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.
*H Alleluia. Praise ye the Lord, because psalm is good: to our God be joyful and comely praise.
Ver. 1. Alleluia. In some editions of the Sept. (H.) and in Syr. Arab. &c. the same inscription occurs, as in the former psalms. Many ascribe this to the same authors, and to the same occasion. Heb. and Chal. have no title. Yet the psalm seems to be a thanksgiving (C.) for the permission to build the temple and walls of Jerusalem, (Orig.) which had been neglected, till God visited the people with a famine, v. 8. 2 Esd. v. 1. Agg. i. 6. Bossuet — Zorobabel, &c. urge the people to build. Syr. C. — Still David might compose this psalm, as he was a prophet, (Bert.) and he may allude to the beginning of his reign, when the people were all united. Jans. — Good. Agreeable and advantageous for us. — Praise. This consists in purity of life, rather than in the sweetest accents. C.
*H The Lord buildeth up Jerusalem: he will gather together the dispersed of Israel.
Ver. 2. Jerusalem. After the captivity, (W.) or at the beginning of David's reign, when he had taken Sion, and Israel acknowledged his dominion. 2 K. v. It may also allude to the Church, (Jo. xi. 51.) and to heaven. Heb. xii. 22. Apoc. xxi. Bert.
*H Who healeth the broken of heart, and bindeth up their bruises.
Ver. 3. Bruises. God delivered the captives, after chastising them. Deut. xxxii. 39. C. — He gives life to the penitent, as Christ healed the sick, &c. Is. lxi. 1. Bert.
*H Who telleth the number of the stars: and calleth them all by their names.
Ver. 4. Stars. Which to man are innumerable. Though some have counted 1022 with Ptolemy, yet the discovery of telescopes has shewn that many more are discernible, (C.) and none would dare at present to fix their number. Bert. — Cicero (Of. i.) treats this as a thing impossible. See Gen. xv. 5. C. — Ptolemy could only ascertain the number of the more notorious. W. — Kimchi admits 1098 created to shine, besides innumerable others, which have influence over plants, &c. God has the most perfect knowledge of all. They are like his soldiers, whom he knows by name, (Is. xl. 25.) as the good shepherd does his sheep. Jo. x. 3. C. — We read that Cyrus knew the name of all his officers, (Cyrop. v.) and that Adrian, and Scipio, the Asiatic, could even name all the soldiers in their armies.
*H Great is our Lord, and great is his power: and of his wisdom there is no number.
Ver. 5. Power. God the Son. Earthly monarchs are forced to depend on others for the execution of their orders. But God is infinite. C. — Number. He knows innumerable things: (W.) or rather, (H.) the divine wisdom hath no parts. Jer. x. 6. Bert.
* Summa
*S Part 4, Ques 70, Article 3
[III, Q. 70, Art. 3]
Whether the Rite of Circumcision Was Fitting?
Objection 1: It seems that the rite of circumcision was unfitting. For circumcision, as stated above (AA. 1, 2), was a profession of faith. But faith is in the apprehensive power, whose operations appear mostly in the head. Therefore the sign of circumcision should have been conferred on the head rather than on the virile member.
Obj. 2: Further, in the sacraments we make use of such things as are in more frequent use; for instance, water, which is used for washing, and bread, which we use for nourishment. But, in cutting, we use an iron knife more commonly than a stone knife. Therefore circumcision should not have been performed with a stone knife.
Obj. 3: Further, just as Baptism was instituted as a remedy against original sin, so also was circumcision, as Bede says (Hom. in Circum.). But now Baptism is not put off until the eighth day, lest children should be in danger of loss on account of original sin, if they should die before being baptized. On the other hand, sometimes Baptism is put off until after the eighth day. Therefore the eighth day should not have been fixed for circumcision, but this day should have been anticipated, just as sometimes it was deferred.
_On the contrary,_ The aforesaid rite of circumcision is fixed by a gloss on Rom. 4:11: "And he received the sign of circumcision."
_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 2), circumcision was established, as a sign of faith, by God "of" Whose "wisdom there is no number" (Ps. 146:5). Now to determine suitable signs is a work of wisdom. Consequently, it must be allowed that the rite of circumcision was fitting.
Reply Obj. 1: It was fitting for circumcision to be performed on the virile member. First, because it was a sign of that faith whereby Abraham believed that Christ would be born of his seed. Secondly, because it was to be a remedy against original sin, which is contracted through the act of generation. Thirdly, because it was ordained as a remedy for carnal concupiscence, which thrives principally in those members, by reason of the abundance of venereal pleasure.
Reply Obj. 2: A stone knife was not essential to circumcision. Wherefore we do not find that an instrument of this description is required by any divine precept; nor did the Jews, as a rule, make use of such a knife for circumcision; indeed, neither do they now. Nevertheless, certain well-known circumcisions are related as having been performed with a stone knife, thus (Ex. 4:25) we read that "Sephora took a very sharp stone and circumcised the foreskin of her son," and (Joshua 5:2): "Make thee knives of stone, and circumcise the second time the children of Israel." Which signified that spiritual circumcision would be done by Christ, of Whom it is written (1 Cor. 10:4): "Now the rock was Christ."
Reply Obj. 3: The eighth day was fixed for circumcision: first, because of the mystery; since, Christ, by taking away from the elect, not only guilt but also all penalties, will perfect the spiritual circumcision, in the eighth age (which is the age of those that rise again), as it were, on the eighth day. Secondly, on account of the tenderness of the infant before the eighth day. Wherefore even in regard to other animals it is prescribed (Lev. 22:27): "When a bullock, or a sheep, or a goat, is brought forth, they shall be seven days under the udder of their dam: but the eighth day and thenceforth, they may be offered to the Lord."
Moreover, the eighth day was necessary for the fulfilment of the precept; so that, to wit, those who delayed beyond the eighth day, sinned, even though it were the sabbath, according to John 7:23: "(If) a man receives circumcision on the sabbath-day, that the Law of Moses may not be broken." But it was not necessary for the validity of the sacrament: because if anyone delayed beyond the eighth day, they could be circumcised afterwards.
Some also say that in imminent danger of death, it was allowable to anticipate the eighth day. But this cannot be proved either from the authority of Scripture or from the custom of the Jews. Wherefore it is better to say with Hugh of St. Victor (De Sacram. i) that the eighth day was never anticipated for any motive, however urgent. Hence on Prov. 4:3: "I was . . . an only son in the sight of my mother," a gloss says, that Bersabee's other baby boy did not count because through dying before the eighth day it received no name; and consequently neither was it circumcised. _______________________
FOURTH
*H The Lord lifteth up the meek, and bringeth the wicked down even to the ground.
Ver. 6. Ground. As he has done to the Egyptians, &c. C.
*H Sing ye to the Lord with praise: sing to our God upon the harp.
Ver. 7. Praise. Lit. "confession," (H.) including both compunction and praise. Bert.
*H Who covereth the heaven with clouds, and prepareth rain for the earth. Who maketh grass to grow on the mountains, and herbs for the service of men.
Ver. 8. Clouds. This is represented as something wonderful, (Job v. 9. and xxxvii. 6.) though conformable to the laws of nature. The preservation of things is like a new creation. C. — And the herb, &c. Herbam, (Ps. ciii. 14. H.) is now wanting in Heb. as it was in the days of S. Jer. and the Chal. though the Sept. Aquila, &c. read it, and it is not probable that they would borrow it from another psalm. Bert. — Their copies must therefore have varied. H. — The herb, may denote corn, and all vegetables for food. These productions evince the goodness and wisdom of God, (Bert.) as well as his power. W.
* Summa
*S Part 3, Ques 64, Article 1
[II-II, Q. 64, Art. 1]
Whether It Is Unlawful to Kill Any Living Thing?
Objection 1: It would seem unlawful to kill any living thing. For the Apostle says (Rom. 13:2): "They that resist the ordinance of God purchase to themselves damnation [*Vulg.: 'He that resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist, purchase themselves damnation.']." Now Divine providence has ordained that all living things should be preserved, according to Ps. 146:8, 9, "Who maketh grass to grow on the mountains . . . Who giveth to beasts their food." Therefore it seems unlawful to take the life of any living thing.
Obj. 2: Further, murder is a sin because it deprives a man of life. Now life is common to all animals and plants. Hence for the same reason it is apparently a sin to slay dumb animals and plants.
Obj. 3: Further, in the Divine law a special punishment is not appointed save for a sin. Now a special punishment had to be inflicted, according to the Divine law, on one who killed another man's ox or sheep (Ex. 22:1). Therefore the slaying of dumb animals is a sin.
_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (De Civ. Dei i, 20): "When we hear it said, 'Thou shalt not kill,' we do not take it as referring to trees, for they have no sense, nor to irrational animals, because they have no fellowship with us. Hence it follows that the words, 'Thou shalt not kill' refer to the killing of a man."
_I answer that,_ There is no sin in using a thing for the purpose for which it is. Now the order of things is such that the imperfect are for the perfect, even as in the process of generation nature proceeds from imperfection to perfection. Hence it is that just as in the generation of a man there is first a living thing, then an animal, and lastly a man, so too things, like the plants, which merely have life, are all alike for animals, and all animals are for man. Wherefore it is not unlawful if man use plants for the good of animals, and animals for the good of man, as the Philosopher states (Polit. i, 3).
Now the most necessary use would seem to consist in the fact that animals use plants, and men use animals, for food, and this cannot be done unless these be deprived of life: wherefore it is lawful both to take life from plants for the use of animals, and from animals for the use of men. In fact this is in keeping with the commandment of God Himself: for it is written (Gen. 1:29, 30): "Behold I have given you every herb . . . and all trees . . . to be your meat, and to all beasts of the earth": and again (Gen. 9:3): "Everything that moveth and liveth shall be meat to you."
Reply Obj. 1: According to the Divine ordinance the life of animals and plants is preserved not for themselves but for man. Hence, as Augustine says (De Civ. Dei i, 20), "by a most just ordinance of the Creator, both their life and their death are subject to our use."
Reply Obj. 2: Dumb animals and plants are devoid of the life of reason whereby to set themselves in motion; they are moved, as it were by another, by a kind of natural impulse, a sign of which is that they are naturally enslaved and accommodated to the uses of others.
Reply Obj. 3: He that kills another's ox, sins, not through killing the ox, but through injuring another man in his property. Wherefore this is not a species of the sin of murder but of the sin of theft or robbery. _______________________
SECOND
*H Who giveth to beasts their food: and to the young ravens that call upon him.
Ver. 9. Young. Lit. "the sons of ravens," which may denote those birds in general, as well as their young. God provides for all. Many fables have been recounted concerning ravens, as if they neglected or forgot their young ones; and the Hebrews seem to have entertained some of these opinions, to which the sacred writers conform themselves. Job xxxviii. 41. C. — S. Luke (xii. 24.) specifies ravens, though S. Matthew (vi. 26.) has the birds, when relating the same speech. — Upon him, must be understood in Hebrew. See Ps. ciii. 21. (Bert.) Joel i. 20. C. — If God take such care of the neglected ravens, how much more will he provide for his servants? S. Chrys. W.
* Summa
*S Part 3, Ques 83, Article 10
[II-II, Q. 83, Art. 10]
Whether Prayer Is Proper to the Rational Creature?
Objection 1: It would seem that prayer is not proper to the rational creature. Asking and receiving apparently belong to the same subject. But receiving is becoming also to uncreated Persons, viz. the Son and Holy Ghost. Therefore it is competent to them to pray: for the Son said (John 14:16): "I will ask My [Vulg.: 'the'] Father," and the Apostle says of the Holy Ghost (Rom. 8:26): "The Spirit . . . asketh for us."
Obj. 2: Angels are above rational creatures, since they are intellectual substances. Now prayer is becoming to the angels, wherefore we read in the Ps. 96:7: "Adore Him, all you His angels." Therefore prayer is not proper to the rational creature.
Obj. 3: Further, the same subject is fitted to pray as is fitted to call upon God, since this consists chiefly in prayer. But dumb animals are fitted to call upon God, according to Ps. 146:9, "Who giveth to beasts their food and to the young ravens that call upon Him." Therefore prayer is not proper to the rational creatures.
_On the contrary,_ Prayer is an act of reason, as stated above (A. 1). But the rational creature is so called from his reason. Therefore prayer is proper to the rational creature.
_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 1) prayer is an act of reason, and consists in beseeching a superior; just as command is an act of reason, whereby an inferior is directed to something. Accordingly prayer is properly competent to one to whom it is competent to have reason, and a superior whom he may beseech. Now nothing is above the Divine Persons; and dumb animals are devoid of reason. Therefore prayer is unbecoming both the Divine Persons and dumb animals, and it is proper to the rational creature.
Reply Obj. 1: Receiving belongs to the Divine Persons in respect of their nature, whereas prayer belongs to one who receives through grace. The Son is said to ask or pray in respect of His assumed, i.e. His human, nature and not in respect of His Godhead: and the Holy Ghost is said to ask, because He makes us ask.
Reply Obj. 2: As stated in the First Part (Q. 79, A. 8), intellect and reason are not distinct powers in us: but they differ as the perfect from the imperfect. Hence intellectual creatures which are the angels are distinct from rational creatures, and sometimes are included under them. In this sense prayer is said to be proper to the rational creature.
Reply Obj. 3: The young ravens are said to call upon God, on account of the natural desire whereby all things, each in its own way, desire to attain the Divine goodness. Thus too dumb animals are said to obey God, on account of the natural instinct whereby they are moved by God. _______________________
ELEVENTH