Summa Theologica Part III (Secunda Secundae) Part 145

Therefore it is lawful to adjure.

_I answer that,_ A man who utters a promissory oath, swearing by his reverence for the Divine name, which he invokes in confirmation of his promise, binds himself to do what he has undertaken, and so orders himself unchangeably to do a certain thing. Now just as a man can order himself to do a certain thing, so too can he order others, by beseeching his superiors, or by commanding his inferiors, as stated above (Q. 83, A. 1). Accordingly when either of these orderings is confirmed by something Divine it is an adjuration. Yet there is this difference between them, that man is master of his own actions but not of those of others; wherefore he can put himself under an obligation by invoking the Divine name, whereas he cannot put others under such an obligation unless they be his subjects, whom he can compel on the strength of the oath they have taken.

Therefore, if a man by invoking the name of G.o.d, or any holy thing, intends by this adjuration to put one who is not his subject under an obligation to do a certain thing, in the same way as he would bind himself by oath, such an adjuration is unlawful, because he usurps over another a power which he has not. But superiors may bind their inferiors by this kind of adjuration, if there be need for it.

If, however, he merely intend, through reverence of the Divine name or of some holy thing, to obtain something from the other man without putting him under any obligation, such an adjuration may be lawfully employed in respect of anyone.

Reply Obj. 1: Origen is speaking of an adjuration whereby a man intends to put another under an obligation, in the same way as he would bind himself by oath: for thus did the high-priest presume to adjure our Lord Jesus Christ [*Matt. 26:63].

Reply Obj. 2: This argument considers the adjuration which imposes an obligation.

Reply Obj. 3: To adjure is not to induce a man to swear, but to employ terms resembling an oath in order to provoke another to do a certain thing.

Moreover, we adjure G.o.d in one way and man in another; because when we adjure a man we intend to alter his will by appealing to his reverence for a holy thing: and we cannot have such an intention in respect of G.o.d Whose will is immutable. If we obtain something from G.o.d through His eternal will, it is due, not to our merits, but to His goodness.

_______________________

SECOND ARTICLE [II-II, Q. 90, Art. 2]

Whether It Is Lawful to Adjure the Demons?

Objection 1: It would seem unlawful to adjure the demons. Origen says (Tract. x.x.xv, super Matth.): "To adjure the demons is not accordance with the power given by our Saviour: for this is a Jewish practice."

Now rather than imitate the rites of the Jews, we should use the power given by Christ. Therefore it is not lawful to adjure the demons.

Obj. 2: Further, many make use of necromantic incantations when invoking the demons by something Divine: and this is an adjuration.

Therefore, if it be lawful to adjure the demons, it is lawful to make use of necromantic incantations, which is evidently false. Therefore the antecedent is false also.

Obj. 3: Further, whoever adjures a person, by that very fact a.s.sociates himself with him. Now it is not lawful to have fellows.h.i.+p with the demons, according to 1 Cor. 10:20, "I would not that you should be made partakers with devils." Therefore it is not lawful to adjure the demons.

_On the contrary,_ It is written (Mk. 16:17): "In My name they shall cast out devils." Now to induce anyone to do a certain thing for the sake of G.o.d's name is to adjure. Therefore it is lawful to adjure the demons.

_I answer that,_ As stated in the preceding article, there are two ways of adjuring: one by way of prayer or inducement through reverence of some holy thing: the other by way of compulsion. In the first way it is not lawful to adjure the demons because such a way seems to savor of benevolence or friends.h.i.+p, which it is unlawful to bear towards the demons. As to the second kind of adjuration, which is by compulsion, we may lawfully use it for some purposes, and not for others. For during the course of this life the demons are our adversaries: and their actions are not subject to our disposal but to that of G.o.d and the holy angels, because, as Augustine says (De Trin.

iii, 4), "the rebel spirit is ruled by the just spirit." Accordingly we may repulse the demons, as being our enemies, by adjuring them through the power of G.o.d's name, lest they do us harm of soul or body, in accord with the Divine power given by Christ, as recorded by Luke 10:19: "Behold, I have given you power to tread upon serpents and scorpions, and upon all the power of the enemy: and nothing shall hurt you."

It is not, however, lawful to adjure them for the purpose of learning something from them, or of obtaining something through them, for this would amount to holding fellows.h.i.+p with them: except perhaps when certain holy men, by special instinct or Divine revelation, make use of the demons' actions in order to obtain certain results: thus we read of the Blessed James [*the Greater; cf. Apocrypha, N.T., Hist.

Certam. Apost. vi, 19] that he caused Hermogenes to be brought to him, by the instrumentality of the demons.

Reply Obj. 1: Origen is speaking of adjuration made, not authoritatively by way of compulsion, but rather by way of a friendly appeal.

Reply Obj. 2: Necromancers adjure and invoke the demons in order to obtain or learn something from them: and this is unlawful, as stated above. Wherefore Chrysostom, commenting on our Lord's words to the unclean spirit (Mk. 1:25), "Speak no more, and go out of the man,"

says: "A salutary teaching is given us here, lest we believe the demons, however much they speak the truth."

Reply Obj. 3: This argument considers the adjuration whereby the demon's help is besought in doing or learning something: for this savors of fellows.h.i.+p with them. On the other hand, to repulse the demons by adjuring them, is to sever oneself from their fellows.h.i.+p.

_______________________

THIRD ARTICLE [II-II, Q. 90, Art. 3]

Whether It Is Lawful to Adjure an Irrational Creature?

Objection 1: It would seem unlawful to adjure an irrational creature.

An adjuration consists of spoken words. But it is useless to speak to one that understands not, such as an irrational creature. Therefore it is vain and unlawful to adjure an irrational creature.

Obj. 2: Further, seemingly wherever adjuration is admissible, swearing is also admissible. But swearing is not consistent with an irrational creature. Therefore it would seem unlawful to employ adjuration towards one.

Obj. 3: Further, there are two ways of adjuring, as explained above (AA. 1, 2). One is by way of appeal; and this cannot be employed towards irrational creatures, since they are not masters of their own actions. The other kind of adjuration is by way of compulsion: and, seemingly, neither is it lawful to use this towards them, because we have not the power to command irrational creatures, but only He of Whom it was said (Matt. 8:27): "For the winds and the sea obey Him."

Therefore in no way, apparently, is it lawful to adjure irrational creatures.

_On the contrary,_ Simon and Jude are related to have adjured dragons and to have commanded them to withdraw into the desert. [*From the apocryphal Historiae Certam. Apost. vi. 19.]

_I answer that,_ Irrational creatures are directed to their own actions by some other agent. Now the action of what is directed and moved is also the action of the director and mover: thus the movement of the arrow is an operation of the archer. Wherefore the operation of the irrational creature is ascribed not only to it, but also and chiefly to G.o.d, Who disposes the movements of all things. It is also ascribed to the devil, who, by G.o.d's permission, makes use of irrational creatures in order to inflict harm on man.

Accordingly the adjuration of an irrational creature may be of two kinds. First, so that the adjuration is referred to the irrational creature in itself: and in this way it would be vain to adjure an irrational creature. Secondly, so that it be referred to the director and mover of the irrational creature, and in this sense a creature of this kind may be adjured in two ways. First, by way of appeal made to G.o.d, and this relates to those who work miracles by calling on G.o.d: secondly, by way of compulsion, which relates to the devil, who uses the irrational creature for our harm. This is the kind of adjuration used in the exorcisms of the Church, whereby the power of the demons is expelled from an irrational creature. But it is not lawful to adjure the demons by beseeching them to help us.

This suffices for the Replies to the Objections.

_______________________

QUESTION 91

OF TAKING THE DIVINE NAME FOR THE PURPOSE OF INVOKING IT BY MEANS OF PRAISE (In Two Articles)

We must now consider the taking of the Divine name for the purpose of invoking it by prayer or praise. Of prayer we have already spoken (Q. 83). Wherefore we must speak now of praise. Under this head there are two points of inquiry:

(1) Whether G.o.d should be praised with the lips?

(2) Whether G.o.d should be praised with song?

_______________________

FIRST ARTICLE [II-II, Q. 91, Art. 1]

Whether G.o.d Should Be Praised with the Lips?

Objection 1: It would seem that G.o.d should not be praised with the lips. The Philosopher says (Ethic. 1, 12): "The best of men ere accorded not praise, but something greater." But G.o.d transcends the very best of all things. Therefore G.o.d ought to be given, not praise, but something greater than praise: wherefore He is said (Ecclus.

43:33) to be "above all praise."

Obj. 2: Further, divine praise is part of divine wors.h.i.+p, for it is an act of religion. Now G.o.d is wors.h.i.+ped with the mind rather than with the lips: wherefore our Lord quoted against certain ones the words of Isa. 29:13, "This people ... honors [Vulg.: 'glorifies']

Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me." Therefore the praise of G.o.d lies in the heart rather than on the lips.

Obj. 3: Further, men are praised with the lips that they may be encouraged to do better: since just as being praised makes the wicked proud, so does it incite the good to better things. Wherefore it is written (Prov. 27:21): "As silver is tried in the fining-pot ... so a man is tried by the mouth of him that praiseth." But G.o.d is not incited to better things by man's words, both because He is unchangeable, and because He is supremely good, and it is not possible for Him to grow better. Therefore G.o.d should not be praised with the lips.

_On the contrary,_ It is written (Ps. 62:6): "My mouth shall praise Thee with joyful lips."

_I answer that,_ We use words, in speaking to G.o.d, for one reason, and in speaking to man, for another reason. For when speaking to man we use words in order to tell him our thoughts which are unknown to him. Wherefore we praise a man with our lips, in order that he or others may learn that we have a good opinion of him: so that in consequence we may incite him to yet better things; and that we may induce others, who hear him praised, to think well of him, to reverence him, and to imitate him. On the other hand we employ words, in speaking to G.o.d, not indeed to make known our thoughts to Him Who is the searcher of hearts, but that we may bring ourselves and our hearers to reverence Him.

Consequently we need to praise G.o.d with our lips, not indeed for His sake, but for our own sake; since by praising Him our devotion is aroused towards Him, according to Ps. 49:23: "The sacrifice of praise shall glorify Me, and there is the way by which I will show him the salvation of G.o.d." And forasmuch as man, by praising G.o.d, ascends in his affections to G.o.d, by so much is he withdrawn from things opposed to G.o.d, according to Isa. 48:9, "For My praise I will bridle thee lest thou shouldst perish." The praise of the lips is also profitable to others by inciting their affections towards G.o.d, wherefore it is written (Ps. 33:2): "His praise shall always be in my mouth," and farther on: "Let the meek hear and rejoice. O magnify the Lord with me."

Reply Obj. 1: We may speak of G.o.d in two ways. First, with regard to His essence; and thus, since He is incomprehensible and ineffable, He is above all praise. In this respect we owe Him reverence and the honor of latria; wherefore Ps. 64:2 is rendered by Jerome in his Psalter [*Translated from the Hebrew]: "Praise to Thee is speechless, O G.o.d," as regards the first, and as to the second, "A vow shall be paid to Thee." Secondly, we may speak of G.o.d as to His effects which are ordained for our good. In this respect we owe Him praise; wherefore it is written (Isa. 63:7): "I will remember the tender mercies of the Lord, the praise of the Lord for all the things that the Lord hath bestowed upon us." Again, Dionysius says (Div. Nom. 1): "Thou wilt find that all the sacred hymns," i.e. divine praises "of the sacred writers, are directed respectively to the Blessed Processions of the Thearchy," i.e. of the G.o.dhead, "showing forth and praising the names of G.o.d."

Reply Obj. 2: It profits one nothing to praise with the lips if one praise not with the heart. For the heart speaks G.o.d's praises when it fervently recalls "the glorious things of His works" [*Cf. Ecclus.

17:7, 8]. Yet the outward praise of the lips avails to arouse the inward fervor of those who praise, and to incite others to praise G.o.d, as stated above.