10
Lectio 1 LECTURE I Postquam dominus ostendit quod eius doctrina habet illuminativam virtutem, hic consequenter ostendit quod habet virtutem vivificativam, et primo ostendit hoc, verbo; secundo, miraculo: c. XI, ibi erat autem quidam languens et cetera. Circa primum tria facit. Primo ostendit se habere virtutem vivificativam; secundo ostendit vivificandi modum, ibi ego sum pastor bonus etc.; tertio ostendit vivificandi potestatem, ibi dissensio itaque facta est inter Iudaeos propter sermones hos. Prima pars dividitur in tres: primo enim dominus proponit quamdam parabolam; secundo Evangelista insinuat necessitatem expositionis ipsius: hoc proverbium dixit eis etc.; tertio dominus exhibet parabolae expositionem, ibi dixit eis iterum Iesus et cetera. 1364 After our Lord showed that his teaching had power to enlighten, he here shows that he has power to give life. First, he shows this by word; secondly, by a miracle (chap 11). Concerning the first he does three things. First, he shows that he has life-giving power; secondly, his manner of giving life (v 11); thirdly, he explains his power to give life (v 19). The first part is divided into three parts. First, our Lord relates a parable; secondly, the Evangelist mentions the necessity for explaining it (v 6); thirdly, our Lord explains the parable (v 7). Parabolam autem proponit eis dicens amen dico vobis. Quae quidem ex duobus est, scilicet de fure et pastore ovium. Unde circa eam tria facit. Primo proponit conditionem furis et latronis; secundo pastoris, ibi qui autem intrat per ostium, pastor est ovium; tertio effectum utriusque, ibi et oves illum sequuntur et cetera. He relates the parable to them, saying, Truly, truly, I say to you. It concerns two things, a thief and the shepherd of the sheep. Thus he does three things. First, he mentions the mark of a thief and robber; secondly, a characteristic of the shepherd (v 2); thirdly, the effect each of these has (v 4). Ad intellectum autem huius, primo considerandum est quae sint oves, quae quidem sunt fideles Christi, et qui sunt in gratia Dei; Ps. XCIV, 7: nos autem populus eius et oves pascuae eius; Ez. XXXIV, v. 31: vos autem oves pascuae meae homines estis. Ovile ergo ovium est congregatio fidelis populi; Mich. II, 12: congregabo Iacob totum te; in unum conducam reliquias Israel; pariter ponam illum quasi gregem in ovili. Ostium autem ovilis aliter accipitur secundum Chrysostomum, et aliter secundum Augustinum. 1365 To understand this parable we must consider who the sheep are, namely, that they are the faithful of Christ and those in the grace of God: "We are the people of his pasture, and the sheep of his hand" (Ps 95:7); "You, the people, are the sheep of my pasture" [Ez 34:31]. And so the sheepfold is the multitude of the faithful: "I will surely gather all of you, O Jacob, I will gather the remnant of Israel; I will set them together like sheep in a fold" (Mic 2:12). The door of the sheepfold is explained in different ways by Chrysostom and by Augustine. Nam secundum Chrysostomum, ostium vocat Christus Scripturas sacras, secundum illud Col. IV, 3: orantes simul pro nobis, ut Deus aperiat ostium sermonis. Dicitur autem sacra Scriptura ostium, ut Chrysostomus dicit, primo quia per ipsam accessum habemus ad Dei cognitionem; Rom. c. I, 2: quod autem promiserat per prophetas suos in Scripturis sanctis de filio suo, qui factus est ei ex semine David secundum carnem. Secundo, quia sicut ostium oves custodit, ita sacra Scriptura conservat vitam fidelium; supra V, 39: scrutamini Scripturas: quia vos putatis vitam habere in ipsis. Tertio quia ostium lupos supervenire non permittit: sic sacra Scriptura arcet haereticos a nocumento fidelium; II Tim. III, 16: omnis Scriptura divinitus inspirata utilis est ad docendum, ad arguendum, ad corripiendum, ad erudiendum in iustitia. Ille ergo non intrat per ostium qui ad docendum populum non ingreditur per sacram Scripturam. Unde dominus de talibus dicit Matth. XV, 9: sine causa colunt me, docentes doctrinas et mandata hominum; ibid. v. 6: irritum fecistis mandatum Dei. Haec est ergo furis conditio ut non intret per ostium, sed aliunde. 1366 According to Chrysostom, Christ calls Sacred Scripture the door, according to "Pray for us also that God may open to us a door for the word" (Col 4:3). Sacred Scripture is called a door, as Chrysostom says, first of all, because through it we have access to the knowledge of God: "which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy scriptures" (Rom 1:2). Secondly, for just as the door guards the sheep, so Sacred Scripture preserves the life of the faithful: "You search the scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life" (5:39). Thirdly, because the door keeps the wolf from entering; so Sacred Scripture keeps heretics from harming the faithful: "Every scripture inspired by God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction" (2 Tim 3:16). So, the one who does not enter by the door is the one who does not enter by Sacred Scripture to teach the people. Our Lord says of such: "In vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men" (Matt 15:9); "You have made void the word of God" (Matt 15:6). This, then, is the mark of the thief: he does not enter by the door, but in some other way. [1] Addit autem ascendit: quod et parabolae congruit, dum fures non intrantes per ostium, conscendunt parietes, et praecipitant se in ovili. Congruit etiam veritati: quia causa quare aliqui doceant aliter quam sapiat sacra Scriptura, praecipue ex superbia provenit; I Tim. VI, 3: si quis aliter docet, et non acquiescit sacris sermonibus, superbus est, nihil sciens. Et quantum ad hoc dicit ascendit, scilicet per superbiam. Qui, inquam, sic aliunde ascendit, ille fur est, rapiendo quod non est suum, et latro, occidendo quod rapit; Abdiae V: si fures intrassent ad te, si latrones per noctem, quomodo conticuisses? He adds that the thief climbs, and this is appropriate to this parable because thieves climb the walls, instead of entering by the door, and drop into the sheepfold. It also corresponds to the truth, because the reason why some teach what conflicts with Sacred Scripture is due to pride: "If any one teaches otherwise and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching which accords with godliness, he is puffed up with conceit, he knows nothing" (1 Tim 6:3). Referring to this he says that such a person climbs, that is, through pride. The one who climbs in by another way, that man is a thief, because he snatches what is not his, and a robber, because he kills what he snatches: "If thieves came to you, if plunderers by night - how you have been destroyed" (Obad v 5). Et secundum hanc expositionem, continuatur ad praecedentia hoc modo. Quia enim dominus dixerat: si caeci essetis, non haberetis peccatum, possent respondere Iudaei, et dicere: non est ex nostra caecitate quod tibi non credimus, sed ex tuo errore, propter quem a te avertimur. Et ideo dominus hoc excludens, vult ostendere quod non est erroneus, quia intrat per ostium, idest per sacram Scripturam; idest, docet ea quae sacra Scriptura continet. According to this explanation, the relation with what preceded is made in this way: Since our Lord had said, "If you were blind, you would have no guilt," the Jews might have answered: "We do not believe you, but this is not due to our blindness. It is because of your own error that we have turned away from you." And so our Lord rejects this, and wishes to show that he is not in error because he enters by the door, by Sacred Scripture, that is, he teaches what is contained in Sacred Scripture. Sed contra hoc est, quod dominus, infra eodem, exponens, dicit: ego sum ostium etc., ex quo videtur quod per ostium debet intelligi Christus. Ad quod Chrysostomus dicit, quod in hac parabola dominus dicit se esse et ostium et pastorem; unde secundum quod ipse diversimode se vocat, diversimode dicitur ostium, quia, secundum quod dicit se pastorem, oportet quod aliud sit ostium quam ipse, quia non est idem pastor et ostium. Nihil autem aliud a Christo convenientius potest dici ostium quam sacra Scriptura, propter rationes praedictas. Convenienter ergo sacra Scriptura ostium dicitur. 1367 Against this interpretation is the fact that when our Lord explains this further on, he says, I am the door. So it seems that we should understand the door to be Christ. In answer to this, Chrysostom says that in this parable our Lord refers to himself both as the door and the shepherd; but this is from different points of view, because a door and a shepherd are different. [2] Now aside from Christ nothing is more fittingly called a door than Sacred Scripture, for the reasons given above. Therefore, Sacred Scripture is fittingly called a door. Secundum Augustinum, hic per ostium intelligitur Christus: et hoc, quia per ipsum intratur; Apoc. IV, 1: post hoc vidi ostium magnum et cetera. Quicumque ergo intrat in ovile, oportet quod per ostium, scilicet Christum, intret, et non aliunde. 1368 According to Augustine, the door is Christ, because one enters through him: "After this I looked, and lo, in heaven an open door!" (Rev 4:1). Therefore, any one who enters the sheepfold should enter by the door, that is, by Christ, and not by another way. [3] Sed attendendum est, quod intrare in ovile competit pastori et ovi: ovi quidem, ut ibi conservetur; pastori autem, ut oves conservet. Si ergo velis intrare sicut ovis, ut ibi conserveris, vel sicut pastor, ut oves conserves, oportet te per Christum intrare in ovile, non aliunde quam per Christum; sicut philosophi, qui tractaverunt de principalibus virtutibus, et Pharisaei, qui caeremoniales traditiones statuerunt. Sed isti non sunt pastores neque oves, quia, ut dominus dicit qui non intrat per ostium in ovile ovium, scilicet per Christum, sed aliunde, fur est et latro; quia se et alios occidit. Nam Christus est ostium ovilis, idest congregationis fidelium, et non alius; Rom. V, 1: pacem habemus per Christum ad Deum, per quem et habemus accessum per fidem in gratiam istam in qua stamus, et gloriamur in spe gloriae filiorum Dei; Act. IV, 12: non est aliud nomen sub caelo datum hominibus, in quo oporteat nos salvos fieri. Note that both the sheep and their shepherd enter into the sheepfold: the sheep in order to be secure there, and the shepherd in order to guard the sheep. And so, if you wish to enter as a sheep to be kept safe there, or as a shepherd to keep the people safe, you must enter the sheepfold through Christ. You must not enter by any other way, as did the philosophers who treated the principle virtues, and the Pharisees who established the ceremonial traditions. These are neither sheep nor shepherds because, as our Lord says, he who does not enter the sheepfold by the door, i.e., does not enter by Christ, but climbs in by another way, that man is a thief and a robber, because he destroys both himself and others. For Christ and no one else is the door into the sheepfold, that is, the multitude of the faithful: "We have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ" (Rom 5:1); "there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved" (Acts 4:12). Et secundum hanc expositionem continuatur ad praecedentia hoc modo. Quia enim dicebant se videre sine Christo, secundum quod dixit: nunc quia dicitis, videmus, peccatum vestrum manet, ideo dominus ostendit hoc esse falsum, quia non intrant per ostium, dicens amen, amen dico vobis. According to this exposition, the connection with what went before is made in this way: Because they said that they could see without Christ - "now that you say, 'We see'" - our Lord shows that this is not true, because they do not enter by the door. Thus he says, Truly, truly, I say to you Sciendum autem, quod ut qui sicut ovis per ostium non intrat, non potest conservari; ita nec qui ut pastor intrat, conservare potest, nisi per ostium intret, scilicet per Christum; per quod quidem ostium intraverunt veri pastores, de quibus Hebr. V, 4: nemo sibi assumit honorem, sed qui vocatur a Deo tamquam Aaron. Mali vero pastores non intrant per ostium, sed per ambitionem, et potentiam saecularem, et simoniam; et isti sunt fures et latrones; Oseae VIII, 4: ipsi regnaverunt, et non cognovi; idest, non approbavi. Et dicit sed ascendit aliunde, quia ostium istud, scilicet Christus, cum sit parvum per humilitatem, Matth. XI, 29: discite a me, quia mitis sum, non possunt intrare nisi qui Christi humilitatem imitantur. Qui ergo non intrant per ostium, aliunde ascendunt, idest superbi sunt, et non imitantur illum qui, cum Deus esset, factus est homo; et humilitatem suam non recognoscunt. It should be noted that just as one who does not enter by the door as a sheep cannot be kept safe, so one who enters as a shepherd cannot guard the sheep unless he enters by the door, namely, by Christ. This is the door through which the true shepherds have entered: "And one does not take the honor upon himself, but he is called by God, just as Aaron was" (Heb 5:4). Evil shepherds do not enter by the door, but by ambition and secular power and simony; and these are thieves and robbers: "They set up princes, but without my knowledge," that is, without my approval (Hos 8:5). Further, he says such a person climbs in by another way, because the door, namely, Christ, since it is small through humility - "Learn from me; for I am gentle and lowly in heart" (Matt 11:29) - can be entered only by those who imitate the humility of Christ. Therefore, those who do not enter by the door but climb in by another way are the proud. They do not imitate him who, although he was God, became man; and they do not recognize his lowering of himself. Hic agit de pastore, et primo ponit pastoris conditionem; secundo ostendit per signa quod iste sit pastor, ibi huic ostiarius aperit. 1369 Now he considers the shepherd. First, he mentions the mark of the shepherd; secondly, he shows through signs that he is the shepherd (v 3). Conditio autem veri pastoris est intrare per ostium, idest testimonia sacrae Scripturae; unde dicebat, Lc. ult., 44: oportet impleri omnia quae scripta sunt in lege Moysi, et prophetis, et Psalmis de me. Pastor dicitur, Ier. XVII, 16: ego non sum turbatus te pastorem sequens; Eccli. XVIII, v. 13: qui misericordiam habet, docet et erudit sicut pastor gregem suum. 1370 The mark of the true shepherd is to enter by the door, that is, by the testimony of Sacred Scripture. Thus Christ said: "Everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the prophets and the psalms must be fulfilled" (Lk 24:44). He is called a shepherd: "I am not troubled when I follow you as my shepherd" [Jer 17:16]; "He rebukes and trains and teaches them, and turns them back, as a shepherd his flock" (Sir 18:13). Sed si Christus intelligatur per ostium, ut Augustinus exponit, sic intrans per ostium, intrat per seipsum. Et hoc est proprium Christi: nam nullus potest intrare ostium, scilicet ad beatitudinem, nisi per veritatem, quia nihil aliud est beatitudo quam gaudium de veritate. Christus autem inquantum Deus, veritas est: et ideo inquantum homo, intrat per seipsum, scilicet per veritatem, quae est ipse inquantum Deus. Nos autem non sumus ipsa veritas, sed sumus filii lucis, per participationem lucis verae et increatae; et ideo oportet nos per veritatem, quae est Christus, intrare; infra XVII, 17: sanctifica eos in veritate; infra: per me si quis introierit, salvabitur. Sed si quis etiam intrare vult ut pastor, oportet quod intret per ostium, idest Christum, scilicet secundum eius veritatem, voluntatem et ordinationem; unde dicitur Ez. c. XXXIV, 23: dabo eis pastorem unum, qui pascat eas, servum meum David, quasi diceret: per me dari debent, et non per alios, seu per seipsos. But if the door is Christ, as Augustine explains it, then in entering by the door, he enters by himself. [4] And this is special to Christ: for no one can enter the door, i.e., to beatitude, except by the truth, because beatitude is nothing else than joy in the truth. But Christ, as God, is the truth; therefore, as man, he enters by himself, that is, by the truth, which he is as God. We, however, are not the truth, but children of the light, by participating in the true and uncreated light. Consequently, we have to enter by the truth which is Christ: "Sanctify them in the truth" (17:17); "If any one enters by me, he will be saved" (10:9). If one wishes to enter even as a shepherd, he must enter by the door, that is, Christ, according to his truth, will and consent. Thus we read in Ezekiel (24:23): "And I will set up over them one shepherd, my servant David, and he shall feed them." This is like saying: They must be given by me, and not by others or themselves. Hic ponit signa boni pastoris, quae sunt tria. Primum sumitur ex parte ostiarii, scilicet quod ab eo introducatur; et quantum ad hoc dicit ostiarius aperit. Qui scilicet ostiarius, secundum Chrysostomum, ille est qui viam aperit ad cognitionem sacrae Scripturae, qui primus fuit Moyses, qui sacras Scripturas primus accepit et instituit. Et hic aperit Christo, quia, ut dicitur supra V, 46: si crederetis Moysi, crederetis forte et mihi: de me enim ille scripsit. 1371 Now he mentions the signs of a good shepherd; and there are three. The first relates to the gatekeeper, and is that the good shepherd is let in by him. As to this he says, to him the gatekeeper opens. This gatekeeper, according to Chrysostom, is the one who opens the way to a knowledge of Sacred Scripture. [5] The first one to do this was Moses, who first received and established Sacred Scripture. And Moses opened to Christ, because as was said above: "If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote of me" (5:46). Vel, secundum Augustinum, ostiarius est ipsemet Christus, quia ipsemet introducit homines ad seipsum; dicit: ipse se aperit, qui seipsum exponit, et non nisi per eius gratiam intramus; Eph. II, 8: gratia salvati estis. Nec refert si Christus, qui est ostium, ipse idem sit ostiarius; nam quaedam in spiritualibus congruunt quae in corporalibus esse non possunt. Magis autem differre videtur pastor et ostium quam ostium et ostiarius. Cum ergo Christus dicatur pastor et ostium, ut dictum est, multo magis potest dici ostium et ostiarius. Sed si aliam personam ostiarii quaeris quam Moysem et Christum, vide ostiarium spiritum sanctum, ut Augustinus dicit. Ad officium enim ostiarii pertinet ut ostium aperiat, et de spiritu sancto dicitur infra XVI, 13: docebit vos omnem veritatem. Christus enim est ostium, inquantum est veritas. Or, according to Augustine, the gatekeeper is Christ himself, because he brings us himself. [6] He says, "He opens himself who reveals himself, and we enter only by his grace." "For by grace you have been saved" (Eph 2:8). It does not matter if Christ, who is the door, is also the gatekeeper; for certain things are compatible in spiritual matters that cannot occur in physical reality. Now there seems to be a greater difference between a shepherd and a door than between a door and a gatekeeper. Therefore, since Christ can be called both a shepherd and a door, as was said, much more so can he be called a door and a gatekeeper. But if you prefer that someone other than Moses or Christ be the gatekeeper, then consider the Holy Spirit the gatekeeper, as Augustine says. [7] For it is the office of a gatekeeper to open the door, and it says below of the Holy Spirit that "He will guide you into all the truth" (16:13). And Christ is the door insofar as he is the Truth. Secundum signum sumitur ex parte ovium, scilicet quod ei obediant. Et hoc est quod dicit et oves vocem eius audiunt: quod quidem, si ex similitudine naturalis pastoris attenditur, rationabiliter dicitur, quia, sicut oves ex consueta imaginatione recognoscunt vocem pastoris, sic et fideles iusti vocem Christi audiunt; Ps. XCIV, v. 8: hodie si vocem eius audieritis. 1372 The second sign relates to the sheep, and it is that they obey the shepherd. This is what he says, the sheep hear his voice. This is reasonable if the resemblance to a natural shepherd is considered: because just as sheep recognize the voice of their shepherd due to familiar experience, so righteous believers hear the voice of Christ: "O that today you would harken to his voice" (Ps 95:7). Sed contra. Multi sunt oves Christi, qui tamen vocem eius non audierunt, sicut Paulus. Item aliqui audierunt, et non fuerunt oves, sicut Iudas. Ad quod dici posset, quod Iudas pro tempore illo ovis Christi erat, quantum ad praesentem iustitiam. Paulus autem quando vocem Christi non audiebat, non erat ovis, sed lupus, sed vox Christi adveniens mutavit lupum in ovem. Haec autem responsio sustineri posset, si non contrariaretur ei quod dicit Ez. IV, 4: quod confractum fuerat non alligastis, et quod erroneum est, non reduxistis. Ex quo videtur quod adhuc quando confractae et erroneae erant, oves erant. Et ideo dicendum, quod loquitur hic dominus de ovibus suis, non solum secundum praesentem iustitiam, sed etiam secundum aeternam praedestinationem. Est enim quaedam vox Christi quam nullus nisi praedestinatus audire potest, scilicet, qui perseveraverit usque ad finem: Matth. X, 22. 1373 But what of the fact that many who are Christ's sheep did not hear his voice, as Paul; or that some who were not his sheep did here it, as Judas? One might reply that Judas was Christ's sheep for that time as to his present righteousness. And Paul, when he did not hear the voice of Christ, was not a sheep but a wolf; but when the voice of Christ came it changed the wolf into a sheep. This reply could be accepted if it were not contrary to a statement in Ezekiel (34:4): "The crippled you have not bound up, the strayed you have not brought back." It seems from this that even when they were crippled and strayed they were sheep. Therefore, one must say that here our Lord is speaking of his sheep not only according to their present righteousness but even according to their eternal predestination. For there is a certain voice of Christ that only the predestined can hear, i.e., "He who endures to the end" (Matt 10:22). Ideo etiam dicit, et oves vocem eius audiunt, quia possent se excusare de eorum infidelitate, dicentes, quod non solum ipsi, sed etiam nullus ex principibus credit in eum. Unde, ad hoc respondens, dicit et oves vocem eius audiunt; quasi dicat: ideo ipsi non credunt, quia non sunt de ovibus meis. Again, he says, the sheep hear his voice, because they might offer as an excuse for their unbelief the fact that not only they, but none of the leaders believed in him. So he says in answer to this, the sheep hear his voice, as if saying: They do not believe because they are not my sheep. Tertium signum sumitur ex actibus ipsius pastoris; et quantum ad hoc dicit proprias oves vocat nominatim. Ubi ponit quatuor actus boni pastoris. Primo quidem quod oves cognoscit. Unde dicit, quod proprias oves vocat nominatim: in quo ostendit cognitionem, et familiaritatem suam ad oves. Illos enim ex nomine vocamus quos familiariter cognoscimus; Ex. XXXIII, 17: ego novi te ex nomine. Et quidem ad officium boni pastoris pertinet, secundum illud Prov. c. XXVII, 23: diligenter considera vultum pecoris tui. Et hoc quidem convenit Christo secundum praesentem cognitionem, vel magis secundum aeternam praedestinationem, quas ab aeterno nomine tenus novit; Ps. CXLVI, 4: qui numerat multitudinem stellarum, et omnibus eis nomina vocat; II Tim. c. II, 19: novit dominus qui sunt eius. 1374 The third sign is taken from the actions of the shepherd. Here he mentions four actions of a good shepherd: the first being that he knows his sheep. He says, he calls his own sheep by name, which shows his knowledge of and familiarity with his sheep, for we call by name those whom we know familiarly: "I know you by name" (Ex 33:17). This is part of the office of a shepherd according to: "Be diligent to know the countenance of your flock" [Prv 27:23]. This applies to Christ according to his present knowledge, but even more so considering eternal predestination, by which he knew them by name from eternity: "He determined the number of the stars, he gives to all of them their names" (Ps 147:4); "The Lord knows those who are his" (2 Tim 2:19). Secundo vero quod eas educit, idest segregat a societate impiorum; Ps. CVI, 14: eduxit eos de tenebris et umbra mortis. The second action of a good shepherd is that he leads them out, i.e., he separates them from the society of those who are evil: "He brought them out of darkness and gloom" (Ps 107:14). Tertio, quia iam eductas ab impiis, et inductas in ovile, iterum eduxit eas ex ovili. Primo quidem in salutem aliorum; Is. ult., v. 19: mittam ex eis qui salvati fuerint in Lydiam; Matth. X, 16: ecce ego mitto vos sicut oves in medio luporum; ut scilicet de lupis faciatis oves. Secundo vero in directionem et viam salutis aeternae; Lc. I, 79: ad dirigendos pedes nostros in viam pacis. The third is that having separated them from evil and having brought them into the sheepfold, he has brought out all his own, from the sheepfold. He does this, first, for the salvation of others: "I will send survivors to the nations" (Is 66:19); "Behold, I send you as sheep in the midst of wolves" (Matt 10:16), so that they can make sheep out of the wolves. Secondly, they are to show the direction and way to eternal life: "To guide our feet into the way of peace" (Lk 1:79). Quarto vero eas praecedit exemplo bonae conversationis; unde dicit et ante eas vadit, quod quidem in pastore corporali non est ita, quin potius sequitur, secundum illud Ps. LXXVII, 70: de post foetantes accepit eum. Bonus autem pastor ante eas vadit per exemplum; I Petr. ult., 3: neque ut dominantes in clero, sed forma facti gregis ex animo. Christus autem utraque missione ante eas vadit: quia primus pro doctrina veritatis mortem subiit, Matth. XVI, 24: si quis vult post me venire, abneget semetipsum, et tollat crucem suam, et sequatur me, et praecessit omnes in vitam aeternam. Mich. II, v. 13: ascendit pandens iter ante eos. Fourthly, the good shepherd goes before his sleep by the example of a good life; so he says, he goes before them, although this is not what the literal shepherd does, for he follows, as in "I took him from following the ewes" [Ps 78:70]. But the good shepherd goes before them by example, "not as domineering over those in your charge but being examples to the flock" (1 Pet 5:3). And Christ does go before them: for he was the first to die for the teaching of the truth - "If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me" (Matt 16:24); and he went before all into everlasting life - "He who opens the breach will go up before them" (Mic 2:13). Hic agit de effectu utriusque, furis scilicet, et pastoris in ovibus, et primo ponit effectum boni pastoris; secundo effectum lupi et furis, ibi alienum autem non sequuntur. 1375 Now he considers the effect that both the thief and the shepherd have upon the sheep. First, he mentions the effect of the good shepherd; secondly, the effect of the wolf and the thief (v5). Dicit ergo quod dictum est de conditionibus utriusque, sed oves sequuntur illum, qui scilicet ante eas vadit. Et hoc quidem in promptu est, quia subditi sequuntur vestigia praelatorum, ut dicitur I Petr. II, v. 21: Christus passus est pro nobis, vobis relinquens exemplum, ut sequamini vestigia eius; Iob XXIII, 11: vestigia eius secutus est pes meus. Et hoc ideo, quia sciunt vocem eius, idest cognoscunt et delectantur in ea; Cant. II, 14: sonet vox tua in auribus meis: vox enim tua dulcis. 1376 He says, first, that the sheep follow him who goes before them. This is easy to see, because subjects follow in the steps of their leaders, as is stated: "Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps" (1 Pet 2:21); "My foot has held fast to his steps" (Job 23:11). The sheep follow for they know his voice, i.e., they know it and take delight in it: "Let me hear your voice, for your voice is sweet" (Song 2:14). Effectus autem furis est ut oves eum non diu sequantur, sed ad tempus; unde dicit alienum autem non sequuntur; idest, doctorem mendacem et haereticum non sequuntur; Ps. XVII, 46: filii alieni mentiti sunt mihi. Sic et Paulus doctores mendaces non diu secutus est. Sed fugiunt ab eo; et hoc ideo, quia, ut dicitur I Cor. XV, 33, corrumpunt bonos mores colloquia prava. Ideo autem fugiunt, quia non noverunt, idest non approbant, vocem alienorum, idest doctrinam eorum, quae serpit ut cancer. 1377 The effect that the thief has is that the sheep do not follow him for very long, but only for a time; so he says, a stranger they will not follow, i.e., they do not follow a false and heretical teacher: "The children who are strangers have lied to me" [Ps 17:46]. Thus Paul did not follow false teachers for long. But they will flee from him, because "Bad company ruins good morals" (1 Cor 15:33). They flee for they do not know, that is, do not approve of, the voice of strangers, meaning their teaching, which spreads stealthily like a cancer.
Lectio 2 LECTURE 2 Hic ponit Evangelista necessitatem exponendi supra positam similitudinem, quae quidem necessitas causatur ex audientium ignorantia. Primo vero tangit ignorantiae causam; secundo ipsam ignorantiam manifestat. 1378 Here the Evangelist tells why it was necessary to explain the above similitude; and this necessity was caused by the failure of his listeners to understand. First, he mentions the reason why they failed to understand; secondly, he says they failed to understand. Causa autem ignorantiae fuit proverbialis Christi locutio; et hoc est quod dicit hoc proverbium dixit eis Iesus. Proverbium autem dicitur proprie quando loco alterius ponitur aliud; cum scilicet unum verbum ex similitudine alterius datur intelligi: quod etiam parabola dicitur. Loquebatur autem in proverbiis dominus primo quidem propter malos, ut mysteria regni caelestis eis occultaret; Lc. VIII, 10: vobis datum est nosse mysterium regni Dei, ceteris autem in parabolis. Secundo vero propter bonos, ut ex proverbiis exercerentur ad inquirendum; unde postquam dominus turbis proverbia seu parabolas proposuit, discipuli seorsum Christum interrogabant, ut habetur Matth. XIII, 10 et Mc. IV, 10. Unde et Augustinus dicit: pascit dominus manifestis (scilicet fideles turbas), exercet obscuris, scilicet discipulos. 1379 The cause of their failure to understand was that Christ was speaking in figures. The Evangelist says, This figure [ proverbium ] Jesus used with them. A figure [ proverbium ], properly speaking, is the use of one word in place of another, when it is intended that one word be understood from its likeness to the other. This is also called a parable [ parabola ]. Our Lord spoke in figures, first of all, because of the wicked, in order to conceal from them the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven: "To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of God; but for others they are in parables" (Lk 8:10). Secondly, because of the good, so that his figures might stir them up to make further inquiry. So, after our Lord spoke his figures or parables to the crowds, his disciples questioned him in private, as mentioned in Matthew (13:10) and Mark (4:10). This is the reason why Augustine says: "Our Lord feeds" the believing crowds "with clear words, and stirs up" his disciples "with things that are obscure." [9] Ignorantiam manifestat, cum dicit illi autem non intellexerunt quid loqueretur. Ignorantia autem quae proveniebat ex proverbiis a Christo propositis, utilis quidem erat, et damnosa. Sed utilis bonis et iustis ad exercitium in Dei laudem quaerentibus: nam dum ea non intelligunt, credunt, glorificant dominum, et eius sapientiam supra se existentem; Prov. XXV, 2: gloria Dei est celare verbum. Damnosa autem malis, quia non intelligentes, blasphemant, secundum illud in Canon. Iudae v. 10: quaecumque ignorant, blasphemant. Nam, ut Augustinus dicit, cum verba Evangelii audiunt pius et impius, et ambo non intelligunt, pius dicit: verum est et bonum est quod dicit sed nos non intelligimus. Et hic quidem iam pulsat, cui dignum est aperiri, sed si persistat. Impius dicit: nihil dixit, malum est quod ait. 1380 The Evangelist discloses their failure to understand when he says, but they did not understand what he was saying to them. The ignorance which resulted from Christ's figures was both useful and harmful. For the good and the just [who tried to understand them] it was useful for giving praise to God; for although they did not understand, they believed and praised the Lord and his wisdom which was so far above them: "It is the glory of God to conceal the word" [Prv 25:2]. But for the wicked, it was a source of harm, because, failing to understand, they blasphemed: "But these men revile whatever they do not understand" (Jude 10). As Augustine observes, when both the good and the wicked hear the words of the Gospel, and neither of them understands, the good person says that what was said was true and good, but that he does not understand it. Such a person is knocking and deserves to have the door opened, provided he perseveres. But the wicked person says that what was said had no meaning or was evil. [10] Hic dominus exponit similitudinem. Si autem recte consideretur praedicta similitudo, duas principales clausulas continebat, ad quas aliae consequuntur. Quarum prima est: qui non intrat per ostium in ovile ovium (...) ille fur est et latro. Secunda vero est: qui intrat per ostium, pastor est ovium. Et ideo ista pars dividitur in duas: primo enim exponit primam clausulam; secundo secundam, ibi ego sum pastor bonus. Circa primum duo facit. Primo exponit quae prima clausula continebat; secundo probat ea, ibi ego sum ostium. Fit autem mentio in prima clausula de ostio, fure et latrone. Primo exponit primum; secundo secundum, ibi omnes quotquot venerunt, fures sunt et latrones. 1381 Now our Lord explains the similitude. If the above similitude is examined correctly, it contains two principal clauses, followed by others. The first is: "He who does not enter the sheepfold by the dooris a thief and a robber." The second is: "He who enters by the door is the shepherd of the sheep." Accordingly, this section is divided into two parts. First, he explains the first clause; then the second clause (v 11). Concerning the first he does two things: first, he explains the first clause; secondly, he proves it (v 7). The first clause mentions a door, a thief and a robber; so first he explains the door, then the thief and then the robber (v 8). Quantum ad primum dicit: dixit ergo eis iterum Iesus, ut scilicet eos attentiores reddat, et intelligerent similitudinem; Prov. I, 6: animadvertet parabolam et interpretationem et cetera. Amen, amen dico vobis, idest vere, ego sum ostium. Officium enim ostii est ut per ipsum quis ad domus interiora ingrediatur; et hoc Christo convenit: nam per eum oportet quemlibet ad Dei secreta intrare; Ps. CXVII, 20: haec porta domini, scilicet Christus, et iusti intrabunt in eam. Dicit autem ovium, quia non solum pastores per Christum introducuntur in praesentem Ecclesiam, vel in aeternam beatitudinem per Christum ingrediuntur, sed etiam oves; unde infra eodem oves meae vocem meam audiunt (...) et sequuntur me, et ego vitam aeternam do eis. 1382 Concerning the first he says, So Jesus again said to them, to gain their attention and have them understand the similitude: "The man of understanding may acquire skill to understand a proverb and a figure" (Prv 1:6). Jesus said, Truly, truly, I say to you, I am the door. Now the purpose of a door is to conduct one into the inner rooms of a house; and this is fitting to Christ, for one must enter into the secrets of God through him: "This is the gate of the Lord," that is, Christ, "the righteous shall enter through it" (Ps 118:20). He says, I am the door of the sheep, because through Christ not only the shepherds are brought into the present Church or enter into everlasting happiness, but the sheep also. Thus he says below: "My sheep hear my voiceand they follow me; and I give them eternal life" (10:27). Consequenter cum dicit omnes quotquot venerunt, fures sunt et latrones, exponit quod dixit de fure et latrone: et primo ostendit quis sit fur et latro; secundo ponit signum huius. 1383 Then when he says, All who came before me are thieves and robbers, he explains what he had said about thieves and robbers. First, he shows who the thieves and robbers are; secondly, their sign. Circa primum autem cavendus est error Manichaeorum, qui damnantes vetus testamentum ex hoc quod dicitur omnes quotquot venerunt, fures sunt, dicunt, patres veteris testamenti, qui fuerunt ante Christum, malos fuisse et damnatos. 1384 In regard to the first, we should avoid the error of the Manicheans, who rejected the Old Testament on the ground that it says here that all who came before me are thieves. They maintained that the fathers of the Old Testament, who came before Christ, were evil and have been damned. Sed hoc esse falsum apparet ex tribus. Primo quidem ex his quae in parabola dicta sunt. Quod enim hic dicitur omnes quotquot venerunt, ponitur ut expositivum praecedentium; ibi autem dicitur, quod intraverunt, et cetera. Illi ergo omnes quotquot veniunt, scilicet non per me, idest non intrantes per ostium, fures sunt et latrones. Constat autem quod patriarchae et prophetae omnes per ostium, idest Christum, intraverunt, quos Christus venturus praecones mittebat. Licet enim ex tempore carnem acceperit, et factus fuerit homo, ab aeterno tamen erat verbum Dei; Hebr. XIII, 8: Iesus Christus heri et hodie, ipse et in saecula. Prophetae autem missi sunt per verbum Dei et sapientiam; Sap. VII, 27: per nationes in animas sanctas se transfert (scilicet Dei sapientia) prophetas et amicos Dei constituit. Et ideo signanter in prophetis legimus, verbum domini factum esse ad hunc vel ad illum prophetam, qui per participationem verbi Dei prophetaverunt. The falsity of this view is clear from three things. First, from what this parable says. For the statement, all who came before me, is intended as a description of the previous statement, which mentioned those who do not enter by the door. Therefore, all who came before me, but not through me, that is, not entering by the door, are thieves and robbers. It is clear that all the patriarchs and prophets, whom the Christ-to-come had sent forerunners, entered by the door, i.e., Christ. For although he took flesh and became man in time, he was the Word of God from all eternity: "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and for ever" (Heb 13:8). Indeed, the prophets were sent by the Word and Wisdom of God: "In every generation she," the Wisdom of God, "passes into holy souls and makes them friends of God, and prophets" (Wis 7:27). Accordingly, we expressly read in the prophets that the word of God came to this or that prophet, who prophesied by participating in the Word of God. Secundo ex hoc quod dominus dicit venerunt; quasi dicat, propria auctoritate et non a Deo missi, seipsos ingerentes; de quibus Ier. XXIII, 21: non mittebam eos, et ipsi currebant. Isti quidem non venerunt a verbo Dei; Ez. XIII, 3: vae prophetis insipientibus, qui sequuntur spiritum suum, et nihil vident. Tales non fuerunt patres veteris testamenti, ut dictum est. Secondly, the falsity of the teaching of the Manicheans is seen when our Lord says, all who came before me, implying that they were thrusting themselves forward on their own authority and were not sent by God: "I did not send the prophets, yet they ran" (Jer 23:21). Indeed, such prophets have not come from the Word of God: "Woe to the foolish prophets who follow their own spirit, and have seen nothing" (Ez 13:3). But the fathers of the Old Testament were not of this type, as has been said. Tertio ex ipso facto, quod ostendit verborum consequentia, nam hic dicitur non audierunt eos oves. Illi ergo quos audierunt oves, non fuerunt fures et latrones. Populus autem Israel prophetas audivit. Propterea illi qui non audierunt, in sacra Scriptura vituperantur; Act. VII, 52: quem prophetarum non sunt persecuti patres vestri? Matth. XXIII, v. 37: Ierusalem, Ierusalem, quae occidis prophetas, et lapidas eos qui ad te missi sunt. Thirdly, this falsity is seen from the fact that he shows what effect their words had, for we read, but the sheep did not heed them. Therefore, those whom the sheep did heed were not thieves and robbers. Now the people of Israel did listen to the prophets, and those who did not heed them were rebuked in Sacred Scripture: "Which of the prophets did not your fathers persecute?" (Acts 7:52); "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, killing the prophets and stoning those who are sent to you!" (Matt 23:37). Sic ergo errore excluso, dicendum est omnes quotquot venerunt scilicet praeter me, et praeter divinam inspirationem et auctoritatem, et non cum intentione divinae gloriae quaerendae, sed propriae usurpandae, fures sunt, inquantum quod non suum est, scilicet docendi auctoritatem, sibi usurpant, Is. I, 23: principes tui infideles, socii furum, et latrones, quia per pravam doctrinam occidunt; Matth. XXI, 13: vos autem fecistis illam speluncam latronum; Oseae VI, v. 9: particeps latronum interficientium in via pergentes. Sed eos, scilicet fures et latrones, oves, praedestinatae, non audierunt, scilicet perseveranter; alias non fuissent de ovibus Christi, quia alienum non sequuntur, sed fugiunt ab eo: ut dicitur supra eodem. Hoc etiam praecipitur Deut. XIII, 3: non audias verba illius prophetae aut somniatoris. 1385 Having excluded this error, it must be said that all who came before me, that is, independently of me, without divine inspiration and authority, and not with the intention of seeking the glory of God but acquiring their own, are thieves, insofar as they take for themselves what is not theirs, that is, the authority to teach - "Your princes are rebels and companions of thieves" (Is 1:23) - and robbers, because they kill with their corrupt doctrine - "You make it a den of robbers" (Matt 21:13); "As robbers lie in wait for a manthey murder on the way" (Hos 6:9). But the sheep, that is, the predestined, did not heed them, the thieves and robbers, otherwise they would not have been Christ's sheep, because, as was said before, "A stranger they will not follow, but they will flee from him." Furthermore, this is commanded in Deuteronomy: "You shall not listen to the words of that prophet or to that dreamer of dreams" (13:3). Ego sum ostium. Hic manifestat expositionem, et primo expositionem ostii; secundo furis, ibi fur non venit. Circa primum duo facit. Primo resumit quod intendit exponere; secundo exponit.
1386 I am the door. Here he clarifies his explanation: first, of the door; secondly, of the thief (v 10). Concerning the first, he does two things: first, he repeats what he intends to explain; and secondly, he gives the explanation (v 9).Resumit autem quod dixit ego sum ostium. Cantic. ult., 9: si est ostium, compingamus illud tabulis cedrinis, idest attribuamus ei virtutem imputrescibilem. 1387 He repeats what he had already said, namely, I am the door: "If she is a door, we will enclose her with boards of cedar" (Song 8:9), that is, let us grant her an incorruptible power. Exponit autem cum dicit per me si quis introierit, salvabitur. Ubi primo ostendit quod competit ei usus ostii, qui est salvare oves; secundo insinuat salvationis modum, ibi ingredietur et egredietur. 1388 He explains this when he says, if any one enters by me, he will be saved. First, he shows that the purpose of a door, which is to keep the sheep safe, applies to himself; secondly, he mentions the manner in which they are kept safe (v 9b). Salvat autem ostium arcendo interiores ne progrediantur, et defendendo ab exterioribus, ne invadantur. Et hoc competit Christo, nam per ipsum salvamur et protegimur. Et hoc est quod dicit per me, scilicet ostium, si quis, non fictus, introierit, ad societatem Ecclesiae et fidelium, salvabitur: supple, si perseveraverit; Act. IV, 12: non est aliud nomen sub caelo datum hominibus, in quo oporteat nos salvos fieri; Rom. V, 10: multo magis salvi erimus in vita ipsius. 1389 The door safeguards the sheep by keeping those within from going out, and by protecting them from strangers who want to come in. And this applies to Christ, for he is our safeguard and protection. And this is what he says: if any one, not with insincerity, enters, into the fellowship of the Church and of the faithful, by me, the door, he will be saved, i.e., if he perseveres: "For there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved" (Acts 4:12); "We shall be saved by his life" (Rom 5:10). Modus autem salutis ponitur cum dicit et ingredietur et egredietur, et pascua inveniet: quae quidem verba quadrupliciter exponi possunt. Primo quidem, secundum Chrysostomum, nihil aliud debet intelligi quam securitas et libertas adhaerentium Christo. Nam qui aliunde ascendit quam per ostium, non habet liberum introitum et exitum; qui vero per ostium intrat, habet liberum exitum, quia libere potest exire. Cum ergo dicit ingredietur et egredietur, est sensus, secundum hanc similitudinem, quod apostoli adhaerentes Christo, cum securitate ingrediuntur, conversando cum fidelibus qui intra Ecclesiam sunt, et cum infidelibus qui sunt extra, quando totius orbis terrarum facti sunt domini, et nullus eos eiicere valuit; Num. XXVII, 16: provideat dominus Deus spirituum universae carnis hominem super populum istum, qui possit ingredi et egredi: ne sit populus domini sicut oves absque pastore. Et pascua inveniet, idest, delectationem in conversione, et gaudium etiam in persecutionibus infidelium pro Christi nomine habebant; secundum illud Act. V, 41: ibant apostoli gaudentes a conspectu Concilii, quoniam digni habiti sunt pro nomine Iesu contumeliam pati. 1390 The way the sheep are safeguarded is set forth when he says that he will go in and out and find pasture. This statement can be explained in four ways. First of all, according to Chrysostom, it simply affirms the security and freedom of those who cling to Christ. [11] For one who enters some other way than by the door does not have free entry and exit; but one who does enter by the door has free exit, because he can leave freely. Therefore, when he says, he will go in and out, the meaning is that the Apostles adhering to Christ enter with security by living with the faithful, who are within the Church, and with unbelievers who are outside, when they became masters of the whole world and no one wished to cast them out: "Let the Lord, the God of the spirits of all flesh appoint a man over the congregation, who shall go out before them and come in before themthat the congregation of the Lord may not be as sheep which have no shepherd" (Num 27:16). And find pasture, find delight in converting others, and find joy even when persecuted by unbelievers for the name of Christ: "Then they left the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer dishonor for the name," as we read in Acts (5:41). Secundo potest exponi, secundum Augustinum super Ioannem. Cuilibet bene agenti duo incumbunt, scilicet ut bene se habeat ad ea quae intra ipsum sunt, et ad ea quae extra. Interius autem in homine est spiritus; exterius autem est corpus; II Cor. c. IV, 16: licet is qui foris est homo noster corrumpatur, tamen is quis intus est renovatur de die in diem. Ille ergo qui Christo adhaeret, ingredietur quidem per contemplationem ad custodiam conscientiae; Sap. VIII, v. 16: intrans domum meam, scilicet conscientiam, conquiescam cum illa, scilicet sapientia. Et egredietur, foras, scilicet per bonam actionem, ad domandum corpus; Ps. CIII, v. 23: exibit homo ad opus suum et ad operationem suam usque ad vesperum: et pascua inveniet, scilicet in conscientia munda et devota; Ps. XVI, 15: apparebo conspectui tuo, satiabor cum apparuerit gloria tua: et in actione, pascua inveniet scilicet fructus; Ps. CXXV, 6: venientes autem venient cum exultatione, portantes manipulos suos. 1391 Secondly, this can be explained as Augustine does in his Commentary on John. [12] Two things are incumbent upon anyone who acts well, namely to be well-ordered to the things that are within him, and to those that are without. Within a person is the spirit, and without is the body: "Though our outer nature is wasting away, our inner nature is being renewed every day" (2 Cor 4:16). Therefore, a person who clings to Christ will go in through contemplation, to protect his conscience - "When I enter my house," i.e., my conscience, "I shall find rest with her," i.e., with wisdom (Wis 8:16) - and out, namely, by good actions, to tame the body - "Man goes forth to his work and to his labor until the evening" (Ps 104:23) - and find pasture, in a clean and sincere conscience - "I will appear before your sight: I will be satisfied when your glory appears" [Ps 16:15]. Again, by his actions he will find pasture, i.e., fruit - "He shall come home with shouts of joy, bringing his sheaves with him" (Ps 126:6). Tertia expositio est etiam eiusdem, et beati Gregorii super Ezech., ut sit sensus: ingredietur, in Ecclesiam, credendo; Ps. XLI, 5: transibo in locum tabernaculi admirabilis, quod est ingredi in Ecclesiam militantem; et egredietur, scilicet de militante ad Ecclesiam triumphantem; Cant. III, v. 11: egredimini, filiae Sion, et videte regem Salomonem in diademate, quo coronavit illum mater sua in die desponsationis illius; et pascua inveniet, in Ecclesia militante, scilicet doctrinae et gratiae; Ps. XXII, v. 2: in loco pascuae ibi me collocavit: et in Ecclesia triumphante, scilicet gloriae; Ez. c. XXXIV, 14: in pascuis uberrimis pascam eas. 1392 The third explanation is also Augustine's as well as that given by Gregory in his Commentary on Ezekiel. [13] The meaning, then, is this. Such a one will go in, i.e., into the Church, by believing - "I shall go over into the place of the wonderful tabernacle" [Ps 41:5], and this is to enter the Church Militant; and out, from the Church Militant into the Church Triumphant - "Go forth, O daughters of Zion, and behold King Solomon, with the crown with which his mother crowned him on the day of the wedding" (Song 3:11); and find pasture, that is, the pastures of doctrine and grace in the Church Militant - "He makes me lie down in green pastures"; and the pastures of glory in the Church Triumphant: "I will feed them with good pasture" (Ez 34:14). Quarto exponitur in libro de spiritu et anima, qui Augustino attribuitur, cuius tamen non est: ubi dicitur, quod ingredientur, scilicet sancti, ad contemplandam divinitatem Christi, et egredientur, ad eius humanitatem considerandam; et in utroque pascua invenient, quia in utroque gaudia contemplationis gustabunt; Is. XXXIII, 17: regem in decore suo videbunt. 1393 Fourthly, there is an explanation found in the work, On the Spirit and the Soul, which has been incorrectly attributed to Augustine. [14] Here it is said that such a one will go in, that is, the saints will go in to contemplate the divinity of Christ, and out, to consider his humanity; and they will find pasture in both, because in both they will taste the joys of contemplation: "Your eyes shall see the king in his beauty" (Is 33:17). Hic igitur de fure, et primo ponit furis proprietatem; secundo asserit sibi contrariam proprietatem inesse, ibi ego veni ut vitam habeant et cetera. 1394 Now he considers the thief. First, he mentions the mark of the thief; secondly, he says that he himself has the opposite characteristic, I came that they may have life. Dicit ergo, quod illi qui non intrant per ostium, idest qui venerunt praeter me, ipsi fures sunt et latrones, quorum conditio mala est. Nam primo quidem fur non venit nisi ut furetur, idest ut usurpet quod non est suum, cum scilicet seditiosi et haeretici eos qui Christi sunt, sibi adiungunt; Ps. X, 9: insidiatur ut rapiat pauperem. Secundo fur venit ut mactet, idest occidat inducendo perversam doctrinam et pravos mores; Oseae VI, 9: particeps latronum interficientium in via pergentes de Sichem. Tertio ut perdat immittendo in perditionem aeternam; Ier. l, 6: grex perditus factus est populus meus. Quae quidem conditiones non sunt in me. Ego veni ut vitam habeant; quasi dicat: isti non per me venerunt, quia similia agerent his quae ego ago; sed ipsi contrarium agunt: quia furantur, occidunt et perdunt. 1395 He says that those who do not enter by the door, i.e., those who have come independently of me, are thieves and robbers; and they are evil. For in the first place, the thief comes only to steal, i.e., to usurp what is not his; these are the agitators and heretics, who fasten on to those who belong to Christ: "He lies in ambush to catch the ones who are poor" [Ps 9:4]. Secondly, the thief comes to kill, and he kills by bringing in perverse teachings and evil practices: "As robbers lie in wait for a manthey murder on the way" (Hos 6:9). Thirdly, the thief comes to destroy, by casting into everlasting destruction: "My people have been lost sheep" (Jer 50:6). But these traits are not in me. Ego veni ut vitam habeant, scilicet iustitiae, ingredientes Ecclesiam militantem per fidem; Hebr. X, 38 et Rom. I, 17: iustus autem ex fide vivit. De ista vita dicitur I Io. III, 14: nos scimus quoniam translati sumus de morte ad vitam, quoniam diligimus fratres. Et abundantius habeant, scilicet vitam aeternam, egredientes de corpore: de qua vita aeterna dicitur infra XVII, 3: ut cognoscant te solum verum Deum. 1396 I came that they may have life. This is like saying: The above have not come in by me, otherwise they would do as I do. But they do the contrary, because they steal, and kill and destroy. I came that they may have life, that is, the life of righteousness, by entering into the Church Militant through faith: "My righteous one shall live by faith" (Heb 10:38). We read of this life in 1 John (3:14) that "We know that we have passed out of death into life, because we love the brethren." And have it abundantly, that is, have eternal life, when they leave the body. We read below of this life: "This is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God" (17:3).
Lectio 3 LECTURE 3 Hic exponit secundam clausulam praemissae parabolae scilicet, qui intrat per ostium, pastor est ovium, et primo ponit expositionem; secundo manifestat eam, ibi ego sum pastor bonus et cetera. Exponit autem illam particularem, dicens se esse pastorem bonum: secundo subdit boni pastoris officium, ibi bonus pastor animam suam dat pro ovibus suis; tertio ostendit de malo pastore contrarium, ibi mercenarius autem (...) videt lupum venientem, et fugit. 1397 Here he explains the second clause of the parable, "he who enters by the door is the shepherd of the sheep" (10:2). First, he gives the explanation; secondly, he makes it clear (v 14). First, he explains that he is the good shepherd; secondly, he states the office of a good shepherd (v 11b); thirdly, he shows that the opposite is found in an evil shepherd (v 12). Dicit ergo quantum ad primum ego sum pastor bonus. Quod autem Christus sit pastor, manifeste ei competit: nam sicut per pastorem grex gubernatur et pascitur, ita fideles per Christum spirituali cibo, et etiam corpore et sanguine suo reficiuntur; I Petr. c. II, 25: eratis aliquando sicut oves non habentes pastorem; sed conversi estis nunc ad pastorem et episcopum animarum vestrarum; Is. XL, 11: sicut pastor gregem suum pascet. Sed ad differentiam mali pastoris et furis addit bonus. Bonus, inquam, quia implet pastoris officium, sicut bonus miles dicitur qui implet militis officium. Sed cum Christus dixerit supra, pastorem intrare per ostium, et iterum se esse ostium, hic autem dicat se esse pastorem, oportet quod ipse per semetipsum intret. Et quidem per seipsum intrat, quia seipsum manifestat, et per seipsum novit patrem. Nos autem per illum intramus, quia per ipsum beatificamur. 1398 He says, in regard to the first, I am the good shepherd. That Christ is a shepherd is clear enough, for as a flock is led and fed by the shepherd, so the faithful are nourished by Christ with spiritual food, and even with his own body and blood: "For you were straying like sheep, but now have returned to the Shepherd and Guardian of your souls" (1 Pet 2:25); "He will feed his flock like a shepherd" (Is 40:11). To distinguish himself from an evil shepherd and thief, he adds, good. Good, I say, because he fulfills the office of a shepherd, just as a soldier is called good who fulfills the office of a soldier. But since Christ had said above that the shepherd enters by the door, and here he says that he is the shepherd, and before he said he was the door (v 9), then he must enter through himself. And he does enter through himself, because he manifests himself and through himself knows the Father. We, however, enter through him, because it is by him that we are led to happiness. Sed attende, quod nullus alius est ostium nisi ipse, quia nullus alius est lux vera, sed per participationem; supra I, 8: non erat ille lux, scilicet Ioannes Baptista, sed ut testimonium perhiberet de lumine. Sed de Christo dicitur erat lux vera quae illuminat omnem hominem. Et ideo esse ostium nemo se dicit: hoc sibi ipse Christus proprie retinuit; esse autem pastorem, aliis communicavit, et membris suis dedit: nam et Petrus pastor, et ceteri apostoli pastores fuerunt, et omnes boni episcopi; Ier. III, 15: dabo vobis pastores secundum cor meum. Licet autem praepositi Ecclesiae, qui filii sunt, omnes pastores sint, ut Augustinus dicit; ideo tamen singulariter dicit ego sum pastor bonus, ut insinuet virtutem caritatis. Nullus enim est pastor bonus nisi per caritatem efficiatur unum cum Christo, et fiat membrum veri pastoris. Note that only he is the door, because no one else is the true light, but only shares in the light: "He," John the Baptizer, "was not the light, but came to bear witness to the light" (1:8). But we read of Christ that "He was the true light, which enlightens every man" [1:9]. Therefore, no one else refers to himself as a door; Christ reserved this for himself. But being a shepherd he did share with others, and conferred it on his members: for Peter was a shepherd, and the other apostles were shepherds, as well as all good bishops: "I will give you shepherds after my own heart" (Jer 3:15). Now, although the Church's rulers, who are her children, are all shepherds, as Augustine says, yet he expressly says, I am the good shepherd, in order to emphasize the virtue of charity. [16] For no one is a good shepherd unless he has become one with Christ by love, and has become a member of the true shepherd. Officium boni pastoris est caritas; unde dicit bonus pastor animam suam dat pro ovibus suis. Sciendum est enim, quod differentia est inter bonum pastorem et malum: nam bonus pastor intendit commodum gregis; malus autem commodum proprium: et haec differentia tangitur Ez. XXXIV, 2: vae pastoribus qui pascunt semetipsos. Nonne greges pascuntur a pastoribus? Qui igitur utitur grege ut semetipsum tantum pascat, non est pastor bonus. Ex quo sequitur quod pastor malus, etiam corporalis, nullum detrimentum vult sustinere pro grege, cum non intendat eorum commodum, sed proprium. Bonus vero pastor, etiam corporalis, sustinet multa pro grege, cuius bonum intendit; unde Iacob dixit Gen. XXXI, 40: nocte ac die gelu urebar et aestu. Sed in corporalibus pastoribus non exigitur a bono pastore ut exponat se morti propter salutem gregis. Sed quia spiritualis gregis salus praeponderat corporali vitae pastoris, ideo cum periculum imminet de gregis salute, debet quisque spiritualis pastor, corporalis vitae sustinere dispendium pro gregis salute. Et hoc est quod dominus dicit bonus pastor animam suam, idest vitam corporalem, ponit pro ovibus suis, idest auctoritate et caritate. Utrumque enim exigitur, et quod ad eum pertineat, et quod eas amet: nam primum sine secundo non sufficit. Huius autem doctrinae Christus nobis exemplum praebuit; I Io. III, 16: si Christus posuit animam suam pro nobis, et nos debemus pro fratribus animas ponere. 1399 The office of a good shepherd is charity; thus he says, the good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. It should be noted that there is a difference between a good shepherd and an evil one: the good shepherd is intent upon the welfare of the flock, but the evil one is intent upon his own. This difference is touched upon by Ezekiel (34:2): "Ho, shepherds of Israel who have been feeding yourselves! Should not shepherds feed the sheep?" Therefore, one who uses the flock only to feed himself is not a good shepherd. From this it follows that an evil shepherd, even over animals, is not willing to sustain any loss for the flock, since he does not intend the welfare of the flock, but his own. But a good shepherd, even over animals, endures many things for the flock whose welfare he has at heart. Thus Jacob said in Genesis (31:40): "By day the heat consumed me, and the cold by night." However, when dealing with mere animals it is not necessary that a good shepherd expose himself to death for the safety of the flock. But because the spiritual safety of the human flock outweighs the bodily life of the shepherd, when danger threatens the safety of the flock the spiritual shepherd ought to suffer the loss of his bodily life for the safety of the flock. This is what our Lord says, the good shepherd lays down his life, i.e., his bodily life, for the sheep, the sheep who are his by authority and charity. Both are required, for they must belong to him and he must love them; the first without the second is not enough. Furthermore, Christ has given us an example of this teaching: "He laid down his life for us; and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren" (1 Jn 3:16). Hic agit de malo pastore, ostendens, ei contrarias conditiones inesse a conditionibus boni pastoris, et primo ponit mali pastoris conditiones; secundo ostendit quomodo ipsae conditiones se invicem consequuntur, ibi mercenarius autem (...) fugit. Circa primum duo facit. Primo ponit conditiones mali pastoris; secundo insinuat periculum imminens gregi, ex malo pastore, ibi et lupus rapit et cetera. 1400 Now he considers the evil shepherd, showing that he possesses characteristics contrary to those of the good shepherd. First, he mentions the marks of an evil shepherd; secondly, he shows how these marks follow one another (v 12). Concerning the first he does two things: first, he gives the marks of an evil shepherd; secondly, he mentions the danger which threatens the flock because of an evil shepherd: the wolf snatches them and scatters them. Notandum autem, quod ex his quae dicta sunt de bono pastore et his quae dicuntur de malo, triplex differentia conditionum ipsorum, scilicet boni et mali pastoris, accipi potest. 1401 Note that from what has been said about the good and evil shepherd, there are three differences in their traits: first in their intentions; secondly, in their solicitude; and thirdly in their affections. Prima quidem distinctio accipitur quantum ad intentionem; secunda quantum ad affectum tertia quantum ad sollicitudinem. Differunt ergo primo in intentione, et hoc ex nomine utriusque: nam primus dicitur pastor, ex quo datur intelligi quod intendit pascere gregem; Ez. XXXIV, 2: nonne greges pascuntur a pastoribus? Iste autem, scilicet malus, dicitur mercenarius, quasi mercedem quaerens. Ut sic differant in hoc: quod bonus pastor quaerit utilitatem gregis; mercenarius autem principalius commodum proprium. Haec etiam differentia est inter regem et tyrannum, ut philosophus dicit, quia rex in suo regimine intendit utilitatem subditorum; tyrannus vero utilitatem propriam; unde est sicut mercenarius: Zach. c. XI, 12: si bonum est in oculis vestris, afferte mihi mercedem. 1402 First, they differ in their intentions, and this is implied by their very names. For the first is called a good shepherd, and this implies that he intends to feed the flock: "Should not shepherds feed the sheep?" (Ez 34:2). But the other one, the evil shepherd, is called a hireling, as though he were intent on his wages. Thus they differ in this: the good shepherd looks to the benefit of the flock, while the hireling seeks mainly his own advantage. This is also the difference between a king and a tyrant, as the Philosopher says, because when a king rules he intends to benefit his subjects, while a tyrant seeks his own interest. [17] So a tyrant is like a hireling: "If it seems right to you, give me my wages" (Zech 11:12). Sed numquid possunt quaerere etiam boni pastores mercedem? Videtur quod sic; Eccli. XXXVI, 18: da mercedem, domine, sustinentibus te; Is. XL, 10: ecce merces eius cum eo; et Lc. XV, 17: quanti mercenarii in domo patris mei abundant panibus. 1403 But may not even good shepherds seek a wage? It seems so, for "Reward those who wait for thee" (Si 36:16); "The Lord God comeshis reward is with him" (Is 40:10); "How many of my father's hired servants have bread enough and to spare!" (Lk 15:17). Respondeo. Dicendum quod merces potest accipi dupliciter: scilicet communiter et proprie. Communiter quidem, omne quod meritis redditur, dicitur merces, et quia vita aeterna, quae est Deus, I Io. ult., 20: hic est verus Deus, et vita aeterna, meritis redditur, ideo ipsa vita aeterna merces dicitur. Et hanc mercedem potest et debet quaerere quilibet bonus pastor. Proprie autem dicitur merces aliquid segregatum ab hereditate; et ad hanc non debet habere respectum ille qui est verus filius, ad quem spectat hereditas; sed ad eam respectum habent servi et mercenarii. Unde, cum vita aeterna sit hereditas nostra, qui operatur habens ad eam respectum, operatur ut filius; qui vero intendit aliquid seorsum ab ea (puta terrenis commodis inhiat, honore praelationis gaudet) mercenarius est. I answer that wages can be taken in a general sense and in a proper sense. In a general sense, a wage is anything conferred by reason of merits. And because everlasting life, which is God - "This is true God and eternal life" (1 Jn 5:20) - is conferred by reason of merits, everlasting life is said to be a wage. And this is a wage that every good shepherd can and should seek. In the strict sense, however, a wage is different from an inheritance, and a wage is not sought after by a true child, who is entitled to the inheritance. A wage is sought after by servants and hirelings. Thus, since everlasting life is our inheritance, any one who works with an eye towards it is working as a child; but any one who aims at something different (for example, one who longs for worldly gain, or takes delight in the honor of being a prelate) is a hireling. Secundo distinguuntur quantum ad sollicitudinem: quia de bono pastore dicitur quod oves sunt suae, non solum commissione, sed etiam amore et sollicitudine; Phil. I, 7: eo quod habeam vos in corde etc.; sed de mercenario dicitur cuius non sunt oves propriae, idest, earum sollicitudinem non habet; Ez. XXXIV, 8: neque quaesierunt pastores gregem meum, sed pascebant semetipsos. 1404 Secondly, they differ in their solicitude. We read of the good shepherd that the sheep are his own, not only as a trust, but also by love and solicitude: "I hold you in my heart" (Phil 1:7). On the other hand, it is said of the hireling, whose own the sheep are not, i.e., the hireling has no care for them: "My shepherds have not searched for my sheep, but the shepherds have fed themselves" (Ez 34:8). Tertio differunt quantum ad affectum: nam bonus pastor qui diligit gregem, animam suam dat pro eo, idest, exponit se periculo vitae corporalis. Malus autem, quia nullum affectum habet ad gregem, fugit cum videt lupum. Unde dicit videt lupum venientem, et dimittit oves. Lupus iste tripliciter accipitur. Primo quidem Diabolus tentans; Eccli. XIII, 21: sed si communicabat aliquando lupus cum agno, sic peccator iusto. Secundo vero haereticus mactans; Matth. VII, 15: attendite a falsis prophetis, qui veniunt ad vos in vestimentis ovium; Act. XX, 29: ego scio quoniam intrabunt post discessionem meam lupi rapaces in vos, non parcentes gregi. Tertio tyrannus saeviens: Ez. XXII, 27: principes eius in medio eius quasi lupi. Debet ergo bonus pastor contra hunc lupum triplicem, subditum gregem tueri: dum scilicet videns lupum, idest tentationem diabolicam, deceptionem haereticam et saevitiam tyrannicam, opponit se: contra quod dicitur Ez. XIII, 5: non ascendistis ex adverso, neque opposuistis murum pro domo Israel. 1405 Thirdly, they differ in their affections. For the good shepherd, who loves his flock, lays down his life for it, i.e., he exposes himself to dangers that affect his bodily life. But the evil shepherd, because he has no love for the flock, flees when he sees the wolf. Thus he says, he sees the wolf coming and leaves the sheep and flees. Here, the wolf is understood in three ways. First, for the devil as tempting: "What fellowship has a wolf with a lamb? No more has a sinner with a godly man" (Si 13:17). Secondly, it stands for the heretic who destroys: "beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves" (Matt 7:15); "I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock" (Acts 20:29). Thirdly, it stands for the raging tyrant: "Her princes in the midst of her are like wolves" (Ez 22:27). Therefore, the good shepherd must guard the flock against these three wolves, so that when he sees the wolf, i.e., the devil tempting, the deceiving heretic and the raging tyrant, he can oppose him. Against those who do not, we read, "You have not gone up into the breaches, or built up a wall for the house of Israel" (Ez 13:5). Et ideo dicitur de malo pastore, quod fugit et dimittit oves; Zach. XI, 17: o pastor, et idolum derelinquens gregem; quasi dicat: non es pastor, sed similitudinem et idolum geris pastoris; Ier. XLVI, 21: mercenarii eius in medio eius, quasi vituli saginati versi sunt, et fugerunt simul, nec stare potuerunt. Accordingly, we read of the evil shepherd that he leaves the sheep and flees: "Woe to my worthless shepherd, who deserts the flock" (Zech 11:17). As if to say: You are not a shepherd, but only appear to be one: "Even her hired soldiers in her midst are like fatted calves; yea, they have turned and fled together, they do not stand" (Jer 46:21). Sed contra hoc est quod dicitur Matth. V, 11: si vos persecuti fuerint in una civitate, fugite in aliam. Ergo videtur quod licet pastori fugere. Respondeo. Dicendum quod ad hoc est duplex solutio. Una est Augustini super Ioannem. Est enim duplex fuga: scilicet animi et corporis. Quod autem hic dicitur dimittit oves et fugit, intelligitur de fuga animi: nam dum malus pastor a lupo sibi periculum metuit, resistere eius iniustitiae non praesumit; sed fugit non mutando locum, sed subtrahendo solatium, refugiens scilicet gregis sollicitudinem. 1406 But in Matthew (10:23) we find the contrary: "When they persecute you in one town, flee to the next." Therefore, it seems to be lawful for a shepherd to flee. I reply that there are two answers to this. One is that given by Augustine in his Commentary on John. [18] There are two kinds of flight: that of the soul and that of the body. When we read here, he leaves the sheep and flees, we can understand it to mean the flight of the soul: for when an evil shepherd fears personal danger from a wolf, he does not dare to resist his injustices but flees, not by running away, but by withdrawing his encouragement, refusing to care for his flock. Sed haec expositio necessaria est quantum ad primum lupum, nam contra Diabolum non oportet corporaliter fugere. This should be the explanation when considering the first kind of wolf [the tempting devil], because it is not necessary to physically flee from the devil. Sed quia contingit etiam aliquem pastorem fugere corporaliter propter aliquos lupos, scilicet haereticum habentem potestatem et tyrannum, ideo adhibenda est alia responsio, quam Augustinus ponit in epistola ad Honoratum. Nam, ut ipse dicit, videtur quod liceat etiam corporaliter fugere lupos, non solum ex auctoritate domini supra posita, sed etiam exemplo sanctorum aliquorum, puta Athanasii et aliorum persecutores fugientium. Non enim quia fugit, sed quia dimittit oves vituperatur: unde si posset fugere non dimittendo oves, non esset vituperabile. Contingit enim aliquando, quod quaeritur persona praelati; aliquando totus grex. Manifestum est autem quod si quaeratur sola persona praelati, possunt alii loco sui ad gregis custodiam deputari, qui vice sui consolentur et gubernent gregem. Unde si sic fugiat, non dicitur dimittere oves; et hoc modo, in casu, fugere licet. Si autem quaeratur totus grex, aut oportet quod pastores omnes simul sint cum ovibus, aut oportet quod aliqui ex eis remaneant, et aliqui recedant. Si autem totaliter deserant gregem, tunc eis competit quod hic dicitur videt lupum venientem, et dimittit oves, et fugit. But since sometimes a shepherd does flee physically because of certain wolves, such as powerful heretics and tyrants, another answer must be given, as found in Augustine's Letter to Honoratus. [19] As he says, it seems lawful to flee, even physically, from the wolves, not only because of the authority of our Lord, as cited above, but because of the example of certain saints, as Athanasius and others, who fled from their persecutors. For what is censured is not the flight itself, but the neglect of the flock; so, if the shepherd could flee without abandoning his flock, it would not be blameworthy. Sometimes it is the prelate himself who is the one sought, and at other times, it is the entire flock. It is obvious that if the prelate alone is sought, others can be assigned to guard the flock in his territory, and console and govern the flock in his place. So if he flees under these circumstances, he is not said to leave the sheep. In this way, it is lawful to flee in certain cases. But if the whole flock is sought, then either all the shepherds should be with the people, or some should remain while the others leave. But if all desert the flock, then these words apply, he sees the wolf coming and leaves the sheep and flees. Hic ponitur periculum imminens, quod est duplex. Unum est ovium rapina; unde dicit lupus rapit, scilicet, quod alienum est, sibi usurpat. Fideles enim Christi sunt eius oves. Tunc igitur aliquis haeresiarcha et lupus rapit oves, quando fideles Christi ad doctrinam suam falsam attrahit; Ez. c. XXXIV, 5: factus est grex meus in direptionem omnium bestiarum agri. Aliud periculum est ovium dispersio, unde dicit et dispergit oves, inquantum aliqui seducuntur, et aliqui persistunt; Ez. XXXIV, 6: dispersi sunt greges mei; et non erat qui requireret. 1407 Here he mentions the twofold danger that threatens. One is the ravaging of the sheep; so he says, and the wolf snatches them, i.e., takes for himself what belongs to another, for the faithful are Christ's sheep. Therefore, leaders of sects and wolves snatch the sheep when they entice Christ's faithful to their own teachings: "My sheep have become food for all the wild beasts" (Ez 34:8). The other danger is that the sheep be scattered; so he says, and scatters them, insofar as some are led astray and others persevere: "My sheep were scattered over all the face of the earth, with none to search or seek for them" (Ez 34:6). Hic ostendit quomodo praedictae conditiones se invicem consequuntur: nam ex primis duabus sequitur tertia. Ex hoc enim quod quaerit utilitatem suam, et non afficitur ad gregem per amorem et sollicitudinem, sequitur quod non velit pro eo incommodum sustinere. Et ideo dicit mercenarius autem fugit, ideo scilicet quia mercenarius est, idest, quaerit commodum proprium quantum ad primam conditionem; et non pertinet ad eum de ovibus, idest, non eas diligit, neque pro eis sollicitatur, quantum ad secundam conditionem eius. Unde Iob XXXIX, 16, dicitur de malo pastore: induratur ad filios quasi non fuerint sui. E converso autem est de bono pastore: nam gregis commodum quaerit, non proprium; Philip. IV, 17: non quaero datum, sed quaero fructum et cetera. Et pertinet ad eum de ovibus; idest, eas diligit, et de eis sollicitatur, Phil. I, 7: eo quod habeam vos in vinculis meis et cetera. 1408 Now he shows how the above-mentioned marks are related, for the third follows from the first two. Since the evil shepherd seeks his own advantage and has no love or solicitude for the flock, it follows that he is not willing to endure any inconvenience for them. Thus he says of the hireling, he flees, for this reason, because he is a hireling, that is, he seeks his own advantage, which is the first mark; and cares nothing for the sheep, i.e., he does not love them, and is not solicitous for them, which is the second mark. So we read in Job (39:16) about the evil shepherd: "She deals cruelly with her young, as if they were not hers." The opposite is true of the good shepherd, for he seeks the welfare of his flock, and not his own: "Not that I seek the gift; but I seek the fruit which increases to your credit" (Phil 4:17). Furthermore, he is concerned for his sheep, that is, he loves them and is solicitous for them: "I hold you in my heart" (Phil 1:7).
Lectio 4 LECTURE 4 Hic dominus probat suam expositionem, et primo resumit quod probare intendit; secundo probationem inducit, ibi et cognosco oves meas; tertio eam manifestat, ibi propterea me pater diligit. 1409 Here our Lord proves his explanation. First, he restates what he intends to prove; secondly, he gives the proof, I know my own (v 14b); and thirdly, he amplifies on it (v 17). Dicit ergo primo: ego sum pastor bonus. Hoc expositum est supra. Ez. XXXIV, 11: requiram oves meas in die illa, sicut visitat pastor gregem suum. 1410 He says, I am the good shepherd, which has been explained above: "As a shepherd seeks out his flockso will I seek out my sheep" (Ez 34:12). Consequenter cum dicit et cognosco oves meas, probat quod dicit. Duo autem dicit de se; scilicet quod est pastor, et quod est bonus. Primo ergo probat quod sit pastor; secundo quod pastor bonus. 1411 Then he says, I know my own, he proves what he says. Now he says two things about himself, that he is a shepherd, and that he is good. First, he proves that he is a shepherd; secondly, that he is a good shepherd. Pastorem autem se esse probat per duo signa posita superius de pastore: quorum primum est quod oves proprias vocat nominatim. Et quantum ad hoc dicit et cognosco oves meas; II Tim. II, 19: novit dominus qui sunt eius. Cognosco, inquam, notitia non solum simplici, sed etiam probationis et dilectionis; Apoc. I, 5: dilexit nos, et lavit nos a peccatis nostris. Secundum signum est quod oves vocem eius audiunt, et sciunt eum. Et quantum ad hoc dicit et cognoscunt me meae, meae, inquam, praedestinatione, vocatione et gratia; quasi dicat: ipsae me diligentes obsequuntur. Unde hoc intelligitur de notitia dilectionis, de qua dicitur Ier. XXXI, 34: omnes cognoscent me a minimo usque ad maiorem et cetera. 1412 He proves he is a shepherd by the two signs of a shepherd already mentioned. The first of these is that he calls his own sheep by name. Concerning this he says, I know my own: "The Lord knows those who are his" (2 Tim 2:19). I know, I say, not just with mere knowledge only, but with a knowledge joined with approval and love: "To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins" (Rev 1:5). The second sign is that the sheep hear his voice and know him. And concerning this he says, and my own know me. My own, I say, by predestination, by vocation and by grace. This is like saying: They love me and obey me. Thus, we must understand that they have a loving knowledge about which we read: "They shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest" (Jer 31:34). Bonum autem pastorem se ostendit, ostendens se habere officium boni pastoris, quod est ut animam suam ponat pro ovibus suis, et primo ponit causam huius; secundo ipsum inducit; tertio subdit fructum signi. 1413 He shows that he is a good shepherd by mentioning that he has the office of a good shepherd, which is to lay down his life for his sheep. First, he shows the reason for this; secondly, he gives a sign of it; and thirdly, he shows the fruit of his sign. Causam autem huius signi, scilicet quod animam suam ponit pro ovibus suis, est notitia quam habet de patre: et quantum ad hoc dicit sicut novit me pater, ego agnosco patrem, et animam meam pono pro ovibus meis. Et hoc quidem verbum dupliciter potest exponi. Uno modo, ut ly sicut significet similitudinem; et hoc modo notitia huius potest communicari creaturae alicui; I Cor. XIII, 12: cognoscam sicut et cognitus sum, idest, sicut cognitus sum sine velamine, ita sine velamine cognoscam. Alio modo ut ly sicut importet aequalitatem; et tunc cognoscere patrem sicut cognitus est ab eo, est proprium solius filii, quia solus filius cognoscit patrem comprehendendo, sicut pater comprehendendo cognoscit filium; Matth. XI, 27: nemo novit filium nisi pater, neque patrem quis novit nisi filius, notitia scilicet comprehensionis. Ideo autem dominus hoc dicit, quia in hoc ipso quod cognoscit patrem, cognoscit eius voluntatem, in qua erat ut filius pro salute humani generis moreretur: in quo etiam dicit se mediatorem Dei et hominis. Nam sicut ad oves se habet ut cognitus et cognoscens, ita et ad patrem: quia sicut pater eum novit, ita ipse patrem cognoscit. 1414 The reason for this sign, that is, of his laying down his life for his sheep, is the knowledge he has of the Father. Concerning this he says, as the Father knows me and I know the Father, and I lay down my life for the sheep. This statement can be explained in two ways. In one way, so that "as" indicates just a similarity in knowledge; and taken this way, such knowledge can be given to a creature: "I shall know even as I am known" [1 Cor 13:12], i.e., as I am known without obscurity, so I will know without obscurity. In another way, the "as" implies an equality of knowledge. And then to know the Father as he is known by him is proper to the Son alone, because only the Son knows the Father comprehensively, just as the Father knows the Son comprehensively: "No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son" (Matt 11:27), that is, with a comprehensive knowledge. Our Lord says this because in knowing the Father, he knows the will of the Father that the Son should die for the salvation of the human race. He is also saying here that he is the mediator between God and man. For as he is related to the sheep as known by them and as knowing them, so also he is related to the Father, because as the Father knows him, so he knows the Father. Consequenter cum dicit et animam meam pono pro ovibus meis, ponit ipsum signum; I Io. III, 16: in hoc cognovimus caritatem Dei, quoniam ille pro nobis animam suam posuit et cetera. Sed cum in Christo sint tres substantiae, scilicet substantia verbi, animae et corporis, quaeritur quis loquatur cum dicit animam meam pono. Si dicas, quod verbum hic loquitur, non est verum: nam verbum numquam animam posuit, cum numquam fuerit ab anima separatum. Si autem dicas quod anima loquitur; hoc etiam impossibile videtur, quia nihil separatur a seipso. Si vero dicas, quod quantum ad corpus Christus hoc dicit, nec hoc videtur, quia corpus non habet potestatem iterum sumendi eam. Dicendum ergo ad hoc, quod in morte Christi, anima fuit separata a carne; alias non fuisset vere mortuus; sed divinitas numquam separata fuit in Christo ab ipsa anima et carne, sed unita fuit animae descendenti ad Inferos et corpori existenti in sepulcro: et ideo corpus virtute divinitatis animam posuit, et iterum resumpsit eam. 1415 Then when he says, and I lay down my life for the sheep, he gives the sign: "By this we know love, that he laid down his life for us" (1 Jn 3:16). But since there are three substances in Christ, namely the substance of the Word, of the soul, and of the body, one might ask who is speaking when he says, I lay down my life ["my life" can also be literally translated as "my soul"]. If you say that the Word is speaking here, it is not true, because the Word never laid down his soul, since He was never separated from his soul. If you say that the soul is speaking, this too seems impossible, because nothing is separated from itself. And if you say that Christ says this referring to his body, it does not seem to be so, because his body does not have the power to take up its soul. Therefore, one must say that when Christ died, his soul was separated from his flesh, otherwise Christ would not have been truly dead. But in Christ, his divinity was never separated from his soul or his flesh; but was united to his soul, as it descended to the lower world, and to his body, as it lay in the tomb. And therefore, his body, by the power of his divinity, laid down his soul [or life] by the power of his divinity, and took it up again. [21] Consequenter cum dicit et alias oves habeo etc., ponit fructum mortis Christi, qui est salus non solum Iudaeorum, sed etiam gentium. Quia enim dixerat animam meam pono pro ovibus meis, Iudaei reputantes se oves Dei, secundum illud Ps. LXXVIII, 13: nos autem populus eius, et oves pascuae eius, possent dicere quod pro eis tantum animam poneret. Sed dominus addit dicens, quod non tantum pro eis, sed etiam pro aliis; infra XI, 51: hoc a semetipso non dixit; sed cum esset pontifex anni illius, prophetavit, quia Christus moriturus erat pro gente, et non tantum pro gente, sed ut filios Dei, qui erant dispersi, congregaret in unum. 1416 Then when he says, and I have other sheep, he sets down the fruit of Christ's death, which is the salvation not only of the Jews but of the Gentiles as well. For since he had said, "I lay down my life for the sheep," the Jews, who regarded themselves as God's sheep - "We thy people, the flock of thy pasture" (Ps 79:13) - could have said that he laid down his life for them alone. But our Lord adds that it is not only for them, but for others too: "He prophesied that Jesus should die for the nation, and not for the nation only, but to gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad" (11:51). In isto autem fructu dominus tria facit. Primo ponit gentium praedestinationem; secundo earum per gratiam vocationem; tertio ipsarum iustificationem. 1417 In regard to this fruit our Lord does three things. First, he mentions the predestination of the Gentiles; secondly, their vocation through grace; and thirdly their justification. Quantum ad primum dicit alias oves habeo, scilicet gentes, quae non sunt ex hoc ovili, scilicet de genere carnis Israel, quod erat quasi ovile; Mich. II, 12: congregabo Iacob totum te. Nam sicut oves in ovili concluduntur, sic isti in praeceptis legalibus conclusi custodiebantur, ut habetur Gal. III. Istas, inquam, oves, scilicet gentiles, habeo a patre per aeternam praedestinationem; Ps. II, v. 8: postula a me, et dabo tibi gentes hereditatem tuam; Is. XLIX, 6: parum est ut sis mihi servus ad suscitandas tribus Iacob, et faeces Israel convertendas: dedi te in lucem gentium, ut sis salus mea usque ad extremum terrae. As to the first he says, and I have other sheep, that is, the Gentiles, that are not of this fold, i.e., of the family of the flesh of Israel, which was in a way a flock: "I will surely gather all of you, O Jacob" (Mic 2:12). For as sheep are enclosed in a fold, so the Jews were kept enclosed within the precepts of the Law, as we read in Galatians (c 3). These other sheep, I say, that is, the Gentiles, I have from my Father through an eternal predestination: "Ask of me, and I will make the nations your heritage" (Ps 2:8); "I will give you as a light to the nations, that my salvation may reach to the end of the earth" (Is 49:6). Quantum ad secundum dicit et illas oportet me adducere idest, opportunum est secundum ordinem divinae praedestinationis ad gratiam vocare. 1418 As to the second he says, I must bring them also, i.e., according to the plans of divine predestination it is time to call them to grace. Sed contra. Matth. XV, 24, dicit dominus: non sum missus nisi ad oves quae perierunt domus Israel. Responsio. Dicendum, quod ad oves domus Israel tantum missus est Iesus, ut eis corporaliter praedicaret, secundum illud Roman. XV, 8: dico autem Christum Iesum ministrum fuisse circumcisionis propter veritatem Dei, ad confirmandas promissiones patrum. Gentes autem adduxit per apostolos suos; Is. ult., 19: mittam ex eis, qui reliqui fuerint, ad gentes. This seems to conflict with what our Lord says in Matthew (15:24): "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." I answer that Jesus was sent only to the sheep of the house of Israel in the sense of preaching to them personally, as we read in Romans (15:8): "Christ became a servant to the circumcised to show God's truthfulness, in order to confirm the promises given to the patriarchs." It was through the apostles that he brought in the Gentiles: "From them I will send survivors to the nations" (Is 66:19). Quantum ad tertium dicit et vocem meam audient. Ubi tria ponuntur necessaria ad iustitiam Christianae religionis. Primum est obedientia mandatorum Dei. Et quantum ad hoc dicit et vocem meam audient, idest, servabunt mandata mea; Matth. c. ult. 20: docentes eos servare omnia quaecumque mandavi vobis; Ps. XVII, 45: populus quem non cognovi, idest, quem non approbavi, auditu auris obedivit mihi. 1419 In regard to the third he says, and they will heed my voice. Here he mentions three things necessary for righteousness in the Christian religion. The first is obedience to the commandments of God. Concerning this he says, and they will heed my voice, i.e., they will observe my commandments: "Teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you" (Matt 28:20); "People whom I had not known," i.e., whom I did not approve, served me. As soon as they heard of me they obeyed me" (Ps 18:43). Secundum est unitas caritatis; et quantum ad hoc dicit et fiet unum ovile; idest, ex duabus gentibus, Iudaico et gentili populo, una Ecclesia fidelium; Eph. IV, 5: una fides; et Eph. II, 14: ipse est pax nostra qui facit utraque unum. The second is the unity of charity, and concerning this he says, so there shall be one flock, i.e., one Church of the faithful from the two peoples, the Jews and the Gentiles: "One faith" (Eph 4:5); "For he is our peace, who has made us both one" (Eph 2:14). Tertium est unitas fidei: et quantum ad hoc dicit et unus pastor; Ez. XXXVII, 24: et pastor unus erit ovium eorum, scilicet Iudaeorum et gentilium. The third is the unity of faith, and in regard to this he says, one shepherd: "They shall all have one shepherd," that is, the Jews and the Gentiles (Ez 37:24). Hic dominus manifestat suam probationem, et primo manifestat causam signi; secundo signum, seu effectum, ibi nemo tollit eam a me; tertio ostendit eam esse convenientem, ibi hoc mandatum accepi a patre meo. 1420 Now our Lord explains his proof: first, he amplifies on the reason for the sign [his death for his sheep]; secondly, he explains the sign, or the effect (v 18); thirdly, he shows that the reason is appropriate (v 18b). Causam autem mortis dicit dominus esse notitiam quam habet de patre, dicens: sicut novit me pater, et ego agnosco patrem, et animam meam pono pro ovibus meis. Unde hoc exponens dicit propterea pater me diligit: ex quo patet quod pater novit eum notitia approbationis, propterea, inquam, quia ego pono animam meam, ut iterum sumam eam. 1421 Our Lord says that the reason for his death is the knowledge he has of the Father, saying, "as the Father knows me and I know the Father, and I lay down my life for the sheep." In explaining this he says, for this reason the Father loves me. From this it is clear that the Father knows him with a knowledge joined with approval, for this reason, I say, because I lay down my life, that I may take it again. Sed numquid mors est causa paternae dilectionis? Videtur quod non, quia temporale non est causa aeterni: mors autem Christi est temporalis, dilectio vero Dei ad Christum est aeterna et cetera. Respondeo. Dicendum quod Christus hic loquitur de dilectione patris ad eum, sed inquantum est homo: et sic haec littera dupliciter potest legi. Uno modo ut ly quia teneatur causaliter, alio modo ut designet terminum vel signum dilectionis. 1422 But is it true that his death is the cause of the Father's love? It seems not, because something temporal is not the cause of something eternal. But Christ's death is in the temporal order, while the love of God for Christ is eternal. I answer that Christ is speaking here of the Father's love for him as having a human nature. Accordingly, this passage can be understood in three ways. In one way, so that because indicates a cause, while in the other way it indicates the term or sign of love. Si quidem teneatur causaliter, tunc est sensus: quia ego pono animam meam, idest sustineo mortem, propterea pater diligit me; idest, effectum dilectionis mihi dat, scilicet claritatem et exaltationem corporis; Phil. II, v. 8: factus est obediens usque ad mortem, mortem autem crucis; propter quod et Deus exaltavit illum, et donavit illi nomen quod est super omne nomen. If it is taken causally, then the meaning is: because I lay down my life, i.e., endure death, for this reason the Father loves me, that is, he grants me the effect of his love, which is the glory and exaltation of my body: "He humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him a name which is above every name" (Phil 2:8). Sed contra hoc videtur esse, quia bona opera non possunt esse meritoria divinae dilectionis. Cum enim opera nostra intantum meritoria sint, inquantum caritate informantur, secundum quod dicitur I Cor. XIII, 3: si distribuero omnes facultates meas in cibos pauperum, caritatem autem non habeam, nihil mihi prodest, et Deus praeveniat etiam nos in amando: I Io. IV, 10: in hoc est caritas, non quasi dilexerimus Deum, sed quoniam ipse prior dilexit nos, manifestum est quod sua dilectio praecedit omne meritum nostrum. Sed ad hoc dicendum, quod ipsam Dei dilectionem nullus mereri potest; sed effectum divinae dilectionis, qui est augmentum gratiae, et collatio boni gloriae, quem ex dilectione sua nobis Deus confert, mereri possumus per bona opera nostra. Unde possumus dicere, quod Deus propterea hunc vel illum hominem diligit, idest ei effectum suae dilectionis impendit, quia implet eius mandata. Et sic possumus dicere de Christo homine, quod propterea pater diligit eum, idest, exaltavit, et dedit illi claritatem gloriae, quia posuit animam suam ad mortem. But one might object to this that good works cannot merit the divine love. For since our works are meritorious to the extent that they are given life by charity - "If I give away all I havebut have not love, I gain nothing" (1 Cor 13:3) - and since God is the first to love - "In this is love, not that we love God but that he first loved us" [1 Jn 4:10] - it is clear that his love precedes all our merit. This can be answered by saying that no one can merit God's love; nevertheless, we can merit by our good works the effect of God's love, that is, an increase of grace and the reception of the good of glory, both of which God bestows on us because of his love. Thus we can say that for this reason God loves this or that person, that is, bestows on him the effect of his love, because he obeys his commandments. And so we can say about Christ as man, that for this reason the Father loves him, that is, has exalted him and given him the brightness of glory, because he laid down his life in death. Si vero ly quia importet terminum dilectionis, tunc est sensus: propterea me pater diligit, idest ad hoc me pater dilexit, ut animam meam ponerem. Quasi dicat: pater sua dilectione, quam habet ad me, ordinavit ut per passionem meam redimerem genus humanum; Rom. VIII, 32: proprio filio suo non pepercit, sed pro nobis omnibus tradidit illum. Si autem ly quia designet signum dilectionis, tunc est sensus: propterea pater me diligit, quia ego pono animam meam. Quasi dicat: hoc signum est quod pater me diligat, quia pono animam meam, ut iterum sumam eam; idest, faciens mandata eius et voluntatem suam, sustineo mortem. Evidens enim signum dilectionis est quod homo ex caritate faciat Dei mandata. But if because indicates a sign of love, then he meaning is this: for this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life, as if to say: This is a sign that the Father loves me, because I lay down my life, that I may take it again, that is, I fulfill his commands and will and endure death. For an obvious sign of love is that a person, out of charity, fulfills the commands of God. [22] Hic exponit effectum signi: quod quidem signum erat, ubi dixit animam meam pono pro ovibus meis, exponens quomodo eam ponit, et primo excludit violentiam; secundo subiungit eius potestatem. 1423 Now he explains the effect of the sign. And since the sign was "I lay down my life for the sheep," he explains how he lays it down. First, he excludes violence; secondly, he speaks of his power. Violentiam quidem excludit, quae alicui posset fieri in auferendo vitam: quae Christo non fuit facta. Et quantum ad hoc dicit nemo tollet eam, scilicet animam meam, per violentiam, sed ego pono eam, propria virtute, scilicet a meipso; Is. XLIX, 24: numquid tolletur a forti praeda? 1424 The violence he excludes is that which could be employed in taking a life: such violence was not accomplished in Christ. Concerning this he says, no one takes it from me, that is, my life, by violence, but I lay it down, by my own power, that is, of my own accord: "Can the prey be taken from the mighty?" (Is 49:24). Sed numquid Iudaei non intulerunt Christo violentiam? Intulerunt quidem quantum in eis fuit, sed in Christo non fuit illa violentia, quia, quando voluit, eam sponte posuit. Unde supra VIII, 30, dicitur, quod Iudaei volentes eum apprehendere, non potuerunt, quia nondum venerat hora eius, voluntaria scilicet, non qua cogeretur mori, sed qua dignaretur occidi: ut dicit Augustinus. But did not the Jews use violence against Christ? They did insofar as it was in them; but this violence was not in Christ because he laid down his life voluntarily, when he willed. Thus we read above (7:30) that the Jews wanted to arrest him but were unable "because his hour had not yet come." It was voluntary "not as though he was forced to die, but he condescended to be killed," [23] as Augustine says. Potestatem autem eius subiungit cum dicit potestatem habeo ponendi eam. Circa quod sciendum est, quod cum unio animae et corporis sit naturalis, separatio eorum est naturalis. Et licet causa huius separationis et mortis possit esse voluntaria, tamen mors in hominibus semper est naturalis. In nullo autem puro homine natura subditur voluntati, cum sicut voluntas, ita et natura sit a Deo; et ideo mors cuiuslibet puri hominis oportet quod sit naturalis. In Christo autem natura sua et tota alia natura subditur voluntati eius, sicut artificiata voluntati artificis. Et ideo secundum voluntatis suae placitum, potuit animam ponere cum voluit, et iterum eam sumere: quod nullus purus homo facere potest, licet voluntarie causam mortis sibi possit inferre. Et inde est quod centurio videns eum non naturali necessitate mori, sed sua dum clamans voce magna emisit spiritum: Matth. XXVII, 50 recognovit in eo virtutem divinam dicens: vere filius Dei erat iste. Unde et apostolus I Cor. c. I, 18: verbum crucis pereuntibus stultitia est: his autem qui salvi fiunt, idest nobis, virtus Dei est. Idest in ipsa morte Christi, manifestata est virtus potestatis eius. 1425 He adds something about his power when he says, I have power to lay it down. Apropos of this it should be noted that since the union of the soul and body is natural, their separation is natural. And although the cause of this separation and death can be voluntary, yet among human beings death is always natural. Now nature is not subject to the will of any mere human, since nature, as well as the will, are from God. Therefore, the death of any mere human person must be natural. But in Christ, his own nature and every other nature are subject to his will, just like artifacts are subject to the will of the artisan. Thus, according to the pleasure of his will, he could lay down his life when he willed, and he could take it up again; no mere human being can do this, although he could voluntarily use some instrument to kill himself. This explains why the centurion, seeing that Christ did not die by a natural necessity, but by his own [will] - since "Jesus cried again with a loud voice and yielded up his spirit" (Matt 27:50) - recognized a divine power in him, and said: "Truly, this was the Son of God" (Matt 27:54). Again, the Apostle says in 1 Corinthians (1:18): "For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God," that is, his great power was revealed in the very death of Christ. [24] Hic ostendit causam praedictam convenientem esse: nam impletio mandati demonstrat dilectionem ad mandantem. Et ideo dicit hoc mandatum accepi a patre meo, scilicet animam ponendi, et sumendi eam; infra XIV, 23: si quis diligit me, sermonem meum servabit, et pater meus diliget eum. 1426 Here he shows that the above-mentioned reason is appropriate, for to fulfill a command shows love for the one commanding. Thus he says, this charge I have received from my Father, that is, to lay down my life and take it up again: "If a man loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him" (14:23).
Lectio 5 LECTURE 5 Postquam dominus ostendit se habere virtutem vivificativam, et insinuavit vivificandi modum, hic ostendit secundum quid sibi vivificativa potestas conveniat, et primo Evangelista ponit dissensionem exortam super hoc inter turbas ad se invicem; secundo ponit disceptationem principum Iudaeorum ad Christum, ibi facta sunt encaenia et cetera. Circa primum tria facit. Primo ponit ipsam turbarum dissensionem; secundo subdit unius partis dissentientium opinionem; tertio infert sanam alterius partis assertionem. 1427 After showing that he has power to give life and showing his manner of doing so, our Lord here shows how this power to give life belongs to him. First, the Evangelist mentions the dispute which arose among the crowd on his point; secondly, he gives the discussion between the Jewish leaders and Christ (v 22). Concerning the first he does three things. First, he mentions the dispute within the crowd; secondly, he gives the opinion of one side; and then states the reasonable position of the other side. Dissensio autem orta est inter turbas quae Christum audierant, ex sermonibus eius: et hoc est quod dicit dissensio itaque facta est inter Iudaeos propter sermones hos. Dum enim quidam ex eis sermones ipsos recte intelligebant, quidam non recte, dissentiebant ad invicem; Matth. X, 34: non veni pacem mittere, sed gladium, scilicet evangelicae doctrinae, cui alii credunt, alii contradicunt; Ps. CVI, 40: effusa est contentio super principes. 1428 The dispute arose within the crowd which was listening to Christ because of what he said. The Evangelist says, There was again a division among the Jews because of these words. Since some of them understood his words correctly, and others did not, they argued among themselves: "I have not come to bring peace, but a sword," that is, the sword of gospel teaching, which some believed and others deny (Matt 10:34). "He pours contempt upon princes" (Ps 107:40). Opinio autem alterius partis dissentientium est falsa: et quantum ad hoc dicit dicebant autem multi ex ipsis. Dicit autem multi, quia, ut dicitur Eccle. I, 15: stultorum infinitus est numerus. Dicebant, inquam, Daemonium habet, et insanit. Consuetudo namque stultorum est ut dubia semper interpretentur in malum, cum tamen contrarium debeat fieri. Unde contingit quod quaecumque ignorant, blasphemant, ut dicitur in canonica Iudae. Quia ergo verba domini intelligere non valebant, quia lux in tenebris lucet, et tenebrae eam non comprehenderunt, ideo blasphemant dicentes Daemonium habet, et insanit. Et nituntur alios ab eo avertere, dicentes: quid eum auditis? 1429 The opinion of one party to the argument was false. About this he says, Many of them said He says, Many, because as we read in Ecclesiastes [1:15]: "The number of fools is infinite." They said, He has a demon, and he is mad, for it is the habit of the foolish to always give an evil interpretation to matters about which they are in doubt; whereas the opposite should be done. Thus they revile whatever they do not know, as we read in the letter of Jude. And so because they were incapable of understanding our Lord's words - for "the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it" [1:5] -they blasphemed, saying, he has a demon, and he is mad. And they try to turn others away from him, saying Why listen to him? Blasphemantes autem, duo Christo imponunt. Primo, quod Daemonium habet; quasi dicant: non ex spiritu sancto, sed ex spiritu maligno loquitur. Simile dicitur Act. XVII, 18, de Paulo: novorum Daemoniorum annuntiator est. Contingit autem aliquem habere Daemonium privatum et familiarem; et talis licet semper insaniat spiritualiter, non tamen semper insanit corporaliter; aliquem vero arreptum a Daemone esse: et iste semper insanit etiam corporaliter. Unde Mc. III, 21, dicebant: quoniam in furorem versus est. Secundo, ut ostendat quod Christus sic habeat Daemonium, dicunt et insanit. Act. XXVI, v. 24: multae litterae ad insaniam te adducunt. Nec mirum si blasphemant, quia animales sunt, et, ut dicitur I Cor. II, 14, animalis homo non percipit ea quae sunt spiritus Dei. These blasphemers accuse Christ of two things. First, that he has a demon. As if to say: He is not speaking due to the Holy Spirit, but from a wicked spirit. Something similar is found in Acts about Paul: "He seems to be a preacher of foreign divinities [demons]" (17:18). Now the fact is that a person who has his own and familiar demon is always spiritually mad, but not always mad in a bodily way. But some can be possessed by a demon, and these are always mad even in a bodily way. Thus it was said of Christ "He has become mad" (Mk 3:21). Secondly, to show that Christ has a demon in this way, they say, and he is mad. "Your great learning is turning you mad" (Acts 26:24). Yet their blasphemy is not surprising, because they are sensual and, as we read in 1 Corinthians [2:14]: "The sensual person does not perceive those things that pertain to the Spirit of God." Sententia autem et assertio alterius partis improbat praemissam opinionem dupliciter. Primo ex pondere verborum; unde dicit alii, qui scilicet recte sapiebant, dicebant: haec verba non sunt Daemonium habentis, quasi dicant: ex eis videtur quod non insanit, cum sint ordinata et ponderosa; supra VI, 69: domine, ad quem ibimus? Verba vitae aeternae habes. Unde Paulus dicit Act. c. XXVI, 25: non insanio, optime Feste, sed verba veritatis et sobrietatis loquor. Secundo ex magnitudine miraculi; unde dicit numquid Daemonium potest oculos caecorum aperire? Quasi dicat: non erat enim hoc miraculum maximum? Et ideo recte credebant, quod non nisi Dei virtute fieri posset; supra IX, 33: si non esset hic a Deo, non poterat facere quidquam. 1430 This opinion is refuted by the statements of the other side, and this is in two ways. First, by the profundity of Christ's words. Thus he says, Others, that is, those who rightly understood, said, These are not the sayings of one who has a demon. This was like saying: It is clear from what he is saying that he is not mad, because his words are orderly and profound: "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life" (6:69). And Paul says, "I am not mad, most excellent Festus, but I am speaking the sober truth" (Acts 26:25). Secondly, this opinion is refuted by the greatness of the miracle worked by Christ. Thus they say, Can a demon open the eyes of the blind? This means: Was not this one of the greatest of miracles? They were correct in believing that it could be performed only by the power of God: "If this man were not from God, he could do nothing" (9:33). Sciendum est autem, quod quaedam miracula sunt quae possunt fieri virtute Daemonum et Angelorum; quaedam vero sunt quae nullo modo eorum virtute fieri possunt. Ea enim quae sunt supra ordinem naturae, nulla creatura, quaecumque sit, sua virtute potest facere, cum etiam ipsa subiaceat legibus naturae. Deus autem solus, qui est supra naturam, operari potest supra naturae ordinem. Quidquid ergo aliqua creatura operatur, oportet quod sistat infra naturae ordinem. Ex quo patet quod omne illud quod potest fieri secundum ordinem naturae, potest Angelus et bonus et malus, quando sibi permittitur. Sicut secundum semina, quae sunt in rebus naturalibus ad generationem aliquorum animalium ordinata, possunt illorum animalium generationem operari; sicut fecerunt magi Pharaonis, Ex. VII, 11. Et similiter alterare naturam alicuius possunt: unde possent sanare infirmos, quibus beneficio naturae subveniri posset. 1431 It should be noted that there are certain "miracles" which can be performed by the power of demons and angels, and there are others which in no way can be accomplished by their power. Those things which are above the order of nature no creature whatever can perform by its own power, since the creature itself is subject to the laws of nature. God alone, who is above nature, can act above the order of nature. Therefore, whatever any creature performs must remain within the order of nature, an angel, either good or wicked, is able to do, when it is permitted. Thus, by using the seeds which in natural things are ordered to the generation of certain animals, they are able to effect the generation of these animals, as Pharaoh's magicians did (Ex 7:11). Again, they can produce changes affecting the nature of a thing; thus, they can heal the sick who could be helped by the power of nature. Illa autem quae simpliciter naturae ordinem transcendunt, non possunt fieri nisi a Deo, seu a bonis Angelis et sanctis hominibus virtute Dei, quam orando impetrant. Tale autem est illuminatio caeci et resuscitatio mortuorum: non enim naturae virtus se extendere potest ad oculorum restitutionem et mortuorum resuscitationem. Et ideo Daemonium non potest caecorum oculos aperire, et mortuos suscitare: quia hoc est solius Dei et sanctorum virtute Dei. But things that absolutely transcend the order of nature can be performed by God alone, or by good angels and saintly men through God's power, which they obtain through prayer. Such would be the conferring of sight on the blind and the raising of the dead; for the power of nature cannot extend to the restoring of sight or to the raising of the dead. Consequently, a demon cannot open the eyes of a blind man or raise the dead, because this is done by God alone, and by the saints through the power of God. Hic ponitur dissensio quae mota est a principibus Iudaeorum ad Christum, et primo Evangelista proponit Iudaeorum interrogationem; secundo subdit Christi responsionem, ibi respondit eis Iesus: loquor vobis, tertio infert responsionis effectum, ibi sustulerunt lapides Iudaei. Circa primum duo facit. Primo describit circumstantias interrogationis; secundo ponit ipsam interrogationem, ibi dixerunt ei: usquequo animam nostram tollis? Circumstantias autem interrogationis describit quantum ad tria: scilicet quantum ad tempus, quantum ad locum, et quantum ad personas interrogantes. 1432 Here we see the dispute which the Jewish leaders initiated with Christ. First, the Evangelist gives the question asked by the Jews; secondly, Christ's answer (v 25); and thirdly, the effect of this answer (v 31). Concerning the first he does two things: first, he describes the circumstances of the questioning; secondly, he gives the question itself (v 24). The circumstances of the questioning are described with respect to three things: the time, the place, and the persons who ask the question. Quantum ad tempus quidem primo in speciali, dicens facta sunt encaenia in Ierosolymis. Ad cuius intellectum sciendum est, quod, ut Augustinus dicit, encaenia festivitas erat dedicationis in Ecclesiis. Caenos enim Graece, idem est quod novum Latine. Unde encaenia idem est quod innovatio: quo fit ut etiam communi usu loquendi, quando aliquod alicui usui dedicatur, dicatur encaeniari, quod idem est quod innovari. Facta sunt ergo encaenia in Ierosolymis, idest festum et memoria dedicationis templi. 1433 He mentions the specific time first, saying, it was (encaenia) the feast of the Dedication at Jerusalem. To understand this we have to know, as Augustine says, that an "encaenia" was the feast of the dedication of a church. [26] The Greek word, caenos, is the same as the Latin word for "new." Thus an encaenia is the same as a renewal; and even in everyday speech, when something is dedicated to some use, it is said to be "encaeniated," which is the same thing as being renewed. Thus the encaenia, the feast of the Dedication, was the feast and commemoration of the dedication of the temple, for when we newly dedicate some church to the divine worship, we celebrate its being set aside for a sacred purpose; and in memory of this we celebrate it every year on the same day. Thus every year the Jews celebrated the encaenia, the remembrance of the dedication of the temple. Nam quando de novo aliquam Ecclesiam divino cultui dedicamus, agitur festum consecrationis eiusdem, et eadem die singulis annis in memoriam ipsius. Hoc modo Iudaei singulis annis encaenia faciebant, idest memoriam dedicationis templi. Ad sciendum autem rationem festi consecrationis et causam, notandum est, quod omnia festa celebrantur in Ecclesia in commemorationem divinorum beneficiorum; Is. LXIII, 7: miserationum domini recordabor et cetera. Et Ps. CXVII, 1, postquam David commemoravit multa beneficia Dei, dicens: confitemini domino, quoniam bonus etc. subdit: constituite diem solemnem in condensis usque ad cornu altaris. 1434 To understand why there is a feast for the consecration of a church, we should note that all the feasts in the Church are celebrated in remembrance of God's blessings: "I will recount the steadfast love of the Lord" (Is 63:7). Again in Psalm 117 [v 1], after David called to mind God's many blessings, saying, "Give praise to the Lord, for he is good," he adds, "Solemnize this day, with shady boughs, even to the horn of the altar" [v 26]. Recolimus autem divina beneficia nobis exhibita, tripliciter. Quandoque quidem ut exhibita nobis in capite nostro domino Iesu Christo; et sic celebramus festum nativitatis, et resurrectionis, et huiusmodi. Quandoque ut exhibita nobis in commembris nostris, scilicet in sanctis, qui sunt membra Ecclesiae. Et hoc congruenter: quia, ut dicit apostolus I Cor. XII, 26: si gloriatur unum membrum, congaudent omnia membra. Et sic celebramus festa sanctorum Petri et Pauli et aliorum sanctorum. Quandoque autem prout sunt exhibita toti Ecclesiae; puta in ministerio sacramentorum, et in aliis communiter Ecclesiae collatis. Et quia domus materialis est quasi signum collectionis Ecclesiae fidelium, et etiam in ea omnia sacramenta gratiae dispensantur; ideo in memoriam ipsorum beneficiorum, festum dedicationis Ecclesiae celebramus. Quod quidem festum maius est quam festum alicuius sancti; sicut et beneficia toti Ecclesiae collata, quorum memoriam agimus, excedunt beneficium collatum alicui sancto, quod in festo eius recolitur. We recall God's benefits to us as being of three kinds. Sometimes, as they are found in our head, the Lord Jesus Christ. Thus we celebrate the feast of his birth, and of his resurrection, and so on. Sometimes we recall them as found in our fellow members, that is, in the saints, who are members of the Church. This is fitting, for as the Apostle says: "If one member is honored, all rejoice together" (1 Cor 12:26). Thus we celebrate the feasts of Saints Peter and Paul, and the other saints. But at times we recall God's benefits as found in the entire Church: for example, the benefits of the sacraments and other things granted to the Church in general. Now a material church building is like a sign of the gathering of the faithful of the Church, and in this building all the sacraments of grace are dispensed. So it is in memory of these benefits that we celebrate the feast of the dedication of a church. Indeed, such a feast is greater than the feast of any saint, just as the benefits conferred upon the whole Church, which benefits we celebrate, exceed the benefits conferred on some saint and recalled during his feast. Sciendum est tamen, quod templum erat Ierosolymis tribus vicibus consecratum. Primo quidem a Salomone, ut habetur III Reg. VIII, secundo, tempore Esdrae a Zorobabel et Iesu sacerdote magno, ut habetur I Esdrae VI, 13-22, tertio a Machabaeis, ut habetur I Mach. IV, 42-58, quod ascenderunt Ierosolymam renovare sancta. Haec autem encaenia non sunt facta in memoriam dedicationis quae facta fuit a Salomone, quia hoc fuit in autumno, scilicet mense septimo; nec in memoriam dedicationis, quae facta fuit tempore Esdrae, quia illa fuit in vere, scilicet nona die Martii; sed in memoriam dedicationis quae facta fuit a Machabaeis in tempore hiemali. Et ideo ut hoc designet, describit tempus in speciali, dicens et hiems erat: 1435 Recall that the temple at Jerusalem had been consecrated three times: first by Solomon (1 Kgs c 8); secondly, during the time of Ezra by Zerubbabel and Jesus, the high priest (Ezra c 6); thirdly, by the Maccabees, for it says in 1 Maccabees (c 4) that they went up to Jerusalem to cleanse the holy places. Now this feast was not celebrated in memory of the dedication by Solomon, because that took place in the fall, i.e., in the seventh month; nor was it in memory of the dedication made at the time of Ezra, for this took place during the spring, i.e., the ninth day of March. But it was in memory of the dedication made by the Maccabees, which took place during the winter. And so to show this he mentions the specific time, saying, it was winter. quod etiam causam mysticam habet. Ut Gregorius dicit, II Moral., idcirco Evangelista hiemis curavit tempus exprimere, ut inesse auditorum cordibus, scilicet Iudaeorum malitiae, frigus indicaret; Ier. VI, 7: sicut frigidam facit cisterna aquam suam, ita frigidam fecit malitiam suam. De hac hieme dicitur, Cant. II, 11: iam enim hiems transiit, imber abiit et recessit. There is also a mystical reason for mentioning the time. As Gregory says (Morals 2), the Evangelist took care to mention the season as winter in order to indicate the chill of evil in the hearts of those listening, that is, the Jews: "As a well keeps its water cold, so she keeps cold her wickedness" [Jer 6:7]; and we read of this winter: "The winter is past, the rain is over and gone" (Song 2:11). [27] Locum autem describit cum dicit et ambulabat Iesus in templo in porticu Salomonis. Et primo quidem in generali, cum dicit in templo: Ps. X, 5: dominus in templo sancto suo etc.; secundo vero in speciali, dicens in porticu Salomonis. Sciendum est enim, quod templum non dicitur solum corpus ipsius, sed etiam porticus circumstantes, in quibus populus stabat ad orandum: nam in templo soli sacerdotes orabant. Dicitur autem porticus Salomonis locus ille in quo Salomon stetit quando, peracta dedicatione templi, oravit: III Reg. VIII, v. 22: stetit ergo Salomon in conspectu Ecclesiae Israel. 1436 Then he describes the place, and Jesus was walking in the temple, in the portico of Solomon. He describes it first in a general way, in the temple: "The Lord is in his holy temple" (Ps 11:4); secondly, in more detail, saying, in the portico of Solomon. We have to know that the temple included not just its main building, but the surrounding porticos as well; it was on these porticos that the people stood and prayed, for only the priests prayed in the temple. It was called the portico of Solomon because it was the place where Solomon stood and prayed when the temple was being dedicated: "Then Solomon stood before the altar of the Lord in the presence of all the assembly of Israel" (1 Kgs 8:22). Sed contra. Templum quod Salomon aedificaverat, destructum fuit, et similiter porticus Salomonis. Responsio. Dicendum quod templum reparatum fuit ad similitudinem prioris: et ideo sicut antea porticus illa dicebatur Salomonis, ita et postea ob eius reverentiam. 1437 One might object that the temple which Solomon built was destroyed, and so was his portico. I answer that the temple was rebuilt according to the specifications of the previous one; and so just as that portico was called the portico of Solomon in the first instance, it was called the same later out of respect for him. Personas autem interrogantes describit quantum ad eorum malitiam. Unde dicit circumdederunt ergo eum Iudaei, frigidi a caritate diligendi, sed ardentes aviditate nocendi, ut accederent animo circumveniendi, et circumdarent comprimentes, animo persequendi; Ps. XXI, 13: circumdederunt me vituli multi, tauri pingues obsederunt me; Oseae XI, 12: circumdederunt me Ephraim. 1438 The persons who question Christ are described as to their malice; thus he says, so the Jews gathered round him, unwarmed by loving charity, but burning with the desire to harm him. They came to attack him, surrounding and pressing him in on all sides: "Many bulls encompass me" (Ps 22:12); "Ephraim has encompassed me" (Hos 11:12). Consequenter cum dicit et dicebant ei etc., ponitur Iudaeorum interrogatio. Et primo ponit fictam causam interrogationis, cum dicit usquequo animam nostram tollis? Adulatorie loquuntur, volentes per hoc ostendere se desiderare scire veritatem de ipso. Quasi dicat: anima nostra est in suspenso desiderii, quamdiu moestos nos derelinquis? Prov. XIII, 12: spes quae differtur affligit animam. 1439 Then when he says, and said to him we see the Jews questioning him. First, he mentions the pretended reason for their questions when he says, How long will you keep us in suspense? Their manner is flattering because they want it to appear that they desire to know the truth about him. It is like they were saying: We are hanging in anticipation. How long will you keep us unsatisfied? "Hope deferred makes the heart sick" (Prv 13:12). Et ideo, secundo, subiungunt interrogationem, dicentes si tu es Christus, dic nobis palam. Ubi primo attende illorum perversitatem. Nam quia indignantur contra Christum, quod se diceret filium Dei, supra V, 18, non interrogant eum an sit filius Dei, sed dicunt si tu es Christus, dic nobis palam: ut per hoc possent habere materiam accusandi eum ad Pilatum, sicut seditiosum et appetentem regnum, quod erat contra Caesarem, et odiosum Romanis. Unde et Pilatus quando Iudaei accusabant Christum, quod filium Dei se faceret, parum curavit. Dum vero dixerunt: omnis qui se regem facit, contradicit Caesari, magis coepit contra eum sollicitari. Et ideo dicunt si tu es Christus, vel rex, vel unctus, dic nobis palam. Secondly, they state their question, If you are the Christ, tell us plainly. Note their perversity; for since they resent Christ's calling himself the Son of God (5:18), they do not ask him if he is the Son of God, but If you are the Christ, tell us plainly. They hoped by this to obtain grounds for accusing him before Pilate for inciting sedition and making himself king - which was in opposition to Caesar and offensive to the Romans. Thus it was that when the Jews accused Christ of making himself the Son of God, Pilate was not very impressed; but when they said: "Every one who makes himself a king sets himself against Caesar" (19:12), he was swayed against Christ. This is why they say, If you are the Christ, or a king, or anointed, tell us plainly. Secundo considera illorum nequitiam, quia dicunt palam; quasi dicant: usque modo non docuit publice, sed quasi in occulto; cum tamen ipse palam omnia diceret, in festivitatibus semper assistens, et nihil occulte loquebatur; infra XVIII, 20: ego palam locutus sum mundo: in occulto locutus sum nihil. Secondly, notice their wickedness, because they say, plainly. It was like saying: Up to now you have not taught in public, but more or less in secret; but in reality, Christ said everything openly and was present for the festival days, and said nothing in secret: "I have spoken openly to the worldI have said nothing secretly" (18:20). Hic ponitur responsio Christi: ubi ostendit eorum infidelitatem, ostendens falsum esse quod dixerant, se desiderare scire veritatem, dicentes: usquequo animam nostram tollis? et cetera. Et hoc quantum ad duo. Primo, quia non credebant verbis eius; et quantum ad hoc dicit loquor vobis, et non creditis. Quasi dicat: dicitis mihi: si tu es rex Christus dic nobis; sed loquor ego, idest, dico vobis veritatem; et vos non creditis; Lc. XXII, 67: si dixero, non credetis et cetera. 1440 Now we have the answer of Christ, where he shows their unbelief, proving they were deceitful in saying they wished to know the truth when they said, "How long will you keep us in suspense?" He shows this in two ways. First, because they did not believe his words; and about this he says, I told you, and you do not believe. As if to say: You say to me, "If you are the Christ," the king, "tell us." But I told you, that is, I told you the truth, and you do not believe. "If I tell you, you will not believe" (Lk 22:67). Secundo, quod non credunt operibus eius; et quantum ad hoc dicit opera quae ego facio in nomine patris mei, haec testimonium perhibent de me. Ubi primo ostendit incredulitatem eorum ad ipsa opera; secundo incredulitatis rationem, ibi quia vos non estis ex ovibus meis. He shows this in a second way because they do not believe his works. And about this he says: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness to me. He first shows their unbelief in his works; secondly, the reason for their unbelief (v 26). Quantum ad primum dicit opera quae ego facio, quasi dicat: nec a solo verbo suaderi potestis, ut vos sileatis; sed nec etiam a tot operibus quae ego facio in nomine patris mei, idest ad gloriam eius, haec testimonium perhibent de me, quia scilicet non possunt nisi a Deo fieri: unde ex eis manifeste apparet quod a Deo veni. Matth. XVIII, 33: unaquaeque arbor ex fructu eius cognoscitur; supra V, 36: opera quae ego facio, testimonium perhibent de me. Sed vos non creditis; infra XII, 37: cum ergo tanta signa fecisset, non crediderunt ei. Et ideo sunt inexcusabiles; infra XV: si opera non fecissem in eis quae nemo alius fecit, peccatum non haberent. Nunc autem et viderunt, et oderunt me et patrem meum. 1441 As to the first he says, the works that I do. This was like saying: You cannot be persuaded and satisfied by my words, nor even by those great works which I do in my Father's name, i.e., for his glory. They bear witness to me, because they can be performed by God alone. Thus they clearly show that I have come from God: "The tree is known by its fruit" (Matt 12:33); "These very works which I am doing, bear witness" (5:36). But you do not believe: "Though he had done so many signs before them, yet they did not believe in him" (12:37). For this reason they are inexcusable: "If I had not done among them the works which no one else did, they would not have sin; but now they have seen and hated both me and my Father (15:24). Ratio autem incredulitatis eorum est separatio eorum ab ovibus Christi; unde dicit ideo non creditis, quia non estis ex ovibus meis. Circa hoc tria facit. Primo ponit eorum exclusionem a consortio ovium Christi; secundo ostendit ovium dignitatem, ibi oves meae vocem meam audiunt etc.; tertio probat quoddam quod dixerat, scilicet quod non rapiet quisquam oves suas de manu sua, ibi pater meus quod dedit mihi, maius omnibus est. 1442 The reason for their unbelief is that they are separated from Christ's sheep. So he says, but you do not believe, because you do not belong to my sheep. He does three things concerning this. First, he says that they are excluded from membership in the sheep of Christ; secondly, he shows the dignity of his sheep (v 27); thirdly, he proves that no one will snatch his sheep out of his hands (v 29). Separationem eorum ab ovibus suis ponit, dicens vos non estis ex ovibus meis, scilicet praedestinati ad credendum, sed praesciti ad aeternum interitum. Hoc enim ipsum quod credimus, est nobis a Deo; Phil. c. I, 29: vobis datum est non solum ut in ipsum credatis, sed etiam ut pro illo patiamini; Eph. II, 8: gratia salvati estis, et non ex vobis: Dei donum est. Quod quidem nulli datur, nisi cui praeparatum est ab aeterno; et ideo illi soli credent in ipsum qui ad hoc ordinati sunt a Deo per aeternam praedestinationem; Act. XIII, 48: crediderunt quotquot praeordinati erant ad vitam aeternam. Et eiusdem c. XV, 11: per gratiam domini nostri Iesu Christi credimus salvari. 1443 He mentions that they are not among his sheep when he says, you do not belong to my sheep, i.e., you are not predestined to believe, but foreknown to eternal destruction. For the very fact that we believe is due to God: "For it has been granted to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in him but also suffer for his sake" (Phil 1:29); "For by grace you have been saved thorough faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God" (Eph 2:8). And this is given only to those for whom it was prepared from eternity; thus, only those believe in him who have been ordained to this by God through an eternal predestination: "As many as were ordained to eternal life believed" (Acts 13:48); "We believe that we shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus" (Acts 15:11). Sed numquid debet dici alicui, quod non sit praedestinatus? Videtur quod non; cum enim nullus possit salvari nisi praedestinatus, si alicui dicatur quod non est praedestinatus, videtur cogi ad desperationem. Ergo dominus dicens Iudaeis non creditis, quia non estis ex ovibus meis, cogebat eos desperare. Responsio. Dicendum quod in illa turba erat aliquid commune omnibus, scilicet quod non erant praeordinati a Deo ad tunc credendum; aliquid speciale, quod aliqui ex eis praeordinati erant ad credendum in posterum: unde et postea crediderunt, ut habetur Act. II, 41, quod crediderunt ex eis una die tria millia; aliqui autem qui non erant ad hoc praeordinati. Non ergo repugnabat spei, dicere in turba in qua aliqui erant praeordinati ad credendum in posterum, quod non essent ex ovibus: quia nullus de se determinate hoc poterat suspicari. Repugnasset autem spei, si hoc alicui personae determinate dixisset. 1444 But should anyone be told that he is not predestined? It seems that he should not be told: for since no one can be saved unless he is predestined, if one is told that he is not predestined, he would be driven to despair. And so our Lord was driving the Jews to despair when he said to them, you do not believe, because you do not belong to my sheep. My answer to this is that in this group there was something common to all, that is, they were not preordained by God to believe at that time; and there was also something special, that is, some of them were preordained to believe later. Thus, some of them did believe later, for we read in Acts (c 2) that three thousand of them believed in one day. But some were not preordained to do this. Therefore, it did not militate against hope to say to a group, some of whom were preordained to believe later, that they did not belong to his sheep, because no one of them could apply this definitely to himself. But it would militate against hope if Christ had said this to some definite person. [28] Dignitatem autem ovium suarum ponit dicens oves meae vocem meam audiunt etc., ubi quatuor ponit. Duo ex parte nostra, quae nos facimus quantum ad Christum; et duo ex parte Christi, quae ipse facit in nobis, vicissim sibi correspondentia. 1445 Now he reveals the dignity of his sheep when he says, my sheep hear my voice. He here mentions four things: two of them are what we do in reference to Christ; the other two, which correspond to the first two are what Christ does in us. Primum ergo quod nos facimus est obedientia ad Christum; et quantum ad hoc dicit oves meae, scilicet per praedestinationem, vocem meam audiunt, credendo, et praeceptis meis obediendo; Ps. XCIV, 8: hodie si vocem eius audieritis, nolite obdurare corda vestra. 1446 The first thing we do is to obey Christ. Concerning this he says, my sheep, through predestination, hear my voice, by believing and obeying my precepts: "O that today you would harken to his voice! Harden not your hearts" (Ps 95:7). Secundum quod facit Christus, primo correspondens, est eius dilectio et approbatio; et quantum ad hoc dicit et ego cognosco eas, idest, diligo et approbo; II Tim. c. II, 19: novit dominus qui sunt eius. Quasi dicat: hoc ipsum quod me audiunt, est hoc quod ego eas cognosco, ab aeterno eligendo. 1447 The second thing, corresponding to this, is what Christ does, which is to give his love and approval. Concerning this he says, and I know them, that is, I love and approve of them: "The Lord knows those who are his" (2 Tim 2:19). This is like saying: The very fact that they hear me is due to the fact that I know them by an eternal election. Sed si aliter non potest credere quis, nisi detur ei a Deo, videtur quod infidelitas non sit alicui imputanda. Ad quod dicendum est quod ideo eis imputatur, quia in eis est causa quare eis non datur: sicut ego non possum videre lumen nisi illuminarer a sole, si autem clauderem oculos non viderem lumen, quod non esset ex parte solis sed ex parte mea, qui, claudendo oculos, praebeo causam ut non illuminer. Peccatum autem est causa quare non illuminamur a Deo per fidem, puta originale, vel, in aliquibus, actuale. Quae quidem causa in omnibus est. Unde omnes illi qui deseruntur, iusto Dei iudicio deseruntur, et illi qui eliguntur, ex Dei miseratione assumuntur. But if a person cannot believe unless God gives this to him, it seems that unbelief should not be imputed to anyone. I answer that it is imputed to them because they are the cause why it is not given to them. Thus, I cannot see the light unless I am enlightened by the sun. Yet if I were to close my eyes, I would not see the light; but this is not due to the sun but to me, because by closing my eyes I am the cause of my not being enlightened. Now sin, for example, original sin, and in some persons actual sin, is the cause why we are not enlightened by God through faith. This cause is in everyone. Thus, all who are left by God are left by reason of the just judgment of God, and those who are chosen are lifted up by God's mercy. Tertium quod est ex parte nostra, est imitatio ad Christum; et quantum ad hoc dicit et sequuntur me; Iob XXIII, 11: vestigia eius secutus est pes meus; I Petr. II, 21: Christus passus est pro nobis, vobis relinquens exemplum, ut sequamini vestigia eius. 1448 The third thing, which is what we do, concerns our imitation of Christ. So he says, and they follow me: "My foot has held fast his steps" (Job 23:11); "Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps" (1 Pet 2:21). Quartum correspondens ex parte Christi est praemii retributio; et quantum ad hoc dicit et ego vitam aeternam do eis, quasi dicat: ipsi me sequuntur, hic mansuetudinis et innocentiae viam incedendo; et ego faciam quod postea me sequentur, ad gaudia vitae aeternae intrando. 1449 The corresponding fourth part, which is what Christ does, is the bestowing of a reward. Concerning this he says, and I give them eternal life. This is like saying: They follow me by walking the path of gentleness and innocence in this life, and I will see that afterwards they will follow me by entering into the joys of eternal life. Hoc autem praemium ostendit dominus esse indeficiens, tripliciter. Nam aliquid potest deficere tripliciter. Primo quidem ex natura ipsius, puta si sit corruptibile; sed praemium istud quantum ad naturam suam incorruptibile est; unde dicit vitam aeternam do eis, quae est fruitio incorruptibilis et immortalis Dei; infra XVII, 3: haec est vita aeterna, ut cognoscant te solum verum Deum, et quem misisti Iesum Christum. Et, ut dicit Augustinus, ista sunt pascua de quibus supra dixerat. Et pascua bona, vita aeterna dicitur quia ibi nulla herba arescit, totum viret. Secundo potest deficere ex defectu recipientis, dum recipiens deficit et dum male custodit; sed hoc non continget in illo praemio, unde dicit et non peribunt in aeternum, scilicet oves. Quod est contra Origenem, qui dixit, quod quandoque sancti, qui sunt in gloria, peccare poterunt. Sed dominus dixit non peribunt, quia in aeternum conservabuntur; Apoc. III, 12: qui vicerit, faciam eum columnam in templo Dei mei, et foras non egredietur amplius. Tertio potest deficere ex violentia rapientis: forte enim neque Adam exclusus fuisset, nisi affuisset seductor. In vita autem aeterna hoc non erit, unde dicit et non rapiet eas, scilicet oves, quisquam de manu mea, idest protectione et pietate mea; Sap. III, 1: iustorum animae in manu Dei sunt. Ut enim dicit Augustinus, ibi neque lupus rapit, neque fur tollit, neque latro interficit. Our Lord shows in three ways that this reward will never end. Something can end in three ways. First of all, by its very nature, for example, if it is corruptible. But this reward is incorruptible of its very nature. Thus He says, I give them eternal life, which is incorruptible and ever-living enjoyment of God: "This is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent" (17:3). As Augustine says, this is the pasture which he spoke before (v 9). [29] Indeed, eternal life is called a good pasture because it is entirely verdant and nothing withers away. Secondly, a thing can end because the one receiving it ends, or does not guard it well. But this will not happen to that reward; so he says, and they shall never perish, that is, the sheep will never perish. This conflicts with Origen, for he said that the saints in glory are able to sin. [30] Yet our Lord says, they shall never perish, because they will be preserved forever: "He who conquers I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God; never shall he go out of it" (Rev 3:12). Thirdly, a thing can end by being snatched by force: for perhaps Adam would not have been cast out if the Deceiver had not been there. But this will not happen in eternal life, and so he says, and no one shall snatch them, that is, the sheep, out of my hand, that is, from my protection and loyalty: "The souls of the righteous are in the hand of God" (Wis 3:1). As Augustine says: "There the wolf does not snatch, nor the thief steal, nor the robber kill." [31] Hic probat quod supra de dignitate ovium dixerat, scilicet quod non rapiet eas quisquam de manu mea, tali ratione. Illud quod est in manu patris mei nullus potest rapere; sed eadem est manus patris et mea: ergo illud quod est in manu mea, etiam nullus potest rapere. Circa hoc tria facit. Primo ponit minorem, manifestando communicationem divinitatis a patre sibi traditae, cum dicit pater quod dedit mihi, scilicet per aeternam generationem, maius omnibus est. Nam supra V, 26: sicut pater habet vitam in semetipso, sic filio dedit habere vitam in semetipso. Item maius est, potestate; supra V, 27, potestatem dedit ei iudicium facere, quia filius hominis est. Item maius est reverentia et honore; Phil. II, v. 9: dedit illi nomen quod est super omne nomen, ut in nomine Iesu omne genu flectatur. Maius est ergo omnibus, quod dedit mihi pater, ut scilicet sim verbum eius, sim unigenitus eius, sim splendor lucis eius. 1450 He now proves what he had said above about the dignity of his sheep, namely, that no one can snatch them from his hand. His reason is this: No one can snatch what is in the hand of my Father; but the Father's hand and mine are the same; therefore, no one can snatch what is in my hand. Concerning this he does three things: first, he gives the minor premise by showing that the Father had communicated divinity to him, saying, what my Father has given to me, through an eternal generation, is greater than all. "For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself" (5:26). It is greater than any power: "He has given him authority to execute judgment, because he is the Son of man" (5:27); it is greater than any reverence and honor: "God had bestowed on him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow" (Phil 2:9). Therefore, what my Father has given to me, that is, that I am his Word, his only begotten, and the splendor of his light, is greater than all. Secundo ponit excellentiam potestatis paternae, quod pertinet ad maiorem, cum dicit et nemo potest rapere, idest per violentiam auferre, vel per ignorantiam surripere, de manu, idest de potestate, patris mei, vel a me, qui sum virtus paterna; quamvis melius dicatur de potestate patris, quam a me, ut Augustinus dicit. Ideo autem nemo potest rapere de manu patris, quia ipse fortissimus est, cui non potest fieri violentia, et sapientissimus, in quem non cadit ignorantia, Iob c. IX, 4: sapiens corde est, et fortis robore et cetera. Secondly, he mentions the greatness of the Father's power, which concerns the major premise, when he says, and no one is able to snatch, take by violence or secretly pilfer, out of my Father's hand, from the power of my Father, or from me, who am the might of the Father - although as Augustine says, it is better to say "from the power of the Father" than "from me." [32] Now no one is able to snatch out of my Father's hand, because he is the almighty One who is not subject to violence, and he is all-wise from whom nothing is hidden: "He is wise in heart, and mighty in strength" (Job 9:4). Tertio ponit unitatem sui ad patrem, ex qua sequitur conclusio. Unde dicit ego et pater unum sumus; quasi dicat: ideo non rapiet eas quisquam de manu mea, quia ego et pater unum sumus, scilicet unitate essentiae. Nam eadem est natura patris et filii. Thirdly, he affirms his unity with the Father, and from this the conclusion follows. Thus he says, I and the Father are one. As if to say: no one shall snatch them out of my hand, because I and the Father are one, by a unity of essence, for the Father and the Son are the same in nature. Per hoc autem excluditur duplex error: scilicet Arii, qui dividebat essentiam, et Sabellii, qui confundebat personas, ut sic et a Charybdi et a Scilla liberemur. Nam per hoc quod dicit unum, liberat te ab Ario; nam si unum, non ergo diversum. Per hoc autem quod dicit sumus, liberat a Sabellio; si enim sumus, ergo pater et filius est alius et alius. 1451 This statement rejects two errors: that of Arius, who distinguished the essence [of the Father from that of the Son], and that of Sabellius, who did not distinguish the person [of the Father from the person of the Son]. We escape both Charybdis and Scylla, for by the fact that Christ says, one, he saves us from Arius, because if one, then they are not different [in nature]. And by the fact that he says, we are, he saves us from Sabellius, for if we are, then the Father and the Son are not the same [person]. Sed hoc Ariani, impietatis suae mendacio, negare contendunt, dicentes, quod creatura aliquo modo est unum cum Deo: unde et hoc modo filius potest esse unum cum patre. Sed hoc patet esse falsum ex tribus. Primo ipso modo loquendi. Manifestum est enim quod unum dicitur sicut ens; unde sicut aliquid non dicitur ens simpliciter nisi secundum substantiam, ita nec unum nisi secundum substantiam vel naturam. Simpliciter autem dicitur aliquid quo nullo addito dicitur. Quia erga hoc simpliciter dicitur ego et pater unum sumus, nullo alio addito, manifestum est quod sunt unum secundum substantiam et naturam. Numquam autem invenitur quod Deus et creatura sint unum sine aliquo addito, sicut illud I Cor. VI, 17: qui adhaeret Deo, unus spiritus est. Ergo patet quod filius Dei non est unum cum patre, ut creatura. Yet the Arians, deceived by their wickedness, try to deny this, and say that a creature can in some sense be one with God, and in this sense the Son can be one with the Father. The falsity of this can be shown in three ways. First, from our very manner of speaking. For it is clear that "one" is asserted as "being"; thus, just as something is not said to be a being absolutely except according to its substance, so it is not said to be one except according to its substance or nature. Now something is asserted absolutely when it is asserted with no added qualification. Therefore, because I and the Father are one, is asserted absolutely, without any qualifications added, it is plain that they are one according to substance and nature. But we never find that God and a creature are one without some added qualification, as in 1 Corinthians (6:17): "He who is united to the Lord becomes one spirit with him." Therefore, it is clear that the Son of God is not one with the Father as a creature can be. [33] Secundo ex his quae supra dixerat, scilicet, quod dedit mihi pater, maius omnibus est, et postea concludit ego et pater unum sumus, quasi dicat: intantum unum sumus inquantum dedit mihi id quod maius est omnibus. Secondly, we can see this from his previous statement, what my Father has given me is greater than all. He draws the conclusion from this: I and the Father are one. This is like saying: We are one to the extent that the Father has given me that which is greater than all. Tertio patet ex sua intentione: nam dominus probat quod non rapiet eas quisquam de manu sua, per hoc quod nemo potest rapere de manu patris eius. Quod non sequeretur, si potestas eius esset minor quam potestas patris. Unum ergo sunt pater et filius natura, honore et virtute. Thirdly, it is clear from his intention. For our Lord proves that no one will snatch the sheep from his hand precisely because no one can snatch from the hand of his Father. But this would not follow if his power were less than the power of the Father. Therefore, the Father and Son are one in nature, honor and power.
Lectio 6 LECTURE 6 31 ἐβάστασαν πάλιν λίθους οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι ἵνα λιθάσωσιν αὐτόν. 32 ἀπεκρίθη αὐτοῖς ὁ Ἰησοῦς, πολλὰ ἔργα καλὰ ἔδειξα ὑμῖν ἐκ τοῦ πατρός: διὰ ποῖον αὐτῶν ἔργον ἐμὲ λιθάζετε; 33 ἀπεκρίθησαν αὐτῷ οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι, περὶ καλοῦ ἔργου οὐ λιθάζομέν σε ἀλλὰ περὶ βλασφημίας, καὶ ὅτι σὺ ἄνθρωπος ὢν ποιεῖς σεαυτὸν θεόν. 34 ἀπεκρίθη αὐτοῖς [ὁ] Ἰησοῦς, οὐκ ἔστιν γεγραμμένον ἐν τῷ νόμῳ ὑμῶν ὅτι ἐγὼ εἶπα, θεοί ἐστε; 35 εἰ ἐκείνους εἶπεν θεοὺς πρὸς οὓς ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ ἐγένετο, καὶ οὐ δύναται λυθῆναι ἡ γραφή, 36 ὃν ὁ πατὴρ ἡγίασεν καὶ ἀπέστειλεν εἰς τὸν κόσμον ὑμεῖς λέγετε ὅτι βλασφημεῖς, ὅτι εἶπον, υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ εἰμι; 37 εἰ οὐ ποιῶ τὰ ἔργα τοῦ πατρός μου, μὴ πιστεύετέ μοι: 38 εἰ δὲ ποιῶ, κἂν ἐμοὶ μὴ πιστεύητε, τοῖς ἔργοις πιστεύετε, ἵνα γνῶτε καὶ γινώσκητε ὅτι ἐν ἐμοὶ ὁ πατὴρ κἀγὼ ἐν τῷ πατρί. 39 ἐζήτουν [οὖν] αὐτὸν πάλιν πιάσαι: καὶ ἐξῆλθεν ἐκ τῆς χειρὸς αὐτῶν. 40 καὶ ἀπῆλθεν πάλιν πέραν τοῦ ἰορδάνου εἰς τὸν τόπον ὅπου ἦν Ἰωάννης τὸ πρῶτον βαπτίζων, καὶ ἔμεινεν ἐκεῖ. 41 καὶ πολλοὶ ἦλθον πρὸς αὐτὸν καὶ ἔλεγον ὅτι Ἰωάννης μὲν σημεῖον ἐποίησεν οὐδέν, πάντα δὲ ὅσα εἶπεν Ἰωάννης περὶ τούτου ἀληθῆ ἦν. 42 καὶ πολλοὶ ἐπίστευσαν εἰς αὐτὸν ἐκεῖ.
31 The Jews took up stones again to stone him. 32 Jesus answered them, "I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of these do you stone me?" 33 The Jews answered him, "We stone you for no good work but for blasphemy; because you, being a man, make yourself God." 34 Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your law, 'I said, you are gods'? 35 If he called them gods to whom the word of God came (and scripture cannot be broken), 36 do you say of him whom the Father consecrated [sanctified] and sent into the world, 'You are blaspheming,' because I said, 'I am the Son of God'? 37 If I am not doing the works of my Father, then do not believe me; 38 but if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand [believe] that the Father is in me and I am in the Father." 39 Again they tried to arrest him, but he escaped from their hands. 40 He went away again across the Jordan to the place where John at first baptized, and there he remained. 41 And many came to him; and they said, "John did no sign, but everything that John said about this man was true." 42 And many believed in him there. [34] Posita doctrina Christi, hic consequenter ponitur effectus doctrinae eius in Iudaeis, et primo redarguit eorum saevitiam; secundo excludit a se, impositam blasphemiam, ibi responderunt ei Iudaei; tertio declinat eorum pertinaciam, ibi quaerebant ergo eum apprehendere. 1452 We have seen the teaching of Christ; and now we see the effect this teaching has on the Jews. First, Jesus reproves their fierceness; secondly, he defends himself against the charge of blasphemy; and thirdly, he escapes from their violence (v 39). Circa primum duo facit. Primo ponitur Iudaeorum saevitia, qua excandescebant ad Christum lapidandum; unde dicit sustulerunt lapides Iudaei, ut iacerent in eum. Quia enim duri erant, et profunda domini verba intelligere non poterant, lapidibus similes ad lapides currunt; Ps. CXIX, 6: dum loquebar illis, impugnabant me gratis. 1453 Concerning the first, two things are done. First, we see the violence of the Jews inciting them to stone Christ. The Evangelist says, The Jews took up stones again to stone him. They were hard of heart and unable to understand his profound message; and so, being like stones, they resort to stones: "When I spoke to them they fought against me without cause" [Ps 119:7]. Secundo cum subdit multa bona opera ostendi vobis, reprehendit dominus ipsorum saevitiam: et primo commemorat eis exhibita beneficia; secundo reprehendit ipsorum saevitiam. Commemorat autem beneficia quae eis exhibuit in sanitatibus infirmorum, in exhibitione doctrinae et miraculorum; unde respondit eis, dicens: multa bona opera ostendi vobis, scilicet sanando, praedicando, miracula faciendo: Mc. VII, 37: bene omnia fecit, ex patre meo, cuius gloriam per omnia quaesivi; supra VIII, 50: gloriam meam non quaero, sed eius qui misit me. Saevitiam reprehendit dicens propter quod eorum opus me lapidatis? Quasi dicat: benefactorem oportebat honorare, non lapidare. Simile dicitur Ier. XVIII, 20: numquid redditur pro bono malum? 1454 Secondly, we see our Lord reprove their violence, saying, I have shown you many good works. First, he reminds them of the benefits given to them; secondly, he reproves their violence. He recalls the benefits he granted in healing the sick, in teaching them and performing his miracles. So he answered them saying, I have shown you many good works, by healing, teaching and working miracles - "He has done all things well" (Mk 7:37) - from the Father, whose glory I have sought in all these things - "Yet I do not seek my own glory" (8:50). And he reproves their violence when he says, for which of these do you stone me? This was like saying: You should honor one who does good to you, not stone him: "Is evil a recompense for good?" (Jer 18:20). Hic dominus excusat se de blasphemia, et primo ponitur blasphemiae impositio a Iudaeis; secundo eius excusatio a Christo, ibi respondit eis Iesus: nonne scriptum est in lege vestra? et cetera. 1455 Now our Lord defends himself from the charge of blasphemy. First, we see him accused of blasphemy by the Jews; and secondly, Christ proves his innocence (v 34). Dicit ergo quantum ad primum de bono opere non te lapidamus et cetera. Ubi quinque consideranda occurrunt. Primum quidem videtur pertinere ad motivum lapidationis, quod est blasphemia. Praecipitur enim Lev. XXIV, 14, quod blasphemi lapidentur. Educ inquit blasphemum extra castra, et ponant omnes qui audierunt, manus suas super caput eius, et lapidet eum populus universus. Et quantum ad hoc dicunt de bono opere non lapidamus te, sed de blasphemia. 1456 With respect to the first, the Evangelist says, The Jews answered him, We stone you for no good work but for blasphemy. There are five things to be considered here. First, what seems to be the motive for their stoning him, namely, his blasphemy. For Leviticus commands that blasphemers be stoned: "Bring out of the camp him who has blasphemed; and let all who heard him lay their hands upon his head, and let the congregation stone him" [24:14]. Mentioning this motive, they say, We stone you for no good work but for blasphemy. Secundum, quod specificant ipsam blasphemiam. Nam blasphemia est non solum attribuere Deo quod sibi non convenit, sed etiam attribuere alteri quod solius Dei est: sicut blasphemia est non solum dicere Deum esse corpus, sed etiam dicere aliquam creaturam creare posse. Mc. II, 7, dicebant: hic blasphemat. Quis potest dimittere peccata nisi solus Deus? Dicebant ergo Iudaei dominum blasphemum esse, non primo modo, sed usurpando sibi quae divinitatis propria erant; unde dicebant quia tu homo cum sis, facis teipsum Deum. Secondly, they specify his blasphemy. It is blasphemy not only to attribute to God what is not appropriate to him, but also to attribute to another what belongs to God alone. So, it is blasphemy not only to say that God is a body, but also to say that a creature can create: "It is blasphemy! Who can forgive sins but God alone?" (Mk 2:7). Thus the Jews were saying that our Lord was a blasphemer not in the first way, but for usurping for himself what is proper to God: because you, being a man, make yourself God. Tertium est quod Iudaei melius quam Ariani intellexerunt verbum Christi, quod dixerat: ego et pater unum sumus. Ideo irati sunt, quoniam intellexerunt non posse dici: ego et pater unum sumus, nisi ubi est aequalitas patris et filii: et hoc est quod dicunt facis teipsum Deum, ostendendo verbis tuis quod Deus sis, quod non est verum, cum sis homo. The third thing to be considered is that the Jews understood the words of Christ, I and the Father are one, better than the Arians did. Thus they were incensed because they understood that I and the Father are one could only be said if the Father and Son are equal. This is what they say, you make yourself God, claiming by your words that you are God, which is not true, you, being a man. Quartum est quod tanta est distantia Dei et hominis, quod incredibile eis erat quod idem qui est homo, esset Deus: unde signanter dicunt quia homo cum sis, facis teipsum Deum. Quamvis ab ista incredulitate removeri possent per hoc quod dicitur in Ps. VIII, 5: quid est homo quod memor es eius, aut filius hominis quoniam visitas eum? Habac. I, 5: opus ego facio in diebus vestris quod nemo credet, cum narrabitur, idest opus incarnationis excedens omnem mentem. The fourth point to consider is that the distance between God and man is so great that it was unbelievable to them that someone with a human nature could be God. So they significantly say, because you, being a man, make yourself God. Yet this unbelief could have been dispelled by what is read in the Psalm, "What is man that you are mindful of him? Or the son of man that you visit him?" [Ps 8:5]; and in Habakkuk (1:5): "For I am doing a work in your days that you would not believe if told," this is, the work of the incarnation, which surpasses every mind. Quintum est quod in suis verbis sibi ipsis contrariantur: nam ex una parte confitentur Christum bona opera facere, dicentes de bono opere non te lapidamus, ex alia imponunt ei blasphemiam, scilicet quod sibi falso usurpet honorem Dei: quae quidem contraria sunt. Non enim ex Deo miracula posset facere, si Deum blasphemaret, quia, ut dicitur Matth. VII, 18, non potest arbor bona fructus malos facere, nec arbor mala bonos fructus facere: quod maxime locum habet in Christo. The fifth thing to consider is that they do not agree with themselves: for on the one hand, they say that Christ does good works, saying, we stone you for no good work; and on the other hand, they accuse him of blasphemy, usurping for himself the honor of God. Now these conflict with each other, for he could not accomplish miracles from God if he blasphemed God, because "A sound tree cannot bear evil fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit" (Mt 7:18). And this applied especially to Christ. Hic excludit a se impositam blasphemiam, et primo ponit suam excusationem; secundo ostendit veritatem, ibi si non facio opera patris mei, nolite credere mihi. Excusat autem se per auctoritatem; unde primo ponit auctoritatem Scripturae; secundo aperit eis intellectum; tertio ex hoc concludit propositum. 1457 Here our Lord defends himself against the charge of blasphemy. First, he gives his defense; secondly, he shows them the truth (v 37). He defends himself by divine authority, and so first, he mentions the authority of Scripture; secondly, he explains its meaning; and thirdly, he draws his conclusion. Dicit ergo respondit eis Iesus: nonne scriptum est in lege vestra, scilicet in Ps. LXXXI, 6, ego dixi, dii estis? Ubi sciendum est, quod lex tripliciter accipitur in Scriptura. Quandoque quidem universaliter pro toto veteri testamento, secundum quod continet quinque libros Moysi, prophetas et Agiographa. Et hoc modo accipitur hic in lege vestra, idest in veteri testamento: cum scriptum sit in Psalmis: quod ideo dicitur lex, quia totum vetus testamentum habetur pro auctoritate legis. Aliquando accipitur lex prout dividitur contra prophetas, Psalmos et Agiographa: et sic accipitur Lc. ult., 44: oportet impleri omnia quae scripta sunt in lege, et prophetis, et Psalmis de me. Aliquando autem accipitur prout lex dividitur contra prophetas. Et sic Psalmi, et alii libri veteris testamenti, praeter Pentatheucum, includuntur sub prophetis, eo quod spiritu prophetico edita sit Scriptura veteris testamenti. Et hoc modo accipitur Matth. XXII, 40: in his duobus mandatis tota lex pendet et prophetae. Sic ergo scriptum est: ego dixi, dii estis. 1458 The Evangelist says, Jesus answered them: Is it not written in your law (in Psalm 82:6): I said, you are gods? Here we should note that "law" is understood in three ways in Scripture. Some times it is taken in a general sense for the entire Old Testament, containing the five books of Moses, the prophets and the hagiographies. This is the way in your law is understood here, meaning in the Old Testament. For this quotation is from the psalms which are referred to as the law because the entire Old Testament is considered to have the authority of law. Sometimes "law" is understood as distinct from the prophets, psalms, and the hagiographies; this is the way Luke uses it in "Everything written about me in the law of Moses and the prophets and the psalms must be fulfilled" (Lk 24:44). Again, at other times it is distinguished from the prophets. In this sense the psalms and the other books of the Old Testament, other than the Pentateuch, are included within the prophets, on the ground that the Old Testament was produced by a prophetic spirit. This is the way it is understood in Matthew: "On these two commandments depend all the law and the prophets" (Mt 23:40). Unde sciendum est, quod hoc nomen Deus tripliciter accipitur. Aliquando enim significat ipsam divinam naturam, et sic dicitur singulariter solum; Deut. VI, 4: audi, Israel, dominus Deus tuus unus est. Quandoque autem dicitur Deus nuncupative; et hoc modo dicuntur idola dii; Ps. XCV, 5: omnes dii gentium Daemonia. Quandoque autem dicitur aliquis Deus participatione aliqua divinitatis, seu excellentioris virtutis divinitus infusae: et hoc modo et iudices dicuntur dii in Scriptura; Ex. XXII, 8: applicabis eos ad deos, idest ad iudices, et, Ex. XXII, v. 28: diis non detrahes, idest praelatis. Et hoc modo accipitur hic hoc nomen Deus, cum dicit ego dixi: dii estis, idest participantes aliquam virtutem divinam supra humanam. 1459 The word "God" is also used in three senses. Sometimes it signifies the divine nature itself, and then it is used only in the singular: "Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord" (Deut 6:4). At other times it is taken in a denominative sense: in this way idols are called gods: "All the gods of the peoples are idols" (Ps 96:5). And sometimes someone is called a god because of a certain participation in divinity, or in some sublime power divinely infused. In this way, even judges are called gods in Scripture: "If the thief is not known, the owner of the house shall be brought to the gods," that is, to the judges [Ex 22:8]; "You shall not speak ill of the gods," that is, of the rulers [Ex 22:28]. This is the way the word "god" is taken here, when he says, I said, you are gods, i.e., you share in some divine power superior to the human. Consequenter cum dicit si illos dixit deos, ad quos sermo Dei factus est, etc., aperit sensum auctoritatis praedictae, quasi dicat: ideo vocavit eos deos, inquantum participant aliquid divinitatis secundum participationem sermonis Dei ad eos facti. Nam ex sermone Dei homo aliquam participationem divinae virtutis et puritatis consequitur; infra XV, 3, iam vos mundi estis propter sermonem quem locutus sum vobis; et Ex. XXXIV, dicitur, quod splendida facta est facies Moysi ex consortio sermonis domini. 1460 Then when he says, If he called them gods to whom the word of God came, he shows the meaning of the authority he cited. This was like saying: He called them gods because they participated in something divine insofar as they participated in God's word, which was spoken to them. For due to God's word a person obtains some participation in the divine power and purity: "You are already made clean by the word which I have spoken to you" (15:3); and in Exodus (c 34) we read that the face of Moses shone when he heard the words of the Lord. Ex his autem quae praedicta sunt, posset sic argumentari. Manifestum est quod aliquis ex participatione verbi Dei fit Deus participative; sed non fit aliquid participative hoc, nisi ex participatione eius quod est per essentiam suam tale: puta non fit participative ignis nisi participatione ignis per essentiam; ergo non fit aliquid participative Deus nisi ex participatione eius qui est Deus per essentiam: ergo verbum Dei, scilicet ipse filius, cuius participatione aliquis efficitur Deus, est Deus per essentiam. Sed dominus voluit humanius magis quam sic profunde contra Iudaeos arguere. Dicit autem et non potest solvi Scriptura: ut ostendat irrefragabilem Scripturae veritatem; Ps. CXVIII, 89: in aeternum, domine, permanet verbum tuum. From what has been said above, one might argue in this way: It is clear that a person by participating in the word of God becomes god by participation. But a thing does not become this or that by participation unless it participates in what is this or that by its essence: for example, a thing does not become fire by participation unless it participates in what is fire by its essence. Therefore, one does not become god by participation unless he participates in what is God by essence. Therefore, the Word of God, that is the Son, by participation in whom we become gods, is God by essence. But our Lord, rather than argue so profoundly against the Jews, preferred to argue in a more human way. He says, and scripture cannot be broken, in order to show the irrefutable truth of Scripture: "O Lord, your word endures forever" [Ps 118:89]. [35] Consequenter cum dicit quem pater sanctificavit etc., concludit propositum. Quod quidem si, secundum Hilarium, referamus ad Christum secundum quod est homo, tunc est sensus: homines aliqui dicuntur dii sola participatione sermonis Dei, quomodo ergo dicitis quia blasphemas, idest, reputatis blasphemiam, quod ille homo dicatur Deus qui est unitus verbo Dei in persona? Et ideo dicit quem pater sanctificavit. Licet enim omnes qui sanctificantur, Deus sanctificet, infra XVII, 17: sanctifica eos in veritate, Christum tamen specialiter sanctificavit. Nam alios sanctificat ut sint filii adoptivi; Rom. VIII, 15: accepistis spiritum adoptionis filiorum, Christum autem sanctificavit ut esset filius Dei per naturam, unitus in persona verbo Dei: quod haec verba ostendunt dupliciter. Primo per hoc quod dicit quem pater sanctificavit. Si enim ut pater sanctificat, manifestum est quod sanctificat ut filium; Rom. I, 4: qui praedestinatus est filius Dei in virtute secundum spiritum sanctificationis. Secundo per hoc quod dixit et misit in mundum. Mitti enim in aliquem locum, non convenit alicui rei, nisi ante fuerit quam ibi esset: ergo ille quem pater misit in mundum, scilicet visibiliter, est filius Dei, qui praeexistit visibili visioni: quia, ut dicitur supra I, 10, in mundo erat, et mundus per ipsum factus est. Supra III, 17: non enim misit Deus filium suum in mundum ut iudicet mundum. Hunc ergo quem Deus misit in mundum, vos dicitis quia blasphemas, quia dixi, filius Dei sum? Quasi dicat: multo magis possum hoc dicere, qui sum unitus verbo in persona, quam illi ad quos sermo Dei factus est. 1461 Then when he says, do you say of him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, You are blaspheming, he draws his conclusion. If, with Hilary, we refer this to Christ insofar as he has a human nature, the meaning is this: Some people are called gods only because they participate in God's word. How then can you say, you are blaspheming, that is, how can you consider it blasphemy, if that man who is united in person to the Word of God is called God? [36] This is why he says, whom the Father sanctified. For although God sanctifies all who are sanctified - "Sanctify them in truth" (17:17) - he sanctified Christ in a special way. He sanctifies others to be adopted children - "You have received the spirit of adoption" (Rom 8:15) - but he sanctified Christ to be the Son of God by nature, united in person to the Word of God. These words, whom the Father sanctified, show this in two ways. For if God sanctifies as Father, it is clear that he sanctifies Christ as his Son: "He was predestined to be the Son of God by the Spirit of sanctification" [Rom 1:4]. We can also see this by his saying, and sent into the world. For it is not fitting for a thing to be sent some place unless it existed before it was sent there. Therefore, he whom the Father sent into the world in a visible way, is the Son of God, who existed before he was visible: for as we saw above, "He was in the world, and the world was made through him" (1:10); and "God sent the Son into the world" (3:17). Do you say of him whom the Father sent into the world, you are blaspheming, because I said, I am the Son of God? This was like saying: I, who am united in person to the Word, have much more reason to say this than those to whom the word of God came. Sed unde Iudaei habuerunt quod Christus esset filius Dei? Non enim hoc dominus expresse dixit. Ad quod dicendum est, quod licet dominus hoc expresse non dixerit, nihilominus tamen ex verbis quae dixit, scilicet ego et pater unum sumus, et quod dedit mihi pater maius omnibus est, intellexerunt eum accepisse naturam a patre, et esse unum in natura cum eo. Hoc autem, scilicet accipere eamdem naturam ab aliquo et esse, habet rationem filiationis. 1462 But how did the Jews realize that he was claiming to be the Son of God? Our Lord did not say this expressly. I answer that although our Lord did not say this expressly, yet from what he did say - I and the Father are one and what my Father has given to me is greater than all - they understood that he received his nature from the Father and was one in nature with him. But to receive the same nature from another, and to be it, is to be a son. nquantum est Deus, tunc est sensus quem pater sanctificavit, idest, sanctum ab aeterno genuit. Sed alia quae sequuntur, eodem modo exponenda sunt, secundum quod Hilarius exponit. Tamen melius exponitur, si referatur totum ad Christum inquantum homo. 1463 But if, with Augustine, we refer him whom the Father sanctified to Christ as God, then the meaning is this: him whom the Father sanctified is he whom he has begotten holy, or sanctified, from eternity. [37] The other things which follow should be explained in the same way as Hilary does. Yet the better explanation is to refer everything to Christ as man. Si autem hoc quod dicit pater sanctificavit, referamus, secundum Augustinum, ad Christum iConsequenter cum dicit si non facio opera patris mei, nolite credere mihi, probat veritatem dictorum; quasi diceret: licet sim homo tantum, secundum reputationem vestram, tamen non blasphemo dicens me vere Deum, quia verissime sum. Unde circa hoc duo facit. Primo proponit argumentum operum; secundo infert conclusionem intentam, ibi ut cognoscatis et credatis quia pater in me est, et ego in patre. 1464 Then when he says, If I am not doing the works of my Father, then do not believe me, he proves the truth of the foregoing. This is like saying: Although in your opinion I am only human, yet I am not blaspheming when I say that I am truly God, because I truly am. He does two things concerning this: first, he presents the argument of his works; secondly, he draws his conclusion (v 38b). Circa primum duo facit. Primo dicit, quod sine operibus essent excusabiles. Et dicit si non facio opera patris mei, eadem scilicet quae ipse facit, et eadem virtute et potestate, nolite credere mihi; supra V, v. 19: quaecumque pater facit, haec et filius similiter facit. 1465 He does two things concerning the first. In the first place he says that in the absence of his works they would have an excuse. He says, If I am not doing the works of my Father, i.e., the same ones that he does, and with the same might and power, then do not believe me. "Whatever he [the Father] does, that the Son does likewise" (5:19). Secundo, quod ex ipsis operibus convincuntur, dicens si autem facio, scilicet eadem opera quae pater facit, et si mihi, qui filius hominis appareo, non vultis credere, operibus credite; idest, ipsa opera demonstrant quod ego sum filius Dei; infra XV, 24: si opera non fecissem quae nemo alius fecit, peccatum non haberent. Secondly, he says that they are convicted by his very works: but if I do them, the same works the Father does, then even though you do not believe me, who appears as a son of man, believe the works, i.e., these works show that I am the Son of God: "If I had not done among them the works which no one else did, they would not have sin" (15:24). Consequenter infert conclusionem intentam, dicens ut cognoscatis, et credatis quia pater in me est, et ego in patre. Nullum enim tam evidens indicium de natura alicuius rei esse potest quam illud quod accipitur ex operibus eius. Evidenter ergo cognosci potest de Christo et credi quod sit Deus, per hoc quod facit opera Dei. Et ideo dicit: ex ipsis operibus convincam, ut cognoscatis, et credatis quod oculis vestris videre non potestis, scilicet quia pater in me est, et ego in patre; infra XIV, 10: ego in patre, et pater in me est. Quod intelligendum est per unitatem essentiae. Et quasi idem est pater in me est, et ego in patre; et ego et pater unum sumus. 1466 Now he draws his conclusion, saying, that you may know and believe that the Father is in me and I am in the Father. For the clearest indication of the nature of a thing is taken from its works. Therefore, from the fact that he does the works of God it can be clearly known and believed that Christ is God. Accordingly he says: I will argue from my works themselves, that you may know and believe what you cannot see with your own eyes, that is, that the Father is in me and I am in the Father: "I am in the Father and the Father in me," by a unity of essence (14:10). The Father is in me and I am in the Father and "I and the Father are one," have the same meaning. Hilarius autem hoc bene exponit dicens, quod differentia est inter Deum et hominem: nam homo cum sit compositus, non est sua natura; Deus autem cum sit simplicissimus, est suum esse et sua natura. In quocumque ergo est natura Dei, ibi est Deus. Cum ergo pater est Deus et filius est Deus, ubicumque est natura patris, ibi est pater, et ubicumque est natura filii, ibi est filius. Cum ergo natura patris sit in filio, et e converso: ergo pater est in filio, et e converso. Sed, ut dicit Augustinus, licet Deus sit in homine, et homo in Deo, ut dicitur I Io. IV, 16: qui manet in caritate, in Deo manet, et Deus in eo, non est intelligendum per essentiae unitatem; sed homo in Deo est, idest sub divina cura et protectione, et Deus in homine per similitudinem suae gratiae. Unigenitus autem filius est in patre, et pater in illo tamquam aequalis. Hilary explains this well by saying that there is this difference between God and man: man being a composite, is not his own nature; but God, being entirely simple, is his own existence and his own nature. Therefore, in whomever the nature of God is, there is God. [38] And so, since the Father is God and the Son is God, where the nature of the Father is, there is the Father, and where the nature of the Son is, there is the Son. Therefore, since the nature of the Father is in the Son, and conversely, the Father is in the Son, and conversely. But as Augustine remarks, although God is in man and man is in God - "He who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him" (1 Jn 4:16) - this does not mean that they are one in essence. Rather, man is in God, that is, under the divine care and protection, and God is in man, by the likeness of his grace. [39] However, the only Son is in the Father and the Father is in him as equals. Hic dominus declinat Iudaeorum pertinaciam, et primo ostendit ipsorum pertinaciam; secundo declinat eam; tertio ostendit effectum declinationis. 1467 Now our Lord turns away from the obstinacy of the Jews. First, the Evangelist shows they were obstinate; secondly, we see that Christ turns away from this; thirdly, we see what effect this had. Pertinaciam autem ostendit per hoc quod post tot veritatis documenta, post tot miraculorum et mirabilium operum argumenta, adhuc in malitia perseverant. Unde quaerebant eum apprehendere: non ad credendum et intelligendum, sed ad saeviendum et ad nocendum. Nam quia aequalitatem sui ad patrem evidentius expresserat, magis concitati fuerunt; Ier. VIII, 5: apprehenderunt mendacium, et noluerunt reverti. 1468 The Evangelist shows their inflexibility by the fact that after so many confirmations of the truth, after the evidence of so many miracles and wonders, they still persist in their evil. So again they tried to arrest him, to apprehend him, not in order to believe and understand, but in their rage to do him harm; they were even the more enraged because he had more clearly expressed his equality with the Father: "They hold fast to deceit, they refuse to return" (Jer 8:5). Declinat autem eorum saevitiam dominus exiens ab eis; unde dicit exivit de manibus eorum. Ubi primo ostenditur quomodo eos dimisit, scilicet exeundo de manibus eorum: et hoc propter duo. Primo, ut ostenderet se non posse detineri nisi quando volebat; Lc. IV, v. 30: Iesus transiens per medium illorum, ibat. Supra eodem: nemo tollit a me animam meam, sed ego ponam a meipso. Secundo ut daret nobis exemplum declinandi malorum saevitiam, quando sine periculo fidei fieri potest; Eccli. VIII, 14: ne stes contra faciem contumeliosi. 1469 But our Lord turns away from their rage, and so the Evangelist says, but he escaped from their hands. Here we see, first, that he left them by escaping from their hands. He did this for two reasons. To show that he could not be restrained unless he willed: "Passing through the midst of them he went away" (Lk 4:30); "No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord" (10:18). Secondly, to give us the example of turning away from persecution when this can be done without endangering the faith: "Do not make your stand against one who can injure you" [Sir 8:14]. Secundo ostenditur quo exiens ierit; unde dicit et abiit iterum trans Iordanem, in eum locum ubi erat Ioannes baptizans primum. Cuius quidem mystica causa est, quod aliquando iturus esset per apostolos suos ad gentes convertendas. Causa vero litteralis est duplex. Una, quia locus erat vicinus Ierusalem, et iam imminebat tempus passionis, unde nolebat se elongare. Secunda, ut reducat ad memoriam testimonium quod illic perhibuit Ioannes dicens: ecce agnus Dei, esse qui tollit peccatum mundi, et testimonium patris et filii Christo perhibitum in Baptismo. We see, secondly, where he went when the Evangelist says, he went away again across the Jordan to the place where John at first baptized. The mystical reason for this is that at some time, through the apostles, Jesus would go to convert the Gentiles. The literal reason is twofold. First, this place was near Jerusalem, and since his passion was near, he did not wish to be too far away. Secondly, he wanted to recall the witness which John had given there, when he said, "Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world" (1:29), as well as the Father's testimony to his Son, Christ, at the time of his baptism. Effectus autem declinationis fuit conversio turbarum ad fidem: quae quidem conversio describitur quantum ad tria. Primo quantum ad operationis imitationem; unde dicit et multi venerunt ad eum, scilicet per imitationem operum; Matth. XI, 28: venite ad me omnes qui laboratis et onerati estis, et ego reficiam vos. Secundo quantum ad oris confessionem; unde et dicebant quia Ioannes quidem nullum fecit signum. Ubi primo confitentur eminentiam Christi ad Ioannem; unde dicebant quia Ioannes fecit nullum signum. Cuius quidem ratio fuit, quia Ioannes missus fuit ut testis Christi, unde oportebat quod fieret fide dignus, et testimonium eius ostenderetur verum: quod quidem fit convenienter per sanctitatem vitae: Christus autem venit ut Deus: et ideo oportebat quod ostenderet in se signa potestatis divinae. Et ideo Ioannes vitae sanctitate pollebat; Christus autem cum hoc exercebat etiam opera potestatem divinam manifestantia. Hic etiam mos servabatur apud antiquas potestates, quod in praesentia potestatis maioris minor potestas non utebatur suae potestatis insigniis; unde in praesentia dictatoris consules insignia deponebant. Non ergo decens fuit ut Ioannes, qui minoris potestatis erat, utpote praecursor et testis, in Christi praesentia, divinae potestatis insigniis uteretur; sed solum Christus. Secundo confitentur veritatem testimonii Ioannis de Christo; unde dicebant omnia enim quae dixit Ioannes de hoc, scilicet de Christo, erant vera; quasi dicerent: et si nullum signum fecerit Ioannes, tamen de Christo omnia veraciter dixit. Tertio manifestat cordis fidem; unde dicit et multi crediderunt in eum. Ut Augustinus dicit, Christum apprehenderunt permanentem, quem Iudaei volebant apprehendere descendentem, quia per lucernam ad diem venerant: Ioannes enim lucerna erat, et diei testimonium perhibebat. 1470 The effect of this turning away was that many were converted to the faith. Three points are made about this conversion. First, many imitated his works; so he says, and many came to him, namely, by imitating his works: "Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest" (Matt 11:28). Secondly, many professed him in word, and they said, John did no sign. By this they profess Christ's superiority to John. The reason for this was that John was sent as a witness to Christ; thus he should show that he was worthy to be believed and his testimony would be shown to be true. Now this is fittingly done by holiness of life. On the other hand, Christ came as God; consequently, it was fitting that he show the signs of divine power. And so John stood out by the sanctity of his life; Christ, however, in addition to this, performed works which manifested his divine power. This was in accord with the practice of the rulers of antiquity that when in the presence of a higher power a lesser power did not display the insignia of its power. Thus, in the presence of the Dictator, the Consuls took down their insignia. So it was not fitting that John, who possessed less power, because he was a precursor and witness, should employ the insignia of divine power; only Christ should have done this. They profess the truth of John's witness to Christ, saying, but everything that John said about this man, Christ, was true. They were saying: Although John did no sign, he nevertheless said all things truthfully about Christ. Thirdly, he reveals the faith in their hearts, saying, and many believed in him there. As Augustine remarks, they grasped Christ remaining, whom the Jews wanted to seize waning, because through the lamp they had come to the day. For John was that lamp and gave testimony to the day. [40]
[1] In Ioannem hom., 59, ch. 2; PG 59, col. 324; cf. Catena Aurea, 10:1-5.
[2] Ibid.; cf. Catena Aurea, 10:1-5.
[3] Tract. in Io., 45, ch. 2, col. 1720; cf. Catena Aurea, 10:1-5.
[4] loc. cit; also Tract. in Io., 47, ch. 1, col. 1733; cf. Catena Aurea, 10:11-13.
[5] In Ioannem hom., 59, ch. 2; PG 59, col. 324; cf. Catena Aurea, 10:1-5.
[6] Tract. in Io., 46, ch. 2, col. 1728; cf. Catena Aurea, 10:1-5.
[7] Ibid.; cf. Catena Aurea, 10:1-5.
[8] St. Thomas refers to Jn 10:10 in the Summa Theologiae: III, q. 50, a. 1, obj. 3; q. 55, a. 5, obj. 3.
[9] Tract. in Io., 45, ch. 6, col. 1721; cf. Catena Aurea, 10:6.
[10] Tract. in Io., 45, ch. 7, col. 1722.
[11] In Ioannem hom., 59, ch. 3; PG 59, col. 325; cf. Catena Aurea, 10:7-10.
[12] Tract. in Io., 45, ch. 15, col. 1726-27; cf. Catena Aurea, 10:7-10.
[13] Gregory, Super Ezek. Hom, 13; cf. Catena Aurea, 10:7-10.
[14] De Spiritu et Anima, ch. IX; PL 40, col. 785.
[15] St. Thomas refers to Jn 10:11 in the Summa Theologiae: II-II, q. 184, a. 5; q. 185, a. 4; Jn 12: ST II-II, q. 185, a. 5, obj. 1.
[16] Tract. in Io., 46, ch. 1, col. 1727-28; cf. Catena Aurea, 10:11-13.
[17] Aristotle.
[18] Augustine, Tract. in Io., 46, ch. 8, col. 1732; cf. Catena Aurea, 10:11-13.
[19] Augustine, Epistola CCXXVII, ch. 2; PL 33, col. 1014. cf. Catena Aurea, 10:11-13.
[20] St. Thomas refers to Jn 10:16 in the Summa Theologiae: III, q. 35, a. 8, ad 1; Jn 10:17: ST III, q. 5, a. 4, s. c.; Jn 10:18: ST III, q. 5, a. 3; q. 47, a. 1, obj. 1; q. 47, a. 2, ad 1; q. 50, a. 3, obj. 1; q. 53, a. 4, s. c.
[21] summa-three substances in Christ; his body and soul were separated at death but his divinity remained united to both.
[22] Summa-- God's love is the cause of human love, but works done in charity merit the increase of the effects of God's love.
[23] Tract., in Io., 31, ch. 5, col. 1638.
[24] summa-Christ's entire nature was subject to His will.
[25] St. Thomas refers to Jn 10:27in the Summa Theologiae: I-II, q. 108, a. 4, ad 3; Jn 30: ST III, q. 17, a. 1, obj. 5.
[26] Tract. in Io., 48, ch. 2, col. 1741; cf. Catena Aurea, 10:22-30.
[27] Moralia, II, ch. 2, no. 2; PL 75, col. 555C; cf. Catena Aurea, 10:22-30.
[28] 1443, 1444, Summa-predestination and preordination. He begins to mention predestination in 1373, but says more about it here, also 1447, why it is the fault of some why it is not given to them to believe.
[29] Tract. in Io., 48, ch. 5, col. 1742; cf. Catena Aurea, 10:22-30.
[30] Origen
[31] Tract. in Io., 48, ch. 6, col. 1743; cf. Catena Aurea, 10:22-30.
[32] Ibid, 48, ch. 6, col. 1743; cf. Catena Aurea, 10:22-30.
[33] Summa, Christ is one with the Father absolutely, creatures can only become one with God in a qualified sense.
[34] St. Thomas refers to Jn 10:36 in the Summa Theologiae: III, q. 34, a. 1, s. c.; Jn 10:38: ST III, q. 43, a. 1; Jn 10:41: ST III, q. 27, a. 5, ad 3; q. 38, a. 2, obj. 2.
[35] Summa-because we become gods by participating in the Word of God, the Word must be divine.
[36] De Trin., 7, ch. 24; PL 10; cf. Catena Aurea, 10:31-38.
[37] Tract. in Io., 48, ch. 10, col. 1745; cf. Catena Aurea, 10:31-38.
[38] Hilary, De Trin., 9, ch. 61; PL 10, col. 330B.
[39] Tract. in Io., 48, ch. 10, col. 1745; cf. Catena Aurea, 10:31-38.