. Your children, &c. Some by their children understand, exorcists, that were among the Jews, that sometimes cast out devils; but it is more commonly taken for Christ's disciples and apostles, who were of the Jewish nation, to whom he had given power to cast out devils: as if he had said, If you allow them to cast out devils by divine power, why do not you also believe this of me, their master? Wi. — S. Chrysostom says the apostles and disciples of Christ are here meant, for they had already cast out devils in virtue of the power conferred upon them by their divine Master, without ever having it said of them, that in the prince of devils they cast out devils. Thus he shews that envy was the origin and cause of their persecuting spirit, and that not his actions but his person gave them such great umbrage. hom. xlii. — If Christ alludes here to their own exorcists, who drove out devils by the invocation of the adorable name of God, he confounds the unjust malice and prevention of the Pharisees; if to the apostles, he constitutes them his umpires. S. Thos. Aquin.

Καὶ εἰ ἐγὼ ἐν Βεελζεβοὺλ ἐκβάλλω τὰ δαιμόνια, οἱ υἱοὶ ὑμῶν ἐν τίνι ἐκβάλλουσιν; Διὰ τοῦτο αὐτοὶ ὑμῶν ἔσονται κριταί."

12:28 Si autem ego in Spiritu Dei ejicio daemones, igitur pervenit in vos regnum Dei.

*H But if I by the Spirit of God cast out devils, then is the kingdom of God come upon you.

Ver. 28. Kingdom of God. Christ either calls himself and his coming the kingdom of God, because it was the beginning of the kingdom of God, and laid open the way to us: or the sense may be, If I, as proved in an argument above, cast out devils by the spirit of God, therefore what I, my apostles, and John preach, is true, viz. that the kingdom of God is at hand; because the Holy Ghost, who worketh miracles by us, proveth that our preaching is true. Mald.

Εἰ δὲ ἐν πνεύματι θεοῦ ἐγὼ ἐκβάλλω τὰ δαιμόνια, ἄρα ἔφθασεν ἐφ’ ὑμᾶς ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ."

* Summa

*S Part 1, Ques 36, Article 1

 [I, Q. 36, Art. 1]
Whether This Name "Holy Ghost" Is the Proper Name of One Divine Person?
Objection 1: It would seem that this name, "Holy Ghost," is not the proper name of one divine person. For no name which is common to the three persons is the proper name of any one person. But this name of 'Holy Ghost' [*It should be borne in mind that the word "ghost" is the old English equivalent for the Latin "spiritus,"] whether in the sense of "breath" or "blast," or in the sense of "spirit," as an immaterial substance. Thus, we read in the former sense (Hampole, Psalter x, 7), "The Gost of Storms" [spiritus procellarum], and in the latter "Trubled gost is sacrifice of God" (Prose Psalter, A.D. 1325), and "Oure wrestlynge is . . . against the spiritual wicked gostes of the ayre" (More, "Comfort against Tribulation"); and in our modern expression of "giving up the ghost." As applied to God, and not specially to the third Holy Person, we have an example from Maunder, "Jhesu Criste was the worde and the goste of Good." (See Oxford Dictionary).) is common to the three persons; for Hilary (De Trin. viii) shows that the "Spirit of God" sometimes means the Father, as in the words of Isa. 61:1: "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me;" and sometimes the Son, as when the Son says: "In the Spirit of God I cast out devils" (Matt. 12:28), showing that He cast out devils by His own natural power; and that sometimes it means the Holy Ghost, as in the words of Joel 2:28: "I will pour out of My Spirit over all flesh." Therefore this name 'Holy Ghost' is not the proper name of a divine person.
Obj. 2: Further, the names of the divine persons are relative terms, as Boethius says (De Trin.). But this name "Holy Ghost" is not a relative term. Therefore this name is not the proper name of a divine Person.
Obj. 3: Further, because the Son is the name of a divine Person He cannot be called the Son of this or of that. But the spirit is spoken of as of this or that man, as appears in the words, "The Lord said to Moses, I will take of thy spirit and will give to them" (Num. 11:17) and also "The Spirit of Elias rested upon Eliseus" (4 Kings 2:15). Therefore "Holy Ghost" does not seem to be the proper name of a divine Person.
_On the contrary,_ It is said (1 John 5:7): "There are three who bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost." As Augustine says (De Trin. vii, 4): "When we ask, Three what? we say, Three persons." Therefore the Holy Ghost is the name of a divine person.
_I answer that,_ While there are two processions in God, one of these, the procession of love, has no proper name of its own, as stated above (Q. 27, A. 4, ad 3). Hence the relations also which follow from this procession are without a name (Q. 28, A. 4): for which reason the Person proceeding in that manner has not a proper name. But as some names are accommodated by the usual mode of speaking to signify the aforesaid relations, as when we use the names of procession and spiration, which in the strict sense more fittingly signify the notional acts than the relations; so to signify the divine Person, Who proceeds by way of love, this name "Holy Ghost" is by the use of scriptural speech accommodated to Him. The appropriateness of this name may be shown in two ways. Firstly, from the fact that the person who is called "Holy Ghost" has something in common with the other Persons. For, as Augustine says (De Trin. xv, 17; v, 11), "Because the Holy Ghost is common to both, He Himself is called that properly which both are called in common. For the Father also is a spirit, and the Son is a spirit; and the Father is holy, and the Son is holy." Secondly, from the proper signification of the name. For the name spirit in things corporeal seems to signify impulse and motion; for we call the breath and the wind by the term spirit. Now it is a property of love to move and impel the will of the lover towards the object loved. Further, holiness is attributed to whatever is ordered to God. Therefore because the divine person proceeds by way of the love whereby God is loved, that person is most properly named "The Holy Ghost."
Reply Obj. 1: The expression Holy Spirit, if taken as two words, is applicable to the whole Trinity: because by 'spirit' the immateriality of the divine substance is signified; for corporeal spirit is invisible, and has but little matter; hence we apply this term to all immaterial and invisible substances. And by adding the word "holy" we signify the purity of divine goodness. But if Holy Spirit be taken as one word, it is thus that the expression, in the usage of the Church, is accommodated to signify one of the three persons, the one who proceeds by way of love, for the reason above explained.
Reply Obj. 2: Although this name "Holy Ghost" does not indicate a relation, still it takes the place of a relative term, inasmuch as it is accommodated to signify a Person distinct from the others by relation only. Yet this name may be understood as including a relation, if we understand the Holy Spirit as being breathed [spiratus].
Reply Obj. 3: In the name Son we understand that relation only which is of something from a principle, in regard to that principle: but in the name "Father" we understand the relation of principle; and likewise in the name of Spirit inasmuch as it implies a moving power. But to no creature does it belong to be a principle as regards a divine person; but rather the reverse. Therefore we can say "our Father," and "our Spirit"; but we cannot say "our Son." _______________________
SECOND 

12:29 Aut quomodo potest quisquam intrare in domum fortis, et vasa ejus diripere, nisi prius alligaverit fortem ? et tunc domum illius diripiet.

*H Or how can any one enter into the house of the strong, and rifle his goods, unless he first bind the strong? and then he will rifle his house.

Ver. 29. How can any one enter; how can I drive Satan from his possession? i.e. cast him out from the bodies of men, unless I am stronger than he, and first unarm him. Maldon.

Ἢ πῶς δύναταί τις εἰσελθεῖν εἰς τὴν οἰκίαν τοῦ ἰσχυροῦ καὶ τὰ σκεύη αὐτοῦ διαρπάσαι, ἐὰν μὴ πρῶτον δήσῃ τὸν ἰσχυρόν; Καὶ τότε τὴν οἰκίαν αὐτοῦ διαρπάσει."

12:30 Qui non est mecum, contra me est ; et qui non congregat mecum, spargit.

*H He that is not with me, is against me: and he that gathereth not with me, scattereth.

Ver. 30. He that is not with me. This sentence is not to be understood as directly spoken of heretics and schismatics, although at first sight it may appear so, but of the devil, who wishes to lead the souls of men captive, whilst Christ wishes to free them. He entices men to wickedness, Jesus Christ draws them to virtue: how therefore can the works of Christ be compared with those of Satan! S. Jer. — There is no medium. We must either be with Christ, or against Christ: if we are not of Christ, whose then must we be, when nothing but sin can separate us from Christ and God? Oh, where will the generality of Christians, who shew themselves so indifferent with regard to salvation, find themselves at the last day? Can they say they are with Christ?

Ὁ μὴ ὢν μετ’ ἐμοῦ κατ’ ἐμοῦ ἐστιν· καὶ ὁ μὴ συνάγων μετ’ ἐμοῦ σκορπίζει.

12:31 Ideo dico vobis : Omne peccatum et blasphemia remittetur hominibus, Spiritus autem blasphemia non remittetur.

* Footnotes

* Mark 2:28
Therefore the Son of man is Lord of the sabbath also.
* Luke 12:10
And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but to him that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven.

*H Therefore I say to you: Every sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven men, but the blasphemy of the Spirit shall not be forgiven.

Ver. 31. The blasphemy[2] against the Spirit, or against the Spirit and the Holy Ghost. S. Augustine takes notice, that this is one of the most difficult places in the Scriptures. According to the common exposition, here is not meant a sin committed by speaking against the third person of the blessed Trinity, the Holy Ghost, but that sin by which the obstinate Jews wilfully opposed Christ, and attributed those miracles to Beelzebub, which he performed by the Spirit of God, of which they could not be ignorant, but by a wilful blindness. Wi. — The sin here spoken of is that blasphemy, by which the Pharisees attributed the miracles of Christ, wrought by the Spirit of God, to Beelzebub, the prince of devils. Now this kind of sin is usually accompanied with so much obstinacy, and such wilful opposing the Spirit of God, and the known truth, that men who are guilty of it are seldom or ever converted; and therefore are never forgiven, because they will not repent. Otherwise there is no sin which God cannot, or will not forgive to such as sincerely repent, and have recourse to the keys of the Church. Ch. — Therefore I say: this therefore is not referred to what immediately precedes, but to what is said in verse 24. Maldon. — Whosoever he be, says S. Augustine, that believeth not man's sins to be remitted in the Church of God, and therefore despiseth the bounteous mercies of God, in so mighty a work, if he continue in his obstinate mind till death, he is guilty of sin against the Holy Ghost. Enchir. lxxxiii. ep. 50. in fine.

Διὰ τοῦτο λέγω ὑμῖν, Πᾶσα ἁμαρτία καὶ βλασφημία ἀφεθήσεται τοῖς ἀνθρώποις· ἡ δὲ τοῦ πνεύματος βλασφημία οὐκ ἀφεθήσεται τοῖς ἀνθρώποις."

12:32 Et quicumque dixerit verbum contra Filium hominis, remittetur ei : qui autem dixerit contra Spiritum Sanctum, non remittetur ei, neque in hoc saeculo, neque in futuro.

*H And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but he that shall speak against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him neither in this world, nor in the world to come.

Ver. 32. Whosoever, &c. It was their duty to have a knowledge of the Holy Ghost, and they obstinately refused to admit what was clear and manifest. Though they were ignorant of the divinity of Jesus Christ, and might take him to be merely the son of a poor artizan, they could not be ignorant that the expelling of demons, and miraculous healing of all diseases, were the works of the Holy Ghost. If, therefore, they refused to do penance for the insult offered to the Spirit of God, in the person of Christ, they could not hope to escape condign punishment. Chrys. hom. xlii. — Against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him; i.e. they who for want of sufficient instruction, were invincibly ignorant that Christ was God, might more easily be brought to the true knowledge and faith of Christ, and so receive forgiveness of their sins: but if he shall speak against the Holy Ghost, i.e. against the Spirit of God in Christ, and shall oppose the known truth, by attributing to the devil that doctrine, and those miracles, which evidently were from the Spirit and the hand of God, that sin shall never be forgiven him. But how is this consistent with the Catholic doctrine and belief, that there is no sin any man commits of which he may not obtain pardon in this life? To this I answer, that in what manner soever we expound this place, it is an undoubted point of Christian faith, that there is no sin which our merciful God is not ready to pardon; no sin, for the remission of which, God hath not left a power in his Church, as it is clearly proved by those words, Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them, &c. S. Chrys. therefore expounds these words, shall not be forgiven them, to imply no more, than shall scarcely, or seldom be forgiven; that is, it is very hard for such sinners to return to God, by a true and sincere repentance and conversion; so that this sentence is like that (Mat. xix. 26.) where Christ seems to call it an impossible thing for a rich man to be saved. In the same place S. Chrys. tells us, that some of those who had blasphemed against the Holy Ghost, repented, and had their sins forgiven them. S. Augustine, by this blasphemy against the Spirit, understands the sin of final impenitence, by which an obstinate sinner refuseth to be converted, and therefore lives and dies hardened in his sins. Wi. — Nor in the world to come. From these words S. Augustine (De Civ. l. xxi. c. 13.) and S. Gregory (Dial. iv, c. 39.) gather, that some sins may be remitted in the world to come; and consequently that there is a purgatory, or a middle place. Ch. — S. Aug. says these words would not be true, if some sins were not forgiven in the world to come; and S. Gregory says, we are to believe from these words in the existence of the fire of purgatory, to expiate our smaller offences, before the day of judgment. S. Isidore and Ven. Bede say the same. S. Bernard, speaking of heretics, says, they do not believe in purgatory: let them then inquire of our Saviour, what he meant by these words. — It is well known that Ven. Bede, on his death-bed, bestowed several small tokens to the monks who were present, that they might remember to pray for his soul in the holy sacrifice of the mass. A.

Καὶ ὃς ἐὰν εἴπῃ λόγον κατὰ τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, ἀφεθήσεται αὐτῷ· ὃς δ’ ἂν εἴπῃ κατὰ τοῦ πνεύματος τοῦ ἁγίου, οὐκ ἀφεθήσεται αὐτῷ, οὔτε ἐν τῷ νῦν αἰῶνι οὔτε ἐν τῷ μέλλοντι."

* Summa

*S Part 3, Ques 14, Article 1

 [II-II, Q. 14, Art. 1]
Whether the Sin Against the Holy Ghost Is the Same As the Sin Committed Through Certain Malice?
Objection 1: It would seem that the sin against the Holy Ghost is not the same as the sin committed through certain malice. Because the sin against the Holy Ghost is the sin of blasphemy, according to Matt. 12:32. But not every sin committed through certain malice is a sin of blasphemy: since many other kinds of sin may be committed through certain malice. Therefore the sin against the Holy Ghost is not the same as the sin committed through certain malice.
Obj. 2: Further, the sin committed through certain malice is condivided with sin committed through ignorance, and sin committed through weakness: whereas the sin against the Holy Ghost is condivided with the sin against the Son of Man (Matt. 12:32). Therefore the sin against the Holy Ghost is not the same as the sin committed through certain malice, since things whose opposites differ, are themselves different.
Obj. 3: Further, the sin against the Holy Ghost is itself a generic sin, having its own determinate species: whereas sin committed through certain malice is not a special kind of sin, but a condition or general circumstance of sin, which can affect any kind of sin at all. Therefore the sin against the Holy Ghost is not the same as the sin committed through certain malice.
_On the contrary,_ The Master says (Sent. ii, D, 43) that "to sin against the Holy Ghost is to take pleasure in the malice of sin for its own sake." Now this is to sin through certain malice. Therefore it seems that the sin committed through certain malice is the same as the sin against the Holy Ghost.
_I answer that,_ Three meanings have been given to the sin against the Holy Ghost. For the earlier doctors, viz. Athanasius (Super Matth. xii, 32), Hilary (Can. xii in Matth.), Ambrose (Super Luc. xii, 10), Jerome (Super Matth. xii), and Chrysostom (Hom. xli in Matth.), say that the sin against the Holy Ghost is literally to utter a blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, whether by Holy Spirit we understand the essential name applicable to the whole Trinity, each Person of which is a Spirit and is holy, or the personal name of one of the Persons of the Trinity, in which sense blasphemy against the Holy Ghost is distinct from the blasphemy against the Son of Man (Matt. 12:32), for Christ did certain things in respect of His human nature, by eating, drinking, and such like actions, while He did others in respect of His Godhead, by casting out devils, raising the dead, and the like: which things He did both by the power of His own Godhead and by the operation of the Holy Ghost, of Whom He was full, according to his human nature. Now the Jews began by speaking blasphemy against the Son of Man, when they said (Matt. 11:19) that He was "a glutton . . . a wine drinker," and a "friend of publicans": but afterwards they blasphemed against the Holy Ghost, when they ascribed to the prince of devils those works which Christ did by the power of His own Divine Nature and by the operation of the Holy Ghost.
Augustine, however (De Verb. Dom., Serm. lxxi), says that blasphemy or the sin against the Holy Ghost, is final impenitence when, namely, a man perseveres in mortal sin until death, and that it is not confined to utterance by word of mouth, but extends to words in thought and deed, not to one word only, but to many. Now this word, in this sense, is said to be uttered against the Holy Ghost, because it is contrary to the remission of sins, which is the work of the Holy Ghost, Who is the charity both of the Father and of the Son. Nor did Our Lord say this to the Jews, as though they had sinned against the Holy Ghost, since they were not yet guilty of final impenitence, but He warned them, lest by similar utterances they should come to sin against the Holy Ghost: and it is in this sense that we are to understand Mark 3:29, 30, where after Our Lord had said: "But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost," etc. the Evangelist adds, "because they said: He hath an unclean spirit."
But others understand it differently, and say that the sin of blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, is a sin committed against that good which is appropriated to the Holy Ghost: because goodness is appropriated to the Holy Ghost, just a power is appropriated to the Father, and wisdom to the Son. Hence they say that when a man sins through weakness, it is a sin "against the Father"; that when he sins through ignorance, it is a sin "against the Son"; and that when he sins through certain malice, i.e. through the very choosing of evil, as explained above (I-II, Q. 78, AA. 1, 3), it is a sin "against the Holy Ghost."
Now this may happen in two ways. First by reason of the very inclination of a vicious habit which we call malice, and, in this way, to sin through malice is not the same as to sin against the Holy Ghost. In another way it happens that by reason of contempt, that which might have prevented the choosing of evil, is rejected or removed; thus hope is removed by despair, and fear by presumption, and so on, as we shall explain further on (QQ. 20, 21). Now all these things which prevent the choosing of sin are effects of the Holy Ghost in us; so that, in this sense, to sin through malice is to sin against the Holy Ghost.
Reply Obj. 1: Just as the confession of faith consists in a protestation not only of words but also of deeds, so blasphemy against the Holy Ghost can be uttered in word, thought and deed.
Reply Obj. 2: According to the third interpretation, blasphemy against the Holy Ghost is condivided with blasphemy against the Son of Man, forasmuch as He is also the Son of God, i.e. the "power of God and the wisdom of God" (1 Cor. 1:24). Wherefore, in this sense, the sin against the Son of Man will be that which is committed through ignorance, or through weakness.
Reply Obj. 3: Sin committed through certain malice, in so far as it results from the inclination of a habit, is not a special sin, but a general condition of sin: whereas, in so far as it results from a special contempt of an effect of the Holy Ghost in us, it has the character of a special sin. According to this interpretation the sin against the Holy Ghost is a special kind of sin, as also according to the first interpretation: whereas according to the second, it is not a species of sin, because final impenitence may be a circumstance of any kind of sin. _______________________
SECOND 

*S Part 3, Ques 14, Article 3

 [II-II, Q. 14, Art. 3]
Whether the Sin Against the Holy Ghost Can Be Forgiven?
Objection 1: It would seem that the sin against the Holy Ghost can be forgiven. For Augustine says (De Verb. Dom., Serm. lxxi): "We should despair of no man, so long as Our Lord's patience brings him back to repentance." But if any sin cannot be forgiven, it would be possible to despair of some sinners. Therefore the sin against the Holy Ghost can be forgiven.
Obj. 2: Further, no sin is forgiven, except through the soul being healed by God. But "no disease is incurable to an all-powerful physician," as a gloss says on Ps. 102:3, "Who healeth all thy diseases." Therefore the sin against the Holy Ghost can be forgiven.
Obj. 3: Further, the free-will is indifferent to either good or evil. Now, so long as man is a wayfarer, he can fall away from any virtue, since even an angel fell from heaven, wherefore it is written (Job 4:18, 19): "In His angels He found wickedness: how much more shall they that dwell in houses of clay?" Therefore, in like manner, a man can return from any sin to the state of justice. Therefore the sin against the Holy Ghost can be forgiven.
_On the contrary,_ It is written (Matt. 12:32): "He that shall speak against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, nor in the world to come": and Augustine says (De Serm. Dom. in Monte i, 22) that "so great is the downfall of this sin that it cannot submit to the humiliation of asking for pardon."
_I answer that,_ According to the various interpretations of the sin against the Holy Ghost, there are various ways in which it may be said that it cannot be forgiven. For if by the sin against the Holy Ghost we understand final impenitence, it is said to be unpardonable, since in no way is it pardoned: because the mortal sin wherein a man perseveres until death will not be forgiven in the life to come, since it was not remitted by repentance in this life.
According to the other two interpretations, it is said to be unpardonable, not as though it is nowise forgiven, but because, considered in itself, it deserves not to be pardoned: and this in two ways. First, as regards the punishment, since he that sins through ignorance or weakness, deserves less punishment, whereas he that sins through certain malice, can offer no excuse in alleviation of his punishment. Likewise those who blasphemed against the Son of Man before His Godhead was revealed, could have some excuse, on account of the weakness of the flesh which they perceived in Him, and hence, they deserved less punishment; whereas those who blasphemed against His very Godhead, by ascribing to the devil the works of the Holy Ghost, had no excuse in diminution of their punishment. Wherefore, according to Chrysostom's commentary (Hom. xlii in Matth.), the Jews are said not to be forgiven this sin, neither in this world nor in the world to come, because they were punished for it, both in the present life, through the Romans, and in the life to come, in the pains of hell. Thus also Athanasius adduces the example of their forefathers who, first of all, wrangled with Moses on account of the shortage of water and bread; and this the Lord bore with patience, because they were to be excused on account of the weakness of the flesh: but afterwards they sinned more grievously when, by ascribing to an idol the favors bestowed by God Who had brought them out of Egypt, they blasphemed, so to speak, against the Holy Ghost, saying (Ex. 32:4): "These are thy gods, O Israel, that have brought thee out of the land of Egypt." Therefore the Lord both inflicted temporal punishment on them, since "there were slain on that day about three and twenty thousand men" (Ex. 32:28), and threatened them with punishment in the life to come, saying, (Ex. 32:34): "I, in the day of revenge, will visit this sin . . . of theirs."
Secondly, this may be understood to refer to the guilt: thus a disease is said to be incurable in respect of the nature of the disease, which removes whatever might be a means of cure, as when it takes away the power of nature, or causes loathing for food and medicine, although God is able to cure such a disease. So too, the sin against the Holy Ghost is said to be unpardonable, by reason of its nature, in so far as it removes those things which are a means towards the pardon of sins. This does not, however, close the way of forgiveness and healing to an all-powerful and merciful God, Who, sometimes, by a miracle, so to speak, restores spiritual health to such men.
Reply Obj. 1: We should despair of no man in this life, considering God's omnipotence and mercy. But if we consider the circumstances of sin, some are called (Eph. 2:2) "children of despair" [*_Filios diffidentiae,_ which the Douay version renders "children of unbelief."].
Reply Obj. 2: This argument considers the question on the part of God's omnipotence, not on that of the circumstances of sin.
Reply Obj. 3: In this life the free-will does indeed ever remain subject to change: yet sometimes it rejects that whereby, so far as it is concerned, it can be turned to good. Hence considered in itself this sin is unpardonable, although God can pardon it. _______________________
FOURTH 

*S Part 3, Ques 34, Article 2

 [II-II, Q. 34, Art. 2]
Whether Hatred of God Is the Greatest of Sins?
Objection 1: It would seem that hatred of God is not the greatest of sins. For the most grievous sin is the sin against the Holy Ghost, since it cannot be forgiven, according to Matt. 12:32. Now hatred of God is not reckoned among the various kinds of sin against the Holy Ghost, as may be seen from what has been said above (Q. 14, A. 2). Therefore hatred of God is not the most grievous sin.
Obj. 2: Further, sin consists in withdrawing oneself from God. Now an unbeliever who has not even knowledge of God seems to be further away from Him than a believer, who though he hate God, nevertheless knows Him. Therefore it seems that the sin of unbelief is graver than the sin of hatred against God.
Obj. 3: Further, God is an object of hatred, only by reason of those of His effects that are contrary to the will: the chief of which is punishment. But hatred of punishment is not the most grievous sin. Therefore hatred of God is not the most grievous sin.
_On the contrary,_ The best is opposite to the worst, according to the Philosopher (Ethic. viii, 10). But hatred of God is contrary to the love of God, wherein man's best consists. Therefore hatred of God is man's worst sin.
_I answer that,_ The defect in sin consists in its aversion from God, as stated above (Q. 10, A. 3): and this aversion would not have the character of guilt, were it not voluntary. Hence the nature of guilt consists in a voluntary aversion from God.
Now this voluntary aversion from God is directly implied in the hatred of God, but in other sins, by participation and indirectly. For just as the will cleaves directly to what it loves, so does it directly shun what it hates. Hence when a man hates God, his will is directly averted from God, whereas in other sins, fornication for instance, a man turns away from God, not directly, but indirectly, in so far, namely, as he desires an inordinate pleasure, to which aversion from God is connected. Now that which is so by itself, always takes precedence of that which is so by another. Wherefore hatred of God is more grievous than other sins.
Reply Obj. 1: According to Gregory (Moral. xxv, 11), "it is one thing not to do good things, and another to hate the giver of good things, even as it is one thing to sin indeliberately, and another to sin deliberately." This implies that to hate God, the giver of all good things, is to sin deliberately, and this is a sin against the Holy Ghost. Hence it is evident that hatred of God is chiefly a sin against the Holy Ghost, in so far as the sin against the Holy Ghost denotes a special kind of sin: and yet it is not reckoned among the kinds of sin against the Holy Ghost, because it is universally found in every kind of that sin.
Reply Obj. 2: Even unbelief is not sinful unless it be voluntary: wherefore the more voluntary it is, the more it is sinful. Now it becomes voluntary by the fact that a man hates the truth that is proposed to him. Wherefore it is evident that unbelief derives its sinfulness from hatred of God, Whose truth is the object of faith; and hence just as a cause is greater than its effect, so hatred of God is a greater sin than unbelief.
Reply Obj. 3: Not everyone who hates his punishment, hates God the author of punishments. For many hate the punishments inflicted on them, and yet they bear them patiently out of reverence for the Divine justice. Wherefore Augustine says (Confess. x) that God commands us to bear with penal evils, not to love them. On the other hand, to break out into hatred of God when He inflicts those punishments, is to hate God's very justice, and that is a most grievous sin. Hence Gregory says (Moral. xxv, 11): "Even as sometimes it is more grievous to love sin than to do it, so is it more wicked to hate justice than not to have done it." _______________________
THIRD 

*S Part 4, Ques 80, Article 5

 [III, Q. 80, Art. 5]
Whether to Approach This Sacrament with Consciousness of Sin Is the Gravest of All Sins?
Objection 1: It seems that to approach this sacrament with consciousness of sin is the gravest of all sins; because the Apostle says (1 Cor. 11:27): "Whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord": upon which the gloss observes: "He shall be punished as though he slew Christ." But the sin of them who slew Christ seems to have been most grave. Therefore this sin, whereby a man approaches Christ's table with consciousness of sin, appears to be the gravest.
Obj. 2: Further, Jerome says in an Epistle (xlix): "What hast thou to do with women, thou that speakest familiarly with God at the altar?" [*The remaining part of the quotation is not from St. Jerome]. Say, priest, say, cleric, how dost thou kiss the Son of God with the same lips wherewith thou hast kissed the daughter of a harlot? "Judas, thou betrayest the Son of Man with a kiss!" And thus it appears that the fornicator approaching Christ's table sins as Judas did, whose sin was most grave. But there are many other sins which are graver than fornication, especially the sin of unbelief. Therefore the sin of every sinner approaching Christ's table is the gravest of all.
Obj. 3: Further, spiritual uncleanness is more abominable to God than corporeal. But if anyone was to cast Christ's body into mud or a cess-pool, his sin would be reputed a most grave one. Therefore, he sins more deeply by receiving it with sin, which is spiritual uncleanness, upon his soul.
_On the contrary,_ Augustine says on the words, "If I had not come, and had not spoken to them, they would be without sin" (Tract. lxxxix in Joan.), that this is to be understood of the sin of unbelief, "in which all sins are comprised," and so the greatest of all sins appears to be, not this, but rather the sin of unbelief.
_I answer that,_ As stated in the Second Part (I-II, Q. 73, AA. 3, 6; II-II, Q. 73, A. 3), one sin can be said to be graver than another in two ways: first of all essentially, secondly accidentally. Essentially, in regard to its species, which is taken from its object: and so a sin is greater according as that against which it is committed is greater. And since Christ's Godhead is greater than His humanity, and His humanity greater than the sacraments of His humanity, hence it is that those are the gravest sins which are committed against the Godhead, such as unbelief and blasphemy. The second degree of gravity is held by those sins which are committed against His humanity: hence it is written (Matt. 12:32): "Whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but he that shall speak against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world nor in the world to come." In the third place come sins committed against the sacraments, which belong to Christ's humanity; and after these are the other sins committed against mere creatures.
Accidentally, one sin can be graver than another on the sinner's part. For example, the sin which is the result of ignorance or of weakness is lighter than one arising from contempt, or from sure knowledge; and the same reason holds good of other circumstances. And according to this, the above sin can be graver in some, as happens in them who from actual contempt and with consciousness of sin approach this sacrament: but in others it is less grave; for instance, in those who from fear of their sin being discovered, approach this sacrament with consciousness of sin.
So, then, it is evident that this sin is specifically graver than many others, yet it is not the greatest of all.
Reply Obj. 1: The sin of the unworthy recipient is compared to the sin of them who slew Christ, by way of similitude, because each is committed against Christ's body; but not according to the degree of the crime. Because the sin of Christ's slayers was much graver, first of all, because their sin was against Christ's body in its own species, while this sin is against it under sacramental species; secondly, because their sin came of the intent of injuring Christ, while this does not.
Reply Obj. 2: The sin of the fornicator receiving Christ's body is likened to Judas kissing Christ, as to the resemblance of the sin, because each outrages Christ with the sign of friendship. but not as to the extent of the sin, as was observed above (ad 1). And this resemblance in crime applies no less to other sinners than to fornicators: because by other mortal sins, sinners act against the charity of Christ, of which this sacrament is the sign, and all the more according as their sins are graver. But in a measure the sin of fornication makes one more unfit for receiving this sacrament, because thereby especially the spirit becomes enslaved by the flesh, which is a hindrance to the fervor of love required for this sacrament.
However, the hindrance to charity itself weighs more than the hindrance to its fervor. Hence the sin of unbelief, which fundamentally severs a man from the unity of the Church, simply speaking, makes him to be utterly unfit for receiving this sacrament; because it is the sacrament of the Church's unity, as stated above (Q. 61, A. 2). Hence the unbeliever who receives this sacrament sins more grievously than the believer who is in sin; and shows greater contempt towards Christ Who is in the sacrament, especially if he does not believe Christ to be truly in this sacrament; because, so far as lies in him, he lessens the holiness of the sacrament, and the power of Christ acting in it, and this is to despise the sacrament in itself. But the believer who receives the sacrament with consciousness of sin, by receiving it unworthily despises the sacrament, not in itself, but in its use. Hence the Apostle (1 Cor. 11:29) in assigning the cause of this sin, says, "not discerning the body of the Lord," that is, not distinguishing it from other food: and this is what he does who disbelieves Christ's presence in this sacrament.
Reply Obj. 3: The man who would throw this sacrament into the mire would be guilty of more heinous sin than another approaching the sacrament fully conscious of mortal sin. First of all, because he would intend to outrage the sacrament, whereas the sinner receiving Christ's body unworthily has no such intent; secondly, because the sinner is capable of grace; hence he is more capable of receiving this sacrament than any irrational creature. Hence he would make a most revolting use of this sacrament who would throw it to dogs to eat, or fling it in the mire to be trodden upon. _______________________
SIXTH 

*S Part 4, Ques 86, Article 1

 [III, Q. 86, Art. 1]
Whether All Sins Are Taken Away by Penance?
Objection 1: It would seem that not all sins are taken away by Penance. For the Apostle says (Heb. 12:17) that Esau "found no place of repentance, although with tears he had sought it," which a gloss explains as meaning that "he found no place of pardon and blessing through Penance": and it is related (2 Macc. 9:13) of Antiochus, that "this wicked man prayed to the Lord, of Whom he was not to obtain mercy." Therefore it does not seem that all sins are taken away by Penance.
Obj. 2: Further, Augustine says (De Serm. Dom. in Monte i) that "so great is the stain of that sin (namely, when a man, after coming to the knowledge of God through the grace of Christ, resists fraternal charity, and by the brands of envy combats grace itself) that he is unable to humble himself in prayer, although he is forced by his wicked conscience to acknowledge and confess his sin." Therefore not every sin can be taken away by Penance.
Obj. 3: Further, our Lord said (Matt. 12:32): "He that shall speak against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world nor in the world to come." Therefore not every sin can be pardoned through Penance.
_On the contrary,_ It is written (Ezech. 18:22): "I will not remember" any more "all his iniquities that he hath done."
_I answer that,_ The fact that a sin cannot be taken away by Penance may happen in two ways: first, because of the impossibility of repenting of sin; secondly, because of Penance being unable to blot out a sin. In the first way the sins of the demons and of men who are lost, cannot be blotted out by Penance, because their will is confirmed in evil, so that sin cannot displease them as to its guilt, but only as to the punishment which they suffer, by reason of which they have a kind of repentance, which yet is fruitless, according to Wis. 5:3: "Repenting, and groaning for anguish of spirit." Consequently such Penance brings no hope of pardon, but only despair. Nevertheless no sin of a wayfarer can be such as that, because his will is flexible to good and evil. Wherefore to say that in this life there is any sin of which one cannot repent, is erroneous, first, because this would destroy free-will, secondly, because this would be derogatory to the power of grace, whereby the heart of any sinner whatsoever can be moved to repent, according to Prov. 21:1: "The heart of the king is in the hand of the Lord: whithersoever He will He shall turn it."
It is also erroneous to say that any sin cannot be pardoned through true Penance. First, because this is contrary to Divine mercy, of which it is written (Joel 2:13) that God is "gracious and merciful, patient, and rich in mercy, and ready to repent of the evil"; for, in a manner, God would be overcome by man, if man wished a sin to be blotted out, which God were unwilling to blot out. Secondly, because this would be derogatory to the power of Christ's Passion, through which Penance produces its effect, as do the other sacraments, since it is written (1 John 2:2): "He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world."
Therefore we must say simply that, in this life, every sin can be blotted out by true Penance.
Reply Obj. 1: Esau did not truly repent. This is evident from his saying (Gen. 27:41): "The days will come of the mourning of my father, and I will kill my brother Jacob." Likewise neither did Antiochus repent truly; since he grieved for his past sin, not because he had offended God thereby, but on account of the sickness which he suffered in his body.
Reply Obj. 2: These words of Augustine should be understood thus: "So great is the stain of that sin, that man is unable to humble himself in prayer," i.e. it is not easy for him to do so; in which sense we say that a man cannot be healed, when it is difficult to heal him. Yet this is possible by the power of God's grace, which sometimes turns men even "into the depths of the sea" (Ps. 67:23).
Reply Obj. 3: The word or blasphemy spoken against the Holy Ghost is final impenitence, as Augustine states (De Verb. Dom. xi), which is altogether unpardonable, because after this life is ended, there is no pardon of sins. Or, if by the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, we understand sin committed through certain malice, this means either that the blasphemy itself against the Holy Ghost is unpardonable, i.e. not easily pardonable, or that such a sin does not contain in itself any motive for pardon, or that for such a sin a man is punished both in this and in the next world, as we explained in the Second Part (III, Q. 14, A. 3). _______________________
SECOND 

12:33 Aut facite arborem bonam, et fructum ejus bonum : aut facite arborem malam, et fructum ejus malum : siquidem ex fructu arbor agnoscitur.

*H Either make the tree good and its fruit good: or make the tree evil, and its fruit evil. For by the fruit the tree is known.

Ver. 33. Either make the tree good, &c. This is connected with what had been said of their attributing his works to Beelzebub. He condemns them for blaspheming him on all occasions, when at the same time they were not able to find fault with his life and doctrine. Christ therefore tells them, that the tree is known by its fruit; and that if they cannot blame his actions, and his doctrine, they ought to allow him to be good, to be like the good tree; and that if they continue to blame him, they ought consequently to condemn his doctrine, yet this they were not able to do. Wi.

Ἢ ποιήσατε τὸ δένδρον καλόν, καὶ τὸν καρπὸν αὐτοῦ καλόν, ἢ ποιήσατε τὸ δένδρον σαπρόν, καὶ τὸν καρπὸν αὐτοῦ σαπρόν· ἐκ γὰρ τοῦ καρποῦ τὸ δένδρον γινώσκεται."

* Summa

*S Part 2, Ques 70, Article 1

 [I-II, Q. 70, Art. 1]
Whether the Fruits of the Holy Ghost Which the Apostle Enumerates (Gal. 5) Are Acts?
Objection 1: It would seem that the fruits of the Holy Ghost, enumerated by the Apostle (Gal. 5:22, 23), are not acts. For that which bears fruit, should not itself be called a fruit, else we should go on indefinitely. But our actions bear fruit: for it is written (Wis. 3:15): "The fruit of good labor is glorious," and (John 4:36): "He that reapeth receiveth wages, and gathereth fruit unto life everlasting." Therefore our actions are not to be called fruits.
Obj. 2: Further, as Augustine says (De Trin. x, 10), "we enjoy [*'Fruimur', from which verb we have the Latin 'fructus' and the English 'fruit'] the things we know, when the will rests by rejoicing in them." But our will should not rest in our actions for their own sake. Therefore our actions should not be called fruits.
Obj. 3: Further, among the fruits of the Holy Ghost, the Apostle numbers certain virtues, viz. charity, meekness, faith, and chastity. Now virtues are not actions but habits, as stated above (Q. 55, A. 1). Therefore the fruits are not actions.
_On the contrary,_ It is written (Matt. 12:33): "By the fruit the tree is known"; that is to say, man is known by his works, as holy men explain the passage. Therefore human actions are called fruits.
_I answer that,_ The word "fruit" has been transferred from the material to the spiritual world. Now fruit, among material things, is the product of a plant when it comes to perfection, and has a certain sweetness. This fruit has a twofold relation: to the tree that produces it, and to the man who gathers the fruit from the tree. Accordingly, in spiritual matters, we may take the word "fruit" in two ways: first, so that the fruit of man, who is likened to the tree, is that which he produces; secondly, so that man's fruit is what he gathers.
Yet not all that man gathers is fruit, but only that which is last and gives pleasure. For a man has both a field and a tree, and yet these are not called fruits; but that only which is last, to wit, that which man intends to derive from the field and from the tree. In this sense man's fruit is his last end which is intended for his enjoyment.
If, however, by man's fruit we understand a product of man, then human actions are called fruits: because operation is the second act of the operator, and gives pleasure if it is suitable to him. If then man's operation proceeds from man in virtue of his reason, it is said to be the fruit of his reason: but if it proceeds from him in respect of a higher power, which is the power of the Holy Ghost, then man's operation is said to be the fruit of the Holy Ghost, as of a Divine seed, for it is written (1 John 3:9): "Whosoever is born of God, committeth no sin, for His seed abideth in him."
Reply Obj. 1: Since fruit is something last and final, nothing hinders one fruit bearing another fruit, even as one end is subordinate to another. And so our works, in so far as they are produced by the Holy Ghost working in us, are fruits: but, in so far as they are referred to the end which is eternal life, they should rather be called flowers: hence it is written (Ecclus. 24:23): "My flowers are the fruits of honor and riches."
Reply Obj. 2: When the will is said to delight in a thing for its own sake, this may be understood in two ways. First, so that the expression "for the sake of" be taken to designate the final cause; and in this way, man delights in nothing for its own sake, except the last end. Secondly, so that it expresses the formal cause; and in this way, a man may delight in anything that is delightful by reason of its form. Thus it is clear that a sick man delights in health, for its own sake, as in an end; in a nice medicine, not as in an end, but as in something tasty; and in a nasty medicine, nowise for its own sake, but only for the sake of something else. Accordingly we must say that man must delight in God for His own sake, as being his last end, and in virtuous deeds, not as being his end, but for the sake of their inherent goodness which is delightful to the virtuous. Hence Ambrose says (De Parad. xiii) that virtuous deeds are called fruits because "they refresh those that have them, with a holy and genuine delight."
Reply Obj. 3: Sometimes the names of the virtues are applied to their actions: thus Augustine writes (Tract. xl in Joan.): "Faith is to believe what thou seest not"; and (De Doctr. Christ. iii, 10): "Charity is the movement of the soul in loving God and our neighbor." It is thus that the names of the virtues are used in reckoning the fruits. ________________________
SECOND 

*S Part 2, Ques 71, Article 1

 [I-II, Q. 71, Art. 1]
Whether Vice Is Contrary to Virtue?
Objection 1: It would seem that vice is not contrary to virtue. For one thing has one contrary, as proved in _Metaph._ x, text. 17. Now sin and malice are contrary to virtue. Therefore vice is not contrary to it: since vice applies also to undue disposition of bodily members or of any things whatever.
Obj. 2: Further, virtue denotes a certain perfection of power. But vice does not denote anything relative to power. Therefore vice is not contrary to virtue.
Obj. 3: Further, Cicero (De Quaest. Tusc. iv) says that "virtue is the soul's health." Now sickness or disease, rather than vice, is opposed to health. Therefore vice is not contrary to virtue.
_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (De Perfect. Justit. ii) that "vice is a quality in respect of which the soul is evil." But "virtue is a quality which makes its subject good," as was shown above (Q. 55, AA. 3, 4). Therefore vice is contrary to virtue.
_I answer that,_ Two things may be considered in virtue--the essence of virtue, and that to which virtue is ordained. In the essence of virtue we may consider something directly, and we may consider something consequently. Virtue implies _directly_ a disposition whereby the subject is well disposed according to the mode of its nature: wherefore the Philosopher says (Phys. vii, text. 17) that "virtue is a disposition of a perfect thing to that which is best; and by perfect I mean that which is disposed according to its nature." That which virtue implies _consequently_ is that it is a kind of goodness: because the goodness of a thing consists in its being well disposed according to the mode of its nature. That to which virtue is directed is a good act, as was shown above (Q. 56, A. 3).
Accordingly three things are found to be contrary to virtue. One of these is _sin,_ which is opposed to virtue in respect of that to which virtue is ordained: since, properly speaking, sin denotes an inordinate act; even as an act of virtue is an ordinate and due act: in respect of that which virtue implies consequently, viz. that it is a kind of goodness, the contrary of virtue is _malice_: while in respect of that which belongs to the essence of virtue directly, its contrary is _vice_: because the vice of a thing seems to consist in its not being disposed in a way befitting its nature: hence Augustine says (De Lib. Arb. iii): "Whatever is lacking for a thing's natural perfection may be called a vice."
Reply Obj. 1: These three things are contrary to virtue, but not in the same respect: for sin is opposed to virtue, according as the latter is productive of a good work; malice, according as virtue is a kind of goodness; while vice is opposed to virtue properly as such.
Reply Obj. 2: Virtue implies not only perfection of power, the principle of action; but also the due disposition of its subject. The reason for this is because a thing operates according as it is in act: so that a thing needs to be well disposed if it has to produce a good work. It is in this respect that vice is contrary to virtue.
Reply Obj. 3: As Cicero says (De Quaest. Tusc. iv), "disease and sickness are vicious qualities," for in speaking of the body he calls it disease "when the whole body is infected," for instance, with fever or the like; he calls it sickness "when the disease is attended with weakness"; and vice "when the parts of the body are not well compacted together." And although at times there may be disease in the body without sickness, for instance, when a man has a hidden complaint without being hindered outwardly from his wonted occupations; "yet, in the soul," as he says, "these two things are indistinguishable, except in thought." For whenever a man is ill-disposed inwardly, through some inordinate affection, he is rendered thereby unfit for fulfilling his duties: since "a tree is known by its fruit," i.e. man by his works, according to Matt. 12:33. But "vice of the soul," as Cicero says (De Quaest. Tusc. iv), "is a habit or affection of the soul discordant and inconsistent with itself through life": and this is to be found even without disease and sickness, e.g. when a man sins from weakness or passion. Consequently vice is of wider extent than sickness or disease; even as virtue extends to more things than health; for health itself is reckoned a kind of virtue (Phys. vii, text. 17). Consequently vice is reckoned as contrary to virtue, more fittingly than sickness or disease. ________________________
SECOND 

12:34 Progenies viperarum, quomodo potestis bona loqui, cum sitis mali ? ex abundantia enim cordis os loquitur.

* Footnotes

* Luke 6:45
A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth that which is evil. For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.

*H O generation of vipers, how can you speak good things, whereas you are evil? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.

Ver. 34. As the Pharisees were ever boasting of, and glorying in their ancestry, Christ here shews, that they have not much reason to boast, since their ancestors were but vipers. S. Chrys.

Γεννήματα ἐχιδνῶν, πῶς δύνασθε ἀγαθὰ λαλεῖν, πονηροὶ ὄντες; Ἐκ γὰρ τοῦ περισσεύματος τῆς καρδίας τὸ στόμα λαλεῖ."

* Summa

*S Part 2, Ques 48, Article 4

 [I-II, Q. 48, Art. 4]
Whether Anger Above All Causes Taciturnity?
Objection 1: It would seem that anger does not cause taciturnity. Because taciturnity is opposed to speech. But increase in anger conduces to speech; as is evident from the degrees of anger laid down by Our Lord (Matt. 5:22): where He says: "Whosoever is angry with his brother"; and " . . . whosoever shall say to his brother, 'Raca'"; and " . . . whosoever shall say to his brother, 'Thou fool.'" Therefore anger does not cause taciturnity.
Obj. 2: Further, through failing to obey reason, man sometimes breaks out into unbecoming words: hence it is written (Prov. 25:28): "As a city that lieth open and is not compassed with walls, so is a man that cannot refrain his own spirit in speaking." But anger, above all, hinders the judgment of reason, as stated above (A. 3). Consequently above all it makes one break out into unbecoming words. Therefore it does not cause taciturnity.
Obj. 3: Further, it is written (Matt. 12:34): "Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh." But anger, above all, causes a disturbance in the heart, as stated above (A. 2). Therefore above all it conduces to speech. Therefore it does not cause taciturnity.
_On the contrary,_ Gregory says (Moral. v, 30) that "when anger does not vent itself outwardly by the lips, inwardly it burns the more fiercely."
_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 3; Q. 46, A. 4), anger both follows an act of reason, and hinders the reason: and in both respects it may cause taciturnity. On the part of the reason, when the judgment of reason prevails so far, that although it does not curb the appetite in its inordinate desire for vengeance, yet it curbs the tongue from unbridled speech. Wherefore Gregory says (Moral. v, 30): "Sometimes when the mind is disturbed, anger, as if in judgment, commands silence." On the part of the impediment to reason because, as stated above (A. 2), the disturbance of anger reaches to the outward members, and chiefly to those members which reflect more distinctly the emotions of the heart, such as the eyes, face and tongue; wherefore, as observed above (A. 2), "the tongue stammers, the countenance takes fire, the eyes grow fierce." Consequently anger may cause such a disturbance, that the tongue is altogether deprived of speech; and taciturnity is the result.
Reply Obj. 1: Anger sometimes goes so far as to hinder the reason from curbing the tongue: but sometimes it goes yet farther, so as to paralyze the tongue and other outward members.
And this suffices for the Reply to the Second Objection.
Reply Obj. 3: The disturbance of the heart may sometimes superabound to the extend that the movements of the outward members are hindered by the inordinate movement of the heart. Thence ensue taciturnity and immobility of the outward members; and sometimes even death. If, however, the disturbance be not so great, then "out of the abundance of the heart" thus disturbed, the mouth proceeds to speak. ________________________
TREATISE ON HABITS (QQ. 49-54) ________________________

*S Part 3, Ques 153, Article 5

 [II-II, Q. 153, Art. 5]
Whether the Daughters of Lust Are Fittingly Described?
Objection 1: It would seem that the daughters of lust are unfittingly reckoned to be "blindness of mind, thoughtlessness, inconstancy, rashness, self-love, hatred of God, love of this world and abhorrence or despair of a future world." For mental blindness, thoughtlessness and rashness pertain to imprudence, which is to be found in every sin, even as prudence is in every virtue. Therefore they should not be reckoned especially as daughters of lust.
Obj. 2: Further, constancy is reckoned a part of fortitude, as stated above (Q. 128, ad 6; Q. 137, A. 3). But lust is contrary, not to fortitude but to temperance. Therefore inconstancy is not a daughter of lust.
Obj. 3: Further, "Self-love extending to the contempt of God" is the origin of every sin, as Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xiv, 28). Therefore it should not be accounted a daughter of lust.
Obj. 4: Further, Isidore [*QQ. in Deut., qu. xvi] mentions four, namely, "obscene," "scurrilous," "wanton" and "foolish talking." There the aforesaid enumeration would seem to be superfluous.
_On the contrary,_ stands the authority of Gregory (Moral. xxxi, 45).
_I answer that,_ When the lower powers are strongly moved towards their objects, the result is that the higher powers are hindered and disordered in their acts. Now the effect of the vice of lust is that the lower appetite, namely the concupiscible, is most vehemently intent on its object, to wit, the object of pleasure, on account of the vehemence of the pleasure. Consequently the higher powers, namely the reason and the will, are most grievously disordered by lust.
Now the reason has four acts in matters of action. First there is simple understanding, which apprehends some end as good, and this act is hindered by lust, according to Dan. 13:56, "Beauty hath deceived thee, and lust hath perverted thy heart." In this respect we have "blindness of mind." The second act is counsel about what is to be done for the sake of the end: and this is also hindered by the concupiscence of lust. Hence Terence says (Eunuch., act 1, sc. 1), speaking of lecherous love: "This thing admits of neither counsel nor moderation, thou canst not control it by counseling." In this respect there is "rashness," which denotes absence of counsel, as stated above (Q. 53, A. 3). The third act is judgment about the things to be done, and this again is hindered by lust. For it is said of the lustful old men (Dan. 13:9): "They perverted their own mind . . . that they might not . . . remember just judgments." In this respect there is "thoughtlessness." The fourth act is the reason's command about the thing to be done, and this also is impeded by lust, in so far as through being carried away by concupiscence, a man is hindered from doing what his reason ordered to be done. [To this "inconstancy" must be referred.] [*The sentence in brackets is omitted in the Leonine edition.] Hence Terence says (Eunuch., act 1, sc. 1) of a man who declared that he would leave his mistress: "One little false tear will undo those words."
On the part of the will there results a twofold inordinate act. One is the desire for the end, to which we refer "self-love," which regards the pleasure which a man desires inordinately, while on the other hand there is "hatred of God," by reason of His forbidding the desired pleasure. The other act is the desire for the things directed to the end. With regard to this there is "love of this world," whose pleasures a man desires to enjoy, while on the other hand there is "despair of a future world," because through being held back by carnal pleasures he cares not to obtain spiritual pleasures, since they are distasteful to him.
Reply Obj. 1: According to the Philosopher (Ethic. vi, 5), intemperance is the chief corruptive of prudence: wherefore the vices opposed to prudence arise chiefly from lust, which is the principal species of intemperance.
Reply Obj. 2: The constancy which is a part of fortitude regards hardships and objects of fear; but constancy in refraining from pleasures pertains to continence which is a part of temperance, as stated above (Q. 143). Hence the inconstancy which is opposed thereto is to be reckoned a daughter of lust. Nevertheless even the first named inconstancy arises from lust, inasmuch as the latter enfeebles a man's heart and renders it effeminate, according to Osee 4:11, "Fornication and wine and drunkenness take away the heart [Douay: 'understanding']." Vegetius, too, says (De Re Milit. iii) that "the less a man knows of the pleasures of life, the less he fears death." Nor is there any need, as we have repeatedly stated, for the daughters of a capital vice to agree with it in matter (cf. Q. 35, A. 4, ad 2; Q. 118, A. 8, ad 1; Q. 148, A. 6).
Reply Obj. 3: Self-love in respect of any goods that a man desires for himself is the common origin of all sins; but in the special point of desiring carnal pleasures for oneself, it is reckoned a daughter of lust.
Reply Obj. 4: The sins mentioned by Isidore are inordinate external acts, pertaining in the main to speech; wherein there is a fourfold inordinateness. First, on account of the matter, and to this we refer "obscene words": for since "out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh" (Matt. 12:34), the lustful man, whose heart is full of lewd concupiscences, readily breaks out into lewd words. Secondly, on account of the cause: for, since lust causes thoughtlessness and rashness, the result is that it makes a man speak without weighing or giving a thought to his words, which are described as "scurrilous." Thirdly, on account of the end: for since the lustful man seeks pleasure, he directs his speech thereto, and so gives utterance to "wanton words." Fourthly, on account of the sentiments expressed by his words, for through causing blindness of mind, lust perverts a man's sentiments, and so he gives way "to foolish talking," for instance, by expressing a preference for the pleasures he desires to anything else. _______________________

12:35 Bonus homo de bono thesauro profert bona : et malus homo de malo thesauro profert mala.

A good man out of a good treasure bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of an evil treasure bringeth forth evil things.

Ὁ ἀγαθὸς ἄνθρωπος ἐκ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ θησαυροῦ ἐκβάλλει ἀγαθά· καὶ ὁ πονηρὸς ἄνθρωπος ἐκ τοῦ πονηροῦ θησαυροῦ ἐκβάλλει πονηρά.

* Summa

*S Part 2, Ques 19, Article 8

 [I-II, Q. 19, Art. 8]
Whether the Degree of Goodness or Malice in the Will Depends on the Degree of Good or Evil in the Intention?
Objection 1: It would seem that the degree of goodness in the will depends on the degree of good in the intention. Because on Matt. 12:35, "A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good," a gloss says: "A man does as much good as he intends." But the intention gives goodness not only to the external action, but also to the act of the will, as stated above (A. 7). Therefore the goodness of a man's will is according to the goodness of his intention.
Obj. 2: Further, if you add to the cause, you add to the effect. But the goodness of the intention is the cause of the good will. Therefore a man's will is good, according as his intention is good.
Obj. 3: Further, in evil actions, a man sins in proportion to his intention: for if a man were to throw a stone with a murderous intention, he would be guilty of murder. Therefore, for the same reason, in good actions, the will is good in proportion to the good intended.
_On the contrary,_ The intention can be good, while the will is evil. Therefore, for the same reason, the intention can be better, and the will less good.
_I answer that,_ In regard to both the act, and the intention of the end, we may consider a twofold quantity: one, on the part of the object, by reason of a man willing or doing a good that is greater; the other, taken from the intensity of the act, according as a man wills or acts intensely; and this is more on the part of the agent.
If then we speak of these respective quantities from the point of view of the object, it is evident that the quantity in the act does not depend on the quantity in the intention. With regard to the external act this may happen in two ways. First, through the object that is ordained to the intended end not being proportionate to that end; for instance, if a man were to give ten pounds, he could not realize his intention, if he intended to buy a thing worth a hundred pounds. Secondly, on account of the obstacles that may supervene in regard to the exterior action, which obstacles we are unable to remove: for instance, a man intends to go to Rome, and encounters obstacles, which prevent him from going. On the other hand, with regard to the interior act of the will, this happens in only one way: because the interior acts of the will are in our power, whereas the external actions are not. But the will can will an object that is not proportionate to the intended end: and thus the will that tends to that object considered absolutely, is not so good as the intention. Yet because the intention also belongs, in a way, to the act of the will, inasmuch, to wit, as it is the reason thereof; it comes to pass that the quantity of goodness in the intention redounds upon the act of the will; that is to say, in so far as the will wills some great good for an end, although that by which it wills to gain so great a good, is not proportionate to that good.
But if we consider the quantity in the intention and in the act, according to their respective intensity, then the intensity of the intention redounds upon the interior act and the exterior act of the will: since the intention stands in relation to them as a kind of form, as is clear from what has been said above (Q. 12, A. 4; Q. 18, A. 6). And yet considered materially, while the intention is intense, the interior or exterior act may be not so intense, materially speaking: for instance, when a man does not will with as much intensity to take medicine as he wills to regain health. Nevertheless the very fact of intending health intensely, redounds, as a formal principle, upon the intense volition of medicine.
We must observe, however, that the intensity of the interior or exterior act, may be referred to the intention as its object: as when a man intends to will intensely, or to do something intensely. And yet it does not follow that he wills or acts intensely; because the quantity of goodness in the interior or exterior act does not depend on the quantity of the good intended, as is shown above. And hence it is that a man does not merit as much as he intends to merit: because the quantity of merit is measured by the intensity of the act, as we shall show later on (Q. 20, A. 4; Q. 114, A. 4).
Reply Obj. 1: This gloss speaks of good as in the estimation of God, Who considers principally the intention of the end. Wherefore another gloss says on the same passage that "the treasure of the heart is the intention, according to which God judges our works." For the goodness of the intention, as stated above, redounds, so to speak, upon the goodness of the will, which makes even the external act to be meritorious in God's sight.
Reply Obj. 2: The goodness of the intention is not the whole cause of a good will. Hence the argument does not prove.
Reply Obj. 3: The mere malice of the intention suffices to make the will evil: and therefore too, the will is as evil as the intention is evil. But the same reasoning does not apply to goodness, as stated above (ad 2). ________________________
NINTH 

12:36 Dico autem vobis quoniam omne verbum otiosum, quod locuti fuerint homines, reddent rationem de eo in die judicii.

*H But I say unto you, that every idle word that men shall speak, they shall render an account for it in the day of judgment.

Ver. 36. That every idle word.[3] By idle words, S. Jerom, &c. expound words that are neither profitable to the speaker nor the hearer: but S. Chrys. says, false and abusive language. Wi. — If, of every idle word, how much more of blasphemy, as when you say in Beelzebub I cast out devils. M. — This shews there must be a place of temporal punishment hereafter, where these slighter faults shall be punished. Ch. — If of every idle word we must make account before God in judgment, and yet shall not for every such idle word be damned eternally, there must necessarily be some temporal punishment in the next life. B.

Λέγω δὲ ὑμῖν ὅτι πᾶν ῥῆμα ἀργόν, ὃ ἐὰν λαλήσωσιν οἱ ἄνθρωποι, ἀποδώσουσιν περὶ αὐτοῦ λόγον ἐν ἡμέρᾳ κρίσεως."

* Summa

*S Part 2, Ques 18, Article 9

 [I-II, Q. 18, Art. 9]
Whether an Individual Action Can Be Indifferent?
Objection 1: It would seem that an individual action can be indifferent. For there is no species that does not, or cannot, contain an individual. But an action can be indifferent in its species, as stated above (A. 8). Therefore an individual action can be indifferent.
Obj. 2: Further, individual actions cause like habits, as stated in _Ethic._ ii, 1. But a habit can be indifferent: for the Philosopher says (Ethic. iv, 1) that those who are of an even temper and prodigal disposition are not evil; and yet it is evident that they are not good, since they depart from virtue; and thus they are indifferent in respect of a habit. Therefore some individual actions are indifferent.
Obj. 3: Further, moral good belongs to virtue, while moral evil belongs to vice. But it happens sometimes that a man fails to ordain a specifically indifferent action to a vicious or virtuous end. Therefore an individual action may happen to be indifferent.
_On the contrary,_ Gregory says in a homily (vi in Evang.): "An idle word is one that lacks either the usefulness of rectitude or the motive of just necessity or pious utility." But an idle word is an evil, because "men . . . shall render an account of it in the day of judgment" (Matt. 12:36): while if it does not lack the motive of just necessity or pious utility, it is good. Therefore every word is either good or bad. For the same reason every other action is either good or bad. Therefore no individual action is indifferent.
_I answer that,_ It sometimes happens that an action is indifferent in its species, but considered in the individual it is good or evil. And the reason of this is because a moral action, as stated above (A. 3), derives its goodness not only from its object, whence it takes its species; but also from the circumstances, which are its accidents, as it were; just as something belongs to a man by reason of his individual accidents, which does not belong to him by reason of his species. And every individual action must needs have some circumstance that makes it good or bad, at least in respect of the intention of the end. For since it belongs to the reason to direct; if an action that proceeds from deliberate reason be not directed to the due end, it is, by that fact alone, repugnant to reason, and has the character of evil. But if it be directed to a due end, it is in accord with reason; wherefore it has the character of good. Now it must needs be either directed or not directed to a due end. Consequently every human action that proceeds from deliberate reason, if it be considered in the individual, must be good or bad.
If, however, it does not proceed from deliberate reason, but from some act of the imagination, as when a man strokes his beard, or moves his hand or foot; such an action, properly speaking, is not moral or human; since this depends on the reason. Hence it will be indifferent, as standing apart from the genus of moral actions.
Reply Obj. 1: For an action to be indifferent in its species can be understood in several ways. First in such a way that its species demands that it remain indifferent; and the objection proceeds along this line. But no action can be specifically indifferent thus: since no object of human action is such that it cannot be directed to good or evil, either through its end or through a circumstance. Secondly, specific indifference of an action may be due to the fact that as far as its species is concerned, it is neither good nor bad. Wherefore it can be made good or bad by something else. Thus man, as far as his species is concerned, is neither white nor black; nor is it a condition of his species that he should not be black or white; but blackness or whiteness is superadded to man by other principles than those of his species.
Reply Obj. 2: The Philosopher states that a man is evil, properly speaking, if he be hurtful to others. And accordingly, he says that the prodigal is not evil, because he hurts none save himself. And the same applies to all others who are not hurtful to other men. But we say here that evil, in general, is all that is repugnant to right reason. And in this sense every individual action is either good or bad, as stated above.
Reply Obj. 3: Whenever an end is intended by deliberate reason, it belongs either to the good of some virtue, or to the evil of some vice. Thus, if a man's action is directed to the support or repose of his body, it is also directed to the good of virtue, provided he direct his body itself to the good of virtue. The same clearly applies to other actions. ________________________
TENTH 

12:37 Ex verbis enim tuis justificaberis et ex verbis tuis condemnaberis.

For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.

Ἐκ γὰρ τῶν λόγων σου δικαιωθήσῃ, καὶ ἐκ τῶν λόγων σου καταδικασθήσῃ."

12:38 Tunc responderunt ei quidam de scribis et pharisaeis, dicentes : Magister, volumus a te signum videre.

*H Then some of the scribes and Pharisees answered him, saying: Master, we would see a sign from thee.

Ver. 38. We would see a sign. They wanted to see some new and unusual miracles. They wished, says S. Jerom, either that he would call down fire from heaven, like Elias; or, like Samuel, cause it to rain, to thunder and lighten in summer, contrary to the nature of the country. M. — That they might be assured he was sent by God, and acted by his Spirit.

¶Τότε ἀπεκρίθησάν τινες τῶν γραμματέων καὶ Φαρισαίων, λέγοντες, Διδάσκαλε, θέλομεν ἀπὸ σοῦ σημεῖον ἰδεῖν."

12:39 Qui respondens ait illis : Generatio mala et adultera signum quaerit : et signum non dabitur ei, nisi signum Jonae prophetae.

* Footnotes

* Luke 11:29
And the multitudes running together, he began to say: This generation is a wicked generation. It asketh a sign: and a sign shall not be given it, but the sign of Jonas the prophet.
* 1_Corinthians 1:22
For both the Jews require signs: and the Greeks seek after wisdom.
** Jonas 4:1
And Jonas was exceedingly troubled, and was angry:

*H Who answering said to them: An evil and adulterous generation seeketh a sign: and a sign shall not be given it, but the sign of Jonas the prophet.

Ver. 39. Sign of Jonas. I will give no other sign than my death and resurrection, as then, though unwillingly, they will acknowledge me, and people will believe and be converted: so in John (C. viii.) it is said, When you shall have exalted the Son of man, then you shall know that I am he. M.

Ὁ δὲ ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπεν αὐτοῖς, Γενεὰ πονηρὰ καὶ μοιχαλὶς σημεῖον ἐπιζητεῖ· καὶ σημεῖον οὐ δοθήσεται αὐτῇ, εἰ μὴ τὸ σημεῖον Ἰωνᾶ τοῦ προφήτου."

12:40 Sicut enim fuit Jonas in ventre ceti tribus diebus, et tribus noctibus, sic erit Filius hominis in corde terrae tribus diebus et tribus noctibus.

*H For as Jonas was in the whale's belly three days and three nights: so shall the Son of man be in the heart of the earth three days and three nights.

Ver. 40. In the whale's belly.[4] The word signifies a great fish, and was not perhaps that which we commonly call a whale. In the prophet Jonas, it is called, a great fish. — Three days and three nights; not three whole days and three nights, but part of three natural days, from which, in common computation, the nights used not to be separated. We have an instance of this, Esther iv. 16, where the Jews were ordered to fast with her three days, and three nights: and yet (C. v, v. 1) Esther, after part of three days, went to the king. — In the heart of the earth: by which is signified, Christ's descent into hell; as S. Paul says (Ephes. iv. 9.) that he descended into the inferior parts of the earth, and this cannot be understood of the grave only. Wi. — Jesus Christ expired on the cross about the ninth hour, or 3 p.m. when the general and supernatural darkness that covered the earth, may be counted for the first night, and the light which again appeared, for the term of the first day. V. — As Jonas was a sign to the Ninivites, so is Christ to the Jews; for as he by the prodigy of remaining so long in the fish's belly, and afterwards coming forth alive, gave such authority to his preaching, that the Ninivites were converted; so Christ, by his death and resurrection on the third day, shall shew that he is the true Christ, and this generation shall acknowledge him for the Messias. M.

*Lapide

For as Jonah was , c., in the heart , i.e., in the lowest part of the earth, within the earth, as the heart is within the human body. When Christ died upon the cross, as His body was placed in the tomb, so did His soul descend into the Limbus Patrum, which is near the centre of the earth. You will ask, how Christ was three days and nights in the sepulchre and Limbus: for He was there only on Friday and Saturday nights, and rose at day-break on Sunday? 1. Alcuin ( L. de. Divinis Off. sec. de. Cœna. Dom .) gathers from this place that Christ lay in the tomb three whole days and nights, or 72 hours, and consequently rose again at the end of Easter Monday. But this is certainly a mistake. The constant tradition of the church is that Christ rose on the Lord's day. 2. Greg. Nyssen ( Orat . 1 2 de Resurrec .) computes these three days to begin on Thursday. He is of opinion, that when on the evening of that day Christ instituted the Eucharist, He offered Himself to God under the species of bread and wine by means of the unbloody sacrifice. The soul of Christ was separated from the body, but that this was done in a secret and invisible manner, and that then the soul of Christ went down to Hades, and that thus He pre-accomplished His death, which the Jews were visibly to bring about on the following day upon the cross. But this, too, is an error. For there is really in the Eucharist the soul of the Living Christ, that is to say, in His body and blood contained under the species of bread and wine. It is there, I say, not indeed by virtue of the words of consecration, but by natural concomitance. For in the Eucharist there is Living Christ, with His Soul, even as He is outside the Eucharist. Thus the Council of Trent defines ( Sess. 13, sec. 2). It would have been otherwise if any of the Apostles had consecrated the Eucharist during the triduum of the Passion. For then the Body and Blood of Christ would have been in it separated from His Soul, for in this manner they were in Christ Himself now buried. For Christ was then dead, not alive. I say then, that the expression three days and three nights is here only a periphrasis and description of a natural day. The two integral parts of such a day are day and night, or light and darkness. Christ makes use of this periphrasis because Jonah, His antetype, did the same. (Joh 1:17 .) We must not understand that these days are three artificial days as opposed to nights, as if during three days, in which the sun is above the horizon, Christ lay in the tomb; for this was not the case. You must consider these three natural days to be not whole days but parts of days, namely, the latter part of Friday; when Christ being taken down from the Cross, was laid in the sepulchre, the whole of Saturday, and part of the Lord's day. For although the Hebrews reckoned their civil days from one sun-rise to another, like the Chaldeans and the Persians ( Beda de ration. temp .), yet they computed their sacred days, such as the Passover, from evening to evening. Thus S. Jerome, Theophyl., Euthym., and S. Aug. and commentators, passim , explain the meaning of these three days. Hence Christ is constantly spoken of as rising on the third day, or after three days, without any mention of nights. But in this place, according to this computation, there were but two nights in which Christ lay in the tomb, viz. Friday and Saturday nights, and yet three nights are expressly mentioned. Others therefore answer more fully and plainly; that these three days and nights are reckoned according to the Roman computation. For the Romans were at that time, masters of Judea, and had introduced their own methods of computing time in civil affairs. The Romans reckoned from midnight to midnight, as Christians do in their fasts and festivals. ( See Macrob. L. 1. Saturni c. Gell. L. 3. c. 2. Pliny. L. 2. c. 77. and others ). According to this reckoning it is clear Christ remained in the tomb during a part of three days and three nights. He was buried on Friday before sunset; and was in the tomb until the midnight of that day. After that He was in the tomb during the entire day and night of the Sabbath; and from the midnight of Sunday for about six hours until that dawning of the Lord's Day on which He arose. For the Passover was at that time about the equinox, when the days and nights are equal, each being about twelve hours long. But the Soul of Christ, immediately when He expired upon the Cross at the ninth hour, i.e ., at three o'clock in the afternoon, descended into Limbus, and there remained with the Fathers until the dawn of Easter Day. Now that the Jews made use of the Roman method of computing time may be learnt as well from other things, as because they borrowed the four watches of the night from the practice in use among the Roman armies. ( See Mat 15:25Mat 15:25 and elsewhere .) Different nations had different methods of reckoning the beginning of the day. The Persians and Babylonians reckoned from sunrise to sunrise. The Athenians and Italians, from sunset to sunset. Astronomers from midday to midday. But the Egyptians and Roman priests reckoned from midnight to midnight: and this method has continued in the Roman Church. The Hebrews then in the time of Christ followed the method of the Romans, to whom they were subject. Franc. Lucas teaches that the Jews did not compute their Festivals from midnight as Christians do. The explanation given above is that of S. Anselm, in Loco . Isidore of Pelusium ( L . 1 . Epist 114 and 212), D. Thom., (3. p. q. 46. art . 9), Suarez (3. p. q. 53. disp . 46. sect. 3. in fine .), and Baronius. ( A. C. 34.). The men of Nineveh shall rise up , c. That is to say the Ninevites, who, with their king Sardanapalus, had thrown themselves into wickedness, and given themselves up entirely to the lusts of the flesh, when they heard Jonah thundering against them, and threatening them with destruction, believed him, and did penance. They therefore, in the day of judgment, shall accuse and condemn the Scribes and the Jews who would not believe Christ, their God and Lord, working so many miracles. They shall condemn them, I say, not so much in word as by their deeds, namely, by the example of their faith and repentance. It does not follow from hence that the Ninevites were saved; for shortly afterwards they returned to their sins like a dog to his vomit. (See what I have said in the Prefaces to Jonah and Nahum.) And behold a greater than Jonah is here. For Jonah was a prophet and a servant: Christ is Messiah and the Lord. Jonah, remaining alive in the fish, alive came forth: Christ rose again from death and the grave, and restored to life, came forth. Jonah preached unwillingly. Christ of His own accord. Jonah was a foreigner among the Ninevites: Christ was of the same race as the Jews. Jonah threatened the destruction of Nineveh. Christ promised the kingdom of Heaven. Jonah did no miracle: Christ did very many. All the prophets prophesied of Christ: none of Jonah. Jonah cried aloud, "Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown." Christ cried by His Apostles, "Yet forty years and Jerusalem shall be destroyed by Titus." Euseb. of Emissa ( Hom . 2. de Pasch .), and S. Aug. ( Epist. 49. 6), have collected further analogies between Jonah and Christ. The Queen of the South shall rise , c. Aegypt. The Southern Queen . Persian, Queen of Thema (Theman with the Hebrews and Orientals signifies the south). Ethiopic, Queen Aseb. The naine, therefore, of this queen appears to have been Aseb, and to have been taken from the name of her kingdom, Saba, Sabæa. This is the opinion of some. But I maintain that Aseb is Ethiopic for the south, as Ethiopians at Rome have assured me. This is the Queen of Sheba, which is south of Judea ( 1Ki 10:1-13 ). Sheba, or Saba, is a country, and has two meanings. One Sheba was in the neighbouring Arabia; the other in remote Ethiopia, the capital of which was afterwards called by Cambyses Meroë, after the name of his sister. This queen is thought by many to have come from the Ethiopian, rather than the Arabian Sheba: because the Ethiopian Sheba was furthest off, and because Josephus calls her Queen of Ethiopia and Egypt. Wherefore afterwards the knowledge of scripture, and of the true God of the Hebrews, remained among the Ethiopians. From among them there came to Jerusalem, to worship God, a eunuch of Candace, Queen of the Ethiopians. ( Acts viii.) Pliny ( Lib . 6, c. 29) says, that queens reigned over the Ethiopians, and bore the general name of Candace. Indeed, the Emperor of the Ethiopians, or Abyssinians calls himself the Son of Solomon. For the Ethiopian tradition is that their queen was married to Solomon, by whom she had a son, from whom the Abyssinian kings, who are now called Prete-Tannes , are descended. Pineda, however, refutes this tradition. The Abyssinians add that this queen Aseb reigned in Tigris, which is the largest province of Abyssinia, and that her son was called Menile , or like, because he was very like his father Solomon. Thus Euthymius, Jansen, Maldonatus, Toletus, Barrad, and others, think this queen came from Ethiopia; but others, with more probability think she came from Saba, which is in Arabia Felix, where are the Homeritæ, in whose country spices and gold as well as camels are abundant. Again, she is said to have come from the uttermost parts of the earth ; for Arabia Sabaea is distant from Jerusalem 606 leagues. It is, moreover, the furthest land in the direction of the Mare Indicum , or Arabian Gulf, for there the land ends, and the sea begins. Hence it is often called in scripture, a land very far off, as Jer. vi. Isaiah xliii. and elsewhere. Whence Nicephorus ( l . 8, c . 35) says, Arabia Felix is Sabaea, and its boundaries extend to the ocean. Thus SS. Jerome, Cyril, Theodorus, Salmeron and others, whom Pineda quotes and follows. To hear the wisdom of Solomon; and behold a greater than Solomon is here. Christ speaks of Himself in the third person out of modesty. This comparison between the Jews and the Queen of Sheba has much emphasis, which is well brought out by Franc. Lucas. "The woman," he says, "was a Gentile, not brought up in God's discipline, but immersed in the business of a great empire; yet she was attracted by the fame of Solomon's wisdom, and undertook a most difficult journey from the remotest parts of the earth to Jerusalem, that she might make trial of his wisdom. This wisdom she wondered at above measure, and received Solomon's counsel, although he only discoursed concerning earthly things. But the Jews, the scholars of the Divine Law, would not receive Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God, in whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge, the only teacher of the mysteries of eternal salvation, which had been hid from ages and generations, when He offered Himself to them, and asked and invited them to come to Him. Yea, they altogether rejected Him, although He gave them the most wonderful sign of the Resurrection. How much, therefore, did the Queen of Sheba excel the Jews! and with what justice and with what power, will she, in the Day of Judgment, rebuke them to their face for their obstinate ingratitude, unbelief, and disobedience to Christ!" The same reasoning will apply to the Ninevites. Therefore let priests, religious and others, who are abundantly supplied with God's grace, take heed that they use it rightly and diligently; for otherwise, the more they have received, the more severely will they be punished. Yea, in the Day of Judgment, laymen will triumph over them, even as Heathens and Turks will upbraid bad Christians, because if they had had their graces, they would have lived far more holily and religiously. When the unclean spirit is gone out of a man , c. Observe, Christ still continues to treat of the subject of demoniacal possession: for the possessed, whom He healed, were corporeally possessed by a demon, but the Scribes and the Jews, who reviled Christ's miracles, were spiritually possessed. Christ here speaks parabolically, after the manner of the Syrians. The meaning is: As a man who is an exile wanders through arid and desert places, so the devil when driven by the law of God from man, that is to say, from you, O ye Jews, who were the people of God, amongst whom God dwelt, and manifested Himself by prophecies and miracles, wanders through desert places, and seeks rest. But when he cannot find it save in man, and when he sees that ye despise God's grace, which I offer you, then he eagerly returns to you as to a house that is empty and swept, as to a place prepared and adorned for him. Then he takes seven, i.e ., many other companions, more wicked than himself, and they joyfully inhabit that house, i.e ., your souls; and that they may not be again expelled, and that they may make you more wicked, with that object in view they cause you to blaspheme Me, My doctrine, and My miracles, and to say that I cast out devils by Beelzebub, and that ye may at length crucify Me, which is of all wickedness the chief and the greatest. Wherefore God will punish you with utter destruction by Titus, and will cause you to be without God, without Messiah, without law, or temple, or sacrifice, and without faith yea, that ye shall think your own perfidy and blindness to be the true faith and the true light. Moreover, the house, that is the soul, is empty, because it is without God, and devoid of His grace. It is swept with besoms ( Vulg .) because all virtue, piety and goodness have been driven out of it, and the poison of impurity has been scattered in it, and the tapestry of pride hung about it. For such adornment as this is the adornment of uncleanness, and is pleasing to the devil who delights in nothing but what is impure and filthy. Again, the devils are driven by God and His Saints into desert places, that they may not injure men. Thus Raphael bound Asmodeus in the deserts of Upper Egypt. ( Tobit 8.) So also Isaiah says, (Isaiah xiii. and xxxiv.) that Babylon should be wasted and rendered a desert; and that hairy creatures, Satyrs and Onocentauri , i.e. demons in the shape of goats and monsters should dwell there. But the devil does not find rest in such places, for, as Abul. says, "The devil cannot rest, because he shall be tormented eternally, but he seeks the rest of his own evil will: for he is envious, and loves to injure men: and when he is able to injure them he rests after a fashion." He acts thus, partly from envy, because he grudges man the happiness of heaven, from which he himself has fallen; partly from hatred of God: and because he cannot injure God himself, he would injure man who is God's creature and image, that he may thus, as far as he can, do an injury to God. Mystically, dry places are the souls of the Gentiles, in which, by the grace of Christ, the moisture of concupiscence is dried up. Hear S. Jerome, "The unclean spirit went forth from the Jews, when they received the law, and being driven from them, walked in the wilderness of the Gentiles. But when the Gentiles had believed in the Lord-finding no place among them, the devil said, I will go back to the Jews." And the last state of that man, c. This is the end and scope of the parable. Christ shows that relapsing into sin is worse than falling into it at first; even as a relapse into a disease of the body is worse than the original disease. S. Augustine says ( Epist . 137), "I confess unfeignedly, before the Lord our God, who is the witness of my soul, from the time when I began to serve God, that I have not found any who have made greater progress in religion than those in monasteries. So too, in like manner, I have never found worse men than those who have fallen, being monks. And this is why I believe it has been written in the Apocalypse ( ch . xxii.) 'He that is just, let him become more just; and he that is filthy, let him become more filthy. '" Thus Lucifer, who was the most fair of all the angels, became the worst of the devils. So too Judas, from an Apostle, became an Apostate, and the betrayer of Christ. So also Nestorius, Eutyches, Pelagius, Arius, and in our time Luther, Calvin, and the rest, their companions, from monks and priests, became apostates and heresiarchs. As it is commonly said, "the best wine makes the sourest vinegar." While He was yet speaking to the multitude, behold His mother , c. You will ask, who were those who, in the Gospels, are called the brethren of Christ? The impure heresiarch, Helvidius, answered that they were children of the blessed Virgin who were born after Christ. For he denied Her perpetual virginity. But S. Jerome sharply and learnedly refutes him, in the work which he wrote against him. 2. The Greeks generally, with Euseb. ( H.E. ii. 1), and of the Latins, SS. Hilary and Ambrose, think that they were children of Joseph, by a former marriage. But Joseph never had any other wife except the Blessed Virgin Mary. Peter Damian ( Epist. 11, c . iv. ad Nicol. Rom. Pont .) says that this is the faith of the Church. 3. Hugh of S. Victor thinks they were descendants of S. Ann, the mother of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and that S. Ann, besides Joakim the father of the Virgin, had two other husbands, of whom, those who are called the Lord's brethren, were begotten. But S. Hippolytus ( Ap. Niceph. 2, 3) teaches that S. Annn had only one husband, Joakim. I say, therefore, that these persons were not properly the brethren of Christ, nor the offspring of the Blessed Virgin Mary, nor Joseph, nor S. Ann, but are called brethren, i.e ., cousins or relations of Christ, by a mode of expression common in Hebrew. In sooth, they were cousins, or really brothers of S. Joakim, or S. Ann, or rather brother's children, or sistes's children of SS. Joakim and Ann, probably children of Cleophas, who was a brother of Joseph, the husband of the blessed Virgin Mary, according to the testimony of Hegesippus ( Eus. H.E. iii. 11). For Joseph and Cleophas were sons of Jacob, the brother of S. Ann. Hear S. Jerome on the passage, "We, as it is in the book which we have written against Helvidius, say, that the Lord's brethren were not children of Joseph, but cousins of the Saviour, and children of Mary, the maternal aunt of the Lord, who is called the mother of James and Joseph and Jude." Stood without. They sent a messenger into the house, to Christ, to call Him out. Seeking to speak with Him. Not out of ambition and pride, that they might appear to be relations of so great a Teacher and Prophet, as S. Chrysostom and Theophylact think; but that they might take Him with them, and bring Him to Nazareth. For they said that He was beside Himself (Mar 3:21Mar 3:21 ). "For neither did His brethren believe in Him" (Joh 7:5Joh 7:5 ). Whether they said this because they really thought He was mad; or feignedly, in order that they might deliver Him out of the hands of the Pharisees. That for some such cause the Blessed Virgin called Christ forth, no pious person would doubt. But if they wished to take Him as a madman, they must have concealed their opinion from the Blessed Virgin Mary, and taken her with them that they might the more easily draw Christ away. For it is certain she knew perfectly that Christ was of sound mind. Wherefore she accompanied these brethren or relations of Christ from the desire of beholding Him. But one said to Him, Behold Thy mother , c. This person was the messenger whom the brethren of Christ sent to call Him out. But he said : Who is My mother , c. Observe, Christ speaks thus, not as denying that He really had a mother, as if Christ were not a true man, but a phantasm born of a phantasm, as Marcion and the Manichees taught; nor yet as though He were ashamed of His mother and poor brethren, but either because this messenger was interrupting Him with too great boldness and importunity, by calling Him away from the preaching which He had begun; or rather, as S. Ambrose says, that He might show that He must be more intent upon the ministry given Him by His Father, than upon His affection for His mother; and that He must prefer spiritual to carnal relationships, where there is neither sex nor rank, but all are most nearly related to Christ, and by every tie, as though they were father, sister, and brother. For this is what Matthew adds concerning Christ, And stretching forth His hand , c. The Arab. trans., He pointed with His hand towards His disciples. For whosoever shall do, c. Spiritually, as I have already said, not carnally. He speaks of brother and sister, because of either sex. The faithful soul is also the mother of Christ, because by teaching, exhorting, and counselling, she brings forth Christ in herself and others. Hear S. Gregory ( Hom. 8 in Evang .), "We must know that he who is the brother and sister of Christ through believing, is made his mother by preaching. For he, as it were, brings forth the Lord, whom he infuses into the heart of his hearer." He subjoins the example of S. Felicitas, who by the spirit bore to God the seven sons, to whom she had given birth in the flesh, because she strengthened them in persecution, and animated them for martyrdom. These words of Christ were also exemplified in S. Victoria, a virgin martyr under Diocietian. She said to the pro-consol, who asked her, "Wilt thou go with Fortunatianus, thy brother?" who was a heathen; "No, for I am a Christian; and those are my brethren, who keep the commandments of God." Wherefore she was shut up in prison, and perishing by hunger, obtained the martyr's crown.

Ὥσπερ γὰρ ἦν Ἰωνᾶς ἐν τῇ κοιλίᾳ τοῦ κήτους τρεῖς ἡμέρας καὶ τρεῖς νύκτας, οὕτως ἔσται ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ τῆς γῆς τρεῖς ἡμέρας καὶ τρεῖς νύκτας."

* Summa

*S Part 4, Ques 51, Article 4

 [III, Q. 51, Art. 4]
Whether Christ Was in the Tomb Only One Day and Two Nights?
Objection 1: It would seem that Christ was not in the tomb during only one day and two nights; because He said (Matt. 12:40): "As Jonas was in the whale's belly three days and three nights: so shall the Son of man be in the heart of the earth three days and three nights." But He was in the heart of the earth while He was in the grave. Therefore He was not in the tomb for only one day and two nights.
Obj. 2: Gregory says in a Paschal Homily (Hom. xxi): "As Samson carried off the gates of Gaza during the night, even so Christ rose in the night, taking away the gates of hell." But after rising He was not in the tomb. Therefore He was not two whole nights in the grave.
Obj. 3: Further, light prevailed over darkness by Christ's death. But night belongs to darkness, and day to light. Therefore it was more fitting for Christ's body to be in the tomb for two days and a night, rather than conversely.
_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (De Trin. iv): "There were thirty-six hours from the evening of His burial to the dawn of the resurrection, that is, a whole night with a whole day, and a whole night."
_I answer that,_ The very time during which Christ remained in the tomb shows forth the effect of His death. For it was said above (Q. 50, A. 6) that by Christ's death we were delivered from a twofold death, namely, from the death of the soul and of the body: and this is signified by the two nights during which He remained in the tomb. But since His death did not come of sin, but was endured from charity, it has not the semblance of night, but of day: consequently it is denoted by the whole day during which Christ was in the sepulchre. And so it was fitting for Christ to be in the sepulchre during one day and two nights.
Reply Obj. 1: Augustine says (De Consens. Evang. iii): "Some men, ignorant of Scriptural language, wished to compute as night those three hours, from the sixth to the ninth hour, during which the sun was darkened, and as day those other three hours during which it was restored to the earth, that is, from the ninth hour until its setting: for the coming night of the Sabbath follows, and if this be reckoned with its day, there will be already two nights and two days. Now after the Sabbath there follows the night of the first day of the Sabbath, that is, of the dawning Sunday, on which the Lord rose. Even so, the reckoning of the three days and three nights will not stand. It remains then to find the solution in the customary usage of speech of the Scriptures, whereby the whole is understood from the part": so that we are able to take a day and a night as one natural day. And so the first day is computed from its ending, during which Christ died and was buried on the Friday; while the second day is an entire day with twenty-four hours of night and day; while the night following belongs to the third day. "For as the primitive days were computed from light to night on account of man's future fall, so these days are computed from the darkness to the daylight on account of man's restoration" (De Trin. iv).
Reply Obj. 2: As Augustine says (De Trin. iv; cf. De Consens. Evang. iii), Christ rose with the dawn, when light appears in part, and still some part of the darkness of the night remains. Hence it is said of the women that "when it was yet dark" they came "to the sepulchre" (John 20:1). Therefore, in consequence of this darkness, Gregory says (Hom. xxi) that Christ rose in the middle of the night, not that night is divided into two equal parts, but during the night itself: for the expression "early" can be taken as partly night and partly day, from its fittingness with both.
Reply Obj. 3: The light prevailed so far in Christ's death (which is denoted by the one day) that it dispelled the darkness of the two nights, that is, of our twofold death, as stated above. _______________________

12:41 Viri Ninivitae surgent in judicio cum generatione ista, et condemnabunt eam : quia poenitentiam egerunt in praedicatione Jonae, et ecce plus quam Jonas hic.

* Footnotes

* Jonas 3:5
And the men of Ninive believed in God: and they proclaimed a fast, and put on sackcloth from the greatest to the least.

The men of Ninive shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: because they did penance at the preaching of Jonas. And behold a greater than Jonas here.

Ἄνδρες Νινευῖται ἀναστήσονται ἐν τῇ κρίσει μετὰ τῆς γενεᾶς ταύτης καὶ κατακρινοῦσιν αὐτήν· ὅτι μετενόησαν εἰς τὸ κήρυγμα Ἰωνᾶ, καὶ ἰδού, πλεῖον Ἰωνᾶ ὧδε."

12:42 Regina austri surget in judicio cum generatione ista, et condemnabit eam : quia venit a finibus terrae audire sapientiam Salomonis, et ecce plus quam Salomon hic.

* Footnotes

* 3_Kings 10:1
And the queen of Saba having heard of the fame of Solomon in the name of the Lord, came to try him with hard questions.
* 2_Paralipomenon 9:1
And when the queen of Saba heard of the fame of Solomon, she came to try him with hard questions at Jerusalem, with great riches, and camels, which carried spices, and abundance of gold, and precious stones. And when she was come to Solomon, she proposed to him all that was in her heart.

*H The queen of the south shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: because she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon, and behold a greater than Solomon here.

Ver. 42. Queen of Saba, a province of Arabia, situated to the south of Judea. 3 K. x. 1. and seq.

Βασίλισσα νότου ἐγερθήσεται ἐν τῇ κρίσει μετὰ τῆς γενεᾶς ταύτης καὶ κατακρινεῖ αὐτήν· ὅτι ἦλθεν ἐκ τῶν περάτων τῆς γῆς ἀκοῦσαι τὴν σοφίαν Σολομῶνος· καὶ ἰδού, πλεῖον Σολομῶνος ὧδε."

12:43 Cum autem immundus spiritus exierit ab homine, ambulat per loca arida, quaerens requiem, et non invenit.

* Footnotes

* Luke 11:24
When the unclean spirit is gone out of a man, he walketh through places without water, seeking rest: and not finding, he saith: I will return into my house whence I came out.

And when an unclean spirit is gone out of a man he walketh through dry places seeking rest, and findeth none.

Ὅταν δὲ τὸ ἀκάθαρτον πνεῦμα ἐξέλθῃ ἀπὸ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, διέρχεται δι’ ἀνύδρων τόπων, ζητοῦν ἀνάπαυσιν, καὶ οὐχ εὑρίσκει."

12:44 Tunc dicit : Revertar in domum meam, unde exivi. Et veniens invenit eam vacantem, scopis mundatam, et ornatam.

Then he saith: I will return into my house from whence I came out. And coming he findeth it empty, swept, and garnished.

Τότε λέγει, Ἐπιστρέψω εἰς τὸν οἶκόν μου ὅθεν ἐξῆλθον. Καὶ ἐλθὸν εὑρίσκει σχολάζοντα, σεσαρωμένον καὶ κεκοσμημένον."

* Summa

*S Part 1, Ques 114, Article 5

 [I, Q. 114, Art. 5]
Whether a Demon Who Is Overcome by Man, Is for This Reason Hindered from Making Further Assaults?
Objection 1: It would seem that a demon who is overcome by a man, is not for that reason hindered from any further assault. For Christ overcame the tempter most effectively. Yet afterwards the demon assailed Him by instigating the Jews to kill Him. Therefore it is not true that the devil when conquered ceases his assaults.
Obj. 2: Further, to inflict punishment on one who has been worsted in a fight, is to incite him to a sharper attack. But this is not befitting God's mercy. Therefore the conquered demons are not prevented from further assaults.
_On the contrary,_ It is written (Matt. 4:11): "Then the devil left Him," i.e. Christ Who overcame.
_I answer that,_ Some say that when once a demon has been overcome he can no more tempt any man at all, neither to the same nor to any other sin. And others say that he can tempt others, but not the same man. This seems more probable as long as we understand it to be so for a certain definite time: wherefore (Luke 4:13) it is written: "All temptation being ended, the devil departed from Him for a time." There are two reasons for this. One is on the part of God's clemency; for as Chrysostom says (Super Matt. Hom. v) [*In the Opus Imperfectum, among his supposititious works], "the devil does not tempt man for just as long as he likes, but for as long as God allows; for although He allows him to tempt for a short time, He orders him off on account of our weakness." The other reason is taken from the astuteness of the devil. As to this, Ambrose says on Luke 4:13: "The devil is afraid of persisting, because he shrinks from frequent defeat." That the devil does nevertheless sometimes return to the assault, is apparent from Matt. 12:44: "I will return into my house from whence I came out."
From what has been said, the objections can easily be solved. _______________________

12:45 Tunc vadit, et assumit septem alios spiritus secum nequiores se, et intrantes habitant ibi : et fiunt novissima hominis illius pejora prioribus. Sic erit et generationi huic pessimae.

* Footnotes

* 2_Peter 2:20
For if, flying from the pollutions of the world, through the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they be again entangled in them and overcome: their latter state is become unto them worse than the former.

*H Then he goeth, and taketh with him seven other spirits more wicked than himself, and they enter in and dwell there: and the last state of that man is made worse than the first. So shall it be also to this wicked generation.

Ver. 45. Seven is taken frequently, in Scripture, for an indefinite number; for several. V.

Τότε πορεύεται καὶ παραλαμβάνει μεθ’ ἑαυτοῦ ἑπτὰ ἕτερα πνεύματα πονηρότερα ἑαυτοῦ, καὶ εἰσελθόντα κατοικεῖ ἐκεῖ· καὶ γίνεται τὰ ἔσχατα τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐκείνου χείρονα τῶν πρώτων. Οὕτως ἔσται καὶ τῇ γενεᾷ ταύτῃ τῇ πονηρᾷ."

* Summa

*S Part 2, Ques 68, Article 1

 [I-II, Q. 68, Art. 1]
Whether the Gifts Differ from the Virtues?
Objection 1: It would seem that the gifts do not differ from the virtues. For Gregory commenting on Job 1:2, "There were born to him seven sons," says (Moral. i, 12): "Seven sons were born to us, when through the conception of heavenly thought, the seven virtues of the Holy Ghost take birth in us": and he quotes the words of Isa. 11:2, 3: "And the Spirit . . . of understanding . . . shall rest upon him," etc. where the seven gifts of the Holy Ghost are enumerated. Therefore the seven gifts of the Holy Ghost are virtues.
Obj. 2: Further, Augustine commenting on Matt. 12:45, "Then he goeth and taketh with him seven other spirits," etc., says (De Quaest. Evang. i, qu. 8): "The seven vices are opposed to the seven virtues of the Holy Ghost," i.e. to the seven gifts. Now the seven vices are opposed to the seven virtues, commonly so called. Therefore the gifts do not differ from the virtues commonly so called.
Obj. 3: Further, things whose definitions are the same, are themselves the same. But the definition of virtue applies to the gifts; for each gift is "a good quality of the mind, whereby we lead a good life," etc. [*Cf. Q. 55, A. 4]. Likewise the definition of a gift can apply to the infused virtues: for a gift is "an unreturnable giving," according to the Philosopher (Topic. iv, 4). Therefore the virtues and gifts do not differ from one another.
Obj. 4: Several of the things mentioned among the gifts, are virtues: for, as stated above (Q. 57, A. 2), wisdom, understanding, and knowledge are intellectual virtues, counsel pertains to prudence, piety to a kind of justice, and fortitude is a moral virtue. Therefore it seems that the gifts do not differ from the virtues.
_On the contrary,_ Gregory (Moral. i, 12) distinguishes seven gifts, which he states to be denoted by the seven sons of Job, from the three theological virtues, which, he says, are signified by Job's three daughters. He also distinguishes (Moral. ii, 26) the same seven gifts from the four cardinal virtues, which he says were signified by the four corners of the house.
_I answer that,_ If we speak of gift and virtue with regard to the notion conveyed by the words themselves, there is no opposition between them. Because the word "virtue" conveys the notion that it perfects man in relation to well-doing, while the word "gift" refers to the cause from which it proceeds. Now there is no reason why that which proceeds from one as a gift should not perfect another in well-doing: especially as we have already stated (Q. 63, A. 3) that some virtues are infused into us by God. Wherefore in this respect we cannot differentiate gifts from virtues. Consequently some have held that the gifts are not to be distinguished from the virtues. But there remains no less a difficulty for them to solve; for they must explain why some virtues are called gifts and some not; and why among the gifts there are some, fear, for instance, that are not reckoned virtues.
Hence it is that others have said that the gifts should be held as being distinct from the virtues; yet they have not assigned a suitable reason for this distinction, a reason, to wit, which would apply either to all the virtues, and to none of the gifts, or vice versa. For, seeing that of the seven gifts, four belong to the reason, viz. wisdom, knowledge, understanding and counsel, and three to the appetite, viz. fortitude, piety and fear; they held that the gifts perfect the free-will according as it is a faculty of the reason, while the virtues perfect it as a faculty of the will: since they observed only two virtues in the reason or intellect, viz. faith and prudence, the others being in the appetitive power or the affections. If this distinction were true, all the virtues would have to be in the appetite, and all the gifts in the reason.
Others observing that Gregory says (Moral. ii, 26) that "the gift of the Holy Ghost, by coming into the soul endows it with prudence, temperance, justice, and fortitude, and at the same time strengthens it against every kind of temptation by His sevenfold gift," said that the virtues are given us that we may do good works, and the gifts, that we may resist temptation. But neither is this distinction sufficient. Because the virtues also resist those temptations which lead to the sins that are contrary to the virtues; for everything naturally resists its contrary: which is especially clear with regard to charity, of which it is written (Cant. 8:7): "Many waters cannot quench charity."
Others again, seeing that these gifts are set down in Holy Writ as having been in Christ, according to Isa. 11:2, 3, said that the virtues are given simply that we may do good works, but the gifts, in order to conform us to Christ, chiefly with regard to His Passion, for it was then that these gifts shone with the greatest splendor. Yet neither does this appear to be a satisfactory distinction. Because Our Lord Himself wished us to be conformed to Him, chiefly in humility and meekness, according to Matt. 11:29: "Learn of Me, because I am meek and humble of heart," and in charity, according to John 15:12: "Love one another, as I have loved you." Moreover, these virtues were especially resplendent in Christ's Passion.
Accordingly, in order to differentiate the gifts from the virtues, we must be guided by the way in which Scripture expresses itself, for we find there that the term employed is "spirit" rather than "gift." For thus it is written (Isa. 11:2, 3): "The spirit . . . of wisdom and of understanding . . . shall rest upon him," etc.: from which words we are clearly given to understand that these seven are there set down as being in us by Divine inspiration. Now inspiration denotes motion from without. For it must be noted that in man there is a twofold principle of movement, one within him, viz. the reason; the other extrinsic to him, viz. God, as stated above (Q. 9, AA. 4, 6): moreover the Philosopher says this in the chapter On Good Fortune (Ethic. Eudem. vii, 8).
Now it is evident that whatever is moved must be proportionate to its mover: and the perfection of the mobile as such, consists in a disposition whereby it is disposed to be well moved by its mover. Hence the more exalted the mover, the more perfect must be the disposition whereby the mobile is made proportionate to its mover: thus we see that a disciple needs a more perfect disposition in order to receive a higher teaching from his master. Now it is manifest that human virtues perfect man according as it is natural for him to be moved by his reason in his interior and exterior actions. Consequently man needs yet higher perfections, whereby to be disposed to be moved by God. These perfections are called gifts, not only because they are infused by God, but also because by them man is disposed to become amenable to the Divine inspiration, according to Isa. 50:5: "The Lord . . . hath opened my ear, and I do not resist; I have not gone back." Even the Philosopher says in the chapter On Good Fortune (Ethic. Eudem., vii, 8) that for those who are moved by Divine instinct, there is no need to take counsel according to human reason, but only to follow their inner promptings, since they are moved by a principle higher than human reason. This then is what some say, viz. that the gifts perfect man for acts which are higher than acts of virtue.
Reply Obj. 1: Sometimes these gifts are called virtues, in the broad sense of the word. Nevertheless, they have something over and above the virtues understood in this broad way, in so far as they are Divine virtues, perfecting man as moved by God. Hence the Philosopher (Ethic. vii, 1) above virtue commonly so called, places a kind of "heroic" or "divine virtue [*_arete heroike kai theia_]," in respect of which some men are called "divine."
Reply Obj. 2: The vices are opposed to the virtues, in so far as they are opposed to the good as appointed by reason; but they are opposed to the gifts, in as much as they are opposed to the Divine instinct. For the same thing is opposed both to God and to reason, whose light flows from God.
Reply Obj. 3: This definition applies to virtue taken in its general sense. Consequently, if we wish to restrict it to virtue as distinguished from the gifts, we must explain the words, "whereby we lead a good life" as referring to the rectitude of life which is measured by the rule of reason. Likewise the gifts, as distinct from infused virtue, may be defined as something given by God in relation to His motion; something, to wit, that makes man to follow well the promptings of God.
Reply Obj. 4: Wisdom is called an intellectual virtue, so far as it proceeds from the judgment of reason: but it is called a gift, according as its work proceeds from the Divine prompting. The same applies to the other virtues. ________________________
SECOND 

12:46 Adhuc eo loquente ad turbas, ecce mater ejus et fratres stabant foris, quaerentes loqui ei.

* Footnotes

* Mark 3:31
And his mother and his brethren came; and standing without, sent unto him, calling him.
* Luke 8:19
And his mother and brethren came unto him: and they could not come at him for the crowd.

*H As he was yet speaking to the multitudes, behold his mother and his brethren stood without, seeking to speak to him.

Ver. 46. His mother and his brethren; i.e. his mother and relations. Wi. — See verse 55 of the next chapter. Ch.

¶Ἔτι δὲ αὐτοῦ λαλοῦντος τοῖς ὄχλοις, ἰδού, ἡ μήτηρ καὶ οἱ ἀδελφοὶ αὐτοῦ εἱστήκεισαν ἔξω, ζητοῦντες αὐτῷ λαλῆσαι."

12:47 Dixit autem ei quidam : Ecce mater tua, et fratres tui foris stant quaerentes te.

And one said unto him: Behold thy mother and thy brethren stand without, seeking thee.

Εἶπεν δέ τις αὐτῷ, Ἰδού, ἡ μήτηρ σου καὶ οἱ ἀδελφοί σου ἔξω ἑστήκασιν, ζητοῦντές σοι λαλῆσαι."

12:48 At ipse respondens dicenti sibi, ait : Quae est mater mea, et qui sunt fratres mei ?

But he answering him that told him, said: Who is my mother, and who are my brethren?

Ὁ δὲ ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπεν τῷ εἰπόντι αὐτῷ, Τίς ἐστιν ἡ μήτηρ μου; Καὶ τίνες εἰσὶν οἱ ἀδελφοί μου;"

12:49 Et extendens manum in discipulos suos, dixit : Ecce mater mea, et fratres mei.

And stretching forth his hand towards his disciples, he said: Behold my mother and my brethren.

Καὶ ἐκτείνας τὴν χεῖρα αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ τοὺς μαθητὰς αὐτοῦ εἶπεν, Ἰδού, ἡ μήτηρ μου καὶ οἱ ἀδελφοί μου."

* Summa

*S Part 4, Ques 28, Article 3

 [III, Q. 28, Art. 3]
Whether Christ's Mother Remained a Virgin After His Birth?
Objection 1: It would seem that Christ's Mother did not remain a virgin after His Birth. For it is written (Matt. 1:18): "Before Joseph and Mary came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost." Now the Evangelist would not have said this--"before they came together"--unless he were certain of their subsequent coming together; for no one says of one who does not eventually dine "before he dines" (cf. Jerome, Contra Helvid.). It seems, therefore, that the Blessed Virgin subsequently had intercourse with Joseph; and consequently that she did not remain a virgin after (Christ's) Birth.
Obj. 2: Further, in the same passage (Matt. 1:20) are related the words of the angel to Joseph: "Fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife." But marriage is consummated by carnal intercourse. Therefore it seems that this must have at some time taken place between Mary and Joseph: and that, consequently she did not remain a virgin after (Christ's) Birth.
Obj. 3: Further, again in the same passage a little further on (Matt. 1:24, 25) we read: "And" (Joseph) "took unto him his wife; and he knew her not till she brought forth her first-born Son." Now this conjunction "till" is wont to designate a fixed time, on the completion of which that takes place which previously had not taken place. And the verb "knew" refers here to knowledge by intercourse (cf. Jerome, Contra Helvid.); just as (Gen. 4:1) it is said that "Adam knew his wife." Therefore it seems that after (Christ's) Birth, the Blessed Virgin was known by Joseph; and, consequently, that she did not remain a virgin after the Birth (of Christ).
Obj. 4: Further, "first-born" can only be said of one who has brothers afterwards: wherefore (Rom. 8:29): "Whom He foreknew, He also predestinated to be made conformable to the image of His Son; that He might be the first-born among many brethren." But the evangelist calls Christ the first-born by His Mother. Therefore she had other children after Christ. And therefore it seems that Christ's Mother did not remain a virgin after His Birth.
Obj. 5: Further, it is written (John 2:12): "After this He went down to Capharnaum, He"--that is, Christ--"and His Mother and His brethren." But brethren are those who are begotten of the same parent. Therefore it seems that the Blessed Virgin had other sons after Christ.
Obj. 6: Further, it is written (Matt. 27:55, 56): "There were there"--that is, by the cross of Christ--"many women afar off, who had followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering unto Him; among whom was Mary Magdalen, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee." Now this Mary who is called "the mother of James and Joseph" seems to have been also the Mother of Christ; for it is written (John 19:25) that "there stood by the cross of Jesus, Mary His Mother." Therefore it seems that Christ's Mother did not remain a virgin after His Birth.
_On the contrary,_ It is written (Ezech. 44:2): "This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall pass through it; because the Lord the God of Israel hath entered in by it." Expounding these words, Augustine says in a sermon (De Annunt. Dom. iii): "What means this closed gate in the House of the Lord, except that Mary is to be ever inviolate? What does it mean that 'no man shall pass through it,' save that Joseph shall not know her? And what is this--'The Lord alone enters in and goeth out by it'--except that the Holy Ghost shall impregnate her, and that the Lord of angels shall be born of her? And what means this--'it shall be shut for evermore'--but that Mary is a virgin before His Birth, a virgin in His Birth, and a virgin after His Birth?"
_I answer that,_ Without any hesitation we must abhor the error of Helvidius, who dared to assert that Christ's Mother, after His Birth, was carnally known by Joseph, and bore other children. For, in the first place, this is derogatory to Christ's perfection: for as He is in His Godhead the Only-Begotten of the Father, being thus His Son in every respect perfect, so it was becoming that He should be the Only-begotten son of His Mother, as being her perfect offspring.
Secondly, this error is an insult to the Holy Ghost, whose "shrine" was the virginal womb [*"Sacrarium Spiritus Sancti" (Office of B. M. V., Ant. ad Benedictus, T. P.)], wherein He had formed the flesh of Christ: wherefore it was unbecoming that it should be desecrated by intercourse with man.
Thirdly, this is derogatory to the dignity and holiness of God's Mother: for thus she would seem to be most ungrateful, were she not content with such a Son; and were she, of her own accord, by carnal intercourse to forfeit that virginity which had been miraculously preserved in her.
Fourthly, it would be tantamount to an imputation of extreme presumption in Joseph, to assume that he attempted to violate her whom by the angel's revelation he knew to have conceived by the Holy Ghost.
We must therefore simply assert that the Mother of God, as she was a virgin in conceiving Him and a virgin in giving Him birth, did she remain a virgin ever afterwards.
Reply Obj. 1: As Jerome says (Contra Helvid. i): "Although this particle 'before' often indicates a subsequent event, yet we must observe that it not infrequently points merely to some thing previously in the mind: nor is there need that what was in the mind take place eventually, since something may occur to prevent its happening. Thus if a man say: 'Before I dined in the port, I set sail,' we do not understand him to have dined in port after he set sail: but that his mind was set on dining in port." In like manner the evangelist says: "Before they came together" Mary "was found with child, of the Holy Ghost," not that they came together afterwards: but that, when it seemed that they would come together, this was forestalled through her conceiving by the Holy Ghost, the result being that afterwards they did not come together.
Reply Obj. 2: As Augustine says (De Nup. et Concup. i): "The Mother of God is called (Joseph's) wife from the first promise of her espousals, whom he had not known nor ever was to know by carnal intercourse." For, as Ambrose says on Luke 1:27: "The fact of her marriage is declared, not to insinuate the loss of virginity, but to witness to the reality of the union."
Reply Obj. 3: Some have said that this is not to be understood of carnal knowledge, but of acquaintance. Thus Chrysostom says [*Opus Imperf. in Matth., Hom. 1: among the spurious works ascribed to Chrysostom] that "Joseph did not know her, until she gave birth, being unaware of her dignity: but after she had given birth, then did he know her. Because by reason of her child she surpassed the whole world in beauty and dignity: since she alone in the narrow abode of her womb received Him Whom the world cannot contain."
Others again refer this to knowledge by sight. For as, while Moses was speaking with God, his face was so bright "that the children of Israel could not steadfastly behold it"; so Mary, while being "overshadowed" by the brightness of the "power of the Most High," could not be gazed on by Joseph, until she gave birth. But afterwards she is acknowledged by Joseph, by looking on her face, not by lustful contact.
Jerome, however, grants that this is to be understood of knowledge by intercourse; but he observes that "before" or "until" has a twofold sense in Scripture. For sometimes it indicates a fixed time, as Gal. 3:19: The law "was set because of transgressions, until the seed should come, to whom He made the promise." On the other hand, it sometimes indicates an indefinite time, as in Ps. 122:2: "Our eyes are unto the Lord our God, until He have mercy on us"; from which it is not to be gathered that our eyes are turned from God as soon as His mercy has been obtained. In this sense those things are indicated "of which we might doubt if they had not been written down: while others are left out to be supplied by our understanding. Thus the evangelist says that the Mother of God was not known by her husband until she gave birth, that we may be given to understand that still less did he know her afterwards" (Adversus Helvid. v).
Reply Obj. 4: The Scriptures are wont to designate as the first-born, not only a child who is followed by others, but also the one that is born first. "Otherwise, if a child were not first-born unless followed by others, the first-fruits would not be due as long as there was no further produce" [*Jerome, Adversus Helvid. x]: which is clearly false, since according to the law the first-fruits had to be redeemed within a month (Num. 18:16).
Reply Obj. 5: Some, as Jerome says on Matt. 12:49, 50, "suppose that the brethren of the Lord were Joseph's sons by another wife. But we understand the brethren of the Lord to be not sons of Joseph, but cousins of the Saviour, the sons of Mary, His Mother's sister." For "Scripture speaks of brethren in four senses; namely, those who are united by being of the same parents, of the same nation, of the same family, by common affection." Wherefore the brethren of the Lord are so called, not by birth, as being born of the same mother; but by relationship, as being blood-relations of His. But Joseph, as Jerome says (Contra Helvid. ix), is rather to be believed to have remained a virgin, "since he is not said to have had another wife," and "a holy man does not live otherwise than chastely."
Reply Obj. 6: Mary who is called "the mother of James and Joseph" is not to be taken for the Mother of our Lord, who is not wont to be named in the Gospels save under this designation of her dignity--"the Mother of Jesus." This Mary is to be taken for the wife of Alphaeus, whose son was James the less, known as the "brother of the Lord" (Gal. 1:19). _______________________
FOURTH 

12:50 Quicumque enim fecerit voluntatem Patris mei, qui in caelis est, ipse meus frater, et soror, et mater est.

For whosoever shall do the will of my Father, that is in heaven, he is my brother, and sister, and mother.

Ὅστις γὰρ ἂν ποιήσῃ τὸ θέλημα τοῦ πατρός μου τοῦ ἐν οὐρανοῖς, αὐτός μου ἀδελφὸς καὶ ἀδελφὴ καὶ μήτηρ ἐστίν."

Prev Next

Old Testament

New Testament

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.

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.