Click *H for Haydock Commentary. *Footnote for footnote etc.
Click any word in Latin Greek or Hebrew to activate the parser. Then click on the display to expand the parser.
* Footnotes
-
*
Exodus
13:3
And Moses said to the people: Remember this day in which you came forth out of Egypt, and out of the house of bondage, for with a strong hand hath the Lord brought you forth out of this place: that you eat no leavened bread.
*H Alleluia. WHEN Israel went out of Egypt, the house of Jacob from a barbarous people:
Ver. 1. [or 9.] Not. Some Jews here commence the 115th psalm. H. — But S. Augustin shews, that this part is well connected with the preceding, the true God being known by his works, while idols are senseless, and therefore can have no pretensions to divine worship. W. — It seems that the psalmist would not break off so abruptly, without praising God for his wondrous works, and the Fathers are silent about the present division of the Heb. (Bert.) though Eusebius and S. Athanasius had occasion to examine the text, as some Gr. copies end here, and others at v. 12, the idols, &c. — Glory. We claim no share in these miracles; or we confess our unworthiness, but do thou deliver us. C. — Thou hast done these wonders to fulfil thy gracious promises, and to prevent blasphemy. W.
*H Judea was made his sanctuary, Israel his dominion.
Ver. 2. Judea. Heb. "Juda," though the sense of the Vulg. is very good, (Bert.) as that country which had been so abandoned, became holy, when God's people dwelt there. S. Chrys. — After the departure from Egypt, the Israelites were more known as God's inheritance, over whom he reigned. W. Ex. xix. 6. — Hence He complains, when they asked for a king, (1 K. viii. 7.) though the throne is still called the Lord's. 1 Par. xxix. 23. The distinction of Juda and Israel insinuates that the kingdom had been divided. C. — But this had taken place for a time, after the death of Saul. H.
*H The sea saw and fled: Jordan was turned back.
Ver. 3. [or 11.] Heaven. Sept. add, "and on earth," which S. Augustin joins with the following words, he, &c. We cannot indeed point God out, as we might do idols. But then what sort of gods are they? C. — Viler than insects. Theod.
* Summa
*S Part 4, Ques 39, Article 4
[III, Q. 39, Art. 4]
Whether Christ Should Have Been Baptized in the Jordan?
Objection 1: It would seem that Christ should not have been baptized in the Jordan. For the reality should correspond to the figure. But baptism was prefigured in the crossing of the Red Sea, where the Egyptians were drowned, just as our sins are blotted out in baptism. Therefore it seems that Christ should rather have been baptized in the sea than in the river Jordan.
Obj. 2: Further, "Jordan" is interpreted a "going down." But by baptism a man goes up rather than down: wherefore it is written (Matt. 3:16) that "Jesus being baptized, forthwith came up [Douay: 'out'] from the water." Therefore it seems unfitting that Christ should be baptized in the Jordan.
Obj. 3: Further, while the children of Israel were crossing, the waters of the Jordan "were turned back," as it is related Jos. 4, and as it is written Ps. 113:3, 5. But those who are baptized go forward, not back. Therefore it was not fitting that Christ should be baptized in the Jordan.
_On the contrary,_ It is written (Mk. 1:9) that "Jesus was baptized by John in the Jordan."
_I answer that,_ It was through the river Jordan that the children of Israel entered into the land of promise. Now, this is the prerogative of Christ's baptism over all other baptisms: that it is the entrance to the kingdom of God, which is signified by the land of promise; wherefore it is said (John 3:5): "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." To this also is to be referred the dividing of the water of the Jordan by Elias, who was to be snatched up into heaven in a fiery chariot, as it is related 4 Kings 2: because, to wit, the approach to heaven is laid open by the fire of the Holy Ghost, to those who pass through the waters of baptism. Therefore it was fitting that Christ should be baptized in the Jordan.
Reply Obj. 1: The crossing of the Red Sea foreshadowed baptism in this--that baptism washes away sin: whereas the crossing of the Jordan foreshadows it in this--that it opens the gate to the heavenly kingdom: and this is the principal effect of baptism, and accomplished through Christ alone. And therefore it was fitting that Christ should be baptized in the Jordan rather than in the sea.
Reply Obj. 2: In baptism we "go up" by advancing in grace: for which we need to "go down" by humility, according to James 4:6: "He giveth grace to the humble." And to this "going down" must the name of the Jordan be referred.
Reply Obj. 3: As Augustine says in a sermon for the Epiphany (x): "As of yore the waters of the Jordan were held back, so now, when Christ was baptized, the torrent of sin was held back." Or else this may signify that against the downward flow of the waters the river of blessings flowed upwards. _______________________
FIFTH
*H The mountains skipped like rams, and the hills like the lambs of the flock.
Ver. 4. [or 12.] Men. All Catholics agree, that idolatry is the "giving of divine honour to any creature." S. Justin, (con. Gent.) S. Aug. in the ten first books of the City of God, and other Fathers, refute all the species of idolatry. The Platonists adored the angels, or devils, intelligentias separatas. Others worshipped dead or living men renowned for their achievements, like Jupiter and Hercules; while some paid the same sovereign respect to animals, or even to inanimate things, both in themselves and in their images. The psalmist here derides the most gross species of idols, which are made by men, and are incapable of any vital action, being thus beneath the very beasts. Yet some were so absurd as to confide in them, (v. 16. W. or 8. H.) and thereby neglected the light of reason, becoming slaves of the devils, who were either the objects of adoration, as in the compacts made by sorcerers, or at least seduced mankind to pay such worship to creatures. Hence all the gods of the Gentiles are styled devils. Ps. xcv. 5. W. — How unjustly do heretics apply these words to the holy images used in the Church! though they must know (H.) that Catholics do not consider them as gods, no more than the saints and angels, whom they reverence only as the friends of God: treating their pictures with a relative honour, and endeavouring thus to excite themselves to the pursuit of virtue, by the memory of what they have done. Bert.
*H At the presence of the Lord the earth was moved, at the presence of the God of Jacob:
Ver. 7. [or 15.] Throat. Rom. and Milan Psal. add, neither is there any breath in their mouths, which occurs, (Ps. cxxxiv. 17.) instead of this sentence. H. — Juvenal (Sat. 13.) laughs at the silence of Jupiter's statue. C.
*H Who turned the rock into pools of water, and the stony hill into fountains of waters.
Ver. 8. [or 16.] Let. Zeal prompts him to make this imprecation, (C.) or prophecy. Heb. they "are or shall be." The pagans (H.) could not well find fault with this wish, (M.) as it would be a great honour to resemble real gods. Yet none of their statuaries would be willing to become such statues, or be charged with the wicked conduct of Jupiter, &c. S. Chrys. Bert. — The psalmist justly conforms his will to God's decree; and still would rejoice if he should give the idolaters grace to repent. W.
*H Not to us, O Lord, not to us; but to thy name give glory.
Ver. 9. [or 17.] The house, is not now in Heb. But it occurs in the parallel passage, (Ps. cxxxiv.) where the imperative is used, as the Heb. is here pointed. C. — "Israel trusts...house of Aaron, trust ye in the Lord," (Mont.) which is much in favour of this text, though S. Jerom, &c. agree with the Sept. C. — Houbigant rejects the Heb. reading, and the house of Israel occurs, v. 12. Bert. — All the people, the priests, and converts from paganism, are invited to praise the Lord. S. Chrys. Acts ii. 5. and x. 2. and xiii. 16. C. — The Church always comprised two distinct orders, the clergy and the laity. M.
* Summa
*S Part 1, Ques 19, Article 6
[I, Q. 19, Art. 6]
Whether the Will of God Is Always Fulfilled?
Objection 1: It seems that the will of God is not always fulfilled. For the Apostle says (1 Tim. 2:4): "God will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth." But this does not happen. Therefore the will of God is not always fulfilled.
Obj. 2: Further, as is the relation of knowledge to truth, so is that of the will to good. Now God knows all truth. Therefore He wills all good. But not all good actually exists; for much more good might exist. Therefore the will of God is not always fulfilled.
Obj. 3: Further, since the will of God is the first cause, it does not exclude intermediate causes. But the effect of a first cause may be hindered by a defect of a secondary cause; as the effect of the motive power may be hindered by the weakness of the limb. Therefore the effect of the divine will may be hindered by a defect of the secondary causes. The will of God, therefore, is not always fulfilled.
_On the contrary,_ It is said (Ps. 113:11): "God hath done all things, whatsoever He would."
_I answer that,_ The will of God must needs always be fulfilled. In proof of which we must consider that since an effect is conformed to the agent according to its form, the rule is the same with active causes as with formal causes. The rule in forms is this: that although a thing may fall short of any particular form, it cannot fall short of the universal form. For though a thing may fail to be, for example, a man or a living being, yet it cannot fail to be a being. Hence the same must happen in active causes. Something may fall outside the order of any particular active cause, but not outside the order of the universal cause; under which all particular causes are included: and if any particular cause fails of its effect, this is because of the hindrance of some other particular cause, which is included in the order of the universal cause. Therefore an effect cannot possibly escape the order of the universal cause. Even in corporeal things this is clearly seen. For it may happen that a star is hindered from producing its effects; yet whatever effect does result, in corporeal things, from this hindrance of a corporeal cause, must be referred through intermediate causes to the universal influence of the first heaven. Since, then, the will of God is the universal cause of all things, it is impossible that the divine will should not produce its effect. Hence that which seems to depart from the divine will in one order, returns into it in another order; as does the sinner, who by sin falls away from the divine will as much as lies in him, yet falls back into the order of that will, when by its justice he is punished.
Reply Obj. 1: The words of the Apostle, "God will have all men to be saved," etc. can be understood in three ways. First, by a restricted application, in which case they would mean, as Augustine says (De praed. sanct. i, 8: Enchiridion 103), "God wills all men to be saved that are saved, not because there is no man whom He does not wish saved, but because there is no man saved whose salvation He does not will." Secondly, they can be understood as applying to every class of individuals, not to every individual of each class; in which case they mean that God wills some men of every class and condition to be saved, males and females, Jews and Gentiles, great and small, but not all of every condition. Thirdly, according to Damascene (De Fide Orth. ii, 29), they are understood of the antecedent will of God; not of the consequent will. This distinction must not be taken as applying to the divine will itself, in which there is nothing antecedent nor consequent, but to the things willed.
To understand this we must consider that everything, in so far as it is good, is willed by God. A thing taken in its primary sense, and absolutely considered, may be good or evil, and yet when some additional circumstances are taken into account, by a consequent consideration may be changed into the contrary. Thus that a man should live is good; and that a man should be killed is evil, absolutely considered. But if in a particular case we add that a man is a murderer or dangerous to society, to kill him is a good; that he live is an evil. Hence it may be said of a just judge, that antecedently he wills all men to live; but consequently wills the murderer to be hanged. In the same way God antecedently wills all men to be saved, but consequently wills some to be damned, as His justice exacts. Nor do we will simply, what we will antecedently, but rather we will it in a qualified manner; for the will is directed to things as they are in themselves, and in themselves they exist under particular qualifications. Hence we will a thing simply inasmuch as we will it when all particular circumstances are considered; and this is what is meant by willing consequently. Thus it may be said that a just judge wills simply the hanging of a murderer, but in a qualified manner he would will him to live, to wit, inasmuch as he is a man. Such a qualified will may be called a willingness rather than an absolute will. Thus it is clear that whatever God simply wills takes place; although what He wills antecedently may not take place.
Reply Obj. 2: An act of the cognitive faculty is according as the thing known is in the knower; while an act of the appetite faculty is directed to things as they exist in themselves. But all that can have the nature of being and truth virtually exists in God, though it does not all exist in created things. Therefore God knows all truth; but does not will all good, except in so far as He wills Himself, in Whom all good virtually exists.
Reply Obj. 3: A first cause can be hindered in its effect by deficiency in the secondary cause, when it is not the universal first cause, including within itself all causes; for then the effect could in no way escape its order. And thus it is with the will of God, as said above. _______________________
SEVENTH
*S Part 4, Ques 13, Article 3
[III, Q. 13, Art. 3]
Whether the Soul of Christ Had Omnipotence with Regard to His Own Body?
Objection 1: It would seem that Christ's soul had omnipotence with regard to His own body. For Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 20, 23) that "all natural things were voluntary to Christ; He willed to hunger, He willed to thirst, He willed to fear, He willed to die." Now God is called omnipotent because "He hath done all things whatsoever He would" (Ps. 113:11). Therefore it seems that Christ's soul had omnipotence with regard to the natural operations of the body.
Obj. 2: Further, human nature was more perfect in Christ than in Adam, who had a body entirely subject to the soul, so that nothing could happen to the body against the will of the soul--and this on account of the original justice which it had in the state of innocence. Much more, therefore, had Christ's soul omnipotence with regard to His body.
Obj. 3: Further, the body is naturally changed by the imaginations of the soul; and so much more changed, the stronger the soul's imagination, as was said in the First Part (Q. 117, A. 3, ad 3). Now the soul of Christ had most perfect strength as regards both the imagination and the other powers. Therefore the soul of Christ was omnipotent with regard to His own body.
_On the contrary,_ It is written (Heb. 2:17) that "it behooved Him in all things to be made like unto His brethren," and especially as regards what belongs to the condition of human nature. But it belongs to the condition of human nature that the health of the body and its nourishment and growth are not subject to the bidding of reason or will, since natural things are subject to God alone Who is the author of nature. Therefore they were not subject in Christ. Therefore Christ's soul was not omnipotent with regard to His own body.
_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 2), Christ's soul may be viewed in two ways. First, in its proper nature and power; and in this way, as it was incapable of making exterior bodies swerve from the course and order of nature, so, too, was it incapable of changing its own body from its natural disposition, since the soul, of its own nature, has a determinate relation to its body. Secondly, Christ's soul may be viewed as an instrument united in person to God's Word; and thus every disposition of His own body was wholly subject to His power. Nevertheless, since the power of an action is not properly attributed to the instrument, but to the principal agent, this omnipotence is attributed to the Word of God rather than to Christ's soul.
Reply Obj. 1: This saying of Damascene refers to the Divine will of Christ, since, as he says in the preceding chapter (De Fide Orth. xix, 14, 15), it was by the consent of the Divine will that the flesh was allowed to suffer and do what was proper to it.
Reply Obj. 2: It was no part of the original justice which Adam had in the state of innocence that a man's soul should have the power of changing his own body to any form, but that it should keep it from any hurt. Yet Christ could have assumed even this power if He had wished. But since man has three states--viz. innocence, sin, and glory, even as from the state of glory He assumed comprehension and from the state of innocence, freedom from sin--so also from the state of sin did He assume the necessity of being under the penalties of this life, as will be said (Q. 14, A. 2).
Reply Obj. 3: If the imagination be strong, the body obeys naturally in some things, e.g. as regards falling from a beam set on high, since the imagination was formed to be a principle of local motion, as is said _De Anima_ iii, 9, 10. So, too, as regards alteration in heat and cold, and their consequences; for the passions of the soul, wherewith the heart is moved, naturally follow the imagination, and thus by commotion of the spirits the whole body is altered. But the other corporeal dispositions which have no natural relation to the imagination are not transmuted by the imagination, however strong it is, e.g. the shape of the hand, or foot, or such like. _______________________
FOURTH
*H The idols of the Gentiles are silver and gold, the works of the hands of men.
Ver. 12. [or 20.] Hath. Heb. "will be," which seems better. Let him bless us. C. — Both versions are true. Bert. Eph. i. 3.
*H Let them that make them become like unto them: and all such as trust in them.
Ver. 16. [or 24.] Of heaven. Or the highest heaven, in which God displays his glory, though he fill every place. H. — His benefits to man claim a return of gratitude, and we are not dispensed from shewing our adoration, as deists would hence unreasonably infer. Bert. — Worldly men say this in their hearts, abandoning their pretensions to heaven. W.
*H The house of Israel hath hoped in the Lord: he is their helper and their protector.
Ver. 17. [or 25.] The dead. People who are thus affected, give no praise to God, when they die, but descend into hell. W. — Criminals are therefore said to be dead, while the saints only sleep. S. Chrys. — Hell. Heb. "silence," or the tomb, (Bert.) where none can sound forth God's praises, (H.) though the soul in a state of separation may adore him. Bert. See Ps. vi. 6. and xxix. 10.
*H The house of Aaron hath hoped in the Lord: he is their helper and their protector.
Ver. 18. [or 26.] Live. In the state of justice, and aspiring to God's kingdom. While we use this world only as the means to ascend thither, we shall praise him for evermore. W.
* Summa
*S Part 3, Ques 86, Article 4
[II-II, Q. 86, Art. 4]
Whether Men Are Bound to Pay First-fruits?
Objection 1: It would seem that men are not bound to pay first-fruits. After giving the law of the first-born the text continues (Ex. 13:9): "It shall be as a sign in thy hand," so that, apparently, it is a ceremonial precept. But ceremonial precepts are not to be observed in the New Law. Neither therefore ought first-fruits to be paid.
Obj. 2: Further, first-fruits were offered to the Lord for a special favor conferred on that people, wherefore it is written (Deut. 26:2, 3): "Thou shalt take the first of all thy fruits . . . and thou shalt go to the priest that shall be in those days, and say to him: I profess this day before the Lord thy God, that I am come into the land, for which He swore to our fathers, that He would give it us." Therefore other nations are not bound to pay first-fruits.
Obj. 3: That which one is bound to do should be something definite. But neither in the New Law nor in the Old do we find mention of a definite amount of first-fruits. Therefore one is not bound of necessity to pay them.
_On the contrary,_ It is laid down (16, qu. vii, can. Decimas): "We confirm the right of priests to tithes and first-fruits, and everybody must pay them."
_I answer that,_ First-fruits are a kind of oblation, because they are offered to God with a certain profession (Deut. 26); where the same passage continues: "The priest taking the basket containing the first-fruits from the hand of him that bringeth the first-fruits, shall set it before the altar of the Lord thy God," and further on (Deut. 26:10) he is commanded to say: "Therefore now I offer the first-fruits of the land, which the Lord hath given me." Now the first-fruits were offered for a special reason, namely, in recognition of the divine favor, as though man acknowledged that he had received the fruits of the earth from God, and that he ought to offer something to God in return, according to 1 Paral 29:14, "We have given Thee what we received of Thy hand." And since what we offer God ought to be something special, hence it is that man was commanded to offer God his first-fruits, as being a special part of the fruits of the earth: and since a priest is "ordained for the people in the things that appertain to God" (Heb. 5:1), the first-fruits offered by the people were granted to the priest's use. Wherefore it is written (Num. 18:8): "The Lord said to Aaron: Behold I have given thee the charge of My first-fruits." Now it is a point of natural law that man should make an offering in God's honor out of the things he has received from God, but that the offering should be made to any particular person, or out of his first-fruits, or in such or such a quantity, was indeed determined in the Old Law by divine command; but in the New Law it is fixed by the declaration of the Church, in virtue of which men are bound to pay first-fruits according to the custom of their country and the needs of the Church's ministers.
Reply Obj. 1: The ceremonial observances were properly speaking signs of the future, and consequently they ceased when the foreshadowed truth was actually present. But the offering of first-fruits was for a sign of a past favor, whence arises the duty of acknowledgment in accordance with the dictate of natural reason. Hence taken in a general sense this obligation remains.
Reply Obj. 2: First-fruits were offered in the Old Law, not only on account of the favor of the promised land given by God, but also on account of the favor of the fruits of the earth, which were given by God. Hence it is written (Deut. 26:10): "I offer the first-fruits of the land which the Lord hath given me," which second motive is common among all people. We may also reply that just as God granted the land of promise to the Jews by a special favor, so by a general favor He bestowed the lordship of the earth on the whole of mankind, according to Ps. 113:24, "The earth He has given to the children of men."
Reply Obj. 3: As Jerome says [*Comment. in Ezech. 45:13, 14; cf. Cap. Decimam, de Decim. Primit. et Oblat.]: "According to the tradition of the ancients the custom arose for those who had most to give the priests a fortieth part, and those who had least, one sixtieth, in lieu of first-fruits." Hence it would seem that first-fruits should vary between these limits according to the custom of one's country. And it was reasonable that the amount of first-fruits should not be fixed by law, since, as stated above, first-fruits are offered by way of oblation, a condition of which is that it should be voluntary. _______________________