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 Unto the end, a psalm for David himself.
Ver. 1. Himself; implying, that David composed this psalm, though the word is not expressed in Heb. or Gr. Berthier. T. iii. — The same articles, however, occur, which have been thus rendered before. H. — Some explain this psalm of the sickness of Ezechias, (Ven. Bede) or of that of David, a little before the revolt of Absalom. Rab. Muis. Bossuet. — This may be described as a figure of our Saviour's sufferings. C. — For it would be rash not to acknowledge, that He is here the principal object in view, (Theod.) since he has applied (v. 10.) to the traitor's conduct, (C.) and all the rest may properly allude to the same events. The psalmist speaks of the Messias in the six first verses, and introduces him, in the remainder, uttering his own sentiments, (Bert.) respecting his passion and resurrection. W. Isai. liii. 4. M.
*H Blessed is he that understandeth concerning the needy and the poor: the Lord will deliver him in the evil day.
Ver. 2-3. Understandeth. Believing with eagerness, (H.) or reflecting seriously on Jesus Christ, (Bert.) who was pleased to be poor for our sakes. H. — And the poor, is not in the ancient Sept. (Eus.) nor Heb. &c. But it only expresses the same idea as the word needy, (Bert.) being added to show the extreme misery to which our Saviour was reduced. H. — The Fathers explain the passage in this sense, though some would suppose, that David speaks of his own conduct, (C.) or of those who adhered to him in his distress, while most followed Absalom. Flam. — Day of death or judgment. Happy the man, who makes the life of Christ his constant meditation, (Bert.) and endeavours to imitate his example, and divine charity! H. — The Church recites this psalm for the sick. Those who assist them may hope for similar treatment. But such as are not scandalized at Christ, on account of his poverty and afflictions, may be pronounced blessed, (Lu. vii. 23.) as He will deliver them from distress, if they place their confidence in Him. W. — The sick are relieved, when they think on Christ's sufferings. M. — Preserve. Heb. "will preserve...and thou wilt not deliver him unto the will of his enemies." Prot. — But S. Jerom has, "and he will not," &c. H. — Sixtus V. reads, "into the hands of his enemy," after S. Aug. &c. Others add, "he will purify his soul from, or on the earth." C. — Our Lord will give to such servants more grace in this life, and glory in the next, nor will he suffer them to yield to temptation. W. — He will defend them and heal them, when sick. C.
*H The Lord help him on his bed of sorrow: thou hast turned all his couch in his sickness.
Ver. 4. His bed. Lit. "on the bed of his sorrow." His, seems to have been formerly in Heb. (Houb.) though it be now omitted, (Bert.) as it was in the time of Sym. "the bed of misery," (S. Jer.) of infirmity. — Thou hast. Heb. "thou wilt make." Prot. "turn," (marg. H.) "change, or take away." In the east, the bed was removed entirely, (Jo. v. 8.) and this expression may denote, (C.) that the sick man should be cured, and no longer be confined to his bed, (S. Chrys.) or that God would take him by the hand, to support him, and turn his bed, like a tender mother, to make it more comfortable. Geneb. C. — When the just are sick unto death, Christ will give them greater consolation. W. — He will withdraw their affections from all terrestrial things, and remove whatever has been dangerous to them. S. Greg. Mor. xxiii. 15. The ineffable name has been thrice repeated in these verses, to insinuate, that all good is wrought by the blessed Trinity. Bert.
*H I said: O Lord, be thou merciful to me: heal my soul, for I have sinned against thee.
Ver. 5. Thee. Christ prays for his members, acknowledging their sins, (W.) which he had undertaken to expiate. The Fathers explain this of his prayer in the garden. C. — Have we ever reflected on sin, which reduced the Lord of all, to such poverty and distress? Bert.
* Summa
*S Part 4, Ques 15, Article 4
[III, Q. 15, Art. 4]
Whether Christ's Soul Was Passible?
Objection 1: It would seem that the soul of Christ was not passible. For nothing suffers except by reason of something stronger; since "the agent is greater than the patient," as is clear from Augustine (Gen. ad lit. xii, 16), and from the Philosopher (De Anima iii, 5). Now no creature was stronger than Christ's soul. Therefore Christ's soul could not suffer at the hands of any creature; and hence it was not passible; for its capability of suffering would have been to no purpose if it could not have suffered at the hands of anything.
Obj. 2: Further, Tully (De Tusc. Quaes. iii) says that the soul's passions are ailments [*Cf. I-II, Q. 24, A. 2]. But Christ's soul had no ailment; for the soul's ailment results from sin, as is plain from Ps. 40:5: "Heal my soul, for I have sinned against Thee." Therefore in Christ's soul there were no passions.
Obj. 3: Further, the soul's passions would seem to be the same as the _fomes_ of sin, hence the Apostle (Rom. 7:5) calls them the "passions of sins." Now the _fomes_ of sin was not in Christ, as was said (A. 2). Therefore it seems that there were no passions in His soul; and hence His soul was not passible.
_On the contrary,_ It is written (Ps. 87:4) in the person of Christ: "My soul is filled with evils"--not sins, indeed, but human evils, i.e. "pains," as a gloss expounds it. Hence the soul of Christ was passible.
_I answer that,_ A soul placed in a body may suffer in two ways: first with a bodily passion; secondly, with an animal passion. It suffers with a bodily passion through bodily hurt; for since the soul is the form of the body, soul and body have but one being; and hence, when the body is disturbed by any bodily passion, the soul, too, must be disturbed, i.e. in the being which it has in the body. Therefore, since Christ's body was passible and mortal, as was said above (Q. 14, A. 2), His soul also was of necessity passible in like manner. But the soul suffers with an animal passion, in its operations--either in such as are proper to the soul, or in such as are of the soul more than of the body. And although the soul is said to suffer in this way through sensation and intelligence, as was said in the Second Part (I-II, Q. 22, A. 3; I-II, Q. 41, A. 1); nevertheless the affections of the sensitive appetite are most properly called passions of the soul. Now these were in Christ, even as all else pertaining to man's nature. Hence Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xiv, 9): "Our Lord having deigned to live in the form of a servant, took these upon Himself whenever He judged they ought to be assumed; for there was no false human affection in Him Who had a true body and a true human soul."
Nevertheless we must know that the passions were in Christ otherwise than in us, in three ways. First, as regards the object, since in us these passions very often tend towards what is unlawful, but not so in Christ. Secondly, as regards the principle, since these passions in us frequently forestall the judgment of reason; but in Christ all movements of the sensitive appetite sprang from the disposition of the reason. Hence Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xiv, 9), that "Christ assumed these movements, in His human soul, by an unfailing dispensation, when He willed; even as He became man when He willed." Thirdly, as regards the effect, because in us these movements, at times, do not remain in the sensitive appetite, but deflect the reason; but not so in Christ, since by His disposition the movements that are naturally becoming to human flesh so remained in the sensitive appetite that the reason was nowise hindered in doing what was right. Hence Jerome says (on Matt. 26:37) that "Our Lord, in order to prove the reality of the assumed manhood, 'was sorrowful' in very deed; yet lest a passion should hold sway over His soul, it is by a propassion that He is said to have 'begun to grow sorrowful and to be sad'"; so that it is a perfect "passion" when it dominates the soul, i.e. the reason; and a "propassion" when it has its beginning in the sensitive appetite, but goes no further.
Reply Obj. 1: The soul of Christ could have prevented these passions from coming upon it, and especially by the Divine power; yet of His own will He subjected Himself to these corporeal and animal passions.
Reply Obj. 2: Tully is speaking there according to the opinions of the Stoics, who did not give the name of passions to all, but only to the disorderly movements of the sensitive appetite. Now, it is manifest that passions like these were not in Christ.
Reply Obj. 3: The "passions of sins" are movements of the sensitive appetite that tend to unlawful things; and these were not in Christ, as neither was the _fomes_ of sin. _______________________
FIFTH
*S Part 4, Ques 65, Article 1
[III, Q. 65, Art. 1]
Whether There Should Be Seven Sacraments?
Objection 1: It seems that there ought not to be seven sacraments. For the sacraments derive their efficacy from the Divine power, and the power of Christ's Passion. But the Divine power is one, and Christ's Passion is one; since "by one oblation He hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified" (Heb. 10:14). Therefore there should be but one sacrament.
Obj. 2: Further, a sacrament is intended as a remedy for the defect caused by sin. Now this is twofold, punishment and guilt. Therefore two sacraments would be enough.
Obj. 3: Further, sacraments belong to the actions of the ecclesiastical hierarchy, as Dionysius explains (Eccl. Hier. v). But, as he says, there are three actions of the ecclesiastical hierarchy, namely, "to cleanse, to enlighten, to perfect." Therefore there should be no more than three sacraments.
Obj. 4: Further, Augustine says (Contra Faust. xix) that the "sacraments" of the New Law are "less numerous" than those of the Old Law. But in the Old Law there was no sacrament corresponding to Confirmation and Extreme Unction. Therefore these should not be counted among the sacraments of the New Law.
Obj. 5: Further, lust is not more grievous than other sins, as we have made clear in the Second Part (I-II, Q. 74, A. 5; II-II, Q. 154, A. 3). But there is no sacrament instituted as a remedy for other sins. Therefore neither should matrimony be instituted as a remedy for lust.
Obj. 6: On the other hand, It seems that there should be more than seven sacraments. For sacraments are a kind of sacred sign. But in the Church there are many sanctifications by sensible signs, such as Holy Water the Consecration of Altars, and such like. Therefore there are more than seven sacraments.
Obj. 7: Further, Hugh of St. Victor (De Sacram. i) says that the sacraments of the Old Law were oblations, tithes and sacrifices. But the Sacrifice of the Church is one sacrament, called the Eucharist. Therefore oblations also and tithes should be called sacraments.
Obj. 8: Further, there are three kinds of sin, original, mortal and venial. Now Baptism is intended as a remedy against original sin, and Penance against mortal sin. Therefore besides the seven sacraments, there should be another against venial sin.
_I answer that,_ As stated above (Q. 62, A. 5; Q. 63, A. 1), the sacraments of the Church were instituted for a twofold purpose: namely, in order to perfect man in things pertaining to the worship of God according to the religion of Christian life, and to be a remedy against the defects caused by sin. And in either way it is becoming that there should be seven sacraments.
For spiritual life has a certain conformity with the life of the body: just as other corporeal things have a certain likeness to things spiritual. Now a man attains perfection in the corporeal life in two ways: first, in regard to his own person; secondly, in regard to the whole community of the society in which he lives, for man is by nature a social animal. With regard to himself man is perfected in the life of the body, in two ways; first, directly (_per se_), i.e. by acquiring some vital perfection; secondly, indirectly (_per accidens_), i.e. by the removal of hindrances to life, such as ailments, or the like. Now the life of the body is perfected _directly,_ in three ways. First, by generation whereby a man begins to be and to live: and corresponding to this in the spiritual life there is Baptism, which is a spiritual regeneration, according to Titus 3:5: "By the laver of regeneration," etc. Secondly, by growth whereby a man is brought to perfect size and strength: and corresponding to this in the spiritual life there is Confirmation, in which the Holy Ghost is given to strengthen us. Wherefore the disciples who were already baptized were bidden thus: "Stay you in the city till you be endued with power from on high" (Luke 24:49). Thirdly, by nourishment, whereby life and strength are preserved to man; and corresponding to this in the spiritual life there is the Eucharist. Wherefore it is said (John 6:54): "Except you eat of the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His blood, you shall not have life in you."
And this would be enough for man if he had an impassible life, both corporally and spiritually; but since man is liable at times to both corporal and spiritual infirmity, i.e. sin, hence man needs a cure from his infirmity; which cure is twofold. One is the healing, that restores health: and corresponding to this in the spiritual life there is Penance, according to Ps. 40:5: "Heal my soul, for I have sinned against Thee." The other is the restoration of former vigor by means of suitable diet and exercise: and corresponding to this in the spiritual life there is Extreme Unction, which removes the remainder of sin, and prepares man for final glory. Wherefore it is written (James 5:15): "And if he be in sins they shall be forgiven him."
In regard to the whole community, man is perfected in two ways. First, by receiving power to rule the community and to exercise public acts: and corresponding to this in the spiritual life there is the sacrament of order, according to the saying of Heb. 7:27, that priests offer sacrifices not for themselves only, but also for the people. Secondly in regard to natural propagation. This is accomplished by Matrimony both in the corporal and in the spiritual life: since it is not only a sacrament but also a function of nature.
We may likewise gather the number of the sacraments from their being instituted as a remedy against the defect caused by sin. For Baptism is intended as a remedy against the absence of spiritual life; Confirmation, against the infirmity of soul found in those of recent birth; the Eucharist, against the soul's proneness to sin; Penance, against actual sin committed after baptism; Extreme Unction, against the remainders of sins--of those sins, namely, which are not sufficiently removed by Penance, whether through negligence or through ignorance; order, against divisions in the community; Matrimony, as a remedy against concupiscence in the individual, and against the decrease in numbers that results from death.
Some, again, gather the number of sacraments from a certain adaptation to the virtues and to the defects and penal effects resulting from sin. They say that Baptism corresponds to Faith, and is ordained as a remedy against original sin; Extreme Unction, to Hope, being ordained against venial sin; the Eucharist, to Charity, being ordained against the penal effect which is malice; Order, to Prudence, being ordained against ignorance; Penance to Justice, being ordained against mortal sin; Matrimony, to Temperance, being ordained against concupiscence; Confirmation, to Fortitude, being ordained against infirmity.
Reply Obj. 1: The same principal agent uses various instruments unto various effects, in accordance with the thing to be done. In the same way the Divine power and the Passion of Christ work in us through the various sacraments as through various instruments.
Reply Obj. 2: Guilt and punishment are diversified both according to species, inasmuch as there are various species of guilt and punishment, and according to men's various states and habitudes. And in this respect it was necessary to have a number of sacraments, as explained above.
Reply Obj. 3: In hierarchical actions we must consider the agents, the recipients and the actions. The agents are the ministers of the Church; and to these the sacrament of order belongs. The recipients are those who approach the sacraments: and these are brought into being by Matrimony. The actions are "cleansing," "enlightening," and "perfecting." Mere cleansing, however, cannot be a sacrament of the New Law, which confers grace: yet it belongs to certain sacramentals, i.e. catechism and exorcism. But cleansing coupled with enlightening, according to Dionysius, belongs to Baptism; and, for him who falls back into sin, they belong secondarily to Penance and Extreme Unction. And perfecting, as regards power, which is, as it were, a formal perfection, belongs to Confirmation: while, as regards the attainment of the end, it belongs to the Eucharist.
Reply Obj. 4: In the sacrament of Confirmation we receive the fulness of the Holy Ghost in order to be strengthened; while in Extreme Unction man is prepared for the immediate attainment of glory; and neither of these two purposes was becoming to the Old Testament. Consequently, nothing in the old Law could correspond to these sacraments. Nevertheless, the sacraments of the old Law were more numerous, on account of the various kinds of sacrifices and ceremonies.
Reply Obj. 5: There was need for a special sacrament to be applied as a remedy against venereal concupiscence: first because by this concupiscence, not only the person but also the nature is defiled: secondly, by reason of its vehemence whereby it clouds the reason.
Reply Obj. 6: Holy Water and other consecrated things are not called sacraments, because they do not produce the sacramental effect, which is the receiving of grace. They are, however, a kind of disposition to the sacraments: either by removing obstacles, thus holy water is ordained against the snares of the demons, and against venial sins: or by making things suitable for the conferring of a sacrament; thus the altar and vessels are consecrated through reverence for the Eucharist.
Reply Obj. 7: Oblations and tithes, both the Law of nature and in the Law of Moses, ere ordained not only for the sustenance of the ministers and the poor, but also figuratively; and consequently they were sacraments. But now they remain no longer as figures, and therefore they are not sacraments.
Reply Obj. 8: The infusion of grace is not necessary for the blotting out of venial sin. Wherefore, since grace is infused in each of the sacraments of the New Law, none of them was instituted directly against venial sin. This is taken away by certain sacramentals, for instance, Holy Water and such like. Some, however, hold that Extreme Unction is ordained against venial sin. But of this we shall speak in its proper place (Suppl., Q. 30, A. 1). _______________________
SECOND
*H My enemies have spoken evils against me: when shall he die and his name perish?
Ver. 6. Perish? When shall we have a change, and see Absalom on the throne? When shall we get rid of this man, who reproves our conduct? So were the Jews animated to destroy Christ. Theod. — The rest of the psalm more visibly relates to him. C. — His enemies were greatly disappointed. H. — For after they had put him to death, he rose again, and his name and kingdom became more glorious. W.
*H And if he came in to see me, he spoke vain things: his heart gathered together iniquity to itself. He went out and spoke to the same purpose.
Ver. 7. If he, any one among my enemies. H. — The Scriptures often pass from the plural to the singular, (Bert.) to comprise every one distinctly. H. — Yet S. Aug. &c. read "they came," &c. omitting if, as some of the Sept. edit. do likewise: though inaccurately, according to S. Jer. and Sun. C. — It occurs in the Rom. copy, and Grabe inserts it in a smaller type. The sense is not altered. H. — The conspirators affected to shew David some marks of civility, to obtain their ends. The Jews often strove to entangle Jesus, by their questions, (Matt. xix. 3. and xxii. 17. 24. and Jo. viii. 3.) while Judas continued in his company, to gratify his own avarice, and to betray him. C. — Such were their vain projects. H. — Those who came maliciously to hear Christ, blamed him as an enemy to the law, or as one who cast out devils by Beelzebub. W.
*H All my enemies whispered together against me: they devised evils to me.
Ver. 8. To me, seems useless, though it be added conformably to the Heb. (Bert.) or rather it intimates, that the enemies made no secret of their plots. H.
*H They determined against me an unjust word: shall he that sleepeth rise again no more?
Ver. 9. Word of affecting the regal power, &c. S. Amb. — No more? Jesus Christ speaks. They have unjustly condemned me: But can I not rise again? or the words may be put in the mouth of his enemies. Shall we have any thing to fear from the dead? If we were to confine him only, he might perhaps escape. C. — Heb. "an evil disease, say they, cleaveth fast unto him: and now that he lieth, he shall rise up no more." Prot. — "The word of the devil they poured out against themselves; he who hath slept, shall rise no more." S. Jer. — Yet lo may be explained, an non, "shall not he," &c. Sept. have seen this insulting interrogation of the Jews who ridiculed what Christ had said of his future resurrection. Bert. — They determined to put him to death; but they could not prevent his glorious (W.) appearance again on the third day. H. — Those who explain this of David, say, that the sleep denotes a mortal illness, or a grievous fault, for which it was expected, that the king would die. Kimchi. Munster. &c.
*H For even the man of my peace, in whom I trusted, who ate my bread, hath greatly supplanted me.
Ver. 10. Bread. This characterizes the traitor, who had recieved the holy Communion, and had been intrusted with the purse by our Saviour, yet betrayed him with the sign of peace. C. — To violate the laws of hospitality was greatly resented by the very pagans. Plut. Symp. vii. 4. — Supplanted me, or kicked like a wild colt, as Plato complained that Aristotle had done, when he set up another school. H. Hμας απελακτισε. Laert. Elian iv. 9. — David might allude to Absalom, though the Holy Ghost speaks of Judas. C. — Our Saviour himself says, (W.) that the Scriptures may be fulfilled, he that eateth bread with me, shall lift up his heel against me: Qui manducat mecum panem levabit contra me calcaneum suum: επηρεν επ εμε την πτερναν αυτου, "has lifted up," &c. as the Heb. expresses it here. Judas had attempted to betray Christ already, and would do it more effectually hereafter; so that both the present and future might agree with him. We also find the psalm translated qui edebat panes meos, &c. But the difference is very small. H. — To lift up the heel, is the posture of one who attempts to supplant his adversary. M.
*H But thou, O Lord, have mercy on me, and raise my up again: and I will requite them.
Ver. 11. Them. No one is ignorant of the destruction of Jerusalem, and of the miserable condition of the Jews (M.) throughout the world. C. — Christ will render every one according to his deserts. W.
* Summa
*S Part 4, Ques 53, Article 4
[III, Q. 53, Art. 4]
Whether Christ Was the Cause of His Own Resurrection?
Objection 1: It seems that Christ was not the cause of His own Resurrection. For whoever is raised up by another is not the cause of his own rising. But Christ was raised up by another, according to Acts 2:24: "Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the sorrows of hell": and Rom. 8:11: "He that raised up Jesus Christ from the dead, shall quicken also your mortal bodies." Therefore Christ is not the cause of His own Resurrection.
Obj. 2: Further, no one is said to merit, or ask from another, that of which he is himself the cause. But Christ by His Passion merited the Resurrection, as Augustine says (Tract. civ in Joan.): "The lowliness of the Passion is the meritorious cause of the glory of the Resurrection." Moreover He asked the Father that He might be raised up again, according to Ps. 40:11: "But thou, O Lord, have mercy on me, and raise me up again." Therefore He was not the cause of His rising again.
Obj. 3: Further, as Damascene proves (De Fide Orth. iv), it is not the soul that rises again, but the body, which is stricken by death. But the body could not unite the soul with itself, since the soul is nobler. Therefore what rose in Christ could not be the cause of His Resurrection.
_On the contrary,_ Our Lord says (John 10:18): "No one taketh My soul from Me, but I lay it down, and I take it up again." But to rise is nothing else than to take the soul up again. Consequently, it appears that Christ rose again of His own power.
_I answer that,_ As stated above (Q. 50, AA. 2, 3) in consequence of death Christ's Godhead was not separated from His soul, nor from His flesh. Consequently, both the soul and the flesh of the dead Christ can be considered in two respects: first, in respect of His Godhead; secondly, in respect of His created nature. Therefore, according to the virtue of the Godhead united to it, the body took back again the soul which it had laid aside, and the soul took back again the body which it had abandoned: and thus Christ rose by His own power. And this is precisely what is written (2 Cor. 13:4): "For although He was crucified through" our "weakness, yet He liveth by the power of God." But if we consider the body and soul of the dead Christ according to the power of created nature, they could not thus be reunited, but it was necessary for Christ to be raised up by God.
Reply Obj. 1: The Divine power is the same thing as the operation of the Father and the Son; accordingly these two things are mutually consequent, that Christ was raised up by the Divine power of the Father, and by His own power.
Reply Obj. 2: Christ by praying besought and merited His Resurrection, as man and not as God.
Reply Obj. 3: According to its created nature Christ's body is not more powerful than His soul; yet according to its Divine power it is more powerful. Again the soul by reason of the Godhead united to it is more powerful than the body in respect of its created nature. Consequently, it was by the Divine power that the body and soul mutually resumed each other, but not by the power of their created nature. _______________________
*H By this I know, that thou hast had a good will for me: because my enemy shall not rejoice over me.
Ver. 12. Over me. Thus the divinity of Christ was proved, since he rose victorious, in spite of his enemies. C.
*H But thou hast upheld me by reason of my innocence: and hast established me in thy sight for ever.
Ver. 13. Innocence. Jesus was the spotless lamb incapable of sin. He effaced it by his blood, and is therefore crowned with glory. Heb. ii. 9. Phil. ii. 9. C. — This innocence made him a fit victim for sin. W.
*H Blessed be the Lord the God of Israel from eternity to eternity. So be it. So be it.
Ver. 14. So be it. Chal. "Amen." This word, at the beginning of a discourse, implies an affirmative oath; (Matt. vi. 13.) and at the end, it is a mark of approbation. Num. v. 22. — Here the Jews terminate the first book of the psalms, which they divide into five. C. — S. Jerom rejects this division, as our Saviour mentions only the psalms, and the last psalm has no such conclusion. W. — It has Alleluia. All the rest have Amen. See Ps. lxxii. lxxxix. cvi. Heb. Bert. — The observations which have been made in this first part, will serve to explain many other passages, on which we shall therefore be shorter, as well as in specifying the variations from the original, which are for the most part only apparent, as the intelligent reader may be convinced, by the preceding remarks. H.