Super I Epistolam B. Pauli ad Corinthios lectura
Commentary
On the First Epistle to the Corinthiansby
Saint Thomas AquinasTranslated by Fabian Larcher, O.P.
(987-1046 by Daniel Keating)
Html-edited by Joseph Kenny, O.P.
CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1
CHAPTER 2
CHAPTER 3
CHAPTER 4
CHAPTER 5
CHAPTER 6
CHAPTER 7
[CHAPTERS 7:15—10:33 (nos. 347-581)
supplied by Peter of Tarantaise / Nicholas of Gorram]
- 7-3: 1 Cor 7:15-20
- 7-4: 1 Cor 7:21-24
- 7-5: 1 Cor 7:25-28
- 7-6: 1 Cor 7:29-31
- 7-7: 1 Cor 7:32-35
- 7-8: 1 Cor 7:36-40
CHAPTER 8
CHAPTER 9
CHAPTER 10
- 10-1: 1 Cor 10:1-5
- 10-2: 1 Cor 10:6-11
- 10-3: 1 Cor 10:12-13
- 10-4: 1 Cor 10:14-17
- 10-5: 1 Cor 10:18-24
- 10-6: 1 Cor 10:25-30
- 10-7: 1 Cor 10:31-33
CHAPTER 11
- 11-1: 1 Cor 11:1-3
- 11-2: 1 Cor 11:4-7
- 11-3: 1 Cor 11:8-16
- 11-4: 1 Cor 11:17-22
- 11-5: 1 Cor 11:23-24
- 11-6: 1 Cor11:25-26
- 11-7: 1 Cor 11:27-34
CHAPTER 12
CHAPTER 13
CHAPTER 14
- 14-1: 1 Cor 14:1-4
- 14-2: 1 Cor 14:5-12
- 14-3: 1 Cor 14:13-17
- 14-4: 1 Cor 14:18-22
- 14-5: 1 Cor 14:23-26
- 14-6: 1 Cor 14:27-33
- 14-7: 1 Cor 14:34-40
CHAPTER 15
- 15-1: 1 Cor 15:1-11
- 15-2: 1 Cor 15:12-19
- 15-3: 1 Cor 15:20-28
- 15-4: 1 Cor 15:29-34
- 15-5: 1 Cor 15:35-38
- 15-6: 1 Cor 15:39-44a
- 15-7: 1 Cor 15:44b-50
- 15-8: 1 Cor 15:51-52
- 15-9: 1 Cor 15:53-58
CHAPTER 16
PROLOGUE Non abscondam a vobis sacramenta Dei, etc., Sap. VI, 24. Sacramenti nomen dupliciter accipi consuevit. Nam quandoque sacramentum dicitur quodcumque secretum, et praecipue de rebus sacris; quandoque sacramentum dicitur sacrae rei signum, ita quod et eius imaginem gerat, et causa existat, secundum quod nos dicimus septem sacramenta Ecclesiae, scilicet Baptismus, confirmatio, Eucharistia, poenitentia, extrema unctio, ordo et matrimonium. In qua quidem significatione sacramenti etiam prima significatio continetur; nam in his Ecclesiae sacramentis, divina virtus secretius operatur salutem, ut Augustinus dicit. 1. – The word “sacrament” can be taken in two senses: sometimes it means something secret, particularly in regard to sacred things; and sometimes it means the sign of a sacred thing, in the sense of being its image and cause. It is in this second sense that we speak of the seven sacraments: baptism, confirmation, Eucharist, penance, extreme unction, orders and matrimony. Furthermore, the first sense is then included in this second sense, for a divine power is secretly at work in these sacraments of the Church, as Augustine says. Haec igitur sacramenta Dei praelatus, seu doctor Ecclesiae, fidelibus Christi non debet abscondere sed manifestare, propter tria. 2. – Consequently, these sacraments of God should not be concealed but laid bare to Christ’s faithful by their teachers and prelates for three reasons. Primo quidem, quia hoc pertinet ad honorem Dei, secundum illud Tob. XII, 7: sacramentum regis abscondere bonum est, opera autem Dei revelare et confiteri honorificum est. First, because this redounds to God’s honor: “It is good to hide the secret of the King, but honorable to reveal and confess the works of the Lord” (Tob 12:7). Secundo, quia hoc pertinet ad salutem hominum, qui per horum ignorantiam in desperationem labi possent, sicut de quibusdam dicitur Sap. II, 22 quod nescierunt sacramenta Dei, nec speraverunt mercedem iustitiae, quia per sacramenta homines purificantur, ut sint praeparati ad recipiendum mercedem iustitiae. Secondly, because this is needed for the salvation of men, who could lapse into despair from not knowing them, for Wisdom (2:22) says that some men “did not know the secret purposes of God, nor hope for the wages of holiness,” because men are purified by the sacraments and prepared for receiving the wages of holiness. Tertio quia hoc pertinet ad debitum officium praelati vel doctoris, secundum illud Eph. III, 8: mihi omnium sanctorum minimo data est gratia haec, illuminare omnes quae sit dispensatio sacramenti absconditi a saeculis in Deo. Thirdly, because this is a duty of teachers and prelates as pointed out by the Apostle: “To me, though I am the very least of the saints, this grace was given, to make all men see what is the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God” (Eph 3:8). Sic ergo praedicta verba demonstrant nobis materiam huius epistolae, in qua apostolus agit de sacramentis Ecclesiae. Cum enim in epistola ad Romanos gratiam Dei commendasset, quae in sacramentis Ecclesiae operatur: hic, scilicet in prima epistola ad Corinthios, de ipsis Ecclesiae sacramentis agit; in secunda vero de ministris sacramentorum. Thus the above text discloses to us the subject manner of this epistle, in which the Apostle discusses the sacraments of the Church. For since in the epistle to the Romans he had discussed God’s grace, which works in the seven sacraments, here in the first epistle to the Corinthians he discusses the sacraments themselves and in the second epistle to the Corinthians the ministers of the sacraments. Videamus ergo primo textum. Let us turn, therefore, to the text.
1-1
1 Cor 1:1-9Dividitur ergo haec epistola in partes duas. In prima parte ponit epistolarem salutationem; in secunda prosequitur suam intentionem, ibi gratias ago Deo meo. Circa primum tria facit. Primo ponit personas salutantes; secundo, personas salutatas Ecclesiae Dei, etc.; tertio bona salutifera optat, ibi gratia vobis et pax. 3. – This epistle is divided into two parts: in the first he sends his greeting and in the other his message (v. 4). As to the first he does three things: first, he mentions the persons who send the greeting; secondly, the persons greeted (v. 2); thirdly, he wishes them well (v. 3). Circa primum duo facit. Primo ponit personam principalem quam describit ex nomine, dicens Paulus, de quo quidem nomine satis dictum est in epistola ad Romanos. Hic autem sufficiat dicere quod hoc nomen praemittit in signum humilitatis; nam Paulus idem est quod modicus, quod ad humilitatem pertinet. I Reg. c. XV, 17: cum esses parvulus in oculis tuis, caput in tribubus Israel factus es. Matth. XI, v. 25: abscondisti haec a sapientibus et prudentibus, et revelasti ea parvulis. 4. – As to the first he mentions the principal person first and describes him from his name, Paul. Enough had been said about this name in the epistle to the Romans. Suffice it to say here that this name is mentioned as a token of humility, for Paul means a small amount, which pertains to humility: “Though you are little in your own eyes, are you not the head of the tribes of Israel?” (1 Sam 15:17); “You have hidden these things from the wise and understanding are revealed them to babes” (Matt 11:25). Consequenter describit eam a dignitate. Et primo ponit modum adipiscendae dignitatis, cum dicit vocatus, secundum illud Hebr. V, 4: nemo sumit sibi honorem, sed qui vocatur a Deo tamquam Aaron. 5. – Then he describes himself from his dignity. First, he mentions how a dignity should be obtained when he says, called, since it is stated in Heb (5:4): “One does not take the honor upon himself, but is called by God, as Aaron was.” Secundo ponit ipsam dignitatem, dicens apostolus Iesu Christi, quae quidem est prima dignitas in Ecclesia, et interpretatur missus, quia fuerunt missi a Deo, ut vice eius fungerentur in terris. Unde dicitur Lc. c. VI, 13, quod elegit duodecim, quos et apostolos nominavit, et infra XII, 28: Deus posuit in Ecclesia quosdam, primum quidem apostolos, et cetera. Secondly, he mentions his dignity, saying: an apostle of Jesus Christ. This, of course, is the highest dignity in the Church and means “sent,” because they were sent by God to act in His name on earth; hence it says in Lk (6:13): “He chose from them twelve, whom he named apostles,” and below (12:28): “God has appointed in the church, first, apostles.” Tertio ponit originem sive causam huius dignitatis, cum dicit per voluntatem Dei. Quod est intelligendum de voluntate beneplaciti, ex qua perficiuntur illi qui multipliciter praesunt Ecclesiis. Eccli. X, 4: in manibus Dei potestas terrae, et utilem rectorem in tempore suscitabit super illam. Et de praedicta voluntate sub figura nobis dicitur, Iob XXXVII, 12, quod lustrant cuncta per circuitum quocumque voluntas gubernantis perduxerit. Thirdly, he indicates the source and cause of this dignity when he says: by the will of God. This refers to the will of His good pleasure, which chooses those who rule the Church in one way or another: “The government of the earth is in the hands of the Lord, and over it he will raise up the right man for the time.” (Sir 10:4). Dimittit autem Deus aliquos praefici propter subditorum peccata, secundum illud Iob XXXIV, 30: regnare facit hominem hypocritam propter peccata populi. Talis autem rector non dicitur esse secundum voluntatem Dei, sed secundum eius indignationem, secundum illud Osee XIII, 11: dabo tibi regem in furore meo, et auferam in indignatione mea. But when God sets someone in authority an account of the sins of the subjects: “He makes a man that is a hypocrite to reign for the sins of the people” (Jb 34:30), such a ruler is not according to God’s will but according to His indignation: “I have given you kings in my anger, and I have taken them away in my wrath” (Hos 13:10). Secundo ponit personam adiunctam, cum dicit et Sosthenes frater, quem sibi salutando adiungit, quia ad apostolum detulerat contentiones et alios Corinthiorum defectus, ne hoc videretur ex odio fecisse; et ideo nominat eum fratrem, ut ostendat quod ex zelo charitatis hoc fecerat. Prov. IX, 8: argue sapientem, et diliget te. 6. – Secondly, he mentions the other person who sends the greeting when he says, and Sosthenes, our brother, whom he mentions along with himself, because he was the one who had reported to the Apostle the quarrels and other failings current among the Corinthians. He calls him brother, to show that he had done this not out of hatred but out of the zeal of charity: “Reprove a wise man and he will love you” (Pr 9:8). Deinde ponit personas salutatas, cum dicit Ecclesiae Dei quae est Corinthi. Et, primo, ponit principales personas, quas describit tripliciter. 7. – Then he mentions the persons he is greeting, saying: to the church of God that is at Corinth. Primo quidem ex loco, cum dicit Ecclesiae Dei quae est Corinthi, id est, fidelibus Christi Corinthi congregatis. Ps. XXXIV, 18: confitebor tibi in Ecclesia magna. First, he mentions the chief persons, whom he describes in three ways: first, from their region when he says, to the church of God that is at Corinth, i.e., Christ’s faithful assembled at Corinth: “I will thank thee in the great congregation” (Ps 35:18). Secundo ex munere gratiae, cum dicit sanctificatis in Christo Iesu, id est, in fide, passione et sacramento Christi Iesu. Infra VI, 11: sed abluti estis, sed sanctificati estis. Hebr. ult.: Iesus ut sanctificaret per suum sanguinem populum, extra portam passus est. Secondly, from their gift of grace when he says: to those sanctified in Christ Jesus, i.e., in the faith, passion and sacraments of Christ Jesus: “You were washed, you have been sanctified” (1 Cor 6:11); “Jesus also suffered outside the gate in order to sanctify the people” (Heb 13:12). Tertio ponit originem gratiae, cum dicit vocatis sanctis; quia scilicet ad sanctitatem per gratiam vocationis pervenerunt. Rom. VIII, 30: quos praedestinavit, hos et vocavit. I Petr. II, 9: de tenebris vos vocavit in admirabile lumen suum. Thirdly, he mentions the source of grace when he says: called to be saints, because they arrived at sanctity through the grace of being called: “Those whom he predestined he also called” (Rom 8:30); “He called you out of darkness into his marvelous light (1 Pt 2:9). Secundo ponit personas secundarias, fideles scilicet, quae non erant in ipsa civitate sed habitabant in dioecesi civitatis vel districtu. Unde subdit vobis, inquam, qui estis Corinthi scribo, cum omnibus qui invocant nomen domini nostri Iesu Christi, scilicet per veram fidei confessionem. Ioel. c. II, 32: omnis qui invocaverit nomen domini salvus erit. Et hoc in omni loco ipsorum, id est eorum iurisdictioni subiecto, et nostro, quia per hoc quod subiiciebantur episcopo civitatis, non eximebantur a potestate apostoli, quinimo magis erant ipsi apostolo subiecti, quam his quibus ipse eos subiecerat. Ps. CII, 22: in omni loco dominationis eius, benedic, anima mea, domino. 8. – Then he mentions the other persons, namely the faithful who were not in that city but lived in the diocese of the city or in the environs; hence he says: together with those who call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ by confessing the true faith: “All who call upon the name of the Lord shall be delivered” (Jl 2:32). And this in every place subject to their jurisdiction; both their Lord and ours, because their subjection to the bishop of the city did not exempt them from the Apostle’s power; rather they were more subject to the Apostle than to those whom he had subjected them: “In all places of his dominion, bless the Lord, O my soul!” (Ps 103:22). Ultimo autem in salutatione ponit bona salutifera quae eis optat, quorum primum est gratia, per quam iustificamur a peccatis, Rom. III, 24: iustificati gratis per gratiam ipsius; ultimum autem est pax, quae perficitur in felicitate aeterna. Ps. CXLVII, 14: qui posuit fines tuos pacem. Is. XXXII, 18: sedebit populus meus in pulchritudine pacis. Per haec autem duo, omnia alia includit. Unde dicit gratia et pax. Causam eorum ostendit, subdens a Deo patre nostro, secundum illud Iac. I, 17: omne datum optimum et omne donum perfectum desursum est, descendens a patre luminum. Addit autem et domino Iesu Christo, per quem, ut dicitur II Petr. I, 4, maxima et pretiosa promissa donavit nobis Deus. Io. I, v. 17: gratia et veritas per Iesum Christum facta est. 9. – Finally, he mentions in this greeting the salutary gifts he wishes them. The first of these is grace to you, by which we are set free of sin: “They are justified by his grace as a gift” (Rom 3:24) and the last is peace, which is brought to perfection in eternal happiness: “He makes peace in your borders” (Ps 147:14); “My people will abide in a peaceful habitation” (Is 32:18). But these two include all other gifts; hence he says: grace and peace. The one who causes them is mentioned when he says: from God our Father: “Every good endowment and every perfect gift is from above, coming down form the Father of lights” (Jas 1:17). He adds: and from the Lord Jesus Christ, by Whom he has granted to us his precious and very great promises” (2 Pt 1:4); “Grace and truth came through Jesus Christ” (Jn. 1:17). Quod autem dicit a Deo patre nostro. Potest intelligi de tota Trinitate, a qua creati sumus et in filios adoptati. Additur autem et domino Iesu Christo, non quia sit persona alia vel hypostasis praeter tres personas, sed propter aliam naturam. 10. – The phrase, from God our Father, can be understood of the whole Trinity, by Whom we have been created and adopted as sons; but the Lord Jesus Christ is added, not as though He were a person over and above the three persons, but on account of His other nature. Vel quod dicitur Deo patre nostro, per quamdam appropriationem accipitur pro persona patris, sicut Io. XX, 17: ascendo ad patrem meum, Deum meum et Deum vestrum. In hoc autem quod subdit et domino Iesu Christo, manifestatur persona filii. Tacetur autem de spiritu sancto, quia est nexus patris et filii, et intellectus ex ambobus, vel quia est donum utriusque, intelligitur in donis, de quibus dicit gratia et pax, quae per spiritum sanctum dantur. Infra XII, v. 11: haec omnia operatur unus atque idem spiritus. Or God our Father is taken for the person of the Father, as in Jn (20:17): “I ascend to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God,” whereas the Lord Jesus Christ is added to indicate the person of the Son. The Holy Spirit is not mentioned, because He is nexus of the Father and Son, and is understood when the other two persons are mentioned, or because He is the gift of both, He is understood in the gifts, grace and peace, which are granted by the Holy Spirit: “All these are inspired by one and the same Spirit” (1 Cor 12:11). Deinde cum dicit gratias ago Deo meo, incipit epistolarem tractatum. Et primo gratias agit de bonis eorum, ut correctionem suorum defectuum tolerabilius ferant; secundo ponit eorum instructionem, ibi obsecro vos autem, fratres. 11. – Then when he says, I give thanks to God, he begins his message: first, he gives thanks for their blessings, so that they will more easily bear the correction of their faults; secondly, he begins to instruct them (v. 10). Circa primum duo facit. Primo gratias agit de bonis quae iam acceperant; secundo de bonis quae in futurum expectabant, ibi expectantibus revelationem. Circa primum duo facit. Primo ponit gratiarum actionem, cum dicit gratias ago Deo meo, qui scilicet etsi sit Deus omnium per creationem et gubernationem, tamen est eius et cuiuslibet iusti per fidem et devotionem. Ps. CXVII, 28: Deus meus es tu, et confitebor tibi. Ostendit etiam quando gratias agit, cum dicit semper, quia haec gratiarum actio ex charitatis affectu procedit, qui in eius corde assiduus erat. Prov. XVII, 17: omni tempore diligit qui amicus est. Et quamvis omni tempore eos diligeret, et pro eorum bonis gratias ageret actualiter, tamen etiam pro eis gratias agebat omnibus horis quas habebat orationi deputatas. 12. – As to the first he does two things. First, he gives thanks for the blessings they have already received; secondly, for those they expected in the future (v. 7b). He mentions his thanks when he says: I give thanks to God, Who in addition to being the God of all things by creation and governance, is his and every just man’s God through faith and devotion: “Thou are my God, and I will give thanks to you” (Ps 118:28). He also mentions this when he gives thanks; hence he says: always, because this thanks came from the ardor of charity, which was continually alive in his heart: “A friend loves at all times” (Pr 17:17). But although he loved them at all times and continually gave thanks for their blessings, he gave thanks for them especially at all the hours he set aside for prayer. He also mentions those for whom he gives thanks when he says: for you, in whose blessings he rejoiced as in his own because of the union of charity: “No greater joy can I have than this, to hear that my children follow the truth” (3 Jn. v. 4). Ostendit etiam pro quibus gratias agit, cum dicit pro vobis, de quorum scilicet bonis propter charitatis unionem gaudebat, sicut de suis. III Io. v. 4: maiorem horum non habeo gratiam, quam ut audiam filios meos in veritate ambulare. Secundo ostendit materiam gratiarum actionis, et primo in generali, cum dicit in gratia Dei, id est, per gratiam Dei, quae data est vobis in Christo Iesu, id est per Christum Iesum. Io. I, 16: de plenitudine eius omnes nos accepimus gratiam pro gratia. 13. – Then he indicates the blessings for which he gives thanks. First, in general, when he says: because of the grace of God, i.e., by the grace of God, which was given you in Christ Jesus, i.e., by Christ Jesus: “Of his fullness we have all received and grace for grace: (Jn. 1:16). Secundo in speciali, ubi primo ostendit gratiae abundantiam cum dicit quia in omnibus, scilicet quae pertinent ad salutem, divites, id est abundantes, facti estis in illo, id est per Christum, secundum illud II Cor. VIII, 9: propter vos egenus factus est, ut illius inopia divites essetis. Secondly, in detail: first, when he mentions the abundance of their grace, saying: because in every way, namely, which pertains to salvation, you were enriched, i.e., made to overflow in him, i.e., through Christ: “For your sake he became poor, so that by his poverty you become rich (2 Cor 8:9). Et exponit in quibus sint divites facti, cum dicit in omni verbo, vel quia omnibus generibus linguarum loquebantur, vel quia in verbo doctrinae abundabant. Verbum autem non proferretur ordinate, nisi ex scientia procederet, et ideo subdit in omni scientia, id est, intelligentia omnium Scripturarum, et universaliter omnium quae pertinent ad salutem. Sap. X, 10: dedit illi scientiam sanctorum. He explains in what matters they became rich when says: with all speech, either because they spoke in all manner of tongues or because they abounded in the utterance of doctrine. But because the word was not uttered properly, unless it proceeded from knowledge, he adds: and all knowledge, i.e., the understanding of all Scriptures and, in general, of all things pertaining to salvation: “He gave them a knowledge of holy things: (Wis 10:10). Hoc autem quod dicit apostolus referendum est ad eos qui erant in Ecclesia perfectiores, in quibus etiam alii minores has divitias possidebant, sicut Augustinus dicit super Ioannem: si amas unitatem cui haeres, habes quicquid in illa alter habet: tolle invidiam, et tuum est quod alius habet; quos enim cupiditas et invidia separat, charitas iungit. What the Apostle says here refers to those in the Church who were more perfect and includes even lesser personages who possessed these riches, as Augustine says: “If you love the unity of which you are a member, you have whatever the others have in it. Remove envy and the possessions of others are yours, for love unites those whom greed and envy would separate.” Secundo ostendit rectitudinem, dicens sicut testimonium Christi confirmatum est in vobis; non esset rectum verbum doctrinae, neque recta scientia, si a testimonio Christi discordaret, vel si etiam Christi testimonium non firmiter per fidem cordibus inhaereret; quia, ut dicitur Iac. I, 6: qui haesitat similis est fluctui maris, qui a vento movetur et circumfertur. 14. – Secondly, he shows their correctness when he says: even as the testimony to Christ was confirmed among you. For the utterance of doctrine would not be correct or knowledge correct, if it disagreed with the testimony of Christ or if Christ’s testimony did not have a firm hold on their hearts by faith, because, as it says in Jas (1:6): “He who wavers is like a wave of the sea that is driven and tossed by the wind.” Testimonium autem Christi dicit, vel quia de ipso prophetae praenuntiaverunt, secundum illud Act. X, 43: huic omnes prophetae testimonium perhibent; vel quia ipse Christus testimonium perhibuit, secundum illud Io. c. VIII, 14: si ego testimonium perhibeo de meipso, verum est testimonium meum; vel etiam quia apostolus in sua praedicatione Christo testimonium dedit. Act. XXII, 18: non recipient testimonium tuum de me. He says: in testimony to Christ, either because the prophets have spoken of Him; “To him all the prophets give testimony: (Ac 10:43) or because Christ Himself gave testimony: “Although I give testimony of myself, my testimony is true” (Jn. 8:14) or even because the Apostle in his own preaching gave testimony about me” (Ac 22:18). Tertio tangit gratiae perfectionem, cum dicit ita ut nihil vobis desit in ulla gratia, quia scilicet in diversis personis omnes gratias gratis datas habebant. Ad divinam enim providentiam pertinet, ut absque defectu necessaria largiatur. Ps. XXXIII, 10: nihil deest timentibus eum; et iterum: inquirentes autem dominum non minuentur omni bono. 15. – Thirdly, he touches on the perfection of grace when he says: you are not wanting in any spiritual gift, namely, because various persons among them enjoyed all the Charismatic graces. For it befits divine providence to bestow the necessities of life without stint: “Those who fear him have no want” (Ps 34:9) and again “Those who seek the Lord lack no good thing”(Ps 34:10). Deinde ponit bona in futurum expectanda. Et circa hoc tria facit. Primo ponit futuri boni expectationem, dicens vobis, inquam, non solum habentibus gratiam in praesenti, sed etiam expectantibus, in futurum, revelationem domini nostri Iesu Christi, qua scilicet sanctis suis revelabitur, non solum per gloriam humanitatis, secundum illud Is. XXXIII, 17: regem in decore suo videbunt, sed etiam per gloriam divinitatis, secundum illud Is. XL, 5: revelabitur gloria domini; quae quidem revelatio homines beatos facit. I Io. III, 2: cum autem apparuerit, similes ei erimus: et videbimus eum sicuti est. Et in hoc vita aeterna consistit, secundum illud Io. XVII, 3: haec est vita aeterna, ut cognoscant te solum verum Deum, et quem misisti Iesum Christum. Sicut autem illi quibus Christus revelatur, sunt beati in re, ita illi qui hoc expectant, sunt beati in spe. Is. XXX, 18: beati omnes qui expectant eum. Et ideo de ipsa expectatione gratias agit. 16. – Then he mentions the blessings to be expected in the future. In regard to this he does three things. First, he mentions their expectation of a future blessing when he says: to you, who not only have grace at present but are waiting for the future revealing of our Lord Jesus Christ, namely because He will be manifested to His saints not only in the glory of His humanity: “Your eyes will see the king in his beauty” (Is 33:17) but also in the glory of His divinity: “The glory of the Lord shall be revealed” (Is 40:5). This is the revelation that makes men happy: “When he appears we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is” (1 Jn. 3:2), and in which eternal life consists: “This eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent” (Jn. 17:3). Now just as those to whom Christ is revealed are happy in reality, so those who await this are happy in hope: “Blessed are all they that wait for him” (Is 30:18). This is why he gives thanks for their expectations. Secundo ostendit quod haec expectatio non est vana ex auxilio divinae gratiae. Unde subdit: qui, scilicet Christus, qui spem dedit vobis huiusmodi revelationis, etiam confirmabit vos in gratia accepta. I Petr. ult.: modicum passos ipse perficiet, confirmabit solidabitque. Et hoc usque in finem, scilicet vitae vestrae. Matth. c. X, 22: qui perseveraverit usque in finem, hic salvus erit. Non autem ut sitis sine peccato: quia, si dixerimus quoniam peccatum non habemus, ipsi nosmetipsos seducimus, et veritas in nobis non est, ut dicitur I Io. I, 8, sed ut sitis sine crimine, id est, sine peccato mortali. I Tim. III, 10: ministrent nullum crimen habentes. Et hoc, inquam, erit in die adventus domini nostri Iesu Christi, quia scilicet qui sine crimine invenitur in die mortis, sine crimine perveniet ad diem iudicii, secundum illud Eccle. XI, 3: si ceciderit lignum ad Austrum, sive ad Aquilonem, in quocumque loco ceciderit, ibi erit. Nisi autem sine crimine nunc inveniatur, frustra illam revelationem expectaret. 17. – Secondly, he shows that this expectation is not vain because of the help of God’s grace: hence he adds: Who, i.e., Christ, Who gave them the hope of such a manifestation, will sustain you in the grace received: “After you have suffered a little while, He will restore, establish and strengthen you” (1 Pt 5:10) to the end of your life: “He who endures to the end will be saved” (Matt 10:22). Not that you will be without sin, because “If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us” (1 Jn. 1:8), but that you may be guiltless, i.e., without mortal sin: “If they prove themselves blameless let them minister: (1 Tim 3:10). This, I say, will be in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ, because a person found without crime on the day of death will arrive at the day of judgment without crime: “If a tree falls to the south or to the north, in the place where the tree falls, there it will lie” (Ec 11:3). For unless he is found without crime now, he awaits that revelation in vain. Tertio rationem suae promissionis assignat, dicens quod Deus vos confirmabit, quod debetis sperare, quia Deus est fidelis (Deut. XXXII, 4: Deus fidelis et absque ulla iniquitate), per quem vocati estis in societatem filii eius Iesu Christi domini nostri, ut scilicet habeatis societatem ad Christum, et in praesenti per similitudinem gratiae, secundum illud I Io. I, 7: si in luce ambulamus, sicut et ipse in luce est, societatem habemus cum eo ad invicem, et in futuro per participationem gloriae, Rom. VIII, 17: si compatimur, ut et simul glorificemur. Non autem videretur esse fidelis Deus, si nos vocaret ad societatem filii et nobis denegaret, quantum in ipso est, ea, per quae pervenire ad eum possemus. Unde Iosue I, v. 5 dicit: non te deseram, neque derelinquam. 18. – Thirdly, he assigns the reason for his promise, saying that God will strengthen you, because God is faithful: “God is faithful and without iniquity” (Dt 32:4). By whom you were called into the fellowship of his Son, Jesus Christ our Lord, i.e., to have fellowship with Christ, both in the present life through the likeness of grace: “If we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another” (1 Jn. 1:7) and in the future by sharing in His glory: “Provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him” (Rom 8:17). But God would not seem to be faithful, if He called us to the fellowship of His Son and then denied us on His part the things by which we could attain to Him. Hence Joshua (1:5) says: “I will not fail you or forsake you.”
1-2
1 Cor 1:10-17aPraemissa salutatione et gratiarum actione, hic incipit eos instruere. Et primo ponitur instructio de his quae ad omnes communiter pertinent, scilicet de his quae pertinent ad ecclesiastica sacramenta. Secundo instruit eos de his quae ad quosdam pertinebant, XVI cap. de collectis autem quae fiunt in sanctos, et cetera. In sacramentis autem tria sunt consideranda. Primo quidem ipsum sacramentum, sicut Baptismus; secundo id quod est res significata et contenta, scilicet gratia; tertio id quod est res significata et non contenta, scilicet gloria resurrectionis. Primo ergo agit de ipsis sacramentis; secundo de ipsis gratiis, XII cap. de spiritualibus autem nolo vos, etc., tertio, de gloria resurrectionis, infra XV notum autem vobis facio. Circa primum tria facit. Primo determinat ea quae pertinent ad sacramentum Baptismi; secundo ea quae pertinent ad sacramentum matrimonii, V cap., ibi omnino auditur inter vos, etc.; tertio ea quae pertinent ad sacramentum Eucharistiae, VIII cap., ibi de his autem quae idolis sacrificantur. 19. – After the greeting the Apostle begins to instruct them. First, he instructs them about things pertaining to all generally, namely, about the sacraments. Secondly, about things pertaining to some of them (c. 16). In the sacraments three things should be considered: first, the sacrament itself, as baptism; secondly, the reality signified and contained, namely, grace: thirdly, the reality signified but not contained, namely, the glory of the resurrection. First, therefore, he discusses the sacraments themselves; secondly, the graces (c. 12); thirdly, the glory of the resurrection (c. 15). In regard to the first he does three things: first he determines what pertains to baptism; secondly, what pertains to the sacrament of matrimony (c. 5); thirdly, what pertains to the sacrament of the Eucharist (c. 8). Dominus autem, Matth. ult., discipulis praeceptum dedit de doctrina simul et Baptismo, dicens euntes docete omnes gentes, baptizantes, et cetera. Et ideo apostolus in prima parte simul cum Baptismo agit de doctrina. Est autem sciendum quod inter Corinthios fideles erat quaedam dissensio propter baptistas et doctores; illi enim qui erant instructi contemnebant alios, quasi qui meliorem doctrinam acceperint, et meliorem Baptismum. 20. – In the first part the Apostle deals with doctrine along with baptism; thus he follows the example of the Lord, Who gave the disciples the injunction to teach and to baptize in one command: “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matt 28:19). Now it should be noted that there was dissension among the Corinthian believers, because those who had been instructed assumed that they had received the better teaching and a better baptism and began to look down on the others. Unde circa primum duo facit. Primo removet contentionem; secundo contentionis causam quae erat in hoc, quod gloriabantur de quibusdam, et alios Christi ministros contemnebant, infra III capite et ego, fratres, non potui vobis loqui. Circa primum tria facit. Primo proponit admonitionem; secundo admonitionis necessitatem ostendit, ibi significatum est enim mihi, etc.; tertio rationem admonitionis assignat, ibi divisus est Christus? et cetera. 21. – Hence the Apostle does two things: first, he ends the strife; secondly he attacks the cause of the strife, namely, that they glory in some of Christ’s ministers and look down on the other ones (c. 3). As to the first he does three things: first, he gives a friendly warning; secondly, he shows the need for the warning (v. 11); thirdly, the reason for (v.13). Circa primum duo consideranda sunt. Primum quidem quod eos inducit ad admonitionem servandam. Uno modo per propriam humilitatem, cum dicit obsecro autem vos, et cetera. Prov. XVIII, 23: cum obsecrationibus loquitur pauper. Alio modo per fraternam charitatem, cum dicit fratres, quia scilicet ex affectu fraternae charitatis hoc dicebat. Prov. XVIII, 19: frater qui iuvatur a fratre, quasi civitas firma. Tertio per reverentiam Christi, cum dicit per nomen domini nostri Iesu Christi, quod est ab omnibus honorandum, et cui oportet omnes esse subiectos. Phil. II, 10: in nomine Iesu omne genu flectatur. 22. – In regard to the first, two things should be considered. First, he uses humble language as one way of inducing them to heed his warning; hence he says: I appeal to you; the second way is by brotherly love when he says: brethren, because this warning came from the warmth of his fraternal charity: “A brother helped by a brother is like a strong city: (Pr 18:19). The third way is by appealing to their reverence for Christ when he says: by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, Who should be honored by all and to Whom all should be subject: “In the name of Jesus every knee should bend” (Phil 2:10). Secundo considerandum est quod inducit eos ad tria. Primo quidem ad concordiam, cum dicit ut idipsum dicatis omnes, id est, omnes eamdem fidem confiteamini, et eamdem sententiam proferatis de his quae sunt communiter agenda. Rom. XV, 6: ut unanimes uno ore honorificetis Deum. Secundo prohibet vitium contrarium virtuti, cum dicit et non sint in vobis schismata, quia unitas ecclesiastica dividi non debet, in cuius signum milites de tunica inconsutili, Io. XIX, 24 dixerunt: non scindamus eam, sed sortiamur de ea cuius sit. Sunt autem proprie schismata, quando, vel propter diversam fidei confessionem, vel propter diversas sententias de agendis, homines unius collegii in diversas separantur partes. Is. XXII, v. 9: scissuras civitatis David videbitis, quia multiplicatae sunt. Tertio inducit eos ad id per quod possunt schismata vitare, scilicet ad perfectionem. Est enim divisionis causa, dum unusquisque partiale bonum quaerit, praetermisso perfecto bono, quod est bonum totius. Et ideo dicit sitis autem perfecti in eodem sensu, scilicet quo iudicatur de agendis, et in eadem scientia, qua iudicatur de cognoscendis, quasi dicat: per haec perfecti esse poteritis, si in unitate persistatis. Col. III, 14: super omnia charitatem habete, quod est vinculum perfectionis. Matth. V, 48: estote perfecti sicut pater vester caelestis perfectus est. 23. – The second thing to be considered is that he urges them to three things. First, to concord when he says: that you all agree, i.e., that all confess the same faith and hold the same opinion in matters that must be done in common: “That together you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Rom 15:6). Secondly, he forbids a vice contrary to virtue when he says: that there be no dissensions (schisms) among you, because ecclesial unity must not be fragmented. As a sign of this unity the soldiers said of the coat without seam: “Let us not cut it, but let us cast lots for it, whose it shall be” (Jn. 19:24). Properly speaking, there are schisms, when the members of one group separate into various factions according to their various beliefs or according to their various opinions about conduct: “You shall see the breaches of the city of David” (Is 22:9). Thirdly, he urges them to seek perfection, which is the good of the whole. Therefore, he says: but that you be united in the same mind, which judges about conduct, and in the same judgment, which judges about belief. As if to say: These things will enable you to be perfect, if you continue in unity: “Over all these things have charity, which is the bond of perfection” (Col 3:14); “Be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect” (Matt 5:48). Deinde, cum dicit significatum est mihi, ostendit necessitatem praedictae admonitionis, quia scilicet contentionis vitio laborabant, quasi dicat: ideo necesse est vos ad hoc inducere, quia significatum est mihi, fratres mei, ab his qui sunt Cloes, id est, in quadam villa Corinthiorum iurisdictioni subiecta, vel Cloes potest esse nomen matronae, in cuius domo erant multi fideles congregati, quia contentiones sunt inter vos, contra id quod dicitur Prov. XX, 3: honor est homini qui separat se a contentionibus. Et modum contentionis exponit, subdens hoc autem dico, id est, contentionem nomino, quod unusquisque vestrum nominat se ab eo a quo est baptizatus et instructus, et dicit: ego quidem sum Pauli, quia erat a Paulo baptizatus et instructus; alius ego autem Apollo, qui scilicet Corinthiis praedicaverat, ut habetur Act. XIX, 1; alius ego vero Cephae, scilicet Petri, cui dictum est Io. I, v. 42: tu vocaberis Cephas, quod interpretatur Petrus. Quod quidem ideo dicebant, quod putabant a meliori baptista meliorem Baptismum dari, quasi virtus baptistae in baptizatis operaretur. Et de hoc pseudoapostoli gloriabantur, secundum illud Ps. XLVIII, 12: vocaverunt nomina sua in terris suis. Alius autem dicit ego autem sum Christi, qui solus benedixit, quia solius Christi virtus operatur in Baptismo Christi. Io. I, 33: super quem videris spiritum descendere et manere, ipse est qui baptizat. Et ideo baptizati a solo Christo denominantur Christiani, non autem a Paulo Paulini. Is. IV, 1: tantummodo invocetur nomen tuum super nos. 24. – Then when he says, It has been reported, he shows why it was necessary to warn them, namely, because they were burdened with the vice of contention. As if to say: It is necessary to induce you to this, because it has been reported to me, my brethren, by Chloe’s people, i.e., from a certain villa subject to the jurisdiction of the Corinthians. Or Chloe might be the name of a matron in whose home many believers assembled: that there is quarreling among you contrary to what is said in Pr (20:24): “It is an honor for a man to separate himself from quarrels.” Then he specifies the nature of the contention when he says: What I mean is, i.e., the contention consists in this, that every one of you gives himself a name derived from the person by whom he was baptized and instructed, and says: I belong to Paul, because he had been baptized and instructed by Paul; another says: I belong to Apollos, who had preached to the Corinthians (Ac 19); still another says: and I belong to Cephas, i.e., Peter, to whom it had been said: “You shall be called Cephas, which is interpreted Peter” (Jn. 1:42). Now they made these statements, because they thought that they received a better baptism from a better baptizer, as though the virtue of the minister had an influence on the one baptized. Finally, others say: I belong to Christ, Who alone give grace, because the grace of Christ alone works in Christ’s baptism: “He upon whom you shall see the Spirit descending and remaining upon him, he it is that baptizes with the Holy Spirit” (Jn. 1:33). Accordingly, the baptized are called Christians from Christ alone and not Paulians from Paul: “Only let us be called by your name” (Is 4:1). Ad huius autem erroris vitationem, dicuntur Graeci hac forma in baptizando uti baptizetur servus Christi Nicolaus in nomine patris, et filii, et spiritus sancti, ut detur intelligi quod homo non baptizat interius, sed baptizatur a Christo. Quia tamen etiam homo baptizat ministerio, ut membrum et minister Christi, ideo Ecclesia utitur hac forma in baptizando ego te baptizo in nomine patris, et filii, et spiritus sancti, quod quidem est expressius secundum formam a Christo traditam, qui dixit discipulis: docete omnes gentes, baptizantes eos in nomine patris, et filii, et spiritus sancti, etc., ubi ipsos apostolos dicit baptizantes, secundum quem modum sacramenti minister dicit: ego te baptizo. 25. – In order to avoid this error the Greeks are said to have used the following formula in baptism: “Let Christ’s servant, Nicholas, be baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,” to show that a man is not baptized interiorly, unless he is baptized by Christ. But because a man also baptizes, as a minister and member of Christ, the Church uses this formula in baptizing: “I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,” which is more in keeping with the formula given by Christ, Who said to the disciples: “Teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matt 28:19), where He also calls the apostles baptizers. It is according to this command that the minister says: “I baptize you.” Deinde cum dicit divisus est Christus? etc., ponit rationem praedictae admonitionis, quare inter eos scissurae et contentiones esse non debebant, et primo ex parte Baptismi; secundo ex parte doctrinae, ibi non in sapientia verbi, et cetera. Circa primum tria facit. Primo ponit inconveniens quod ex praedicta contentione sequitur; secundo manifestat quare illud inconveniens sequatur, ibi numquid Paulus crucifixus est, etc.; tertio excludit quamdam falsam suspicionem, ibi gratias ago Deo meo, et cetera. 26. – Then when he says, Is Christ divided, he given the reason for this warning that there should be no schisms and contentions among them: first, on the part of baptism: secondly, on the part of doctrine (v. 17b). As to the first he does three things: first, he mentions the mistake which follows from their contention; secondly, why that mistake follows (v. 13b); thirdly, be dismisses a false surmise (v. 14). Dicit ergo primo: dixi quod unusquisque vestrum dicit ego sum Pauli, ego Apollo, et ex hoc sequitur quod Christus est divisus. Nec refert utrum interrogative vel remissive legatur. 27. – He says, therefore: I have said that everyone of you says, I belong to Paul; from which it follows that Christ is divided. Hoc autem potest intelligi, uno modo, quasi diceret: per hoc quod inter vos contenditur, Christus est divisus a vobis, qui non nisi in pace habitat, secundum illud Ps. LXXV, 3: in pace factus est locus eius. Is. LIX, 2: iniquitates vestrae diviserunt inter vos et Deum vestrum. Sed melius aliter hoc potest intelligi, ut sit sensus: per hoc quod creditis Baptismum esse meliorem, qui a meliori baptista datur, sequitur quod Christus, qui principaliter et interius baptizat, sit divisus, id est, differens in sua virtute et effectu, secundum differentiam ministrorum: quod patet esse falsum per id quod dicitur Eph. IV, 5: unus dominus, una fides, unum Baptisma. Sed adhuc melius hoc intelligitur quod apostolus dicit: ex hoc quod ea quae sunt propria Christi aliis attribuitis, quodammodo Christum dividitis, plures christos facientes, contra id quod dicitur Matth. XXIII, 10: magister vester unus est Christus. Is. XLV, v. 22: convertimini ad me, et salvi eritis, omnes fines terrae, quia ego dominus, et non est alius. 28. – This can be understood in one way as though he were saying: Inasmuch as there is contention among you, Christ is divided from you, because He dwells only in peace: “His place is in peace” (Ps 76:3); “Your iniquities have made a separation between you and your God” (Is 59:2). But it is better understood of him as saying: Inasmuch as you believe that a baptism performed by a better minister is better, it follows that Christ, Who principally and interiorly baptizes, is divided, i.e., differs in His power and effect, depending on the differing ministers. But this is false, because it says in Eph (4:5): “One Lord, one faith, one baptism.” An even better interpretation is to understand the Apostles as saying that inasmuch as you attribute to others the things that are exclusively Christ’s, you divide Christ by forming many Christ’s, which is contrary to what is stated in Matt (23:10): “One is your master, Christ”; “Turn to me and be saved, all the ends of the earth! For I am God and there is no other” (Is 45:22). Est autem sciendum quod Christus in sacramento Baptismi duplicem habet virtutem sibi propriam. Unam quidem divinam, qua simul cum patre et spiritu sancto interius mundat a peccato, et hoc nulli creaturae potuit communicari. Alia autem est propria virtus secundum humanam naturam, quae est potestas excellentiae in sacramentis, et consistit in quatuor. Quorum unum est, quod ipse sacramenta instituit; secundum est quod potuit effectum sacramentorum sine sacramento conferre; tertium est quod meritum passionis eius operatur in Baptismo et aliis sacramentis; quartum est quod ad invocationem nominis eius sacramenta conferuntur. Hanc autem potestatem excellentiae, et maxime quantum ad ultimum, conferre potuit ministris Baptismi, ut scilicet eorum nominibus consecraretur Baptismus, sed noluit, ne schisma ex hoc in Ecclesia fieret, dum tot reputarentur Baptismi, quot essent baptistae. Et hoc est quod, secundum expositionem Augustini, Ioannes Baptista de Christo nescisse fatetur, utrum scilicet hanc potestatem sibi retineret. 29. – For it should be noted that there are two powers proper to Christ in the sacrament of baptism: One is the divine power, by which He and the Father and the Holy Spirit cleanse from sin interiorly. This cannot be communicated to any creature. The other is the power proper to His human nature, which is the power of excellence in the sacraments and consists of four things: one is that He instituted the sacraments; the second is that He can produce the effect of the sacraments without the sacraments; the third is that the merit of His passion works in baptism and the other sacraments; the fourth is that the sacraments are conferred by calling on His name. Now he could have shared this power of excellence with His ministers and particularly the fourth, namely, that baptism be consecrated in their names, but He reserved it for Himself; otherwise schism would arise in the Church, for people would suppose that there are as many baptisms as baptizers. According to Augustine this is why John the Baptist confessed that he did not know whether Christ would keep this power for Himself. Deinde, cum dicit numquid Paulus, etc., ostendit praedictum inconveniens sequi ex eorum errore quod diversum Baptisma esse aestimabant secundum differentiam baptistarum; hoc enim esset, si a baptistis Baptismus efficaciam haberet, quod quidem solius est Christi. 30. – Then when he says, Was Paul crucified, he shows that their mistake follows from their error of supposing that there are diverse baptisms, depending on the different baptizers; for this would be so, if baptism derived its power form the baptizers and not from Christ alone. Hoc autem ostendit dupliciter. Primo quidem ex parte passionis Christi, in cuius virtute Baptismus operatur, secundum illud Rom. VI, 3: quicumque baptizati sumus in Christo Iesu, in morte ipsius baptizati sumus. Et ideo dicit numquid Paulus crucifixus est pro vobis? Quasi dicat: numquid passio Pauli causa est nostrae salutis, ut secundum ipsum Baptismus habeat virtutem salvandi? Quasi dicat: non. Hoc enim proprium est Christo, ut sua passione et morte nostram salutem operatus fuerit. Io. XI, 50: expedit ut unus homo moriatur pro populo, et non tota gens pereat. II Cor. c. V, 14: unus pro omnibus mortuus est. 31. – He shows this in two ways. First, on the part of Christ’s passion, in virtue of which baptism works, as it says in Rom (6:3): “Know you not that all who are baptized in Christ Jesus are baptized in his death?” Accordingly, he says: Was Paul crucified for you? As if to say: Were Paul’s sufferings the cause of our salvation, so that baptism depends on him for its saving power? As if to say: Certainly not. For Christ alone is the one by Whose sufferings and death our salvation is wrought: “It is expedient for you that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation not perish” (Jn. 11:50); “One has died for all” (2 Cor 5:14). Sed contra videtur esse quod apostolus dicit Col. I, 24: gaudeo in passionibus meis pro vobis, et adimpleo ea quae desunt passionum Christi in carne mea pro corpore eius, quod est Ecclesia. Sed dicendum quod passio Christi fuit nobis salutifera non solum per modum exempli, secundum illud I Petr. II, 21: Christus passus est pro nobis, vobis relinquens exemplum, ut sequamini vestigia eius, sed etiam per modum meriti, et per modum efficaciae, inquantum eius sanguine redempti et iustificati sumus, secundum illud Hebr. ultimo: ut sanctificaret per suum sanguinem populum, extra portam passus est. Sed passio aliorum nobis est salutifera solum per modum exempli, secundum illud II Cor. I, 6: sive tribulamur, pro vestra exhortatione et salute. 32. – On the other hand, the Apostle seems to say the opposite in Col (1:24): “I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, the church.” I answer that Christ’s sufferings benefited us not only by their example: “Christ also suffered for us, leaving you an example that you should follow in his steps” (1 Pt 2:21), but also by their merit and efficacy, inasmuch as we have been redeemed and sanctified by his blood: “So Jesus also suffered outside the gate in order to sanctify the people through his own blood” (Heb 13:12). But the sufferings of others benefit us only as an example: “If we are afflicted, it is for your comfort and salvation” (2 Cor 1:6). Secundo ostendit idem ex virtute nominis Christi, qui in Baptismo invocatur. Unde subdit aut in nomine Pauli baptizati estis? Quasi dicat: non. Ut enim dicitur Act. IV, 12, non est aliud nomen datum hominibus, per quod oporteat nos salvos fieri. Unde et Is. XXVI, 8 dicitur: nomen tuum et memoriale tuum in desiderio animae. 33. – Secondly, he shows the same thing from the power of Christ’s name invoked in baptism; hence he adds: or were you baptized in the name of Paul? As if to say: No. For as it is stated in Ac (4:12): “There is no other name under heaven given to men, whereby we must be saved.” Hence, too, Is (26:8) says: “Your name and your remembrance are the desire of the soul.” Sed videtur quod in nomine Christi homines non baptizentur. Dicit enim Matth. ult.: docete omnes gentes, baptizantes eos in nomine patris, et filii, et spiritus sancti. Dicendum est autem quod in primitiva Ecclesia, quia nomen Christi multum erat odiosum, ut venerabile redderetur, apostoli in nomine Christi baptizabant ex speciali ordinatione spiritus sancti. Unde dicitur Act. c. VIII, 12, quod in nomine Christi baptizati sunt viri et mulieres. Et tamen, ut Ambrosius dicit in nomine Christi tota Trinitas intelligitur. Christus enim interpretatur unctus, in quo intelligitur non solum ille qui ungitur, qui est filius Dei, sed etiam ipsa unctio, quae est spiritus sanctus, et ipse ungens, qui est pater, secundum Ps. XLIV, 8: unxit te Deus, Deus tuus, oleo laetitiae prae consortibus tuis. Nunc autem quia nomen Christi iam est magnum in gentibus ab ortu solis usque ad occasum, ut dicitur Mal. I, 11, Ecclesia utitur forma prius instituta a Christo, baptizans in nomine patris, et filii, et spiritus sancti. Et tamen quicumque in hac forma baptizantur, in nomine eius, qui est vere filius Dei, baptizantur, secundum illud I Io. c. ult.: ut simus in vero filio eius, Iesu Christo. Baptizantur etiam omnes fideles in nomine Christi, id est, fide et confessione nominis Christi, secundum illud Ioel. c. II, 32: omnis quicumque invocaverit nomen domini, salvus erit. Unde baptizati a Christo Christiani nominantur, quia, ut dicitur Gal. III, 27: quotquot in Christo baptizati estis, Christum induistis. Sic ergo, si solius Christi passio, si solius Christi nomen virtutem confert Baptismo ad salvandum, verum est proprium esse Christo, ut ex eo Baptismus habeat sanctificandi virtutem. Unde qui hoc aliis attribuit, dividit Christum in plures. 34. – But it seems that men are not baptized in Christ’s name, for it is commanded in Matt (28:19): “Teach all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” The answer is that in the early Church, because Christ’s name was much hated, the apostles were inspired by the Holy Spirit to baptize in the name of Christ. Yet, as Ambrose says, the whole Trinity is understood in the name of Christ. For “Christ” means anointed, which implies not only the Son Who is anointed, but the anointing itself, which is the Holy Spirit, and the one who anoints, namely, the Father as Ps 45 (v.8) says: “God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness above your fellows.” But now that Christ’s name is great among the Gentiles from the rising of the sun to its setting (Mal 1:11), the Church uses the formula first instituted by Christ, baptizing in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Nevertheless, everyone baptized in this form is baptized in the name of Him Who is truly Son of God: “That we may be in his true Son, Jesus Christ” (1 Jn. 5:30). Furthermore, all faithful are baptized in the name of Christ; hence they are called Christians, for “as many of you as have been baptized in Christ alone, have put on Christ” (Gal 3:27). Therefore, if the sufferings of Christ alone [ si solius Christi passio ], if the name of Christ alone [ si solius Christ nomen ], confers the power to be saved on the baptized, then it is from Christ alone [ verum esse proprium esse Christo ] that baptism has the power to sanctify. Consequently, anyone who attributes this to others divides Christ into many parts. Deinde, cum dicit gratias ago Deo meo, excludit quamdam suspicionem. Quia ibi dixerat: numquid enim Paulus crucifixus est pro vobis? Posset aliquis credere quod et si non auctoritate, ministerio tamen plures baptizaverit. Et circa hoc tria facit. Primo gratias agit de hoc quod paucos baptizavit; secundo, quibusdam paucis nominatis, quosdam alios addit, ibi baptizavi autem; tertio assignat rationem quare non multos baptizaverit, ibi non enim misit me Deus. 35. – Then when he says, I am thankful, he dismisses a false surmise. For since he had said, Was Paul then crucified for you, someone might suppose that though he had not baptized in his own name, he did baptize many people as a minister. In regard to this he does three things: first, he gives thanks for having baptized only a few; secondly, after naming the few, he adds certain others (v. 16); thirdly, he gives the reason why he did not baptize many (17a). Dicit ergo primo gratias ago Deo meo, quod neminem vestrum baptizavi, nisi Crispum, de quo Act. XVIII, 8: Crispus archisynagogus credidit domino cum omni domo sua, et Caium, ad quem scribitur tertia canonica Ioannis. Et quia gratiarum actio locum non habet, nisi in beneficiis perceptis, consequenter apostolus ostendit qualiter de hoc gratias agat, cum subdit ne quis dicat quod in nomine meo baptizati estis. Est enim optabile sanctis viris, ne ex bonis quae ipsi faciunt, alii sumant occasionem erroris sui, sive peccati. Et quia Corinthii in eum errorem devenerant, ut se a suis baptistis nominarent, dicentes ego sum Pauli et Apollo, ac si in eorum nominibus essent baptizati, ideo gratias agit de hoc quod de suo ministerio talis error consecutus non fuerit. Et ideo signanter dicit se baptizasse illos qui ab hoc errore immunes erant. Deinde, cum dicit baptizavi autem, etc., ponit quosdam alios a se baptizatos, ne in eius verbis aliquid veritatis minus appareret. Unde dicit baptizavi et domum, id est familiam, Stephanae, scilicet cuiusdam matronae. Et quia circa particularia facta memoria hominum labilis est, subdit caeterum nescio, id est in memoria non habeo, si quem alium baptizaverim, in propria persona. 36. – He says, therefore: I give God thanks that I baptized none of you but Crispus. “Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue believed in the Lord with all his house” (Ac 18:8) and Gaius, to whom John’s third epistle is written. But because thanksgiving has no place except for blessings received, the Apostle shows why he gives thanks in this case when he continues: lest anyone should say that you were baptized in my name. For holy men desire that their good deeds not be taken as an occasion of error or sin by others. And because the Corinthians had fallen into the error of naming themselves from the baptizer and saying, I belong to Paul and to Apollos, he thanked God that such an error had not been occasioned by his ministry. That is why he was careful to say that he had baptized those who were immune from this error. 37. – Then when he says, I baptized also, he mentions the others he had baptized, lest anything less than the truth appear in his words; hence he adds: I baptized also the household of Stephanas. Then because man’s memory is unreliable in regard to particular facts, he adds: Beyond that, I do not know, i.e., do not recall, whether I baptized anyone else. Deinde, cum dicit non enim misit, etc., assignat rationem quare paucos baptizaverit, dicens non enim misit me Deus baptizare, sed evangelizare. 38. – Then when he says, For Christ did not, he gives the reason why he baptized so few, saying: For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel. Contra quod videtur esse quod dicitur Matth. ult.: euntes docete omnes gentes, baptizantes eos in nomine patris, et filii, et spiritus sancti. Sed dicendum est quod Christus apostolos misit ad utrumque, ita tamen quod ipsi per seipsos praedicarent, secundum quod ipsi dicebant Act. VI, 2: non est aequum relinquere nos verbum Dei, et ministrare mensis. Baptizarent autem per inferiores ministros, et hoc ideo quia in Baptismo nihil operatur industria vel virtus baptizantis: nam indifferens est utrum per maiorem vel minorem ministrum detur Baptismus, sed in praedicatione Evangelii multum operatur sapientia et virtus praedicantis, et ideo praedicationis officium per seipsos apostoli tamquam maiores ministri exercebant, sicut et de ipso Christo dicitur Io. IV, 2 quod ipse non baptizabat, sed discipuli eius, qui tamen de seipso dicit Lc. IV, 43: quia et aliis civitatibus oportet me evangelizare regnum Dei, quia ideo missus sum. Is. LXI, 1: ad annuntiandum mansuetis misit me. 39. – But this seems to be in opposition to the Lord’s command: “Teach all nations; baptizing them” (Matt 28:19). The answer is that Christ sent the apostles to do both, but in such a way that they preached in person, as they said in Ac (6:2): “It is not right that we should give up preaching the word of God to serve tables.” But they baptized through their ministers, and they did this because the diligence or virtue of the baptizer contributes nothing in baptism, for it is indifferent whether baptism be given by a greater or lesser personage. But in the preaching of the gospel the wisdom and virtue of the preacher contributes a great deal; consequently, the apostles, being better qualified, exercised the office of preaching in person. In the same way it is said of Christ (Jn. 4:2) that He Himself did not baptize but His disciples did; of Him it says in Lk (4:43): “I must preach the good news of the kingdom of God to the other cities also, for I was sent for the purpose,” and in Is (61:1): “The Lord has anointed me to bring good tidings to the afflicted.”
1-3
1 Cor 1:17b-25Postquam apostolus improbavit Corinthiorum contentionem, ratione sumpta ex parte Baptismi, hic excludit eorum contentionem, ratione sumpta ex parte doctrinae. Quidam enim eorum gloriabantur de doctrina pseudo-apostolorum, qui ornatis verbis et humanae sapientiae rationibus veritatem fidei corrumpebant. Et ideo apostolus primo ostendit hunc modum convenientem non esse doctrinae fidei; secundo ostendit hoc modo docendi se usum apud eos non fuisse, II cap., ibi et ego, cum venissem ad et cetera. Circa primum duo facit. Primo proponit quod intendit; secundo manifestat propositum, ibi ut non evacuetur. 40. – After condemning their strife with a reason based on baptism, the Apostle disapproves of it again with a reason based on doctrine. For some of the Corinthians gloried in the doctrine of false apostles, who corrupt the truth of the faith with elegant words and reasons born of human wisdom. First, therefore, the Apostle says that this method is not suited for teaching the faith; secondly, he shows that he did not employ this method of teaching, when he was among them (c. 2). As to the first he does two things: first, he states his proposition; secondly, he explains it (v. 17b). Dicit ergo primo: dixi quod misit me Christus evangelizare, non tamen ita quod ego in sapientia verbi evangelizem, id est, in sapientia mundana, quae verbosos facit, inquantum per eam multis vanis rationibus homines utuntur. Eccle. VI, 11: ubi verba sunt plurima, multam in disputando habentia vanitatem. Prov. XIV, 23: ubi verba sunt plurima, ibi frequenter egestas. Vel sapientiam verbi nominat rhetoricam, quae docet ornate loqui, ex quo alliciuntur interdum homines ad assentiendum erroribus et falsitatibus. Unde Rom. XVI, 18: per dulces sermones seducunt corda innocentium. Et de meretrice dicitur Prov. II, 16, in figura haereticae doctrinae: ut eruaris a muliere aliena et extranea, quae mollit sermones suos. 41. – He says, therefore: I have stated that Christ sent me to preach the Gospel, but not to preach it with eloquent wisdom, i.e., the worldly wisdom which makes men verbose, inasmuch as it inclines them to employ many vain reasons: “The more words, the more vanity” (Ec 6:11); “Mere talk tends only to want” (Pr 14:23). Or by eloquent wisdom he means rhetoric, which teaches elegant speech by which men are sometimes drawn to assent to error and falsity: “By fair and flattering words they deceive the hearts of the simple-minded” (Rom 16:18); and under the figure of a harlot, which stands for heretical doctrine, it is said: “You will be saved from the adventures with her smooth words” (Pr 2:16). Sed contra dicitur Is. XXXIII, 19: populum impudentem non videbis, scilicet in Catholica Ecclesia, et populum alti sermonis, ita ut non possis intelligere disertitudinem linguae eius, in quo nulla est sapientia. Sed quia in Graeco ponitur logos, quod rationem et sermonem significat, posset convenientius intelligi sapientia verbi, id est humanae rationis, quia illa quae sunt fidei, humanam rationem excedunt, secundum illud Eccli. III, 25: plurima supra sensum hominis ostensa sunt tibi. 42. – But on the other hand it says in Is (33:19): “You will see not more the insolent people,” namely, in the Catholic Church, “the people of an obscure speech which you cannot comprehend.” But because the Greek version has logos, which signifies reason and speech, it might be more fitting to interpret eloquent wisdom of human reason, because the things of faith transcend human reason: “Matters too great for human understanding have been shown you” (Sir 3:25). Sed contra hoc videtur esse quod multi doctores Ecclesiae in doctrina fidei sapientia et rationibus humanis et ornatu verborum sunt usi. Dicit enim Hieronymus in epistola ad magnum oratorem urbis Romae, quod omnes doctores fidei in ornatu philosophiae doctrinis atque scientiis suos referserunt libros, ut nescias quid in illis primum admirari debeas, eruditionem saeculi, an scientiam Scripturarum. Et Augustinus dicit in quarto de doctrina Christiana: sunt viri ecclesiastici qui divina eloquia non solum sapienter, sed etiam suaviter tractaverunt. Dicendum est ergo quod aliud est docere in sapientia verbi quocumque modo intelligatur, et aliud uti sapientia verbi in docendo. Ille in sapientia verbi docet qui sapientiam verbi accipit pro principali radice suae doctrinae, ita scilicet quod ea solum approbet, quae verbi sapientiam continent: reprobet autem ea quae sapientiam verbi non habent, et hoc fidei est corruptivum. Utitur autem sapientia verbi, qui suppositis verae fidei fundamentis, si qua vera in doctrinis philosophorum inveniat, in obsequium fidei assumit. Unde Augustinus dicit in secundo de doctrina Christiana, quod si qua philosophi dixerunt fidei nostrae accommoda, non solum formidanda non sunt, sed ab eis tamquam ab iniustis possessoribus in usum nostrum vindicanda. Et in IV de doctrina Christiana dicit: cum posita sit in medio facultas eloquii, quae ad persuadendum seu prava seu recta valent pluribus, cur non bonorum studio comparetur ut militet veritati, si eam mali in usum iniquitatis et erroris usurpant. 43. – But the fact that many teachers in the Church have used human reason and human wisdom as well as elegant words would seem to be contrary to this. For Jerome says in a letter to Magnus, a Roman orator, that all the teachers of the faith have crammed their books with an elegant portion of philosophical doctrines and sciences, so that one is at a loss whether to admire their worldly learning more or their knowledge of the Scriptures. And Augustine in the book On Christian Doctrine says: “There are churchmen who have treated of divine matters not only with wisdom but with elegance.” The answer is that it is one thing to teach in eloquent wisdom, however you take it, and another to use it to teach eloquent wisdom in teaching. A person teaches in eloquent wisdom, when he takes the eloquent wisdom as the main source of his doctrine, so that he admits only those things which contain eloquent wisdom and rejects the others which do not have eloquent wisdom: and this is destructive of the faith. But one uses eloquent wisdom, when he builds on the foundations of the true faith, so that if he finds any truths in the teachings of the philosophers, he employs them in the service of the faith. Hence Augustine says in the book On Christian Doctrine that if philosophers have uttered things suited to our faith, they should not be feared but taken from them as from an unjust possessor for our use. Again, in the same book he says: “Since the faculty of eloquent speech which has great power to win a person over to what is base or to what is right, why not use it to fight for the truth, if evil men misuse it for sin and error?” Deinde, cum dicit ut non evacuetur crux Christi, probat quod dixerat, et primo quidem ex parte materiae, secundo ex parte ipsorum docentium, ibi videte enim vocationem vestram, et cetera. Circa primum tria facit. Primo ostendit modum docendi qui est in sapientia verbi, non esse congruum fidei Christianae; secundo probat quod supposuerat, ibi verbum enim crucis; tertio probationem manifestat, ibi quoniam Iudaei signa petunt. 44. – Then when he says, lest the cross of Christ, he proves his statement. First, on the part of the matter; secondly, of those who teach (v. 26). In regard to the first he does three things: first, he shows that the method of teaching by eloquent wisdom is not suited to the Christian faith; secondly, he proves something he had presupposed (v. 18); thirdly, he clarifies the proof (v. 22). Circa primum considerandum est, quod etiam in philosophicis doctrinis non est idem modus conveniens cuilibet doctrinae. Unde sermones secundum materiam sunt accipiendi, ut dicitur in primo Ethicorum. Tunc autem maxime modus aliquis docendi est materiae incongruus, quando per talem modum destruitur id quod est principale in materia illa, puta si quis in rebus intellectualibus velit metaphoricis demonstrationibus uti, quae non transcendunt res imaginatas, ad quas non oportet intelligentem adduci, ut Boetius ostendit in libro de Trinitate. Principale autem in doctrina fidei Christianae est salus per crucem Christi facta. Unde, cap. II, 2, dicit non iudicavi me scire aliquid inter vos, nisi Iesum Christum et hunc crucifixum. Qui autem principaliter innititur in docendo sapientiam verbi, quantum in se est, evacuat crucem Christi. Ergo docere in sapientia verbi non est modus conveniens fidei Christianae. Hoc est ergo quod dicit ut non evacuetur crux Christi, id est, ne si in sapientia verbi praedicare voluero, tollatur fides de virtute crucis Christi. Gal. V, 11: ergo evacuatum est scandalum crucis. Ps. CXXXVI, v. 7: qui dicunt, exinanite usque ad fundamentum in ea. 45. – As to the first point it should be noted that even in philosophical doctrines the same method does not suit every doctrine; hence the forms of speech must fit the material, as it says in Ethics I. Now a particular method of teaching is unsuited to the subject matter, when that method destroys the chief element in the subject matter; for example, in purely intelligible matters to employ metaphorical proofs, which do not go beyond the imagination and leave the hearer stranded in images, as Boethius says in the book On the Trinity. But the chief element in the doctrines of the Catholic faith is salvation effected by the cross of Christ; hence in (2:2) he says: “For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified.” On the other hand, a person who depends chiefly on eloquent wisdom when he teaches, to that extent makes the cross of Christ void. Therefore, to teach in eloquent wisdom is not suited to the Christian faith. Consequently, he says: lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power, i.e., lest in trying to preach in eloquent wisdom, faith in the power of Christ’s cross be made void: “Then is the stumbling block of the cross made void” (Gal 5:11); “Remember how they said, ‘Rase it, rase it!’ Down it its foundation” (Ps 137:7). Deinde, cum dicit verbum crucis, etc., probat quod per doctrinam, quae est in sapientia verbi, crux Christi evacuetur. Et circa hoc duo facit primo inducit probationem; secundo assignat causam dictorum, ibi scriptum est enim, et cetera. 46. – Then when he says, for the word of the cross, he proves that the cross of Christ is made void by the method of teaching which consists in eloquent wisdom. First he gives the proof: secondly, he gives the reason for his statements (v. 19). Dicit ergo primo: ideo dixi quod si per sapientiam verbi doctrina fidei proponeretur, evacuaretur crux Christi, verbum enim crucis, id est Annuntiatio crucis Christi, stultitia est, id est stultum aliquid videtur, pereuntibus quidem, id est, infidelibus qui se secundum mundum existimant sapientes, eo quod praedicatio crucis Christi aliquid continet, quod secundum humanam sapientiam impossibile videtur, puta quod Deus moriatur, quod omnipotens violentorum manibus subiiciatur. Continet etiam quaedam quae prudentiae huius mundi contraria videntur, puta quod aliquis non refugiat confusiones, cum possit, et aliqua huiusmodi. Et ideo Paulo huiusmodi annuntianti dixit Festus, ut legitur Act. XXVI, 24: insanis, Paule, multae litterae ad insaniam te adducunt. Et ipse Paulus dicit infra IV, 10: nos stulti propter Christum. Et ne credatur revera verbum crucis stultitiam continere, subdit his autem qui salvi fiunt, id est nobis, scilicet Christi fidelibus qui ab eo salvamur, secundum illud Matth. c. I, 21: ipse enim salvum faciet populum suum a peccatis eorum, virtus Dei est, quia ipsi in cruce Christi mortem Dei cognoscunt, qua Diabolum vicit et mundum. Apoc. V, 5: ecce vicit leo de tribu Iuda. Item virtutem quam in seipsis experiuntur, dum simul cum Christo vitiis et concupiscentiis moriuntur, secundum illud Gal. V, 24: qui Christi sunt, carnem suam crucifixerunt cum vitiis et concupiscentiis. Unde in Ps. CIX, 2 dicitur virgam virtutis tuae emittit dominus ex Sion. Lc. VI, 19: virtus de illo exibat et sanabat omnes. 47. – He says, therefore: The reason I have said that the cross of Christ is made void, if the teachings of the faith are presented in eloquent wisdom is that the word of the Cross, i.e., the announcing of Christ’s cross is folly, i.e., it appears foolish, to them that are perishing, i.e., to unbelievers, who consider themselves wise according to the world, for the preaching of the cross of Christ contains something which to worldly wisdom seems impossible; for example, that God should die or that Omnipotence should suffer at the hands of violent men. Furthermore, that a person not avoid shame when he can, and other things of this sort, are matters which seem contrary to the prudence of this world. Consequently, when Paul was preaching such things, Festus said: “Paul, you are beside yourself: much learning makes you mad” (Ac 26:24). And Paul himself says below that the word of the Cross actually does contain foolishness he adds: but to us that are being saved, namely, Christ’s faithful who are saved by Him: “He will save his people from their sins” (Matt 1:21), it is the power of God, because they recognize in the cross of Christ God’s power, by which He overcame the devil and the world: “The Lion of the tribe of Judah, has conquered” (Rev. 5:5), as well as the power they experience in themselves, when together with Christ they die to their vices and concupiscences, as it says in Gal (5:24): “Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. Hence it says in Ps (110:10): “The Lord sends forth from Zion your mighty scepter”; “Virtue went out of him and healed all” (Lk 6:19). Deinde cum dicit scriptum est enim, ostendit praedictorum causam, et ponit primo quare verbum crucis sit hominibus stultitia; secundo ostendit quare ista stultitia sit virtus Dei his, qui salvantur, ibi nam quia in Dei sapientia, et cetera. Circa primum duo facit. Primo inducit auctoritatem praenuntiantem quod quaeritur; secundo ostendit hoc esse impletum, ibi ubi sapiens? 48. – Then when he says, For it is written, he states the reason for the above: first, he tells why the word of the cross is folly to men; secondly, why this folly is the power of God to them that are saved (v. 21). As to the first he does two things: first, he adduces a text which foretells what is asked; secondly, he shows that it has been fulfilled (v. 20). Circa primum considerandum quod id quod est in se bonum, non potest alicui stultum videri, nisi propter defectum sapientiae. Haec est ergo causa quare verbum crucis quod est salutiferum credentibus, quibusdam videtur stultitia, quia sunt ipsi sapientia privati. Et hoc est quod dicit scriptum est enim: perdam sapientiam sapientium, et prudentiam prudentium reprobabo. Potest autem hoc sumi ex duobus locis. Nam in Abdia dicitur: perdam sapientiam de Idumaea, et prudentiam de monte Esau. Expressius autem habetur Is. XXIX, v. 14: peribit sapientia a sapientibus, et intellectus prudentium eius abscondetur. Differunt autem sapientia et prudentia. Nam sapientia est cognitio divinarum rerum; unde pertinet ad contemplationem, Iob XXVIII, v. 28: timor Dei ipsa est sapientia; prudentia vero proprie est cognitio rerum humanarum, unde dicitur Prov. X, 23: sapientia est viro prudentia, quia scilicet scientia humanarum rerum prudentia dicitur. Unde et philosophus VI Ethicorum dicit quod prudentia est recta ratio agibilium, et sic prudentia ad rationem pertinet. 49. – It should be noted in regard to the first point that anything good in itself cannot appear foolish to anyone, unless there is a lack of wisdom. This, therefore is the reason why the word of the cross, which is salutary for believers, seems foolish to others, namely, because they are devoid of wisdom; and this is what he says: For it is written: I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the cleverness (prudence) of the clever (prudent) I will thwart. This can be taken from two places: for it is written in Ob (v.8): “Will I not destroy the wise men out of Edom, and understanding out of Mount Esau?”; but it is more explicit in Is (29:14): “The wisdom of their wise men shall perish, and the discernment of their discerning men shall be hid.” Now wisdom and prudence are different: for wisdom is knowledge of divine things; hence it pertains to contemplation; “The fear of the Lord is wisdom” (Jb 28:28). Prudence, however, is, properly speaking, knowledge of human things; hence it says in Pr (10:23): “Wisdom is prudence to a man,” namely, because knowledge of human affairs is called wisdom. Hence, the Philosopher also says in Ethics VI that prudence is the right understanding of things to be done; and so prudence pertains to reason. Est autem considerandum quod homines quantumcumque mali non totaliter donis Dei privantur, nec in eis dona Dei reprobantur, sed in eis reprobatur et perditur quod ex eorum malitia procedit. Et ideo non dicit simpliciter perdam sapientiam, quia omnis sapientia a domino Deo est, ut dicitur Is. XXIX, 14 ss., sed perdam sapientiam sapientium, id est, quam sapientes huius mundi adinvenerunt sibi contra veram sapientiam Dei, quia, ut dicitur Iac. III, 15, non est ista sapientia desursum descendens, sed terrena, animalis, diabolica. Similiter non dicit reprobabo prudentiam, nam veram prudentiam sapientia Dei docet, sed dicit prudentiam prudentium, id est, quam illi qui se prudentes aestimant in rebus mundanis prudentiam reputant ut scilicet bonis huius mundi inhaereant. Vel quia, ut dicitur Rom. VIII, v. 6, prudentia carnis mors est. Et sic propter defectum sapientiae reputant impossibile Deum hominem fieri, mortem pati secundum humanam naturam; propter defectum autem prudentiae reputant inconveniens fuisse quod homo sustineret crucem, confusione contempta, ut dicitur Hebr. XII, 2. 50. – Yet it should be noted that men, however evil, are not altogether deprived of God’s gifts; neither are God’s gifts in them destroyed. Consequently, he does not say absolutely, “I will destroy the wisdom,” because “all wisdom is from the Lord God” (Sir 1:1), but I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, i.e., which the wise of this world have invented for themselves against the true wisdom of God, because as it says in Jas (3:15): “This is not wisdom, descending from above; but earthly, sensual, devilish.” Similarly, he does not say, “I will reject prudence,” for God’s wisdom teaches true prudence, but the prudence of the prudent, i.e., which is regarded as prudent by those who esteem themselves prudent in worldly affairs, so that they cling to the goods of this world, or because “the prudence of the flesh is death” (Rom 8:6). Consequently, because of their lack of wisdom they suppose that it is impossible for God to become man and suffer death in His human nature; but due to a lack of prudence they consider it unbecoming for a man to endure the cross,” despising the shame” (Heb 12:2). Deinde cum dicit ubi sapiens, etc., ostendit esse impletum quod de reprobatione humanae sapientiae et prudentiae fuerat probatum. Et primo ponit medium sub interrogatione; secundo conclusionem infert, ibi nonne stultam Deus fecit sapientiam huius mundi, et cetera. 51. – Then when he says, Where is the wise man? He shows that the prophecy about the destruction of human wisdom and prudence has been fulfilled. First, he presents the proving reason in the form of a question; secondly, he draws the conclusion (v. 20). Dicit ergo primo ubi sapiens? Quasi diceret: non invenitur in congregatione fidelium qui salvatur. Per sapientem intelligit illum qui secretas naturae causas scrutatur. Is. XIX, 11: quomodo dicetis Pharaoni: filius sapientium ego? Et hoc refertur ad gentiles, qui huius mundi sapientiae studebant. Ubi Scriba? Id est peritus in lege, et hoc refertur ad Iudaeos; quasi diceret: non est in coetu fidelium. Io. VII, 48: numquid ex principibus aliquis credidit in eum? Ubi inquisitor huius saeculi? Qui scilicet per prudentiam exquirit quae sit convenientia vitae humanae in rebus huius saeculi; quasi dicat: non invenitur inter fideles, et hoc refertur ad utrosque, scilicet Iudaeos et gentiles. Baruch c. III, 23: filii Agar, qui exquisierunt prudentiam quae de terra est. Videtur autem apostolus hanc interrogationem sumere ab eo, quod dicitur Is. XXXIII, v. 18: ubi est litteratus? Pro quo ponit sapientem. Ubi est verba legis ponderans? Pro quo ponit Scribam. Ubi est doctor parvulorum? Pro quo ponit inquisitorem huius saeculi, quia parvuli maxime solent instrui de his, quae pertinent ad disciplinam moralis vitae. 52. – He says, therefore: Where is the wise? As if to say: He is not found among the faithful who are saved. By the wise he understands one who searches for the secret causes of nature: “How will you say to Pharaoh: ‘I am the son of the wise?” (Is 19:11). This refers to the Gentiles, who pursue the wisdom of this world. Where is the scribe? i.e., skilled in the Law: and this is referred to the Jews. As if to say: Not among the believers. Where is the debater of this age? Who through prudence examines what is suitable to human life in the affairs of this world. As if to say: He is not found among the believers. This refers to both Jews and Gentiles: “The sons of Hagar, who seek for understanding on the earth” (Bar 3:23). The Apostle seems to have based this question on Is (33:18): “Where is the learned?” for which he substitutes “the wise”; “where is the one that ponders the words of the law?” for which he substitutes the debater of this age, because it is mainly little ones who are customarily instructed in matters pertaining to the moral life. Deinde cum dicit nonne stultam fecit, etc., infert conclusionem sub interrogatione, quasi dicat: cum illi qui sapientes mundi reputantur a via salutis defecerint, nonne Deus sapientiam huius mundi fecit stultam? Id est, demonstravit esse stultam, dum illi qui hac sapientia pollebant tam stulti inventi sunt ut viam salutis non acciperent. Ier. X, 14 et LI, 17: stultus factus est omnis homo a scientia sua. Is. XLVII, 10: sapientia tua et scientia tua haec decepit te. 53. – Then when he says, Has not God, he draws the conclusion contained in the question. As if to say: since those who are considered the wise of this world have failed in the way of salvation, has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world, i.e., proved it foolish, inasmuch as those versed in this wisdom have been so found so foolish that they have not discovered the road to salvation: “Every man is stupid and without knowledge” (Jer 51:17): “Your wisdom and your knowledge have led you astray” (Is. 47:10). Potest autem et aliter intelligi quod dictum est, ac si diceret: perdam sapientiam sapientium et prudentiam prudentium reprobabo, id est eligam eam in primis meis praedicatoribus, secundum illud Prov. XXX, 1: visio quam locutus est vir cum quo est Deus; et infra: stultissimus sum virorum, et sapientia hominum non est mecum. Ubi sapiens? Quasi dicat: inter praedicatores fidei non invenitur. Matth. XI, 25: abscondisti haec a sapientibus et prudentibus, et revelasti ea parvulis. Nonne Deus stultam fecit, id est demonstravit, sapientiam huius mundi? Faciendo quod ipsis impossibile reputabatur, scilicet dictum esse hominem mortuum resurgere, et alia huiusmodi. 54. – Another way to interpret this is as if he were saying: “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise and the prudence of the prudent I will reject,” i.e., I will strike it first from my preachers, as it says in Pr (30:1): “Surely I am too stupid to be a man. I have not the understanding of a man.” Where is the wise? As if to say: He is not found among the preachers: “You have hid these things from the wise and prudent, and revealed them to little ones” (Matt 11:25). Has not God made, i.e., proved, foolish the wisdom of this world by achieving what it considered impossible, namely, that a dead man rise, and other things of this sort. Deinde cum dicit nam quia in Dei sapientia, etc., assignat rationem quare per praedicationis stultitiam salventur fideles. Et hoc est quod dictum est, quod verbum crucis pereuntibus quidem stultitia est, virtus vero salvationis credentibus; nam placuit Deo per stultitiam praedicationis, id est per praedicationem, quam humana sapientia stultam reputat, salvos facere credentes; et hoc ideo, quia mundus, id est mundani, non cognoverunt Deum per sapientiam ex rebus mundi acceptam, et hoc in Dei sapientia. Divina enim sapientia faciens mundum, sua iudicia in rebus mundi instruit, secundum illud Eccli. I, 10: effudit illam super omnia opera sua; ita quod ipsae creaturae, per sapientiam Dei factae, se habent ad Dei sapientiam, cuius iudicia gerunt, sicut verba hominis ad sapientiam eius quam significant. Et sicut discipulus pervenit ad cognoscendum magistri sapientiam per verba quae ab ipso audit, ita homo poterat ad cognoscendum Dei sapientiam per creaturas ab ipso factas inspiciendo pervenire, secundum illud Rom. c. I, 20: invisibilia Dei per ea quae facta sunt, intellecta conspiciuntur. Sed homo propter sui cordis vanitatem a rectitudine divinae cognitionis deviavit. Unde dicitur Io. I, 10: in mundo erat, et mundus per ipsum factus est, et mundus eum non cognovit. Et ideo Deus per quaedam alia ad sui cognitionem salutiferam fideles adduxit, quae in ipsis rationibus creaturarum non inveniuntur, propter quod a mundanis hominibus, qui solas humanarum rerum considerant rationes, reputantur stulta. Et huiusmodi sunt fidei documenta. Et est simile, sicut si aliquis magister considerans sensum suum ab auditoribus non accipi, per verba quae protulit, studet aliis verbis uti, per quae possit manifestare quae habet in corde. 55. – Then when he says, For since, he states the reason why the faithful are saved by the foolishness of preaching. He had already stated that the word of the cross is foolishness to them that perish, but the power of God to them that are saved; for it pleased God by the folly of what we preach, i.e., by the preaching which human wisdom considers foolish, to save them that believe; and this because the world; i.e., worldly men, knew not God by wisdom taken from things of the world; and this in the wisdom of God. For divine wisdom, when making the world, left indications of itself in the things of the world, as it says in Sirach (1:10): “He poured wisdom out upon all his works,” so that the creatures made by God’s wisdom are related to God’s wisdom, whose signposts they are, as a man’s words are related to his wisdom, which they signify. And just as a disciple reaches an understanding of the teacher’s wisdom by the words he hears from him, so man can teach an understanding of God’s wisdom by examining the creatures He made, as it says in Romans (1:20): “His invisible nature has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made.” But on account of the vanity of his heart man wandered from the right path of divine knowledge; hence it says in Jn (1:10): “He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world knew him not.” Consequently, God brought believers to a saving knowledge of Himself by other things, which are not found in the natures of creatures; on which account worldly men, who derive their notions solely from human things, considered them foolish: things such as the articles of faith. It is like a teacher who recognizes that his meaning was not understood from the words he employed, and then tried to use other words to indicate what he meant. Deinde cum dicit quoniam et Iudaei, etc., manifestat probationem praemissorum, et primo quantum ad id, quod dixerat: verbum crucis pereuntibus stultitia est. Secundo quantum ad id quod dixerat: his qui salvi fiunt, virtus Dei est ipsis autem vocatis, et cetera. Circa primum duo facit. Primo ponit pereuntium differens studium et intentionem; secundo ex hoc rationem assignat eius quod dixerat, ibi nos autem praedicamus Christum. 56. – Then when he says, For the Jews, he explains his proof: first in regard to the statement that the word of the cross is foolishness to them that perish; secondly, in regard to the statement that to them that are saved it is the power of God (v. 24). As to the first he does two things: first, he mentions the differing interests of those that perish; secondly, from this he assigns the reason for what he had said (v.23). Pereuntium autem, id est infidelium, quidam erant Iudaei, quidam gentiles. Dicit ergo: dictum est quod verbum crucis pereuntibus est stultitia, et hoc ideo quoniam Iudaei signa petunt. Erant enim Iudaei consueti divinitus instrui, secundum illud Deut. c. VIII, 5: erudivit eum et docuit. Quae quidem doctrina cum esset a Deo per multa mirabilia manifestata, secundum illud Ps. LXXVII, 12: fecit mirabilia in terra Aegypti, et ideo ab afferentibus quamcumque doctrinam signa quaerebant, secundum illud Matth. c. XII, 38: magister, volumus a te signum aliquod videre. Et in Ps. LXXIII, 9 dicitur: signa nostra non vidimus. Sed Graeci sapientiam quaerunt, utpote in studio sapientiae exercitati, sapientiam dico quae per rationes rerum mundanarum accipitur, de qua dicitur Ier. IX, 23: non glorietur sapiens in sapientia. Per Graecos autem omnes gentiles dat intelligere qui a Graecis mundanam sapientiam acceperunt. Quaerebant igitur sapientiam, volentes omnem doctrinam eis propositam secundum regulam humanae sapientiae iudicare. 57. – Among those that perish, i.e., unbelievers, some were Jews and some Gentiles. He says, therefore: I have said that the word of the cross is foolish to them that perish, and this because the Jews demand signs, for the Jews were used to being instructed in a divine manner: “He led him about and taught him” (Dt 32:10), in the sense that God’s teachings were accompanied by many marvels: “In the sight of their fathers he wrought marvels in the land of Egypt” (Ps 78:12). Consequently, they require signs from everyone asserting a doctrine: “Master, we would see a sign from you” (Matt 12:38); “We have not seen our signs” (Ps 74:9). But the Greeks seek wisdom, being interested in the pursuit of wisdom: the wisdom, I say, which is founded on the reasons of worldly things and of which it is said: “Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom” (Jer 9:23). By the Greeks are understood all the Gentiles who received worldly wisdom from the Greeks. When they sought wisdom, therefore, they wished to judge every doctrine proposed to them according to the rule of human wisdom. Deinde concludit quare verbum crucis sit eis stultitia, dicens nos autem praedicamus Christum crucifixum, secundum illud infra cap. XI, 26: mortem domini annuntiabitis donec veniat. Iudaeis scandalum, quia scilicet desiderabant virtutem miracula facientem et videbant infirmitatem crucem patientem; nam, ut dicitur II Cor. ultimo: crucifixus est ex infirmitate. Gentibus autem stultitiam, quia contra rationem humanae sapientiae videtur quod Deus moriatur et quod homo iustus et sapiens se voluntarie turpissimae morti exponat. 58. – Then he concludes why the word of the cross is foolishness to them, saying: But we preach Christ crucified, as below (11:26): “You proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes,” to Jews a stumbling block, because they desired strength working miracles and saw weakness suffering and to the Gentiles foolishness, because it seemed against the nature of human reason that God should die and that a just and wise man should voluntarily expose himself to a very shameful death. Deinde, cum dicit ipsis autem vocatis, manifestat quod dixerat: his autem qui salvi fiunt, virtus Dei est. Et primo manifestat hoc; secundo rationem assignat; ibi quia quod stultum, et cetera. 59. – Then when he says, But to those who are called, he explains what he meant when he said, to them that are saved it is the power of God. Dicit ergo primo: dictum est quod praedicamus Christum crucifixum, Iudaeis scandalum et gentibus stultitiam, sed praedicamus Christum Dei virtutem et Dei sapientiam ipsis vocatis Iudaeis et Graecis, id est his qui ex Iudaeis et gentibus ad fidem Christi vocati sunt, qui in cruce Christi recognoscunt Dei virtutem, per quam et Daemones superantur et peccata remittuntur et homines salvantur. Ps. XX, 14: exaltare, domine, in virtute tua. Et hoc dicit contra scandalum Iudaeorum, qui de infirmitate Christi scandalizabantur et recognoscunt in cruce Dei sapientiam, inquantum per crucem convenientissimo modo humanum genus liberat. Sap. IX, 19: per sapientiam sanati sunt quicumque placuerunt tibi a principio. 60. – He says, therefore: It has been stated that “we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Gentiles foolishness; but we preach Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God to them that are called, whether Jews or Gentiles, i.e., to those Jews and Gentiles who were called to faith in Christ. They recognize the power of God in Christ’s cross, by which devils are overcome, sins forgiven and men saved: “Be exalted, O Lord, in they strength!” (Ps 21:13). He says this against the Jews, who made a stumbling block of Christ’s weakness. They also recognize in it the wisdom of God, inasmuch as He delivered the human race in a most becoming manner by the cross: “Men were taught what pleases thee, and were saved by wisdom” (Wis 9:13). Dicitur autem Dei virtus et Dei sapientia per quamdam appropriationem. Virtus quidem, inquantum per eum pater omnia operatur, Io. I, 3: omnia per ipsum facta sunt, sapientia vero, inquantum ipsum verbum, quod est filius, nihil est aliud quam sapientia genita vel concepta. Eccli. c. XXIV, 5: ego ex ore altissimi prodii primogenita ante omnem creaturam. Non autem sic est intelligendum, quod Deus pater sit fortis et sapiens virtute aut sapientia genita, quia, ut Augustinus probat VI de Trinitate, sequeretur, quod pater haberet esse a filio, quia hoc est Deo esse, quod fortem et sapientem esse. 61. – He is called the power of God and all the wisdom of God by appropriation: the power, because the Father does all things through Him: “All things were made through him” (Jn. 1:3); the wisdom, because the Word, which is the Son, is nothing less than begotten or conceived wisdom: “I came forth from the mouth of the Most High” (Sir 24:5). But it is not to be understood as though God the Father is powerful and wise by begotten power of wisdom, for, as Augustine proves in The Trinity, it would follow that the Father would have being from the Son, because for God to be wise and to be powerful are His very essence. Deinde cum dicit quia quod stultum est Dei, assignat rationem eius quod dixerat, dicens quomodo id, quod est infirmum et stultum possit esse virtus vel sapientia Dei, quia quod stultum est Dei sapientius est hominibus, quasi dicat: iam aliquod divinum videtur esse stultum, non quia deficiat a sapientia, sed quia superexcedit sapientiam humanam. Homines enim quidam consueverunt stultum reputare quod eorum sensum excedit. Eccli. III, 25: plurima super sensum hominis ostensa sunt tibi. Et quod infirmum est Dei, fortius est hominibus, quia scilicet non dicitur aliquid infirmum in Deo per defectum virtutis, sed per excessum humanae virtutis, sicut etiam dicitur invisibilis, inquantum excedit sensum humanum. Sap. XII, 17: virtutem ostendis tu qui non crederis esse in virtute consummatus. Quamvis hoc possit referri ad incarnationis mysterium: quia id quod reputatur stultum et infirmum in Deo ex parte naturae assumptae, transcendit omnem sapientiam et virtutem. Ex. XV, 11: quis similis tui in fortibus, domine? 62. – Then when he says, for the foolishness of God, he assigns the reason for what he had said and tells how something weak and foolish could be the power and wisdom of God, because the foolishness of God is wiser than men. As if to say: Something divine seems to be foolish, not because it lacks wisdom but because it transcends human wisdom. For men are wont to regard as foolish anything beyond their understanding: “Matters too great for human understanding have been shown you (Sir 3:23). And the weakness of God is stronger than men, because something in God is not called weak on account of a lack of strength but because it exceeds human power, just as He is called invisible, inasmuch as He transcends human sight: “Thou dost show thy strength when men doubt the completeness of thy power” (Wis 12:17). However, this could refer to the mystery of the incarnation, because that which is regarded as foolish and weak in God on the part of the nature He assumed transcends all wisdom and power: “Who is like to you among the strong, O Lord?” (Ex 15:11).
1-4
1 Cor 1:26-31Supra ostendit apostolus quod modus docendi, qui est in sapientia verbi, non convenit doctrinae Christianae, ratione materiae quae est ipsa crux Christi, hic ostendit quod praedictus docendi modus non convenit doctrinae Christianae, ratione doctorum, secundum illud Prov. XXVI, 7: in derisum est in ore stulti parabola; et Eccli. c. XX, 22: ex ore fatui reprobabitur parabola. Quia igitur primi doctores fidei non fuerunt sapientes sapientia carnali, non erat eis conveniens ut in sapientia verbi docerent. Circa hoc ergo duo facit. Primo ostendit quomodo primi doctores fidei non fuerunt sapientes sapientia carnali et in rebus humanis defectum patiebantur; secundo ostendit quomodo talis defectus est in eis per Christum suppletus, ibi ex ipso autem vos estis. Circa primum tria facit. Primo excludit a fidei primis doctoribus excellentiam saecularem; secundo astruit eorum subiectionem quantum ad saeculum, ibi sed quae stulta sunt mundi; tertio rationem assignat, ibi ut non glorietur. 63. – After showing that the method of teaching according to eloquent wisdom does not suit Christian doctrine by reason of its subject matter, the cross of Christ, the Apostle now shows that the same method is not suitable for Christian teaching by reason of the teachers according to Pr (26:7): “A parable is unseemly in the mouth of fools” and Sirach (20:22): “A parable out of a fool’s mouth shall be rejected.” Therefore, because the first teachers of the faith were not wise in carnal wisdom, it was not suitable for them to teach according to eloquent wisdom. In regard to this he does two things: first, he shows how the first teachers of the faith were not versed in carnal wisdom and suffered from a defect in human affairs; secondly, how this defect was made up for them by Christ (v. 27); thirdly, he assigns the reason (v.29). Dicit ergo primo: dictum est quod stultum est Dei, sapientius est hominibus, et hoc considerare potestis in ipsa vestra conversione. Videte enim, id est diligenter considerate, vocationem vestram, quomodo scilicet vocati estis: non enim per vos ipsos accessistis, sed ab eo vocati estis. Rom. VIII, v. 30: quos praedestinavit, hos et vocavit. I Petr. II, 9: de tenebris vos vocavit in admirabile lumen suum. Inducit autem eos ut considerent modum suae vocationis, quantum ad eos per quos vocati sunt, sicut Is. LI, 2 dicitur: attendite ad Abraham patrem vestrum, et ad Saram quae genuit vos. A quibus vocationis ministris primo excludit sapientiam, cum dicit quia non multi, eorum per quos vocati estis, sapientes secundum carnem, id est in carnali sapientia et terrena. Iac. III, 15: non est ista sapientia desursum descendens, sed terrena, animalis, diabolica. Baruch III, 23: filii Agar exquisierunt sapientiam, quae de terra est. Dicit non multi, quia aliqui pauci erant etiam in sapientia mundana instructi, sicut ipse, et ut Barnabas, vel Moyses in veteri testamento, de quo dicitur Act. VII, 22, quod eruditus erat Moyses in omni sapientia Aegyptiorum. Secundo excludit saecularem potentiam, cum dicit non multi potentes, scilicet secundum saeculum. Unde et Io. VII, 48 dicitur: numquid aliquis ex principibus credidit in eum? Et Bar. III, 16 dicitur: ubi sunt principes gentium? Exterminati sunt, et ad Inferos descenderunt. Tertio excludit excellentiam generis, cum dicit non multi nobiles. Et aliqui inter eos nobiles fuerunt, sicut ipse Paulus, qui in civitate Romana se natum dicit, Act. XXII, 25, et Rom. ult. de quibusdam dicit qui sunt nobiles in apostolis. 64. – He says, therefore: It has been stated that “the foolishness of God is wiser than men” and you can consider this in your own life; for consider carefully your call, brethren, i.e., how you were called: for you did not approach him by yourselves but you were called by him: “Whom he predestined he also called” (Rom 8:30); “He called you out of the darkness into his marvelous light” (1 Pt 2:9). But he urges them to ponder the manner of their calling by considering the ones by whom they were called, as Is (51:2) says: “ Look unto Abraham your father, and to Sarah that bore you.” From these ministers of our calling he first of all excludes wisdom when he says: Not many of those by whom you were called were wise according to worldly standards, i.e., in carnal and earthly wisdom: “For this is not wisdom descending from above: but earthly, sensual, devilish” (Jas 3:15); “The children of Hagar also, that search after the wisdom that is of the earth” (Bar 3:23). He says, not many, because some few had been instructed even in worldly wisdom, as he himself and Barnabas, or in the Old Testament Moses, of whom Ac (7:22) says that he had been instructed in all the wisdom of the Egyptians. Secondly, he excludes worldly power when he says: not many powerful, namely, according to the world; hence it says in Jn (7:48): princes of nations? They are cut off and are gone down into hell.” Thirdly, he excludes lofty birth when he says: not many were of noble birth. Yet some of them were noble, as Paul himself, who said that he had been born in a Roman city (Ac 22:25), and others referred to in Rom (16:7): “They are men of notes among the apostles.” Deinde, cum dicit sed quae stulta sunt, etc., ponit e converso eorum abiectionem quantum ad mundum, et primo defectum contrarium sapientiae, cum dicit quae stulta sunt mundi, id est, eos qui secundum mundum stulti videbantur, elegit Deus ad praedicationis officium, scilicet piscatores illiteratos, secundum illud Act. IV, 13: comperto quod homines essent sine litteris et idiotae, admirabantur. Is. XXXIII, 18: ubi est litteratus, ubi verba legis ponderans? Et hoc ut confundat sapientes, id est eos qui de sapientia mundi confidunt, dum ipsi non cognoverunt quae sunt simplicibus revelata. Matth. XI, 25: abscondisti haec a sapientibus et prudentibus, et revelasti ea parvulis. Is. XIX, 12: ubi sunt nunc sapientes tui? Annuntient tibi. 65. – Then when he says, But God chose, he shows that they were lowly according to worldly standards. First, he shows that they lacked wisdom when he says: what is foolish in the world, i.e., those whom the world would consider foolish, God chose for the offices of preaching, namely, ignorant fisherman: “Understanding that they were illiterate and ignorant men, they wondered” (Ac 4:13); “Where is the learned? Where is he that ponders the words of the law?” (Is 33:18). And this to shame the wise, i.e., those who trusted in the wisdom of the world, whereas they themselves did not know the truths revealed to the simple: “Thou had hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed to the simple: “Thou had hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to babes” (Matt 11:25); “Where then are your wise men? Let them tell you what the Lord of hosts has purposed” (Is 19:12). Secundo ponit defectum contrarium potentiae, dicens et infirma mundi, id est homines impotentes secundum mundum, puta rusticos et plebeios, elegit Deus ad praedicationis officium. In cuius figura dicitur III Reg. XX, 14: ego tradens eos in manu tua per pedissequos principum provinciarum; et Prov. IX, 3 dicitur quod sapientia misit ancillas ut vocarent ad arcem. In utrisque autem primorum praedicatorum infirmitas designatur. Et hoc ideo ut confundat fortia, id est potentes huius mundi. Is. II, 17: incurvabitur omnis sublimitas hominum, et humiliabitur altitudo virorum. 66. – Secondly, he shows that they lacked power, saying: what is weak in the world, i.e., men with no power in the world, such as peasants, plebeians, God chose for the office of preaching: “I will deliver them into your hand by the servants of the governors of the districts” (1 Kgs 20:13); and in Pr (9:3) it says that “wisdom has sent out her maids to call from the highest places in the town.” Weakness is designated by both of these shortcomings in the first preachers; and this to shame the strong, i.e., the powerful of this world: “The haughtiness of man shall be humbled, and the pride of men shall be brought low” (Is 2:17). Tertio ponit defectum contrarium nobilitati, in quo possunt tria considerari. Primo quidem claritas generis, quam ipsum nomen nobilitatis designat. Et contra hoc dicit et ignobilia mundi, id est qui secundum mundum sunt ignobiles. Infra IV, 10: vos nobiles, nos autem ignobiles. Secundo, circa nobilitatem considerantur honor et reverentia quae talibus exhibentur, et contra hoc dicit et contemptibilia, id est homines contemptibiles in hoc mundo elegit Deus ad praedicationis officium, secundum illud Ps. LXXVIII, 4: facti sumus opprobrium vicinis nostris, et his qui in circuitu nostro sunt. Tertio, in nobilitate consideratur magna opinio quam homines de eis habent. Et contra hoc dicit et ea quae non sunt, id est quae non videntur esse in saeculo, elegit Deus ad praedicationis officium. Iob XXX, 2: quorum virtus manuum erat mihi pro nihilo, et vita ipsa putabantur indigni. Et hoc ideo ut destrueret ea quae sunt, id est eos qui in hoc mundo aliquid esse videntur. Is. XXIII, v. 9: dominus exercituum cogitavit hoc, ut detraheret superbiam omnis gloriae, et ad ignominiam deduceret universos inclytos terrae. Deinde assignat causam dictorum dicens: ideo non elegit in saeculo excellentes sed abiectos, ut non glorietur omnis caro, etc., id est ut nullus pro quacumque carnis excellentia glorietur per comparationem ad dominum. Ier. IX, 23: non glorietur sapiens in sapientia sua, et non glorietur fortis in fortitudine sua et non glorietur dives in divitiis suis. Ex hoc enim quod Deus mundum suae fidei subiecit, non per sublimes in mundo, sive in saeculo, sed per abiectos, non potest gloriari homo quod per aliquam carnalem excellentiam salvatus sit mundus. Videretur autem non esse a Deo excellentia mundana, si Deus ea non uteretur ad suum obsequium. Et ideo in principio quidem paucos, postremo vero plures saeculariter excellentes Deus elegit ad praedicationis officium. Unde in Glossa dicitur, quod nisi fideliter praecederet piscator, non humiliter sequeretur orator. Et etiam ad gloriam Dei pertinet, dum per abiectos sublimes in saeculo ad se trahit. 67. – Thirdly, he mentions a defect splendor of rank, which is implied in the word “nobility.” Opposed to these he says: and despised in the world, i.e., men looked down upon by the world: “We have become a taunt to our neighbors, mocked and derided by those round about us” (Ps 79:4), God has chosen for the office of preaching. Thirdly, the grand opinion men have of the nobility. Opposed to this he says: and things that are not, i.e., men who seem to be nothing in the world: “The strength of whose hands was to me as nothing, and they were thought unworthy of life itself” Jb (30:2), has God chosen for the office of preaching. This He did to bring to naught things that are, i.e., those who seem to be something in this world: “The Lord of hosts had purposed it, to defile the pride of all glory, to dishonor all the honored of the earth” (Is 23:9). 68. – Then he reveals the cause of all this, saying: He has not chosen the great but the lowly, so that no human being might boast in the presence of God, i.e., that no one may glory in his own worldly greatness as compared with the Lord: “Let not the wise man glory in the wisdom, let not the mighty man glory in his might, and let not the rich man glory in his riches” (Jer 9:23). For inasmuch as God did not subject the world to His faith by employing the great ones of the world but the lowly ones, man cannot boast that the world was saved by employing worldly greatness. However, since it might appear that worldly greatness did not originate from God, if He never employed it for His purposes, God employed a few and later a great number of the worldly great for the office of preaching. Hence a Gloss says that if the faithful fisherman had not come first, the humble orator could not have come later. Furthermore, it pertains to God’s glory to draw the great of the world by means of the lowly. Deinde cum dicit ex ipso autem vos estis, ne praedicatores fidei tamquam non excellentes, sed abiecti in saeculo contemnerentur, ostendit quomodo Deus praedictum defectum in eis supplet. Et circa hoc tria facit. 69. – Then when he says, He is the source, he prevents the preachers of the faith, since they were not the worldly great but the lowly, from being regarded as contemptible, by showing how God supplied for their defects. In regard to this he does three things. Primo ostendit cui sit attribuenda salus mundi, quae praedicatorum ministerio facta est, dicens: dictum est quod vocati estis non per excellentes sed per abiectos in saeculo, ex quo patet quod vestra conversio non est homini attribuenda sed Deo. Et hoc est quod dicit ex ipso autem, id est ex virtute Dei, vocati estis in Christo Iesu, id est ei iuncti et incorporati per gratiam. Eph. II, v. 10: ipsius enim factura sumus, creati in Christo Iesu in operibus bonis. 70. – First, he indicates who deserves the honor for the world’s salvation, which was procured by the ministry of preaching. He says: You have been called not by the great of this world but by the lowly; consequently, your conversion should not be attributed to men but to God. In other words, He is the source of your life, i.e., by God’s power are you called in Christ Jesus, i.e., joined to Him by grace: “We are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works” (Eph 2:10). Deinde ostendit quomodo Deus praedictos defectus in praedicatoribus suis supplet per Christum. Et primo quantum ad defectum sapientiae, cum dicit qui, scilicet Christus, factus est nobis praedicantibus fidem, et, per nos, omnibus fidelibus, sapientia, quia ei inhaerendo, qui est Dei sapientia, et participando ipsum per gratiam, sapientes facti sumus. Et hoc a Deo, qui nobis Christum dedit et nos ad ipsum traxit, secundum illud Io. VI, 44: nemo potest venire ad me, nisi pater, qui me misit, traxerit eum. Deut. c. IV, 6: haec est vestra sapientia et intellectus coram populis. Secundo quantum ad defectum potentiae, dicit et iustitia, quae propter sui fortitudinem thoraci comparatur Sap. V, 19: induet pro thorace iustitiam. Dicitur autem Christus nobis factus iustitia, inquantum per eius fidem iustificamur, secundum illud Rom. III, v. 22: iustitia autem Dei per fidem Christi Iesu. Tertio quantum ad defectum nobilitatis subdit et sanctificatio, et redemptio. Sanctificamur enim per Christum, inquantum per eum Deo coniungimur, in quo consistit vera nobilitas, secundum illud I Reg. II, 30: quicumque honorificaverit me, glorificabo eum, qui autem contemnunt me, erunt ignobiles. Unde dicitur Hebr. ult.: Iesus ut sanctificaret per suum sanguinem populum, extra portam passus est. Factus est autem nobis redemptio, inquantum per ipsum redempti sumus de servitute peccati, in quo vere ignobilitas consistit. Unde in Ps. XXX, 6 dicitur: redemisti me, Deus veritatis. 71. – Then he shows how God supplies for the deficiencies of his preachers by means of Christ: first, as to their lack of wisdom when he says: whom, namely, Christ, God made for us, who preach the faith, and by us unto all the faithful, our wisdom, because by adhering to Him Who is the wisdom of God and by partaking of Him through grace, we have been made wise; and this is our God, Who gave Christ to us and few us to Him, as it says in Jn (6:44): “No man can come to me, except the Father who has sent me draw him”; “This is your wisdom and understanding in the sight of nations” (Dt 4:6). Secondly, as to their lack of power he says: our righteousness, which is called a breastplate because of its strength: “He will put on righteousness as a breastplate” (Wis 5:19). Now Christ is said to have been made righteousness for us, inasmuch as we are made righteous by faith, as it says in Rom (3:22): “The righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe.” Thirdly, as to their lack of nobility he says: and sanctification and redemption, for we are sanctified by Christ, inasmuch as it is through Him that we are joined to God, in Whom true nobility is found, as it says in 1 Sam (2:30): “Those who honor me I will honor, and those who despise me shall be lightly esteemed.” Hence it says in Heb (13:12): “Jesus suffered outside the gate in order to sanctify the people through his own blood.” But He has been made our redemption, inasmuch as we have been redeemed by Him from the slavery of sin, in which true baseness consists; hence it says in Ps 31 (v.6): “Thou hast redeemed me O Lord, faithful God.” Tertio assignat dictorum causam, cum dicit ut quemadmodum scriptum est, Ier. IX, 23 s., qui autem gloriatur, in domino glorietur; ubi nostra littera habet: in hoc glorietur scire et nosse me. Dicit enim: si salus hominis non provenit ex aliqua excellentia humana, sed ex sola virtute divina, non debetur homini gloria, sed Deo, secundum illud Ps. CXIII, 1: non nobis, domine, non nobis, sed nomini tuo da gloriam. Eccli. ult.: danti mihi sapientiam, dabo gloriam. 72. – Thirdly, he assigns the cause of the above when he says: Therefore, as it is written, Let him that boasts, boast of the Lord (Jer 9:24), where our version has: “Let him that glories, glory in this that he understands and knows me.” For he is saying: If man’s salvation does not spring from any human greatness but solely from God’s power, the glory belongs not to man but to God, as it says in Ps 115 (v. 1); “Not to us, O Lord, not to us; but to thy name give glory”; “To him that gives me wisdom will I give glory” (Sir 51:23).
2-1
1 Cor 2:1-7Postquam apostolus ostendit quis sit conveniens modus doctrinae Christianae, hic ostendit se illum modum observasse. Et circa hoc tria facit: primo ostendit se non fuisse usum apud eos aliqua excellentia saeculari; secundo ostendit apud quos excellentia spirituali utatur, ibi sapientiam autem loquimur inter perfectos, etc., tertio rationem assignat, ibi quae etiam loquimur, et cetera. Circa primum tria facit. Primo dicit quod non ostendit apud eos excellentiam saecularis sapientiae; secundo quod non praetendit excellentiam potentiae saecularis, ibi et ego in infirmitate; tertio non praetendit excellentiam eloquentiae, ibi et sermo meus. Circa primum duo facit. Primo proponit quod intendit; secundo rationem assignat, ibi non enim iudicavi. 73. – After indicating the suitable way to present Christian doctrine, the Apostle now shows that he observed it. In regard to this he does three things: first, he shows that he did not make use of worldly greatness with them; secondly, he shows in which cases he employs spiritual excellence (v. 6); thirdly, he indicate the reason (v. 7). As to the first he does three things: first, he states that he did not manifest the loftiness of worldly wisdom among them; secondly, that he does not pretend to have the excellence of worldly power (v. 3); thirdly, that he does not pretend to lofty eloquence (v. 4). As to the first he does two things: first, he states his purpose; secondly, the reason (v. 2). Dicit ergo primo: quia dictum est quod Christus misit me evangelizare non in sapientia verbi, et quod non sunt multi sapientes, et ego, fratres, quamvis sapientiam saecularem habeam, secundum illud II Cor. XI, 6: et si imperitus sermone, sed non scientia, cum venissem ad vos, convertendos ad Christum, ut habetur Act. XVIII, 1, veni annuntians vobis testimonium Christi, secundum illud Act. IV, 33: virtute magna reddebant apostoli testimonium resurrectionis domini nostri Iesu Christi, et hoc non in sublimitate sermonis aut sapientiae. Attenditur autem sublimitas sapientiae in consideratione aliquorum sublimium et elevatorum supra rationem et sensum hominum. Eccli. XXIV, 7: ego in altissimis habitavi. Sublimitas autem sermonis potest referri vel ad verba significantia sapientiae conceptiones, secundum illud Eccle. ult.: verba sapientium quasi stimuli, et quasi clavi in altum defixi, vel ad modum ratiocinandi per aliquas subtiles vias. Nam in Graeco habetur logos, quod et verbum et rationem significat, ut Hieronymus dicit. Hoc autem dicit apostolus, quia fidem Christi per huiusmodi sublimitates sermonis aut sapientiae confirmare nolebat. I Reg. II, 3: nolite multiplicare sublimia. 74. – He says, therefore: I have said that Christ sent me to preach the Gospel not in eloquent wisdom and that there are not many wise, and I, brethren, although I possess worldly wisdom, as stated in 2 Cor (11:6): “Even if I am unskilled in speaking, I am not in knowledge,” when I came to you to convert you to Christ, as it says in Ac (18:11): “teaching the word of God among them”; “With great power the apostles gave their testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus” (Ac 4:33); I came not in lofty words or wisdom. Now lofty wisdom consists in considering sublime and exalted matters that transcend man’s reason and understanding: “I dwelt in the highest places” (Sir 24:7). But lofty words can refer to the words signifying the thoughts of wisdom: “The words of the wise are as goads and as nails deeply fastened in” (Ec 12:11) or to its method of reasoning by subtle paths; for the Greek version has “logos,” which signifies both speech and reason, as Jerome says. The Apostle says this, because he did not wish to support the teaching of Christ with the lofty speech of wisdom: “Talk no more so very proudly” (1 Sam 2:3). Deinde huius rationem assignat, dicens non enim iudicavi me scire aliquid, nisi Christum Iesum. Non enim ad hoc opus erat ut sapientiam ostentaret sed ut demonstraret virtutem, secundum illud II Cor. IV, 5: non enim praedicamus nosmetipsos, sed Iesum Christum. Et ideo solum utebatur his quae ad demonstrandam virtutem Christi pertinebant, existimans se ac si nihil sciret quam Iesum Christum. Ier. IX, 24: in hoc glorietur qui gloriatur, scire et nosse me. In Christo autem Iesu, ut dicitur Col. II, 3, sunt omnes thesauri sapientiae et scientiae Dei absconditi, et quantum ad plenitudinem deitatis et quantum ad plenitudinem sapientiae et gratiae, et etiam quantum ad profundas incarnationis rationes, quae tamen apostolus eis non annuntiavit sed solum ea quae erant manifestiora et inferiora in Christo Iesu. Et ideo subdit et hunc crucifixum, quasi dicat: sic vobis me exhibui ac si nihil aliud scirem quam crucem Christi. Unde Gal. ult. dicit: mihi absit gloriari, nisi in cruce domini nostri Iesu Christi. Quia igitur per sapientiam verbi evacuatur crux Christi, ut dictum est ideo ipse apostolus non venerat in sublimitate sermonis aut sapientiae. 75. – Then he discloses the reason for this, saying: For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ. For this work there was no need to make a display of wisdom but to show His power: “We preach not ourselves but Jesus Christ” (2 Cor 4:5). Consequently, he employed only those things which proved Christ’s power, and regarded himself as knowing nothing but Jesus Christ: “Let him that glories glory in this, that he understands and knows me” (Jer 9:24). But in Christ Jesus, as it says in Col (2:3) are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge,” both by reason of the fullness of His godhead and the fullness of His wisdom and grace and by reason of knowing the profound reasons of the incarnation. Yet the Apostle did not declare these things to them but only those that were more obvious and lowly in Christ Jesus; therefore, he adds: and him crucified. As if to say: I have presented myself to you, as though I know nothing but the cross of Christ; hence he says in Gal (6:14): “Far be it from me to glory except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ.” Therefore, since the cross of Christ is made void by the wisdom of speech, as has been stated, the Apostle came not in loftiness of speech or of wisdom. Deinde cum dicit et ego in infirmitate, etc., ostendit quod non praetenderit apud eos potentiam, sed potius contrarium et foris et intus. Unde quantum ad id quod foris est dicit et ego fui apud vos in infirmitate, id est tribulationes apud vos patiens. Gal. IV, 11: scitis quia per infirmitatem carnis evangelizavi vobis iampridem. Ps. XV, 4: multiplicatae sunt infirmitates eorum. Quantum vero ad id quod intus est, dicit et timore, scilicet de malis imminentibus, et tremore, inquantum scilicet timor interior redundat ad corpus. II Cor. VII, 5: foris pugnae, intus timores. 76. – Then when he says, and I was, he shows that he did not pretend to have any power when he was among them, but on the contrary, weakness within and without. Hence in regard to what is without he says: and I was with you in weakness, i.e., I suffered tribulations among you: “You know how through infirmity of the flesh I preached the gospel to you heretofore” (Gal 4:13); “Those who choose another god multiply their sorrows” (Ps 16:4). As to what is within he says: and in fear, namely, of threatening evils, and in much trembling, namely, inasmuch as inward fear flows over to the body: “Combats without, fears within” (2 Cor 7:5). Deinde cum dicit et sermo meus, ostendit quod non praetenderit apud eos excellentiam eloquentiae: et circa hoc tria facit. Primo excludit indebitum modum praedicandi, dicens et sermo meus, quo scilicet privatim et singulariter aliquos instruebam, Eph. IV, v. 29: omnis sermo malus ex ore vestro non procedat, sed si quis bonus est ad aedificationem fidei; et praedicatio mea, qua scilicet publice docebam, non fuit in verbis persuasibilibus humanae sapientiae, id est per rhetoricam, quae componit ad persuadendum. Ut scilicet supra dixit quod non fuit intentionis quod sua praedicatio niteretur philosophicis rationibus, ita nunc dicit non fuisse suae intentionis niti rhetoricis persuasionibus. Is. c. XXXIII, 19: populum impudentem non videbis, populum alti sermonis, ita ut non possis intelligere disertitudinem linguae eius, in quo nulla est sapientia. 77. – Then when he says, and my speech, he shows that he made no pretence at loftiness of speech among them. In regard to this he does three things. First, he disavows any unbecoming method of preaching when he says: and my speech, whenever I instructed anyone separately and in private: “Let no evil talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for edifying” (Eph 4:29), and my message, whenever I spoke in public, was not in the persuasive words of human wisdom, i.e., rhetoric, which forms phrases to persuade. Hence, just as he had said earlier that it was not his intention to make his preaching rest on philosophical reasoning, so now he says that it was not his intention to make it rest on persuasions of rhetoric: “You will see no more the insolent people, the people of an obscure speech which you cannot comprehend” (Is 33:19). Secundo ostendit debitum modum quo usus fuit in praedicando, dicens: sermo meus fuit in ostensione spiritus et virtutis, quod quidem potest intelligi dupliciter. Uno modo quantum ad hoc quod credentibus praedicationi eius dabatur spiritus sanctus, secundum illud Act. X, 44: adhuc loquente Petro verba haec, cecidit spiritus sanctus super omnes qui audiebant verbum. Similiter etiam suam praedicationem confirmabat, faciendo virtutes, id est miracula, secundum illud Marc. c. ultimo: sermonem confirmante sequentibus signis. Unde Gal. III, 5: qui tribuit vobis spiritum, et operatur in vobis. Alio modo potest intelligi quantum ad hoc quod ipse per spiritum loquebatur, quod sublimitas et affluentia doctrinae ostendit. II Reg. c. XXIII, 2: spiritus domini locutus est per me. Et II Cor. IV, 13: habentes eumdem spiritum fidei credimus, propter quod et loquimur. Confirmat etiam suam praedicationem, ostendendo in sua conversatione multa opera virtuosa. I Thess. II, 10: vos enim testes estis, et Deus, quam sancte et iuste sine querela vobis qui credidistis, affuimus. 78. – Secondly, he discloses the correct method, which he employed in preaching when he says: But my speech was in demonstrating the Spirit and power. This can be interpreted in two ways: in one way that the Holy Spirit was given to those who believed his preaching in the sense of Ac (10:44): “While Peter was yet speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell on all of them that heard the word.” Similarly, He also confirmed his preaching by showing power, i.e., by working miracles: “Confirming the word with signs that followed” (Mk 16:20). In another way it can be taken to mean that the Spirit spoke through him: “The Spirit of the Lord speaks by me” (2 Sam 23:2); “Since we have the same spirit of faith, we too believe” (2 Cor 4:13). He also confirms his preaching by showing forth many powerful works in his manner of life: “You are witnesses, and God also, how holy and righteous and blameless was our behavior to you believers” (1 Th 2:10). Tertio assignat rationem dictorum, dicens ut fides vestra non sit in sapientia hominum, id est non innitatur sapientiae humanae, quae plerumque decipit homines, secundum illud Is. XLVII, 10: sapientia tua et scientia tua haec decepit te. Sed in virtute Dei, ut scilicet virtuti divinae fides innitatur, et sic non possit deficere. Rom. I, 16: non erubesco Evangelium, virtus enim Dei est in salutem omni credenti. 79. – Thirdly, he assigns the reason for this when he says: that your faith might not rest on the wisdom of men, i.e., not rest on human wisdom which frequently deceives men: “Your wisdom and your knowledge led you astray” (Is 47:10), but on the power of God, i.e., that faith might rest on divine power and so not fall: “I am not ashamed of the gospel: it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who has faith” (Rom 1:16). Deinde cum dicit sapientiam loquimur, etc., ostendit apud quos excellentia spiritualis sapientiae utatur. Et primo proponit quod intendit; secundo manifestat propositum, ibi sapientiam vero. 80. – Then when he says, We impart wisdom, he shows with whom he uses the loftiness of spiritual wisdom: first, he states what he intends; secondly, he clarifies it (v. 6b). Dicit ergo: apud vos solum Christum crucifixum praedicavi, sapientiam autem, id est profundam doctrinam, loquimur inter perfectos. Dicuntur autem aliqui perfecti dupliciter: uno modo, secundum intellectum; alio modo secundum voluntatem. Haec enim inter potentias animae sunt propria hominis, et ideo secundum eas oportet hominis perfectionem considerari. Dicuntur autem perfecti intellectu illi, quorum mens elevata est super omnia carnalia et sensibilia, qui spiritualia et intelligibilia capere possunt, de quibus dicitur Hebr. c. V, 14: perfectorum est solidus cibus, eorum qui per consuetudinem exercitatos habent sensus ad discretionem mali et boni. Perfecti autem secundum voluntatem sunt, quorum voluntas super omnia temporalia elevata soli Deo inhaeret et eius praeceptis. Unde Matth. V, 48, praepositis dilectionis mandatis, subditur: estote perfecti sicut et pater vester caelestis perfectus est. Quia igitur doctrina fidei ad hoc ordinatur, ut fides per dilectionem operetur, ut habetur Gal. V, 6, necesse est eum qui in doctrina fidei instruitur, non solum secundum intellectum bene disponi ad capiendum et credendum sed etiam secundum voluntatem et affectum bene disponi ad diligendum et operandum. 81. – He says, therefore: Among you I have only preached Christ crucified, but we impart wisdom, i.e., profound doctrine, among the mature (perfect). Now men are said to be perfect in two ways: first, in regard to the intellect; secondly, in regard to will. For among all the powers of the soul these are peculiar to man. Consequently, man’s perfection must be reckoned in terms of these powers. But the perfect in intellect are those whose mind has been raised above all carnal and sense-perceptible things and can grasp spiritual and intelligible things. Of such it says in Heb (5:14): “Solid food is for the perfect, for those who have their faculties trained by practice to distinguish good from evil.” The perfect in will, on the other hand, are those who will, being raised above all temporal things, clings to God alone and to His commands. Hence after setting forth the commandments of love Christ added: “Be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect” (Matt 5:48). Consequently, since the teachings of the faith are aimed at making faith work through love (Gal 5:6), it is necessary that a person instructed in the teachings of the faith not only be well-disposed in intellect for accepting and believing the truth, but also well-disposed in will for loving and doing good works. Deinde cum dicit sapientiam vero, etc., exponit qualis sit sapientia de qua mentionem fecit. Et primo ponit expositionem; secundo rationem expositionis confirmat, ibi quam nemo principum, et cetera. Circa primum duo facit. Primo exponit qualis sit ista sapientia per comparationem ad infideles; secundo, per comparationem ad fideles, ibi sed loquimur Dei sapientiam, et cetera. 82. – Then when he says, although it is not, he explains what sort of wisdom he means. First, he gives the explanation; secondly, he supports the explanation with a reason (v. 8), As to the first he does two things: first, he explains the nature of that wisdom in relation to unbelievers; secondly, in relation to believers (v. 7). Dicit ergo primo: dictum est quod sapientiam loquimur inter perfectos. Sapientiam vero dico, non huius saeculi, id est de rebus saecularibus, vel quae est per rationes humanas; neque eam principum huius saeculi. 83. – He says, therefore: I have said that we speak wisdom among the perfect, although it is not the wisdom of this age, i.e., of worldly things, or the wisdom which rests on human reasons, or of the rulers of this age. Et sic separat eam a sapientia mundana, et quantum ad modum et materiam inquirendi, et quantum ad auctores, qui sunt principes huius saeculi; quod potest intelligi de triplici genere principum, secundum triplicem sapientiam humanam. Primo possunt dici principes huius saeculi reges et potentes saeculares, secundum illud Ps. II, 2: principes convenerunt in unum adversus dominum et adversus Christum eius. A quibus principibus venit sapientia humanarum legum, per quas res huius mundi in vita humana dispensantur. Secundo possunt dici principes Daemones. Io. XIV, 30: venit princeps mundi huius, et in me non habet quicquam, et cetera. Et ab his principibus venit sapientia culturae Daemonum, scilicet necromantia, et magicae artes, et huiusmodi. Tertio possunt intelligi principes huius saeculi philosophi, qui quasi principes se exhibuerunt hominibus in docendo, de quibus dicitur Is. XIX, v. 11: stulti principes Thaneos, sapientes consiliarii Pharaonis. Et ab his principibus processit tota humana philosophia. Horum autem principum homines destruuntur per mortem et per amissionem potestatis et auctoritatis: Daemones vero non per mortem, sed per amissionem potestatis et auctoritatis, secundum illud Io. XII, 31: nunc princeps huius mundi eicietur foras; de hominibus autem dicitur Bar. III, 16: ubi sunt principes gentium? Et postea subdit: exterminati sunt et ad Inferos descenderunt. Sicut ipsi non sunt stabiles, ita et eorum sapientia non potest esse firma: et ideo non ei innitendum est. 84. – Thus he separates it from worldly wisdom both as to the method and to the subject of inquiry and to the authors, who are the rulers of this world. This can be understood of three classes of rulers, corresponding to the three types of human wisdom. First, rulers and worldly potentates can be called the rulers of this age in the sense of Ps 2 (v.2): “The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rules take counsel together, against the Lord and his anointed.” From these rulers came the wisdom of human laws, by which the affairs of this world are conducted in human life. Secondly, the devils can be called the rulers: “The ruler of this world is coming. He has no power over me” (Jn. 14:30). From these rulers come the wisdom of honoring devils, namely, necromancy, magical arts and the like. Thirdly, philosophers can be called the rulers of this world, insofar as they put themselves forward as rulers of men in teaching. Of these it says in Is (19:11): “The princes of Zoan are utterly foolish; the wise counselors of Pharaoh give stupid counsel.” From these rulers all human philosophy has come. Now the first of these three types of rulers are destroyed by death and the loss of power and authority; the second, i.e., the devils, are destroyed not by death but by the loss of power and authority as Jn (12:31): “Now shall the ruler of this world be cast out”; of the third group Bar (3:16) asks: “Where are the rulers of the nations?” and then answers (3:19): “They have vanished and gone down to Hades.” Consequently, just as none of them lasts, so their wisdom cannot be solid. Therefore, it should not be relied on. Deinde cum dicit sed loquimur, etc., exponit qualis sit sapientia per comparationem ad fideles. Et primo describit eam quantum ad materiam vel auctoritatem, cum dicit sed loquimur Dei sapientiam, id est quae est Deus et a Deo. Quamvis enim omnis sapientia a Deo sit, ut dicitur Eccli. I, 1, tamen speciali quodam modo haec sapientia, quae est de Deo, est etiam a Deo per revelationem, secundum illud Sap. IX, 17: sensum autem tuum quis sciet, nisi tu dederis sapientiam et miseris spiritum tuum de altissimis? 85. – Then when he says, But we impart, he explains this wisdom as related to believers. First, he describes it as to its subject manner and authority when he says: But we impart a hidden and secret wisdom of God, i.e., which is God and from God. For although all wisdom is from God, as it says in Sirach (1:1), this wisdom, which is about God, is from God in a special way, namely, by revelation: “Who has learned thy counsel, unless thou has given wisdom and sent thy holy Spirit from on high?” (Wis 9:17). Secundo ostendit qualitatem eius, dicens in mysterio, quae abscondita est; haec enim sapientia abscondita est ab hominibus, inquantum hominis intellectum excedit, secundum illud Eccli. III, 25: plurima supra sensum hominis ostensa sunt tibi. Unde dicitur Iob c. XXVIII, 21: abscondita est ab oculis omnium viventium. Et quia modus docendi et doctrinae debet esse conveniens, ideo dicitur quod loquitur eam in mysterio, id est in aliquo occulto, vel verbo vel signo. Infra XIV, 2: spiritus loquitur mysteria. 86. – Secondly, he indicates one of its characteristics, saying: hidden, for this wisdom had been hidden from men, inasmuch as it transcends man’s intellect: “Many things are shown to you above the understanding of men” (Sir 3:25); hence Jb (28:21) says: “It is hid from the eyes of all living.” And because the method of teaching should suit the doctrine, he says that he speaks it in a mystery, i.e., in occult words or signs: “He utters mysteries in the Spirit” (1 Cor 14:2). Tertio ostendit fructum huius sapientiae, dicens quam Deus praedestinavit, id est praeparavit, in gloriam nostram, id est praedicatorum fidei, quibus ex praedicatione tam altae sapientiae gloria magna debetur, et apud Deum, et apud homines. Prov. III, 35: gloriam sapientes possidebunt. Et quod dicit in gloriam nostram, exponendum est omnium fidelium, quorum gloria haec est ut in plena luce cognoscant ea quae nunc in mysterio praedicantur, secundum illud Io. c. XVII, 3: haec est vita aeterna ut cognoscant te solum Deum verum, et quem misisti Iesum Christum. 87. – Thirdly, he discloses the fruit of this wisdom, saying: which God decreed, i.e., prepared, for our glorification, i.e., of the preachers of the faith, who deserve great glory before God and men for preaching such a lofty wisdom: “The wise who possess glory” (Pr 3:35). The phrase, for our glorification, can refer to all the faithful whose glory it is that they shall know in the full light the things now preached in a mystery, as it says in Jn (17:3): “This is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.”
2-2
1 Cor 2:8-12Posita expositione de sapientia quam apostolus loquitur inter perfectos, hic rationem assignat expositionis praedictae, et primo quantum ad hoc, quod eam descripserat per comparationem ad infideles; secundo, quantum ad hoc quod eam descripserat per comparationem ad fideles, ibi nobis autem revelavit Deus. Circa primum duo facit. Primo proponit quod intendit; secundo probat propositum, ibi si enim cognovissent. 88. – Having explained the wisdom he speaks among the perfect, the Apostle now gives the reason behind the explanation: first, insofar as he described it in relation to unbelievers; secondly, in relation to believers (v.10). As to the first he does two things: first, he states his proposition; secondly, he proves it (v.8). Dicit ergo primo: dictum est quod sapientia quam loquimur non est principum huius saeculi, haec enim sapientia est, quam nemo principum huius saeculi cognovit, quod verum est, de quibuscumque principibus intelligatur. Saeculares enim principes hanc sapientiam non cognoverunt, quia excedit rationem humani regiminis. Iob XII, 24: qui immutat cor principum populi terrae, et decipit eos, ut frustra incedant per invium. Philosophi etiam eam non cognoverunt, quia excedit rationem humanam. Unde dicitur Bar. c. III, 23: exquisitores prudentiae et scientiae viam sapientiae nescierunt. Daemones etiam eam non cognoscunt, quia excedit omnem creatam sapientiam. Unde dicitur Iob XXVIII, 21: volucres caeli quoque latent. Perditio et mors dixerunt: auribus nostris audivimus famam eius. 89. – He says, therefore: I have said that the wisdom we speak is not the wisdom of the rulers of this world; for this is the wisdom which none of the rulers of this world understood. This is true regardless of which class of rulers be considered; for worldly rulers did not know this wisdom, because it surpasses the rules of human government: “He takes away understanding from the chiefs of the people of the earth, and makes them wander in a pathless waste” (Jb 12:24). Philosophers, too, have not known it, because it transcends human reason; hence Bar (3:23) says: “The searchers for understanding on the earth have not learned the way to wisdom.” Finally, the devils have not known it, because it surpasses all created wisdom; hence Jb (28:21) says: “It is hid from the eyes of all living, and concealed from the birds of the air. Abaddon and Death say, ‘We have heard a rumor of it with our ears’.” Deinde cum dicit si enim cognovissent, etc., probat quod dixerat, et primo quidem probat per signum quod non cognoverunt principes Dei sapientiam, secundum quod est in se abscondita. Secundo probat per auctoritatem, quod non cognoverunt eam, secundum quod praeparata est in gloriam nostram, ibi sicut scriptum est. 90. – Then when he says, for if they had, he proves what he had said: first, he proves it by a sign which indicates that the rulers did not know God’s wisdom, insofar as it is hidden in Him; secondly, he proves on scriptural authority that they did not know it as prepared for our glory (v.9). Dicit ergo primo: recte dico, quod principes huius saeculi Dei sapientiam non cognoverunt, si enim cognovissent Dei sapientiam, cognovissent utique Christum esse Deum, qui in hac sapientia continetur, quo cognito, numquam crucifixissent Deum gloriae, id est, ipsum Christum dominum dantem gloriam suis, secundum illud Ps. XXIII, v. 10: dominus virtutum ipse est rex gloriae; et Hebr. II, 10: qui multos filios in gloriam adduxerat. Cum enim creaturae rationali sit naturaliter appetibilis gloria, non potest in voluntatem humanam cadere, quod auctorem gloriae interimat. Quod autem principes crucifixerunt Iesum Christum, certum est, si intelligatur de principibus qui potestatem habent inter homines. Dicitur enim in Ps. II, 2: astiterunt reges terrae, et principes convenerunt in unum adversus dominum, et adversus Christum eius, quod Act. IV, 27 exponitur de Herode et Pilato, et principibus Iudaeorum qui consenserunt in mortem Christi. Sed etiam Daemones operati sunt in mortem Christi, persuadendo, secundum illud Io. XIII, 2: cum Diabolus iam misisset in cor ut eum traderet, et cetera. Sed et Pharisaei, et Scribae in lege periti, qui studium sapientiae dabant, operati sunt ad mortem Christi instigando et approbando. 91. – He says, therefore: I am correct in saying that the rulers of this world did not understand God’s wisdom; for if they had known it, they would certainly have known that Christ is God, Who is contained in this wisdom, and knowing it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory, i.e., Christ the Lord, Who gives glory to His own: “The Lord of hosts, he is the King of glory” (Ps 24:10) and “he brought many sons into glory” (Heb 2:10). For since the rational creature by nature desires glory, it cannot occur to the human will to destroy the author of glory. That the rulers crucified Jesus Christ is certain, if by rulers is meant those in power among men, for it says in Ps 2 (v.2): “The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord and his anointed.” In Ac (4:27) this is referred to Herod and Pilate and the Jewish leaders, who consented to Christ’s death. But the devils also had a part in Christ’s death by persuading, for Jn (13:2) says: “The devil, having now put into the heart of Judas Iscariot to betray him.” Furthermore, the Pharisees and scribes versed in the law and students of wisdom, procured Christ’s death by instigating and approving. Sed circa hoc duplex oritur dubitatio, quarum prima est de hoc quod dicit Deum gloriae crucifixum. Non enim divinitas Christi aliquid pati potuit, secundum quam dicitur Christus dominus gloriae. Sed dicendum quod Christus est una persona et hypostasis in utraque natura consistens, divina scilicet et humana. Unde potest utriusque naturae nomine designari, et quocumque nomine significetur, potest praedicari de eo id quod est utriusque naturae, quia utrique non supponitur nisi una hypostasis. Et per hunc modum possumus dicere quod homo creavit stellas, et quod dominus gloriae est crucifixus, et tamen non creavit stellas secundum quod homo, sed secundum quod Deus, nec est crucifixus secundum quod est Deus, sed inquantum homo. Unde ex hoc verbo destruitur error Nestorii, qui dixerat unam naturam esse in Christo, Dei et hominis, quia secundum hoc nullo modo posset verificari quod dominus gloriae sit crucifixus. 92. – Two difficulties arise here: the first concerns the statement that the God of glory was crucified. For Christ’s godhead, according to which Christ is called the Lord of glory, cannot suffer anything. The answer is that Christ is one person subsisting in two natures, the human and the divine. Hence He can be described by names drawn from either nature; furthermore, no matter what the name by which He is designated, it can be predicated of Him, because there is but one person underlying both natures. Consequently, we can say that the man created the stars and that the Lord of glory was crucified; however, it was not as man that He created the stars, but as God; nor was it as God that He was crucified, but as man. Hence this phrase refutes Nestorius’ error asserting that there is one nature, composed of God and man, in Christ; because of Nestorius were correct, it would not be true to say that Lord of glory was crucified. Secunda dubitatio est de hoc quod videtur supponere, quod principes Iudaeorum vel Daemones non cognoverunt Christum esse Deum. Et quidem, quantum ad principes Iudaeorum, videtur hoc astrui per hoc quod dicit Petrus, Act. III, 17: scio quia per ignorantiam hoc feceritis, sicut et principes vestri. Videtur autem esse contrarium quod dicitur Matth. XXI, 38: agricolae videntes filium, dixerunt intra se: hic est haeres, venite, occidamus eum; quod exponens Chrysostomus dicit: manifeste dominus probat his verbis Iudaeorum principes non per ignorantiam, sed per invidiam Dei filium crucifixisse. Solvitur in Glossa quod sciebant, principes Iudaeorum, eum esse qui promissus erat in lege, non tamen mysterium eius quod filius Dei erat, neque sciebant sacramentum incarnationis et redemptionis. Sed contra hoc esse videtur quod Chrysostomus dicit quod cognoverunt eum esse filium Dei. Dicendum est ergo quod principes Iudaeorum pro certo sciebant eum esse Christum promissum in lege, quod populus ignorabat. Ipsum autem esse verum filium Dei non pro certo sciebant, sed aliqualiter coniecturabant; sed haec coniecturalis cognitio obscurabatur in eis ex invidia et ex cupiditate propriae gloriae, quam per excellentiam Christi minui videbant. 93. – The second difficulty is that he seems to suppose that the Jewish rulers or the devils did not know that Christ was God. Indeed, as far as the Jewish rulers were concerned, this seems to be supported by Peter’s statement in Ac (3:17): “I know that you did it in ignorance, as did also your rulers.” This in turn seems to be contrary to what it says in Matt (21:38): “But when the tenants saw the son, they said to themselves, ‘This is the heir; come, let us kill him and have his inheritance.” Furthermore, in explaining this Chrysostom says: “By these words the Lord proves clearly that the Jewish rulers killed the Son of God not through ignorance by through envy.” This difficulty is answered in a Gloss (attributed to Chrysostom in Homily 40 On Matthew), which states that the Jewish rulers knew that He was the one promised in the Law, although they did not know His mystery, that He was the Son of God or the sacrament of the incarnation and redemption. But this seems to be contradicted by Chrysostom’s own statement that they knew He was the Son of God. Therefore, the answer is that the Jewish rulers knew for certain that He was the Christ promised in the Law, although the people did not know; yet they did not know for certain but somehow conjectured that He was the true Son of God. However, this conjectural knowledge was obscured in them by envy and from a desire for their own glory, which they saw was being diminished by Christ’s excellence. Similiter etiam videtur esse de Daemonibus dubitatio. Dicitur enim Mc. I, 23 ss. et Lc. IV, 34, quod Daemonium clamavit, dicens: scio quod sis sanctus Dei. Et ne hoc praesumptioni Daemonum ascribatur, qui se iactabant scire quod nesciebant, eorum notitia quam habebant de Christo per ipsos Evangelistas asseritur. In Marco quidem sic scribitur: non sinebat ea loqui, scilicet Daemonia, quoniam sciebant eum Christum esse. Et Lucas dicit: increpans non sinebat ea loqui quia sciebant eum esse Christum. Et ad hoc respondetur in libro de quaestionibus novi et veteris testamenti, quod Daemonia sciebant ipsum esse, qui per legem fuit repromissus, quia omnia signa videbant in eo quae dixerunt prophetae, mysterium autem divinitatis eius ignorabant. 94. – There seems to be difficulty also about the devil, for it says in Mk (1:23) and Lk (4:34) that the devil cried out: “I know you are the holy one of God.” But lest this be ascribed to the devils’ boasting to know what they did not know, the knowledge they had of Christ is asserted by the evangelists. For Mk (1:34) says: “And he did not permit the demons to speak, because they knew him,” and Lk (4:41) says: “But he rebuked them, and would not allow them to speak, because they knew that he was the Christ.” This is answered in the book of Questions of the New and Old Testament: that the devils knew He was the one promised by the Law, because they saw in Him all the signs foretold by the prophets; nevertheless, they did not know the mystery of His divinity. Sed contra hoc videtur esse quod Athanasius dicit, quod Daemonia dicebant Christum esse sanctum Dei, quasi singulariter sanctum: ipse enim naturaliter est sanctus cuius participatione omnes alii sancti vocantur. Dicendum est autem quod, sicut Chrysostomus dicit, non habebant adventus Dei firmam et certam notitiam, sed quasdam coniecturas. Unde Augustinus dicit in IX de civitate Dei quod innotuit Daemonibus, non per id quod est vita aeterna, sed per quaedam temporalia sua virtute effecta. 95. – But opposed to this is Athanasius’ statement that devils called Christ they holy one of God, as being uniquely holy, for He is naturally holy, by participation in Whom, all others are called holy. Consequently, it must be said with Chrysostom that they did not have firm and sure knowledge of God’s coming, but on conjectures; hence Augustine says in The City of God that He was recognized by the devils not by that which is eternal life, but by certain temporal things effected by His power. Deinde cum dicit sed sicut scriptum est, probat per auctoritatem quod principes huius saeculi Dei sapientiam non cognoverunt, quantum ad hoc quod praedestinata est in gloriam fidelium, dicens: sed sicut scriptum est Is. LXIV, 4, ubi littera nostra habet: oculus non vidit, Deus, absque te, quae praeparasti his qui diligunt te. Ostenditur autem illa gloria visionis aperte ab hominibus ignorari dupliciter. Primo quidem quod non subiacet humanis sensibus, a quibus omnis humana cognitio initium sumit. Et ponit duos sensus. Primo visionis quae deservit inventioni, cum dicit quod oculus non vidit, Iob XXVIII, 7: semitam eius ignoravit avis, nec intuitus est eam oculus vulturis. Et hoc ideo, quia non est aliquid coloratum et visibile. Secundo ponit sensum auditus, qui deservit disciplinae, dicens nec auris audivit, scilicet ipsam gloriam, quia non est sonus aut vox sensibilis. Io. V, v. 37: neque speciem eius vidistis, neque vocem eius audistis. 96. – Then when he says, But as it is written, he proves by Scripture that the rulers of this world did not know God’s wisdom as to what it prepared for the glory of believers, saying: what no eye has seen or ear heard or the heart of man conceived, what God has prepared for them that love him, where our version has: “The eye has not seen, O God, besides you, what things you have prepared for them that wait for you” (Is 64:4). That this glorious vision is unknown to man is shown in two ways: first, because it is not within the range of the human senses, from which all human knowledge begins. And he mentions two senses: first, vision, which is employed when a person finds things out for himself: hence he says: what no eye has seen: “The bird has not known the path, neither has the eye of the vulture beheld it” (Jb 28:7). The eye is of no use, because the object of inquiry is not something colored and visible. Secondly, he mentions the sense of hearing, which is employed when a person learns from someone else; hence he says: nor ear heard that glory, because it is not a sound or an audible world: “His voice you have never heard, his form you have never seen” (Jn. 5:37). Deinde excludit notitiam eius intellectualem, cum dicit neque in cor hominis ascendit. Quod quidem potest intelligi: uno modo ut ascendere in cor hominis dicatur quidquid quocumque modo cognoscitur ab homine, secundum illud Ier. II, v. 50: Ierusalem ascendat super cor vestrum: et sic oporteat, quod cor hominis accipiatur pro corde hominis carnalis, secundum illud quod dicitur infra III, 3: cum sint inter vos zelus et contentio, nonne carnales estis, et secundum hominem ambulatis? Est ergo sensus quod illa gloria non solum sensu non percipitur, sed nec corde hominis carnalis, secundum illud Io. XIV, 17: quem mundus non potest accipere, quia non videt eum, nec scit eum. 97. – Then he excludes intellectual discovery of this glory when he says: nor the heart of man conceived. In one sense, whatever is known by men in any manner whatsoever is said to enter [ascend] into the heart of man: “Let Jerusalem come into your mind” (Jer 51:50). In this way, the heart of man refers to the heart of a carnal man in the sense of his statement below (3:3): “For while there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not of the flesh, and behaving like ordinary men?” The meaning, therefore, is that such glory is not only not known by the senses, but not even by the heart, of a carnal man. Alio modo potest exponi secundum quod proprie dicitur in cor hominis ascendere id quod ab inferiori pervenit ad hominis intellectum, puta a sensibilibus, de quibus prius fecerat mentionem. Res enim sunt in intellectu secundum modum eius; res igitur inferiores sunt in intellectu altiori modo quam in seipsis. Et ideo quando ab intellectu capiuntur, quodammodo in cor ascendunt. Unde dicitur Is. LXV, 17: non erunt in memoria priora, nec ascendent super cor. Illa vero quae sunt in intellectu superiora, altiori modo sunt in seipsis quam in intellectu. Et ideo quando ab intellectu capiuntur, quodammodo descendunt. Iac. I, v. 17: omne donum perfectum desursum est descendens a patre luminum. Quia igitur illius gloriae notitia non accipitur a sensibilibus, sed ex revelatione divina, ideo signanter dicit nec in cor hominis ascendit, sed descendit, id scilicet quod praeparavit Deus, id est, praedestinavit, diligentibus se, quia essentiale praemium aeternae gloriae charitati debetur, secundum illud Io. c. XIV, 21: si quis diligit me diligetur a patre meo, et ego diligam eum et manifestabo ei meipsum, in quo perfectio aeternae gloriae consistit; et Iob XXXVI, 33: annuntiat de ea, id est de luce gloriae, amico suo quod possessio eius sit. Caeterae autem virtutes accipiunt efficaciam merendi vitam aeternam, inquantum informantur charitate. 98. – In another sense, something is said to ascend into the heart of man, when from a lower state, for example, from existing in sense perceptible things, it reaches man’s understanding. For things exist in the understanding according to its mode; therefore, lower things exist in the intellect in a higher state than they exist in themselves. Consequently, when they are grasped by the intellect, they ascend into the heart of man. But things which are more excellent than the intellect exist in a higher state in themselves than in the intellect; therefore, when they are grasped by the intellect they somehow descend: “Every perfect gift is from above, descending from the Father of lights” (Jas 1:17). Therefore, since the knowledge of that glory is not obtained from sense perceptible things but by divine revelation, he says quite significantly: nor the heart of man conceived what things God has prepared, i.e., predestined, for them that love him, because the essential reward of eternal glory is due to charity: “If anyone loves me, he will be loved by my Father; and I will love him and will manifest myself to him” (Jn. 14:21), for it is in this that the perfection of eternal glory consists; and Job (36:33) says: “He shows his friend concerning it [i.e., concerning the light of glory], that it is his possession.” The other virtues, however, play a role in meriting eternal life, insofar as they are enlivened by charity. Deinde cum dicit nobis autem, etc., probat praedictam expositionem de sapientia divina per comparationem ad fideles. Et primo proponit quod intendit; secundo probat propositum, ibi spiritus enim. 99. – Then when he says, But to us, he proves the above explanation of divine wisdom in relation to the faithful: first, he states his proposition; secondly, he proves it (v. 10b). Dicit ergo primo: dictum est quod sapientiam Dei nemo principum huius saeculi cognovit, nobis autem Deus revelavit per spiritum suum, quem scilicet nobis misit, secundum illud Io. XIV, 26: Paracletus autem spiritus sanctus, quem mittet pater in nomine meo, ille vos docebit omnia, Iob c. XXXII, 8: inspiratio omnipotentis dat intelligentiam. Quia enim spiritus sanctus est spiritus veritatis, utpote a filio procedens, qui est veritas patris, his quibus mittitur inspirat veritatem, sicut et filius a patre missus notificat patrem, secundum illud Matth. XI, 27: nemo novit patrem nisi filius, et cui voluerit filius revelare. 100. – He says, therefore: I have stated that none of the rulers of this world knew God’s wisdom, but to us God has revealed it through the Spirit, Whom He sent to us: “But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things” (Jn. 14:26); “The breath of the Almighty gives me understanding” (Jb 33:4). For since the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of truth, inasmuch as He proceeds from the Son, Who is the truth of the Father, He is sent to those to whom He breathes the truth, as Matt (11:27) says: “No one knows the Father except the Son and any one to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.” Deinde cum dicit spiritus enim, probat quod dixerat, scilicet quod per spiritum sanctum sit sapientia fidelibus revelata. Et primo ostendit quod spiritus sanctus ad hoc sit efficax; secundo probat quod hoc in discipulis Christi fecerat, ibi nos autem. Circa primum duo facit. Primo proponit quod intendit; secundo manifestat propositum, ibi quis enim scit hominum, et cetera. 101. – Then when he says, For the Spirit searches, he proves what he had said, namely, that wisdom has been revealed to believers by the Holy Spirit. First, he shows that the Holy Spirit effects this; secondly, he proves that He effected this in Christ’s disciples (v. 12). As to the first he does two things: first, he states his proposition; secondly, he proves it (v. 11). Dicit ergo primo: dictum est quod per spiritum sanctum revelavit nobis Deus suam sapientiam, et hoc fieri potuit: spiritus enim sanctus omnia scrutatur. Quod non est sic intelligendum, quasi inquirendo quomodo fiant, sed quia perfecte et etiam intima quarumlibet rerum novit, sicut homo quod aliquando diligenter scrutatur. Unde dicitur Sap. VII, 22 s. quod spiritus intelligentiae sanctus est, omnia prospiciens, et qui capiat omnes spiritus intelligibiles, mundos, subtiles, et non solum res creatas, sed etiam profunda Dei perfecte cognoscit. Dicuntur autem profunda ea quae in ipso latent, et non ea quae de ipso per creaturas cognoscuntur, quae quasi superficie tenus videntur esse, secundum illud Sap. XIII, 5: a magnitudine speciei et creaturae cognoscibiliter poterit creator eorum videri. 102. – He says, therefore: I have stated that God reveals His wisdom through the Holy Spirit. This was possible, because the Spirit searches all things, not as though He learns them by searching them out, but because He knows fully even the most intimate details of all things. Hence, it is stated in Wis (7:2) that the wisdom of understanding is holy, overseeing all things, containing all spirits, intelligible, pure, subtle and knowing not only created things perfectly but even the depths of God. The deep things are those which are hidden in Him and not those which are known about Him through creatures, which are, as it were, on the surface, as Wis (13:5) says: “For from the greatness and beauty of created things comes a corresponding perception of their Creator.” Deinde, cum dicit quis enim scit hominum, probat quod dixerat de spiritu Dei per similitudinem humani spiritus, dicens quis enim scit hominum ea quae sunt hominis, id est, ea quae latent in corde, nisi spiritus hominis, qui in eo est, id est, intellectus? Et ideo quae interius latent, videri non possunt. Signanter autem dicit quis hominum, ne ab horum cognitione etiam Deus videatur excludi; dicitur enim Ier. XVII, 9: pravum est cor hominis, et quis cognoscet illud? Ego Deus probans corda et scrutans renes, quia scilicet secretorum cordis solus Deus est cognitor. 103. – Then when he says, for what person knows, he proves what he had said of the Spirit of God by a comparison with man’s spirit, saying: For what person [man] knows a man’s thoughts, i.e., which are hidden in his heart, but the spirit of the man, which is in him, i.e., the intellect? Hence the things which lie within cannot be seen. But he says significantly, what man, lest he seem to exclude God as knowing them. For Jer (17:9) says: “The heart of man is deceitful above all things, and desperately corrupt; who can understand it? I the Lord search the mind and try the heart,” because God alone knows what lies in another’s heart. Manifesta autem est ratio quare homo ea quae in corde alterius latent scire non potest, quia cognitio hominis a sensu accipitur, et ideo ea quae sunt in corde alterius, homo cognoscere non potest, nisi quatenus per signa sensibilia manifestantur, secundum illud I Reg. XVI, 7: homo videt quae foris patent, Deus autem intuetur cor. Sed nec Angelus bonus, nec malus ea quae in corde hominis latent scire potest, nisi inquantum per aliquos effectus manifestantur, cuius ratio accipi potest ex ipso verbo apostoli, qui dicit ea ratione spiritum hominis cognoscere quae in corde hominis latent quia in ipso homine est; Angelus autem, neque bonus neque malus, illabitur menti humanae, ut in ipso corde hominis sit et intrinsecus operetur, sed hoc solius Dei proprium est. Unde solus Deus est conscius secretorum cordis hominis, secundum illud Iob XVI, 20: ecce in caelo testis meus, et in excelsis conscius meus. 104. – The reason man cannot know what lies in another’s heart is obvious, because man’s knowledge begins with the senses. Consequently, a man cannot know the things in another’s heart, unless they are manifested by certain sense perceptible signs: “Man looks on the outward appearance, but the Lord looks on the heart” (1 Sam 16:7). Furthermore, not even a good or an evil angel can know the things which lie in a man’s heart, unless they are manifested by special effects. The reason can be taken from the Apostle’s statement that man’s spirit knows what lies in man’s heart, because it is in him. But no angel, good or evil, can enter the human mind to exist in a man’s heart or work from within it. God alone can do this; hence, He alone is aware of the secrets of a man’s heart: “My witness is in heaven and he that vouches for me is on high” (Jb 16:20). Secundo similitudinem adaptat ad spiritum Dei, dicens ita et quae Dei sunt, id est, quae in ipso Deo latent, nemo cognoscit, nisi spiritus Dei, secundum illud Iob c. XXXVI, 26: ecce Deus magnus vincens scientiam nostram. Sed sicut ea quae sunt in corde unius hominis alteri manifestantur per sensibilia signa, ita ea quae sunt Dei possunt esse nota homini per sensibiles effectus, secundum illud Sap. XIII, 5: a magnitudine speciei et creaturae, et cetera. Sed spiritus sanctus, qui est in ipso Deo, utpote patri et filio consubstantialis, secreta divinitatis per seipsum videt, secundum illud Sap. VII, 22: est enim in illa, scilicet Dei sapientia, et spiritus intelligentiae sanctus, omnem habens virtutem, omnia prospiciens. 105. – Then he adapts this comparison to the Spirit of God, saying: So also no one comprehends the thought, i.e., the hidden things of God, but the Spirit of God: “Behold, God is great, and we know him not” (Jb 36:26). But just as the things in one man’s heart are made known to another by sense perceptible signs, so the things of God can be made known to man by sensible effects: “From the greatness and beauty of created things comes a corresponding perception of their Creator” (Wis 13:5). However, the Holy Spirit Who is in God Himself, being consubstantial with the Father and the Son, sees the secrets of the godhead by Himself, for “in her,” i.e., in God’s wisdom, “is the spirit of understanding, holy, having all power, overseeing all things” (Wis 7:22). Deinde, cum dicit nos autem, etc., ostendit quomodo cognitio spiritus sancti percipiatur, dicens: licet nullus hominum per se possit scire quae sunt Dei, nos autem, spiritu sancto scilicet repleti, non accepimus spiritum huius mundi, sed spiritum qui a Deo est. Nomine autem spiritus vis quaedam vitalis et cognitiva et motiva intelligitur. Spiritus ergo huius mundi potest dici sapientia huius mundi, et amor mundi, quo impellitur homo ad agendum ea quae mundi sunt; hunc autem spiritum sancti apostoli non receperunt, mundum abiicientes et contemnentes, sed receperunt spiritum sanctum, quo corda eorum illuminata sunt et inflammata ad amorem Dei, secundum illud Io. XIV, 26: Paracletus autem spiritus sanctus, quem mittet pater in nomine meo, etc., et Num. XIV, 24: servum meum Caleb, qui plenus est alio spiritu, et secutus est me, introducam in terram hanc. Spiritus autem huius mundi errare facit, secundum illud Is. XIX, 3: dirumpetur spiritus Aegypti in visceribus eius, et consilium eius praecipitabo. Ex divino autem spiritu eius consecuti sumus, ut sciamus quae a Deo data sunt nobis, ut sciamus de rebus divinis quantum unicuique Deus donavit: quia, sicut dicitur Eph. IV, 7, unicuique data est gratia secundum mensuram donationis Christi. 106. – Then when he says, But we have received, he shows how knowledge of the Holy Spirit is obtained, saying: But we, filled with the Holy Spirit, have not received the spirit of this world, but the Spirit which is from God. By the word “spirit” is understood a definite vital power, both cognitive and dynamic. Therefore, the spirit of this world can mean the wisdom of this world and the love of this world, by which a man is impelled to do the things of this world. This is not the spirit received by the holy apostles, who rejected and despised the world; rather, they receive the Holy Spirit, by Whom their hearts were enlightened and inflamed with the love of God: “The Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things” (Jn. 14:26); “But my servant Caleb, because he has a different spirit and has followed me fully, I will bring into the land into which he went.” (Num 14:24). But the spirit of this world can err as Is (19:3) attests: “The spirit of the Egyptians within them will be emptied out, and I will confound their plans.” However, we received His divine Spirit, that we might understand the gifts bestowed on us by God, i.e., that we may know to what extent God has given divine things to each of us: “Grace was given to each of us according to the measure of Christ’s gift” (Eph 4:7). Vel potest intelligi spiritum Dei donatum sanctis, ut dona spiritualia cognoscant, quae, non habentes, eumdem spiritum ignorant, secundum illud Apoc. II, 17: vincenti dabo manna absconditum, quod nemo scit, nisi qui accipit. Ex hoc autem accipi potest, quod sicut nemo novit patrem nisi filius, et cui voluerit filius revelare, ut dicitur Matth. XI, 27: ita nemo novit quae sunt Dei patris et filii, nisi spiritus sanctus et qui ipsum acceperunt: et hoc ideo, quia sicut filius consubstantialis est patri, ita spiritus sanctus patri et filio. 107. – Or gifts, which are unknown to those not possessing the same Spirit, for “to him that conquers I will give some of the hidden manna, which no one knows except him who receives it” (Rev 2:17). From this it can be gathered that just as no one knows the Father but the Son and he to whom it has pleased the Son to reveal Him, so no one knows the things of the Father and of the Son but the Holy Spirit and he who has received Him (Matt 11:27). This is so, because just as the Son is consubstantial with the Father, so the Holy Spirit with the Father and Son.
2-3
1 Cor 2:13-16Dixerat supra apostolus sapientiam loquimur inter perfectos. Postquam ergo manifestavit qualis sit haec sapientia, quia mundanis hominibus incognita, cognita autem sanctis, hic manifestat qua ratione hanc sapientiam sancti inter perfectos loquuntur. Et primo proponit quod intendit; secundo assignat rationem, ibi animalis autem homo, et cetera. 108. – Above the Apostle had said: “We speak wisdom among the perfect.” Therefore, after indicating that it is a mark of this wisdom not to be known by worldly men, but to be known by the saints, he now discloses the way in which the saints speak this wisdom among the perfect. First, he states his proposition; secondly, he gives the reason (v. 14). Circa primum, primo proponit revelatorum manifestationem, dicens: dictum est quod spiritum Dei accepimus, ut sciamus quae a Deo donata sunt nobis, quae scilicet nobis per spiritum revelata sunt, loquimur. Sunt enim eis revelata ad utilitatem. Unde et Act. II, 4: repleti sunt omnes spiritu sancto, et coeperunt loqui. Secundo tangit modum enarrandi, excludens modum inconvenientem, dicens non in doctis humanae sapientiae verbis, id est, non nitimur ad probandam nostram doctrinam per verba composita ex humana sapientia, sive quantum ad ornatum verborum, sive quantum ad subtilitatem rationum. Is. XXXIII, v. 19: populum alti sermonis non videbis. Astruit enim modum convenientem, cum dicit sed in doctrina spiritus, id est, prout spiritus sanctus nos loquentes interius docet, et auditorum corda ad capiendum illustrat. Io. XVI, 13: cum venerit ille spiritus veritatis, docebit vos omnem veritatem. Tertio determinat auditores, dicens spiritualibus spiritualia comparantes, quasi dicat: recta comparatione spiritualia documenta tradimus spiritualibus viris, quibus sunt convenientia. II Tim. II, 2: haec commenda fidelibus viris, qui idonei erunt et alios docere. Eosdem autem hic nominat spirituales, quos supra perfectos, quia per spiritum sanctum homines perficiuntur in virtute, secundum illud Ps. XXXII, 6: spiritu oris eius omnis virtus eorum. 109. – As to the first he shows that the things revealed are now manifest, saying: I have said that we have received the Spirit of God, that we may know the things given us by God; which things, namely, revealed by the Spirit, we impart, for they were to them for a purpose. Hence it says in Act (2:4) “They were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak.” Secondly, he touches on the method they employed, and excludes an unsuitable method, saying: in words not taught by human wisdom, i.e., we do not try to prove our doctrine with words drawn from human wisdom, for we depend neither on elegance of speech nor subtlety of reasoning: “The people of profound speech you shall not see” (Is 33:19). But he indicates the suitable method, when he says: but taught by the Spirit, i.e., accordingly as the Holy Spirit teaches us inwardly and enlightens the hearts of our hearers to understand: “When he shall come, the Spirit of truth, he will teach you all truth” (Jn. 16:13). Thirdly, he describes the hearers, saying: interpreting spiritual things to those who possess the Spirit. As if to say: It is a proper arrangement for us to deliver spiritual teachings to spiritual men to whom they are suited: “Commend the same to faithful men, who shall be fit to teach others also” (2 Tim 2:2). Here he calls the same men spiritual, whom above he called perfect, because men are made perfect in virtue by the Holy Spirit: “All their virtue by the spirit of his mouth” (Ps 32:6). Deinde, cum dicit animalis, etc., assignat rationem dictorum, et primo ostendit quare spiritualia non sunt tradenda animalibus hominibus; secundo quare sunt tradenda spiritualibus, ibi spiritualis, et cetera. Circa primum duo facit. Primo ponit rationem; secundo manifestat eam, ibi stultitia enim, et cetera. 110. – Then when he says, But the sensual man, he assigns the reason for the above: first, he shows why spiritual things much not be entrusted to sensual men; secondly, why they should be entrusted to spiritual men (v. 15). As to the first he does two things: first, he gives the reason; secondly, he explains it (v. 14). Ratio ergo talis est: nulli sunt tradenda documenta quae capere non potest, sed homines animales non possunt capere spiritualia documenta; ergo non sunt eis tradenda. Hoc est ergo quod dicit animalis homo, et cetera. Et ideo recta ratione non possunt tradi eis. 111. – The reasoning is this: No one should be taught what he cannot grasp. But sensual men cannot grasp spiritual things. Therefore, they should not be taught to them. This, therefore, lies behind his statement that the sensual man does not receive the gifts of the Spirit of God. Therefore, there is good reason why they cannot be entrusted to him. Ubi primo considerandum est quis homo dicatur animalis. Est ergo considerandum quod anima est forma corporis. Unde propriae animae intelliguntur illae vires quae sunt actus corporalium organorum, scilicet vires sensitivae. Dicuntur ergo homines animales qui huiusmodi vires sequuntur, inter quas est vis apprehensiva, et appetitiva, et ideo potest dici homo dupliciter animalis. Uno modo quantum ad vim apprehensivam, et hic dicitur animalis sensu, qui, sicut dicitur in Glossa, de Deo iuxta corporum phantasiam vel legis litteram, vel rationem philosophicam iudicat, quae secundum vires sensitivas accipiuntur. Alio modo dicitur quis animalis quantum ad vim appetitivam, qui scilicet afficitur solum ad ea quae sunt secundum appetitum sensitivum, et talis dicitur animalis vita, qui, sicut dicitur in Glossa, sequitur dissolutam lasciviam animae suae, quam intra naturalis ordinis metas spiritus rector non continet. Unde dicitur in canonica Iudae v. 19: hi sunt qui segregant semetipsos, animales spiritum non habentes. 112. – Here should be noted the sort of man called sensual [ animalis ]. Recall, therefore, that the soul [ anima ] is the body’s substantial form. Hence, those soul powers which are associated with bodily organs, namely, the sense-powers, are proper to the soul [anima]. Consequently, those men are called sensual who follow the lead of such powers, among which are the powers of perception and appetition. Hence, men are called sensual in two ways: first, on the basis of the perceptive power, where a man is called sensual in perception, because he judges about God in terms of bodily images or the letter of the law or philosophical reasons, all of which are interpreted in accordance with the sense-powers. Secondly, on the basis of the appetitive power, which is attracted only to things that appeal to the sense appetite. In this case a man is called sensual in his manner of life, because he follows the dissolute wantonness of his soul, which his ruling spirit does not confine within the bounds of the natural order. Hence Jude (1:19): “It is these set that set up divisions, worldly people, devoid of the Spirit.” Secundo autem videndum quare tales non possunt percipere ea quae sunt spiritus Dei: quod quidem manifestum est, et quantum ad animalem sensum, et quantum ad animalem vitam. Ea enim de quibus spiritus sanctus illustrat mentem, sunt supra sensum et rationem humanam, secundum illud Eccli. III, 25: plura supra sensum hominis ostensa sunt tibi, et ideo ab eo capi non possunt, qui soli cognitioni sensitivae innititur. Spiritus etiam sanctus accendit affectum ad diligendum spiritualia bona, sensibilibus bonis contemptis, et ideo ille qui est animalis vitae, non potest capere huiusmodi spiritualia bona, quia philosophus dicit in IV Ethic. quod qualis unusquisque est, talis finis videtur ei. Prov. XVIII, 2: non recipit stultus verba prudentiae, nisi ei dixeris quae versantur in corde eius. Eccli. XXII, 9: cum dormiente loquitur, qui narrat sapientiam stulto. 113. – Secondly, we should note why such men cannot perceive the things of the Spirit of God, whether they are sensual in perception or in their manner of life. For the things about which the Holy Spirit enlightens the mind transcend sense and human reason, as Sirach (3:23) attests: “Matters too great for human understanding have been shown you.” Consequently, they cannot be grasped by a person who relies solely on sense perception. Again, the Holy Spirit inflames the affections to love spiritual goods and despise sensible goods. Hence, a person whose manner of life is sensual cannot grasp spiritual goods of this sort, because the Philosopher says in Ethics IV that as a person is, so his end appears to him: “A food takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion” (Pr 18:2); “Do not speak in the hearing of a fool, for he will despise the wisdom of your words” (Sir 23:9). Deinde, cum dicit stultitia enim, etc., manifestat quod dixerat per signum; cum enim aliquis aliqua sapienter dicta reprobat quasi stulta, signum est quod ea non capiat. Quia igitur animalis homo ea quae sunt spiritus Dei reputat stulta, ex hoc manifestatur quod ea non capit. Et hoc est quod dicit stultitia enim est illi, scilicet animali. Iudicat enim esse stulta quae secundum spiritum Dei aguntur. Eccle. X, 3: in via stultus ambulans, cum ipse sit insipiens, omnes stultos aestimat. Quod autem homini animali quae secundum spiritum sunt videantur stulta, non procedit ex rectitudine sensus: sicut sapientes aliqua iudicant esse stulta quae stultis videntur sapientia propter defectum intellectus; quia homo sensui deditus non potest intelligere ea quae supra sensum sunt, et homo carnalibus affectus non intelligit esse bonum, nisi quod est delectabile secundum carnem. Et hoc est quod sequitur et non potest intelligere, Ps. LXXXI, 5: nescierunt neque intellexerunt, in tenebris ambulant. 114. – Then when he says, for they are folly, he supports what he had said with a sign: for when a person rejects wise statements as foolish, it is a sign that he does not understand them. Consequently, since the sensual man regards things of the Spirit of God as foolish, it is obvious that he does not understand them. This is what he says, namely, they are folly to him, i.e., to the sensual man, for he judges things inspired by the Holy Spirit to be foolish: “Even when the fool walks on the road, he lacks sense, and he esteems everyone a fool” (Ec 10:3). Now although wise men regard as foolish certain things that appear wise to a fool, because the former are sound in judgment, the sensual man’s estimation that things according to the Spirit are foolish does not proceed from sound judgment but from a lack of understanding, because a man given to sense cannot understand things that transcend sense, and a man attracted by carnal things does not realize that there are other goods besides those which please the senses. That is why he continues: and he cannot understand them: “They have neither knowledge nor understanding, they walk about in darkness” (Ps 82:5). Quare autem non possit intelligere, ostendit subdens quia spiritualiter examinatur, id est, spiritualium examinatio fit spiritualiter. Numquam enim inferior potest examinare et iudicare ea quae sunt superioris, sicut sensus non potest examinare ea quae sunt intellectus. Et similiter, neque sensus, neque ratio humana potest iudicare ea quae sunt spiritus Dei. Et ita relinquitur quod huiusmodi solo spiritu sancto examinantur, secundum illud Ps. XVII, 31: eloquia domini igne examinata, probata scilicet a spiritu sancto. Quia ergo animalis homo caret spiritu sancto, non potest spiritualia examinare, et per consequens nec ea intelligere. 115. – But why he cannot understand is shown when he says: because they are spiritually discerned, i.e., spiritual things are examined in a spiritual way. For the lower can never examine and judge things that pertain to the higher, just as the sense cannot examine things that are strictly intellectual. Similarly, neither the senses nor human reason can judge things of the Spirit of God. The consequence is that things of this sort are examined by the Holy Spirit alone: “The words of the Lord are examined by fire” (Ps 18:30), i.e., probed by the Holy Spirit. Therefore, because the sensual man lacks the Holy Spirit, he cannot examine spiritual things and, consequently, cannot understand them. Deinde, cum dicit spiritualis autem iudicat omnia, etc., assignat rationem quare spiritualibus spiritualia tradantur, et primo ponit rationem; secundo manifestat causam, ibi quis enim novit. 116. – Then when he says, But the spiritual man, he gives the reason why spiritual things are imparted to spiritual men. First, he gives the reason; secondly, he clarifies it (v. 16). Assignat autem talem rationem: illi tradenda sunt spiritualia qui potest iudicare, secundum illud Iob XII, 11: auris verba diiudicat; sed spiritualis est huiusmodi, ergo ei spiritualia sunt tradenda. Et hoc est quod dicit spiritualis autem diiudicat omnia, et ipse a nemine iudicatur. Ubi primo videndum est quis homo dicatur spiritualis. Est autem notandum quod spiritus nominare consuevimus substantias incorporeas; quia igitur aliqua pars animae est quae non est alicuius organi corporei actus, scilicet pars intellectiva comprehendens intellectum et voluntatem, huiusmodi pars animae spiritus hominis dicitur, quae tamen a spiritu Dei et illuminatur secundum intellectum, et inflammatur secundum affectum et voluntatem. Dupliciter ergo dicitur homo spiritualis. Uno modo ex parte intellectus, spiritu Dei illustrante. Et secundum hoc in Glossa dicitur quod homo spiritualis est, qui, spiritui Dei subiectus, certissime ac fideliter spiritualia cognoscit. Alio modo ex parte voluntatis, spiritu Dei inflammante: et hoc modo dicitur in Glossa quod spiritualis vita est, qua spiritum Dei habens rectorem animam regit, id est animales vires. Gal. ult.: vos qui spirituales estis, instruite huiusmodi, et cetera. 117. – The reason given is this: Spiritual things should be entrusted to one who can discern: “The ear discerns with words” (Jb 12:11); but the spiritual man is such. Therefore, spiritual things should be entrusted to him. And this is what he says: The spiritual man judges all things, and he himself is judged of no man. Here it should be noted what sort of man is called spiritual. Recall, therefore, that we usually call incorporeal substances, spirits. Consequently, because there is a definite part of the soul not associated with any bodily organ, namely, the intellectual part, which includes both intellect and will, that part of the soul is called the man’s spirit. Now in this part of the soul the Spirit of God enlightens the intellect and enkindles the affections and will. Hence, man is called spiritual in two ways: first, on the part of the intellect enlightened by the Spirit of God. In this way man is called spiritual, because, being subjected to the Spirit of God, he knows spiritual things with the greatest certitude and fidelity. Secondly, on the part of the will enkindled by the Spirit of God. In this way a life is called spiritual because, having the Spirit of God as its guide, it guides the soul, i.e., the sensual powers: “You who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness” (Gal 6:1). Secundo considerandum est quare spiritualis diiudicat omnia, et ipse a nemine iudicatur. Ubi notandum est quod in omnibus ille qui recte se habet, rectum iudicium habet circa singula. Ille autem qui in se rectitudinis defectum patitur, deficit etiam in iudicando: vigilans enim recte iudicat et se vigilare et alium dormire; sed dormiens non habet rectum iudicium de se, nec de vigilante. Unde non sunt res tales quales videntur dormienti, sed quales videntur vigilanti. Et eadem ratio est de sano et infirmo circa iudicium saporum, et de debili et forti circa iudicium ponderum, et virtuoso et vitioso circa agibilia. Unde et philosophus dicit in V Ethicorum quod virtuosus est regula et mensura omnium humanorum, quia scilicet in rebus humanis talia sunt singularia, qualia virtuosus iudicat ea esse. Et secundum hunc modum apostolus hic dicit quod spiritualis iudicat omnia, quia scilicet homo habens intellectum illustratum et affectum ordinatum per spiritum sanctum, de singulis quae pertinent ad salutem, rectum iudicium habet. Ille autem qui non est spiritualis habet etiam intellectum obscuratum et affectum inordinatum circa spiritualia bona, et ideo ab homine non spirituali, spiritualis homo iudicari non potest, sicut nec vigilans a dormiente. Quantum ergo ad primum horum dicitur Sap. III, 8 quod iudicabunt iusti nationes. Quantum ad secundum dicitur infra IV, 3: mihi pro minimo est, ut a vobis iudicer, aut ab humano die. 118. – Secondly, we should note why a spiritual man judges all things and is himself not judged by any man. The explanation is this: in all matters a person who is sound has a sound judgment regarding individual cases; whereas a person who is unsound in any way fails in his judgements. Thus, a person who is awake makes the sound judgment that he is awake and that someone else is sleeping, but one who is sleeping has no sound judgment about himself or a person who is awake. Hence things are not as they appear to be to a person asleep, but as they appear to be to a person awake. The same holds for a healthy man’s judgment of savors and that of a sick man; or a strong man’s judgment of the weight of an object and that of a weak man’s, and for a virtuous man’s judgment of morals and that of a vicious man. Hence the Philosopher says in Ethics V that the virtuous man is the rule and standard of all human acts, because in all human affairs particular acts are such as a virtuous man judges them to be. It is in this vein that the Apostle says here that the spiritual man judges all things, namely, because a man with an intellect enlightened by the Holy Spirit and set in good order by Him has a sound judgment about the particulars which pertain to salvation. But a person who is not spiritual has his intellect darkened and his will disarranged, as far as spiritual goods are concerned. Consequently, the spiritual man cannot be judged by a man who is not spiritual any more than a man who is awake by one who is asleep. Therefore, Wis (3:8) speaking about the first group says that “the just shall judge all nations,” and below (4:3) the Apostle, speaking about the second group says: “With me it is a very small thing that I should be judged by you or by any human court.” Deinde cum dicit quis enim novit, etc., manifestat rationem inductam. Et primo inducit auctoritatem; secundo adaptat ad propositum, ibi nos autem, et cetera. 119. – Then when he says, For who has known, he supports the reason he gave: first, he adduces an authority; secondly, he applies it to his proposition (v.16). Est autem considerandum quod ad hoc quod aliquis possit de aliquo homine iudicare, duo requiruntur. Primo ut iudicans cognoscat ea quae sunt iudicati, quia, ut dicitur I Ethic.: unusquisque bene iudicat quae cognoscit, et horum est optimus iudex. Ex quo patet quod sensum, id est sapientiam Dei omnia iudicantem, nullus possit diiudicare. Ideo dicit quis enim novit sensum domini? Quasi dicat: nullus: quia sapientia Dei excedit omnem cupiditatem hominis. Eccli. I, 3: sapientiam Dei praecedentem omnia quis investigavit? Sap. IX, 17: sensum autem tuum quis scire poterit, nisi tu dederis sapientiam? Secundo requiritur quod iudicans sit superior iudicato. Unde dominus habet iudicium de servo, magister de discipulo. Ex quo etiam patet quod nullus potest sensum Dei iudicare. Propter quod sequitur aut quis instruxit eum? Quasi dicat: nullus. Non enim habet scientiam ab aliquo acceptam, sed potius fontem omnis scientiae. Iob XXVI, 3: cui dedisti consilium? Forsitan ei qui non habet sapientiam? Videntur autem verba haec assumpta ex eo quod dicitur Is. XL, 13: quis adiuvit spiritum domini, aut quis consiliarius eius fuit et ostendit illi? Cum quo iniit consilium et instruxit eum? 120. – Here it should be noted that if a person is to judge another, two things are required: first, that the judge know the things which pertain to the one being judged, because it says in Ethics I, that each one judges well the things he knows and of such things he is the best judge. From this it follows that no one can judge the mind, i.e., the wisdom of God which judges all things; hence he says: For who has known the mind of the Lord? As if to say: no one, because God’s wisdom transcends all human ability: “Who has learned thy counsel, unless thou hast given wisdom?” (Wis 9:17). Secondly, it is clear that no one can judge the mind of God; hence he continues: so as to instruct him? As if to say: No one. For God’s knowledge is not obtained from just anyone, but He is the source of all knowledge: “How you have counseled him who has no wisdom” (Jb 26:3). It seems that these words of the Apostle were taken from Is (40:13): “Who has helped the Spirit of the Lord? Or who has been his counselor and taught him? With whom has he consulted and who has instructed him?” Deinde adaptat quod dixerat ad propositum, dicens nos autem, scilicet spirituales viri, sensum Christi habemus, idest, recipimus in nobis sapientiam Christi ad iudicandum. Eccli. XVII, 6: creavit illis scientiam spiritus, sensu adimplevit corda illorum. Lc. ult. dicitur quod aperuit illis sensum, ut intelligerent Scripturas, et ita, quia sensus Christi diiudicari non potest, conveniens est quod spiritualis, qui sensum Christi habet, a nemine iudicetur. 121. – Then he applies this to his proposition, saying: But we, i.e., spiritual men, have the mind of Christ, i.e., receive within ourselves the wisdom of Christ to enable us to judge: “He created in them the science of the spirit: he filled their heart with wisdom” (Sir 17:6); “He opened their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures” (Lk 24:25). Consequently, because the mind of Christ cannot be judged, it is fitting that the spiritual man, who has the mind of Christ, be judged of no man.
3-1
1 Cor 3:1-8aSupra apostolus ostenderat contentionem et divisionem Corinthiorum, qui propter ministros Christi, a quibus baptizati et docti erant, ad invicem disceptabant; hic incipit eorum iudicium quod habebant de ministris improbare, ex quo iudicio contentiones in eis procedebant. Et circa hoc duo facit. Primo improbat eorum iudicium quantum ad hoc quod quibusdam ministrorum, de quibus gloriabantur, plus attribuebant quam deberent; secundo, quantum ad hoc quod alios Christi ministros contemnebant, IV cap., ibi sic nos existimet homo. Circa primum duo facit. Primo ostendit detrimentum quod patiebantur propter contentiones ex perverso iudicio provenientes; secundo improbat eorum perversum iudicium, ibi quid igitur est Apollo? Circa primum duo facit. Primo ponit detrimentum quod hactenus passi erant propter eorum defectum; secundo ostendit quod adhuc idem patiuntur, ibi sed nec nunc quidem. 122. – Above the Apostle disclosed the strife and division among the Corinthians, who disputed among themselves about the particular ministers of Christ who had baptized and instructed them. Here he begins to attack their judgment of these ministers as the root of their strife. In regard to this he does two things: first, he attacks their judgment, insofar as they attributed more than they should to those ministers in whom they boast; secondly, insofar as they looked down on the other ministers of Christ (c. 4). In regard to the first he does two things: first, he shows the loss they suffered from the strifes arising from the perverse judgement; secondly, he attacks their perverse judgment (v.4). As to the first he does two things: first, he mentions the loss they have suffered till now on account of this fault; secondly, he shows that they are still suffering from it (v. 2). Circa primum tria facit. Primo ponit detrimentum quod hactenus passi erant propter eorum defectum. Dixerat enim supra quod apostoli quidem spiritualia documenta spiritualibus tradebant, quae animales homines percipere non poterant: quod eis adaptat, dicens et ego, fratres, qui scilicet inter alios apostolos spiritualibus spiritualia loquor, non potui, scilicet convenienter, vobis loqui quasi spiritualibus, ut scilicet traderem vobis spiritualia documenta, sed quasi carnalibus, scilicet locutus sum vobis. Eosdem enim carnales dicit quos supra animales, quibus oportet tradi ea quae sunt infirmitati eorum accommoda. Is. XXVIII, 9: quem docebit scientiam, et quem intelligere faciet auditum? Ablactatos a lacte, avulsos ab uberibus, id est, carnali conversatione et sensu. 123. – In regard to the first he does three things: first, he mentions the loss they have suffered till now from this fault. For above he had said that the apostles delivered spiritual things to spiritual men, teachings which sensual men were not able to apprehend. Now he applies this to them saying: But I, brethren, who along with all the other apostles speak spiritual things to spiritual men, could not fittingly address you as spiritual men, i.e., deliver spiritual teachings to you, but as to men of the flesh I have spoken to you. Here he calls the carnal the same ones he first called sensual, to whom must be delivered things suited to their weakness: “Whom will he teach knowledge, and to whom will he explain the message? Those who are weaned from the milk, `those taken from the breast” (Is 28:9), i.e., from a carnal understanding and way of life. Secundo adhibet similitudinem, dicens tamquam parvulis in Christo, id est, parum adhuc introductis in perfectam doctrinam fidei, quae spiritualibus debetur. Hebr. c. V, 13: omnis qui lactis est particeps, expers est sermonis iustitiae; parvulus enim est: perfectorum autem est solidus cibus. 124. – Secondly, he employs a simile, saying: as babes in Christ, i.e., barely introduced to the perfect teachings of the faith which is given to spiritual men: “Everyone who lives on milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, for he is a child, but the perfect live on solid food” (Heb 5:13). Tertio rationem assignat, ne credatur ex invidia eis spiritualem doctrinam subtraxisse, contra quod dicitur Sap. VII, 13: quam sine fictione didici, et sine invidia communico. Unde subditur nondum enim poteratis, quasi dicat: non subtraxi vobis escam propter meam invidiam, sed propter vestram impotentiam, quia verba spiritualia nondum bene poteratis capere, secundum illud Io. XVI, v. 12: adhuc multa habeo vobis dicere, sed non potestis portare modo. 125. – Thirdly, he gives the reason, lest they suppose that he withholds spiritual teaching from them through envy, which would be opposed to Wis (7:13): “Which I learned without guile and impart without envy.” That is why he adds: for you were not ready for it. As if to say: It was not through envy that I kept spiritual things from you, but on account of your incapacity, because you were not ready to grasp spiritual words: “I have yet many things to say to you; but you cannot bear them now” (Jn. 16:12). Deinde, cum dicit sed nec nunc quidem potestis, ostendit quod adhuc idem detrimentum patiuntur. Et primo quidem ponit impotentiam cui adhuc subiacebant, dicens sed nec nunc quidem potestis, quasi dicat: quod a principio perfectam doctrinam capere non poteratis, non mirum fuit, quia hoc nescire vestrae novitati competebat, secundum illud I Petr. c. II, 2: sicut modo geniti infantes lac concupiscite. Sed hoc videtur esse culpabile, quod post tantum tempus in quo proficere debuistis, eamdem impotentiam retinetis, secundum illud Hebr. V, 12: cum deberetis magistri esse propter tempus, rursus indigetis doceri, quae sunt elementa sermonum Dei. 126. – Then when he says, and even yet, he shows that even now they are suffering the same loss. First, he shows the incapacity under which they are still laboring when he says: But even yet you are not ready. As if to say: It was not strange that in the beginning you were unable to grasp a fuller teaching, because this was expected of your newness: “As newborn babes, desire the rational milk without guile” (1 Pt 2:2). But it seems sinful that in spite of the time during which you could have made progress, you still show the same incapacity: “For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need some one to each you again the first principles of God’s word” (Heb 5:12). Secundo assignat praedictae impotentiae rationem, dicens adhuc enim carnales estis, scilicet vita et sensu. Et ideo ea quae sunt spiritus capere non potestis, sed sapitis ea quae sunt carnis, secundum illud Rom. VIII, 5: qui secundum carnem sunt, quae carnis sunt sapiunt. 127. – Secondly, he gives the reason why they are still unable, saying: For you are still of the flesh in life and mind. That is the reason why you cannot grasp the things of the Spirit, but have a taste for the things of the flesh: “They that are of the flesh mind the things of the flesh” (Rom 8:5). Tertio ponit rationem probationis inductae, dicens cum enim inter vos sit zelus et contentio, nonne carnales estis, et secundum hominem ambulatis? Ubi considerandum est quod recte coniungit zelum et contentionem, quia zelus, id est invidia, est contentionis materia. Invidus enim tristatur de bono alterius, quod ille nititur promovere, et ex hoc sequitur contentio. Unde Iac. III, 16: ubi zelus et contentio, ibi inconstantia et omne opus pravum. Et similiter e converso charitas, per quam quis diligit bonum alterius, est materia pacis. 128. – Thirdly, he gives the reason behind the proof, saying: For while there is among you jealousy and strife, are you not of the flesh and behave like ordinary men? Here it should be noted that he was right in joining jealousy with strife, because jealousy is the food of contention, for a jealous person is grieved at another’s good, which the latter tries to improve and from this arises strife. Hence Jas (3:16) says: “Where jealousy and selfish ambition exist, there will be disorder and every vile practice.” On the other hand, charity through which a person loves another’s good is the source of peace. Secundo considerandum est quod zelus et contentio non habent locum nisi in carnalibus hominibus, quia ipsi circa bona corporalia afficiuntur, quae simul a pluribus integre possideri non possunt. Et ideo, propter hoc quod aliquis aliquod bonum corporale possidet, alius impeditur a plena possessione illius, et ex hoc sequitur invidia, et per consequens contentio. Sed spiritualia bona, quibus spirituales afficiuntur, simul a pluribus possideri possunt, et ideo bonum unius non est alterius impedimentum, et propter hoc in talibus nec invidia, nec contentio locum habet. Unde Sap. VII, 13: sine invidia communico. 129. – Secondly, it should be noted that jealousy and strife occur only among carnal persons because, being attracted to material goods which cannot each be possessed by many persons at the same time, whenever one person owns a material good, another person is prevented from fully possessing it. From this follows jealousy and later strife. But spiritual goods, by which spiritual persons are attracted can be possessed by several persons at the same time; consequently, one’s good is not another’s loss. For this reason neither jealousy nor strife finds a place among them: “Which I impart without envy” (Wis 7:13). Tertio considerandum est quare homines carnales dicit secundum hominem ambulare, cum tamen homo ex spiritu et carne componatur, quia naturae humanae consonum est, ut spiritus cognitionem a sensibus carnis accipiat. Unde consequenter affectus rationis humanae secundum ea quae sunt carnis movetur, nisi spiritus hominis per spiritum Dei supra hominem elevetur. Unde dicitur Eccli. XXXIV, 6: sicut parturientis, cor tuum phantasias patitur, nisi ab altissimo fuerit emissa visitatio. Est ergo sensus secundum hominem, id est, secundum naturam humanam sibi a Dei spiritu derelictam, sicut et in Ps. IV, 3 dicitur: filii hominum, usquequo gravi corde, ut quid diligitis vanitatem et quaeritis mendacium? 130. – Thirdly, it should be noted that carnal men are said to walk according to the flesh, even though man is composed of spirit and flesh. For it is consonant with human nature to obtain knowledge of the spirit from the senses of the flesh; consequently, the affections of human reason are moved by the things of the flesh, unless man’s spirit is raised above man by the Spirit of God, for “the heart fancies as a woman in travail, unless it be a vision sent forth by the most High” (Sir 34:6). Therefore, the sense is this: like ordinary men, i.e., according to human nature left to itself by the Spirit of God, as Ps 4 (v.3): “O men, how long shall my honor suffer shame? How long will you love vain words and seek after lies?” Quarto manifestat probationem inductam, dicens cum enim quis, id est, aliquis vestrum, dicat: ego quidem sum Pauli, quia a Paulo baptizatus et doctus, alius autem: ego Apollo (genitivi casus), per quod denotatur in vobis esse zelus et contentio, nonne homines estis, scilicet carnales et non spirituales, utpote zelum et contentionem habentes pro rebus humanis? Qualis enim homo est, talibus rebus afficitur et per affectum inhaeret, secundum illud Osee IX, 10: facti sunt abominabiles, sicut ea quae dilexerunt. 131. – Fourthly, he clarifies the proof, saying: For when one of you says, I belong to Paul, because I have been baptized and instructed by Paul, and another, I belong to Apollos, which shows that there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not merely men, i.e., carnal and not spiritual, indulging in jealousy and strife for human things? For as a man is, so is he affected by corresponding things and desires them: “They became detestable as the thing they loved” (Hos 9:10). Deinde, cum dicit quid igitur est Apollo? Improbat eorum iudicium, quantum ad hoc quod plus ministris attribuebant quam deberent. Et primo ostendit veritatem; secundo excludit errorem, ibi nemo vos seducat; tertio infert conclusionem intentam, ibi itaque nemo glorietur in hominibus. Circa primum duo facit. Primo ostendit conditionem ministrorum; secundo agit de eorum mercede, ibi unusquisque propriam mercedem. Circa primum tria facit. Primo ponit ministrorum conditionem; secundo ponit similitudinem, ibi ego plantavi, Apollo rigavit; tertio ostendit intentum, ibi itaque neque qui plantat. 132. – Then when he says, What then is Apollos? he spurns their judgment, insofar as they attributed more to their ministers than they deserved. First, he discloses the truth; secondly, he excluded their error (v. 18). In regard to the first he does two things: first, he describes the status of their ministers; secondly, he speaks about their reward (v.8). As to the first he does three things: first, he describes the status of the ministers; secondly, he proposes a simile (v. 6); thirdly, he explains his intent (v. 7). Circa conditionem autem ministrorum duo tangit. Primo quod non sunt domini, sed ministri, dicens: vos de Paulo et Apollo gloriamini, igitur quaero a vobis: quid est Apollo, et quid Paulus? Id est, cuius dignitatis vel potestatis, ut digne de eis gloriari possitis? Et respondet: ministri eius, scilicet Dei sunt. Quasi dicat: quod agunt in Baptismo et in doctrina, non principaliter agunt sicut domini, sed sicut ministri eius, secundum illud Is. LXI, 6: ministri Dei, dicetur vobis. Posset autem alicui videri magnum esse, ministrum Dei esse, et gloriandum esse in hominibus de ministeriis Dei. Et vere esset, si sine hominibus non pateret accessus ad Deum, sicut illi qui solent gloriari de ministris regis, sine quibus non patet aditus ad regem. Sed hoc hic locum non habet, quia fideles Christi per fidem habent accessum ad Deum, secundum illud Rom. V, 2: per quem accessum habemus ad Deum per fidem et gratiam istam, in qua stamus, et gloriamur in spe gloriae filiorum Dei. Ideo signanter addit cui credidistis, quasi dicat: per fidem iam estis coniuncti Deo, non hominibus. Unde supra II, 5 dictum est: ut fides vestra non sit in sapientia hominum, sed in virtute Dei. Et ideo primo de Deo est vobis gaudendum, quam de hominibus. 133. – Touching on the status of the ministers, he mentions two things: first, that they are not masters, but ministers, saying: You boast of Paul and Apollos. So I ask you: What then is Apollos and what is Paul?, i.e., what is their dignity and power, if you are to be reasonable in boasting of them? And he answers: they are servants of God. As if to say: what they do when baptizing and instructing, they do not do as masters but as God’s ministers: “Men shall speak of you as the ministers of our God” (Is 61:6). But someone might consider it great to be a minister of God and suppose that one should boast of men who are ministers of God. This would be true, if God could not be approached without men, as happens when men glory in the king’s ministers, without whom the king cannot be approached. But this is not applicable here, because Christ’s faithful have access to God by faith, as it says in Rom (5:2): “Through him we have obtained access to this grace in which we stand, and we rejoice in our hope of sharing the glory of God.” Therefore, he is careful to say: through whom you believed. As if to say: by faith you have now been joined to God and not to men. That is why he said above (2:5): “That your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God.” Therefore you should take joy first in God and not in men. Contingit autem quod ministri hominum, vel dominorum, vel artificum primo habeant a seipsis aliquam dignitatem, vel virtutem, ex qua idonei ad ministerium fiunt, sed hoc non est de ministris Dei. Et ideo, secundo, ostendit quod tota dignitas et virtus ministrorum est a Deo, dicens et unicuique sicut Deus divisit, quasi dicat: in tantum aliquis, et unusquisque nostrum habet de virtute ministrandi, inquantum ei Deus dedit, unde nec sic nobis est gloriandum. II Cor. c. III, 5 s.: sufficientia nostra a Deo, qui idoneos nos fecit ministros novi testamenti. 134. – But it sometimes happens that ministers of men have some dignity or skill that makes them fit to be ministers. This is not true of God’s ministers. Therefore, he shows that the worthiness and power of God’s ministers is entirely from God, saying: as the Lord assigned to each. As if to say: Each one of us has as much power in ministering as the Lord has granted to him; consequently, there is no reason for boasting in us for ourselves: “Our sufficiency is from God, who has qualified us to be ministers of a new covenant” (2 Cor 3:5). Deinde, cum dicit ego plantavi, ponit similitudinem ministrorum ex similitudine agricolarum, ubi duplex differentia operationum intelligitur. Una, operationis unius ministri ad operationem alterius. Et quantum ad hoc dicit ego plantavi, id est, in praedicatione ad modum plantantis me habui, quia scilicet primo vobis praedicavi fidem, Is. LI, v. 16: posui verba mea in ore tuo, ut plantes caelos; Apollo rigavit, id est, ad modum rigantis se habuit, qui aquam plantis exhibet ad hoc ut nutriantur et crescant. Et similiter legitur Act. XVIII, 1 s. quod, cum Paulus multos Corinthiorum convertisset, supervenit Apollo, qui multum contulit his qui crediderunt, publice ostendens per Scripturam esse Iesum Christum. Eccli. c. XXIV, 42 dicitur: rigabo hortum meum plantationum. 135. – Then when he says, I planted, he stresses a similarity between ministers and husbandmen, where two differences in their activities should be noted: one is the difference between the activity of one minister and that of another. In regard to this he says: I planted, i.e., in preaching to you I was like a planter, because I was the first one to preach the faith to you: “I have put my words in your mouth, that you might plant the heavens” (Is 51:16); Apollos watered, i.e., he acted as a person who waters plants to nourish them and make them grow. In the same way we read in Ac (19:1) that after Paul had converted many Corinthians, Apollos came on the scene and contributed many things to the believers, showing publicly by the Scriptures that Jesus is Christ, and fulfilling what is said in Sirach (24:31): “I will water my orchard.” Secunda differentia est operationis ministrorum, qui exterius operantur plantando et rigando, ad operationem Dei, qui interius operatur. Unde subdit sed Deus incrementum dedit, interius scilicet operando. II Cor. IX, 10: augebit incrementa frugum iustitiae vestrae. Sic etiam in rebus corporalibus plantantes et rigantes exterius operantur, sed Deus operatur interius per operationem naturae ad incrementa plantarum. 136. – The second difference is found in the work of ministers, who by planting and watering cooperate outwardly with the work of God Who works inwardly, hence he adds, but the God gave the increase: “He will increase the harvest of your righteousness” (2 Cor 9:10). So, too, in material things, planters and waterers work from without, but God works from within by the activity of nature to make plants grow. Deinde cum dicit itaque neque qui plantat, neque qui rigat, etc., infert ex praemissis duas conclusiones, quarum prima infertur secundum comparationem ministrorum ad Deum, dicens: ex quo Paulus plantavit, et Apollo rigavit, non sunt nisi ministri Dei, et non habent aliquid nisi a Deo, et non operantur nisi exterius, Deo interius operante. Itaque neque qui plantat est aliquid, scilicet principaliter et magnum de quo sit gloriandum, neque qui rigat, sed qui incrementum dat, Deus. Ipse enim per se est aliquid principale et magnum, de quo est gloriandum. Actio enim non attribuitur instrumento, cui comparatur minister, sed principali agenti. Unde Is. XL, v. 17 dicitur: omnes gentes quasi non sint, sic sunt coram eo. 137. – Then when he says, so neither he that plants, he draws two conclusions from these premises. The first of these is based on the minister’s dependence on God: inasmuch as Paul planted and Apollos watered, they were but ministers of God, having nothing but what they received from God; and they worked only from without, God working within. So neither he that plants, nor he that waters is important and great; but God that gives the growth. For God is independent and great by Himself: for an action is not attributed to the instrument, which a minister is, but to the principal cause. Hence Is (40:17): “All nations are as nothing before him.” Secundam conclusionem infert pertinentem ad comparationem ministrorum ad invicem, dicens qui plantat autem, et qui rigat, cum sint ministri Dei, et nihil nisi a Deo habentes, et solum exterius operantes, unum sunt, ex conditione naturae et ministerii ratione: quare scilicet non potest unus alteri praeferri, nisi secundum donum Dei, et ita quantum in seipsis est, unum sunt. Et quia, consequenter, in intentione ministrandi Deo unum sunt per concordiam voluntatis, ideo stultum est de his qui unum sunt, dissentire. Ps. CXXXII, 1: ecce quam bonum et quam iucundum habitare fratres in unum. Rom. XII, 5: multi unum corpus sumus in Christo. 138. – The second conclusion is based on a comparison between the various ministers: He that plants and he that waters, since both are God’s ministers, having nothing but what they receive from God and working only from without, are equal. Since the only ground for preferring one over another is some divine gift he has received, they are equal, so far as what they have of themselves is concerned. Furthermore, since their intention is to be God’s ministers, they are one in the harmony of their wills; consequently, it is foolish to have dissensions about persons who are one: “Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell in unity” (Ps 111:1); “We, though many, are one body in Christ” (Rom 12:5).
3-2
1 Cor 3:8b-15Supra apostolus ostendit qualis sit conditio ministrorum, hic agit de remuneratione eorum. Et primo ponit de mercede bonorum ministrorum; secundo agit de punitione malorum, ibi nescitis quia templum Dei estis, et cetera. Circa primum tria facit. Primo promittit ministris mercedem propriam; secundo assignat rationem, ibi Dei enim sumus; tertio agit de diversitate mercedis, ibi secundum gratiam Dei. 139. – After describing the status of God’s ministers, the Apostle now discusses their reward. First, he discusses the reward of good ministers; secondly, the punishment of evil ones (v. 16). In regard to the first he does three things: first, he mentions the reward reserved for ministers; secondly, he assigns the reason (v. 9); thirdly, the variety of rewards (v. 10). Dicit ergo primo: dictum est, quod neque qui plantat est aliquid, neque qui rigat, non tamen inutiliter plantat vel rigat, sed unusquisque suam propriam mercedem accipiet, secundum suum laborem. Quamvis enim qui incrementum dat, sit Deus, et ipse solus interius operetur, exterius tamen laborantibus mercedem tribuit, secundum illud Ier. XXXI, 16: quiescat vox tua a ploratu, et oculi tui a lacrymis; quia merces est operi tuo. Quae quidem merces est ipse Deus, secundum illud Gen. XV, 1: ego protector tuus sum, et merces tua multa nimis. Pro qua mercede laborantes mercenarii laudantur, secundum illud Lc. XV, 17: quanti mercenarii in domo patris mei abundant panibus? Alioquin si pro alia mercede in opere Dei aliquis laboret, laudandus non est, secundum illud Io. X, 12: mercenarius autem, cuius non sunt oves propriae, videt lupum venientem, et fugit. 140. – He says, therefore: I have said that neither he that plants is anything nor he that waters; nevertheless, he does not plant or water in vain, but each man will receive his wages, according to his own labor. For although God alone gives the increase and he alone works from within, He gives a reward to those that labor outwardly: “Let your voice cease from weeping, and your eyes from tears: for there is a reward for your work” (Jer 31:16); this reward is God Himself: I am your protector and your reward exceeding great” (Gen 15:1). It is for this reward that the laborers are praised: “How many hired servants in my father’s house abound with bread!” (Lk 15:17). On the other hand, if he works for any other reward, he is not worthy of praise: “But the hireling, whose own the sheep are not, sees the wolf coming and leaves the sheep” (Jn. 10:12). Haec autem merces et communis est omnibus, et propria singulorum: communis quidem, quia idem est quod omnes videbunt, et quo omnes fruentur, scilicet Deus, secundum illud Iob XXII, 26: super omnipotentem deliciis afflues, et levabis ad Deum faciem tuam; Is. XXVIII, 5: in illa die erit dominus exercituum corona gloriae et sertum exultationis populo suo. Et ideo Matth. c. XX, 9 s. omnibus laborantibus in vinea datur unus denarius. Propria vero merces erit singulorum: quia unus alio clarius videbit, et plenius fruetur secundum determinatam sibi mensuram. Unde et Dan. XII, 3 illi qui docti sunt, comparantur splendori firmamenti, qui ad iustitiam erudiunt plurimos quasi stellae. Hinc est quod Io. XIV, 2 dicitur: in domo patris mei mansiones multae sunt, propter quod etiam hic dicitur unusquisque propriam mercedem accipiet. 141. – But this reward is both common to all and peculiar to each: It is common, because what they all see and enjoy is the same God: “Then shall you abound in delights in Almighty, and you shall lift up your face to God” (Jb 22:26); “In that day the Lord of hosts shall be a crown of glory, and a garland of joy to the residue of his people” (Is 28:5). This is why in Matt (c. 20) all the laborers in the vineyard receive one penny. But the reward will be peculiar to each, because one sees more clearly and enjoys more fully than another according to the measure established for all eternity.” This is why it says in Jn (14:2): “In my Father’s house are many mansions.” For the same reason he says here: each shall receive his wages. Ostendit autem secundum quid attendatur mensura propriae mercedis, cum subdit secundum suum laborem. Unde et in Ps. CXXVII, 2 dicitur: labores manuum tuarum, quia manducabis, beatus es et bene tibi erit. Non tamen propter hoc designatur aequalitas secundum quantitatem laboris ad mercedem, quia, ut dicitur II Cor. IV, 17: quod in praesenti est momentaneum et leve tribulationis nostrae, supra modum in sublimitate aeternum gloriae pondus operabitur in nobis. Sed aequalitatem designat proportionis, ut scilicet ubi est potior labor, ibi sit potior merces. 142. – But he indicates the basis for the various rewards when he adds: according to his own labor: “You shall eat the labors of you hands; blessed are you and it shall be well with you” (Ps 128:2). But this does not mean an equal amount of reward for a corresponding amount of labor, because as it says in 2 Cor (4:17): “For that which is at present momentary and light of our tribulations, works for us above measure exceedingly an eternal weight of glory”; rather, it means a proportional equality, so that where the labor is greater the reward is greater. Potest autem intelligi labor esse potior tripliciter. Primo quidem secundum formam charitatis, cui respondet merces essentialis praemii, scilicet fruitionis et visionis divinae. Unde dicitur Io. XIV, 21: qui diligit me, diligetur a patre meo, et ego diligam eum, et manifestabo ei meipsum. Unde qui ex maiori charitate laborat, licet minorem laborem patiatur, plus de praemio essentiali accipiet. Secundo ex specie operis; sicut enim in rebus humanis ille magis praemiatur qui in digniori opere laborat, sicut architector quam artifex manualis, licet minus laboret corporaliter: ita etiam in rebus divinis ille qui in nobiliori opere occupatur, maius praemium accipiet quantum ad aliquam praerogativam praemii accidentalis, licet forte minus corporaliter laboret. Unde aureola datur doctoribus, virginibus et martyribus. Tertio ex quantitate laboris, quod quidem contingit dupliciter. Nam quandoque maior labor maiorem mercedem meretur, praecipue quantum ad remissionem poenae, puta quod diutius ieiunat vel longius peregrinatur, et etiam quantum ad gaudium quod percipiet de maiori labore. Unde Sap. X, 17 dicitur: reddidit, Deus scilicet, iustis mercedem laborum suorum. Quandoque vero est maior labor ex defectu voluntatis. In his enim quae propria voluntate facimus, minorem laborem sentimus. Et talis magnitudo laboris non augebit, sed minuet mercedem. Unde dicitur Is. XL, 31: assument pennas ut aquilae, current et non laborabunt, volabunt et non deficient; et ibi praemittitur: deficient pueri et laborabunt. 143. – Now there are three ways in which the labor can be considered greater: first, by reason of charity, to which the essential aspect of the reward corresponds, i.e., the enjoyment and sight of God; hence it says in Jn (14:21): “He that loves me will be loved of my Father; and I will love him and will manifest myself to him.” Consequently, one who labors with greater love, even though he endures less difficulties, will receive more of the essential reward. Secondly, by reason of the type of work: for just as in human enterprises a person gets a higher wage for a higher type of work, as the architect gets more than the manual laborer, although he does less bodily work, so too in divine matters; a person occupied in a nobler work will receive a greater reward consisting in some special prerogative of the accidental reward, even though he might perhaps have done less bodily labor; hence a special crown is given to teachers, to virgins and to martyrs. Thirdly, by reason of the amount of labor, which happens in two ways: for sometimes a greater labor deserves a greater reward, especially in regard to lightening punishment; as when a person fasts longer or undertakes a longer pilgrimage: and even in regard to the joy he will experience for the greater labor: “He renders to the just the wages of their labors” (Wis 10:17). But sometimes there is greater labor because of a lack of will; for in things we do of our own will, we experience less labor. In this case the amount of labor will not increase but lessen the reward; hence Is (40:31) says: “They shall take wings as eagles: they shall run and not be weary; they shall walk and not faint”; but prior to this he said (1:30): “Youths shall faint and labor.” Deinde, cum dicit Dei enim sumus, assignat rationem eius quod dixerat. Et primo ponit rationem; secundo adhibet similitudinem, ibi Dei agricultura estis. 144. – Then when he says, You are God’s, he assigns the reason for what he had said: first, he gives the reason; secondly, he applies a simile (v. 9). Dicit ergo primo: recte quilibet nostrum mercedem accipiet, Dei enim sumus adiutores, scilicet secundum nostros labores. Contra quod videtur esse quod dicitur Iob c. XXVI, 2: cuius adiutor es, numquid imbecillis? Et Is. XL, 13: quis adiuvit spiritum domini? Dicendum est autem, quod dupliciter aliquis alium adiuvat. Uno modo augendo eius virtutem, et sic nullus potest esse Dei adiutor. Unde et post praemissa verba Iob subditur: et sustentas brachium eius qui non est fortis. Alio modo obsequendo operationi alterius, sicut si minister dicatur domini adiutor, in quantum exequitur opus eius aut ministerium artificis, et hoc modo ministri Dei sunt eius adiutores, secundum illud II Cor. VI, 1: adiuvantes autem exhortamur. Sicut ergo ministri hominum exequentes eorum opera, mercedem ab eis accipiunt secundum suum laborem, ita et minister Dei. 145. – He says, therefore: It is only right that each of us shall receive a reward, for we are fellow workers for God, namely, by their labors. But his seems to be contradicted by Jb (26:2): “Whose helper are you? Is it of him that is weak?” And by Ps 40 (v. 3): “Who has helped the Spirit of the Lord?” The answer is that one helps another in two ways: in one way by increasing his strength. In this way no one can be God’s helper; hence after the above Job continues, “and do you hold up the arm of him that has no strength?” The other way is by serving in another’s work, as when a minister is called a master’s helper or an artisan’s helper, inasmuch as he does some work for him. In this way God’s ministers are His coadjutors, as 2 Cor (6:1) says: “And we helping do exhort you.” Therefore, just as men’s ministers receive a reward from them according to their labor, so, too, God’ minister. Secundo adhibet similitudinem simplicis operis, scilicet agriculturae et aedificationis. Populus quidem fidelis ager est a Deo cultus, in quantum per operationem divinam fructum boni operis Deo acceptum producit, secundum illud Rom. VII, 4: sitis alterius qui ex mortuis resurrexit, ut fructificetis Deo, et Io. XV, 1 dicitur: pater meus agricola est. Et hoc est quod primo dicitur Dei agricultura estis, id est, quasi ager a Deo cultus, et fructum ferens eius opere, et populus fidelis est quasi domus a Deo aedificata, inquantum scilicet Deus in eis habitat, secundum illud Eph. II, 22: et vos coaedificamini in habitaculum Dei. Et ideo secundo dicitur Dei aedificatio estis, id est aedificium a Deo constructum, secundum illud Ps. CXXVI, 1: nisi dominus aedificaverit domum, et cetera. Sic igitur ministri Dei sunt adiutores, inquantum laborant in agricultura et aedificatione fidelis populi. 146. – Secondly, he makes use of a simile referring to simple works, namely, agriculture and building. For the faithful are a field cultivated by God, inasmuch as through God’s action they produce the fruit of good works acceptable to God: “That you may belong to another, who is risen again from the dead, that we may bring forth fruit to God” (Rom 7:4); and in Jn (15:1) it says: “My Father is the husbandman.” And this is what he says first: You are God’s field, i.e., like a field cultivated by God and bearing His fruit. The faithful are also like a house built by God, inasmuch as God lives in them: “You also are built together into a habitation of God in the Spirit” (Eph 2:22). Therefore, he continues: you are God’s building, i.e., an edifice constructed by God: “Unless the Lord build the house, they labor in vain who build it” (Ps 127:1). In these, ways, then, God’s ministers are coadjutors, inasmuch as they labor in cultivating and guiding the faithful. Deinde, cum dicit secundum gratiam Dei, etc., agit de diversitate mercedis, et quia merces distinguitur secundum distinctionem laboris, ut dictum est, ideo primo agit de diversitate laboris; secundo de diversitate mercedis, ibi si quis superaedificat. Circa primum duo facit. Primo ponit distinctionem laborum; secundo subiungit admonitionem, ibi unusquisque autem videat, et cetera. 147. – Then when he says, according to the commission of God, he discusses the varieties of reward; and because rewards are distinguished according to the varieties of labor. First he deals with the varieties of labor; secondly with the diverse reward (v. 12). In regard to the first he does two things: First, he distinguishes the varieties of labor; secondly, he sounds a warning (v. 10). Circa primum duo facit. Primo, relicta similitudine agriculturae quam supra prosecutus fuerat, sub similitudine aedificationis suum proprium laborem describit, dicens secundum gratiam Dei quae data est mihi, ut sapiens architectus fundamentum posui. Ubi considerandum est quod architectus dicitur principalis artifex, et maxime aedificii, ad quem pertinet comprehendere summam dispositionem totius operis, quae perficitur per operationem manualium artificum. Et ideo dicitur sapiens in aedificio, quia simpliciter sapiens est qui summam causam cognoscit, scilicet Deum, et alios secundum Deum ordinat. Ita sapiens in aedificio dicitur qui principalem causam aedificii, scilicet finem, considerat, et ordinat inferioribus artificibus quid sit propter finem agendum. Manifestum est autem quod tota structura aedificii ex fundamento dependet, et ideo ad sapientem architectum pertinet idoneum fundamentum collocare. Ipse autem Paulus fundamentum spiritualis aedificii collocavit Corinthiis, unde supra dixit: ego plantavi. Sicut enim se habet fundamentum in aedificio, sic plantatio in plantis. Per utrumque enim significatur spiritualiter prima praedicatio fidei. Unde et ipse dicit Rom. XV, 20: sic autem praedicavi Evangelium, non ubi nominatus est Christus, ne super alienum fundamentum aedificarem, et ideo se comparat sapienti architecto. Hoc autem non suae virtuti attribuit, sed gratiae Dei. Et hoc est quod dicit secundum gratiam Dei quae data est mihi, qui scilicet me aptum et idoneum ad hoc ministerium fecit. Infra XV, 10: abundantius omnibus laboravi, non autem ego, sed gratia Dei mecum. 148. – In regard to the first he does two things: first, abandoning the simile based on agriculture, he describes his own labor under the likeness of a building, saying: according to the commission of God given to me, as a wise architect, I have laid a foundation. Here it should be noted that an architect, especially of a building, is called the chief artisan, inasmuch as it is his duty to comprehend the entire arrangement of the whole work, which is brought to completion by the activities of the manual laborers. Consequently, he is called wise in building, because he considers the principal cause of the building, i.e., its end and arranges what is to be done by the subordinate artisans to realize the end. Now it is obvious that the entire structure of a building depends on the foundation; consequently, it pertains to a wise architect to lay a solid foundation. But Paul himself laid the foundation of the spiritual edifice for the Corinthians; hence he said above, “I have planted,” for planting is related to plants as the foundations to buildings, because both signify expressly the first preaching of the faith: “I have preached this gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man’s foundation” (Rom 15:20). This is why he compares himself to a wise architect. But he attributes this not to his own power but to God’s grace; which is what he says: according to the grace of God given to me, Who made me fit and worthy for this ministry: “I have labored more abundantly than all they; yet not I but the grace of God with me” (1 Cor 15:10). Secundo describit laborem aliorum, dicens alius autem, id est, quicumque inter vos laborat, superaedificat, fundamento a me posito. Quod quidem potest ad duo referri. Uno quidem modo inquantum aliquis superaedificat fidei in seipso fundatae profectum charitatis et bonorum operum. I Petr. II, 5: et ipsi tamquam lapides vivi superaedificamini. Alio modo ad doctrinam, per quam quis fundatam fidem in aliis perfectius manifestat. Unde Ier. I, 10 dicitur: ut aedifices et plantes. Et secundum hoc idem significat haec superaedificatio, quod supra rigatio. 149. – Secondly, he describes others’ labors, saying: and another man, i.e., whoever labors among you, is building on the foundation laid by me. This can be done in two ways: in one way so that each person builds on the faith produced in him by growing in charity and good works: “Be you also as living stone built up” (1 Pet 2:5). In another way by doctrine, whereby one explains more clearly the faith produced in others: “To build and to plant” (Jer 1:10). In this interpretation the building up signifies the same thing as watering signified. Deinde, cum dicit unusquisque autem, etc., subiungit monitionem, dicens: dictum est quod ad alios pertinet superaedificare, unusquisque autem videat, id est, diligenter attendat, quomodo superaedificet, id est, qualem doctrinam fidei fundatam in aliis superaddat, vel qualia opera fidei in se fundatae habeat. Prov. IV, 25: oculi tui videant recta, et palpebrae tuae praecedant gressus tuos. 150. – Then when he says, let everyone take care, he gives a warning, saying: I have said that it pertains to others to build on the foundation: but let everyone take care, i.e., pay careful attention to how he builds upon it, i.e., what sort of doctrine he adds to the faith already existing in others or what sort of works to the faith existing in himself: “Let your eyes look straight on, and let your eyelids go before your steps” (Pr 4:25). Secundo respondet tacite quaestioni, quare scilicet admoneat alios de superaedificatione et non de fundatione, vel potius assignat rationem quare dixerit quod ad alios pertinet superaedificare, dicens fundamentum aliud nemo potest ponere, praeter id quod positum est, scilicet a me, quod est Iesus Christus, qui habitat in cordibus vestris per fidem, ut dicitur Eph. III, 17. Et de fundamento dicitur Is. XXVIII, 16: ecce ego mittam in fundamentis Sion lapidem angularem, probatum, pretiosum, id est, in fundamento fundatum. 151. – Secondly, he answers a tacit question: why he warns them about the superstructure and not the foundations; or rather, he states the reason why he said that the task of others is to build on the foundation. He says: for no other foundation can any man lay, but what which is laid, which is Christ Jesus, Who dwells in your heart by faith: of the foundation it is said (Is 28:16): “Behold, I will lay a stone in the foundations of Sion, a tried stone, a corner stone, a precious stone, founded in the foundation.” Sed contra videtur esse quod dicitur Apoc. XXI, 14: murus civitatis habens fundamenta duodecim, et in ipsis duodecim nomina apostolorum. Non ergo solus Christus est fundamentum. Dicendum est autem, quod duplex est fundamentum. Unum quidem quod per se habet soliditatem, sicut rupes aliqua supra quam aedificium construitur, et huic fundamento Christus comparatur. Ipse enim est petra de qua dicitur Matth. VII, 25: fundata enim erat supra firmam petram. Aliud est fundamentum, quod habet soliditatem non ex se, sed ex alio solido subiecto, sicut lapides qui primo supponuntur petrae solidae. Et hoc modo dicuntur apostoli esse fundamentum Ecclesiae, quia ipsi primo superaedificati sunt Christo per fidem et charitatem. Unde dicitur Eph. II, 20: superaedificati supra fundamentum apostolorum. 152. – On the other hand it seems that Christ is not the sole foundation, because it says in Rev (21:14): “The wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the twelve names of the twelve apostles.” The answer is that there are two kinds of foundations: one is solid of itself, such as the rock on which the building is constructed. This is the foundation to which Christ is compared; for He is the rock mentioned in Matt (7:25): “For it was founded on a rock.” The other is the foundation, which is not solid of itself but rests on a solid object, as the stones placed on solid rock. This is the way the apostles are called the foundation of the Church, because they were the first to be built on Christ by faith and charity: “Built on the foundation of the apostles” (Eph 2:20). Deinde cum dicit si quis superaedificat, etc., agit de mercedis differentia quantum ad hoc, quod quidam eam accipiunt sine detrimento, quidam cum detrimento. Et circa hoc tria facit. Primo docet quod diversitas operationum manifestatur ex retributione; secundo ostendit quando manifestatur, ibi dies enim domini; tertio ostendit quomodo manifestatur, ibi si cuius opus, et cetera. 153. – Then when he says, Now if any man builds, he discusses the variety of rewards accordingly as some receive a wage without any less and some with a loss. In regard to the first he does three things: first, he teaches that a variety of works is revealed by the wages; secondly, when this is revealed (v. 13); thirdly, how it is revealed (v. 14). Circa primum considerandum est quod apostolus intendens ostendere diversitatem superaedificationis, sex ponit, videlicet tria contra tria. Ex una quidem parte aurum, argentum, et lapides pretiosos; et ex alia parte lignum, foenum et stipulam, quorum tria, scilicet aurum, argentum, et lapides pretiosi habent quamdam inclytam claritatem simul et inconsumptibilitatem et pretiositatem. Alia vero tria obscura sunt, et facile ab igne consumuntur, et vilia sunt. Unde per aurum, argentum et lapides pretiosos intelligitur aliquid praeclarum et stabile; per lignum vero, foenum et stipulam aliquid materiale et transitorium. Dictum est autem supra quod superaedificatio potest intelligi, et quantum ad opera quae unusquisque superaedificat fidei fundamento, et quantum ad doctrinam quam aliquis doctor vel praedicator superaedificat in fundamento fidei ab apostolis fundatae. Unde ista diversitas quam hic apostolus tangit, ad utramque superaedificationem referri potest. 154. – As to the first it should be noted that the Apostle, in order to point out the varieties of superstructures, mentions six things, i.e., three against three: on the one hand, gold, silver and precious stones; on the other hand, wood, hay and stubble. The first three have a striking brilliance, as well as being indestructible and precious; but the other three are, easily consumed by fire and worthless. Hence by gold, silver and precious stone are understood something brilliant and lasting; but by wood, hay and stubble something material and transitory. Now he stated above that the superstructure can refer either to the works everyone builds on the foundation of faith or to the doctrine which a teacher or preacher builds on the foundation of faith laid by an apostle. Hence, the variety the Apostle mentions here can refer to both superstructures. Quidam ergo referentes haec ad superaedificationem operum, dixerunt quod per aurum, et argentum, et lapides pretiosos intelliguntur bona, quae quis fidei superaddit. Sed per lignum, foenum, et stipulam debent intelligi peccata mortalia quae quis facit post fidem susceptam. Sed ista expositio penitus stare non potest. Primo quidem quia peccata mortalia sunt opera mortua, secundum illud Hebr. IX, 14: mundabit conscientias nostras ab operibus mortuis. In hoc autem aedificio nihil aedificatur nisi vivum, secundum illud I Petr. II, v. 5: et ipsi tamquam lapides vivi superaedificamini. Unde qui cum fide habet peccata mortalia, non superaedificat, sed magis destruit vel violat, contra quem dicitur infra: si quis templum Dei violaverit, disperdet illum Deus. Secundo, quia peccata mortalia magis comparantur ferro, vel plumbo, vel lapidi, tum propter gravitatem, tum quia etiam non renovantur per ignem, sed semper in eo manent in quo sunt: peccata vero venialia comparantur ligno, foeno et stipulae, tum propter levitatem, tum etiam quia ab eis aliquis de facili expurgatur per ignem. Tertio, quia secundum hanc expositionem videtur sequi, quod ille qui moritur in peccato mortali, dummodo fidem retineat, finaliter salutem consequatur, licet primo aliquas poenas sustineat. Sic enim sequitur: si cuius opus arserit, detrimentum patietur, ipse autem salvus erit, sic tamen quasi per ignem. Quod quidem contrariatur manifeste sententiae apostoli qua dicitur infra VI, 9 s.: neque fornicarii, neque idolis servientes, etc. regnum Dei possidebunt; et Gal. V, 21: qui talia agunt, regnum Dei non possidebunt. Non est autem alicui salus nisi in regno Dei. Nam qui ab eo excluduntur, mittuntur in ignem aeternum, ut dicitur Matth. XXV, 41. Quarto quia fides non potest dici fundamentum, nisi quia per eam Christus habitat in nobis, cum supra dictum sit quod fundamentum est ipse Christus Iesus. Non enim habitat Christus in nobis per fidem informem, alioquin habitaret in Daemonibus, de quibus scriptum est Iac. II, 19: et Daemones credunt et contremiscunt. Unde quod dicitur Eph. III, 17, habitare Christum per fidem in cordibus nostris, oportet intelligi de fide per charitatem formata, cum scriptum sit I Io. IV, 16: qui manet in charitate in Deo manet, et Deus in eo. Haec est fides quae per dilectionem operatur, ut dicitur infra XIII, 4: charitas non agit perperam. Unde manifestum est quod illi qui operantur peccata mortalia, non habent fidem formatam, et ita non habent fundamentum. Oportet ergo intelligere quod tam ille qui superaedificat fundamento aurum, argentum, lapides pretiosos, quam etiam ille qui superaedificat lignum, foenum, stipulam, vitet peccata mortalia. 155. – Therefore, some, referring this to the superstructure of works, have said the gold, silver and precious stones mean the good works a person adds to his faith; but wood, hay and stubble mean the mortal sins a person commits after receiving the faith. However, this interpretation cannot stand: first, because mortal sins are dead works: “He will cleanse our consciences from dead works” (Heb 9:14), whereas only living works are built onto this building: “Be you also as living stone built up” (1 Pt 2:5). Consequently, those who have mortal sins along with faith do not build up, but rather destroy or profane. Against such persons he says: “But if anyone destroys God’s temple” (1 Cor 3:17). Secondly, because mortal sins are better compared to iron or lead or stone, since they are heavy and not destroyed by fire but always remain in the thing in which they exist; whereas venial sins are compared to wood, hay and stubble, because they are light and easily cleansed from a person by fire. Thirdly, because it seems to follow from this interpretation that a person who dies in mortal sin, as long as he keeps the faith, will finally attain to salvation after undergoing punishment. For he continues: If any man’s work is burned up he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire, which is obviously contrary to the Apostle’s statement below (6:9): “neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals… shall posses the kingdom of God”, and to Gal (5:21): “Those who do such things shall not possess the kingdom of God.” But one possesses salvation only in the kingdom of God; for everyone excluded from it is sent into eternal fire, as it says in Matt (25:41). Fourthly, because faith can be called a foundation, only because by it Christ dwells in us, since it was stated that the foundation is Christ Jesus Himself. For Christ does not dwell in us by unformed faith; otherwise He would dwell in the devils, of whom Jas (2:19) says: “The devils believe and tremble.” Hence Eph (3:17) says: “that Christ by faith may dwell in your hearts.” This should be understood of faith informed by charity, since 1 Jn (4:16) says: “He that abides in love abides in God and God in him.” This is the faith that works through love, as it says below (13:4): “Love is not arrogant or rude.” Consequently, it is obvious that persons who commit mortal sins do not have formed faith, and so do not have the foundation. Therefore, it is necessary to suppose that the person who builds upon the foundation gold, silver and precious stones, as well as one who builds upon it wood, hay, stubble, avoids mortal sin. Ad horum ergo distinctionem intelligendum est, quod actus humani ex obiectis speciem habent. Duplex est autem obiectum humani actus, scilicet res spiritualis et res corporalis, quae quidem obiecta differunt tripliciter. Primo quidem quantum ad hoc quod res spirituales sunt perpetuae, res autem corporales sunt transitoriae. Unde II Cor. IV, 18: quae videntur, temporalia sunt; quae autem non videntur, aeterna. Secundo, quantum ad hoc quod res spirituales in seipsis claritatem habent, secundum illud Sap. VI, 13: clara est et quae numquam marcescit sapientia. Res corporales obscuritatem habent ex materia. Unde dicitur Sap. II, 5: umbrae transitus est tempus nostrum. Tertio, quantum ad hoc quod res spirituales sunt pretiosiores et nobiliores rebus corporalibus; unde Prov. III, 15 dicitur de sapientia: pretiosior est cunctis opibus; et Sap. VII, 9: omne aurum in comparationem illius, arena est exigua, et tamquam lutum aestimabitur argentum in conspectu illius. Et ideo opera quibus homo innititur rebus spiritualibus et divinis comparantur auro, argento et lapidi pretioso, quae sunt solida, clara et pretiosa. Ita tamen quod per aurum designentur ea quibus homo tendit in ipsum Deum per contemplationem et amorem; unde dicitur Cant. V, 11: caput eius aurum optimum. Caput enim Christi est Deus, ut dicitur I Cor. XI, 3. De quo auro dicitur Apoc. III, 18: suadeo tibi emere a me aurum ignitum, id est sapientiam cum charitate. Per argentum significantur actus, quibus homo adhaeret spiritualibus credendis, et amandis, et contemplandis; unde in Glossa refertur argentum ad dilectionem proximi, propter quod et in Psalmo LXVII, 14 pennae columbae describuntur deargentatae, cuius superior pars, id est, posteriora describuntur esse in pallore auri. Sed per lapides pretiosos designantur opera diversarum virtutum, quibus anima humana ornatur; unde dicitur Eccli. l, 10: quasi vas auri solidum ornatum omni lapide pretioso. Vel etiam mandata legis Dei, secundum illud Ps. CXVIII, 127: dilexi mandata tua super aurum et topazion. Opera vero humana quibus homo intendit rebus corporalibus procurandis, comparantur stipulae, quae vilia sunt, namque fulgent et facile comburuntur; habent tamen quosdam gradus, prout quaedam sunt aliis stabiliora, quaedam vero facilius consumptibilia; nam ipsi homines inter creaturas carnales et digniores sunt, et per successionem conservantur. Unde comparantur lignis, secundum illud Iudic. IX, 8: ierunt ligna sylvarum ut eligerent super se regem. Caro autem hominis facilius corrumpitur per infirmitatem et mortem; unde comparatur foeno, secundum illud Is. XL, 6: omnis caro foenum. Ea vero quae pertinent ad gloriam huius mundi facillime transeunt, unde stipulae comparantur; unde in Ps. LXXXII, 14 sequitur: pone illos ut rotam et ut stipulam ante faciem venti. 156. – Therefore to understand the difference between these two sets of things, it should be noted that human acts are characterized by their objects. But there are two objects of a human act: a spiritual thing and a bodily thing. Now these objects differ in three ways: first, spiritual things last forever, but bodily things pass away; hence it says in 2 Cor (4:18): “The things that are seen are transient, but the things that are unseen are eternal.” Secondly, spiritual things are brilliant in themselves: “Wisdom is glorious and never fades away” (Wis 6:13), but bodily things on account of their matter are dingy: “Our time is as the passing of a shadow” (Wis 2:5). Thirdly, spiritual are more precious and nobler than bodily things: “Wisdom is more precious than all riches” (Pr 3:15); “All gold in comparison of her, is as a little sand: and silver in comparison to her shall be counted as clay” (Wis 7:9). Therefore, the works that engage a person in spiritual and divine things are compared to gold, silver and precious stones. By gold are signified those by which a man tends to God Himself by contemplation and love. Hence it says in S. of S. (5:11): “His head is as the finest gold”: for the head of Christ is God, and the gold is that mentioned in Rev (3:18): “Therefore I counsel you to buy from me gold tried by fire”, i.e., wisdom with charity. By silver are signified those acts by which a man clings to spiritual things to believe, love and contemplate them; hence in a Gloss the silver is referred to love of neighbor, and in Ps 68 (v. 13) the wings of a dove are described as covered with silver and its pinions with green gold. But precious stones signify the works of the various virtues with which the soul is adorned; hence it says in Sirach (50:9): “Like a vessel of hammered gold adorned with all kinds of precious stones,” or they signify the commandments of God’s law: “Therefore I love thy commandments above gold, above fine gold” (Ps 119: 127). But the human acts by which a person aims at acquiring bodily things are compared to tinder, which is worthless; for although it has a sheen, it burns easily. Yet there are various kinds, some of which are stronger than others are some are more easily burned. For among bodily creatures men are the more noble and conserved by succession; hence they are compared to wood: “The trees once went forth to anoint a king over them” (Jg 9:8). But man’s flesh is easily destroyed by sickness and death; hence he is compared to grass: “All flesh is grass” (Is 49:6). Again, the things which contribute to the glory of this world quickly pass away; hence they are compared to stubble: “O my God, make them like a tumbleweed, like chaff before the wind” (Ps 83:13). Sic ergo superaedificare aurum, et argentum et lapides pretiosos, est superaedificare fidei fundamento ea quae pertinent ad contemplationem sapientiae divinorum, et amorem Dei, et devotionem sanctorum, et obsequium proximorum, et ad exercitium virtutum. Superaedificare vero lignum, foenum et stipulam, est superaddere fidei fundamento ea quae pertinent ad dispositionem humanarum rerum, et ad curam carnis, et ad exteriorem gloriam. 157. – And so when one builds thereon gold and silver and precious stones, he builds upon the foundation of faith those things which pertain to contemplating the wisdom of divine matters, to loving God, to performing devout exercises, to helping his neighbor and performing virtuous works. But to build upon it wood, hay and stubble is to erect on the foundation of faith things which pertain to arranging human affairs, to caring for the flesh and for outward glory. Sciendum tamen quod contingit aliquem hominem id intendere tripliciter. Uno modo ita quod in his finem constituat; et cum hoc sit peccatum mortale, per hoc homo non superaedificat sed, everso fundamento, aliud fundamentum collocat. Nam finis est fundamentum in rebus appetibilibus quae quaeruntur propter finem. Alio modo aliquis intendit uti praedictis rebus totaliter ordinans eas in Dei gloriam; et quia opera specificantur ex fine intento, hoc iam non erit aedificare lignum, foenum et stipulam, sed aurum, argentum et lapides pretiosos. Tertio modo aliquis licet in his finem non constituat, nec vellet propter ista contra Deum facere, afficitur tamen istis magis quam deberet, ita quod per haec retardatur ab his quae Dei sunt, quod est peccare venialiter: et hoc proprie est superaedificare lignum, foenum, stipulam, non quia ipsa superaedificentur proprie loquendo, sed quia opera ad temporalium curam pertinentia habent venialia adiuncta propter vehementiorem affectum ad ipsa, quae quidem affectio, secundum quod magis et minus inhaeret, ligno, foeno et stipulae comparatur. Et dupliciter potest distingui. Uno modo secundum permanentiam rerum spiritualium, ut prius dictum est, alio modo secundum vehementiam adhaesionis. 158. – However, it should be noted that there are three possible attitudes, when a person intends these latter things: first, he might make them an end. Since this would be a mortal sin, a person with such an attitude would not be building upon the foundation by laying another foundation: for the end is the foundation for the desirable things sought for its sake. Secondly, a person might tend toward these things, directing them entirely to the glory of God; and because they are qualified by the end one intends, a person with such as attitude will not be building wood, hay and straw on the foundation but gold and silver and precious stones. Thirdly, a person could have the attitude that although he is not making these things an end or would act contrary to God for their sake, nevertheless he is drawn toward them more than he ought, so that he is kept back from the things of God by them; which is to sin venially. And this is what is meant by building wood, hay and stubble on the foundation; not because they are, properly speaking, erected on the foundation, but because acts of caring about temporal things have venial sins attached to them due to a stronger attachment to them. This attachment is compared to wood, hay or stubble, depending on how strong it is. Sciendum tamen quod et illi qui spiritualibus rebus intendunt, non omnino possunt absolvi a cura rerum temporalium, nec etiam qui in charitate rebus temporalibus intendunt, sunt omnino a rebus spiritualibus vacui, sed studio diversificantur. Nam quidam studium vitae suae ordinant ad spiritualia, temporalibus vero non intendunt, nisi inquantum requirit necessitas corporalis vitae. Quidam vero studium vitae suae applicant ad temporalia procuranda, utuntur tamen spiritualibus rebus ad directionem vitae suae. Primi igitur superaedificant aurum, argentum et lapides pretiosos; secundi vero superaedificant foenum, lignum et stipulam. Ex quo patet, quod illi qui superaedificant aurum, argentum et lapides pretiosos, habent aliquid de peccatis venialibus, sed non in quantitate notabili, propter hoc quod modicum attingunt de cura temporalium rerum. Illi etiam qui superaedificant lignum, foenum, stipulam, habent aliquid stabile, pretiosum et praeclarum, sed in minori quantitate, scilicet inquantum diriguntur per bona spiritualia. 159. – Yet is should be kept in mind that those who tend after spiritual things cannot be altogether freed from caring for temporal things, any more than those who tend after temporal things from a duty of charity are altogether free from tending toward spiritual things. The difference is one of emphasis: for some emphasize spiritual things and make no provision for temporal things, except as the needs of bodily life require; others place the emphasis in their lives on procuring temporal things, but use spiritual things to direct their life. The first group, therefore, builds gold, silver and precious stones; but the second hay, wood and stubble on the foundation. From this it is clear that the former have some venials but not a notable amount, because they are only slightly concerned with the care of temporal things; but the latter have something stable, precious and brilliant, but only a small amount, namely, to the extent that they are directed by spiritual considerations. Potest autem et haec diversitas referri ad superaedificationem doctrinae. Nam illi qui fidei ab apostolis fundatae per suam doctrinam superaedificant solidam veritatem et claram, sive manifestam, et ad ornamentum Ecclesiae pertinentem, superaedificant aurum, argentum, lapides pretiosos. Unde Prov. X, 20: argentum electum labia iusti. Illi vero qui fidei ab apostolis fundatae superaddunt in doctrina sua aliqua inutilia, et quae non sunt manifesta, nec veritatis ratione firmantur, sed sunt vana et inania, superaedificant lignum, foenum, stipulam. Unde dicitur Ier. XXIII, 28: qui habet somnium, narret somnium, et qui habet sermonem meum, loquatur sermonem meum vere. Quid paleis ad triticum? Qui vero falsitatem doceret, non superaedificaret, sed magis subverteret fundamentum. 160. – They can also be differentiated on the basis of doctrine. For some, by teaching sound, true and clear doctrine, erect gold, silver and precious stones upon the foundation of faith laid by the apostles; hence it says in Pr (10:20): “The tongue of the righteous is choice silver.” On the other hand, those who add to the faith laid down by the apostles doctrines that are useless, unclear or not supported by true reasons, but vain and empty, erect wood, hay and stubble, hence Jer (23:28): “Let the prophet who has a dream tell the dream, but let him who has my word speak my word faithfully. What has straw in common with wheat? Says the Lord.” Finally those who teach falsehood do not build on the foundation but subvert it. Dicit ergo si quis superaedificat, vel operando, vel docendo, super fundamentum hoc, id est, super fidem formatam in corde, vel super fidem fundatam ab apostolis et praedicatam, aurum, argentum aut lapides pretiosos, id est spiritualia opera vel praeclaram doctrinam, vel lignum, foenum, stipulam, id est corporalia opera, vel frivolam doctrinam, uniuscuiusque opus manifestum erit, scilicet in divino iudicio, quale sit. Non enim latet per humanam ignorantiam. Nam quidam videntur superaedificare aurum, argentum, lapidem pretiosum, qui tamen superaedificant lignum, foenum, stipulam, in rebus spiritualibus corporalia meditantes, puta lucrum vel favorem humanum; quidam vero videntur superaedificare lignum, foenum, stipulam, qui tamen aedificant aurum, argentum et lapidem pretiosum, quia in administratione temporalium nihil nisi spiritualia cogitant. Unde et Sophon. I, 12 dicitur: scrutabor Ierusalem in lucernis, et Lc. XII, v. 2: nihil opertum quod non reveletur. 161. – He says, therefore: If any man builds by his works or teachings on this foundation, i.e., upon the formed faith in his heart or upon the faith founded and taught by the apostles, gold, silver or precious stones, i.e., spiritual works or sound, clear teachings, or wood, hay stubble, i.e., corporal works or silly teachings, each man’s work will become manifest, i.e., its quality will be made known in the divine judgment: for man’s ignorance of it will not keep it hidden forever. For some appear to be erecting woods, hay and stubble by looking for temporal benefits, such as profit or human favor, from spiritual things. Others, however, seem to be erecting wood, hay and stubble, but are really erecting gold, silver and precious stones, because in administering temporal things they have their eye on spiritual things alone. Hence it says in Zeph (1:12): “I will search Jerusalem with lamps” and in Lk (12:2): “Nothing is covered up that will not be revealed.” Deinde, cum dicit dies enim domini, ostendit quando haec manifestatur. Et primo ponit tempus manifestationis, cum dicit dies enim domini declarabit. Circa quod sciendum est quod tunc dicitur esse tempus et dies alicuius rei, quando est in optimo statu et maximo sui posse. Unde Eccle. III, 1 dicitur: omnia tempus habent. Quando ergo homo suam voluntatem implet, etiam contra Deum, tunc est dies hominis. Unde dicitur Ier. XVII, 16: diem hominis non desideravi, tu scis. Dies vero domini dicitur quando voluntas domini completur de hominibus, qui per eius iustitiam vel praemiabuntur vel damnabuntur, secundum illud Ps. LXXIV, 3: cum accepero tempus, ego iustitias iudicabo. Unde secundum triplex Dei iudicium tripliciter potest intelligi dies domini. 162. – Then when he says, for the day for the Lord, he shows when these things will be disclosed. Here it should be noted that the time and day of a thing is said to be present when it exists in its best state and in the fullness of its power. This is the sense in which “all things have their season” (Ec 3:1). Therefore, when a man is fulfilling his will even contrary to God, it is man’s day. In this sense Jer (17:16): “Thou knowest that I have not desired the day of man.” But it is the day of the Lord, when His will is accomplished in regard to men, who are rewarded or punished according to His justice: “At the set time which I appoint I will judge with equity” (Ps 73:2). Hence the day of the Lord can be take in three senses, depending on the three times the Lord will judge. Erit nempe quoddam iudicium generale omnium, secundum illud Matth. XII, v. 41: viri Ninivitae surgent in iudicio. Et secundum hoc dies domini dicitur novissimus dies iudicii, de quo II Thess. II, 2: non terreamini quasi instet dies domini. Et secundum hoc intelligitur dies domini declarabit, quia in die iudicii manifestabitur differentia humanorum meritorum. Rom. II, 16: in die quando iudicabit dominus occulta hominum. Aliud autem est particulare iudicium quod fit de unoquoque in morte ipsius, de quo habetur Lc. XVI, 23: mortuus est dives, et sepultus est in Inferno, mortuus est autem mendicus, et portatus est ab Angelis in sinum Abrahae. Et secundum hoc dies domini potest intelligi dies mortis, secundum illud I Thess. V, 2: dies domini sicut fur in nocte veniet. Sic ergo dies domini declarabit, quia in morte uniuscuiusque eius merita patent. Unde dicitur Prov. XI, 7: mortuo homine impio, nulla erit ultra spes; et eiusdem XIV, v. 32: sperat autem iustus in morte sua. Tertium autem est iudicium in hac vita, inquantum Deus per tribulationes huius vitae interdum homines probat. Unde dicitur infra XI, 32: cum iudicamur, a domino corripimur, ut non cum hoc mundo damnemur. Et secundum hoc dicitur dies domini, dies temporalis tribulationis, de quo dicitur Sophon. I, 14: vox diei domini amara, tribulabitur ibi fortis. Dies ergo domini declarabit, quia in tempore tribulationis affectus hominis probatur. Eccli. XXVII, 6: vasa figuli probat fornax, et homines iustos tentatio tribulationis. 163. – For there will be a general judgment of all man, as it says in Matt (12:41): “The men of Nineveh will arise at the judgment.” In this sense the day of the Lord will be the last day—judgment day—alluded to in 2 Th (2:2): “Be not terrified as if the day of the Lord were at hand.” This is the interpretation of the statement that the day of the Lord shall disclose it, because on the day of judgment the differences among men’s merits will be disclosed: “On that day when God judges the secrets of men by Jesus Christ” (Rom 2:16). Another is the particular judgment, which takes place for each person at his death. Lk (16:22) says of this judgment: “The rich man died and was buried in hell; and the poor man also died and was carried to Abraham’s bosom.” In this sense the day of the Lord refers to the day of death, as in 1 Th (5:2): “The day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night.” The day of the Lord will disclose it at that time, because every man’s merits will be plain at his death. Hence it says in Pr (11:7): “When the wicked dies, his hope perishes” and in (14:32): “The righteous man has hope when he dies.” The third judgment takes place in this life, inasmuch as God sometimes proves a man by the tribulations of this life; hence it says below (11:32): “When we are judged by the Lord, we are chastened so that we may not be condemned along with the world.” In this sense temporal tribulations are called the day of the Lord: “The sound of the day of the Lord is bitter, the mighty man cries aloud there” (Zeph 1:14). Therefore, the day of the Lord shall disclose, because during the time of tribulation a man’s affections are tested: “The kiln tests the potter’s vessels; so the trial of affliction just men” (Sir 27:5). Secundo ostendit per quod fiet ista declaratio, quia per ignem, unde sequitur quia in igne revelabitur, scilicet dies domini. Nam dies iudicii revelabitur in igne, qui praecedet faciem iudicis, exurens faciem mundi, et involvens reprobos, et iustos purgans: de quo dicitur in Ps. XCVI, 3: ignis ante ipsum praecedet, et inflammabit in circuitu inimicos eius. Dies autem domini, qui est dies mortis, revelabitur in igne Purgatorii, per quem purgabitur si quid in elementis invenietur purgandum, de quo potest intelligi quod dicitur Iob XXIII, 10: probabit me quasi aurum quod per ignem transit. Dies vero qui est dies tribulationis divino iudicio permissae, revelabitur in igne tribulationis, de quo dicitur Eccli. II, 5: in igne probatur aurum et argentum, homines vero acceptabiles in camino tribulationis. 164. – Secondly, he shows the means by which it will be disclosed, namely, by fire; hence he continues: because it shall be revealed with fire, namely, the day of the Lord: for the day of judgment will be revealed in the fire which will precede the face of the judge, burning the face of the world, enveloping the wicked and cleansing the just. Ps 96 (v. 3) says of this: “Fire goes before him, and burns up his adversaries round about.” But the day of the Lord which occurs at death will be revealed in the fire of purgatory, by which the elect will be cleansed, if any require cleansing: Job (23:10) can be interpreted as referring to this fire: “When he has tried me, I shall come forth as god.” Finally, the day of the Lord, which is the day of tribulation permitted by God’s judgment, will be revealed in the fire of tribulation: “For gold is tested in the fire, and acceptable men in the furnace of humiliation” (Sir 2:5). Tertio ponit effectum manifestationis, cum subdit et uniuscuiusque opus quale sit, ignis probabit, quia scilicet per quemlibet ignium praedictorum probantur merita hominis vel demerita: unde in Ps. XVI, 3 dicitur: igne me examinasti, et non est inventa in me iniquitas. In his tribus quae hic apostolus ponit, primum est conclusio duorum sequentium. Si enim dies domini revelatur in igne, et ignis probat quale sit uniuscuiusque opus, consequens est quod dies domini declaret differentiam operum humanorum. 165. – Thirdly, he mentions the effect of the disclosure when he says, and the fire will test what sort of work each man has done, namely, because each of these fires will prove a man’s merits or demerits: “If thou testest me, thou wilt find no wickedness in me” (Ps 17:3). In these three events mentioned by the Apostle, the first is the conclusion of the two which follow: for if the day of the Lord will be revealed in fire, and if the fire tests the quality of a man’s work, the consequence is that the day of the Lord will disclose the differences among men’s works. Deinde cum dicit si cuius opus, ostendit modum praedictae manifestationis. Et primo quantum ad bona opera, cum dicit si cuius, id est, alicuius opus, quod ipse superaedificavit, manserit, scilicet in igne, ille, scilicet qui superaedificavit, mercedem accipiet. Ier. XXXI, 16: est merces operi tuo. Et Is. XL, 10: ecce merces eius cum eo. 166. – Then when he says, if any man’s work, he indicates the manner in which the above disclosures will be made: first, in regard to good works when he says: if any man’s work, which he erected, survives the fire, he, i.e., the one who erected it, shall receive a reward: “Behold, his reward is with him” (Is 40:10). Dicitur autem aliquod opus in igne permanere illaesum dupliciter. Uno modo ex parte ipsius operantis, quia scilicet ille qui hoc facit opus, scilicet bonae doctrinae, vel quodcumque bonorum operum, propter huiusmodi opus non punitur, inquantum scilicet nec torquebitur igne Purgatorii, nec igne qui praecedit faciem iudicis, nec etiam aestuat igne tribulationis. Qui enim non immoderate temporalia dilexit, consequens est quod non nimis doleat de eorum amissione. Dolor enim causatur ex amore rei quae amittitur. Unde superfluus amor superfluum generat dolorem. Alio modo potest intelligi ex parte ipsius operis: quolibet enim praedictorum iudiciorum superveniente homini, permanet et opus bonae doctrinae, vel quodcumque aliud bonum opus. Nam igne tribulationis superveniente, non cessat homo neque a vera doctrina, neque a bono opere virtutis; utrumque autem horum permanet homini quantum ad meritum et in igne Purgatorii et in igne qui praecedit faciem iudicis. 167. – One’s work is said to abide unharmed by the fire in two ways: in one way on the part of the worker, because the one performing the work, say of good teachings or any good work, is not punished for such works by the fire of purgatory or by the fire which goes before the face of the judge or even by the fire of tribulation. For a person who has not loved temporal things immoderately is not excessively saddened at their loss, because sadness is caused by one’s love of a thing which is lost; hence superfluous love produces sorrow. In another way on the part of the work itself: for no matter which of the above fires tests a man, the work of good teachings abides as does any other good work. For when the fire of tribulation comes, a man does not depart from his good teachings or from any good work of virtue; rather, each of these abides as to its merit both in the fire of purgatory and in the fire which goes before the face of the judge. Secundo ostendit diem quantum ad mala opera, dicens si cuius, id est, alicuius, opus arserit, scilicet per aliquem ignium praedictorum, detrimentum patietur, scilicet qui hoc operatus est, non tamen usque ad damnationem. Unde subdit: ipse autem salvus erit, scilicet salute aeterna, secundum illud Is. XLV, 17: salvatus est Israel in domino salute aeterna. Sic tamen quasi per ignem, quem scilicet prius sustinuit, vel in hac vita, vel in fine huius vitae, vel in fine mundi. Unde dicitur in Ps. LXV, 12: transivimus per ignem et aquam, et eduxisti nos in refrigerium. Et Is. XLIII, 2 s.: cum transieris per ignem, non combureris, et flamma non comburet te, quia ego dominus Deus salvator tuus. 168. – Secondly, he shows the same thing in regard to evil works, saying: If any man’s work burn because of any of the above fires, he shall suffer loss for doing them, but not to the point of damnation; hence he adds: but he himself shall be saved with eternal salvation: “Israel is saved by the Lord with everlasting salvation” (Is 45:17), but only as by fire, which he previously endured either in this life or at the end of the world; hence it says in Ps 66 (v.12): “We went through fire and through water; yet thou hast brought us forth to a spacious place,” and in Is (43:2): “When you walk through fire you shall not be burned, and the flame shall not consume you, for I am the Lord, your Savior.” Dicitur autem opus alicuius ardere dupliciter. Uno modo ex parte operantis, inquantum scilicet aliquis affligitur igne tribulationis propter immoderatum affectum quo superflue terrena diligit, et punitur igne Purgatorii, vel igne qui praecedet faciem iudicis propter peccata venialia, quae circa curam temporalium commisit, sive etiam per frivola et vana quae docuit. Alio modo ardet opus in igne ex parte ipsius operis, quia scilicet tribulatione superveniente, homo non potest vacare nec doctrinae vanae, nec terrenis operibus, secundum illud Ps. CXLV, 4: in illa die peribunt omnes cogitationes eorum. Nec etiam igne Purgatorii vel praecedente faciem iudicis remanebit ei aliquid praedictorum vel ad remedium vel ad meritum. Et similiter dupliciter patitur detrimentum, vel inquantum ipse punitur, vel inquantum perdit id quod fecit, et quantum ad hoc dicitur Eccli. XIV, 20 s.: omne opus corruptibile in fine deficiet, et qui operatur illud ibit cum illo, et omne opus electum in fine iustificabitur, et qui operatur illud honorificabitur in illo. Quorum primum pertinet ad eum qui superaedificat lignum, foenum et stipulam, quod est opus in igne ardens; secundum autem pertinet ad eum qui superaedificat aurum, argentum et lapides pretiosos, quod est opus manens in igne absque detrimento. 169. – Now a man’s work is said to burn in two ways: in one way on the part of the worker, inasmuch as he is afflicted by the fire of tribulation on account of the immoderate attachment he has to earthly things and by the fire of purgatory or by the fire which goes before the face of the judge on account of venial sins, which he committed by caring for temporal things or even by the frivolous and vain things he taught. In another way a work burns in the fire on the part of the work itself, because when tribulation comes, a person cannot find time for foolish teaching or worldly works: “On that day all his plans perish” (Ps 146:4). Furthermore, the fire of purgatory or the fire which goes before the face of the judge will not leave any of these things to act as a remedy or as merit. Similarly, he suffers a loss in two ways: either because he is punished or because he loses what he accomplished. On this point Sirach (14:19): “Every product decays and ceases to exist, and the man who made it will pass away with it. And every excellent work shall be justified; and the worker thereof shall be honored therein.” The first of these refers to the person who erects wood, hay and stubble, which is the work that burns in the fire; but the second refers to the person who erects gold, silver and precious stones, which is the work that abides in the fire without any loss.
3-3
1 Cor 3:16-23Supra ostendit apostolus, quae sit merces bene laborantium, hic agit de poena male laborantium sive destruentium. Et circa hoc duo facit. Primo demonstrat poenam; secundo excludit errorem contrarium, ibi nemo vos seducat. Ostendit autem poenam operantium ad destructionem, prosequens similitudinem aedificii spiritualis, et circa hoc tria facit. Primo ostendit dignitatem spiritualis aedificii; secundo determinat poenam destruentium, ibi si quis; tertio assignat rationem poenae, ibi templum enim Dei, et cetera. 170. – Having indicated the reward in store for those who labor well, the Apostle now deals with the punishment in store for those who do evil or destructive works. In regard to this he does two things: first, he indicates the punishment; secondly, he dismisses a contrary error (v. 18). He indicates the punishment in store for those who work unto destruction by continuing with the metaphor of the spiritual building. In regard to his he does three things: first, he shows the dignity of the spiritual edifice; secondly, he mentions the punishment in store for those who destroy it (v. 17a); thirdly, he assigns the reason for the punishment (v. 17b). Dicit ergo primo: dictum est quod ille qui superaedificat, mercedem salutis accipiet, vel sine detrimento vel cum detrimento; sed ut possitis agnoscere, quae sit poena male in vobis laborantium, oportet vos vestram dignitatem agnoscere; quam primo ponit, dicens: an vos nescitis quia, vos fideles Christi, estis templum Dei? Eph. c. II, 21 s.: in quo omnis aedificatio constructa crescit in templum sanctum in domino, in quo et vos coaedificamini in habitaculum Dei. 171. – He says, therefore: I have said that everyone who builds on the foundation will receive the reward of salvation without a loss or with a loss. But if you are to understand the punishment in store for those who labor evilly among you, you must recognize your dignity, which he indicates when he says: Do you not know that you, Christ’s faithful, are the temple of God? “In whom the whole structure is joined together and grows into a holy temple in the Lord; in whom you also are built into it for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit” (Eph 2:21). Secundo probat quod fideles sint templum Dei. Est enim de ratione templi quod sit habitaculum Dei, secundum illud Ps. X, 5: Deus in templo sancto suo. Unde omne illud in quo Deus habitat, potest dici templum. Habitat autem Deus principaliter in seipso, quia ipse solus se comprehendit. Unde et ipse Deus templum Dei dicitur Apoc. XXI, 22: dominus Deus omnipotens templum illius est. Habitat etiam Deus in domo sacrata per spiritualem cultum, qui in ea sibi exhibetur; et ideo domus sacrata dicitur templum, secundum illud Ps. V, 8: adorabo ad templum sanctum tuum, et cetera. Habitat etiam Deus in hominibus per fidem, quae per dilectionem operatur, secundum illud Eph. III, 17: habitare Christum per fidem in cordibus vestris. Unde et ad probandum quod fideles sint templum Dei, subiungit quod inhabitantur a Deo, cum dicit et spiritus Dei habitat in vobis. Et Rom. VIII, 11 dictum est: spiritus, qui suscitavit Iesum Christum habitabit in vobis. Ez. XXXVI, 27: spiritum meum ponam in medio vestri. Ex quo patet quod spiritus sanctus est Deus, per cuius inhabitationem fideles dicuntur templum Dei. Sola enim inhabitatio Dei templum Dei facit, ut dictum est. 172. – Secondly, he proves that the faithful are God’s temple. For it is the mark of a temple to be God’s dwelling place: “The Lord is in is holy temple” (Ps 11:4); hence everything in which God dwells can be called a temple. Now God dwells chiefly in Himself, because He alone comprehends Himself; hence God Himself is called a temple: “Its temple is the Lord God” (Rev 21:22). God also dwells in a building consecrated by the special worship offered Him in it; therefore, a holy building is called a temple: “I will worship at the holy temple in your fear” (Ps 5:8). Furthermore, he dwells in men by faith, which works through love: “That Christ may dwell by faith in your hearts” (Eph 3:17). Hence to prove that the faithful are God’s temple, he adds that they are dwelt in by God when he says: and the Spirit of God dwells in you, as in Rom (8:11) when he said: “The Spirit who raised Jesus Christ dwells in you”; “I will put my spirit within you” (Ez 36:27). This shows that the Spirit is God, by Whose indwelling the faithful are called God’s temple, for only God’s indwelling makes a thing God’s dwelling, as has been said. Est autem considerandum quod Deus est in omnibus creaturis, in quibus est per essentiam, potentiam et praesentiam, implens omnia bonitatibus suis, secundum illud Ier. XXIII, 24: caelum et terram ego impleo. Sed spiritualiter dicitur Deus inhabitare tamquam in familiari domo in sanctis, quorum mens capax est Dei per cognitionem et amorem, etiam si ipsi in actu non cognoscant et diligant, dummodo habeant per gratiam habitum fidei et charitatis, sicut patet de pueris baptizatis. Et cognitio sine dilectione non sufficit ad inhabitationem Dei, secundum illud I Io. IV, 16: qui manet in charitate, in Deo manet, et Deus in eo. Inde est quod multi cognoscunt Deum, vel per naturalem cognitionem, vel per fidem informem, quos tamen non inhabitat spiritus Dei. 173. – But it should be noted that God exists in all creatures. He exists in them by His essence, power and presence, filling all things with His goodness: “Do I not fill heaven and earth?” (Jer 23:24). But God is said to dwell spiritually as in a family in the saints, whose mind is capable of God by knowledge and love, even though they may not be actually thinking of Him or loving Him, provided that by grace they possess the habit of faith and charity, as is the case with baptized infants. However, knowledge without love does not suffice for God’s indwelling, for 1 Jn (4:16) says: “He that abides in love abides in God and God in him.” That is why many persons know God either by natural knowledge or by unformed faith, yet God’s Spirit does not dwell in them. Deinde cum dicit si quis autem templum, etc., subiungit poenam male operantium secundum convenientiam praedictorum, dicens si quis autem, et cetera. Violatur autem templum Dei dupliciter. Uno modo per falsam doctrinam, quae non superaedificatur fundamento, sed magis subruit fundamentum et destruit aedificium. Unde dicitur Ez. XIII, 19 de falsis prophetis: violabant me ac populum meum propter pugillum hordei et fragmentum panis. Alio modo violat aliquis templum Dei per peccatum mortale, per quod aliquis vel seipsum corrumpit vel alium, opere vel exemplo. Unde dicitur Malac. II, 11: contaminavit Iudas sanctificationem domini quam dilexit. Sic autem dignum est, ut disperdatur ille a Deo per damnationem aeternam qui violat spirituale templum Dei, vel qualitercumque polluit. Unde dicitur Malac. II, 12: disperdet dominus virum qui fecerit hoc, magistrum et discipulum. Et in Ps. XI, 4: disperdet dominus universa labia dolosa, et cetera. 174. – Then when he says, But if any man, he mentions the punishment in store for those who do evil works, saying: But if any man destroy the temple of God, him will God destroy. Now the temple of God is violated in two ways: in one way by false teaching, which does not build on the foundation but rather uproots it and destroys the edifice; hence, (Ez 13:19) says of false prophets: “You have profaned me among my people for handfuls of barley and for pieces of bread.” In another way a person violates the temple of God by mortal sin, through which he destroys himself or someone else by his works or example; hence it says in Mal (2:11): “Judah has profaned the sanctuary of the Lord, which he loves.” Therefore, any person who violates a spiritual temple of God or profanes it in any way deserves to be destroyed by God through eternal damnation; hence Mal (2:12) continues: “May the Lord cut off from the tents of Jacob and the man who does this, both the master and the disciple,” and in Ps 12 (v. 3): “May the Lord cut off all flattering lips, the tongue that makes great boasts.” Deinde cum dicit templum Dei, etc., assignat rationem eius quod dixerat de sanctitate templi. Qui enim aliquam rem sacram violat, sacrilegium committit, unde dignum est ut disperdatur. Templum enim Dei sanctum est quod estis vos, sicut supra dictum est, et in Ps. LXIV, 5 dicitur: sanctum est templum tuum, mirabile in aequitate; et alibi domum tuam, domine, decet sanctitudo. Et quidem in materiali templo est quaedam sacramentalis sanctitas, prout templum divino cultui dedicatur, sed in fidelibus Christi est sanctitas gratiae, quam consecuti sunt per Baptismum, secundum illud infra IV, 11: abluti estis, sanctificati estis. 175. – Then when he says, For the temple, he gives the reason for what he had said about the holiness of the temple. For a person who profanes a sacred thing commits a sacrilege; hence he deserves to be destroyed. For the temple of God is holy, and that temple you are, as he stated earlier and as stated in Ps 65 (v. 4) “Holy is your temple, wonderful in justice,” and again in Ps 93 (v. 5): “Holiness befits thy house, O Lord.” In a material temple, however, is a certain sacramental holiness, inasmuch as the temple is dedicated to divine worship; but in Christ’s faithful is the holiness of grace, which they acquired by baptism: “You have been washed, you have been sanctified” 1 Cor (6:11). Deinde cum dicit nemo vos seducat, excludit errorem contrarium. Et primo monet fideles ut sibi caveant a seductione errorum; secundo docet modum cavendi, ibi si quis inter vos; tertio assignat rationem, ibi sapientia enim huius mundi, et cetera. 176. – Then when he says, Let no man, he excludes an opposite error. First, he warns the faithful to be careful not to be deceived by error; secondly, he teaches now to be careful (v. 18); thirdly, he assigns the reason (v. 19). Circa primum sciendum quod quidam dixerunt quod Deus neque punit, neque remunerat hominum facta; ex quorum persona dicitur Sophon. I, 12: qui dicunt in cordibus suis: non faciet bene dominus, et non faciet male. Et Thren. III, 37 s.: quis est iste qui dixit, ut fieret, domino non iubente? Ex ore altissimi non egredietur bonum neque malum. Ad hunc ergo errorem excludendum dicit nemo vos seducat, asserens scilicet quod ille qui templum Dei violat, non disperdatur a Deo, sicut Eph. V, 6 dicitur: nemo vos seducat inanibus verbis, propter hoc enim venit ira Dei in filios diffidentiae. 177. – In regard to the first it should be noted that some people say that God neither rewards nor punishes men’s deeds: “They say in their hearts, ‘The Lord will not do good, nor will he do ill’” (Zeph 1:12); “Who has commanded and it came to pass, unless the Lord has ordained it? Is it not from the mouth of the Most High that good and evil come?” (Lam 3:37). To exclude this error he says, let no man deceive himself with the assertion that a person who violates the temple of God will not be destroyed: “Let no man deceive you with empty words, for it is because of these things that the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience” (Eph 5:6). Deinde cum dicit si quis inter vos, etc., docet modum cavendi huiusmodi seductionem. Ubi sciendum est quod quidam dixerunt Deum non punire peccata hominum, innitentes rationibus humanae sapientiae, puta quod Deus non cognoscat singularia, quae fiunt hic, ex quorum persona dicitur Iob XXII, v. 14: circa cardines caeli perambulat, nec nostra considerat. Ad hoc ergo vitandum dicit si quis inter vos videtur esse sapiens in hoc saeculo, id est, sapientia saeculari, quae in eo quod contrariatur veritati fidei, non est sapientia, licet videatur esse, stultus fiat, abiiciendo istam sapientiam apparentem, ut sit sapiens, scilicet secundum sapientiam divinam, quae est vera sapientia. Et hoc etiam observandum est non solum in his in quibus saecularis sapientia contrariatur veritati fidei, sed etiam in omnibus in quibus contrariatur honestati morum. Unde Prov. XXX, 1 dicitur: Deo secum morante confortatus est, et cetera. 178. – Then when he says, if any man, he shows how to avoid being deceived in this way. Here it should be noted that some, appealing to the reasons of human wisdom, have declared that God does not punish men’s sins on the ground that God does not know the particular things that happen here: “And you say, ‘Thick clouds enwrap him, so that he does not see’” (Jb 22:14). Therefore, to avoid this he says: If any man among you thinks he is wise in this world, i.e., has worldly wisdom, which in those points that are contrary to the faith is not wisdom, even though it appears to be, let him become a fool by eschewing that seeming wisdom, that he may become wise, namely, according to divine wisdom, which is the true wisdom. And this must be observed not only in those matters in which worldly wisdom is contrary to the truth of faith, but also in all matters in which it is contrary to genuine morality; hence: “He is a shield to those who take refuge in him” (Pr 30:5). Deinde cum dicit sapientia huius mundi, etc., assignat rationem eius quod dixerat. Et primo ponit rationem. Videbatur enim ineptam monitionem fecisse, ut aliquis fieret stultus, et vere inepta esset si stultitia illa, de qua loquebatur, esset per abnegationem verae sapientiae, sed non est ita. Sapientia enim huius mundi stultitia est apud Deum. Dicitur autem sapientia huius mundi, quae principaliter mundo innititur. Nam illa, quae per res huius mundi ad Deum attingit, non est sapientia mundi, sed sapientia Dei, secundum illud Rom. I, 19 s.: Deus enim illis revelavit. Invisibilia enim ipsius a creatura mundi per ea quae facta sunt, intellecta conspiciuntur. Sapientia ergo mundi, quae sic rebus intendit, ut ad divinam veritatem non pertingat, stultitia est apud Deum, id est, stultitia reputatur secundum divinum iudicium. Is. XIX, 11: stulti principes Thaneos, sapientes consiliarii Pharaonis dederunt consilium insipiens. 179. – Then when he says, For the wisdom, he assigns the reason for what he had said. For it seems to be inept to advise a person to become foolish, as, indeed, it would be if the foolishness were the denial of true wisdom. But that is not the case, for the wisdom of this world is folly with God, because it rests mainly on this world, whereas the wisdom which attains to God through the things of this world is not the wisdom of the world but the wisdom of God, as Rom (1:19) says: “For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. His invisible nature has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made.” Therefore, the wisdom of this world, which considers the things of this world in such a way that it does not reach divine truth is folly with God, i.e., in God’s judgment it is folly: “The princes of Zoan are utterly foolish; the wise counselors of Pharaoh give stupid counsel” (Is 19:11). Secundo probat quod dixerat per duas auctoritates, quarum prima scribitur Iob V, 13. Unde dicit scriptum est: comprehendam sapientes in astutia eorum. Comprehendit autem sapientes dominus in astutia eorum, quia per hoc ipsum quod astute cogitant contra Deum, impedit Deus eorum conatum, et implet suum propositum; sicut per malitiam fratrum Ioseph volentium impedire eius principatum, impletum est per divinam ordinationem, quod Ioseph in Aegypto venditus principaretur. Unde et ante praemissa verba dicit Iob: qui dissipat cogitationes eorum, scilicet malignorum, ne possint implere manus eorum, quod coeperant; quia, ut dicitur Prov. XXI, 30, non est sapientia, non est scientia, non est consilium contra dominum. Secunda auctoritas sumitur ex Ps., unde dicit et iterum scriptum est: dominus novit cogitationes sapientium, id est, secundum sapientiam mundi, quoniam vanae sunt; quia scilicet non pertingunt ad finem cognitionis humanae, quae est cognitio veritatis divinae. Unde dicitur Sap. XIII, v. 1: vani sunt homines, in quibus non subest sapientia Dei. 180. – Secondly, he proves what he had said by citing two authorities: the first of these is from Jb (5:13); hence he says: He catches the wise in their own craftiness. Now the Lord catches the wise in their own craftiness, because when they lay crafty plans contrary to God, He frustrates them and fulfills His own plan. Thus, by the malice of Joseph’s brothers attempting to prevent his ascendancy, it came to pass by divine providence that Joseph, after being sold, became a ruler in Egypt. Hence just before the words quoted, Job says: “He frustrates the devices of the crafty, so that their hands achieve no success”; because, as it says in Pr (21:30): “No wisdom, no understanding, no counsel, can avail against the Lord.” The second authority is taken from Ps 94 (v. 11); hence he says: and again it is written: The Lord knows that the thoughts of the wise, i.e., according to the wisdom of the world, are futile, namely, because they do not reach unto the goal of human knowledge, which is the knowledge of divine truth. Hence Wis (13:1) says: “All men who are ignorant of God are foolish.” Deinde cum dicit itaque nemo glorietur in hominibus, infert conclusionem principaliter intentam, scilicet quod non debeant gloriari de ministris Dei. Et primo concludit propositum ex praedictis dicens itaque, ex quo ministri nihil sunt, sed laborant pro mercede, nemo glorietur in hominibus; sicut et in Ps. CXLV, 2 s. dicitur: nolite confidere in principibus, neque in filiis hominum, in quibus non est salus. Et Ier. XVII, 5: maledictus vir qui confidit in homine, et cetera. 181. – Then when he says, let no man, he draws his main conclusion, namely, that they should not glory in God’s ministers. First, he draws the conclusion, saying: Therefore, since ministers are nothing but persons laboring for a reward, let no man boast of men, as it says in Ps 146 (v. 3): “Put not your trust in princes, in a son of man, in whom there is no help”; and Jer (17:5): “Cursed is the man who trusts in man and makes flesh his arm.” Secundo rationem assignat ex dignitate fidelium Christi, assignans ordinem fidelium in rebus. Et primo ponit ordinem rerum ad fideles Christi, dicens omnia vestra sunt, quasi dicat: sicut homo non gloriatur de rebus sibi subiectis, ita et vos gloriari non debetis de rebus huius mundi, quae omnia sunt vobis data a Deo, secundum illud Ps. VIII, 8: omnia subiecisti sub pedibus eius. Exponit autem, quae omnia, inter quae primo ponit ministros Christi, qui sunt divinitus ordinati ad ministerium fidelium, secundum illud II Cor. IV, 5: nos autem servos vestros per Iesum. Et hoc est, quod dicit sive Paulus, qui plantavit, sive Apollo, qui rigavit, sive Cephas, id est, Petrus, qui est universalis pastor ovium Christi, ut dicitur Io. ult. Post haec ponit res exteriores, cum dicit sive mundus, qui est continentia omnium creaturarum, qui quidem est fidelium Christi, eo quod homo per res huius mundi iuvatur, vel quantum ad necessitatem corporalem, vel quantum ad cognitionem Dei, secundum illud Sap. XIII, 5: a magnitudine speciei et creaturae, et cetera. 182. – Secondly, he assigns a reason based on the dignity of Christ’s faithful. First, he mentions the relationship between things and Christ’s faithful, saying: For all things are yours. As if to say: just as a man does not glory in things subject to himself, so neither should you glory in the things of the world, all of which have been given to you by God: “Thou has put all things under his feet” (Ps 8:8). Then he specifies what he means by all things; and first he mentions Christ’s ministers, who are appointed by God in minister to the faithful: “With ourselves as your servants for Jesus’ sake” (2 Cor 4:5), which is what he says: whether Paul, who planted, or Apollos, who watered, or Cephas, i.e., Peter, who is the universal shepherd of Christ’s sheep, as stated in Jn (c. 21). After these he mentions external things when he says: or the world, which contains all creatures and belongs to Christ’s faithful, inasmuch as a person is helped by the things of this world to fulfill his bodily needs and to attain to a knowledge of God: “From the greatness and beauty of created things comes a corresponding perception of their Creator” (Wis 13:5). Consequenter ponit ea quae pertinent ad ipsam hominis dispositionem, dicens sive vita, sive mors, quia scilicet fidelibus Christi et vita est utilis in qua merentur, et mors per quam ad praemia perveniunt, secundum illud Rom. XIV, 8: sive vivimus, sive morimur, et cetera. Et Phil. I, 21: mihi vivere Christus est, et mori lucrum. Ad haec autem duo reducuntur omnia bona vel mala huius mundi, quia per bona conservatur vita, per mala pervenitur ad mortem. Ultimo ponit quae pertinent ad statum hominis praesentem vel futurum, dicens sive praesentia, id est, res huius vitae, quibus iuvamur ad merendum; sive futura, quae nobis reservantur ad praemium. Non enim habemus hic civitatem permanentem, sed futuram inquirimus, ut dicitur Hebr. ult. Omnia, inquit, vestra sunt, id est, vestrae utilitati deservientia, secundum illud Rom. VIII, 28: diligentibus Deum omnia cooperantur in bonum. 183. – Then he lists things which pertain to the very disposition of man, saying: or life or death, because life is useful to Christ’s faithful as the time for meriting; and so is death, by which they reach their reward: “Whether we live or die, we are the Lord’s” (Rom 14:8); and “for me to live is Christ and to die is gain” (Phil 1:21). Indeed, all good and evil in this world are reduced to these two, because by good things life is preserved and by evil things death is reached. Finally, he lists the things which pertain to man’s present or future state, saying: or the present, i.e., things of this life by which we are aided in meriting, or the future, i.e., things reserved for us as a reward: “We have not here a lasting city, but we seek one that is to come” (Heb 13:14). All are yours, i.e., serve your advantage: “In everything God works for good with those who love him” (Rom 8:28). Sic ergo primus ordo est rerum Christi ad fideles; secundus vero fidelium Christi ad Christum, quos ponit subdens vos autem Christi estis, quia scilicet sua morte vos redemit. Rom. XIV, 8: sive vivimus, sive morimur, domini sumus. Tertius ordo est Christi, secundum quod homo ad Deum; ideo addit Christus autem, secundum quod homo, Dei est. Unde eum Deum et dominum in Ps. VII, 2 nominat, dicens: domine Deus meus, in te speravi, ut nomine Dei tota Trinitas intelligatur. Quia ergo nullus debet gloriari de eo quod infra ipsum est, sed de eo quod est supra ipsum, ideo non debent fideles Christi gloriari de ministris, sed magis ministri de ipsis. II Cor. VII, 4: multa mihi fiducia est apud vos, multa mihi gloriatio pro vobis. Sed fideles Christi debent gloriari de Christo, secundum illud Gal. ult.: mihi absit gloriari, nisi in cruce domini nostri Iesu Christi, sicut Christus de patre, secundum illud Sap. II, 16: gloriatur se patrem habere Deum. 184. – Thus, the first relationship is that of Christ to the faithful, but the second is that of Christ’s faithful to Christ. He mentions this when he says: and you are Christ’s, because He redeemed us by His death: “Whether we live it whether we die, we are the Lord’s” (Rom 14:8). The third relationship is that of Christ as man to God; hence he adds: and Christ as man is God’s. Hence He is called God and Lord in Ps 7 (v. 1): “O Lord my God, in thee do I take refuge,” where the whole Trinity is understood by the name, God. Therefore, because no one should glory in anything below him but in what is above him, the faithful of Christ should not glory in His ministers, but rather the ministers in them: “I have great confidence in you; I have great pride in you” (2 Cor 7:4). But Christ’s faithful should glory in Christ: “Far be it from me to glory except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Gal 6:14), as Christ glories in the Father: “He boasts that God is his father” (Wis 2:16).
4-1
1 Cor 4:1-5Superius redarguit apostolus Corinthios de hoc, quod de quibusdam ministris gloriabantur, hic autem arguit eos quod alios ministros contemnebant. Et circa hoc duo facit. Primo arguit eorum culpam; secundo instat ad eorum correctionem, ibi non ut confundam vos. Circa primum duo facit. Primo arguit eorum temeritatem, qua male de ministris iudicabant; secundo arguit eorum elationem, qua Christi ministros contemnebant, ibi hoc autem, fratres. Circa primum duo facit. Primo ostendit, quid sit de ministris Christi firmiter sentiendum; secundo quod non sit de eis temere iudicandum, ibi hic iam quaeritur inter dispensatores. 185. – Having rebuked the Corinthians for glorying in certain ministers, the Apostle now attacks them for looking down on other ministers. In regard to this he does two things: first, he censures their guilt; secondly, he concentrates on correcting them (v. 14). In regard to the first he does two things: first, he censures their rashness in judging ill of ministers; secondly, their arrogance in looking down on ministers of Christ (v. 6). In regard to the first he does two things: first, he shows what should be assuredly felt about Christ’s ministers; secondly, that they should not be judged rashly (v. 2). Dicit ergo primo: dixi quod nullus vestrum debet gloriari de hominibus, tamen quilibet vestrum debet cognoscere auctoritatem officii nostri, ad quod pertinet quod sumus mediatores inter Christum cui servimus, ad quos pertinet quod dicit sic nos existimet homo ut ministros Christi, Is. LXI, v. 6: sacerdotes Dei vocabimini ministri Dei nostri, dicetur vobis, et inter membra eius, quae sunt fideles Ecclesiae, quibus dona Christi dispensant, ad quos pertinet quod subditur et dispensatores mysteriorum Dei, id est, secretorum eius, quae quidem sunt spiritualia eius documenta, secundum illud infra XIV, 2: spiritus est, qui loquitur mysteria; vel etiam ecclesiastica sacramenta, in quibus divina virtus secretius operatur salutem. Unde et in forma consecrationis Eucharistiae dicitur: mysterium fidei. 186. – First, therefore, he says: I have said that none of you should glory in men; nevertheless, each of you should recognize the authority of our office, which is that we are mediators between Christ Whom we serve—he refers to this when he says: This is how one should regard us, as ministers of Christ; “Men shall speak of you as the ministers of our God” (Is 61:6)—and His members who are the faithful of the Church, to whom we dispense Christ’s gifts. He refers to this when he says: and stewards of the mysteries of God, i.e., of His secrets. These are His spiritual teachings: “He utters mysteries in the Spirit” (1 Cor 14:2) or the sacraments of the Church, in which divine power secretly works salvation; hence in the formula for consecrating the Eucharist it is said: “a mystery of faith.” Pertinet ergo ad officium praelatorum Ecclesiae, quod in gubernatione subditorum soli Christo servire desiderent, cuius amore oves eius pascunt, secundum illud Io. ult.: si diligis me, pasce oves meas. Pertinet etiam ad eos, ut divina populo dispensent, secundum illud infra IX, 17: dispensatio mihi credita est, et secundum hoc sunt mediatores inter Christum et populum, secundum illud Deut. V, 5: ego sequester fui, et medius illo tempore inter Deum et vos. Haec autem aestimatio de praelatis Ecclesiae necessaria est ad salutem fidelium; nisi enim eos recognoscerent ministros Christi, non eis obedirent, tamquam Christo, secundum illud Gal. IV, 14: sicut Angelum Dei excepistis me, sicut Iesum Christum. Rursum, si eos non cognoscerent dispensatores, recusarent ab eis dona recipere, contra illud quod idem apostolus dicit II Cor. II, 10: quod donavi, si quid donavi, propter vos in persona Christi donavi. 187. – Therefore, in governing their subjects the prelates of the Church should seek to serves Christ alone, for love of Whom they feed His sheep: “If you love me, feed my sheep” (Jn. 21:17). Furthermore, they should dispense the things of God to the people: “I am entrusted with a commission” (1 Cor 9:17). It is in this way that they are mediators between Christ and the people: “I stood between the Lord and you at that time” (Dt 5:5). This view of the Church’s prelates is necessary for the salvation of the faithful, for unless they recognize them as Christ’s ministers, they will not obey them as Christ: “You received me as an angel of God, as Christ Jesus” (Gal 4:14). Again, if they do not regard them as stewards, they would refuse to receive gifts from them, contrary to what he Apostle says: “What I have forgiven, if I have forgiven anything, has been for your sake in the presence of Christ” (2 Cor 2:10). Deinde cum dicit hic iam quaeritur inter dispensatores, ostendit circa ministros Christi, temere iudicari non debere. Et circa hoc tria facit. Primo, ponit quoddam per quod iudicare satagunt de fidelitate ministrorum; secundo, ostendit de hoc iudicio se non curare, sed Deo reservare, ibi mihi autem pro minimo est; tertio, concludit prohibitionem temerarii iudicii, ibi itaque nolite. 188. – Then when he says, Moreover it is required, he shows that they should not judge rashly in matters concerning Christ’s ministers. In regard to this he does three things: first, he mentions the standard by which to judge the faithfulness of ministers; secondly, he shows that he is not concerned about this judgment but leaves it to God (v. 3); thirdly he concludes his prohibition against rash judgment (v. 5). Circa primum considerandum est, quod ministrorum et dispensatorum Christi, quidam sunt fideles, quidam infideles. Infideles dispensatores sunt, qui in dispensandis divinis ministeriis non intendunt utilitatem populi, et honorem Christi, et utilitatem membrorum eius, secundum illud Lc. XVI, v. 11: in iniquo mammona fideles non fuistis. Fideles autem, qui in omnibus intendunt honorem Dei, et utilitatem membrorum eius, secundum illud Lc. XII, 42: quis, putas, est fidelis servus et prudens, quem constituit dominus super familiam suam? Qui autem sunt fideles divino iudicio manifestabuntur in futuro. Sed Corinthii temere volebant discutere, qui dispensatores essent fideles vel infideles. Et hoc est quod dicit hic, hoc est, inter vos, iam, id est, praesenti tempore, quaeritur, id est, discutitur, ut quis, id est aliquis, inter dispensatores fidelis inveniatur. Iudicabant enim plures esse infideles, vix aliquem virum putantes esse fidelem, secundum illud Prov. XX, 6: multi viri misericordes vocantur, virum autem fidelem quis inveniet? 189. – In regard to the first it should be noted that some are faithful ministers and dispensers of Christ, and some unfaithful. The unfaithful ministers do not seek the people’s welfare and Christ’s honor, when they dispense the divine mysteries: “You have not been faithful in the unrighteous mammon” (Lk 16:11). But the faithful ones seek the honor of God and the welfare of His members in all things: “Who then is the faithful and wise steward, whom his master will set over his household?” (Lk 12:42). Who the faithful ministers are will be disclosed in the divine judgment to come. But the Corinthians rashly desired to discuss which dispensers were faithful and which unfaithful. And this is what he says: moreover, now, i.e., in the present time, it is required, i.e., it is being discussed, that stewards be found trustworthy. For they judged that many were unfaithful, supposing that scarcely anyone was faithful: “Many a man proclaims his own loyalty, but a faithful man who can find?” (Pr 20:6). Deinde cum dicit mihi autem pro minimo est, ostendit se hoc iudicium reputare nihil, et circa hoc tria facit. Primo ponit, quod non curat circa hoc ab aliis iudicari, dicens mihi autem, qui sum minimus inter dispensatores, pro minimo est, id est, minima bona reputo, ut a vobis iudicer, scilicet esse fidelis, vel infidelis. Et ne putarent ab apostolo haec dici in eorum contemptum, ac si eorum iudicium despiceret, quasi vilium personarum, subiungit aut ab humano intellectu, qui est dies hominis, secundum illud Io. XI, 9: qui ambulat in die, non offendit, quia lucem huius mundi videt. Vel ad litteram aut ab humano die, id est, ab intellectu in hoc tempore iudicantibus, quasi dicat: vestrum, vel quorumcumque hominum iudicium parum curo. Ier. XVII, 16: diem hominis non desideravi, tu scis. 190. – Then when he says, But with me, he shows that he has no regard for this judgment. First, he asserts that he is not concerned about the judgment of others on this point, saying: But with me who am the least of the dispensers, it is a very small thing, i.e., I regard it a trivial good, to be judged by you as faithful or unfaithful. But lest they suppose that he says these things out of contempt, as though he scorned their opinion as coming from worthless persons, he adds, or by any human court, i.e., by the intellect of persons judging in this time. As if to say: I am little concerned about your judgment or any man’s: “I have not desired the day of man, thou knowest.” (Jer 17:16). Est autem sciendum, quod de iudicio hominum dupliciter debet curari. Uno modo, quantum ad alios, qui ex eorum bono, vel aedificantur, vel scandalizantur, et sic sancti non pro minimo, sed pro magno habent ab hominibus iudicari, cum dominus dicat Matth. V, 16: videant opera vestra bona, et glorificent patrem vestrum, qui in caelis est. Alio modo quantum ad seipsos, et sic non curant multum, quia nec gloriam humanam concupiscunt, secundum illud I Thess. II, 6: neque gloriam ab hominibus quaerentes, neque aliquid a vobis, neque ab aliis. Neque opprobrium hominis timent, secundum illud Is. LI, 7: nolite timere opprobrium hominum, et blasphemias eorum ne timeatis. Unde apostolus signanter dicit mihi autem, etc., id est, quantum ad me pertinet, non autem id pro nullo est, sed pro minimo, quia bona temporalia, inter quae bona fama computatur, non sunt nulla bona, sed minima, ut Augustinus dicit in libro de libero arbitrio. Unde et Sap. VII, 9: omne aurum in comparatione illius arena est exigua. 191. – It should be noted, however, that one should have regard for men’s judgment in two ways: first, in regard to others who are edified or scandalized by what is heard. For this reason the saints did not regard it a small thing but very important to be judged by men, since the Lord said: “That they may see your good works and give glory to your Father, who is in heaven” (Matt. 5:16). Secondly, in regard to themselves, and then they do not care much, because they neither desire human glory: “Nor sought we the glory of men, neither of you nor of others” (1 Th 2:6), nor fear men’s reproaches: “Fear not the reproach of men, and be not afraid of their blasphemies” (Is 51:7). Hence the Apostle says significantly: But with me, i.e., as far as it pertains to me. Nor does he regard it as nothing, but as a small thing, because temporal things, among which a good reputation finds a place, are not null goods but very small ones, as Augustine says in the book On Free Will. Hence it is also stated in Wis (7:9): “All gold in comparison of her is as a little sand.” Secundo ostendit, quod neque seipsum iudicare praesumit, dicens sed neque meipsum iudico. Videtur autem hoc esse contra id quod infra XI, 31 dicitur: si nosmetipsos diiudicaremus, non utique iudicaremur. Debet ergo quilibet iudicare seipsum. Sed sciendum est, quod iudicio discussionis, de quo apostolus hic loquitur, quilibet debet iudicare seipsum, secundum illud Ps. LXXVI, 7: exercitabar et scopebam spiritum meum, et similiter iudicio condemnationis et reprehensionis in manifestis malis, secundum illud Iob XIII, 15: arguam coram eo vias meas; sed iudicio absolutionis non debet aliquis praesumere se iudicare ut innocentem; unde dicitur Iob IX, 20: si iustificare me voluero, os meum condemnabit me; si innocentem considero, pravum me comprobabit. Cuius rationem assignat, dicens nihil mihi conscius sum, id est, non habeo alicuius peccati mortalis conscientiam, secundum illud Iob XXVII, 6: neque reprehendit me cor meum in omni vita mea. Sed non in hoc iustificatus sum, id est, non sufficit ad hoc, quod me iustum pronunciem, quia possunt aliqua peccata in me latere, quae ignoro, secundum illud Ps.: delicta quis intelligit? Et Iob c. IX, 21 dicitur: et si simplex fuero, hoc ipsum ignorabit anima mea. 192. – Secondly, he shows that he does not even presume to judge himself, saying: I do not even judge myself. But this seems to conflict with a later statement: “If we judged ourselves truly, we should no be judged” (1 Cor 11:31). Therefore, everyone should judge himself. However, it should be noted that everyone should judge himself with the judgment of self-examination, about which the Apostle speak here, according to the spirit of Ps 77 (v. 6): “I meditate and search my spirit,” as well as with the judgment of condemnation and reproach in the face of obvious evils: “I will reprove my ways in his sight” (Jb 13:15). But with the judgment of absolution a person should not presume to judge himself innocent: “Though I am innocent, my own mouth would condemn me; though I am blameless, he would prove me perverse” (Jb 9:20). He assigns the reason for this when he says: I am not aware of anything against myself, i.e., I am not aware of any mortal sin: “My heart does not reproach me for any of my days” (Jb 27:6); but I am not thereby acquitted, i.e., that does not suffice for pronouncing myself just, because certain sins can be hiding in me, which I do not know: “Who can discern his sins?” (Ps 19:12); “I am blameless; I regard not myself” (Jb 9:21). Tertio concludit cui hoc iudicium reservetur, dicens qui autem iudicat me dominus est, id est, ad solum Deum pertinet iudicare utrum sim fidelis minister an non; hoc enim pertinet ad intentionem cordis, quam solus Deus ponderare potest, secundum illud Prov. XVI, 2: spirituum ponderator est dominus. Et Ier. XVII, 9: pravum est cor hominis et inscrutabile, quis cognoscet illud? Ego dominus probans renes et scrutans corda. 193. – Thirdly, he concludes to the one to whom this judgment should be reserved, saying: It is the Lord who judges me, i.e., it is God’s exclusive province to judge whether I am a faithful minister or not, because this pertains to the heart’s intention, which God alone can weigh: “The Lord weighs the spirit” (Pr 16:2); “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately corrupt; who can understand it? I the Lord search the mind and try the heart” (Jer 17:9). Deinde cum dicit itaque nolite, etc., concludit prohibitionem temerarii iudicii, et circa hoc tria facit. Primo prohibet praevenire divinum iudicium, dicens: itaque exemplo meo qui neque meipsum iudico, neque ab aliis iudicari curo, sed iudicium meum Deo reservo, nolite ante tempus iudicare, quia, ut dicitur Eccle. c. VIII, 6, omni negotio tempus est et opportunitas. Quoadusque veniat dominus, scilicet ad iudicandum, secundum illud Is. III, v. 14: dominus ad iudicium veniet cum senatoribus populi sui. Unde et dominus dixit Matth. VII, 1: nolite iudicare. Sed hoc intelligendum est de occultis; de manifestis autem iudicare commissum est a Deo hominibus, secundum illud Deut. I, 16: audite illos, et quod iustum est iudicate. 194. – The when he says, Judge not before, he concludes the prohibition against rash judgment. In regard to this he does three things: first, he forbids them to anticipate God’s judgment, saying: Therefore, in keeping with my example, who neither judge myself nor care about being judged by others, but reserve my judgment to God, do not pronounce judgment before the time, because “every matter has its time” (Ec 8:6), before the Lord comes to judge: “The Lord enters into judgment with the elders and princes of his people” (Is 3:14). Hence the Lord Himself said: “Judge not” (Matt 7:1). However, this must be understood of hidden things, because God has commissioned men to judge manifest things: “Hear then and judge what is just” (Dt 1:16). Sunt enim aliqua manifesta non solum per evidentiam facti, sicut notoria, sed et propter confessionem, aut testium probationem. Occulta vero Deus suo reservat iudicio. Sunt autem occulta nobis, quae latent in corde, vel etiam in abscondito fiunt, et de his dicitur in Ps. IV, 5: quae dicitis in cordibus vestris, et in cubilibus vestris compungimini. Unde homo quidem de his est temerarius iudex, sicut iudex delegatus, qui excedit formam mandati iudicii de causa non sibi commissa. Est ergo temerarium iudicium, quando aliquis de dubiis iudicat. Perversum autem, quando falsum iudicium profert. Et quamvis non sit iudicandum circa personas, puta ut aliquis iudicet malum hominem, qui bonus est, tamen multo gravius est, ut iudicium pervertatur de rebus ipsis, puta si quis diceret virginitatem esse malam, et fornicationem bonam. Contra quod dicitur Is. V, 20: vae qui dicitis bonum malum, et malum bonum. 195. – For some things are manifested not only by the evidence of the fact, being notorious, but also by confession or by the proved testimony of witnesses. But God reserves hidden things for His own judgment. But things which lie in our heart or are done in secret are hidden to ourselves. Of these it says in Ps 4 (v. 5): “The things you say in your hearts, be sorry for them upon your beds.” Hence a man is as rash in judging about these matters as a delegated judge, who exceeds his mandate by judging matter not committed to him. Consequently, a judgment is rash, when a person judges about doubtful matters; but it is perverse, when he pronounces a false judgment. Now although judgment should not be made concerning persons, as when a person judges as evil a man who is good, nevertheless it is more grievous, when it is a perverse judgment about things themselves, as when a person says that virginity is evil and fornication good, against which Is (5:20) says: “Woe to you that call good evil and evil good.” Secundo describit perfectionem futuri divini iudicii, dicens qui, scilicet dominus ad iudicandum veniens, illuminabit abscondita tenebrarum, id est faciet esse lucida et manifesta ea quae occulte in tenebris facta sunt. Et manifestabit consilia cordium, id est omnia cordis occulta, secundum illud Iob XII, 22: qui revelat occulta de tenebris, et producit in lucem umbram mortis. Et Sophon. I, 12: scrutabor Ierusalem in lucernis. Quod quidem est intelligendum tam de bonis, quam de malis, quae non sunt per poenitentiam tecta, secundum illud Ps. XXXI, v. 1: beati quorum remissae sunt iniquitates, et quorum tecta sunt peccata. 196. – Secondly, he describes the completeness of the divine judgment to come, saying: who, namely the Lord coming to judgment, will bring to light the things now hidden in darkness, i.e., will make clear and obvious the things done secretly in darkness; and will disclose the purposes of the heart, i.e., all the secrets of the heart: “He reveals deep things out of darkness, and brings up to light the shadow of death” (Jb 12:22); “I will search Jerusalem with lamps” (Zeph 1:12). This, of course, refers both to good things and to evil things that have been committed and covered over by penance, for Ps 32 (v.1): “Blessed is he whose transgressions is forgiven, whose sin is covered.” Tertio ponit fructum, quem boni reportabunt de divino iudicio, dicens et tunc laus erit unicuique, scilicet bonorum a Deo. Quae quidem laus vera erit, quia Deus nec decipi, nec decipere potest. Rom. II, 29: cuius laus non ex hominibus, sed ex Deo est. II Cor. X, 18: non enim qui seipsum commendat ille probatus est, sed quem Deus commendat. 197. – Thirdly, he mentions the fruit which good men will obtain from the divine judgment, saying: Then every man will receive his commendation from God, i.e., every man that is good. This commendation will be true, because God can neither deceive nor be deceived: “His praise is not from men but from God” (Rom 2:29); “It is not the man who commends himself that is accepted, but the man whom the Lord commends” (2 Cor 10:18).
4-2
1 Cor 4:6-13Postquam apostolus reprehendit in Corinthiis temeritatem, qua ministros Christi iudicabant, hic arguit eorum elationem, qua ministros Christi contemnebant. Et circa hoc tria facit. Primo proponit quod intendit; secundo rationem assignat, ibi quis enim te discernit? Tertio eorum contemptum ironice loquens irridet, ibi iam saturati estis. 198. – After berating the Corinthians for the rashness with which they judged Christ’s ministers, the Apostle now censures the self-satisfaction with which they scorned Christ’s ministers. In regard to his he does three things: first, he states his proposition; secondly, he assigns a reason (v. 7); thirdly, be belittles their contemptuous attitude (v. 8). Circa primum considerandum est, quod apostolus supra volens reprimere contentiones Corinthiorum, quas habebant ratione ministrorum, usus fuerat nominibus bonorum ministrorum Christi, sicut supra I, 12 dixit: unusquisque vestrum dicit: ego quidem sum Pauli, ego autem Apollo, ego vero Cephae; et supra III, 22 ubi dixit: sive Paulus, sive Apollo, sive Cephas, et tamen non gloriabantur de bonis ministris Christi, nec propter eos dissidebant, sed propter pseudo-apostolos, quos nominare noluit, ne videretur ex odio, vel invidia contra eos loqui; sed loco eorum posuerat nomen suum et aliorum bonorum praedicatorum, et hoc est quod dicit haec autem, fratres, scilicet quae dixi de ministris, de quibus gloriamini, et pro quibus contenditis, transfiguravi id est, figuraliter loquens, transtuli, in me et Apollo. Dicit enim Prov. I, 6: animadvertent parabolam et interpretationem verba sapientium et aenigmata eorum. Et hoc propter vos, id est, vestram utilitatem, II Cor. IV, 15: omnia propter vos; ut in vobis discatis, ne unus vestrum infletur, id est, superbiat, adversus alium proximum suum, pro alio, scilicet pro quocumque ministro Christi, ne supra quam scriptum est, id est, ultra formam vobis in praemissis descriptam. Dicitur enim Sap. IV, v. 19: disrumpens illos inflatos sine voce. 199. – In regard to the first it should be noted that above when the Apostle tried to repress the rivalry about ministers among the Corinthians, he had used the names of good ministers of Christ, as when he said: “Each one of you says, ‘I belong to Paul,’ or ‘I belong to Apollos,’ or ‘I belong to Cephas’” (1 Cor 1:12) and again: “Whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas” (1 Cor 3:22). But in fact they were not glorying in Christ’s good ministers or disagreeing over them but over the false apostles, whom he chose not to name, lest it seem that he was speaking against them from hatred or envy. Rather he had employed his own name and the names of other good preachers. And that is what he is saying now: But all this, brethren, namely, what I have said about the ministers in whom you glory and for whom you compete, I have applied to myself and Apollos. For it says in Pr (1:6): “To understand a proverb and a figure, the words of the wise and their riddles,” and this for your benefit: “All things are for your sakes” (2 Cor 4:15); that you may learn by us that none of you may be puffed up, i.e., with pride, in favor of one, i.e., for any of Christ’s ministers, against another [above that which is written], i.e., beyond the form described in the foregoing; for Wis (4:19) states: “He will dash them puffed up and speechless to the ground.” Deinde cum dicit quis enim te discernit? Assignat rationem quare unus non debeat contra alium inflari. Et primo ponit rationem, dicens quis enim te discernit? Quod potest intelligi dupliciter: uno modo sic: quis enim te discernit a massa perditorum? Tu teipsum discernere non potes: unde non habes in te unde contra alium superbias. Et de hac discretione dicitur in Ps. XLII, 1: iudica me, Deus, et discerne causam meam de gente non sancta. Alio modo potest intelligi quis te discernit, scilicet superiorem faciens proximo tuo? Hoc quod tu facere non potes, unde contra eum superbire non debes. Et de hac discretione dicitur Eccli. XXXIII, 11: in multitudine disciplinae domini separavit eos, et immutavit vias illorum. Sed inter homines, inquantum sunt fideles Christi, non est discretio, quia, ut dicitur Rom. XII, 5, multi unum corpus sumus in Christo. Et dicit Petrus: nihil discernit inter nos et illos, fide purificans corda eorum. 200. – Then he assigns the reason why one should not be puffed up against another, saying: For who sees anything different in you? This can be interpreted in two ways: in one way so that it means, “Who distinguished you from the mass of the damned?” You cannot distinguish yourself; hence you have nothing in you as a ground for exalting yourself. Of this distinction Ps 43 (v.1): “Judge me, O God, and distinguish my cause from an ungodly people.” It can be understood in another way: Who sees anything different in you to make you superior to your neighbor? This is something you cannot do; hence you should not exalt yourself above him. Of this exaltation Sirach (33:11) says: “In the fullness of his knowledge God distinguished them and appointed their different ways.” But there is no distinction among men, insofar as they are Christ’s faithful, because “we, though many, are one body in Christ” (Rom 12:5); “God put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith” (Ac 15:9). Secundo excludit quamdam rationem. Posset enim aliquis discerni a bonis vel a malis, melior eis existens, propter bona quae habet, puta fidem, sapientiam, et huiusmodi. Sed hoc excludit apostolus, dicens quid autem habes, quod non accepisti? Quasi dicat: nihil. Omnia enim bona sunt a Deo, secundum illud Ps. CIII, 28: aperiente te manum tuam, omnia implebuntur bonitate; et Par. XXIX, 14: tua sunt omnia, et quae de manu tua accepimus, dedimus tibi. Et ex hoc concludit propositum, dicens si autem accepisti, quid gloriaris, quasi non acceperis? Ille igitur gloriatur quasi non accipiens, qui de seipso gloriatur, et non de Deo, sicut de quibusdam dicitur in Ps. XLVIII, v. 7: qui confidunt in virtute sua, et in multitudine divitiarum suarum gloriantur. 201. – Then he dismisses an apparent reason. For someone could be distinguished from good or from evil men, because he is better than they on account of the blessings he has, such as faith, wisdom and the like. But the Apostle excludes this, saying: What have you that you did not receive? As if to say: Nothing; for all blessings come from God: “When you open your hand, they are filled with good things” (Ps 104: 28); “All things come from you, and of your own have we given you” (1 Chr 29:14). From this he draws his conclusion, saying: If then you received it, why do you boast as if it were not a gift? Accordingly, a person boasts as though he did not receive, when he boasts in himself and not in God, as those mentioned in Ps 49 (v.6): “Men who trust in their wealth and boast of the abundance of their riches.” Et ad hoc pertinet prima species superbiae, qua scilicet aliquis superbiendo, quod habet, dicit a seipso habere, iuxta illud Ps. XI, 5: labia nostra a nobis sunt, quis noster dominus est? Ille autem gloriatur quasi accipiens, qui omnia Deo adscribens, gloriatur de ipso, sicut supra dictum est: qui gloriatur, in domino glorietur. Sic autem gloriari non est superbire, sed humiliari sub Deo, cui homo dat gloriam, secundum illud Eccli. ult.: danti mihi sapientiam, dabo gloriam. 202. – This is the way the first form of pride expresses itself, namely, when a person, taking pride in what he has, says that he has it of himself, as Ps 12 (v. 4): “With our tongue we will prevail, our lips are with us; who is our master?” But a person boasts as one receiving, when he glories in himself by ascribing everything to God, as was said above (1:31): “Let him who boasts, boast of the Lord.” To boast in this way is not pride but humility under God, to Whom a man gives glory as in Sirach (51:17): “To him who gives me wisdom I will give glory.” Deinde, cum dicit iam saturati estis, irridet eorum superbiam, qui apostolos Christi contemnebant. Et primo in generali, secundo in speciali, ibi nos stulti sumus, et cetera. Circa primum duo facit. Primo irridet in eis quod de se nimis praesumebant; secundo deridet in eis, quod apostolos contemnebant, ibi puto enim quod Deus, et cetera. Circa primum duo facit. Primo irridet eos de praesumptione, qua sibi attribuebant quod non habebant; secundo irridet eos de hoc, quod sibi singulariter attribuebant, quod singulariter non habebant, ibi sine nobis regnatis. Attribuebant autem sibi abundantiam bonorum, quorum quaedam sunt interiora; 203. – Then when he says, Already you are filled!, he mocks the pride of those who looked down on Christ’s apostles: first, in general; then specifically. As to the first he does two things: first, he ridicules them for presuming too much on themselves; secondly, for looking down on the apostles (v. 9). In regard to the first he does two things: first, he mocks them for presuming to attribute to themselves what they did not have; secondly, for attributing to themselves an abundance of good things, some of which are internal. et quantum ad hoc dicit iam saturati estis, id est, vobis videtur quod saturati estis, id est, abundanter refecti spirituali dulcedine, de qua dicitur in Ps. XVI, 15: satiabor dum manifestabitur gloria tua. Poterat autem eis secundum veritatem dici, quod iam saturati estis, non plenitudine, sed fastidio, secundum illud Prov. XXVII, 7: anima satiata calcabit favum. Quaedam vero sunt bona exteriora, et quantum ad hoc dicit iam divites facti estis, sicut vobis videtur, scilicet divitiis spiritualibus, de quibus dicitur Is. c. XXXIII, 6: divitiae salutis sapientia et scientia. Simile est, quod dicitur Apoc. III, v. 17: dicis, quia dives sum, et locuples valde, et nullius egeo. 204. – In regard to these he says, already you are filled, i.e., it seems to you that you are filled, i.e., completely sated with spiritual delights, about which Ps 17 (v. 15) says: “I shall be satisfied, when your glory shall appear.” But it could have been true to say to them, already you are filled, not with fullness but with nausea: “He who is sated loathes honey” (Pr 27:7). But some goods were external. In regard to these he says, Already you have become rich! It seems to you, with spiritual riches about which Is (33:6) says: “Riches of salvation, wisdom and knowledge.” This is similar to Rev (3:17) “You say, I am rich, I have prospered, and I need nothing.” Sed contra hoc videtur illud quod supra dixit in principio, dicens quia in omnibus divites facti estis in illo, in omni verbo, et in omni scientia, et cetera. Sed dicendum est, quod supra dixit quantum ad bonos, qui inter eos erant; hic autem dicit quantum ad praesumptuosos, qui superbiebant de eo quod non habebant. Potest et aliter distingui satietas et divitiae, ut saturitas referatur ad usum gratiae, quo quis spiritualibus fruitur; divitiae autem ad ipsos habitus gratiarum. 205. – But this seems to conflict with his earlier statement (1:5): “In every way you were enriched in him with all speech and all knowledge.” The answer is that the earlier statement referred to the good men among them; but there he is speaking about the presumptuous ones, who took pride in what they did not have. Or a distinction can be made between fullness and riches, so that the former refers to using grace to enjoy spiritual things, whereas riches would refer to the very possession of grace. Secundo cum dicit sine nobis regnatis, irridet eos, quod sibi singulariter attribuebant quod non habebant. Unde dicit sine nobis regnatis, id est, ita vobis videtur, quod regnum ad vos pertineat, non ad nos. Sic enim erant decepti a pseudo-apostolis, ut crederent se solos habere fidei veritatem, quae in regno Dei consistit, apostolum autem et sequaces eius errare. Contra quos dicitur Is. V, 8: numquid habitabitis vos soli in medio terrae? Et ne videatur apostolus ex invidia hoc dicere, subiungit utinam regnetis. Optat enim ut veram fidem habeant, secundum illud Act. XXVI, 29: opto omnes qui audiunt, tales fieri, qualis et ego sum, exceptis vinculis his. Et ut eis exempla humilitatis praebeat, subiungit ut et nos regnemus vobiscum, quasi dicat: si aliquam excellentiam habetis, non dedignamur vos sequi, sicut vos dedignamini sequi nos, contra illud quod dicitur Gal. IV, v. 18: quod bonum est, aemulamini in bono semper. 206. – Secondly, when he says, Without us you have become kings!, he makes sport of them for attributing to themselves individually things they did not possess individually; hence he says, without us you have become kings, i.e., you seem to think that the kingdom belongs to you and not to us. For they had been deceived by the false apostles to such an extent as to suppose that they alone possessed the truths of faith, which consists in the kingdom of God, and that the Apostle and his followers were in error. Against these Is (5:8): “Do you alone live in the middle of the earth?” And lest it seem that the Apostle says this out of envy, he continues: And would that you did reign. Thus he wishes them to have the true faith: “I would to God that not only you but also all who hear me this day might become such as I am – except for these chains” (Ac 26:29). And to offer them an example of humility he adds: that we might share the rule with you! As if to say: If you have anything worthwhile, I am not too proud to follow you, as you disdain to follow us, contrary to what he advises in Gal (4:18): “Be zealous for what is good in a good thing always.” Et est advertendum, quod apostolus hic quatuor species superbiae tangit, quarum prima est, quando aliquis reputat se non habere a Deo quod habet, quam tangit dicens quid gloriaris quasi non acceperis? Et hoc etiam potest reduci ad secundam speciem qua aliquis existimat propriis meritis accepisse. Tertia species est, qua quis iactat se habere quod non habet, et quantum ad hoc dicit iam saturati estis, iam divites facti estis. Quarta species, quando aliquis, despectis caeteris, singulariter vult videri, et quantum ad hoc pertinet quod dicit sine nobis regnatis. 207. – It should be noted that the Apostle here touches on four kinds of pride. The first is when a person considers that what he has was not received from God. He touches on this form when he says: If then you received it, why do you boast as if it were not a gift? Which can also pertain to the second form in which a person thinks that he has received by his own merits. The third form is when a person boasts that he has something he really does not have. In regard to this he says: Already you are filled! Already you have become rich! The fourth is when a person, looking down on others, wishes to seem unique. In regard to this he says: Without us you have become kings. Deinde, cum dicit puto quod Deus, etc., irridet eos de hoc quod apostolos Christi contemnebant, et primo irrisorie ponit contemptum; secundo causam contemptus, ibi quia spectaculum facti sumus. 208. – Then when he says, For I think that God, he taunts them for looking down on Christ’s apostles. First, he describes the contempt ironically; secondly, the cause of the contempt (v. 9b). Dicit ergo primo: prius dixi, quod sine nobis regnatis, puto enim, id est, vos putare videmini, quod Deus nos apostolos ostendit novissimos, cum tamen infra c. XII, 28 dicatur, quod Deus in Ecclesia posuit primum apostolos. Sic enim impletur quod dicitur Matth. XX, 16: erunt primi novissimi, et novissimi primi. Et ponit exemplum: tamquam morti destinatos. Illi enim, qui sunt condemnati ad mortem, novissimi habentur inter homines, utpote quos indignum sit vivere, et tales apostoli reputantur a mundanis hominibus, secundum illud Ps. XLIII, 22: aestimati sumus sicut oves occisionis. 209. – He says, therefore: I have just said that you have become kings without us, for I think, i.e., you seem to think, that God has exhibited us apostles as last of all, whereas it says below (12:28): “God has appointed in the church first apostles. In this way is fulfilled what is stated in Matt (20:26): “The first shall be last, and the last first.” Then he gives an example, like men sentenced to death; for those condemned to death are reckoned last by men, as though not worthy to live. That is what the apostles were considered to be by worldly men: “We are accounted as sheep for the slaughter” (Ps 44:22). Deinde, cum dicit quia spectaculum, assignat causam contemptus. Circa quod considerandum est, quod quando aliqui sunt condemnati ad mortem, convocantur homines ad eorum occisionem, quasi ad spectaculum, et hoc maxime fiebat circa eos, qui damnabantur ad bestias. Quia apostoli erant quasi morti destinati, subiungit quia spectaculum facti sumus mundo, quasi totus mundus concurrat ad spectandum nostram occisionem, secundum illud Ps. XLIII, v. 14: posuisti nos opprobrium vicinis nostris. Exponit autem quid nomine mundi intelligat, cum subdit et Angelis, et hominibus, scilicet bonis et malis. Concurrebant enim ad eorum spectaculum boni Angeli ad confortandum, mali autem ad impugnandum; boni homines ad compatiendum, et exemplum patientiae sumendum, mali homines ad persequendum, et irridendum. 210. – Then when he says, we have become a spectacle, he indicates the cause of the contempt. In regard to this it should be noted that when people were condemned to death, men were summoned to the execution as to a spectacle, especially when they were condemned to be thrown to wild animals. Now because the apostles had been, as it were, appointed for death, he adds: we have become a spectacle to the world, as though the whole world had assembled to witness their slaughter: “Thou has bade us the taunt of our neighbors” (Ps 44:13). Then he explains what he meant by the word world, when he continues: to angels and to men, namely, good and evil. For good men came to the spectacle to sympathize and to witness an example of patience, but evil men to persecute and ridicule. Deinde cum dicit nos stulti, etc., irridet eos in speciali, quod apostolos contemnebant. Et circa hoc duo facit. Primo ponit contemptum; secundo causam contemptus, ibi usque in hanc horam, et cetera. 211. – Then when he says, We are fools, he derides them in particular for scorning the apostles. First, he mentions the contempt; secondly, the cause (v. 11). Circa primum irridet eorum contemptum quantum ad hoc, quod sibi excellentiam, apostolis defectum attribuebant. Et primo quantum ad perfectionem intellectus. Et quantum ad hoc dicit nos stulti sumus propter Christum, id est stulti reputamur, quia crucem Christi praedicamus, supra I, 18: verbum crucis pereuntibus stultitia est, et etiam quia propter Christum opprobria et contentiones sustinemus, secundum illud Sap. V, 4: nos insensati vitam illorum aestimabamus insaniam. Item, ut legitur Act. c. XXVI, 24, Festus dixit Paulo: insanis, Paule, multae te litterae ad insaniam adducunt. Vos, secundum vestram reputationem, estis prudentes in Christo, quia scilicet nec crucem eius publice confiteri audetis, nec persecutionem pro eo sustinetis. Prov. XXVI, 16: sapientior sibi videtur piger septem viris sequentibus sententias. 212. – In regard to the first he taunts them for attributing greatness to themselves and shortcomings to the apostles. First, in regard to perfect understanding; hence he says: We are fools for Christ’s sake, i.e., we are accounted fools, because we preach the cross of Christ: “The word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing (1 Cor 1:18), and also because we suffer reproach and opposition for the sake of Christ, in keeping with Wis (5:4): “We fools! We thought that his life was madness and that his end was without honor,” and as exemplified in Ac (26:24): “Festus said with a loud voice, ‘Paul, you are mad; your great learning is turning you mad.’” But you in your opinion are wise in Christ, namely, because you neither dare to confess His cross publicly nor suffer persecution for him: “The sluggard is wiser in his own eyes than seven men who can answer discreetly.” (Pr 26:16). Secundo quantum ad potestatem actionis, cum dicit nos infirmi, reputamur scilicet in exterioribus, propter afflictiones quas sustinemus. II Cor. XII, 9: libenter gloriabor in infirmitatibus meis. Vos autem, scilicet secundum vestram reputationem, estis fortes, scilicet in rebus corporalibus, quia secure vivitis sine tribulatione. Is. V, 22: vae qui potentes estis ad bibendum vinum, et viri fortes ad miscendam ebrietatem. Vos nobiles, scilicet estis, secundum vestram aestimationem, id est, honore digni, qui exterius contumelias non patimini. Is. XIX, 11: filius sapientium, ego filius regum antiquorum. Nos autem ignobiles sumus, secundum vestram et aliorum reputationem, quia contemptibiles habemur. Supra I, 27: quae contemptibilia sunt mundi et ignobilia elegit Deus. Et tamen secundum rei veritatem est e converso. Soli enim contemptibiles illi sunt, qui Deum contemnunt, secundum illud I Reg. c. II, 30: qui autem contemnunt me, erunt ignobiles. 213. – Secondly, in regard to power to act when he says: We are weak, namely, in externals on account of the afflictions we endure: “I will all the more boast of my weaknesses” (2 Cor 12:9); but you in your opinion are strong, namely, in material things, because you live in security without harassment: “Woe to you who are heroes at drinking wine, and valiant men in mixing strong drink” (Is 5:22). You are held in honor, i.e., in your own eyes you are worthy of honor, because you do not suffer public shame: “I am a son of the wise, a son of ancient kings” (Is 19:11), but we in disrepute, according to your opinion and that of others, because we are considered contemptible: “God chose what is low and despised” (1 Cor 1:28). And yet the truth is the exact opposite, for only those who scorn God are worthy of scorn: “Those who despise me shall be lightly esteemed” (1 Sam 2:30). Deinde, cum dicit usque in hanc horam, etc., assignat causam contemptus. Et primo ponit pro causa defectum bonorum temporalium; secundo mala quae in eis intelligebantur, ibi maledicimur et benedicimus; tertio concludit intentum, ibi tamquam purgamenta. 214. – Then when he says, To the present hour, he discloses the cause of this scorn: first, he assigns the lack of temporal goods as the cause; secondly, the evils they suffered (v. 12); thirdly, he reaches his conclusion (v. 15). Circa primum duo facit. Primo ponit defectum quem patiebantur in rebus necessariis. Unde quantum ad ea, quae pertinent ad victum, dicit usque in hanc horam, id est, continue a conversione nostra usque in praesens tempus, esurimus et sitimus. II Cor. XI, 27: in fame et siti. Quantum vero ad vestitum, subdit et nudi sumus, id est, propter vestimentorum inopiam, quia etiam interdum expoliabantur. Iob XXIV, 7: nudos dimittunt homines vestimenta tollentes, quibus non est operimentum in frigore. Sed contra est quod dicitur in Ps. XXXVI, v. 25: non vidi iustum derelictum, nec semen eius quaerens panem. Sed dicendum est, quod ita patiebantur apostoli, quod non derelinquebantur, quia divina providentia moderabatur in eis et abundantiam et inopiam, quantum eis expediebat ad virtutis exercitium. Unde et apostolus Phil. IV, 11 ss.: ubique et in omnibus institutus sum, et saturari, et esurire, et abundare, et penuriam pati; omnia possum in eo, qui me confortat. 215. – As to the first he mentions the privations they suffered in necessary things; hence in regard to food and drink he says: To the present hour we hunger and thirst, namely, without interruption form the time of our conversion to the present moment: “In hunger and thirst” (2 Cor 11:17). As to clothing he says: we are ill-clad, i.e., because of our need for clothing, since we are sometimes despoiled: “They lie all night naked, without clothing, and have no covering in the cold” (Jb 24:7). But this seems to conflict with Ps 37 (v. 25): “I have not seem the righteous forsaken or his children begging bread.” The answer is that although the apostles suffered, they were not abandoned, because divine providence set limits to their abundance and their needs according to what was suitable for exercising virtue. Hence the Apostle says in Phil (4:12): “I have learned the secret of facing plenty and hunger, abundance and want. I can do all things in him who strengthens me.” Secundo ponit defectum eorum, quae pertinent ad bene esse humanae vitae, quorum primum est reverentia ab hominibus exhibita, contra quod dicit et colaphis caedimur, quod quidem fit magis ad opprobrium, quam ad poenam. Unde de Christo legimus Matth. XXVI, 67 quod expuerunt in faciem suam, et colaphis eum caeciderunt. Secundo requiritur quies in loco, contra quod dicitur et instabiles sumus, tum quia expellebantur a persecutoribus de loco in locum, secundum illud Matth. X, 23: si vos persecuti fuerint in una civitate, fugite in aliam, tum etiam quia pro executione sui officii discurrebant ubique, secundum illud Io. c. XV, 16: posui vos ut eatis. Tertio requiritur ministrantium auxilium, contra quod dicitur et laboramus operantes manibus nostris, tum quia aliquando nullus dabat eis unde possent sustentari; tum etiam, quia labore manuum suarum victum acquirebant vel ad vitandum fidelium gravamen, vel ad repellendum pseudo-apostolos, qui propter quaestum praedicabant, ut habetur II Cor. XII, 16 ss.; tum etiam, ut darent otiosis laborandi exemplum, ut habetur II Thess. III, 9. Unde dicit Paulus Act. XX, v. 34: ad ea quae mihi opus erant, et his qui mecum sunt, ministraverunt manus istae. 216. – Secondly, he mentions their lack of things pertaining to the better aspects of human life, the first of which is respect from others. But they received the opposite: We are buffeted, which aims more at shame than punishment; hence we read of Christ that they spat in His face and slapped him. The second is peace and quiet. Here again they endured the opposite: and homeless, both because they were expelled from place to place by their persecutors: “If they persecute you in one city, flee to another” (Matt 10:23), and because they went everywhere to perform their office: “I have appointed you that you should go” (Jn. 15:16). The third is help from servants. But they experienced the opposite: and we labor, working with our own hands, both because they often received nothing from anyone to support them and because they earned their living by the work of their own hands either to avoid being a burden to the faithful or to rebuff false apostles who preached for money, and also because they wanted to give the idle an example of work, as he says in 2 Th (3:9); hence Paul says: “These hands ministered to my necessities, and to those who were with me” (Ac 20:34). Deinde, cum dicit maledicimur, etc., ponit mala quae apostoli patiebantur. Et primo in verbis, cum dicit maledicimur, id est, male de nobis dicunt homines, vel ad detrahendum, vel ad contumelias inferendum, vel etiam mala imprecando. Ier. XV, v. 10: omnes maledicunt mihi. Et benedicimus, id est, reddimus bonum pro malo, secundum illud I Petr. III, 9: non reddentes maledictum pro maledicto, sed e contrario benedicentes. Secundo in factis, et quantum ad hoc dicit persecutionem patimur, non solum quantum ad hoc, quod fugamur de loco ad locum, quod proprie persecutio dicitur, sed quantum ad hoc quod multipliciter tribulamur, secundum illud Ps. CXVIII, 157: multi qui persequuntur me, et tribulant me. Et sustinemus, in Christo scilicet omnia patienter. Eccli. I, 29: usque ad tempus sustinebit patiens. Tertio tangit causam utriusque, cum dicit blasphemamur, id est, blasphemia imponuntur nobis, dum dicimur magi vel malefici, et reputamur Dei inimici, secundum illud Io. c. XVI, 2: venit hora, ut omnis qui interficit vos, arbitretur obsequium se praestare Deo; et Rom. III, 8: sicut blasphemamur, et sicut aiunt quidam nos dicere, faciamus mala, ut veniant bona. Tamen, obsecramus Deum pro his qui nos persequuntur et blasphemant, secundum illud Matth. V, 44: orate pro persequentibus et calumniantibus vos. 217. – Then when he says, we are reviled, we bless, he mentions the evils when the apostles endured: first, in words when he says: we are reviled, i.e., men speak evil of us either to detract us or to insult us to even to curse us: “All curse me” (Jer 15:10), and we bless, i.e., return good for evil: “Do not return evil for evil, but on the contrary, bless” (1 Pt 3:9). Secondly, in deeds; hence he says: when persecuted, not only because we are chased from place to place, which is persecution in the strict sense, but also because we are harassed in many ways: “Many are my persecutors and my adversaries” (Ps 119:157), and we endure it, namely, in Christ: “A patient man will endure until the right moment” (Sir 1:23). Thirdly, he touches on the cause of each when he says: we are slandered, i.e., we are called sorcerers, evil-doers and enemies of God: “The hour comes what whosoever kills you, will think that he does a service to God” (Jn. 16:2); Why not do evil that good may come?—as some people slanderously charge us with saying.” (Rom 3:8); yet we entreat God for those who persecute and slander us: “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you” (Matt 5:44). Deinde cum dicit tamquam purgamenta, etc., concludit ex omnibus praemissis eorum contemptum, dicens: et propter omnia praedicta facti sumus tamquam purgamenta huius mundi, id est, reputati sumus et a Iudaeis et a gentilibus, ut per nos mundus inquinetur: et propter nostram occisionem mundus purgetur, et tamquam simus peripsema omnium. Dicitur peripsema quodcumque purgamentum, puta vel pomi, vel ferri, vel cuiuscumque alterius rei. Et hoc, usque adhuc, quia scilicet continue hoc patimur. Sed quandoque deficiet, secundum illud Sap. V, 3, ubi ex ore impiorum dicitur: hi sunt, quos aliquando habuimus in derisum, et in similitudinem improperii. Et postea subditur: quomodo ergo computati sunt inter filios Dei? 218. – Then when he says, we have become, he sums up their contempt, saying: On account of the foregoing we have become, and are now, as the refuse of the world, i.e., both Jews and Gentiles think that the world is befouled by us and that it would be cleansed by our slaughter, the offscouring of all. Offscouring is the filth scraped from fruit or iron or any other things. He says, and are now, because they suffer these things without interruption. But it will stop sometime according to Wis (5:4): “This is the man whom we once help in derision and made a byword of reproach,” and then continues in (5:5): “Why has he been numbered among the songs of God?”
4-3
1 Cor 4:14-21Postquam, apostolus reprehendit Corinthios de hoc quod apostolos temere iudicabant, et praesumptuose contemnebant, hic instat ad eorum correctionem, et primo admonitionis verbo; secundo, exemplo, ibi rogo ergo vos, fratres, etc.; tertio, correctionis flagello, ibi tamquam non venturus sim, et cetera. 219. – After censuring the Corinthians for rashly judging the apostles and presumptuously despising them, the Apostle now applies himself to correcting them. First, by oral advice; secondly, by examples (v. 16); thirdly, with the rod of correction (v. 18). Circa primum tria facit. Primo ponit admonitionis modum, dicens haec, scilicet quae in serie epistolae hucusque vobis dixi, scribo non ut confundam vos, scilicet mala confusione, quae in desperationem mittit, quamvis velim vos confundi confusione, quae peccatum vitat, secundum illud Eccli. IV, 25: est confusio adducens peccatum, et est confusio adducens gratiam et gloriam. Sed praedicta moneo vos, ut filios. Eccle. VII, 25: filii tibi sunt? Erudi illos, et cura illos a pueritia eorum. 220. – In regard to the first he does three things: first, he tells how he means to admonish them, saying: I write these things, which I have said so far in the epistle, not to make you ashamed in an evil way, which leads to despair, although I would like you to be bewildered with the sort of confusion that avoids sin: “There is a confusion that brings sin, and there is a confusion that brings glory and grace” (Sir 4:25). But to admonish you with the above advice as my beloved children: “Do you have children? Discipline them and make them obedient from their youth” (Sir 7:25). Secundo ostendit debitum admonendi modum, dicens nam si decem millia paedagogorum habeatis in Christo, sed non multos patres. Ubi considerandum est quod pater est qui primo generat: paedagogus autem est qui iam natum nutrit et erudit. Gal. III, 24: lex paedagogus noster fuit in Christo. Dicit ergo apostolus se patrem eorum in Christo, quia eis primo Evangelium praedicavit. 221. – Secondly, he shows the correct way to admonish, saying: For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. Here it should be noted that a father is one who begets, but a guide nurses and trains the child: “The law was our custodian until Christ came” (Gal 3:24). Therefore, the Apostle calls himself their father in Christ, because he was the first to preach the Gospel to them. Unde, assignans rationem eius quod dixerat, subdit nam in Christo Iesu per Evangelium vos genui. Est autem generatio processus ad vitam, homo autem vivit in Christo per fidem. Gal. II, 20: quod autem nunc vivo in carne, in fide vivo filii Dei. Fides autem, ut dicitur Rom. X, 17, est ex auditu, auditus autem per verbum. Unde verbum Dei est semen, quo apostolus eos genuit in Christo. Unde Iac. I, 18: voluntarie nos genuit verbo veritatis. Alios autem dicit paedagogos, quia postquam fidem receperant, eos adiuvarunt: ut intelligatur esse eadem comparatio, quantum ad praedicationem Evangelii, paedagogi ad patrem, quae supra III, 6 ss. posita est, rigatoris ad plantatorem, et superaedificatoris ad fundatorem. 222. – Hence he assigns the reason for this when he continues: For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel. But begetting is a process leading to life; and man lives in Christ by faith: “In the flesh I live now by faith in the Son of God” (Gal 2:20). Faith, however, comes by hearing; and hearing by word, as it says in Rom (10:17). Hence the word of God is the seed by which the Apostle begot them in Christ: “By his own will he has begotten us by the word of truth” (Jas 1:18). But he calls others instructors, because they helped them after receiving the faith. In this way we are given to understand that as far as the preaching of the Gospel is concerned, there is the same relationship between instructor and father as that of waterer and planter and that of builder and superstructure to layer of foundation. Deinde, cum dicit rogo ergo vos, fratres, instat ad corrigendum eos suo exemplo. Et primo hortatur eos ad imitandum suum exemplum, dicens: ergo ex quo estis filii, cum bonorum filiorum sit imitari patres, rogo vos, imitatores mei estote, scilicet ut non temere iudicetis, sicut nec ego, quia neque meipsum iudicare praesumo, et de vobis humilia sentiatis, et de aliis maiora. Unde non sine causa tali modo loquendi usus est: nos infirmi, vos fortes. II Thess. c. III, 9: ut formam nosmetipsos daremus vobis ad imitandum. Advertendum est autem quod eosdem, quos supra filios nominavit, nunc nominat fratres. Dixerat autem suos filios in Christo, quia eos non sibi, sed Christo genuerat, et quia ipse genitus erat a Christo, ex consequenti eos habebat ut fratres et filios. Intantum ergo debebant eum imitari ut patrem, inquantum et ipse Christum imitabatur, qui est omnium principalis pater. Et per hoc subtrahitur subditis occasio de adhaerendo malis exemplis praelatorum. Unde in hoc subditi solum praelatos imitari debent, in quo ipsi Christum imitantur, qui est infallibilis regula veritatis; unde seipsum apostolis in exemplum posuit. Io. XIII, 15: exemplum dedi vobis, ut quemadmodum ego feci, et cetera. Quod quidem exemplum Paulus sequebatur, secundum illud Iob XXIII, 11: vestigia eius secutus est pes meus, viam eius custodivi, et non declinavi ab ea. 223. – Then when he says, I urge you, the, he starts to correct them with his own example. First, he urges them to follow his example, saying: Then, since you are my children and good children should imitate their fathers, I urge you, be imitators of me, so as not to judge rashly (just as I don’t, because I do not ever presume to judge myself) but to think humbly of yourselves and highly of others. Hence it wasn’t by chance that he had said earlier: We are weak, but you are strong, “but that we might give ourselves a pattern unto you to imitate us” (2 Th 3:4). Note that here he is calling the same persons brothers, whom he had just called his children. However, he had called them his children in Christ, because he had begotten them not for himself but for Christ; and because he himself had been begotten in Christ, he could regard them as his brothers and his children. Consequently, they should have imitated him as a father to the same degree as he imitated Christ, Who is the main father of all. This, therefore, removes from subjects an excuse for following the evil examples of their prelates; they should rather imitate their prelates only to the degree that they imitate Christ, Who is the infallible standard of truth. Hence He gave Himself as an example to the apostles when he said: “I have given you an example, that as I have done so you also do” (Jn. 13:15). Paul, of course, followed this example: “My foot has followed his steps, I have kept his way, and have not declined from it” (Jb 23:11). Secundo removet excusationem ignorantiae, dicens ideo misi ad vos Timotheum, qui est filius meus charissimus et fidelis in domino, secundum illud Phil. II, v. 20, de Timotheo loquens: neminem habeo ita unanimem, qui sincera affectione pro vobis sollicitus sit. Qui vos commonefaciat vias meas, id est, qui vos doceat meos processus, id est, omnia opera, et moneat vos ad ea sequendum, secundum illud Ier. c. VI, 16: interrogate de semitis antiquis, quae sit via bona, et ambulate in ea. Quae quidem viae sunt in Christo, et ideo non debetis dedignari eas sequi, secundum illud Ps. XXIV, 4: vias tuas, domine, demonstra mihi. Et non videatur vobis hoc onerosum, quia hoc communiter omnibus impono. Unde subdit sicut ubique in Ecclesia doceo. Col. I, 5 s.: audistis veritatis Evangelium, quod pervenit ad vos, sicut et in universo mundo. Vel hoc quod dicit vias meas, referendum est ad opera, quod vero dicit sicut et ubique, ad documenta. Ad hoc enim missus erat Timotheus, ut induceret eos ad imitanda opera, et tenenda apostoli documenta. 224. – Secondly, he removes the excuse of ignorance, saying: Therefore, I sent to you Timothy, my beloved and faithful child in the Lord, which agrees with what he said of Timothy in Phil (2:20): “I have no one like him, who will be genuinely anxious for your welfare.” He will remind you of my ways in Christ, i.e., he will teach you my procedures, i.e., all that is to be done and advise you to follow them: “Ask for the old paths, which is the good way, and walk on it” (Jer 6:16), which ways are in Christ Jesus. Hence you should not disdain to follow them: “Show me your ways, O Lord” (Ps 25:4); or consider them a burden, because this is what I generally lay upon all; hence he says: As I teach them everywhere in every church: You have heard the word of the truth of the Gospel, which is come unto you, as also it is in the whole world (Col 1:5). Or my ways can refer to good works, and as I teach them everywhere, to doctrines. For Timothy had been sent to induce them to imitate the works and abide by the teachings of the Apostle. Deinde, cum dicit tamquam non venturus sim ad vos, comminatur eis correctionis flagellum. Et primo ostendit eos esse dignos correctionis flagello, dicens tamquam non venturus sim ad vos, inflati sunt quidam, scilicet vestrum, quasi non timentes per me de sua superbia convinci, et tamen digni sunt flagellis: nam humiles solis verbis corriguntur, superbi flagellis indigent, secundum illud Iob c. XL, 7: respice cunctos superbos, et confunde eos. 225. – Then when he says, As though I were not coming to you, he threatens them with the rod of correction. First, he shows that they deserve the rod of correction, saying: As though I were not coming to you, some are arrogant, as though not fearing to be convicted of pride by me; and yet they deserved the rod, because the humble are corrected by words alone, but the proud need stripes: “Look on all that are proud, and confound them and crush the wicked in their place” (Jb 40:7). Secundo praenuntiat eis suum adventum quo veniet ad iudicandum, ubi primo praenuntiat adventum, dicens veniam autem cito ad vos. Et quia dicitur Prov. XVI, v. 9: cor hominis disponit viam suam, sed domini est dirigere gressus eius, ideo subdit si dominus voluerit. Iac. IV, 15: si dominus voluerit, et si vixerimus, faciemus hoc aut illud. Secundo praenuntiat eis suam iudiciariam cognitionem, cum dicit et cognoscam, scilicet ordine iudiciario, secundum illud Iob c. XXIX, 16: causam, quam nesciebam, diligentissime investigabam. Non sermonem eorum, qui inflati sunt, sed virtutem, quasi dicat: non propter haec ex mea examinatione approbabuntur, qui abundant in verbis, sed si abundarent in virtute; quia, ut dicitur Prov. XIV, 23, ubi verba sunt plurima, ibi frequenter egestas. Tertio rationem assignat, dicens non enim in sermone est regnum Dei, sed in virtute, id est, non ideo aliqui pertinent ad regnum Dei, qui abundant in sermone, secundum illud Matth. VII, 21: non omnis qui dicit mihi: domine, domine, intrabit in regnum caelorum, sed qui facit voluntatem patris mei. 226. – Secondly, he tells them of his visit, when he will come to judge them. First, he foretells his coming when he says: But I will come to you soon. But because in says in Prov (16:9): “The heart of man disposes his way, but the Lord must direct his steps,” he adds: If the Lord wills: “If the Lord will and if we shall live, we will do this or that” (Jas 4:5). Secondly, he tells them that he will make a searching judgment when he says: I will find out, namely, by a judicial process: “The cause which I knew not, I searched out diligently” (Jb 29:16); not the talk of these arrogant people but their power, i.e., people do not belong to the kingdom of God, because they are rich in speech: “Mere talk tends only to want (Pr 14:23). Thirdly, he assigns the reason, saying: The Kingdom of God does not consist in talk but in virtue; “Not everyone that says to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he that does the will of my Father (Matt 7:21). Ultimo comminatur eis correctionem, reservans tamen correctionem arbitrio eorum, dicens quid vultis? In virga, scilicet disciplinae, veniam ad vos, scilicet castigandos, an in charitate, id est, ostensione amoris, et in spiritu mansuetudinis ut scilicet nihil durius vobiscum agam? Hoc enim pendet ex vobis; nam si vos in via stultitiae permanetis, oportet me ad vos cum virga venire, secundum illud Prov. XXII, 15: stultitia colligata est in corde pueri, et virga disciplinae fugabit eam. Si vero vos correxeritis, ostendam vobis charitatem et mansuetudinem, Gal. ult.: vos qui spirituales estis, instruite huiusmodi in spiritu lenitatis. Hoc autem non dicit quin si in virga veniens, non cum charitate veniret, cum scriptum sit Prov. c. XIII, 24: qui parcit virgae, odit filium suum: qui autem diligit illum, instanter erudit, sed quia ille qui castigatur virga, non sentit interdum dulcedinem charitatis, sicut illi quos blande consolatur. 227. – Finally, he threatens to chastise them, but leaves the choice to them, saying: What do you wish? Shall I come to you to chastise you with a rod, namely, of discipline or with love, i.e., with a display of love, in a spirit of gentleness? As if to say: it depends on you whether or not I shall deal more harshly with you. For if you persist in the foolish way, I must come to you with the rod, as Pr (22:15) says: “Folly is bound up in the heart of a child, and the rod of correction shall drive it away.” But if you amend your lives, I will act charitably and meekly: “You who are spiritual, instruct such a one in a spirit of meekness” (Gal 6:1). However, this does not mean that if he came with the rod, he would not come in charity, since it says in Pr (13:24): “He that spares the rod hates his son; but he that loves him corrects him betimes,” but because a person chastened with the rod fails at times to sense the gentleness of charity, as those who are encouraged gently.
5-1
1 Cor 5:1-5Postquam apostolus prosecutus est ea, quae pertinent ad Baptismi sacramentum, hic incipit prosequi ea quae pertinent ad matrimonium. Et primo arguit peccatum contrarium matrimonio, scilicet fornicationem; secundo agit de ipso matrimonio, c. VII, ibi de quibus autem scripsistis, et cetera. Circa primum duo facit. Primo ponit culpam; secundo redarguit eam, ibi non est bona gloriatio, et cetera. Circa primum duo facit. Primo ponit culpam cuiusdam fornicarii; secundo culpam aliorum, qui peccatum fornicarii tolerabant, ibi et vos inflati estis, et cetera. 228. – After discussing matters which pertain to the sacrament of baptism, the Apostle begins to consider matters which pertain to matrimony. First, he attacks a sin contrary to matrimony, namely, fornication; secondly, he discusses matrimony itself (c. 7). In regard to the first he does two things: first, he mentions the crime; secondly, he censures it (v. 6). As to the first he does two things: first, he mentions the crime of a certain fornicator; secondly, the crime of those who condoned this sin (v. 2). Circa primum, primo ponit tria, quae pertinent ad culpae gravitatem. Primo namque ostendit peccatum esse notorium, dicens: non sine causa quaesivi, an velitis quod in virga veniam ad vos. Est enim in vobis aliquid dignum virga disciplinae, quia fornicatio auditur inter vos omnino, secundum publicam formam; contra quod dicitur Eph. V, 3: fornicatio autem nec nominetur in vobis; Is. III, 9: peccatum suum quasi Sodoma praedicaverunt, nec absconderunt. 229. – In regard to the first he mentions three things which pertain to the gravity of the crime. First, he shows that the sin is notorious, saying: It was not without reason that I asked whether you wish me to come to you with the rod. For there is one among you deserving the rod of discipline, because it is actually reported, i.e., publicly known, that there is immorality among you, against which it is said: “Fornication must not even be named among you” (Eph 5:3); “They proclaim their sin like Sodom, they do not hide it” (Is 3:9). Secundo aggravat peccatum ex comparatione, cum dicit et talis fornicatio, qualis nec inter gentes licita reputatur vel invenitur. Apud gentiles enim simplex fornicatio non reputabatur peccatum. Unde apostoli Act. XV, 20, ad hunc errorem excludendum, gentilibus ad fidem conversis imposuerant, quod abstineant se a fornicatione. Erat tamen quaedam fornicationis species, quae et apud gentiles illicita habebatur. Et ideo dicit ita ut uxorem patris aliquis habeat, sicut dicitur Gen. XLIX, 4: effusus es sicut aqua, non crescas, quia ascendisti cubile patris tui, et maculasti stratum eius. Hoc autem erat horribile etiam apud gentiles, utpote contrarium naturali rationi existens. Per naturalem enim reverentiam filii ad parentes secundum omnem statum et legem pater et mater a matrimonio excluditur. Ut sic etiam possit intelligi, quod habetur Gen. II, 24: propter hoc relinquet homo patrem et matrem, scilicet in contractu matrimonii, et adhaerebit uxori suae. Sicut autem ibi subditur: vir et mulier erunt duo in carne una. Et ideo uxor patris repellitur a matrimonio: sicut persona patris vel matris, secundum illud Lev. XVIII, 8: turpitudinem uxoris patris tui ne discooperias, turpitudo enim patris tui est. 230. – Secondly, he amplifies the sin by a comparison when he says: and of a kind that is not found or regarded as lawful, even among pagans. For example, fornication was not considered a sin among the pagans; hence to rid them of this error the apostles (Ac 15:29) imposed on pagans converted to the faith the obligation to abstain from fornication. Yet it was a form of fornication regarded as unlawful even among pagans; hence he says: for a man is living with his father’s wife: “Unstable as water, you shall not have pre-eminence because you went up to your father’s bed and defiled his couch” (Gen 49:4). This was monstrous even among the pagans, being contrary to natural reason. For the laws of every civilization dictated that the natural reverence owed to parents prevents sons and daughters from marrying their father or mother. This is even implied in Gen (2:24): “Wherefore a man shall leave father and mother (in contracting matrimony) and shall cleave to his wife.” Furthermore, since it goes on to say that the man and woman “will be two in one flesh,” the wife of the father is excluded from marrying; just as the person of the father or mother, for it says in Lev (18:8): “You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s wife; for it is the nakedness of the father.” Deinde, cum dicit vos inflati estis, ponit culpam eorum qui hoc peccatum tolerabant. Et primo reprehendit eorum tolerantiam; secundo supplet quod illi negligebant ibi ego quidem, et cetera. 231. – Then when he says, you are arrogant, he mentions the guilt of those who condoned this sin: first, he condemns them for condoning it; secondly, he supplies what they failed to supply (v. 3). Circa primum notat in eis tria vitia. Primo superbiam, cum dicit et vos inflati estis, scilicet vento superbiae, reputantes vos innocentes ex comparatione peccatoris, sicut, Lc. XVIII, 11, Pharisaeus dicebat: non sum sicut caeteri hominum, velut etiam hic publicanus. Sap. IV, 19: disrumpam illos inflatos sine voce. Secundo tangit eorum iniustitiam, cum dicit et non magis luctum habuistis, scilicet patiendo causam peccatoris, sicut Ier. IX, 1 dicitur: quis dabit capiti meo aquam, et oculis meis fontem lacrymarum, ut plorem die ac nocte interfectos filiae populi mei? Vera enim iustitia, ut dicit Gregorius, compassionem habet, non dedignationem. Tertio tangit eorum iudicii negligentiam ut tollatur de medio vestrum qui hoc opus fecit. Talis enim compassio viri iusti ad peccatorem vulnerat et liberat, secundum illud Prov. XXIII, 14: tu virga percutis eum, et animam eius de Inferno liberabis. Per hoc etiam alii corriguntur, secundum illud Prov. c. XIX, 25: pestilente flagellato, stultus sapientior erit. Unde Eccle. VIII, 11: quia non profertur cito contra malos sententia, absque ullo timore filii hominum perpetrant mala. Debet autem ad correctionem aliorum interdum peccator separari, ubi de contagione timetur, secundum illud Prov. XXII, 10: eiice derisorem, et exibit cum eo iurgium, cessabuntque causae et contumeliae. 232. – In regard to the first he detects three vices: first, pride, when he says: You are arrogant [puffed up], namely, with the wind of pride, for considering yourselves innocent as compared with the sinner, just as the Pharisee who said: “I am not as the rest of men…or even as this tax collector” (Lk 18:11); “He will dash them puffed up and speechless to the ground” (Wis 4:19). Secondly, he touches on their injustice, when he says: Ought you not rather to mourn? Namely, by suffering for the benefit of the sinner: “O that my head were waters, and my eyes a fountain of tears, that I might weep day and night for the slain of the daughters of my people!” (Jer 9:1). For true justice, as Gregory says in homily 34, On The Gospel, shows compassion, not disdain. Thirdly, he touches on their failure to judge: let him who has done this be removed from among you. For such compassion on the part of a just man bruises the sinner to deliver him: “If you beat him with the rod, you will save his life from Sheol” (Pr 23:14). Is also helps to correct others, for it says in Pr (19:25): “The wicked man being scourged, the fool shall be wiser.” Hence Ec (8:11): “Because sentence against an evil deed is not executed speedily, the heart of the sons of men is fully set to do evil.” Indeed, if others are to be corrected, the sinner must sometimes be cast out, when there is fear of his conduct spreading: “Drive out the scoffer, and strife will go out, and quarreling and abuse will cease” (Pr 22:10). Deinde, cum dicit ego quidem absens corpore, etc., supplet eorum negligentiam, sententiam proferens contra peccatorem. Et circa hoc tria facit. Primo ponit auctoritatem iudicantis; secundo modum iudicandi, ibi congregatis vobis, etc.; tertio sententiam iudicis, ibi tradere huiusmodi, et cetera. 233. – Then when he says, For though absent in body, he supplies for their failure by pronouncing sentence against the sinner. In regard to this he does three things: first, he shows the authority of the judge; secondly, the method of judging; thirdly, the sentence of the judge (v. 5). Circa primum duo facit. Primo ponit auctoritatem ministri, scilicet sui ipsius. Videbatur autem contra iudiciarium ordinem, ut condemnaret absentem, secundum illud Act. XXV, 16: non est consuetudo Romanis condemnare aliquem, priusquam is qui accusatur, praesentes habeat accusatores; sed hoc apostolus excusat, dicens ego quidem absens corpore, praesens autem spiritu, id est, affectu et sollicitudine mentis, secundum illud Col. II, 5: et si corpore absens sum, sed spiritu vobiscum sum, gaudens et videns ordinem vestrum. Vel praesens spiritu, quia per spiritum cognoscebat ea quae apud ipsos agebantur, ac si praesens esset, sicut et Eliseus dixit IV Reg. V, 26: nonne cor meum in praesenti erat, quando reversus est homo de cursu suo? Et quia sum spiritu praesens, iam iudicavi, id est, sententiam condemnationis ordinavi in eum, qui sic operatus est. Secundo ponit auctoritatem principalis domini, dicens in nomine domini nostri Iesu Christi, id est, vice et auctoritate, seu cum virtute et invocatione nominis eius, secundum illud Col. III, 17: omne quodcumque facitis verbo aut opere, in nomine domini nostri Iesu Christi facite. 234. – As to the first he does two things: first, he shows the authority of the minister, i.e., himself. Here he seems to act contrary to proper judicial procedure by condemning an absent person, for “it was not the custom of the Romans to give up anyone, before the accused met the accusers face to face” (Ac 25:16). But the Apostle justifies this, saying: For though absent in body I am present in spirit, i.e., with love and concern: “For though I am absent in body, yet I am with you in spirit, rejoicing to see your good order and the firmness of your faith in Christ” (Col 2:5). Or present in spirit, because by the spirit he knew what was taking place among them as if he were there, as Elisha also says: “Did I not got with you in spirit when the man turned from his chariot to meet you?” (2 Kgs 5:26). Because I am present in spirit, I have already pronounced judgment, i.e., I have passed a sentence of condemnation on the one who has acted in this manner. Secondly, he mentions the authority of the principal lord, saying: in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, i.e., in His place and by His authority, or with the power and invocation of His name: “Whatever you do in word or in deed, do all in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Col 3:17). Deinde, cum dicit congregatis vobis in unum, ostendit modum iudicandi, ubi tria tangit: primo fidelium congregationem, cum dicit congregatis vobis. Ea enim, quae gravia sunt, multorum concordi deliberatione punienda sunt. Unde et antiquitus iudices sedebant in portis, ubi populus congregabatur, secundum illud Deut. XVI, 18: iudices constitues in omnibus portis tuis. Unde dicitur in Ps. CX, 1: in consilio iustorum et congregatione magna opera domini. Et Matth. XVIII, 20: ubi sunt duo vel tres congregati in nomine meo, ibi sum in medio. Secundo adhibet suum assensum, cum dicit et meo spiritu, id est, mea voluntate et auctoritate, secundum illud quod dixerat: praesens autem spiritu. Tertio adhibet auctoritatem principalis domini, scilicet Christi, dicens cum virtute domini nostri Iesu Christi, ex qua iudicium Ecclesiae habet robur firmitatis, secundum illud Matth. XVIII, 18: quodcumque ligaveris super terram, erit ligatum et in caelis. 235. – Then when he says, When you are, he shows the manner of judging, and touches on three things: first, the assembling of the congregation when he says: When you are assembled. For serious offenses should be punished according to the considered agreement of many persons; hence in old times judges sat on the gates where the people were gathered together: “You shall appoint judges in all your gates” (Dt 16:18); “In the company of the upright, in the congregation” (Ps 111:1); “Where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them” (Matt 18:20). Secondly, he indicates his assent when he says: and my spirit is present, i.e., with my will and authority. Thirdly, he presents the authority of the principal lord, namely, Jesus Christ, saying: with the power of the Lord Jesus, the power which gives strength and validity to the judgment of the Church: “Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven” (Matt 18:18). Deinde, cum dicit tradere huiusmodi, etc., ponit condemnationis sententiam, circa quam tria ponit. Primo poenam, cum dicit tradere huiusmodi Satanae supple: iudicavi. Quod potest dupliciter intelligi. Primo quod, sicut dicitur Matth. X, 8, dominus dedit apostolis potestatem spirituum immundorum, ut eiicerent eos, et per eamdem potestatem poterant imperare spiritibus immundis, ut vexarent corporaliter quos hac poena iudicabant dignos. Mandavit ergo apostolus Corinthiis in eius auctoritate tradere praedictum fornicarium Satanae corporaliter vexandum. Unde ponit, secundo, huius sententiae effectum, cum dicit in interitum carnis, id est, ad vexationem carnis et afflictionem in qua peccavit, secundum illud Sap. XI, 17: per quae peccat quis, per haec et torquetur. Tertio ponit fructum, cum dicit ut spiritus salvus sit in die domini nostri Iesu Christi, id est, ut salutem consequatur in die mortis, vel in die iudicii, sicut supra tertio expositum est et sic impletur quod ibi subditur: ipse autem salvus erit, sic tamen quasi per ignem, poenae scilicet temporalis. Non enim apostolus Satanae tradidit peccatorem, ut eius potestati perpetuo subiaceret, sed ut carnis vexatione ad poenitentiam convertatur, secundum illud Is. XXVIII, 19: sola vexatio intellectum dat auditui. Est autem haec sententia apostoli, quam dominus servavit Iob II, 6, ubi Satanae dixit: ecce in manu tua est, scilicet caro eius, verumtamen animam illius serva, scilicet illaesam. 236. – Then when he says, you are to deliver, he delivers the sentence of condemnation, in regard to which he does three things. First, he assigns the punishment when he says: you are to deliver this man to Satan. This can be understood in two ways. First, that just as the Lord gave the apostles power over unclean spirits to cast them out (Matt 10:8), so by the same power they could command the unclean spirits to torment in the body those whom they judged deserved it. Accordingly, the Apostle commanded the Corinthians on his own authority to deliver this fornicator to Satan to be tortured. Hence, secondly, he discloses the effect of this sentence when he says: for the destruction of the flesh, i.e., for the torment and affliction of the flesh in which he sinned: “One is punished by the very things by which he sins” (Wis 11:16). Thirdly, he mentions its fruit when he says: that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus, i.e., that he may be saved on the day of death or on the day of judgment, as was explained above (3:15): “but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire,” i.e., of temporal punishment. For the Apostle did not deliver the sinner over to Satan’s power forever, but until the time when he would be converted to repentance by bodily torment: “Vexation alone shall make you understand what you hear” (Is 28:19). This sentence of the Apostle corresponds to what the Lord observed, when he said to Satan: “Behold he is in your hand (namely, his flesh), but yet keep his life unharmed” (Jb 2:6). Alio modo intelligi potest quod dicitur tradere huiusmodi Satanae, scilicet per excommunicationis sententiam, per quam aliquis separatur a communione fidelium, et a participatione sacramentorum, et privatur Ecclesiae suffragiis, quibus homo munitur contra impugnationem Satanae, propter quod de Ecclesia dicitur Cant. IV, 9: terribilis ut castrorum acies ordinata, scilicet Daemonibus. Quod autem subditur in interitum carnis, intelligitur, ut scilicet ab Ecclesia separatus, et tentationibus Satanae expositus liberius ruat in peccatum, secundum illud Apoc. ult.: qui in sordibus est, sordescat adhuc. Vocat autem peccata mortalia carnis interitum, quia, ut dicitur Gal. ult., qui seminat in carne, de carne et metet corruptionem. Subdit autem ut spiritus salvus sit, ut scilicet peccatorum turpitudinem cognoscens confundatur et poeniteat, et sic sanetur, secundum illud Ier. XXXI, 19: confusus sum et erubui, quoniam sustinui opprobrium adolescentiae meae. Potest etiam intelligi, ut spiritus eius, scilicet Ecclesiae, id est spiritus sanctus Ecclesiae salvus sit fidelibus in diem iudicii, ne scilicet perdant eum per contagium peccatoris, quia, ut dicitur Sap. I, 5. Spiritus sanctus disciplinae effugiet fictum, et cetera. 237. – To deliver this man to Satan can also be understood as referring to the sentence of excommunicating by which a person is cut off from the community of believers and from partaking of the sacraments and is deprived of the blessings of the Church. Hence it says in S. of S. (6:10): “Terrible as an army set in array,” i.e., to the devils. For the destruction of the flesh would mean that, being cut off from the Church and exposed to the temptations of the devil, he might more easily fall into sin: “Let the filthy still be filthy” (Rev 22:11). Hence he calls mortal sins the destruction of the flesh, because “He who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption” (Gal 6:8). But he adds: that his spirit may be saved, i.e., that the sinner, recognizing his vileness, may repent and thus be healed: “I was ashamed, and I was confounded, because I bore the disgrace of my youth” (Jer 31:19). This can also mean that his spirit, namely, the Church’s Holy Spirit, may be saved for the faithful in the day of judgment, i.e., that they not destroy it by contact with the sinner, because it says in Wis (1:5): “For a holy and disciplined spirit will flee from deceit and will rise and depart from foolish thoughts.”
5-2
1 Cor 5:6-8Supra apostolus memoravit duplicem culpam, scilicet Corinthii fornicatoris, et aliorum qui eius peccatum tolerabant, hic utramque culpam redarguit. Primo culpam tolerantium eius peccatum; secundo culpam fornicatoris, ibi corpus autem non fornicationi, et cetera. Circa primum duo facit. Primo redarguit in Corinthiis negligentiam iudicii; secundo redarguit in eis quaedam alia vitia circa iudicium, VI cap. audet aliquis, et cetera. Circa primum duo facit. Primo redarguit eos qui fornicatorem a se non separaverunt; secundo reprobat falsum intellectum quem ex verbis suis conceperant, ibi scripsi vobis in epistola, et cetera. Circa primum duo facit. Primo reprehendit quod fecerant; secundo ostendit quid faciendum sit, ibi expurgate vetus fermentum, et cetera. 238. – After reminding the Corinthians of two crimes, namely, that of the fornicator and that of those who condoned the sin, the Apostle now censures both crimes. First, the crime of condoning his sin; secondly, the sin of the fornication (c. 6). As to the first he does two things: first, he rebukes the Corinthians for failing to pass judgment; secondly, for other vices concerning judgment (c. 6). In regard to the first he does two things: first, he blames them for not casting out the fornicator; secondly, he corrects the false understanding they took from his words (v. 9). Circa primum duo facit. Primo reprehendit culpam praeteritam quantum ad suam radicem. Dixerat enim supra quod ex inflatione sequitur in eis incompassio, et ex incompassione correctionis negligentia. Arguit ergo primo Corinthiorum elationem, dicens non est bona gloriatio vestra, qua scilicet defectibus aliorum gloriamini, quasi vos sitis innocentes. Debet enim unusquisque in domino gloriari de bonis sibi divinitus datis, non de aliis, secundum illud Gal. VI, 4: opus autem suum unusquisque probet, et sic in semetipso gloriam habebit, et non in alio. Praecipue autem malum est de malis aliorum gloriari. Dicitur enim in Ps. LI, 3: quid gloriaris in malitia? 239. – As to the first he does two things: first, he reprehends what they had done; secondly, he shows what should be done (v. 7). First, he reprehends their past crime as to its root; for he had said above that as a result of being puffed up they lack compassion, from which followed their failure to set others straight by correcting them. First of all, therefore, he censures them for being puffed up, saying: Your boasting is not good, because you boast of the defects of others, as though you were without faults. For everyone should boast of the blessings given him by God and not of others: “Let each one test his own work, and then his reason to boast will be in himself alone and not in his neighbor” (Gal 6:4). And it is especially evil to glory in the failures of others: “Why do you boast of mischief?” (Ps 51:3). Secundo assignat rationem eius quod dixerat, dicens an nescitis quod modicum fermentum totam massam corrumpit? Quasi dicat: hoc ignorare non potestis. Est autem sciendum quod in fermento duo possunt considerari. Primo sapor quem tribuit pani, et secundum hoc per fermentum significatur sapientia Dei, per quam omnia quae sunt hominis sapida redduntur, et secundum hoc dicitur Matth. XIII, 33: simile est regnum caelorum fermento, quod acceptum mulier abscondit in farinae satis tribus, donec fermentatum est totum. Secundo, in fermento potest considerari corruptio, et secundum hoc per fermentum potest intelligi uno modo peccatum, quia scilicet per unum hominis peccatum omnia opera eius corrupta redduntur, puta per peccatum simulationis, quod comparatur fermento. Lc. XII, 1: attendite a fermento Pharisaeorum, quod est hypocrisis. Alio modo per fermentum potest intelligi homo peccator, 240. – Secondly, he gives the reason for what he had said, saying: Do you not know that a little leavens the whole lump? As if to say: Certainly you cannot be unaware of this. It should be noted that there are two factors to consider in leaven: the first is the taste it gives to bread. In this way leaven signifies the wisdom of God, through which everything human is rendered tasteful; accordingly, it says in Matt (13:33): “The kingdom of heaven is like leaven which a woman took and hid in three measures of meal, till it was all leavened.” The second factor is corruption. Then in one way leaven can signify sin, because by one sin all of a man’s works are corrupted; for example, by the sin of hypocrisy which is compared to leaven in Lk (12:1): “Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy.” In another way a sinful man himself can be signified by leaven. et ad hoc inducitur haec similitudo. Sicut enim per modicum fermentum tota massa pastae corrumpitur, ita per unum peccatorem tota societas inquinatur. Unde Eccli. XI, 34: ab una scintilla augetur ignis, et ab uno doloso augetur sanguis. Et hoc quidem contingit, dum per peccatum unius alii provocantur aliqualiter ad peccandum. Vel etiam dum peccanti consentiunt, saltem non corrigendo, dum possunt corrigere, secundum illud Rom. I, 32: digni sunt morte, non solum qui faciunt ea, sed etiam qui consentiunt facientibus. Et ideo Corinthiis non erat gloriandum de peccato unius, sed magis cavendum, ne peccato unius omnes inquinarentur ex eius consortio, secundum illud Cant. II, 2: sicut lilium inter spinas, sic amica mea inter filias, ubi dicit Glossa: non fuit bonus, qui malos tolerare non potuit. 241. – And this is precisely the point of his metaphor, for just as the entire lump of dough is corrupted by a little leaven, so by one sinner a whole group can be defiled: “From one spark comes a great fire and from one deceitful man much blood” (Sir 11:34). This happens when by the sin of one person others are prompted to sin or even when they consent to his sin, by not at least correcting him when they can: “They are worthy of death not only who do these things but also who consent to those what do them” (Rom 1:32). Consequently, the Corinthians should not have boasted of another’s sin but rather taken steps to prevent others from being defiled by associating with him, according to what it says in S of S: “As a lily among brambles, so is my love among maidens” (2:2), on which a Gloss says: He was not a good man, who could not endure evil men.” Deinde, cum dicit expurgate vetus fermentum, ostendit quid de caetero sit faciendum. Et primo ponit documentum; secundo rationem assignat, ibi Pascha nostrum, et cetera. 242. – Then when he says, Cleanse out the old leaven, he shows what should be done in the future: first he presents the teaching; secondly, he assigns reason (v.7). Dicit ergo primo quia modicum fermentum totam massam corrumpit, ideo expurgate vetus fermentum, id est, expurgate vos, abiiciendo a vobis vetus fermentum, id est fornicarium, qui peccando rediit in vetustatem corruptionis antiquae, secundum illud Baruch III, 11: inveterasti in terra aliena, coinquinatus es cum mortuis. Quod quidem dicit, quia per separationem unius peccatoris tota societas expurgatur. Unde et, egresso Iuda, dominus dixit Io. XIII, 31: nunc clarificatus est filius hominis. Potest etiam per vetus fermentum intelligi antiquus error, secundum illud Is. XXVI, 3: vetus error abiit, vel etiam corruptio originalis peccati, secundum illud Rom. VI, 6: vetus homo noster simul crucifixus est, vel etiam quodcumque peccatum actuale, secundum illud Col. III, 9: expoliantes vos veterem hominem cum actibus suis: horum enim admonitione homo expurgatur. 243. – He says, therefore: Because a little leaven corrupts the whole lump, cleanse out the old leaven, i.e., cleanse yourselves by casting out from your midst the old leaven, i.e., the fornicator who returned to the old state of former corruption by sinning: “You are growing old in a foreign country, you are defiled with the dead” (Bar 3:10). And this is what he says, because by cutting off one sinner the whole group is cleansed; hence when Judas left the Lord said: “Now is the Son of Man glorified” (Jn. 13:31). By the old leaven can also be understood the old error: “The old error is passed away” (Is 26:3), or even the corruption of original sin: “Seeing that you have put off the old nature with its practices” (Col 3:9), for a man is cleansed by removing them. Ponit autem consequenter purgationis effectum, dicens ut sitis nova conspersio. Dicitur autem conspersio commixtio aquae et farinae novae, antequam admisceatur fermentum. Remoto ergo fermento a fidelibus, id est peccatore, vel peccato, remanent sicut nova conspersio, id est, in puritate suae novitatis, secundum illud Ps. CII, 5: renovabitur ut aquilae iuventus tua; Eph. IV, v. 23: renovamini spiritu mentis vestrae. Deinde ponit modum debitum expurgationis cum dicit sicut estis azymi, id est, sine fermento peccati. Dicitur enim ab a, quod est sine, et zyma, quod est fermentum. Unde dominus Matth. XVI, 6 dicit discipulis cavete a fermento Pharisaeorum et Sadducaeorum. 244. – Secondly, he mentions the effect of this cleansing, saying: that you may be a new lump. Here lump means a mixture of water and new flour, before leaven is mixed with it. Therefore, once the leaven, i.e., the sinner or sin, is removed from the faithful, they become as it were a new lump, renewed in purity: “Your youth is renewed like the eagle’s” (Ps 103:5); “Be renewed in the spirit of your minds” (Eph 4:23). Thirdly, he mentions the form of cleansing should take when he says: as you really are unleavened, i.e., without the leaven of sin. In this sense the Lord says: “Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees” (Matt 16:6). Deinde, cum dicit etenim Pascha nostrum, assignat rationem eius quod dixerat, scilicet quare fideles debent esse azymi, quae quidem ratio sumitur ex mysterio passionis Christi. Unde primo proponit ipsum mysterium; secundo concludit propositum, ibi itaque epulemur, et cetera. 245. – Then when he says, For Christ our paschal lamb [pasch] has been sacrificed, he assigns the reason for what he had said, namely, why the faithful should be unleavened and it is taken from the mystery of Christ’s passion. First, therefore, he mentions the mystery; secondly, he concludes to his point (v. 8). Circa primum considerandum est quod inter caetera sacramenta legalia celeberrimum erat agnus paschalis, qui, ut praecipitur Ex. XII, 1 ss., immolabatur ab universa multitudine filiorum Israel in memoriam illius beneficii, quo Angelus percutiens primogenita Aegypti pertransivit domos Iudaeorum, quorum fores linitae essent sanguine agni. Unde nomen Paschae sumitur, secundum quod ibi dicitur est enim phase, id est, transitus domini, et ultimo virtute huius beneficii transivit populus mare rubrum, ut dicitur Ex. XIV, 15 ss. Ille enim agnus figura fuit Christi innocentis, de quo dicitur Io. I, 29: ecce agnus Dei. Sicut ergo ille agnus figuralis immolabatur a filiis Israel, ut populus Dei liberaretur ab Angelo percutiente, et ut transirent mare rubrum, liberati de servitute Aegypti, ita Christus est occisus a filiis Israel, per cuius sanguinem populus Dei liberatur a Diaboli impugnatione et servitute peccati per Baptismum quasi per mare rubrum. Ille autem agnus figuralis Pascha Iudaeorum dicebatur, quia in signum transitus immolabatur. Unde dicitur Matth. XXVI, 17: ubi vis paremus tibi comedere Pascha? Id est, agnum paschalem. Dicit ergo apostolus: ideo debetis esse azymi, etenim, id est, quia, sicut figurale Pascha veteris populi est agnus immolatus, ita Pascha nostrum, id est, novi populi, est Christus immolatus, cuius etiam immolationi convenit nomen Paschae, tum significatione linguae Hebreae, quod significat transitum, Ex. XII, 11: est enim phase, id est, transitus, tum significatione linguae Graecae, prout nomen Paschae significat passionem. Christus enim per passionem, qua fuit immolatus, transivit ex hoc mundo ad patrem, ut dicitur Io. XIII, 1. 246. – As to the first it should be noted that the most excellent sacrament of the Old Law was the paschal lamb which, as was commanded in Ex (c. 11), was sacrificed by the whole multitude of the children of Israel in commemoration of the event in which the angel striking the first born in Egypt passed by the homes of the Jews, whose posts were smeared with the blood of a lamb. The word “pasch” is derived from this event: “It is the Lord’s Passover” (Ex 12:11). It was in virtue of the blessing that the people passed over the Red Sea (Ex 24:15ff). But this lamb was a figure of the innocent Christ, of Whom it is said: “Behold the Lamb of God” (Jn. 1:36). Therefore, just as that lamb was slain by the children of Israel in order that God’s people be delivered from the avenging angel and after being freed from the slavery under the Egyptians, pass over the Red Sea, so Christ was slain by the children of Israel, in order that God’s people be delivered from the attacks of the devil by His blood and from the slavery of sin by baptism, as though by the Red Sea. Now that lamb was called the pasch of the Jews, because it was immolated as a sign of the passing; hence the disciples ask: “Where do you wish us to prepare for you to eat the pasch?” (Matt 26:17), i.e., the paschal lamb. Therefore, the Apostle says: You ought to be unleavened, for, i.e., because as the pasch of the old people was the sacrificed lamb, so our pasch, i.e., of the new people, is the sacrificed Christ. His immolation deserves the name pasch both by reason of what the word means in Hebrew, namely, passage, and what it means in Greek, namely, “passion”: for Christ passed from this world to the Father by means of the passion, in which He was sacrificed (Jn. 13:1). Deinde, cum dicit itaque epulemur, concludit propositum. Ad cuius evidentiam considerandum est, quod, sicut legitur Ex. XII, 8, agnus paschalis post immolationem manducabatur cum azymis panibus. Sicut ergo agnus figuralis fuit figura nostri Paschae immolati, ita figuralis observantia paschalis debet conformari observantiae novi Paschae. Ergo quia Christus immolatus est Pascha nostrum, itaque epulemur, scilicet manducantes Christum, non solum sacramentaliter, secundum illud Io. VI, v. 54: nisi manducaveritis carnem filii hominis, et biberitis eius sanguinem, non habebitis vitam in vobis, sed spiritualiter fruendo sapientia eius, secundum illud Eccli. XXIV, v. 29: qui edunt me, adhuc esurient, et qui bibunt me, adhuc sitient, et sic cum gaudio spirituali, secundum illud Ps. XLI, 5: in voce exultationis et confessionis, sonus epulantis. 247. – Then when he says, Let us, therefore, celebrate, he reaches his conclusion. To understand this it should be noted that the paschal lamb, after being sacrificed, was eaten with unleavened bread. Therefore, just as the paschal lamb was a figure of our sacrificed pasch, so the observance of the new pasch should conform to the old paschal observances. Accordingly, because the sacrificed Christ is our pasch, let us celebrate the festival by eating Christ not only sacramentally: “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you” (Jn. 6:54), but also spiritually by relishing His wisdom: “Those who eat me will hunger for more, and those who drink me will thirst for more” (Sir 24:21), and doing so with spiritual joy: “With glad shouts and songs of thanksgiving; a multitude keeping festival” (Ps 42:4). Deinde determinat modum epulandi secundum conformitatem veritatis ad figuram, dicens non in fermento veteri, neque in fermento malitiae, et nequitiae. Mandabatur enim Ex. XII, 15, quod omne fermentum non inveniretur in domibus manducantium agnum paschalem. Fermentum autem habet et vetustatem et corruptionem. Unde per remotionem fermenti, primo quidem potest intelligi amotio observantiae praeceptorum veteris legis, quae per passionem Christi est mortificata, secundum illud Lev. c. XXVI, 10: vetera, novis supervenientibus, proiicietis. Secundo, per remotionem fermenti potest intelligi remotio corruptionis peccati, sicut supra dictum est, quod modicum fermentum totam corrumpit massam. Et quantum ad hoc subdit neque in fermento malitiae et nequitiae, ut malitia referatur ad perversitatem operis, secundum illud Iac. I, v. 21: abiicientes omnem immunditiam et abundantiam malitiae. Per nequitiam vero intelligitur fraudulenta machinatio. Prov. XXVI, v. 25: quando sumpserit vocem suam, non credideris ei, quoniam septem nequitiae sunt in corde eius. Vel secundum Glossam cum dicit non in fermento veteri, removet vetustatem peccati in communi. Quod autem subdit neque in fermento malitiae et nequitiae, explicat peccatum per partes; ut malitia dicatur peccatum quod committitur in seipsum, nequitia peccatum quod committitur in alium. 248. – Then he describes the way to feast by conforming the truth to the figure, saying, not with the old leaven, the leaven of malice and evil. For it was commanded in Ex (c. 12) that no leaven be found in the homes of those eating the paschal lamb. But leaven involves oldness and corruption. Hence the removal of leaven could mean the removal of the obligation to observe the precepts of the Old Law, which was made dead by the passion of Christ: “The new coming on, you shall cast away the old” (Lev 26:10). Secondly, the removal of leaven could mean the removal of the corruption of sin, as we said above, namely, that a little leaven corrupts the whole lump. In this sense, therefore, he says: nor with the leaven of malice and evil, where malice would refer to perverse actions: “Casting away all uncleanness and abundance of malice” (Jas 1:21), and evil to crafty mischief: “When he speaks graciously, believe him not, for there are seven mischiefs in his heart” (Pr 26:25). Or, according to a Gloss when he says, not in the old leaven, he refers to sin in general, but in adding, nor in the leaven of malice and evil, he becomes more precise, because malice refers to sin committed against oneself, and evil a sin against someone else. Excluso ergo modo indebito epulandi, determinat modum convenientem, subdens sed in azymis sinceritatis et veritatis, id est, sinceritate et veritate, quae significantur per azyma. Ponitur autem sinceritas contra corruptionem peccati, quod significavit, cum dixit non in fermento malitiae et nequitiae. Nam sincerum dicitur quod est sine corruptione. Unde II Cor. II, 17 dicitur: non sumus sicut plurimi adulterantes verbum Dei, sed ex sinceritate in Christo loquimur. Veritas vero ponitur contra figuras veteris legis, sicut Io. I, v. 17 dicitur veritas et gratia per Iesum Christum facta est, quia scilicet verum Pascha cum veritate et non cum figuris celebrare debemus. Unde secundum Glossam per sinceritatem intelligitur innocentia a vitiis, seu novitas vitae: per veritatem autem iustitia bonorum operum, vel rectitudo, quae fraudem excludit. 249. – Therefore, having set aside the improper way to feast, he describes the proper way when he continues: but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth, i.e., in sincerity and truth which are signified by unleavened bread. Here sincerity is set in opposition to the corruption of sin, which he signified when he said: not in the leaven of malice and evil: for sincere means without corruption; hence in 2 Cor (2:17) he says: “We do not adulterate the word of God but with sincerity in Christ we speak.” But truth is set in opposition to the figures of the Old Law, as it says in Jn (1:17): “Truth and grace came by Jesus Christ,” namely, because we should celebrate the true pasch in truth and not in figures. Hence according to a Gloss, by sincerity is understood innocence from vices or newness of life; by truth the righteousness of good works or directness which excludes deception.
5-3
1 Cor 5:9-13Induxerat supra apostolus Corinthios ad hoc, quod a seipsis peccatorem separarent, quod quidem praetermiserant propter falsum intellectum cuiusdam verbi, quod continebatur in epistola quadam, quam eis prius miserat. Et ideo pravum sensum, quem ex verbis conceperant, nunc excludit. Unde circa hoc tria facit. Primo resumit verbum prioris epistolae; secundo excludit falsum intellectum, ibi: non utique fornicariis; tertio exponit verum intellectum, ibi: nunc autem scripsi vobis. 250. – Above the Apostle had advised the Corinthians to remove a sinner from their midst. But they postponed doing this, because they gave a false interpretation to something he had written in a previous epistle. Consequently, in correcting this misunderstanding he does three things: first, he repeats what he had said in the previous epistle; secondly, he corrects the false interpretation (v. 10); thirdly, he gives the true interpretation (v. 11). Dicit ergo primo: dixi vobis in epistola quadam alia, quae in canone non habetur, ne commisceamini fornicariis, id est, non habeatis cum eis societatem, vel communionem, secundum illud Prov. I, 15: fili mi, ne ambules cum eis, prohibe pedem tuum a semitis eorum; Eccli. IX, 6: non des fornicariis animam tuam in ullo. 251. – First, therefore, he says: I wrote to you in my letter (which is not in the canon) not to associate with fornicators, i.e., not have any fellowship or communion with them: “My son, walk not with them, restrain your feet from their paths (Pr 1:15); “Give not your soul to harlots in any point” (Sir 9:6). Deinde, cum dicit non utique fornicariis, excludit falsum intellectum praedicti verbi. Et primo proponit quod intendit; secundo concludit propositum, ibi alioquin debueratis, et cetera. 252. – Then when he says, not at all meaning, he corrects the false interpretation of the above words: first, he states what he does mean; secondly, he draws a conclusion (v. 10b). Circa primum considerandum est, quod in praedicto verbo apostoli dupliciter falsum intellectum conceperant Corinthii. Primo quantum ad hoc, quod intelligebant illud esse dictum de fornicariis infidelibus. Sed illud excludit apostolus, dicens non utique intendo dicere quod non commisceamini fornicariis huius mundi. Vocat autem infideles nomine mundi, secundum quod dicitur Io. I, 10: mundus eum non cognovit; supra c. I, 21: non cognovit mundus per sapientiam Deum. Secundo conceperant falsum intellectum quantum ad hoc, quod putabant prohibuisse apostolum solum de fornicariis, non autem de aliis peccatoribus. Et ideo ad hoc excludendum subdit aut avaris, qui scilicet iniuste detinent aliena. Eph. V, 5: avaritia, quae est idolorum servitus, non habet haereditatem in regno Christi et Dei. Aut rapacibus, qui scilicet violenter diripiunt aliena. Infra eodem: neque rapaces regnum Dei possidebunt. Aut idolis servientibus, contra quos dicitur Sap. XIV, 27: nefandorum enim idolorum cultura omnis malitiae causa est, initium et finis. Et est sensus: non solum vobis prohibui societatem fornicatorum, sed etiam omnium aliorum peccatorum. Et est advertendum, quod per fornicationem quis peccat contra seipsum, per avaritiam autem et rapacitatem contra proximum, per idolorum autem culturam contra Deum; et in his, quae ponit, omne peccati genus intelligitur. 253. – In regard to the first it should be noted that the Corinthians had given two false interpretations to his statement. First, they supposed that he was referring to fornicators who are unbelievers. He corrects this when he says: not at all meaning to say that you shall avoid communicating with the fornicators of this world. He refers to unbelievers by the name “world” in keeping with Jn (1:21): “The world has not know him”; “The world did not know God through wisdom” (1 Cor 1:21). Secondly, they falsely supposed that the Apostle’s prohibition referred only to fornicators and not to other sinners. To correct this he now adds: or the greedy, who unjustly retain what belongs to others: “No one who is covetous (which is serving of idols) has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God” (Eph 5:5), or robbers, who violently plunder the property of others; or idolaters, against whom it says in Wis (14:27): “The worship of abominable idols is the cause, and the beginning and the end of all evil.” Consequently, the Apostle is prohibiting fellowship not only with fornicators but with all other sinners. It should be noted that by fornication a person sins against himself; by greed and robbery against his neighbor, and by the worship of idols he sins against God. Consequently, in mentioning these he includes every type of sin. Deinde cum dicit alioquin, etc., assignat rationem propositi, dicens alioquin, si scilicet sit intelligendum verbum praedictum de fornicariis huius mundi, debueratis de hoc mundo exisse, quia scilicet totus mundus talibus plenus est. Unde non possetis tales fornicarios vitare, nisi de hoc mundo exeundo. Dicitur enim I Io. V, 19: totus mundus in maligno positus est. Vel aliter: debueratis de hoc mundo exisse, quasi dicat: a tempore conversionis vestrae debueratis ab infidelibus mundi separari. Unde non oportet vos super hoc moneri; dicitur enim Io. XV, 16: ego elegi vos de mundo. Vel aliter: debueratis de hoc mundo exisse, scilicet per mortem. Melius est enim hominibus mori, quam peccatoribus in peccatis consentire. Unde dicitur infra IX, 15: melius est enim mihi mori, quam ut gloriam meam quis evacuet. 254. – Then when he says, since then, he gives the reason for this clarification, saying: since then, i.e., if he had meant the fornicators of this world, you would need to go out of the world, for the whole world is filled with them; hence you could not avoid them except by going out of this world: “The whole world is in the power of the evil one” (1 Jn. 5:19). Or, you would need to go out of the world, could mean: since you should have been separated from the sinners of this world from the time of your conversion, there is no need to advise you further about this, for it says in Jn (15:19): “I chose you out of the world.” Or again: you would need to go out of the world, i.e., by dying, for it is better for man to die than consent to sinners in sin; hence it says below (9:15): “For I would rather die than have any one deprive me of my ground for boasting.” Deinde, cum dicit nunc autem scripsi vobis, exponit eis verum intellectum et primo proponit quod intendit; secundo rationem assignat, ibi: quid enim mihi est?; Tertio infert conclusionem intentam, ibi auferte malum, et cetera. 255. – Then when he says, But rather, he presents the true interpretation. First, he states his intention; secondly, he assigns a reason (v. 12), thirdly, he draws the intended conclusion (v. 13b). Dicit ergo primo: nunc autem sic expono, quod olim scripsi vobis: non commisceamini, scilicet fornicariis et aliis peccatoribus. Si is qui, inter vos, frater nominatur, eo modo quo dominus dicit, Matth. c. XXIII, 8: omnes vos fratres estis. Non tamen dicit: si is qui frater est, sed: si is, qui frater nominatur, quia per peccatum mortale aliquis a charitate recedit, quae est spiritualis fraternitatis causa. Unde Hebr. ult. dicitur charitas fraternitatis maneat in vobis. Nominatur ergo frater propter fidei veritatem, non autem est vere frater, propter charitatis defectum, qui est ex peccato. Unde subditur aut fornicator, aut avarus, aut idolis serviens, aut maledicus, aut rapax, aut ebriosus, cum huiusmodi nec cibum sumere, scilicet debetis, secundum illud Io. II Canon.: si quis venit ad vos, et hanc doctrinam non affert, nolite eum recipere in domo vestra, nec ave dixeritis ei; quasi dicat: per hoc quod dixi non debere vos misceri peccatoribus, intellexi de fidelibus qui nominantur fratres, et sunt inter vos. 256. – First, therefore, he says: But rather I shall explain what I have written to you earlier not to associate with fornicators and other sinners, who bear the name of brother in the sense in which the Lord speaks, when he says in Matt (23:8): “You are all brothers.” The Apostle does not say if any man is a brother, but if any man is called a brother, because by mortal sin a man departs from charity, which is the cause of spiritual brotherhood. Hence it say in Heb (13:1): “Let brotherly love continue.” Therefore a man is called a brother on account of the true faith, even though he is not really a brother, if he lacks charity as a result of sin. Hence he adds: if he is guilty of fornication or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard or robber—not even to eat with such a one. “If any one comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into the house or give him any greeting” (2 Jn. 1:10). In other words: when I said that you should not keep company with sinners, I meant with believers who are called brothers and live among you. Non autem per hoc intelligendum est, sicut dicit Augustinus in libro contra Parmenianum, et habetur in Glossa hic, quod aliquis extraordinario iudicio debeat a communione aliorum separari, quia frequenter posset errare, sed potius hoc debet fieri secundum ordinem Ecclesiae, quando aliquis a communione repellitur, ut convictus, vel sponte confessus. Et ideo signanter dicit si is qui nominatur, ut eam nominationem intelligamus, quae fit per sententiam Ecclesiae ordine iudiciario contra aliquem prolatam. Illi autem qui sic a communione pelluntur, sunt vitandi quantum ad mensam, sicut hic dicitur, et quantum ad salutationem, ut dicitur in praedicta auctoritate Ioannis, et ulterius quantum ad sacram communionem. Unde in versu dicitur: os, orare, vale, communio, mensa negatur, scilicet excommunicato. 257. – [However, by this it should not be understood, as Augustine says in Contra Parmenianum, and as it says here in the Gloss, that someone by an extraordinary judgment should be separated from communion with others, because often one can be mistaken, but rather this ought to be done according to the order of the Church, when someone is expelled from communion as convicted or freely confessed. And this he says clearly, if any are called, so that we understand that designation which is made through the sentence of the Church by a judicial order against someone brought forward. But those who are expelled from communion are to be shunned as to the Table, as it says here, and as to greeting, as it says in what is preached by the authority of John, and further, as to sacred communion. Hence it is said in verse: “the mouth, to pray, farewell communion, the table is denied,’ that is, he is excommunicated.] Sed notandum quod apostolus supra non numeravit nisi peccata mortalia, in signum, quod pro solo peccato mortali debet aliquis excommunicari. Et de aliis quidem quae ponit manifestum est; sed de ebrietate potest esse dubium, quae non semper videtur esse peccatum mortale. Dicit enim Augustinus in sermone de Purgatorio, quod ebrietas, nisi sit frequens, non est peccatum mortale. Quod credo ideo esse, quia ebrietas ex suo genere est peccatum mortale. Quod enim aliquis propter delectationem vini velit perdere usum rationis, exponens se periculo multa alia peccata perpetrandi, videtur esse contrarius charitati. Contingit tamen per accidens ebrietatem non esse peccatum mortale propter ignorantiam vini fortitudinis, vel debilitatis proprii capitis, quae tamen excusatio tollitur per frequentem experientiam: et ideo apostolus signanter non dicit ebrius sed ebriosus. Addit autem duo peccata his quae supra posuerat, scilicet ebriosum et maledicum. Refertur autem ebrietas ad genus peccati quod committitur contra seipsum, sub quo continetur non solum luxuria, sed etiam gula; maledicus autem refertur ad genus peccati quod committitur contra proximum, cui nocet aliquis non solum facto, sed etiam verbo, mala imprecando, vel male diffamando: quod pertinet ad detractionem, vel mala in faciem dicendo: quod pertinet ad contumeliam, et hoc totum pertinet ad rationem maledici, ut supra dictum est. 258. – It should be noted that the Apostle mentions only mortal sins to show that a man should not be excommunicated except for mortal sin. However, there seems to be some question about one of these sins, namely, drunkenness, which does not always seem to be a moral sin. For Augustine says in a sermon on purgatory that drunkenness, unless it is frequent, is not a mortal sin. I believe the reason for this is that drunkenness is a mortal sin in general. For it seems to be contrary to charity that for the pleasure of wine a man is willing to lose the use of reason and expose himself to the danger of committing many other sins. Yet it might happen that drunkenness is not a mortal sin, because the strength of the wine or one’s own physical weakness were not known. However, this excuse loses its validity, when drunkenness is frequent. Hence it is significant that the Apostle does not say “a drinker” but “a drunkard.” It is noteworthy that to the list given earlier he added two sins, namely, the reviler and the drunkard. Drunkenness is among the class of sins committed against oneself, which includes not only lust but gluttony as well. Reviling is among the sins committed against one’s neighbor, whom a man can harm not only by deed but also by word, by calling down evil upon him or by defaming him, which pertains to detraction, or by speaking evil to his face, which pertains to contumely. All this is included under the notion of reviler, as has been stated. Deinde, cum dicit quid enim mihi est, etc., assignat rationem eius quod dixerat. Et circa hoc tria facit. Primo assignat rationem, dicens: dixi hoc esse intelligendum de fratribus, et non de infidelibus. Quid enim mihi est, id est, quid ad me pertinet, iudicare, id est, sententiam condemnationis ferre, de his qui foris sunt? Id est, de infidelibus, qui sunt omnino extra Ecclesiam? Praelati enim Ecclesiarum accipiunt spiritualem potestatem super eos tantum, qui se fidei subdiderunt, secundum illud II Cor. X, 6: in promptu habentes ulcisci omnem inobedientiam, cum impleta fuerit vestra obedientia. Indirecte tamen praelati Ecclesiarum habent potestatem super eos qui foris sunt, inquantum propter eorum culpam prohibent fideles, ne illis communicent. 259. – Then when he says, For what have I, he gives the reason for what he had said. In regard to this he does three things: first, he gives the reason, saying: I have said that this is to be understood of brothers and not unbelievers, for what have I to do, i.e., what business is it of mine to judge, i.e., pass a sentence of condemnation on outsiders, i.e., on unbelievers who are completely outside the Church? For the hierarchy has spiritual power over those alone who have submitted to the faith, as it says in 2 Cor (10:6): “Being ready to punish every disobedience, when your obedience is complete.” Indirectly, however, the hierarchy has power over those who are without, inasmuch as it forbids believers to deal with them on account of their guilt. Secundo adhibet similitudinem, dicens nonne de his qui intus sunt vos iudicatis? Quasi dicat: eadem auctoritate vos iudicatis, qua et ego. Unde nec vos non iudicatis nisi de vestris, ita et ego. Dicitur Eccli. X, 1: iudex sapiens iudicabit populum suum. 260. – Secondly, he uses a simile, saying: Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? As if to say: You judge with the same authority as I; hence just as you do not judge anyone but your own, so I also: “A wise judge shall judge his people” (Sir 10:1). Tertio respondet tacitae dubitationi. Posset enim videri, quod infideles essent meliores, qui propter peccata praedicta non condemnantur; sed hoc excludit, dicens: ideo nihil mihi de his qui foris sunt iudicare, nam eos qui foris sunt, id est, infideles, iudicabit Deus, scilicet iudicio condemnationis, non examinationis; quia, ut Gregorius dicit in moralibus, infideles damnabuntur sine iudicio discussionis et examinationis. Et quantum ad hoc dicitur Io. III, 18: qui non credit, iam iudicatus est, id est, manifestam in se habet causam condemnationis, et hoc gravius reservatur Dei iudicio, secundum illud Hebr. X, 31: horrendum est incidere in manus Dei viventis. 261. – Thirdly, he settles a doubt. For some one might conclude that unbelievers are better for not being condemned for the above mentioned sins. But he rejects this when he says that it is not his business to judge those that are without, for God judges those outside, namely, unbelievers, because as Gregory says in Morals, unbelievers will be condemned without discussion and investigation. This is in line with Jn (3:18): “He that does not believe has already been judged,” i.e., has within himself an obvious cause for condemnation. Deinde, cum dicit auferte malum, etc., infert conclusionem principaliter intentam, dicens: ex quo hoc quod dixi non commisceamini fornicariis, intelligendum est de fidelibus, non de his qui foris sunt. Ergo auferte malum, scilicet hominem, ex vobis ipsis, id est, de vestra societate eiicite, secundum illud Deut. XIII, 5: auferes malum de medio tui. 262. – Then when he says, Drive out the wicked one, he draws the main conclusion saying: Since my command that you not keep company with fornicators must be understood as referring to believers and not to those who are outside, then drive out the wicked one, i.e., this man, from among you, i.e., expel him from your company: “You shall purge the evil from the midst of you” (Dt 13:5). Est ergo considerandum ex praemissis apostoli verbis, quod non prohibemur communicare infidelibus, qui numquam fidem receperunt propter eorum poenam. Est tamen hoc cavendum aliquibus, scilicet infirmis, propter eorum cautelam, ne seducantur. Illi vero qui sunt firmi in fide, possunt eis licite communicare, et dare operam conversioni eorum, ut dicitur infra X, 27: si quis infidelium vocat vos ad caenam et vultis ire, omne quod appositum fuerit manducate. Infidelibus autem qui aliquando fideles fuerunt, vel sacramentum fidei receperunt, sicut haereticis et apostatantibus a fide, subtrahitur omnino communio fidelium, et hoc in eorum poenam, sicut et caeteris peccatoribus qui adhuc subduntur potestati Ecclesiae. 263. – These words of the Apostle do not mean that we are forbidden to associate with unbelievers who have never received the faith for their punishment. Yet the weak are cautioned to avoid them, lest they be drawn away. But those strong in the faith can lawfully associate with them and try to convert them, as it says below (10:27): “If an unbeliever invites you to dinner and you are disposed to go, eat whatever is set before you.” But unbelievers who once were believers, or received the sacrament of faith, as heretics or apostates from the faith, are excluded from all contact with believers. This is a punishment for them, as it is for other sinners still subject to the power of the Church.
6-1
1 Cor 6:1-6Supra apostolus reprehenderat Corinthios de negligentia iudicii, hic reprehendit in eis quaedam alia peccata circa iudicia. Et primo quantum ad iudices eorum coram quibus litigabant; secundo quantum ad ipsa iudicia, ibi iam quidem omnino. Circa primum tria facit. Primo arguit eos de inordinatione; secundo rationem reprehensionis assignat, ibi an nescitis; tertio remedium adhibet, ibi saecularia igitur iudicia. 264. – After rebuking the Corinthians for failing to judge, the Apostle now rebukes them for other failings in matters of judgment. First, in regard to the judges before whom they present their grievances; secondly, in regard to the grievances themselves (v. 7). In regard to the first he does three things: first, he charges them with unbecoming conduct; secondly, he gives the reason for this charge (v. 2); thirdly, he applies a remedy (v. 4). Dicit ergo primo: ita negligitis in iudicando vestros, sed tamen praesumptuosi estis subire infidelium iudicia, et hoc est quod dicit audet, id est, praesumit, aliquis vestrum habens negotium, scilicet saeculare, adversus alium, iudicari apud iniquos, id est, subire iudicium infidelium, et non apud sanctos, id est, apud fideles, qui sunt sacramentis fidei sanctificati. 265. – First, therefore, he says: You fail to judge yourselves but allow yourselves to be judged by the unrighteous. Hence he says: When one of you has a grievance, i.e., secular business, against a brother, does he dare go to law before the unrighteous, i.e., submit to the decision of an unbeliever, instead of the saints, i.e., before believers, who have been sanctified by the sacraments of faith? Hoc enim est inordinatum multipliciter. Primo quidem, quia per hoc derogatur auctoritati fidelium; secundo, quia derogatur dignitati fidelium quantum ad hoc quod infidelium iudicia subeunt; tertio quia per hoc datur occasio infidelibus iudicibus contemnendi fideles, quos dissentire vident; quarto, quia per hoc datur occasio infidelibus iudicibus calumniandi et opprimendi fideles, quos odio habent propter fidem et ritus diversitatem. Et ideo dicitur Deut. I, v. 15 s.: tuli de tribubus vestris viros sapientes et nobiles, praecepique eis, dicens: audite illos, et quod iustum est iudicate. Et eod. XVII, 15: non poteris alterius gentis facere regem, qui non sit frater tuus. 266. – This is unbecoming in a number of ways. First, because it detracts from the full power of believers; secondly, it insults the dignity of believers to take their lawsuits to unbelievers; thirdly, it gives unbelieving judges occasion for looking down on believers, whom they see at odds among themselves; fourthly, it gives the same judges occasion for calumniating and oppressing believers, whom they hate on account of their faith and rites which differ from their own. Hence it says in Dt (1:15): “I took the heads of your tribes, wise and experienced men, and set them as heads over you. And I charged them: ‘Hear the cases between your brethren, and judge righteously between a man and his brother.’” Again in Dt (17:15): “You may not put a foreigner over you, who is not your brother.” Sed videtur esse contra id quod dicitur I Petr. II, 13: subditi estote omni humanae creaturae propter Deum, sive regi tamquam praecellenti, sive ducibus tamquam ab eo missis: pertinet enim ad auctoritatem principis iudicare de subditis. Est ergo contra ius divinum prohibere quod eius iudicio non stetur, si sit infidelis. Sed dicendum quod apostolus non prohibet, quin fideles, sub infidelibus principibus constituti, eorum iudicio compareant, si vocentur, hoc enim esset contra subiectionem, quae debetur principibus; sed prohibet quod fideles non eligant voluntarie infidelium iudicium. 267. – But this seems contrary to what is commanded in 1 Pt (2:13): “Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors sent by him”; for it pertains to the prince’s authority to judge his subjects. Therefore, it is against the divine law to forbid one’s conforming to the decision of a judge, who is an unbeliever. The answer is that the Apostle is not forbidding believers who are under the jurisdiction of unbelieving princes to accept their judgment, if they are summoned; for this would be contrary to the loyalty owed to princes, but he is forbidding believers voluntarily to prefer being judged by unbelievers. Deinde cum dicit an nescitis, etc., assignat rationem contra id, quod illi faciebant, sumptam ex hoc, quod derogabant auctoritati sanctorum. Et primo quantum ad auctoritatem quam habent super res mundanas; secundo quantum ad auctoritatem quam habent ad res supermundanas, id est, super Angelos, ibi an nescitis, quoniam Angelos iudicabimus? 268. – Then when he says, Do you not know, he gives a reason against this policy, inasmuch as it detracts from the full power of the saints. First, in regard to the power they have over worldly affairs; secondly, in regard to the power they have over other-worldly things, i.e., over angels (v. 3). Dicit ergo primo: inordinatum est iudicium apud infideles, quia fideles habent auctoritatem iudicandi, an nescitis, quia sancti de hoc mundo iudicabunt, id est, de hominibus mundanis huius mundi? Quod quidem impletur tripliciter. Primo quidem secundum comparationem, scilicet secundum quod non solum boni iudicabunt malos, et sancti mundanos; sed etiam secundum quod boni iudicabuntur a melioribus, et mali iudicabunt peiores, secundum illud Matth. c. XII, 41: viri Ninivitae surgent in iudicio cum generatione ista, et condemnabunt eam. Secundo iudicabunt approbando sententiam iudicis, scilicet Christi, et hoc erit proprie iustorum, secundum illud Ps.: laetabitur iustus cum viderit vindictam. Unde Sap. III, 8 dicitur: iudicabunt sancti nationes. Tertio modo per sententiae prolationem. Et hoc erit apostolorum et similium, qui contemptis rebus mundi, solis spiritualibus inhaeserunt. Spiritualis enim iudicat omnia, ut dictum est supra II, 15. Unde et Matth. c. XIX, 28 dicitur: vos qui secuti estis me, sedebitis super sedes, iudicantes duodecim tribus Israel. Et in Ps. CXLIX, 6 s. dicitur: gladii ancipites in manibus eorum, ad faciendam vindictam in nationibus. Intelligitur autem ista prolatio sententiae non vocalis, sed spiritualis, inquantum per superiores sanctos inferiores vel etiam peccatores spirituali quadam illuminatione illuminabuntur, quales poenae, et qualia praemia eis debeantur: sicut etiam nunc homines illuminantur ab Angelis, vel etiam inferiores Angeli a superioribus. 269. – First, therefore, he says: It is unbecoming to take your lawsuits to unbelievers, because believers have authority to judge, for do you not know that the saints will judge the world, i.e., the worldly men of this world? They do this in three ways: first, comparatively, i.e., not only in the sense that good men will judge evil men, and saints the worldly, but also that the good will be judged by the better and the evil by the worse, according to Matt (12:41): “The men of Nineveh will arise at the judgment with this generation and condemn it.” Secondly, they will judge by approving the sentence of the judge, i.e., Christ; and this will be reserved to the just: “The just man will rejoice when he sees the vengeance” (Ps 58:10); “The saints shall judge nations” (Wis 3:8). In a third way by passing sentence, and this will be done by the apostles and those like them who held worldly things in contempt and clung only to spiritual things, as it says above (2:15). Hence Matt (19:28) says: “You who have followed me will sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel,” and in Ps 149 (v. 4): “Two edged swords in their hands to wreak vengeance on the nations.” This passing of sentence will not be vocal but spiritual, inasmuch as lesser saints or even sinners will be enlightened with a spiritual light by the higher saints to understand what sort of punishments or rewards are owed to them; just as even now men are enlightened by angels, or even lesser angels by higher ones. Secundo ex hoc, quod dictum est, argumentatur ad propositum, dicens et si in vobis, id est, per vos, iudicabitur mundus, id est, mundani homines, numquid indigni estis, qui iudicetis de minimis, scilicet de negotiis saecularibus, Lc. XVI, 10: qui in modico iniquus est, et in maiori iniquus erit. 270. – Secondly, from what has been stated he argues to his proposition, saying: If the world, i.e., worldly men, is to be judged by you, are you incompetent to try trivial cases, i.e., worldly business: “He who is dishonest in a very little, is dishonest also in much” (Lk 16:10). Deinde cum dicit nescitis, etc., argumentatur ad idem ex auctoritate sanctorum super Angelos. Et primo ponit eam, dicens an nescitis, quoniam nos, scilicet fideles Christi, iudicabimus Angelos? Quod quidem potest intelligi de malis Angelis, qui condemnabuntur a sanctis, quorum virtute sunt victi. Unde dominus, Lc. X, 19, dicit: ecce dedi vobis potestatem calcandi super serpentes, et super omnem virtutem inimici. Et in Ps. XC, 13: super aspidem et basiliscum ambulabis. Potest etiam hoc intelligi de bonis Angelis, quorum plurimi in comparatione quadam invenientur Paulo et similibus sibi inferiores. Unde signanter non dicit: iudicabitis, sed iudicabimus. Quamvis etiam dici possit, quod ex consequenti, si sancti iudicabunt homines bonos et malos, erit iudicium de bonis Angelis, quorum accidentale praemium augetur ex praemio sanctorum per Angelos illuminatorum, et etiam de malis Angelis, quorum poena augetur ex poena hominum per eos seductorum. 271. – Then when he says, Do you not know that we, namely, the faithful of Christ, will judge angels? This can be understood of bad angels, who will be condemned by the saints, by whose virtue they were overcome. Hence the Lord says in Lk (10:19): “I have given you power to tread upon serpents and scorpions, and all the power of the enemy.” And in Ps 91 (v. 3): “The young lion and the serpent you will trample under foot.” It can also be understood of good angels, most of whom in some way will be found inferior to Paul and others like him. Hence, it is significant that he does not say “they” but “we” shall judge. For although it might be said, as a consequence, that if saints will judge good and evil men, there will be a judgment of good angels, whose accidental reward is increased by the reward of saints enlightened by angels and a judgment of evil angels, whose punishment is increased by the punishment of men led astray by them. Secundo argumentatur ad propositum, dicens quanto magis saecularia, scilicet iudicia, idonei erimus iudicare: qui enim est idoneus ad maiora, multo magis est idoneus ad minora. Unde et dominus, cui commiserat quinque talenta, postmodum commisit unum, ut habetur Matth. XXV, 28. 272. – Secondly, he argues to the proposition, saying: How much more, matters pertaining to this life will we be fit to judge. For one capable of greater things is capable of lesser. Hence to the person entrusted with five talents the Lord later entrusted one (Matt 25:28). Deinde cum dicit saecularia igitur iudicia, adhibet remedium contra culpam eorum. Et primo ponit remedium; secundo exponit, ibi ad verecundiam vestram dico. 273. – Then when he says, If then you have such cases, he applies the remedy for their fault: first he mentions the remedy; secondly, he explains (v. 5). Dicit ergo primo: ergo ex quo sancti de hoc mundo iudicabunt, si habueritis inter vos saecularia iudicia, quae tamen habere non debetis, illos qui sunt contemptibiles in Ecclesia constituite ad iudicandum, potius scilicet quam iudicemini apud infideles. Unde et in Ps. CXL, 5 dicitur: corripiet me iustus in misericordia, et increpabit me, oleum autem peccatoris non impinguet caput meum. Et Eccle. IX, 4 dicitur: melius est canis vivus leone mortuo. 274. – First, therefore, he says: Therefore, since the saints will judge this world, if you should have secular trials among you, which, nevertheless you should not have, those least esteemed in the Church should be appointed to judge, rather than be judged by unbelievers. “Let a good man strike or rebuke me in kindness, but let the oil of the wicked never anoint my head” (Ps 141:5); and in Ec (9:4) it says: “A living dog is better than a dead lion.” Deinde cum dicit ad verecundiam vestram dico, exponit quo sensu praedicta dixit. Posset enim aliquis credere, quod ad litteram essent eligendi contemptibiliores ad iudicandum; sed hoc excludit, dicens ad verecundiam vestram dico. Quasi dicat: non hoc dixi ut ita fiat, sed ut vos faciam verecundari, illa scilicet confusione, quae adducit gratiam et gloriam, ut dicitur Eccli. IV, 25. Contemptibiles enim in Ecclesia essent eligendi ad iudicandum, si non invenirentur inter vos sapientes, quod esset vobis verecundum. Unde subdit sic non est inter vos sapiens quisquam, qui possit iudicare inter fratrem et fratrem, sed frater cum fratre in iudicio contendit, et hoc apud infideles? Potius autem quam hoc faceretis, deberetis constituere contemptibiles, qui sunt in Ecclesia, ad iudicandum et supplendum defectum sapientum, qui tamen non est apud vos, secundum illud quod supra primo, dixerat: divites facti estis in illo, in omni verbo et in omni scientia. 275. – Then when he says, I say this, he explains in what sense he meant the foregoing. For someone who could believe that literally the least esteemed were to be chosen judges. But he excludes this, saying: I say this to your shame. As if to say: I did not say this as though it were to be done, but I said it to shame you, namely, with that confusion which brings grace and glory, as it says in Sirach (4:25): For the least esteemed in the Church should be chosen for judging, if no wise men were to be found among you, which would be shameful for you. That is why he continues: Can it be that there is no man among you wise enough to decide between members of the brotherhood? Rather than do this, you should appoint the least esteemed in the Church to judge and to supply for the lack of wisdom, which, of course, is not wanting to you, as I said above (1:5): “In every way you were enriched in him with all speech and all knowledge.” Vel aliter ab illo loco saecularia, et cetera. Dixerat enim, quod sancti idonei sunt ad iudicandum saecularia, et ideo vult ostendere per quos iudicia saecularia debeant exerceri, scilicet per contemptibiles qui sunt in Ecclesia. Vocat autem contemptibiles illos, qui sunt sapientes in rebus mundanis, per comparationem ad illos, qui sunt sapientes in rebus divinis, quibus est reverentia exhibenda, qui in rebus temporalibus non occupantur, ut solis spiritualibus vacent. Et hoc est quod subditur ad verecundiam vestram dico; secundum aliam litteram: ad reverentiam vestram. Unde et apostoli dixerunt Act. c. VI, 2: non est aequum relinquere nos verbum Dei, et ministrare mensis. Postmodum autem redit ad id quod supra reprehenderat, scilicet quod Corinthii sub infidelibus iudicibus litigabant, dicens sic non est inter vos sapiens quisquam, scilicet in rebus temporalibus, quem supra contemptibilem dixit. Unde alia non mutantur a prima expositione, quae tamen videtur esse magis litteralis. 276. – Or in another way from v. 4: For he had said that the saints are worthy to judge worldly matters; consequently, he wants to show by whom worldly judgments should be passed, namely, by the least esteemed in the Church. By “least esteemed” he means those who are wise in worldly matter as opposed to those wise in divine matters and are not occupied with temporal things, in order to devote themselves strictly to spiritual things. And this is what is added to: I say this to your shame. Hence the apostles said in Ac (6:2) “It is not right that we should give up preaching the word of God to serve tables.” After that he returns to what he had censured earlier, namely, that the Corinthians took their lawsuits to unbelieving judges, saying: Can it be that there is no man among you wise, namely in temporal affairs, which he called contemptible earlier. Hence the other things are not changed from the first explanation, which seems to be more literal.
6-2
1 Cor 6:7-13aPostquam apostolus reprehendit Corinthios de hoc quod coram infidelibus iudicibus litigabant, hic reprehendit eos quantum ad ipsa iudicia. Et circa hoc duo facit. Primo ponit in quo peccabant circa iudicia; secundo manifestat quod dixerat, ibi an nescitis, et cetera. Circa primum duo facit. Primo reprehendit in eis circa iudicia id quod est licitum, sed non expediens; secundo id quod est penitus illicitum, ibi sed et vos, et cetera. Circa primum duo facit: primo ponit reprehensionem; secundo removet excusationem, ibi quare non magis, et cetera. 277. – After rebuking the Corinthians for brining their lawsuits before unbelieving judges, the Apostle now rebukes them for the judgments themselves. In regard to this he does three things: first, he states how they sinned in regard to judgments; secondly, he clarifies what he had said (v. 9). In regard to the first he does two things: first, he rebukes them in something lawful in regard to judgment, but not expedient; secondly, what is utterly unlawful (v. 8). In regard to the first he does two things: first, he rebukes them; secondly, he rejects an excuse (7b). Dicit ergo primo: dictum est, quod frater cum fratre in iudicio contendit, quod non solum malum est quod apud infideles contenditis, sed iam quidem, post conversionem vestram, omnino delictum est in vobis, id est, ad delictum vobis reputatur, quod iudicia habetis inter vos, inter quos scilicet debet esse pax: quia, ut dicitur II Tim. II, 24, servum domini non oportet litigare, sed mansuetum esse ad omnes. 278. – First, therefore, he says: It has been stated that brother contends with brother in judgment. It is not only bad that you contend before unbelievers, but after your conversion, it is a defeat for you, i.e., it is regarded as a failing, to have lawsuits at all with one another, between whom there should be peace, because, as it says in 2 Tim (2:24): “The Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but kindly to everyone.” Apparet autem ex hoc, ut dicit hic Glossa Augustini, quod peccatum est iudicium habere contra aliquem, sed hoc videtur esse falsum: quia si peccatum est iudicium habere, videtur sequi quod etiam peccatum sit iudices constituere, cum hoc sit occasionem dare iudicium habentibus, cum tamen dicatur Deut. I, 16: audite illos, et quod iustum est iudicate, et postea subditur, quia Dei iudicium est. Solvitur enim in Glossa quod infirmis permittitur in iudicio sua repetere, non autem perfectis: quibus licet sua repetere, sed non in iudicio. Est autem sciendum hic, quod aliquid est perfectis illicitum, aliquid autem omnibus. Perfecti quidem proprium non habent, secundum illud Matth. XIX, 21: si vis perfectus esse, vade et vende omnia quae habes, et da pauperibus, et veni, sequere me; et ideo non licet eis in iudicio repetere quasi propria, cum eis non liceat habere proprium, licet tamen eis in iudicio repetere ea quae sunt communia. Non enim hoc faciendo peccant, sed magis merentur. Est enim opus charitatis defendere vel recuperare res pauperum, secundum illud Ps. LXXXI, 4: eripite pauperem, et egenum de manu peccatoris liberate. Sed iudicium adversus aliquem est illicitum omnibus quantum ad tria. Primo quidem quantum ad causam ex qua aliquis iudicium habet, puta ex cupiditate et avaritia. Unde, Lc. XII, 13, cum quidam de turba domino dixisset: dic fratri meo ut dividat mecum haereditatem, dominus dixit: quis me constituit iudicem ad dividendum inter vos? Postea subdit: videte et cavete ab omni avaritia. Secundo quantum ad modum iudicii, quia scilicet cum contentione et detrimento pacis iudicium prosequuntur; ut enim dicitur Iac. c. III, 16, ubi zelus et contentio, ibi inconstantia et omne opus pravum. Et hoc videtur apostolus in eis reprehendere, ut patet ex hoc quod supra dixit: frater cum fratre in iudicio contendit. Tertio ex perversitate iudicii, puta cum aliquis iniuste et fraudulenter in iudicio procedit, secundum illud Is. X, 2: ut opprimerent pauperem, et vim facerent causae humilium populi mei. Et hoc etiam apostolus in eis reprehendit, ut patet per id quod subdit: sed vos iniuriam facitis. Quarto propter scandalum quod sequitur. Unde et dominus mandat, Matth. V, 40: qui vult tecum in iudicio contendere, et tunicam tuam tollere, dimitte ei et pallium. Ex charitate vero, sua in iudicio repetere licitum est. Unde Gregorius dicit in moralibus: cum curam rerum nobis necessitas imponit, quidam dum ea repetunt, solummodo sunt tolerandi: quidam vero servata charitate sunt prohibendi, scilicet ne rapientes non sua, semetipsos perdant. 279. – It appears from this, as a Gloss of Augustine says, that it is a sin to have a lawsuit against anyone; but this seems to be false. For if it is a sin to have a lawsuit, it seems to follow that it is also a sin to appoint judges, since this is tantamount to giving an occasion to those having lawsuits, whereas it says in Dt (1:16): “Hear the cases between your brethren and judge righteously.” For it is answered in a Gloss that the weak are permitted to seek their rights in a lawsuit, but not the perfect, who can lawfully seek their rights but not in a lawsuit. But it should be noted that something is lawful for the perfect and something for all others. The perfect, indeed, do not have anything they can call their own; for it says in Matt (19:21): “If you would be perfect, go see what you possess and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.” Consequently, it is not lawful for them to seek in a lawsuit anything that can be considered their own, since it is not lawful for them to possess anything as their own, although they may seek common property in a lawsuit. For they do not sin in doing this, but rather they merit. For it is a work of charity to defend or recover the property of the poor, as it says in Ps 82 (v. 4): “Rescue the weak and the needy, deliver them from the hand of the wicked.” But a lawsuit against anyone is unlawful for four reasons. First, as to its cause on account of which one brings a lawsuit, say from covetousness and greed. Hence Lk (12:13), when someone had said to the Lord: “Bid my brother divide the inheritance with me,” the Lord said: “Who made me judge or divider over you”; then he added “Take heed and beware of covetousness.” Secondly, in regard to the way a lawsuit is conducted, because it is conducted with strife and harm to peace: for as Jas (3:16) says: “Where jealousy and selfish ambition exist, there will be disorder and every vile practice.” And this is what the Apostle seems to rebuke them for, as is clear from what he had said above (6:6): “But brother goes to law against brother.” Thirdly, on account of the perversity of the judgment, say when someone proceeds unjustly and fraudulently in a lawsuit, as it says in Is (10:2): “You turn aside the needy from justice and rob the poor of my people of their right.” This, too, the Apostle reprehends in them, as he shows from what he adds: But you yourselves wrong and defraud. Fourthly, on account of the scandal which follows. Hence the Lord commands in Matt (5:40): “If anyone would sue you and take your coat, let him have your cloak as well.” But out of charity it is lawful to seek your own in a lawsuit. Hence Gregory in Morals: “When necessity forces us to have charge of things, some are merely to be tolerated, when they demand things, but others to be forestalled, as long as charity is preserved, from snatching what is not theirs and thus destroying themselves.” Deinde cum dicit quare non magis, etc., tollit excusationem. Possent enim dicere: necessitas nos inducit ad iudicia habenda, ut scilicet resistamus iniuriis et fraudibus aliorum; sed hoc excludit, subdens, quantum ad primum, quare non magis iniuriam, scilicet manifestam, accipitis, scilicet patienter sustinendo, secundum illud quod dominus dicit, Matth. V, 39: si quis te percusserit in maxillam, praebe ei et alteram. Quantum vero ad secundum subdit quare non magis fraudem patimini, id est, dolosam seductionem, secundum illud Matth. V, 41: si quis te angariaverit mille passus, vade cum illo et alia duo. Sed, sicut Augustinus dicit in libro de sermone domini in monte, haec praecepta domini non sunt semper observanda in executione operis, sed semper sunt habenda in praeparatione animi, ut scilicet simus parati hoc facere vel sustinere potius, quam aliquid agere contra charitatem fraternam. 280. – Then when he says, Why not rather suffer wrong, he takes away their excuse. For they could say a necessity forces us to have lawsuits in order to resist harm and dishonesty from other men. But he rejects this, saying: Why not rather suffer wrong by enduring it with patience, as the Lord says in Matt (5:31): “If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.” As to the second he says: Why not rather be defrauded? i.e., suffer the crafty wheedling, for it says in Matt (5:41): “If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him another two miles.” But, as Augustine says in The Lord’s Sermon on the Mount, these precepts of the Lord are not always to be observed in the performance of a work, but we should be prepared to obey them, so that we would be always prepared to do this or endure that, rather than do anything against fraternal charity. Deinde cum dicit sed vos, etc., reprehendit in eis id quod est omnino illicitum. Et primo arguit in eis manifestam iniustitiam, cum dicit sed vos iniuriam facitis, scilicet manifeste loquendo contra iustitiam aliorum, vel in iudicio, vel extra iudicium. Eccli. IX, 17: non placeat tibi iniuria iniustorum. Secundo dolosam deceptionem, cum subdit et fraudatis, Prov. XII, 5: consilia impiorum fraudulenta. Tertio aggravat utrumque, cum subdit et hoc fratribus, id est, fidelibus, ad quos debemus bonum maxime operari, secundum illud Gal. ult.: dum tempus habemus, operemur bonum ad omnes; maxime autem ad domesticos fidei. Et ideo contra quosdam dicitur Ier. IX, 4: omnis frater supplantans, supplantabit, et omnis amicus fraudulenter incedet. 281. – Then when he says, But you yourselves, he rebukes them for something altogether illicit. First, he accuses them of obvious injustice, when he says: But you yourselves wrong, namely, by speaking openly against the justice of others either in court or outside: “Do not delight in what pleases the unjust” (Sir 9:12). Secondly, for crafty deception when he says: and defraud: “The counsels of the wicked are treacherous” (Pr 12:5), and that even to your own brethren, i.e., believers to whom you should do good: “As we have opportunity, let us do good to all men, but especially to those who are of the household of the faith” (Gal 6:10). Therefore, it is said against some: “Every brother is a supplanter, and every neighbor goes about as a slanderer (Jer 9:4). Deinde, cum dicit an nescitis, etc., manifestat quod dixerat. Et primo, quantum ad id quod est omnino illicitum; secundo, quantum ad id quod est licitum, sed non expediens, ibi omnia mihi licent. Circa primum duo facit. Primo movet quaestionem; secundo determinat eam, ibi nolite errare, et cetera. 282. – Then when he says, Do you not know, he clarifies what he had said: first, as to what is altogether unlawful; secondly as to what is unlawful but not expedient (v. 12). In regard to the first he does two things: first, he presents a question; secondly, he answers it (v. 9b). Dicit ergo primo: dixi quod vos iniuriam facitis, et defraudatis, quod est iniquitatem committere, sed an nescitis quod iniqui regnum Dei non possidebunt? Quasi dicat: videmini haec nescire, dum ab iniquitate non receditis, cum tamen in Ps. VI, 9 et Matth. VII, 23 dicatur: discedite a me, omnes qui operamini iniquitatem. 283. – First, therefore, he says: I have stated that you do wrong and defraud, which is to commit sin, but do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? As if to say: you seem not to know this, as long as you do not give up your sin; whereas it says in Ps 6 (v. 8): “Depart from me all you workers of evil.” Deinde, cum dicit nolite errare, etc., determinat veritatem. Et primo ostendit periculum quod imminet iniquis; secundo ostendit quomodo ipsi hoc periculum evaserunt, ut timeant iterum in ipsum incidere, ibi et hoc quidem aliquando fuistis, et cetera. 284. – Then when he says, Do not be deceived, he determines the truth: first he shows the impious their danger; secondly he shows how they were snatched from this peril and feared falling into it again (v. 11). Dicit ergo primo: nolite errare, quod signanter dicit, quia circa impunitatem peccatorum aliqui multipliciter errabant, secundum illud Sap. II, 21: et cogitaverunt, et erraverunt. Quidam enim philosophi erraverunt credentes Deum non habere curam rerum humanarum, secundum illud Soph. I, 12: non faciet dominus bene, et non faciet dominus male. Quidam vero credentes solam fidem sufficientem esse ad salutem, secundum illud Io. XI, 26: qui credit in me, non morietur in aeternum. Quidam vero credentes per sola Christi sacramenta salvari, propter id quod dicitur Mc. ult.: qui crediderit et baptizatus fuerit, salvus erit, et Io. c. VI, 55: qui manducat meam carnem, et bibit meum sanguinem, habet vitam aeternam. Quidam vero propter sola opera misericordiae se impune peccare arbitrantur, propter illud quod dicitur Lc. XI, 41: date eleemosynam, et ecce omnia munda sunt vobis. Nec intelligunt quod haec omnia sine charitate non prosunt, secundum illud quod dicitur infra XIII, 2 s.: si habuero omnem fidem, et distribuero in cibos pauperum omnes facultates meas, charitatem autem non habuero, nihil mihi prodest. Et ideo subdit quod peccata contraria charitati a regno Dei excludunt, in quod sola charitas introducit, dicens neque fornicarii, neque idolis servientes, neque adulteri (de quibus dicitur Hebr. ult.: fornicatores et adulteros iudicabit Deus), neque molles, id est, mares muliebria patientes, neque masculorum concubitores, quantum ad agentes in illo vitio, de quibus dicitur Gen. XIII, 13: homines Sodomitae pessimi erant et peccatores coram domino nimis, neque avari, neque fures (de quibus dicitur Zach. V, 3: omnis fur, sicut scriptum est, iudicabitur), neque ebriosi, neque maledici, neque rapaces regnum Dei possidebunt. Dicitur enim Is. XXXV, 8: via sancta vocabitur, non transibit per eam pollutus. Et Apoc. XXI, 27: non intrabit in illam aliquid coinquinatum, faciens abominationem. Et est advertendum quod hic enumerat eadem vitia quae in praecedenti capitulo posuerat. Addit autem quaedam in genere luxuriae, scilicet adulterium et vitium contra naturam, in genere autem iniustitiae, furtum. 285. – First, therefore, he says: Do not be deceived, which is said with a purpose, because some have been deceived frequently about sinning with impunity, as it says in Wis (2:21): “Thus they reasoned, but they were led astray.” For certain philosophers erred in believing that God does not have charge of human affairs, as it says in Zeph (1:12): “The Lord will not do good, nor will he do ill.” But others, believing that faith alone is sufficient for salvation, according to Jn (11:26): “Whoever lives and believes in me shall never die”; others believing that they will be saved just by Christ’s sacraments, on account of what is said in Mk (16:16): “He that believes and is baptized will be saved,” and Jn (6:55): “He that eats my flesh and drinks my blood will have eternal life.” Still others suppose that they can sin with impunity on account of the works of mercy they perform, inasmuch as it says in Lk (11:40): “Give for alms those things which are within you; and behold, everything is clean for you.” But they do not understand that all these things are of no benefit without charity, for it says in 1 Cor (13:2ff): “If I have all faith; if I give away all I have to the poor, and I have not charity, I gain nothing.” Therefore, he continues: sins contrary to charity exclude one from the kingdom of God, which charity alone permits one to enter, saying: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, concerning whom Heb (13:4) says: “God will judge fornicators and adulterers”; nor homosexuals, of which it says in Gen (13:13): “The men of Sodom were wicked, great sinners against the Lord”; nor the greedy nor thieves, of whom Zech (5:3) says: “Everyone that steals shall be cut off henceforth”; nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God. For it says in Is (35:8): “And a highway shall be there, and it shall be called the Holy Way; the unclean shall not pass over it”; and in Rev (21:27): “But nothing unclean shall enter it, nor anyone who practices abominations. It should be noted that the vices mentioned here are the same as those mentioned in the previous chapter. But he added some in the category of lust, namely, adultery, and sins against nature, and thievery in the category of injustice. Deinde, cum dicit et haec quidem, etc., ostendit quomodo praedictum periculum evaserunt. Et primo commemorat statum praeteritum, dicens et quidem aliquando fuistis, scilicet fornicarii et idolis servientes, etc., et ideo specialiter haec vitia commemorat, quia in eis abundaverunt, secundum illud Eph. V, 8: eratis enim aliquando tenebrae, nunc autem lux in domino. 286. – Then when he says, And such were some of you, he shows how they escaped from the above-mentioned danger. First, he reminds them of their past state, saying: And such were some of you, namely, fornicators and idolaters, etc. He makes particular mention of these vices, because they abounded in them, as it says in Eph. (5:8): “For once you were darkness, but now you are light in the Lord.” Secundo ostendit quomodo ab his intus fuerunt liberati, dicens sed abluti estis, scilicet virtute sanguinis Christi in Baptismo, secundum illud Apoc. I, 5: lavit nos a peccatis nostris in sanguine suo. Sed sanctificati estis virtute sanguinis Christi per gratiam consecrati, secundum illud Hebr. ult.: Iesus ut sanctificaret per suum sanguinem populum, extra portam passus est. Sed iustificati estis, ad statum iustitiae et virtutis, secundum illud Rom. VIII, 30: quos vocavit, hos et iustificavit. 287. – Secondly, he shows how they were freed of them inwardly, saying: But you were washed by the power of Christ’s blood in baptism, as it says in Rev (1:5): “He freed us from our sins in his blood.” You were sanctified by the power of Christ’s blood and consecrated in grace, as it says in Heb (3:12): “So Jesus also suffered outside the gate, in order to sanctify the people through his own blood”; you were justified, i.e., raised to the state of justice, according to Rom (8:30): “Those whom he called he also justified.” Subditur autem horum beneficiorum causa. Et primo ex parte humanitatis, Christi, cum dicit in nomine domini nostri Iesu Christi, id est, in fide et invocatione nominis Christi, secundum illud Act. IV, 12: non est aliud nomen datum sub caelo hominibus, in quo oporteat nos salvos fieri. Secundo ex parte divinitatis, cum subdit et in spiritu Dei nostri, secundum illud Ez. XXXVII, v. 5: ecce ego mittam in vos spiritum, et vivetis. Quia igitur tam potenti virtute liberati estis, ad eadem redire non debetis. 288. – Then he mentions the cause of these blessings: first, on the part of the humanity of Christ when he says: In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, i.e., in believing and calling on that name, as it says in Acts (4:12): “There is no other name under heaven given among men by which they must be saved.” Secondly, on the part of the divinity when he adds: and in the Spirit of our God, as it says in Ez (37:3): “Behold, I shall cause breath to enter you and you shall live.” Therefore, since you have been freed by such great power, you should not return to the same former ways. Deinde, cum dicit omnia mihi licent, etc., manifestat id quod dixerat de prohibitione iudicii, ostendens quo sensu id reprehenderit, quia scilicet non reprehendit illud quasi omnino illicitum, sed quasi non expediens et nocivum. Et circa hoc duo facit. Primo proponit quod intendit; secundo rationem assignat, ibi esca ventri, et cetera. 289. – Then when he says, all things are lawful, he clarifies what he had said about forbidding lawsuits, and shows in what sense he rejects them, namely, he does not reject them as altogether unlawful, but as not expedient and as harmful. In regard to this he does two things: first, he states his proposition; secondly, he assigns a reason (v. 13). Circa primum duo facit. Primo proponit quod reprehenderat esse licitum, sed non expediens, dicens omnia mihi licent. Dicuntur autem illa licita quae homo facere non prohibetur; est autem duplex prohibitio, una coactionis, alia praecepti, et secundum hoc quidam intellexerunt illa licere a quibus non prohibetur aliqua necessitate cogente; et ideo, quia arbitrium hominis naturaliter liberum est a coactione, intellexerunt apostolum eo sensu dicere: omnia mihi licent, quia scilicet libero arbitrio hominis subiacent, sive sint bona, sive sint mala, secundum illud Eccli. XV, 18: ante hominem bonum et malum, vita et mors, quodcumque voluerit, dabitur ei. Sed hic modus loquendi alienus est a Scriptura sacra, in qua dicitur non licere ea quae divina lege prohibentur, secundum illud Matth. XIV, 4: non licet tibi habere uxorem fratris tui. Et ideo quod hic apostolus dicit omnia mihi licent, non potest absolute intelligi, sed ut sit accomoda distributio sub hoc sensu: omnia mihi licent, quae scilicet divina lege non prohibentur. 290. – First, he states that what he rejects is lawful but not expedient, saying, All things are lawful for me. Now those things are lawful which a man is not forbidden to do. But prohibitions are of two kinds: one is by force and the other by precept. According to this, some have understood that something is lawful from which they are not prohibited by any necessitating force; because man’s decision is naturally free of force, they understand the Apostle to mean it in that sense when he said: All things are lawful to me, namely, that all things are subject to man’s free choice, be they good or evil, according to what is said in Sir (15:17): “Before a man is life and death; which he chooses will be given to him.” But this way of speaking is alien to sacred scripture, in which it says that things forbidden by the divine law are not lawful, as in Matt (14:4): “It is not lawful for you to have your brother’s wife.” Consequently, what the Apostle says here, that all things are lawful for me, must not be understood absolutely but in this sense: all things are lawful to me which are not forbidden by the divine law. Et potest hoc ad tria referri, primo quidem ad id quod dixerat de iudiciis, quia scilicet unicuique licet omnia sua iudicio repetere, cum non sit lege divina prohibitum. Alio modo potest referri ad id quod infra VIII, 8 dicturus est de indifferenti usu ciborum, ut sit sensus: licitum est mihi omnes cibos comedere, secundum illud Tit. I, v. 15: omnia munda mundis. Tertio potest referri ad id quod dicturus est infra IX, 4 ss., de sumptibus accipiendis, ut sit sensus: omnia mihi licent, scilicet accipere ad necessitatem vitae, sicut coapostolis meis. 291. – This can be referred to three things: first, to what he had said about lawsuits, namely, that it is lawful for anyone to obtain his property through lawsuits, since it is not forbidden by divine law. Secondly, it can be referred to what he will say below (8:8) about indiscriminate use of food, so that the sense would be: it is lawful for me to eat all foods according to Titus (1:15): “To the clean all things are clean.” Thirdly, it can be referred to what he will say below (9:4) about taking food and drink, so that the sense is this: all things are lawful for me, namely, to take what is necessary for life, just as it is for my co-apostles. Subdit autem sed non omnia expediunt. Dicitur autem illud expedire, quod est sine impedimento finem consequendi. Contingit autem quod aliquid non totaliter excludit finem, sed impedimentum aliquod affert, sicut matrimonium non excludit hominem a regno Dei, impedimentum tamen affert, quia scilicet, ut infra VII, 34 dicit quae sub viro est mulier, cogitat quomodo placeat viro. Unde, Matth. XIX, 10, discipuli dicunt: si ita est causa hominis cum uxore sua, non expedit nubere. Sic ergo fornicari nec licet, nec expedit, quia totaliter excludit finem, qui est vita aeterna; matrimonium autem est licitum, sed non expediens. Secundum igitur hunc modum, sua in iudicio repetere, indifferenter omnibus cibis uti, sumptus accipere ab his quibus praedicatur, est quidem licitum, quia non est contra iustitiam, nec aliqua prohibetur lege; non tamen est expediens, vel quia impeditur pax ad proximum, vel infirmis scandalum aliquod generatur, vel aliqua maledicendi occasio praebetur; unde Eccli. XXXVII, 31: non omnia omnibus expediunt. 292. – But he adds, not all things are expedient. That is said to be expedient, which is without a hindrance to attaining an end. Now it happens that something does not entirely exclude the end, but it offers some hindrance, as marriage does not exclude a person from the kingdom of God, but it offers a hindrance, namely, because as it says below (7:34): “The married woman is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please her husband.” So fornication is neither lawful nor expedient, because it totally excludes one from the end, which is eternal life; but marriage is lawful but not expedient. Therefore, according to this mode, to get back one’s own in a lawsuit or to use all foods without distinction or to take one’s food from those to whom he preaches are all lawful, because they are not against justice or forbidden by any law; yet it is not expedient, either because peace towards one’s neighbor is endangered, or scandal of the weak is produced, or an occasion for reviling is offered: “Not everything is good for everyone” (Sir 37:28). Alio modo potest intelligi non absolute, sed sub conditione, ut sit sensus: dixi quod neque fornicarii, etc., regnum Dei possidebunt, et ideo non licent, quia finem excludunt; sed si omnia licerent mihi, non omnia expediunt, quia per ea praestatur impedimentum vitae humanae. Unde in persona impiorum dicitur Sap. V, 7: lassati sumus in via iniquitatis et perditionis, et ambulavimus vias difficiles. 293. – In another way it can be understood not absolutely but conditionally, so that the sense is this: I have said that neither idolaters nor fornicators, etc. shall possess the kingdom of God. Therefore they are not lawful, because they exclude the end; but if all things were licit for me, not all are expedient, because they pose a hindrance to eternal life. Hence in the person of the wicked it says in Wis (5:7): “We took our fill of the power of lawlessness and destruction, and we journeyed through trackless deserts.” Secundo ostendit esse nocivum id quod supra reprehendit, dicens omnia mihi licent, ut supra expositum est, sed tamen ego sub nullius redigar potestate, scilicet hominis. Ille enim qui utitur eo quod non expedit, sive licitum, sive illicitum, quodammodo redigitur sub potestate rei alicuius, vel hominis. Rei quidem, quia qui nimis rem aliquam amat, quodammodo servus illius rei efficitur, secundum illud Rom. ult.: huiusmodi non Christo domino serviunt, sed suo ventri. Hominis autem, quia dum aliquis facit quod non expedit, quodammodo subiicitur iudicio aliorum, et specialiter ille qui sua in iudicio repetit, subiicitur potestati iudicis. Infra X, 29: ut quid enim libertas mea iudicatur ab aliena conscientia? 294. – Secondly, he shows that what he rejected above is harmful, saying: All things are lawful for me, but I will not be enslaved by any, namely, man. For one who uses something not expedient, whether it be lawful or unlawful, is somehow put under the power of that man or thing. Of a thing, indeed, because one who loves a thing too much is made its slave, as it says in Rom (16:18): “Such persons do not serve the Lord Jesus Christ, but their own appetites.” But of a man, because as long as one does something not expedient, he is in thrall to the judgment of others; and particularly one who tries to get back his own in a lawsuit is under the power of the judge: “Why should my liberty be determined by another man’s conscience” (1 Cor 10:29). Deinde, cum dicit esca ventri, etc., assignat rationem eius quod dixerat. Et primo quare omnia licent, dicens esca ventri, scilicet debetur, ut scilicet in ventre decocta in nutrimentum totius corporis cedat. Et venter escis, scilicet recipiendis et decoquendis deservit. Quia igitur ex Dei ordinatione venter est sollicitus ad escas recipiendas, et escae ad hoc deputatae sunt, quod in ventre ponantur, secundum illud Gen. I, v. 29 s.: ecce dedi vobis omnem escam et cunctis animantibus, ut habeant ad vescendum, non est illicitum quod homo res suas repetat, vel praedicator stipendia accipiat propter necessitatem escarum, vel ut etiam homo omnibus escis utatur. 295. – Then when he says, Food is meant for the stomach, he assigns a reason for what he has said. First, why all things are lawful, saying, Food is meant for the stomach, in order, namely that after the stomach has done its work, it may nourish the entire body; and the stomach for food, i.e., it serves to receive food and work on it. Therefore, since by God’s ordinance the stomach is desirous of receiving food, and food was made to be put in the stomach: “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed and every tree with seed in its fruit; you shall have them for food” (Gen 1:29), it is not unlawful for a man to get property back, or a preacher to get wages for necessary food, or even that a man eat all foods without distinction. Secundo ibi Deus autem, etc., assignat rationem quare omnia non expediunt. Non enim expedit, quod homo patiatur aliquod detrimentum in eo quod numquam corrumpitur, scilicet in regno caelesti, propter id quod corrumpitur; et hoc accidit de esca et de ventre. Cessabit enim post hanc vitam escarum usus et ventris, quia corpora resurgentium conservabuntur absque cibo, Deo id faciente. Et hoc est quod dicit Deus autem destruet, id est, cessare faciet, hunc, scilicet ventrem, non quidem quantum ad essentiam, sed quantum ad effectum, quem nunc habet; et has, scilicet escas, quantum pertinent ad usum hominis, quia in resurrectione homines erunt sicut Angeli in caelo, ut dicitur Matth. XXII, 30. 296. – Secondly, when he says, and God will destroy both, he gives the reason why all things are not expedient. For it is not expedient that a person suffer a loss in that which is never corrupted, namely, the heavenly kingdom, for the sake of something corrupted; and this happens in regard to food and stomach. After this life the use of good and of the stomach will cease, because the bodies of those who rise will be conserved without food by God’s power. And that is what he says: God will destroy, i.e. will make cease this, namely, the stomach, not as to its essence but as to its effect which it has now, and these, namely, foods, so far as they pertain to man’s use, because in the resurrection men will be as the angels in heaven, as it says in Matt (22:30).
6-3
1 Cor 6:13b-20Supra apostolus tripliciter reprehendit Corinthios circa iudicia, nunc autem redit ad reprehendendum peccatum fornicarii, cuius supra V, 1 mentionem fecerat, et in cuius iudicio Corinthii negligentes erant; improbat autem fornicationem quatuor rationibus, quarum prima sumitur ex divina ordinatione; secunda ex unione ad Christum, ibi an nescitis quoniam corpora, etc.; tertia ex corporis inquinatione, ibi fugite fornicationem; quarta ex gratiae dignitate, ibi an nescitis, et cetera. Circa primum duo facit. Primo ponit divinam ordinationem; secundo ordinationis finem, ibi Deus enim, et cetera. 297. – After rebuking the Corinthians about lawsuits, the Apostle now returns to reprehending the sin of fornication, which he mentioned above in (5:11) and in the judgment of which the Corinthians had been negligent. He condemns fornication for four reasons: the first of which is taken from God’s ordinance; secondly, from one’s union with Christ (v. 16); thirdly, from bodily defilement (v. 18); fourthly, from the dignity of grace (v. 19). In regard to the first he does two things: first, he presents God’s ordinance; secondly, the end of the ordinance (v. 14). Circa primum considerandum est quod aliqui argumentum suae lasciviae sumunt ex ordinatione Dei. Qui enim fornicantur, utuntur suo corpore ad usum a Deo institutum. Sed hoc excludit, dicens quod esca est ordinata ad ventrem, et venter ad escas, corpus autem hominis non fornicationi, id est, non est ordinatum ad fornicandum, sed domino, id est, ad hoc est ordinatum, ut sit domini nostri Iesu Christi, et dominus corpori, id est, dominus Iesus Christus ad hoc datus est hominibus, ut humana corpora suae gloriae conformet, secundum illud Phil. III, 21: reformabit corpus humilitatis nostrae, configuratum corpori claritatis suae. 298. – In regard to the first it should be noted that some take their argument for lascivious conduct from God’s ordinance. For those who fornicate use their body for a use established by God. But he excludes this, saying that food is ordained to the stomach and the stomach to food, but man’s body in not meant for fornication but for the Lord, i.e., it had been ordained to this, namely, that it be for the Lord Jesus Christ and the Lord for the body, i.e., Jesus Christ was given to man in order that human bodies be conformed to His glory, as it says in Phil (3:21): “He will change our lowly body to be like His glorious body.” Sed contra hoc videtur esse quod sicut venter ordinatus est a Deo ad usum ciborum; ita quaedam membra humani corporis sunt ordinata a Deo ad usum generationis, quibus fornicatio exercetur. Sed attendenda est differentia quantum ad duo. Primo quidem quod apostolus supra locutus est de uno corporis membro, scilicet de ventre, hic autem loquitur de toto corpore, quod sicut non est ordinatum ad fornicandum, ita nec ad escas sumendum; sed potius usus escarum est propter corpus, corpus autem propter animam, a qua percipit vitam secundum eius conditionem. Et quia omnia ordinantur in Deum sicut in finem, ideo corpus debet esse subiectum domino et ei dedicatum. Et quia supra locutus est de usu escarum in communi absque inordinatione, fornicatio autem est usus inordinatus ex membro fornicatoris. Unde nec ipsa membra sunt propter fornicationem, sed propter usum generationis ordinata ratione, cui omnia membra corporis deservire debent, sicut etiam venter non propter crapulam et ebrietatem, sed propter convenientem usum ciborum. 299. – But against this seems to be the fact that just as the stomach is ordained to the use of food, so certain members of the human body are ordained by God to be used for generation, i.e., the members by which fornication is performed. But attention must be paid to the difference between the two. First, the Apostle spoke above about one member of the body, namely, the stomach, but here he is speaking about the entire body, which is not ordained to fornication any more than it is ordained to eating food; rather, food is used for the benefit of the body and the body exists for the sake of the soul, from which it receives life according to its condition. And because all things are ordered to God as to an end, the body should be subjected to the Lord and dedicated to Him. And because he spoke above about the eating of food in general terms without disorder, but fornication is a disordered use of the member used in fornication. Hence, the members exist not for fornication, but for generation ordained by reason, which the members of the body should serve, just as even the stomach is not for gluttony and drunkenness, but for the proper use of food. Deinde, cum dicit Deus vero, etc., ponit finem ordinationis praedictae. Et primo ponit quid Deus circa dominum fecerit, dicens Deus vero et dominum, scilicet dominum Iesum Christum, suscitavit a mortuis, a quo ipse Christus petit in Ps. XL, v. 11: tu autem, domine, miserere mei, et resuscita me. Deus autem est et pater, et filius, et spiritus sanctus, unde et ipse Christus, qui est filius Dei, se suscitavit, et sua virtute resurrexit, secundum illud Ps. III, 6: ego dormivi, et soporatus sum, et exsurrexi, quia dominus suscepit me; et II Cor. ult.: si crucifixus est ex infirmitate, sed vivit ex virtute Dei. Secundo ponit quid circa nos facturus sit, dicens quod nos suscitabit Deus per virtutem suam, per quam scilicet Christum suscitavit, secundum illud Rom. VIII, 11: qui suscitavit Iesum Christum a mortuis, vivificabit et mortalia corpora vestra. 300. – Then when he says, and God raised the Lord, he indicates the end of the above-mentioned ordination. First, he indicates what God had done in regard to the Lord, saying: And God raised the Lord, namely, the Lord Jesus Christ, from the dead, from whom Christ Himself petitions in Ps. 41 (v. 10): “Do thou, O Lord, be gracious to me and raise me up.” But God is the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit; hence Christ Himself, who is the Son of God, also raised Himself and arose by His own power, as it says in Ps. 3 (v. 5): “I will lie down and sleep; I wake again, for the Lord sustains me,” and in 2 Cor (13:4): “He was crucified in weakness, but lives by the power of God.” Secondly, he indicates what he will do in regard to his saying: God will also raise us up by his power, by which He also raised up Christ, as it says in Rom (8:11): “He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will give life to your mortal bodies.” Et est advertendum, quod supra de escis et ventre loquens, quae pertinent ad usum animalis vitae, dixit eas a Deo destruendas; nunc autem loquens de corpore et domino, facit mentionem de resurrectione, quia scilicet animali vita cessante natura corporis in melius reformabitur. Unde patet quod non est utendum corpore ad fornicationem, quae impedit futuram incorruptionem, secundum illud Gal. ult.: qui seminat in carne, de carne et metet corruptionem. 301. – It should be noted that when speaking above about food and stomach, which pertain to the use of animal life, he said that they would be destroyed by God; but now, speaking of the body and of the Lord, he makes mention of the resurrection, because when animal life ceases, the nature of the body will be transformed into something better. Hence it is clear that the body should not be used for fornication, which impedes future incorruption according to Gal (6:8): “He who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption.” Deinde, cum dicit nescitis, etc., ponit secundam rationem, quae sumitur ex affinitate humani corporis ad Christum, quae talis est: membra hominis fornicantis sunt membra meretricis; sed membra hominis sunt membra Christi; ergo per fornicationem fiunt membra Christi membra meretricis, quod est inconveniens. Circa quod quatuor facit. Primo ponit maiorem, dicens an nescitis quoniam corpora vestra sunt membra Christi? Quasi dicat: hoc non debetis nescire, quia quicumque estis regenerati in Christo, membra Christi estis effecti, secundum illud infra XII, 27: vos estis corpus Christi, et membra de membro. Et hoc non solum quantum ad animas quae ab eo iustificantur, sed etiam quantum ad corpora quae ab eo resuscitabuntur, ut dictum est. 302. – Then when he says, Do you not know, he presents a second reason, which is taken from the human body’s affinity to Christ, namely: the fornicating man’s members are the prostitute’s members, but a man’s members are Christ’s members. Therefore, by fornicating, Christ’s members become the prostitute’s members, which is unbecoming. In regard to this he does four things: first, he presents the major, saying: Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? As if to say: you should not be unaware of this, because all of you reborn in Christ have become members of Christ, as it says below (12:27): “Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it,” and this not only as to souls justified by him but also as to bodies, which will be raised up by him, as has been stated. Secundo ponit conclusionem, dicens tollens ergo membra Christi, id est, iuste subtrahens servitio Christi, cui debent deputari (secundum illud Rom. VI, 13: exhibeatis membra vestra, arma iustitiae, Deo), faciam, scilicet eadem, membra meretricis esse fornicando? Absit: hoc enim est horrendum sacrilegium. Unde dicitur Mal. II, v. 11: contaminavit Iudas sanctificationem domini quam dilexit, et habuit filiam Dei alieni. 303. – Secondly, he presents the conclusion, saying: Shall I take the members of Christ, i.e., remove them from the service of Christ to whom they should be dedicated, as it says in Rom (6:13): “Yield your members to God as instruments of righteousness”, and make them be members of a prostitute by fornicating? Never! For this is a horrible sacrilege. Hence it says in Mal (2:11): “Judah has profaned the sanctuary of the Lord which he loves and has married the daughter of a foreign god.” Tertio ponit minorem, dicens an nescitis quia qui adhaeret meretrici, scilicet fornicando, unum corpus efficitur? Scilicet per immundam commixtionem. Et ad hoc probandum, inducit auctoritatem Genesis, dicens: inquit, enim Scriptura, scilicet Gen. II, 24: erunt duo, scilicet vir et mulier, in carne una, id est, per mixtionem carnalem una caro efficiuntur, et sic membra unius fiunt membra alterius. Sunt enim haec verba Adae de viro et uxore loquentis, quae apostolus hic etiam ad fornicationem refert, quia secundum speciem naturae non differunt utriusque actus. Est autem intelligendum, quod, sicut dicit philosophus in libro de generatione animalium, in masculo est principium activum generationis, in foemina est passivum. Et sicut in planta, cuius vita principaliter ordinatur ad generationem, semper est unum corpus, in quo utrumque principium unitur; ita in animalibus quae ordinantur ad altiores actus vitae, non semper est unum corpus habens haec duo principia, sed ex duobus fit unum in actu generationis. Quod quidem non est tantum viri, quia, sicut infra cap. VII, 4 dicitur, vir non habet potestatem sui corporis, sed mulier. 304. – Thirdly he presents the minor, saying: Do you not know that he who joins his body to a prostitute, namely, by fornicating, becomes one body with her? Namely, by an unclean union. To prove this he appeals to the authority of Genesis, saying, For it is written, namely in Gen (2:24), the two, namely man and woman, become one flesh, i.e., by the carnal union they are made one flesh, and so the members of one become the other’s members. For these are Adam’s words about husband and wife, which the Apostle here relates to fornication, because there is no specific difference between the two acts. But it should be noted that, as the Philosopher says in the book, On the Generation of Animals, the active principle of generation is in the male, and the passive in the female. And just as in a plant whose life is ordained chiefly to generation, there is always one body in which both principles are united, so in animals, which are ordained to higher acts of life, there is not always one body with these two principles, but one is made from two in the act of generation. In the case of humans, it is not only the man’s body, because as it says below (7:14): “The husband does not have rule over his own body, but the wife has.” Secundo [Quarto?] probat minorem, dicens qui autem adhaeret domino, etc., scilicet per fidem et charitatem, est unus spiritus cum illo, quia scilicet unitur ei unitate spirituali, non corporali. Unde et Rom. VIII, 9 dicitur: si quis spiritum Christi non habet, hic non est eius; et Io. XVII, 21 s.: ut sint unum in nobis, sicut nos unum sumus, scilicet per connexionem spiritus: et quia corpus deservit spiritui, consequens est ut etiam corpora nostra, membra eius sint, cui per spiritum unimur, non quidem carnali coniunctione, sed spirituali. Potest autem ex praemissis duabus rationibus una ratio conflari, ut scilicet quia corpus nostrum non est deputatum fornicationi, sed domino, hoc scilicet modo quod membra nostra sunt membra Christi, ut postmodum exponit, non faciamus ea membra meretricis fornicando. 305. – Secondly he proves the minor saying: But he who is united to the Lord, namely, by faith and charity, is one spirit with him, namely, because he is united to Him in a spiritual, not a bodily, unity. Hence it says in Rom (8:9): “Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him,” and in Jn (17:21): “That they may be one in us, as we are one,” namely by a connection of the Spirit. And because the body serves the spirit, it follows that our bodies too are members of Him to whom we are united by the Spirit, not of course, by a bodily but by a spiritual union. From the two reasons given above one reason can be formed, namely, that because our body is not destined for fornication but for the Lord in such a way that our members are Christ’s members, as he explains later, we should not make them members of a prostitute by fornicating. Deinde, cum dicit fugite fornicationem, etc., ponit tertiam rationem, quae sumitur ex corporis inquinatione. Primo ponit conclusionem intentam, dicens fugite fornicationem. Ubi notandum quod caetera vitia vincuntur resistendo, quia quanto magis homo particularia considerat et tractat, tanto minus in eis invenit unde delectetur, sed magis anxietur: sed vitium fornicationis non vincitur resistendo, quia quanto magis ibi homo cogitat particulare, magis incenditur; sed vincitur fugiendo, id est, totaliter vitando cogitationes immundas, et quaslibet occasiones, ut dicitur Zach. II, 6: fugite de terra Aquilonis, dicit dominus. 306. – Then when he says, Flee fornication, he presents a third reason, which is taken from the body’s contamination. First, he presents the conclusion, saying, Flee fornication. Here it should be noted that other vices are overcome by resisting, because the more a man considers and deals with particulars, the less will he find in them anything in which to take delight, but more to be cautious about. But the vice of fornication is not overcome by resisting, because the more a man considers the particular case the more is he inflamed; but it is overcome by fleeing, i.e., by avoiding entirely all unclean thoughts and all occasions whatsoever, for it says in Zech (2:6): “Flee from the land of the north.” Secundo assignat rationem, dicens omne peccatum aliud quodcumque fecerit homo, et cetera. Ad cuius evidentiam sciendum quod quaedam peccata non consummantur in carnali delectatione, sed in sola spirituali, ideo spiritualia vitia dicuntur, sicut superbia, avaritia, acedia; fornicatio autem completur maxime in carnali delectatione, et secundum hoc posset intelligi quod hic dicitur omne peccatum quodcumque fecerit homo, extra corpus est, quia scilicet completur praeter sui corporis delectationem. Qui autem fornicatur, in corpus suum peccat, quia scilicet eius peccatum in carne consummatur. 307. – Secondly he assigns the reason, saying: Every other sin a man commits is outside the body. To understand this is should be noted that some sins do not end in carnal delight, but only in spiritual, and are then called spiritual sins; for example, pride, greed and spiritual apathy. But fornication is entirely completed in carnal delight. According to this it could be understood what is said here: Every other sin a man commits is outside the body, namely, because it is completed outside the pleasure of the body. But the fornicator sins against his own body, namely, because the sin is completed in the flesh. Sed huic expositioni contrarium videtur esse, quod etiam peccatum gulae consummatur in delectatione corporis. Ad quod posset dici quod peccatum gulae sub luxuria continetur, inquantum ad ipsam ordinatur, secundum illud Eph. V, 18: nolite inebriari vino, in quo est luxuria. Sed melius potest dici, quod apostolus non dicit qui fornicatur corpore suo peccat, quod congrueret primae expositioni; sed peccat in corpus suum, id est, contra corpus suum, corrumpendo et inquinando illud praeter usum rationis. Unde et Apoc. III, 4: habes pauca nomina in Sardis, qui non inquinaverunt vestimenta sua, id est, corpus; et Apoc. XIX, 4: hi sunt qui cum mulieribus non sunt coinquinati. Vel aliter secundum Augustinum, hic in Glossa, qui fornicatur, in corpus suum peccat, quia anima eius totaliter carni in illo actu subiicitur, ita quod non possit aliud ibi cogitare. Unde in Ps. XXXI, 9 dicitur: nolite fieri sicut equus et mulus, quibus non est intellectus. Vel aliter: in corpus suum peccat, id est, contra uxorem suam, quae dicitur corpus viri, contra quam non ita directe sunt alia peccata, sicut viri fornicatio. Unde et I Thess. c. IV, 4 dicitur: ut sciat unusquisque vestrum possidere vas suum in sanctificatione, id est, uxorem suam. Vel secundum Augustinum potest intelligi de fornicatione spirituali, per quam anima adhaeret per amorem mundo, et recedit a Deo, secundum illud Ps. LXXII, 27: perdes omnes qui fornicantur abs te. Est ergo sensus qui fornicatur, recedens a Deo propter amorem mundi, in corpus suum peccat, id est, per corporalem concupiscentiam. Omne autem aliud peccatum, puta quod homo committit ex oblivione, vel ex ignorantia, seu negligentia, est extra corpus, id est, corporalem concupiscentiam. 308. – But the fact that the sin of gluttony is terminated in bodily pleasure seems to be contrary to the above explanation. A possible answer might be that the sin of gluttony is contained under lust, inasmuch as it is ordained to it, as it says in Eph (5:8): “And do not get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery.” But it is better to say that the Apostle is not saying that whoever fornicates sins with his own body, which would agree with the first explanation, but he sins against his own body by corrupting and contaminating it beyond the bounds of reason. Hence it says in Rev (3:4): “You still have a few names in Sardis, people who have not soiled their garments,” and in Rev (14:14): “It is these who have not defiled themselves with women.” Or in another way according to Augustine: “Whoever fornicates sins against his own body, because his soul is totally subjected to the flesh in that act, so that it cannot at that time think of anything else.” “Be not like a horse or a mule, without understanding” (Ps. 32:9). Or in another way: he sins against his own body, i.e., against his wife, who is called the husband’s body, against whom other sins are not as directly opposed as the husband’s fornication. Hence it says in 1 Thess (4:4): “That each one of you know how to take a wife for himself in holiness and honor.” Or again according to Augustine, it can be understood of spiritual fornication through which the soul clings through love to the world and recedes from God: “Those who are far from you shall perish” (Ps. 73:27). The sense, therefore, is that whoever fornicates and recedes from God for love of the world sins against his own body, i.e., by bodily desire. But every other sin, for example, which one commits from forgetfulness or ignorance or negligence, is outside the body, i.e., outside of bodily desire. Deinde, cum dicit an nescitis, etc., ponit quartam rationem, quae sumitur ex dignitate gratiae, quae quidem ex duobus consurgit, scilicet ex gratia spiritus sancti, et ex redemptione sanguinis Christi. Circa hoc igitur tria facit. Primo proponit dignitatem corporis nostri, quam habet ex gratia spiritus sancti, dicens an nescitis, quasi dicat, ignorare non debetis, quoniam membra vestra, scilicet corporalia, templum sunt spiritus sancti? Sicut supra III, 16 dictum est: nescitis quia templum Dei estis. Et huius rationem assignat subdens qui in vobis est. Dicitur autem templum, domus Dei; quia igitur spiritus sanctus Deus est, conveniens est, quod in quocumque est spiritus sanctus, templum Dei dicatur. Est autem spiritus sanctus principaliter quidem in cordibus hominum, in quibus charitas Dei diffunditur per spiritum sanctum, ut dicitur Rom. V, 5. Sed secundario etiam est in membris corporalibus, inquantum exequuntur opera charitatis. Unde in Ps. LXXXIII, 3 dicitur: cor meum et caro mea exultaverunt in Deum vivum. Et ne hanc dignitatem sibi ascriberent, subdit quem habetis a Deo, non ex vobis. Unde Ioel. II, 28: effundam de spiritu meo super omnem carnem; et Act. V, 23: spiritum suum dedit obedientibus sibi. 309. – Then when he says, Do you not know, he presents the fourth reason, which is taken from the dignity of grace, which arises from two sources, namely, from the grace of the Holy Spirit and from the redemption of Christ’s blood. In regard to this he does three things: first, he declares the dignity of our body, which it has from the grace of the Holy Spirit, saying: Do you not know, as though you should not be unaware of it, that your body, namely, bodily, is a temple of the Holy Spirit, just as he said above (3:16): “Do you not know that you are God’s temple?” Then he assigns a reason for this, saying: who is within you. God’s house is called a temple. Therefore, because the Holy Spirit is God, it is correct to say that anyone in whom the Holy Spirit exists is called a temple of God. But the Holy Spirit is chiefly in the heart of men, in whom the love of God is poured out by the Holy Spirit, as it says in Rom (5:5). But secondarily, He is also in the bodily members, inasmuch as they perform acts of charity. Hence is says in Ps 84 (v. 2): “My heart and my flesh sing for joy to the living God.” But lest they ascribe this dignity to themselves, he adds: which you have from God and not from yourselves. Hence Jl (2:28): “I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh.” Secundo ponit dignitatem, quam habent corpora nostra ex redemptione sanguinis Christi, dicens et non estis vestri sed Iesu Christi, secundum illud Rom. XIV, 8: sive vivimus, sive morimur, domini sumus; II Cor. V, 15: qui vivit, iam non sibi vivat. Rationem huius assignat, dicens empti estis pretio magno, et ideo servi estis eius, qui vos redemit de servitute peccati. Unde infra VII, 22 dicitur: qui liber vocatus est, servus est Christi; pretio enim empti estis; et in Ps. XXX, 6: redemisti me, domine Deus veritatis. Dicitur autem pretium redemptionis magnum, quia non est corruptibile, sed aeternam habens virtutem, cum sit sanguis ipsius Dei aeterni. Unde I Petr. I, 18 s.: redempti estis de vana vestra conversatione, non corruptibilibus auro vel argento, sed sanguine agni immaculati et incontaminati, Iesu Christi. 310. – Secondly, he mentions the dignity our bodies have from the redemption of Christ, saying: You are not your own but Jesus Christ’s, as it says in Rom (14:8): “Whether we live or whether we die, we are the Lord’s”; “Those who live no longer live for themselves” (2 Cor 5:15). He assigns the reason for this when he says: You were bought with a great price; therefore, you are slaves of Him who has redeemed you from the slavery of sin; hence it says below (7:22): “For he who was called in the Lord as a freedman is a slave of the Lord”; and in Ps 31 (v. 5): “You have redeemed me, O Lord, God of truth.” The price of redemption is called great, because it is not corruptible, but has everlasting power, since it is the blood of the everlasting God. Hence it says in 1 Pet (1:18): “You know that you were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your fathers, not with perishable things, such as silver and gold, but with the precious blood of Christ.” Tertio infert conclusionem intentam, dicens glorificate ergo et portate Deum in corpore vestro. Quia enim membra vestra sunt templum Dei, in corpore vestro nihil debet apparere, nisi quod ad gloriam Dei pertinet, et hoc est glorificare Deum in corpore vestro, quia in Ps. XXVIII, 9 dicitur: in templo eius omnes dicent gloriam. Ex. ult. dicitur: operuit nubes tabernaculum testimonii, et gloria domini implevit illud. Quia vero non estis vestri, sed estis servi Dei, debet corpus vestrum portare Deum, sicut equus vel aliud animal portat dominum suum. Unde in Ps. LXXII, 23 dicitur: ut iumentum factus sum apud te. Portat autem corpus nostrum dominum, inquantum divino ministerio deputatur. Sic ergo homo debet vitare, ne in corpus suum peccet fornicando, quod est contra gloriam Dei, et contra ministerium quod corpus nostrum debet Deo. 311. – Thirdly, he draws the intended conclusion, saying: So glorify and carry God in you body. For since your members are a temple of God, nothing should appear in your body except what pertains to God’s glory: and this is to glorify God in your body, because it says in Ps 29 (v. 9): “In his temple all cry, ‘Glory’”; and again, “Then the cloud covered the tent of meeting and the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle” (Ex. 40:34). Furthermore, because you are not your own, but you are slaves of God, you should carry God as a horse or other animal carries it lord. Hence it says in Ps. 73 (v. 23): “I was like a beast towards you.” Our body carries the Lord, inasmuch as it is deputed to a divine ministry. Thus, therefore, a man should avoid sinning against his own body by fornicating, which is against the glory of God and against the ministry our body owes to God.
7-1
1 Cor 7:1-9Postquam apostolus reprehendit fornicarium et sustinentes eum, hic accedit ad tractandum de matrimonio. Et circa hoc tria facit. Primo determinat de coniugatis et matrimonio iunctis; secundo, de virginibus, ibi de virginibus autem, etc.; tertio, de viduis, ibi mulier alligata est, et cetera. Circa primum duo facit. Primo instruit eos qui non sunt matrimonio iuncti, utrum scilicet debeant matrimonium contrahere; secundo manifestat quod dixerat, ibi hoc autem dico, et cetera. Circa primum duo facit. Primo manifestat quid circa hoc sit per se bonum; secundo, quid necessarium, ibi propter fornicationem autem, et cetera. 312. – After rebuking the fornicator and those who upheld him, the Apostle now begins to treat of marriage. In regard to this he does three things: first, he discusses those joined in matrimony; secondly, virgins (v. 25); thirdly, widows (v. 39). In regard to the first he does two things: first, he instructs those not joined in matrimony whether to contract matrimony; secondly, he clarifies what he had said (v. 6). In regard to the first he does two things: first, he shows what is essentially good in this matter; secondly, what is necessary (v. 2). Circa primum considerandum quod in detestationem fornicationis, contra quam locutus iam fuerat, aliqui non habentes zelum Dei secundum scientiam, intantum procedebant, quod etiam matrimonium condemnabant, secundum illud I Tim. IV, 2 s.: in hypocrisi loquentium mendacium, prohibentium nubere. Et quia hoc durum Corinthiis videbatur fidelibus, super hoc apostolo scripserunt, eius sententiam requirentes, et ideo apostolus eis respondet: ita reprehendi ea quae facitis. De quibus autem scripsistis mihi, respondeo, quantum ad matrimonium, bonum est homini mulierem non tangere. 313. – In regard to the first it should be noted that in their dislike for fornication, against which he had just spoken, some, whose zeal for God was not accompanied by wisdom, arrived at a point where they even condemned marriage. Hence it says in 1 Timothy (4:2-3): “Through the hypocrisy of liars who forbid marriage”. Because this seemed harsh to the Corinthian believers, they wrote to the Apostle about it. Therefore, the Apostle answered: I have disapproved of things you do. Now concerning the matters about which you wrote, I answer in regard to matrimony: It is well for a man not to touch a woman. Circa quod notandum quod mulier data est viro ad adiutorium generationis: et in hoc differt vis generativa a nutritiva, quia vis nutritiva deservit homini ad conservationem individui; unde bonum est homini nutrimento uti, quia per hoc eius vita conservatur; generativa autem non deservit homini ad conservationem individui, sed ad conservationem speciei. Unde non potest dici quod bonum est homini, ad suum individuum, mulierem tangere, primo quidem quantum ad animam, quia, ut Augustinus dicit in Soliloquiis, nihil sic deiicit animam ab arce virtutis suae, sicut contactus ille corporum, sine quo uxor haberi non potest; et ideo Ex. XIX, 15 dicitur populo accepturo legem Dei: estote parati in diem tertium, et ne appropinquetis uxoribus vestris. I Reg. XXI, 4 dixit Abimelech ad David: si mundi sunt pueri, maxime a mulieribus, manducent panem sanctum. Secundo quantum ad corpus, quod vir subiicit per matrimonium potestati uxoris, se ex libero servum constituens. Servitus autem haec prae omnibus aliis est amara. Unde et Eccle. VII, 27 dicitur: inveni amariorem morte mulierem. Tertio quantum ad res exteriores, quarum occupatione necesse est hominem implicari, qui habet uxorem et filios nutriendos, cum tamen dicatur II Tim. II, 4: nemo militans Deo implicat se negotiis saecularibus, ut ei placeat cui se probavit. 314. – In this matter it should be noted that the woman was given to man as a help in generation, and the generative power differs from the nutritive power in the fact that the latter serves man in preserving him as an individual. Hence, it is good for man to take nourishment, because his life is preserved by it. But the generative power does not serve man as a help in preserving him as an individual, but to preserve the species. Hence, it cannot be said that it is good for a man to preserve himself as an individual by touching a woman; first, in regard to the soul, because as Augustine says in the Soliloquies: “Nothing so casts a man down from the citadel of his power as that contact of bodies without which a wife cannot be had.” Consequently, in Exodus (19:5) it says to the people about to receive the Law: “Be ready by the third day; do not go near a woman”; and in 1 Samuel (21:4): “I have no common bread at hand, but there is holy bread; if only the young men have kept themselves from women.” Secondly, as to the body, the fact that a man subjects himself to a woman by marriage and makes himself a slave out of a freedman. This is the most bitter of all servitudes. Hence it says in Ecclesiastes (7:26): “I found more bitter than death the woman whose heart is snares and nets.” Thirdly, as to external things with which a man must occupy himself, when he has a wife and children to be fed; whereas it says in 2 Timothy (2:4): “No soldier on service gets entangled in civilian pursuits, since his aim is to satisfy the one who enlisted him.” Deinde cum dicit propter fornicationem, etc., ostendit quid circa hoc sit necessarium. Primo quantum ad contractum matrimonii; secundo quantum ad actum matrimonii iam contracti, ibi uxori vir debitum, et cetera. 315. – Then when he says, But because of fornication, he shows what is necessary in this matter: first, as to contracting marriage; secondly, as to the use of the matrimony once contracted (v. 3). Circa primum considerandum est, quod actus generativae virtutis ordinatur ad conservationem speciei per generationem filiorum, et quia mulier data est viro in adiutorium generationis, prima necessitas tangendi mulierem est propter procreationem filiorum. Unde Gen. I, 27 s. dicitur: masculum et foeminam creavit eos, et benedixit eis Deus, et ait: crescite et multiplicamini, et replete terram. Sed haec necessitas fuit circa institutionem humani generis, quamdiu oportuit multiplicari populum Dei per successionem carnis. Sed apostolus, considerans humanum genus iam multiplicatum et populum Dei iam esse augmentatum, non propagatione carnis, sed generatione quae est ex aqua et spiritu sancto, ut dicitur Io. III, 5, praetermisit hanc necessitatem, qua scilicet primitus institutum fuerat matrimonium in officium naturae, et proponit secundam necessitatem secundum quam institutum est in remedium culpae. Quia enim carnalis concupiscentia adhuc post Baptismum in fidelibus remanet, licet non dominetur, instigat homines maxime ad actus venereos propter vehementiam delectationis. Et quia maioris virtutis est totaliter hanc concupiscentiam superare, quam possit hominibus convenire, secundum illud Matth. XIX, v. 11: non omnes capiunt verbum hoc, necessarium est quod in parte concupiscentiae cedatur, et in parte superetur; quod quidem fit dum actus generationis ratione ordinatur, et non totaliter homo concupiscentia ducitur, sed magis concupiscentia subditur rationi. 316. – In regard to the first it should be noted that the act of the generative power is ordained to the conservation of the species by the generation of offspring. And because the woman was given to the man as a helper in generation, the first need for touching a woman is for the procreation of children. Hence it says in Genesis (1:27): “Male and female he created them. And God blessed them, and God said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth.’” But this need was directed to the formation of the human race, as long as there was need for the people of God to be multiplied by succession according to the flesh. But the Apostle, considering that the human race had now multiplied and that the people of God were now increased not by fleshly propagation but by the generation which is from water the Holy Spirit, as it says in Jn (3:5), he passed over this necessity whereby marriage had been originally instituted as a function of nature, and proposed a second necessity according to which it was instituted as a remedy for sin. For since carnal desire remains alive in believers even after baptism, although it does not rule, it impels men especially toward venereal acts on account of the vehemence of their pleasure. And because it requires greater virtue to conquer this desire entirely than can belong to men, according to Matthew (19:11): “Not all men can receive this saying”, it is necessary that this desire be in part yielded to and in part mastered. This, indeed, happens when the act of generation is ordained by reason and man is not totally mastered by the desire, but the desire is rather subjected to reason. Habet autem hoc ratio naturalis, quod homo utatur generationis actu, secundum quod convenit generationi et educationi filiorum. Hoc autem in brutis animalibus invenitur, quod in quibuscumque speciebus animalium sola foemina non sufficit ad educationem prolis, masculus simul nutrit prolem cum foemina; et ad hoc exigitur, quod masculus cognoscat propriam prolem. Et ideo in omnibus talibus animalibus, ut patet in columbis, turturibus et huiusmodi, naturaliter indita est sollicitudo de educatione prolis. Et propter hoc in huiusmodi non sunt vagi et indifferentes concubitus, ex quibus sequeretur incertitudo prolis; sed masculus determinatus determinatae foeminae coniungitur, non indifferenter quaelibet cuilibet, sicut accidit in canibus et aliis huiusmodi animalibus, in quibus sola foemina nutrit prolem. Maxime autem in specie humana masculus requiritur ad prolis educationem, quae non solum attenditur secundum corporis nutrimentum, sed magis secundum nutrimentum animae, secundum illud Hebr. XII, 9: patres quidem carnis nostrae habuimus eruditores et reverebamur eos; et ideo ratio naturalis dictat quod in specie humana non sint vagi et incerti concubitus, quales sunt concubitus fornicarii, sed sint determinati viri ad determinatam foeminam, quae quidem determinatio fit per legem matrimonii. 317. – Natural reason teaches that man use the act of generation according as it is suitable for generation and education of children. But in brute animals it is found that in certain species the female alone is not sufficient for the training of the offspring, but the male takes care of the offspring with the female. For this it is required that the male recognize its offspring. Therefore, in all such animals, as doves, pigeons and the like, solicitude for the training of offspring is inspired by nature. Wherefore, in such animals coition is not random and indiscriminate, but a definite male is joined to a definite female, not one to another promiscuously, as happens in dogs and such animals, in which the female alone takes care of the offspring. But above all in the human species, the male is required for the education of the offspring, which are attended to not only regarding bodily nourishment, but to a greater degree regarding the nourishment of the soul, as it says in Hebrews (12:9): “We have had earthly fathers to discipline us and we respected them.” And consequently, natural reason dictates that in the human species coition is not random and uncertain, but is by a definite man to a definite female, who in fact made the arrangement through the law of matrimony. Sic igitur triplex bonum habet matrimonium, primum quidem quod est in officium naturae, prout scilicet ordinatur ad generationem et educationem prolis, et hoc bonum est bonum prolis. Secundum bonum habet prout est in remedium concupiscentiae, quae scilicet coarctatur ad determinatam personam, et hoc bonum dicitur fides, quam scilicet vir servat uxori suae, non accedens ad aliam, et similiter uxor viro. Tertium bonum habet, prout in fide contrahitur Christi, quod quidem bonum dicitur sacramentum, inquantum significat coniunctionem Christi et Ecclesiae, secundum illud Eph. V, 32: sacramentum hoc magnum est, ego autem dico in Christo, et Ecclesia. 318. – Thus, therefore, matrimony has three goods. The first is that it is a function of nature in the sense that it is ordered to the production and education of offspring; and this good is the good of offspring. The second good is that it is a remedy for desire, which is restricted to a definite person; and this good is called fidelity, which a man preserves toward his wife, by not going to another woman, and similarly the wife toward the husband. The third good is called the sacrament, inasmuch as it signifies the union of Christ and the Church, as it says in Ephesians (5:32): “This mystery [sacrament] is a profound one, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church.” Hoc est ergo quod dicit: dictum est quod bonum est homini mulierem non tangere, sed quia ad hoc bonum non sunt omnes homines idonei, unusquisque vir, propter fornicationem, scilicet vitandam, suam uxorem habeat, id est, sibi determinatam, ut tollantur vagi et incerti concubitus, quod pertinet ad fornicationem. Unde et Prov. V, 18: laetare cum muliere adolescentiae tuae, et postea subditur: quare seduceris, fili mi, ab aliena? 319. – This therefore is what he says. It has been stated that, it is good for a man not to touch a woman. But because all men are not equipped for this good, each man on account of the temptation to fornication should have his own wife, that is, determined by himself, so as to avoid uncertain and promiscuous concubinage, which pertains to fornication: “Rejoice in the wife of your youth” (Prov. 5:18); “Why should you be infatuated, my son with a loose woman” (Prov. 5:20). Deinde cum dicit uxori vir debitum reddat, etc., agit de usu matrimonii contracti. Et primo agit de debito reddendo; secundo de debiti intermissione, ibi nolite fraudare, et cetera. 320. – Then when he says, the husband should give, he deals with the use of the marriage contract: first, about rendering the conjugal debt; secondly, about postponing the debt (v. 5). Circa primum duo facit. Primo proponit quod intendit, dicens: dictum est quod vir habeat uxorem, et uxor virum; habendi autem haec est ratio, ut vir reddat debitum uxori, scilicet de suo corpore per carnalem commixtionem, similiter autem et uxor viro, quia quantum ad hoc ad paria iudicantur. Unde mulier non est formata de pedibus viri tamquam ancilla, nec de capite tamquam domina, sed de latere tamquam socia, ut legitur Gen. II, 21. Unde et mutuo debent sibi debitum reddere, secundum illud Rom. XIII, 7: reddite omnibus debita. 321. – In regard to the first he does two things. First, he states his proposition, saying: it has been stated that a man should have a wife and a wife her husband. This is reason for the ‘having’, that the man should give to his wife her conjugal rights, namely, with his own body through carnal union, and likewise the wife to her husband, because in this matter they are judged equal. Hence the woman was not formed from the feet of the man as a servant, nor from the head as lording it over her husband, but from the side as a companion, as it says in Genesis (2:21). Hence, they must pay the debt to one another according to what it says in Romans (13:7): “Pay all of them their dues.” Secundo assignat debiti rationem, dicens mulier non habet potestatem sui corporis, scilicet ad actum generationis, ut scilicet possit proprio arbitrio vel continere, scilicet vel alteri se tradere; sed vir, scilicet habet potestatem sui corporis, quantum scilicet ad usum carnalis copulae, et ideo uxor debet viro proprii corporis officium offerre. Similiter autem et vir sui corporis potestatem non habet, sed mulier, et cetera. Unde et ipse debet sui corporis officium offerre uxori, legitimo impedimento cessante. Unde et Gen. c. II, 24 dicitur: adhaerebit uxori suae, et erunt duo in carne una. 322. – Secondly, he assigns the reason for the debt saying, for the wife does not rule over her own body, namely, in regard to the act of generation as though she could by her own choice be continent or give herself to someone else; but the husband does, that is, has power over her body as to the use of carnal union. Therefore the wife must offer the husband the use of her body. Likewise the husband does not have rule over his own body, but the wife does. Hence he must offer the use of his body to the wife, when any lawful impediment cases. Hence it says in Genesis (2:24): “Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh.” Deinde cum dicit nolite fraudare invicem, etc., agit de intermissione debiti reddendi. Et primo ostendit qualiter intermitti debeat actus coniugalis. Circa quod docet unum esse cavendum, ne scilicet hoc per fraudem fiat, dicens nolite fraudare invicem, ut scilicet velit vir continere, invita uxore, aut etiam e converso. Quod apostolus fraudem nominat, quia unus subtrahit alteri quod ei debetur, quod ad fraudem pertinet, non minus in actu matrimonii, quam in aliis rebus. Unde et Prov. c. XII, 27 dicitur: non inveniet fraudulentus lucrum, quia scilicet ille, qui tali fraude continentiam Deo offert, non lucratur meritum vitae aeternae. Sicut enim dicit Augustinus non vult Deus tale lucrum tali damno compensari, ut dum unus coniugum continet, altero invito, ille incidat in damnabiles corruptelas. 323. – Then when he says, do not refuse [defraud] one another, he deals with postponing the debt to be rendered. First, he shows how the conjugal act should be postponed. In regard to this he teaches that one things must be avoided, saying: do not refuse [defraud] one another, so that, for example,. The husband wishes to abstain when the wife does not, or even conversely. The Apostle calls this fraud, because one is taking away what belongs to another—and this pertains to fraud no less in marriage than in other affairs, as it says in Proverbs (12:27): “The fraudulent man will not catch his prey,” namely, because one who offers God his continence accompanied by that fraud does not gain merit for eternal life. For as Augustine says, God does not want such gain compensated with such harm, so that while one of the spouses is continent against the will of the other, the former falls into dangerous temptations. Tria autem docet observanda in tali intermissione: quorum primum est ut fiat ex communi consensu. Unde dicit nisi forte ex consensu. Unde dicitur Eccli. XXV, 1 s.: in tribus beneplacitum est spiritui meo, quae sunt probata coram Deo et hominibus: concordia fratrum, et amor proximorum, vir et mulier bene sibi consentientes. Secundum est, ut sit ad certum tempus. Unde subdit nisi forte ad tempus, secundum illud Eccle. c. III, 5: tempus amplexandi, et tempus longe fieri ab amplexibus. Tertium est, ut hoc fiat propter debitum finem, scilicet causa spiritualium actuum, ad quos continentia reddit magis aptos. Unde subdit ut vacetis orationi, secundum illud Ioel. II, 14: sacrificium et libamen domino Deo nostro, et postea subdit: egrediatur sponsus de cubili suo, et sponsa de thalamo suo. 324. – Three things must be observed in such postponement. The first is that it be done with mutual consent. Hence he says, except perhaps by agreement. Hence is says in Sirach (25:1): “My soul takes pleasure in three things, and they are beautiful in the sight of the Lord and of men; agreement between brothers, friendship between neighbors, and a wife and a husband who live in harmony.” The second is that it be for a definite time. Hence he says, except perhaps for a season, as it says in Ecclesiastes (3:5): “a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing.” The third is that it be done for a suitable purpose, that is, for the sake of spiritual acts, for which continence renders one more suitable. Hence he adds, that you may devote yourselves to prayer, as it says in Joel(2:14): “A cereal offering and a drink offering for the LORD, your God,” and later he adds, “Let the bridegroom leave his room, and the bride her chamber” (Joel 2:16). Secundo agit de reiteratione coniugalis actus; et primo ponit documentum, dicens iterum revertimini in idipsum, ut scilicet vobis invicem debitum reddatis, finito tempore orationis. Unde et III Reg. VIII, 66 dicitur, quod celebratis dedicationis solemniis, profecti sunt in tabernacula sua laetantes. Secundo assignat rationem documenti. Non enim hoc dicit, quasi sit necessarium ad salutem, sed ad periculum vitandum. Unde subdit ne tentet vos Satanas, id est, ne sua tentatione vos prosternat; sicut etiam dicitur I Thess. III, 5: ne forte vos tentaverit is qui tentat, et inanis sit labor noster. Tentatio autem Satanae non est fortibus timenda, de quibus dicitur I Io. II, 14: scribo vobis, iuvenes, quoniam fortes estis, et verbum Dei manet in vobis, et vicistis malignum. Est autem timenda debilibus, unde subdit propter incontinentiam vestram, id est, propter pronitatem ad incontinentiam, ex quo contingit, quod Diabolus hominem tentando prosternit, et provocatur ad tentandum, secundum illud I Petr. ult.: circuit quaerens quem devoret. 325. – Then he deals with the resumption of the conjugal act. First he presents the teaching, saying, but then come together again, that is, in order that you may render to each other the debt, now that the time of prayer is finished. Hence it says in 1 Kings (8:66) that after celebrating the dedication of the feast: “They went to their homes joyful and glad of heart.” Secondly he assigns a reason for the teaching. For he does not say this as though it were necessary for salvation, but to avoid danger. Hence he adds, lest Satan tempt you, that is, lest he subvert you with his temptation, as it says in 1 Thessalonians (3:5): “For fear that somehow the tempter had tempted you and that our labor would be in vain.” Satan’s temptation should not be feared by the strong, about whom it says in 1 Jn (2:14): “I write to you, young men, because you are strong, and the word of God abides in you, and you have overcome the evil one.” But he should be feared by the weak. Hence he says, through lack of self-control, that is, on account of a proneness to incontinence, as a result of which the devil overcomes man by tempting and he is inclined to tempt, as it says in 1 Peter (5:8): “the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking some one to devour.” Deinde cum dicit hoc autem dico, etc., manifestat quo sensu praedicta sunt accipienda, et primo facit quod dictum est; secundo, rationem assignat, ibi volo autem, etc.; tertio, exponit quod dixerat, ibi dico autem, et cetera. 326. – Then when he says, I say this, he tells in what sense the above doctrine should be taken. First, he does what has been said; secondly, he assigns a reason (v. 7); thirdly, he explains what he had said (v. 8). Dicit ergo primo: dixi, quod unusquisque suam uxorem habeat, et unaquaeque mulier virum suum, et iterum quod post continentiam determinati temporis, iterum revertamini in idipsum. Hoc autem dico secundum indulgentiam, id est, parcens infirmitati vestrae, non secundum imperium, quasi scilicet vobis necessarium ad salutem. Subditis enim sunt quaedam eorum infirmitati indulgenda, et non ad bona imperio cogendi. Unde contra quosdam praelatos dicitur Ez. XXXIV, 4 s.: cum austeritate imperabatis eis, et cum potentia, et dispersi sunt greges mei. 327. – First, therefore, he says: I have said that each one should have his own wife and each woman her own husband; furthermore, after practicing continence for a time, they should return once more to each other. I say this by way of concession, that is, to spare your weakness, not of command, namely as though necessary for your salvation. For certain things must be conceded to subjects on account of their weakness, and they should not be compelled by commanding what is good. Hence Ezekiel (34:4-5) says against some prelates: “With force and harshness you have ruled them, so they were scattered.” Sed videtur apostolus inconvenienter loqui; indulgentia enim non est nisi de peccato. Per hoc ergo quod apostolus, secundum indulgentiam se dicit matrimonium concessisse, videtur exprimere quod matrimonium sit peccatum. Sed ad hoc potest responderi dupliciter. Uno modo ut indulgentia sumatur hic pro permissione. Est autem duplex permissio: una quidem de minus malo, sicut dicitur Matth. c. XIX, 8, quod Moyses permisit Iudaeis dare libellum repudii propter duritiam cordis eorum, scilicet ad vitandum uxoricidium, ad quod erant proni. Talis enim permissio non fit in novo testamento propter sui perfectionem, secundum illud Hebr. VI, 1: ad perfectum feramur. Alia autem est permissio de minus bono, cum scilicet homo praecepto non cogitur ad maius bonum; et hoc modo apostolus hic indulget, id est, permittit matrimonium, quod est minus bonum quam virginitas, quae non praecipitur, quae est maius bonum. Alio modo potest accipi indulgentia prout respicit culpam, secundum illud Is. XXVI, 15: indulsisti, domine, indulsisti genti. Et secundum hoc indulgentia refertur ad actum coniugalem secundum quod habet annexam culpam venialem, tamen propter bona matrimonii sine quibus esset mortalis. 328. – But the Apostle seems to be speaking in an unsuitable manner, for concessions are concerned only with sin. Therefore, by the fact that the Apostle says he is speaking by way of concession, he seems to express that marriage is a sin. But this can be answered in two ways. In one way so that the concession is taken for permission. But there are two kinds of permission: one is concerned with a lesser evil, as in Matthew (19:8): “For your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives,” that is, to avoid the murder of one’s wife, to which they were prone. Such a permission is not found in the New Testament on account of its perfection, according to Hebrews (6:1): “Let us go on to perfection.” Another permission is about the lesser good, namely, when a man is not compelled by precept to a greater good. This is the sense in which the Apostle makes a concession here, that is, permits matrimony, which is a lesser good than virginity, which is not commanded and is a greater good. In another way, concession can be taken as regarding guilt, as Isaiah (26:15) says: “But thou hast increased the nation, O LORD, thou hast increased the nation.” In this sense, concession refers to the conjugal act, accordingly as it has venial guilt attached to it along with the good of matrimony, without which it would be mortal. Unde considerandum est quod actus coniugalis quandoque quidem est meritorius, et absque omni culpa mortali vel veniali, puta cum ordinatur ad bonum prolis procreandae et educandae ad cultum Dei: sic enim est actus religionis; vel cum fit causa reddendi debitum: sic enim est actus iustitiae. Omnis autem actus virtutis est meritorius, si sit cum charitate. Quandoque vero est cum culpa veniali, scilicet cum quis ad actum matrimonialem ex concupiscentia excitatur, quae tamen infra limites matrimonii sistit, ut scilicet cum sola uxore sit contentus. Quandoque vero est culpa mortalis, puta cum concupiscentia fertur extra limites matrimonii, scilicet cum aliquis accedit ad uxorem, aeque libenter vel libentius ad aliam accessurus. Primo ergo modo actus matrimonii non requirit indulgentiam; secundo modo habet indulgentiam inquantum aliquis consentiens concupiscentiae in uxorem, non fit reus peccati mortalis; tertio modo omnino indulgentiam non habet. 329. – Hence it should be noted that the conjugal act is sometimes meritorious and without any mortal or venial sin, as when it is directed to the good of procreation and education of a child for the worship of God; for then it is an act of religion; or when it is performed for the sake of rendering the debt, it is an act of justice. But every virtuous act is meritorious, if it is performed with charity. But sometimes it is accompanied with venial sin, namely, when one is excited to the matrimonial act by concupiscence, which nevertheless stays within the limits of the marriage, namely, that he is content with his wife only. But sometimes it is performed with mortal sin, as when concupiscence is carried beyond the limits of the marriage; for example, when the husband approaches the wife with the idea that he would just as gladly or more gladly approach another woman. In the first way, therefore, the act of marriage requires no concession; in the second way it obtains a concession, inasmuch as someone consenting to concupiscence toward the wife is not guilty of mortal sin; in the third way there is absolutely no concession. Deinde cum dicit volo autem etc., assignat rationem eius quod dixerat, et primo quare non loquatur secundum imperium; secundo quare loquatur secundum indulgentiam, ibi sed unusquisque, et cetera. 330. – Then when it says, I wish, he assigns the reason for what he has said. First, why he does not speak as commanding; secondly, why he speaks according to a concession (v. 7b). Circa primum considerandum est quod nullus sapiens praecipit illud cuius contrarium magis vult fieri. Ideo apostolus non praecipit quod homines matrimonium contrahant, vel matrimonio contracto utantur, quia magis vult quod homines contineant. Et hoc est quod dicit volo autem omnes, homines, esse sicut meipsum, ut scilicet contineant, sicut ego contineo. Et similiter dicit Act. XXVI, 29: opto apud Deum omnes qui audiunt, fieri tales qualis ego sum. 331. – In regard to the first it should be noted that no wise man commands that whose opposite he would rather have done. Therefore, the Apostle does not command that men contract marriage or make use of a marriage already contracted, because he wishes rather that men be continent. And this is what he says: I wish that all men were as I myself am, that is, continent as I am. He says likewise in Acts (26:29): “I would to God that not only you but also all who hear me this day might become such as I am.” Sed contra hoc videtur esse, quia si omnes homines continerent, sicut apostolus continebat, cessasset generatio, et sic non fuisset impletus numerus electorum, quod erat contra dispositionem divinam. Dicunt quidam quod apostolo revelatum erat, quod si omnes homines salvarentur in continentia viventes, sicut ipse vivebat, sufficiebat ad implendum numerum electorum. Sed hoc nulla auctoritate fulcitur; et ideo potest dici, quod apostolus volebat omnes esse continentes, quia scilicet volebat hoc de singulis, non tamen volebat quod omnes simul continerent. Vel potest dici, et melius, quod volebat omnes homines esse continentes voluntate antecedente, sicut ipse dicit I Tim. II, 4, quod Deus vult omnes homines salvos fieri, non autem voluntate consequente, qua Deus vult quosdam salvare, scilicet praedestinatos, et quosdam damnare, scilicet reprobatos, secundum illud Mal. I, 2 s.: Iacob dilexi, Esau autem odio habui. Est autem voluntas antecedens de eo, quod absolute consideratum est melius, sicut omnes homines esse salvos, vel continentes: voluntas autem consequens est de eo, quod est melius, consideratis circumstantiis personarum et negotiorum, et secundum hoc Deus vult quosdam damnare, et apostolus quosdam matrimonio iungi. 332. – But there seems to be something against this, because if all men practiced continence, as the Apostle did, generation would cease and, as a result, the number of the elect would never be fulfilled, and this is against God’s arrangement. Some say that it had been revealed to the Apostle that if all men were saved practicing continence, as he practiced it, it would suffice to fill up the number of the elect. But this rests on no authority; consequently, it can be said that the Apostle wished all men to be continent, because he wished this for certain individuals, but he did not wish that all would be continent at the same time. Or it can be said, and this is better, that he wished all men to be continent in his antecedent will, as he says in 1 Timothy (2:4): “God desires all men to be saved,” but not by his consequent will, by which God will to save certain persons, namely the predestined and to damn others, namely, the reprobate, as it says in Malachi (1:2-3): “I have loved Jacob, but I have hated Esau.” Now the antecedent will is concerned with that which considered absolutely is better, as all men to be saved or continent; but the consequent will is concerned with that which is better considering circumstances of persons and events, and according to this, God wills to damn some and the Apostle wishes some to be united in marriage. Deinde cum dicit sed unusquisque, assignat rationem quare secundum indulgentiam matrimonium permiserit, quia scilicet non quilibet tantae virtutis donum accepit a Deo, ut scilicet possit totaliter continere, sicut et dominus dixit Matth. XIX, 11: non omnes capiunt verbum hoc, sed qui capere potest, capiat. Et hoc est quod dicit: vellem quidem omnes esse continentes, sed unusquisque proprium, id est, secundum certam mensuram, habet donum ex Deo, alius quidem sic, puta ut in virginitate Deo serviat, alius vero sic, id est, ut Deo serviat in matrimonio, secundum illud Matth. XXV, v. 15: uni dedit quinque talenta, alii vero duo, alii vero unum, unicuique secundum propriam virtutem. Et Sap. VIII, 21: scivi quoniam aliter non possum esse continens, nisi Deus det, et hoc ipsum erat sapientiae scire cuius esset hoc donum. 333. – Then when he says, but each, he tells the reason why he permitted marriage as a concession, namely, because each one has not received from God so much virtue as to enable him to practice total continence, as the Lord himself said: “Not all men can receive this saying... He who is able to receive this, let him receive it” (Matt. 19:11, 12). And this is what he says: I should wish that all were continent, but each has his own gift from God, that is, in a definite measure, one of one kind, for example, to serve God in virginity, and another in another, say to serve God in marriage. Hence it says in Matthew (25:15): “To one he gave five talents, to another two, to another one, each according to his ability.” And in Wisdom (8:21): “But I perceived that I would not possess wisdom unless God gave her to me—and it was a mark of insight to know whose gift she was.” Deinde cum dicit dico autem, etc., exponit quod obscure dixerat. Et primo quantum ad hoc quod dixerat: volo omnes homines esse sicut meipsum, quia scilicet hoc est absolute melius. Unde dicit dico autem, scilicet exponendo, non nuptis, id est, virginibus, et viduis: bonum est illis si sic permanserint, scilicet continentes, sicut ego, secundum illud Sap. c. IV, 1: quam pulchra est casta generatio cum claritate. 334. – Then when he says, to the unmarried, he explains what he had said obscurely. First, as to his statement, I wish all were as I myself, namely, because this is absolutely better. Hence he says, to the unmarried, that is, virgins, and the widows I say by way of explanation that it is good for them to remain single as I do, for it says in Wisdom (4:1): “Blessed is the chaste generation with glory.” Secundo quantum ad hoc quod dixerat: sed unusquisque, etc., quasi dicat: quia non quilibet hoc donum accepit a Deo ut contineat. Unde dicit quod si non continent, id est, si donum continendi non acceperunt, nubant, id est, matrimonio iungantur, secundum illud I Tim. V, 14: volo iuvenes nubere. Et assignat rationem, subdens melius est enim nubere, quam uri, id est, concupiscentia superari. Concupiscentia enim est calor quidam noxius; qui ergo concupiscentia impugnatur, calescit quidem, sed non uritur, nisi humorem gratiae perdat a concupiscentia superatus. Unde Iob XXXI, 12 dicitur: ignis est usque ad consummationem devorans, et universa eradicans germina. Est autem hic attendendum quod apostolus utitur abusiva comparatione; nam nubere bonum est, licet minus, uri autem est malum. Melius est ergo, id est magis tolerandum, quod homo minus bonum habeat, quam quod incurrat incontinentiae malum; et hoc est quod supra dixit propter fornicationem, scilicet vitandam, unusquisque suam uxorem habeat, etc., et postmodum: ne tentet vos Satanas propter incontinentiam vestram. 335. – Secondly, as to his statement, but each one has his own gift; as if to say: not everyone has received from God the gift of continence. Hence he says, if they cannot exercise self-control, that is, if they have not yet received this gift, they should marry, that is, be joined in matrimony: “I would have younger widows marry” (1 Tim. 5:14). Then he gives the reason, saying, it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion, that is, be overcome by concupiscence. For concupiscence is a harmful heat; therefore one assailed by concupiscence is warmed but not burned, unless he is overcome by concupiscence and destroys the water of grace. Hence Job (31:8) says: “A fire which consumes unto Abaddon, and it would burn to the root all my increase.” It should be noted that the Apostle uses a helpful comparison here, for it is good to marry, although it is a lesser good. But to be burned is an evil. Therefore it is better, that is, more tolerable, that a man should have the lesser good than incur the evil of incontinence. And this is what he said above (v. 2): to avoid fornication each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband; and later (v. 5): lest Satan tempt you through lack of self-control.
7-2
1 Cor 7:10-14Supra apostolus posuit documenta de contractu matrimonii, hic instruit eos qui iam matrimonium contraxerunt de matrimonio non dissolvendo: et primo docet eos qui sunt in matrimonio iuncti, ut in matrimonio maneant; secundo ponit utilem doctrinam quantum ad omnes status vel conditiones hominum, ibi unumquemque sicut vocavit Deus, et cetera. Circa primum duo facit: primo agit de indissolubilitate matrimonii quantum ad eos qui sunt unius cultus; secundo quantum ad eos qui sunt in dispari cultu, ibi nam caeteris ego dico, et cetera. Circa primum duo facit: primo ponit praeceptum de indissolubilitate matrimonii; secundo docet quid sit servandum quando matrimonium quodammodo separatur, ibi quod si discesserit, et cetera. 336. – After presenting teachings about the contract of marriage, the Apostle now instructs those who have already contracted marriage, that they must not dissolve the marriage. First, he teaches those already joined in marriage to continue in it; secondly, he gives them a useful teaching as to all the states or conditions of men (v. 20). In regard to the first he does two things. First, he deals with the indissolubility of marriage, as it applies to those who are of one worship; secondly, when there is disparity of cult (v. 12). In regard to the first he does two things. First, he lays down a precept about the indissolubility of marriage; secondly, he teaches what should be done when the marriage is broken by separation (v. 11). Dicit ergo primo: dixi non nuptis, id est, virginibus et viduis, quod melius est eis si sic permanserint, his autem qui matrimonio sunt iuncti non patet eadem conditio: his enim praecipio non ego, scilicet indicta mihi auctoritate, sed dominus, hoc praecepit. 337. – First, therefore, he says: I have said to the unmarried, i.e., virgins and widows, that it is better for them to remain as they are; but to the married, the same condition does not prevail. For to them I give the charge, not I, by the authority entrusted to me, but the Lord commands this, saying: “What God has joined together, let no man put asunder”
7:11—10:33 (nos. 347-581) supplied by Peter of Tarantaise / Nicholas of Gorram
POSTILLA
dicens Matth. xix, 6: Quos Deus coniunxit, homo non separet. Praecipio, inquam, uxorem a viro non discedere, et subintelligendum est, excepta causa fornicationis, quam Christus excepit, et hic tacetur, quia notissima est. Hanc solam excepit Dominus, caeteras omnes molestias iubet pro fide coniugii fortiter sustineri. Matth. xix, 9: Quicumque dimiserit uxorem suam et aliam duxerit, excepta causa fornicationis, moechatur. Hoc autem quod dicitur hic, secundum Glossam Augustini, intellitgitur de coniunctis matrimonialiter, quorum uterque fidelis est. (Matt. 19:6). I command, I say, that the wife should not separate from her husband, except on account of fornication, an exception which Christ made and is not mentioned here, because it is well known. The Lord made this the sole exception; all other troubles he commands to be patiently endured for the faith of the marriage: “Whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another, commits adultery” (Matt. 19:9). According to a Gloss of Augustine, what is said here is understood of the union of matrimony when both are faithful. Quod si discesserit, scilicet propter causam fornicationis, praecipio, inquam manere innuptam, vivente marito, quia si solvitur matrimonium quoad thorum, non tamen quoad vinculum, aut aut viro suo reconciliari, scilicet si vir non continet. Et similiter vir uxorem non dimittat, nisi ob causam fornicationis. Similis forma in viro et in muliere servatur. Unde supplendum est quod de uxore praemisit, scilicet quod si omnino dimiserit, non ducat aliam, vel reconcilietur uxori. 338. – But if she does separate, namely, on account of fornication, let her remain unmarried, as long as the husband is alive, because although the marriage is dissolved as to bed and board, not as to bond. Or else be reconciled to her husband, namely, if the husband is not continent. Likewise the husband should not divorce his wife, except on account of fornication. A similar form is kept in regard to the man and to the woman. Hence it is necessary to supply what was said about the wife, namely, that if he dismissed her completely, he should not get another, but be reconciled to his wife. Sed contrarium videtur dicere Ambrosius super hlunc locum. Unde dicit: Ideo non subdit de viro sicut de muliere, quia licet viro aliam ducere, quia inferior non omnino hac lege utitur qua et superior. Sed Magister dicit a falsariis esse appositum, et ideo nullatenus est tenendum. 339. – But Ambrose, commenting here, seems to say something contrary to this. He says: he does not say the same things for the man as for the woman, because it is lawful for the husband to marry another woman, for the inferior does not use this law as fully as the superior. But the Master says that this was added by a falsifier and should not be maintained at all. Notandum est hic quod septem sunt casus in quibus vir non potest ob causam fornicationis uxorem dimittere:
- Primus casus quando ipsemet eam prostituit;
- secundus quando ipse cum alia fornicatus fuerit;
- tertius quando ipse ei occasionem fornicandi dedit, ut quia non vult reddere debitum;
- quartus quando ipsa credens probabiliter virum mortuum, alteri nupsit;
- quintus quando violenter ab aliquo oppressa fuit;
- sextus quando sub speci viri sui ab altero cognita fuit;]
- septimus quando fuit a viro post adulterium manifeste deprehensum, nihilominus retenta.
340. – It should be noted here that there are seven cases when a husband cannot dismiss his wife on account of fornication.
- The first is when he himself prostituted her;
- the second, when he commits fornication with another woman;
- the third is when he gave her the occasion of fornication, as when he is unwilling to render the debt;
- the fourth is when she has probable certitude that her husband is dead and she married another;
- the fifth is when she has been violently oppressed by him;
- the sixth is when she was know by another, who seemed to be her husband;
- the seventh is when she has been manifestly caught in adultery, but is retained by her husband.
Deinde cum dicit Nam caeteris dico, agit de inseparabilitate matrimonii personarum disparis cultus, cum alter est fidelis, alter non. Ubi primo dicit quod fidelis non dimittat infidelem volentem sine contumelia creatoris cohabitare; secundo quod si non vult, fidelis non tenetur eum sequi, sed potest alteri nubere, ibi [n. 348] Quod si infidelis discedit, etc. tertio quod nisi infidelis prior recedat, fidelis debet patinter maommanere, ibi [n. 350] Unde enim mulier. etc. In prima, primo ponit admonitionem; secundo admonitionis rationem, ibi [nn. 344 et 347] Sanctificatus est enim, etc. In prima, primo loquitur generaliter tam viris quam foeminis; secundo specialiter viris, ibi [n. 342] Si quis frater, etc; tertio specialiter foeminis, ibi [n. 343] Et si qua mulier, etc. 341. – Then when he says, To the rest I say, he treats of the inseparability of marriage between persons of disparate cult, when one is a believer. First, he says that the believer should not dismiss an unbelieving spouse, who is willing to continue living together without abusing the Creator. Secondly, that if the unbeliever does not wish to live together, the believer is not bound to follow, but can marry another (v. 15). Thirdly, that unless the unbeliever leaves first, the believer should patiently remain together (v. 16). In regard to the first, he gives an admonition; secondly, the reason for the admonition (v. 14). In regard to the first he speaks in general to men and women; secondly, in particular to the men (v. 12b); thirdly, in particular to the women (v. 13). Dicit ergo, Nam caeteris, id est, ubi non uterque fidelis est, sed alter fidelis, alter infidelis, dico ego, consulendo non praecipiendo, non Dominus dixit noc proprio ore. Ac si dicat: Et hoc dico ex Deo, licet ipse non dicat hoc ore proprio. Dico, in quam, hoc: Si quis frater, fidelis, conversus scilicet ad fidem in coniugio. Intelligitur enim hoc de his qui in infidelitate contraxerunt, non de his qui in dispari cultu; tunc enim nullum esset matrimonium, sed essent separandi, sicut fecit Esdras (I) Isdrae x, 1. Si quis, inquam, habet talem uxorem infidelem, et haec consentit habitare cum illo, sine contumelia scilicet creatoris, non dimittat illam: consilium est, non praeceptum, ut qui contrarium agtit, non sit gransressor, secundum Glossam [Inter. et Lomb.]. 342. – He says therefore, To the rest, i.e., where not both are believers, but one is a believer and the other an unbeliever, I say, by way of counsel and not of command, not the Lord. As if to say: I say this from the Lord, although he does not say it with his own lips. This is what I say: If any brother, a believer, is converted to the faith while married. For this is understood of those who married as unbelievers, not of those who are in disparity of cult; for then there was no marriage, and they would have to be separated as Ezra did in Ezra 9-10. If a brother, I say, has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him without insulting the Creator, he should not divorce her. It is a counsel not a precept, so that if one does the contrary, he is not a transgressor, according to a Gloss. Deinde cum dicit Et si qua mulier, hic loquitur specialiter foeminis, ubi primo supponit fidem in aliquo, cum dicit et si qua mulier; secundo infidelitatem in altero, cum addit virum infidelim: tertio infidelis voluntatem cohabitandi, ibi et hic consentit; quarto consulit fideli commanere illi, ibi non dimittat. 343. – Then when he says, If any woman, he speaks in particular to women, where he first of all supposes faith in someone; secondly, unbelief in this other when he says, has a husband who is an unbeliever; thirdly, the unbeliever is willing to live together, when he says, and he consents; fourthly, he advises the believer to remain with him when he says, to live with her, she should not divorce him. Dicit ergo: Et similiter si qua mulier fidelis habet virum infidelem, et consentit habitare cum illa sine contumelia creatoris; nam si nollet cohabitare sine cuntumelia nominis Christi, debet fidelis eum dimittere, quia contumelia creatoris solvit matrimonium, secundum Glossam [Lomb., col 1593 c], et potest fidelis contrahere. Si, inquam, ita est, non dimittat virum: consilium est, non praeceptum; licet enim infidelem fideli dimittere, sed tunc non expediebat. He says, therefore, and likewise, if a believing wife has an unbelieving husband, and he consents to live with her without insulting the Creator; for if he were unwilling to live with her without insulting the name of Christ, the believer should divorce him, because ‘insulting the Creator dissolves a marriage’, as a Gloss says, and she may marry again. If, I say, that is the case, she should not divorce him. It is a counsel, not a precept; for it is lawful for the unbeliever to divorce the believer, but then it was not expedient. Deinde cum dicit Sanctificatus est vir, posita admonitione, hic ponit admonitionis rationem, ubi allegat exemplum; secundo periculum, ibi [n. 346] Alioquin, etc.; tertio fructum, ibi [n. 346] Nunc autem sancti, etc. 344. – Then when he says, For the unbelieving husband, he gives the reason for the admonition just given. First, he proposes an example; secondly, the danger (v. 14b); thirdly, the fruit (v. 14c). In prima primo exemplificat de viro infideli, secundo de muliere, ibi: Et sanctificata est mulier, etc. Dicit ergo, sanctificats est, quasi dicat: Fidelis infidelem volentem cohabitare non dimittat; hoc ideo dico, sanctificatus est enim, etc. 345. – In regard to the first he does two things: first, he gives the example of an unbelieving husband; secondly, of an unbelieving wife (v. 14). He says, therefore, he is consecrated through his wife; as if to say: the wife who believes should not divorce the unbelieving spouse willing to live with her, because he is sanctified through the wife. Hoc dupliciter legitur. Primo modo sic: Sanctificatus est enim vir infidelis, aliquando, per mulierem fidelem; id est, aliquando contingit quod unus per alium convertitur ad fidem, et sic sanctificatur; et hoc iam forte contigerat, sicut Sisinnius per Theodoram Romae tempore Clementis conversus est. Et similter sanctificata est mulier infidelis per virum fidelem, scilicet per ipsius admonitionem et doctrinam. This is read in two ways. In the first way thus: the husband who is not a believer is sometimes sanctified by a wife who believes, i.e., it sometimes happens that one is converted to the faith by the other. And this has probably happened already, as Sisinnius was converted to the faith in Rome by Theodora during the reign of Clement. Likewise, the unbelieving wife is consecrated through her husband, namely, by his admonition and doctrine. Alio modo legitur sic: Ita fidelis infidelem non dimittat, sanctificatus est enim vir, etc., id est, nullam immundiatiam contrahit fidelis ex cohabitatione vel ex commixtione cum infideli, sed servat veram pudicitiam, secundum Augustinum [In Collect. Lomb., col. 1592]. In another way it can be read thus: so the believer should not divorce the unbeliever, for the husband is sanctified by the wife, i.e., the believer does not contract uncleanness by cohabiting with or uniting with the unbelieving spouse, but preserves true modesty, according to Augustine. Deinde cum dicit Alioquin filii, etc., hoc legitur dupliciter: uno modo de filiis nascituris; alio modo de iam natis. Primo modo sic: Alioquin, scilicet si disceditis, et vos aliis copulatis, filii vestri, qui de hac copula nascerentur, immundi essent, scilicet spurii, quia non de legitimo matrimonio. Nunc autem, si permanetis, sancti sunt, id is, numdi, quia de legitimis coniugiis nati. 346. – Then when he says, otherwise your children, this is read in two ways: first, of children to be born; secondly, of children already born. In the first way it is read thus: otherwise, if you depart and you both have relations with others, your children, who would be born of this union, would be unclean, i.e., spurious, because not born of a lawful union. Secundo modo legitr sic: Alioquin, scilicet si disceditis, filii vestri, iam nati, immundi essent, id est, in infidelitate remanerent, sequentes scilicet maiorem partem tuae tunc erat infidelium; nunc autem, si permanetis, sancti sunt, id est, Christiani fiunt. In the second way it is read thus: otherwise, namely, if you separate, your children already born would be unclean, i.e., would remain in unbelief, following the majority, which would be unbelievers; but now, if you remain together, they are holy, i.e., become Christians. 347. Deinde cum dicit Sanctificatus est vir infidelis per mulierem fidelem. —Thema in festo beatae Caeciliae quae convertit virum suum ad fidem.
Inter omnia quae regunt hominem in via salutis praecipuum est sequi societatem sanctorum. Hoc ostendit Psalmista verbo, cum dicit [Ps xix, 26]: Cum sancto sanctus eris, etc.; hoc ostendit Caecilia facto, secundum quod hic dicitur: Sanctificatus est vir, etc.; in quibus verbis tria commendant ipsam, scilicet natura, gratia et doctrina.
Actus est sanctificare, obiectum est vir, oppositum est infidelitas. Infidelitas est culpa tenacior: virilitas sexus robustior: sanctificare actus difficilior. Et tamen cum esset mulier, per doctrinam suam convertit incredulum, emollivit robustum, mundavit immundum, et sic sanctificavit infidelem virum.
Multae vero sunt proprietates mulieris commendabiles, quae huic conveniunt, ut sint tres proprietates quad actum cordis, tres quoad actum oris, et tres quoad actum operis.
Tres primae sunt: sapientia ex parte rationalis, Prov. xiv, 1: Sapiens mulier aedificat sibi domum; munditia ex parte concupiscibilis, Eccli. xl, 19: Aedificatio civitatis confirmabit nomen, et super eam mulier immaculata computabitur; constantia ex parte irascibilis, Ruth iii, 11: Scit omnis populus te esse mulierem virtutis, etc.
Tres secundae sunt: modestia contra multiloquium, Eccli. xxvi, 18: Mulier sensata et tacita non est immutatio animae eruditae: veritas contra mendacium, Iudith viii, 28: Omnia quae locuta es vera sunt; discretio contra stultiloquium, I Reg. xxv, 23: Erat mulier prudentissima et speciosissima; Iudith c. xi, 19: Non est talis mulier super terram in aspectu, et in pulchritudine et in sensu verborum.
Tres ultimae sunt: sanctimonia in facto, Iudith viii, 29: Ora pro populo, quia mulier sancta es; verecundia in signo, Eccli. xxvi, v. 19: Gratia super gratiam mulier sancta et pudorata; gratia in conversando, Prov. xi, 16: Mulier gratiosa inveniet gloriam.
Propter eminentiam horum dicitur de Beata Virgine Maria: Benedicta tu in mulieribus.
7-3
1 Cor 15-2015 εἰ δὲ ὁ ἄπιστος χωρίζεται, χωριζέσθω: οὐ δεδούλωται ὁ ἀδελφὸς ἢ ἡ ἀδελφὴ ἐν τοῖς τοιούτοις: ἐν δὲ εἰρήνῃ κέκληκεν ὑμᾶς ὁ θεός. 16 τί γὰρ οἶδας, γύναι, εἰ τὸν ἄνδρα σώσεις; ἢ τί οἶδας, ἄνερ, εἰ τὴν γυναῖκα σώσεις; 17 εἰ μὴ ἑκάστῳ ὡς ἐμέρισεν ὁ κύριος, ἕκαστον ὡς κέκληκεν ὁ θεός, οὕτως περιπατείτω: καὶ οὕτως ἐν ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις πάσαις διατάσσομαι. 18 περιτετμημένος τις ἐκλήθη; μὴ ἐπισπάσθω. ἐν ἀκροβυστίᾳ κέκληταί τις; μὴ περιτεμνέσθω. 19 ἡ περιτομὴ οὐδέν ἐστιν, καὶ ἡ ἀκροβυστία οὐδέν ἐστιν, ἀλλὰ τήρησις ἐντολῶν θεοῦ. 20 ἕκαστος ἐν τῇ κλήσει ᾗ ἐκλήθη ἐν ταύτῃ μενέτω.
348. Superius ostendit quod fidelis non debet dimittere infidelem cohabitare volentem, hic autem dicit quod si non vult cohabitare, non tenetur fidelis eum se qui, sed potest alteri nubere; ubi primo ponitur ipsa concessio; secundo concessionis ratio duplex: prima est libertas, ibi Non est enim servituti, etc.; secunda est pacis tranquillitas, ibi In pace autem, etc.
349. Dicit ergo: Quod si infidelis, vel mulier, discedit, a fideli, odio fidei, discedat, et potest fidelis qui dimittitur contrahere; primum enim matrimonium dissolubile erat, quia numquam fuit ratum. Non enim servituti, scilicet coniugali, subiectus est frater aut soror, fidelis, id est, non cogitur sequi infidelem odio fidei discedentem, sicut dicit Glossa 10. VIII, 36: Si filius vos liberaverit, vere liberi eritis, In pace autem, quasi dicat: Ideo discedat fidelis, quia in pace vocavit nos Deus, id est, ideo non debemus litigare cum eo qui odio fidei disce dit. Vel sic, quamvis ita sit quod fidelis non est subiectus servituti, nihilominus tamen non debet occasionem discordiae et dissidii praebere, sed pacem servare. In pace autem vocavit nos Deus. Non est enim Deus dissensionis, sed pacis, infra XIV, 33.
350. Deinde cum dicit Unde enim scis, mulier, etc., hic dicit quod si infidelis non discedat, fidelis debet patienter commanere. Ad quod allegat primo spem alienae conversionis; secundo permanentiam in statu propriae vocationis, ibi [n. 352] Unumquemque sicut vocavit Deus, etc.; tertio exemplum in ritu conversationis, ibi [n. 353] Circumcisus aliquis, etc.; quarto exemplum in statu conditionis, ibi [n. 368] Servus vocatus es, etc. In prima, primo innuit quod mulier fidelis commanendo, virum ad fidem potest convertere; secundo quod similiter vir fidelis mulierem infidelem potest salvare, ibi Aut unde scis hoc, vir, etc.; tertio quod ideo debent patienter commanere, ibi Nisi unicuique, etc.
351. Dicit ergo Unde enim scis, quasi dicat: vere debet manere fidelis cum infideli, quia unde scis, id est, scire potes, O tu mulier fidelis; si virum infidelem salvum facies? eum scilicet commonendo et convertendo ad fidem; quasi dicat, hoc potest contingere. Ambrosius: Hoc ideo dicit, quia forsan potest credere qui horret nomen Chri sti. Aut unde scis, id est, scire potes, O tu vir fidelis, si mulierem infidelem salvam facies, eam ad fidem convertendo? quia hoc sperare debes.
Nisi unicuique, hoc dupliciter legitur; uno modo sic: Unde scis hoc, nisi ita habeas te, supple ad tuum comparem, sicut Dominus divisit unicuique? scilicet viro praeesse, et mulieri subesse. Secundo modo sic: Unde scis hoc, nisi, supple, patienter expectes fieri, sicut divisit Dominus unicuique? id est, ordinavit de unoquoque quando credat et quando salvetur. Ergo tu debes expectare et commanere. Rom. XII. 3: Unicuique sicut divisit Dominus.
352. Deinde cum dicit Unumquemque sicut vocavit, etc., hic ostendit quod fidelis debet manere cum infideli coniuge, allegans permanentiam in statu propriae vocationis. Primo ergo allegat divinam vocationem; secundo suam auctoritatem, ibi Sicut in omnibus ecclesiis, etc. Dicit ergo, unumquemque, quasi dicat: Et quomodo scis hoc, O vir et mulier, nisi qui libet ambulet perseveranter ita sicut Deus vocavit unumquemque, id est, in eo statu in quo Deus vocavit unumquemque, non autem quomodo sint. Quasi dicat: Et hoc ita praedico in ecclesia vestra, sicut in omnibus ecclesiis. Turpis enim est pars quae suo toto non convenit. Est ergo sua ratio talis: Unusquisque debet manere in eo statu in quem Deus vocavit; ergo si vocavit aliquos in coniugium, debent manere in ipso. Haymo: Si habeas uxo rem, maneas cum ea, et si non habeas, ducere non concupiscas.
353. Deinde cum dicit Circumcisus aliquis, etc., hic ponit exemplum: ubi primo ponit ipsum exemplum; secundo exempli rationem, ibi [n. 355] Circumcisio enim nihil est; tertio regulam generalem, ibi [n. 356] Unusquisque in qua vocatione.
354. Ponit autem exemplum in ritu vivendi, primo Iudaeorum, secundo Gentilium, ibi In praeputio aliquis vocatus est, etc. Dicit ergo circumcisus, etc. quasi dicat: Unusquisque ambulet in eo statu in quo vocatus est; verbi gratia circumcisus quis vocatus est, id est in ritu Iudaico? non adducat, id est, non cogatur adducere, praeputium, id est, ritum Gentilium. In praeputio, id est, in ritu Gentili, quis vocatus est? non circumcidatur, id est non cogatur ad ritus Iudaicos. Augustinus: " Servat ubique Apostolus construere ecclesias, sive Iudaeorum, sive Gentilium; numquam enim aufert consuetudinem, quae servata non impedit salutem; ergo si coniugium non impediat, debent vocati in coniugio commanere."
355. Deinde cum dicit Circumcisio enim nihil est, hic subdit rationem exempli, quae talis est: Ritus non impediens salutem, non debet mutari propter vocationem ad fidem, sed ritus tam Iudaicus quam Gentilis est huiusmodi, ergo etc. A simili ergo arguit in matrimonio. Primo ergo tangit quod est ad salutem in differens; secundo quod est necessarium et expediens, ibi Sed observatio mandatorum, etc. Dicit igitur Circumcisio nihil est, id est nihil prodest, et praeputium nihil est, id est nihil prodest vel obest; quasi dicat: Talis vel talis ritus vivendi nihil proficit ad salutem. Gal. ult. [VI, 15]: In Christo lesu nec circumcisio aliquid valet, nec praeputium, sed nova creatura. "Ad salutem nec prodest nec obest Iudaicus aut Gentilis ritus", Sed observatio mandatorum Dei, aliquid prodest. Sap. VI, 19: Custoditio legum, consummatio est incorruptionis.
356. Deinde [cfr. 336,353] cum dicit Unusquisque in qua vocatione, etc., hic concludit regulam generalem, dicens unusquisque, etc., quasi dicat: Ita Gentilis non inducatur ad circumcisionem, nec e converso; sed potius unusquisque in qua conditione vocatus est, in ea, scilicet conditione vocationi non repugnante, in ea permaneat, et in qua, non a qua. In Glossa [Ord.] Augustini: Hoc enim,ad eas consuetudines vitae retulit, quae nihil obsunt fidei bonisque moribus; sicut enim coniux, sic et latro ad fidem vocatur. Sed ille in coniugio manet, non a coniuglo revocatur. Iste vero a latrocinio revocatur, et in latrocinio non manet. Non enim necesse est ut coniuges desinant esse coniuges propter Christi fidem, sicut necesse est ut latrones desinant esse latrones.
357. Hic quaeritur super illud [v. 10] Uxorem a viro non discedere, quare solam causam fornicationis Dominus excipit, caeteras vero omnes molestias iubet fortiter sustineri. Contra Lev. XIII, 26 praecipit lex leprosum extra castra eiicere; ergo pro lepra de bet uxor a viro discedere. Respondeo: Licet possit ob lepram disce dere a cohabitatione, nen tamen a thoro, quin aliquando teneatur reddere debitum, prope eam manendo.
358. Item [v. II] Aut viro suo reconciliari. Contra, Deut. XXIV, 4 dicitur, quod semel repudiata non potest amplius reconciliari. Respondeo: Illud habebat locum in repudio legali, istud vero in divortio evangelico. Lex enim erat severitatis, sed evangelium pietatis.
359. Item [cf. n. 338 s.] super illud [v. 11]: Vir uxorem non dimittat Glossa notabilis [Lomb.]: Non subdit de viro sicut de muliere, quia licet viro aliam ducere. Contra Augustinus dicit quod similis forma debet servari in viro et muliere. Respondeo: Illud primum in libris Ambrosii a falsariis creditur additum. Vel dicendum quod illud Ambrosii intelligitur in repudio hoc autem in divortio; nam in repudio legali licebat viro contrahere, non uxori, quia licebat antiquitus uni viro habere plures uxo res, non econverso, quia per repudium illud solvebatur matrimonium, non autem per di vortium.
360. Item [v. 12] Nam caeteris ego dico, non Dominus. Contra Matth. IX (1): Qui vos audit, me audit. Respondeo. Non Dominus dicit ore pro prio, sed inspirando.
361. Item super illud [v. 12] Si quis frater habet uxorem, Glossa: Coniux fidelis licite potest dimittere infidelem, Contra, catholica non potest dimittere haereticum. Glossa loquitur de infideli qui caret sacramento fidei, non solum habitu.
362. Item ibidem Glossa: Non est reputandum matrimonium quod extra decretum Dei factum est. Contra: Ergo matrimonium contractum causa voluptatis non est matrimonium. Respondeo. Extra decretum Dei matrimonium contrahi dicitur, quando contrahitur inter personas lege prohibitas.
363. Item [v. 13] Si qua mulier habet virum infidelem, etc. Contra: Ergo Iudaea conversa non debet dimittere virum Iudaeum, cohabitare volentem. Respondeo. Secus est hodie quam tempore primitivae ecclesiae, quia tunc erat spes conversionis, nunc autem potius est spes subver sionis propter obstinationem infidelium.
364. Item super illud [v. 15] Quod si infidelis, discedat, Glossa: Recte dimittitur mulier si dicat viro, "Non ero mulier tua, nisi de latrocinio divitias mihi augeas." Contra Matth. XIX, 9 excipitur sola causa fornicationis. Respondeo. Tunc, debet dimitti, ne scandalum, ad tempus exortum, sit in perpetuum.
365. Item super illud [v. 15] Non est enim servituti subiectus, Glossa: Contumelia creatoris solvit ius matrimonii in eo qui relinquitur, Contra: Matrimonium semper est inter duos; ergo in utroque solvitur vel in nullo. Respondeo. Matrimonium solvitur in utroque, sed impedimentum ex matrimonio resultans, manet in discedente solum.
366. Item [v. 19] Circumcisio nihil est. Contra Circumcisio quidem prodest, si legem observes. Respondeo. Ante Christum proderat, sed post non prodest.
367. Item super illud [v. 20] Unusquisque in qua vocatione, Glossa: Ad salutem nihil prodest vel obest Iudaicus vel Gentilis ritus. Contra, Gal. v. 2: Si circumcidimini, Christus vobis nihil prod est. Responsio. Glossa loquitur de ritu conversandi inter homines, non de ritu Deum colendi.
7-4
1 Cor 7:21-2421 δοῦλος ἐκλήθης; μή σοι μελέτω: ἀλλ' εἰ καὶ δύνασαι ἐλεύθερος γενέσθαι, μᾶλλον χρῆσαι. 22 ὁ γὰρ ἐν κυρίῳ κληθεὶς δοῦλος ἀπελεύθερος κυρίου ἐστίν: ὁμοίως ὁ ἐλεύθερος κληθεὶς δοῦλός ἐστιν Χριστοῦ. 23 τιμῆς ἠγοράσθητε: μὴ γίνεσθε δοῦλοι ἀνθρώπων. 24 ἕκαστος ἐν ᾧ ἐκλήθη, ἀδελφοί, ἐν τούτῳ μενέτω παρὰ θεῷ.
368. Superius [n. 350] ostendit quod si infidelis coniux non discedat, fidelis debet patienter commanere. Primo ad hoc allegando spem conversionis infidelis; secundo permanentiam in statu propriae vocationis; tertio exemplum in ritu conversationis, hic; quarto allegat exemplum in statu conditionis. Ubi primo ipsum exemplum ponit; secundo rationem exempli subdit, ibi [n. 370] Qui enim in Domino, etc.; tertio ex hoc regulam generalem concludit, ibi [n. 372] Unusquisque ergo, etc. In prima primo proponit in aliquo statum servilem; secundo supponit libertatis possibilitatem, ibi Sed et si potes, etc.; tertio horum praeeminentiam ad salutem, ibi Magis utere.
369. Dicit ergo Servus, etc., quasi dicat: Unusquisque in qua vocatione vocatus est, in ea permaneat, verbi gratia, servus vocatus es? ad fidem scilicet Christi, non sit tibi curae, ut scilicet velis servitutem effugere. Unde Onesimum servum Philemonis, qui ad eum confugerat, cum precibus remittit ad dominum, ut patet in epistola ad Philemonem; sed, potius, si potes fieri liber, maneas in servitute, quia causa est humilitatis. Et sicut ait Ambrosius: Quanto quis despectior est in hoc saeculo propter Dominum, tanto magis exaltabitur in futuro. Gregorius: Quanto quis Deo pretiosior est, tanto propter eum utilior. Boetius: Cum omnis fortuna timenda sit, magis tamen prospera quam adversa.
370. Deinde cum dicit Qui enim in Domino vocatus est, etc., hic subdit rationem exempli. Et primo ponit rationem exempli ex parte servorum; secundo ex parte liberorum, ibi [n. 371] Similiter qui liber est, etc. Et est ratio talis in generali: Servitus et libertas sunt in Domino ad salutem, sed v. 23 Pretio empti estis: nolite fieri servi hominum. v.24 [n. 374] Unusquisque ergo in quo vocatus est irater, in hoc permaneat apud Deum. solum debemus esse solliciti de pertinentibus ad salutem, ergo pro indifferenti debet esse nobis servitus et libertas. Dicit ergo Qui enim in Domino, quasi dicat: Et vere non debes curare, enim, pro quia, qui in Domino, id est in fide Domini, vocatus est servus, servitute corporali, libertus est Domini; quia scilicet a Domino manumissus liber est libertate spirituali. Est autem libertus a servitute liberatus, et talis a servitute peccati a Domino est liberatus; ideo Domini libertus. Io. VIII, 36: Si Filius vos liberaverit, vere liberi eritis.
371. Deinde cum dicit Similiter qui liber vocatus est, etc., hic ponit rationem ex parte liberorum. Ubi primo tangit in liberis cum servis pro Christo debitam servitutem; secundo servitutis rationem, ibi Pretio empti; tertio servitutis obligationem, ibi Nolite, etc. Dicit ergo: Similiter et qui liber vocatus est, libertate corporali, servus est Christi, servitute spirituali, Rom. I, 1: Paulus servus Christi Iesu, etc., quia sive servus, sive liber, omnes tamen servi. Et hoc iustum est, quia pretio empti estis. Hoc dicitur, quia pretio inaestimabili sanguine Christi. I Petr. I, 18: Non corruptibilibus auro vel argento redempti estis de vestra vana conversatione, etc. Et quia tanto pretio empti estis, nolite fieri servi hominum, postponendo servitium Dei et vos humanis superstitionibus occupando, hoc enim faciebant isti. Supra I, 12: Ego sum Pauli, ego autem Apollo.
372. Unusquisque ergo, et circumcisus et praeputiatus, servus et liber, in quo, statu, vocatus est frater, id est fidelis, in hoc perman eat apud Deum, scilicet observando divina mandata. Qui enim perseveraverit usque in finem, hic salvus erit, Matth. XXIV. V. 13. Ergo si coniugatus vocatus est ad fidem, maneat coniugatus, servando fidem.
7-5
1 Cor 7:25-2825 περὶ δὲ τῶν παρθένων ἐπιταγὴν κυρίου οὐκ ἔχω, γνώμην δὲ δίδωμι ὡς ἠλεημένος ὑπὸ κυρίου πιστὸς εἶναι. 26 νομίζω οὖν τοῦτο καλὸν ὑπάρχειν διὰ τὴν ἐνεστῶσαν ἀνάγκην, ὅτι καλὸν ἀνθρώπῳ τὸ οὕτως εἶναι. 27 δέδεσαι γυναικί; μὴ ζήτει λύσιν: λέλυσαι ἀπὸ γυναικός; μὴ ζήτει γυναῖκα. 28 ἐὰν δὲ καὶ γαμήσῃς, οὐχ ἥμαρτες: καὶ ἐὰν γήμῃ ἡ παρθένος, οὐχ ἥμαρτεν. θλῖψιν δὲ τῇ σαρκὶ ἕξουσιν οἱ τοιοῦτοι, ἐγὼ δὲ ὑμῶν φείδομαι.
373. A principio huius cap. [n. 312] egit de matrimonio, hic incipit pars secunda, in qua agit de virginitate. Ubi primo agit de virginibus; secundo de virginum custodibus, ibi [n. 400] Si quis autem turpem se videri existimat, etc. In prima, primo ponit virginibus permanendi in virginitate consilium; secundo nubentibus dat bene vivendi modum, ibi [n. 379] Hoc itaque dico, fratres, etc. tertio ostendit quod magis expedit servare continentiae propositum, ibi [n. 390] Volo autem vos sine sollicitudine esse, etc. In prima parte virginitatem consulit et laudat: secundo matrimonium iam contractum concedit et approbat, ibi [n. 376] Alligatus es uxori, etc.; tertio matrimonium contrahendum defendit, et a peccato excusat, ibi [n. 377] Si autem acceperis uxorem, etc. In prima dicit duo de virginitate. Primo quod non est servanda ex praecepto; secundo quod est servanda ex consilio, ibi [n. 375] Consilium autem do. Ubi ponit duplicem rationem quare istud consilium est servandum. Prima est consiliarii auctoritas; secunda rei consultae dignitas, ibi Existimo enim hoc bonum.
374. Dicit ergo De virginibus, etc., quasi dicat: de coniugatis non separandis praeceptum Dei est, de virginibus: autem praeceptum Domini non habeo; ut scilicet contineant, vel ut nubant. Quod enim de hoc dixit Dominus, Matth. XIX, 12, dixit consulendo: Qui potest, inquit, capere, capiat. Virginitas autem, secundum Augustinum res est non praecepta, suaderi potest, imperari non potest. Consilium autem do, scilicet de continendo, consilium mihi a Spiritu Sancto inspiratum. Tob. IV, 19: Consilium semper a sapiente perquire, Consilium, inquam, do, et hoc, tamquam consecutus a Domino misericordiam, id est, apostolatum mihi misericorditer concessum. Consecutus, inquam, ad hoc ut sim fidelis, in dispensatione mihi credita. Unde credendum est mihi in consiliis. Lc. C. XII, 42: Quis putas est fidelis servus? Haymo: Quia ei mandatum fuit ut esset fidelis consiliator, non debuit consilium indigentibus abscondere. Et est argumentum quod est acquiescendum consilio praelati.
375. Deinde cum dicit Existimo ergo, etc., hic tangitur dignitas eius quod consulitur. Et haec duplex: Una quia expediens bonum; secunda, quia honestum, ibi Quoniam bonum est, etc. Dicit ergo existimo, etc., quasi dicat: quia fidelis consiliarius sum, existimo ergo hoc bonum esse, scilicet manere in virginitate, et hoc propter instantem necessitatem, coniugium scilicet vitandum, quia multae necessitates instant. Unde dicuntur esse in mola, Lc. XVII, 31 [Matth. XXIV, 41). Unde vulgariter dicitur quod matrimonium habet magnum os. Existimo, inquam, et vere, quia bonum est homini sic esse, scilicet in virginitate. Bonum scilicet honestum propter puritatem, delectabile propter libertatem, utile propter mercedem, quia ei debetur aureola et fructus centesimus, Lc. VIII. Augustinus in Glossa: Supergreditur virginitas conditionem humanae naturae, per quam homines angelis assimilantur. Maior tamen victoria virginum quam angelorum. Angeli enim sine carne vivunt, virgines autem in carne triumphant.
376. Deinde cum dicit Alligatus es uxori, etc., hic matrimonium contractum concedit et approbat. Ubi primo dicit quod coniugatus non debet quaerere divortium; secundo consulit quod solutus non quaerat coniugium, ibi Solutus es ab uxore, etc. Dicit ergo Alligatus, etc.; quasi dicat: Licet continere sit bonum, tamen alligatus es uxori? noli quaerere solutionem, maxime si bona est. Eccli. VII, 21: Noli discedere a muliere sensata. Et dicit alligatus, quasi duplici vinculo ligatus, scilicet consensu per matrimonium initiatum, et copula carnali per matrimonium consummatum. Si enim tantum uno vinculo, scilicet solo consensu ligatus esset, posset quaerere solutionem, scilicet intrando religionem. Solutus es ab uxore? noli quaerere uxorem, si potes continere, quia, sicut dicunt Apostoli Matth. XIX, 10, Si ita est causa hominis cum uxore, non expedit nubere.
377. Deinde cum dicit Si autem acceperis, etc., hic excusat matrimonium contrahendum a peccato. Ubi primo ostendit quod matrimonium potest contrahi sine peccato; secundo quod levius est esse sine coniugio, ibi Tribulationem tamen, etc. In prima primo proponit veritatem de non virgine; secundo de virgine, ibi Et si nupserit, etc. Dicit ergo: Si autem solutus es, noli quaerere uxorem. Si autem acceperis uxorem, scilicet bono fine, non ad expletionem libidinis, non peccasti. Hic autem est argumentum evidens contra haereticos qui contemnunt matrimonium, de quibus I Tim. IV, 3: Prohibentes nubere. Et similiter si nupserit virgo, non virgo Deo dicata, quia, secundum Hieronymum, voventibus virginitatem non solum nubere, sed etiam velle nubere peccatum est; non peccavit, scilicet nubendo, alioquin peccasset beata Virgo, cum desponsata esset loseph. Tribulationem tamen carnis habebunt huiusmodi, scilicet coniugati, id est, afflictionem pro rebus necessariis procurandis et sibi et filiis suis et aliis. Unde levius est esse sine coniugio. Ego aut em vobis parco, quasi dicat: Consulo evitare coniugium, quod tamen concedo, parcendo infirmitati vestrae. Vel sic: ego autem vobis parco, in hoc quod consulo cavere tribulationes carnis.
378. Notandum est hic quod sancta virginitas magnum bonum est propter multa.
- Primo, quia carnis munditia servat, Apoc. c. XIV, 4: Hi sunt qui cum mulieribus non sunt coinquinati, virgines enim sunt: sicut bonum est sal quia conservat carnem a corruptione.
- Secundo, quia animam decorat et ornat. Unde frequenter in Scriptura iungitur virgo pulchra, Sap. IV, 1: O quam pulchra est casta generatio cum claritate; Cant. IV, 7: Tota pulchra es, amica mea.
- Tertio, quia angelis caeli assimilatur, sicut hic dicit Glossa, et Matth. XXII, 30: In resurrectione neque nubent, neque nubentur, sed erunt sicut Angeli Dei. Hieronymus: "In carne praeter carnem vivere, etc.".
- Quarto, quia Christo desponsat, II Cor. c. XI, 2: Despondi enim vos uni viro virginem castam exhibere Christo.
- Quinto, quia iungit et approximat Deo, Ps. XLIV, 15: Adducentur regi virgines post eam; Sap. VI, 20: Dux virginitatis meae tu es.
- Sexto, quia caeteris statibus praeponderat, Ecc1i. XXVI, 30: Non est digna ponderatio animae continentis; infra [VII, 38]: Qui matrimonio iungit virginem bene facit, qui non iungit melius facit.
- Septimo, quia odorem bonae famae spirat. Lucae [I, 27] dicitur: Et nomen virginis Maria; Cant. II, 2: Sicut lilium inter spinas, sic amica mea inter filias Ierusalem.
- Octavo, quia ad nuptias aeternas invitat, Matth. XXV, 10: Quae paratae erant intraverunt cum eo ad nuptias.
Sed, heu, quia ad conservandum difficilis, ideo Ecc1i. XLII, 9: Filia patris abscondita est, etc. Et hoc quia diabolus suggerit contrarium. Corruptio inclinat ad actum, pulchritudo allicit ad consensum.
7-6
1 Cor 7:29-3129 τοῦτο δέ φημι, ἀδελφοί, ὁ καιρὸς συνεσταλμένος ἐστίν: τὸ λοιπὸν ἵνα καὶ οἱ ἔχοντες γυναῖκας ὡς μὴ ἔχοντες ὦσιν, 30 καὶ οἱ κλαίοντες ὡς μὴ κλαίοντες, καὶ οἱ χαίροντες ὡς μὴ χαίροντες, καὶ οἱ ἀγοράζοντες ὡς μὴ κατέχοντες, 31 καὶ οἱ χρώμενοι τὸν κόσμον ὡς μὴ καταχρώμενοι: παράγει γὰρ τὸ σχῆμα τοῦ κόσμου τούτου.
379. Haec est secunda pars [n. 373], ubi nubentibus sive nuptis ostendit bene vivendi modum, docens primo qualiter utantur uxoribus; secundo qualiter fortunae casibus sive eventibus, ibi [n. 381] Et qui flent, etc; tertio qualiter mundi rebus sive possessionibus, ibi [n. 382] Et qui emunt, etc., quarto subdit rationem in his admonitionibus, ibi [n. 383] Praeterit enim figura.
380. In prima implicat tria, scilicet auctoritatem consiliarii, Hoc itaque dico, etc.; necessitatem consulendi Tempus breve est, etc.; formam consilii Reliquum est, etc.
Dicit ergo Hoc itaque, quasi dicat: Quia non est peccatum nubere, hoc itaque dico, fratres, si coniugii tempus breve est, quo scilicet non generatione carnali propagandus est populus Dei, sed regeneratione spirituali colligendus, secundum Glossam; et quia tempus breve est, reliquum est, id est hoc solum restat agendum, ut qui habent uxores, sint tam quam non habentes, studendo servitio Dei, non autem operi carnali, debitum scilicet exigendo. Unde dicitur sint tamquam non habentes, non dicit: "tamquam non habenti", sicut erant antiqui patres; propter quod dicit Augustinus quod caelibatus Ioannis non praefertur coniugio Abrahae; sed hodie faciunt e converso, quia qui non habent sunt tamquam habentes. Est autem notandum quod tamquam non habens uxorem est qui vel uxori debitum reddit nec exigit, vel propter infirmitatem uxorem ducit, dolens quod sine ea esse nequit, vel pari affectu continentiam custodit, vel causa generandae prolis ad cultum Dei uxorem propriam cognoscit.
381. Et qui flent, pro casibus coniugii vel pro aliqua tristitia saeculi, sint tamquam non flentes, consolati scilicet spe appropinquantis boni futuri. Prov. XII, 21: Non contristabit iustum quidquid ei acciderit. Et qui gaudent, pro aliqua prosperitate saeculi, tamquam non gaudentes, sed tamquam in timore existentes imminentis mali periculi. Ecc1e. XI, V. 27: In die bonorum ne immemor sis malorum.
382. Deinde, cum dicit Et qui emunt, hic ostendit qualiter utantur mundi rebus sive possessionibus. Et primo qualiter uti debeant acquirendis; secundo qualiter acquisitis, ibi Et qui utuntur, etc.
Dicit ergo qui emunt, tamquam non possidentes, id est, post haec terrena non sedentes, scilicet supple, non apponendo cor rebus perituris. Ps. LXI, 11: Divitiae si affluant, nolite cor apponere. Ez. VII, 12: Qui emit, non laetetur: et qui vendit, non lugeat. Et, ut universaliter colligam, qui utuntur hoc mundo, id est, rebus mundanis; non dico fruuntur ut mali qui de eis malum faciunt finem, qui dicunt, Sap. II, 6: Fruamur bonis quae sunt, id est, praesentibus; sed qui utuntur eis ad finem debitum referendo, sint tamquam non utantur, id est, non adhaereant eis nimia delectatione. I Tim. VI, 8: Habentes alimenta et quibus tegamur, his content; simus.
Praeter actum ergo coniugalem ponit quatuor differentias actuum circa sollicitudinem mundanorum, scilicet flere, gaudere, emere, uti. Duo primi pertinent ad affectum, duo alii ad effectum. Ex humana vero sollicitudine generatur duplex effectus, scilicet emendi respectu habendorum, et utendi respectu habitorum; et secundum hoc ponit Apostolus consilium temperantiae in his quatuor actibus.
383.Deinde, cum dicit Praeterit enim figura, etc., hic subdit rationem praedictarum admonitionum, quae talis est: Transitoria sunt reputanda quasi non sint, sed talia sunt mundana peritura, ergo quasi non sint sunt reputanda. Et hoc est quod dicit, quod ideo mundana quasi non sint aestimanda sunt, quia praeterit figura, id est, exterior pulchritudo, vel quod est ibi fragile conveniens statui fragilitatis. Transibunt enim qualitates mortales, et remanebunt immortales. Ideo transibit mundus et concupiscentia eius. Omnia notanda: quia figura, non substantia mundi, non paradisi, praeterit, non sistit.
384. Hic quaeritur super illud [v. 21]: Si potest fieri liber, Glossa: Quanto quis propter Deum despectior est in hoc saeculo, tanto magis exaltabitur in futuro. Contra, ergo magis exaltabitur bonus subditus, quam bonus praelatus. Respondeo. Glossa intelligenda est caeteris paribus.
385. Item super illud [v. 20]: Unusquisque, in quo vocatus est. Glossa: Contra, ergo qui vocatus est in statu saeculari, non debet intrare religionem. Respondeo. Apostolus loquitur de statibus promoventibus ad salutem, non de impedientibus.
386. Item, super illud [v. 26]: Existimo hoc bonum esse, Glossa: Maior est victoria virginum, quam angelorum. Contra, ergo maior corona; ergo homines erunt maiores angelis, non solum aequales. Respondeo. Maior extensive, id est, multiplicative, quia habent aureolam non solum auream.
387. Item super illud [v. 26]: Bonum est homini sic esse, Glossa: In virginitate. Contra Gen. I, 28: Crescite et multiplicamini; virginitas autem contra ria est huic praecepto. Respondeo. Illud praeceptum non est perpetuum, sed datum usque ad tempus sufficientis multiplicationis humani generis.
388. Item super illud [v. 29]: Qui habent uxores, Glossa: Beatiora coniugia iudicanda sunt quae prole concepta, pari consensu continentiam servare potuerunt. Contra, unumquodque tanto beatius est, quanto magis convenit fini suo: finis autem coniugii est generatio prolis. Respondeo. Expone: coniugia, id est, coniuges. Vel dicendum est quod ille non est ultimus finis coniugii, sed adimpletio numeri electorum, qui citius impleretur, si omnes continerent.
389. Item super illud [v. 31]: Praeterit figura huius mundi, Glossa: In iudicio mundanorum ignium fiagratione huius mundi peribit non substantia, sed figura. Contra II Petro III, 10: Per quem caeli magno impetu transient. Respondeo. Ille transitus et ilia solutio accidentalis est, non substantialis, id est, secundum qualitatem, non secundum substantiam.
7-7
1 Cor 7:32-3532 θέλω δὲ ὑμᾶς ἀμερίμνους εἶναι. ὁ ἄγαμος μεριμνᾷ τὰ τοῦ κυρίου, πῶς ἀρέσῃ τῷ κυρίῳ: 33 ὁ δὲ γαμήσας μεριμνᾷ τὰ τοῦ κόσμου, πῶς ἀρέσῃ τῇ γυναικί, 34 καὶ μεμέρισται. καὶ ἡ γυνὴ ἡ ἄγαμος καὶ ἡ παρθένος μεριμνᾷ τὰ τοῦ κυρίου, ἵνα ᾖ ἁγία καὶ τῷ σώματι καὶ τῷ πνεύματι: ἡ δὲ γαμήσασα μεριμνᾷ τὰ τοῦ κόσμου, πῶς ἀρέσῃ τῷ ἀνδρί. 35 τοῦτο δὲ πρὸς τὸ ὑμῶν αὐτῶν σύμφορον λέγω, οὐχ ἵνα βρόχον ὑμῖν ἐπιβάλω, ἀλλὰ πρὸς τὸ εὔσχημον καὶ εὐπάρεδρον τῷ κυρίῳ ἀπερισπάστως.
390. Superius dedit primo virginibus consilium continendi [n. 373], secundo nubentibus documentum bene vivendi [n. 379], hic tertio ostendit quod magis expedit tempus continendi. Et hoc ostendit, primo ratione maioris tranquillitatis; secundo ratione maioris sanctitatis, ibi [n. 394] Et mulier innupta, etc.; tertio ratione maioris utilitatis, ibi [numer. 397] Porro hoc ad utilitatem vestram, etc.
391. Prima ratio talis est: tranquillitas in amore solius Dei praeferenda est sollicitudini mundanorum; sed continentes habent tranquillitatem, coniugati sollicitudinem mundi: ergo status continentium praeferendus est statui coniugatorum. Primo ergo dehortatur sollicitudinem mundi; secundo subdit quod continentes non sunt solliciti nisi in his quae sunt Dei, ibi [n. 393] Quoniam qui sine uxore, etc.; tertio ostendit quod coniugatos oportet esse sollicitos in his quae sunt mundi, ibi [n. 393] Qui autem cum uxore, etc.
392. Dicit ergo Volo autem, quasi dicat: Si nubitis, praedicta facere consulo; sed magis volo vos esse sine sollicitudine rei uxoriae. Phil. IV, 6: Nihil solliciti sitis. Nota quod dehortatur nos Scriptura a sollicitudine triplici: scilicet
- circa mulierem, ut hic Volo vos sine sollicitudine esse;
- circa ventrem, Matth. VI, 25: Ne solliciti sitis animae vestrae, etc.;
- circa bursam, Prov. XI, 7: Expectatio sollicitorum peribit.
Et recte hoc volo, quia qui sine uxore est, sollicitus est quae Domini sunt, ut complaceat ei. Non enim habet excusationem illorum qui dicunt Lc. XIV, 20: Uxorem duxi, et non possum venire. Sollicitus, inquam, scilicet quomodo placeat Deo, interiori scilicet pulchritudine sua. Felix cuius votum est uxorem fugere, cuius sollicitudo est Domino servire, cuius intentio est Deo placere.393. Deinde, cum dicit Qui autem cum uxore est, etc., hic ostendit quomodo coniugatos oportet esse sollicitos in his quae sunt mundi, ubi implicantur quatuor gravia. Primo vinculum coniugale, ibi Qui cum uxore est; studium mundiale, ibi Sollicitus est; subiectio uxoris, ibi Quomodo placeat; operis divisio, ibi Et divisus est.
Dicit ergo Qui autem cum uxore est, scilicet in matrimonio, sollicitus est quae sunt mundi, id est, de regimine familiae et huiusmodi. Unde Jacob, acceptis uxoribus, ait Gen. xxx, 30: Iustum est ut aliquando provideam domui meae, id est, sollicitus sim quomodo placeam uxori. Et hoc fine potest se licite ornare. Nam, secundum Glossam, magna amaritudo in domo est uxor tristis.Et talis divisus est non natura, sed actu, scilicet divisione officii, non intention is principalis; unde Glossa partim servit Deo, partim mundo.
394. Deinde, cum dicit Et mulier innupta, etc., hic ponitur secunda ratio probans quod magis expedit servare propositum continentiae quam nubere, ratione maioris sanctitatis. Et est ratio sua talis: Continens studet sanctitati et divinitati et amori Dei, nupta vero mundo: ergo illa praeferenda est isti. Primo ergo tangit studium innuptae, quia cogitat totaliter placere Deo; secundo studium nuptae, quia cogitat partim placere mundo, ibi [n. 396] Quae autem nupta est.
395. In prima implicat tria, scilicet continentium statum, cogitatum et fructum; statum honestum, quia innupta et virgo; cogitatum rectum, quia cogitat quae Domini sunt; multiplicatum fructum, quia ut sit sancta, etc.
Dicit ergo: Et similiter mulier innupta, id est vidua, et virgo cogitat, id est, maiorem habet facultatem cogitandi, quae Domini sunt, id est, spiritualia et aeterna. Cogitat, inquam, ut sit sancta, magis quam nupta. Multae enim nuptae sunt sanctae. Augustinus, De Bono coniugali: Ampliorem non nuptarum et in corpore et in spiritu sanctificationem intelligi voluit, non tamen nuptas omnino sanctificatione privavit. Sancta, inquam, corpore, id est, corporalibus actionibus, et spiritu, id est, spiritualibus actionibus. Vel sancta corpore, contra vitia carnalia, et spiritu, contra spiritualia.
396. Deinde, cum dicit Quae autem nupta est, hic tangit sollicitudinem nuptarum, ubi implicat tria. Primo coniugium; secundo sollicitudinem, ibi Cogitat quae, etc.; tertio coniugii studium, ibi Quomodo placeat, etc.
Dicit ergo: Quae autem nupta est cogitat quae mundi sunt, scilicet de cura filiorum, de regimine domus, et huiusmodi. Unde parentes monuerunt Saram honorare socrum, diligere maritum, gubernare domum, etc., Tob. X, 30. Cogitat, inquam, quomodo placeat viro, unde hoc fine ornantes se non peccant: verumtamen magis debent studere ei placere ornatu morum quam vestimentorum. I Tim. n, 9: Mulieres in habitu ornato ornantes se, non in tortis crinibus, aura, etc.
397. Deinde, cum dicit Porro hoc ad utilitatem, etc., hic allegat tertiam rationem, scilicet maiorem utilitatem. Et est ratio talis: Illud quod est utilius, magis expedit; sed continere est utilius quam nubere, ergo magis expedit eligere continentiam quam nuptias. Primo ergo ostendit quod utile est continere; secundo quod honestum est, ibi Sed id quod est honestum, etc.; tertio quod facile, ibi Et quod facultatem, etc.
398. Dicit ergo Porro, etc., quasi dicat: Consulo non nubere, porro hoc ad utilitatem vestram, maiorem scilicet, dico, ut expeditius Deo serviatis, quia sic mortificatur caro quae est inimica spiritus. Augustinus De Verbis Domini [Serm. 98]: Sicut inimicus occisus non facit tibi iniuriam, sic caro mortificata non turbat animam. Dico, inquam, non ut laqueum, fornicationis scilicet, incontinentibus vobis iniiciam, aliquid difficile super hoc faciendo; imo potius laqueus poneretur, si consuleret nubere, quia de muliere dicitur Eccle. VII, 27, quod laqueus venatorum est, sed potius intendens inducere omnes ad id quod honestum est, scilicet ad sanctitatem corporis et animae: non quia coniugalis status non sit honestus, sed quia minus honestus. Augustinus, De Bono Viduali [Cap. V]: Non matrimonium turpe esse monstravit, sed quod honestius erat generalis honesti nomine commendavit, et monens ad illud quod facultatem praebeat alicui observandi se in Domino, id est, ad servitium Domini, et hoc sine impedimento quod est in coniugio. II Cor. XI, 2: Despondi vos uni viro virginem castam exhibere Christo. Vere eligendus est status continentiae, ubi maius commodum, quia hoc ad utilitatem; ubi minus periculum, quia non ut laqueum; maior honestas, quia id quod honestum; liberior facultas serviendi Deo, quia facultatem praebet, etc.
399. Notandum est hic quod multiplex sollicitudo est bona.
- Prima praelationis, sicut nauta sollicitus est de regimine navis, pater de filiis. Rom. XII, v. 8: Qui praeest in sollicitudine.
- Secunda praedicationis, sicut paedagogus sollicitus est de puero, doctor de disci pulis. I Thess. II, 2: Fiduciam habuimus loqui ad vas verbum Dei in multa sollicitudine.
- Tertia dilectionis, sicut amicus verus sollicitus est de conservatione amoris. Eph. IV, 3: Solliciti servare unitatem spiritus in vinculo pacis, etc.
- Quarta compassionis, sicut vir misericors sollicitus est de egenis et afflictis. II Tim. I, v. 17: Cum venisset Romam, sollicite me quaesivit et invenit.
- Quinta devotionis, sicut servus sollicitus est de placendo domino, religiosus Deo. Mich. VI, 8: Indicabo tibi, a homo, quid sit bonum, et post: Sollicite ambulare cum Deo tuo.
- Sexta circumspectionis, sicut speculator est de castro custodiendo. Deut. IV, 15: Custodite animas vestras sollicite. Corpus enim cum organis, anima cum potentiis quoddam castrum est.
- Septima actionis, sicut agricola sollicitus est de opere perficiendo. Lc. X, 41: Martha, Martha, sollicita es. II Tim. II, 15: Sollicite cura teipsum probabilem exhibere Deo.
- Octava provisionis, sicut dispensator de domo, mercator de computo, pauper de pane quaerendo. Rom. XII, 11: Sollicitudine non pigri.
7-9
1 Cor 7:36-4036 εἰ δέ τις ἀσχημονεῖν ἐπὶ τὴν παρθένον αὐτοῦ νομίζει ἐὰν ᾖ ὑπέρακμος, καὶ οὕτως ὀφείλει γίνεσθαι, ὃ θέλει ποιείτω: οὐχ ἁμαρτάνει: γαμείτωσαν. 37 ὃς δὲ ἕστηκεν ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ αὐτοῦ ἑδραῖος, μὴ ἔχων ἀνάγκην, ἐξουσίαν δὲ ἔχει περὶ τοῦ ἰδίου θελήματος, καὶ τοῦτο κέκρικεν ἐν τῇ ἰδίᾳ καρδίᾳ, τηρεῖν τὴν ἑαυτοῦ παρθένον, καλῶς ποιήσει: 38 ὥστε καὶ ὁ γαμίζων τὴν ἑαυτοῦ παρθένον καλῶς ποιεῖ, καὶ ὁ μὴ γαμίζων κρεῖσσον ποιήσει. 39 γυνὴ δέδεται ἐφ' ὅσον χρόνον ζῇ ὁ ἀνὴρ αὐτῆς: ἐὰν δὲ κοιμηθῇ ὁ ἀνήρ, ἐλευθέρα ἐστὶν ᾧ θέλει γαμηθῆναι, μόνον ἐν κυρίῳ. 40 μακαριωτέρα δέ ἐστιν ἐὰν οὕτως μείνῃ, κατὰ τὴν ἐμὴν γνώμην, δοκῶ δὲ κἀγὼ πνεῦμα θεοῦ ἔχειν.
400. Superius egit de virginibus [num. 373] hic agit de virginum custodibus, ostendens primo quod licet eis virgines suas coniugio copulare; secundo quod non similiter nuptis licet, nisi post mortem viri, contrahere, ibi [n. 405] Mulier alligata est, etc. In prima, primo ostendit quod custos potest dare virginem suam in coniugio; secundo quod non peccat hoc faciendo, ibi [n. 402] Nec peccat, si nubat, etc.; tertio quod etiam bene facit servando, ibi [n. 403] Nam qui statuit, etc.;. quarto quod licet utrumque sit bonum, tamen hoc est melius illo, ibi [n. 404] Igitur et qui matrimonio, etc.
401. In prima, primo supponit in virgine aetatem nubilem; secundo voluntatem nubendi ibi Et ita oportuit fieri, etc.; tertio dat nubendi licentiam, ibi Quod vult faciat, etc.
Dicit ergo Si quis autem, etc., quasi dicat: Esse sine coniugio, honestius est et expeditus, sed tamen si quis turpem se videri existimat apud iudicium hominum super virgine sua, timens ne corrumpatur, eo quod sit superadulta, id est, ultra pubertatem et iam in nubilibus annis, et ita oportet fieri ut nubat, quia non vult continere, quod vult, virgo, faciat, custos. Eccli. VII, 27: Trade filiam tuam, et grande opus fecisti, et homini sensato da illam.
402. Nec peccat custos, si nubat virgo: hoc ideo dicit, secundum Glossam, ne, etsi virgo non peccet, custos videatur peccare. Augustinus, De Bono Viduitatis [Cap. IX]: Quae si non continet, nubat; quae non coepit, deliberet; quae egressa est, perseveret; nulla adversario detur occasio, sed falsa retrahatur oblatio.
403. Deinde, cum dicit Nam qui statuit, etc., hic ostendit quod custos virginis bene facit eam in statu virginali servando, ubi implicatur quadruplex conditio ad hoc expediens. Prima quod custos firmus sit in proposito eam virginem custodiendi; secunda quod non timeat de casu virginali, ibi Non habens necessitatem, etc.; tertia quod cognoscat in virgine propositum continendi, ibi Potestatem autem habens, etc.; quarta quod hoc faciat ex deliberatione, ibi Et hoc iudicavit.
Dicit ergo Nam qui statuit, etc., quasi dicat: Ideo autem dico quod non peccat qui tradit virginem, nam de alio, qui servat eam, patet quod bene faciat. Nam qui statuit in corde servare virginem suam, firmus in prooosito suo, non curans sobolem, vel aliud huiusmodi, non habens necessitatem tradendi eam, cum virgo velit continere, potestatem autem habens, secundum alumnae continentiam, voluntatis suae perficiendae. Et hoc iudicavit in corde suo, id est, ex iudicio rationis, non ex levitate mentis discernit esse bonum. I Tim. v, 21: Sine praeiudicio nihil facias. Iudicavit, inquam, servare virginem suam. Ambrosius, super hunc locum: Non ingerens ei fomitem nuptiarum, Eccli. VII, 26: Filiae tibi sunt? serva corpus illarum. Qui facit, inquam, sic bene facit.
404. Deinde, cum dicit Igitur et qui matrimonio, etc., hic ostendit quod licet utrumque sit bonum, tamen virginitas est melior matrimonio. Ubi primo approbat statum coniugalem: secundo praeponit statum virginalem, ibi Qui non iungit, etc.
Dicit ergo Igitur et qui, etc., quasi dicat: Quia oportet fieri ut diximus igitur et qui matrimonio iungit virginem, bene facit, quia licitum est quod facit; et qui non iungit, cum virgo acquiescat continere, melius facit. Glossa [Lomb., co1. 1599 c]: Melius facit qui apud Deum meritum suum collocat et a sollcitudine liberat eam. Melius est enim quod licet et expedit, quam quod licet et non expedit. Hic enim bene utitur malo, ibi vero bene utitur bono. Bene utitur quis bono, continentiam dedicans Deo; male utitur quis bono, continentiam dedicans idolo. Male utitur quis malo, concupiscentiam relaxans adulterio; bene utitur malo, concupiscentiam restringens connubio. Bonum est pudicitia coniugalis, sed melius est continentia virginalis vel vidualis, secundum Glossam.
405. Deinde [Cfr. nn. 312, 373] cum dicit Mulier alligata est legi, etc., hic ostendit quod non similiter coniugata, nisi viro mortuo, potest contrahere. Ubi primo ostendit quod coniugata non potest nubere, viro vivente; secundo quod, viro mortuo, potest alii nubere, ibi [n. 407] Quod si dormierit, etc.; tertio quod melius est illi continere, ibi [n. 408] Beatior autem erit, etc.; quarto quod debet consilio eius credere, ibi [409] Puto autem quod et ego, etc.
406. Dicit ergo Mulier alligata est, etc.; quasi dicat: Qui non iungit virginem suam, melius facit: Et vere melius, quia mulier alligata est, etc. Vel sic: Virgo quocumque tempore potest nubere, sed uxorata non, quia mulier alligata est legi, ita ut non possit nubere alteri quanto tempore vir eius vivit. Rom. VII, 2: Quae autem sub vim est mulier, vivente viro est alligata legi viri.
407. Deinde, cum dicit Quod si dormierit, somno mortis. De qua dormitione 10. C. XI, 11: Lazarus amicus noster dormit. Vir eius, etc. Augustinus [De Bono Viduit., cap. XII]: Non dicit primus, secundus, vel tertius, vel quartus, vel quousque licet. Nec nobis diffiniendum est quod non diffinit Apostolus. Unde nec ullas nuptias debeo damnare, nec eis verecundiam numerositatis afferre. Si dormierit, inquam, liberata est a lege viri, unde permittitur ei nubere. Hic patet quod resurgenti non tenetur copulari. Sed cui vult nubat. Invitae enim nuptiae solent habere malos proventus; ideo dicitur Gen. XXIV, 57: Vocemus puellam, et quaeramus voluntatem eius. Nubat, inquam, tantum in Domino, id est, viro suae religionis; nam in dispari cultu prohibitum est in lege matrimonium. Deut. VII, 3. Per hanc licentiam Apostoli revocatae sunt omnes poenae et infamiae, quae secundum leges infligebantur olim mulieri secundo nubenti infra tempus luctus, scilicet intra annum. Ergo in nuptiis exigitur personarum legitimitas, unde dicitur liberata est; consensus libertas, unde addit cui vult nubat; cultus paritas, unde subdit tantum in Domino.
408. Deinde, cum dicit Beatior autem erit, etc., hic ostendit quod melius est illi continere quam nubere, dicens: Quamvis liceat ei nubere, tamen beatior erit, si sic permanserit, scilicet innupta. Et hoc est consilium meum super eodem datum: habebit enim fructum sexagesimum qui debetur viduis, Matth. XIII. Augustinus [De Bono Viduit., cap. VI]: Satis ostendit beatam esse post mortem viri, et secunda nubentem, sed beatior est non nubens.
409. Deinde, cum dicit Puto autem quod et ego, etc., hic ultimo ostendit quod debent consilio eius credere, quia, inspirante Spiritu Sancto, hoc consulit. Et hoc est quod dicit puto autem, etc., quasi dicat: Faciendum est secundum consilium meum, quia puto quod et ego, sicut caeteri Apostoli, spiritum Dei habeam. Rom. VIII, 23: Sed et nosipsi primitias spiritus habentes, etc. Hoc ergo consilium debet impleri et propter fructum sequentem, quia beatior erit; et propter consulentis auctoritatem, quia secundum consilium meum; et propter spiritum Dei inspirantem, quia puto, etc.
410. Hic quaeritur super illo verbo [v. 32] Volo vos sine sollicitudine esse. Contra Rom. XII, 11: Sollicitudine non pigri. Responsio. lbi loquitur de sollicitudine spirituali, hic de temporali.
411. Item super illo [v. 33] Divisus est. Contra Osee X, 2: Divisum est cor eorum, nunc interibunt, Responsio. Ibi loquitur de divisione intentionis principalis, hic de divisione actionis.
412. Item Glossa ibid.: Partim servit Deo, partim mundo, Contra Matth. VI, 24: Nemo potest duobus dominis servire. Responsio. Verum est ita quod aequaliter serviat utrique in eo quod duo, id est contrarii, sunt.
413. Item super illud [v. 34]: Mulier innupta cogitat quae Domini sunt. Glossa: Non cogitat ne damnetur a Deo. Contra: damnari potest, ut patet in parabola de fatuis virginibus. Responsio. Non cogitat hoc solum, sed cum hoc etiam ne offendat sponsum.
414. Item super illud [v. 34]: Ut sit sancta corpore et spiritu. Glossa: Non potest fieri ut non sit sanctum corpus quo utitur sanctificator spiritus. Contra: Spiritus Sanctus usus est lingua Caiphae non sancta, 10: XI, 49 S. Responsio. Utebatur ea ut spiritus, non ut sanctificator.
415. Item [v. 35]: Sed ad id quod honestum est. Contra: ergo matrimonium turpe. Responsio. Secundum Glossam positivum posuit pro comparativo.
416. ltem super illud [v. 38]: Qui non iungit, melius facit. Glossa: Hic, scilicet in coniugio, bene utitur homo malo. Contra: cuius usus bonus est, ipsum quoque bonum est. Responsio. Illud intelligitur de usu rei per se, scilicet ad quem ordinata est, non per accidens, scilicet ad quem ex prudentia utentis ordinatur.
417. Item Glossa ibid.: Melius est bene uti bono, quam bene uti malo. Contra: hoc difficilius ilIo. Responsio. Loquitur hic de malo vitii, non supplicii.
418. Item super illo verbo in Glossa, duae permissae. Contra: ergo duae nuptiae non sunt a Deo. Responsio. Non ex eo quod duae, nisi ex consequenti.
419. Item [v. 39] Si dormierit vir; quid dicendum est, si resuscitatur? Responsio. Requiritur consensus novus ad hoc quad sit matrimonium.
420. Item super illud [v. 40] Puto quod spiritum Dei habeam. Contra, Rom. VIII, 38: Certus sum quod neque mars, neque vita, etc. Responsio. Secundum Glossam non dicit hoc dubitando, sed quasi increpando.
421. Excluso errore circa correctionem criminum, cap. V et VI; item circa virginitatem et matrimonium, cap. VIl, hic excludit errorem circa esum et abstinentiam ciborum, cap. isto, IX et X, loquens de his quae idolis immolabantur, a quibus, quamvis in se licitis, abstinere monet, primo allegando eis scandalum infirmorum, cap. isto; secundo exemplum sui, qui propter alios abstinet a receptione sumptuum licitorum, cap. IX [n. 455]; tertio exemplum poenae Iudaeorum post tanta beneficia Dei in deserto prostratorum, cap. X [n. 517]. Ergo propter scandalum proximi, exemplo Apostoli, non propter timorem supplicii debemus abstinere a cibis aliquando licitis, In primo ostendit quod in se licita est comestio idolothitorum; secundo monet nihilominus abstinere propter scandalum fratrum infirmorum, ibi [n. 433] Videte ne forte, etc. In prima, primo proponit quod maiores eorum habent scientiam de idolothitis; secundo ostendit qualem scientiam habent de eis, ibi [n. 428] De escis autem quae idolis immolantur, etc.; tertio quod quidam infirmi hac scientia carent, ibi [n. 431] Sed non in omnibus est scientia, etc.; quarto quod alii coram eis idolothita edere non debent, ibi [n. 432) Esca autem nos non commendat Deo.
In prima, primo dicit, quod de idolothitis scientiam habent; secundo quod eam sine charitate inutiliter habent, ibi [n. 423] Scientia autem inflat, etc.; tertio ostendit a quibus habeatur haec scientia insufficienter, ibi [n. 424] Si quis autem existimat; quarto a quibus sufficienter, ibi [n. 426] Si quis autem diligit, etc.
422. Dicit ergo De his autem, etc., quasi dicat: De praedictis quaesivistis a me, scilicet de pertinentibus ad matrimonium: de aliis autem, ut de immolatis idolo, non fuit necesse quaerere; quia omnes scitis super hoc veritatem. Et hoc est quod dicit de his autem quae idolis sacrificantur, an liceat edere vel non, scimus ego et vos, quod liceat ea comedere secundum illud ad Tit. I, 15: Omnia munda mundis. Scimus quia omnes scientiam habemus, ego scilicet et vos perfecti inter alios, id est, scientiam de creatore et creaturis; et ideo minus excusabiles si male facimus.
423. Deinde cum dicit Scientia autem inflat, etc., hic ostendit quomodo sine charitate scientiam inutiliter habent, quasi dicat: Habetis quidem scientiam, sed non valet vobis, quia inde superbitis contra ignaros; scientia autem si sola est, inflat. Eccle. I, 18: In multo sapientia, multo est indignatio.Act. c. XXVI, 24: Multae litterae te faciunt insanire. Haec enim fuit plaga Aegyptiorum, id est, sapientium huius mundi, vesicae turgentes, Ex. IX, 9. Charitas vero aedificat infirmos, quae quod eis obesse potest, dimittit, quia non quaerit quae sua sunt. Unde addenda est scientiae charitas. Augustinus: Addite ergo scientiae charitatem, et utilis erit scientia. Per se quidem est inutilis, ex charitate vero utilis. Philosophus: Scire aut nihil aut parum prodest ad virtutem.
424. Deinde cum dicit Si quis autem existimat, etc., hlc ostendit a quibus haec scientia habetur insufficienter, quia ab illis, qui ea utuntur in nocumentum proximi. Et est sua ratio talis: Quicumque habet scientiam et non modum utendi ea, habet scientiam inufficienter: sed qui habet scientiam sine charitate est huiusmodi: ergo qui habet scientiam sine charitate, habet insufficienter scientiam. Primo ergo supponit scientiam sine charitate: secundo ostendit insufficientiam talis scientiae ibi Nondum cognovit, etc.; tertio rationem insufficientiae, ibi Quemadmodum oporteat, etc.
Dicit ergo Si quis autem, etc., quasi dicat: Habetis scientiam, sed non sufficientem, quia si quis vestrum existimat se scire, habens scientiam sine charitate, aliquid scit, scilicet quod liceat comedere idolothita. Nondum tamen cognovit, quia non se cognoscere facto ostendit, quomodo oporteat eum scire, id est, qualiter debeat uti scientia, quia in aedificationem, non in nocumentum aliorum.
425. Scire autem contingit dupliciter, scilicet habere scientiam et uti scientia: sicut videre, habere visum, et uti visu. Glossa Bernardi: Hic non approbat Apostolus multa scientem, si modum sciendi nescierit. Modus enim sciendi est, ut scias quo ordine, quo studio, quo fine scire quaeque oporteat: quo ordine, ut id prius quod maturius ad salutem; quo studio, ut id ardentius quod efficacius est ad amorem; quo fine, ut non ad inanem gloriam vel curiositatem velle aliquid, sed ad aedificationem tui et proximi. Sunt namque qui scire volunt eo fine tantum, ut sciant, et curiositas est; quidam ut sciantur, et vanitas est; quid am ut scientiam vendant, et turpis quaestus est; quidam ut edificentur, et prudentia est; quidam ut aeificent, et charitas est.
426. Deinde cum dicit Si quis autem diligit, etc., hic ostendit a quibus haec scientia habetur sufficienter, quia ab illis qui utunir ea ex charitate. Primo ergo supponit scientiam cum charitate; secundo ostendit suficientiam talis scientiae, ibi Hic cognitus est.
Dicit ergo Si quis, etc., quasi dicat: ille perfecte non scit qui nescit quemadmodum oporteat eum scire. Si quis autem diligit Deum, et ita cum scientia habet charitatem, hic cognitus, id est approbatus, est ab eo. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius, II Tim. c. ii, 19. Unde talis vere scit Deo approbante, quia bene utitur scientia propter charitatem annexam.
427. Notandum est hic, quod ad hoc quod aliquis sciat quemadmodum oporteat scire, novem sunt necessaria.
Primum, scilicet humilitas scientiae, arguit sapientes superbos, sobrietas curiosos, certitudo dubiosos, veritas haereticos, simplicitas advocatos, salubritas magnos, utilitas iniquos, liberalitas avaros, efficacia otiosos.
- Primo humiliter sine inflatione. Phil. IV, v. 12: Scio humiliari. Ps. cxxx, 2: Si non humiliter sentiebam.
- Secundo sobrie sine praesumptione. Supra c. II, 2: Non iudicavi me scire. Rom. XII, v. 13: Non plus sapere quam oportet.
- Tertio certitudinaliter sine haesitatione. II Tim. I, 12: Scio cui credidi, et certus sum.
- Quarto veraciter et sine errore. II Tim. III, v. 7: Semper discentes, et numquam ad scientiam veritatis pervenientes.
- Quinto simpliciter sine deceptione. 1 Tim. c. VI, 20: Oppositiones falsi nominis scientiae.
- Sexto salubriter cum charitate et dilectione. Infra XIII, 2: Si habuero omnem scientiam, charitatem autem non habuero.
- Septimo utiliter cum proximorum aedificatione. Infra XII, 8: Alii datur sermo scientiae in eodem spiritu.
- Octavo liberaliter cum gratuita communicatione. Sap. VI, 24: Ponam in lucem sapientiam eius.
- Nono efficaciter cum bona operatione. lac. I, 17: Scienti enim bonum. et non facienti, peccatum est illi.
428. Deinde cum dicit De escis autem quae idolis, etc., hic ostendit qualem scientiam habent de idolothitis, ostendens primo quod sciunt idolum nihil esse; secundo quod sciunt omnia a Deo esse, ibi [n. 430] Nam etsi sunt qui dieantur dii.
429. In prima, primo dicit idolum nihil esse; secundo iuxta hoc ad declarationem ostendit Deum non nisi unum esse, ibi Et quod nullus Deus, etc.
Dicit ergo De escis autem, etc., quasi dicat: Praedictis modis non valet scientia, sed tamen, de escis quae immolantur idolis, scimus, scientia vera scilicet, quod in se sunt licitae, nec propter idolum sunt immundae; et hoc quia idolum nihil est in mundo. Hoc tripliciter exponitur.
Primo modo sic: Idolum nihil est in mundo, id est, inter creaturas mundi quantum ad formam idoli; licet enim materia idoli sit aliquid, scilicet aurum, vel argentum, vel huiusmodi, tamen nil est forma, scilicet quae creditur ibi esse ab idololatris, qui credunt idolum esse Deum. Is. XLI, 24: Ecce vos estis ex nihilo, et opus vestrum ex eo quod non est.
Secundo modo sic: Idolum nihil est, scilicet persona subsistens ex simulacro et spiritu praesidente. Ex istis enim duobus nihil fit, sicut ab idololatris putatur. Ier. X, 14: Confusus est omnis artifex in sculptili, quia falsum est quod conflavit, et non est spiritus in eo.
Tertio modo sic: Idolum nihil est in mundo, id est, nullius rei quae sit in mundo habens similitudinem. Est enim differentia inter idolum et simulacrum, quia simulacrum dicitur quod fit ad similitudinem rei alicuius naturalis: idolum autem ad nullius rei est similitudinem, ut si corpori humano addatur caput equinum. Is. XL, 18: Cui similem fecistis Deum, etc. Et scimus etiam quod nullus Deus nisi unus. Deut. VI, 4: Audi Israel, Dominus Deus tuus, Deus unus est.
430. Deinde cum dicit Nam etsi sunt qui, etc., hic ostendit quod sciunt omnia a Deo esse, non a diis nuncupativis vel adoptivis, ut sunt idola, vel sancti, sed ab uno summo. Primo ergo dicit, quomodo potest intelligi Deorum pluralitas, scilicet per adoptionem vel nuncupationem: secundo quomodo est divinitatis unitas, scilicet per essentiam, ibi Nobis tantum unus Deus, etc. Ubi primo tangit unitatem in patre; secundo in filio, ibi Et unus Dominus, etc. In prima tangit tria, scilicet essentiam, quia unus Deus; personam, quia pater; potentiam, ex quo omnia; clementiam, quia et nos in illo; similiter ista tangit in filio.
Dicit ergo Nam etsi sunt, etc., quasi dicat: Et vere non est nisi unus Deus, nam etsi sunt qui dieantur dii, vere participatione divinitatis, ut sancti, Ps. LXXXI, 6: Ego dixi, dii estis, sive in caelo, ut sancti comprehensores, sive in terra, ut sancti viatores; siquidem sunt dii multi vere participatione divinitatis, ut sancti et iusti Domini Apostoli et praelati, nobis tamen, etc.
Alio modo legitur sic Nam etsi sunt qui dicuntur dii a gentibus, scilicet falsa nuncupatione, sive in caelo, ut sol et luna, sive in terra, ut Mercurius et Diana. Siquidem sunt dii multi, sola scilicet nuncupatione secundum gentiles. Ps. XCV, 5: Dii gentium daemonia. Et domini multi, qui aliis praesunt, nobis tamen tantum unus est Deus essentialiter, scilicet Pater, ex quo omnia secundum naturam et per paternam auctoritatem, Rom. C. XI, 36: Ex quo omnia, et nos in illo per gratiam. Act. XVII, 28: In ipso vivimus, movemur et sumus. Et unus cum Patre Deus Dominus Iesus Christus. 10. X, 30: Ego et Pater unum sumus. Per quem omnia, scilicet facta sunt secundum naturam, Io. I, 3: Omnia per ipsum facta sunt. Et nos per ilium, scilicet sumus in Deo per gratiam. Rom. I, v. 5: Per quem accepi gratiam, etc. Ergo unus est altissimus creator omnium omnipotens. Ex his elicitur talis ratio: Non est nisi unus Deus qui fecit omnia, sed multa sunt idola, ergo non sunt Deus qui fecit omnia, nec creduntur aliquid, ergo nihil.
431. Sed non in omnibus est scientia. Habito quod maiores illorum habent scientiam de idolothitis, hic ostendit quod minores hac scientia carent. Ubi primo ostendit quod in quibusdam defuit praedicta de idolothitis scientia; secundo quod propter hoc, esu scilicet idolothitorum, polluitur eorum conscientia. Ubi primo tangit pollutae conscientiae rationem; secundo ipsam pollutionem, ibi Et conscientia ipsorum, etc.
Dicit ergo Sed non in omnibus, etc., quasi dicat: Hoc scimus nos, scilicet quod idolum nihil est, sed non in omnibus, ut in infirmis, est scientia haec. Et vere non est in omnibus: quidam tamen, etc. Vel sic: Nos scimus quod idolum nihil est in mundo, quidam enim cum conscientia idoli, quia scilicet putant idolum aliquid divinum esse, usque nunc, id est, post conversionem, sicut ante manducant idolothitum, id est, de sanctificatis idolis, et hoc non quasi cibum simpliciter, sed quasi idolothitum, scilicet ad reverentiam idoli, et conscientia illorum, cum sit infirma, polluitur, per illos scilicet qui habent rectam scientiam, sed non cum chari tate, per quos in hunc errorem infirmi inducuntur. Deut. XXVII, 19: Maledictus qui errare facit caecum in itinere. Hic innuit quod non cibus, sed conscientia polluitur per peccatum, comedendo ad exemplum malorum.
432. Deinde cum dicit Esca autem non commendat, etc.; hic, quarto, ostendit quod coram eis idolothita comedere non debent. Ubi primo ostendit quod huiusmodi comestio nihil prodest apud Deum; secundo probat quod non praestat aliquod bonum augmentum, ibi Neque enim si non manducaveritis.
Dicit ergo Esca autem, etc., quasi dicat: lllis nocet vestra comestio, vobis autem non prodest. Esca enim nos non commendat Deo, sed recta fides in edendo. Nam nec Esau esu lenticulae iustificatus est, nec Elias esu carnium pollutus est. Rom. XIV, 17: Non est regnum Dei esca et potus. Hebr. ult. [XIII, 9]: Bonum est gratia stabilire cor, non escis.
Deinde cum dicit neque enim si non manducaverimus, etc., hic probat quod proposuit, et est sua ratio talis: Non corned ere idolothitum non diminuit bonum, comed ere non auget, ergo talis esca sumpta vel non sumpta nihil prod est apud Deum. Et hoc est quod dicit neque enim si non manducaverimus, deficiemus, id est, minus ab eo habebimus, neque si manducaverimus, abundabimus in virtutibus, quia esca ventri, non menti proficit, et ita cum non sit de veri tate vitae, iustitiae et doctrinae, dimittenda est propter scandalum.
8-2
1 Cor 8:9-139 βλέπετε δὲ μή πως ἡ ἐξουσία ὑμῶν αὕτη πρόσκομμα γένηται τοῖς ἀσθενέσιν. 10 ἐὰν γάρ τις ἴδῃ σὲ τὸν ἔχοντα γνῶσιν ἐν εἰδωλείῳ κατακείμενον, οὐχὶ ἡ συνείδησις αὐτοῦ ἀσθενοῦς ὄντος οἰκοδομηθήσεται εἰς τὸ τὰ εἰδωλόθυτα ἐσθίειν; 11 ἀπόλλυται γὰρ ὁ ἀσθενῶν ἐν τῇ σῇ γνώσει, ὁ ἀδελφὸς δι' ὃν Χριστὸς ἀπέθανεν. 12 οὕτως δὲ ἁμαρτάνοντες εἰς τοὺς ἀδελφοὺς καὶ τύπτοντες αὐτῶν τὴν συνείδησιν ἀσθενοῦσαν εἰς Χριστὸν ἁμαρτάνετε. 13 διόπερ εἰ βρῶμα σκανδαλίζει τὸν ἀδελφόν μου, οὐ μὴ φάγω κρέα εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα, ἵνα μὴ τὸν ἀδελφόν μου σκανδαλίσω.
433. Haec est secunda pars huius capituli; superius [n. 421] enim ostendit quod in se licita est comestio idolothitorum, hic monet abstinere ab ea propter scandalum infirmorum. Ubi primo monet ne offendant fratres sua comestione; secundo quod potest offendere, ibi [numer. 435] Si enim quis viderit, etc.; tertio ostendit malum quod inde potest accidere, ibi [n. 436] Et peribit infirmus, etc.; quarto praebet se in exemplum abstinentium, ibi [n. 439] Quapropter si esca scandalizat, etc.
434. Dicit ergo: Videte, quia quantum ad nos nihil prodest vel obest esca ipsa, sed tamen videte ne forte haec licentia vestra, qua scitis licere vobis comedere de idolothitis, offendiculum fiat infirmis in fide, qui nondum sciunt idolum nihil, esse. Lev. XIX, 14: Coram caeco non pones offendiculum.
435. Deinde cum dicit Si quis viderit, etc., hic ostendit quomodo possunt offendere, quia comedendo idolothitum coram infirmis: ubi implicantur quatuor concurrentia ad scandalum. Primo maiorum scientia; secundo comestio idolothiti publica, ibi In idolio recumbentem; tertio occasio scandali accepti, ibi Nonne conscientia eius ? Dicit ergo Si enim quis, etc.; quasi dicat: Et vere potest esse offendiculum, si enim quis infirmus viderit eum qui habet scientiam, recumbentem in idolio, id est, in praesentia idoli, nonne conscientia eius cum sit infirma, per te, aedificabitur, id est, per factum tuum, ad manducandum idolothita, id est, sacrificata in reverentiam idoli? Quasi dicat: Sic videns enim quis fratrem peritum in idolio sacrificata comedere, incipit ipse edere non illa conscientia qua ille, scilicet peritiae causa, sed id putat esse numen in cuius reverentia hoc fiat.
436. Deinde cum dicit Et peribit infirmus, hic ostendit malum quod inde potest accidere, et hoc duplex: primo scandalum proximi; secundo offensam proximi, ibi [n. 438] Sic autem peccantes, etc.
437. In prima implicantur tria, peccantis conditio, quia infirmus; peccandi occasio, quia in tua conscientia; peccati exaggeratio, quia propter quem Christus mortuus est. V. 12 [n. 438] Sic autem peccantes in fratres, et percutientes conscientiam eorum infirmam, in Christum peccatis. v.13 [n. 439] Quapropter, si esca scandalizat fratrem meum, non manducabo carnem in aeternum, ne fratrem meum scandalizem. Dicit ergo: Et ita peribit infirmus, in fide idest, in tua scientia, frater, id est, occasione accepta a tua scientia, quia te sapientem videt comedere, putans quod sub idoli veneratione comedas, propter quem salvandum Christus mortuus est, et ita graviter peccas. Rom. XIV, 15: Noli cibo perdere ilIum pro quo mortuus est Christus.
438. Sic autem peccantes in fratres, peccato scandali, et percutientes conscientiam eorum infirmam, gladio mali exempli, Amos IX. I: Percute cardinem, id est conscientiam, et commovebuntur superliminaria, id est, intellectus et affectus; in Christo peccatis, cuius membra sunt. Non ait "In Christum ", secundum Glossam, quia in Christum peccare, est Christum negare, id est, peccare in fide. In Christo peccare est in his quae Christi sunt peccare, scilicet in moribus; sicut ille qui in lege est, dicitur in lege peccare: qui autem in lege non est, dicitur peccare in legem.
439. Deinde cum dicit Quapropter si esca, etc., hic ultimo proponit se in exemplum abstinentiae, ubi primo implicat scandalum; secundo ex hoc explicat abstinentiae propositum, ibi Non manducabo, etc.; tertio praevenit dubium, ibi Ne fratrem meum, etc.
Dicit ergo: Quapropter, ne scilicet peccem in Christum, si esca scandalizat fratrem meum, non manducabo carnem aliquam, non solum idolothita, in aeternum: si ergo propter scandalum fratrum abstinendum est quasi a necessariis vitae, multo magis a superfluis. Et hoc, non ideo quod esca in se mala sit, sed ne scandalizem fratrem meum. Nam qui scandalizaverit unum de pusillis istis. expedit ei ut suspendatur in collo eius mola asinaria, etc., Matth. XVIII, 6. Rom. XIV, V. 20: Omnia munda mundis, sed malum est homini qui per offendiculum manducat.
440. Hic quaeritur super illud [v. 1] Scientia inflat, Glossa: Scientia per se inutilis est. Contra, scientia per se bona est, ergo et utilis. Responsio. Inutilis est ad salutem,utilis tamen ad multa alia.
441. Item Charitas aedificat. Contra: Sicut scientia inflat, non per causam, sed per occasionem, sic et charitas. Responsio. Non est simile, quia scientia habenti se manifestat, sed non sic charitas, quia nemo certus est de charitate.
442. Item super illud [v. 4] Idolum nihil est, Glossa: Naturam Deus formavit, sed stultitia hominum formam dedit. Contra: Omne esse est a Deo, ergo omnis forma. Responsio. Glossa loquitur de forma putativa in natura, non de vera.
443. Item ibidem Glossa: Forma hominis in idolo non est facta per Verbum. Contra Io. I, 3: Omnia per ipsum facta sunt.Responsio: Quamvis forma hominis in illo sit facta per verbum, non tamen in idolo, id est, ad colendum.
444. Item ibidem Glossa: Idolum nihil est, quia nullius rei quae sit in mundo similitudinem habet. Contra: Non potest artifex cogitare vel formare nisi qualia vidit. Responsio. Non habet similitudinem in toto, sed in partibus.
445. Item super illud [v. 4] Nullus Deus nisi unus, Glossa: Hoc dicit ne putetur esse Deus in idolo, Contra: Deus, licet sit unus, tamen est ubique. Responsio. In idolo est per potentiam, non per praesentiam vel unionem, ut putabant Gentiles.
446. Item ibidem Glossa: Pars Trinitatis non potest esse quicumque unus in tribus. Contra: Cuiuslibet numeri pars est unitas. Responsio. Trinitas non est numerus simpliciter, sed numerus personarum.
447. Item super illud [v. 5] Et si sunt qui dicuntur dii, Glossa: participatione divinitatis. Contra: Divinitas est imparticipabilis. Responsio. Participatio haec per causam est, non per essentiam.
448. Item ibid. Glossa quaeritur utrum angeli vocandi sint dii. Responsio. Quamvis participent divinitatem, tamen, secundum Glossam, non sunt dicendi dii propter periculum adorationis.
449. Item super illud [v. 6] Nobis tamen unus pater, Glossa: Trinitas est nobis unus pater, non tamen ille qui tertia in Trinitate persona alius. Contra: Idem et diversum dividunt ens. Respondeo, quod quamvis idem et diversum dividant ens creatum, non tamen increatum, quia ibi est identitas in essentia cum diversitate in personis.
450. Item [v. 7] Non in omnibus est scientia, Contra, super eodem: Omnes scientram habemus. Responsio. Illud non intelligitur universaliter, sed de maioribus.
451. Item super illud [v. 8] Esca non commendat nos Deo, dicit Glossa sumpta vel non sum pia. Contra: Ergo abstinentia nihil meretur. Responsio. Non virtus escae, sed virtus abstinentiae prodest.
452. Item [v. 13] Si esca scandalizat, etc. Contra: Ergo pro scandalo fratris a pane et vino abstinendum est in perpetuum. Responsio: Non est simile de necessariis et superfluis; vel loquitur hic de scandalo activo, non passivo. Vel perfectionis est hoc, non necessitatis.
453. Notandum est hic super illud [v. 4]: Unus Deus, quod Deus potest accipi multipliciter, scilicet falsa nuncupatione, et sic idola dicuntur dii. Ps. xcv, 5: Omnes dii Gentium daemonia, Ier. x, 11: Dii qui caelum et terram non fecerunt, pereant de terra. Vera adoptione, et sic sancti dicuntur Dii. Ps. LXXXI, 6: Ego dixi: Dii estis, et filii excelsi omnes, vos autem sicut, etc. Mundana praelatione, et sic praelati dicuntur dii. Ex. XXII, 28: Diis non detrahes. 10. C. X, 35: Si illos dixit Deos, ad quos, etc. Essentiae proprietate, et sic Trinitas dicitur Deus. Deut. VI, 4: Audi, Israel, Dominus Deus tuus unus est.
454. Item notandum quod Christus unus sine pari multipliciter dicitur.
- Primo unus Deus propter naturam divinitatis; unde sic nullus est Deus nisi unus.
- Secundo unus creator propter infinitatem potestatis. Eccli. I, 8: Unus est altissimus creator omnium.
- Tertio unus homo propter singularem eminentiam sanctitatis. Ps. XIII, 1: Non est qui [aciat bonum, etc. 10. XI, 50: Expedit ut unus moriatur homo.
- Quarto unus Dominus propter gubemationem praelationis. Eph. IV, 5: Unus Dominus, una fides, etc. Et hoc modo unus Dominus Iesus Christus.
- Quinto unus magister propter infusionem cognitionis. Matth. XXIII, 10: Non vocemini magistri, quia magister vester unus est Christus.
- Sexto unus pater propter productionem universitatis. Matth. XXIII, 9: Unus est enim Pater vester qui in caelis est.
- Septimo unus pastor propter generalem refectionem populi fidelis. 10. x, 16: Fiet unum ovile et unus pastor.
- Octavo una hostia propter singulare pretium nostrae redemption is. Hebr. X, 14: Una enim oblatione consummavit in aeternum sanctificatos.
455. Superius [n. 421] monuit cavere ab edendo idolothita coram infirmis, propter scandalum fratrum infirmorum, hic proponit se in exemplum, quia propter alios abstinet se a sibi licitis, scilicet ab acceptione sumptuum, ubi primo proponit multipliciter, quia licitum est sumptus accipere; secundo quod nihilominus non vult accipere, ibi [n. 482] Ego autem nullo horum usus sum, etc. In prima parte, quod licitum sit sumptus accipere, probat tripliciter. Primo per auctoritatem; secundo per rationem, ibi [n. 467] Si nos vobis spiritualia seminavimus, etc.; tertio per exemplorum similitudinem, ibi [n. 471] Nescitis quod hi qui, etc. In prima, primo probat per auctoritatem Apostolicae dignitatis; secundo per auctoritatem humanae consuetudinis, ibi [n. 462] Quis militat suis stipendiis, etc.; tertio per auctoritatem divinae legis, ibi [n. 464]. Numquid secundum hominem, etc. In prima primo probat quod sit Apostolus generaliter; secundo quod sit Apostolus eorum specialiter, ibi [n. 457] Et si aliis non sum Apostolus; tertio quod potest accipere sumptus licite, ibi [n. 458] Numquid non habemus, etc.
456. In prima, primo quaerit an habeat libertatem accipiendi sumptus; secundo an sit Apostolus, ibi Non sum Apostolus, etc.; tertio probat duplici ratione quod sit liber, et Apostolus, ibi Nonne Dominum legum Christum, etc.
Dicit ergo Non sum liber? etc., quasi dicat: Abstinete ab hoc licito, scilicet ab esu idolothitorum, quia ego etiam abstineo a stipendiis, cum tamen habeam libertatem accipiendi. Numquid enim non sum Apostolus? immo vere sum Apostolus. Gal. II, 8: Qui operatus est Petro in Apostolatum circumcisionis, operatus est et mihi inter Gentes. Est ergo ratio sua talis: Omnis Apostolus ratione sui Apostolatus habet libertatem accipiendi sumptus; sed ego sum Apostolus: utrumque probat postea; ergo, etc. Deinde cum dicit Nonne Dominum lesum Christum, etc., hic probat duplici ratione quod sit Apostolus, primo per causam, secundo per effectum, ibi Nonne opus meum, etc. Prima ratio sumitur ex parte Christi mittentis; secunda ex parte Corinthiorum quibus mittitur.
Prima ratio talis est: Ego vidi Dominum qui me misit ad praedicandum, ergo sum Apostolus. Et hoc est quod dicit Nonne, etc., quasi dicat: Vere sum Apostolus, nonne Dominum lesum Christum vidi? hoc dicit propter pseudo-apstolos, qui dicebant ipsum non esse Apostolum, quia non fuerat in societate Domini sicut caeteri Apostoli. Ipse autem vidit eum iam immortalem, secundum Glossam, vel in via, Act. III, 9, vel in templo, Act. XXII, 19. Unde, Act. IX. 27, Barnabas apprehensum ilium duxit ad Apostolos et narravit quomodo in via vidisset Dominum. Infra, xv, 8: Novissime omnium tamquam abortivo visus est et mihi. Nonne opus meum, etc. Ecce secunda tatio talis: Vos estis conversi ad fidem per me missum ad hoc; ergo sum Apostolus; nonne opus meum vos estis, O Corinthii? sicut templum architecti, supra III, 10: Ut sapiens architectus fundamentum posui. Item ut filius opus genitoris, supra IV, 15: In Christo Iesu per Evangelium vos genui. Opus, inquam, meum, et hoc in Domino, id est, Domino coperante. Vel in Domino, id est ad gloriam Domini, quasi dicat: Sic estis.
457. Deinde cum dicit Et si aliis Apostolus, etc., hic probat quod est Apostolus eorum specialiter. Ubi primo proponit quod est Apostolus eorum specialiter; secundo probat hoc per effectum, ibi Nam sigillum Apostolatus, etc.; tertio ostendit quod per effectum illum defendit se esse Apostolum, ibi Mea defensio ad eos, etc.
Dicit ergo Et si, etc., quasi dicat: Vere opus meum estis, quia et si aliis, scilicet Iudaeis quorum legem evacuo, non sum, id est non videor esse, Apostolus, sed tamen vobis sum, qui per me conversi estis specialiter. Rom. XI, 13: Quamdiu Gentium sum Apostolus, ministerium meum honorificabo. Et vere vobis sum Apostolus, nam vos estis sigillum Apostolatus mei, id est forma et sigillum, quia Apostolatus me us impressus est in vobis, sicut forma sigilli in cera. Glossa: In vobis apparet quod sum Apostolus dum habetis per me quod etiam per alios Apostolos. I Cor. IX, 2: Signa Apostolatus mei facta sunt super vos. Vos estis, inquam, in Domino, id est Domino principali auctore.
Et vere ita est, quia mea defensio ad eos qui me interrogant, utrum scilicet sim Apostolus, scilicet hoc estis vos; per vos enim ostendo me esse Apostolum.
458. Deinde cum dicit Numquid non habemus, etc., hic ostendit quod potest accipere sumptus licenter. Ubi primo quaerit an habeat hanc potestatem generaliter; secundo quantum ad personas determinatis specialiter, ibi [n. 460] Numquid non habemus potestatem, etc.; tertio an ipse et Barnabas sint hac potestate privati singulariter, ibi [n. 461] An ego solus, etc.
459. Dicit ergo Numquid, etc., quasi dicat: Nam cum sim Apostolus, numquid non habemus, ego et mei, potestatem manducandi et bibendi nostra, id est, vivendi stipendiis nostris? Augustinus: Permisit Dominus, non iussit Apostolis accipere necessaria a subditis
460. Numquid non habemus potestatem mulierem sororem, scilicet fide, circumducendi nobiscum, propter sumptus ministrandos? Ambrosius in Glossa: Mulieres desiderio doctrinae dominicae et virtutum cupidae, Apostolos sequebantur, et ministrabant eis sumptus, et servitia. Et similiter Christum secutae sunt, Lc. VIII, 2 s. et XXIII, v. 27, sicut caeteri Apostoli, ut habetur Act. VI, 1, et sicut fratres, id est, cognati, Domini, qui majores sunt, Gal. II, 9: Iacobus et Ioannes, qui videbantur columnae esse, etc., et Cephas, qui maximus est inter Apostolos, unde Cephas interpretatur caput. Ambrosius: Non hos reprehendit Apostolus, sed eorum more sibi probat licere; idcirco autem, ut ait Augustinus; Dominus mulieres ministraturas sequi voluit, ostendens quid debetur a plebibus Evangelistis, Vel ideo etiam ne viderentur alienae a salute.
461. Aut numquid ego solus et Barnabas (isti enim fuerunt coniuncti ad praedicandum Gentibus, Act. XIII, 2: Segregate mihi Barnabam et Paulum in opus ad quod assumpsi eos), non habemus, secundum opinionem vestram, potestatem hoc operandi? scilicet mulieres circumducendi, et sumptus accipiendi, quasi dicat: Imo habemus sicut alii, sed omnes alii licite accipiunt, ergo et nobis licet.
462. Deinde cum dicit Quis militat suis stipendiis, etc., hic secundo probat quod licet accipere sumptus per auctoritatem humanae consuetudinis: et primo in statu militis; secundo agricolae, ibi: Quis plantat vineam, etc.; tertio pastoris, ibi: Quis pascit gregem, etc. Militi comparatur praelatus propter subsidium, agricolae propter verbum, pastori propter exemplum. Debet enim subditos defendere suffragio, plantare verbo, pascere exemplo. Primum respicit extra Ecclesiam existentes, secundum Ecclesiam intrantes, tertium in Ecclesia commorantes.
Dicit ergo, Quis militat, quasi dicat: Utique habemus potestatem accipiendi sumptus, et merito. Quis militat suis stipendiis? quasi dicat: Unquam nullus. Dabantur enim militibus stipendia de republica. Unde Ioannes dicit [Lc, III, 14]: Contenti estote stipendiis vestris. Sic praedicatores et praelati accipere possunt sumptus a subditis. I Tim. I, 18: Ut milites in illis militiam bonam. Quis enim plantat vineam, et de fructu eius non edit? Vinea Domini est Ecclesia. Is. V, 7: Vinea Domini Sabaoth, domus israel est. Apostoli enim fuerunt plantatores huius vineae. Supra XIV, 6: Ego plantavi, Apollo rigavit.
Quis etiam pascit gregem, et de lacte eius non manducat? quasi dicat: Nullus. Grex Domini sunt fideles Ecclesiae. Ez. XXIV, v. 31: Vos greges pascuae meae. Huius gregis pastores sunt praelati et praedicatores. Unde primo praelato dictum est: Pasce oves meas, 10. XXI, 17. Tales possunt pasci de lacte gregis, quia possunt accipere sumptus a subditis. Si ergo defendimus, plantamus et pascimus more boni militis, boni agricolae, boni pastoris, licet nobis sumptus accipere. Sed quia hodie multi sunt qui stipendia accipiunt, et non militant, edunt fructum vineae, et non plantant, lac comedunt, et gregem non pascunt. Ez. XXXIV, 3: Lac comedebatis, gregem autem meum non pascebatis.
463. Notandum super illud Nonne Dominum Iesum vidi ? quod multiplicem Domini legimus visionem.
- Unam corporalem, quae praeteriit, de qua Bar. IV, 38: Post haec in terris visus est, et cum hominlbus conversat us est.
- Secundam spiritualem, quae praesens est. Ps. XLV, II: Vacate et videte, quoniam ego sum Deus, etc.
- Tertiam aeternalem, quae futura est, de qua 10. XVII. 24:. Volo ut ubi ego sum, et illi sint mecum, ut videant claritatem meam. lob XIX, 26: In carne mea videbo Deum,
- Quartam momentaneam, quae etiam futura est de qua Lc. XXI, 27: Tunc videbunt Filium hominis venient em in nube cum potestate magna.
Prima fuit in mundo, secunda in animo, tertia in caelo erit, quarta erit in iudicio. Prima visio dat exemplum vivendi; secunda adiutorium proficiendi; tertia desiderium perveoiendi; quarta odium peccandi. Prima dat exemplum vivendi tripliciter, quia visus est pauper et pannosus, ut refrenetur cupiditas divitiarum. Ps. LXVlll, 30: Ego sum pauper et dolens, etc., et, V. 33: Videant pauperes, et laetentur.Sic viderunl pastores, Lc. II, 16. Vilis et abiectus, ut refrenetur ambitio honorum. Is. LIII, 2: Vidimus eum, et non erat aspectus, et desideravimus eum virum despectum, Ideo dicitur Matth. XI, 29: Discite a me, quia mitis et humilis sum. Afflictus et passus, ut refrenetur concupiscentia voluptatum. Thren. I, v. 12: O vos omnes, qui transitis per viam, videte, etc.
Secunda visio dat adiutorium proficiendi tripliciter, quia dat robur poenitentibus, culpas et poenas ostendendo, sicut sol atomos. Dan. v, 5: Vidit Balthassar manum scribentis. lob XLII, 5: Nunc oculus meus videte, etc. Spem certantibus, mercedem manifestando, sicut Dominus operanti. Act. VII, V. 55: Ecce video caelos, etc. Laetitiam contemplantibus, praegustationes offerendo, sicut tabernarius modicum vini. Ps. XXXIII, V. 9: Gustate et videte, quoniam suavis est Dominus. Gen. XXXII, 30: Vidi Dominum facie ad faciem, sicut Paulus hic.
Tertia visio aeternalis dat desiderium perveniendi propter tria, videlicet propter veram iucunditatem, Is. ult. [LXVI, 14]: Videbitis, et gaudebit cor vestrum, quia dulce lumen et delectabile, etc. Hoc significatum est Io. xx, 20: Gavisi sunt discipuli, visa Domino. Propter iucunditatis multiplicitatem, sive pluralitatem. Is. LX, 5:. Tunc videbis et afflues, etc.; quippe quia videbimus eum sicuti est, et ipse erit omnia in omnibus. Erit enim rationi plenitudo lucis, voluntati multitudo pacis, memoriae continuatio aeternitatis. Propter puritatis aeternitatem. Apoc, ult. [XXII, 4]: Servi eius servient illi, et videbunt faciem eius, et regnabunt in saecula saeculorum. Ps. [xv, 11]: Adimplebis me laetitia, etc.
Quarta visio dat odium sive terrorem peccandi propter tria, videlicet propter furtum propalandum coram iudice vidente. Mal. III, V. 2: Ecce veniet, et quis stabit ad videndum eum? Ipse enim quasi ignis conflans. etc. Propter malefactorum severam ultionem. Latro enim videns socium suum suspendi, plus timet furari. ler. VII, 12: lte ad locum meum in Sylo, et videte quod fecerim ibi. Sylo interpretatur avulsa. Apoc. I, 13: Vidi similem filio hominis, et infra V. 16: Ex ore eius, quasi gladius ex utraque parte acutus exibat, etc. Propter visam bonorum praemiationem; videns enim clericus alium praebendari, quia bonus, cavet a malo. Ps. CVI, 42 Videbunt iusti, et laetabuntur, et omnis iniquitas oppilabit os suum.
464. Deinde cum dicit Numquid secundum hominem, etc., hic probat tertio, quod licet sumptus accipere per auctoritatem divinae legis. Ubi primo proponit, quod lex haec dicit; secundo verbum legis ponit, ibi Scriptum est enim, etc.; tertio qualiter intelligendum sit, ostendit ibi [n. 466] Numquid de bobus cura est, etc.
465. Dicit ergo Numquid, etc., quasi dicat: Probavi ratione humanae consuetudinis, quod licet nobis sumptusaccipere; sed numquid secundum hominem, id est, secundum humanam consuetudinem vel similitudinem tantum, dico hoc? An non lex Moysi divinitus promulgata hoc dicit? quasi dicat: Immo dicit. Scriptum est enim in lege Moysi, Deut. XXV, 4, et habetur idem I Tim. C. v, 18: Non alligabis os bovi trituranti, ut possit vivere de labore suo, id est, non prohibebis praedicatorem vivere de Evangelio. Triturare enim est separare granum a paleis, quod facit praedicator abstrahendo animas a terrenis, discernendo virtutes a vitiis, separando utilia a vanis. Ier. XV, 19: Si separaveris pretiosum a vili, quasi os meum eris.
466. Deinde cum dicit Numquid de bobus, etc., hic ostendit qualiter dicta auctoritas intelligenda sit. Et primo, quod intelligenda sit litteraliter de bobus; secundo quod non tantum litteraliter de bobus, sed spiritualiter de praedicatoribus, ibi An propter nos, etc.; tertio replicat, quod licet accipere sumptus, ibi Nam propter nos utique scripta, etc.
Dicit ergo Numquid, etc.; quasi dicat: Haec auctoritas de bobus spiritualibus, id est praedicatoribus, intelligitur. Numquid enim de bobus materialibus cura est Deo, ut de eis lege praecipiat? An propter nos hoc utique dicit? quasi dicat: Hoc utique propter nos dicit. Nam propter nos scripta sunt haec et similia. Rom. XV, 4: Quaecumque scripta sunt, ad nostram doctrinam scripta sunt, Propter nos, inquam; idcirco, quoniam praedicator, qui corda aperit ad fidem, debet arare in spe stipendiorum temporalium, non tamen propter spem hanc. Debet enim primum quaerere regnum Dei. Et qui triturat, id est bonos a malis, quasi grana a paleis, discernit praedicando, scilicet ad mores, debet hoc facere in spe fructus percipiendi. II Tim. II, 6: Laborantem agricolam oportet primum de fructibus percipere. Eccli. VI, v. 19: Is qui arat et qui seminat accedit ad illam, et sustinet bonos fructus illius.
9-2
1 Cor 9:11-1411 εἰ ἡμεῖς ὑμῖν τὰ πνευματικὰ ἐσπείραμεν, μέγα εἰ ἡμεῖς ὑμῶν τὰ σαρκικὰ θερίσομεν; 12 εἰ ἄλλοι τῆς ὑμῶν ἐξουσίας μετέχουσιν, οὐ μᾶλλον ἡμεῖς; ἀλλ' οὐκ ἐχρησάμεθα τῇ ἐξουσίᾳ ταύτῃ, ἀλλὰ πάντα στέγομεν ἵνα μή τινα ἐγκοπὴν δῶμεν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ τοῦ Χριστοῦ. 13 οὐκ οἴδατε ὅτι οἱ τὰ ἱερὰ ἐργαζόμενοι [τὰ] ἐκ τοῦ ἱεροῦ ἐσθίουσιν, οἱ τῷ θυσιαστηρίῳ παρεδρεύοντες τῷ θυσιαστηρίῳ συμμερίζονται; 14 οὕτως καὶ ὁ κύριος διέταξεν τοῖς τὸ εὐαγγέλιον καταγγέλλουσιν ἐκ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου ζῆν.
467. Superius probavit per auctoritatem quod licet accipere sumptus [n. 455], hic probat idem per rationem. Et primo probat hoc ex eorum obligatione; secundo ex pseudo-apostolorum accipien:ium ab eis comparatione, ibi [n. 469] Si alii potestatis vestrae, etc.; tertio dicit, quod nihilominus noluit uti hac potestate, ibi [n. 470] Sed non usi sumus, etc.
468. Prima ratio talis est: Maius est dare spiritualia quam accipere temporalia; ergo si Apostolus dat spiritualia, licet ei accipere temporalia. Primo ergo explicat beneficium impensum; secundo explicat stipendium exhibendum, ibi Magnum est si nos, etc. Dicit ergo Si nos, etc., quasi dicat: Vere habemus potestatem accipiendi sumptus a vobis; si enim nos seminavimus vobis spiritualia, fidem scilicet et sacramenta spiritum alentia, a Spiritu Sancto ministrata, magnum est si nos metamus, ad sustentationem nostram, carnalia? id est, ad carnis sustentationem concessa. Quasi dicat: Non est magnum. Rom. xv, 27: Si spiritualium eorum participes facti sunt gentiles, debent in carnalibus ministrare.
469. Deinde cum dicit Si autem alii, etc. Ecce secunda ratio ad idem talis: Veri Apostoli licentius participant bona subditorum, quam pseudo, sed pseudo-apostoli participant, ergo multo plus veri Apostoli participare debent. Primo ergo ponit antecedens; secundo consequens, ibi Quare non potius nos, etc.
Dicit ergo Si autem alii, scilicet pseudo, quos non exprimit ex nomine, ne confundantur, vocat eos alios quasi a consortio alienos Ecclesiae. Omnes enim Catholici unumsunt. Io. XVII, 11: Ut sint unum, etc. Si, inquam, alii potestatis vestrae participes sunt, id est, tam potenter utuntur bonis vestris, quare non potius nos Apostoli, qui causa salutis vestrae laboramus? Eccli. XII, 5: Da bono, et ne receperis peccatorem.
470. Deinde cum dicit Sed non usi sumus, hic ostendit, quod noluit uti hac potestate. Ubi dicit primo se sumptus non accepisse; secundo dicit se nihilominus indiguisse, ibi Sed omnia sustinemus, etc.; tertio rationem utriusque assignat, ibi Ne quod offendiculum, etc.
Dicit ergo Sed non, etc., quasi dicat: Ecce patet quod licet nobis sumptus accipere, sed tamen usi non sumus hac potestate. Supra VI, 12: Omnia mihi licent, sed non omnia expediunt. Non sumus, inquam, usi, non quia non indigeamus; sed omnia sustinemus, quia et si penuriam patiamur, tamen patienter sustinemus. II Cor. XI, 9: Cum essem apud vas et egerem, nulli onerosus fui.
Et hoc feci ideo, ne quod offendiculum demus Evangelio Christi. Hoc autem posset accidere, vel quia pseudo-apostolis daret exemplum accipiendi; vel quia Corinthii avari erant et scandalizarentur si ab eis acciperent, vel forte putarent se emisse licentiam peccandi et diminueretur in Apostolo auctoritas arguendi, et his modis daret offendiculum Evangelio Christi. Prov. XV, 19: Via iustorum absque offendiculo.
471. Deinde cum dicit Nescitis quoniam qui in sacrario, etc. Probavit [n. 455 et 467] quod licet sumptus accipere, primo per auctoritatem, secundo per rationem; tertio idem probat hic per exemplorum multitudinem. Ubi primo inducit similitudinem eorum qui templa reparant: secundo, eorum qui templo ministrant, ibi Et qui altari deserviunt, etc.; tertio adaptat similitudinem his, qui praedicant, ibi Et Dominus ordinavit his, etc. Quasi dicat: Et vere licet mihi sumptus accipere: nescitis quoniam qui in sacrario, id est, templo Iudaeorum vel Gentilium, operantur, ut artifices, quae de sacrario sunt, edunt? Sustentabantur enim artifices de denariis qui in gazophylacio templi offerebantur, ut patet tempore Ioas IV Reg. XII, 4 ss. Et qui altari templi Ierosolymitani, vel etiam ipsi templo, ut sacerdotes, deserviunt, id est, devote serviunt: una enim de duodecim abusionibus est irriverentia coram altari; cum altari participant? quia partem habent de his, quae offeruntur in altari, ut patet per totum Leviticum, et maxime VI et VII cap., et sicut fit hic, Ita et Dominus ordinavit, id est rationabiliter disposuit, his qui Evangelium annuntiant, de Evangelio vivere. Hoc ordinavit, dicens Matth. X, 10 et Lc. X, v. 7: Dignus est enim operarius mercede sua.
472. Notandum est hic, quod Apostolus nominibus multorum officiorum, praedicatorem hic designat, quia vocat eum
- primo militem propter officium, Eeclesiam contra adversarios defendendo. II Cor. X, 4: Arma militiae nostrae, etc. II Tim. II, 3: Labora sicut bonus miles Christi.
- Secundo vinitorem, propter officium palmites superfluos, id est malos, resecandi. Os. II. v. 15: Dabo ei vinitores eius ex eadem loco. Sed heu Cant. I. 5 dicitur Vineam meant non custodivi.
- Tertio pastorem, propter officium subditos bono exemplo pascendi. I Petr. v, 2: Pascite qui in vobis est gregem. Sed heu, quia hodie impletur illud Zach. XI, 17: O pastor et idolum derelinquens gregem, etc.
- Quarto bovem, propter officium maturitatis in omnibus procedendi. Prov. XIV, 4: Ubi non sunt boyes. praesepe vacuum est. Iob I, V. I 4: Boves arabant, et.asinae pascebantur iuxta eos, etc.
- Quinto aratorem, propter officium corda ad fidem et poenitentiam aperiendi. Os. X, v. 11: Arabit Iudas, confringet sibi sulcos Iacob, etc.
- Sexto trituratorem, propter officium malos a bonis discernendi. Is. XLI, 15: Ego posui te quasi plaustrum triturans novum, habens rostra ferrantia. et triturabis montes, etc.
- Septimo seminatorem, propter officium frequenter et utiliter praedicandi. Lc. VIII, 5: Exiit qui seminat seminare semen suum. Ps. cxxv, 6: Euntes ibant, etc.
- Octavo templi architectum, propter officium Ecclesiam construendi et reparandi. Supra III, 10: Ut sapiens architectus fundamentum posui, etc. Nono altaris ministrum, propter officium Deo devotum impendendi. Supra IV, 1: Sic nos existimet homo, etc.
473. Quaeritur hic super illud [v. 1] Non sum liber, Glossa: Ipse enim Apostolica dignitate potestatem habens non operari manibus, sed de Evangelio vivere. Contra: Ergo qui praedicant, non habentes Apostolicam dignitatem, non possunt sine opere manuum de Evangelio vivere. Responsio. Glossa loquitur de potestate qua potest invitos ad hoc cogere, non de spontanea, qua potest a voluntarie dantibus pet ere et accipere.
474. Item ex dicta Glossa videtur quod praelati non teneantur manibus operari. Contra Gen. III. 19: In sudore vultus tui vesceris pane tuo. Ipsi non sunt exempti ab hac maledictione; ergo, et caetera. Responsio. Tenentur ad laborem spiritualem, non corporalem, tamen bene facerent si occuparent se in honestis antequam vacarent.
475. Item super illud [v. 1]: Nonne opus meum? Glossa: perfectum, Contra: Ipsi erant imperfecti. Responsio. Opus perfectum dicebantur, quia eis Apostolus praedicaverat, vel quia eos perfecte docuerat quantum in se erat.
476. Item super illud [v. 4]: Numquid non habemus potestatem manducandi? Contra Matth. X, 8: Gratis accepistis, gratis date. Responsio. Gratis, id est, sine pretio, sed non sine stipendio.
477. Item super illud [v. 7]: Quis pascit gregem, Glossa: Ex Evangelio viventes, panem gratuitum manducabant. Contra, subditi tenebantur dare. Responsio. Gratuitas erat ex parte recipientium, quia humiliter, non potestative recipiebant, licet debitus ex parte dantium.
478. Item [v. 9]: Numquid de bobus cura est Deo? Quasi dicat: non. Contra Sap. c. VI, 8: Cura est illi de omnibus. Respondeo. Ibi loquitur de cura generali, scilicet providentiae; hic de speciali, scilicet disciplinae.
479. Item [v. 10] Debet in spe qui arat arare. Contra: Spes non est de visibilibus, sed aeternis. Responsio. Spes accipitur aequivoce.
480. Item [v. 10] In spe fructus percipiendi. Contra [Matth. v. 15]: Non debet poni lucerna praedicationis sub modio rei temporalis. Respondeo. Praedicare in spe rei temporalis, non est ponere lucernam sub modio, sed praedicare propter spem.
481. Item [v. 11] Si nos vobis seminaverimus spiritualia, etc. Contra Gal. VI, 6: Quae seminaverit homo, haec et metet; ergo qui seminat spiritualia, debet metere spiritualia, non carnalia, etc. Respondeo. lbi loquitur de messione mercedis, hic de messione stipendii.
9-3
1 Cor 9:15-1815 ἐγὼ δὲ οὐ κέχρημαι οὐδενὶ τούτων. οὐκ ἔγραψα δὲ ταῦτα ἵνα οὕτως γένηται ἐν ἐμοί, καλὸν γάρ μοι μᾶλλον ἀποθανεῖν ἤ - τὸ καύχημά μου οὐδεὶς κενώσει. 16 ἐὰν γὰρ εὐαγγελίζωμαι, οὐκ ἔστιν μοι καύχημα: ἀνάγκη γάρ μοι ἐπίκειται: οὐαὶ γάρ μοί ἐστιν ἐὰν μὴ εὐαγγελίσωμαι. 17 εἰ γὰρ ἑκὼν τοῦτο πράσσω, μισθὸν ἔχω: εἰ δὲ ἄκων, οἰκονομίαν πεπίστευμαι. 18 τίς οὖν μού ἐστιν ὁ μισθός; ἵνα εὐαγγελιζόμενος ἀδάπανον θήσω τὸ εὐαγγέλιον, εἰς τὸ μὴ καταχρήσασθαι τῇ ἐξουσίᾳ μου ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ.
482. Superius [n. 455] multipliciter probavit, quod sibi licet accipere sumptus, hic ostendit, quod nihilominus non vult accipere, sed abstinere tribus rationibus. Primo propter intentionem praemii; secundo propter dilectionem evangelii, ibi [n. 490] Nam cum liber essem ex omnibus, etc.; tertio propter expeditionem cursus sui, ibi [n. 498] Nescitis quod hi, qui in stadio currunt. In prima, primo dicit quare non vult accipere, scilicet ne gloria sua evacuetur; secundo ostendit, quod accipiendo evacuaretur, ibi [n. 486] Nam si evangelizavero, non est mihi gloria, etc.; tertio quod non accipiendo conservabitur, ibi [n. 488] Q uae est ergo merces me a, etc.
483. In prima, primo ostendit quod potestate accipiendi uti noluit; secundo quod uti non intendit, ibi Non autem scripsi hoc ut, etc.
Dicit ergo Ego autem, etc., quasi dicat: Tot modis constat, quod licet mihi sumptus accipere, sed tamen ego nulla horum auctoritate, ratione, exemplo, ad accipiendum usus sum. Ipse enim vel ab aliis Ecclesiis accipiebat, ut II Cor. XI, 8: Alias Ecclesias spoliavi, etc., vel manibus operabatur, Act. xx, V. 34. Non autem, etc., quasi dicat: Non sum usus, sed nec uti volo. Non enim scripsi haec, scilicet quod licet mihi accipere, ut ita fiat in me, sicut scripsi, id est, ut ego accipiam, quia non quaero datum, sed fructum.
484. Deinde cum dicit Bonum est enim mihi, etc., hic ostendit quare hoc fecit, scilicet ne gloria sua evacuetur. Ubi primo multiplicat afflictionem corporalem; secundo supponit ei gloriae diminutionem, ibi Quam ut gloriam, etc.
Dicit ergo Bonum est, etc., quasi diceret: Non accipiam, nam si acciperem, gloriam meam evacuarem, quod nullatenus facerem. Bonum est enim mihi mori, non solum sumptuum egestate affligi, magis quam ut gloriam meam, quam habeo de gratuita sinceritate praedicationis, de praemio supererogationis, abstinendo a licitis, quis evacuet, ab aliquo importune accipiendo, vel propter sumptus evangelicos.
Multi tamen moderni doctores gloriam istam evacuant, vel propter intentionem sumptuum, vel propter favorem humanum, dicente lob XII, 19: Ducit sacerdotes inglorios et optimates supplantat.
485. Notandum est hic, quod gloria amittitur septempliciter propter septem vitia.
- Nam gloria gulosorum evacuatur. Unde hic dicitur: Bonum est enim mihl magis, etc.
- Gloria luxuriosorum maculatur. Eccli. c. XLVII, 21 s.: lnclinasti faemora tua mulieribus, dedisti maculam in gloria tua.
- Gloria superborum captivatur. I Mach. c. II, 9: Vasa gloriae eius captiva ducta sunt.
- Gloria iracundorum intermittitur. Ps. XII, v. 5: Si reddidi retribuentibus mihi mala, etc., et post: Persequatur inimicus animam meam, etc., et post: Et gloriam meam in pulverem deducat.
- Gloria invidorum excluditur. Rom. III, 27: Ubi est gloriatio tua?
- Gloria avarorum annihilatur. Ps. [XLVIII, V. 17]: Ne timueris dum dives factus erit homo, etc.
- Gloria accidiosorum culpatur. I Mach. lX, V. 10: Moriamur in virtute propter fratres nostros, et non inferamus crimen gloriae nostrae. Eccli. xxxiii, 44: Praecellens esto in operibus tuis, et ne dederis maculam in gloria tua.
Ergo per gulam evacuatur gloria sobrietatis: per luxuriam maculatur gloria castitatis: per superbiam captivatur gloria humilitatis: per iracundiam intermittitur gloria mansuetudinis: per invidiam excluditur gloria charitatis: per avaritiam annihilatur gloria liberalitatis: per accidiam culpatur gloria strenuitatis. De istis dicitur Osee IV, 7: Gloriam eorum in ignominiam commutabo. De primo exemplum in Esau, Gen. XXV, v. 29, in Holoferne, Iudith XIII, 1; de secundo in Salomone, III Reg. II, 13; de tertio in Lucifero, Is. XIV, 12; de quarto in Achitophel, II Reg. XVI, 20; de quinto in Cain, Gen. IV, V. 3; de sexto in Giezi, IV Reg. v, 20; de septimo in exploratoribus, Num. XIII et XIV.
486. Nam et si evangelizavero, etc. Hic ostendit quod accipiendo sumptus evacuaretur gloria eius, quia non supererogaret. Et est sua ratio talis: Gloria quae est praemium supererogationis, non debetur operibus necessitatis, ad quae tenemur ex praecepto; sed evangelizare tenebatur ex praecepto, ergo ex hoc non habebat gloriam supererogationis, sed potius ex hoc, quod non accipiebat sumptus. Primo ergo tangit gloriae evacuationem; secundo evacuationis rationem, ibi Necessitas enim mihi est, etc.; tertio rationis declarationem ibi Vae enim mihi est, etc.; quarto recte evangelizantium mercedem, ibi Si volens hoc ago, etc.
Dicit ergo Nam si evangelizavero, etc., quasi diceret: Vere evacuaretur gloria mea, nam si evangelizavero, ita quod sumptus accipiam,.non est mihi gloria, id est, supererogationis praemium; necessitas enim mihi incumbit, Act. XXIl, 21: Vade, quoniam ad nationes longe mittam te. Et vere necessitas Vae enim mihi est, id est poena transgressionis in me manet, si non evangelizavero, Is. VI, 5: Vae mihi, quia tacui.
487. Aliter legitur secundum Glossam. Et hoc dupliciter. Primo modo sic Nam si, etc., quasi dicat: utique evacuaretur gloria mea caelestis, scilicet si ideo praedicarem, ut sumptus acciperem. Nam si evangelizavero tantum, ita quod non ex dilectione Dei et proximi hoc faciam, nec libera voluntate, non est mihi gloria apud Deum; necessitas enim praecepti, quod non audeo omittere, mihi incumbit; unde si solo timore servili praedico, vae enim, id est, aeterna damnatio, mihi est si non evangelizavero, sicut mihi iniunctum est. Si autem volens, etc. Quasi dicat: Si necessitate hoc facio, non est mihi gloria, si autem volens hoc ago, id est, si voluntatem adiungo necessitati, mercedem aeternam habeo; ideo Ps. LIII, 8 dicit: Voluntarie sacrificabo tibi, et confitebor, etc. Si autem invitus, id est, solo praecepto coactus evangelize, dispensatio mihi credita est, sicut servo, ut scilicet dispensem ad aliorum utilitatem, non meam; quasi dicat, aliis proficio, non mihi. Intelligit enim hoc de dispensatione servili, non filiali; secundum Glossam Augustini, nemo invitus bene tacit, etsi bonum est quod facit. Infra XIII, 3: Si charitatem non habuero, factus sum velut aes sonans, etc.
Secundo modo legitur sic: Nam si evangelizavero pro sumptibus accipiendis, non est mihi gloria de supererogatione in praedicando. Peto enim contra me (Matth. X, 8: Gratis accepistis, gratis date); necessitas enim vitae sustentandae mihi incumbit; quia pro necessitate vitae praedico. Vae enim mihi est, id est, famis cruciatio, si non evangelizavero. Si autem volens, id est, si non pro victus necessitate, sed pro charitate, hoc ago, mercedem aeternam habeo: si autem invitus, id est, pro necessitate coactus, dispensatio mihi credita est sicut servo, etc.
488. Deinde cum dicit Quae est ergo merces mea, etc., hic ostendit, quod non capiendo sumptus, gloria eius conservatur. Ubi primo quaerit, secunda solvit, ibi Ut evangelium praedicans, etc.
Dicit ergo Quae est merces mea, id est, quid faciendo merced em accipiam? quia hoc est meritum mercedis, ut scilicet ego praedicans Evangelium sine sumptu, ponam, id est stabiliam, Evangelium, Is. XXVIII, 25: Ponet triticum per ordinem, etc. Hoc autem faciebat, secundum Glossam, ne Evangelium venale putaretur. Sine sumptu, inquam, et hoc ut non abutar potestate mea, id est, mihi commissa in Evangelio praedicando, quod esset si acciperem indistincte, quia perderem auctoritatem libere arguendi: quia, Eccli. XX, 31, xenia et dona excaecant oculos iudicum, et quasi mutus in ore avertet correptionem, Ecclesiastica ergo utilitas implicatur in hac solutione, scilicet confirmatio boni, quia ut Evangelium praedicans, et declinatio mali, quia ne abutar potestate.
489. Et notandum, quod quatuor tetigit differentias eorum, qui tenentur praedicare.
- Quidam enim tenentur, sed non evangel izant, hi merentur poenam.
- Quidam tenentur et evangelizant, sed -coacti, hi non merentur mercedem, sed vitant poenam.
- Quidam tenentur et evangelizant voluntarie, sed accipiunt sumptus, et hi merentur mercedem, et vitant poenam, sed non habent supererogationis gloriam.
- Quidam tenentur et evangelizant voluntarie, nec accipiunt sumptus, et hi mercedem merentur, et vitant poenam, et habent supererogationis gloriam.
- Primum statum tangit, ibi Vae mihi est, etc.; secundum ibi Nam si in vitus, etc.; tertium, ibi Si autem volens, etc.; quartum, ibi Quae est ergo merces, etc.
9-4
1 Cor 9:19-2319 ἐλεύθερος γὰρ ὢν ἐκ πάντων πᾶσιν ἐμαυτὸν ἐδούλωσα, ἵνα τοὺς πλείονας κερδήσω: 20 καὶ ἐγενόμην τοῖς ἰουδαίοις ὡς ἰουδαῖος, ἵνα ἰουδαίους κερδήσω: τοῖς ὑπὸ νόμον ὡς ὑπὸ νόμον, μὴ ὢν αὐτὸς ὑπὸ νόμον, ἵνα τοὺς ὑπὸ νόμον κερδήσω: 21 τοῖς ἀνόμοις ὡς ἄνομος, μὴ ὢν ἄνομος θεοῦ ἀλλ' ἔννομος Χριστοῦ, ἵνα κερδάνω τοὺς ἀνόμους: 22 ἐγενόμην τοῖς ἀσθενέσιν ἀσθενής, ἵνα τοὺς ἀσθενεῖς κερδήσω: τοῖς πᾶσιν γέγονα πάντα, ἵνα πάντως τινὰς σώσω. 23 πάντα δὲ ποιῶ διὰ τὸ εὐαγγέλιον, ἵνα συγκοινωνὸς αὐτοῦ γένωμαι.
490. Superius [n. 482] ostendit, quod non vult sumptus accipere, et hoc propter intentionem praemii, hic ostendit, quod idem fecit propter amorem Evangelii. Ubi primo dicit, quod omnium se servum fecit; secundo quod omnibus se contemperare studuit, ibi [n. 492] Et factus sum Iudaeis, etc.; tertio subdit causam quare hoc fecit, ibi [n. 497] Omnia autem facio propter Evangelium, etc.
491. In prima implicat triplicem conditionem commendabilem in servitio: quae sunt generalitas, liberalitas, utilitas. Servit ergo gratis sive liberaliter, ibi Cum essem liber, etc.; generaliter, ibi Omnium me, etc.; utiliter, ibi Ut plures lucrifacerem, etc.
Dicit ergo Nam cum essem, etc., quasi dicat: Sine sumptu ponam Evangelium, nam et maius feci, scilicet quod cum liber essem ex omnibus, etc., id est, nullius meritis obnoxius, omnium me servum feci, omnibus me contemperando per vilitatem, et quasi debitorem constituendo, II Cor. IV, 5: Nos autem servos vestros per lesum. Et hoc ut plures lucrifacerem, id est, lucrum meae praedicationis et servitutis facerem. Quaerebat enim non res, sed animas. II Cor. XII, V. 14: Non quaero vestra, sed vos. Si enim commendabile est servire in temporalibus propter lucrum temporale, quanto plus in spiritualibus propter lucrum spirituale?
492. Deinde, cum dicit Et factus sum Iudaeis, etc., hic ostendit, quod omnibus se contemperare studuit, Et primo dicit quod contemperavit se nondum conversis; secundo quod etiam iam conversis, ibi [n. 496] Factus sum infirmis, etc.; tertio quod generaliter universis, ibi [ibid.] Omnibus omnia factus sum, etc. In prima primo dicit, quod contemperavit se Iudaeis; secundo quod Samaritanis, ibi [n. 494] Et his qui sub lege, etc.; tertio quod Gentilibus, ibi [n. 495] His qui sine lege erant, etc.
493. In prima, primo tangit contemperationem; secundo contemperationis rationem, ibi Ut Iudaeos, etc. Dicit ergo: Et factus sum Iudaeis tamquam Iudaeus, scilicet aliqua legalia servando, sicut in discretione ciborum, in circumcisione Timothei Act. XVI, 3, in purificatione legali Act. XXI, 24. Potest autem hoc intelligi dupliciter. Uno modo, secundum Hieronymum, factus sum Iudaeis tamquam Iudaeus, per simulationis dispensationem. Simulabat enim se servare legalia aliqua, quae tamen non servabat. Alio modo, secundum Augustinum, factus sum Iudaeus, etc. Vere enim condescendebat eis in observatione aliquorum legalium propter piam compassionem; et hoc fecit, ut Iudaeos lucraretur Christo, id est, eos ad fidem Christi converteret.
494. Deinde, cum dicit Et his qui sub lege sunt, etc., hic dicit quod contemperabat se Samaritanis. Ubi notantur tria de ipso. Primo eius sagacitas in hoc quod se contemperabat; secundo eius libertas in hoc quod sub lege non erat; tertio eius utilitas in hoc quod lucrifaciebat.
Dicit ergo: Sum etiam his qui sub lege Moysi sunt, id est Samaritanis, qui non sunt Iudaei sed Assyrii, qui fuerunt adducti ad inhabitandum terram Israel, IV Reg. xvii, v. 24 ss. Isti etiam erant sub lege Moysi, quia tantum quinque libros Moysi recipiebant. His ergo factus sum quasi sub lege essem, approbando scilicet legem, et ex ea docendo Christum; cum tamen ipse sub lege non essem, secundum litteralem observantiam, vel serviliter, quia iusto non est lex posita, I Tim. I, 9. Et hoc ideo feci ut eos, qui sub lege erant, scilicet ipsos Samaritanos, lucrifacerem, eos ad fidem Christi convertendo.
495. Deinde, cum dicit His qui sine lege erant, etc., hic dicit quod con temperavit se Gentilibus. Ubi primo tangit suam conformitatem; secundo suae fidei veritatem, ibi Cum tamen sine lege, etc.; tertio suae intentionis rectitudinem, ibi Ut lucrifacerem, etc. Et hoc est: Et factus sum his qui sine lege erant, id est Gentibus, Rom. 11, 14: Cum enim Gentes, quae legem non habent, tamquam sine lege essem, id est, assentiendo rationibus eorum, et bonis positionibus philosophorum, ut patet Act. XVII; Cum tamen sine lege non essem. Rom. VII, 25: Mente servio legi Dei. Sed in lege essem, non Iudaica, sed Christi, qui est Deus, non autem Moyses. De qua Gal. VI, 2: Alter alterius onera portate, et sic adimplebitis, etc. Et hoc ideo feci ut lucrifacerem eos qui sine lege erant, Gentiles ad fidem convertendo. O felix zelator! Gregorius: Nullum tale sacrificium quale zelus animarum.
496. Deinde, cum dicit Factus sum infirmis, etc., hic ostendit quod se contemperavit iam conversis. Ubi primo ponit modum bonum, secundo finem debitum, ibi Ut Infirmos.
Dicit ergo Factus sum etiam infirmis, in fide, infirmus, a licitis abstinendo. II Cor. C. XI, 29: Quis infirmatur, et ego non infirmor? Sic facit bonus medicus, qui comedit cibum infirmi, ut eum provocet ad comedendum, et sic sanet. Et hoc feci ut infirmos lucrifacerem, eos in fide roborando.
Et breviter omnibus omnia factus sum, quasi essem omnium sectarum. Ideo dicitur infra X, 33: Sicut et ego per omnia omnibus placeo. Et hoc ut omnes facerem salvos. In vestimento Poderis quod habebat Aaron, totus orbis terra rum erat descriptus, Sap. C. XVIII, 24. Et, IV Reg. IV, 34, Eliseus contraxit se ad modum pueri, et sic suscitavit ilium. Et quia, secundum Boetium, omnis alteritas discors, similitudo vero appetenda est; ideo viri spirituales, salva vitae et religionis suae observantia, omnibus se debent confermare.
497. Deinde, cum dicit Omnia facio propter Evangelium, superius ostendit quod omnibus se contemperare studuit; hic subdit rationem quare hoc tacit, et hanc duplicem: unam ex parte Evangelii, scilicet ut cursum liberum habeat; aliam ex parte sui, scilicet ut promissum praemium obtineat, ibi Ut particeps, etc.
Et hoc est quod dicit omnia autem facio propter Evangelium, sine impedimento praedicandum, ut particeps eius, id est, promissionum, quae in eo continentur, efficiar. Matth. V, 19: Qui fecerit et docuerit, hic magnus vocabitur in regno caelorum.
9-5
1 Cor 9:24-2724 οὐκ οἴδατε ὅτι οἱ ἐν σταδίῳ τρέχοντες πάντες μὲν τρέχουσιν, εἷς δὲ λαμβάνει τὸ βραβεῖον; οὕτως τρέχετε ἵνα καταλάβητε. 25 πᾶς δὲ ὁ ἀγωνιζόμενος πάντα ἐγκρατεύεται, ἐκεῖνοι μὲν οὖν ἵνα φθαρτὸν στέφανον λάβωσιν, ἡμεῖς δὲ ἄφθαρτον. 26 ἐγὼ τοίνυν οὕτως τρέχω ὡς οὐκ ἀδήλως, οὕτως πυκτεύω ὡς οὐκ ἀέρα δέρων: 27 ἀλλὰ ὑπωπιάζω μου τὸ σῶμα καὶ δουλαγωγῶ, μή πως ἄλλοις κηρύξας αὐτὸς ἀδόκιμος γένωμαι.
498. Superius ostendit quod proposuit a sumptibus abstinere, primo propter intentionem praemii [n. 482], secundo propter amorem Evangelii [n. 490], hic, tertio, propter expeditionem cursus et agonis sui. Primo quidem ostendit quod oportet in stadio expedite currere; secundo quod similiter oportet in agone expedite certare, ibi [n. 501] Omnis enim qui in agone, etc.; tertio quod ipse facit utrumque, ibi [n. 502] Ego igitur sic curro, etc.
499. In prima, primo ponit exemplum expedite currentium; secundo monet eos ad similiter currendum, ibi Sic currite, etc. In prima, primo tangit currendi exercitium; secundo convenientiam currentium, ibi Omnes quidem currunt, etc.; tertio differentiam pervenientium, ibi Sed unus accipit bravium, etc. In primo notatur conditio viatorum; in secundo multitudo vocatorum; in tertio paucitas electorum. Matth. XX, 16: Multi sunt vocati, pauci vero electi. Conditionem vero viatorum describit a tribus. A certitudine, cum quaerit Nescitis; a brevitate, cum addit In stadio: a labore, cum subdit Currunt.
500. Dicit ergo Nescitis. Quod tripliciter continuatur. Primo modo sic quasi dicat: Recte abstineo a sumptibus sumendis, ut particeps efficiar. Nam si non abstinerem a contrariis Evangelio, non essem eius particeps. Nescitis enim quod hi, etc.
Vel sic: Nescitis quod hoc facio, ut particeps Evangelii efficiar? et utique possum esse particeps. Nam non sic est de Evangelii praemio, vel de cursus bravio; quia hic unus accipit bravium, ibi vero omnes accipere possunt.
Tertio modo sic: Nescitis, quasi diceret: Ideo autem sic curro, quia licet multi currentes sint, pauci tamen sunt pervenientes. Nescitis enim quod hi qui in stadio currunt, omnes quidem currunt, in labore pares sunt, sed unus tantum accipit bravium, id est, praemium cursus? Stadium enim est spatium in quo pedites currunt, quod Hercules dicitur statuisse. Perficiunt autem stadium 125 passus. Et dicitur stadium a stando, quia Hercules tot passus currebat et postea stabat et respirabat; in fine huius spatii ponebatur aliquid quod erat praemium cursus, ut equus et pannus purpureus, et hoc dicitur bravium. Et licet in hoc stadio omnes currerent, unus tamen solus accipiebat bravium, scilicet qui citius perveniebat. Sic in cursu spirituali unus tantum, scilicet perseverans, accipit bravium. Quia qui perseveraverit usque in finem, hic salvus erit. Deinde, cum dicit Sic currite, etc., monet eos ad currendum. Ubi implicat tria: Actum strenuum currite, modum debitum sic, finem optimum ut comprehendatis.
Dicit ergo Sic, etc., quasi diceret: Quia unus accipit bravium, sic currite, per viam veritatis perseverantes, ut comprehendatis bravium vitae aeternae. Hebr. XII, I: Per patientiam curramus ad propositum nobis certamen.
501. Deinde, cum dicit Omnis autem qui in agone, etc., ostendit quod in agone oportet expedite certare. Ubi primo tangit agonizantium pugnam; secundo pugnandi formam firmam, ibi Ab omnibus se abstinet, etc.; tertio sic pugnantium mercedem debitam, ibi Et illi quidem ut corruptibilem, etc. Primum est necessitatis, scilicet pugnare; secundum virtutis, scilicet abstinere; tertium felicitatis, scilicet coronam accipere.
Dicit ergo Omnis qui in agone, etc., quasi diceret: Vere sic agendum est, quod patet exemplo: quia omnis qui in agone contendit, ab omnibus impedientibus se abstinet. Unde et nudi agonizabant in palaestra. Attende, ut Augustinus ait, quod de rebus non laudandis multae trahuntur similitudines, Deinde, cum dicit Et illi quidem ut corruptibilem, etc., tangit pugnantium mercedem, et primo pugnantium materialiter; secundo pugnantium spiritualiter, ibi Nos autem incorruptam, etc. Dicit ergo Et illi quidem abstinent, ut corruptibilem coronam accipiant, quod modicum est. Nos autem abstinere debemus, ut accipiamus incorruptam, scilicet coronam vitae, de qua lac. I, 12: Beatus vir qui suffert tentationem, quoniam cum probatus fuerit, etc.
502. Deinde, cum dicit Ego igitur sic curro, etc., ponit exemplum utriusque, scilicet currendi et pugnandi. Ubi primo tangit cursum suum in profectu boni; secundo pugnam suam in victoria mali, ibi [n. 504] Sic pugno, etc.; tertio rationem utriusque facti, ibi [numer. 505] Sed castigo, etc.
503. Dicit ergo Ego igitur, etc., quasi dicat: Quia talis corona servatur, igitur ego sic curro, bonum operando, non quasi in incertu m, id est, ut sim incertus de praemio. In incertum enim currit qui talia facit, ut de quibusdam sperare, ex aliis vero possit desperare, Omnia instruunt ad bonum: et persona apostolica, quae notatur ibi Ego; et forma implicita, quae notatur ibi Sic; et actio strenua, quae notatur ibi Curro; et merces sperata, quae notatur ibi Non quasi in incertum. Phil. II, 16: Non in vacuum cucurri, nec in vacuum laboravi.
504. Sic pugno contra hostes, decertando contra malum, non quasi aerem verberans, id est, non verbis tantum, sed factis. Non enim in sermone est regnum Dei, sed in virtute, supra IV, 20. Vel non quasi aerem verberans, id est, non inaniter me fatigando adversarium non laedendo. Sic erit perfectus homo; si sic se habeat, ut sit
- intentus in confessione. Is. xxviii, 15: Recogitabo tibi omnes annos meos in amaritudine animae meae.
- Devotus in oratione. Matth. VI, 9: Sic ergo orabitis: Pater noster, qui es in caelis, etc.
- Efficax in praedicatione. Iac. II, 12: Sic loquimini, et sic facite.
Haec tria pertinent ad actum oris recti, ita tamen quod confessio dirigitur Deo et proximo, oratio soli Deo, praedicatio soli proximo.
- Fortis in pugnando. Unde sic pugno, etc. Apoc. III, 5: Qui vicerit, sic vestietur veste alba.
- Patiens in sustinendo. Iudith VIII, 23: Sic Isaac, sic Jacob, sic Moyses, et omnes qui placuerunt Deo, per multas tribulationes transierunt fideles.
- Cautus in servando. los. c. II, 16: Ad montana conscendite, ne forte occurrant vobis revertentes, etc. Et sic ibitis viam vestram.
Primum propter malum culpae, scilicet pugna; secundum contra malum poenae, scilicet patientia; tertium contra malum tentationis, scilicet cautela.
- Benignus in condonando. Matth. XVIII, 14: Sic non est voluntas ante patrem, etc.
- Inutilem se reputando. Lc. XVII, 10: Sic et vos cum feceritis omnia quae praecepta, etc.
- Sollicitus, se discutiendo. Infra XI, 28: Probet autem se homo, et sic de pane illo edat, etc.
Primum reprobat malitiam proximi; secundum probat bonitatem Dei; tertium dubietatem status proprii.
- Humilis in obsequendo. Matth. lll, 15: Sic decet nos implere omnem iustitiam,
- Agilis in proficiendo. Unde hic v. 24: Sic currite, id est, proficite in bono, ut comprehendatis.
- Constans in perseverando. Unde hic v. 24: Sic currite. Phil. IV, I: Sic state in Domino, charissimi, Famosus in conversando. Supra IV, 1: Sic nos existimet homo, etc.
Primum respicit incipientes; secundum proficientes; tertium perseverantes; quartum perfectos.
505. Deinde, cum dicit Sed castigo corpus meum, etc., tangit rationem praedictorum utriusque. Ubi primo tangit austeritatem vitae; secundo commendationem doctrinae, ibi Ne forte, etc.; tertio rationem concordiae utriusque, ibi Ipse reprobus, etc. Ergo implet facto, quod docet verba, ne se damnet ore proprio. Et hoc est quod dicit Sed castigo corpus meum, per declinationem mali, motus carnis illicitos reprimendo. Castigo ergo, non occido,corpus meum, non tantum alienum. Rom. XII, 1: Exhibeatis corpora vestra hostiam viventem, sanctam, Deo placentem, rationabile obsequium vestrum. Et in servitutem redigo per operationem boni, corpus scilicet spiritui servire cogendo et sensualitatem rationi subiiciendo, sicut de beato Martino legitur: Carnem spiritui servire cogebat. Et hoc facio, ne forte, cum aliis praedicaverim, etc. Augustinus: Suo timore nos terruit Apostolus; quid enim faciet agnus, ubi aries timet et tremit? Ipse reprobus, id est, a Deo reprobatus, efficiar, quod turpe esset. Rom. II, 21: Qui praedicas non furandum, furaris. De huiusmodi posset vere dici illud Iob IV, 3: Ecce docuisti plurimos, etc. [v. 5]: Nunc autem venit super te plaga, et defecisti.
506. Hic quaeritur, ibi [v. 15] Melius est mihi mori, etc. Contra: Gloria non evacuatur nisi per peccatum; ergo accipere esset ei peccatum, non ergo licitum. Respondeo. Gloria essentialis per hoc non evacuaretur, sed gloria accidentalis est de hoc opere supererogationis.
507. Item [v. 16] Si evangelizavero, non est mihi gloria. Contra: Evangelizanti et sumptus accipienti debetur et aurea et aureola. Sed Glossa exponit: quando evangelizatur ex necessitate timoris, vel ex cupiditate mercedis temporalis.
508. Item super illud [v. 17] Dispensatio mihi credita est, Glossa: Non debemus evangelizare, ut manducemus. Contra: Ergo praedicatores quaestuarii peccant mortaliter, quia faciunt quod non debent. Respondeo. Si propter quaestum principaliter faciunt, peccant: sed si propter fructum spiritualem inde provenientem, bene faciunt.
509. Item ibidem Glossa: Propter regnum Dei debemus operari omnia non solum, sed cum regno Dei mercedem temporalem meditari. Contra: Ergo qui vadunt ad Ecclesiam pro distributionibus, peccant. Respondeo. Verum est, si solum vel princlpaliter propter hoc vadant.
510. Item super hoc [v. 18] Ut non abutar potestate, Glossa: Quod esset, si acciperet, quod probavit supra eodem quod ei licet accipere. Respondeo. Intelli.gendum est si acciperetur indiscrete et inordinate et immoderate.
511. Item [v. 19] Omnium servum me feci. Contra supra VII, 23: Nolite servi effici hominum, Respondeo. Hic loquitur de servitute charitatis, scilicet in bono, ibi de servitute iniquitatis, scilicet in malo.
512. Item [v. 20] Factus sum Iudaeis Iudaeus, Glossa: In cibis accipiendis, vel non accipiendis. Contra Glossa: Iniuste ergo reprehendit Petrum de discretione ciborum, Gal. II, 11. Immo bene, quia Petrus discernebat cum scandalo Gentium, scilicet in loeis Gentilium, Paulus autem non.
513. Item ibidem Glossa: Propter scandalum Iudaeorum circumcidit Timotheum, Act. XVI, 3. Contra: Veritas doctrinae vitae et iustitiae non debet dimitti propter scandalum. Respondeo. Usque ad divulgationem Evangelii non erat de veritate doctrinae sive vitae, ne homines circumciderentur, sed ne spem ponerent in circumcisione.
514. Item [v. 22] Ut omnes facerem salvos. Contra, sciebat non omnes salvandos. Respondeo. Volebat omnes in particulari, id est, quemlibet per se, non omnes simul.
515. Item super illud [v. 24] Omnes quidem currunt, Glossa: In spirituali agone, quotquot quidem currunt, si spiritualiter currunt, accipiunt; et qui prior venerit, expectat, ut coronetur cum posteriori. Contra, unusquisque in morte coronatur. Respondeo. Hoc intelligitur de gloria corporis, non animae.
516. Item super illud [v. 27] Ne forte cum praedicaverim, Glossa: Suo timore nos terret Apostolus. Contra, I Io. IV, 18: Perfecta charitas foras mittit timorem. Verum est timorem poenae, sed non timorem separation is sive offensae.
517. Superius monuit abstinere ab idolothitis, primo propter vitandum scandalum fratrum infirmorum, cap. VIII [n. 421], secundo propter exemplum suum, qui abstinet propter alios ab acceptione sumptuum, C. IX [n. 455], hic, tertio, monet ad idem ex consideratione poenae Iudaeorum in deserto idola venerantium, ubi, exemplo poenae istorum, primo monet abstinere a perpetratione peccatorum similium; secundo specialiter a comestione idolis immolatorum, ibi [n. 537] Propter quod, charissimi, fugite ab idolorum cultura, etc. In prima, primo ostendit quod antiquitus Iudaeis contigit; secundo propter quod, quia non propter se tantum, sed propter nos corrigendos ita evenit [n. 522] haec autem in figura facta sunt nostri, etc.; tertio, ut exemplo eorum caveant, concludit, ibi [n. 532] Itaque qui se existimat stare, etc. Ergo poena timenda, causa memoranda, cautela adhibenda. In prima, primo ponit beneficia gratiae eis impensa existentibus in Aegypto; secundo praestita in deserto, ibi [n. 519] Et omnes eamdem escam, etc.; tertio flagella propter ingratitudinem inflicta, ibi [n. 521] Sed non in pluribus, etc.
518. In prima tangit tria beneficia. Primum, in protectione nubis: secundum in transitu maris rubri ibi Et omnes mare transierunt, etc.; tertium, in purgatione baptismatis, ibi Et omnes in Moyse, etc.
Dicit ergo Nolo vos, etc., quasi dicat: Sic agendum est, sicuti monui. Non enim sufficiunt sacramenta Ecclesiae suscepta vobis postea peccantibus sicut nec Iudaeis Dei beneficia, quin postea punirentur. Nolo enim vos ignorare, etc. Hoc dupliciter legitur.
Uno modo de bonis et malis communiter; alio modo de malis specialiter [cfr. n. 520]. Primo modo sic: Nolo vos ignorare, fratres, quoniam patres nostri, institutores fidei nostrae, omnes, tam boni quam mali, sub nube protegente fuerunt. Ex. XIII, 21: Dominus praecedebat eos ad ostendendum viam per diem in columna nubis, etc. Vel sub nube, id est, sub figura et umbra. Hebr. x, 1: Umbram habens lex futurorum, etc. Et omnes mare rubrum, submersis hostibus, transierunt, non de una ripa ad ripam oppositam, sed ad eamdem, unde transierunt quemdam sinum maris. Et omnes in Moyse, id est, in ducatu Moysi, baptizati sunt in nube et in mari, id est, per visa signa illa purgati ab ignorantia; vel a vitiis per fidem, scilicet submersis Aegyptiis. Ex. XIV, 31: Timuit populus Dominum, et crediderunt Domino et servo suo Moysi. Vel baptizati sunt, id est, signum baptismi receperunt. Nam baptismus constat ex aqua et spiritu. Io. III, 5: Nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua et spiritu, Nubes autem symbolum erat spiritus, mare vero aquae, ut dicit Damascenus.
519. Deinde, cum dicit Et omnes eamdem escam spiritualem, etc., post beneficia exhibita Israel de Aegypto exeunti, hic tangit beneficia exhibita in deserto. Et primo beneficium mannae; secundo beneficium aquae, ibi Et omnes eumdem potum, etc.; tertio potus originem mirabilem, ibi Bibebant autem, etc.; quarto, originis significationem, ibi Petra autem, etc.
Dicit ergo Et omnes eamdem escam spiritualem manducaverunt, manna scilicet de caelo. Vocat autem eam spiritualem, cum esset corporalis, quia miraculose fuit data; de hoc habetur Sap. XVI, 20: Panem de caelo praestitisti eis. Et omnes eumdem potum spiritualem, scilicet aquam de petra. Num. c. XX, 8: Loquimini ad petram, et ipsa dabit vobis aquam.[Ps. LXXVII, 20] Percussit petram, et fluxerunt aquae. Bibebant autem de petra spirituali, quae dicitur spiritualis propter effectum miraculosum, propter futuri signum.
Petra consequente eos. Dupliciter intelligitur Consequente, id est, satisfaciente voluntati eorum. Ps. LXXVII, 29: Desiderium eorum attulit eis. Aquae enim ubique sequebantur eos. Is. XLVIII, 21: Aquam de petra produxit eis, etc. Vel consequente eos, id est veritatem sequentem significante. Petra autem erat Christus, non per substantiam, sed per significationem. [Matth. XXI, 42] Hic est lapis quem reprobaverunt, etc.
520. Alio modo legitur de bonis breviter sic Nolo vos ignorare, fratres, quoniam patres nostri, institutores fidei nostrae, omnes boni spiritualiter. Unde dicit: Patres nostri; non illorum, sub nube fuerunt, sicut prius, et omnes eamdem escam manducaverunt spiritualem, id est, corpus Christi in signo spiritualiter intellecto. Unde eamdem escam spiritalem manducaverunt, idem scilicet quod nos, sed aliam escam corporalem quam nos; et hoc quantum ad maiores in Christum credentes. Manducabant Christum spiritualiter, secundum illud: Crede, et manducasti. Et omnes eumdem potum biberunt, scilicet Christi sanguinem, in signo. Sic loquitur de signo et potu spirituali per fidem, non de corporali. Bibebant autem de spirituali, etc., sicut prius. Appetendus cibus et potus, quia sufficiens; unde dicit omnes manducaverunt, indeficiens, quia eumdem; utilis, quia potus et cibus spiritualis: quod notatur in ipso nomine spiritualis, etc.
521. Deinde, cum dicit Sed non in pluribus, etc., post beneficia tangit flagella. Et primo offensam, secundo poenam, ibi Nam prostrati sunt. Dicit ergo Sed non in pluribus, etc., quasi dicat: His omnibus beneficiis usi sunt Iudaei, sed non in pluribus eorum beneplacitum est Deo: in illis scilicet qui Deum offenderunt, sed tantum in duobus, scilicet Caleph et Iosue, quibus solis concessum est terram promissionis obtinere, Num. XIV, 24. Mal. I, 10: Non est mihi voluntas in vobis.
10-2
1 Cor 10:6-116 ταῦτα δὲ τύποι ἡμῶν ἐγενήθησαν, εἰς τὸ μὴ εἶναι ἡμᾶς ἐπιθυμητὰς κακῶν, καθὼς κἀκεῖνοι ἐπεθύμησαν. 7 μηδὲ εἰδωλολάτραι γίνεσθε, καθώς τινες αὐτῶν: ὥσπερ γέγραπται, ἐκάθισεν ὁ λαὸς φαγεῖν καὶ πεῖν, καὶ ἀνέστησαν παίζειν. 8 μηδὲ πορνεύωμεν, καθώς τινες αὐτῶν ἐπόρνευσαν, καὶ ἔπεσαν μιᾷ ἡμέρᾳ εἴκοσι τρεῖς χιλιάδες. 9 μηδὲ ἐκπειράζωμεν τὸν Χριστόν, καθώς τινες αὐτῶν ἐπείρασαν, καὶ ὑπὸ τῶν ὄφεων ἀπώλλυντο. 10 μηδὲ γογγύζετε, καθάπερ τινὲς αὐτῶν ἐγόγγυσαν, καὶ ἀπώλοντο ὑπὸ τοῦ ὀλοθρευτοῦ. 11 ταῦτα δὲ τυπικῶς συνέβαινεν ἐκείνοις, ἐγράφη δὲ πρὸς νουθεσίαν ἡμῶν, εἰς οὓς τὰ τέλη τῶν αἰώνων κατήντηκεν.
522. Superius ostendit quid antiquis Iudaeis contigit [n. 517]; hic ostendit quod non propter se tantum, sed propter nos corgendos ita evenit. Ubi primo ostendit quod propter nos corrigendos a peccato praedicta facta sunt; secundo quod propter hoc etiam scripta sunt, ibi Haec autem omnia in figura, etc. In prima ostendit quod ideo facta sunt, ut cohibeamur a peccato, et primo a peccato cordis; secundo a peccato operis, ibi [n. 524] Neque idololatrae efficiamini, etc.; tertio a peccato oris, ibi [n. 528] Neque murmuraveritis sicut quidam, etc.
523. In prima, primo deterret per poenam; secundo ex hoc dehortatur culpam, ibi Ut non simus concupiscentes, etc.; tertio malos reducit ad memoriam, ibi Sicut et illi concupierunt, etc.
Dicit ergo Haec autem in figura facta sunt nostri, non ficta, sed vere facta. In figura, inquam, ideo scilicet nos considerantes illorum supplicia, non simus concupiscentes malorum, sicut et illi concupierunt, de quibus Ps. CV, 14: Concupierunt concupiscentiam in deserto. Num. Xl, 4 dicitur quod vulgus promiscuum flagravit desiderio carnium. Et notandum quod sicut in bonis longe melius est quod figuratur quam ipsa figura, ut regnum caelorum quam terra promissionis, ita in malis longe peius est quod figuratur, quam figura significans. Secundum autem Augustinum, illa supplicia quae sustinuerunt, figura gehennae fuerunt, quae omni poena maior est. Haec autem pertinent ad sapientes inter Corinthios, qui desiderio carnes comedebant in idolio, et scandalizabant infirmos. Unde similes erant Iudaeis carnes desiderantibus in deserto, unde digni erant etiam simili poena.
524. Deinde, cum dicit Neque idololatrae, etc., dehortatur peccatum operis, ubi tangit tria peccata. Primo idololatriae; secundo fornicationis, ibi [n. 526] Neque fornicemur, etc.; tertio divinae tentationis, ibi [n. 527] Neque tentemus, etc.
525. In prima, primo dissuadet idololatriae vitium; secundo deterret per exemplum, ibi Sicut quidam ex ipsis, etc.; tertio explicat exemplum implicitum, ibi Quemadmodum scriptum est, etc.
Dicit ergo Neque idololatrae efficiamini, idolothitis vescendo in venerationem idoli, vel scandalum lnfirmorum, sicut quidam illorum, supple idololatrae, fuerunt, Ex. XXXII, v. 4 et PS. CV, 19: Et fecerunt vitulum in Horeb, et adoraverullt sculptile, quemadmodum scriptum est. Ex. XXXII, 6: Sedit populus, id est, quidam de populo, manducare et bibere coram idolo, quibus similes sunt qui comedunt idolothita, idola venerando, et surrexerunt ludere, id est, ludos facere, sicut choreas et huiusmodi, in venerationem idoli. Vel surrexerunt ludere, id est, idolum adorare, quod est simile ludo puerorum, qui faciunt imagines luteas.
526. Deinde, cum dicit Neque fornicemur, etc., tangit peccatum fornicationis, ubi primo dissuader tale peccatum; secundo deterret per exemplum culpae, ibi Sicut quidam, etc.; tertio poenae, ibi Et ceciderunt una die.
Dicit ergo Neque fornicemur, ut quidam ex vobis, supra v, I: Omnino auditur [ornicatio inter vos, sicut quidam ex ipsis fornicati sunt, cum Madianitis scilicet, Num. XXV, V. 1 ss., et ideo ceciderunt una die viginti tria, immo viginti quatuor millia, sed maior numerus non excludit minorem, unde non dicitur hic cum praecisione, vel forte vitium scriptorum est.
527. Deinde, cum dicit Neque tentemus Christum, etc., tangit peccatum divinae tentationis, quod dissuadet, primo, verbo, secundo, exemplo, ibi Sicut quidam, etc., tertio, supplicio, ibi Et a serpentibus, etc.
Dicit ergo Neque tentemus Christum, diffidendo de eius potentia, sicut illi qui in vobis desperant de resurrectione, sicut quidam eorum tentaverunt Deum vel Christum in Moyse, dicentes: Numquid poterit parare mensam in deserto? et ideo a serpentibus perierunt, donec scilicet serpens aeneus erectus est, ad cuius aspectum sanabantur. De hoc habetur Num. XXI, 8 S., et Deut. VI, 16: Non tentabis Dominum Deum tuum.
528. Deinde, cum dicit Neque murmuraveritis, etc., post peccatum cordis et operis dehortatur peccatum oris. Ubi primo dissuadet murmurationis vitium; secundo adducit quosdam in exemplum, et primo culpae, ibi Sicut quidam, etc.; secundo poenae, ibi Et perierunt a serpentibus.
Dicit ergo Neque murmuraveritis contra me, vel minores contra maiores. Sap. I, 11: Custodite vos a murmuratione. Sicut quidam eorum murmuraverunt contra Moysen. Num. c. XVI, 41: Murmuravit omnis congregatio fitorum Israel contra Moysen, et ideo perierunt ab exterminatore, ab Angelo scilicet, qui extra terminos terrae eos percussit. Bar. c. III, 19: Exterminati sunt, et ad inferos descenderunt.
529. Notandum super illud [v. 2]: In Moyse baptizati sunt, quod Damascenus in libro, IV cap. De Baptismo distinguit novem genera baptismatum, accipiendo baptismata large.
- Primum est aqua diluvii, de quo habetur Gen. VI, 11 ss.;
- secundum mare rubrum, de quo Ex. XIV, 15;
- tertium aqua expiationis, de qua Num. XLX, 20 s.;
- quartum baptismus Ioannis, de quo Matthaei III, 6;
- quintum baptismus de quo Christus baptizatus fuit, Lc. III, 21;
- sextum baptismus Spiritus Sancti super discipulos, Act. I, 5: Vos autem baptizabimini Spiritu Sancto;
- septimum baptismus poenitentiae et contritionis, de quo Eccli. XXIV, 30: Qui baptizatur a mortuo, etc.;
- octavum baptismus sanguinis, de quo Lc. XII, 50: Baptismo habeo baptizari, et quomodo coarctor, usque dum perficiatur;
- nonum baptismus aquae et spiritus, de quo 10. III, 5: Nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua et Spiritu Sancto. Matth. ult. [XXVIII, v. 19]: Baptizantes eos in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti.
530. Deinde cum dicit Haec autem omnia in figura, etc.; habito quod propter nos praedicta facta sunt, hic ostendit, quod propter nos etiam scripta sunt. Et primo quod in significatione, secundo quod in correctione, ibi [n. 531] Scripta sunt autem, etc.
Dicit ergo: Haec autem, etc.; quasi dicat: Ista contigerunt illis, et hoc non tantum propter sua peccata, non autem pro se, sed omnia in figura, nostri scilicet, contingebant illis: erat enim tunc tempus figurarum.
531. Deinde cum dicit Scripta sunt autem ad correptionem, tangit quod scripta sunt ad correctionem nostram. Ubi implicantur tria incitantia ad correctionem nostram. Primo antiquorum exempla, quae notantur in scripturis; secundo exemplorum causa, quae est correctio nostra; tertio, aetas novissima, quae est finis saeculorum.
Dicit ergo Scripta sunt autem ad correptionem nostram, quia quaecumque scripta sunt, ad nostram doctrinam scripta sunt, Rom. XV, 4. Nos, dico, in quos fines saeculorum devenerunt, id est, sexta aetas, quae est ultima aetas laborantium. I Io. II, 18: Filioli mei, novissima hora est. Quia ergo in ultima saeculi aetate sumus, tot exemplis priorum corrigi debemus. Vel in quos fines saeculorum devenerunt, id est, in quibus per fidem et amorem Christi finita est saecularitas, quia Phil. III, 20 dicitur: Conversatio nostra in caelis est. Unde temporalia non promittuntur tempore gratiae, sicut tempore legis. Unde nec in pactum deducuntur, sed adiiciuntur. Marth. VI, 33: Primum quaerite regnum. Dei, etc. Sed antiquitus erant in pactum. Is. I, 19: Si volueritis, et audieritis, etc. Ecce ergo exempla certa, quia scripta sunt; utilia, quia ad correctionem nostram; durabilia, quia in quos fines, etc.
10-3
1 Cor 10:12-1312 ὥστε ὁ δοκῶν ἑστάναι βλεπέτω μὴ πέσῃ. 13 πειρασμὸς ὑμᾶς οὐκ εἴληφεν εἰ μὴ ἀνθρώπινος: πιστὸς δὲ ὁ θεός, ὃς οὐκ ἐάσει ὑμᾶς πειρασθῆναι ὑπὲρ ὃ δύνασθε, ἀλλὰ ποιήσει σὺν τῷ πειρασμῷ καὶ τὴν ἔκβασιν τοῦ δύνασθαι ὑπενεγκεῖν.
532. Habita primo Iudaeorum punitione [n. 517], secundo punitionis ratione [n. 522], hic tertio concludit, quod exemplo eorum debent a malo cavere; ubi primo monet, ut caveant casum; secundo cavendi docet modum, ibi [n. 534] Vos non apprehendat, etc.; tertia promittit firmum adiutorium, ibi [n. 535] Fidelis autem Deus est, etc.
533. In primo implicat quatuor sollicitantia sapientem, scilicet multitudinem cadentium, cum dicit Itaque; incertitudinem stantium, cum subdit Qui se existimat stare, etc.; necessitatem cautelae, cum addit Videat; facilitatem ruinae, cum dicit Ne cadat.
Dicit ergo Itaque, etc., quasi dicat: Illi et si beneficiis Dei usi sunt, nihilominus propter peccata perierunt. Itaque ex eorum consideratione, qui existimat, aliqua coniecturatione, se stare, id est quod sit in gratia et charitate, videat, diligenti attentione, ne cadat, peccando, vel alios faciendo peccare. Is. XIV, 12: Quomodo cecidisti, Lucifer? Ps. xc, 7: Cadent a latere tuo mille, etc. Ideo Eph. V, 15: Videte quomodo caute ambuletis.
534. Deinde cum dicit Tentatio vos non apprehendat, etc., docet modum cavendi causam, scilicet cavendo tentationem. Ubi primo docet aliquam tentationem fugiendam; secundo aliquam sustinendam, ibi Nisi humana. Primo notificat, quia pulsat ut introeat: unde dicitur Tentatio; secundo quia impugnat, ut praevaleat; unde subditur Non vos apprehendat.
Dicit ergo Tentatio, etc., quasi diceret: Ne cadatis, tentatio, scilicet peccati, non vos apprehendat, trahendo in consensum peccati, nisi humana. Hoc dupliciter exponitur. Uno modo de tentatione interiori mala, et tunc est permissio; quasi dicat: Nulla peccati dilectio vos apprehendat, nisi forte de malis, sine qua vita humana non ducitur. Non enim est homo, qui semper faciat bonum et non peccet, II Reg, VIII, 46 et II Paralip. VI, 36.
Alio modo exponitur de tentatione exterioris boni. Et tunc est exhortatio, sic: Tentatio vos non apprehendat, nisi humana, scilicet tribulationum praesentium propter Christum tolerantia. Augustinus: Propter Christum pati humana tentatio est. Tob. XII, v. 13: Quia acceptus eras Deo, necesse fuit, ut tentatio probaret te.
535: Deinde cum dicit Fidelis Deus, ostendit paratum adiutorium in tentatione. Ubi commendat Deum adiutorem, quia dat nobis resistendi potentiam, quod notatur ibi Sed faciet cum tentatione, etc.; perseverantiam, quod notatur ibi Ut possitis sustinere, Vere fidelis Deus, qui dat potentiam, ne vincamur, gratiam ut mereamur, constantiam ut vincamus.
Dicit ergo Fidelis etc., quasi diceret: Vos ad hoc hortor et moneo, quod potestis: fidelis Dominus in omnibus verbis suis, qui non patietur vos tentari supra id, quod potestis: quod utique posset diabolus, si permitteretur, quia non est potestas super terram, quae ei comparetur, Iob XLI, 24. Et Is. XL, 29: Dat lasso virtutem. Ideo lac. I, 2: Omne gaudium existimate, fratres, cum in varias tentationes incideritis. Augustinus: Qui dat diabolo tentandi licentiam, ipse dat tentatis misericordiam. Proventum, inquam, ita ut possitis sustinere, ne deficiatis in lucta, sed vincatis: quod fit per humilitatem, ut dicit Augustinus. Illi enim non crepant in fornace, qui non habent ventum superbiae.
536. Notandum est super illud [v. 12] Qui se existimat stare, etc., quod ad casum impellunt nos
- primo debilitas virium, sicut cadunt pueri, decrepiti, infirmi, Is. XL, 30: In infirmitate cadent, quod contingit per tepiditatem bene operandi et instabilitatem.
- Secundo onus peccatorum sicut cadunt asini sub onere nimio, Ps. XXXV, 13: Ceciderunt qui operantur iniquitatem; quod contingit per negligentiam poenitendi: quia peccatum, quod per poenitentiam, etc.
- Tertio multitudo trahentium, sicut arbor vel domus multis trahentibus deorsum cadit, supra [x, 8]: Neque fornicemur, etc.; quod contingit per impulsum hostium.
- Quarto lubricitas viarum, sicut incauti cadunt in lubrico, Eccli. XXVIII, 30: Attende ne forte labaris in lingua, et cadas, et in conspectu, etc.; quod contingit per incautam custodiam sensuum.
- Quinto varietas offendiculorum, sicut avis capta in medio laqueorum, Prov. XIX, 8: Hi in curribus, etc. Prov. XXIV, 16: Septies in die cadit iustus; quod contingit per corruptionem creaturarum.
- Sexto ignorantia agendorum, sicut caeci cadunt de facili, Matth. XV, 14: Si caecus caeco ducatum praestet, etc.; quod contingit per negligentiam addiscendi necessaria.
- Septimo exempla cadentium, sicut Angeli ad exemplum Luciferi, Ps. xc, 7: Cadent a latere tuo mille, etc. Prov. xxv, 26: Fons turbatus pede et vena corrupta iustus cadens coram impio; quia contingit per imitationem malorum.
- Octavo ponderositas corporum, corpus enim, quod corrumpitur aggravat animam, sicut lapis in collo natantis, lob XIV, 18: Mons cadens defluit; quod contingit per carnis fomentum superfluum.
10-4
1 Cor 10:14-1714 διόπερ, ἀγαπητοί μου, φεύγετε ἀπὸ τῆς εἰδωλολατρίας. 15 ὡς φρονίμοις λέγω: κρίνατε ὑμεῖς ὅ φημι. 16 τὸ ποτήριον τῆς εὐλογίας ὃ εὐλογοῦμεν, οὐχὶ κοινωνία ἐστὶν τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ Χριστοῦ; τὸν ἄρτον ὃν κλῶμεν, οὐχὶ κοινωνία τοῦ σώματος τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐστιν; 17 ὅτι εἷς ἄρτος, ἓν σῶμα οἱ πολλοί ἐσμεν, οἱ γὰρ πάντες ἐκ τοῦ ἑνὸς ἄρτου μετέχομεν.
537. Superius [n. 517] ex consideratione Iudaeorum poenae monuit abstinere a perpetratione peccatorum similium, hic specialiter monet cavere a comestione idolis immolatorum. Ubi primo ponit commonitionem cavendi ab idolothitis; secundo subdit causam commonitionis, ibi [n. 556] Quid ergo dico, etc.; tertio docet modum cavendi a dictis, ibi [n. 562] Omne quod in macello venit, manducate, etc. In prima cavere ab idolothitorum comestione monet, primo ex timore poenae consimilis; secundo ex communione sancti altaris, ibi [n. 539] Ut prudentibus loquor, etc.; tertio ex similitudine sacrificii legalis, ibi [n. 555] Videte Israel secundum carnem, etc.
538. In prima, ut eius obediant dictis, primo arguit inferendo, cum dicit Propter quod; secundo allicit blandiendo, cum subdit Charissimi mei; tertio instruit exhortando, cum addit Fugite, etc.
Dicit ergo Propter quod, etc., quasi diceret: Quia Sacramenta sola non salvant, et qui cadit punitur, et auxilium Dei non deest, propter quod, charissimi mei, fuglte ab idolorum cultura, id est, ab omni idoli veneratione. Glossa [Lomb., col. 1623]: Ideo hos Apostolus hortatur fugere ab idololatriae superstitione, vel ne sapientes comedant idolothila cum offendiculo infirmorum quibus idololatrare viderentur; vel ne ipsi infirmi idololatrae sint, edendo in idoli veneratione. Fugite ergo ab idolorum cultura, vel putauva, quo ad esum sapientium; vel vera quoad esum infirmorum.
539. Deinde cum dicit Ut prudentibus loquor, etc., monet cavere ab idolothitorum comestione ex communione sacramenti altaris. Ubi primo quod dicturus est supponit eorum iudicio; secundo ostendit quid est illud, scilicet quod per communionem Eucharistiae efficimur unum cum Christo, ibi [n. 541] Calix benedictionis, etc.; tertio probat, quod ita est, quod omnes sumus unum in corpore eius mystico, ibi [n. 542] Quoniam unus panis, etc.
540. Dicit ergo Ut prudentibus, etc.; quasi dicat: Ut fugiatis loquor vobis ut prudentibus. Vel sic Loquor vobis altum quid, scilicet quod sequitur ut prudentibus. Vel sic: Loquor infirmis, scilicet qui sunt inter vos, ut supra locutus sum prudentibus. Et ideo, vos ipsi, maiores, iudieate quod dico lob XXXI, 13: Si contempsi subire iudicium cum servo meo.
541. Iudicate, inquam, hoc quod sequitur calix benedictionis, id est, potus calicis, per quem participantes benedicuntur, Lc. XXII, 20: Similiter et calicem postquam caenavit, dicens: Hic calix, etc. Cui benedicimus, id est, quod nos fideles exaltamus credendo et gratias agendo; vel cui benedicimus, id est, quem nos sacerdotes consecramus: nonne communicatio sanguinis Christi est? faciens nos unum cum ipso, secundum illud Augustini: Nec tu me mutabis in te, sicut cibum carnis tuae, sed tu mutaberis in me. Est ergo sua ratio talis: Sicut participans calicem Domini fit unum cum eo, sic participans calicem daemoniorum fit unum cum eis; sed daemonum unitas est maxime fugienda, ergo et participatio idolothitorum in eorum veneratione. Et ideo fugite ab idolorum cultura. Et panis quem frangimus, id est, sumptio panis fracti in altari, nonne participatio corporis Domini est? faciens nos unum cum Christo: quia sub specie panis sumitur corpus Christi.
542. Deinde cum dicit Quoniam unus panis, etc., ostendit, quod omnes sumus unum in corpore eius mystico. Ubi proponit primo unitatem, secundo subdit unitatis rationem, ibi Omnes qui de uno, etc. In primo tangit duplicem unitatem. Primam incorporationis, qua in Christum transformamur, cum dicit Unus panis, etc. Aliam vitae et sensus, quam a Christo capite accipimus, cum addit Et unum corpus, etc.
Dicit ergo Quoniam unus, etc., quasi dicat: Per hoc patet, quod unum sumus cum Christo, quoniam unus panis, unione fidei, spei et charitatis, et unum corpus multi sumus, per subministrationem operum charitatis. Corpus scilicet illius capitis, qui est Christus. Multi, dico, scilicet omnes, qui de uno pane, id est corporis Christi, et de uno calice, id est sanguine, participamus, digna partcipatione, scilicet spirituali, non tantuum sacramentali. Augustinus: Accipite, quia unus panis et unum corpus Ecclesia Christi dicitur, pro eo quod sicut unus panis ex multis granis, et unum corpus ex multis membris com ponitur, sic Ecclesia Christi ex multis fidelibus charitate copulatis connectitur. De ista unitate infra cap. XII dicitur.
543. Hic quaeritur super illo [v. 2] Omnes in Moyse baptizati. Glossa: Per visa illa legalia purgati. Contra, legalia non iustificabant. Respondeo. Iustificabant dispositive a remotis, non causative, quia per modum signi, non causae.
544. Item super illud [v. 4] Petra autem erat Christus, Glossa: Non petra dedit aquas, sed Christus. Contra Num. xx, 8: Loquimini ad petram, et ipsa dabit vobis aquas. Respondeo. Petra dabat originaliter, non effective.
545. Item super illud [v. 3] Omnes eamdem escam, Glossa: Si quis manducaverit ex hoc pane, non morieiur in aeternum,scilicet qui manducat corde, non qui premit ore. Contra: Ergo non oportet sacramentaliter manducare. Respondeo. Non qui premit ore, solum scilicet.
546. Item super illud [v. 4] Eumdem potum spiritalem, Glossa: Idem est effectus in illis sacramentis, sed non tantum quantum in nostris. Contra, sacramenta vetera non efficiebant quod figurabant. Respondeo. Idem est effectus, sed aliter: nam illorum per moduin signi: nostrorum per modum causae.
547. Item super illud [v. 6] Haec autem in figura facta sunt, Glossa: Omnes poenae minores sunt gehenna. Contra, carentia visionis Dei maior est quam gehenna, secundum Chrysostomum. Respondeo. Loquitur de poenis temporalibus.
548. Item super illud [v. 12] Qui stat, videat ne cadat, Glossa: Non quod sit aliquis fine casu. Contra, multi sunt sine mortali. Respondeo. Duplex est casus, unus a Domino per mortale, alter in Domino per veniale.
549. Item super illud [v. 13] Fidelis Deus, Glossa: Qui dat tentandi diabolo licentiam, dat tentatis misericordiam. Contra, quod fit de licentia, licite fit. Ergo licet diabolo tentare. Respondeo. Licentia accipitur hic pro permissione, non pro concessione.
550. Item [v. 15] Vos ipsi iudicate. Contra, non est inferiorum iudicare de factis superiorum. Respondeo, Non debent iudicare iudicio superordinationis, sed licet iudicio discretionis.
551. Item super illud [v. 16] Benedicimus, Glossa: Nos sacerdotes. Contra: Quod minus est a maiori benedicitur. Respondeo. In sacramento altaris benedictio sacerdotis fertur super terminum a quo, id est, super panem, non super terminum ad quem, id est, corpus Christi.
552. Item [v. 16] Panis, quem frangimus, etc. Contra: lam tunc non est ibi panis. Respondeo. Ponitur significatum pro signo, id est, panis pro specie panis.
553. Item super illud [v. 16] Nonne participatio, etc., Glossa: Per partes manducatur in sacramento, et manet integer in caelo. Contra: Christus sub sacramento est impartibilis. Respondeo. Manducatur per partes sacramenti, non sui.
554. Item ibidem Glossa: In illo sacramento corpus suum et sanguinem, commendavit, quod est, fecit nos ipsos, Contra: Non fecit nos corpus Christi verum. Respondeo. Quod id est cuius significatum, unde relatio est simplex
10-5
1 Cor 10:18-2418 βλέπετε τὸν Ἰσραὴλ κατὰ σάρκα: οὐχ οἱ ἐσθίοντες τὰς θυσίας κοινωνοὶ τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου εἰσίν; 19 τί οὖν φημι; ὅτι εἰδωλόθυτόν τί ἐστιν; ἢ ὅτι εἴδωλόν τί ἐστιν; 20 ἀλλ' ὅτι ἃ θύουσιν, δαιμονίοις καὶ οὐ θεῷ [θύουσιν], οὐ θέλω δὲ ὑμᾶς κοινωνοὺς τῶν δαιμονίων γίνεσθαι. 21 οὐ δύνασθε ποτήριον κυρίου πίνειν καὶ ποτήριον δαιμονίων: οὐ δύνασθε τραπέζης κυρίου μετέχειν καὶ τραπέζης δαιμονίων. 22 ἢ παραζηλοῦμεν τὸν κύριον; μὴ ἰσχυρότεροι αὐτοῦ ἐσμεν; 23 πάντα ἔξεστιν, ἀλλ' οὐ πάντα συμφέρει. πάντα ἔξεστιν, ἀλλ' οὐ πάντα οἰκοδομεῖ. 24 μηδεὶς τὸ ἑαυτοῦ ζητείτω ἀλλὰ τὸ τοῦ ἑτέρου.
555. Superius [n. 537] monuit abstinere a comestione idolothitorum, primo ex timore poenae consimilis, secundo ex communione altaris; hic tertio monet ad idem ex similitudine sacrificii legalis. Ubi primo excitat attentionem; secundo ostendit propositum, ibi Nonne qui edunt hostias.
Dicit ergo Videte. Hoc dupliciter legitur. Uno modo de sacrificiis Iudaeorum, alio modo de ritu gentilium. Primo modo hoc, quod dico Israel, est accusativi casus, alio modo vocativi. Primo modo sic, quasi dicat: Multi unum corpus sumus, qui de uno pane, et de uno calice participamus. Et hoc patet per hanc similitudinem Videte Israel secundum carnem, supple ambulantem, id est carnalibus sacrificiis deservientem. Hoc dicit ad differentiam Israel secundum spiritum. De utroque Rom. II, 28: Non enim qui in manifesto Iudaeus, etc. Nonne qui edunt hostias, legales, participes sunt altaris, legalis? Sicut qui edunt carnem Christi et sanguinem, participes sunt corporis eius.
Secundo modo legitur sic: Videte, o Israel, o vos qui estis Israel, spiritualis videntis, scilicet Deum; videte, inquam, ea quae sunt secundum carnem, id est, in idololatriae ritu carnali. Nonne qui edunt hostias, idolis scilicet immolatas, participes sunt altaris, daemonum et idolorum? Quasi dicat: sic. Est ergo sua ratio talis: Qui edunt hostias oblatas altari, participes sunt altaris. A simili qui edunt hostias immolatas idolis, participes sunt idolorum sive daemoniorum.
556. Deinde cum dicit Quid ergo dico, etc., superius [n. 537] posuit monitionem cavendi ab idolothitorum comestione, hic ponit causam admonitionis. Ponit autem quatuor causas quare debent ab idolothitis abstinere. Primo propter vitandam daemonis societatem; secundo propter vitandam sacrae communionis exclusionem, ibi [n. 558] Quia non potestis calicem Domini bibere, etc.; tertio propter vitandam Dei indignationem, ibi [n. 559] An aemulamur Dominum, etc.; quarto propter fratrum laesionem, ibi [n. 561] Omnia mihi licent, etc.
557. In prima, primo ostendit per hoc, quod non dicit hoc, eo quod alicuius virtutis reputet idolum, vel idolothitum; secundo, quod potius ideo, quia daemonibus est immolatum, ibi Sed quae immolant, etc.; tertio, quod non vult eos esse soeios daemonum, ibi Nolo autem vos socios, etc.
Dicit ergo: Quid ergo? Quasi dicat: Moneo cavere ab idolothitis. Quid ergo dico? id est, quid dicere videor hoc monendo? Numquid hoc, supple quod illud, quod idolis est immolatum, sit aliquid, vel alicuius virtutis, ut noceat, aut quod idolum sit aliquid veneratione dignum? Quasi dicat: Non. Ps. CXXXIV, 17: Neque enim est spiritus in ore ipsorum. Sed hoc potius dico quod quae immolant gentes, idolo, daemoni immolant, et non Deo. Ps. xcv, 5: Omnes dii Gentium daemonia: Deut. XXXII, 17: Immolaverunt daemonibus, et non Deo.
Deinde cum dicit Nolo autem vos fieri, etc., ostendit, quod non vult eos fieri socios daemonum, quod fieret si communicarent mensae idolorum. Et hoc est, quod dicit Nolo autem vos, qui fideles estis, socios fieri daemonum, edendo scilicet de his, quae idolis immolantur. II Cor. VI, 14 S.: Quae societas lucis ad tenebras, aut quae conventio Christi ad Belial?
558. Deinde cum dicit Non potestis calicem, etc. Ecce secunda ratio quare abstinendum est ab idolothitis, quae est talis: Omne quod excludit a communione corporis et sanguinis Christi, vitandum est: comestio idolothitorum est huiusmodi; ergo vitanda est. Primo ergo ostendit, quod huiusmodi comestio excludit a communione sanguinis Christi; secundo, quod et a communione corporis Christi, ibi Non potestis mensae Domini participes, etc.
Dicit ergo Non potestis, etc., quasi dicat: Nolo vos fieri socios daemoniorum. Hoc autem ideo dicit quia non potestis cali cem Domini bibere, potu spirituali, non Sacramentali tantum, Ps. cxv, 13: Calicem salutaris accipiam; et calicem daemoniorum, simul: et hoc quoad sacramentum sanguinis. Non potestis mensae Domini participes esse, quoad sacramentum corporis, et mensae daemoniorum. Matth. VI, 24: Nemo potest duo bus dominis servire. Ecce ergo calix fructuosus, quia ad bibendum spiritualiter pretiosus, quia Domini specialiter purus et mundus, quia non datur immundis utiliter. Similiter potest dici de mensa.
559. Deinde cum dicit An aemulamur Domimum, etc., ecce tertia ratio, talis: Omne illud quod provocat iram Dei, vitandum est; comestio idolothitorum est huiusmodi, erro vitanda est. Primo ergo ostendit, quod Deus provocatur ex tali comestione; secundo, quod stultum est eum provocare, ibi, Numquid fortiores illo, etc.
Dicit ergo An aemulamur, id est, ad iram provocare volumus, Dominum, comedendo idolothita? Vel sic An aemulamur Dominum, id est, invidemus ei, ut quasi in contemptum eius hoc faciamus? Deut. XXXII, v. 16: Provocaverunt eum in diis. Numquid, quasi dicat: Non debemus eum provocare. Numquid illo fortiores sumus? quasi dicat: Non. lob IX, 19: Si fortitudo quaeritur, robustissimus est. Fatuum est enim provocare fortiorem se.
560. Notandum super illud Nolo autem vos socios fieri, quod est societas bona et mala, et utraque quadruplex.
- Est ergo societas bona, prima personarum divinarum, de qua Io. I, 3: Ut societatem habeamus cum Deo, et societas nostra sit cum Patre et cum Filio eius Iesu Christo. Et hoc exigit summa iucunditas, quia nullius rei sine socio iucunda est possessio.
- Secunda angelorum sanctorum, de qua Tob. v, 27: Credo enim, quod angelus Dei bonus comitetur ei. Et hoc exigit hominis dignitas. Hieronymus: Magna est dignitas animarum, etc.
- Tertia virorum iustorum, de qua Gal. c. II, 9: Iacobus et loannes dextras dederunt mihi et Barnabae societatis. Et hoc exigit nostra utilitas. Eccle. IV, 9: Melius est duos, etc.
- Quarta beatorum, de qua Apoc. I, 9: Ego Ioannes socius vester et frater in tribulatione et regno. Et hoc exigit communis felicitas; quia si socii sumus passionis, erimus et consolationis, II Cor. I, 7.
Societas mala similiter quadruplex.
- Prima a parte malorum, de qua Is. I, 23: Principes tui infideles socii furum. Haec est societas Herodis et Pilati in crucifixione Christi.
- Secunda, hypocritarum, de qua lob xxx, 29: Frater fui draconum et socius struthionum, quae alas habere videtur et volare non potest. Haec est societas vulpis et lupi.
- Tertia daemonum, de qua lob XVIII, 15: Habitent in tabemacula eius socii eius, qui non est. Haec societas catti et muris, carnificis et bovis.
- Quarta damnatorum, de qua II Cor. c. VI, 14: Quae societas lucis ad tenebras? Haec est societas incarceratorum in igne.
561. Deinde cum dicit Omnia mihi licent, etc., ponitur quarta ratio talis: Omne illud quod laedit proximorum salutem vitandum est; sed comestio idolothitorum est huiusmodi, ergo vitanda. Primo ostendit, quod talis comestio comedenti non proficit; secundo, quod alterum laedit, ibi Omnia mihi licent, etc.
Dicit ergo Omnia mihi, etc., quasi dicat: Si illos peccare dicam, qui comedunt idolothita, non tamen dico cibos in se illicitos, quia omnia quae ad escam pertinent, mihi licent. Vel: Et si omnia mihi licent, sed non omnia expediunt, id est, adiuvant me in cursu meo. Simile supra VI, 12. Omnia mihi licent, id est, et si omnia mihi licerent sed non omnia aedificant proximos, sed ea, quae charitatis sunt, supra VIII, 1: Scientia infiat, charitas aedificat.
Et quia non omnia aedificant, nemo quod suum est quaerat tantum, charitas enim non quae sua sunt quaerit, infra xiii, 5; sed quod alterius, id est, quod alteri proficit. Sed heu! Phil. II, 21 dicitur: Omnes quae sunt sua quaerunt. Audiendus est ergo Apostolus, qui et docet verum, et monet bonum. Docet verum duplex, scilicet expedientiae sibi, quia omnia licent, sed non expediunt, et aedificationis aliis, quia omnia licent, sed non omnia aedificant. Monet bonum duplex, scilicet expedientiae sibi nemo quod suum est quaerat, et aedificationis aliis sed quod alterius.
10-6
1 Cor 10:25-3025 πᾶν τὸ ἐν μακέλλῳ πωλούμενον ἐσθίετε μηδὲν ἀνακρίνοντες διὰ τὴν συνείδησιν, 26 τοῦ κυρίου γὰρ ἡ γῆ καὶ τὸ πλήρωμα αὐτῆς. 27 εἴ τις καλεῖ ὑμᾶς τῶν ἀπίστων καὶ θέλετε πορεύεσθαι, πᾶν τὸ παρατιθέμενον ὑμῖν ἐσθίετε μηδὲν ἀνακρίνοντες διὰ τὴν συνείδησιν. 28 ἐὰν δέ τις ὑμῖν εἴπῃ, τοῦτο ἱερόθυτόν ἐστιν, μὴ ἐσθίετε δι' ἐκεῖνον τὸν μηνύσαντα καὶ τὴν συνείδησιν - 29 συνείδησιν δὲ λέγω οὐχὶ τὴν ἑαυτοῦ ἀλλὰ τὴν τοῦ ἑτέρου. ἱνατί γὰρ ἡ ἐλευθερία μου κρίνεται ὑπὸ ἄλλης συνειδήσεως; 30 εἰ ἐγὼ χάριτι μετέχω, τί βλασφημοῦμαι ὑπὲρ οὗ ἐγὼ εὐχαριστῶ;
562. Superius [n. 537] monuit cavere ab idolothitis, et posuit rationem quadruplicem suae monitionis: hic tertio docet modum cavendi a praedictis, ostendendo quomodo liceat edere, et quomodo non. Primo ergo ostendit an liceat edere; secundo quando non licet, [n. 565] Si quis autem dixerit, etc.; tertio quid in utrisque de bent attendere, ibi [n. 569] Sive ergo manducatis, etc. In prima primo ponit duos casus in quibus licet idolothita comedere. Primus, quando comedit per se; secundus, quando cum aliis, ibi [n. 564] Si quis autem infidelium, etc. Vel primus, quando nescit idolis immolatum; secundus, quando non in proximi scandalum. In primo casu primo tangit comedendi licentiam, secundo comedendi praestat cautelam, ibi Nihil interrogantes, etc.
563. Dicit ergo Omne quod in macello venit, id est venditur, etc.; quasi dicat: Quia licet edere, sed non expedit aliquando, ideo sic edite. Omne quod in macello venit, id est, venditur, manducate, si vultis. Omnis enim creatura Dei bona, et nihil reiiciendum, etc. I Tim. IV, 4. Vos, dico, nihil interrogantes, scilicet an sit idolis immolatum, vel non, et hoc propter conscientiam, astantis infirmi. Domini est terra, etc. Quasi dicat: Hoc secure potestis facere, quia Domini est terra, et plenitudo eius, id est, omnia quibus terra impletur. Ps. XLIX, 10: Quoniam meae sunt omnes ferae. Ambrosius hoc in loco: Non potest esse immundum, quod Domini est; sed omnes carnes sunt Domini, ergo de se mundae sunt et licitae.
564. Deinde cum dicit Si quis autem vocat, etc., ostendit quando licet comedere idolothita cum aliis, quando, si dantur in convivio, et ignoratur ab infirmis, quod sint idolis immolata. Ubi implicantur quatuor expedientia cuilibet convivae, scilicet ne sit impudens, se ingerendo, quod notatur ibi Si quis vocat vos; quod non sit offendens in respuendo, quod notatur ibi Et vultis ire; quod non sit onerosus in petendo, quod notatur ibi Omne quod vobis apponitur; quod non sit indiscretus in loquendo, ibi Nihil interrogantes.
Dicit ergo Si quis infidelium, id est, gentilium. Nam cum Iudaeis comedere prohibitum est, XXVIII, qu. 1, c. Omnes, ubi sic dicitur: Omnes deinceps, sive clerici, sive laici, Iudaeorum convivia vitent, nec eos ad convivium quisquam recipiat, quia cum Iudaei apud Christianos cibis communibus non utantur, indignum atque sacrilegum est eorum cibos a Christianis sumi. Si quis ergo infidelium, id est gentilium, vocat vos ad coenam, et vultis ire, id est placet vobis invitatio, omne comestibile quod vobis apponitur, manducate. Concessio est, non iussio. Lc. X, 8: Manducate quae vobis apponuntur, Vos dico, nihil interrogantes, an sit immolatum idolis, vel non. Et hoc propter conscientiam infirmorum.
565. Deinde cum dicit Si quis autem dixerit, etc., ostendit quando non licet comedere. Ubi assignat triplicem causam quare non licet comedere. Primo propter alterius conscientiam; secundo propter damnationem propriam, ibi [n. 567] Ut quid enim libertas mea, etc.; tertio propter imperitorum blasphemiam, ibi [n. 568] Si cum gratia participo, etc.
566. Prima ratio talis est: Nihil faciendum est scienter, quod laedat conscientiam eius qui facit, sed comestio idolothiti est huiusmodi; ergo nihil tale est faciendum. Primo ergo proponit idolothiti cognitionem; secundo dissuadet eius comestionem, ibi Nolite manducare, etc.; tertio subdit huius rationem, ibi Propter ilium qui indicavit.
Dicit ergo Si quis autem dixerit, etiam non interrogatus, Hoc est immolatum idolis, nolite manducare; et hoc propter illum, qui indicavit, hoc esse immolatum idolis, ne scilicet credat te manducare sub veneratione idoli, non quod cibus de se sit immundus. Rom. XIV, 14: Scio et confido in Domino, quod nihil commune est per ipsum, nisi illi, qui existimat aliquid commune esse. Sed etiam propter conscientiam aliorum infirmorum. Conscientiam autem non tuam, quae firma est, sed alterius, scilicet infirmi, II Cor. c. VI, 3: Nemini dantes ullam offensionem.
567. Deinde cum dicit Ut quid enim libertas mea, etc. Ecce iam secunda ratio, quae est talis: Quod facit ad iudicium damnationis propriae vitandum est: sed comestio idolothiti cum scandalo proximi est huiusmodi; ergo talis comestio vitanda est. Et hoc est, quod dicit Ut quid, etc., quasi dicat: Nolite manducare propter conscientiam infirmi, ut quid enim libertas mea, id est, quod liberum mihi est, iudicatur ab aliena conscientia? id est, mihi fit damnabile propter conscientiam alienam ratione scandali. Quasi dicat: Si comedo cum alterius scandalo, sic ago ut reddam me damnabilem. Matth. XVIII, 6: Qui scandalizaverit unum de pusillis is tis, expedit ei ut suspendatur mala asinaria, etc. Ut quid ergo sic ago? quasi dicat, male ago.
568. Deinde cum dicit Si ego cum gratia participo, etc. Ecce ratio tertia talis: Cavendus est casus in blasphemiam et vituperium aliorum; sed comedendo idolothitum, cum scandalo comedo sic; ergo, etc. Ubi primo tangit modum edendi debitum, secundo nihilominus blasphemiam insipientium, ibi Quid blasphemor.
Dicit ergo Si ego cum gratia, id est cum gratiarum actione, participo, id est, comedo. Sic enim semper sumendus est cibus, Io. VI, v. 11: Gratias agens benedixit et fregit. Quid blasphemor? ab imperitis dicentibus idololatrare. Blasphemor, inquam, pro eo, quod gratias ago, id est, quod gratias agendo participo. Rom. XIV, 16: Non ergo blasphemetur bonum nomen vestrum.
10-7
1 Cor 10:31-3331 εἴτε οὖν ἐσθίετε εἴτε πίνετε εἴτε τι ποιεῖτε, πάντα εἰς δόξαν θεοῦ ποιεῖτε. 32 ἀπρόσκοποι καὶ ἰουδαίοις γίνεσθε καὶ ἕλλησιν καὶ τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ τοῦ θεοῦ, 33 καθὼς κἀγὼ πάντα πᾶσιν ἀρέσκω, μὴ ζητῶν τὸ ἐμαυτοῦ σύμφορον ἀλλὰ τὸ τῶν πολλῶν, ἵνα σωθῶσιν.
569. Habito quando licet de idolothitis comedere et quando non [n. 562], hic ostendit, quin in utroque debent intendere. Primo respectu Dei, quia debent quaerere eius gloriam; secundo quid respectu proximi, quia debent cavere eius offensam, ibi [n. 571] S ine offensione estote, etc.
570. In prima, primo inducit actum multiplicem; secundo persuadet actuum intentionem debitam, ibi Omnia in gloria Dei, etc.
Dicit ergo Sive ergo, etc., quasi dicat: Quia haec mala contingunt, ergo sive manducatis, sive bibitis, quae, sunt opera necessitatis, vel aliud quid facitis, omnia in gloriam Dei facite, et cum invocatione creatoris, ea intentione, ut Deus laudetur et glorificetur. Matth. v, 16: Sic luceat lux vestra coram hominibus, etc. Col. III, 17: Omne quodcumque facitis in verbo aut opere, omnia in gloriam Dei facite.
Augustinus in Ps. XXXIV, concione II, in fine: Haec si recte fiunt, laudes Dei sunt. Non ergo solum vox tua sonet laudes Dei, sed etiam opera tua concordent cum voce tua. Cum enim Deus laudatur de bono opere. Deum laudas, et cum blasphematur Deus de malo opere tuo, Deum blasphemas.
571. Deinde cum dicit Sine offensione estote, etc., monet ut caveant ab offensa aliorum, et persuadet hoc primo, verbo, secundo, exemplo, ibi [n. 573] Sicut et ego per omnia, etc.
Ubi ponit se in exemplum, primo pacificae conversatiouis: secundo fructuosae operationis, ibi Non quaerens quod mihi utile, etc.; tertio rectae intentionis, ibi Ut salvi fiant. felix cuius conversatio amabilis, operatio utilis, intentio salubris.
572. Dicit ergo Sine offensione, etc., quasi dicat: Ut omnia in gloriam Dei fiant, sine offensione estote Iudaeis, qui non adoant Idola, et ideo in tali comestione scandantur, et Gentibus, qui adorant idola, et ideo per huiusmodi eomestionem in errore confirmantur, et Ecclesiae Dei, quantum ad infirmos in fide, qui inde offenduntur. Iudaei sunt sub lege, sed non sunt sub fide; Gentes nec sub lege, nec in fide; Ecclesia Dei et sub lege et in fide. Rom. XII, 18: Si fieri potest, quod ex vobis est, cum omnibus hominibus pacem habentes.
573. Sicut et ego per omnia omnibus placeo, tamquam eonversus sine scandalo. Ego, inquam, non quaerens quod mihi utile est tantum, sed quod multis. Ecce optimus modus placendi omnibus, si omnium utilitas, non privatum commodum procuretur. Charitas, inquam, non quaerit quae sua sunt. Quod est utile, inquam, multis, et non hoe ad aliquod commodum temporale, sed ad hoc ut salvi fiant. Phil. ult. [IV, 17]: Non quaero datum. sed fructum.
574. Notandum, quod multa sunt quae merito placere faciunt hominibus.
- Primum prudentia in consiliis, sicut advocatus clienti, dispensator principi placet. Gen. XLI, 37: Placuit Pharaoni consilium, et omnibus servis eius. Eccli. xx, 29: Vir prudens placebit magnatis.
- Secundum, munditia in factis, sicut coniux coniugi, instrumentum utenti placet. I Reg. II, 26: Puer autem Samuel crescebat et proficiebat, placens tam Deo, quam hominibus. Non sic filii Heli.
- Tertium, pietas in suffragiis, sicut medicus infirmanti, baculus seni placet. Unde de sepultura Abner dicitur II Reg. III, 36: Placuerunt eis omnia, quae fecit David, etc.
- Quartum, sapientia in verbis, sicut lumen viatori, viror visui placet. Ios. XXII, 33: Placuit sermo cunctis audientibus. Eccli. xx, 33: Sapiens in verbis producet seipsum, et homo prudens placebit magnatis
- Quintum, clementia in responsis, sicut sapor gustui, melodia auri placet. II Par. X, 7: Si placueris populo, huic, et lenieris eos verbis clementibus, servient tibi omni tempore.
- Sextum, fortitudo in bellis, sicut pugil conductori, miles principi placet. I Reg. XV III, v. 22: Dixerunt servi Saul ad David: Ecce places regi, et omnes servi eius diligunt te.
- Septimum, largitas in beneficiis, sicut pluvia terrae arenti, sicut fons sitienti placet. I Mac. XIV, 4 de Simone: Quaesivit bona gentis suae, et placuit illis potestas eius.
575. Hic quaeritur super illud [v. 20] Nolo vos esse socios daemoniorum. Glossa: Ad hoc genus pertinent quae fiunt in quibusdam rebus suspendendis, vel alligandis. Contra, ergo suspensio herbarum ad collum, vel chartularum, quae fieri solet, ad idololatriam pertinet. Responsio. Aut herbae habent a natura vim naturalem ad effectum illum, aut non. In primo casu non pertinet ad idololatriam, sed in secundo. Similiter cedulae, aut continent solum verba sacra, et ex hoc creduntur habere vim, aut non. In primo casu non pertinet ad idololatriam, sed in secundo.
576. Item super illud [v. 23] Omnia mihi licent, Glossa: Potestate liberi arbitrii, et doctrina legis naturalis. Contra, secundum legem naturalem multa sunt illicita. Respondeo. Hic loquitur de cibis specialiter.
577. Item ibidem Glossa: Praecepto Domini illa prohibentur, Respondeo. Illa praecepta ad tempus fuerunt, et revocata sunt.
578. Item [v. 25] Nihil interrogantes. Contra, Tob. II, 21: Videte ne forte furtivus sit. Respondeo. Non est simile, quia cibum furtivum non est licitum in se comedere, sed idolo immolatum licet edere, nisi propter scandalum alterius.
579. Item [v. 31] Omnia in gloriam Dei facite. Contra: Ergo nullus actus est indifferens. Respondeo. Relatio haec in gloriam Dei intelligitur, vel in actu, vel in aptitudine referendi, quae non est solum in bonis, sed etiam in indifferentibus.
580. Item [v. 26] Domini est terra et plenitudo. Contra, eadem ratio fuit sub lege. Ergo si omnia sunt modo munda, quia Domini sunt, et tunc fuerunt. Respondeo. Reputatione legis immunda dicta sunt, sed non sui natura.
581. Item [v. 33] Sicut ego per omnia omnibus placeo. Contra Gal. I, 10: Si hominibus placerem, Christi servus non essem. Item, quomodo placebat persecutoribus suis. Respondeo ad primum: Placere volebat hominibus propter Deum, non propter se. Ad argumentum secundum intelligitur hoc, non de omnibus generaliter, sed de ecclesiasticis viris, secundum Glossam.
11-1
1 Cor 11:1-3Reportatio Reginaldi de Piperno
Vulgate:Supra apostolus removit a fidelibus id quod est contrarium Eucharistiae sacramento, scilicet participationem mensae idolorum, nunc autem instruit fideles de ipso Eucharistiae sacramento. Et primo praemittit quamdam admonitionem generalem; secundo accedit ad propositum, ibi volo autem vos scire, et cetera. Circa primum duo facit. Primo proponit admonitionem; secundo significat quomodo Corinthii ad praedictam admonitionem se habebant, ibi laudo autem vos, fratres, et cetera. 582. – Having eliminated from the believers a practice contrary to the sacrament of the Eucharist, namely, partaking of food offered to idols, the Apostle now instructs them about the sacrament of the Eucharist itself. First, he gives a general admonition; secondly, he develops his proposition (v. 3). In regard to the first he does two things: first, he presents the admonition; secondly, he signifies how the Corinthians regarded that admonition (v. 2). Circa primum considerandum est, quod ita se habet naturalis ordo rerum, quod ea quae sunt inferiora in entibus imitantur ea quae sunt superiora secundum suum posse. Unde etiam naturale agens tamquam superius assimilat sibi patiens. Primordiale autem principium totius processionis rerum est filius Dei, secundum illud Io. I, 3: omnia per ipsum facta sunt. Et ipse ideo est primordiale exemplar, quod omnes creaturae imitantur tamquam veram et perfectam imaginem patris. Unde dicitur Col. I, 15: qui est imago Dei invisibilis primogenitus omnis creaturae, quia in ipso condita sunt universa. Speciali tamen quodam modo exemplar est spiritualium gratiarum, quibus spirituales creaturae illustrantur, secundum illud quod in Ps. CIX, 3 dicitur ad filium: in splendoribus sanctorum ex utero ante Luciferum genui te, quia scilicet genitus est ante omnem creaturam per gratiam lucentem, habens exemplariter in se splendores omnium sanctorum. Hoc autem exemplar Dei prius erat a nobis valde remotum, secundum illud Eccle. II, v. 12: quid est homo, ut sequi possit regem factorem suum? Et ideo homo fieri voluit, ut hominibus humanum exemplar praeberet. Unde Augustinus dicit de agone Christiano: qua perversitate non careat, qui dicta et facta illius hominis intueri diligit et sectatur, in quo se nobis ad exemplum vitae praebuit filius Dei? Et sicut divinitatis eius exemplar primo quidem imitantur Angeli, secundario vero reliquae creaturae, ut Dionysius dicit X cap. angelicae hierarchiae, ita humanitatis exemplar principaliter quidem imitandum proponitur praelatis Ecclesiae tamquam superioribus. Unde et dominus apostolis dicit Io. c. XIII, 15: exemplum dedi vobis, ut quemadmodum ego feci, ita et vos faciatis. Secundario vero ipsi praelati informati exemplo Christi, proponuntur exemplar vitae subditis, secundum illud I Petr. ult.: forma facti gregis ex animo; et II Thess. III, 9: ut nosmetipsos formam daremus vobis ad imitandum nos. Et ideo apostolus signanter dicit: dixi ut sine offensione omnibus sitis, et hoc quidem facere poteritis, si hoc quod dico servetis. Imitatores mei estote, sicut et ego Christi, scilicet sum imitator. Imitabatur enim eum primo quidem in mentis devotione. Gal. c. II, 20: vivo ego, iam non ego, vivit vero in me Christus. Secundo in subditorum sollicitudine. Unde dicebat Phil. II, 17: si immolor supra sacrificium et obsequium fidei vestrae, gaudeo et congratulor omnibus vobis, sicut et Christus obtulit semetipsum pro nobis, ut dicitur Eph. V, 2. Tertio quantum ad passionis tolerantiam. II Cor. IV, 10: semper mortificationem Iesu in corpore circumferentes. Et Gal. ult.: ego stigmata domini Iesu in corpore meo porto. Est autem notandum, quod non simpliciter dicit, imitatores mei estote, sed addit sicut et ego Christi, quia scilicet subditi praelatos suos imitari non debent in omnibus, sed in quibus illi Christum imitantur, qui est indeficiens sanctitatis exemplar. 583. – In regard to the first it should be noted that the natural order of things is so arranged, that lower beings imitate higher beings, as far as it is possible. Hence even a natural agent, being superior, makes the thing it acts on similar to itself. Now the primordial principle of the production of things is the Son of God, as it says in John (1:3): “All things were made through him.” He is, therefore, the primordial exemplar, which all creatures imitate as the true and perfect image of God. Hence it says in Col (1:15); “He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature, for in him all things were created.” But in a special way He is the exemplar of spiritual graces, with which spiritual creatures are endowed, as is said to the Son in Ps 110 (v. 3): “In the splendors of the saints before the morning star I begot you,” namely, because He was begotten before every creature through resplendent grace, having in Himself as exemplar the splendors of all the saints. But this exemplar of God has been very remote from us at first, as it says in Ec (2:12); “What is man that he could follow the king, his Maker?” And therefore He willed to become man, that He might offer humans a human exemplar. Hence Augustine says in the Christian Combat: “This perversity he does not lack who loves to inspect and imitate that man’s words and actions, in which the Son of God offered Himself to us as an example of living.” Just as angels were first to imitate the exemplar of His divinity, but secondarily the other creatures, as Denis says in the Angelic Hierarchy, so the exemplar of humanity is chiefly proposed to be imitated by the prelates of the church, as being higher. Hence the Lord says in John (13:15): “I have given you an example that as I have done, so do you.” Secondly, however, the prelates informed by the example of Christ are proposed to their subjects as exemplars of living: “Being examples to the flock” (1 Pt 5:3); “To give you in our conduct an example to imitate” (2 Th 3:9). Therefore, the Apostle expressly says: I have said that you should be without offense to anyone. And this, of course, you can do, if you take note of what I say: Be imitators of me as I am of Christ, i.e., an imitator. For he imitated Him, first, in devotion of mind: “I live, now not I, but Christ lives in me” (Gal 2:20). Secondly, in anxiety for his subjects: “Even if I am to be poured as a libation upon the sacrificial offering of your faith, I am glad and rejoice with you all” (Phil 2:17); Jesus Christ also offered himself for us, as it says in Eph (5:2). Thirdly, as to tolerating suffering: “Always carrying in the body the death of Jesus” (2 Cor 4:10); “I bear on my body the marks of Jesus” (Gal 6:17). But it must be noted that he does not merely say, Be imitators of me, but he adds, as I am of Christ, namely, because subjects ought not imitate their prelates in everything but in those things in which they imitate Christ, Who is the unfailing exemplar of holiness. Deinde, cum dicit laudo autem vos, fratres, ostendit qualiter Corinthii se habebant ad admonitionem praedictam. Circa quod considerandum est, quod subditi suos praelatos sequuntur dupliciter, scilicet quantum ad facta et dicta. Quantum quidem ad facta, dum subditi praelatorum exempla imitantur, unde dicitur Iac. V, 10: exemplum accipite, fratres mei, prophetarum, qui locuti sunt in nomine domini. Quantum vero ad dicta, dum eorum praeceptis obediunt. Prov. IV, 4: custodi praecepta mea et vives. In his autem Corinthii deficiebant, et maxime quantum ad maiorem multitudinem, et ideo apostolus, alloquens eos, dicit laudo autem vos, fratres, quasi dicat: super hoc laudandos vos praebere debetis, sed non facitis, quod per omnia memores estis, quasi ad imitandum mea exempla. Non enim possumus illorum exempla imitari, quorum memoriam non habemus. Unde dicitur Hebr. c. XIII, 7: mementote praepositorum vestrorum, quorum intuentes exitum conversationis, imitamini fidem. Quantum vero ad dicta, subdit et sicut tradidi vobis, praecepta mea tenetis, quasi dicat: eodem tenore observatis, quo ego tradidi; hoc enim dicit, quia ab observantia praeceptorum eius recesserant. Io. XV, 20: si sermonem meum servaverunt, et vestrum servabunt. 584. – Then when he says, I commend you, brethren, he shows how the Corinthians were acting in regard to the above admonition. In regard to this it should be observed that subjects follow their prelates in two ways: namely, as to their deeds and words. In regard to deeds, when they imitate the example of their prelates; hence it says in Jas (5:10): “As an example take the prophets who spoke in the name of the Lord.” In regard to deeds, when they obey their precepts: “Keep my commandments and live” (Pr 4:4). But the Corinthians failed in these things and especially the greater majority; consequently, the Apostle addressed them thus: I commend you, brethren. As if to say: You should offer yourselves to be praised on this point, but you do not, because you remember me in everything, so as it imitate my example. For we cannot imitate examples of ones we do not remember. Hence it says in Heb (13:7): “Remember your leaders; consider the outcome of their life and imitate their faith.” As to words he adds: You maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you. As if to say: You observe them in the same tenor as I delivered them to you: for he says this, because he had not departed from observing the commandments: “If they keep my word, they will also keep yours” (Jn. 15:20). Sed videtur hic modus loquendi non esse conveniens veritati sacrae Scripturae, quae nihil patitur falsitatis, secundum illud Prov. VIII, 8: iusti sunt omnes sermones mei, et non est in eis pravum quid, neque perversum. Sed dicendum, quod ironica locutio est una de locutionibus figurativis, in quibus veritas non attenditur secundum sensum quem verba faciunt, sed secundum id quod loquens exprimere intendit per simile, vel contrarium, vel quocumque alio modo. Et ideo in ironica locutione veritas attenditur secundum contrarium eius quod verba sonant, sicut in metaphorica, secundum simile. 585. – But this seems to be a manner of speaking not suited to the truth of the Sacred Scripture, which contains no falsity, as it says in Pr (8:8): “All the words of my mouth are righteous; and there is nothing twisted or crooked in them.” The answer is that irony is one of the figures of speech, in which one does not pay attention to the sense which the words make in order to get the truth, but what the speaker intends to express by a similar or contrary or other way. Therefore, in irony the truth is really the contrary of what the words indicate, as in a metaphor the truth consists in a similarity. Deinde cum dicit volo autem vos scire, fratres, etc., accedit ad propositum, instruens scilicet fideles de Eucharistiae sacramento. Et circa hoc tria facit. Primo redarguit eorum errores circa ritum huius sacramenti; secundo ostendit huius sacramenti dignitatem, ibi ego enim accepi a domino, etc.; tertio docet convenientem ritum, ibi itaque, fratres mei. Circa primum tria facit. Primo redarguit eorum errorem, quo scilicet errabant in habitu, quia scilicet mulieres ad sacra mysteria conveniebant capite non velato; secundo arguit errorem in conventu, quia scilicet dum convenirent ad sacra mysteria contentionibus vacabant, ibi haec autem praecipio non laudans, etc.; tertio quantum ad certum cibum, quia scilicet pransi ad sacra mysteria sumenda accedebant, ibi: convenientibus autem vobis, et cetera. Circa primum duo facit. Primo praemittit quoddam documentum, ex quo sumitur ratio subsequentis monitionis; secundo ponit monitionem, ibi omnis autem vir orans, et cetera. 586. – Then when he says, But I want you to understand, brethren, he proceeds to his intention of instructing believers in the sacrament of the Eucharist. In regard to this he does three things: first, he reproves their errors regarding the rite of this sacrament; secondly, he shows the dignity of this sacrament (v. 23); thirdly, he teaches the correct rite (v. 27). In regard to the first he does three things: first, he refutes their error, by which they erred in clothing, namely, because the women gathered for the sacred mysteries with heads uncovered; secondly, he corrects them in their gathering, because, when they came together for the sacred mysteries, they indulged in quarrels (v. 17); thirdly, as to food, because they approach to take the sacred mysteries, after they had just eaten (v. 20). In regard to the first he does two things: first, he lays down a teaching from which is drawn the reason for the next admonition; secondly, he gives an admonition (v. 4). Circa primum ponit triplicem comparationem, quarum prima est Dei ad hominem, dicens: dixi quod praecepta mea tenetis per contrarium; sed ut appareat vos irrationabiliter agere, volo vos scire, tamquam rem necessariam, secundum illud Is. c. V, 13: captivus ductus est populus meus, quia non habuit scientiam, quod omnis viri caput Christus est, quod quidem dicitur secundum similitudinem capitis naturalis, in quo quatuor considerantur. Primo quidem perfectio, quia cum caetera membra unum solum sensum habeant, scilicet tactum, in capite vigent omnes sensus; et similiter in aliis viris inveniuntur singulae gratiae, secundum illud quod dicitur infra XII, 8: alii datur per spiritum sermo sapientiae, alii sermo scientiae, etc.; sed in homine Christo est plenitudo omnium gratiarum. Non enim ad mensuram dat ei Deus spiritum, ut dicitur Io. III, 34. Secundo in capite invenitur sublimitas, quia ut, scilicet in homine, est superius omnibus membris, ita etiam Christus supereminet non solum omnibus hominibus, sed et omnibus Angelis, secundum illud ad Ephesios I, 20 s.: constituens illum ad dexteram suam in caelestibus, super omnem principatum et potestatem, et infra: et ipsum dedit caput super omnem Ecclesiam. Tertio in capite invenitur influentia, quia scilicet quodam modo influit caeteris membris sensum et motum, ita a capite Christo in caetera membra Ecclesiae motus et sensus spiritualis derivatur, secundum illud Col. II, v. 19: non tenens caput, ex quo totum corpus per nexum et coniunctiones subministratum et constructum crescit in augmentum Dei. Quarto in capite invenitur conformitas naturae ad caetera membra, et similiter in Christo ad alios homines, secundum illud Phil. II, v. 7: in similitudinem hominum factus et habitu inventus, ut homo. 587. – In regard to the first he mentions three comparisons, the first of which is of God to man, saying: I have said you hold my precepts, by irony, but in order that you may see how unreasonably you act, I want you to know as something necessary and in keeping with Is (5:13): “My people went into exile for want of knowledge,” that the head of every man is Christ. This is said according to a likeness of a natural head, in which four things are considered. First, perfection, because while the other members have but one sense, namely, touch, all the senses flourish in the head; and similarly in other men are found single graces, as it says in 1 Cor (12:8): “To one is given the spirit of utterance of wisdom, to another the spirit of knowledge,” but in Christ alone is found the fullness of all graces. For it is not by measure that he gives the Spirit, as is said in John (3:34). Secondly, in the head is found sublimity, because as in a man it is superior to all the members, so Christ is super-eminent not only over all men but also all angels, as it says in Eph (1:20): “He made him sit at his right hand in the heavenly places far above all power and dominion” and below (5:22): “Christ is the head of the Church.” Thirdly, in the head is found outflowing power, namely, because in some way it imparts sensation and movement to the other members; so from Christ is derived movement and sense to the other members of the Church according to Col (2:19): “not holding fast to the head from whom the whole body, nourished and knit together, grows with a growth that is from God.” Fourthly, in the head is found a conformity of nature to the other members; likewise in Christ relative to other men, as it says in Phil (2:7): “Taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of man.” Secundam comparationem ponit hominis ad hominem, cum dicit caput autem mulieris vir. Quod etiam secundum praedicta quatuor verificatur. Nam primo quidem vir est perfectior muliere, non solum quantum ad corpus, quia, ut philosophus dicit in libro de generatione animalium, foemina est masculus occasionatus, sed etiam quantum ad animae vigorem, secundum illud Eccle. VII, 29: virum ex mille reperi unum, mulierem ex omnibus non inveni. Secundo, quia vir naturaliter supereminet foeminae, secundum illud Eph. V, 22 s.: mulieres viris suis subiectae sint sicut domino, quoniam vir caput est mulieris. Tertio, quia vir influit gubernando mulierem, secundum illud Gen. III, 16: sub viri potestate eris, et ipse dominabitur tui. Quarto vir et foemina conformes sunt in natura, secundum illud Gen. II, 18: faciamus ei adiutorium simile sibi. 588. – The second comparison he presents is of man to man, when he says: The head of a woman is her husband. This is verified according to the four comparisons mentioned above. For, first of all, man is more perfect than woman not only in regard to the body, because, as the Philosopher says in the book On Generation of Animals, “the female is an occasioned male,” but also in regard to the soul’s vigor, as it says in Ec (7:29): “One man among a thousand I found, but a woman among all these I have not found.” Secondly, because man is naturally superior to the female, as it says in Eph (5:22): “Wives, be subject to your husband as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife.” Thirdly, because the man exerts an influence by governing the wife, as it says in Gen (3:16): “Your desire will be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.” Fourthly, the man and the woman are alike in nature, as it says in Gen (2:18): “I will make him a helper like to him.” Tertiam comparationem ponit Dei ad dominum, cum dicit caput vero Christi, Deus. Est autem considerandum, quod hoc nomen Christus significat personam praedictam ratione humanae naturae: et sic hoc nomen Deus non supponit solum personam patris, sed totam Trinitatem, a qua in humanitate Christi, sicut a perfectiori, omnia bona derivantur, et cui humanitas Christi subiicitur. Alio modo potest intelligi, secundum quod hoc nomen Christus supponit dictam personam ratione divinae naturae: et sic hoc nomen Deus supponit solum personam patris, quae dicitur caput filii, non quidem secundum maiorem perfectionem, vel secundum aliquam suppositionem, sed solum originem et secundum conformitatem naturae, sicut in Ps. II, 7 dicitur: dominus dixit ad me: filius meus es tu, ego hodie genui te. 589. – The third comparison he makes is of God to the Lord, when he says: The head of Christ is God. Here it should be noted that this name, “Christ,” signifies the person mentioned by reason of His human nature: and so this name, “God,” does not refer only to the person of the Father but the whole Trinity, from which as from the more perfect all goods in the humanity of Christ are derived and to which the humanity of Christ is subjected. It can be understood in another way, so that this name, “Christ,” stands for that person by reason of his divine nature; then this name, “God,” stands only for the person of the Father, Who is called the head of the Son not by reason of a greater perfection or by reason of any supposition, but only according to origin and conformity of nature; as it says in Ps 2 (v. 7): “The Lord said to me: you are my Son; today I have begotten you.” Possunt tamen haec mystice accipi, prout in anima est quoddam spirituale coniugium. Nam sensualitas foeminae comparatur, ratio vero viro, per quem sensualitas regi debet. Unde et caput eius dicitur. Vel potius ratio inferior, quae inhaeret temporalibus disponendis, mulieri comparatur; viro autem ratio superior, quae vacat contemplationi aeternorum, quae caput inferioris dicitur: quia secundum rationes aeternas sunt temporalia disponenda, secundum illud Ex. XXV, 40: inspice et fac secundum exemplar quod tibi in monte monstratum est. Dicitur autem caput viri Christus, quia sola ratio secundum superiorem sui partem Deo inhaeret. 590. – But these can be taken mystically, inasmuch as there is in the soul a certain spiritual union. For sensibility is compared to the female, but reason to the man, by whom sensibility ought to be ruled. Hence he is called her head. Or: the lower reason, which is interested in disposing of and arranging temporal things, is compared to the women. To the man is compared the higher reason, which occupies itself with contemplating eternal things and is called the head of the lower reason, because temporal things should be disposed according to eternal reasons, as it says in Ex (25:9): “Make it according to the pattern I showed you on the mountain.” But Christ is called the head of the man, because reason alone according to its superior part belongs to God.
11-2
1 Cor 11:4-7Reportatio Reginaldi de Piperno
Vulgate:Praemisso documento subiungit admonitionem, cuius ratio sumitur ex documento praedicto. Et circa hoc duo facit. Primo ponit admonitionem ex parte viri; secundo ex parte mulieris, ibi omnis autem mulier, et cetera. 591. – Having set forth the doctrine, he adds the admonition, the reason for which is taken from the doctrine mentioned. In regard to this he does two things: first, he gives the admonition on the man’s part; secondly, on the woman’s (v. 5). Dicit ergo primo: dictum est quod caput mulieris est vir, omnis autem vir orans aut prophetans velato capite, deturpat caput suum. Circa quod considerandum est, quod quilibet homo iudici assistens, suam conditionem vel dignitatem debet profiteri, et praecipue assistens Deo, qui est omnium iudex; et ideo, qui Deo assistunt, ordinatissime et convenientissime se gerere debent, secundum illud Eccle. IV, 17: custodi pedem tuum ingrediens domum Dei. Dupliciter autem homo Deo assistit. Uno modo humana in Deum referens, quod quidem fit orando, secundum illud Eccli. XXXIX, v. 6 s.: in conspectu altissimi deprecabitur, aperiet os suum in oratione, et pro delictis suis deprecabitur. Alio modo divina ad homines deferens, quod quidem fit prophetando, secundum illud Ioel. II, 28: effundam spiritum meum super omnem carnem, et prophetabunt filii vestri. Unde signanter apostolus dicit vir orans et prophetans. His enim duobus modis vir Deo tamquam iudici, vel domino assistit. Dicitur autem prophetans dupliciter. Uno modo inquantum homo aliis annuntiat, quae ei divinitus revelantur, secundum illud Lc. I, v. 67 s.: Zacharias pater eius impletus est spiritu sancto, et prophetavit, dicens: benedictus dominus Deus Israel, et cetera. Alio modo dicitur homo prophetans, inquantum profert ea quae sunt aliis revelata; unde illi qui in Ecclesia dicunt prophetias, vel alias sacras Scripturas legunt, dicuntur prophetantes. Et sic accipitur infra XIV, 4: qui prophetat, Ecclesiam aedificat; et ita etiam hic accipitur. Pertinet autem ad dignitatem viri (ut infra patebit) carere velamine capitis, et ideo dicit quod omnis vir orans, aut prophetans velato capite, deturpat caput suum, id est, rem inconvenientem sibi agit. Sicut enim in corpore pulchritudo dicitur ex debita proportione membrorum in convenienti claritate vel colore, ita in actibus humanis dicitur pulchritudo ex debita proportione verborum vel factorum, in quibus lumen rationis resplendet. Unde et per oppositum turpitudo intelligitur, quando contra rationem aliquid agitur, et non observatur debita proportio in verbis et factis. Unde supra VII, 36 dictum est: si quis turpem se videri existimat, super virgine sua, quod sit superadulta. 592. – First, therefore, he says: It has been stated that the head of the woman is the man, but any man praying or prophesying with his head covered dishonors his head. In regard to this it should be noted that any man assisting a judge should display a condition or dignity, and especially assisting God, Who is judge of all. Therefore, those who assist God should conduct themselves in the best behaved and suitable way, as it says in Ec (5:1): “Guard your steps, when you go to the house of God.” Now man assists God in two ways: in one way by relating human things to God, and that is done by praying: “He will make supplication before the Most High; he will open his mouth in prayer, and make supplication for his sins” (Sir 39:5); in another way by bringing things down from God to men, and that is done by prophesying, according to Jl (2:28): “I will pour out my spirit on all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy.” Hence the Apostle is careful to say, man praying or prophesying. For in these two ways man assists God as Judge, or he assists the Lord. He is said to prophesy in two ways: in one way, inasmuch as man announces to others what has been divinely revealed to him, as it says in Lk (1:67): “And his father Zechariah was filled with the Holy Spirit and prophesied, saying: “Blessed be the Lord, the God of Israel…” A man prophesies in another way, inasmuch as he utters things which have been revealed to others; hence, those who read the prophecies or other sacred scriptures are said to be prophesying. It is taken in this sense below (14:4): “He who prophesies edifies the Church”; it is also taken in that sense here. But it pertains to man’s dignity (as will be clear below) not to wear a covering on his head; consequently, he says that every man praying or prophesying with his head covered disgraces his head, i.e., does something unbecoming a man. For as in a body, beauty depends on due proportion of the members, on proper light and color, so in human acts beauty depends on due proportion of words or deeds, in which the light of reason shines forth. Hence in an opposite way ugliness is present when something is done against reason and due proportion is not observed in words and deeds. Hence it was said above (7:36): “If someone regards himself as base in regard to his virgin, because she is over age.” Sed contra hoc obiicitur: nam multi velato capite in Ecclesia orant absque omni turpitudine secretius orare volentes. Dicendum est autem, quod duplex est oratio. Una privata, quam scilicet quis Deo offert in propria persona; alia publica, quam quis offert Deo in persona totius Ecclesiae, ut patet in orationibus, quae in Ecclesia per sacerdotes dicuntur, et de talibus orationibus apostolus hic intelligit. 593. – The following objection is raised: For many with heads covered pray in church without any disgrace, as they wish to pray more secretly. The answer is that prayer is twofold: one is private and is offered to God in one’s own person; the other is public and is offered to God in the person of the entire Church, as is clear from the prayers said in the church by priests. It is these latter prayers that the Apostle has in mind here. Item obiicitur de hoc quod dicit Glossa, quod prophetans dicitur Scripturas reserans, et secundum hoc ille qui praedicat, prophetat. Episcopi autem praedicant capite tecto mitra. Sed dicendum est, quod ille qui praedicat vel docet in scholis, ex propria persona loquitur. Unde et apostolus, Rom. II, 16, nominat Evangelium suum, scilicet propter industriam qua utebatur in praedicatione Evangelii; sed ille, qui sacram Scripturam in Ecclesia recitat, puta legendo lectionem, vel epistolam, vel Evangelium, ex persona totius Ecclesiae loquitur. Et de tali prophetante intelligitur, quod hic apostolus dicit. 594. – There is also an objection against a Gloss which states that prophesying is called unlocking the Scriptures. According to this, anyone who preaches prophesies. But bishops preach with their head covered with a miter. The answer is that one who preaches or teaches in the schools speaks from his own person. Hence even the Apostle (Rom 2:16) calls the gospel his own, namely, on account of the energy he used in preaching it. But one who recites Sacred Scripture in the church, for example, by reading a lesson or an epistle or a gospel, speaks from the person of the whole church. This is the kind of prophesying that the Apostle understands here. Sed tunc remanet obiectio de his, qui cantant Psalmos in choro capite tecto. Sed dicendum, quod Psalmi non cantantur, quasi ab uno singulariter se Deo praesentante, sed quasi a tota multitudine. 595. – Then there is an objection about those who chant psalms in choir with their head covered. The answer is that psalms are not chanted as by one singly presenting himself to God, but as by the whole multitude. Deinde cum dicit omnis autem mulier, etc., ponit admonitionem quantum ad mulieres, dicens omnis autem mulier orans, aut prophetans, ut supra, non velato capite, quod repugnat propter conditionem eius, deturpat caput suum, id est, rem inconvenientem facit circa sui capitis detectionem. Sed contra hoc obiicitur, quia apostolus dicit I Tim. II, 12: docere in Ecclesia mulieres non permitto. Quomodo ergo competit mulieri, ut oret, aut prophetet publica oratione, aut doctrina? Sed dicendum est, hoc intelligendum esse de orationibus ac lectionibus, quas mulieres in suis collegiis proferunt. 596. – Then when he says, but every woman, he gives an admonition as it applies to women, saying: But any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled (which is unbecoming, considering her condition) disgraces her head, i.e., does something unsuitable in regard to covering her hair. But against this is the Apostle’s statement in 1 Tim (2:12): “I permit no woman to teach in church.” How, then, does it befit a woman to pray or prophesy in public prayer or in doctrine. The answer is that this must understood of prayers and readings which women say in their own groups. Deinde cum dicit unum est enim, etc., probat admonitionem praedictam. Et primo inducit probationem, secundo probationis iudicium auditoribus committit, ibi vos ipsi iudicate, et cetera. Circa primum duo facit. Primo inducit probationem, secundo excludit obiectionem, ibi verumtamen neque vir, et cetera. Circa primum ponit triplicem probationem, quarum prima sumitur per comparationem ad humanam naturam; secunda per comparationem ad Deum, ibi vir quidem non debet, etc.; tertia per comparationem ad Angelos, cum dicit et propter Angelos. 597. – Then when he says, it is the same as if, he proves the above admonition. First, he induces a proof; secondly, he submits judgment of the proof to his hearers (v. 13). In regard to the first he does two things: first, he induces a proof; secondly, he excludes an objection (v. 11). In regard to the first he presents three proofs: the first is taken by a comparison to human nature; the second by a comparison to God (v. 7); the third by a comparison to angels (v. 10b). Circa primum considerandum est, quod natura, quae caeteris animalibus providit auxilia sufficientia vitae, hominibus praebuit ea imperfecta, ut per rationem, arte, usu, manu sibi ea perficerent, sicut tauris dedit cornua ad defensionem, homines autem arma defensionis sibi praeparant manuali artificio rationis. Et inde est, quod ars imitatur naturam, et perficit ea quae natura facere non potest. Sic igitur ad tegumentum capitis natura homini dedit capillos. Sed quia hoc tegumentum insufficiens est, per artem praeparat homo sibi aliud velamen. Eadem igitur ratio est de velamine naturali capillorum, et de velamine artificiali. Naturale autem est mulieri, quod comam nutriat. Habet enim ad hoc dispositionem naturalem, et ulterius inclinatio quaedam inest mulieribus ad comam nutriendam. In pluribus enim hoc accidit, quod mulieres magis student ad nutriendam comam, quam viri. Videtur ergo conditioni mulierum conveniens esse, quod magis utantur artificiali velamine capitis, quam viri. 598. – In regard to the first it should be noted that nature, which provides the other animals with aids sufficient for life, offers them to man imperfectly, so that through reason, art and use, man with his hands provides those things for himself, as it gave bulls horns for defense; whereas men prepare for themselves arms for defense by reason’s direction of the hands. Hence it is that art imitates nature and produces things which nature cannot make. Thus, for the covering of the head, nature gave man hair. But because this covering is not sufficient, man through art prepares for himself another covering. The same explanation is true in regard to the natural covering and the artificial. But it is natural for a woman to have long hair. For she has a natural disposition to this, and further a definite inclination is present in women to take care of their hair. For this is true in the majority of cases that women take more pains with their hair than men. Therefore, it seems to be a condition suitable to women that they use an artificial covering for the head more than men. Circa hoc ergo tria facit. Primo ponit convenientiam velaminis naturalis et artificialis, dicens: dictum est mulier non velans caput, deturpat caput suum, unum est enim, scilicet unius rationis, privari scilicet velamine artificiali, ac si decalvetur, id est, ac si privetur naturali velamine capillorum, quod in poenam quibusdam praedicitur Is. III, 17: decalvabit dominus verticem filiarum Sion, et crinem earum nudabit. 599. – In regard to this he does three things: first, he mentions the suitability of a natural and artificial covering, saying: It has been stated that a woman not covering her head dishonors her head, for it is the same, namely, the same thing to be deprived of an artificial covering, as if she were bald, i.e., as if she were deprived of the natural covering of hair, which is predicted as punishment for certain people: “The Lord will smite with a scab the heads of the daughters of Zion and the Lord will lay bare their secret parts” (Is 3:17). Secundo ducit ad inconveniens, dicens nam et si non velatur mulier, tondeatur, quasi dicat: si abiicit velamen artificiale, abiiciat pari ratione etiam naturale, quod est inconveniens. Sed contra hoc videtur esse, quod sanctimoniales tondentur. Ad quod dupliciter potest responderi: primo quidem, quia ex hoc ipso quod votum viduitatis vel virginitatis assumunt, Christo desponsante, promoventur in dignitatem virilem, utpote liberatae a subiectione virorum, et immediate Christo coniunctae. Secundo quia assumunt poenitentiae lamentum, religionem intrantes. Est autem consuetudo viris, quod tempore luctus comam nutriant, quasi hoc sit suae conditioni conveniens: mulieres autem e contrario tempore luctus comam deponunt. Unde dicitur Ier. c. VII, 29: capillum tuum tonde, et proiice, et sume indirectum planctum. 600. – Secondly, he leads to something unacceptable, saying: For if a woman will not veil herself, then she should cut off her hair. As if to say: If she throws aside the artificial covering, let her for the same reason cast aside the natural covering; which is unacceptable. But against this seems to be the fact that nuns are shaved. To this there are two answers: first, because from the very fact that they take a vow of virginity or widowhood with Christ as their spouse, they are promoted to the dignity of men, being freed from subjection to men and joined to Christ Himself. Secondly, because they assume a garb of penance, when they enter religion. Now it is custom of men that in time of sorrow they take care of their hair. Hence it says in Jer (7:21): “Cut off your hair and cast it away, raise a lamentation on the bare heights.” Tertio concludit propositum dicens si vero turpe, id est indecens, est mulieri tonderi aut decalvari, id est, privari naturali velamine, arte, vel natura, velet caput suum, utens scilicet velamine artificiali. 601. – Thirdly, he concludes his proposition, saying: But if it is disgraceful, i.e., unbecoming, for a woman to be shorn or shaven, i.e., be deprived of her natural covering by art or by nature, let her wear a veil. Deinde cum dicit vir quidem, etc., ponit secundam probationem, quae accipitur per comparationem ad Deum. Et primo inducit ad probationem, secundo probat quod supposuerat, ibi non enim est vir, et cetera. Circa primum duo facit. Primo ponit rationem eius quod est ex parte viri, secundo illud quod est ex parte mulieris, ibi mulier autem, et cetera. 602. – Then when he says, For a man, he presents the second proof, which is taken from a comparison to God. First, he induces to the proof; secondly, he proves what he had supposed (v. 8). In regard to the first he does two things: first, he lays down the reason for that which is on man’s part; secondly, on the woman’s part (v. 7). Dicit ergo primo: dictum est quod turpe est mulieri tonderi, sicut et non velari; viro autem non est turpe, cuius ratio est haec vir quidem non debet velare caput suum, quia est imago et gloria Dei. 603. – First, therefore, he says: It has been stated that it is disgraceful for a woman to be shorn, just as it is for her not to be veiled; for a man, however, it is not disgraceful, the reason being that a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God. Per hoc autem quod dicit est imago Dei, excluditur quorumdam error, dicentium quod homo solum est ad imaginem Dei, non autem est imago, cuius contrarium hic apostolus dicit. Dicebant autem, quod solus filius est imago, secundum illud Col. c. I, 15: qui est imago invisibilis Dei. Est ergo dicendum, quod homo imago Dei dicitur et ad imaginem. Est enim imago imperfecta: filius autem dicitur imago, non ad imaginem, quia est imago perfecta. Ad cuius evidentiam considerandum est, quod de ratione imaginis in communi duo sunt. Primo quidem similitudo, non in quibuscumque, sed vel in ipsa specie rei, sicut homo filius assimilatur patri suo. Vel in aliquo quod sit signum speciei, sicut figura in rebus corporalibus. Unde qui figuram equi describunt, dicuntur imaginem eius depingere. Et hoc est, quod dicit Hilarius in libro de synodis, quod imago est species indifferens. Secundo requiritur origo. Non enim duorum hominum, qui sunt similes specie, unus imago alterius dicitur, nisi ex eo oriatur, sicut filius a patre. Nam imago dicitur ab exemplari. Tertio ad rationem perfectae imaginis requiritur aequalitas. Quia igitur homo similatur Deo secundum memoriam, intelligentiam et voluntatem mentis, quod pertinet ad speciem intellectualis naturae, et hoc habet a Deo, dicitur esse Dei imago; quia tamen deest aequalitas, est Dei imago imperfecta. Et ideo dicitur ad imaginem, secundum illud Gen. I, 26: faciamus hominem ad imaginem et similitudinem nostram. Sed filius, qui est aequalis patri, est imago perfecta, non autem ad imaginem. 604. – In saying that he is the image of God, the error is excluded of those who say that man is only made to the image of God, but is not the image; the opposite of which the Apostle says here. For they said that the Son alone is image, because it says in Col (1:15): “He is the image of the invisible God.” Therefore, one must say that man is said to be the image of God and to His image. For he is an imperfect image, but the Son is said to be the image but not to the image, because He is the perfect image. To clarify this it should be noted that two things are generally involved in the notion of an image. First, a likeness, not in just any way, but in the very species of a thing, as a human son is similar to this father. Or in something which is a sign of the species, as the shape, in bodily things. Hence one who draws the shape of a horse is said to depict his image. And this is what Hilary says in the book, On Synods, that an image is an indifferent species. Secondly, origin is required. For one of two men who are similar in species is not the image of the other, unless he sprang from him, as a son from the father. Thirdly, the notion of a perfect image requires equality. Therefore, because man is similar to God in memory, intelligence and will, which pertain to the species of an intellectual nature and he has this from God, he is said to be God’s image; but because equality is lacking, he is an imperfect image of God. For this reason he is said to be God’s image, as in Gen (1:26): “Let us make man to our image and likeness.” Considerandum est etiam, quod gloria Dei dupliciter dicitur. Uno modo qua Deus in se gloriosus est, et sic homo non est gloria Dei, sed potius Deus est gloria hominis, secundum illud Ps. III, 4: tu, domine, susceptor meus es et gloria mea. Alio modo dicitur gloria Dei claritas eius ab eo derivata, secundum illud Ex. ult.: gloria domini implevit illud. Et hoc modo hic dicitur, quod vir est gloria Dei, inquantum claritas Dei immediate super virum refulget, secundum illud Ps. IV, 7: signatum est super nos lumen vultus tui, domine. 605. – It should also be noted that the glory of God is spoken of in two ways: in one way the glory by which God is glorious in Himself; this is not how man is God’s glory, but rather God is man’s glory, according to Ps 3 (v. 3): “But thou, O Lord, art a shield about me, my glory.” In another way the glory of God is His splendor derived from Him: “The glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle” (Ex 40:34). This is the way it says here that man is the glory of God, inasmuch as God’s splendor shines on man, as it says in Ps 4 (v. 6): “The light of your countenance has been signed upon us, O Lord.” Deinde cum dicit mulier autem, etc., ponit id quod est ex parte mulieris, dicens mulier autem est gloria viri, etc., quia claritas mulieris derivatur a viro, secundum illud Gen. II, 23: haec vocabitur virago, quoniam de viro sumpta est. 606. – Then when he says, but woman, he presents that which is on the part of the woman, saying: But woman is the glory of man, because, as it says in Gen (2:23): “She shall be called woman, because she was taken out of man.” Sed contra hoc obiicitur, quia imago Dei attenditur in homine secundum spiritum, in quo non est differentia maris et foeminae, ut dicitur Col. III, 11. Non ergo magis debet dici, quod vir dicitur imago Dei, quam mulier. Dicendum est autem, quod vir dicitur hic specialiter imago Dei secundum quaedam exteriora, scilicet quia vir est principium totius sui generis, sicut Deus est principium totius universi, et quia de latere Christi dormientis in cruce fluxerunt sacramenta sanguinis et aquae, a quibus fabricata est Ecclesia. Potest etiam quantum ad interiora dici, quod vir specialius dicitur imago Dei secundum mentem, inquantum in eo ratio magis viget. Sed melius dicendum est quod apostolus signanter loquitur. Nam de viro dixit, quod vir imago et gloria Dei est: de muliere autem non dixit, quod esset imago et gloria viri, sed solum quod est gloria viri, ut detur intelligi quod esse imaginem Dei, commune est viro et mulieri: esse autem gloriam Dei immediate proprium est viri. 607. – Some object that because the image of God in man is regarded with respect to the spirit, in which there is no difference between male and female, as it says in Gal (3:28). Therefore, there is no more reason why man is called the image of God than a woman is. The answer is that man is here called the image of God in a special way, namely, because man is the principle of his entire race, as God is the principle of the entire universe and because from the side of Christ dying on the cross flowed the sacraments of blood and water, from which the Church has been organized. Furthermore, in regard to what is within, man is more especially called the image of God, inasmuch as reason is more vigorous in him. But it is better to say that the Apostle speaks clearly here. For he said of man that he is the image and glory of God; but he did not say of the woman that she is the image and glory of man, but only that she is the glory of the man. This gives us to understand that it is common to man and woman to be the image of God; but it is immediately characteristic of man to be the glory of God. Restat autem considerandum, propter quid vir non debeat velare caput, sed mulier. Quod quidem dupliciter accipi potest. Primo quidem quia velamen, quod capiti superponitur, designat potestatem alterius super caput existentis ordine naturae: et ideo vir sub Deo existens, non debet velamen habere, super caput, ut ostendat se immediate Deo subesse, mulier autem debet velamen habere, ut ostendat se praeter Deum alteri naturaliter subesse. Unde cessat obiectio de servo et subdito: quia haec subiectio non est naturalis. Secundo ad ostendendum, quod gloria Dei non est occultanda, sed revelanda: gloria autem hominis est occultanda; unde in Ps. CXIII, v. 9 s. dicitur: non nobis, domine, non nobis, sed nomini tuo da gloriam. 608. – We must consider why man should not veil his head, but the woman. This can be taken in two ways: first, because a veil put on the head designates the power of another over the head of a person existing in the order of nature. Therefore, the man existing under God should not have a covering over his head to show that he is immediately subject to God; but the woman should wear a covering to show that besides God she is naturally subject to another. Hence a stop is put to the objection about servant and subject, because this subjection is not natural. Secondly, to show that the glory of God should not be concealed but revealed; but man’s glory is to be concealed. Hence it says in Ps. 113:9: “Not to us, O Lord, not to us, but to thy name give the glory.”
11-3
1 Cor 11:8-16Reportatio Reginaldi de Piperno
Vulgate:Praemiserat apostolus quod mulier est gloria viri, quod hic probare intendit. Et circa hoc tria facit. Primo ponit probationem; secundo assignat rationem eius quod dixerat, ibi etenim non est creatus, etc.; tertio infert conclusionem intentam, ibi ideo debet, et cetera. 609. – Having stated that the woman is the glory of man, the Apostle now prepares to prove it. In regard to this he does three things: first, he presents the proof; secondly, he assigns a reason for what he had said (v. 9); thirdly, he draws the conclusion intended (v. 10). Circa primum considerandum, quod, sicut supra dictum est, mulier dicitur gloria viri per quamdam derivationem, et ideo, ad hoc probandum, subdit non enim, prima scilicet rerum conditione, vir est ex muliere, scilicet formatus, sed mulier ex viro. Dicitur enim Gen. II, 22, quod aedificavit dominus Deus costam, quam tulerat de Adam in mulierem. De viro autem dicitur formavit dominus Deus hominem de limo terrae. 610. – In regard to the first it should be noted that, as was stated above, the woman is called the glory of man through something derived. Consequently, to prove this he says: For man in the original condition of things was not made from woman, but woman from man. For it says in Gen (2:22): “And the rib from with the Lord God had taken from the man He made into a woman.” About man it is said that “The Lord formed man of dust from the ground” (Gen 2:7). Deinde cum dicit etenim, etc., assignat rationem eius quod dixerat. Ad cuius evidentiam considerandus est talis ordo perfecti et imperfecti, quod imperfectum in uno et eodem subiecto prius est tempore, quam perfectum. Prius enim aliquis homo est puer, quam vir; simpliciter tamen perfectum est prius imperfecto, tempore et natura. Nam puer producitur ex viro. Haec igitur est ratio quare mulier producta est ex viro, quia perfectior est muliere, quod ex hoc probat apostolus, quia finis est perfectior eo quod est ad finem: vir autem est finis mulieris. Et hoc est quod dicit etenim non est creatus vir propter mulierem, sed mulier propter virum, in adiutorium scilicet generationis: sicut patiens est propter agens, et materia propter formam. Unde dicitur Gen. II, 18: non est bonum hominem esse solum, faciamus ei adiutorium simile sibi. 611. – Then when he says, Neither, he assigns the reason for what he had said. To understand this it should be noted that the order of the perfect and of the imperfect is such that in one and the same subject the imperfect precedes the perfect in the order of time. For one is a boy, before he is a man. Absolutely speaking, however, the perfect precedes the imperfect in the order of time and of nature. For a boy is produced from the man. This, therefore, is the reason why the woman was produced from the man, because he is more perfect than the woman, which the Apostle proves from the fact that the end is more perfect than that which is for the end; but man is the woman’s end. And this is what he says: For man was not created for woman, but woman for the sake of man, as a helper, namely, in reproduction, as the patient is for the sake of the agent and matter for the sake of form: “It is not good for man to be alone: let us make him a helper like unto him” (Gen 2:18). Deinde cum dicit ideo debet, etc., infert conclusionem intentam, dicens ideo, scilicet quia vir est imago et gloria Dei, mulier autem est gloria viri, mulier debet habere velamen super caput suum, quando scilicet Deo assistit orando, vel prophetando, ut per hoc ostendatur, quod non immediate subest Deo, sed subiicitur etiam viro sub Deo; hoc enim significat velamen, quod capiti superponitur. Unde alia littera habet, quod mulier debet habere potestatem super caput suum, et idem est sensus: nam velamen est signum potestatis, secundum quod in Ps. LXV, 12 dicitur: imposuisti homines super capita nostra. 612. – Then when he says, That is why, he draws the intended conclusion, saying: That is why, namely, because man is the image and glory of God, but woman the glory of man, a woman ought to have a veil on her head, when she places herself before God by praying or prophesying. In this way it is shown that she is not immediately under God, but is also subjected to man under God. For the veil put on the head signifies this. Hence another translation has it that the woman ought to have power over her head, but the sense is the same. For a veil is a sign of power, according to Ps 66 (v. 4): “Thou didst let men ride over our heads.” Deinde cum dicit et propter Angelos, etc., assignat tertiam rationem, quae sumitur ex parte Angelorum, dicens et etiam mulier debet habere velamen super caput suum propter Angelos. Quod quidem dupliciter intelligi potest. Uno modo de ipsis Angelis caelestibus, qui conventus fidelium visitare creduntur, praecipue quando sacra mysteria celebrantur. Et ideo tunc tam mulieres, quam viri ad reverentiam eorum honeste et ordinate se debent habere, secundum illud Ps. CXXXVII, 1: in conspectu Angelorum psallam tibi. Alio modo potest intelligi, secundum quod Angeli dicuntur sacerdotes, inquantum divina populo annuntiant, secundum illud Mal. II, v. 7: labia sacerdotis custodiunt scientiam, et legem requirent ex ore eius, quia Angelus domini exercituum est. Debet ergo mulier velamen habere semper in Ecclesia propter Angelos, id est, propter sacerdotes, duplici ratione. Primo quidem propter eorum reverentiam, ad quam pertinet quod mulieres coram eis honeste se habeant. Unde dicitur Eccli. VII, 33: honora Deum ex tota anima tua, et sacerdotes illius. Secundo propter eorum cautelam, ne scilicet ex conspectu mulierum non velatarum ad concupiscentiam provocentur. Unde dicitur Eccli. c. IX, 5: virginem ne aspicias, ne forte scandalizeris in decore illius. 613. – Then when he says, because of the angels, he gives a third reason, which is taken on the part of the angels, saying: A woman ought to have a veil on her head because of the angels. This can be understood in two ways: in one way about the heavenly angels who are believed to visit congregations of the faithful, especially when the sacred mysteries are celebrated. And therefore at that time women as well as men ought to present themselves honorably and ordinately as reverence to them according to Ps 138 (v. 1): “Before the angels I sing thy praise.” In another way it can be understood in the sense that priests are called angels, inasmuch as proclaim divine things to the people according to Mal (2:7): “For the lips of a priest should guard knowledge, and men should seek instruction from his mouth; for he is the angel of the Lord of hosts.” Therefore, the woman should always have a covering over her head because of the angels, i.e., the priests, for two reasons: first, as reverence toward them, to which it pertains that women should behave honorably before them. Hence it says in Sir (7:30): “With all your might love your maker and do not forsake his priests.” Secondly, for their safety, lest the sight of a woman not veiled excite their concupiscence. Hence it says in Sir (9:5): “Do not look intently at a virgin, lest you stumble and incur penalties for her.” Augustinus autem aliter exponit praedicta. Ostendit enim quod tam mulier quam vir est ad imaginem Dei, per hoc quod dicitur Eph. IV, 23 s.: renovamini spiritu mentis vestrae, et induite novum hominem, qui renovatur in agnitione Dei secundum imaginem eius qui creavit eum, ubi non est masculus et foemina. Et sic patet, quod imago Dei attenditur in homine secundum spiritum, in quo non est differentia masculi et foeminae; et ideo mulier est imago Dei sicut et vir. Expresse enim dicitur Gen. I, 27, quod creavit Deus hominem ad imaginem suam, masculum et foeminam creavit eos: et ideo Augustinus dicit hoc esse intelligendum in spirituali coniugio, quod est in anima nostra, in qua (sicut supra dictum est) sensualitas, vel etiam inferior ratio se habet per modum mulieris, ratio autem superior per modum viri, in qua attenditur imago Dei. Et secundum hoc mulier est ex viro et propter virum, quia administratio rerum temporalium, vel sensibilium, cui intendit inferior ratio vel etiam sensualitas, debet deduci ex contemplatione aeternorum, quae pertinent ad superiorem rationem, et ad eam ordinari. Et ideo mulier dicitur habere velamen, vel potestatem super caput suum, ad significandum quod circa temporalia dispensanda debet homo cohibitionem quamdam et refraenationem habere, ne ultra modum homo progrediatur in eis diligendis. Quae quidem cohibitio circa amorem Dei adhiberi non debet, cum praeceptum sit Deut. VI, 5: diliges dominum Deum tuum ex toto corde tuo. Nam circa desiderium finis non apponitur mensura, quam necesse est apponi circa ea quae sunt ad finem. Medicus enim sanitatem inducit quanto perfectiorem potest, non tamen dat medicinam quanto maiorem potest, sed secundum determinatam mensuram. Sic vir non debet habere velamen super caput. Et hoc debet propter Angelos sanctos: quia, sicut in Glossa dicitur grata est sanctis Angelis sacrata et pia significatio. Unde et Augustinus dicit de Civit. Dei, quod Daemones alliciuntur quibusdam sensibilibus rebus, non sicut animalia cibis, sed sicut spiritus signis. 614. – Augustine explains the above in another way. For he shows that both man and woman are made to the image of God, according to what is said in Eph (4:23): “Be renewed in the spirit of your minds and put on the new man created after the likeness of God according to the image of him who created him,” where considered according to the spirit, in which there is no difference between male and female; consequently, the woman is the image of God, just as the male. For it is expressly stated in Gen (1:27) that “God created man to his own image, male and female he created them.” Therefore, Augustine says that this must be understood in a spiritual union, which is in our soul, in which the sensibility or even the lower reason has itself after the manner of the woman, but the superior reason after the manner of the man, in whom the image of God is considered to be. And according to this the woman is from the man and for the sake of the man, because the administration of temporal or sensible things, in which the lower reason or even the sensibility is adept, ought to be deduced from the contemplation of eternal things, which pertain to the higher reason and is ordained to it. Therefore, the woman is said to have a veil or power over her own head, in order to signify that in regard to dispensing temporal things man should apply a certain restraint, lest he transgress the limits in loving them. This restraint should not be applied to the love of God, since it is commanded in Dt (6:5): “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart.” For no limit is placed in regard to loving the end, although one is placed in regard to the means to the end. For a doctor produces as much health as he can, but he does not give as much medicine as he can, but in a definite amount. Thus a man should not have a covering on his head. And this on account of the angels, because, as is said in a Gloss: “Sacred and pious signification is pleasing to the holy angels.” Hence Augustine also says in The City of God, that the demons are attracted by certain sensible things, not as animals to food but as spirits to signs. Deinde cum dicit verumtamen neque vir, etc., excludit dubitationem quae posset ex dictis oriri. Quia enim dixerat, quod vir est gloria Dei, mulier autem est gloria viri, posset aliquis credere, vel quod mulier non esset ex Deo, vel quod non haberet potestatem in gratia. Unde primo hoc excludit, dicens: licet mulier sit gloria viri, qui est gloria Dei, verumtamen neque vir est in domino, id est, a domino productus, sine muliere, neque mulier sine viro; utrumque enim Deus fecit, secundum illud Gen. I, 27: masculum et foeminam creavit eos. Vel aliter: neque vir est sine muliere in domino, scilicet in gratia domini nostri Iesu Christi, neque mulier sine viro, quia uterque per gratiam Dei salvatur, secundum illud Gal. III, 27: quicumque in Christo baptizati estis, Christum induistis. Et postea subdit: non est masculus, neque foemina, scilicet differens in gratia Christi. 615. – Then when he says, Nevertheless, he excludes a doubt which could arise from these statements. For because he had said that man is God’s glory and the woman man’s glory, someone might believe either that the woman was not from God or that she should not have power in grace. Hence he excludes the first, saying: although the woman is the glory of man, who is the glory of God, nevertheless, neither the man is in the Lord, i.e., produced by the Lord, without the woman nor the woman without the man; Or in another way: neither the man is without the woman in the Lord, namely, in the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, nor the woman without the man, because both are saved by God’s grace, according to Gal (3:27): “For as many of you as were baptized have put on Christ,” and then he adds: “There is neither male nor female,” namely, differing in the grace of Christ. Secundo assignat rationem, dicens: nam sicut in prima rerum institutione mulier est de viro formata, ita et in subsequentibus generationibus, vir per mulierem productus est, secundum illud Iob XIV, 1: homo natus de muliere. Nam prima productio hominis fuit sine viro et muliere, quando Deus formavit hominem de limo terrae, ut dicitur Gen. Secunda autem fuit de viro sine muliere, quando formavit Evam de costa viri, ut ibidem legitur. Tertia autem est ex viro et muliere, sicut Abel natus est ex Adam et Eva, ut legitur Gen. IV, 2. Quarta autem est ex muliere sine viro, ut Christus ex virgine, secundum illud Gal. IV, 4: misit Deus filium suum factum ex muliere. 616. – Secondly, he assigns the reason, saying: For as in the first condition of things, woman was formed from the man, so in subsequent generations man was produced through woman, as Job says: “Man born of a woman” (Jb 14:1). For the first production of man took place without man or woman, when “God formed man from the dust of the earth” (Gen 2:7). The second was from man without the woman, when He formed Eve from Adam’s rib, as it says in the same place. But the third is from man and woman, as Abel was born from Adam and Eve, as it says in Gen (4:2). But the fourth was from the woman without the man, as Christ from the virgin, as it says in Gal (4:4): “God sent forth his Son born of woman.” Tertio ostendit rationem esse convenientem, dicens omnia autem ex Deo, quia scilicet et hoc ipsum, quod mulier primo fuit ex viro, et hoc quod postmodum vir est ex muliere, est ex operatione divina. Unde ad Deum pertinent tam vir, quam mulier. Unde dicitur Rom. XL, 36: ex ipso, et per ipsum, et in ipso sunt omnia. 617. – Thirdly, he shows that the reason is apt, saying: And all things are from God, namely, because even the fact that the woman was first from the man, and afterwards man is from the woman, is the result of God’s action. Hence both man and woman pertain to God. Hence it says in Rom (11:36): “For from him and through him and in him are all things.” Deinde cum dicit vos ipsi iudicate, etc., committit iudicium eius quod dixerat auditoribus. Et circa hoc duo facit. Primo committit iudicium rationalibus auditoribus; secundo comprimit protervos auditores, ibi si quis autem videtur, et cetera. 618. – Then when he says, Judge for yourselves, he submits to his bearers’ judgment the things he had said. In regard to this he does two things: first, he submits the judgment to his rational hearers; secondly, he subdues the impudent ones. Circa primum quatuor facit. Primo committit auditoribus iudicium eius quod dixerat, more eius qui confidit se sufficienter probasse, dicens vos ipsi iudicate, et cetera. Pertinet enim ad bonum auditorem iudicare de auditis. Unde dicitur Iob VI, 29: loquentes id quod iustum est iudicate. Et XII, 11: nonne auris verba diiudicat? Secundo proponit sub quaestione id de quo debet esse iudicium, dicens decet mulierem non velatam orare Deum. Hoc prohibetur I Petr. III, 3, ubi dicitur: quarum sit non exterius capillatura. Tertio ostendit unde debeant sumere suum iudicium, quia ab ipsa natura, et hoc est quod dicit nec ipsa natura docet vos. Et vocat hic naturam ipsam inclinationem naturalem, quae est mulieribus ad nutriendum comam, quae est naturale velamen, non autem viris. Quae quidem inclinatio naturalis esse ostenditur, quia in pluribus invenitur. Oportet autem ab ipsa natura doceri, quia est Dei opus: sicut in pictura instruitur aliquis artificio pictoris. Et ideo contra quosdam dicitur Is. XXIV, 5: transgressi sunt leges, mutaverunt ius, dissipaverunt foedus sempiternum, id est, ius naturale. Quarto autem a natura sumit rationem; et primo ponit id quod est ex parte viri, dicens quod vir quidem, si comam nutriat, more mulieris, ignominia est illi, id est, ad ignominiam ei reputatur apud plures homines, quia per hoc videtur muliebris esse. Et ideo Ez. XLIV, 20 dicitur: sacerdotes comam non nutriant. Nec est instantia de quibusdam, qui in veteri lege comam nutriebant, quia hoc erat signum, quod tunc erat positum in lectione veteris testamenti, ut dicitur II Cor. III, 14. Secundo ponit id quod est ex parte mulieris, dicens mulier et si comam nutriat, gloria est illi, quia videtur ad ornatum eius pertinere. Unde dicitur Cant. VII, 5: comae capitis eius sicut purpura regis. Et assignat consequenter rationem, cum dicit quoniam capilli dati sunt ei, scilicet mulieri, pro velamine; et ideo eadem ratio est de capillis nutriendis, et de velamine artificiali apponendo. Cant. IV, 1: capilli tui sicut grex caprarum, et cetera. 619. – In regard to the first he does four things: first, he submits to his hearers to judge what he had said, after the manner of one who is confident that he has sufficiently proved his point, saying: Judge for yourselves. For it pertains to a good hearer to judge what is heard. Hence it says in Jb (6:29): “Judge, speaking what is just” and in (12:11): “Does not the ear judge words?” Secondly, he proposes in the form of a question that about which they should judge, saying: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? This is forbidden in 1 Pt (3:3): “Let not yours be the outward adorning with braiding of hair.” Thirdly, he shows whence they should derive their judgment, namely, from nature itself; and this is what he says: Does not nature itself teach you? By “nature” he means the “natural inclination” in women to take care of their hair, which is a natural covering, but not in men. This inclination is shown to be natural, because it is found in the majority. But it is taught by nature, because it is a work of God; just as in a picture one is instructed about the skill of the artist. Therefore, Isaiah (24:5) says against certain people: “They have transgressed the law, violated the statutes, broken the everlasting covenant,” i.e., the natural law. Fourthly, he takes a reason from nature: first, he presents that which is on the part of the man, saying: That for a man to wear long hair like a woman is degrading to him. The majority of men regard this as degrading, because it makes the man seem feminine. Therefore, it says in Ez (44:20): “They shall not let their locks grow long.” It is no argument that some in the Old Law grew long hair, because this was a sign presented in the reading of the Old Testament, as it says in 2 Cor (3:14). Secondly, he presents that which is on the part of the woman, saying: But if a woman has long hair, it is her glory, because it seems to pertain to her adornment. Hence it says in S. of S. (7:5): “Your flowing locks are like purple.” Then he assigns the reason when he says: For her hair is given her for a covering. Consequently, the same reason applies to growing long hair and to wearing an artificial covering: “Your hair is like a flock of goats” (S. of S. 4:1). Deinde cum dicit si quis autem videtur, etc., comprimit protervos auditores, dicens si quis autem videtur contentiosus esse, ut scilicet rationibus praedictis non acquiescat, sed confidentia clamoris veritatem impugnet, quod pertinet ad contentionem, ut Ambrosius dicit, contra id quod dicitur Iob c. VI, 29: respondete, obsecro, absque contentione; et Prov. XX, 3: honor est ei, qui separat se a contentionibus. Hoc sufficiat ad comprimendum talem, quod nos Iudaei in Christum credentes talem consuetudinem non habemus, scilicet quod mulieres orent non velato capite, neque etiam tota Ecclesia Dei per gentes diffusa. Unde si nulla esset ratio, hoc solum deberet sufficere, ne aliquis ageret contra communem Ecclesiae consuetudinem. Dicitur enim in Ps. LXVII, 7: qui habitare facit unius moris in domo. Unde Augustinus dicit in epistola ad Casulanum quod omnibus, in quibus nihil certi diffinit sacra Scriptura, mos populi Dei, atque instituta maiorum pro lege habenda sunt. 620. – Then when he says, If anyone, he silences the impudent hearers, saying: If anyone is disposed to be contentious and not acquiesce in the above reason but would attack the truth with confident clamoring, which pertains to contentiousness, as Ambrose says, contrary to Jb (6:29): “Respond, I pray, without contentiousness”; (Pr 20:3): “It is an honor for a man to keep aloof from strife.” Let this suffice, then, to silence them that we Jews believing in Christ do not have such a practice, namely, of women praying with their heads uncovering, nor do the churches of God dispersed among the Gentiles. Hence if there were no reason, this alone should suffice, that no one should act against the common custom of the Church: “He makes those of one outlook to dwell in their house” (Ps 68:7). Hence Augustine says: “In all cases in which Sacred Scripture has defined nothing definite, the customs of the people of God and the edicts of superiors must be regarded as the law.”
11-4
1 Cor 11:17-22Reportatio Reginaldi de Piperno
Vulgate:Postquam apostolus redarguit Corinthios de eorum errore in habitu, quia scilicet mulieres ad sacra mysteria conveniebant capite non velato consequenter arguit eorum errorem de scissuris in conventu, quia scilicet dum convenirent ad sacra mysteria, contentionibus vacabant. Et primo tangit eorum defectum in generali; secundo in speciali, ibi primum quidem, et cetera. 621. – After reproaching the Corinthians for their error in covering, namely, because the women came to the sacred mysteries with their head uncovered, the Apostle then argues against their error about factions in the assembly, because while they gathered for the sacred mysteries, they spent their time in contentions. First, he touches on their shortcoming in general; secondly, in particular (v. 18). Dicit ergo primo hoc autem, quod dictum est supra quod mulieres velatae sint in Ecclesiis, praecipio, ut sic tripliciter eos induceret ad huiusmodi observantiam. Primo quidem ratione, secundo consuetudine, tertio praecepto: quod solum sine aliis necessitatem induceret. Prov. IV, 4: custodi praecepta mea, et vives. Et Eccle. IV, v. 12 dicitur: funiculus triplex difficile rumpitur. Non laudans, sed magis vituperans, quod convenitis, in Ecclesiam, non in melius, sicut deberet esse, sed in deterius, ex culpa vestra. Omnia enim animalia gregalia, puta columbae, grues, oves, naturali instinctu in unum conveniunt, ut sit eis corporaliter melius. Unde et homo cum sit animal gregale vel sociale, ut philosophus probat, I Lib. Politic., secundum rationem agere debet, ut multi in unum conveniant propter aliquod melius, sicut in rebus saecularibus multi in unitatem civitatis conveniunt, ut sit eis melius saeculariter, scilicet propter securitatem et sufficientiam vitae. Et ideo fideles in unum convenire debent propter aliquod melius spirituale, secundum illud Ps. ci, 23: in conveniendo populos in unum, et reges ut serviant domino. Et alibi: in consilio iustorum et congregatione, magna opera domini. Sed isti in deterius conveniebant propter culpas quas committebant dum convenirent. Is. I, 13: iniqui sunt caetus vestri. Eccli. XXI, 10: stupa collecta synagoga peccantium. 622. – First, therefore, he says: But this, which was stated above, namely, that women should be veiled in church, I command, in order that he might thus induce them to this observance in three ways. First, indeed, by reason; secondly, by custom; thirdly, by command, which should persuade them without the other two: “Keep my commandments and you shall live” (Pr 4:4); “A three-ply cord is not quickly broken” (Ec 4:12) – I do not praise but censure you, because you come together into the church not for the better, as it should be, but for the worse through your fault. For all gregarious animals, for example, doves, cranes, cows, each form one group by natural instinct, in order that things be better for them in a bodily way. Hence man, too, being a gregarious or social animal, as the Philosopher proves in Politics I, should act according to reason, so that many form one group for their betterment, just as in secular affairs many come together to form the unity of a city; so that it is better for them in a worldly way, namely, because of the security and sufficiency of life. Therefore, believers should come together into a unity for some better spiritual things according to Ps 102 (v. 22): “When people gather together and kings, to worship the Lord”; “In the counsel and congregation of the just the works of the Lord are great” (Ps 111:1). But they came together for the worse on account of the sins they committed, when they assembled: “I cannot endure iniquity and solemn assembly” (Is 1:13); “An assembly of the wicked is like two gathered together” (Sir 21:9). Deinde cum dicit primum quidem, etc., ponit in speciali quomodo in deterius convenirent. Et primo ponit iudicium culpae, dicens primum quidem, inter caetera scilicet quod in deterius convenitis, convenientibus vobis in Ecclesia, audio scissuras esse inter vos, scilicet per contentiones quas exercebant. Quod quidem Ecclesiae non convenit, quae in unitate constituitur, secundum illud Eph. c. IV, 4: unum corpus et unus spiritus, sicut vocati estis in una spe vocationis vestrae. Hoc autem praedicitur Is. XXII, 9: scissuras civitatis David videbitis, quia multiplicatae sunt. 623. – Then when he says, For in the first place, he mentions in detail how they assemble for the worse. First, he presents a judgment of guilt, saying: For in the first place, among others, namely, that you come together for the worse, when you assemble as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you, namely, through contentions, which they practiced. This by no means is suited to the church, which is established in unity, as it says in Eph (4:4): “There is one body and one spirit, just as you were called to one hope that belongs to your call.” But his was predicted: “You saw that the breaches of the city of David were many” (Is 22:9). Dicit autem Glossa, quod dicendo, primum, ostendit quod primum malum est dissensio, unde cetera oriuntur. Ubi enim est dissensio, nihil rectum est. Sed contra videtur esse, quod dicitur Eccli. c. X, 15: initium omnis peccati superbia; et I Tim. ult.: radix omnium malorum cupiditas. Dicendum est autem, quod hae auctoritates loquuntur quantum ad peccata personalia singularium hominum, quorum primum est superbia ex parte aversionis, et cupiditas ex parte conversionis. Sed Glossa hic loquitur de peccatis multitudinis; inter quae primum est dissensio, per quam solvitur rigor disciplinae. Unde dicitur Iac. III, 16: ubi est zelus et contentio, ibi inconstantia et omne opus pravum. 624. – But a Gloss says: “By saying, first of all, he shows that the first evil is dissension, from which all the rest arise. For where there is dissension, nothing is right.” But this seems to be opposed by the following statements: “The beginning of every sin is pride” (Sir 9:15) and “The love of money is the root of all evils” (1 Tim 6:10). But it must be said that these authorities speak in regard to personal sins of individual men, the first of which is pride on the part of aversion and greed for money on the part of conversion. But the Gloss here speaks about the sins of the multitude, among which the first is dissension, by which the reign of discipline is weakened. Hence it says in Jas (3:16): “Where jealousy and contention exist, there will be disorder and every vile practice.” Secundo ponit credulitatem auditorum, cum dicit et ex parte credo, id est, quantum ad aliquos vestrum, qui erant ad contentionem proni, secundum illud quod dixerat supra I cap., v. 11 ss.: contentiones sunt inter vos. Hoc autem dico, quod unusquisque vestrum dicit: ego quidem sum Pauli, ego Apollo, ego vero Cephae. Alii vero non erant contentiosi, ex quorum persona ibi subditur ego autem Christi. Unde et Cant. c. II, 2 dicitur: sicut lilium inter spinas, sic amica mea inter filias, id est, boni inter malos. 625. – Secondly, he presents the credulity of his hearers when he says: And I partly believe it, i.e., as to some of you who were prone to contention, according to what was said above (1:11): “There is quarreling among you. What I mean is that each of you says, ‘I belong to Paul,’ or ‘I belong to Apollos’ or ‘I belong to Cephas.’” But others were not contentious, who said: “I belong to Christ.” Hence it says in S. of S. (2:2): “As a lily among brambles, so is my love among maidens,” i.e., good among the evil. Tertio assignat rationem suae credulitatis, dicens nam oportet, non solum quascumque scissuras, sed etiam haereses esse. Ubi duo consideranda sunt. Primo quid sit haeresis, secundo quomodo oportet haereses esse. 626. – Thirdly, he assigns the reason for their credulity, saying: For there must be not only factions among you but also heresies. Two things must be considered here: first, what heresy is; secondly, how it is necessary that there be heresies. Circa primum sciendum, quod, sicut Hieronymus dicit super epistolam ad Galatas, haeresis Graece ab electione dicitur: quia scilicet eam sibi unusquisque eligat disciplinam, quam putat esse meliorem: ex quo duo accipi possunt. Primo quidem quod de ratione haeresis est, quod aliquis privatam disciplinam sequatur, quasi per electionem propriam: non autem disciplinam publicam, quae divinitus traditur. Secundo quod huic disciplinae aliquis pertinaciter inhaereat. Nam electio firmam importat inhaesionem: et ideo haereticus dicitur, qui spernens disciplinam fidei, quae divinitus traditur, pertinaciter proprium errorem sectatur. Pertinet autem aliquid ad disciplinam fidei dupliciter. Uno modo directe, sicut articuli fidei, qui per se credendi proponuntur. Unde error circa hos secundum se facit haereticum, si pertinacia adsit. Non possunt autem a tali errore propter simplicitatem aliquam excusari, praecipue quantum ad ea, de quibus Ecclesia solemnizat, et quae communiter versantur in ore fidelium, sicut mysterium Trinitatis, nativitatis Christi, et alia huiusmodi. Quaedam vero indirecte pertinent ad fidei disciplinam, inquantum scilicet ipsa non proponuntur, ut propter se credenda, sed ex negatione eorum sequitur aliquid contrarium fidei: sicut si negetur Isaac fuisse filium Abrahae, sequitur aliquid contrarium fidei, scilicet sacram Scripturam continere aliquid falsi. Ex talibus autem non iudicatur aliquis haereticus, nisi adeo pertinaciter perseveret, quod ab errore non recedat, etiam viso quid ex hoc sequatur. Sic igitur pertinacia qua aliquis contemnit in his quae sunt fidei directe vel indirecte subire iudicium Ecclesiae, facit hominem haereticum. Talis autem pertinacia procedit ex radice superbiae, qua aliquis praefert sensum suum toti Ecclesiae. Unde apostolus dicit I ad Tim. VI, 3 s.: si quis aliter docet, et non acquiescit sanis sermonibus domini nostri Iesu Christi, et ei quae secundum pietatem est doctrinae, superbus est, nihil sciens, sed languens circa quaestiones et pugnas verborum. 627. – In regard to the first it should be known that, as Jerome comments on the epistle to the Galatians, the Greek word, “heresy,” means “election” or “choice,” namely, because each one selects for himself that discipline which he considers to be better. From this two things can be taken: first, that it is of the very nature of heresy that a person follow his own private discipline, as though by his own choice, but not the public discipline handed down by God. Secondly, that he obstinately cling to this discipline. For choice implies firm adherence; and therefore the heretic is one who scorns the discipline of the faith handed down by God and obstinately follows his own error. Now something pertains to the discipline of the faith in two ways: in one way directly, as the articles of faith, which are proposed to be believed of themselves. Hence an error in regard to them makes one a heretic, if obstinacy is present. But a person cannot be excused from such an error on account of some simplicity especially in regard to those about which the Church made a solemn proclamation and which are generally spoken about by the faithful, such as the mystery of the Trinity, the birth of Christ, and so on. But other things pertain to the discipline of the faith indirectly, namely, inasmuch as they are not proposed as something to be believed of themselves, but from their denial something contrary to the faith follows; for example, if it is denied that Isaac was the son of Abraham, something contrary to the faith follows, namely, that Sacred Scripture contains something false. From such things one is not judged heretical, unless he continues in his opinion so obstinately, that he would not depart from his error, even though he sees what follows from his position. Therefore, the obstinacy with which someone spurns the judgment of the Church in matters pertaining to the faith directly or indirectly makes a man a heretic. Such obstinacy proceeds from pride, whereby a person prefers his own feelings to the entire Church. Hence the Apostle says in 1 Tim (6:3): “If anyone 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; he has a morbid craving for controversy and for disputes about words.” Secundo considerandum est, quomodo oporteat haereses esse. Si enim opportunum est haereticos esse, videtur quod sint commendabiles, et non sint extirpandi. Sed dicendum est quod dupliciter de aliquo dicitur quod oportet illud esse. Uno modo ex intentione illius, qui hoc agit, puta si dicamus quod oportet iudicia esse: quia scilicet iudices, iudicia exercentes, intendunt iustitiam et pacem in rebus humanis constituere. Alio modo ex intentione Dei, qui etiam mala ordinat in bonum, sicut persecutionem tyrannorum ordinavit in gloriam martyrum. Unde Augustinus dicit in Enchiridion, quod Deus est adeo bonus, quod nullo modo permitteret fieri aliquod malum, nisi esset adeo potens quod de quolibet malo posset elicere bonum. Et secundum hoc dicitur Matth. XVIII, 7: necesse est, ut veniant scandala, verumtamen vae homini illi per quem scandalum venit. Et secundum hoc hic dicit apostolus, quod oportet haereses esse, ex eo quod Deus malitiam haereticorum ordinavit in bonum fidelium. Et hoc dicit primo quidem ad maiorem declarationem veritatis. Unde dicit Augustinus de Civit. Dei, Lib. XVI in Glossa: ab adversario mota quaestio, discendi existit occasio: multa quippe ad fidem Catholicam pertinentia, dum haereticorum callida inquietudine excogitantur, ut adversus eos defendi possint, et considerantur diligentius, et intelliguntur clarius, et praedicantur instantius. Unde et Prov. XXVII, v. 17: ferrum ferro acuitur, et homo exacuit faciem amici sui. Secundo ad manifestandam infirmitatem fidei in his qui recte credunt. Et hoc est quod hic subdit apostolus ut et qui probati, id est, approbati sunt a Deo, manifesti fiant in vobis, id est, inter vos. Sap. III, 6: tamquam aurum in fornace probavit illos. 628. – Secondly, it must be considered how it is suitable that heresies exist. For if it is suitable for heretics to be, it seems that hey are commendable and should not be stamped out. But it should be noted that there are two ways in which something is described as suitable to be. In one way from the intention of the one who does this; for example, if we should say that judgments ought to be, because judges make judgments intending to establish justice and peace in human affairs. In another way from the intention of God Who ordains evil things to good, Who directs the persecutions of tyrants to the glory of the martyrs. Hence Augustine says in Enchiridion that God is so good that He would not permit evil in any way, unless He were powerful enough that from each evil He can draw some good. And according to this it says in Matt (18:7): “Woe to the world for temptations to sin. For it is necessary that temptations come, but woe to that man from whom temptations come.” And according to this the Apostle says the heresies must be, inasmuch as God has ordained the malice of heretics to the good of the faithful. He says this, first, for the clearer declaration of truth. Hence Augustine says in The City of God: “A question raised by an adversary is an occasion for learning; indeed, many things pertaining to the Catholic faith, when they are devised by the clever energy of heretics, in order that they may be defended against them, are considered more carefully and understood more clearly and preached with more emphasis.” Hence it says in Pr (27:17): “Iron sharpens iron; and one man sharpens another.” Secondly, to reveal the weakness of faith in those who believe rightly. And this is what the Apostle says: in order that those who are genuine, i.e., approved by God, may be recognized among you: “Like gold in the furnace he tried them” (Wis 3:6). Deinde cum dicit convenientibus ergo vobis, etc., redarguit eos de tertio delicto, quia scilicet peccabant in modo et ordine sumendi corpus Christi. Et potest totum quod sequitur, dupliciter exponi. Secundum autem primam expositionem redarguuntur de hoc quod corpus Christi pransi accipiebant. Circa hoc ergo quatuor facit. Primo ponit detrimentum quod incurrebant; secundo ponit culpam, ibi unusquisque enim, etc.; tertio inquirit de causa culpae, ibi numquid domos, etc.; quarto concludit eorum vituperationem, ibi quid dicam vobis, et cetera. 629. – Then when he says, when you meet together, he accuses them of a third fault, namely, that they sinned in the way and order in which they took the body of Christ. All that follows can be explained in two ways. According to the first explanation they are accused of taking the body of Christ just after eating. In regard to this he does four things: first, he mentions the harm they incur; secondly, he mentions the fault (v. 21); thirdly, he looks for the cause of the fault (v. 22); fourthly, he concludes his rebuke (v. 22b). Dicit ergo, primo, ita: convenientibus vobis, scissurae sunt inter vos, ergo convenientibus vobis in unum, corpore, non animo, iam ad hoc advenistis, quod non est, id est, non licet vel non competit vobis, dominicam coenam manducare, id est sumere Eucharistiae sacramentum, quod dominus in coena discipulis dedit. Hoc enim sacramentum, ut Augustinus dicit super Ioannem, est sacramentum unitatis et charitatis. Et ideo non competit dissentientibus. Cant. c. V, 1: comedite, amici, et bibite, et inebriamini, charissimi. 630. – He says, therefore, first, When you come together, there are factions among you, therefore meeting together in body not in mind, you have come to this which is not, i.e., not lawful or is not becoming for you to eat the Lord’s supper, i.e., receive the sacrament of the Eucharist, which the Lord gave His disciples at supper. “For this sacrament,” says Augustine On John, “is the sacrament of unity and love.” Therefore, it is not suited to dissenters; “Eat, O friends and drink; drink deeply, O lovers” (S. of S. 5:2). Vel melius potest referri ad ea quae sequuntur, ut sit sensus: non solum convenientibus vobis scissurae sunt inter vos, sed convenit vobis convenientibus iam, id est in praesenti hoc determinatum habetis, quod non est, id est non licet vobis, dominicam coenam manducare, ad quam pransi acceditis. Quia enim dominus discipulis suis post coenam hoc sacramentum tradidit, ut legitur Matth. XXVI, 26, volebant etiam Corinthii post communem coenam sumere corpus Christi. Sed dominus hoc rationabiliter fecit propter tria. Primo quidem, quia ordine congruo figura praecedit veritatem. Agnus autem paschalis erat figura, sive umbra huius sacramenti. Et ideo post coenam agni paschalis, Christus hoc sacramentum dedit. Dicitur enim Coloss. II, 17 de omnibus legalibus, quod sunt umbra futurorum, corpus autem Christi. Secundo ut ex hoc sacramento statim ad passionem transiret, cuius hoc sacramentum est memoriale. Et ideo dixit discipulis surgite, eamus hinc, scilicet ad passionem. Tertio ut arctius imprimeretur hoc sacramentum cordibus discipulorum, quibus ipsum tradidit in ultimo suo recessu. Sed in reverentiam tanti sacramenti postmodum Ecclesia instituit, quod non nisi a ieiunis sumatur, a quo excipiuntur infirmi, qui in necessitate, quae legem non habet, possunt non ieiuni sumere corpus Christi. 631. – Or better: it can be referred to what follows, so that the sense is: not only are there disputes among you when you come together, but it has now become your custom to do what is lawful for you, namely, to eat the Lord’s supper, which you approach right after eating. For because the Lord gave this sacrament to His disciples after supper (Matt 26:26), the Corinthians also wanted to take the body of Christ after a common meal. But the Lord did this for three reasons: first, because the figure precedes the truth in proper order. But the paschal lamb was a figure or shadow of this sacrament. Accordingly, after the supper of the paschal lamb, Christ gave this sacrament. For it says in Col (2:17) about all practices of the Law: “These are only a shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ.” Secondly, in order that from this sacrament He might pass immediately to His passion, of which this sacrament is the memorial. Therefore, he said to the disciples: “Arise, let us go from here,” (Jn. 14:31); namely, to His passion. Thirdly, in order that this sacrament be impressed more sharply on the hearts of the disciples, to whom He gave it in His last quiet retreat. But out of reverence for this great sacrament the Church later established that it can be taken only by those fasting; from which the sick were excepted, who in necessity, which knows no law, could take the body of Christ without fasting. Quia vero aqua non solvit ieiunium, aestimaverunt quidam, quod post potum aquae posset aliquis sumere hoc sacramentum, praesertim quia, ut dicunt, aqua non nutrit, sicut nec aliquod aliud simplex elementum. Quamvis autem aqua secundum se non nutriat, et ob hoc non solvat ieiunium Ecclesiae, secundum quod dicuntur aliqui ieiunantes, nutrit tamen aliis admixta, et ideo solvit ieiunium naturae. Et secundum hoc dicuntur aliqui ieiuni, qui scilicet eadem die nihil sumpserunt, nec cibi, nec potus. Et quia reliquiae cibi, quae in ore remanent, sumuntur per modum salivae, hoc non impedit aliquos esse ieiunos. Similiter et non impedit aliquos esse ieiunos, si tota nocte nihil dormierint, vel si etiam non sint plene digesti, dummodo eadem die omnino cibi vel potus nihil sumpserint. Unde quia principium diei est sumendum secundum usum Ecclesiae a media nocte, ideo quicumque post mediam noctem aliquid sumpserit quantumcumque modicum cibi vel potus, non potest eadem die sumere hoc sacramentum. 632. – But because water does not break the fast, some supposed that after a drink of water they could take this sacrament, especially because, as they say, water is not nourishment any more than any other element. But although water by itself is not nourishment and, therefore, does not break the Eucharistic fast in the sense that some are said to fast, nevertheless when it is mixed with other things, it does nourish. And in this sense some are said to be fasting who on the same day take neither food nor drink. And because the pieces of food remaining in the mouth are consumed after the manner of saliva, this does not prevent one from being fasting. Likewise, the fast is not broken, if a person does not sleep at all during the night, or even if the food is not fully digested, provided that on one and the same day he took absolutely no food or drink. Hence because the beginning of a day is reckoned from midnight according to the custom of the Church, then whoever partakes of food or drink, no matter how little, after midnight, cannot receive this sacrament on that day. Deinde, cum dicit unusquisque enim, etc., ponit culpam, et primo secundum quod peccabant in Deum; secundo prout peccabant in proximum, ibi et alius quidem, et cetera. 633. – Then when he says, For each one, he mentions the fault: first, insofar as they sinned against God; secondly, insofar as they sinned against their neighbor (v. 21b). Dicit ergo primo: ideo dico quod non licet vobis dominicam coenam manducare, quia unusquisque vestrum praesumit, id est ante sumit, suam coenam, scilicet ciborum communium, ad manducandum. Quilibet enim eorum portabat ad Ecclesiam fercula praeparata, et comedebat quilibet seorsum antequam sumeret sacra mysteria. Os. IV, v. 18: separatum est convivium eorum, nunc interibunt. Eccli. XI, 19 dicitur in persona parci: inveni requiem mihi, et comedebam de bonis meis solus. 634. – He says, therefore, first: The reason I say that it is not lawful for you to eat the Lord’s supper is that each one of you goes ahead with his own meal, namely, of common food. For each one carried to the church a tray of food already prepared, and each one ate by himself, before he took the sacred mysteries: “They banquet separately; now they shall perish” (Hos 9:9); and in the person of the frugal, Ec (11:19) says: “I have found rest, and I ate of my own goods alone.” Deinde, cum dicit et alius quidem, etc., arguit culpam eorum, inquantum erat contra proximum. Divites enim laute comedebant in Ecclesia, et bibebant usque ad ebrietatem, pauperibus autem nihil dabant, ita quod remanebant esurientes. Et hoc est quod dicitur et alius quidem esurit, scilicet pauper, qui non habebat unde sibi praepararet, alter autem ebrius est, scilicet dives, qui superflue comedebat et bibebat, contra id quod dicitur Nehem. c. VIII, 10: comedite pinguia, et bibite mulsum, et mittite partes eis, qui non praeparaverunt sibi. Iob XXXI, 17: si comedi buccellam meam solus, et non comedit pupillus ex ea. 635. – Then when he says, and one, he accuses them of the sin against the neighbor. For the wealthy ate lavishly in church and imbibed until they were drunk; they gave nothing to the poor, who remained hungry. And this is what he says: and one is hungry, namely, the poor man, who did not have the means to prepare anything, and another is drunk, namely, the rich, who over-ate and over-drank – which is contrary to Neh (8:10): “Go your way, eat the fat and drink sweet wine and send portions to him for whom nothing is prepared”; and Jb (31:17): “I have eaten my morsel alone, and the fatherless has not eaten of it.” Deinde, cum dicit numquid domos, etc., inquirit de causa huius culpae. Et primo excludit causam per quam poterant excusari. Non enim est licitum domum Dei, quae est deputata sacris usibus, communibus usibus applicare. Unde et dominus Io. II, 16 eiiciens ementes et vendentes de templo, dixit domus mea domus orationis vocabitur, vos autem fecistis eam domum negotiationis. Et Augustinus dicit in regula: in oratorio nemo aliquid faciat, nisi ad quod factum est, unde et nomen accepit. Tamen propter necessitatem, quando scilicet aliquis aliam domum non inveniret, licite posset Ecclesia uti ad manducandum, vel ad alios huiusmodi licitos usus. Hanc ergo excusationem excludit apostolus, dicens numquid non habetis domos, scilicet proprias, ad manducandum et bibendum? Ut propter hoc excusemini, si in Ecclesia convivia celebretis, quae debetis in propriis domibus facere. Unde et Lc. V, 29 dicitur quod levi fecit Christo convivium magnum in domo sua. 636. – Then when he says, Do you not have houses, he looks into the cause of this sin. First, he excludes a reason, by which they could be excused. For it is not lawful to apply to profane uses the house of God, which is set aside for sacred uses. Hence the Lord, when driving the buyers and sellers from the temple, said; “My house is a house of prayer, but you have made it a den of thieves” (Matt 21:13). And Augustine says in his Rule: “In the oratory let no one do anything except for what it was built and from which it gets its name.” Yet in case of necessity, namely, when one can find no other house, he may lawfully use the church for eating, or for other such lawful uses. But the Apostle rejects this excuse, saying: Do you not have houses, namely, your own, to eat and drink in? Then you would have an excuse, if you celebrated banquets in the church, which you ought to do in your own homes. Hence Lk (5:29) says that Levi made Christ a great feast in his house. Secundo, cum dicit aut Ecclesiam Dei, etc., asserit causam quae eos inexcusabiles reddit, quarum prima est contemptus Ecclesiae Dei. Et hanc ponit dicens aut Ecclesiam Dei contemnitis? Et ideo in Ecclesia praesumitis coenam vestram ad manducandum. Et potest hic sumi Ecclesia tam pro congregatione fidelium, quam pro domo sacra, quae non est contemnenda, secundum illud Ps. XCII, 5: domum tuam decet sanctitudo; et Ier. VII, 11: numquid spelunca latronum facta est domus ista, in qua invocatum est nomen meum in oculis vestris? Isti autem utrumque contemnebant, dum, praesente conventu fidelium, in loco sacro convivia celebrabant. Secundo ponit contemptum proximorum in hoc quod subditur et confunditis eos qui non habent. In hoc enim pauperes erubescebant, quod ipsi esuriebant in conspectu totius multitudinis, aliis laute comedentibus et bibentibus. Dicitur autem Prov. XVII, 5: qui despicit pauperem, exprobrat factori eius. Et Eccli. IV, 2: animam esurientem ne despexeris. 637. – Secondly, when he says, or do you despise, he asserts the cause which makes them inexcusable, the first of which is contempt for the church of God. And he states this, saying: Do you despise the church of God? Is that why you presume to eat your supper in the church? Here “church” can be taken for either the congregation of believers of the sacred house, which is not to be despised, as it says in Ps 93 (v. 5): “Holiness befits your house,” and in Jer (7:11): “Has this house, which is called by my name, become a den of robbers in your eyes?” But they despise both, when in the presence of the congregation of believers, they hold feasts in a holy place. Secondly, he mentions their contempt of neighbor when he says: and humiliate those who have nothing? For the poor were humiliated, inasmuch as they were hungry in the presence of the entire group, while others were eating and drinking lavishly. But it says in Pr (17:7): “He who mocks the poor insults his Maker” and Sir (4:2): “Do not grieve the one who is hungry.” Deinde, cum dicit quid dicam, etc., concludit eorum vituperationem, dicens: quid dicam vobis ex consideratione praedictorum? Numquid laudo vos? Et respondet: et si in aliis factis laudo vos, in hoc tamen facto non laudo. Et est advertendum quod supra dum de habitu mulierum loqueretur, saltem ironice laudavit eos, dicens: laudo vos quod per omnia mei, et cetera. Hic vero nec ironice vult eos laudare, quia in gravioribus delictis nullo modo sunt peccatores palpandi. Unde et in Ps. IX, 3 dicitur: quoniam laudatur peccator in desideriis animae suae, et iniquus benedicitur. Exacerbavit dominum peccator. Et Is. III, 12: popule meus, qui beatum te dicunt, ipsi te decipiunt. 638. – Then when he says, What shall I say to you, he concludes his reprimand, saying: What shall I say to you in the light of the above? Shall I praise you? And he answers: Although I praise you for other things, in this matter I cannot praise you. It should be noted that above when he spoke about women’s apparel, he praised them at least ironically, saying: “I praise you, because you remember me in everything.” But here he does not want to praise them even ironically, because in more serious matters sinners must in no way be handled gently. Hence it says in Ps 10 (v. 3); “For the sinner is praised in the desires of his soul and the wicked man is blessed. And the sinner renounces the Lord”; and in Is (3:12): “My people, those who called you happy, misled you.” Secundum aliam vero expositionem arguuntur de alia culpa. In primitiva enim Ecclesia fideles panem et vinum offerebant, quae consecrabantur in sanguinem et corpus Christi, quibus iam consecratis, divites, qui multa obtulerant, eadem sibi repetebant, et sic ipsi abundanter sumebant, pauperibus nihil sumentibus, qui nihil obtulerant. De hac ergo culpa apostolus eos hic reprehendit, dicens convenientibus enim vobis in unum, iam non est, id est, non contigit inter vos, dominicam coenam manducare. Coena enim domini est communis toti familiae; unusquisque autem vestrum sumit eam, non quasi communem, sed quasi propriam, dum sibi vult vindicare quod Deo obtulit; et hoc est quod subdit unusquisque praesumit, id est, praesumptuose attentat, ad manducandum coenam, scilicet domini, id est panem et vinum consecratum, quasi suam, id est, quasi propriam vindicans, scilicet ea quae consecrata sunt domino in suos usus. Et ita sequitur quod alius, scilicet pauper qui nihil obtulit, esurit, nihil scilicet sumens de consecratis, alius autem, scilicet dives qui multa obtulit, ebrius est; ad litteram, propter hoc quod nimium sumpsit de vino consecrato quod scilicet quasi proprium repoposcit. 639. – According to another explanation, they are reprimanded for a different fault. For in the early church the faithful offered bread and wine, which were consecrated into the body and blood of Christ. After the consecration the rich, who had offered much, wanted the same amount returned; and so they took an abundant share, while the poor, who had offered nothing, received nothing. Therefore, it is for this fault that the Apostle reprimands them, saying: When you meet together, it is not any longer to eat the Lord’s supper. For the Lord’s supper is common to the whole family; but each of you takes it not as common but as his own, while he tries to justify himself, because he offered it to God. And this is what he adds: Each one presumes, i.e., presumptuously attempts to eat the supper, namely of the Lord, i.e., consecrated bread and wine, as his own, i.e., taking them as though they were his own, namely, the things consecrated to the Lord, for their use. And so it follows that one, namely, the poor person who offered nothing goes hungry, but another, namely, the rich man who offered much is drunk; literally, because he took too much of the consecrated wine, which he demanded as his own. Sed videtur hoc esse impossibile, quod de vino consecrato aliquis inebrietur, vel etiam nutriatur de pane, quoniam post consecrationem sub speciebus panis et vini nihil remanet, nisi substantia corporis Christi et sanguinis, quae non possunt converti in corpus hominis, ad hoc quod ex eis nutriatur, aut inebrietur. 640. – But it seems to be impossible for one to get drunk from consecrated wine or even be nourished by the bread, because after consecration nothing remains under the appearance of bread and wine except the substance of Christ’s body and blood, which cannot be changed into man’s body, so as to nourish him or make him drunk. Dicunt ergo quidam, quod hoc non fit per aliquam conversionem, sed per solam immutationem sensuum hominis ab accidentibus panis et vini, quae remanent post consecrationem. Consueverunt enim homines ex solo ciborum odore confortari, et ex multo odore vini stupefieri et quasi inebriari. Sed confortatio vel stupefactio, quae provenit ex sola immutatione sensuum, parvo tempore durat, cum tamen post consecrationem panis aut vini, si vinum in magna quantitate sumeretur aut panis, diu sustentaretur homo propter panem aut stupefieret propter vinum. Et praeterea manifestum est quod panis consecratus in aliam substantiam converti potest, ex hoc quod per putrefactionem resolvitur in pulveres, aut per combustionem in cineres. Unde nulla ratio est, quare negetur posse nutrire, cum ad nutriendum nihil aliud requiratur, quam quod cibus convertatur in substantiam nutriti. 641. – Therefore, some say that this does not come to pass by any conversion, but by the sole change of a man’s senses by the accidents of bread and wine, which remain after consecration. For men were wont to be strengthened by the mere order of food and be stupefied and, as it were, made drunk from the strong odor of wine. But strengthening or stupefaction, which come solely from a change of the senses, lasts a short time, while, nevertheless, after the consecration of the bread and wine, if the wine or bread were taken in large quantities, a man would be sustained for a long time on account of the bread or stupefied on account of the wine. Besides, it is clear that the consecrated bread can be changed into another substance, since it is changed into dust by putrefaction or into ashes by burning. Hence there is no reason to deny that they can nourish, since nourishment requires no more than that the food be changed into the substance of the one fed. Quidam ergo posuerunt, quod panis aut vinum consecratum possunt converti in aliud, et sic nutrire, quia remanet ibi substantia panis aut vini cum substantia corporis Christi et sanguinis. Sed hoc repugnat verbis Scripturae. Non enim verum esset quod dominus dicit Matth. c. XXVI, 26: hoc est enim corpus meum, quia hoc demonstratum, est panis, sed potius esset dicendum hic, id est, in hoc loco, est corpus meum. Et praeterea corpus Christi non incipit esse in hoc sacramento per loci mutationem, quia iam desineret esse in caelo. Unde relinquitur quod ibi incipiat esse per conversionem alterius, scilicet panis, in ipsum; unde non potest esse quod remaneat substantia panis. 642. – Therefore, others assert that the bread or consecrated wine can be converted into something else and so can nourish, because the substance of bread or wine remain there with the substance of the body and blood of Christ. But this conflicts with the words of Scripture. For what the Lord says in Matt (26:26) would not be true, namely, “This is my body,” because this thing pointed to is bread; He should rather have said: “Here,” i.e., in this place, “is my body.” Besides, the body of Christ does no begin to be in this sacrament by local motion, because He would then cease to be in heaven. Hence, what is left is that He begins to be there by the conversion of something else, i.e., of the bread, into Himself; hence, it cannot be that the substance of bread remains. Et ideo alii dixerunt quod remanet ibi forma substantialis panis, ad quam pertinet operatio rei: et ideo nutrit, sicut et panis nutriret. Sed hoc non potest esse, quia nutrire est converti in substantiam nutriti, quod non competit nutrimento ratione formae, cuius est agere, sed magis ratione materiae, cuius est pati. Unde si esset ibi forma substantialis, panis nutrire non posset. Therefore, others say that there remains the bread’s substantial form, from which springs a thing’s activity; consequently, it nourishes, just as bread itself nourishes. But this cannot be, because to nourish is to be converted into the substance of the nourished. But his does not belong to any nutriment by reason of the form, whose function is to act, but rather by reason of the matter, whose function is to be acted upon. Hence, if the substantial form were there, it would be unable to nourish. Alii vero dixerunt quod aer circumstans convertitur vel in substantiam nutriti, vel in quodcumque aliud huiusmodi; sed hoc non posset fieri absque multa condensatione aeris, quae sensui latere non posset. Et ideo alii dixerunt quod divina virtute ad hoc quod sacramentum non deprehendatur in huiusmodi conversionibus, redit substantia panis et vini. Sed hoc videtur esse impossibile, quia, cum substantia panis conversa sit in corpus Christi, non videtur quod possit substantia panis redire, nisi e converso corpus Christi converteretur in panem. Et praeterea si substantia panis redit, aut hoc est manentibus accidentibus panis: et sic simul erit ibi substantia panis et substantia corporis Christi, quod supra improbatum est; nam tamdiu est ibi substantia corporis Christi, quamdiu species remanent. Aut redit speciebus non manentibus, quod etiam est impossibile, quia sic esset substantia panis absque propriis accidentibus, nisi forte intelligatur quod Deus in termino conversionis causaret ibi quamdam materiam quae sit subiectum huius conversionis. Sed melius est ut dicatur quod sicut virtute consecrationis miraculose confertur speciebus panis et vini, ut subsistant sine subiecto ad modum substantiae, ita etiam eis miraculose confertur ex consequenti quod agant et patiantur quidquid agere aut pati posset substantia panis aut vini, si adesset. Et hac ratione species illae panis et vini possunt nutrire et inebriare, sicut si esset ibi substantia panis et vini. Caetera non mutantur a prima expositione. 643. – But others say that the surrounding air is converted either into the substance of the one nourished or into anything else of the sort. But this could not happen without much condensation of air, which would not fail to be detected by a sense. Therefore, others say that by divine power the substance of bread and wine return, in order that the sacrament not be detected in these changes. But this seems to be impossible, because, since the substance of bread was converted into the body of Christ, it does not seem that the substance of bread could return, unless the body of Christ were converted into bread. Besides, if the substance of bread returns, this occurs either with the accidents of bread remaining, and then there will simultaneously be the substance of bread and the substance of Christ’s body, which was disproved above: for the substance of Christ’s body is there as long as the species remain. Or it returns with the species not remaining, which is also impossible, because then the substance of bread would be there without its own accidents; unless, perhaps, it is understood that God at the end of the conversion would cause to be there a certain matter which would be the subject of this conversion. But it is better to say that just as in virtue of the consecration, it is miraculously given to the appearance of bread and wine to subsist without a subject and to subsist after the manner of a substance, so also it is miraculously given as a consequence that they act or be acted upon in the same way as the substance of bread and wine would, if they were present. And for this reason those species of bread and wine can nourish and inebriate, just as if the substance of bread and wine were there. As for the rest there are no changes from the first explanation.
11-5
1 Cor 11:23-24Reportatio Reginaldi de Piperno
Vulgate:Postquam apostolus redarguit Corinthiorum inordinationes, quas committebant conveniendo ad Eucharistiae sacramentum sumendum, hic agit de ipso sacramento. Et primo agit de dignitate huius sacramenti; secundo inducit fideles ad reverenter sumendum, ibi itaque quicumque manducaverit et cetera. Circa primum duo facit. Primo commendat auctoritatem doctrinae quam daturus est; secundo ponit doctrinam de dignitate huius sacramenti, ibi quoniam dominus noster, et cetera. 644. – After rebuking the Corinthians for their unbecoming behavior, when they came together to take the Eucharist, the Apostle now deals with the sacrament itself. First, he discusses the dignity of this sacrament; secondly, he urges the faithful to receive it reverently (v. 27). In regard to the first he does two things: first, he commends the authority of the doctrine he is about to deliver; secondly, he presents the doctrine about the dignity of this sacrament (v. 23b). Circa primum duo facit. Primo commendat auctoritatem doctrinae ex parte auctoris, qui est Christus, dicens: dixi quod iam non est vobis dominicam coenam manducare, sacramentum Eucharistiae dominicam coenam vocans, ego enim accepi a domino, scilicet Christo, qui est auctor huius doctrinae, non ab aliquo puro homine. Gal. c. I, 1: Paulus apostolus non ab hominibus, neque per hominem, sed per Iesum Christum. Hebr. II, 3: quae cum initium accepisset enarrari per dominum, et cetera. Secundo commendat auctoritatem doctrinae ex parte ministri, qui est ipse Paulus, cum subdit quod et tradidi vobis. Is. XXI, 10: quae audivi a domino exercituum Deo Israel, annuntiavi vobis. Sap. VII, 13: quam sine fictione didici, et sine invidia communico. 645. – In regard to the first he does two things: first, he commends the authority of the doctrine on the part of the author, who is Christ, saying: I have said that it is no longer of interest to eat the Lord’s supper, calling the sacrament of the Eucharist the Lord’s supper, for I received from the Lord, namely, Christ, Who is the author of this doctrine and not any mere man: “Paul, an apostle—not from men nor through men but through Jesus Christ” (Gal 1:1); “It was declared at first by the Lord” (Heb 2:3). Secondly, he commends the authority of the doctrine on the part of the minister, who is Paul himself, when he adds: what I also delivered to you: “What I have heard from the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel, I announce to you” (Is 21:10); “I learned without guile and I impart without envy” (Wis 7:13). Deinde cum dicit quoniam dominus Iesus, commendat dignitatem huius sacramenti, tradens institutionem ipsius. Et primo ponit institutionem; secundo tempus institutionis, cum dicit in qua nocte tradebatur, et cetera. Tertio modum instituendi, ibi accepit panem, et cetera. 646. – Then when he says, that the Lord Jesus, he commends the dignity of this sacrament, describing its institution: first, he mentions the institution; secondly, the time of the institution (v. 23c); thirdly, the manner of instituting (v. 23d). Institutor autem sacramenti est ipse Christus. Unde dicit quoniam dominus noster Iesus Christus, et cetera. Dictum est enim supra cum de Baptismo ageretur, quod Christus in sacramentis habet excellentiae potestatem, ad quam quatuor pertinent. Primo quidem quod virtus et meritum eius operetur in sacramentis; secundo quod in nomine eius sanctificetur sacramentum; tertio quod effectum sacramenti sine sacramento praebere potest; quarto institutio novi sacramenti. Specialiter tamen congruebat ut hoc sacramentum ipse in sua persona institueret, in quo corpus et sanguis eius communicatur. Unde et ipse dicit Io. VI, 52: panis quem ego dabo vobis, caro mea est pro mundi vita. 647. – The one who institutes this sacrament is Christ. Hence he says: that the Lord Jesus, for it was stated above, when the sacrament of baptism was discussed, that Christ has in the sacraments the excellence of power, to which pertain four things: first, that His virtue and merit operate in the sacraments; secondly, that the sacraments are sanctified in his name; thirdly, that He can produce the effect of a sacrament without the sacrament; fourthly, the institution of a new sacrament. Yet it was especially suitable that He institute in His own person this sacrament, in which His body and blood are communicated. Hence He Himself says in John (6:52): “The bread that I shall give is my flesh for the life of the world.” Deinde cum dicit qua nocte tradebatur, describit tempus institutionis huius sacramenti, quod quidem congruum fuit, primo quidem quantum ad qualitatem temporis. Fuit enim in nocte. Per virtutem enim huius sacramenti anima illuminatur. Unde I Reg. XIV, 27 dicitur quod Ionathas intinxit virgam in favum mellis, et convertit manum suam ad os suum, et illuminati sunt oculi eius; propter quod et in Ps. CXXXVIII, v. 11 dicitur: nox illuminatio mea in deliciis meis. Secundo quantum ad negotium quod in illo tempore gerebatur, quia scilicet quando tradebatur ad passionem, per quam transivit ad patrem, hoc sacramentum, quod est memoriale passionis, instituit. Unde dicitur Eccli. XXIX, 33: transi, hospes, et orna mensam, et quae in manu habes, ciba caeteros. 648. – Then when he says, on the night when he was betrayed, he describes the time of the institution of this sacrament. It was fitting to do this: first, as to the quality of the time. For it was night. For the soul is enlightened by virtue of this sacrament. Hence 1 Sam (14:27) says that Jonathon “put forth the tip of his staff and dipped it in the honeycomb and put his head to his mouth, and his eyes became bright”; on which account it says in Ps 139 (v. 12): “The night is as bright as the day.” Secondly, as to the negotiations carried on at that time, namely, it was when he was delivered over to the passion, by which he passed to the Father that He instituted this sacrament, which is a memorial of the passion: “Come here, stranger, and prepare the table, and if you have anything at hand, let me have it to eat” (Sir 29:26). Deinde cum dicit accepit panem, etc., ostendit modum institutionis. Et primo ponit ea quae fecit et dixit Christus instituendo hoc sacramentum; secundo exponit, ibi quotiescumque enim, et cetera. Circa primum duo facit. Primo agit de institutione sacramenti huius quantum ad corpus Christi; secundo quantum ad eius sanguinem, ibi similiter et calicem, et cetera. 649. – Then when he says, he took bread, he shows the manner of the institution: first, he relates what Christ said and did in instituting this sacrament; secondly, he explains (v. 26). In regard to the first he does two things: first, he deals with the institution of this sacrament as to the body of Christ; secondly, as to His blood (v. 25). Circa primum ante expositionem litterae, oportet primo considerare necessitatem institutionis huius sacramenti. Est autem sciendum quod sacramenta instituta sunt propter necessitatem vitae spiritualis. Et quia corporalia sunt quaedam similitudines spiritualium, oportet sacramenta proportionari eis quae sunt necessaria ad vitam corporalem. In qua primo invenitur generatio, cui proportionatur Baptismus, per quem regeneratur aliquis in vitam spiritualem. Secundo ad vitam corporalem requiritur augmentum, per quod aliquis perducitur ad quantitatem et virtutem perfectam: et huic proportionatur sacramentum confirmationis, in quo spiritus sanctus datur ad robur. Tertio ad vitam corporalem requiritur alimentum, per quod corpus hominis sustentatur, et similiter vita spiritualis per sacramentum Eucharistiae reficitur, secundum illud Ps. XXII, 2: in loco pascuae ibi me collocavit, super aquam refectionis educavit me. 650. – In regard to the first, before explaining the text one must first consider the need for instituting this sacrament. So it should be noted that the sacraments were instituted on account of a need in the spiritual life. And because bodily things are likenesses of spiritual things, it is fitting that the sacrament be proportionate to things which are necessary to bodily life, in which generation comes first, to which baptism is proportionate and through which one is reborn into the spiritual life. Secondly, for bodily life is required growth, by which one is brought to perfect size and power. To this is proportionate the sacrament of confirmation, in which the Holy Spirit is given for strength. Thirdly, for the spiritual life is required food, by which man’s body is sustained, and likewise the spiritual life is fed by the sacrament of the Eucharist, as it says in Ps 23 (v. 2): “He make me lie down in green pastures. He leads me beside still waters.” Est autem notandum quod generans non coniungitur genito secundum substantiam sed solum secundum virtutem, sed cibus coniungitur nutrito secundum substantiam. Unde in sacramento Baptismi, quo Christus regenerat ad salutem, non est ipse Christus secundum suam substantiam, sed solum secundum suam virtutem. Sed in sacramento Eucharistiae, quod est spirituale alimentum, Christus est secundum suam substantiam. 651. – It should be known that the cause of generation is not joined according to its substance to the one generated, but only according to its power; but food is joined according to its substance to the fed. Hence in the sacrament of baptism, by which Christ regenerates us to salvation, it is not Christ according to His substance but only according to His power. But in the sacrament of this Eucharist, which is spiritual food, Christ is there according to His substance. Continetur autem sub alia specie propter tria. Primo quidem ne esset horribile fidelibus sumentibus hoc sacramentum, si in propria specie carnem hominis ederent, et sanguinem biberent; secundo ne hoc ipsum esset derisibile infidelibus; tertio ut cresceret meritum fidei, quae consistit in hoc quod creduntur ea quae non videntur. 652. – He is contained under another appearance for three reasons: first, indeed, it would be horrifying for the faithful to receive this sacrament, if they ate the flesh of a man under its ordinary appearance and drank His blood; secondly, so that it would not be a source of derision to unbelievers; thirdly, in order that the merit of faith grow, which consists in believing something not seen. Traditur autem hoc sacramentum sub duplici specie propter tria. Primo quidem propter eius perfectionem, quia, cum sit spiritualis refectio, debet habere spiritualem cibum et spiritualem potum. Nam et corporalis refectio non perficitur sine potu et cibo. Unde et supra X, 3 s. dictum est quod omnes eamdem escam spiritualem manducaverunt, et omnes eumdem potum spiritualem biberunt; nam et corporalis refectio non perficitur sine cibo et potu. Secundo propter eius significationem. Est enim memoriale dominicae passionis, per quam sanguis Christi fuit separatus a corpore; et ideo in hoc sacramento seorsum offertur sanguis a corpore. Tertio propter huius sacramenti effectum salutarem. Valet enim ad salutem corporis, et ideo offertur corpus: et valet ad salutem animae, et ideo offertur sanguis. Nam anima in sanguine est, ut dicitur Gen. IX, 4 ss. 653. – This sacrament is presented under two species for three reasons: first, indeed, on account of its perfection, because, since it is spiritual refreshment, ought to be spiritual food and spiritual drink. For even bodily refreshment is not complete without food and drink. Hence he also says above (10:3): “All ate of the same spiritual food and all drank the same spiritual drink.” Secondly, on account of its signification. For it is the memorial of the Lord’s passion, through which the blood of Christ was separated from His body; that is why in this sacrament the blood is offered separately from the body. Thirdly, on account of the salutary effect of this sacrament, for it avails for the health of the body, and so the body is offered; and it avails for the health of the soul, and so the blood is offered. “For the soul is in the blood” (Lev 17:11). Offertur autem specialiter hoc sacramentum sub specie panis et vini. Primo quidem, quia pane et vino communius utuntur homines ad suam refectionem. Et ideo assumuntur in sacramento haec, sicut aqua ad ablutionem in Baptismo, et oleum ad unctionem. Secundo propter virtutem huius sacramenti. Nam panis confirmat cor hominis, vinum vero laetificat. Tertio quia panis, qui ex multis granis fit, et vinum ex multis uvis, significant Ecclesiae unitatem, quae constituitur ex multis fidelibus. Est autem haec Eucharistia specialiter sacramentum unitatis et charitatis, ut dicit Augustinus super Ioannem. 654. – This sacrament is offered specifically under the appearance of bread and wine: first of all, because men generally use bread and wine for their refreshment. Therefore, these are used in this sacrament, as water in baptism. Secondly, on account of the power of this sacrament: for bread strengthens the heart of man, but wine gladdens it. Thirdly, because the bread, which is made up of many believers. Furthermore, this Eucharist is especially the sacrament of unity and charity, as Augustine says On John. His autem visis circa litterae expositionem, primo considerandum est quid Christus fecerit; secundo quid dixerit, ibi et dixit, et cetera. 655. – Having seen these matters relating to the explanation of the text: first, what Christ did must be explained; secondly, what he said (v. 24). Tria autem facit. Primum quidem designatur, cum dicit accepit panem, per quod duo significari possunt: primo quidem quod ipse voluntarie passionem accepit, cuius hoc sacramentum est memoriale, secundum illud Is. LIII, 7: oblatus est, quia ipse voluit. Secundo potest significari quod ipse accepit a patre potestatem perficiendi hoc sacramentum, secundum illud Matth. c. XI, 27: omnia tradita sunt mihi a patre meo. Secundum tangit, cum dicit et gratias agens. In quo datur nobis exemplum gratias agendi de omnibus quae nobis divinitus dantur, secundum illud I Thess. ult.: in omnibus gratias agite. Tertium tangit, cum dicit fregit. Is. LVIII, v. 7: frange esurienti panem tuum. 656. – But he does three things: the first is designated when he says: He took bread. Two things can be signified by this: first, that he voluntarily accepted the passion, of which this sacrament is the memorial, as it says in Is (53:5): “He was offered up because he will it.” Secondly, that he received from the Father the power of completing this sacrament, according to Matt (11:27): “All things have been handed over to me by my Father.” He touches on the second, when he says: and broke: “Share your bread with the hungry” (Is 58:7). Sed videtur hoc esse contrarium usui Ecclesiae, secundum quam prius consecratur corpus Christi, et postea frangitur: hic autem dicitur quod prius fregit, postea protulit verba consecrationis. Et ideo quidam dixerunt quod Christus consecravit prius verbis aliis, et postea protulit verba quibus nos consecramus. Sed hoc non potest esse, quia sacerdos, dum consecrat, non profert ista verba quasi ex persona sua sed quasi ex persona Christi consecrantis. Unde manifestum est quod eisdem verbis quibus nos consecramus, et Christus consecravit. Et ideo dicendum est quod hoc quod hic dicitur et dixit, non est sumendum consequenter, quasi Christus acceperit panem, et gratias agens fregerit, et postea dixerit verba quae sequuntur, sed concomitanter, quod dum accepit per se panem, gratias agens fregit et dixit. Et ideo cum Matth. XXVI, 26 dicatur quod Iesus accepit panem, et benedixit, ac fregit, apostolus non curavit hic de benedictione facere mentionem, intelligens nihil aliud esse illam benedictionem, quam hoc quod dominus dixit hoc est corpus meum. 657. – But this seems contrary to the practice of the Church, according to which the body of Christ is first consecrated and then broken. But this cannot be, because the priest, while he is consecrating, does not pronounce those words as from his own person, but as from the person of Christ consecrating. Hence it is clear that Christ consecrated with the same words with which we consecrate. Therefore, it should be noted that what is said here, and he said, is not to be taken successively, as though Christ took bread and giving thanks broke it, and later said the words which follow; rather, they are taken concomitantly, namely, that while he took bread, giving thanks he broke it and said. Therefore with Matt (26:26) it should be stated that “Jesus took bread and blessed and broke.” The Apostle here did not care to mention about the blessing, understanding that the blessing was nothing else than what the Lord said: “This is my body.” Deinde cum dicit et dixit, ostendit quid Christus dixerit instituendo hoc sacramentum. In verbis autem primo quidem iniunxit sacramenti usum; secundo expressit sacramenti veritatem; tertio docuit mysterium. 658. – Then when he says: and said, he shows what Christ said when instituting this sacrament: first, he enjoined the use of the sacrament; secondly, he expressed the truth of the sacrament; thirdly, he taught the mystery. Usum quidem sacramenti iniunxit, dicens accipite. Quasi diceret: non ex potestate vel merito humano competit vobis usus huius sacramenti, sed ex eminenti Dei beneficio. Sap. XVI, 20: Angelorum esca nutrivisti populum tuum, domine. Supra IV, 7: quid habes quod non accepisti? Et determinat speciem usus, cum dicit et manducate. Io. VI, 54: nisi manducaveritis carnem filii hominis. Iob XXXI, 31: si non dixerunt viri tabernaculi mei: quis det de carnibus eius, ut saturemur? 659. – He enjoined the use of the sacrament, saying: Take. As if not from any human power or merit is it proper for you to use this sacrament, but from an eminent gift of God: “Thou didst give thy people the food of angels” (Wis 16:20); “What have you that you did not receive” (1 Cor 4:7)? And he determines the kind of use when he says, and eat: “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man” (Jn. 6:54); “If the men of my tent have not said, ‘Who will give of his flesh that we may be filled?’” (Jb 31:31). Sciendum est tamen quod haec verba non sunt de forma consecrationis. Est enim haec differentia inter haec et alia sacramenta, quia alia sacramenta perficiuntur non quidem in consecratione materiae, sed in usu materiae consecratae, sicut in ablutione aquae, aut in unctione olei seu chrismatis. Et hoc ideo, quia in materiis aliorum sacramentorum non est aliqua natura rationalis, quae sit gratiae sanctificantis susceptiva; et ideo in forma aliorum sacramentorum fit mentio de usu sacramenti, sicut cum dicitur: ego te baptizo, vel confirmo te chrismate salutis, et cetera. Sed hoc sacramentum perficitur in ipsa consecratione materiae, in qua continetur ipse Christus, qui est finis totius gratiae sanctificantis. Et ideo verba quae pertinent ad usum sacramenti, non sunt de substantia formae, sed solum illa quae continent veritatem et continentiam sacramenti, quae consequenter ponit, subdens hoc est corpus meum. 660. – It should be noted, however, that these words are not from the form of consecration. For there is this difference between this and other sacraments, that the latter are completed not in the consecration of the matter but in the use of consecrated matter, as in the washing with water or in the anointing with oil or chrism. The reason is that in the matters of the other sacraments mention is made of the use of the sacrament, as when it is stated: I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. But this sacrament is completed in the very consecration of the matter, in which Christ Himself is contained, Who is the end of all sanctifying grace. Therefore, the words which pertain to the use of the sacrament are not of the substance of the form, but only those containing the truth and content of the sacrament, which he mentions last, adding: This is my body. Circa quae verba tria oportet considerare. Primo quidem de re significata per haec verba, quod scilicet sit ibi corpus Christi; secundo de veritate huius locutionis, tertio utrum haec sit conveniens forma huius sacramenti. 661. – In regard to these words three things should be considered: first, the reality signified by these words, namely, that the body of Christ is there; secondly, the truth of this statement; thirdly, whether this is a suitable form for this sacrament. Circa primum considerandum est, quod quidam dixerunt corpus Christi non esse in hoc sacramento secundum veritatem, sed solum sicut in signo, sic exponentes quod hic dicitur hoc est corpus meum, id est, hoc est signum et figura corporis mei, sicut et supra X, 4 dictum est: petra autem erat Christus, id est, figura Christi. Sed hoc est haereticum, cum expresse dominus dicat, Io. VI, 56: caro mea vere est cibus, et sanguis meus vere est potus. Unde alii dixerunt quod est ibi vere corpus Christi, sed simul cum substantia panis, quod est impossibile, ut supra ostensum est. Unde alii dixerunt quod est ibi solum corpus Christi, substantia panis non remanente, quae annihilatur, vel in praeiacentem materiam resolvitur. Sed hoc non potest esse, quia, sicut Augustinus dicit in libro LXXXIII quaest.: Deus non est auctor tendendi in non esse. Secundo quia etiam per hanc positionem tollitur hoc quod substantia panis convertatur in corpus Christi, et sic cum corpus Christi non incipiat esse in hoc sacramento per conversionem alterius in ipsum, relinquitur quod incipiat ibi esse per motum localem, quod est impossibile, ut supra dictum est. Oportet igitur dicere, quod corpus Christi vere sit in hoc sacramento per conversionem panis in ipsum. 662. – In regard to the first it should be noted that some have said that the body of Christ is not truly present in this sacrament, but only as in a sign explaining what is said here: This is my body, i.e., this is a sign and figure of my body, just as it was said above (10:4): “But the rock was Christ,” i.e., as figure of Christ. But this is heretical, since the Lord expressly says: “My flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed” (Jn. 6:56). Hence others say that the body of Christ is truly there but along with the substance of bread. This is impossible, as was shown above. Therefore, others said that only the body of Christ is there, the substance of bread not remaining because it is annihilated or reduced to prejacent matter. But this cannot be, because, as Augustine says in the Book of Eighty Three Questions: “God is not the author of tending to non-existence.” Secondly, because even this position takes away the fact the substance of bread is converted into the body of Christ; and so, since the body of Christ begins to be in this sacrament by the conversion of something else into it, the consequence is that He begins to be there by local motion: but that is impossible, as was shown above. Therefore, one must say that the body of Christ is truly in this sacrament by the conversion of bread into it. Considerandum tamen quod haec conversio differt ab omnibus conversionibus quae sunt in natura. Actio enim naturae praesupponit materiam, et ideo eius actio non se extendit, nisi ad immutandum aliquid secundum formam vel substantialem vel accidentalem. Unde omnis conversio naturalis dicitur esse formalis. Sed Deus qui facit hanc conversionem, est auctor materiae et formae, et ideo tota substantia panis, materia non remanente, potest converti in totam substantiam corporis Christi. Et quia materia est individuationis principium, totum hoc individuum signatum, quod est substantia particularis, convertitur in aliam substantiam particularem, propter quod dicitur ista conversio substantialis seu transubstantiatio. Contingit igitur in hac conversione contrarium eius quod accidit in conversionibus naturalibus, in quibus, manente subiecto, fit transmutatio interdum circa accidentia. Hic autem, transmutata substantia, manent accidentia sine subiecto, virtute divina, quae sicut causa prima sustentat ea sine causa materiali, quae est substantia causata ad hoc quod corpus Christi et sanguis sumatur in specie aliena rationibus supradictis. Et quia ordine quodam accidentia referuntur ad substantiam, ideo dimensiones sine subiecto remanent, et alia accidentia remanent in ipsis dimensionibus, sicut in subiecto. 663. – Yet it should be noted that this conversion differs from all conversions that occur in nature. For the action of nature presupposes matter, and therefore its action does not extend beyond changing something according to its form, either substantial or accidental. Hence every natural conversion is said to be formal. But God, Who makes this conversion is the author of form and of matter, and therefore the entire substance of bread, the matter not remaining, can be converted into the entire substance of the body of Christ. And because matter is the principle of individuation, this whole signated individual, which is a particular substance, is converted into another particular substance. For this reason it is called a substantial conversion or transubstantiation. In this conversion, therefore, occurs the contrary of what happens in natural conversions, in which, the subject remaining, a change sometimes occurs affecting the accidents. But here the substance is changed, while the accidents remain intact without a subject. This is done by divine power, which as the first cause sustains them without a material cause, which is the substance caused in order that the body of Christ and the blood be consumed under a different appearance, for the reasons given above. And because accidents are referred to their substance in a definite order, the dimensions remain without a subject and the other accidents remain in those dimensions as in a subject. Si autem sub illis dimensionibus nulla substantia remaneat, nisi corpus Christi, dubium potest esse de fractionibus hostiae consecratae, cum corpus Christi glorificatum sit, et per consequens infrangibile. Unde non potest huic fractioni substare, sed nec etiam aliud potest fingi quod subsistat, quia sacramentum veritatis non decet aliqua fictio. Unde nihil sensu percipitur in hoc sacramento, quod non sit ibi secundum veritatem. Sensibilia enim per se sunt qualitates, quae quidem remanent, sicut prius fuerant in hoc sacramento, ut dictum est. Et ideo alii dixerunt quod est quaedam ibi vero fractio sine subiecto, unde nihil ibi frangitur. Sed nec hoc dici potest, quia cum fractio sit in genere passionis, quae habet debilius esse quam qualitas, non potest esse in hoc sacramento sine subiecto, sicut nec qualitas. Unde restat dicendum, quod fractio illa fundatur sicut in subiecto in dimensionibus panis et vini remanentibus. Corpus autem Christi non attingitur ab huiusmodi fractione, quia totum remanet sub qualibet parte dimensionum divisarum. Quod quidem hoc modo considerari potest. Nam corpus Christi est in hoc sacramento ex conversione substantiae panis in ipsum. Non autem fit conversio ratione dimensionum. Nam dimensiones panis remanent, sed solum ratione substantiae. Unde et corpus Christi est ibi ratione suae substantiae, non autem ratione suarum dimensionum, licet dimensiones eius sunt ibi ex consequenti, inquantum non separantur a substantia ipsius. Quantum autem ad naturam substantiae pertinet, tota est sub qualibet parte dimensionum. Unde sicut ante consecrationem tota veritas substantiae et natura panis erat sub qualibet parte dimensionum: ita post consecrationem totum corpus Christi est sub qualibet parte panis divisi. 664. – But if no substance remains under those dimensions except the body of Christ, there could be no doubt about the breaking of the consecrated host, since the body of Christ is glorified and, therefore, unbreakable. Hence He cannot exist under this particle nor can it be pretended that He subsists, because the sacrament of truth is incompatible with any pretense. Hence nothing is perceived by the senses in this sacrament, which is not truly there. For the per se sensibles are qualities, which indeed remain as they previously existed, in this sacrament, as we have stated. Therefore, others have said that a certain breaking without a subject occurs there; hence nothing is broken there. But this cannot be said either, because, since breaking is in the category of “being acted upon,” which is a weaker category than quality, it cannot exist in this sacrament without a subject any more than quality can. Hence it must be said that the breaking is founded, as on a subject, on the dimensions of bread and wine which remain. But the body of Christ is not affected by such breaking, because the whole body remains under each part of the divided dimensions. This indeed can be considered in this way. For the body of Christ is in this sacrament from the conversion of the substance of bread into it. But the conversion does not come about by reason of the dimensions. For the dimensions of the bread remain, but only by reason of the substance. Hence, too, the body of Christ is there by reason of its own substance, but not by reason of its own dimensions, although its dimensions are there by way of consequence, inasmuch as they are not separated from His substance. But as far as the nature of the substance is concerned, it is entire under each part of the dimensions. Hence, just before the consecration the whole truth of the substance and nature of bread was under each part of its dimensions, so after the consecration the whole body of Christ is under each part of the divided bread. Significat autem hostiae consecratae divisio, primo quidem passionem Christi, per quam corpus eius fuit vulneribus fractum, secundum illud Ps. XXI, 17: foderunt manus meas et pedes meos. Secundo distributionem donorum Christi ex ipso progredientium, secundum illud infra XII, 4: divisiones gratiarum sunt. Tertio diversas partes Ecclesiae. Nam eorum qui sunt membra Christi, quidam adhuc in hoc mundo peregrinantur; quidam vivunt in gloria cum Christo, et quantum ad animam et quantum ad corpus; quidam autem expectant finalem resurrectionem in fine mundi, et hoc significat divisio hostiae in tres partes. 665. – The division of the consecrated host signifies, first of all, the passion of Christ through which His body was broken by wounds, as it says in Ps 22 (v. 16): “They have pierced by hands and my feet.” From Him, as it says below (7:4) “there are divisions of graces.” Secondly, the distribution of the gifts of Christ from his own [progredientium], as it says above (12:4): “There are varieties of gifts.” Thirdly, the various parts of the Church. For among Christ’s members some are still pilgrims in this world, some may be in glory with Christ, both as to the soul and as to the body, but some await the final resurrection at the end of the world, and this is signified by the division of the host into three parts. Secundo considerandum est de veritate huius locutionis. Videtur enim haec locutio esse falsa hoc est corpus meum. Conversio enim panis in corpus Christi fit in termino prolationis horum verborum. Tunc enim completur significatio huius locutionis. Formae enim sacramentorum significando efficiunt; et ideo sequitur quod in principio locutionis quando dicitur quod non sit ibi corpus Christi, sed sola substantia panis, quae demonstratur per hoc pronomen hoc, quando est demonstrativum substantiae. Idem est ergo, hoc, cum dicitur hoc est corpus meum, ac si diceret substantia panis est corpus meum, quod manifeste falsum est. 666. – Secondly, one should consider the truth of this statement. For the statement, This is my body, seems to be false. For the conversion of bread into the body of Christ occurs at the time of the pronouncing of these words. For it is then that the signification of these words is completed. For the forms of the sacrament effect by signifying; therefore, it follows that in the beginning of the statement, when it is stated that the body of Christ is not there but only the substance of the bread, which is pointed out by the pronoun, this, when it points out a substance. It is the same, therefore, to say, this is my body, as to say: “The substance of bread is my body,” which is obviously false. Dixerunt ergo quidam, quod sacerdos haec verba materialiter et recitative profert ex persona Christi, et ideo demonstratio huius pronominis non refertur ad praesentem materiam, ut ex hoc locutio falsa reddatur, secundum quod obiectio procedebat. Sed hoc non potest stare. Primo quidem, quia si haec locutio non applicetur ad praesentem materiam, nihil faciet circa eam, quod est falsum. Dicit enim Augustinus super Ioannem: accedit verbum ad elementum, et fit sacramentum. Unde necesse est dicere, quod verba ista formaliter accipiantur, referendo ea ad praesentem materiam. Profert autem ea sacerdos ex persona Christi, a quo virtutem sumpserunt, ad ostendendum quod eamdem efficaciam nunc habent, sicut quando Christus ea protulit. Non enim virtus his verbis collata evanescit, neque temporis diversitate, neque ministrorum varietate. Secundo, quia eadem difficultas remanet de prima prolatione qua Christus ea protulit. 667. – Therefore, some have said that the priest pronounces these words materially and recitatively from the person of Christ and, therefore, this pronoun’s function of pointing out is not referred to the matter present, such that as a result the statement should be rendered false as the objection supposed. But this cannot stand. First of all, because if this statement is not applied to the material present, it will do nothing in regard to it, which is false. For Augustine On John says: “The word comes to the element and the sacrament comes to be.” Hence it is necessary to say that the words are taken formally as referring to the material present. But the priest says them from the same efficacy now, as when Christ spoke them. For the power conferred on these words does not vanish either by the difference of time or by the variety of ministers. Secondly, because the same difficulty remains in regard to the first time these words were spoken, namely, by Christ. Ideo alii dicunt quod sensus huius est hoc est corpus meum, id est hic panis, designat corpus meum, ut ly hoc, designet id quod est in principio locutionis. Sed hoc etiam esse non potest, quia cum sacramenta efficiant quod figurant, haec verba nihil efficiunt, nisi quod significant. Secundo, quia ex hoc sequeretur, quod per haec verba nihil efficeretur, quam quod corpus Christi esset ibi: sicut sub signo, quod supra improbatum est. Et ideo alii dicunt quod ly hoc, facit demonstrationem ad intellectum, et demonstrat id quod erit in fine locutionis, scilicet corpus Christi. Sed nec hoc videtur convenienter dici, quia secundum hoc sensus esset corpus meum est corpus meum, quod non fit per haec verba, cum hoc ante verba consecrationis fuerit verum. 668. – Therefore, others say that the sense of these words is, this is my body, i.e., this bread designates my body, so that “this” designates that which is present at the beginning of the statement. But even this cannot be, because since the sacraments effect what they signify, these words effect nothing except what they signify. Secondly, because it would follow from this that nothing would be effected by these words, except that the body of Christ would be there, as under a sign, which was disproved earlier. Therefore, others say that the “this” points out something to the intellect and indicates that which will be at the end of the utterance, namely, the body of Christ. But neither does this seem to be suitable, because according to this the sense would be: “My body is my body,” which is not brought about by these words. Since this was true before the words of consecration. Et ideo aliter dicendum est, quod formae sacramentorum non solum sunt significativae, sed etiam factivae: significando enim efficiunt. In omni autem factione oportet subiici aliquid commune tamquam principium. Commune autem in hac conversione non est aliqua substantia, sed accidentia quae et prius fuerunt, et postea manent; et ideo ex parte subiecti in hac locutione non ponitur nomen, quod significat certam speciem substantiae, sed ponitur pronomen, quod significat substantiam sine determinata specie. Est ergo sensus hoc, id est, contentum sub his accidentibus, est corpus meum. Et hoc est quod fit per verba consecrationis. Nam ante consecrationem id quod erat contentum sub his accidentibus non erat corpus Christi, quod tamen fit corpus Christi per consecrationem. 669. – Therefore, there must be another explanation, namely, that the forms of the sacraments not only signify, but also make: for by signifying they make. But in every instance of making, something common must be subject as a principle. But in this conversion the common factor is not a substance but the accidents, which were present in the beginning and continue to remain. Therefore, on the part of the subject in this statement no noun is used, which signifies a definite species of substance, but a pronoun, which signifies a substance without naming its species. The sense, therefore, is this, i.e., which is contained under these accidents, is my body. And this is what occurs through the words of consecration. For before the consecration that which was contained under these accidents was not the body of Christ, but it is made the body of Christ through consecration. Tertio autem oportet considerare quomodo est haec conveniens forma huius sacramenti. Nam hoc sacramentum, ut dictum est, non consistit in usu materiae, sed in consecratione ipsius. Consecratio autem non fit per hoc, quod materia consecrata solum suscipiat aliquam virtutem spiritualem, sed per hoc quod transubstantiatur secundum esse in corpus Christi; et ideo nullo alio verbo utendum fuit, nisi verbo substantivo, ut dicatur hoc est corpus meum. Per hoc enim significatur id quod est finis, quod significando efficitur. 670. – Thirdly, it is important to consider how this is a suitable form for this sacrament. For this sacrament, as has been said, does not consist in the use of the matter but in its consecration. But the consecration does not occur by the consecrated matter merely receiving some spiritual power, but by the fact that it is transubstantiated according to its being into the body of Christ. Therefore, no other word was to be used except a substantive, so as to say, this is my body. For by this is signified that which is at the end, which is effected by signifying. Deinde cum dicit quod pro vobis tradetur, tangit mysterium huius sacramenti. Est enim sacramentum repraesentativum divinae passionis, per quam corpus suum tradidit in mortem pro nobis, secundum illud Is. l, 6: corpus meum dedi percutientibus; et Eph. V, 2: tradidit semetipsum pro nobis. Et ut ostendat rationem frequentandi hoc mysterium, subiungitur hoc facite in meam commemorationem, hoc recolendo scilicet tam magnum beneficium, pro quo vobis me tradidi in morte. Unde et Thren. III, 19 dicitur: recordare paupertatis meae, absinthii et fellis. Et in Ps. CX, 4: memoriam fecit mirabilium suorum misericors et miserator dominus, escam dedit timentibus se. 671. – Then when he says, which will be given up for you, he touches on the mystery of this sacrament. For this sacrament represents the Lord’s passion, through which His body was delivered over to death for us, as it says in Is (50:6): “I gave my back to the smiters,” and Eph (5:2): “He gave himself for us.” And to show the reason for making frequent use of this mystery, he adds: Do this in remembrance of me, by recalling this to mind, namely, such a great blessing, for which I gave myself in death. Hence it says in Lam (3:9): “Remember my affliction and my bitterness, the wormwood and the gall,” and Ps 111 (v. 4): “He has caused his wonderful works to be remembered; the Lord is gracious and merciful. He provides food for those who fear him.”
11-6
1 Cor11:25-26Reportatio Reginaldi de Piperno
Vulgate:Postquam apostolus posuit institutionem huius sacramenti quantum ad consecrationem corporis, hic ponit institutionem eius quantum ad sanguinis consecrationem. Et primo ponit ordinem institutionis; secundo verba, cum dicit hic calix, et cetera. 672. – After setting forth the institution of this sacrament as to the consecration of the body, the Apostle now sets forth its institution as to the consecration of the blood. First, he presents the order of institution; secondly, the words (v. 25b). Ordo autem attenditur quantum ad duo. Primo ad concomitantiam utriusque speciei, cum dicit similiter et calicem. Utrumque enim est de perfectione huius sacramenti, tum propter perfectionem refectionis, tum propter repraesentationem passionis, tum propter efficientiam salutis animae et corporis, ut supra dictum est. Sed si prius consecratur in hoc sacramento corpus Christi, et postea sanguis, videtur sequi quod ante consecrationem sanguinis, corpus Christi in hoc sacramento sit exsangue: quod quidam inconveniens reputantes dixerunt, quod duae formae se expectant in efficiendo, ita scilicet quod prima forma consecrationis corporis non consequitur suum effectum, antequam perficiatur forma consecrationis sanguinis; sicut etiam dictum est, quod verba quae proferuntur in consecratione corporis, non consequuntur suum effectum usque ad finem prolationis verborum. Sed hoc non est simile. Nam significatio verborum quibus consecratur corpus Christi, non completur nisi in termino prolationis eorum. Et quia verba sacramentalia significando efficiunt, ideo non possunt habere effectum ante terminum prolationis. Tunc autem habent plenam significationem, etiam antequam proferantur verba consecrationis sanguinis, et ideo necesse est quod etiam tunc habeant suum effectum. Alioquin sacerdos peccaret statim, post verba consecrationis, proponens hostiam non consecratam populo adorandam, nisi iam esset corpus Christi, quia induceret populum ad idololatriam. Est ergo dicendum, quod ante consecrationem sanguinis est in hoc sacramento corpus Christi, non sine sanguine. 673. – The order is considered with respect to two things: first, the co-presence of both species, when he says: In the same way also the cup. For both are required for the perfection of this sacrament, both for the perfection of nourishment and on account of its representing the passion, and as its effecting the salvation of the soul and of the body, as has been stated above. But if the body of Christ is consecrated first in this sacrament and the blood later, it seems to follow that before the consecration of the blood, the body of Christ is without blood in the sacrament. Some who considered this unfitting have said that the two forms await each other in effecting, so that, namely, the first form of the consecration of the body does not achieve its effect before the form of consecration of the blood is completed; just as it was said that the words pronounced in consecrating the body do not achieve their effect until the end of the pronunciation of the words. But this is not similar. For the signification of the words by which the body of Christ is consecrated is not completed except at the end of the pronouncing of the words. And because sacramental words produce their effect by signifying, they cannot have effect before the end of their pronunciation. At that time they have full signification, even before the words of the consecration of the blood are begun. Therefore, it is necessary that even then they have their effect. Otherwise the priest would sin immediately after the words of consecration by showing an unconsecrated host to the people to be adored, unless the body of Christ were already there; because he would be inducing the people to idolatry. Therefore, it must be said that before the consecration of the blood the body of Christ is in this sacrament not without His blood. Sciendum est enim quod in hoc sacramento dupliciter aliquid est. Uno modo ex vi consecrationis, illud scilicet in quod terminatur conversio panis et vini, sicut per formam consecrationis significatur, et sic sub specie panis est corpus Christi. Alio modo est aliquid in hoc sacramento ex reali concomitantia, sicut divinitas verbi est in hoc sacramento propter indissolubilem unionem ipsius ad corpus Christi, licet nullo modo substantia panis in divinitatem convertatur. Et similiter est ibi anima, quae coniuncta est realiter ipsi corpori. Si vero in triduo mortis Christi, fuisset corpus Christi ab aliquo apostolorum consecratum, non fuisset ibi anima quae tunc realiter erat a corpore separata. Et idem dicendum est de sanguine. Nam sub speciebus panis ex vi consecrationis est corpus Christi, in quod substantia panis convertitur. Sanguis autem est ibi ex reali concomitantia, quia tunc realiter sanguis Christi non est ab eius corpore separatus. Et, eadem ratione, sub specie vini est sanguis Christi ex vi consecrationis, corpus autem ex reali concomitantia, ita quod sub utraque specie est totus Christus. Si vero tempore passionis quando sanguis Christi erat ex corpore effusus, fuisset hoc sacramentum ab aliquo apostolorum perfectum, sub panis specie fuisset solum corpus Christi exsangue, sub speciebus autem vini fuisset solus sanguis Christi. 674. – For it should be noted that in this sacrament something is present in two ways: in one way in virtue of the consecration, that, namely, that into which the conversion of the bread and wine is terminated, as is signified by the form of consecration; and in this way under the appearance of bread the body of Christ is present. In another way something is present in this sacrament by real concomitance, as the divinity of the Word is present in this sacrament on account of its indissoluble union with the body of Christ, although the substance of bread is in no way converted into the divinity. Likewise, the soul is there, which is really joined to the body. But if at any time during the three days of Christ’s death, the body of Christ had been consecrated by any of the apostles, the soul would not have been there, because it was really separated from the body. The same is true of the blood. For under the appearances of bread in virtue of the consecration is present Christ’s body, into which the substance of bread is converted. But the blood is there by real concomitance, because then the blood of Christ is not really separated from the body. And for the same reason under the appearance of wine the blood of Christ is present in virtue of the consecration, but the body by real concomitance, so that the whole Christ is under both species. But if during the time of the passion, when the blood of Christ had been drained from His body, this sacrament had been celebrated by any of the apostles, there would have been under the appearances of bread only the body of Christ without the blood; under the appearances of wine would there have been only the blood of Christ. Secundo, attenditur ordo per comparationem ad cibos materiales, qui praecesserant, ubi subdit postquam coenavit, quod videtur signanter addidisse. Nam Christus corpus suum tradidit inter coenam. Unde Matth. XXVI, 26 dicitur, quod coenantibus illis accepit Iesus panem, et cetera. Sed sanguinem dedit expresse post coenam. Unde et Lc. XXII, 20 dicitur similiter et calicem postquam coenavit, dicens, et cetera. Cuius ratio est, quia corpus Christi repraesentat mysterium incarnationis, quae facta est adhuc legalibus observantiis statum habentibus, inter quas praecipua erat coena agni paschalis. Sed sanguis Christi in sacramento directe repraesentat passionem, per quam est effusus et per quam sunt terminata omnia legalia. Unde Hebr. IX, 12 dicitur, quod per proprium sanguinem introivit semel in sancta, aeterna redemptione inventa. 675. – The second order considered is to the material foods which had preceded when he says: After supper. This is a significant phrase. For Christ gave His body during the meal, as it says in Matt (26:26): “As they were eating, Jesus took bread.” But He gave his blood expressly after the meal, as it says in Lk (22:20): “And likewise the cup after supper.” The reason for this is that the body of Christ represents the mystery of the Incarnation, which occurred while the observance of the Law was still in vogue. Among these observances the most important was the meal of the paschal lamb. But the blood of Christ in the sacrament directly represents the passion, through which it was poured out and through which all observances of the Law came to an end; hence it says in Heb (9:12): “He went once for all into the Holy Place, taking not the blood of goats and calves but his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption.” Deinde ponit verba, dicens hic calix, et cetera. Et primo demonstrat veritatem huius sacramenti; secundo iniungit usum, ibi hoc facite, et cetera. 676. – Then he presents the words, this cup: first, he demonstrates the truth of this sacrament; secondly, he enjoins its use (v. 25c). Quantum ergo ad primum, dicit hic calix, et cetera. Quod quidem dupliciter sumi potest. Uno modo metonymice, ut scilicet ponatur continens pro contento, quasi dicat: contentum in hoc calice; quod convenientius ponitur in consecratione vini, quod ratione suae humiditatis indiget aliis terminis contineri, quam in consecratione panis, qui ratione suae siccitatis, propriis terminis continetur. Alio modo potest accipi metaphorice, ut sit sensus: sicut calix inebriat et perturbat, ita et passio. Unde Matth. XX, 22 dicit: potestis bibere calicem, quem ego bibiturus sum? Et Matth. XXVI, 39: transeat a me calix iste. Est ergo sensus hic calix, id est, contentum in hoc calice, vel haec mea passio, est novum testamentum in meo sanguine. 677. – In regard to the first he says, this cup. This can be taken in two ways: in one way as metonymy, where the container is put for the content. As if to say: Contained in this cup, which is more fittingly used in the consecration of the wine, which by reason of its wetness needs to be contained by other boundaries than in the consecration of the bread, which by reason of its dryness is contained within its own boundaries. In another way it can be taken metaphorically, so that the sense would be: just as the cup intoxicates and confuses, so also the passion. Hence Matt (20:22): “Are you able to drink the cup I am to drink?” and Matt (26:39): “Let this cup pass from me.” The sense, therefore, is this: This cup, i.e., what is contained in this cup, or this my passion, is the new covenant in my blood. Unde considerandum est, quod testamentum dupliciter sumitur in Scripturis. Uno modo communiter pro quolibet pacto, quod quidem testibus confirmatur, et sic considerandum est, quod Deus dupliciter pactum iniit cum humano genere. Uno modo promittendo bona temporalia et a malis temporalibus liberando: et hoc vocatur vetus testamentum, vel pactum. Alio modo promittendo bona spiritualia et a malis oppositis liberando: et hoc vocatur testamentum novum. Unde dicitur Ier. XXXI, 31: feriam domui Israel et domui Iuda foedus novum, non secundum pactum quod pepigi cum patribus vestris, ut educerem eos de terra Aegypti, sed hoc erit pactum: dabo legem meam in visceribus eorum, et ero eis in Deum. Est autem considerandum quod apud antiquos erat consuetudo ut alicuius victimae sanguinem funderent ad confirmationem pacti. Unde Gen. XXXI, 54 legitur, quod postquam inierunt enim foedus Laban et Iacob, immolatis victimis in monte, vocavit fratres suos. Unde et Ex. XXIV, 8 legitur, quod Moyses sumptum sanguinem respersit in populum, et ait: hic est sanguis foederis, quod pepigit dominus vobiscum. Sicut ergo vetus testamentum seu pactum confirmatum est sanguine figurali taurorum, ita novum testamentum seu pactum confirmatum est in sanguine Christi, qui per passionem est effusus. Et in hoc calice sacramentum taliter continetur. 678. – Hence it should be noted that “covenant” is taken in two senses in the Scriptures. In one way for any pact which is confirmed by witnesses; and so it must be supposed that God entered into a pact with the human race in two ways: In one way by promising temporal goods and by freeing from temporal evils; and this is called the Old Covenant or pact. In another way by promising spiritual goods and by freeing from opposite evils, and this is called the New Covenant. Hence it says in Jer (31:31): “I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, not like the covenant which I made with their fathers, when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt. But this will be the covenant: I will put my law within them and I will be their God.” But it should be noted that in antiquity the custom was that they would pour out the blood of some victim to confirm a pact. Hence it says in Gen (31:54) that after Laban and Jacob made a pact, victims were sacrificed on the mountain and called his kinsmen. Hence, too, in Ex (24:8) its says that Moses took the blood and threw it upon the people and said: “Behold, the blood of the covenant, which the Lord has made with you.” Therefore, just as the Old Covenant or pact was confirmed by the figural blood of bulls, so the New Covenant or pact was confirmed in Christ’s blood, which was poured out in the passion. And in the cup the sacrament is so contained. Alio modo testamentum accipitur magis stricte pro dispositione haereditatis percipiendae, quam necesse est secundum leges certo numero testium confirmare. Non autem testamentum sic acceptum confirmatur nisi per mortem, quia, ut apostolus dicit Hebr. IX, 17, testamentum in mortuis confirmatum est, alioquin nondum valet, dum vivit qui testatus est. Deus autem primo quidem dispositionem fecerat de aeterna haereditate percipienda, sed sub figura temporalium bonorum, quod pertinet ad vetus testamentum; sed postmodum fecit novum testamentum, expresse promittens haereditatem aeternam, quod quidem confirmatum est per sanguinem mortis Christi. Et ideo dominus de hoc dicit hic calix novum testamentum est in meo sanguine; quasi dicat: per id quod in calice continetur commemoratur novum testamentum per Christi sanguinem confirmatum. 679. – In another way “covenant” is taken more strictly for the disposition of an inheritance to be received and which must be confirmed by a certain number of witnesses. Such a covenant, however, is not confirmed except by death, because, as the Apostle says in Heb (9:17): “For a will takes effect only at death, since it is not in force as long as the one who made it is alive.” God, first of all, made disposition of eternal rewards to be received, but under the figure of temporal goods – which pertain to the Old Covenant. But later He made a New Covenant, expressly promising an eternal inheritance, which was confirmed by the blood of Christ’s death. And therefore, the Lord says of this: This cup is the new covenant in my blood. As if to say: Through that which is contained in the cup is commemorated the new covenant confirmed by the blood of Christ. Est autem advertendum quod eadem verba quae hic apostolus ponit, habentur Lc. XXII, 20, nisi quod ibi additur: qui pro vobis effundetur. Lucas enim discipulus fuit Pauli et eum in conscriptione Evangelii est secutus. Sed Matth. XXVI, 28 dicitur hic est enim sanguis meus novi testamenti, qui pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum. Eadem verba ponuntur in Mc. XIV, v. 24. Dicunt ergo quidam, quod quaecumque formae horum verborum proferantur, quae sunt scripta in canone sufficere ad consecrationem. Probabilius autem dici videtur quod illis solis verbis perficitur consecratio, quibus Ecclesia utitur ex traditione apostolorum structa. Evangelistae enim verba domini recitare intenderunt quantum pertinet ad rationem historiae, non autem secundum quod ordinantur ad consecrationem sacramentorum, quas in occulto habebant in primitiva Ecclesia, propter infideles. Unde Dionysius dicit in ultimo cap. ecclesiasticae hierarchiae: perfectivas invocationes non est fas in Scripturis exponere, neque mysticum ipsarum ante factas in ipsis ex Deo virtutes ex occulto in communi adducere. 680. – But it should be noted that the same words the Apostle gives here are found in Lk (22:20), except that Luke adds: “which shall be shed for you.” For Luke was a disciple of Paul and followed him in writing his Gospel. But Matt (26:28) says: “This is my blood of the new covenant which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.” The same words appear in Mk (14:24). Therefore, some say that whichever forms of these words written in the canon are said, they suffice for consecration. But it seems more probable to say that consecration is accomplished only by those words which the Church structured on the apostles’ uses. For the evangelists intended to recite the Lord’s words as part of His history, but not as they are ordained to consecration of the sacrament, which they held in secret in the early Church on account of unbelievers. Hence Denis says in Ecclesiastical Hierarchy: “It is not permitted to explain openly in writing the perfective invocations in the Scriptures or to bring to light their secret meaning.” Sed circa ista verba quibus Ecclesia utitur in consecratione sanguinis, quidam opinantur quod non omnia sint de necessitate formae sed solum quod dicitur hic est calix sanguinis mei, non autem residuum quod sequitur: novi et aeterni testamenti, mysterium fidei, qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum. Sed hoc non videtur convenienter dici. Nam totum illud quod sequitur est quaedam determinatio praedicati. Unde et ad eiusdem locutionis sententiam seu significationem pertinet. Et quia, ut saepe dictum est, formae sacramentorum significando efficiunt, totum pertinet ad vim effectivam formae. Nec obstat ratio quam inducunt, quia in consecratione corporis sufficit quod dicitur hoc est corpus meum, quia sanguis seorsum consecratus, specialiter repraesentat passionem Christi, per quam eius sanguis separatus est a corpore. 681. – But in regard to the words the Church uses in the consecration of the blood, some believe that not all are necessary for the form, but only that “This is the cup of my blood” but not “of the new and eternal covenant, a mystery of faith, which will be shed for you and for many unto the remission of sins.” But it does not seem fitting to say this. For all that follows is a determination of the predicate. Hence, it pertains to the meaning or signification of the same statement; and because, as has often been said, the forms of the sacraments effect by signifying, and totality pertains to the effective power of the sacrament. Nor is there any merit in the reason they adduce, because in the consecration of the body it is enough to say: “This is my body,” because the blood separately consecrated especially represents the passion of Christ, through which His blood was separated from the body. Et ideo in consecratione sanguinis oportuit exprimere Christi passionis virtutem, quae attenditur, primo quidem, respectu nostrae culpae quam Christi passio abolet, secundum illud Apoc. I, 5: lavit nos a peccatis nostris in sanguine suo, et, quantum ad hoc, dicit qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum. Effusus est siquidem sanguis in remissionem peccatorum, non solum pro multis, sed etiam pro omnibus, secundum illud I Io. II, 2: ipse est propitiatio pro peccatis nostris, non pro nostris autem tantum, sed etiam pro totius mundi. Sed quia quidam se reddunt indignos ad recipiendum talem effectum, quantum ad efficaciam dicitur esse effusus pro multis, in quibus habet effectum passio Christi. Dicit autem signanter pro vobis et pro multis, quia hoc sacramentum valet in remissionem peccatorum sumentibus per modum sacramenti, quod notatur signanter, cum dicitur pro vobis, quibus dixerat accipite. Valet etiam per modum sacrificii multis non sumentibus, pro quibus offertur; quod significatur cum dicitur: et pro multis. Secundo, virtus eius consideratur per comparationem ad vitam iustitiae, quam facit per fidem, secundum illud Rom. III, 24: iustificati gratis per gratiam ipsius, per redemptionem quae est in Christo Iesu, quem proposuit propitiationem per fidem in sanguine ipsius. Et quantum ad hoc, dicit: mysterium, id est occultum fidei, quia scilicet fides passionis Christi erat occulta in omnibus sacrificiis veteris testamenti, sicut veritas in signo. Hoc autem Ecclesia habet ex traditione apostolorum, cum in canone Scripturae non inveniatur. Tertio, virtus eius attenditur quantum ad vitam gloriae, in quam per passionem Christi introducitur, secundum illud Hebr. X, 19: habentes fiduciam in introitum sanctorum in sanguine Christi. Et quantum ad hoc, dicit: novi et aeterni testamenti. Aeterni siquidem, quia est dispositio de haereditate aeterna. Novi autem, ad differentiam veteris, quia temporalia promittebat. Unde Hebr. IX, 15 dicitur: ideo novi testamenti mediator est, ut morte intercedente, repromissionem accipiant, qui vocati sunt aeternae haereditatis. 682. – Therefore, in the consecration of the blood it was necessary to express the power of Christ’s passion, which is looked at, first of all, with respect to our guilt, which the passion of Christ abolishes, as it says in Rev (1:5): “He washed us from our sins in His blood.” In regard to this he says, “which will be shed for you and for many unto the remission of sins.” The blood was indeed shed for the remission of sins, not only for many but for all, as it says in 1 John (2:2): “He is the expiation for our sins, and not for ourselves only but also for the sins of the whole world.” But because some make themselves unworthy to receive such an effect, as far as its efficacy is concerned, it is said to have been shed for many, in which the passion of Christ has an effect. But he expressly says, “for you and for many,” because this sacrament can produce remission of sin for those who receive it after the manner of a sacrifice for many not receiving [communion] for whom it is offered; which is signified, when it is said: “and for many.” Secondly, its power is considered with respect to the life of justice it effects through faith, as it says in Rom (3:24): “They are justified by his grace as a gift through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as an expiation by his blood to be received by faith.” As to this he says: “The mystery,” i.e., the sacrament “of faith,” namely, because faith in the passion of Christ was hidden in all the sacrifices of the Old Covenant, as the truth in a figure. But the Church has this from the tradition of the apostles, since it is not found in the canon of Scripture. Thirdly, its power is regarded with respect to the life of glory, as it says in Heb (10:19): “Having confidence to enter the sanctuary by the blood of Jesus.” As to this he says: “Of the new and eternal covenant.” “Eternal,” indeed, because it is the disposition for the eternal inheritance. “New” to distinguish from the Old, because it promised temporal things. Hence, it says in Heb (9:15): “Therefore, he is the mediator of a New Covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since his death has occurred. Deinde cum dicit hoc facite, etc., iniungit usum huius sacramenti, dicens hoc facite, quotiescumque sumitis, in meam commemorationem, scilicet in memoriam meae passionis. Unde et Thr. III, 20 dicit propheta: memoria memor ero, et tabescet in me anima mea. Et Is. LXIII, 7: miserationum domini recordabor. 683. – Then when he says, Do this, he enjoins the use of this sacrament, saying: Do this as often as you take it in remembrance of me, namely, in the mystery of my passion. Hence the prophet says in Lam (3:20): “My soul continually thinks of it and is bowed down within me,” and in Is (63:7): “I will recall the mercies of the Lord.” Est autem notandum quod in calice principaliter quidem debet poni vinum, rationibus supradictis. Debet autem apponi et aqua. Probabile enim est quod Christus in coena vinum mixtum discipulis dederit, propter consuetudinem terrae illius, in qua, ut temperetur fortitudo vini, ab omnibus vinum bibitur aqua mixtum. Unde et Prov. IX, 5 sapientia dicit: bibite vinum quod miscui vobis. Nihilominus tamen aqua vino mixta significat populum Christianum Christo per passionem coniunctum, secundum illud Apoc. c. XVII, 15: aquae, populi sunt et gentes. Et participatio sanguinis Christi a fidelibus pertinet ad usum sacramenti, qui non est de necessitate huius sacramenti. Sed potest vinum consecrari absque aqua, licet peccet qui sic consecrat, non servans ritum Ecclesiae. Et ideo si sacerdos ante consecrationem vini advertat quod aqua non fuerit apposita calici, debet apponere. Si vero post consecrationem advertat, non debet apponere, sed debet perficere sacramentum. Nihil enim post consecrationem est sanguini Christi miscendum quia talis permixtio non posset esse sine qualicumque corruptione vini consecrati, quod pertinet ad crimen sacrilegii. 684. – But it should be noted that principally wine should be put in the cup. But water should be added. For it is probable that Christ at the meal gave the disciples wine mixed with water on account of a custom of that land, in which the strength of the wine had to tempered, so that all drink their wine mixed with water. Hence in Pr (9:5) Wisdom says: “Drink the wine I have mixed for you.” Nevertheless, water mixed with wine signifies the Christian people joined to Christ by passion, as it says in Rev (17:15): “The waters you saw are peoples and nations.” And partaking of the blood of Christ by the faithful pertains to the use of the sacrament, although it is not necessary. But wine can be consecrated without water, although one so consecrating would sin by not observing the rite of the Church. Therefore, if the priest before the consecration of the wine recalls that water was not added to the wine, he should add it. But if he recalls it after the consecration, he should not add it but should complete the sacrament. For after the consecration, nothing should be mixed with the blood of Christ, because such a mixing could not take place without some sort of corruption of the consecrated wine, which pertains to the crime of sacrilege. Dicunt autem quidam quod cum de latere Christi pendentis in cruce fluxerit sanguis et aqua, ut legitur Io. XIX, 34, sicut vinum convertitur in sanguinem, ita aqua in aquam. Sed hoc non competit, quia in illa aqua figuratur ablutio quae est per Baptismum. Et ideo alii dicunt quod, facta conversione vini in sanguinem, aqua remanet in sua substantia, et circuntegitur accidentibus vini. Sed hoc non competit, quia aqua admiscetur vino ante consecrationem, quando non differt ab alio vino. Unde non seorsum manet, sed permiscetur. Et ideo dicendum est, quod aqua convertitur in vinum et sic totum convertitur in sanguinem Christi. Propter quod mos est modicum de aqua apponere et praecipue si sit vinum debile, quod non potest nisi modicum aquae in seipsum convertere. 685. –But some say that when from the side of Christ hanging on the cross blood and water flowed, as it says in Jn. 19:34, then as wine is converted into blood, so water into water. But this is not suitable, because in that water is figured the washing which is through baptism. But some say that after the conversion of wine into the blood the water remains as water and is surrounded by the accidents of the wine. But this is awkward, because the water is mixed with the wine before consecration, when it does not differ from other wine. Hence, they do not remain separated but are commingled. Therefore, it must be said that water is converted into wine and this whole is converted into the blood of Christ. Accordingly, the custom is to add a small amount of water, especially if the wine is weak, which can convert only a slight amount of water into itself. Deinde cum dicit quotiescumque, etc., exponit verba domini quae dixerat: hoc facite in meam commemorationem, dicens quotiescumque enim manducabitis panem hunc, et cetera. Et dicit panem, propter species remanentes. Dicit autem hunc, propter idem numero corpus significatum et contentum. Et calicem, scilicet hunc, bibetis, mortem domini annuntiabitis, repraesentando scilicet eam per hoc sacramentum. Et hoc, donec veniat, id est, usque ad ultimum eius adventum, in quo datur intelligi, quod hic ritus Ecclesiae non cessabit usque ad finem mundi, secundum illud Matth. ult.: ecce ego vobiscum sum usque ad consummationem saeculi. Et Lc. XXI, 32: non praeteribit generatio haec, scilicet Ecclesiae, donec omnia fiant. 686. – Then when he says, As often as, he explains the Lord’s words, which said: “Do this in memory of me,” saying: For as often as you eat this bread. He says bread on account of the appearances that remain. He says this on account of the numerically same body signified and contained. And drink the cup, you will proclaim the Lord’s death, namely, by representing it through this sacrament. And this, until he comes, i.e., until His final coming. This gives us to understand that this rite of the Church will not cease until the end of the world: “I am with you always to the end of the world” (Matt 27:20); “This generation,” namely, of the Church, “will not pass away, till all has taken place” (Lk 21:32).
11-7
1 Cor 11:27-34Reportatio Reginaldi de Piperno
Vulgate:Postquam apostolus ostendit dignitatem huius sacramenti hic excitat fideles ad sumendum illud reverenter: et primo ponit periculum quod imminet indigne sumentibus; secundo adhibet salutare remedium, ibi probet autem, et cetera. 687. – After showing the dignity of this sacrament, the Apostle now rouses the faithful to receive it reverently. First, he outlines the peril threatening those who receive unworthily; secondly, he applies a saving remedy (v. 28). Dicit ergo primo itaque, ex quo hoc quod sacramentaliter manducatur, est corpus Christi et, quod bibitur, est sanguis Christi, quicumque manducaverit hunc panem, vel biberit calicem indigne, reus erit corporis et sanguinis domini. In quibus verbis, primo, considerandum est qualiter aliquis indigne manducat et bibit: quod quidem, secundum Glossam contingit tripliciter. Primo quidem quantum ad celebrationem huius sacramenti, quia scilicet aliquis aliter celebrat sacramentum Eucharistiae, quam a Christo traditum est: puta si offerat in hoc sacramento alium panem quam triticeum, vel alium liquorem, quam vinum de vite. Unde Lev. X, 1 s. dicitur quod Nadab et Abiu, filii Aaron, obtulerunt coram domino ignem alienum, quod eis praeceptum non erat: egressusque ignis a domino, devoravit eos. 688. – First, therefore, he says, Therefore, from the fact that this which is received sacramentally is the body of Christ and what is drunk is the blood of Christ, whoever eats this bread or drinks the cup in an unworthy manner will by guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. In these words must be considered, first, how someone eats or drinks unworthily. According to a Gloss this happens in three ways: first, as to the celebration of this sacrament, namely, because someone celebrates the sacrament in a manner different from that handed down by Christ; for example, if he offers in this sacrament a bread other than wheaten or some liquid other than wine from the grape of the vine. Hence it says in Lev (10:1) that Nadab and Abihu, sons of Aaron, offered before the Lord “unholy fire, such as he had not commanded them. And fire came forth from the presence of the Lord and devoured them.” Secundo ex hoc quod aliquis non devota mente accedit ad Eucharistiam. Quae quidem indevotio quandoque est veniale: puta cum aliquis, distracta mente ad saecularia negotia, accedit ad hoc sacramentum habitualiter retinens debitam reverentiam ad ipsum; et talis indevotio licet impediat fructum huius sacramenti, qui est spiritualis refectio, non tamen facit reum corporis et sanguinis domini, sicut hic apostolus loquitur. Quaedam vero indevotio est peccatum mortale, quae scilicet est cum contemptu huius sacramenti, prout dicitur Malach. I, 12: vos polluistis nomen meum in eo quod dicitis: mensa domini contaminata est, et quod supponitur contemptibile. Et de tali indevotione loquitur Glossa. 689. – Secondly, from the fact that someone approached the Eucharist with a mind not devout. This lack of devotion is sometimes venial, as when someone with his mind distracted by worldly affairs approaches this sacrament habitually retaining due reverence toward it; and such lack of devotion, although it impedes the fruit of this sacrament, which is spiritual refreshment, does not make one guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, as the Apostle says here. But a certain lack of devotion is a mortal sin, i.e., when it involves contempt of this sacrament, as it says in Mal (1:12): “But you profane it when you say that the Lord’s table is polluted and its food may be despised.” It is of such lack of devotion that the Gloss speaks. Tertio modo dicitur aliquis indignus ex eo quod cum voluntate peccandi mortaliter, accedit ad Eucharistiam. Dicitur enim Levit. XXI, 23: non accedat ad altare qui maculam habet. Intelligitur aliquis maculam peccati habere, quamdiu est in voluntate peccandi, quae tamen tollitur per poenitentiam. Per contritionem quidem, quae tollit voluntatem peccandi, cum proposito confitendi et satisfaciendi, quantum ad remissionem culpae et poenae aeternae; per confessionem autem et satisfactionem quantum ad totalem remissionem poenae et reconciliationem ad membra Ecclesiae. Et ideo in necessitate quidem, puta quando aliquis copiam confessionis habere non potest, sufficit contritio ad sumptionem huius sacramenti. Regulariter autem debet confessio praecedere cum aliqua satisfactione. Unde in libro de Eccl. dogmatibus dicitur: communicaturus satisfaciat lacrymis et orationibus, et confidens de domino mundus accedat ad Eucharistiam intrepidus et securus. Sed hoc de illo dico quem capitalia peccata et mortalia non gravant. Namque, quem mortalia crimina post Baptismum commissa premunt, hortor prius publica poenitentia satisfacere, et ita sacerdotis iudicio reconciliatum communioni sociari, si non vult ad condemnationem Eucharistiam percipere. 690. – In a third way someone is said to be unworthy, because he approaches the Eucharist with the intention of sinning mortally. For it says in Lev (21:23): “He shall not approach the altar, because he has a blemish.” Someone is understood to have a blemish as long as he persists in the intention of sinning, which, however, is taken away through penitence. By contrition, indeed, which takes away the will to sin with the intention of confession and making satisfaction, as to the remission of guilt and eternal punishment; by confession and satisfaction as to the total remission of punishment and reconciliation with the members of the Church. Therefore, in cases of necessity, as when someone does not have an abundance of confessors, contrition is enough for receiving this sacrament. But as a general rule, confession with some satisfaction should precede. Hence in the book on Church Dogmas it says: “One who desires to go to communion should make satisfaction with tears and prayers, and trusting in the Lord approach the Eucharist clean, free from care, and secure. But I say this of the person not burdened with capital and mortal sins. For the one whom mortal sins committed after baptism press down, I advise to make satisfaction with public penance, and so be joined to communion by the judgment of the priest, if he does not wish to receive the condemnation of the Church.” Sed videtur quod peccatores non indigne accedant ad hoc sacramentum. Nam in hoc sacramento sumitur Christus, qui est spiritualis medicus, qui de se dicit Matth. c. IX, 12: non est opus valentibus medicus, sed male habentibus. Sed dicendum quod hoc sacramentum est spirituale nutrimentum, sicut Baptismus est spiritualis nativitas. Nascitur autem aliquis ad hoc ut vivat, sed non nutritur nisi iam vivus. Et ideo hoc sacramentum non competit peccatoribus, qui nondum vivunt per gratiam: competit eis tamen Baptismus. Et, praeterea, Eucharistia est sacramentum charitatis et ecclesiasticae unitatis, ut dicit Augustinus super Ioannem. Cum igitur peccator careat charitate, et sit separatus merito ab Ecclesiae unitate, si accedat ad hoc sacramentum, falsitatem committit, dum significat se habere charitatem, quam non habet. Quia tamen peccator quandoque habet fidem huius sacramenti, licitum est ei hoc sacramentum inspicere, quod omnino infidelibus denegatur, ut Dionysius dicit III cap. ecclesiasticae hierarchiae. 691. – But it seems that sinners do not approach this sacrament unworthily. For in this sacrament Christ is received, and He is the spiritual physician, Who says of Himself in Matt (9:12): “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick.” The answer is that this sacrament is spiritual food, as baptism is spiritual birth. But one is born in order to live, but he is not nourished unless he is already alive. Therefore, this sacrament does not befit sinners who are not yet alive by grace; although baptism befits them. Furthermore, the Eucharist is the sacrament of love and ecclesial unity, as Augustine say On John. Since, therefore, the sinner lacks charity and is deservedly separated from the unity of the Church, if he approaches this sacrament, he commits a falsehood, since he is signifying that he has charity, but does not. Yet because a sinner sometimes has faith in this sacrament, it is lawful for him to look at this sacrament, which is absolutely denied to unbelievers, as Denis says in Ecclesiastical Hierarchy. Secundo considerandum est, quomodo ille qui indigne sumit hoc sacramentum, sit reus corporis et sanguinis domini. Quod quidem in Glossa tripliciter exponitur. Uno modo materialiter: incurrit enim reatum ex peccato commisso circa corpus et sanguinem domini, prout in hoc sacramento continetur, quod indigne sumit, et ex hoc eius culpa aggravatur. Tanto est enim eius culpa gravior, quanto maior est contra quem peccatur. Hebr. X, 29: quanto magis putatis deteriora mereri supplicia eum, qui filium Dei conculcaverit, et sanguinem testamenti pollutum duxerit? 692. – Secondly, it is necessary to consider how one who receives this sacrament unworthily is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. This is explained in three ways in a Gloss. In one way materially: for one incurs guilt from a sin committed against the body and blood of Christ, as contained in this sacrament, which he receives unworthily and from this his guilt is increased. For his guilt is increased to the extent that a greater person is offended against: “How much worse punishment do you think will be deserved by the man who has spurned the Son of God and profaned the blood of the covenant?” (Heb 10:29). Secundo exponitur per similitudinem, ut sit sensus reus erit corporis et sanguinis domini, et mortis domini poenas dabit, hoc est, ac si Christum occiderit, punietur, secundum illud Hebr. VI, 6: rursum crucifigentes sibimetipsis filium Dei, et ostentui habentes. Sed secundum hoc videtur gravissimum esse peccatum eorum qui indigne sumunt corpus Christi. Sed dicendum quod peccatum aliquod habet gravitatem dupliciter. Uno modo ex ipsa specie peccati, quae sumitur ex obiecto, et secundum hoc gravius est peccatum quod contra divinitatem committitur, puta infidelitas, blasphemia vel aliquid huiusmodi, quam quod committitur contra humanitatem Christi. Unde et ipse dominus Matth. XII, 32 dicit, quod qui dixerit verbum contra filium hominis remittetur ei: qui autem dixerit contra spiritum sanctum, non remittetur ei. Et iterum, gravius est peccatum quod committitur contra humanitatem in propria specie, quam sub specie sacramenti. Alio modo gravitas peccati attenditur ex parte peccantis. Magis autem peccat qui ex odio aut invidia vel ex quacumque malitia peccat, sicut peccaverunt illi qui Christum crucifixerunt, quam qui peccat ex infirmitate, sicut interdum peccant illi qui indigne sumunt hoc sacramentum. Non ergo per hoc intelligitur quod peccatum indigne sumentium hoc sacramentum, comparetur peccato occidentium Christum secundum aequalitatem sed secundum similitudinem speciei: quia utrumque est circa eumdem Christum. 693. – Secondly, it is explained by a similitude, so that the sense would be: He will be guilty of the body and blood of Christ, i.e., he will be punished as if he had killed Christ, as it says in Heb (6:6): “They crucify the son of God on their own account and hold him up to contempt.” But according to this the gravest sin seems to be committed by those who receive the body of Christ unworthily. The answer is that a sin is grave in two ways: in one way from the sin’s species, which is taken from its object; according to this a sin against the godhead, such as unbelief, blasphemy and so on, is graver than one committed against the humanity of Christ. Hence, the Lord Himself says (Matt 12:32): “Whoever says a word against the son of man will be forgiven; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven.” And again a sin committed against the humanity in its own species is graver than under the sacramental species. In another way the gravity of sin is considered on the part of the sinner. But one sins more, when he sins from hatred or envy or any other maliciousness, as those sinned who crucified Christ, than one who sins from weakness, as they sometimes sin who receive this sacrament unworthily. It does not follow, therefore, that the sin of receiving this sacrament unworthily should be compared to the sin of killing Christ, as though the sins were equal, but on account of a specific likeness: because each concerns the same Christ. Tertio modo exponitur reus erit corporis et sanguinis domini, id est corpus et sanguis domini facient eum reum. Ita enim bonum male sumptum nocet, sicut prodest malum quo quis bene utitur, sicut stimulus Satanae Paulo. Per haec autem verba excluditur error quorumdam dicentium, quod quam statim hoc sacramentum tangitur a labiis peccatoris, desinit sub eo esse corpus Christi. Contra quod est quod apostolus dicit: quicumque manducaverit panem hunc, vel biberit calicem domini indigne. Secundum enim praedictam opinionem nullus indignus manducaret vel biberet. Contrariatur autem praedicta opinio veritati huiusmodi sacramenti, secundum quam tamdiu corpus et sanguis Christi manent in sacramento, quamdiu remanent species, in quocumque loco existant. 694. – He will be guilty of the body and blood of Christ is explained in a third way, i.e., the body and blood of the Lord will make him guilty. For something good evilly received hurts one, inasmuch as evil well used profits one, as the sting of Satan profited Paul. By these words is excluded the error of those who say that as soon as this sacrament is touched by the lips of a sinner, the body of Christ ceases to be under it. Against this is the word of the Apostle: “Whoever eats this bread or drinks the Lord’s cup unworthily.” For according to the above opinion no one unworthy would eat or drink. But this opinion is contrary to the truth of this sacrament, according to which the body and blood of Christ remain in this sacrament, as long as the appearances remain, no matter where they exist. Deinde cum dicit probet autem, etc., adhibet remedium contra praedictum periculum. Et primo ponit remedium; secundo assignat rationem, ibi qui enim manducat, etc.; tertio rationem manifestat per signum, ibi ideo inter vos, et cetera. 695. – Then when he says, Let a man examine himself, he applies a remedy against this peril. First, he suggests the remedy; secondly, he assigns a reason (v. 29); thirdly, he clarifies the reason with a sign (v. 30). Dicit ergo primo: quia tantum reatum incurrit qui indigne sumit hoc sacramentum, ideo necesse est ut primo homo seipsum probet, id est, diligenter examinet suam conscientiam, ne sit in eo voluntas peccandi mortaliter, vel aliquod peccatum praeteritum, de quo non sufficienter poenituerit. Et sic, post diligentem examinationem securus, de pane illo edat, et de calice bibat, quia digne sumentibus non est venenum, sed medicina. Gal. ult.: opus autem suum probet unusquisque. II Cor. XIII, 5: si estis in fide Christi, vos probate. 696. – First, therefore, he says: because one who receives this sacrament unworthily incurs so much guilt, it is necessary that a man first examine himself, i.e., carefully inspect his conscience, lest there exist in it the intention to sin mortally or any past sin for which he has not repented sufficiently. And so, secure after a careful examination, eat of that bread and drink of that cup, because for those who receive worthily, it is not poison but medicine: “Let each one test his own work” (Gal 6:4); “Examine yourselves to see whether you are holding to your faith” (2 Cor 13:5). Deinde cum dicit quicumque enim manducaverit, etc., assignat rationem praedicti remedii, dicens: ideo probatio praeexigitur, qui enim indigne manducat et bibit, iudicium, id est condemnationem, sibi manducat et bibit, sicut dicitur Io. V, 29: resurget qui male egerunt in resurrectionem iudicii. Non diiudicans corpus domini, id est ex eo quod non discernit corpus domini ab aliis, indifferenter ipsum assumens, sicut alios cibos. Lev. XXII, 3: omnis homo qui accesserit ad ea quae consecrata sunt, in quo est immunditia, peribit coram domino. 697. – Then when he says, anyone who eats, he assigns the reason for the above remedy, saying: A previous examination is required, because anyone who eats and drinks unworthily eats and drinks judgment, i.e., condemnation, upon himself: “Those who have done evil will rise to the resurrection of judgment” (Jn. 5:29). Not discerning the body of the Lord, i.e., from the fact that he does not distinguish the body of the Lord from other things, receiving Him indiscriminately as other foods: “Anyone who approaches the holy things while he has an uncleanness, that person shall be cut off from my presence” (Lev 22:3). Sed contra videtur esse quod dicitur Io. VI, 58: qui manducat me, vivit propter me. Sed dicendum est, quod duplex est modus manducandi hoc sacramentum, scilicet spiritualis et sacramentalis. Quidam ergo manducant sacramentaliter et spiritualiter, qui scilicet ita sumunt hoc sacramentum, quod etiam rem sacramenti participant, scilicet charitatem, per quam est ecclesiastica unitas. Et de talibus intelligitur verbum domini inductum: qui manducat me, vivit propter me. Quidam vero manducant sacramentaliter tantum, qui scilicet ita hoc sacramentum percipiunt, quod rem sacramenti, id est, charitatem non habent, et de talibus intelligitur quod hic dicitur: qui manducat et bibit indigne, iudicium sibi manducat et bibit. Est autem praeter duos modos quibus sumitur sacramentum hoc, tertius modus sumendi, quo manducatur per accidens, dum scilicet sumitur non ut sacramentum, quod quidem contingit tripliciter. Uno modo sicut quando aliquis fidelis sumit hostiam consecratam, quam non credit esse consecratam; talis enim habet habitum utendi hoc sacramento, sed non utitur eo actu, ut sacramento. Alio modo sicut quando hostiam consecratam sumit aliquis infidelis, qui nullam fidem habet huius sacramenti; talis enim non habet habitum utendi hoc sacramento, sed solum potentiam. Tertio modo sicut quando hostiam sacratam comedit mus vel quodlibet animal brutum, quod etiam non habet potentiam utendi hoc sacramento. 698. – On the other hand it says in John (6:58): “He that eats me shall live because of me.” The answer is that there are two ways of receiving this sacrament, namely, spiritually and sacramentally. Therefore, some receive sacramentally and spiritually, namely, those who receive this sacrament in such a way that they also share in the reality [res] of the sacrament, namely, charity through which ecclesial unity exists. To such the Lord’s words apply: “He that eats me will live because of me.” But some receive only sacramentally, namely, those who receive this sacrament in such a way that they do not have the [res] reality of the sacrament, i.e., charity. To these are applied the words spoken here: “He that eats and drinks unworthily eats and drinks judgment upon himself.” Besides these two ways by which the sacrament is taken, there is a third way, by which one eats per accidens, namely, when it is taken not as a sacrament. This can happen in three ways: in one way, as when a believer receives the consecrated host, which he does not believe is consecrated: such a one has the habit of receiving this sacrament, but he does not use it actually as a sacrament. In another way, as when an unbeliever receives the consecrated host, but he has no faith about this sacrament: such a person does not have the habit of using this sacrament, but only the potentiality. In a third way, as when a mouse or other brute animal eats the sacred host: such animals do have even the potentiality to use this sacrament. Ex hoc igitur quod spiritualiter sumentes hoc sacramentum acquirunt vitam, alliciuntur quidam ad hoc quod frequenter hoc sacramentum assumant. Ex hoc autem quod indigne sumentes acquirunt sibi iudicium, plures deterrentur, ut rarius sumant: et utrumque commendandum videtur. Legimus enim Lc. XIX, 6, quod Zachaeus recepit Christum gaudens in domum suam, in quo eius charitas commendatur. Legitur etiam eodem, VII, 6, quod centurio dixit Christo: non sum dignus ut intres sub tectum meum. In quo commendatur honor et reverentia eius ad Christum. Quia tamen amor praefertur timori, per se loquendo, commendabilius esse videtur quod aliquis frequentius sumat, quam quod rarius. Quia tamen quod est in se eligibilius, potest esse minus eligibile quantum ad hunc vel illum: considerare quilibet in seipso debet, quem effectum in se habeat frequens susceptio huius sacramenti. Nam si aliquis sentiat se proficere in fervore dilectionis ad Christum et in fortitudine resistendi peccatis, quae plurimum consequuntur homines, debet frequenter sumere. Si vero ex frequenti sumptione sentiat aliquis in se minus reverentiam huius sacramenti, monendus est ut rarius sumat. Unde et in libro de ecclesiasticis dogmatibus dicitur: quotidie Eucharistiam sumere, nec laudo nec vitupero. 699. – Therefore, from the fact that those who receive this sacrament spiritually acquire life, some are drawn to receive this sacrament frequently. But from the fact that those who receive unworthily acquire judgment upon themselves, many are deterred and rarely receive. Both seem commendable, for we read in Lk (19:6): “Zacheaus rejoiced to receive the Lord into his house.” In this his charity is commended. We also read in Lk (7:6) that the centurion said to Christ: “I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof.” In this case his honor and reverence toward Christ is commended. But because of themselves love is preferred to fear, it seems more commendable to receive more frequently rather than more rarely. Yet because something more choiceworthy in itself can be less choiceworthy in regard to this or that person, each one should consider in himself which effect the frequent reception of this sacrament would have in him. For if someone feels that it helps him make progress to the fervor of his love of Christ and in his strength to resist sins, he ought to receive frequently. But if someone feels in himself less reverence for his sacrament by receiving it frequently, he should be advised to receive it rarely. Hence, even in the book On the Dogmas of the Church it says: “I neither praise nor condemn daily communion.” Deinde cum dicit ideo inter vos, etc., manifestat praedictam rationem per signum. Et primo ponit signum; secundo assignat causam illius signi, ibi quod si nosmetipsos, et cetera. 700. – Then when he says, That is why, he clarifies the reason he gave with a sign. First, he mentions the sign; secondly, he assigns the cause of that sign (v. 31). Circa primum considerandum est, quod, sicut Augustinus dicit in I de Civit. Dei, cap. VIII: si omne peccatum nunc manifeste Deus plecteret poena, nihil ultimo iudicio reservari putaretur. Rursus, si nullum peccatum nunc puniret, nulla esse divina providentia crederetur. In signum ergo futuri iudicii Deus etiam in hoc mundo pro peccato quosdam temporaliter punit, quod maxime observatum videtur in principio legislationis, tam novae quam veteris. Legimus enim Ex. c. XXXII, 28, propter peccatum vituli aurei adorati, multa millia hominum perempta. Rursum legitur Act. V, 1-11, propter peccatum mendacii et furti Ananiam et Saphiram interiisse. Unde et propter peccatum huius sacramenti indigne sumpti, aliqui in primitiva Ecclesia puniebantur a Deo infirmitate corporali vel etiam morte. Unde dicit ideo, scilicet in signum futuri iudicii, inter vos, multi indigne sumentes corpus Christi, sunt infirmi corporaliter. Ps. XV, v. 4: multiplicatae sunt infirmitates. Et imbecilles, id est longa invaletudine laborantes, et dormiunt multi, scilicet morte corporali, secundum quod sumitur dormitio I ad Thess. IV, 12: nolumus vos ignorare de dormientibus. 701. – In regard to the first it should be noted that, as Augustine says in The City of God: “If God punished every sin with a penalty now, it would be thought that nothing was left for the final judgment.” Again, if He punished no sin now, it would be believed that there is no divine providence. As a sign of the future judgment, God even in this world punishes certain ones temporarily in this world. This is especially seen in the beginning of the legislation both of the Old and of the New. For we read in Ex (32:28) that on account of the sin of adoring the golden calf many thousands of men fell. Again we read in Ac (5:1-11) that on account of the sin of lying and of theft Ananias and Sapphira were destroyed. Hence also for the sin of receiving this sacrament unworthily some in the early Church were punished by God with bodily infirmity or even death. Hence he says, that is why, namely, as a sign of the future judgment among you many unworthily receiving the body of Christ are weak bodily “Their sorrows are multiplied” (Ps 16:4), and ill, i.e., labor under a long sickness, and some have died, namely, a bodily death (1 Th. 4:12). Deinde cum dicit quod si nosmetipsos, etc., assignat duplicem rationem praedicti signi, quarum prima sumitur ex parte nostri, secunda ex parte Dei, ibi cum iudicamur autem, et cetera. 702. – Then when he says, But if we judged, he assigns two reasons for the above sign: the first is taken on our part; the second on God’s part (v. 32). Ex parte autem nostra causa divinae punitionis est a negligentia, quia in nobis ipsis peccata commissa punire negligimus. Unde dicit quod si nosmetipsos diiudicaremus, redarguendo et puniendo peccata nostra, non utique iudicaremur, id est, non puniremur a domino neque postmodum in futuro, neque etiam in praesenti. 703. – On our part the cause of divine punishment is from negligence, because we neglect to punish ourselves for sins committed. Hence he says that if we judged ourselves truly by rebuking and punishing our sins, we should not be judged, i.e., not punished by the Lord either later in the future or even in the present. Sed contra est quod supra IV, 3 dictum est: sed neque meipsum iudico, et Rom. XIV, 22 dicitur: beatus qui non iudicat semetipsum. Sed dicendum est quod aliquis potest seipsum iudicare tripliciter: uno modo discutiendo, et sic aliquis debet iudicare seipsum et quantum ad opera praeterita et quantum ad futura, secundum illud Gal. ult.: opus suum probet unusquisque. Alio modo sententialiter seipsum absolvendo, quasi iudicando se innocentem quantum ad praeterita, et secundum hoc nullus debet iudicare seipsum, ut scilicet se innocentem iudicet, secundum illud Iob IX, 20: si iustificare me voluero, os meum condemnabit me. Si innocentem me ostendero, pravum me comprobabit. Tertio modo reprehendendo, ut scilicet faciat aliquid quod ipse iudicat esse malum. Et hoc modo intelligitur quod inductum est: beatus est qui non iudicat semetipsum in eo quod probat. Sed quantum ad ea quae iam fecit, debet quilibet se ipsum iudicare, reprehendendo et puniendo pro maleficiis. Unde dicitur Iob XIII, 15: vias meas in conspectu eius arguam, et XXIII, 4: ponam coram eo iudicium, et os meum replebo increpationibus. Et de hoc iudicio Augustinus dicit in libro de poenitentia, et inducitur hic in Glossa: versetur ante oculos nostros imago futuri iudicii, et ascendat homo adversum se ante faciem suam, atque constituto in corde iudicio adsit accusans cogitatio, et testis conscientia, et carnifex cor. Inde quidem sanguis animi confitentis per lacrymas profluat, postremo ab ipsa mente talis sententia proferatur, ut se indignum homo iudicet participem corporis et sanguinis domini. 704. – But on the other hand it says above (4:3): “I do not even judge myself” and in Rom (14:22): “Blessed is he that does not judge himself.” The answer is that someone can judge himself in three ways: in one way by examination, and in this way one ought to judge himself both as to past works and as to future ones, according to Gal (6:4): “Let each one prove his own work.” In another way by absolving himself decisionally as though judging himself innocent as to the past; and according to this, no one should judge himself, namely, that he judge himself innocent, according to Jb (9:20): “Though I am innocent, my own mouth would condemn me; though I am blameless, he would prove me perverse.” In a third way by reprehending, namely, that he did something he judges evil. In this way is understood the statement: “Blessed is he who does not judge himself for what he approves.” But as to things already done, each one ought to judge himself by blaming and punishing oneself for evil deeds. Hence it says in Jb (13:15): “I will defend my ways to his face” and (23:4): “I would lay my case before him and fill my mouth with arguments.” In the book On Penance, Augustine says of this judgment: “Let the image of the future judgment play before your eyes and let a man rise up against himself before his own face, and having made a judgment in his heart, let thought be the accuser and conscience the witness and the heart executioner. Then let the blood of the confessing spirit break out in tears. Finally, from the mind itself let such a sentence issue that the man judges himself unworthy to partake of the body and blood of the Lord.” Deinde cum dicit cum iudicamur autem, etc., ponit causam quae est ex parte Dei, dicens cum iudicamur autem, a domino, id est in hoc mundo punimur, corripimur, id est hoc fit ad correctionem nostram, ut scilicet quilibet propter poenam quam sustinuit a peccato recedat. Unde et Iob V, 17 dicitur: beatus vir qui corripitur a domino. Et Prov. III, 12: quem diligit dominus, corripit. Vel etiam dum per poenam unius, alius peccare desistit, Prov. XIX, 25: pestilente flagellato stultus sapientior erit, et hoc ideo, ut non damnemur, aeterna damnatione in futuro, cum hoc mundo, id est cum hominibus mundanis. 705. – Then when he says, But when we, he presents the cause on God’s part, saying: But when we are judged by the Lord, i.e., punished in this world, we are chastened, i.e., this is done for our correction, in order, namely, that each one withdraw from sin on account of the punishment he endured: “Happy is the man whom God reproves” (Jb 5:17); “Whom the Lord loves he chastises” (Pr 3:12), or even when through the punishment of one, another ceases to sin: “Strike a scoffer and the simple will learn prudence” (Pr 19:25) and this in order that we may not be condemned with eternal damnation in the future, along with the world, i.e., with worldly men. Deinde cum dicit itaque, fratres mei, etc., reducit eos ad debitam observantiam: et primo ponitur id quod nunc ordinat, secundo ponitur promissio de ordinatione futura, ibi caetera autem. 706. – Then when he says, So then, he leads them back to due observance: first, he presents what he now ordains; secondly, he gives a promise of a future ordination (v. 34b). Circa primum tria facit. Primo ponit ordinationem suam, dicens itaque, fratres mei, etc., ne unusquisque coenam suam praesumat ad manducandum, cum convenitis, scilicet in Ecclesia, ad manducandum, scilicet corpus Christi, invicem expectate, ut scilicet simul omnes sumatis. Unde Ex. XII, 6 dicitur: immolabit haedum multitudo filiorum Israel. Secundo excludit excusationem, dicens si quis autem esurit, etc., et non potest tantum expectare, domi manducet, scilicet communes cibos, postmodum Eucharistiam non sumpturus. Eccli. XXXVI, 20: omnem escam manducabit venter. Tertio rationem assignat, dicens ut non conveniatis, scilicet ad sumendum corpus Christi, in iudicium, id est in vestram condemnationem. 707. – In regard to the first he does three things: first, he makes his ordination, saying: So then, my brethren, so that no one will presume to eat his meal, when you come together, namely, in the church, to eat, namely, the body of Christ, wait for one another, so that all may receive at the same time. Hence it says in Ex (12:6): “The holy assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill their lamb.” Secondly, he excludes an excuse, saying: If anyone is hungry and cannot wait, let him eat at home, namely, ordinary food, not to receive the Eucharist later: “The stomach will take any food” (Sir 36:18). Thirdly, he gives the reason saying: lest you come together, namely, to receive the body of Christ, to be condemned. Deinde ponitur promissio, cum dicit caetera, scilicet quae non sunt tanti periculi, cum venero, praesentialiter, disponam, qualiter scilicet ea conservare debeatis. Ex quo patet quod Ecclesia multa habet ex dispositione apostolorum, quae in sacra Scriptura non continentur. Eccli. X, 3: civitates inhabitabuntur, id est Ecclesiae disponentur, per sensum prudentium, scilicet apostolorum. 708. – Then a promise is made when he says: About other things, namely, which are not so perilous, when I come home very soon, I will give directions, namely, how to conserve them. From this it is clear that the Church has many things arranged by the Apostle that are not contained in Sacred Scripture: “The cities will be inhabited,” i.e., the churches will be set in order “by the sense of prudent men,” namely, of the apostles (Sir 10:3).
12-1
1 Cor 12:1-6Reportatio Reginaldi de Piperno
Vulgate:Postquam apostolus prosecutus est de tribus sacramentis, scilicet Baptismo, matrimonio et Eucharistia, hic incipit determinare de his quae pertinent ad rem sacramentorum. Est autem duplex res sacramenti: una significata et contenta, scilicet gratia, quae statim cum sacramento confertur; alia significata et non contenta, scilicet gloria resurrectionis, quae in fine expectatur. Primo ergo agit de donis gratiarum; secundo de gloria resurrectionis, XV capit., ibi notum autem vobis facio, et cetera. Circa primum agit de gratiis gratis datis; secundo praefert omnibus his charitatem, quae pertinet ad gratiam gratum facientem, XIII cap., ibi si linguis hominum, etc.; tertio comparat gratias datas ad invicem, XIV cap., ibi sectamini charitatem, et cetera. 709. – After discussing the three sacraments of Baptism, Matrimony and the Eucharist, the Apostle begins to talk about things pertaining to the [res] reality signified in the sacraments. But this is twofold: one is signified and contained, namely, grace, which is conferred at once by the sacrament; the other is signified but not contained, namely, the glory of the resurrection, which is expected at the end. First, therefore, he deals with the gifts of graces; secondly, with the glory of the resurrection (c. 15). In regard to the first he deals with the charismatic graces; secondly, he prefers to all of these charity, which pertains to sanctifying grace (c. 13); thirdly, he compares the charismatic graces to one another (c. 14). Circa primum duo facit. Primo principaliter exponit quid intendat, dicens: dixi quod caetera, quae pertinent ad usum sacramentorum, cum venero disponam, sed quaedam statim vobis tradere oportet. Et hoc est quod dicit de spiritualibus autem, id est de donis gratiarum quae sunt a spiritu sancto, o fratres, nolo vos ignorare. Est enim maximum genus ingratitudinis ignorare beneficia accepta, ut Seneca dicit in libro de beneficiis; et ideo ut homo non sit Deo ingratus, non debet spirituales gratias ignorare. Supra II, 12: spiritum accepimus qui ex Deo est, ut sciamus quae a Deo donata sunt nobis. Is. V, 13: propterea captivus ductus est populus meus, quia non habuit scientiam, scilicet spiritualium. 710. – In regard to the first he does two things: first, he principally explains his intention, saying: I have said that “about other things,” which pertain to the use of the sacraments, “I will give directions when I come.” And this is what he says: Now concerning spiritual gifts, i.e., the gifts of the graces which come from the Holy Spirit, I do not want you to ignorant, brethren. “For it is the worst form of ingratitude to be ignorant of benefits received,” as Seneca says in the book On Benefits. Therefore, in order that man not be ungrateful to God, he should not be ignorant of spiritual gifts: “We have received the Spirit which is from God, that we might understand the gifts bestowed on us by God” (1 Cor 2:12); “Therefore, my people go into exile for want of knowledge” (Is 5:13), i.e., of spiritual things. Secundo ibi scitis, quoniam cum gentes, etc., prosequitur suam intentionem et primo ostendit spiritualium gratiarum necessitatem; secundo ponit gratiarum distributionem, ibi divisiones vero, et cetera. Necessitas autem alicuius rei maxime cognoscitur ex defectu ipsius. Unde circa primum duo facit. Primo ponit defectum quem patiebantur ante susceptam gratiam; secundo concludit gratiae necessitatem, ibi ideo notum vobis, et cetera. 711. – Secondly, when he says, You know that when you were heathen, he follows out his intention: first, he shows the need for spiritual graces; secondly, he presents the distribution of graces (v. 4). Now the need for a thing is best known from its absence. Hence, in regard to the first he does two things: first, he manifests the loss they suffered, before they received grace; secondly, he concludes to the need for grace (v. 3). Dicit ergo primo: scitis, quasi experti, quoniam cum gentes essetis, id est gentiliter viventes, nondum suscepta gratia per Baptismum. Gal. II, 15: nos enim natura Iudaei, non ex gentibus peccatores. Eph. c. IV, 17: gentes ambulant in vanitate sensus sui. Eratis euntes quasi prompta mente et assidua, secundum illud Ier. VIII, 6: omnes conversi sunt ad cursum suum, quasi equus impetu vadens in proelium; Prov. I, v. 16: pedes eorum ad malum currunt. Ad simulacra muta, scilicet adoranda et colenda, secundum illud Ps. CXIII, 5: os habent et non loquuntur. Et ponitur specialiter in eis defectus locutionis, quia locutio est proprius effectus cognitionis; unde ostenditur non intelligere simulacra, et per consequens nihil divinitatis habere si sunt muta. Et hoc prout ducebamini, id est sine aliqua resistentia. Ducebantur autem vel allecti ex pulchritudine simulacrorum, unde dicitur in epistola Ier.: videbitis in Babylonia deos aureos et argenteos, videte ne metus vos capiat in ipsis; aut etiam ex imperio alicuius principis, sicut legitur Dan. III, 1, quod Nabuchodonosor cogebat homines adorare statuam auream. Et II Mac. VI, 7 dicitur de quibusdam quod ducebantur cum amara necessitate in die natalis regis ad sacrificia. Vel etiam instinctu Daemonum, qui ad hoc praecipue anhelant, ut divinus cultus eis exhibeatur, secundum illud Matth. IV, 9: haec omnia tibi dabo, si cadens adoraveris me. Ibant ergo ad idola colenda, prout ducebantur, id est sine aliqua resistentia, sicut de iuvene etiam vecorde dicitur Prov. VII, v. 22: statim eam sequitur, quasi bos ductus ad victimam. Per hoc ergo apparet, quod homo ante susceptam gratiam prompte currit in peccatum sine resistentia. 712. – First, therefore, he says: You know by experience that when you were heathen, i.e., living as heathen without having yet received grace through Baptism: “We are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners” (Gal 2:15); “The Gentiles living in the futility of their minds” (Eph 4:17). You were led, as though with a ready and constant mind, as Jer (8:6) says: “Everyone turns to his own course, like a horse plunging into battle”; “Their feet run to evil” (Pr 1:16). To dumb idols, namely, to adore and worship, as it says in Ps 114 (v. 5): “They have a mouth but do not speak.” Their lack of speech is particularly stressed, because speech is the proper effect of knowledge. Hence it is shown that idols do not understand and, as a consequence, they have nothing divine, if they are mute. And this, as you were led, i.e., without any resistance. For they were led, either attracted by the beauty of the idols; hence it says in one of Jerome’s letters: “You will see in Babylon gods of gold and silver; see that fear does not overtake you in them.” Or even by the command of some prince, as it says in Dan (3:1) that Nebuchadnezzar compelled men to adore a golden statue. In 2 Macc it is stated that some were led to the sacrifice with bitter necessity on the king’s birthday. Or even by the instigation of demons, who aspire in a special way to have divine worship paid to them: “All these things will I give you, if falling down you adore me” (Matt 4:9). Therefore, they went to cultivate idols according as they were led without resistance, as Pr (7:22) says of the silly youth: “All at once he follows her as an ox is led to the slaughter.” This shows that before receiving grace, man quickly runs into sin without resistance. Specialiter autem facit mentionem de peccato idololatriae propter tria. Primo quidem, quia hoc est peccatum gravissimum introducere alium Deum, sicut gravissime peccaret contra regem qui alium regem in regnum eius introduceret. Unde dicitur Iob c. XXXI, 26: si vidi solem cum fulgeret, et lunam incedentem clare, et osculatus sum manum meam, scilicet quasi cultor solis et lunae, quae est iniquitas maxima et negatio contra Deum altissimum. Secundo, quia a peccato idololatriae omnia alia peccata oriebantur, secundum illud Sap. XIV, 27: nefandorum idolorum cultura omnis malis causa est. Tertio, quia hoc peccatum apud gentiles commune erat et non reputabatur, unde in Ps. XCV, 5 dicitur: omnes dii gentium Daemonia. 713. – He makes special mention of the sin of idolatry for three reasons: first, because it is a very grave sin to introduce another God, just as one would sin very gravely against a king by introducing another king into his kingdom. Hence, it says in Jb (31:26): “If I have looked at the sun when it shone, or the moon moving in splendor and my mouth has kissed my hand,” namely, as a worshipper of the sun and moon, which is the greatest iniquity and denial against God Most High. Secondly, because from the sin of idolatry all other sins arise according to Wis (14:27): “For the worship of idols not to be named is the beginning and cause and end of every evil.” Thirdly, because this sin was common among the heathens and was not counted; hence it says in Ps 96 (v. 5): “All the gods of the heathens are demons.” Est autem considerandum quod quidam dixerunt hominem in peccato mortali existentem sine gratia quadam non posse a peccato, cui subiacet, liberari, quia remissio peccatorum non fit nisi per gratiam, secundum illud Rom. III, 24: iustificati per gratiam eius; posse autem se praeservare a peccato mortali, sine gratia, per liberum arbitrium. Sed haec positio non videtur vera. Primo quidem, quia non potest aliquis se a peccato mortali praeservare, nisi omnia legis praecepta servando, cum nullus mortaliter peccet nisi transgrediendo aliquod legis praeceptum; et ita posset aliquis observare omnia legis praecepta sine gratia, quod est haeresis Pelagiana. Secundo quia charitatem, per quam Deus diligitur super omnia, nullus potest habere sine gratia, secundum illud Rom. V, 5: charitas Dei diffusa est in cordibus nostris per spiritum sanctum qui datus est nobis. Non potest autem esse quod homo omnia peccata declinet, nisi Deum super omnia diligat: sicut illud magis contemnitur, quod minus diligitur. Poterit ergo esse per aliquod tempus, quod ille qui caret gratia, a peccato abstinebit quousque occurrat illud, propter quod Dei praeceptum contemnet, a quo ducitur ad peccandum. Signanter autem apostolus dicit prout ducebamini. 714. – It should be noted that some have said that man existing in mortal sin cannot without grace be freed from the sin he lies under, because the remission of sins is brought about only by grace, as it says in Rom (3:24): “They are justified by his grace”; but he can preserve himself from mortal sin without grace, through free will. But this position does not seem to be true. First, because one cannot preserve himself from mortal sin except by observing all the precepts of the law, since no one sins mortally except by transgressing some precept of the law. And so someone could observe all the precepts without grace – which is the Pelagian heresy. Secondly, because no one can without grace have charity, through which God is loved above all things, as it says in Rom (5:5): “God’s love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit which has been given to us.” But no one can avoid all sins, unless he loves God above all things: just as that is more despised which is loved less. Therefore, it could happen that for some time a person who lacks grace will abstain from sin, until he encounters that for which he will despise God’s precept, and by which he is led into sin. It is significant that the Apostle says, as you were led. Deinde cum dicit ideo notum vobis facio, etc., concludit duos effectus gratiae, quorum primus est quod facit abstinere a peccato; secundus est quod facit operari bonum et hoc ponit ibi et nemo potest, et cetera. 715. – Then when he says, Therefore, he concludes to two effects of grace: the first is that it makes one abstain from sin; the second is that it makes one do good works (v. 3b). Dicit ergo primo: ex quo quando sine gratia eratis, prompte ad peccandum currebatis, ideo notum vobis facio, quod si gratiam habuissetis hoc vobis non contigisset, nemo enim in spiritu Dei, etc., id est, per spiritum Dei, loquens, dicit: anathema Iesu, etc., id est blasphemiam contra Iesum secundum illud I Io. IV, 3: omnis spiritus qui solvit Iesum, ex Deo non est. Notandum quod supra posuit gravissimum peccatum, quod est blasphemia, quod per gratiam declinatur, ut de aliis minoribus peccatis intelligatur. Potest autem per hoc quod dicitur anathema Iesu, intelligi quodlibet peccatum mortale. Anathema enim separationem significat. Dicitur ab ana, quod est sursum, et thesis, quod est positio, quasi sursum positum, quia olim res, quae ab usu hominum separabantur, suspendebantur in templis vel in locis publicis. Omne autem peccatum mortale separat a Iesu, secundum illud Is. LIX, 2: iniquitates vestrae diviserunt inter vos, et Deum vestrum. Quicumque ergo mortaliter peccat, dicit corde vel ore: anathema, id est, separationem a Iesu. Nemo ergo in spiritu Dei loquens dicit: anathema Iesu, quia nullus per spiritum Dei peccat mortaliter, quia, ut dicitur Sap. I, 5: spiritus sanctus disciplinae effugiet fictum. 716. – First, therefore, he says: From the fact that when you were without grace, you ran after sin rapidly, I want you to understand that if you had possessed grace, this would not have happened to you, for no one speaking by the Spirit of God says ‘Jesus be cursed’ [anathema to Jesus], i.e., blasphemes Jesus: “Every spirit which does not confess Jesus is not of God” (1 Jn. 4:3). It should be noted that above he said that the gravest sin is blasphemy, which is avoided through grace; hence the other lesser sins are avoided. By saying, anathema to Jesus, any mortal sin can be understood. For “anathema” signifies separation. It is derived from “ana,” which means “above” and “thesis,” which is a “placing”; as it were, “placed above,” because in olden times things separated from men’s use, were hung up in temples or in public places. But every mortal sin separates from Jesus, as it says in Is (59:2): “Your iniquities have made a separation between you and your God.” Therefore, who ever sins mortally says in his heart or with his mouth, anathema, i.e., separation from Jesus. Therefore, no one speaking by the spirit of God says anathema to Jesus, because no one through the spirit of God sins mortally because, as it says in Wis (1:5): “The holy spirit of discipline will flee from deceit.” Sed secundum hoc videtur quod quicumque habet spiritum sanctum, non possit peccare mortaliter; quia etiam dicitur I Io. III, 9: omnis qui natus est ex Deo peccatum non facit, quoniam semen ipsius in eo manet. Sed dicendum est quod quantum est ex spiritu Dei, homo non facit peccatum, sed magis a peccato retrahitur. Potest tamen peccatum facere ex defectu voluntatis humanae, quae spiritui sancto resistit, secundum illud Act. VII, 51: vos autem semper spiritui sancto restitistis. Non enim per spiritum sanctum inhabitantem tollitur facultas peccandi a libero arbitrio totaliter in vita praesenti. Et ideo signanter apostolus non dixit: nemo spiritum Dei habens, sed nemo in spiritu Dei loquens. 717. – But according to this it seems that whoever had the Holy Spirit cannot sin mortally; further, it says in 1 John (3:9): “No one born of God commits sin, because God’s seed abides in him.” The answer is that as far as the Spirit of God is concerned, man does not commit sin but rather is drawn away from sin. But he can sin through a defect of the human will which resists the Holy Spirit, as it says in Ac (7:51): “You always resist the Holy Spirit.” For by the indwelling Holy Spirit the ability to sin is not taken away totally from the free will in this life. Therefore, it is significant that the Apostle did not say: “No one having the Holy Spirit,” but no one speaking by the Spirit of God. Deinde cum dicit et nemo potest, etc., ponit secundum effectum gratiae, scilicet quod sine ea homo non potest bonum operari. Dicit ergo et nemo potest dicere, quod Iesus est dominus, nisi in spiritu sancto. Contra quod videtur esse, quia per spiritum sanctum homo introducitur in regnum caelorum, secundum illud Ps. CXLII, 10: spiritus tuus bonus deducet me in terram rectam. Dominus autem dicit Matth. VII, 21: non omnis qui dicit: domine, domine, intrabit in regnum caelorum. Non omnis ergo qui dicit: dominum Iesum, dicit hoc in spiritu sancto. Dicendum est autem quod dicere aliquid in spiritu sancto, potest intelligi dupliciter. Uno modo in spiritu sancto movente, sed non habito. Movet enim spiritus sanctus corda aliquorum ad loquendum, quos non inhabitat sicut legitur Io. XI, 49 ss., quod Caiphas hoc quod de utilitate mortis Christi praedixerat, a semetipso non dixit, sed per spiritum prophetiae. Balaam etiam multa vera praedixit motus a spiritu sancto, ut legitur Num. c. XXIII et XXIV, licet eum non haberet. Secundum hoc ergo intelligendum est quod nullus potest dicere quodcumque verum, nisi a spiritu sancto motus, qui est spiritus veritatis, de quo dicitur Io. XVI, 13: cum autem venerit ille spiritus veritatis, docebit vos omnem veritatem. Unde et in Glossa Ambrosius, hoc in loco dicit: omne verum a quocumque dicatur, a spiritu sancto est. Et specialiter in illis quae sunt fidei, quae per specialem revelationem spiritus sancti sunt habita, inter quae est quod Iesus sit omnium dominus, unde Act. II, 36 dicitur: certissime sciat omnis domus Israel, quia Deus fecit hunc dominum Iesum quem vos crucifixistis. Alio modo loquitur aliquis in spiritu sancto movente et habito. Et secundum hoc etiam potest verificari quod hic dicitur, ita tamen quod dicere accipiatur non solum ore, sed etiam corde et opere. Dicitur enim aliquid corde, secundum illud Ps. XIII, 1: dixit insipiens in corde suo: non est Deus. Dicitur etiam aliquid opere, inquantum exteriori opere aliquis suum conceptum manifestat. Nemo, ergo nisi habendo spiritum sanctum, potest dicere Iesum dominum, ita scilicet quod non solum hoc ore confiteatur, sed etiam corde revereatur ipsum ut dominum et opere obediat ipsi quasi domino. 718. – Then when he says, and no one, he mentions the second effect of grace, namely, that without it man cannot perform a good work. He says, therefore: And no one can say ‘Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit. But against this seems to be the fact that by the Holy Spirit man is introduced to the kingdom of heaven, as it says in Ps 143 (v. 10): “Your good spirit leads me along the right path.” The Lord, however, says: “Not everyone who says, Lord, Lord, will enter the kingdom of heaven” (Matt 7:21). Therefore, not everyone who says “Lord Jesus,” says it in the Holy Spirit. The answer is that saying something in the Holy Spirit can be understood in two ways: in one way in the Holy Spirit moving but not possessed. For the Holy Spirit moves the hearts of certain men to speak, although He does not dwell in them, as it says in John (11:49) that in predicting the utility of the Lord’s death Caiaphas did not speak from himself but through the Spirit of prophecy. Balaam also predicted many true things, but moved by the Holy Spirit, as it says in Numbers (chaps. 23 & 24), although he did not possess Him. According to this, therefore, it must be understood that no one can say anything true, unless moved by the Holy Spirit, Who is the Spirit of truth, of Whom it is said in John (16:13): “When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth.” Hence Ambrose says in a Gloss: “Every truth by whomsoever spoken is from the Holy Spirit.” This applies especially to matters of faith, which are had by a special revelation of the Holy Spirit. Among these is the fact that Jesus is Lord of them all. Hence it says in Ac (2:36): “Let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified.” In another way someone speaks in the Holy Spirit moving and possessed. And according to this, what is said here can be verified, but in such a way that “to speak” refers not only to the mouth but also to the heart and the deed. For something is said by the heart as in Ps 14 (v. 1): “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God.’” But something is said by deed, inasmuch as someone by an external work manifests his thought. No one, therefore, except by having the Holy Spirit can say: “Jesus is Lord,” is such a way that he confesses this not only by the mouth but also with the heart reveres Him as Lord and in work obeys Him as Lord. Sic igitur ex verbis praemissis tria circa gratiam considerare possumus. Primo quod, sine ea, peccatum homo vitare non potest, secundum illud Ps. XCIII, 17: nisi quia dominus adiuvit me, paulo minus in Inferno habitasset anima mea. Secundo quod per eam vitatur peccatum, secundum illud I Io. III, 9: qui natus est ex Deo, non peccat. Tertio quod sine ea non potest homo bonum facere, secundum illud Io. XV, 5: sine me nihil potestis facere. 719. – Therefore, from the foregoing words we can consider three things about grace. First, that without it man cannot avoid sin, as it says in Ps 94 (v. 17): “If the Lord had not been my help, my soul soon would have dwelt in hell.” Secondly, that through it sin is avoided, as it says in 1 John (3:9): “No one born of God commits sin.” Thirdly, that without it a man cannot do good, as it says in John (15:9): “Apart from me you can do nothing.” Deinde cum dicit divisiones vero, etc., incipit distinguere gratis datas, et primo distinguit eas in generali; secundo manifestat in speciali, ibi unicuique autem datur, et cetera. 720. – Then when he says, There are varieties of gifts, he begins to distinguish the charismatic graces: first, he distinguishes them in general; secondly, he manifests each in particular (v. 7). In his autem quae per gratiam spiritus sancti conferuntur, tria oportet considerare. Primo quidem facultatem hominum ad operandum, secundo auctoritatem, tertio executionem utriusque. Facultas quidem habetur per donum gratiae, puta per prophetiam vel potestatem faciendi miracula, aut per aliquid huiusmodi. Auctoritas autem habetur per aliquod ministerium, puta per apostolatum vel aliquid huiusmodi. Executio autem pertinet ad operationem. Primo ergo distinguit gratias, secundo ministeria, tertio operationes. Quantum ergo ad primum ostendit necessitatem gratiae, quae tamen non totaliter advenit omnibus, nisi Christo, cui datus est spiritus non ad mensuram, ut dicitur Io. III, v. 34; sed quantum ad alios sunt divisiones gratiarum, quia quidam abundant in una, quidam in alia. Sicut enim in corpore naturali caput habet omnes sensus, non autem alia membra, ita in Ecclesia solus Christus habet omnes gratias, quae in aliis membris dividuntur, quod significatur Gen. II, 12, ubi dicitur quod fluvius, scilicet gratiarum, egrediebatur ad irrigandum Paradisum, qui inde dividitur in quatuor capita. Et Matth. XXV, v. 15 dicitur et quod uni dedit quinque talenta, alii duo, alii unum. Et quamvis dona gratiarum sint diversa, quae a diversis habentur, non tamen procedunt a diversis auctoribus, sicut ponebant gentiles, qui sapientiam attribuebant Minervae, locutionem Mercurio, et sic de aliis. Ad quod excludendum subdit idem autem spiritus, scilicet sanctus, qui est auctor omnium gratiarum. Eph. IV, 4: unum corpus, et unus spiritus, et, Sap. VII, 22: est spiritus unus et multiplex: unus in substantia, multiplex in gratiis. 721. – In things conferred by the grace of the Holy Spirit three things must be considered. First, indeed, men’s faculty to work; secondly, the authority; thirdly, the execution of both. The faculty is had by the gift of grace; for example, by prophecy or the power to work miracles or by something of that sort. The authority is had through some ministry; for example, by the apostolate or something of that sort. Execution pertains to operation. First, therefore, he distinguishes the graces; secondly, the ministries; thirdly, the operations. In regard to the first, therefore, he shows the need for grace which, nevertheless, does not come in its totality to all, but only to Christ, to Whom the Spirit was given without measure, as it says in John (3:34). But in regard to others there are divisions of graces, because some abound in one and some in another. For as in a natural body the head has all the senses, while the other members do not; so in the Church Christ alone has all graces, which are divided in the other members. This is signified in Gen (2:12) where it says that a river, namely, of graces, flowed out to water the garden, and there it divided and became four rivers; and in Matt (25:15) it says that “to one he gave five talents, to another two, and to another one.” And although the gifts of graces possessed by diverse persons are diverse, they do not proceed from diverse authors, as the Gentiles believed, who attributed wisdom to Minerva, speech to Mercury, and so on for other gifts. To exclude this, he adds: but the same Spirit, namely, the Holy, Who is the author of all graces: “One body and one Spirit” (Eph 4:4); “The Spirit is one and manifold” (Wis 7:22): one in substance, manifold in graces. Deinde ponit distinctiones ministrationum, dicens et divisiones ministrationum sunt, id est diversa ministeria et officia requiruntur ad gubernationem Ecclesiae. Praelati enim Ecclesiae ministri dicuntur, supra c. IV, 1: sic nos existimet homo ut ministros Christi. Pertinet autem ad decorem et perfectionem Ecclesiae, ut in ea diversa ministeria sint, quae significantur per ordines ministrantium, quod mirabatur regina Saba in domo Salomonis, ut legitur III Reg. X, 5. Omnes tamen uni domino serviunt. Unde subditur idem autem dominus. Supra VIII, 6: nobis unus dominus Iesus Christus, per quem omnia. 722. – Then he mentions the distinctions of service, saying: And there are varieties of service, i.e., diverse ministries and offices are required to govern the Church. For the prelates of the Church are called servants, as above (4:1): “One should regard us as servants of Christ.” But it pertains to the beauty and perfection of the Church that in it there by diverse ministries, which are signified by the orders of service, which the queen of Sheba admired in Solomon’s house (1 Kg 3:5). Yet all serve one Lord; hence he adds: but the same Lord. “For us there is one Lord Jesus Christ through whom are all things (1 Cor 8:6). Deinde ponit distinctionem operationum, dicens et divisiones operationum sunt, quibus aliquis in seipso bonum operatur, sicut per ministrationes ad proximum. Ps. CIII, 23: exibit homo ad opus suum, scilicet sibi proprium. Eccli. XXXIII, 11: immutavit, id est distinxit, vias, id est operationes, eorum, quae tamen omnes procedunt ab uno principio. Unde subdit idem vero Deus, qui operatur omnia, sicut prima causa creans omnes operationes. Ne tamen aliae causae videantur esse superfluae subdit in omnibus, quia in causis secundariis prima causa operatur. Isa. XXVI, 12: omnia opera nostra operatus es in nobis. Et notandum quod apostolus valde congrue gratias attribuit spiritui qui est amor, quia ex amore procedit quod aliquid gratis detur ministerii a domino cui ministratur; operationes Deo sicut primae causae moventi. Et quod dicit spiritus, potest referri ad personam spiritus sancti; quod dicit dominus, ad personam filii; quod dicit Deus, ad personam patris. Vel haec tria possunt attribui spiritui sancto, qui est dominus Deus. 723. – Then he mentions the distinctions of operations, saying: and there are varieties of working, by which one works the good in himself as by services to his neighbor; “Man goes forth to his work” (Ps 104:23), namely, proper to himself: “He distinguished them and appointed their different ways”, i.e., operations (Sir 33:11). All of which come from one source. Hence he adds: But it is the same God who works all, as the first cause creating all actions. But lest the other causes seem to be superfluous, he adds: in every one, because the first cause works in secondary causes: “You have worked all our works in us” (Is. 26:12). It should be noted that the Apostle very fittingly attributes things to the Spirit Who is love, because from love proceeds that someone is freely given the ministry from the Lord, to Whom He ministers works to God, as to the first movent cause. And that he says, “spirit,” can be referred to the person of the Holy Spirit, what he calls Lord to the person of the Son, what he calls God in the person of the Father; or these three can be attributed to the Holy Spirit, Who is the Lord God.
12-2
1 Cor 12:7-11Reportatio Reginaldi de Piperno
Vulgate:Posita in generali distinctione gratiarum et ministrationum, et operationum, hic manifestat ea quae dixerat in speciali. Et primo quantum ad divisionem gratiarum; secundo quantum ad divisionem ministrationum, ibi et quosdam quidem posuit Deus, et cetera. Circa primum duo facit. Primo ponit distinctionem gratiarum in speciali; secundo adhibet similitudinem, ibi sicut enim corpus, et cetera. Circa primum tria facit. Primo ponit conditionem gratiarum gratis datarum; secundo ponit earum distinctionem, ibi alii quidem datur, etc.; tertio describit earum actionem, ibi haec autem omnia, et cetera. 724. – Having set forth in general the distinction of graces, ministrations and operations, the Apostle here manifests the things he had said in general. First, as to the division of graces; secondly, as to the division of operation (v. 28). In regard to the first he does two things: first, he presents the distinction of graces in general; secondly, he applies a similitude (v. 12). In regard to the first he does three things: first, he lays down the condition of charismatic graces; secondly, he distinguishes them (v. 8); thirdly, he describes their action (v. 11). Dicit ergo primo: dictum est, quod sunt divisiones gratiarum, unicuique autem datur: in quo designatur earum subiectum. Sicut enim nullum membrum est in corpore quod non participet aliquo modo sensum vel motum a capite, ita nullus est in Ecclesia qui non aliquid de gratiis spiritus sancti participet, secundum illud Matth. XXV, v. 15: dedit unicuique secundum propriam virtutem et, Eph. IV, 7: unicuique nostrum data est gratia. Manifestatio spiritus, in quo designatur officium gratiae gratis datae. Pertinet autem ad gratiam gratum facientem, quod per eam spiritus sanctus inhabitet, quod quidem non pertinet ad gratiam gratis datam, sed solum ut per eam spiritus sanctus manifestetur, sicut interior motus cordis per vocem. Unde Io. III, 8 dicitur: vocem eius audis, et in Ps. XCVII, 2 dicitur: notum fecit dominus salutare suum. Manifestatur autem, per huiusmodi gratias, spiritus sanctus dupliciter. Uno modo ut inhabitans Ecclesiam et docens et sanctificans eam, puta cum aliquis peccator, quem non inhabitat spiritus sanctus, faciat miracula ad ostendendum, quod fides Ecclesiae quam ipse praedicat, sit vera. Unde dicitur Hebr. II, 4: contestante Deo signis et prodigiis, et variis spiritus sancti distributionibus. Alio modo manifestatur per huiusmodi gratias spiritus sanctus, ut inhabitans eum cui tales gratiae conceduntur. Unde dicitur Act. VI, 8, quod Stephanus plenus gratia faciebat prodigia et signa multa, quem spiritu sancto plenum elegerunt; sic autem non conceduntur huiusmodi gratiae nisi sanctis. 725. – First, therefore, he says: It has been stated that there are divisions of graces, to each is given; in which is designated their subject. For just as there is no member in the body, which does not partake in some way of the sense and motion from the head, so no one is in the Church, who does not participate in some grace of the Spirit, as it says in Matt (25:15): “He gave to each according to his ability” and Eph (4:7): “Grace was given to each of us according to the measure of God’s gifts.” The manifestation of the Spirit, in which is designated the office of charismatic graces. But it pertains to sanctifying grace that through it the Holy Spirit indwells, which, indeed, does not pertain to charismatic graces, but only that through them the Holy Spirit is manifested, as the interior motion of the heart through the voice. Hence in John (3:8) it is said: “You hear his voice” and in Ps 98 (v. 2): “The Lord has made known his victory. The Holy Spirit is manifested in two ways by graces of this sort. In one way as dwelling in the Church by teaching and sanctifying it, as when a sinner, in whom the Holy Spirit does not dwell, works miracles to show that the faith of the Church which he professes is true: “While God also bore witness by signs and wonders and various miracles and by gifts of the Holy Spirit.” In another way the Holy Spirit is manifested by such charismatic graces as dwelling in the one to whom such graces are granted. Hence it says in Ac (6:8) that Stephen, filled with grace, worked prodigies and many signs, whom they chose filled with the Holy Spirit. In this way such graces are granted to the saints. Et ne huiusmodi manifestatio vana videatur, subdit ad utilitatem, scilicet communem. In quo designatur finis harum, et hoc vel dum probatur vera doctrina Ecclesiae; et sic fideles confirmantur et infideles convertuntur; vel dum sanctitas alicuius proponitur aliis in exemplum. Unde et infra XIV, v. 12: ad aedificationem Ecclesiae quaerite ut abundetis, et supra X, 33: non quaerens quod mihi utile est, sed quod multis, ut salvi fiant. 726. – And lest such a manifestation seems futile, he adds: for the common good. In this is designated the end of these gifts, and this either when the true doctrine of the Church is proved or when someone’s holiness is proposed as an example. Hence he says below (14:12): “Strive to excel in building up the Church”; and above (10:33): “Not seeking my own advantage, but that of many, that they may be saved.” Deinde cum dicit alii quidem, etc., ponit distinctionem gratiarum, quae quidem, ut dictum est, dantur ad utilitatem communem. Et ideo oportet earum distinctionem accipere secundum quod per unum potest aliorum salus procurari. Quod quidem homo non potest facere interius operando, hoc enim solius Dei est, sed solum exterius persuadendo. Ad quod quidem tria requiruntur. Primo quidem facultas persuadendi; secundo facultas persuasionem confirmandi; tertio persuasionem intelligibiliter proponendi. Ad facultatem autem persuadendi requiritur quod homo habeat peritiam conclusionum et certitudinem principiorum, circa ea in quibus debemus persuadere. Conclusiones autem in his quae pertinent ad salutem, quaedam sunt principales, scilicet res divinae et ad hoc pertinet sapientia, quae est cognitio divinarum rerum, ut Augustinus dicit, libro XIII de Trinitate. Et quantum ad hoc dicitur alii quidem per spiritum datur, scilicet sanctum, sermo sapientiae, ut possit persuadere ea quae ad cognitionem divinorum pertinent. Lc. XXI, 15: ego dabo vobis os et sapientiam, cui non poterunt resistere et contradicere omnes adversarii vestri. Supra II, 6: sapientiam loquimur inter perfectos. Secundariae conclusiones sunt quae pertinent ad notitiam creaturarum, quarum cognitio dicitur scientia, secundum Augustinum ibidem. Et quantum ad hoc subdit alii autem, scilicet datur, sermo scientiae, secundum eumdem spiritum, ut scilicet per creaturas ea quae sunt Dei, manifestare possit. Huic enim scientiae attribuitur illud quo pia fides defenditur et roboratur, non autem quidquid curiositatis in humanis scientiis invenitur, ut Augustinus ibidem dicit. Sap. X, v. 10: dedit illi scientiam sanctorum. Is. c. XXXIII, 6: divitiae salutis sapientia et scientia. Est tamen notandum quod sapientia et scientia inter septem dona spiritus sancti computantur, sicut habetur Is. XI, 2. Unde apostolus signanter inter gratias gratis datas non ponit sapientiam et scientiam, sed sermonem sapientiae et scientiae, quae pertinent ad hoc ut homo aliis persuadere valeat per sermonem, ea quae sunt sapientiae et scientiae. Principia autem doctrinae salutis sunt articuli fidei et ideo quantum ad hoc subditur alteri, scilicet datur, fides in eodem spiritu. Non autem hic accipitur pro fidei virtute, quia hoc commune est omnibus membris Christi, secundum illud Hebr. XI, 6: sine fide impossibile est placere Deo. Sed accipitur pro sermone fidei, prout scilicet homo potest recte proponere ea quae fidei sunt, vel pro certitudine fidei quam aliquis habet excellenter, secundum illud Matth. XV, 28: mulier, magna est fides tua. 727. – Then when he says, To one is given, he presents the distinction of graces which, indeed, as has been said, are given for the common good. Therefore, it is required to take the distinction in the sense that by one the salvation of others can be procured. Man, indeed, cannot do this by working within, for this belongs to God, but only by persuading outwardly. For this, three things are required: first, the faculty of persuading; secondly, the faculty of confirming the persuasion; thirdly, the faculty of proposing the persuasion intelligibly. For the faculty of persuading it is required that man have skill in conclusions and certitude of principles in regard to those matters in which he ought to persuade. But in matters that pertain to salvation, some conclusions are principal, namely, divine matters; and to this pertains wisdom, which is the knowledge of divine things, as Augustine says in Book 13, On the Trinity. In regard to this it is said that to one is given through the Spirit, namely, the Holy [Spirit], the utterance of wisdom, so that he can persuade one in things pertaining to the knowledge of divine things: “I will give you a mouth and wisdom, which none of your adversaries will be able to withstand” (Lk 21:15); “We speak wisdom among the perfect” (1 Cor 2:6). Secondary conclusions are those which pertain to the knowledge of creatures, the knowledge of which is called scientific, according to Augustine. And in regard to this he adds: and to another is given the utterance of knowledge according to the same Spirit, in order, namely, that that might manifest things of God through creatures. To this knowledge is attributed that by which the holy faith is defended and strengthened, but not anything curious found in human knowledge, as Augustine says. “He gave him knowledge of holy things” (Wis 10:10); “The riches of salvation are wisdom and knowledge” (Is 33:6). Yet it should be noted that wisdom and knowledge are numbered among the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit, as stated in Is (11:2). Hence it is significant that the Apostle places in the charismatic graces not wisdom and knowledge, but the utterance of wisdom and knowledge, which pertain to the ability to persuade other by speech about matters pertaining to wisdom and knowledge. Now, the principles of the doctrine of salvation are the articles of faith, and in regard to this he adds: to another is given faith by the same Spirit. It is not taken there for the virtue of faith, because this is common to all members of Christ, according to Heb (11:6): “Without faith it is impossible to please God.” But it is taken for the utterance of faith in the sense that a man is able rightly to propose manners of faith, or for the certainty of faith someone has in an excellent way, as in Matt (15:28): “Woman, great is your faith.” Ea vero quae pertinent ad salutarem doctrinam non possunt confirmari seu probari ratione, quia rationem humanam excedunt, secundum illud Eccli. III, 25: plurima supra sensum hominis ostensa sunt tibi. Confirmantur seu probantur signo divino; unde et Moyses, mittendus ad populum Israel, signum accepit a Deo, per quod confirmaret ea, quae ex parte Dei dicebat, ut patet Ex. IV, 1-9, sicut et signo regio confirmatur quod aliquid sit de mandato regis. Signum autem Dei sumitur uno quidem modo ab eo quod solus Deus facere potest, sicut sunt miracula, quae apostolus hic in duo distinguit. Nam primo dicit alii, scilicet datur, gratia sanitatum, id est per quam alicuius possit sanare infirmitatem, in uno, scilicet et eodem, spiritu. Ier. XVII, 14: sana me, domine, et sanabor. Ex his enim persuadetur aliquis, non solum propter magnitudinem facti, sed etiam propter beneficium. Secundo autem dicit alii datur operatio virtutum, ex quibus aliquis persuadetur solum propter magnitudinem facti, puta cum mare dividitur, ut legitur Ex. XIV, 21, vel quod sol et luna stetit in caelo, sicut legitur Ios. X, 13. Gal. III, 5: quis tribuit nobis spiritum, et operatur virtutes in nobis? Alio autem modo accipitur signum divinum ab eo quod solus Deus cognoscere potest. Hoc autem est vel futurum contingens, secundum illud Is. XLI, 23: annuntiate quae ventura sunt, et sciemus quia dii estis vos. Et quantum ad hoc dicit alii, scilicet datur, prophetia, quae est divina revelatio inter eventus immobili veritate denuntians. Ioel. c. II, 28: effundam de spiritu meo super omnem carnem, et prophetabunt filii vestri. Aliud autem est cognitio humani cordis, secundum illud Ier. XVII, 9 s.: pravum est cor hominis et inscrutabile, quis cognoscet illud? Ego dominus scrutans corda et probans renes. Et quantum ad hoc subdit alii discretio spirituum, ut scilicet homo discernere possit, quo spiritu aliquis moveatur ad loquendum vel operandum, puta utrum spiritu charitatis vel spiritu invidiae. I Io. IV, 1: nolite credere omni spiritui, sed probate spiritus si ex Deo sunt. 728. – But matters pertaining to the teaching of salvation cannot be confirmed or proved by reason, because they transcend human reason, as Sir (3:23) says: “Matters too great for human wisdom have been shown.” They are confirmed or proved by a divine sign; hence Moses, about to be sent to the people of Israel, received a sign from God through which he could confirm what he said on God’s part, as is clear in Ex (4:1-7), just as a royal sign confirms that something is the command of a king. But God’s sign is based in one way on something God alone can do, such as miracle, which the Apostle here distinguishes into two kinds. For he says first: to another is given the gift of healing, i.e., through which he can heal someone’s infirmity, by one and the same Spirit. “Heal me, O Lord, and I will be healed” (Jer 17:14). For by these, one is persuaded not only on account of the greatness of the deed, but also on account of the benefit. Secondly, he says: To another the working of miracles, by which a person is persuaded solely by the greatness of the deed; for example, when the sea was divided, as we read in Ex (14:21), or when the sun and moon stood still in the heavens, as we read in Joshua (10:13). “Who has given you the Spirit and works marvels among you?” (Gal 3:5). In another way a divine sign is based on something God alone can know, i.e., the future contingent, as it says in Is (41:23): “Tell us what is to come hereafter, that we may know that you are gods.” As to this he says: to another is given prophecy, which is divine revelation declaring with unchangeable truth among events: “I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy” (Jl 2:28). Another is knowledge of the human heart, as in Jer (17:9): “The heart is deceitful above all things and desperately corrupt; who can understand it? I, the Lord, search the mind and try the heart.” In regard to this he says: To another the ability to distinguish between spirits, namely, in order that a man be able to discern by what spirit someone is moved to speak or work; for example, whether by the spirit of charity or by the spirit of envy: “Do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are of God” (1 Jn. 4:1). Facultas autem persuasionem pronuntiandi consistit in hoc quod homo possit loqui intelligibiliter aliis. Quod quidem impeditur dupliciter. Uno modo per diversitatem idiomatum. Contra quod remedium adhibetur per hoc quod dicit alii, scilicet datur, genera linguarum, ut scilicet possit loqui diversis linguis, ut intelligatur ab omnibus, sicut de apostolis legitur Act. II, 4, quod loquebantur variis linguis. Alio modo per obscuritatem Scripturae inducendae. Contra quod remedium datur per id quod subditur alii interpretatio sermonum, id est difficilium Scripturarum. Dan. V, v. 16: audivi de te quod possis obscura interpretari. Gen. XL, 8: numquid non Dei est interpretatio? 729. – But the faculty of speaking persuasively consists in being able to speak intelligibly to others. This can be prevented in two ways: in one way by a diversity of dialects. Against this is applied the remedy signified by what he says: to another is given various kinds of tongues, namely, in order that he be able to speak in diverse languages, so that he will be understood by all, as it says of the apostles in Ac (2:4) that they spoke in various languages. In another way by the obscurity of a scripture to be quoted. Against this is given the remedy he mentions: to another the interpretations of speeches, i.e., of difficult scriptures: “I have heard that you can give interpretations of obscure things” (Dan 5:16); “Do no interpretations belong to God?” (Gen 40:8). Deinde cum dicit haec autem omnia, etc., determinat auctorem praedictarum gratiarum. Circa quod tres errores excludit. Primo quidem gentilium attribuentium diversa dona diversis diis. Contra quod dicit haec autem omnia operatur unus atque idem spiritus. Eph. IV, 4: unum corpus et unus spiritus. Secundo errorem eorum qui Deo attribuebant solum universalem providentiam rerum, ponentes quod distinctiones particularium fiunt solum per causas secundas. Contra quod subditur dividens singulis prout vult. Eccli. c. XXXIII, 11: in multitudine disciplinae domini separavit eos. Tertio excludit errorem eorum qui diversitatem gratiarum attribuebant vel fato, vel humano merito, et non solum voluntati divinae, sicut Macedonii, qui dicebant spiritum sanctum esse ministerium patris et filii. Et hoc excludit per hoc quod subdit prout vult. Io. III, 8: spiritus ubi vult spirat. 730. – Then when he says, all these, he identifies the author of these graces. In regard to this he excludes three errors. The first is that of the Gentiles attributing different gifts to different gods. Against this he says: All these are accomplished by one and the same Spirit: “One body and one spirit” (Eph 4:4). Secondly, the error of those who attributed to God only a general providence and assigned the distinctions of particular things to second causes alone. Against his he adds: apportioning to each one individually as he wills: “In the fullness of his knowledge the Lord separated them” (Sir 33:11). Thirdly, he excludes the error of those who attributed the diversity among graces to fate, or to human merit, and not solely to the divine will, as the Macedonians, who said that the Holy Spirit is the servant of the Father and of the Son. And he excludes this by saying: as he wills: “The spirit breathes where he wills” (Jn. 3:8).
12-3
1 Cor 12:12-31Reportatio Reginaldi de Piperno
Vulgate:Posita distinctione gratiarum, hic manifestat eam per similitudinem corporis naturalis. Et primo ponit similitudinem in generali; secundo exemplificat eam in speciali, ibi nam et corpus, et cetera. Circa primum duo facit. Primo ponitur similitudo; secundo similitudinis adaptatio, ibi ita et Christus, et cetera. 731. – Having set forth the distinction among graces, the Apostle now explains it by a likeness to a natural body. First, he presents the likeness in general; secondly, in more detail (v. 14). In regard to the first he does two things: first, the likeness is presented; secondly, its adaptation (v. 12b). Circa primum considerandum est, quod, sicut in V metaphysicae, tripliciter dicitur aliquid unum per se. Uno modo indivisibilitate, ut unitas et punctum, secundum quem modum unitas excludit totaliter multitudinem, non solum actualem, sed etiam potentialem. Alio modo dicitur unum continuitate, ut linea et superficies, quae quidem unitas excludit multitudinem actualem, sed non potentialem. Tertio modo integritate, quae non excludit multitudinem neque potentialem, neque actualem, sicut domus est una quae constituitur ex diversis lapidibus et lignis. Et, eodem modo, corpus hominis aut cuiuslibet animalis est unum, quia eius perfectio integratur ex diversis membris, sicut ex diversis animae instrumentis; unde et anima dicitur esse actus corporis organici, id est, ex diversis organis constituti. Proponit ergo primo apostolus quod unitas corporis, membrorum multitudinem non excludit, dicens quod sicut corpus unum est, et multa membra habet, unde et Rom. XII, v. 4 dicitur in uno corpore multa membra habemus. Item proponit quod multitudo membrorum non tollit corporis unitatem, unde subdit omnia autem membra corporis cum sint multa, nihilominus unum corpus sunt, quod ex omnibus perficitur. Unde et Iob X, 11 dicitur: pelle et carne vestisti me, ossibus et nervis compegisti me. 732. – In regard to the first it should be noted that as it says in Metaphysics V, there are three ways in which something is said to be “one per se.” In one way by indivisibility, as unity and a point. According to this way unity totally excludes not only actual multitude but potential as well. In another way something is called one by reason of continuity, as a line and a surface. Such unity excludes actual multitude but not potential. In a third way something is one by wholeness, which excludes neither actual nor potential multitude, as a house is one thing composed of various stones and types of wood. In the same way the body of a man or of any other animal is one, because its perfection is made up of various members as of diverse instruments of the soul; hence the soul is said to be the act of an organic body, i.e., one made up of various organs. The Apostle, therefore, first proposes that the unity of the body does not exclude a multitude of members, saying: As the body is one and has many members: “In one body we have many members” (Rom 12:4). Likewise, he proposes that a multitude of members does not take away the unity of the body; hence he adds: and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, which is completed by all. Hence it says in Jb (10:11): “You clothed me with skin and flesh and knit me together with bones and sinews. Deinde cum dicit ita et Christus, etc., ponitur adaptatio similitudinis. Et primo adaptat similitudinem, dicens ita et Christus, scilicet est unus, secundum illud, supra c. VIII, 6: unus dominus noster Iesus, per quem omnia. Et tamen multa et diversa habet membra, scilicet omnes fideles, secundum illud Rom. XII, 5: multi unum corpus sumus in Christo. 733. – Then when he says: so it is with Christ, the adaptation of the likeness begins. First, he adapts the likeness, saying: So it is with Christ, namely, He is one, as it says above (8:6): “Our one Lord Jesus through whom are all things.” Yet he has many and diverse members, namely, all the faithful, as it says in Rom (12:5): “Though many we are one body in Christ.” Secundo ponitur ratio adaptationis, ubi ponitur duplex ratio distinctionis. Una quidem ratio unitatis est spiritus sanctus, secundum illud Eph. IV, 4: unum corpus et unus spiritus. Sed per virtutem spiritus sancti duplex beneficium consequimur. Primo quidem, quia per ipsum regeneramur, secundum illud Io. c. III, 5: nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua et spiritu sancto. Unde dicit etenim in uno spiritu, scilicet per virtutem unius spiritus sancti, omnes nos, qui sumus membra Christi, sumus baptizati in unum corpus, id est in unitatem Ecclesiae, quae est corpus Christi, secundum illud Eph. I, 22: ipsum dedit caput super omnem Ecclesiam, quae est corpus eius; et Gal. III, 27: omnes qui in Christo baptizati estis, Christum induistis. Secundo, per spiritum sanctum reficimur ad salutem. Unde subdit et omnes potati sumus in uno spiritu, id est per virtutem unius spiritus sancti. Potest autem hic potus intelligi dupliciter. Uno modo de interno refrigerio quod spiritus sanctus cordi humano praebet, extinguendo sitim carnalium desideriorum et concupiscentiarum. Unde Eccli. XV, 3: aqua salutaris sapientiae potavit eum, et, Io. VII, 38, flumina de ventre eius fluent aquae vivae. Alio modo potest intelligi de potu sacramentali, qui per spiritum sacratur. Supra X, v. 4: omnes eumdem potum spiritualem biberunt. 734. – Secondly, he presents the ground of the adaptation, in which is presented a twofold ground of distinction. One ground of unity is the Holy Spirit, as it says in Eph (4:4): “One body and one Spirit.” But we receive a double benefit by the power of the Holy Spirit. First, indeed, because we are reborn through Him, as it says in John (3:5): “Unless a man is born again of water and the Holy Spirit,” hence he says: For by one Spirit, namely, by the power of the one Holy Spirit, we were all, who are members of Christ, baptized into one body, i.e., into the unity of the Church, which is the body of Christ, as it says in Eph (1:22): “He had made him head over all things for the Church, which is his body”; and in Gal (3:27): “As many of you has were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.” Secondly, by the Holy Spirit we are refreshed unto salvation. Hence he adds: and all were made to drink of one Spirit, i.e., by the power of the one Holy Spirit. This drink can be understood in two ways: in one way of the inward refreshment which the Holy Spirit offers to the human heart by extinguishing the thirst for carnal desires and concupiscences. Hence Sir (15:3) says: “He will give him the water of salutary wisdom to drink”; and in John (7:38): “Out of his heart shall flow rivers of living water.” In another way it can be understood of a sacramental drink, which is consecrated by the Spirit: “All drank the same spiritual drink” (1 Cor 10:4). Interponitur autem duplex ratio diversitatis. Una ex parte ritus, cum dicit sive Iudaei, sive gentiles, etc., alia ex parte conditionis, cum dicit sive servi, sive liberi. Nulla enim huiusmodi diversitas impedit unitatem corporis Christi. Unde Gal. III, 28 dicitur: non est Iudaeus, neque Graecus; non est servus, neque liber; unum enim estis in Christo Iesu. 735. – Then he interposes two aspects of diversity: one is on the part of rites when he says: Jews or Gentiles; the other is on the part of status, when he says: slaves or free. No diversity of this kind impedes the unity of the body of Christ. Hence it says in Gal (3:28): “There is neither Jew or Greek, there is neither slave nor free; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” Deinde cum dicit nam et corpus, explicat similitudinem in speciali. Et primo describit conditionem corporis naturalis et membrorum ipsius. Secundo adaptat ad corpus mysticum Christi, ibi vos autem estis, et cetera. Circa primum duo facit. Primo describit integritatem corporis naturalis; secundo habitudinem membrorum ad invicem, ibi non potest autem oculus dicere, et cetera. Circa primum tria facit. Primo proponit quod intendit; secundo manifestat exemplificando, ibi si dixerit pes, etc.; tertio probat ducendo ad inconveniens, ibi si totum corpus oculus, et cetera. 736. – Then when he says, for the body, he explains the likeness in detail. First, he describes the condition of a natural body and its members; secondly, he adapts this to the mystical body of Christ (v. 27). In regard to the first he does two things: first, he describes the completeness of a natural body; secondly, the relations of the members to each other (v. 21). In regard to the first he does three things: first, he states his intention; secondly, he explains with examples (v. 15); thirdly, he proves by leading to something awkward. Dicit ergo primo: dictum est quod, omnes nos in unum corpus mysticum baptizati sumus, quod repraesentat similitudo corporis naturalis. Nam corpus naturale hominis non est unum membrum, sed multa. Quia scilicet eius perfectio non salvatur in uno membro, sed integratur ex multis, quae necesse habent deservire diversis potentiis et actibus animae. Unde et Rom. XII, 4 dicitur: sicut in uno corpore multa membra habemus, omnia autem membra corporis non eumdem actum habent, ita multi unum corpus sumus in Christo. 737. – First, therefore, he says: It has been stated that all of us have been baptized into one mystical body, which represents a likeness to a natural body. For the natural body of a man is not one member but many, because its perfection is not saved in one member, but is composed of many, which of necessity must serve the various potencies and acts of the soul. Hence it says in Rom (12:4): “For as in one body we have many members and all the members do not have the same function, so we, though many are one body in Christ. Deinde cum dicit si dixerit pes, etc., manifestat quod dixerat exemplificando in membris quibusdam. Et primo in membris deservientibus motui: et ponit duo membra: pedem, tamquam ignobilius membrum, eo quod calcat terram et portat totius corporis pondus; manum autem tamquam membrum nobilius, eo quod ipsa est organum organorum. Et hoc est quod dicit si dixerit pes: non sum de corpore, quoniam non sum manus, non ideo non est de corpore? Quasi dicat: perfectio corporis non tota consistit in uno membro, quamvis nobiliori sed ad eius perfectionem requiruntur etiam ignobiliora. Per membra autem deservientia motui, designantur in Ecclesia homines dediti vitae activae, ita quod pedes sunt subditi, de quibus dicitur Ez. I, 7: pedes eorum pedes recti; per manus autem figurantur praelati, per quos alii disponuntur, unde et Cant. V, 14 dicitur: manus illius tornatiles aureae, plenae hyacinthis. Sunt autem in Ecclesia necessariae non solum manus, id est praelati, sed etiam pedes, id est subditi. Unde Prov. XIV, v. 28 dicitur: in multitudine populi dignitas regis. 738. – Then when he says: If the foot should say, he clarifies what he had said by using certain members as examples. First, the members involved in motion, and he mentions two members: the foot as the more ignoble member in that it treads the earth and carries the weight of the entire body; but the hand, is the nobler member, inasmuch as it is the organ of the organs. And this is what he says: If the foot should say: because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body, that would not make it any less a part of the body. As if to say: The perfection of the body does not consist in one member, although it be more noble, but its perfection requires even the more ignoble ones. But by the members involved in motion are designated in the Church men given to the active life, in such a way that the feet are subjects. About these it says in Ez (1:7): “Their legs were straight”; by the hands are denoted prelates, through whom others are disposed; hence in S. of S. (5:14) it says: “His hands are rounded gold, filled with hyacinth.” In the Church not only the hands, i.e., prelates, but also the feet are necessary, i.e., subjects. Hence it says in Pr (14:2): “In a multitude of people is the glory of a king.” Secundo exemplificat de membris servientibus virtuti apprehensivae, et ponit oculum qui deservit visui et aurem quae deservit auditui. Nam isti duo sensus praecipue deserviunt humanae sapientiae: visus quidem quantum ad inventionem, eo quod plures rerum differentias ostendit; auditus autem quantum ad disciplinam, quae fit per sermonem. Horum tamen sensuum dignior est visus quam auditus, quia et spiritualior est et plura demonstrat, ac per hoc oculus est dignior aure. Dicit ergo et si dixerit auris, quae est ignobilius membrum, non sum de corpore, quia non sum oculus, qui est membrum nobilius, non ideo non est de corpore? et cetera. Per membra ergo deservientia virtuti apprehensivae, designantur in Ecclesia illi qui student vitae contemplativae, inter quos sunt, sicut oculi, doctores, qui per seipsos veritatem inspiciunt. Unde dicitur Cant. V, 12: oculi eius sicut columbae super rivos aquarum, quae resident iuxta fluenta plenissima. Per aures autem significantur discipuli, qui a magistris veritatem audiendo recipiunt. Unde et Matth. XIII, 19 dicitur: qui habet aures audiendi, audiat. Sunt enim in Ecclesia necessarii non solum doctores sed etiam discipuli. Unde et Iob XXIX, 11 dicitur: auris audiens beatificavit me. 739. – Secondly, he uses as examples the members or powers which serve knowledge and he mentions the eye, which serves sight, and the ear, which serves hearing. For these two senses are the special servants of human knowledge: sight, indeed, in regard to discovery, because it reveals the many differences among things; hearing, however, in regard to doctrine, which is presented by speech. The more dignified of these senses is sight, because it is more spiritual and reveals more things; as a result the eye is more noble than the ear. He says, therefore: And if the ear, which is the more ignoble member, should say, I do not belong to the body, because I am not the eye, which is the more noble member, that would not make it any less part of the body. By the members which serve knowledge are designated in the Church those who apply themselves to the contemplative life among whom there are, as eyes, teachers who investigate truth. Hence it says in S. of S. (5:12): “His eyes are like doves beside springs of water, which live near the fullest waters.” By ears are significant disciples who receive the truth by hearing their masters. Hence it says in Matt (13:9): “He that has ears hears to hear, let him hear.” In the Church not only teachers but also disciples are necessary. Hence it says in Jb (29:11): “When the ear heard, it called me blessed.” Deinde cum dicit si totum corpus, etc., probat ducendo ad inconveniens duplex, quorum primum est subtractio necessariorum a corpore, secundum est remotio integritatis corporis, ibi quod si essent omnia, et cetera. 740. – Then when he says, If the whole body were an eye, he proves by leading to two awkward conclusions, the first of which is the removal of necessary things from the body; the second is the removal of bodily completeness (v. 19). Circa primum duo facit. Primo ponit inconveniens quod sequitur, dicens si totum corpus esset oculus, quod est membrum nobilius, ubi esset auditus? Id est instrumentum audiendi, quasi dicat: si in Ecclesia omnes essent magistri. Unde dicitur Iac. III, 1: nolite plures magistri fieri, fratres mei. Et, iterum: si totum corpus esset auditus, id est instrumentum audiendi, ubi esset odoratus? et cetera. Per quem possunt in Ecclesia intelligi illi qui, et si non sint capaces verborum sapientiae, percipiunt tamen quaedam eius indicia a remotis, quasi odorem. Unde et Cant. I, 3 dicitur in odorem unguentorum tuorum currimus. 741. – In regard to the first he does two things: first, he presents the awkward conclusion which follows, saying: If the whole body were the eye, which is a nobler member, where would be the hearing, i.e., the organ of hearing. As if to say: If all in the Church were masters; hence it says in Jas (3:1): “Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren.” Again, if the whole body were an ear, where would be the sense of smell? By this can be understood those in the Church who, even though they are not capable of words of wisdom, nevertheless perceive some of its indications from afar, as an odor. Hence in S. of S. (1:5): “We run after the odor of your anointing oils.” Secundo asserit contrariam veritatem, scilicet quod nec auditus corpori debet deesse, dicens nunc autem Deus posuit, id est ordinate disposuit, membra diversa. Nam et si membrorum distinctio sit opus naturae, hoc tamen agit natura ut instrumentum divinae providentiae. Et ideo primam causam dispositionis membrorum assignans, subdit unumquodque eorum in corpore, quasi dicat: non sic posuit membra diversa, ut unumquodque eorum secundum se separatim existeret, sed ut omnia convenirent in uno corpore. Et sicut voluit; nam prima causa institutionis rerum est voluntas divina, secundum illud Ps. CXIII, 3: omnia quaecumque voluit fecit. Sic autem et in Ecclesia disposuit diversa officia, diversos status secundum suam voluntatem. Unde et Eph. I, 11 dicitur: praedestinati secundum propositum eius qui operatur omnia secundum consilium voluntatis suae. 742. – Secondly, he asserts the contrary truth, namely, that neither sight nor hearing should be lacking, saying: But as it is God arranged, i.e., put in order, the various members. For even if the distinction of the members is a work of nature, nevertheless nature did this as an instrument of divine providence. And therefore, he assigns the first cause of the arrangement of the members when he says: God arranged the organs in the body. As if to say: He did not arrange various members in order that each of them should exist separately by itself, but that all should come together in one body. And as he willed; for the first cause of the arrangement of things is the divine will, as it says in Ps 111 (v. 2): “Great are the works of the Lord. So, too, in the Church He arranged various offices and diverse states according to His will. Hence it says in Eph (1:11): “According to the purpose of him who accomplishes all things according to the counsel of his will.” Deinde cum dicit quod si esset, etc., ducit ad aliud inconveniens, quod est defectus integritatis corporis. Unde primo ponit hoc inconveniens, dicens quod si essent omnia unum membrum, ubi esset corpus? Id est ubi esset integritas corporalis? Quasi dicat: non esset. Ita si omnes in Ecclesia unius conditionis et gradus essent, tolleretur perfectio et decor Ecclesiae, quae in Ps. XLIV, 10 describitur circumamicta varietate. Secundo asserit veritatem contrariam, dicens nunc autem multa quidem sunt membra, sed unum corpus quod ex omnibus integratur. Sic Ecclesia ex diversis ordinibus constituitur. Unde et Cant. VI, 9 describitur: terribilis ut castrorum acies ordinata. 743. – Then when he says, If all were a single organ, he comes to another awkward conclusion, which is a lack of bodily completeness. Hence, he first posits this awkwardness, saying: if all were a single organ, where would the body be? i.e., where would the completeness of the body be? As if to say: It would not be. Thus, if all the Church were of one state and grade, it would destroy the perfection and beauty of the Church, which is described in Ps 45 (v. 14): as “adorned with many-colored robes.” Secondly, he asserts the contrary truth, saying: As it is there are many parts, yet one body, which is made complete by all the parts. Thus, the Church is composed of diverse orders: “Terrible as an army with banners” (S. of S. 6:10). Deinde cum dicit non potest autem oculus, etc., ponit comparationem membrorum ad invicem. Et primo quantum ad necessitatem; secundo quantum ad cultum membris adhibitum, ibi et quae putamus, etc.; tertio quantum ad mutuam sollicitudinem, ibi sed in ipsum, et cetera. Circa primum duo facit. Primo proponit omnia membra corporis esse necessaria, quamvis quaedam sint ignobilia; secundo ponit necessitatis comparationem, ibi sed multo magis, et cetera. \ 744. – Then when he says, the eye cannot, he compares the members with one another: first, as to need; secondly, as to the care shown to the members (v. 23); thirdly, as to mutual solicitude (v. 26). In regard to the first he does two things: first, he states that all the members of the body are necessary, although some are less honorable; secondly, he presents a comparison of their need (v. 22). Ostendit autem primo rationem necessitatis membrorum secundum duplicem differentiam. Primo quidem secundum differentiam membrorum deservientium motui, unde dicit non potest autem oculus, qui deservit cognitioni et significat contemplativos, dicere manui, quae deservit motui et significat activos opera tua non indigeo. Indigent enim contemplativi per opera activorum sustentari. Unde et Lc. X, 39 s. dicitur quod cum Maria secus pedes domini sederet, audiens verba eius, Martha satagebat circa frequens ministerium. Secundo ostendit idem secundum differentiam praelatorum, qui significantur per caput, et subditorum, qui significantur per pedes; et hoc est quod subdit aut iterum caput, id est praelatus, secundum illud I Reg. XV, 17: caput in tribubus Israel factus es, non potest dicere pedibus, id est subditis, non estis mihi necessarii, quia, ut dicitur Prov. XIV, 28, in multitudine populi dignitas regis. 745. – First, he shows the reason for needing the members by reason of a two-fold difference. First, indeed, according to the difference of members involved in movement; hence he says, the eye, which serves knowledge and signifies contemplatives cannot say to the hand, which serves movement and signifies those in the active life, I have no need of you. For the contemplatives need to be sustained by the labors of those in the active life. Hence, it says in Lk (10:39) that while Mary sat at the feet of Jesus listening to His words, Martha was busy with much serving. Secondly, he shows the same according to the differences of prelates signified by the head, and of subjects signified by the feet; and this is what he adds: Nor again the head, i.e., the prelates, according to 1 Sam (15:17): “You have become the head of the tribes of Israel,” to the feet, i.e., the subjects, I have no need of you, because as it says in Pr (14:28): “In a multitude of people is the glory of the king.” Deinde cum dicit sed multo magis, etc., comparat diversa membra ad invicem quoad necessitatem eorum, dicens quod membra corporis quae videntur esse infirmiora, sunt magis necessaria, sicut intestina. Ita etiam in Ecclesia sine officio aliquarum abiectarum personarum, puta agricultorum et aliorum huiusmodi, praesens vita transiri non posset; quae tamen posset duci sine aliquibus excellentioribus personis contemplationi et sapientiae deputatis, quae Ecclesiae deserviunt ad hoc quod sit ornatior et melius se habens. Ex hoc enim aliquid dicitur necessarium, quod est utile ad finem. Illa vero quae sunt nobilissima, non se habent in ratione utilium, sed sunt per seipsa appetenda ut fines. Et ideo dicitur Iob XXXI, 39: si fructus terrae comedi absque pecunia, et animam agricolarum eius afflixi. 746. – Then when he says, on the contrary, he compares various members to one another in regard to their necessity, saying that the members of the body that seem weaker are more necessary, as the intestine. So, too, in the Church without the functions performed by certain lowly persons, such as farmers and others of that kind, the present life could not be gone through, which, however, can be led without certain more excellent persons dedicated to contemplation and to wisdom, who serve the Church by making it more ornate and in better condition. For something is called necessary, if it is useful to an end. But the noblest things are not considered useful, but they are of themselves to be sought as ends. Therefore, it says in Jb (31:39): “If I have eaten its yield without payment, and caused the death of its owners.” Deinde cum dicit et quae putamus, etc., comparat membra quantum ad exteriorem cultum. Et primo ponit diversitatem quae diversis membris adhibetur; secundo causam diversitatis assignat, ibi Deus temperavit, et cetera. 747. – Then when he says, and those parts of the body, he compares the members as far as external adornment is concerned: first, he mentions the different things applied to different members; secondly, he assigns the cause of the difference (v. 24b). Cultus autem exterior membris adhibitus ad duo pertinet scilicet ad honorem, sicut ea quae apponuntur ad ornatum, ut monilia et inaures; et ad honestatem, sicut quae apponuntur ad tegumentum, ut brachae et alia huiusmodi. Quantum ergo ad primum cultum, dicit primo et quae putamus esse ignobiliora membra corporis, his circumdamus abundantiorem honorem, idest maiorem ornatum, sicut auribus alicubi suspenduntur inaures, oculis autem nihil apponitur, et pedibus apponuntur calceamenta depicta et gemmata, secundum illud Cant. VII, 1: quam pulchri sunt gressus tui in calceamentis, filia principis. Manus autem nudae habentur. Et, similiter in Ecclesia, imperfectioribus sunt magis consolationes adhibendae, quibus perfectiores non egent. Unde dicitur Is. XL, 11: in brachio suo congregabit agnos, et in sinu suo levabit, foetas ipse portabit, et, I Petr. III, 7 dicitur: viri quasi infirmiori vasculo muliebri impartientes honorem. Secundo prosequitur quantum ad cultum honestatis, dicens et quae inhonesta sunt, abundantiorem honestatem habent, scilicet per studium humanum. Dicuntur autem membra aliqua inhonesta in sanctis, non propter aliquam peccati turpitudinem, sed propter inobedientiam membrorum genitalium subsecutam ex peccato originali. Vel etiam quia sunt ignobili usui deputata, sicut omnia membra quae deserviunt emissioni superfluitatum, quibus abundantior honestas adhibetur dum studiosius teguntur, quo non indigent membra nobilibus usibus deputata. Unde subdit honesta autem nostra nullius egent, scilicet exterioris honestatis, unde nec faciei velamen apponitur. Et similiter in Ecclesia illi qui sunt in aliquo culpabiles, sunt admonendi et custodiendi, secundum illud Eccli. XLII, 11: super filiam luxuriosam confirma custodiam. Et Gal. VI, 1 dicitur: si praeoccupatus quis fuerit in aliquo delicto vos, qui spirituales estis, huiusmodi instruite in spiritu lenitatis; illi autem qui sunt absque culpa his non egent. Et est notandum quod triplicem defectum circa membra notavit, scilicet inhonestatis, ignobilitatis et infirmitatis. Quorum primum in membris Ecclesiae pertinet ad culpam; secundum ad conditionem servilem; tertium ad statum imperfectionis. 748. – The external adornment applied to members pertains to two things, namely, to honor, as things used for decoration, such as necklaces and ear rings, and to modesty, as something used for clothing, such as trousers and the like. In regard to the first adornment he says first: and those parts of the body we think less honorable we invest with greater honor, i.e., more ornamentation, as ear rings from the ears, but nothing is added to the eyes, while shoes adorned with pictures and precious stones are worn on the feet: “How graceful are your feet in sandals, O queenly maiden” (S. of S. 7:1); the hands are kept bare, however. And likewise in the Church the more imperfect receive more consolations, which the more perfect do not need. Hence it says in Is (40:11): “He will gather the lambs in his arms, he will carry them in his bosom” and in 1 Pt (3:7): “Husbands, bestow honor on the woman as the weaker sex.” Secondly, he continues with the ornaments of honor saying: And our baser parts are treated with greater modesty, namely, by human assiduity. Some members are called base in holy things, not on account of any baseness of sin, but on account of the disobedience of the genital parts, as a result of original sin. Or because they are directed to a base use, as the members which serve the emission of superfluities. To these a greater modesty is applied, when they are more carefully covered, which the members designed for nobler uses do not require. Hence he adds: Our more presentable parts do not require this, namely, external covering; hence no veil is used to cover the face. Likewise, in the Church those who are culpable in any matter must be admonished and guarded, as it says in Sir (42:11): “Keep strict watch over a headstrong daughter”; and in Gal (6:1): “If a man is overtaken in any sin, you who are spiritual should instruct him in a spirit of gentleness”; but those who are without guilt do not need this. It should be noted that he mentioned a triple difficulty in the members, namely, baseness, ignobility and weakness. The first of these refers to guilt in the members of the Church; the second to a servile condition; the third to the state of imperfection. Deinde cum dicit et Deus temperavit, etc., ponit causam praedicti cultus, et primo assignat causam efficientem primam. Licet enim homines taliter se habeant ad cultum membrorum, hoc tamen procedit ex ordinatione divina, unde dicit sed Deus temperavit corpus, abundantiorem honorem tribuendo ei membro cui deerat. Nam homines hoc faciunt ex quodam divino instinctu, secundum illud Iob XXXIII, 16: aperit aures virorum et erudiens eos instruit disciplina. 749. – Then when he says, But God has so composed, he proposes the cause of the above-mentioned care, and first he assigns the first efficient cause. For although men do take care of the members in this way, nevertheless it proceeds from the divine plan; hence he says: God has so composed the body, giving the greater honor to the inferior part. For men do this in virtue of a certain divine instinct, as it says in Jb (33:16): “Then he opens the ears of men and teaching, he instructs them in discipline. Secundo ponit causam finalem, dicens ut non sit schisma in corpore. Quod quidem sequeretur, si defectui membrorum non subveniretur. Hoc autem schisma quantum ad membra corporis mystici manifeste vitatur, dum pax Ecclesiae custoditur per hoc, quod singulis ea quae sunt necessaria attribuuntur. Unde et supra dictum est cap. I, v. 10: idipsum dicatis omnes, et non sint in vobis schismata. Sed quantum ad membra corporis naturalis, schisma esset in corpore si debita proportio membrorum tolleretur. 750. – Secondly, he proposes the final cause, saying: That there be no discord in the body. Which, of course, would follow, if no help were given to the body, is openly avoided, as long as the peace of the Church is maintained by giving to each person whatever is necessary. Hence it was said above (1:10): “Let all of you agree and let there be no dissensions among you.” But in regard to the members of the natural body, there would division in body, if the due proportion of the members were removed. Deinde cum dicit sed in idipsum, etc., ponit comparationem membrorum ad invicem quantum ad mutuam sollicitudinem. Et, primo, proponit eam, dicens: non solum praedicta membra operantur ad invicem, sed etiam per se invicem sunt sollicita in idipsum, id est in unitatem corporis conservandi. Et hoc quidem manifeste in corpore naturali apparet. Nam quodlibet membrum naturalem quamdam inclinationem habet ad iuvamentum aliorum membrorum. Unde et naturaliter homo opponit manum ad protegendum alia membra ab ictibus. Et similiter alii fideles, qui sunt membra corporis mystici, pro se invicem sollicitudinem gerunt, secundum illud Eccli. XVII, 12: unicuique mandavit Deus de proximo suo, et, Gal. VI, 2: alter alterius onera portate. 751. – Then when he says, But that the members, he presents a comparison of the members with one another in regard to mutual care. First, he proposes it, saying: Not only the above-mentioned members work for one another, but they are also of themselves solicitous for one another, i.e., by keeping them within the unity of the body. This is clearly evident in the natural body. For each member has a natural inclination to help the other members from blows. Similarly, the other believers, who are members of the mystical body, show solicitude for one another, according to Sir (17:14): “He gave commandment to each of them concerning his neighbor”; and Gal (6:2): “Carry one another’s burdens.” Secundo, specificat hanc sollicitudinem; et primo in malis, in quibus magis est manifestum. Unde dicit et si quid, scilicet mali, patitur unum membrum, compatiuntur omnia membra. Quod quidem manifestum est in corpore naturali. Nam uno membro languente, totum corpus quasi languescit, et ad locum languoris confluunt spiritus et humores quasi ad subveniendum. Et similiter debet esse in fidelibus Christi, ut unus, malo alterius compatiatur, secundum illud Iob XXX, 25: flebam quondam super eo qui afflictus erat, et anima mea compatiebatur. Secundo in bonis, unde subdit sive gloriatur, id est, quocumque modo vigoratur, unum membrum, congaudent omnia membra. Quod etiam manifestum est in corpore naturali, in quo vigor unius membri in iuvamentum cedit aliis membris. Sic debet etiam esse in membris Ecclesiae, ut unusquisque bonis alterius congaudeat. Phil. II, v. 17: gaudeo et congratulor omnibus vobis. Rom. XII, 15: gaudere cum gaudentibus, et flere cum flentibus. 752. – Secondly, he specifies this solicitude: first, in regard to evil, in which it is more obvious. Hence he says: If one suffers, namely, evil, all suffer together. This is obvious in the natural body. For if one member is ailing, the whole body, as it were, begins to ail; and spirits and humors flock to the ailing part to help it. And the same should happen among Christ’s faithful, so that one suffers along with the misfortune of another, according to John (30:25): “I used to weep over one who was afflicted, and my soul grieved.” Secondly, in good things; hence he adds: if one member is honored, i.e., is invigorated in any way, all the members rejoice. This is also noticeable in the natural body, in which the vigor of one member yields help to the other members. So, too, should it be in the members of the Church, that each should take joy in the welfare of another. “I am glad and rejoice with you all” (Phil 2:17); “Rejoice with those that rejoice; weep with those who weep” (Rom 12:15). Deinde cum dicit vos autem estis, etc., adaptat similitudinem ad propositum. Et, primo, quantum ad corporis unitatem, dicens vos autem, scilicet qui estis in unitate fidei congregati, estis corpus Christi, secundum illud Eph. I, 22 s.: ipsum dedit caput super omnem Ecclesiam, quae est corpus eius. Secundo quantum ad membrorum distinctionem, cum subdit et estis membra de membro. Quod potest intelligi tripliciter. Uno modo sic: estis membra dependentia de Christo membro, quod quidem dicitur membrum secundum humanitatem secundum quam, praecipue, dicitur Ecclesiae caput. Nam secundum divinitatem non habet rationem membri aut partis, cum sit commune bonum totius universi. Alio modo sic: vos estis membra dependentia de membro, inquantum per me Christo acquisiti estis, secundum illud, supra IV, 15: in Christo Iesu per Evangelium ego vos genui. Tertio modo posset exponi ut designaretur distinctio et series membrorum, ut sit sensus: vos estis membra de membro, id est ita distinguimini et ordinamini ad invicem, sicut unum membrum ad aliud. 753. – Then when he says: Now you are, he adapts the likeness to his proposition. First, in regard to the unity of the body, saying: Now you, who are assembled in the unity of faith, are the body of Christ, according to Eph (1:22): “He made him the head over all things for the church, which is his body.” Secondly, as to the distinction of members, when he adds: And individually members of it (members of a member). This can be understood in three ways: in one way thus: you are members depending on the member Christ, who is called a member in virtue of his human nature, in virtue of which, especially, He is called the head of the Church. For according to His godhead He does not have the nature of a member or of a part, since He is the common good of the entire universe. In another way thus: you are members depending on a member, inasmuch as it was through me that you were acquired for Christ, as was said above (4:15): “I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel.” In a third way, it could be explained so that the distinction and series of members is designated, so that the sense it this: you are members of a member, i.e., you are distinguished and arranged in such a way that to one another, as one member to another. Deinde cum dicit et quosdam quidem, etc., prosequitur de distinctione ministrationum. Circa quod tria facit. Primo assignat ordinem ministrationum; secundo manifestat earum distinctionem, ibi numquid apostoli omnes, etc.; tertio ordinat eorum affectionem circa diversas administrationes et gratias, ibi aemulamini autem, et cetera. Circa primum duo facit. Primo ponit maiores seu principales administrationes; secundo ministrationes secundarias, ibi opitulationes, et cetera. 754. – Then when he says: And God had appointed, he discusses the distinction of ministries. In regard to this he does three things: first, he assigns the order of ministries; secondly, he explains their difference (v. 29); thirdly, he tempers their affection for various ministries and grace (v. 31). In regard to the first he does two things: first, he presents the greater or principal ministries; secondly, the secondary ministries (v. 28b). Maiores autem ministri in Ecclesia sunt apostoli ad quorum officium tria pertinent, quorum primum est auctoritas gubernandi fidelem populum, quae proprie pertinet ad officium apostolatus; secundo facultas docendi; tertio potestas miracula faciendi ad confirmationem doctrinae. Et de his tribus habetur Lc. IX, 1 s., ubi dicitur: convocatis Iesus duodecim apostolis, dedit illis virtutem et potestatem super omnia Daemonia, et ut languores curarent, et misit illos praedicare regnum Dei. In omnibus autem potestatibus seu virtutibus ordinatis, illud quod est principale reservatur supremae potestati; alia vero etiam inferioribus communicantur. Potestas autem faciendi miracula, ordinatur ad doctrinam sicut ad fidem, secundum illud Marc. ult.: sermonem confirmante sequentibus signis. Doctrina autem ordinatur ad gubernationem populi sicut ad finem, secundum illud Ier. III, 15: dabo vobis pastores secundum cor meum, et pascent vos in scientia et doctrina. Et ideo primus gradus inter ecclesiastica ministeria est apostolorum, quibus specialiter competit Ecclesiae regimen. Et propter hoc dicit et Deus posuit, id est ordinate collocavit, in Ecclesia, quosdam, scilicet in determinatis ministeriis, secundum illud Io. XV, 16: posui vos, ut eatis. Primum quidem apostolos, quorum regimini commisit Ecclesiam, secundum illud Lc. XXII, v. 29: ego dispono vobis, sicut disposuit mihi pater meus regnum. Unde et Apoc. XXI, v. 19 s. super duodecim fundamenta civitatis describuntur duodecim apostolorum nomina. Propter quod et ipsi inter caeteros fideles primatum in spiritualibus gratiis obtinuerunt, secundum illud Rom. VIII, 23: nos ipsi primitias spiritus habentes. Et quamvis ad apostolos praecipue pertineat doctrinae officium, quibus dictum est Matth. ult.: euntes docete omnes gentes, tamen alii in communionem huius officii assumuntur, quorum quidam per seipsos revelationes a Deo accipiunt, qui dicuntur prophetae; quidam vero de his, quae sunt aliis revelata, populum instruunt, qui dicuntur doctores, unde subdit secundo prophetas, qui etiam in novo testamento fuerunt. Quod enim dicitur Matth. XI, 13: lex et prophetae usque ad Ioannem, intelligitur de prophetis qui futurum Christi adventum praenuntiaverunt. Tertio doctores, unde et Act. XIII, 1 dicitur: erant in Ecclesia quae erat Antiochiae, prophetae et doctores. Similiter etiam et gratia miraculorum fuit aliis communicata, quae primitus a Christo data fuit apostolis, unde subdit deinde virtutes, qui scilicet miracula faciunt circa ipsa elementa mundi. Gal. III, 5: operatur virtutes in nobis. Quantum autem ad miracula quae fiunt in corporibus humanis, subdit exinde gratias curationum, secundum illud Lc. IX, 1: ut languores curarent. 755. – The great ministers in the Church are the apostles, to who office pertain three things, the first of which is the authority to govern the faithful, which properly belongs to the apostolic office; secondly, the faculty of teaching; thirdly, the power to work miracles to confirm doctrine. Concerning these three it says in Lk (9:1): “And he called the twelve together and gave them power and authority over all demons and to cure all diseases, and he sent them out to preach the kingdom of God.” But in all powers or virtues set in order, that which is chief is reserved to the supreme power; others are even communicated to lower powers. But the power to work miracles is ordained to teaching, as to the faith, according to Mk (16:20): “The Lord confirmed the message by the signs that attended it.” But teaching is directed to governing the people as to an end according to Jer (3:15): “I will give you shepherds after my own heart, who will feed you with knowledge and understanding.” Therefore, the first degree among ecclesiastical ministries is that of the apostles, to whom the government of the Church belongs in a special way. For this reason he says: And God has appointed, i.e., set in orderly fashion, in the Church certain ones, namely, in definite ministries, as it says in John (15:16): “I appointed you that you should go,” first apostles, to whose rule he entrusted the Church, according to Lk (22:29): “As my Father appointed a kingdom for me, so do I appoint for you.” Hence, too, Rev (21:19) says that over the foundations of the city were written the name of the twelve apostles. For this reason they obtained among the rest of the faithful a primacy in spiritual graces, as it says in Rom (8:23): “We ourselves who have the first fruits of the Spirit.” Although the office of teaching belongs primarily to the apostles, to whom it was said in Matt (28:10): “Going, teach all nations,” yet others are allowed to communicate in this office, some of whom receive revelations of God directly and are called prophets; but others instruct the people in matters revealed to others and are called teachers. Hence he adds, second prophets, who even existed in the Old Testament. For the statement in Matt (11:13): “The law and the prophets prophesied until John,” is understood of prophets who foretold the coming of Christ. Third teachers; hence it says in Ac (13:1): “In the church at Antioch there were prophets and teachers.” Likewise the grace of miracles was communicated to others, although originally it had been given to the apostles; hence he adds: then workers of miracles, who work miracles affecting the elements of the world: “He works miracles among you” (Gal 3:5). But as to miracles done on human bodies, he says: then healers, according to what is said in Lk (9:1): “He gave them power to heal.” Deinde cum dicit opitulationes, etc., ponit minores sive secundarias administrationes, quarum quaedam ordinantur ad regimen Ecclesiae, quod ad apostolatus dignitatem pertinere diximus; quaedam vero ad doctrinam. Ad regimen Ecclesiae pertinent in generali quaedam opitulationes, id est illi qui opem ferunt maioribus praelatis in universali regimine, sicut archidiaconi episcopis, secundum illud Phil. IV, 3: adiuva illas quae mecum laboraverunt in Evangelio cum Clemente et caeteris adiutoribus meis. In speciali autem ponit gubernationes, sicut sunt parochiales sacerdotes, quibus committitur gubernatio aliquarum particularium plebium. Prov. XI, v. 14: ubi non est gubernator, corruet populus. Ad doctrinam autem pertinet secundario, quod subdit linguarum genera, quantum ad illos qui variis linguis loquuntur magnalia, ut dicitur Act. II, 4; nec scilicet propter varietatem idiomatum evangelica doctrina impediretur. Quantum vero ad amovendum impedimentum doctrinae, quod posset provenire ex obscuritate sermonum, subdit interpretationes sermonum. Infra XIV, 13: qui loquitur lingua, oret ut interpretetur. 756. – Then when he says, helpers, he mentions the minor or secondary ministries, some of which are directed to the ruling of the Church, which we have said pertains to the apostolic dignity; but others pertain to teaching. To the rule of the Church pertain in general certain services, i.e., those who help the major prelates in the universal rule of the Church, as archdeacons help bishops, according to Phil (4:3): “Help these women, for they have labored side by side with me together with Clement and the rest of my fellow workers.” In particular he mentions, administrators, such as parish priests, to whom it entrusted the care of certain people: “Where there is no guidance a people falls” (Pr 11:14). To teaching pertains secondarily what he calls speakers in various kinds of tongues as to those who speak marvelous things in various tongues (Ac 2:4), lest the teaching of the gospel be hindered by the variety of dialects. In regard to removing hindrances to teaching which could arise from obscure speech he mentions interpretations of speeches: “He who speaks in a tongue should pray for the power to interpret” (1 Cor 14:13). Deinde cum dicit numquid omnes apostoli, etc., manifestat distinctionem praedictarum ministrationum, dicens numquid omnes in Ecclesia sunt apostoli? Quasi dicat: non. Numquid omnes prophetae? et cetera. Ex quo patet diversitas harum administrationum. Eccli. XXXIII, 11: in multitudine disciplinae domini separavit eos. Et XXXVII, v. 31: non omnia omnibus expediunt. 757. – Then when he says, Are all apostles? Are all teachers? He clarifies the distinction among these ministries, saying, Are all in the Church apostles? As if to say: No! Are all teachers? This shows the variety of these ministries: “In the fullness of his knowledge the Lord distinguished them” (Sir 33:11). Deinde cum dicit aemulamini autem, etc., ordinat eorum affectum circa praedicta spiritualia dona, dicens: cum multa sint dona spiritus sancti, ut dictum est, aemulamini, id est desiderate, charismata meliora, id est gratias potiores, ut scilicet magis desideretis ea quae sunt meliora, puta prophetiam quam donum linguarum, ut infra c. XIII, 1 s. dicetur. I Thess. ult.: omnia probate, quod bonum est tenete. Et ne in praemissis donis eorum affectus quiesceret, subdit et adhuc excellentiorem viam vobis demonstro, scilicet charitatem, qua directius in Deum itur. Ps. CXVIII, 32: viam mandatorum tuorum cucurri. Is. c. XXX, 21: haec est via, ambulate in ea. 758. – Then when he says, But earnestly, he rectifies their affection for the above spiritual gifts, saying: Since there are many gifts of the Holy Spirit, earnestly desire the higher gifts, namely, have a stronger desire for the better graces; for example, prophecy than the gift of tongues, as will be said below (13:1); “Test everything; hold fast what is good” (1 Th 5:21). And in order that their affections may not come to rest in the above-mentioned gifts, he adds: I will show you a still more excellent way, namely, the way of charity, by which one goes to God in a more direct way: “I will run in the way of thy commandments” (Ps 119:32); “This is the way, walk in it” (Is 30:21).
13-1
1 Cor 13:1-3Reportatio Reginaldi de Piperno
Vulgate:Apostolus gratiarum gratis datarum distinctionem assignavit, et ministrationum in quibus membra Ecclesiae distinguuntur, hic agit de charitate, quae inseparabiliter concomitatur gratiam gratum facientem. Et quia promiserat eis se demonstraturum viam excellentiorem, ostendit praeeminentiam charitatis ad caetera gratuita dona. Et primo quantum ad necessitatem, quia scilicet sine charitate alia dona gratuita non sufficiunt; secundo quantum ad utilitatem, quia scilicet per charitatem omnia mala vitantur, et omnia bona aguntur, ibi charitas patiens est, etc.; tertio quantum ad permanentiam, ibi charitas numquam excidit, et cetera. Omnia autem dona gratuita reducere videtur apostolus ad tria. Nam primo ostendit quod donum linguarum, quod pertinet ad locutionem, sine charitate non valet; secundo quod etiam non valent ea quae pertinent ad cognitionem, ibi et si habuero prophetiam, etc.; tertio ostendit idem de his quae pertinent ad operationem, ibi et si distribuero in cibos pauperum, et cetera. 759. – Having assigned the differences among charismatic graces and the ministries in which the members of the Church are distinguished, the Apostle now deals with charity, which is inseparably connected with sanctifying grace. And because he had promised to show them a more excellent way, he shows how charity outranks the others, i.e., the charismatic graces. First, in regard to its necessity, namely, because without charity the other gifts are not enough; secondly, as to their utility, namely, because through charity all evils are avoided and good is performed (v. 4); thirdly, as to its permanence (v. 8). But all the charismatic gifts seem to be reduced to three by the Apostle: for, first, he shows that the gift of tongues, which pertains to speech, is of no value without charity; secondly, that those which pertain to knowledge are of no value without charity: (v. 2); thirdly, he shows the same for the gifts which pertain to works (v. 3). Erat autem apud Corinthios multum desiderabile donum linguarum, ut infra c. XIV T. patebit; et ideo, ab eo incipiens, dicit: promisi me demonstraturum excellentiorem viam, et hoc primo patet in dono linguarum, quia si linguis hominum, scilicet omnium, loquar, id est, si habuero donum gratiae, per quod loqui possim linguis omnium hominum; et ad maiorem abundantiam subdit et Angelorum: charitatem autem non habeam, factus sum velut aes sonans aut cymbalum tinniens. Recta comparatione utitur. Anima enim per charitatem vivit quae vivit Deo, qui est animae vita, secundum illud Deut. XXX, 20: ipse est vita tua. Unde et I Io. III, 14 dicitur: translati sumus de morte ad vitam, quoniam diligimus fratres; qui non diligit manet in morte. 760. – The Corinthians had a great desire for the gift of tongues, as will be shown in chap. 14; therefore, beginning with that he says: I have promised to show you a more excellent way; and this is, first of all, clear in the gift of tongues, because, if I speak in the tongues of men, namely, of all, i.e., if I should have the gift through which I could speak in the languages of all men; and for greater abundance he adds: and of angels, but have not charity, I am a noisy gang or a clanging cymbal. He uses the right comparison. For the soul lives through charity, which lives through God, Who is the life of the soul, as it says in Dt (30:20): “He is your life.” Hence, too, it says in 1 John (3:14): “We know that we have passed out of death into life, because we love the brethren. He who does not love remains in death.” Recte ergo comparat loquelam charitate carentem, sono rei mortuae, scilicet aeris aut cymbali, qui licet clarum sonum reddat, non tamen est vivus sed mortuus. Ita etiam locutio hominis charitate carentis, quantumcumque sit diserta, tamen habetur pro mortua, quia non proficit ad meritum vitae aeternae. Est autem differentia inter aes sonans et cymbalum tinniens, quia aes, cum sit planum, ex percussione simplicem sonum emittit; cymbalum autem, cum sit concavum, ex una percussione sonum multiplicat, quod pertinet ad tinnitum. Aeri ergo comparantur qui veritatem simpliciter pronuntiant, cymbalo vero qui veritatem multiplicant et pronuntiant, multas rationes et similitudines apponendo, et conclusiones plurimas eliciendo, quae tamen omnia sine charitate habentur ut mortua. 761. – Correctly, therefore, does he compare speech without charity to the sound of a dead thing, namely, a brass gong and a cymbal, which, although they produce a clear sound, are not living but dead. So, too, the speech of a man without charity, no matter how erudite, is considered dead, because it does not yield merit for eternal life. There is a difference between a sounding brass gong and a tinkling cymbal, because brass, since it is flat, gives forth a simple sound, when it is struck; but a cymbal, since it is concave, when it is struck once, multiples the sound, which pertains to clanging. To brass, therefore, are compared those who pronounce the truth simply, but to the cymbal those who multiply the truth and present it by adding many reasons and similitudes and by drawing very many connections: all of which, without charity, are regarded as dead. Considerandum est autem quae linguae Angelorum dicantur. Nam cum lingua sit membrum corporeum et ad eius usum pertineat donum linguarum, quod interdum lingua dicitur, ut patebit infra XVI, neutrum videtur Angelis competere qui membra non habent. Potest ergo dici quod per Angelos intelliguntur homines Angelorum officium habentes, qui scilicet aliis hominibus divina annuntiant, secundum illud Mal. II, 7: labia sacerdotis custodiunt scientiam, et legem requirunt ex ore eius, quia Angelus domini exercituum est. Sub hoc ergo sensu dicitur si linguis hominum loquar et Angelorum, id est non solum minorum sed etiam maiorum qui alios docent. Potest etiam intelligi de ipsis incorporeis Angelis, prout in Ps. CIII, 4 dicitur: qui facit Angelos suos spiritus. Et quamvis non habeant linguam corpoream, per similitudinem tamen lingua in eis dici potest vis, qua manifestant aliis quod habent in mente. 762. – But it should be noted what is meant by the tongues of angels. For since the tongue is a bodily member and to its use pertains the gift of tongues, which is sometimes called a tongue, as will be clear (c. 16), neither seems to belong to angels, who do not have members. Therefore, it can be said that by angels are understood men with the office of angels, namely, who announce divine things to other men according to Mal (2:7): “The lips of the priest should guard knowledge, and men should seek instruction from his mouth, for he is the angel of the Lord of hosts.” Therefore, under this sense, If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, i.e., not only of the lesser but even of the greater who teach others. It can also be understood of the incorporeal angel, as it says in Ps: 104 (v. 4): “Who makes your angels spirits.” And although they do no have a bodily tongue, by a likeness the power by which they manifest their thoughts to others can be called a tongue. Est autem sciendum quod in cognitione mentis angelicae aliquid est, de quo superiores Angeli non loquuntur inferioribus, neque e converso, scilicet ipsa divina essentia quam omnes immediate vident, Deo se omnibus monstrante, secundum illud Ier. c. XXXI, 34: non docebit ultra vir proximum suum, et vir fratrem suum, dicens: cognosce dominum. Omnes enim cognoscent me a minimo usque ad maximum eorum. Aliquid autem est in cognitione mentis angelicae, de quo superiores loquuntur inferioribus, sed non econverso. Et huiusmodi sunt divinae providentiae mysteria, quorum plura cognoscunt in ipso Deo superiores, qui clarius eum vident quam inferiores. Unde superiores de huiusmodi inferiores instruunt vel illuminant, quod locutio potest dici. Aliquid vero est in cognitione mentis angelicae, de quo superiores loquuntur inferioribus et econverso; et huiusmodi sunt occulta cordium quae ex libero arbitrio dependent, quae soli Deo patent, et his quorum sunt, secundum illud supra II, 11: quae sunt hominis, nemo novit nisi spiritus hominis qui in ipso est. Quae in notitiam alterius deveniunt, eo cuius sunt manifestante, sive sit inferior, sive superior. Fit autem huiusmodi manifestatio dum inferior Angelus superiori loquitur, non per illuminationem, sed per quemdam significationis modum. Est enim in quolibet Angelo aliquid quod naturaliter ab altero Angelo cognoscitur. Dum ergo id quod est naturaliter notum, proponitur ut signum eius quod est ignotum, manifestatur occultum. Et talis manifestatio dicitur locutio ad similitudinem hominum, qui occulta cordium manifestant aliis per voces sensibiles, aut per quodcumque aliud corporale exterius apparens. Unde et ea, quae sunt in Angelis naturaliter nota, inquantum assumuntur ad manifestationem occultorum, dicuntur signa vel nutus. Potestas autem manifestandi conceptum suum hoc modo metaphorice lingua nominatur. 763. – But it should be known that in the knowledge of the angelic mind is something about which the higher angels do not speak to the lower, or vice versa, namely, the divine essence, which they all see immediately, God showing Himself to all, as it says in Jer (31:34): “And no longer shall each man teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord.’ For all shall know immediately, from the least to the greatest.” But in the angelic mind is something about which the higher angels speak to the lower, but not vice versa. Such are the mysteries of divine providence. The higher angels know more of these mysteries, because they see Him more clearly than the lower. Hence, the higher angels instruct and enlighten the lower angels about these things – and this can be called speech. But something is in the angelic knowledge about which the higher speak to the lower, and vice versa. These are the secrets of the heart which depend on free will and are known to God alone and to those with the secret, as it says above (2:11): “For what person knows a man’s thoughts except the spirit of the man which is in him”? These reach another’s knowledge when the one whose they are reveals them, whether it be a lower or a higher. A manifestation of this kind happens when a lower angel speaks to a higher, not by enlightening but by some form of signification. For in each angel is something which is naturally known by another angel. Therefore, when that which is naturally known is proposed as a sign of that which is unknown, the occult is manifested. And such a manifestation is called speech after the likeness of men who manifest the secrets of their hearts to others by means of sensible words or through other bodily things outwardly apparent. Hence, even things naturally known in angels, inasmuch as they are employed to manifest secrets, are called signs or nods. But the power of manifesting his own concept in this way is called a tongue metaphorically. Deinde cum dicit et si habuero, etc., ostendit idem de his quae pertinent ad cognitionem. Est autem attendendum quod supra proposuit quatuor dona gratuita ad cognitionem pertinentia, scilicet sapientiam, scientiam, fidem et prophetiam. Incipit ergo hic a prophetia, dicens et si habuero prophetiam, per quam divinitus occulta revelantur, secundum illud II Petr. I, 21: non enim voluntate humana allata est aliquando prophetia, sed spiritu sancto inspirati locuti sunt sancti Dei homines. Secundo, quantum ad sapientiam, subdit et noverim omnia mysteria, id est occulta divinitatis, quod pertinet ad sapientiam, secundum illud supra II, 7: loquimur Dei sapientiam in mysterio absconditam. Tertio, quantum ad scientiam, dicit et omnem scientiam, sive humanitus acquisitam, sicut habuerunt philosophi, sive divinitus infusam, sicut habuerunt eam apostoli. Sap. c. VII, 17: dedit mihi eorum quae sunt veram scientiam. Quarto, quantum ad fidem, subdit et si habuero omnem fidem, ita ut montes transferam. Potest autem exponi id quod dicit omnem fidem, id est omnium articulorum; sed merito est ut exponatur omnem, id est perfectam fidem, propter illud quod subditur ita ut montes transferam. Dicitur enim Matth. XVII, 19: si habueritis fidem sicut granum sinapis, dicetis monti huic: transi hinc, et transibit. Et quamvis granum sinapis sit minimum quantitate, non tamen intelligitur parva, sed perfecta fides grano sinapis comparari. Dicitur enim Matth. XXI, v. 21: si habueritis fidem, et non haesitaveritis, non solum de ficulnea facietis, sed etiam si monti huic dixeritis: tolle et iacta te in mare, fiet. Fides ergo quae non haesitat, grano sinapis comparatur, quod quanto magis atteritur, tanto magis eius fortitudo sentitur. 764. – Then when he says, and if I have prophecy, he shows the same about things pertaining to knowledge. But it should be noted that above he proposed four charismatic graces pertaining to knowledge, namely, wisdom, knowledge, faith and prophecy. He begins here with prophecy, saying, if I have prophetic powers, through which secrets are divinely revealed, as it says in 2 Pt (1:21): “No prophecy every came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.” Secondly, as to wisdom, he adds: and understood all mysteries, i.e., the secrets of the divinity which pertains to wisdom, as it says above (2:7): “We impart a secret and hidden wisdom of God.” Thirdly, as to knowledge as he says: and all knowledge, whether humanly acquired as by the philosophers or divinely infused as in the apostles: “It was he who gave me unerring knowledge of what exists” (Wis 7:17). Fourthly, as to faith he adds: and if I have all faith so as to remove mountains. It is possible to explain all faith as all the articles; but it is useful to explain all, i.e., perfect faith on account of what is added: as to remove mountains. For it says in Matt (17:20): “If you have faith as a grain of mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, ‘Move hence to yonder place,’ and it will move.” And although a grain of mustard seed is very tiny, it is not considered tiny, but perfect faith is compared to a grain of mustard seed: “If you have faith and never doubt, you will not only do what has been done to the fig tree, but even if you say to this mountain, ‘Be taken up and cast into the sea,’ it will be done” (Matt. 21:21). Faith, therefore, which does not doubt is compared to a grain of mustard seed, which, the more it is rubbed, the more its strength is sensed. Obiiciunt autem aliqui quod cum multi sancti perfectam fidem habuerint, nullus legitur montes transtulisse; quod quidem solvitur per id quod supra XII, 7 dictum est: unicuique datur manifestatio spiritus ad utilitatem. Illo nempe modo, loco et tempore miracula per gratiam spiritus sancti fiunt, quo Ecclesiae requiritur utilitas. Fecerunt autem sancti multo maiora, quam translationem montium, prout erat fidelibus utile, puta suscitando mortuos, dividendo mare et alia huiusmodi opera faciendo. Et hoc etiam fecissent, si necessitas adfuisset. Potest etiam hoc transferri ad expulsionem Daemonum de humanis corporibus, qui montes dicuntur propter superbiam. Ier. XIII, 16: antequam offendant pedes vestri ad montes caliginosos, ecce ego ad te, mons pestifer, qui corrumpis universam terram. Attribuitur autem operatio miraculorum fidei non haesitanti, quia fides innititur omnipotentiae, per quam miracula fiunt. 765. – But some object that although many saints had perfect faith, no one is recorded to have moved mountains. This is solved by what is said above (12:7): “To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good,” i.e., in that time, place and manner miracles are worked by the grace of the Holy Spirit as the needs of the Church require. But many saints have done much greater things than moving mountains, according as it was useful to the faith: for example, by raising the dead, dividing the sea and performing other works of this nature. And they would have done this, if it had been necessary. This can also be referred to the expulsion of demons from human bodies, who are called mountains on account of pride: “Before your feet stumble on the twilight mountains, I am against you, O destroying mountain, which destroys the whole earth” (Jer 13:16). The working of miracles is attributed to faith that does not doubt, because faith rests on omnipotence, through which miracles are performed. Si, inquam, habuero omnia praedicta ad perfectionem intellectus pertinentia, charitatem autem non habuero, per quam perficitur voluntas, nihil sum, scilicet secundum esse gratiae, de quo dicitur Eph. II, 10: ipsius sumus factura, creati in Christo Iesu in operibus bonis. Unde et contra quemdam dicitur Ez. XXVII, 19: nihil factus es, et non eris in perpetuum. Quod quidem fit propter defectum charitatis, per quam homo bene utitur intellectu perfecto. Sine charitate autem eius usus bonus non est. Unde et supra c. VIII, 1 dicitur, quod scientia inflat, charitas aedificat. 766. – If, I say, I had all the above pertaining to the perfection of the intellect, and have not charity, through which the intellect is perfected, I am nothing, according to the order of grace, about which it says in Eph (2:10): “For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works.” Hence Ez (28:19) says against someone: “You have come to a dreadful end, and shall be no more forever.” This occurs on account of a lack of charity, however, its use is not good. Hence it says above (8:1): “Knowledge puffs up, but charity builds up.” Est autem notandum quod apostolus hic loquitur de sapientia et scientia, secundum quod pertinent ad dona gratiae gratis datae, quae sine charitate esse possunt. Nam secundum quod computantur inter septem dona spiritus sancti, numquam sine charitate habentur. Unde et Sap. I, 4 dicitur: in malevolam animam non intrabit sapientia. Et Sap. X, 10 dicitur: dedit illi scientiam sanctorum. De prophetia autem et fide manifestum est, quod sine charitate haberi possunt. Sed notandum est hic quod fides firma, etiam sine charitate, miracula facit. Unde, Matth. VII, 22, dicentibus: nonne in nomine tuo prophetavimus, et multas virtutes fecimus? Dicitur: numquam novi vos. Spiritus enim sanctus operatur virtutes etiam per malos, sicut et per eos loquitur veritatem. 767. – But it should be noted that the Apostle speaks here about wisdom and knowledge as they pertain to the charismatic gifts, which cannot be without charity. For accordingly as they are numbered among the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit, they are never possessed without charity. Hence, Wis (1:4) says: “Wisdom will not enter a deceitful soul,” and Wis (10:10): “She gave him the knowledge of holy things.” As far as prophecy and faith are concerned, it is clear that they cannot be possessed without faith. But it should be noted here that strong faith, even without charity, can perform miracles. Hence, Matt (7:22): “Did we not prophesy in your name and do many mighty works in your name?” The answer is given: “I know you not.” For the Holy Spirit works wonders even through the wicked, just as He speaks the truth through them. Deinde cum dicit et si distribuero, etc., ostendit idem in his quae pertinent ad opera, quae consistunt in hoc quod homo faciat bona, secundum illud Gal. VI, v. 9: bonum facientes, non deficiamus; et in hoc quod patienter sustineat mala, secundum illud Ps. XCI, 15 s.: bene patientes erunt, ut annuntient. Inter caetera vero bona opera magis commendantur opera pietatis, secundum illud I Tim. IV, 8: pietas ad omnia utilis est. Circa quod opus quatuor conditiones designat. Quarum prima est, quod opus pietatis non totum congregetur in unum, sed dividatur in plures, secundum illud Ps. CXI, 9: dispersit, dedit pauperibus. Et hoc designatur cum dicitur si distribuero. Secundo ut opus pietatis fiat ad subveniendum necessitati, non ad serviendum superfluitati, secundum illud Is. LVIII, 7: frange esurienti panem tuum, et hoc designatur, cum dicitur in cibos pauperum. Tertio ut opus pietatis exhibeatur indigentibus, secundum illud Lc. XIV, 13: cum facis convivium, voca pauperes; et hoc designatur, cum dicitur pauperum. Quarto ad perfectionem pertinet, ut homo omnia bona sua in opera pietatis expendat, secundum illud Matth. XIX, 21: si vis perfectus esse, vade, vende omnia quae habes, et da pauperibus; et hoc designatur, cum dicitur omnes facultates meas. 768. – Then when he says: And if I give away, he shows the same in matters pertaining to works which consists in man’s doing good works, as it says in Gal (6:9): “Let us not grow weary in well-doing,” and in his enduring evils patiently: “For justice will return to the righteous and all the upright in heart will follow it.” (Ps 94:15). Among the rest of the good works more commendation is paid to acts of piety, as it says in 1 Tim (4:8): “Piety is of value in every way.” In regard to this work he designates four conditions: the first is that the work of piety not be entirely gathered into one but divided among many, as it says in Ps 112 (v. 9): “He has distributed freely, he has given to the poor.” And this is designated when he says, if I give away. Secondly, that the work of piety be performed to relieve a need, not to serve a superfluity, as it says in Is (58:17): “Share your bread with the hungry”; and this is designated when he says, as food for the poor. Thirdly, that the work of piety be directed to those in need, according to Lk (14:13): “When you give a feast, invite the poor,” and this is designated when he says, for the poor. Fourthly, it pertains to perfection that a man expend all his goods for the works of piety, as it says in Matt (19:21): “If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor,” and this is designated when he says, all that you have. Inter mala vero quae quis sustinet patienter, potissimum est martyrium. Unde dicitur Matth. V, 10: beati qui persecutionem patiuntur propter iustitiam. Quod etiam quadrupliciter commendat. Primo quidem, quia laudabilius est quod, necessitate imminente, puta propter defensionem fidei, seipsum offerat passioni, quam si deprehensus patiatur. Et ideo dicit si tradidero. Sicut et de Christo dicitur Eph. V, 2: tradidit semetipsum pro nobis. Secundo quia gravior est corporis humani iactura, quam rerum, de quo tamen quidam commendantur Hebr. X, 34: rapinam bonorum vestrorum cum gaudio sustinuistis. Et ideo dicit corpus. Is. l, 6: dedi corpus meum percutientibus. Tertio laudabilius est quod aliquis exponat corpus suum supplicio, quam corpus filii, vel cuiuscumque propinqui, de quo tamen commendatur quaedam mulier II Mac. VII, 20: supra modum videtur mirabilis et bonorum memoria digna, quae pereuntes septem filios sub unius diei tempore conspiciens, bono animo ferebat. Et ideo dicit meum. Iudicum V, v. 9: qui propria voluntate obtulistis vos discrimini pro domino. Quarto redditur martyrium laudabilius ex acerbitate poenae, de quo subditur ita ut ardeam, sicut Laurentius. Eccli. l, 9: quasi ignis effulgens et thus ardens in igne. 769. – But among the evils which one endures patiently the greatest is martyrdom. Hence it says in Matt (5:10): “Blessed are those who suffer persecution for justice’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” This he commends in four ways: first, because it is more praiseworthy, when the need is imminent, for example, for the defense of the faith that one offer himself to suffering, than if he is apprehended and suffers. Therefore, he says, if I deliver. This is what is said of Christ in Eph (5:2): “He gave himself up for us.” Secondly, because loss to the human body is graver than loss of things, about which, however, some are commanded in Heb (10:34): “You joyfully accepted the plundering of your property. Therefore, he says, body: “I gave my back to the smiters” (Is. 50:6). Thirdly, it is more praiseworthy that one expose his body to punishment that they body of his son or some relative. About this a certain woman is commended in 2 Macc (7:21): “Though she saw her seven sons perish on a single day, she bore it with great courage.” And therefore he says, my: “My heart goes out to the commanders of Israel who offered themselves willingly more than the people” (Jg 5:9). Fourthly, martyrdom is rendered praiseworthy from the sharpness of the pain, concerning which he adds: to be burned, as Lawrence: “Like fire and incense in the censer.” Si, inquam, praedicta opera tam excellentia fecero, charitatem autem non habuero, vel quia simul cum praedictis operibus adest voluntas peccandi mortaliter, vel quia fiunt propter inanem gloriam, nihil mihi prodest, scilicet quantum ad meritum vitae aeternae, quae solis diligentibus Deum repromittitur, secundum illud Iob XXXVI, 33: annuntiat de ea amico suo quod possessio eius sit. Et notandum quod locutionem, quae est vox animalis, si sit sine charitate, comparat non existenti, opera autem quae fiunt propter fidem, si sint sine charitate, dicit esse infructuosa. Sap. III, 11: vacua est spes eorum, et labores sine fructu. 770. – If, I say, I should do the works mentioned, but I do not have charity, or because along with these works the will to sin mortally is present, or they are done for vain glory, I gain nothing, namely, as far as merit of eternal life is concerned, which is promised only to those who love God. And it should be noted that he compares speech, which is an animal voice, if it is without charity, to the non-existent, but works done for an end, if they are without charity, he calls fruitless: “Their hope is vain, their work unprofitable” (Wis 3:11).
13-2
1 Cor 13:4-7Reportatio Reginaldi de Piperno
Vulgate:Postquam apostolus ostendit charitatem esse adeo necessariam, quod sine ea nullum spirituale donum sufficiat ad salutem, hic ostendit eam adeo esse utilem et efficacis virtutis, quod per eam cuncta opera virtutis implentur. Et primo praemittit duo quasi generalia; secundo subiungit in speciali virtutum opera, quae per charitatem complentur, ibi charitas non aemulatur, et cetera. 771. – After showing that charity is so necessary that without it no spiritual gifts are sufficient for salvation, the Apostle now shows that it is so useful and of such efficacious strength that through it all virtuous works are completed. First, he makes two quasi-general statements: secondly, he mentions in particular the virtuous works which are completed by charity (v. 4b). Circa primum duo facit. Nam omnis virtus consistit in hoc quod aliquis in operando bene se habeat in sustinendo mala, vel in operando bona. Quantum ergo ad tolerantiam malorum, dicit charitas patiens est, id est facit patienter tolerari mala. Cum enim homo diligit aliquem propter eius amorem, de facili tolerat quaecumque difficilia; et similiter qui diligit Deum, propter eius amorem patienter tolerat quaecumque adversa. Unde et Cant. VIII, 7 dicitur: aquae multae non poterunt extinguere charitatem, nec flumina obruent eam. Iac. I, 4: patientia opus perfectum habet. 772. – In regard to the first he does two things. For every virtue consists in this that in acting, one is well disposed for enduing evil things, or in accomplishing good things. Therefore, in regard to enduring evil he says, charity is patient, i.e., makes one endure evils patiently. For when a man loves someone on account of the beloved’s love, he endures all difficulties with ease; similarly, a person who loves God patiently endures any adversity for love of Him. Hence it says in S. of S. (8:7): “Many waters cannot quench love, neither can floods drown it”; and in Jas (1:4): “Patience has a perfect work.” Quantum autem ad operationem bonorum, subdit benigna est; benignitas autem dicitur quasi bona igneitas, ut scilicet sicut ignis liquefaciendo effluere facit, ita charitas hoc efficit, ut bona quae homo habet, non sibi soli retineat, sed ad alios derivet, secundum illud Prov. V, 16: deriventur fontes tui foras, et in plateis aquas tuas divide. Quod quidem charitas facit. Unde I Io. III, 17 dicitur: qui habuerit substantiam huius mundi, et viderit fratrem suum necesse habere, et clauserit viscera sua ab eo, quomodo charitas Dei manet in eo? Unde et Eph. IV, 32 dicitur: estote invicem benigni et misericordes. Et Sap. I, 6 dicitur: benignus est spiritus sapientiae. 773. – But as to performing good works, he adds: is kind [benign]: benignity is described as a good fire, so that just as fire by melting metal makes it flow, so charity inclines a person not to keep the good things he has, but makes them flow to others, for it says in Pr (5:16): “Let your springs be scattered abroad, and streams of water in the streets,” and this is what charity does: hence, it says in 1 John (3:17): “If anyone has the world’s goods and sees a brother in need, yet closes his heart against him, how does God’s love abide him?” Hence, Eph (4:32) also says: “Be kind and merciful to one another,” and Wis (1:6): “Wisdom is kindly spirit.” Deinde cum dicit charitas non aemulatur, etc., proponit in speciali virtutum opera, quae charitas efficit, et quia ad virtutem duo pertinent, scilicet abstinere a malo et facere bonum, secundum illud Ps. XXXIII, v. 15: declina a malo, et fac bonum, et Is. c. I, 16 s.: quiescite agere perverse, discite benefacere. Primo ostendit quomodo charitas facit omnia mala vitare; secundo quomodo facit omnia bona efficere, ibi congaudet autem veritati, et cetera. Malum autem efficaciter non potest homo Deo facere, sed solum sibi et proximo, secundum illud Iob XXXV, 6: si peccaveris, quid ei nocebis? Et postea subditur: homini qui similis tui est, nocebit impietas tua. Primo ergo ostendit quomodo per charitatem vitantur mala, quae sunt contra proximum; secundo quomodo vitantur mala, quibus aliquis deordinatur in seipso, ibi non inflatur, et cetera. 774. – Then when he says, Love is not jealous, he mentions in particular the virtuous works which charity produces, and because two things pertain to a virtue, namely, to refrain from evil and to do good, as it says in Ps 34 (v. 14): “Depart from evil and do good”; and in Is (1:16): “Cease to do evil, learn to do good”; first, he shows how charity avoids all evil; secondly, how it accomplishes the good. (v. 4c). But man cannot do evil effectively to God, but only to himself and to his neighbor, as it says in Jb (35:6): “If you have sinned, what do you accomplish against him?” and later: (v. 8): “Your wickedness concerns a man like yourself.” First, therefore, he shows how charity avoids evils against one’s neighbor; secondly, how evils are avoided by which someone is disarranged in himself. Malum autem quod est contra proximum, potest esse in affectu et in effectu. In affectu autem praecipue est, cum per invidiam quis dolet de bonis proximi, quod directe contrariatur charitati, ad quam pertinet quod homo diligat proximum sicut seipsum, ut habetur Lev. XIX, 18. Et ideo ad charitatem pertinet, ut sicut homo gaudet de bonis propriis, ita gaudeat de bonis proximi. Ex quo sequitur quod charitas excludat invidiam. Et hoc est quod dicit charitas non aemulatur, id est non invidet, quia scilicet facit cavere invidiam. Unde et in Ps. XXXVI, 1 dicitur: noli aemulari in malignantibus. Et Prov. c. XXIII, 17: non aemuletur cor tuum peccatores. Quantum ad effectum, subdit non agit perperam, id est perverse contra aliquem. Nullus enim iniuste agit contra illum quem diligit sicut seipsum. Is. I, 16: quiescite agere perverse. 775. – Evil against one’s neighbor can exist in the will or emotions and externally. It exists in the former, especially when a person through envy grieves over his neighbor’s good. This is directly contrary to charity which inclines a person to love his neighbor as himself, as it says in Lev (19:18). Hence it pertains to charity that just as a person rejoices in his own goods, so he should rejoice in the goods of his neighbor. It follows from this that charity excludes envy. And this is what he says: Love is not jealous [envious]. Hence it says in Ps 37 (v. 1): “Be not envious of wrongdoers”; and in Pr (23:17): “Let not your heart envy sinners.” As to the outward effect he adds: it does not deal wrongly, i.e., perversely, against anyone. For no one deals unjustly against one he loves: “Cease to do evil” (Is. 1:16). Deinde cum dicit non inflatur etc., ostendit quomodo charitas facit vitare mala, quibus aliquis deordinatur in seipso. Et primo quantum ad passiones, secundo quantum ad electionem, ibi non cogitat malum. Ostendit ergo primo quod charitas repellit inordinatam passionem, quantum ad tria. 776. – Then when he says, is not arrogant, he shows that charity makes one avoid evils by which one is disarranged in himself. First, as to passions; secondly, as to choice (v. 5b). Primo quidem quantum ad superbiam, quae est inordinatus appetitus propriae excellentiae. Tunc autem inordinate suam excellentiam quis appetit, quando non sufficit ei contineri in eo gradu, qui sibi est a Deo praestitus. Et ideo dicitur Eccli. X, 14: initium superbiae hominis, apostatare a Deo. Quod quidem fit, dum homo non vult contineri sub regula ordinationis divinae. Et hoc repugnat charitati, qua quis super omnia Deum diligit. Col. II, 18 s.: inflatus sensu carnis suae, et non tenens caput, et cetera. Recte autem superbia inflationi comparatur. Nam id quod inflatur, non habet solidam magnitudinem, sed apparentem; ita superbi videntur quidem esse sibi magni, cum tamen vera magnitudine careant, quae non potest esse absque ordine divino. Sap. IV, v. 19: dirumpet illos inflatos sine voce. 777. – First, indeed, as to pride, which is a disarranged desire for one’s own excellence. One seeks his own excellence in a disarranged manner, when it does not satisfy him to be contained in that station which has been established for him by God. Therefore it says in Sir (10:12): “The beginning of man’s pride is to depart from the Lord.” This happens when a man does not wish to be contained under the rule of God’s arrangement. And this is opposed to charity, by which one loves God above all things: “Puffed by without reason by this sensuous mind and not holing fast to the head” (Col 2:18). It is right to compare pride to arrogance [being puffed up]. For that which is puffed up does not have solidity but its appearance; so the proud seem to themselves to be great, while they really lack true greatness, which cannot exist without the divine order: “He will dash them speechless to the ground” (Wis 4:19). Est autem principalis superbiae filia, ambitio, per quam aliquis quaerit praeesse; quam etiam charitas excludit, quae potius proximis eligit ministrare, secundum illud Gal. V, 13: per charitatem spiritus servite invicem. Et ideo subdit non est ambitiosa, id est, facit hominem ambitionem vitare. Eccli. VII, 4: noli quaerere ab homine ducatum, neque a rege cathedram honoris. 778. – The chief daughter of pride is ambition, through which one seeks to be foremost; which charity also excludes, seeking rather to serve, as it says in Gal (5:13): “Through love be servants of one another.” Therefore, he adds: is not ambitious, i.e., makes a man avoid ambition: (Sir 7:4): “Do not seek from the Lord the highest office nor the seat of honor from the king.” Secundo, ostendit quomodo charitas excludit inordinationem cupiditatis, cum dicit non quaerit quae sua sunt, ut intelligatur cum praecisione, id est neglectis bonis aliorum. Nam qui diligit alios sicut seipsum, bona aliorum quaerit sicut et sui ipsius. Unde et supra X, 33 apostolus dixit non quaerens quod mihi utile est, sed quod multis, ut salvi fiant. Contra quod de quibusdam dicitur Phil. II, 21: omnes quae sua sunt quaerunt, non quae Iesu Christi. Potest et aliter intelligi non quaerit quae sua sunt, id est, non repetit ea quae sunt sibi ablata, scilicet in iudicio cum scandalo: quia magis amat salutem proximi, quam pecuniam, secundum illud Phil. ult.: non quaero datum, sed requiro fructum abundantem in iustitia vestra. Quod tamen qualiter intelligendum sit, supra VI dictum est. 779. – Secondly, he shows how charity excludes the disorder of cupidity, when he says: Love does not seek its own. This is understood precisely, i.e., it does not neglect the good of others. For one who loves others as himself seeks the good of others just as his own. Hence the Apostle said above (10:10): “Not seeking my own advantage, but that of many.” Against which it is said of some: “They all look after their own interests, not those of Jesus Christ” (Phil 2:21). It is possible to understand in another way that love does not seek its own, i.e., it does not seek the return of what has been taken from it, namely, in a court case with scandal; because he loves the salvation of his neighbor more than money, as it says in Phil (4:17): “Not that I seek the gift; but I seek the fruit which increases to your credit.” Tertio, ostendit quomodo charitas excludat inordinationem irae, dicens non irritatur, id est non provocatur ad iram. Est enim ira inordinatus appetitus vindictae. Ad charitatem autem pertinet magis remittere offensas, quam supra modum aut inordinate vindicare, secundum illud Col. III, v. 13: donantes vobismetipsis, si quis adversus aliquem habet querelam; Iac. I, 20: ira viri iustitiam Dei non operatur. 780. – Thirdly, he shows how charity excludes the disorder of anger, saying: It is not irritable, i.e., is not provoked to anger. For anger is an inordinate desire for revenge. But it pertains to charity rather to forgive offenses than to seek revenge beyond measure: “Forbearing one another, if one has a complaint against another” (Co 3:13); “The anger of man does not work the righteousness of God” (Jas 1:20). Deinde cum dicit non cogitat, etc., ostendit quomodo per charitatem excluditur inordinatio electionis. Est autem electio, ut dicitur in III Ethic. appetitus praeconsiliati. Tunc ergo homo peccat ex electione et non ex passione, quando ex consilio rationis affectus eius provocatur ad malum. Charitas ergo primo quidem excludit perversitatem consilii. Et ideo dicit non cogitat malum, id est non permittit excogitare quomodo aliquis perficiat malum. Mich. II, 1: vae qui cogitatis inutile, operamini malum in cubilibus vestris. Is. I, 16: auferte malum cogitationum vestrarum ab oculis meis. Vel charitas non cogitat malum, quia non permittit hominem per varias suspiciones et temeraria iudicia cogitare malum de proximo. Matth. IX, 4: ut quid cogitatis mala in cordibus vestris? 781. – Then when he says, is not resentful (thinks no evil), he shows how by charity disordered choosing is excluded. Now choice is, as it says in Ethics III, the desire for what has already been thought about and weighed. Therefore, a man sins from choice and not from passion, when by a plan of his reason his affections are bestirred to evil. Charity, therefore, first of all, excludes perverse counsel. Therefore, he says: Charity thinks no evil, i.e., does not permit devising how to complete something evil: “Woe to those who devise wickedness and work evil upon their beds” (Mic 2:1); “Remove the evil of your doings from before my eyes” (Is 1:16). Or charity thinks no evil, because it does not permit one to think evil about his neighbor by various suspicions and rash judgments: “Why do you think evil in your hearts?” (Matt 9:4). Secundo, charitas excludit inordinatum affectum malorum, cum dicit non gaudet super iniquitate. Ille enim qui ex passione peccat, cum quodam remorsu et dolore peccatum committit; sed ille qui peccat ex electione, gaudet ex hoc ipso quod peccatum committit, secundum illud Prov. II, 14: qui laetantur cum male fecerint, et exultant in rebus pessimis. Hoc autem charitas impedit, inquantum est amor summi boni, cui repugnat omne peccatum. Vel dicit quod charitas non gaudet super iniquitate, scilicet a proximo commissa, quinimo de ea luget, inquantum contrariatur proximorum saluti quam cupit. II Cor. XII, v. 21: ne iterum cum venero humiliet me Deus apud vos, et lugeam multos ex his, qui ante peccaverunt. 782. – Secondly, charity excludes an inordinate love for evil; hence he says: it does not rejoice in wrong. For one who sins from passion commits sin with some remorse and sorrow, but one who sins from choice rejoices in the fact that he commits sin, as it says in Pr (2:14): “You rejoice in doing evil and delight in the perseverance of evil.” But charity prevents this, inasmuch as it is the love of the supreme good, to Whom all sin is obnoxious. Or he says that charity does not rejoice over evil, namely, committed by a neighbor: in fact it laments over it, inasmuch as it is opposed to our neighbor’s salvation, which it desires: “I fear that when I come again my God will humble me before you, and I may have to mourn over many of those who sinned before” (2 Cor 12:21). Deinde cum dicit congaudet autem, etc., ostendit quomodo charitas facit operari bonum. Et primo quantum ad proximum; secundo quantum ad Deum, ibi omnia credit, et cetera. 783. – Then when he says, but rejoices, he shows how charity makes one do the good: first, as to one’s neighbor; secondly, as to God (v. 7b). Quantum ad proximum autem, homo operatur bonum dupliciter. Primo quidem gaudendo de bonis eius. Et quantum ad hoc dicit congaudet autem veritati, scilicet proximi, vel vitae, vel doctrinae, vel iustitiae, ex eo quod proximum diligit sicut seipsum. In III Io. v. 3: gavisus sum valde venientibus fratribus, et testimonium perhibentibus veritati tuae, sicut in charitate ambulas. Secundo in hoc quod homo mala proximi sustinet prout decet. Et quantum ad hoc dicit omnia suffert, id est absque turbatione sustinet omnes defectus proximorum, vel quaecumque adversa. Rom. XV, 1: debemus nos firmiores imbecillitates infirmorum sustinere. Gal. VI, 2: alter alterius onera portate, et sic adimplebitis legem Christi, scilicet charitatem. 784. – In regard to his neighbor man does the good in two ways: first, by rejoicing in his good. In regard to this he says: it rejoices in the truth, namely, of the neighbor or of life or doctrine or justice, inasmuch as he loves his neighbor as himself: “I rejoice greatly to find some of your children following the truth” (2 Jn. v. 4). Secondly, in the fact that a person endures the evils of his neighbor to the extent that it is fitting. In regard to this he says: love bears all things, i.e., without disquiet it tolerates all the shortcomings of the neighbor of any adversity whatever: “We who are strong ought to bear with the failings of the weak” (Rom 15:1); “Carry one another’s burdens and so you will fulfill the law of Christ,” namely, charity (Gal 6:2). Deinde cum dicit omnia credit, ostendit quomodo charitas faciat operari bonum in comparatione ad Deum. Quod quidem fit praecipue per virtutes theologicas, quae habent Deum pro obiecto. Sunt autem praeter charitatem duae virtutes theologicae, ut infra dicitur, scilicet fides et spes. Quantum ergo ad fidem dicit omnia credit, scilicet quae divinitus traduntur. Gen. XV, v. 6: credidit Abraham Deo, et reputatum est ei ad iustitiam. Credere vero omnia quae ab homine dicuntur, est levitatis, secundum illud Eccli. XIX, 4: qui cito credit, levis est corde. Quantum autem ad spem, dicit omnia sperat, quae scilicet promittuntur a Deo. Eccli. c. II, 9: qui timetis Deum, sperate in eum. Et ne spes frangatur per dilationem, subdit omnia sustinet, id est patienter expectat quae promittuntur a Deo quamvis dilata, secundum illud Hab. II, 3: si moram fecerit, expecta eum; Ps. XXVI, 14: confortetur cor tuum, et sustine dominum. 785. – Then when he says: believes all things, he shows how charity makes one do the good in relation to God. This is done especially through the theological virtues which have God for their object. In addition to charity the other two, as will be said below, are faith and hope. Therefore, in regard to faith he says: believes all things, namely, which are divinely revealed. “Abraham believed God and it was reputed to him as righteousness” (Gen 15:6). But to believe all things said by men is lightheadedness, as it says in Sir (19:4): “One who trusts others to quickly is light-minded.” In regard to hope he says: hopes all things, namely, which are promised by God: “You who fear the Lord hope for good things” (Sir 2:9). And in order that hope not be discouraged by the delay, he adds: endures all things, i.e., patiently awaits what God has promised in spite of delay, as it says in Heb (2:3): “If it seem slow, wait for it”; and in Ps 27 (v. 14): “Let your heart take courage and wait for the Lord.”
13-3
1 Cor 13:8-11Reportatio Reginaldi de Piperno
Vulgate:Postquam apostolus ostendit quod charitas excellit alia dona spiritus sancti necessitate et fructuositate, hic ostendit excellentiam charitatis ad alia dona quantum ad permanentiam. Et circa hoc tria facit. Primo proponit differentiam charitatis ad alia dona spiritus sancti, quantum ad permanentiam; secundo probat quod dixerat, ibi ex parte enim cognoscimus, etc.; tertio infert conclusionem intentam, ibi nunc autem manent, et cetera. Circa primum duo facit. Primo proponit permanentiam charitatis; secundo cessationem aliorum donorum, ibi sive prophetiae, et cetera. 786. – After showing that charity excels the other gifts of the Holy Spirit by reason of need and fruitfulness, the Apostle now shows the excellence of charity over the other gifts in regard to permanence. In regard to this he does three things: first, he mentions the difference between charity and other gifts of the Holy Spirit as to permanence; secondly, he proves what he had said; thirdly, he draws the intended conclusion (v. 13). In regard to the first he does two things: first, he declares the permanence of charity; secondly, the cessation of other gifts (v. 8b). Dicit ergo primo charitas numquam excidit. Quod quidem male intelligentes, in errorem ceciderunt, dicentes, quod charitas semel habita, numquam potest amitti, cui videtur consonare quod dicitur I Io. III, v. 9: omnis qui natus est ex Deo, peccatum non facit, quoniam semen ipsius in eo manet. Sed huius dicti primo quidem sententia falsa est. Potest enim aliquis charitatem habens, a charitate excidere per peccatum, secundum illud Apoc. II, 4 s.: charitatem tuam primam reliquisti. Memor esto itaque unde excideris, et age poenitentiam. Et hoc ideo est, quia charitas recipitur in anima hominis secundum modum ipsius, ut scilicet possit ea uti, vel non uti. Dum vero ea utitur homo, peccare non potest: quia usus charitatis est dilectio Dei super omnia, et ideo nihil restat propter quod homo Deum offendat. Et per hunc modum intelligitur verbum Ioannis inductum. Secundo, praedicta sententia non est secundum intentionem apostoli, quia non loquitur hic de cessatione donorum spiritualium, per peccatum mortale, sed potius de cessatione donorum spiritualium, quae pertinent ad hanc vitam per gloriam supervenientem. Unde sensus apostoli est charitas numquam excidit, quia scilicet sicut est in statu viae, ita permanebit in statu patriae et cum augmento, secundum illud Is. XXXI, 9: dixit dominus cuius ignis est in Sion, scilicet in Ecclesia militante et caminus eius in Ierusalem, id est in pace caelestis patriae. 787. – First, therefore, he says: Charity never ends. Some, indeed, have misunderstood this and fallen into error, saying that charity once possessed can never be lost. This opinion seems to be consistent with 1 John (3:9): “No one born of God commits sin, because his seed remains in him.” But this opinion is false, because someone possessing charity can fall away from it by sin, as it says in Rev (2:4): “You have abandoned the love you had at first. Remember, then, from what you have fallen, and do penance.” This is so, because charity is received in a man’s soul according to his mode, namely, that he can use it or not. But as long as he uses it, a man cannot sin; because the use of charity is loving God above all things, and nothing remains for the sake of which a man should offend God. And this is the way John’s quoted statement is understood. Secondly, the quotation cited is not in accord with the Apostle’s intention, because he is not speaking here about the cessation of spiritual gifts through mortal sin, but rather about the cessation of spiritual gifts which pertain to this life through supervening glory. Hence, the sense of the Apostle is that charity never ends, namely, because just as it exists in the state toward heaven, so it will remain in the state of glory and with increase, as it says in Is (31:9): “Says the Lord, whose fire is in Zion,” i.e., in the Church militant, “and whose furnace is in Jerusalem,” i.e., in the peace of the heavenly fatherland. Deinde cum dicit sive prophetiae, etc., proponit cessationem aliorum donorum spiritualium, et specialiter eorum quae praecipua videntur. Primo quantum ad prophetiam, dicit sive prophetiae evacuabuntur, id est cessabunt, quia scilicet in futura gloria prophetia locum non habebit, propter duo. Primo quidem quia prophetia respicit futurum, status autem ille non expectabit aliquid in futurum, sed erit finale complementum omnium eorum quae ante fuerant prophetata. Unde in Ps. XLVII, v. 9 dicitur: sicut audivimus, scilicet per prophetas, ita et vidimus, praesentialiter, in civitate domini virtutum. Secundo quia prophetia est cum cognitione figurali et aenigmatica, quae cessabit in patria. Unde dicitur Num. XII, 6: si quis fuerit inter vos propheta domini, per somnium aut in visione apparebo ei, vel per somnium loquar ad illum. Et Osee XII, 10: in manibus prophetarum assimilatus sum. 788. – Then when he says, as for prophecies, he sets forth the cessation of other spiritual gifts, and especially of those which seem principal. First as to prophecy he says, as for prophecies, they will pass away, i.e., will cease, namely, because in future glory prophecy will have no place for two reasons: first, because prophecy regards the future; but that state does not await anything in the future, but will be the final completion of everything previously foretold. Hence it says in Ps 48 (v. 9): “As we have heard,” namely, through the prophets, “so have we seen in the city of our God.” Secondly, because prophecy occurs with figurative and enigmatic knowledge, which will cease in heaven: “If there is a prophet among you, I, the Lord, will make myself known to him in a vision, I will speak with him in a dream” (Num. 12:6); “It was I who multiplied visions and through the prophets gave parables” (Hos 12:10). Secundo quantum ad donum linguarum, dicit sive linguae cessabunt. Quod quidem non est intelligendum quantum ad ipsa membra corporea, quae linguae dicuntur, ut dicitur infra XV, 52: mortui resurgent incorrupti, id est, absque diminutione membrorum. Neque autem intelligendum est quantum ad usum linguae corporeae. Est enim futura in patria laus vocalis, secundum illud Ps. CXLIX, 6: exultationes Dei in gutture eorum, ut Glossa ibidem exponit. Est ergo intelligendum quantum ad donum linguarum, quo scilicet aliqui in primitiva Ecclesia linguis variis loquebantur, ut dicitur Act. II, 4. In futura enim gloria, quilibet quamlibet linguam intelliget. Unde non erit necessarium variis linguis loqui. Nam etiam a primordio generis humani, ut dicitur Gen. c. XI, 1: unus erat sermo, et unum labium omnibus, quod multo magis erit in ultimo statu, in quo erit unitas consummata. 789. – Secondly, as to the gift of tongues he says: as for tongues they will cease. This is not to be understood of the bodily members called tongues, as it says below (15:52): “The dead will be raised imperishable,” i.e., without loss of members. Nor is it to be understood of the use of the bodily tongue. For in heaven there will be vocal praise, as it says in Ps 149 (v. 6): “Let the high praises of God be in their throats,” as a Gloss explains. Therefore, it must be understood of the gift of tongues, by which some in the early Church spoke in various tongues, as it says in Ac (2:4). For in future glory each one will understand each tongue. Hence, it will not be necessary to speak in various tongues. For even from the beginning of the human race, as it says in Gen (11:1): “The whole earth had one language and few words, which will be more true in the final state, in which there will be complete unity. Tertio quantum ad scientiam, subdit: sive scientia destruetur. Ex quo quidam accipere voluerunt quod scientia acquisita totaliter perditur cum corpore. Ad cuius veritatis inquisitionem considerare oportet, quod duplex est vis cognitiva, scilicet vis sensitiva et vis intellectiva. Inter quas est differentia, quia vis sensitiva est actus organi corporalis, et ideo necesse est quod desinat corpore corrupto; vis autem intellectiva non est actus alicuius organi corporei, ut probatur in III de anima, et ideo necesse est quod maneat corpore corrupto. Si ergo aliquid scientiae acquisitae conservetur in parte animae intellectivae, necesse est quod id permaneat post mortem. 790. – Thirdly, as to knowledge he adds: as for knowledge it will pass away. From this some have wanted to suppose that acquired knowledge is totally destroyed with the body. To investigate the truth it is necessary to consider that the cognitive power is twofold, namely, the sensitive power and the intellective. Between these there is a difference, because the sensitive power is the act of an organic power and therefore ceases to be, when the body dies; but the intellective power is not the act of any bodily organ, as is proved in The Soul III, and therefore, it must remain when the body dies. Therefore, if any acquired knowledge is preserved in the intellective part of the soul, it must remain after death. Quidam ergo posuerunt quod species intelligibiles non conservantur in intellectu possibili, nisi quamdiu intelligit. Conservantur autem species phantasmatum in potentiis animae sensitivae, puta in memorativa et imaginativa; ita scilicet quod semper intellectus possibilis quando de novo vult intelligere, etiam quae prius intellexit, indiget abstrahere a phantasmatibus per lumen intellectus agentis, et secundum hoc consequens est quod scientia hic acquisita non remaneat post mortem. Sed haec positio est primo quidem contra rationem. Manifestum est enim quod species intelligibiles in intellectu possibili recipiuntur ad minus dum actu intelligit. Quod autem recipitur in aliquo, est in eo per modum recipientis. Cum ergo substantia intellectus possibilis sit immutabilis et fixa, consequens est, quod species intelligibiles remaneant in eo immobiliter. Secundo est contra auctoritatem Aristotelis in III de anima, qui dicit quod cum intellectus possibilis est sciens unumquodque, tunc etiam est intelligens in potentia. Et sic patet quod habet species intelligibiles per quas dicitur sciens, et tamen adhuc est in potentia ad intelligendum in actu, et ita species intelligibiles sunt in intellectu possibili, etiam quando non intelligit actu. Unde etiam, ibidem, philosophus dicit, quod anima intellectiva est locus specierum, quia scilicet in ea conservantur species intelligibiles. Indiget tamen in hac vita convertere se ad phantasmata, ad hoc quod actu intelligat, non solum ut abstrahat species a phantasmatibus, sed etiam ut species habitas phantasmatibus applicet: cuius signum est quod laeso organo virtutis imaginativae, vel etiam memorativae, non solum impeditur homo ab acquisitione novae scientiae, sed etiam ab usu scientiae prius habitae. Sic ergo remanet scientia in anima post corporis mortem, quantum ad species intelligibiles, non autem quantum ad inspectionem phantasmatum, quibus anima separata non indigebit, habens esse et operationem absque corporis communione. Et secundum hoc apostolus hic dicit, quod scientia destruetur, scilicet secundum conversionem ad phantasmata. Unde et Is. XXIX, v. 14 dicitur: peribit sapientia a sapientibus, et intellectus prudentium eius abscondetur. 791. – Some, therefore, have supposed that the intelligible species are not conserved in the possible intellect except as long as it is understanding. But the species of the phantasms are conserved in the powers of the sensitive soul; for example in the memory or the imagination, in such a way that when the possible intellect wants to think of something anew, even things it previously understood, it always needs to abstract from the phantasms by the light of the active intellect. Therefore, according to this the consequence is that knowledge acquired here does not remain after death. But this position is, of course, against reason. For it is obvious that the intelligible species in the possible intellect are received at least while it is actually understanding. But whatever is received in something exists in it after the manner of the recipient. Therefore, since the substance of the possible intellect is fixed and unchangeable, the consequence is that the intelligible species remain in it unchangeably. Secondly, it is against the authority of Aristotle in The Soul III, who says that when the possible intellect is knowing anything, then also it is understanding in potency. And so it is clear that it has an intelligible species, through which it is said to be knowing, and yet it is still in potency to understanding in act, and so the intelligible species are in the possible intellect, even when it is not actually understanding. Hence the Philosopher says that the intellective soul is the locus of the species, namely, because the intelligible species are conserved in it. Yet it needs to refer to the phantasms in this life in order actually to understand, not only to abstract species from the phantasms but also to apply the species it has to the phantasms. The sign of this is that if the organ of the imagination or even of the memory is injured, a man is not only prevented from acquiring new knowledge, but also from the use of knowledge previously possessed. Thus, therefore, knowledge remains in the soul after the death of the body as to the intelligible species, but not as to inspecting phantasms, which the separated soul does not need, since it has existence and activity without union with the body. And according to this the Apostle says here that knowledge is destroyed, namely, according to referring to phantasms: hence, Is (29:14) says: “The wisdom of their wise men shall perish.” Deinde cum dicit ex parte enim cognoscimus, probat quod dixerat: et primo inducit probationem; secundo manifestat ea, quae in probatione continentur, ibi cum essem parvulus, et cetera. 792. – Then when he says: for our knowledge is imperfect, he proves what he had said: first, he presents a proof; secondly, he clarifies things contained in the proof (v. 11). Inducit ergo primo ad probandum propositum talem rationem: adveniente perfecto cessat imperfectum; sed dona alia praeter charitatem habent imperfectionem; ergo cessabunt superveniente perfectione gloriae. Primo ergo proponit minorem propositionem quo ad imperfectionem scientiae, cum dicit ex parte enim cognoscimus, id est imperfecte. Nam pars habet rationem imperfecti. Et hoc praecipue verificatur quantum ad cognitionem Dei, secundum illud Iob XXXVI, v. 26: ecce Deus magnus vincens scientiam nostram; et XXVI, 14: ecce haec ex parte dicta sunt viarum eius. Proponit etiam imperfectionem prophetiae, cum subdit et ex parte id est imperfecte, prophetamus. Est enim prophetia cognitio cum imperfectione, ut dictum est. Tacet autem de dono linguarum, quod est imperfectius his duobus, ut infra XIV, 2 patebit. 793. – To prove the proposition he presents this proof: When the perfect comes, the imperfect ceases; but gifts other than charity have imperfection. Therefore, they will cease, when the perfection of glory triumphs. First, therefore, he proposes the minor proposition referring to the imperfection of knowledge, when he says: for we know in part, i.e., imperfectly. For a part has the nature of something imperfect. And this is especially true in regard to knowledge of God, as it says in Jb (36:26): “Behold, God is great, and we know him not” and (26:14): “Lo, these are not but the outskirts of his ways.” He also proposes the imperfection of prophecy, when he adds: and we prophesy in part, i.e., imperfectly. For prophecy is knowledge with imperfection, as has been said. But he is silent about the gift of tongues, which is more imperfect than these two, as will be shown (14:2). Secundo ponit maiorem, dicens cum autem venerit quod perfectum est, id est, perfectio gloriae, evacuabitur quod ex parte est, id est, omnis imperfectio tolletur. De qua perfectione dicitur I Petr. ult.: modicum passos ipse perficiet. 794. – Secondly, he proves the major proposition, saying: But when the perfect comes, the imperfect will pass away, i.e., every imperfection will be taken away. Of this perfection it says in 1 Pt (5:10): “After you have suffered a little while, he will restore and strengthen you.” Sed secundum hoc videtur, quod etiam charitas evacuetur per futuram gloriam, quia ipsa est imperfecta in statu viae per comparationem ad statum patriae. Dicendum ergo, quod imperfectio dupliciter se habet ad id quod dicitur imperfectum. Quandoque enim est de ratione eius, quandoque vero non, sed accidit ei; sicut imperfectio est de ratione pueri, non autem de ratione hominis, et ideo, adveniente perfecta aetate, cessat quidem pueritia: sed humanitas fit perfecta. Imperfectio est ergo de ratione scientiae, prout hic de Deo habetur, inquantum scilicet cognoscitur ex sensibilibus; et similiter de ratione prophetiae, inquantum est cognitio figuralis et in futurum tendens. Non est autem de ratione charitatis ad quam cognitum bonum diligere pertinet. Et ideo superveniente perfectione gloriae, cessat prophetia et scientia; charitas autem non cessat, sed magis perficitur, quia quanto perfectius cognoscetur Deus, tanto etiam perfectius amabitur. 795. – But according to this it seems that even charity will pass away through future glory, because it is imperfect in the present life as compared with the life of glory. The answer is that imperfection is related in two ways to that which is called imperfect. For sometimes it pertains to a thing’s very nature and sometimes not, but is accidental to it. For example, imperfection pertains to the very notion of a boy, but not of a man; therefore, when perfect age comes, boyhood ceases, but the human nature becomes perfect. Imperfection, therefore, is of the very notion of knowledge, as we possess it of God here, inasmuch as it is known from sensible things; the same is true of the nature of prophecy, inasmuch as it is a figural knowledge tending into the future. But it is not so in the very notion of charity, to which it pertains to love a known good. Therefore, with the coming of perfect grace prophecy and knowledge cease; but charity does not cease. It is made perfect, because the more perfectly God will be known, the more perfectly will he be loved. Deinde cum dicit cum essem parvulus, etc., manifestat ea quae praemissa sunt. Et primo manifestat maiorem, scilicet quod veniente perfecto cessat imperfectum; secundo manifestat minorem, scilicet quod scientia, et prophetia sint imperfecta, ibi videmus nunc, et cetera. 796. – Then when he says: When I was a child, he clarifies what he had said above: first, he clarifies the major, namely, with the coming of the perfect the imperfect ceases; secondly, he clarifies the minor, namely, that knowledge and prophecy are imperfect (v. 12). Ostendit autem primum per similitudinem perfecti et imperfecti, quod invenitur in aetate corporali. Unde et primo describit imperfectum aetatis corporalis, dicens cum essem parvulus, scilicet aetate, loquebar ut parvulus, id est prout congruit parvulo, scilicet balbutiendo. Unde propter naturalem defectum locutionis, qui est in parvulis, commendatur sapientia quod linguas infantium facit disertas, Sap. X, v. 21; et ut parvulus loquitur, qui vana loquitur. Ps. XI, 3: vana locuti sunt unusquisque ad proximum suum. Quantum vero ad iudicium subdit sapiebam ut parvulus, id est, approbabam vel reprobabam aliqua stulte, ut faciunt parvuli, qui quandoque pretiosa contemnunt, et vilia appetunt, ut dicitur Prov. I, 22: usquequo, parvuli, diligitis infantiam, et stulti ea quae sunt sibi noxia cupient? Sapiunt ergo ut parvuli, qui, spiritualibus contemptis, terrenis inhaerent; de quibus dicitur Phil. III, v. 19: gloria in confusione eorum, qui terrena sapiunt. Quantum autem ad rationis discursum, dicit cogitabam ut parvulus, id est aliqua vana. Unde et in Ps. XCIII, 11 dicitur: dominus scit cogitationes hominum, quoniam vanae sunt. Et videtur apostolus ordine praepostero haec tria ponere. Nam locutio praeexigit iudicium sapientiae: iudicium vero praesupponit cogitationes rationis. Et hoc satis congruit imperfectioni puerili, in qua est locutio sine iudicio, et iudicium sine deliberatione. Potest autem referri, quod dicit loquebar ut parvulus, ad donum linguarum; cum dicit sapiebam ut parvulus, ad donum prophetiae; quod autem subdit cogitabam ut parvulus, ad donum scientiae. 797. – He shows the first by a likeness of the perfect and imperfect found in bodily age. Hence, he first describes the imperfect state of bodily age, saying: When I was a child, namely, in age, I spoke as a child, i.e., as befitted a child, by babbling. Hence, on account of the natural lack of speech in children, wisdom is commended “for making the tongues of babes speak clearly” (Wis 10:2) and that he child should speak who utters vanities: “Everyone utters vanities to his neighbor” (Ps 12:2). As to judgment he adds: I spoke like a child, i.e., I accepted or rejected certain things foolishly, as children do, who sometimes reject precious things and desire base things, as it says in Pr (1:22): “How long, O simple ones, will you love being simple.” Therefore, they think as children who despise spiritual things and desire those of earth. Of such it says in Phil (3:19): “They glory in their shame with their minds set on earthly things.” As to reasoning he says: I reasoned like a child, i.e., certain vain things: “The Lord knows the thoughts of man, that they are vain” (Ps 94:11). Now the Apostle seems to place these three in reverse order. For speech precedes the judgment of reason; but judgment presupposes the activity of reason. And this sufficiently befits childish imperfection, in which there is speech without judgment, and judgment without deliberation. I spoke as a child can be referred to the gift of tongues; I thought as a child to the gift of prophecy; finally, I reasoned as a child to the gift of knowledge. Secundo ponit id quod pertinet ad perfectionem aetatis, dicens quando autem factus sum vir, id est quando perveni ad perfectam et virilem aetatem, evacuavi, id est abieci, quae erant parvuli; quia, ut dicitur Is. LXV, 20, puer centum annorum morietur, et peccator centum annorum maledictus erit. Et est attendendum, quod apostolus hic comparat statum praesentem pueritiae propter imperfectionem; statum autem futurae gloriae propter perfectionem, virili aetati. 798. – Secondly, he mentions what pertains to perfect age, saying: When I became a man, i.e., when I reached the perfect and virile age, I gave up, i.e., cast off, childish ways, because, as it says in Is (65:20): “For the child shall die 100 years old, and the sinner 100 years old shall be accursed.” It should be recognized that the Apostle is here comparing the present to childhood on account of its imperfection; but the state of future glory to the manly state on account of its perfection.
13-4
1 Cor 13:12-13Hic loquitur de visione, quae est cognitio Dei. Unde omnia praecedentia dona evacuanda, sunt intelligenda secundum quod ordinantur ad cognitionem Dei. Circa hoc duo facit. Primo enim probat id quod intendit in generali; secundo in speciali de seipso, ibi nunc cognosco, et cetera. 799. – Here he speaks of the vision, which is knowledge of God. Hence, all the preceding gifts must be understood as destined to be eliminated inasmuch as they are directed to knowledge of God. In regard to this he does two things: first, he proves what he proposes in general, secondly, in detail about himself (v. 12b). Dicit ergo: dixi quod ex parte cognoscimus, quia nunc videmus per speculum in aenigmate, sed tunc, scilicet in patria videbimus facie ad faciem. Ubi primo considerandum est, quid sit videre per speculum in aenigmate; secundo quid sit videre facie ad faciem. Sciendum est ergo, quod sensibile aliquid potest tripliciter videri, scilicet aut per sui praesentiam in re vidente, sicut ipsa lux, quae praesens est oculo; aut per praesentiam suae similitudinis in sensu immediate derivatam ab ipsa re, sicut albedo quae est in pariete videtur, non existente ipsa albedine praesentialiter in oculo, sed eius similitudine, licet ipsa similitudo non videatur ab eo; aut per praesentiam similitudinis non immediate derivatae ab ipsa re, sed derivatae a similitudine rei in aliquid aliud, sicut cum videtur aliquis homo per speculum. Non enim similitudo hominis immediate est in oculo, sed similitudo hominis resultantis in speculo. Per hunc ergo modum loquendo de visione Dei, dico quod naturali cognitione solus Deus videt seipsum: quia in Deo idem est sua essentia et suus intellectus. Et ideo sua essentia est praesens suo intellectui. Sed secundo modo forte Angeli naturali cognitione Deum vident, inquantum similitudo divinae essentiae relucet immediate in eos. Tertio vero modo cognoscimus nos Deum in vita ista, inquantum invisibilia Dei per creaturas cognoscimus, ut dicitur Rom. I, 20. Et ita tota creatura est nobis sicut speculum quoddam: quia ex ordine, et bonitate, et magnitudine, quae in rebus a Deo causata sunt, venimus in cognitionem sapientiae, bonitatis et eminentiae divinae. Et haec cognitio dicitur visio in speculo. 800. – He says, therefore: I have said that we know imperfectly, because we know in a mirror dimly, but then, namely, in heaven, we shall see face to face. The first consideration concerns what it is to see through a mirror dimly; the second concerns what it is to see face to face. It should be noted, therefore, that something sensible can be seen in three ways, namely, by its presence in the one seeing, as light itself, which is present in the eye, or by the presence of its likeness in the sense and immediately derived from the thing, as whiteness in a wall is seen, even though the whiteness does not exist in the eye, but its likeness (although the likeness is not seen by the eye); or by the presence of a likeness not immediately derived from the thing itself but from a likeness of the thing in something else, as when a man is seen through a mirror. For the likeness of the man is not immediately in the eye, but the likeness of the man reflected in a mirror. Therefore, speaking in this way about the vision of God, I say that by natural knowledge God alone sees himself; because in God essence and intellect are the same. Therefore, His essence is present to His intellect. But in a second way the angels perhaps see God by natural knowledge, inasmuch as a likeness of the divine essence immediately shines back on them. But in a third way we know God in this life, inasmuch as we know the invisible things of God through creatures, as it says in Rom (1:20). And so all creation is a mirror for us; because from the order and goodness and multitude which are caused in things by God, we come to a knowledge of His power, goodness and eminence. And this knowledge is called seeing in a mirror. Ulterius autem sciendum est, quod huiusmodi similitudo, quae est similitudinis in alio relucentis, est duplex: quia aliquando est clara et aperta, sicut illa quae est in speculo; aliquando obscura et occulta, et tunc illa visio dicitur aenigmatica, sicut cum dico: me mater genuit, et eadem gignitur ex me. Istud est per simile occultum. Et dicitur de glacie, quae gignitur ex aqua congelata, et aqua gignitur ex glacie resoluta. Sic ergo patet, quod visio per similitudinem similitudinis est in speculo per simile occultum in aenigmate, sed per simile clarum et apertum facit aliam speciem allegoricae visionis. Inquantum ergo invisibilia Dei per creaturas cognoscimus, dicimur videre per speculum. Inquantum vero illa invisibilia sunt nobis occulta, videmus in aenigmate. Vel aliter, videmus nunc per speculum, id est per rationem nostram, et tunc ly per, designat virtutem tantum. Quasi dicat videmus per speculum, id est virtute animae nostrae. 801. – It should be further noted that a likeness of this sort, which is of a likeness gleaming back on someone else is twofold: because sometimes it is clear and open, as that which appears in a mirror, sometimes it is obscure and secret, and then that vision is said to be enigmatic, as when I say: “Me a mother begot, and the same is born from me.” That is secret by a simile. And it is said of ice, which is born from frozen water and the water is born from the melted ice. Thus, therefore, it is clear that vision through the likeness of a likeness is in a mirror, by a likeness hidden in an enigma, but a clear and open likeness makes another kind of allegorical vision. Therefore, inasmuch as we know the invisible things of God through creatures, we are said to see through a mirror. Inasmuch as those invisible things are secrets to us, we see in an enigma. Or another way, we see now through a mirror, i.e., by our reason, and then “through” designates the power only. As if to say: we see through a mirror, i.e., by a power of our soul. Circa secundum vero sciendum est, quod Deus, secundum quod Deus, non habet faciem, et ideo hoc, quod dicit, facie ad faciem, metaphorice dicitur. Cum enim videmus aliquid in speculo, non videmus ipsam rem, sed similitudinem eius; sed quando videmus aliquid secundum faciem, tunc videmus ipsam rem sicut est. Ideo nihil aliud vult dicere apostolus, cum dicit: videbimus in patria facie ad faciem, quam quod videbimus ipsam Dei essentiam. I Io. III, 2: videbimus eum sicuti est, et cetera. Sed contra est, quia Gen. XXXII, 30 dicitur: vidi dominum facie ad faciem, et cetera. Sed constat, quod tunc non vidit essentiam Dei; ergo videre facie ad faciem, non est videre essentiam Dei. Responsio. Dicendum est quod illa visio fuit imaginaria; visio autem imaginaria est quidam gradus altior, scilicet videre illud quod apparet: in ipsa imagine in qua apparet et alius gradus infimus scilicet audire tantum verba. Unde Iacob, ut insinuaret excellentiam visionis imaginariae sibi ostensae, dicit vidi dominum facie ad faciem, id est vidi dominum imaginarie apparentem in sua imagine et non per essentiam suam. Sic enim non fuisset visio imaginaria. 802. – In regard to the second it should be noted that God as God does not have a face, and therefore the expression “face to face” is metaphorical. For when we see something in a mirror, we do not see it, but its likeness; but when we see someone by face, then we see him as he is. Therefore, the Apostle wishes to say nothing else, when he says: “in heaven we shall see face to face,” then that we shall see the very essence of God: “We shall see him as he is” (1 Jn. 3:2). But opposed to this is Gen (32:30): “I have seen God face to face and yet my life is preserved.” But it is evident that he did not at that time see the essence of God; therefore, to see face to face is not to see the essence of God. The answer is that that vision was imaginary; but an imaginary vision is of a higher degree, namely, seeing what appears: in the image in which He appears is another lowest grace, namely, only to hear words. Hence Jacob, to indicate the excellence of the imaginary vision showed to him says: “I have seen the Lord face to face,” i.e., I have seen the Lord through my imagination in His own image and not through His essence. For then it would not have been an imaginary vision. Sed tamen quidam dicunt, quod in patria ipsa divina essentia videbitur per similitudinem creatam. Sed hoc est omnino falsum et impossibile, quia numquam potest aliquid per essentiam cognosci per similitudinem, quae non conveniat cum re illa in specie. Lapis enim non potest cognosci secundum illud quod est, nisi per speciem lapidis, quae est in anima. Nulla enim similitudo ducit in cognitionem essentiae alicuius rei, si differat a re illa secundum speciem, et multo minus si differt secundum genus. Non enim per speciem equi, vel albedinis potest cognosci essentia hominis, et multo minus essentia Angeli. Multo ergo minus per aliquam speciem creatam, quaecumque sit illa, potest videri divina essentia, cum ab essentia divina plus distet quaecumque species creata in anima, quam species equi, vel albedinis ab essentia Angeli. Unde ponere quod Deus videatur solum per similitudinem, seu per quamdam refulgentiam claritatis suae, est ponere divinam essentiam non videri. Et, praeterea, cum anima sit quaedam similitudo Dei, visio illa non magis esset specularis et aenigmatica, quae est in via, quam visio clara et aperta, quae repromittitur sanctis in gloria, et in qua erit beatitudo nostra. Unde Augustinus dicit hic in Glossa, quod visio Dei, quae est per similitudinem, pertinet ad visionem speculi et aenigmatis. Sequeretur etiam quod beatitudo hominis ultima esset in alio, quam in ipso Deo, quod est alienum a fide. Naturale etiam hominis desiderium, quod est perveniendi ad primam rerum causam, et cognoscendi ipsam per seipsam, esset inane. 803. – But still some say that in heaven the divine essence will be seen through a created likeness. This, however, is entirely false and impossible, because something can never be known through its essence by a likeness, which does not agree with that thing in species. For a stone cannot be known as it is except through the stone’s species, which is in the soul. For no likeness leads to knowledge of a thing’s essence, if it differs from that according to species; and much less if they differ in genus. For the essence of a man, much less than the essence of an angel, cannot be known through the species of a horse or of whiteness. Much less, then, can the divine essence be seen through any created species, whatever it be, since any created species in the soul is more distant from the divine essence than the species of a horse or whiteness from the essence of an angel. Hence, to suppose that God is seen only by a likeness or through some brilliance of His clarity is to suppose that the divine essence is not seen. Furthermore, since the soul is a certain likeness of God, that vision would not be more mirror-like or enigmatic, which it is in this life than clear and open vision, which is promised to the saints in glory and in which will consist our beatitude. Hence Augustine says in a Gloss that a vision of God through a likeness pertains to a vision in a mirror and enigma. It would also follow that man’s final beatitude would be in something other than God; which is alien to the faith. Even man’s natural desire, which is to arrive at the first cause of things and of knowing Him in Himself, would be in vain. Sequitur nunc cognosco ex parte, et cetera. Hic, illud quod probavit in generali, probat in speciali de cognitione sui ipsius, dicens nunc, id est in praesenti vita, ego Paulus cognosco ex parte, id est obscure et imperfecte; tunc autem, scilicet in patria, cognoscam sicut et cognitus sum, id est: sicut Deus cognovit essentiam meam, ita Deum cognoscam per essentiam; ita quod ly sicut, non importat hic aequalitatem cognitionis, sed similitudinem tantum. 804. – He continues: Now I know in part. Here he proves in particular what he had proved in general about knowledge of himself, saying: Now, i.e., in the present life, I, Paul, know in part, i.e., obscurely and imperfectly, but then, namely, in heaven, I will know as I am known. Just as God knows my essence, so I shall know God through His essence, so that the “as” does not imply equality of knowledge but only similarity. Consequenter infert principalem conclusionem cum dicit nunc autem manent, et cetera. Causa autem quare non facit mentionem de omnibus donis, sed de istis tribus tantum est quia haec tria coniungunt Deo, alia autem non coniungunt Deo, nisi mediantibus istis; alia etiam dona sunt quaedam disponentia ad gignendum ista tria in cordibus hominum. Unde et solum ista tria, scilicet fides, spes et charitas, dicuntur virtutes theologicae, quia habent immediate Deum pro obiecto. 805. – Then he infers the principal conclusion, when he says: Now there abide. But the cause why he does not mention all the gifts but only three is that the three join to God; the others do not join to God, except through the mediation of those three; also the other gifts dispose for the birth of those three in the hearts of men. Hence, too, only those three, namely, faith, hope and charity, are called theological virtues, because they have God for their immediate object. Sed cum dona sint ad perficiendum vel affectum vel intellectum, et charitas perficiat affectum, fides intellectum: non videtur quod spes sit necessaria, sed superflua. Ad hoc sciendum, quod amor est quaedam vis unitiva, et omnis amor in unione quadam consistit. Unde et secundum diversas uniones, diversae species amicitiae a philosopho distinguuntur. Nos autem habemus duplicem coniunctionem cum Deo. Una est quantum ad bona naturae, quae hic participamus ab ipso; alia quantum ad beatitudinem, inquantum nos hic sumus participes per gratiam supernae felicitatis, secundum quod hic est possibile, speramus etiam ad perfectam consecutionem illius aeternae beatitudinis pervenire et fieri cives caelestis Ierusalem. Et secundum primam communicationem ad Deum, est amicitia naturalis secundum quam unumquodque, secundum quod est, Deum ut causam primam et summum bonum appetit et desiderat, ut finem suum. Secundum vero communicationem secundam est amor charitatis, qua solum creatura intellectualis Deum diligit. Quia vero nihil potest amari nisi sit cognitum, ideo ad amorem charitatis exigitur primo cognitio Dei. Et quia hoc est supra naturam, primo exigitur fides, quae est non apparentium. Secundo ne homo deficiat, vel aberret, exigitur spes, per quam tendat in illum finem, sicut ad se pertinentem. Et de his tribus dicitur Eccli. II, 8: qui timetis Deum, credite in illum, quantum ad fidem; qui timetis Deum, sperate in illum, quantum ad spem; qui timetis Deum, diligite eum, quantum ad charitatem. Ista ergo tria manent nunc, sed charitas maior est omnibus, propter ea quae dicta sunt supra. 806. – But since the gifts exist for perfecting the affections or intellect, and charity perfects the affections, and faith the intellect, it does not seem that hope is necessary but superfluous. The answer is that love is a unitive force and all love consists in some union. Hence according to the various unions, the various species of friendship are distinguished by the Philosopher. Now we have a twofold union with God: one refers to the goods of nature, which we partake of here from Him; the other refers to beatitude, inasmuch as through grace we partake here of supernal felicity, as far as it is possible here. We also hope to arrive at the perfect attainment of that eternal beatitude and become citizens of the heavenly Jerusalem. According to the first communication with God there is a natural friendship, according to which each one, inasmuch as he is, seeks and desires as his end God as first cause and supreme being. According to the second communication there is the love of charity, by which only an intellectual creature loves God. But because nothing can loved unless it is known, for the love of charity a knowledge of God is first required. And because this is above nature, there is required, first of all, faith which is concerned with things not seen. Secondly, in order that a man not fail or fall away, hope is required through which he tends to that end as pertaining to himself. Concerning these three it says in Sir (2:8): “You who fear the Lord, believe in him, “ as to hope, “you who fear the Lord, love him,” as to charity. Therefore, these three remain now, but charity is greater than the others for the reasons indicated above.
14-1
1 Cor 14:1-4Posita excellentia charitatis ad alia dona, hic consequenter apostolus comparat alia dona ad invicem, ostendens excellentiam prophetiae ad donum linguarum. Et circa hoc duo facit. Primo ostendit excellentiam prophetiae ad donum linguarum; secundo quomodo sit utendum dono linguarum, et prophetiae, ibi quid ergo est, fratres, et cetera. Circa primum duo facit. Primo ostendit, quod donum prophetiae est excellentius, quam donum linguarum, rationibus sumptis ex parte infidelium [fidelium], secundo ex parte fidelium [infidelium], ibi fratres mei, et cetera. Prima pars dividitur in duas. Primo ostendit, quod donum prophetiae est excellentius dono linguarum, quantum ad usum eorum in exhortationibus seu praedicationibus; secundo quantum ad usum linguarum, qui est in orando. Ad haec enim duo est usus linguae, ibi et ideo loquitur, et cetera. 807. – Having stated that charity excels the other gifts, the Apostle then compares the other gifts to each other, showing the excellence of prophecy over the gift of tongues. In regard to this he does two things: first, he shows that prophecy excels the gift of tongues; secondly, how the gifts of tongues and prophecy should be used (v. 26). In regard to the first he does two things: first, he shows that the gift of prophecy is more excellent than the gift of tongues with reasons taken on the part of unbelievers; secondly, on the part of believers (v. 20). The first part is divided into two: first, he shows that the gift of prophecy is more excellent than the gift of tongues as to their use in exhortations or sermons; secondly, as to the use of tongues in praying. For the use of the tongue is ordained to these two (v. 13). Circa primum duo facit. Primo enim praemittit unum, per quod continuat se ad sequentia, et hoc est quod dicit: dictum est, quod charitas omnia dona excellit, si ergo ita est, sectamini, scilicet viribus, charitatem, quae est dulce et salubre vinculum mentium. I Petr. IV, 8: ante omnia charitatem, et cetera. Col. III, 14: super omnia autem charitatem habete, et cetera. 808. – In regard to the first he does two things: first, he mentions one thing by which he connects the preceding to the following; and this is what he says: It has been stated that charity excels all the gifts; if, therefore, that is so, make love your aim, for it is a sweet and healthful bond of minds: “Above all, hold unfailing your love for one another” (1 Pt 4:8); “Above all these things put on love which is the bond of perfection.” (Col 3:4). Secundo subdit illud per quod continuat se ad sequentia. Et hoc est quod dicit aemulamini, et cetera. Quasi dicat: licet charitas sit maior omnibus donis, tamen alia non sunt contemnenda. Sed aemulamini, id est ferventer ametis, spiritualia dona spiritus sancti. I Petr. III, 13: quid est, quod vobis noceat, et cetera. 809. – Secondly, he adds that through which he connects himself with what follows. And this is what he says: earnestly desire the spiritual gifts. As if to say: Although charity is greater than all gifts, nevertheless the others are not to be despised. But earnestly desire, i.e., fervently love the spiritual gifts of the Holy Spirit: “Now who is there to harm you, if you are zealous for what is right”? (1 Pt 3:13). Licet autem aemulatio quandoque sumatur pro ferventi dilectione, quandoque pro invidia, tamen non est aequivocatio; imo unum procedit ab alio; zelari enim et aemulari designat ferventem amorem alicuius rei. Contingit autem quod res amata ita diligatur ferventer ab aliquo, quod non patitur sibi consortem, sed ipse vult eam solus et singulariter. Et iste est zelus, qui secundum quosdam est amor intensus, non patiens consortium in amato. Hoc tamen contingit in spiritualibus, quae possunt perfectissime a multis participari, sed solum in illis quae non possunt a multis participari. Unde in charitate non est huiusmodi zelus non patiens consortium in amato, sed tantum in corporalibus, in quibus provenit, quod si aliquis habet illud quod ipse zelat, doleat: et ex hoc consurgit aemulatio, quae est invidia. Sicut si ego amo dignitatem seu divitias, doleo quod aliquis habet eas, unde et ei invideo. Et sic patet, quod ex zelo surgit invidia. Cum ergo dicitur aemulamini spiritualia, non intelligitur de invidia, quia spiritualia possunt a multis haberi, sed dicit, aemulamini, ut inducat ad ferventer amandum Deum. 810. – Although earnestly desire is sometimes taken for fervent love and sometimes for envy, it is not equivocation; indeed, one proceeds from the other. For to be zealous and to be earnestly desirous designate a fervent love for something. It happens, however, that the thing loved is loved so fervently by someone that he does not permit a sharer, but wants it alone and by himself. And this is zeal which, according to some, is intense love not allowing a participation in the one loved. Yet this occurs not in spiritual things, which can be shared most perfectly by others, but only in those which cannot be shared by many. Hence in charity there is not this sort of zeal which does not allow a participation in the one loved, but only in bodily things, in which it comes about that if anyone else has that for which I am zealous, I am sad; and from this arises earnest desire, which is envy. Just as if I love dignity or riches, I grieve if someone else has them; hence I envy him. And so it is clear that from zeal arises envy. Therefore, when it is said: earnestly desire the spiritual gifts, it is not understood of envy, because spiritual things can be possessed by many; but he says: desire to induce them to love God fervently. Et quia inter spiritualia est gradus quidam, quia prophetia excedit donum linguarum, ideo dicit magis autem, ut prophetetis, quasi dicat: inter spiritualia magis aemulamini donum prophetiae. I Thess. V, v. 19 s.: spiritum nolite extinguere, prophetias nolite spernere. 811. – And because among spiritual things there is a gradation, for prophecy exceeds the gift of tongues, he says: especially that you may prophecy. As if to say: Among spiritual gifts be more zealous for the gift of prophecy: “Do not quench the Spirit; do not despise prophesying” (1 Th 5:19). Ad explanationem autem totius capitis praenotanda sunt tria, scilicet quid sit prophetia, quot modis dicatur in Scriptura sancta prophetia et quid sit loqui linguis. Circa primum sciendum est, quod propheta dicitur, quasi procul videns, et secundum quosdam dicitur a for faris, sed melius dicitur a pharos, quod est videre. Unde I Reg. c. IX, 9 dicitur, quod qui nunc dicitur propheta, olim videns dicebatur. Unde visio eorum quae sunt procul, sive sint futura contingentia, sive supra rationem nostram, dicitur prophetia. Est igitur prophetia visio seu manifestatio futurorum contingentium, seu intellectum humanum excedentium. Ad huiusmodi autem visionem quatuor requiruntur. Cum enim cognitio nostra sit per corporalia et per phantasmata a sensibilibus accepta, primo exigitur quod in imaginatione formentur similitudines corporales eorum quae ostenduntur, ut Dionysius dicit quod impossibile est aliter lucere nobis divinum radium, nisi varietate sacrorum velaminum circumvelatum. Secundum quod exigitur est lumen intellectuale illuminans intellectum ad ea quae supra naturalem cognitionem nostram ostenduntur cognoscenda. Nisi enim ad similitudines sensibiles in imaginatione formatas intelligendas adsit lumen intellectuale, ille cui similitudines huiusmodi ostenduntur, non dicitur propheta, sed potius somniator. Sicut Pharao, qui licet viderit spicas et vaccas, quae erant indicativa futurorum quorumdam, quia tamen non intellexit quod vidit, non dicitur propheta, sed potius ille, scilicet Ioseph, qui interpretatus est. Et similiter est de Nabuchodonosor, qui vidit statuam, et non intellexit, unde nec propheta dicitur, sed Daniel. Et propter hoc dicitur, Dan. X, 1: intelligentia opus est in visione. Tertium quod exigitur, est audacia ad annuntiandum ea quae revelantur. Ad hoc enim Deus revelat, ut aliis denuntientur. Ier. I, 9: ecce dedi verba mea in ore. Quartum est operatio miraculorum, quae sunt ad certitudinem prophetiae. Nisi enim facerent aliqua, quae excedunt operationem naturae, non crederetur eis in his, quae naturalem cognitionem transcendunt. 812. – To explain the entire chapter three things must be mentioned beforehand, namely, what is prophecy; in how many ways is prophecy mentioned in Scripture, and what it is to speak in tongues. In regard to the first it should be noted that prophecy is said to be “seeing from afar,” and according to some it is named after speaking afar, but it is better to say that it is from pharos, which is to see. Hence in 1 Sam (9:9): “He who is now called a prophet was formerly called a seer.” Hence the sight of things far off, whether they be future contingents or beyond human reason, is called prophecy. Prophecy, therefore, is the sight or manifestation of future contingents or of things transcending human understanding. For such a sight four things are required. For since our knowledge is through bodily things and phantasms received from sensible things, it is first required that in the imagination be formed the bodily likeness of things which are shown, as Denis says that it is impossible otherwise for the divine ray to shine in us, unless surrounded by the variety of sacred veils. The second thing required is an intellectual light enlightening the intellect for knowing things shown beyond our natural knowledge. For unless an intellectual light be present for understanding the sensible likenesses formed in the imagination, the one to whom these likenesses are shown in not called a prophet but a dreamer. Thus, Pharaoh, who, although he saw ears of corn and cattle, which indicated future events, did not understand what he saw, is not called a prophet, but rather Joseph, who interpreted it. The same is true of Nebuchadnezzar, who saw a statue but did not understand it; hence, neither is he a prophet, but Daniel. For this reason it says in Dan (10:1): “Understanding is needed in a vision.” The third thing required is the courage to announce the things revealed. For God reveals in order that it be announced to others: “Behold, I have put my words in your mouth” (Jer 1:9). The fourth thing is the working of miracles, which lend certitude to the prophecy. For unless they did things which exceed the works of nature, they would not be believed in matters that transcend natural knowledge. Secundum ergo hos modos prophetiae, dicuntur aliqui diversis modis prophetae. Aliquando enim aliquis dicitur propheta, qui habet omnia ista quatuor, scilicet quod videt imaginarias visiones, et habet intelligentiam de eis, et audacter annuntiat aliis, et operatur miracula, et de hoc dicitur Num. XII, 6: si quis fuerit inter vos propheta, et cetera. Aliquando autem dicitur propheta ille, qui habet solas imaginarias visiones, sed tamen improprie et valde remote. Aliquando etiam dicitur propheta, qui habet intellectuale lumen ad explanandum etiam visiones imaginarias, sive sibi, sive alteri factas, vel ad exponendum dicta prophetarum, vel Scripturas apostolorum. Et sic dicitur propheta omnis qui discernit doctorum Scripturas, quia eodem spiritu interpretatae sunt quo editae sunt. Et sic Salomon et David possunt dici prophetae, inquantum habuerunt lumen intellectuale, ad clare et subtiliter intuendum; nam visio David intellectualis tantum fuit. Dicitur etiam propheta aliquis solum ex hoc quod prophetarum dicta denuntiat, seu exponit, seu cantat in Ecclesia, et hoc modo dicitur I Reg. XIX, 24 quod Saul erat inter prophetas, id est, inter canentes dicta prophetarum. Dicitur etiam aliquis propheta ex miraculorum operatione, secundum illud Eccli. c. XLVIII, 14, quod corpus Elisei mortuum prophetavit, id est, miraculum fecit. Quod ergo dicit hic apostolus per totum caput de prophetis, intelligendum est de secundo modo, scilicet quod ille dicitur prophetare, qui per lumen intellectuale divinum, visiones sibi et aliis factas exponit. Et secundum hoc planum erit, quod hic dicitur de prophetis. 813. – Therefore, according to these modes of prophecy some are called prophets in various ways. For sometimes one is called a prophet, because he possesses all four, namely, that he sees imaginary visions, and has an understanding of them and he boldly announces to others and he works miracles. Concerning such a one it says in Num. (12:6): “If there is a prophet among you, I, the Lord, will appear to him in a dream, or will speak to him by means of a dream.” But sometimes one who has solely imaginary visions is called a prophet, but in an improper sense and very remotely so. Again, one is called a prophet, if he has the intellectual light to explain even imaginary visions made to himself or someone else, or for explaining the sayings of the prophets or the Scriptures of the apostles. In this way a prophet is anyone who discerns the writings of the Doctors, because they have been interpreted in the same spirit as they were edited; and so Solomon and David can be called prophets, inasmuch as they had the intellectual light to understand clearly and subtly. For the vision of David was intellectual only. Someone is even called a prophet merely because he announces the statements of prophets or explains them or sings in the church. This is the way Saul was counted among the prophets, i.e., among those singing the words of the prophets. (1 Sam 19:24). Someone is also called a prophet from working miracles, as it says in Sir (48:14) that “the dead body of Elijah prophesied, i.e., worked a miracle.” Therefore, what the Apostle says through this chapter of the prophets must be understood in the second mode, namely, that one is said to prophesy who through a divine intellectual light explains visions made to him and others. According to this, what is said here about prophets will be plain. Circa secundum sciendum est, quod quia in Ecclesia primitiva pauci erant quibus imminebat fidem Christi praedicare per mundum, ideo dominus, ut commodius et pluribus verbum Dei annuntiarent, dedit eis donum linguarum, quibus omnibus praedicarent. Non quod una lingua loquentes ab omnibus intelligerentur, ut quidam dicunt, sed, ad litteram, quod linguis diversarum gentium, imo omnium loquerentur. Unde dicit apostolus gratias ago Deo, quod omnium vestrum lingua loquor. Et Act. II, 4 dicitur: loquebantur variis linguis, et cetera. Et hoc donum multi adepti sunt a Deo in Ecclesia primitiva. Corinthii autem, quia curiosi erant, ideo libentius volebant illud donum, quam donum prophetiae. Quod ergo dicitur hic loqui lingua, vult apostolus intelligi lingua ignota, et non explanata, sicut si lingua Theutonica loquatur quis alicui Gallico, et non exponat, hic loquitur lingua. Vel etiam si loquatur visiones tantum, et non exponat, loquitur lingua. Unde omnis locutio non intellecta, nec explanata, quaecumque sit illa, est proprie loqui lingua. 814. – In regard to the second it should be noted that because there were few in the early Church assigned to preaching faith of Christ throughout the world, the Lord enabled them to proclaim the word to more people by giving them the gift of tongues, by which they could all preach to all. Not that they spoke in one language and were understood by all, as some say, but that they spoke the languages of different nations and, indeed, of all. Hence the Apostle says: “I thank God that I speak in the languages of all of you,” and in Ac (2:4) it says: “They began to speak in other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.” Furthermore, many received this gift from God in the early church. But the Corinthians, being inquisitive, were more desirous of this gift than the gift of prophecy. Therefore, when the Apostle mentions here about speaking in a tongue, he means an unknown language not interpreted; as when one might speak German to a Frenchman without an interpreter, he is speaking in a tongue. Hence, all speech not understood not explained, no matter what it is, is properly called speaking in a tongue. His ergo visis ad expositionem litterae accedamus, quae plana est. Circa hoc ergo duo facit. Primo probat, quod donum prophetiae excellentius est dono linguarum; secundo excludit quamdam obiectionem, ibi volo autem vos, et cetera. 815. – Having mentioned these things, let us return to the text, which is clear. In regard to this he does two things: first, he proves that the gift of prophecy is greater than the gift of tongues; secondly, he excludes an objection (v. 5b). Quod autem donum prophetiae excedat donum linguarum, probat duabus rationibus, quarum prima sumitur ex comparatione Dei ad Ecclesiam; secunda ratio sumitur ex comparatione hominum ad Ecclesiam. 816. – That the gift of prophecy is more excellent than the gift of tongues he proves with two reasons: the first is based on the relationship of God with the Church; the second on the relationship of men with the Church. Prima autem ratio talis est: illud per quod facit homo ea non solum quae sunt ad honorem Dei sed etiam ad utilitatem proximorum est melius, quam illud quod fit tantum ad honorem Dei; sed prophetia est non tantum ad honorem Dei sed etiam ad proximi utilitatem, per donum vero linguarum solum illud fit quod est ad honorem Dei; ergo, et cetera. Huius autem rationis ponit medium, et primo quantum ad hoc quod dicit, quod qui loquitur lingua, honorat tantum Deum. Et hoc est quod dicit qui loquitur lingua, scilicet ignota, non loquitur hominibus, id est, ad intellectum hominum, sed Deo, id est, ad honorem Dei tantum. Vel Deo, quia ipse Deus solus intelligit. Sap. I, 10: auris zeli Dei audit omnia, et cetera. Et quod non loquatur homini, subdit nemo enim audit, id est intelligit. Sic enim frequenter accipitur, non audire, pro non intelligere. Matth. XIII, 9: qui habet aures audiendi, audiat. Quare autem soli Deo loquatur, subdit quod ipse Deus loquitur. Unde dicit spiritus autem Dei loquitur mysteria, id est occulta. Matth. X, 20: non enim vos estis, qui loquimini, et cetera. Supra II, 11: nemo novit quae sunt spiritus Dei, et cetera. 817. – The first reason is this: That through which man does things which are not only for the glory of God but for the benefit of his neighbors is better than that which is done only for the glory of God. But prophecy is not only for the honor of God but also useful to our neighbor, whereas by the gift of tongues something is done solely for the honor of God. He presents the middle term of this reasoning: first, inasmuch as he says that one who speaks in a tongue only honors God. And this is what he says: One who speaks in a tongue speaks not to men, i.e., not to the human intellect, but to God, i.e., only to the honor of God. Or to God, because God alone understands: “The zealous ear of God hears all things” (Wis 1:10). That he does not speak to man is indicated when he says: For no one hears him, i.e., understands. For it often happens that not to hear means not to understand: “He who has ears to hear, let him hear” (Matt 13:9). Why he speaks only to God he indicates, when he says that God Himself is speaking; hence he says: But he utters mysteries in the Spirit, i.e., hidden things: “For it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father” (Matt 10:20); “No one understands the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God” (1 Cor 2:11). Secundo probat id quod dicit, quod prophetia est ad honorem Dei et utilitatem proximorum. Unde dicit nam qui prophetat, etc., id est explanat visiones seu Scripturas, loquitur hominibus, id est ad intellectum hominum, et hoc ad aedificationem incipientium, et ad exhortationem proficientium. I Thess. V, 14: consolamini, pusillanimes. Tit. II, 15: loquere et exhortare, et ad consolationem desolatorum. Vel aedificatio pertinet ad spiritualem affectionem, quia ibi primo incipit aedificium spirituale. Eph. II, 22: in quo et vos coaedificamini, et cetera. Exhortatio vero ad inductionem ad bonos actus, quia si affectus est bonus, tunc actus est bonus. Tit. II, 15: haec loquere et exhortare. Consolatio vero inducit ad tolerantiam malorum. Rom. XV, 4: quaecumque scripta sunt, ad nostram doctrinam scripta sunt. Ad haec enim tria inducunt praedicantes divinam Scripturam. 818. – Secondly, he proves his statement that prophecy is for the honor of God and the benefit of our neighbors. Hence he says, He who prophesies, i.e., explains visions or Scriptures, speaks to men, i.e., to the human intellect for the upbuilding of beginners and encouragement of the proficient and the consolation of the desolate. “Comfort the fainthearted (1 Th 5:14); “Speak and persuade” (Titus 2:15), for the consolation of the desolate. Or upbuilding pertains to spiritual affection, because one’s spiritual edifice first begins there: “In whom you are also built into it” (Eph 2:22). But exhortation pertains to inducement to good acts, because if the will is good, then the act is good: “Declare and exhort these things” (Titus 2:15). Consolation on the other hand induces one to tolerate evils: “Whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction” (Rom 15:4). Those who preach the divine scriptures induce people to these three things. Secunda ratio talis est: illud quod est utile soli facienti est minus quam illud quod prodest etiam aliis; loqui autem linguis est utile soli ei qui loquitur, prophetare vero aliis prodest; igitur, et cetera. Huius autem rationis ponit medium, et primo quantum ad primam partem medii, et hoc est quod dicit qui loquitur lingua, semetipsum, et cetera. Ps. XXXVIII, 4: concaluit cor meum intra me, et cetera. Secundo quantum ad secundam partem, et hoc est quod dicit qui autem prophetat, Ecclesiam, id est fideles, aedificat instruendo. Eph. II, 20: superaedificati supra fundamentum apostolorum et prophetarum. 819. – The second reason is this: that which is useful only to the doer is less than that which also profits others. But to speak in tongues is useful only to the speaker, whereas to prophesy benefits others. He presents the middle term of this reasoning: first, in regard to its first part and he says: he who speaks in a tongue edifies himself: “My heart became hot within me” (Ps. 39:3). Secondly, in regard to the second part he says: But he who prophecies edifies the church, i.e., believers, by instructing them: “Built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets” (Eph 2:20).
14-2
1 Cor 14:5-12Hic apostolus excludit obiectionem seu falsum intellectum, qui posset esse circa praemissa. Possent enim aliqui credere, quod ex quo apostolus praefert prophetiam dono linguarum, quod donum linguarum esset contemnendum. Unde, ut hoc excludat, dicit volo autem vos, et cetera. Ubi primo ostendit, quid intenderit insinuare; secundo rationem horum assignat, ibi nam maior, et cetera. 820. – Here the Apostle excludes an objection or false understanding, which could occur in respect to the foregoing. For some might believe that since the Apostle prefers prophecy to the gift of tongues, the latter should be scorned. Hence, to exclude this he says: Now I want you, where he shows what he intends to insinuate; secondly, he gives the reason (v. 5b). Dicit ergo: licet haec, quae dicta sunt supra, dixerim, non tamen volo vos donum linguarum spernere, sed volo vos omnes loqui linguis, tamen magis volo ut prophetetis. Num. XI, 29: quis tribuat ut omnis populus, et cetera. 821. – He says, therefore: I said the things stated above, I do not wish to spurn the gift of tongues, but I want you all to speak in tongues, but even more to prophesy: “Would that the Lord’s people were prophets” (Num. 11:29). Cuius rationem assignat, cum dicit nam maior, etc., quasi dicat: ideo volo ut magis prophetetis, quia maior est, et cetera. Et huius ratio est, quia aliquando aliqui moventur a spiritu sancto loqui aliquid mysticum, quod ipsi non intelligunt; unde isti habent donum linguarum. Aliquando autem non solum loquuntur linguis, sed etiam ea, quae dicunt, interpretantur. Et ideo dicit nisi forte interpretetur. Nam donum linguarum cum interpretatione est melius quam prophetia; quia, sicut dictum est, interpretatio cuiuscumque ardui pertinet ad prophetiam. Unde qui loquitur et qui interpretatur propheta est et donum linguarum habet, et interpretatur, ut Ecclesiam Dei aedificet; ideo dicit ut Ecclesia, etc., id est non solum intelligat se, sed etiam ut Ecclesia aedificetur. Rom. XIV, 19: quae aedificationis sunt invicem custodiamus. Et Rom. XV, v. 2: unusquisque proximo suo placeat in bonum ad aedificationem. 822. – He assigns the reason for this when he says: He who prophecies is greater. As if to say: the reason I wish that you would prophesy more is that it is greater. The reason for this is that some are sometimes moved by the Holy Spirit to speak something mystical, which they do not understand. Hence, they have the gift of tongues. But sometimes they not only speak in tongues, but also interpret what they say. Hence he says: unless someone interprets. For the gift of tongues with interpretation is better than prophecy, because as has been said, the interpretation of anything arduous pertains to prophecy. Hence, one who speaks and interprets is a prophet and had the gift of tongues and he interprets in order to edify the Church. Hence he says, that the Church may be edified, i.e., that he not only understand himself but also edify the Church: “Let us pursue what makes for mutual edification” (Rom 14:19); “Let each of you please the neighbor for his good to edify him.” (Rom 15:2). Nunc autem, fratres, et cetera. Hic probat donum prophetiae esse excellentius quam donum linguarum, per exempla, et hoc tripliciter. Primo per exemplum a seipso sumptum; secundo per exemplum sumptum a rebus inanimatis, ibi tamen quae sine anima, etc.; tertio per exemplum sumptum ab hominibus diversimode loquentibus, ibi tam multa, et cetera. 823. – Then when he says: Now, brethren, he proves by examples that the gift of prophecy is more excellent than the gift of tongues, and this in three ways: first, by giving an example taken from himself; secondly, by an example taken from inanimate things (v. 17); thirdly by an example taken from men speaking different language (v. 10). Ex seipso autem argumentatur sic: constat ergo quod ego non minus habeo donum linguarum quam vos; sed si loquerer vobis solum linguis, et non interpretarer, nihil vobis prodessem. Ergo nec vos ab invicem. Et hoc est quod dicit nunc autem, fratres, si venero ad vos linguis loquens. Hoc dupliciter potest intelligi, scilicet vel linguis ignotis, vel, ad litteram, quibuscumque signis non intellectis. 824. – Using himself as an example he argues this: Consequently, it is clear that I do not have the gift of tongues less than you. But if I were to speak to you only in tongues and did not interpret, you would not profit at all. Therefore, neither would you from one another. And this is what he says: Now brethren, if I come to you speaking in tongues. This can be understood in two ways, namely, either by an unknown language, or literally, by whatever sign that is not understood. Quid vobis prodero, nisi loquar vobis aut in revelatione, et cetera. Ubi notandum quod ista quatuor, scilicet aut in revelatione, etc., possunt dupliciter distingui. Uno modo penes ea de quibus sunt. Et sic sciendum est, quod illustratio mentis ad cognoscendum, est de quatuor, quia vel est de divinis, et haec illustratio pertinet ad donum sapientiae. Divinorum enim, ut supra dictum est II, 11 est revelatio, quia, quae sunt Dei, nemo novit, et cetera. Et ideo dicit in revelatione, qua scilicet illuminatur mens ad cognoscendum divina. Vel est de terrenis, et non de quibuscumque, sed de illis tantum, quae sunt ad aedificationem fidei, et hoc pertinet ad donum scientiae, et ideo dicit in scientia, non geometriae, nec astrologiae, quia haec non pertinent ad aedificationem fidei, sed in scientia quae est sanctorum. Sap. X, 10: dedit illi scientiam sanctorum, et cetera. Vel est de eventibus futurorum, et hoc pertinet ad donum prophetiae; et ideo dicit aut in prophetia. Sap. VIII, 8: signa et monstra scit antequam fiant, et eventus temporum et saeculorum. Notandum autem quod prophetia non accipitur hic communiter, scilicet secundum quod supra dictum est, sed accipitur hic particulariter prout est manifestatio futurorum tantum. Et secundum hoc diffinitur a Cassiodoro: prophetia est divina inspiratio rerum futura immobili veritate denuntians. Eccli. XXIV, 46: adhuc doctrinam quasi prophetiam effundam, et cetera. Vel est de agendis moralibus, et hoc pertinet ad doctrinam; et ideo dicit aut in doctrina. Rom. XII, 7: qui docet in doctrina. Prov. XIII, 15: doctrina bona dabit gratiam. 825. – How shall I benefit you, unless I bring you some revelation or knowledge or prophecy or teaching? It should be noted that those four things, namely, revelation, knowledge, prophecy, teaching, can be distinguished in two ways: in one way according to the things they concern. In this way, it should be noted that the illumination of the mind for understanding concerns four things, because it is either about divine things, and this illumination of the mind pertains to the gift of wisdom. For, as was stated above, revelation is concerned with divine things, because “the things of God no one knows except the spirit of God” (1 Cor 2:11). Therefore, he says: in revelation, by which the mind is enlightened to know divine things. Or it is about earthly things, not just any but only about those which pertain to the building up of faith: and this pertains to the gift of knowledge. Therefore he says: in knowledge, not geometry or astronomy, because these do not pertain to the building up of the faith, but in knowledge of holy things: “He gave them knowledge of holy things” (Wis 10:10). Or it is about future events, and this pertains to the gift of prophecy: hence he says: or in prophecy: “She has foreknowledge of signs and wonders and of the outcome of seasons and of times” (Wis 8:8). It should be noted that prophecy is not taken here as it is generally used and was explained above, but it is taken here in a special sense, as a manifestation of future events only. In this sense it is defined by Cassiodorus: “Prophecy is divine inspiration announcing with infallible truth the future of things.” “I will again pour out teaching like prophecy” (Sir 24:33). Or is it is about moral acts, and this pertaining to teaching; therefore he says: Or teaching: “He that teaches, in teaching” (Rom 12:7); “Good teaching wins favor” (Pr 13:15). Alio modo possunt haec distingui penes diversos modos acquirendi cognitionem. Et sic sciendum est quod omnis cognitio aut est a supernaturali principio, scilicet Deo, aut naturali, scilicet lumine naturali intellectus nostri. Si autem a supernaturali principio, scilicet lumine divino infuso, hoc potest esse dupliciter, quia aut infunditur subito cognitio, et sic est revelatio; aut infunditur successive, et sic est prophetia, quam non subito habuerunt prophetae, sed successive et per partes, ut eorum prophetiae ostendunt. Si vero cognitio acquiratur a naturali principio, hoc est aut per studium proprium, et sic pertinet ad scientiam; aut traditur ab alio, et sic pertinet ad doctrinam. 826. – They can be distinguished in another way according to the various ways that knowledge is from a supernatural source, namely, God, or from a natural, i.e., the natural light of the intellect. If it is from a supernatural principle, namely, by a divinely infused light, it can happen in two ways: because it is either infused by sudden knowledge, and then it is revelation; or it is infused successively, and then it is prophecy, which the prophets did not have suddenly but successively and by parts, as their prophecies show. But if the knowledge is acquired by a natural principle, this is either through one’s own study and then it pertains to knowledge, or it is presented by someone else, and then it pertains to teaching. Tamen quae sine anima, et cetera. Hic ostendit idem per exempla sumpta ex rebus inanimatis, scilicet per instrumenta quae videntur vocem habere. Et primo per instrumenta gaudii; secundo per instrumenta pugnae, ibi etenim si incertam, et cetera. 827. – If even lifeless instruments. Here he shows the same thing with examples taken from inanimate things, namely, instruments which seem to have a voice: first, with instruments of joy; secondly, the instruments of battle (v. 8). Dicit ergo: hoc non solum patet per ea quae supra dicta sunt, sed etiam quantum ad ea, quae sine anima vocem dant, quod loqui linguis non solum non prodest aliis. Et quae sine anima sunt vocem dantia. Contra. Vox est sonus ab ore animalis prolatus, naturalibus instrumentis formatus. Non ergo ea quae sunt sine anima dant vocem. Dicendum est quod licet vox non sit nisi animalium, tamen potest dici per quamdam similitudinem, scilicet secundum quod quaedam, sicuti instrumenta, habent quamdam consonantiam et melodiam, et ideo de illis facit mentionem, scilicet de cithara, quae dat vocem tactu, et tibia, quae flatu. Si ergo haec dant vocem sine distinctione, quomodo scietur, et cetera. Cum enim homo per instrumenta aliquid intendat exprimere, scilicet aliquos cantus, qui ordinantur vel ad fletum, vel ad gaudium, Is. XXX, 29: canticum erit vobis sicut vox sanctificatae solemnitatis et laetitia cordis, sicut qui pergit cum tibia, ut intret in montem domini, vel etiam ad lasciviam, non poterit diiudicari ad quid canitur tibia, aut ad quid cithara, si sonus sit confusus et indistinctus. Ita si homo loquitur linguis, et non interpretatur, non poterit sciri quid velit dicere. 828. – He says, therefore: that speaking in tongues does not benefit others is shown not only from what has been said above but also by lifeless things which seem to have a sound. Against this, a voice is a sound uttered from the mouth of an animal. Therefore, lifeless things do not give forth a voice. The answer is that although a voice is found only in animals, yet in virtue of a likeness it can be said that certain things, such as musical instruments, have a definite consonance and melody. That is why he mentions them, namely, the harp, which gives forth a voice through touch, and the flute through blowing. If even lifeless instruments do not give distinct notes, how will anyone know with is played? For since man intends to express something through musical instruments, namely, songs which are directed to sorrow or to joy: “You shall have a song in the night, when a holy feast is kept; and gladness of heart, as when one set out to the sound of the flute to go to the mountain of the Lord” (Is 30:29), or even to wantonness, one cannot tell what the flute is playing or the harp, if the sound is confused and not distinct. So if a man speaks in tongues, and he does not interpret, no one knows what he wants to say. Etenim si incertam vocem dederit, et cetera. Hic ostendit idem per exempla inanimatorum, scilicet per instrumenta ad pugnam ordinata. Et sumitur haec similitudo ex Lib. Num. X, v. 1-10. Ibi enim legitur quod dominus praecepit Moysi ut faceret duas tubas argenteas, quae essent ad conveniendum populum, ad movendum castra et ad pugnandum. Et pro quolibet istorum habebant certum modum tubandi, quia aliter dabant vocem quando debebant convenire ad Concilium, aliter quando movebant castra, et aliter quando pugnabant. Et ideo arguit apostolus quod sicut si tuba det incertam vocem, id est indistinctam, nescitur utrum se debeant parare ad bellum; et ita vos, si loquimini tantum linguis, nisi distinctum sermonem dicatis interpretando, vel exponendo, non poterit quis scire quid loquamini. Per tubam potest intelligi praedicator. Is. LVIII, 1: quasi tuba exalta vocem tuam, et cetera. Ratio autem quare non potest sciri quid loquamini est quia eritis in aera loquentes, id est, inutiliter. Supra IX, 26: sic pugno non quasi aera verberans, et cetera. 829. – If the bugle gives an indistinct sound. Here he shows the same thing with another lifeless thing, namely, the instrument ordained to battle. This likeness is taken from Num. (10:1-10), where it says that the Lord commanded Moses to make two silver trumpets to be used for summoning all the people, for moving their camps and for battle. For each of these three things there was a different way of sounding the trumpet, because when they moved their camps it sounded one way; and another, when they were to assemble; and still another, when they were to do battle. And so the Apostle argues that just as if the bugle gives an indistinct sound, it is not known whether they should prepare for battle, so you, if you only speak in tongues, unless you make your speech clear by interpreting or explaining, no one will know what you are saying. By “bugle” can also be understood “preachers.” “Life up your voice like a trumpet” (Is 58:1). But the reason why it cannot be known what you are saying is that you will be speaking into the air, i.e., uselessly: “I do not box as one beating the air” (1 Cor 9:26). Tam multa, et cetera. Hic sumit exemplum a diversis linguis loquentium. Et circa hoc tria facit. Primo ostendit diversitatem linguarum; secundo inutilitatem loquentium sibi ad invicem in linguis extraneis, ibi si ergo nesciero, etc.; tertio concludit quod intendit ibi sic et vos quoniam aemulatores, et cetera. 830. – There are doubtless many. Here he uses the examples of the various human languages. In regard to this he does three things: first, he points out the diversity of tongues; secondly, that it is useless for one to speak to others in a language they do not understand (v. 11); thirdly, he concludes what he intended (v. 12). Dicit ergo primo: multae et diversae linguae in mundo sunt, et quilibet potest loqui quacumque vult; si tamen non loquatur determinate, non intelligitur. Et hoc est quod dicit tam multa, et cetera. Hoc potest dupliciter exponi, quia potest continuari cum praecedentibus, ut dicatur: eritis in aera loquentes, et tam multa, ut puta, etc., quasi dicat: ideo in aera, id est, inutiliter loquimini omnibus linguis, quia loquimini sine intellectu, quae tamen proprias significationes vocum ad hoc habent, ut intelligantur. Nihil enim sine voce est. Vel potest sic punctuari: eritis in aera loquentes. Tam multa, ut puta, sunt genera linguarum, id est singulis linguis. 831. – First, therefore, he says: The languages of the world are many and diverse, and anyone can speak in whichever one he wants; but if he does not speak precisely, he is not understood. And this is what he says: There are doubtless many languages in the world. This can be explained in two ways, for it can be connected with the preceding as saying: you will be speaking uselessly in all languages, because you speak without understanding, whereas words have a definite meaning in all languages to be understood. For nothing exists without its “voice.” Or it can be punctuated thus: you will be speaking into the air. So many, for example, are the kinds of languages, i.e., individual languages. Si ergo nesciero, et cetera. Hic ostendit horum inutilitatem. Et hoc est quod dicit: si loquar omnibus linguis, sed si nesciero virtutem vocis, id est significationem vocis, ero cui loquar barbarus. Ier. V, 15: adducam super te gentem de longinquo, gentem cuius ignoras linguam. Nota quod barbari, secundum quosdam, dicuntur illi, quorum idioma discordat omnino a Latino. Alii vero dicunt quod quilibet extraneus est barbarus omni alii extraneo, quando scilicet non intelligitur ab eo. Sed hoc non est verum, quia, secundum Isidorum, Barbaria est specialis natio. Col. III, v. 11: in Christo Iesu non est barbarus et Scytha, et cetera. Sed secundum quod verius dicitur, barbari proprie dicuntur illi, qui in virtute corporis vigent, in virtute rationis deficiunt et sunt quasi extra leges et sine regimine iuris. Et huic videtur consonare Aristoteles in politicis suis. 832. – But if I do not know the meaning of the language. Here he shows their uselessness. And this is what he says: “If I have spoken in all tongues,” but did not know the meaning of the words, I will be a foreigner (barbarian) to the speaker, and the speaker a foreigner (barbarian) to me. Note that barbarians according to some are those whose idiom completely disagrees with Latin. But others say that any foreigner is a barbarian to every other foreigner, namely, when he is not understood by him. But this is not true, because according to Isidore, “Barbaria” is a special nation: “In Christ Jesus there is neither barbarian nor Scythian” (Col 3:11). But it is closer to the truth to say that barbarian is the name for those who are strong in body and weak in reasoning and exist, as it were, outside the law and without the rule of law. And Aristotle seems to agree with this in his Politics. Consequenter, cum dicit sicut, etc., concludit quod intendit, et hoc potest dupliciter construi. Primo ut punctetur hoc modo, quasi dicat: sic ego ero barbarus vobis, si loquar sine significatione et interpretatione, sicut et vos eritis barbari ad invicem; et ideo quaerite, ut abundetis, etc., et hoc quoniam estis aemulatores, et cetera. Vel, alio modo, ut totum ponatur sub distinctione; quasi diceret: ne ergo sitis barbari, sic scilicet sicut ego facio, quoniam estis aemulatores spirituum, id est, donorum spiritus sancti, quaerite a Deo, ut abundetis. Prov. XV, 5: in abundanti iustitia virtus maxima est. Quae quidem iustitia est aedificare alios. Matth. VII, 7: petite, et dabitur vobis; quaerite et invenietis; pulsate, et aperietur vobis. 833. – Then when he says: So with yourselves, he concludes to what he intended; and this can be constructed in two ways: first, so that it is punctuated as if he were saying: Therefore, I will be a barbarian to you, if I speak without meaning and interpretation, just as you will be barbarians to one another; and, therefore, seek to abound. And this, because you will be eager for manifestations of the Spirit. Or in another way, so that it is all put under a distinction. As if to say: Therefore, do no be barbarians, but because you are eager for the manifestations of the Spirit, i.e., of the gifts of the Holy Spirit, do as I do and seek them from God, that you may abound: “In abundant justice is virtue the greatest” (Pr 12:5). This justice consists in edifying others: “Ask, and it will be given you; seek, and you shall find; knock, and it shall be opened to you” (Matt 7:7).
14-3
1 Cor 14:13-17Supra ostendit apostolus excellentiam doni prophetiae ad donum linguarum, rationibus sumptis ex parte exhortationis, hic vero ostendit idem rationibus sumptis ex parte orationis: haec enim duo per linguam exercemus, orationem scilicet et exhortationem. Et circa hoc duo facit. Primo enim probat excellentiam prophetiae ad donum linguarum rationibus; secundo exemplis, ibi gratias ago Deo meo, et cetera. Circa primum duo facit. Primo ponit necessitatem orationis; secundo ostendit quomodo in oratione plus valet donum prophetiae quam donum linguarum nam si orem lingua, et cetera. 834. – Having shown that the gift of prophecy excels the gift of tongues with reasons taken on the part of exhortation, the Apostle now shows the same thing with reasons taken on the part of prayer; for we perform these two things with the tongue, namely, prayer and exhortation. In regard to this he does two things: first, he proves that prophecy excels the gift of tongues with reasons; secondly, with examples (v. 18). In regard to the first he does two things: first, he shows the necessity of prayer; secondly, how in prayer the gift of prophecy is more powerful than the gift of tongues (v. 14). Dicit ergo primo: dixi quod donum linguarum sine dono prophetiae non valet, et ideo, quia interpretari est actus prophetiae, quae est excellentior illi, qui loquitur lingua, ignota vel extranea vel aliqua mysteria occulta, oret, scilicet Deum, ut interpretetur, id est, ut interpretandi gratia detur sibi. Col. IV, 3: orantes ut Deus aperiat ostium. Glossa aliter exponit oret. Orare enim dicitur dupliciter, scilicet vel deprecari Deum vel persuadere, quasi dicat qui loquitur lingua, oret, id est ita persuadeat ut interpretetur. Et sic accipit orare hic Glossa per totum capitulum. Sed non est haec intentio apostoli, sed pro deprecatione ad Deum. 835. – First, therefore, he says: I have said that the gift of tongues without the gift of prophecy has no value, because interpretation is an act of prophecy, which is more excellent than speaking in tongue. One who speaks in a tongue, unknown or foreign, certain hidden mysteries, should pray, namely, to God, for the power to interpret, i.e., that the grace to interpret be given him: “Praying that God may open to us a door” (Col 4:3). A Gloss exposits pray differently. For ‘to pray’ is said to be twofold, namely either to beseech God or to prevail upon him; as if he says: he who speaks in a tongue, let him pray, i.e., let him prevail upon God, so that he may interpret. And so the Gloss understands ‘to pray’ here for the whole chapter. But this is not the meaning of the Apostle, but rather it is ‘to beseech God’. Nam si orem, et cetera. Hic ostendit quod in orando plus valet prophetia, quam donum linguarum, et hoc dupliciter. Primo, ratione sumpta ex parte ipsius orantis; secundo, ratione sumpta ex parte audientis, ibi caeterum, si benedixeris, et cetera. Circa primum duo facit. Primo ponit rationem ad propositum ostendendum; secundo removet obiectionem, ibi quid ergo, et cetera. 836. – For if I pray in a tongue. Here he shows that in praying, prophecy is more valuable than the gift of tongues in two ways: first, with a reason based on the one praying; secondly, on the one hearing (v. 16). In regard to the first he does two things: first, he presents a reason showing the truth of his proposition; secondly, he removes an objection (v. 15). Circa primum sciendum est quod duplex est oratio. Una est privata, quando scilicet quis orat in seipso et pro se; alia publica, quando quis orat coram populo et pro aliis: et in utraque contingit uti et dono linguarum et dono prophetiae. Et ideo vult ostendere quod in utraque plus valet donum prophetiae, quam donum linguarum. Et primo in oratione privata, dicens, quod si sit aliquis idiota, qui faciat orationem suam, dicens Psalmum, vel pater noster, et non intelligat ea quae dicit, iste orat lingua, et non refert utrum oret verbis sibi a spiritu sancto concessis, sive verbis aliorum; et si sit alius qui orat, et intelligit quae dicit, hic quidem orat et prophetat. Constat quod plus lucratur qui orat et intelligit, quam qui tantum lingua orat, qui scilicet non intelligit quae dicit. Nam ille qui intelligit, reficitur et quantum ad intellectum et quantum ad affectum; sed mens eius, qui non intelligit, est sine fructu refectionis. Unde et cum melius sit refici quantum ad affectum et intellectum, quam quantum ad affectum solum, constat quod in oratione plus valet prophetiae donum quam solum donum linguarum. 837. – In regard to the first it should be noted that prayer is of two kinds: one is private, namely, when one prays in himself and for himself; the other is public, when one prays before the people and for others. In both cases one can use the gift of tongues and the gift of prophecy. Hence he wants to show that in both cases the gift of prophecy is more valuable than the gift of tongues. First, in private prayer, if an outsider says his own prayer, saying a Psalm or “our Father” and he does not understand what he says, he prays with the tongue and it does not concern him whether he is praying with words granted him by the Holy Spirit or with someone else’s words: and if another prays and understands what he is saying, he, indeed, both prays and prophesies. It is evident that one who prays and understands accomplishes more than one who prays only in a tongue, namely, who does not understand what he is saying. For the one who understands is refreshed both in intellect and affections, but the mind of one who does not understand receives no fruit of refreshment. Hence, since it is better to be refreshed in mind and affections than in affections only, it is obvious that in prayer the gift of prophecy is more valuable than the gift of tongues. Et hoc est quod dicit: dico quod oret, ut interpretetur, nam si orem lingua, id est orando utor dono linguarum, ita quod proferam aliqua quae non intelligo; tunc spiritus meus, id est spiritus sanctus mihi datus, orat, qui inclinat et movet me ad orandum. Et nihilominus mereor in ipsa oratione, quia hoc ipsum, quod moveor a spiritu sancto, est mihi meritum. Rom. VIII, 26: nam quid oremus, sicut oportet, nescimus, sed ipse spiritus sanctus postulare nos facit. Vel spiritus meus, id est ratio mea, orat, id est dictat mihi quod ego loquar ea quae ad bonum sunt, sive verbis propriis sive aliorum sanctorum. Vel spiritus meus, id est virtus imaginativa, orat, inquantum voces seu similitudines corporalium sunt tantum in imaginatione absque hoc quod intelligantur ab intellectu; et ideo subdit: mens autem mea, id est intellectus meus, sine fructu est, quia non intelligit. Et ideo melius est in oratione prophetia seu interpretatio, quam donum linguarum. 838. – And this is what he says: I say that he should pray for the power to interpret, for if I pray in a tongue, i.e., use the gift of tongues in praying, so that I utter what I do not understand; then my spirit, i.e., the Holy Spirit given to me, prays, Who inclines and moves me to pray. Nevertheless, I merit in that prayer, because the very fact that I am moved by the Spirit is merit for me: “We do not know how to pray as we ought, but the Spirit himself makes us ask” (Rom 8:26). Or my spirit, i.e., my reason, prays, i.e., tells me that I should ask for things which are good, either in my own words or those of other saints. Or my spirit, i.e., the imagination, prays in the sense that words of the likenesses of bodily things are only in the imagination without being understood by the intellect. Therefore, he adds: but my mind, i.e., my intellect, is unfruitful, because it does not understand. Therefore, prophecy or interpretation is better in prayer than is the gift of tongues. Sed numquid quandocumque quis orat, et non intelligit quae dicit, sit sine fructu orationis? Dicendum quod duplex est fructus orationis. Unus fructus est meritum quod homini provenit; alius fructus est spiritualis consolatio et devotio concepta ex oratione. Et quantum ad fructum devotionis spiritualis privatur qui non attendit ad ea quae orat, seu non intelligit; sed quantum ad fructum meriti, non est dicendum quod privetur: quia sic multae orationes essent sine merito, cum vix unum pater noster potest homo dicere, quin mens ad alia feratur. Et ideo dicendum est quod quando orans aliquando divertit ab his quae dicit, seu quando quis in uno opere meritorio non continue cogitat in quolibet actu, quod facit hoc propter Deum, non perdit rationem meriti. Cuius ratio est, quia in omnibus actibus meritoriis, qui ordinantur ad finem rectum, non requiritur quod intentio agentis coniungatur fini, secundum quemlibet actum: sed vis prima, quae movet intentionem, manet in toto opere, etiam si aliquando in aliquo particulari divertat; et hic prima vis facit totum opus meritorium, nisi interrumpatur per contrariam affectionem, quae divertat a fine praedicto ad finem contrarium. 839. – But is it true that whenever anyone prays and does not understand what he is saying, he obtains no fruit? The answer is that the fruit of prayer is twofold: one fruit is the merit the person obtains; the other fruit is the spiritual consolation and devotion produced by the prayer. In regard to the fruit of spiritual devotion, one is deprived of it, if he does not attend to what he is praying, or does not understand; but in regard to the fruit of merit, one is not necessarily deprived of it. For many prayers would be without merit, since a man can scarcely say the “Our Father” without his mind wandering to other things. Therefore, it must be said that when the one praying is sometimes diverted from what he is saying, or when a person engaged in one meritorious work does not continually think at each step that he is doing this for God, he does not lose the reason for merit. The reason for this is that in all meritorious acts ordained to the right end, it is not required that the intention of the performer be united to the end in every act: but the first influence, which moves the intention, remains in the entire work, even if in some particular it be distracted; and this first influence makes the entire work meritorious, unless it is interrupted by a contrary affection which turns one from the original and to a contrary end. Sed sciendum est quod triplex est attentio. Una est ad verba quae homo dicit: et haec aliquando nocet, inquantum impedit devotionem; alia est ad sensum verborum, et haec nocet, non tamen est multum nociva; tertia est ad finem, et haec est melior et quasi necessaria. Tamen id quod dicit apostolus mens est sine fructu, intelligitur de fructu refectionis. 840. – But it should be noted that attention is threefold: one is to the words the man is saying: and this is harmful sometimes, inasmuch as it impedes devotion; another is to the sense of the words, and this is harmful, but not very much; the third is to the end, and this is better and, as it were, necessary. Nevertheless, when the Apostle says that the mind is unfruitful, it is understood of the fruit of refreshment. Quid ergo est, et cetera. Quia posset aliquis dicere: ex quo orare lingua est sine fructu mentis, sed tamen spiritus orat, numquid ergo non est orandum spiritu? Ideo apostolus hoc removet dicens, quod utroque modo orandum est, et spiritu et mente: quia homo debet servire Deo de omnibus quae habet a Deo; sed a Deo habet spiritum et mentem, et ideo debet de utroque orare. Eccli. XLVII, 10: de omni corde suo laudabit dominum, et cetera. Et ideo dicit orabo spiritu, orabo et mente: psallam spiritu, et cetera. Et sic dicit orabo et psallam; quia oratio, vel est ad deprecandum Deum et sic dicit orabo, vel laudandum et sic dicit psallam. De istis duobus Iac. V, 13: tristatur quis in vobis? Oret aequo animo, et psallat. Ps. IX, v. 12: psallite domino, et cetera. Orabo ergo spiritu, id est imaginatione, et mente, id est voluntate. 841. – What am I to do? Because someone could say: inasmuch as prayer in a tongue is without fruit to the mind, but the spirit prays, should one then not pray in the spirit. Therefore, the Apostle answer this objection, saying that one should pray in both ways, in the spirit and in the mind; because man should serve God with all the things he has from God. But from God he has spirit and mind; therefore, he should pray with both: “With all his heart he will praise God” (Sir 47:8). Therefore, he says: I will pray with the spirit and I will pray with the mind also; I will sing with the spirit and I will sing with the mind also. And so he says that he will pray and sing; because prayer is the beseeching of God, and so he says, I will pray, or it is praising Him, and so he says I will sing. Concerning these two Jas (6:13) says: “Is anyone among you suffering? Let him pray. Is any cheerful? Let him sing.” “Sing praises to the Lord” (Ps 9:11). I will pray, therefore, in the spirit, i.e., imagination, and with the mind, i.e., the will. Caeterum si benedixeris, et cetera. Hic secundo ostendit quod donum prophetiae plus valet quam donum linguarum, etiam in oratione publica, quae est quando sacerdos publice orat, ubi aliquando dicit quaedam quae non intelligit, aliquando aliqua quae intelligit. Et circa hoc tria facit. Primo ponit rationem; secundo exponit eam, ibi quomodo dicit, etc.; tertio probat quod supposuerat, ibi quoniam quid, et cetera.> 842. – Otherwise if you bless. Here, secondly, he shows that the gift of prophecy is more valuable than the gift of tongues, even in public prayer, which is when a priest prays in public, where he sometimes says things he does not understand and sometimes things he does understand. In regard to this he does three things: first, he presents a reason, secondly, he explains; thirdly, he proves what he had presupposed. Dicit ergo: dixi quod donum prophetiae in oratione privata plus valet, caeterum, pro sed, et in publica, quia si benedixeris, id est si benedictionem dederis, spiritu, id est in lingua quae non intelligatur, seu imaginatione, et motus a spiritu sancto, quis supplet locum idiotae? Idiota proprie dicitur qui scit tantum linguam in qua natus est; quasi diceret: quis dicet illud quod debet dicere ibi idiota? Quod est, dicere: amen. 843. – He says, therefore: I have said that the gift of prophecy in private prayer is more beneficial, but also in public, because if you bless, i.e., if you give a blessing in the spirit, i.e., in a tongue not understood, or with the imagination, and moved by the Holy Spirit, who supplies the place of the ignorant man (who knows only the tongue in which he was born). As if to say: you will say what he should say there to the ignorant man; for what he should say there is Amen. Et ideo dicit quomodo dicet super tuam benedictionem? Ubi Glossa exponit, id est: quomodo consentiet benedictioni a te factae in persona Ecclesiae? Is. LXV, 16: qui benedictus est super terram, benedicetur in Deo, amen. Amen idem est quod fiat, vel verum est; quasi dicat: si non intelligit quae dicis, quomodo conformabit se dictis tuis? Potest quidem se conformare, etiam si non intelligat, sed in generali tantum, non in speciali, quia non potest intelligere quid boni dicas, nisi quod benedicas tantum. 844. – Therefore, he says: how can he say Amen to your blessing, where a Gloss says, i.e., how shall he consent to the blessing given by you in the name of the Church? “He that is blessed on the earth will be blessed in God. Amen.” (Is 55:16). Amen is the same as “let it be done,” or “it is so.” As if to say: if he does not know what you are saying, how shall he conform himself to your utterances? He could conform, even if he does not understand, but only in a general way, because he cannot understand what good thing you are saying, but only that you are blessing. Sed quare non dantur benedictiones in vulgari, ut intelligantur a populo, et conforment se magis eis? Dicendum est quod hoc forte fuit in Ecclesia primitiva, sed postquam fideles instructi sunt et sciunt quae audiunt in communi officio, fiunt benedictiones in Latino. 845. – But why are blessings not given in the vernacular, so that they will be understood by the people and conform themselves to them more? The answer is that this probably happened in the early Church, but later the faithful were instructed and know what they hear in the common office, where blessings are given in Latin. Consequenter probat, quare non potest dicere amen, cum dicit nam tu quidem, id est: licet tu gratias agas bene Deo, inquantum intelligis, sed alter, qui audit et non intelligit, non aedificatur, inquantum non intelligit in speciali, etsi in generali intelligat et aedificetur. Eph. IV, 29: omnis sermo malus ex ore vestro non procedat, sed si quis bonus est ad aedificationem fidei. Et ideo melius est ut non solum lingua benedicat, sed etiam, ut interpretetur et exponat, licet tu qui gratias agis, bene agas. 846. – Then he proves why he cannot say, “Amen,” when he says: For you may give thanks well enough to God, inasmuch as you understand, but the other man, who hears and does not understand, is not edified, for he does not understand in detail, even if he understands in a general way and is edified: “Let no evil thought come out of your mouth, but only such as is good for edifying” (Eph 4:29). Consequently, it is better not only to bless in a tongue, but also to interpret and explain, although you who give thanks do well.
14-4
1 Cor 14:18-22Hic ostendit apostolus excellentiam doni prophetiae ad donum linguarum per rationes sumptas ex parte sui ipsius. Et circa hoc duo facit. Primo agit gratias de dono linguarum sibi a Deo dato; secundo se eis in exemplum proponit, ibi sed in Ecclesia volo, et cetera. 847. – Here the Apostle shows that the gift of prophecy excels the gift of tongues with reasons taken on his own part. In regard to this he does two things: first, he gives thanks for the gift of tongues given him by God; secondly, he proposes himself to them as an example (v. 19). Dicit ergo gratias ago, etc., quasi dicat: non ideo vilipendo donum linguarum, quia ego dico quod donum prophetiae sit excellentius, sed debet charum haberi. Unde et ego gratias ago, et cetera. Est ergo de omnibus gratias agendum. I Thess. V, 18: in omnibus gratias agite, et cetera. Vel gratias ago, quasi dicat: non ideo vilipendo donum linguarum, quasi eo carens, immo etiam ego habeo; et ideo dicit gratias ago, et cetera. Et ne intelligatur quod omnes loquerentur una lingua, dicit quod omnium vestrum lingua loquor, Act. II, 4: loquebantur variis linguis apostoli, et cetera. 848. – He says, therefore, I thank God that I speak in tongues more than you all. As if to say: I do not belittle the gift of tongues, because I say that the gift of prophecy is more excellent, but it ought to be cherished. Hence, I, too, thank God. Therefore, thanks should be given for all things: “In all things give thanks” (1 Th 5:18). Or I thank God. As if to say: I do not belittle the gift of tongues, as though lacking it; rather I have it. Therefore, he says: I thank God. But lest it be understood that all speak in one tongue, he says: that I speak in tongues more than you: “They spoke in various tongues” (Ac 2:4). Sed in Ecclesia. Hic ponit se in exemplum, quasi dicat: si ego habeo donum linguarum sicut et vos, debetis facere illud quod facio. Sed ego volo, id est magis volo, loqui in Ecclesia quinque, id est pauca, verba sensu meo, id est intellectu, ut scilicet ego intelligam et intelligar, et ex hoc instruam alios, quam decem millia, id est quamcumque multitudinem, verborum in lingua; quod est loqui non ad intellectum quocumque modo fiat, ut supra expositum est. 849. – But in the church. Here he presents himself as an example. As if to say: If I have the gift of tongues, just as you, you should do as I do. But I would rather speak five words in the church, i.e., a few words, with my mind and understand and be understood, in order to instruct others than ten thousand, i.e., any number of words in a tongue; which is not to speak to the mind in any way, as explained above. Dicunt quidam quod ideo dicit quinque, quia apostolus videtur velle, quod magis velit dicere solum unam orationem ad intellectum, quam multas sine intellectu. Oratio autem, secundum grammaticos, ad hoc quod debeat facere perfectum sensum, debet habere quinque, scilicet subiectum, praedicatum, copulam verbalem, determinationem subiecti, et determinationem praedicati. Aliis videtur melius quod quia ad hoc loquendum est cum intellectu, ut alii doceantur, ideo ponit quinque, quia doctor debet quinque, scilicet: credenda, Tit. II, 11: haec loquere et exhortare, etc.; agenda, Mc. XVI, v. 15: euntes in mundum, etc.; vitanda, scilicet peccata Eccli. XXI, 2: quasi a facie colubri fuge, etc.; Is. LVIII, 1: annuntia populo meo scelera, etc.; speranda scilicet mercedem aeternam, I Petr. I, 10: de qua salute exquisierunt, etc.; timenda, scilicet poenas aeternas, Matth. XXV, 21: ite, maledicti, in ignem aeternum, et cetera. 850. – Some say that he says, five, because the Apostle seems to prefer to say one prayer with understanding than many without understanding. But according to the grammarians, if a statement is to have perfect sense, it should have five things: a subject, predicate, verbal copula, a modifier of the subject and a modifier of the predicate. To others it seems better to say, that because we speak with the intellect in order that others be taught, he mentions five, because the teacher should teach five things, namely: things to be believed: “Declare and exhort these things” (Titus 2:11); things to be done: “Go into the whole world and preach the Gospel, teaching them to observe all things I have commanded you” (Mk 16:15); things to be avoided, i.e., sins: “Flee from sin as from a snake” (Sir 21:2); “Declare to my people their transgressions, to the house of Jacob their sins” (Is 58:1); things to be hoped for, i.e., the eternal reward: “They searched and inquired about this salvation” (1 Pt 1:10); things to be feared, i.e., eternal punishments: “Depart, you accursed into everlasting fire” (Matt 25:21). Fratres mei, nolite, et cetera. Hic ostendit excellentiam doni prophetiae ad donum linguarum, rationibus sumptis ex parte infidelium. Et circa hoc duo facit. Primo excitat attentionem, et reddit attentos; secundo arguit ad propositum, ibi in lege quid scriptum est? 851. – Brethren, do not be children in your thinking. Here he shows that the gift of prophecy excels the gift of tongue with reasons taken on the part of unbelievers. In regard to this he does two things: first, he gets their attention and makes them attentive; secondly, he argues to his point (v. 21). Circa primum videtur apostolus excludere pallium excusationis aliquorum qui ideo docent quaedam rudia et superficialia, quasi ostendant se volentes vivere in simplicitate, et ideo non curantes de subtilitatibus ad quas secundum rei veritatem non attingunt, habentes verbum domini ad hoc Matthaei XVIII, 3: nisi conversi fueritis, et efficiamini sicut parvuli, et cetera. Sed hoc apostolus excludit, cum dicit nolite pueri effici sensu, id est nolite puerilia et inutilia et stulta loqui et docere. Supra XIII, v. 11: cum essem parvulus, et cetera. Sed quomodo debetis effici pueri? Affectu, non intellectu. Et ideo dicit sed malitia. Ubi sciendum est quod parvuli deficiunt in cogitando mala, et sic debemus effici parvuli, et ideo dicit sed malitia parvuli estote, et deficiunt in cogitando bona, et sic non debemus esse parvuli, immo viri perfecti, et ideo dicit sensibus autem perfecti, etc., id est ad discretionem boni et mali perfecti sitis. Unde Hebr. V, 14: perfectorum est solidus cibus, et cetera. Non ergo laudatur in vobis simplicitas quae opponitur prudentiae, sed simplicitas, quae astutiae. Et ideo dominus dicit Matth. c. X, 16: estote prudentes sicut serpentes. Rom. XVI, 19: volo vos sapientes esse in bono, simplices in malo. 852. – In regard to the first the Apostle seems to remove the mantle of excuse from those who teach certain rude and superficial things, as if to show that they wish to live in simplicity, and not caring about subtleties to which they really do not attain; and for this they appeal to the Lord’s words in Matt (18:3): “Unless you be converted and become as little children, you shall not enter the kingdom of heaven.” But the Apostle rejects this, when he says: Do not be children in your thinking, i.e., do not speak and teach childish and useless and foolish things: “When I was a child, I spoke as a child” (1 Cor 13:11). But how should you become children? In affection, not in understanding. Therefore he says: But in evil. Here it should be noted that children are not wont to think evil, and therefore he says: in evil be children. And they are not accustomed to think of the good. In this sense, we should not become children but perfect men. Therefore, he says: but in thinking be mature, i.e., be perfect in discerning good and evil. Hence it says in Heb (5:14): “Solid food is for the mature, for those who have their faculties trained to distinguish good from evil.” Therefore, what is praised in you is not the simplicity opposed to prudence but the simplicity opposed to craftiness: “Be wise as serpents” (Matt 10:16); “I would have you wise as to what is good and guileless as to what is evil” (Rom 16:19). Consequenter cum dicit in lege quid scriptum est? Arguit ad propositum. Ubi sciendum est quod hoc argumentum, sicut patet per Glossam, distinguitur per multa; sed secundum intentionem apostoli non videtur quod attendatur in loco hoc nisi una ratio. Et ratio sua ad probandum quod donum prophetiae est excellentius, quam donum linguarum, est talis: omne quod plus valet ad illud ad quod alterum principaliter ordinatur, est melius illo altero ordinato ad hoc; sed tam donum prophetiae, quam donum linguarum, ordinatur ad conversionem infidelium; sed prophetiae plus valent ad hoc, quam donum linguarum; ergo prophetia est melior. 853. – Then when he says: it is written in the law, he argues to his proposition. Here it should be noted that this argument, as is clear from a Gloss, is distinguished by many things; but according to the Apostle’s intent, it does not seem that in this place attention is paid to more than one reason. The argument proving that the gift of prophecy excels the gift of tongues is this: Whatever contributes more to that to which another is principally ordained is better than the latter; but the gift of prophecy and the gift of tongues are both ordained to the conversion of unbelievers, although the gift of prophecy contributes more to this than does the gift of tongues. Therefore, prophecy is better. Circa hanc ergo rationem duo facit. Primo ostendit ad quid ordinatur donum linguarum, et ad quid ordinatur donum prophetiae; secundo quod plus valet donum prophetiae, ibi si ergo conveniat universa, et cetera. Circa primum duo facit. Primo inducit auctoritatem; secundo ex auctoritate arguit ad propositum, ibi itaque linguae, et cetera. 854. – In regard to this reason he does two things: first, he shows to what the gift of tongues is ordained, and to what the gift of prophecy is ordained; secondly, that the gift of prophecy contributes more (v. 22). Circa primum sciendum est, quod hoc quod dicit in lege quid scriptum est? Potest legi vel interrogative, quasi dicat: non debetis effici pueri sensibus, sed perfecti, et hoc est videre et scire legem. Unde si estis perfecti sensibus, sciatis scilicet legem, et in lege quid scriptum est de linguis? Quae sunt inutiles aliquando ad id ad quod ordinatae sunt, quia licet in diversis linguis loquar, scilicet populo Iudaeorum, tamen homo non exaudit, et cetera. Potest etiam legi remissive in lege quid scriptum est. Quasi dicat: nolite moveri sicut pueri ad aliquid appetendum, non discernentes utrum bonum vel minus bonum sit quod affectatis, et praeponatis meliori bono, sed estote perfecti sensibus, idest discernatis inter bona et magis bona, et sic affectetis. Et hoc fit si cogitatis quid scriptum est in lege quoniam in aliis, etc., Sap. VI, 16: cogitare ergo de illa, sensus est consummatus. Et dicit in lege, non accipiendo legem stricte pro quinque libris Moysi tantum, sicut accipitur Lc. ult.: necesse est impleri omnia quae scripta sunt de me in lege, etc.; sed pro toto veteri testamento, sicut accipitur Io. XV, 25: ut impleatur sermo qui in lege eorum scriptus est: quia odio habuerunt me gratis, quod tamen in Ps. XXIV, 19 scriptum est. Accipitur tamen haec auctoritas ex Is. c. XXVIII, 11, ubi littera nostra habet: in loquela labii et lingua altera loquetur ad populum istum. Hoc igitur scriptum est quoniam in aliis linguis, id est in diversis generibus linguarum, et labiis, id est in diversis idiomatibus et modis pronuntiandi, loquar populo huic, scilicet Iudaico, quia hoc signum specialiter fuit datum ad conversionem populi Iudaeorum. Nec sic exaudient, quia scilicet signis visis non crediderunt. Is. VI, 10: excaeca cor populi huius, et cetera. 855. – In regard to the first it should be noted that this question: What is written in the law can be taken as an interrogation, as though he were saying: you should not become children in sense but mature, and this is to see and know the Law. Hence, if you are mature in your senses, you should know the Law and what has been written in the Law about tongues, which are useless at times for that to which they are ordained, because although I should speak in various tongues, namely, to the Jewish people, nevertheless man does not hear. It can also be taken in a remissive sense, as if he were saying: Do not be enticed as children to desire something, not discerning whether you are being attracted to good or evil and preferring the good to the better; but be mature in sense, i.e., distinguish between the good and the better, and thus be attracted. And this happens, if you reflect on what has been written in the Law: by men of strange tongues will I speak to this people: “To fix one’s thought on her is perfect understanding” (Wis 6:15). He says, in the law, not taking “law” exclusively for the five books of Moses, as it is taken in Lk (24:44): “Everything written about me in the law of Moses must be fulfilled,” but for the entire Old Testament, as it is taken in John (15:25): “It is to fulfill the word that is written in their law, ‘They hated me without cause,’” which was written in Ps 25 (v. 19). This, therefore, was written: in strange tongues, i.e., in various kinds of tongues, and by the lips of foreigners, i.e., in various idioms and modes of pronunciation, I will speak to this people, namely, the Jews, because this sign was specially given for the conversion of the people of Israel. And even then they will not listen to me, because although they saw the sign, they did not believe: “Blind the heart of this people and make their ears heavy” (Is 6:10). Sed quare Deus dedit eis signa, si non debebant converti? Ad hoc sunt duae rationes. Una ratio est, quia licet non omnes conversi fuerint, tamen aliqui sunt conversi, eo quod non repellit dominus plebem suam, et cetera. Alia ratio est, ut iustior appareat eorum damnatio, dum manifestius apparet eorum nequitia. Io. XV, v. 22: si non venissem, et locutus eis non fuissem, et cetera. 856. – But why would God give them signs, if they were not to be converted? To this there are two answers: one is that although not all were converted, some were; for God did not reject His people. The other is in order that their damnation appear more just, while their guilt appears more clearly: “If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have sin” (Jn. 15:22). Consequenter, cum dicit itaque linguae, etc., ex inducta auctoritate argumentatur ad propositum, quasi dicat: ex hoc manifeste apparet, quod donum linguarum datum est non fidelibus ad credendum, quia iam credunt, Io. IV, 42: non propter tuam loquelam, etc., sed infidelibus, ut convertantur. 857. – Then when he says: Therefore, tongues are a sign not for believers, but for unbelievers, he argues to his conclusion by using the authority quoted. As if to say: from this it is clearly evident that the gift of tongues was given not for believers to bring them to belief, because they already believe: “It is no longer because of your words that we believe” (Jn. 4:42), but for unbelievers to be converted. In Glossa autem ponuntur duae expositiones Ambrosii hoc in loco, quae non sunt litterales; quarum una est ut dicatur: sicut in veteri testamento locutus sum populo Iudaeorum per linguas, id est per figuras, et per labia, id est promittendo bona temporalia, sic, adhuc in novo testamento, loquar huic populo in aliis linguis, id est aperte et clare, et aliis labiis, id est spiritualibus, nec tamen sic exaudient me, scilicet quantum ad eorum multitudinem. Itaque linguae datae sunt non fidelibus, sed infidelibus, ad manifestandum scilicet eorum infidelitatem. Alia est in aliis linguis, id est obscure et parabolice, loquar, ut quia sunt indigni. Non exaudient, id est non intelligent. Consequenter ostendit ad quid ordinatur prophetia, scilicet ad instructionem fidelium, qui iam credunt. Et ideo quod prophetiae datae sunt non infidelibus, qui non credunt, Is. LIII, 1: domine, quis credidit auditui nostro? Sed fidelibus, ut credant et instruantur. Ez. III, 17: fili hominis, speculatorem dedi te, et cetera. Prov. XXIX, 18: cum defecerit prophetia, etc., dissipabitur populus. 858. – In a Gloss two non-literal explanations by Ambrose are presented in this place. One of these says: just as in the Old Testament I spoke to the Jewish people in tongues, i.e., through figures, and with lips, i.e., by promising temporal goods, so, even in the New Testament I will speak to this people in other tongues, i.e., openly and clearly, and with other lips, i.e., spiritual things; yet they will not listen to me, namely, as to their multitude. Therefore tongues were given not for believers but unbelievers, namely, to manifest their unbelief. ` The other is in other tongues, i.e., dimly and in parables I will speak, because they are unworthy. They will not listen, i.e., not understand. Then he shows what prophecy is ordained to, namely, to the instruction of believers, because they already understand. Therefore, prophecies are not for unbelievers, who do not believe: “Lord, who has believed our hearing” (Is 53:1); but for believers, that they believe and be instructed: “Son of man, I have made you a watchman for the house of Israel” (Ex 3:17); “Where there is no prophecy, the people cast off restraint” (Pr 29:18).
14-5
1 Cor 14:23-26Glossa vult quod hic incipiat alia ratio ad propositum ostendendum. Sed secundum quod dictum est, non est nisi unum posita ratione, et est quasi manifestatio mediae ipsius rationis, scilicet quod prophetia plus valet ad illud, ad quod specialiter ordinatur donum linguarum. Unde circa hoc duo facit. Primo ostendit inconveniens quod sequitur quantum ad infideles ex dono linguarum, ibi si autem omnes linguis. Secundo ostendit bonum quod sequitur ex dono prophetiae etiam ad infideles, ibi si autem omnes. 859. – A Gloss suggests that another argument proving his proposition begins here. But in the light of what has been said, there is only one proposition, already proved. Here he clarifies the middle term of that argument, namely, that prophecy contributes more to that to which the gift of tongues is especially ordained. In regard to this he does two things: first, he shows what undesirable effects follows from the gift of tongues as far as unbelievers are concerned; secondly, he shows the good which follows from the gift of prophecy, even in regard to unbelievers (v. 24). Inconveniens, quod sequitur ex dono linguarum sine prophetia, etiam quantum ad infideles, est quia reputantur insani qui sic loquuntur solis linguis, cum tamen donum linguarum ordinetur ad conversionem infidelium, ut iam patet. Et hoc est quod dicit si autem omnes, etc., quasi dicat: ex hoc patet quod linguae non sunt praeferendae prophetiis, quia, si conveniant, scilicet omnes fideles, in unum, non solum corpore, sed etiam mente, Act. IV, 32: multitudinis credentium erat cor, etc., et omnes, qui iam convenerunt, loquantur linguis, ad litteram extraneis, vel loquantur ignota et obscura, et, dum sic confuse loquuntur, intret aliquis idiota, id est qui non intelligit nisi linguam suam, vel infidelis, propter quem datae sunt linguae, nonne dicent his, qui sic loquuntur, quid insanitis? Quod enim non intelligitur, reputatur insanitio. Quod si intelligatur lingua, nihilominus quae loquuntur sunt occulta, tamen malum est si non exponatur, quia poterunt credere de vobis, si occulta loquimini, quae creduntur de gentilibus, qui occultabant ea quae faciebant in ritu eorum, propter eorum turpitudinem. Et haec etiam insanitio quaedam est. 860. – The undesirable effect which follows from the gift of tongues without prophecy, even in regard to unbelievers, is that those who speak only in tongues are considered mad, whereas the gift of tongues should be ordained to the conversion of unbelievers, as is already clear. And this is what he says: If you speak in tongues. As if to say: that tongues are not preferable to prophecy is clear from the fact that if they assemble, namely, all the faithful, in one place not only in body but also in mind: “Now the company of believers were of one heart and soul” (Ac 4:22), and all speak in tongues, i.e., strange, or speak unknown and obscure things and, while they are thus confusedly speaking, an outsider enter, i.e., one who understands only his own tongue, or an unbeliever for whose benefit tongues were given, will they not say to those so speaking that you are mad? For what is not understood is considered madness. But if a tongue is understood and nevertheless the things said are secret, if they are not explained, it is evil because they could believe of you, (if you speak secret things), what they believe of the gentiles, who made secret what they did in their rites, so base were they. And this is also a form of madness. Contra. Idem est loqui linguis et loqui litteraliter quantum ad idiotas; cum ergo omnes loquantur litteraliter in Ecclesia, quia omnia dicuntur in Latino, videtur quod similiter sit insania. Dicendum est ad hoc, quod ideo erat insania in primitiva Ecclesia, quia erant rudes in ritu ecclesiastico, unde nesciebant quae fiebant ibi, nisi exponeretur eis. Modo vero omnes sunt instructi; unde licet in Latino omnia dicantur, sciunt tamen illud quod fit in Ecclesia. 861. – On the other hand, to those who do not know the language it is the same thing to speak in tongues and to speak literally; therefore, since all speak literally in the church (for all is spoken in Latin), it seems that there is madness here, too. I answer that there was madness in the early Church, because they were uninstructed in the Church’s rite, since they did not know what was going on unless it was explained to them. But now all are instructed; hence, although all is said in Latin, they, nevertheless, know what is being done in the Church. Consequenter autem cum dicit si autem omnes prophetent, ostendit quod bonum sequitur ex dono prophetiae. Et circa hoc tria facit. Primo ostendit quid per bonum prophetiae sequatur, quantum ad infideles; secundo ostendit quomodo hoc sequatur, ibi occulta enim, etc.; tertio, subinfert quis effectus inde proveniat, ibi et ita cadens in faciem, et cetera. 862. – Then when he says, But if all prophesy, he shows that good follows from the gift of prophecy. In regard to this he does three things: first, he shows what follows through the good of prophecy, as to unbelievers; secondly, he shows how this follows (v. 25); thirdly, he infers which effect arises from this (v. 25b). Dicit ergo: constat quod ex dono linguarum non convincuntur infideles; si autem, pro sed; si hi, qui conveniunt, prophetent, id est omnes ad intellectum loquantur, vel exponant Scripturas vel etiam revelationes eis factas interpretentur. Omnes dico non simul, sed unus post alium sic prophetent. Intret autem, scilicet Ecclesiam, idiota aliquis, scilicet non habens nisi linguam maternam, hoc est bonum quod inde sequitur, quia convincitur de aliquo errore, qui ostenditur sibi. Ier. XXXI, 19: postquam ostendisti mihi, confusus sum. Ab omnibus, qui prophetant, diiudicatur. Quasi dicat: damnabilis ostenditur de malis moribus et vitiis suis. I Cor. II, 15: spiritualis, id est doctor, omnia diiudicat, et cetera. Ad haec enim duo valet prophetia, scilicet ad confirmationem fidei, et instructionem morum. 863. – He says, therefore: It is clear that unbelievers are not convinced by the gift of tongues; but if all who assemble prophecy, i.e., all speak to the intellect revelations made to them (I say “all” not at once, but one after the other prophesy in this way), then if an outsider enters the church, i.e., knowing only his mother tongue, what follows is good, because he is convicted by all of his error, which is pointed out to him: “After I was instructed, I was ashamed” (Jer 31:19). He is called to account by all who are prophesying. As if to say: he is shown to be condemnable for his evil morals and his vices: “The spiritual man judges all things” (1 Cor 2:15). For prophecy avails for these two things, namely, strengthening the faith and teaching morals. Quomodo autem hoc bonum sequatur ex prophetiae dono, subdit cum dicit occulta enim cordis. Quod potest intelligi tripliciter. Uno modo, et hoc ad litteram, quod aliqui in primitiva Ecclesia gratiam habuerunt, ut secreta cordium et peccata hominum scirent. Unde legitur de Petro, Act. V, 1 ss., quod damnavit Ananiam de fraudato pretio agri. Et secundum hoc legitur occulta enim, etc., quasi dicat: ideo convincitur, quia occulta, id est secreta peccata sua, manifesta fiunt ab illis qui ea revelant. Alio modo, ex hoc quod aliquando quis in praedicatione tangit multa, quae homines gerunt in corde, sicut patet in libris beati Gregorii, ubi quilibet invenire potest fere omnes motus cordis sui. Et secundum hoc legitur occulta cordis, quasi dicat: ideo convincuntur, quia occulta cordis sui, id est ea quae gerunt in corde, Prov. XXVII, 19: quomodo in aquis resplendet vultus aspicientium, sic corda hominum manifesta sunt prudentibus, manifestantur, id est tanguntur ab eis. Alio modo, quia aliquando occultum cordis dicitur illud quod est alicui dubium et non potest per se certificari. Et secundum hoc legitur occulta cordis sui, id est ea de quibus in corde suo dubitabat et quae non credebat, manifestantur, dum scilicet vadens ad Ecclesiam frequenter fiunt sibi manifesta, sicut de seipso dicit Augustinus quod ipse ibat ad Ecclesiam solum pro cantu et tamen ibi multa de quibus dubitabat et propter quae non iverat, manifestabantur sibi. Ex hoc enim sequebatur reverentia, quia convictus reverebatur Deum. 864. – How this good follows from the gift of prophecy is mentioned when he says: the secrets of his heart. This can be understood in three ways: in one way, and this is literal, that some in the early Church had the grace to know the secrets of the heart and the sins of men. Hence it said of Peter (Ac 5:1 ff) that he condemned Ananias for fraud regarding the price of a field. And according to this it says: for the secrets of his heart are disclosed. As if to say: He is convinced, because the secrets, i.e., his secret sins, were disclosed by those who revealed them. In another way, from the fact that sometimes someone in preaching touches on many things which men carry in the heart, as is clear from the books of Gregory, where each one can find almost all the movements of the heart. And according to this he says, secrets of his heart; as if to say: They are convicted, because the secrets of their heart, i.e., things they carry in their heart: (Pr 27:19): “As in water face answers to face, so the mind of man reflects the man,” are disclosed, i.e., touched on by them. In another way, because sometimes the secret of the heart is said to be that which is doubtful to someone and he cannot become certain by himself. According to this it is read: the secrets of his heart, i.e., things about which he doubted in his heart and which he did not believe, are disclosed, namely, when going to a church frequently they are made clear to him, as Augustine says about himself that he went to the church only for the chant and yet many things about which he doubted and for the sake of which he had not come were clarified for him there. For from this followed reverence, because, being convinced, he revered God. Et hoc est, quod dicit et ita cadens, id est ex quo ita convincebatur et manifestabantur occulta cordis sui, cadens in faciem adorabit Deum, Matth. II, 11: procidentes adoraverunt eum, quod signum est reverentiae. De reprobis autem legitur, quod cadunt retrorsum. Prov. IV, 19: via impiorum tenebrosa, nesciunt ubi corruent. Electus vero in faciem cadit, quia videt ubi prosternitur, quod signum est reverentiae. Matth. II, 11, et Lev. c. IX, 24: laudaverunt Deum ruentes in facies suas. Ps. LXXI, 9: coram illo procident Aethiopes. Et non solum exhibebit reverentiam Deo sed etiam Ecclesiae, quia pronuntians dicet quod vere Deus est in vobis, qui prophetatis in Ecclesia. Zac. VIII, 23: ibimus vobiscum, audivimus enim quod Deus est vobiscum. Apparet igitur quod donum prophetiae est utilius quantum ad infideles. 865. – And this is what he says: and so, i.e., inasmuch as he was convinced in this way and the secrets of his heart were manifested, falling on his face, he will worship God: “Falling down, they adored him” (Matt 2:11), which is a sign of reverence. Of the reprobate, however, it says that they fall backward: “The way of the wicked is deep darkness, they do not know over what they stumble” (Pr 4:19). But the elect fall on their face, because they see where they should prostrate themselves, which is a sign of reverence”. “They praised God and fell on their faces” (Lev 9:24); “May all kings fall down before him” (Ps 72:11). And he will show reverence not only to God but also to the Church, because he will declare that God is really among you who prophesy in the church: “We will go with you, for we have heard that God is with you” (Zech 8:23). It appears, therefore, that the gift of prophecy is more useful in regard to unbelievers. Quid ergo est, fratres? Hic ordinat eos ad usum donorum dictorum. Et circa hoc duo facit. Primo ostendit qualiter se debeant habere ad usum horum donorum; secundo concludit principale intentum, ibi itaque, fratres, aemulamini prophetare, et cetera. Circa primum duo facit. Primo ostendit quomodo ordinate se debeant habere in usu dictorum donorum; secundo exprimit eorum praesumptionem, ibi an a vobis sermo, et cetera. Circa primum tria facit. Primo ostendit in generali quomodo se debent habere in omnibus donis; secundo quomodo se habeant quantum ad donum linguarum, ibi sive lingua quis loquatur, etc.; tertio ostendit quomodo se habeant quantum ad donum prophetiae, ibi prophetent duo aut tres, et cetera. 866. – What then, brethren? Here he tells them how to use these gifts. In regard to this he does two things: first, he shows how they should act in regard to the use of these gifts; secondly, he concludes to his main proposition (v. 39). In regard to the first he does two things: first, he shows how orderly they should behave in the use of these gifts; secondly, he expresses their presumption (v. 36). In regard to the first he does three things: first, he shows in general how they should behave in all gifts; secondly, in regard to the gift of tongues (v. 27); thirdly, as to the gift of prophecy (v. 29). Dicit ergo: prophetare est melius quam loqui linguis. Quid ergo, fratres, agendum est? Hoc scilicet agendum est: nam, cum convenitis, constat quod unus non habet omnia dona, et ideo non debet uti aliquis vestrum omnibus donis, sed eo dono quod specialius accepit a Deo et quod melius sit ad aedificationem. Nam unusquisque vestrum habet aliquod donum speciale, alius habet Psalmum, id est canticum ad laudandum nomen Dei, vel Psalmos exponit. Abac. III, 19: super excelsa mea deducet me, et cetera. Alius vero doctrinam, id est habet praedicationem ad instructionem morum, vel expositionem et spiritualem sensum. Prov. XII, 8: doctrina sua cognoscitur vir. Alius Apocalypsim habet, id est revelationem, vel in somniis, vel in visione aliqua. Dan. II, 28: est Deus in caelo revelans mysteria, et cetera. Alius linguam habet, id est donum linguarum, vel legendi prophetias. Act. II, 4: et coeperunt loqui variis linguis, et cetera. Alius interpretationem, supra XII, 10: alii interpretatio sermonum, et cetera. 867. – He says, therefore: to prophesy is better than to speak in tongues. What then, brethren is to be done? This is to be done. For when you come together, it is obvious that one does not have all the gifts, and therefore none of you should use all the gifts, but that gift which he had more specially received from God and which is better for edification. For each one has some special gift: one has a psalm, i.e., a song to praise the Lord’s name, or to explain psalms: “He makes me tread upon my high places” (Hab 3:19); another has a lesson, i.e., some preaching to instruct them in morals, or an explanation and a spiritual sense: “A man is known by his teaching” (Pr 12:8); another has a revelation obtained either in dreams or in a vision: “God is in heaven revealing mysteries” (Dan 2:28); another has a tongue, i.e., the gift of tongues or he reads prophecies: “And they began to speak in tongues” (Ac 2:4); another has an interpretation: “To another the interpretation of tongues” (1 Cor 12:10). Haec autem sic ordinantur, quia vel sunt ex ingenio naturali, vel ex solo Deo. Si sunt ex solo ingenio naturali vel sunt ad laudem Dei, et sic dicit Psalmum habet, vel ad instructionem proximi, et sic dicit doctrinam habet. Si sunt a solo Deo, sic dupliciter: vel sunt aliqua occulta interius et sic dicit Apocalypsim habet, vel occulta exterius et sic dicit linguam habet. Et ad horum manifestationem est tertium, scilicet interpretatio. Et debet fieri, ut omnia ad aedificationem fiant. Rom. XV, 2: unusquisque vestrum proximo suo placeat in bonum ad aedificationem. 868. – But these are so arranged, because they derive either from human talent or from God alone. If they are solely from human talent, they are either to the praise of God, and so he says, one has a psalm, or to the instruction of the neighbor, and so he says, one has a teaching. If they are from God alone, they are either inward secrets, and so he says, one has a revelation, or outwardly hidden, and so he says, one has a tongue. For manifesting these there is a third thing, and so he says, an interpretation. And, of course, all should be done of edification: “Let each of us please his neighbor for his good, to edify him” (Rom 15:2).
14-6
1 Cor 14:27-33Hic apostolus ordinat eos quomodo se habeant ad usum doni linguarum, et circa hoc duo facit. Primo ostendit qualiter debent uti dono linguarum; secundo quando debent cessare ab usu, ibi si autem non fuerit, et cetera. 869. – Here the Apostle instructs them on how to behave in regard to using the gift of tongues, and he does two things: first, he shows how they should use the gift of tongues: secondly, when they should stop using it (v. 28). Dicit ergo, primo, quod modus utendi dono linguarum talis sit inter vos, ut sive quis, id est si aliquis, loquatur lingua, id est dicat visiones vel somnia, huiusmodi locutio non fiat a multis propter occupationem temporis in linguis et non restet locus prophetiis et confusionem generet, sed secundum duos, id est duobus, et, si necesse fuerit, secundum multum tres, ut sit satis a tribus. Deut. XVII, 6: in ore duorum vel trium, et cetera. Sed notandum quod haec consuetudo adhuc partim servatur in Ecclesia. Nam lectiones et epistolas ac Evangelia habemus loco linguarum, et ideo in Missa secundum duos servatur, quia solum duo dicuntur, quae pertinent ad donum linguarum, scilicet epistola et Evangelium. In matutinis secundum multa fit, scilicet tribus lectionibus dictis in uno nocturno. Antiquitus enim dicebantur nocturna divisim secundum tres vigilias noctis, nunc vero dicuntur simul. Non solum autem debet servari ordo quantum ad numerum loquentium, sed etiam quantum ad modum, et hoc est quod dicit et per partes, id est ut illi qui loquuntur succedant sibi ad invicem, scilicet quod unus post alium loquatur. Vel per partes, id est intercise, ut scilicet loquatur unam partem visionis, seu instructionis et eam exponat, et post aliam et ipsam exponat, et sic deinceps; quem modum consueverunt servare praedicatores, quando praedicant per interpretationem hominibus ignotae linguae, et ideo dicit et unus interpretetur. 870. – First, therefore he says: the way the gift of tongues should be used among you is that if anyone speaks in a tongue, i.e., talks of visions or dreams, such speaking should not be done by many on account of so much time being devoted to tongues, there is not room for prophecies, and confusion is generated, but let there by only two, and if necessary, at most three; so that three should be enough: “On the evidence of two witnesses or of three witnesses” (Dt 17:6). But it should be noted that this custom is still partly observed in the Church. For we have readings and epistles and gospels in place of tongues, and therefore in the Mass only two are said, which pertain to the gift of tongues, namely, the epistle and the gospel. In Matins many are said, namely, three readings in one nocturn. For at an earlier time nocturnes were said according to the night watches, but now they are said at one time. Not only should order as to the number of speakers be observed, but also as to the method, and this is what he says: and each in turn, i.e., that those who speak follow one another, so that one speaks after the other. Or each in turn, i.e., interruptedly, namely, that one speak one part of the vision or of the instruction and explain it, and then another and explain it, and so on. This was the method followed by preachers, when they preach by interpreting to men of an unknown tongue; and therefore he says: and let one interpret. Consequenter cum dicit si autem non fuerit, etc., ostendit quando non est utendum linguis, dicens quod loquendum est per partes et unus debet interpretari. Sed si non fuerit aliquis interpres, id est qui interpretetur, ille, qui donum habet linguarum, taceat in Ecclesia, id est non loquatur seu praedicet multitudini in lingua ignota, quia non intelligitur ab eis, sed sibi loquatur, quia ipse se intelligit, et hoc tacite, orando vel meditando. Iob X, 1: loquar in amaritudine animae meae, dicam Deo, et cetera. 871. – Then when he says: But if there is no one to interpret, he shows when tongues should not be used, saying that they should speak in parts and one should interpret. But if there is no one to interpret, one who has the gift of tongues, should keep silence in the church, i.e., should not speak or preach to the multitude in a strange tongue, because he is not understood by them, but should speak to himself or to God, because he understands himself; and this in silence by praying or meditating: “I will speak in the bitterness of my soul. I will say to God: Do not condemn me.” (Jb 10:1). Prophetae autem duo, et cetera. Hic apostolus ordinat eos, quomodo se habeant ad usum prophetiae. Et circa hoc duo facit. Primo ostendit qualiter utendum est dono prophetiae, et quantum ad numerum et ad ordinem; secundo ostendit, quibus usus prophetiae interdicitur, ibi mulieres in Ecclesia, et cetera. Circa primum tria facit. Primo docet ordinem utendi dono prophetiae; secundo huius rationem assignat, ibi potestis enim omnes, etc.; tertio obiectionem excludit, ibi spiritus prophetarum, et cetera. Circa primum duo facit. Primo determinat ad numerum utentium dono dicto; secundo, docet modum seu ordinem utendi, ibi quod si alii, et cetera. 872. – Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said. Here the Apostle instructs them on how to use the gift of prophecy. In regard to the first he does two things: first, he shows how the gift of prophecy is to be used both as to number and to order; secondly, to whom the use of prophecy is prohibited (v. 34). In regard to the first he does three things: first, he teaches the order in which to use the gift of prophecy; secondly, the reason for this (v. 31); thirdly, he excludes an objection (v. 32). In regard to the first he does two things: first, he fixes on the number using this gift; secondly, he teaches the method or order of using it (v. 30). Circa primum sciendum est quod usus prophetiae secundum quod hic videtur accipere apostolus, est proponere verbum exhortationis ad plebem, exponendo Scripturas sacras. Et quia erant in primitiva Ecclesia plures qui a Deo hoc donum habebant, et fideles non erant adhuc multiplicati, ideo, ne esset confusio et taedium, vult apostolus, quod non omnes qui sciunt exponere prophetias et sacram Scripturam, prophetent, sed aliqui et determinati. Et hoc est quod dicit prophetae, etc., quasi dicat: nolo quod omnes qui conveniunt, sed duo tantum, aut, ad plus, tres, prout hoc loquendi necessitas exigit, dicant, id est exhortentur. Et hoc etiam consonat Scripturae. Supra XVII, v. 6 et Matth. XVIII, 16: in ore duorum, vel trium, et cetera. Caeteri vero, scilicet illi qui non debent, diiudicent ea quae ab his proponuntur, utrum scilicet bene vel male dicta sint: bene dicta approbando, et male dicta retractari faciendo. Supra II, 15: spiritualis homo omnia diiudicat. 873. – In regard to the first it should be noted that the use of prophecy according to what the Apostle says here is to propose a word of instruction to the people, by explaining the Sacred Scripture. And because in the early Church there were many who had this gift from God and the number of the faithful was not very great, then in order to avoid confusion and boredom, the Apostle desires that not all who can explain a prophecy and Sacred Scripture should prophesy, but certain definite ones. And this is what he says: Let two or three prophets speak. As if to say: I do not want all who assemble, but two only or at most three, as the need to speak exists, should speak, i.e., exhort. This is in keeping with the Scriptures: “By the evidence of two or three witnesses” (Matt 18:16). Let the others, namely, those who should not prophesy, weigh the things proposed to them, whether something good or something bad has been said; approving what is good and making them retract what was wrong: “The spiritual man judges all things” (1 Cor 2:15). Est etiam servandus ordo in utendo dicto dono, ut si alteri illorum, qui sedebant et tacebant et diiudicabant, fuit aliquid melius revelatum, quam illi qui exhortatur et stat prior, tunc iste, qui stat, debet sedere, et ille, cui melius revelatum est, debet surgere et exhortari. Et hoc est quod dicit quod si alii, sedenti, revelatum fuerit, scilicet per spiritum sanctum, prior stans taceat et cedat ei, Rom. XII, 10: honore invicem praevenientes. 874. – The order to be observed in using this gift is that if one of those who sat and kept silence and judged had received a better revelation, then one who is exhorting and standing should sit down and the one to whom a better revelation has been made should rise and exhort. And this is what he says: If a revelation has been made to another sitting by, namely, by the Holy Spirit, let the first be silent and yield to him: “Anticipate one another with honor” (Rom 12:10). Et ratio huius est, quia secundum hunc modum potestis, successive, prophetare per singulos, id est omnes scilicet, ut sic omnes, id est maiores, discant, et omnes, id est minores, exhortentur, Prov. I, 5: audiens sapiens, et cetera. 875. – The reason for this is that according to this method you can successively prophesy one after the other, so that all, i.e., the greater, may learn and all, i.e., the lesser, may be encouraged. “The wise man may also hear and increase in learning” (Pr 1:5). Et si aliquis dicat: o apostole, ego non possum tacere dum alius prophetat, vel cedere sedenti, ex quo incepi, quia non possum retinere spiritum, qui in me loquitur, secundum illud Iob IV, 2: conceptum sermonem tenere quis potest? Ideo apostolus hoc removet cum dicit et spiritus prophetarum, etc., quasi dicat: immo bene potest tacere vel sedere, quia spiritus prophetarum, id est spiritus qui dat prophetias, et ponit in plurali numero propter multas revelationes eis instinctas, prophetis subiecti sunt, quidem quantum ad cognitionem, quia, sicut dicit Gregorius quod non semper spiritus prophetiae adest prophetis. Unde non est habitus, sicut scientia. Sic enim sequeretur, quod etiam quantum ad cognitionem eis subiectus esset, et possent uti eo quando vellent, et non uti: sed est quaedam vis aut impressio a Deo, illuminans et tangens corda prophetarum, et tunc solum quando sic tanguntur, cognoscunt. Unde non est sic eis subiectus. Nec secundum hoc intelligitur verbum apostoli, sed spiritus prophetarum sunt subiecti prophetis quantum ad pronuntiationem, quia scilicet in eorum potestate est pronuntiare ea quae revelantur eis quando volunt, et non pronuntiare. Et sic nihil valet excusatio, quia non cogit te spiritus quin tacere possis. 876. – If any should say: O Apostle, I cannot be silent while another prophesies or yield to one sitting from the time he began, because I cannot hold back the Spirit Who speaks in me, as it says in Jb (4:2): “Who can keep from speaking”? Therefore, the Apostle rejects this when he says: The spirits of prophets. As if to say: yes, he can easily be quiet and sit down, because the spirit of prophets, i.e., the spirit who gives prophecies (and he puts it in the plural on account of the many revelations inspired in them) is subject to prophets; some as to knowledge, because as Gregory says: “The spirit of prophecy is not always present to the prophets. Hence it is not a habit, as knowledge is. For then it would follow that even as to knowledge he would be subject to them and they could use it or not use it when they willed; but it is a force or impression from God inclining and teaching the hearts of the prophets and they know only when they are so touched. Hence, he is not subject to them.” But this is not the way to understand the Apostle’s words, but the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets as to declaring, namely, because it is in their power to declare when they wish or not to declare the things revealed. And so the excuse is worthless, because the Spirit does not compel you in such a way that you cannot keep silence. Et quod hoc sit verum, probat cum dicit non enim est dissensionis, et cetera. Et facit talem rationem. Deus numquam cogit ad id unde oriatur rixa vel dissensio, quia Deus non est dissensionis sed pacis; sed si cogeret homines spiritus prophetiae ad loquendum, tunc esset causa dissensionis, quia sic vellet semper loqui vel docere vel non tacere alio loquente, de quo alii turbarentur. Ergo spiritus sanctus non cogit homines ad loquendum. II Cor. ult.: Deus pacis et dilectionis erit vobiscum, et cetera. Verumtamen, quia adhuc posset obiicere, quod hoc non faceret, quia solum eis ista mandabat, et non aliis Ecclesiis, unde et in gravamen posset videri, ideo apostolus subdit, hoc non solum in eis, sed etiam in omnibus Ecclesiis docere. Et hoc est quod dicit sicut in omnibus Ecclesiis sanctorum doceo, scilicet de usu linguarum et prophetiae. Supra I, 10: idipsum dicatis omnes. 877. – That this is true he proves when he says, God is not a God of confusion. And he formulates this reason: God never compels one to something from which arise quarrels or dissension, because He is not a God of dissension, but of peace. But if the Spirit of prophecy compelled them to speak, he would be a cause of dissension, because He would always want to speak or not to teach or to be silent, while another is speaking something about which the others are disturbed. Therefore, the Holy Spirit does not compel men to speak: “May the God of love and peace be with you” (2 Cor 13:11). Yet because he could still object that he would not do this, because he commanded this only of them and not of the other Churches; and hence it could seem a burden, the Apostle says that he teaches this not only to them but to all the churches. And this is what he says: as in all the churches of the saints, namely, about the use of tongues and of prophecy: “Appeal to you that all of you agree” (1 Cor 1:10).
14-7
1 Cor 14:34-40Hic apostolus ponit personas quibus interdicit usum prophetiae. Et circa hoc duo facit. Primo, ostendit quibus prophetiae usus interdicitur; secundo, removet obiectionem, ibi si quid autem volunt, et cetera. Circa primum duo facit. Primo, ponit mandatum de interdicto; secundo huius rationem assignat, ibi non enim permittitur, et cetera. 878. – Here the Apostle mentions the persons to whom the use of prophecy is forbidden. In regard to this he does two things: first, he shows to whom the use of prophecy is forbidden; secondly, he removes an objection (v. 35). In regard to the first he does two things: first, he mentions the command to forbid; secondly he gives a reason for this (v. 34b). Dicit ergo: volo ut viri hoc modo utantur dono prophetiae, sed mulieres, in Ecclesia, nolo loqui; sed taceant in Ecclesiis, I Tim. II, 12: mulierem docere in Ecclesia non permitto. Et rationem huius assignat Chrysostomus, dicens, quod semel est locuta mulier et totum mundum subvertit. Sed contra hoc videtur quia de multis mulieribus legitur quod prophetarunt, sicut de Samaritana, Io. IV, 39, et de Anna uxore Phanuel, Lc. II, 36, et de Debora, Iud. IV, 4, et de Holdama propheta, de uxore Sellum, IV Reg. XXII, 14, et de filiabus Philippi, Act. c. XXI, 9. Supra etiam dicitur omnis mulier orans vel prophetans, et cetera. Responsio. Dicendum quod in prophetia sunt duo, scilicet revelatio et manifestatio revelationis, sed a revelatione non excluduntur mulieres sed multa revelantur eis sicut et viris. Sed Annuntiatio est duplex. Una publica, et ab hac excluduntur; alia est privata, et haec permittitur eis, quia non est praedicatio, sed Annuntiatio. 879. – He says, therefore: I will that men use the gift of prophecy in this manner, but I do not want women to speak in the church, so that the women should keep silence in the church: “I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men” (1 Tim 2:12). And Chrysostom assigns the reason for this, saying: woman has spoken once and subverted the entire world. But on the other hand it seems that many women are recorded to have prophesied, as the Samaritan woman (Jn. 4:39) and Anna, the wife of Phanuel (Lk 2:36) and Deborah (Jg 4:4) and Huldah, the prophetess (2 Kgs 22:14) and the daughter of Philip the evangelist (Ac 21:9). Above, it also says (11:5): “Any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled dishonors her head.” The answer is that there are two things in prophecy, namely, revelation and its manifestation; but women are not excluded from revelation, for many things are revealed to them as to men. But manifestation is of two kinds: one is public and from this they are excluded; the other is private and this is permitted to them, because it is not preaching but manifesting. Huius autem rationem assignat, dicens non enim permittitur eis loqui, scilicet ab Ecclesiae auctoritate, sed hoc est officium earum, ut sint subditae viris. Unde cum docere dicat praelationem et praesidentiam, non decet eas quae subditae sunt. Ratio autem quare subditae sunt et non praesunt est quia deficiunt ratione, quae est maxime necessaria praesidenti. Et ideo dicit philosophus, in politica sua, quod corruptio regiminis est quando regimen pervenit ad mulieres. 880. – He assigns the reason for this, saying: for they are not permitted to speak, namely, by the authority of the Church, but their function is to be subject to men. Hence, since teaching implies prelacy and presiding, it is not suited to those who are subjects. The reason they are subject and not in the forefront is that they are deficient in reasoning, which is especially necessary for those who preside. Therefore, the Philosopher says in his Politics that corruption of rule occurs, when the rule comes to women. Consequenter cum dicit si quid volunt, etc., quia possent aliqui dicere quod ad minus de dubiis possunt quaerere in Ecclesia, ideo apostolus hoc excludit, et circa hoc duo facit. Primo enim removet obiectionem, secundo rationem assignat, ibi turpe est, et cetera. Dicit ergo: dico quod mulieres taceant in Ecclesia, sed si aliqua, de quibus dubitant, addiscere volunt, interrogent viros suos domi. I Tim. II, 11: mulier in silentio discat cum omni, et cetera. Huius autem ratio est quia turpe est, non solum indecens: in mulieribus enim commendatur verecundia. Eccli. XXVI, 19: gratia super gratiam, et cetera. Si ergo in publico quaereret et disputaret, signum esset inverecundiae, et hoc est ei turpe. Et inde est etiam quod in iure interdicitur mulieribus officium advocandi. 881. – Then when he says, if there is anything they desire to know, because some might say that at least they can ask the Church about their doubts, he excludes this and does two things: first, he removes an objection; secondly, he assigns the reason (v. 35b). He says, therefore: I say that women should be silent in the church, but if they wish to learn the things about which they doubt, let them ask their husbands at home: “let women learn in silence” (1 Tim 2:11). The reason for this is that it is shameful for a women to speak in Church and not only unbecoming; for in women the natural feeling of shame is commended. If therefore they ask and dispute in public, it would be a sign of shamelessness, and this is shameful to them. Hence it also follows that in law the office of advocate is forbidden to women. Consequenter cum dicit an a vobis sermo, etc., confutat contradicentes. Et quia possent omnes simul contradicere, vel ad minus sapientes inter eos, ideo circa hoc duo facit. Primo enim confutat eos quantum ad totam eorum Ecclesiam; secundo quantum ad sapientes tantum, ibi si quis autem videtur, et cetera. 882. – Then when he says: What? Did the word of God originate with you?, he answers those who contradict him. And because they could all contradict at once or at least the wise among them, he does two things in regard to this: first, he refutes them as to their entire church; secondly, as to the wise only (v. 37). Circa primum sciendum est quod causa quare populus consuevit contradicere domino, vel rectori, est singularitas. Singularitas enim potest causari vel ex prioritate in aliquo bono, vel excellentia. Et ideo apostolus, volens contradicentes Corinthios confutare, excludit primo ab eis prioritatem, cum dicit an a vobis sermo Dei processit? Quasi dicat: non, sed a Iudaeis. Is. II, 3: de Sion exibit lex, et cetera. Quasi dicat: si in Ecclesia Iudaeorum facerem aliquas ordinationes contra ordinationes suas, possent contradicere, quia ipsi prius habuerunt verbum Dei, sed vos non, quia non processit a vobis sermo Dei. Secundo excludit ab eis excellentiam an in vos solos, etc., quasi dicat: non solum vos credidistis, sed etiam alii. Unde vos non excellitis eos, Ps. XVIII, 5: in omnem terram exivit sonus eorum, et ideo debetis facere, ut alii faciunt. 883. – In regard to the first it should be noted that the reason the people were wont to contradict the Lord or a ruler is singularity. For singularity can be caused by either a priority in some good or excellence. Therefore, the Apostle, wishing to refute the contradicting Corinthians, first excludes priority from their church, when he says: Did the word of God originate with you? As if to say: if I made some rules in the church of the Jews against their rules, they could contradict, because they had the word of God before you, for the word of God did not originate from you. Secondly, he excludes excellence from them, saying: or are you the only one it has reached? As if to say: you are not the only ones who have believed, but others also. Hence you do not excel them: “Their sound went forth in all the earth” (Ps 19:5), and therefore, you ought to do as the others do. Consequenter cum dicit si quis autem videtur, etc., in speciali confutat maiores. Et circa hoc duo facit. Primo confutat eos; secundo respondet cuidam tacitae obiectioni, ibi si quis autem ignorat, et cetera. 884. – Then when he says: If anyone thinks that he is a prophet or spiritual, he refutes the greater ones in particular. In regard to this he does two things: first, he refutes them; secondly, he answers a tacit objection (v. 31). Dicit ergo: esto quod tota Ecclesia non contradicat, sed aliquis, qui videtur esse propheta, et cetera. Et dicit videtur, quia si contradicit non vere est propheta vel sapiens seu spiritualis, quia non contradiceret. Dicit etiam, propheta, et spiritualis, quia multi sunt spirituales qui non sunt prophetae, licet omnes prophetae sint spirituales. Iste, inquam, qui sic videtur propheta et spiritualis, non contradicat, sed cognoscat, id est sciat quia ea, quae scribo vobis, sunt mandata Dei et non tantum mea. Quasi dicat: ex quo nullus ausus est mandatis domini contradicere, et ea quae scribo sunt mandata Dei, non audeat aliquis contradicere. II Cor. ultimo: an experimentum quaeritis, et cetera. Et ex hoc possumus colligere, quod verba apostolorum sunt ex familiari revelatione spiritus sancti et Christi et ideo servanda sunt sicut praecepta Christi. Unde et signanter apostolus distinguit illa, quae ex se mandat, cum dicit de virginibus autem mandatum domini non habeo. 885. – He says, therefore: Suppose that the entire Church does not contradict, except someone who seems to be a prophet. He says, seems, because, if he contradicts, he is not really a prophet or wise or spiritual, because many are spiritual who are not prophets, although all prophets are spiritual. He, I say, who so seems to be a prophet and spiritual does not contradict, but should know, i.e., should recognize that the things I am writing to you are commands of the Lord and not mine only. As if to say: From the fact that no one had dared to contradict the commands of the Lord, and the things I write are the commands of the Lord, no one should dare to contradict them: “Do you desire proof that Christ is speaking”? (2 Cor 13:3). And from this we can gather that the Apostle’s words are from a familiar revelation of the Holy Spirit and of Christ and, therefore, are to be obeyed as commands of Christ. Hence the Apostle is careful to distinguish things he commands of himself, when he says: “About virgins I have no command of the Lord.” Sed posset dicere: o apostole, quomodo ego cognoscam quod haec sint mandata Dei? Non possum hoc scire. Hoc apostolus excludit, dicens: non valet tibi hoc, quia non debes ignorare. Quare? Quia omnis ignorans, et cetera. Matth. XXV, 12: amen dico vobis: nescio vos. Ex quo patet quod omnes tenentur scire ea quae sunt de necessitate salutis, quae ipse prius mandat et apostoli et prophetae. Vel aliter: si quis videtur, etc., ut sit confirmatio praecedentium, quasi dicat: ita scribo, sed vos non potestis ea agnoscere propter eorum difficultatem, et quia simplices estis, sed ut sciatis quod ea, quae scribo, iusta sunt et honesta, volo adducere testimonium prophetarum et spiritualium virorum, qui sunt inter vos. Et ideo dicit si quis autem, et cetera. Supra II, 15: spiritualis iudicat omnia. Et ne aliquis dicat: non curamus scire ista, subdit quod tenentur scire quia omnis ignorans, et cetera. Is. V, 13: propterea captivus ductus, et cetera. Ps. LXXXI, 5: nescierunt neque intellexerunt, et cetera. 886. – But they could say: O Apostle, how am I to know that these are commands of God? I am unable to know this. The Apostle excludes this, saying: This is of no value to you, because you should not be ignorant. Why? Because anyone who does not recognize this, he is not recognized: “Amen, I say to you: I know you not” (Matt 25:12), from which it is clear that all are bound to know the things necessary for salvation, which he previously commanded, as well as the apostles and prophets. Or in another way: if anyone thinks he is a prophet, as confirmation of the preceding. As if to say: So I write; but you cannot recognize them on account of their difficulty and because you are simple; but in order that you may know that the things I write are just and honest, I wish to adduce the testimony of prophets and spiritual men, who live among you. And therefore he says: If anyone thinks that he is a prophet: “The spiritual man judges all things” (1 Cor 2:15). And lest anyone should say: we are not instructed in knowing such things, he adds that they are bound to know, because anyone who does not recognize this will not be recognized: “My people go into exile for want of knowledge” (Is 5:13); “They have neither knowledge nor understanding; they walk in darkness” (Ps 82:5). Itaque, fratres mei, et cetera. Apostolus hic concludit generalem admonitionem. Et circa hoc tria facit. Primo monet eos ad appetitum omnium donorum, dicens: itaque et loqui linguis et prophetare est bonum. Aemulamini, id est desideretis, prophetare. Cuius causa est, quia, sicut dicitur Prov. c. XXIX, 18, deficiente prophetia, dissipabitur populus. Et accipitur prophetare hic, secundum quod totum capitulum expositum est. Et tamen, licet desideretis prophetare, nolite prohibere loqui linguis, ne fiat dissensio. Secundo inducit ad modum debitum, cum dicit omnia autem honeste, ut scilicet uno loquente, alii taceant, et mulieres in Ecclesia non loquantur, et similia. Rom. XIII, 13: sicut in die honeste ambulemus, et cetera. Tertio inducit eos ad congruum ordinem, cum dicit et secundum ordinem, ut scilicet primo unus, et postea alius loquatur, et per partes et similia, quae dicta sunt. Iudic. V, v. 20: stellae manentes in ordine et cursu suo, adversus Sisaram pugnaverunt. 887. – So, my brethren, earnestly desire to prophesy. Here the Apostle concludes the general admonition. In regard to this he does three things: first, he admonishes them to desire all the gifts, saying: therefore, to speak in tongues is good. But earnestly desire to prophesy. The reason for this, as it says in Pr (29:18): “Where there is no prophecy, the people cast of restraint.” And “prophecy” is taken here as explained in this entire chapter. And yet, although you may desire to prophesy, do not forbid speaking in tongues, lest dissension arise. Secondly, he urges them to adopt the correct method, when he says: but all things should be done decently, namely, that when one is speaking, the others should be silent, and that women should not speak in the church, and so on: “Let us conduct ourselves becomingly as in the day” (Rom 12:13). Thirdly, he urges them to correct order, when he says: and in order, namely, that one speak and then another and by parts and the other things I have said: “From the heavens fought the stars, from their courses they fought against Sisera” (Jg 5:20).
15-1
1 Cor 15:1-11Postquam apostolus instruxit Corinthios de ipsis sacramentis et de re contenta et significata in sacramentis, scilicet de gratia et eius effectibus hic consequenter instruit eos de re non contenta sed significata in sacramentis, scilicet de gloria resurrectionis, quae non est contenta in sacramento, cum non statim habeat eam qui suscipit sacramenta, sed significatur gloria resurrectionis in ipsis, inquantum confertur in eis gratia per quam ad beatitudinem pervenitur. Circa hoc autem duo facit. Primo praemittit tractatum de resurrectione; secundo per hoc probat resurrectionem communem omnium hominum, ibi si autem Christus praedicatur, et cetera. Circa primum duo facit. Primo commendat evangelicam doctrinam; secundo annuntiat quae oportet scire circa resurrectionem Christi, ibi tradidi enim vobis, et cetera. 888. – After instructing the Corinthians about the sacrament and about the reality contained and signified in the sacraments, namely, grace and its effects, the Apostle now instructs them about a reality not contained but signified in the sacraments, namely, the glory of the resurrection, which is not contained in a sacrament, since the one who receives the sacrament does not obtain it at once, but the glory of the resurrection is signified in them, inasmuch as the grace is conferred in them by which beatitude is reached. In regard to the first he does two things: first, he prefaces a tract on the resurrection; secondly, with this he proves the general resurrection of all men (v. 12). In regard to the first he does two things: first, he commends the gospel’s doctrine; secondly, he declares what should be known about the resurrection of Christ (v. 3). Commendat enim eminentiam evangelicae doctrinae quantum ad quatuor. Primo quantum ad praedicantium auctoritatem, quia ipsi apostoli. Et hoc est quod dicit o fratres, continuando se ad praecedentia, facio vobis notum Evangelium, quod idem est quod bona Annuntiatio, quae incipit a Christo; unde, quidquid pertinet ad Christum vel est de ipso Christo, dicitur Evangelium. Quod praedico vobis, quasi dicat: illud quod praedicavi vobis de Christo, notum facio vobis, id est reduco vobis ad memoriam, quasi non sint nova ea quae scribo. Phil. III, 1: eadem scribere vobis, et cetera. Praedicavi ego, scilicet vobis, et alii apostoli, aliis. Et in hoc apparet auctoritas huius doctrinae, quia a Christo, a Paulo, et ab aliis apostolis. Hebr. II, 3: quae cum initium accepisset enarrandi. 889. – He commends the eminence of the gospel’s doctrine as to four things: first, as to the authority of the preachers, because they are apostles. And this is what he says: Brethren, connecting himself to what went before, I would remind you in what terms I preached to you the gospel, which is the same as good news, which begins with Christ. Hence, whatever pertains to Christ or concerns Christ is called a gospel. In what terms I preached to you; as if to say: What I have preached to you about Christ I make known to you, i.e., I recall it to memory, as though the things I write are not new: “To write the same things to you is not irksome to me” (Phil 3:1). And in this appears the authority of this doctrine, because it is from Christ, from Paul and from the other apostles: “It was declared at first by the Lord and was attested to us” (Heb 2:3). Secundo quantum ad communem fidem omnium populorum, et ideo dicit quod et accepistis, omnes. Sed hoc Augustinus dicit pertinere ad eminentiam huius fidei, faciens tale argumentum: ad credenda ea quae sunt fidei, aut sunt miracula facta, aut non. Si sunt facta miracula, habeo propositum quod dignissima et certissima est. Si non sunt facta, hoc est maximum omnium miraculorum, quod per quosdam paucos conversi sunt ad fidem infinita multitudo hominum; per pauperes, praedicantes paupertatem, divites; per idiotas, praedicantes ea quae rationem excedunt, conversi sunt sapientes et philosophi. Ps. XVIII, 5: in omnem terram exivit sonus eorum, et cetera. Sed si obiiciatur, quod etiam lex Mahometi recepta est a multis, dicendum quod non est simile, quia ille opprimendo et vi armorum subiugavit eos; sed isti apostoli moriendo, ipsi alios ad fidem duxerunt, et faciendo signa et prodigia. Ille enim proponebat quaedam quae ad delicias et lascivias pertinent, sed Christus et apostoli terrenorum contemptum. I Thess. II, 13: cum accepistis a nobis verbum Dei, et cetera. 890. – Secondly, as to the common faith of all people; therefore, he says: which you received, all of you. But Augustine says that this pertains to the evidence of this faith, using this argument: For believing things of faith, miracles are either performed or not. But if miracles are performed, I have my point, that they are most worthy and most certain. If none is performed, this is the greatest of all miracles, that by a certain few an infinite multitude of men were converted to the faith, rich men by poor men preaching poverty; by men of one language preaching things that surpass reason, wise men and philosophers have been converted: “Their voice goes out through all the earth” (Ps 19:4). But if it is objected that even the law of Mohammed has been received by many, the answer is that the cases are not alike, because he subjugated them by oppressing them and by force of arms, but the apostles by dying brought others to the faith, and by working signs and prodigies. For he proposed things which pertain to pleasure and lasciviousness, but Christ and the apostles contempt for earthly things: “When you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you received it…as the word of God” (1 Th 2:13). Tertio quantum ad virtutem, quia confirmat et elevat ad caelestia. Ideo dicit in quo statis, scilicet elevati ad caelestia. Ille enim dicitur stare qui rectus est, et hoc sola lex Christi facit. Rom. V, 1: iustificati per fidem, et cetera. Lex enim vetus non faciebat stare, sed curvabat ad terrena. Deut. XXXIII, 28: oculus Iacob in terra frumenti et vini. 891. – Thirdly, as to its strength, because it confirms and elevates to heavenly things. Therefore, he says: in which you stand, namely, elevated to heavenly things. For he is said to stand who is erect and this the law of Christ alone does: “Justified by faith, we have access to that grace in which we stand” (Rom 5:1). For the Old Law made one stand, but it curved one to earthly things: “The eye of Jacob in a land of grain and wine” (Dt 33:28). Quarto quantum ad utilitatem, quia sola nova lex perducit ad finem salutis; vetus autem non. Hebr. VII, 19: neminem ad perfectum adduxit lex. Et ideo dicit per quod et salvamini. Hic iam ex certitudine spei per inchoationem, quae est per fidem, salvamini, et in futuro in veritate rei et spei. Iac. c. I, 21: in mansuetudine suscipite insitum verbum, et cetera. Io. XX, 31: haec autem scripta sunt, ut credatis, et ut credentes, et cetera. Et apponit hic duas conditiones. Primam cum dicit si tenetis, et cetera. Glossa sic exponit: si tenetis qua ratione praedicavi vobis, illud Evangelium, id est resurrectionem mortuorum, ea ratione, qua confirmavi vobis, id est per resurrectionem Christi. Vel aliter: salvamini, ita tamen si tenetis, id est, si servatis ea ratione qua praedicavi vobis Evangelium Christi. Secunda conditionem ponit cum dicit nisi frustra credidistis. Quasi dicat: salvamini per fidem, si non frustra credidistis, id est si fidei adduntur bona opera, quia fides sine operibus mortua est, Iac. II, 26. Illud enim dicitur esse frustra, quod est ad finem quem non consequitur. Finis autem fidei est visio Dei. Unde si non salvamini, frustra credidistis, non simpliciter, sed inquantum non pervenit ad finem. Vel aliter: si tenetis, quasi dicat, teneatis, nisi frustra, et cetera. 892. – Fourthly, as to usefulness, because the New Law alone leads to the end of salvation, but not the Old Law: “The law brought no one to perfection” (Heb 7:19). And therefore he says: by which you are saved. Here already from the certitude of hope through the beginning, which is our faith, you are saved and in the future in the truth of the reality: “Receive with meekness the implanted word which can save your souls” (Jas 1:21); “But these things are written that you may believe and that believing you may have life” (Jn. 20:31). Here he lays down two conditions, the first is when he says: If you hold it fast. A Gloss explains it this way: If you hold to the reason why I preached that gospel to you, i.e., the resurrection of the dead, by that reason by which I confirmed it to you, i.e., by the resurrection of Christ. In other words: you will be saved provided you hold, i.e., preserve the reason why I preached the gospel of Christ to you. He presents the second condition when he says: Unless you believed in vain. As if to say: You will be saved through faith, if you have not believed in vain, i.e., if good works are added to faith, because “faith without works is dead” (Jas 2:26). For that is said to be in vain which exists for an end which it does not attain. But the end of faith is the vision of God. Hence, if you are not saved, you have believed in vain, not absolutely but inasmuch as it does not attain the end. In other words: if you hold it fast. As if to say: You should hold it fast, unless you would believe in vain. Tradidi enim. Hic ostendit propositum, et cetera. Circa hoc tria facit. Primo ostendit originem doctrinae de resurrectione Christi; secundo ostendit ea quae in doctrina huiusmodi continentur, ibi quoniam Christus mortuus; tertio consonantiam seu convenientiam praedicantium ad hanc doctrinam, ibi sive enim ego, et cetera. 893. – For I delivered to you. Here he clarifies his proposition. In regard to this he does three things: first, he shows the origin of the doctrine about the resurrection of Christ; secondly, he shows what things are contained in such a doctrine (v. 3b); thirdly, the agreement of preachers on this doctrine (v. 11). Dicit ergo primo: istud debetis tenere, id est memoria habere, quod tradidi vobis in primis, et adhuc trado. Et dicit in primis, id est inter prima credenda. Credenda enim vel pertinent ad Trinitatem, vel fidem incarnationis. Et primo debet homo credere ea quae ad fidem incarnationis pertinent, et postea quae ad Trinitatem pertinent. Unde quod tradidi vobis in primis, scilicet de incarnatione, et non a me, vel ex mea auctoritate tradidi, sed quod accepi a Christo vel a spiritu sancto. Gal. I, 1: Paulus apostolus, etc., supra XI, 23: ego accepi a domino, et cetera. Is. XXI, 10: quae audivi a domino exercituum, et cetera. 894. – First, therefore, he says: You should hold fast to that, i.e., keep in your memory what I delivered to you as of first importance, and still deliver. Hence what I delivered to you as of first importance, namely, about the Incarnation, I delivered it not from me or on my authority, but what I received from Christ or from the Holy Spirit: “Paul, an apostle” (Gal 1:1); “For I received from the Lord Jesus” (1 Cor 11:23); “What I have heard from the Lord of hosts (Is 21:20). Ea autem quae accepit et tradidit, sunt quatuor, scilicet: mors, sepultura, resurrectio, apparitio Christi. Dicit ergo primo: tradidi vobis, primo, mortem Christi. Et ideo dicit quoniam Christus mortuus est. In quo removet duplicem suspicionem, quae suboriri posset circa mortem Christi. Prima est quod mortuus esset pro peccatis suis actualibus, vel originali. Et hoc excludit, cum dicit pro peccatis nostris, non suis. Is. LIII, 8: propter scelus populi mei percussi eum. I Petr. III, 18: Christus semel pro peccatis nostris, et cetera. Alia suspicio est quod mors Christi esset casualis, vel violentia Iudaeorum. Et hoc excludit cum dicit secundum Scripturas, scilicet veteris et novi testamenti; et ideo signanter specialiter dicit secundum Scripturas. Is. LIII, 7: sicut ovis ad occisionem ductus est. Ier. XI, 19: ego quasi agnus mansuetus, qui portatur ad victimam, et cetera. Matth. XX, 18: ecce ascendimus Ierosolymam, et cetera. 895. – The things he received and delivered are four, namely, the death, burial resurrection and appearance of Christ. Therefore, he says: I have delivered to you, first of all, the death of Christ; hence he says, that Christ died. In these words he removes two suspicions, which can arise about the death of Christ. The first is that he died for His own actual sins, or original sin. This he excludes when he says: for our sins, not His: “He was stricken for the transgressions of my people” (Is 53:8); “Christ died once and for all for our sins, the just for the unjust” (1 Pt 3:18). The other suspicion is that the death of Christ was by chance or by the violence of the Jews. This he excludes when he says: according to the Scriptures: “Like a lamb he was led away to the slaughter” (Is 53:7); “I was like a gentle lamb led to the slaughter” (Jer 11:19); “Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem and the Son of man will be delivered to the chief priests” (Matt 20:18). Tradidi enim vobis, secundo, sepulturam Christi, et ideo dicit et quia sepultus est. Sed numquid sepultura est articulus fidei specialiter, quia facit hic mentionem specialiter de ea? Dicendum quod secundum illos, qui numerant articulos secundum credenda, non est specialis articulus fidei, sed includitur cum articulo passionis et mortis Christi. Cuius ratio est quia fides est eorum quae sunt supra rationem. Unde ibi incipit articulus fidei, ubi deficit ratio. Hoc autem primum est, quod dominus sit conceptus, et ideo conceptio est articulus fidei; secundum, quod Deus est natus de virgine, et ideo hic est alius; tertium, quod impassibilis Deus patiatur et moriatur, et hic est alius, et cum hoc intelligitur etiam de sepultura. Unde non est specialis articulus. Facit autem apostolus hic mentionem de sepultura propter tria. Primo ut ostendat veritatem mortis Christi. Evidens enim mortis signum alicuius est, quod sepeliatur. Secundo ad ostendendum veritatem resurrectionis, quia si non fuisset sepultus, nec custodes fuissent iuxta sepulchrum illis diebus, possent dicere, quod discipuli fuissent eum furati. Tertio quia apostolus vult eos inducere ad fidem resurrectionis, et hoc videtur magis difficile, quod sepultus resurgat. Et de hoc dicitur Is. c. XI, 10: et erit sepulchrum eius gloriosum. Is. LIII, 9: dabit impios, et cetera. 896. – I delivered to you, secondly, the burial of Christ; therefore he says: that he was buried. But is the burial a special article of faith, because he makes special mention of it? The answer is that according to those who number the articles according to the things to be believed, it is not a special article of faith but is included in the article of the passion and death of Christ. The reason for this is that faith is concerned with things that are above reason. Hence, an article of faith begins where reason falls short. But the first is that the Lord was conceived and, therefore, the conception is an article of faith; the second is that God was born of a virgin and, therefore, this is another. The third is that God, incapable of suffering, suffers and dies, and this is another, and along with this is also understood the burial. Hence, it is not a special article. But the Apostle mentions the burial for three reasons: first, to show the truth of Christ’s death. For the evident sign of one’s death is burial. Secondly, to show the truth of the resurrection, because if He had not been buried, guards would not have been placed at the grave on these days, nor could they say that the disciples had stolen His body. Thirdly, because the Apostle wants to induce them to believe in the resurrection, and this seems more difficult, that a buried person should arise: “And his tomb shall be glorious” (Is 11:10); “They made his grave with the wicked” (Is 53:9). Tradidi etiam vobis resurrectionem, quia resurrexit tertia die. Os. VI, 3: vivificabit nos post, et cetera. Et etiam dicit tertia die, non quod fuerint tres dies integri, sed duae noctes, et una dies per synecdochen. Et huius causa fuit, sicut dicit Augustinus, quia Deus per suum simplum, id est per malum poenae, quod significatur per unum diem, destruxit nostrum duplum, id est poenam et culpam, quod significatur per duas noctes. 897. – I also delivered to you the resurrection, that he rose on the third day: “After two days he will revive us” (Hos 6:2). He says, on the third day, not because they were three full days, but two nights and one day, by synechdoche. And the reason for this, as Augustine says, was that God by His simple, which is signified by one day, i.e., by the evil of punishment, destroyed our double, i.e., punishment and guilt, which is signified by the two nights. Tradidi etiam vobis, quarto, Christi apparitiones, quia visus est Cephae. Et ponit primo apparitiones factas aliis, secundo apparitiones factas sibi soli, ibi novissime. 898. – I delivered to you, fourthly, the appearance of Christ, because he appeared to Cephas. And he presents first the appearance made to others; secondly, those make to himself alone (v. 8). Sciendum est autem, circa primum, quod apparitiones Christi non sunt factae omnibus communiter, sed aliquibus specialibus personis. Act. X, 40: dedit eum manifestum fieri, et cetera. Et huius ratio fuit, ut servaretur ordo in Ecclesia, ut, per quosdam speciales, fides resurrectionis deveniret ad alios. Notandum autem est quod apparitiones Christi non ponuntur hic omnes, nec illae quae factae sunt mulieribus. Ponuntur autem hic quaedam quae non leguntur in Evangeliis. Et horum ratio fuit, quia apostolus vult ex ratione confutare infideles, et ideo noluit ponere testimonia nisi authentica; et ideo tacuit apparitiones mulieribus factas, et posuit quasdam quae non inveniuntur, ut ostendat quod etiam aliis pluribus apparuit. Sed facit mentionem specialem de Petro et Iacobo, quia erant quasi columnae, ut dicitur Gal. c. II, 9. Dicit ergo: tradidi vobis, quia visus est Cephae, id est Petro, Lc. ult.: surrexit dominus vere, et cetera. Et creditur quod inter viros primo apparuit Petro, quia erat in maxima tristitia. Unde et Angelus dixit Mc. ult.: ite, dicite discipulis eius et Petro, et cetera. Postea, id est in alia vice, visus est undecim apostolis. Semel quidem visus est decem tantum, quando Thomas erat absens, et post octo dies undecim, quando Thomas erat cum eis. Augustinus dicit quod debet dicere duodecim, sed corruptum est vitio scriptorum, et dicit quod non refert quod iam obierat, et Mathias nondum erat electus, quia consuetum est quod quando maior pars collegii facit aliquid, dicitur quod totum collegium hoc facit. Unde quia dominus elegerat duodecim, ideo potest dici quod visus est duodecim, id est, toti collegio apostolorum; sed non est vitium, sive dicatur duodecim, sive undecim. 899. – In should be noted, however, in regard to the first, that the appearances of Christ were not made to all in common, but to certain special persons: “God raised him up on the third day and make him manifest not to all the people” (Ac 11:40). The reason for this was to preserve order in the Church in that through certain special persons belief in the resurrection should reach others. It should also be noted that not all of Christ’s appearances are mentioned, nor those that were made to the women. But some not mentioned in the gospel are mentioned here. The reason for this was that the Apostle wants to refute unbelievers by reason; and therefore he wanted to present only authentic testimonies. Consequently, he kept silence about the appearances to the women and mentioned some which are not found, to show that He also appeared to many others. But he mentions Peter and James, because they were as pillars, as it says in Gal (2:9). [It is believed that, among the men, he first appeared to Peter, because he was in deepest sadness. Thus the angel said (at the end of Mark): "God and tell the disciples and Peter" etc. "Then", that is another time, "he appeared to the 11 apostles". So he appeared once to the 10 only, when Thomas was absent, and after eight days to the 11, when Thomas was with them. Augustine says that the text should have said "the twelve", but that it was corrupted by a copyist error. And he says that one had already died and Mathias had not yet been chosen, because it is customary when tha majority of a college does anything, the whole college is said to have done it. Thus, because the Lord had chosen twelve, therefor it could be said that he appeared to the twelve, that is, the whole college of apostles. But it is not an error whether the text says 12 or 11.] Deinde, iterum, visus est plus quam quingentis fratribus. Sed de hoc nihil legimus in sacra Scriptura, nisi hoc quod hic dicitur. Potest tamen dici quod haec apparitio fuit de qua loquitur Dionysius in III de divinis nominibus, quando omnes discipuli convenerunt ad videndum corpus, quod ferebat principem vitae. Sed contra hoc videtur esse quia hoc fuit ante ascensionem, quando scilicet Christus apparuit Iacobo. Sed congregatio discipulorum ad videndum beatam virginem, de qua videtur loqui Dionysius, fuit multum post. Et ideo melius videtur dicendum quod apparuit quingentis fratribus simul ante ascensionem suam; et non refert quod dicitur discipuli erant centum viginti, quia licet illi, qui erant in Ierusalem, essent centum viginti, tamen in Galilaea multi erant discipuli, et forte omnes congregati sunt simul cum apparuit. Et, ut huius testimonium sit magis certum, dicit quod ex eis adhuc multi manent, id est vivunt, quidam autem ex eis dormierunt, id est mortui sunt in spe resurrectionis. Et vocat sanctorum mortem dormitionem quia moriuntur carne corruptibili, ut resurgant incorruptibiles. Rom. VI, 9: Christus resurgens, et cetera. 901. – Then again he appeared to more than five hundred. But nothing is mentioned in the Scripture about this, except here. Yet it can be said that this appearance was the one about which Denis speaks in The Divine Names III, when all the disciples assembled to see the body, which they considered the prince of life. But against this seems to be the fact that this was before the ascension, namely, when Christ appeared to James. But the assembly of disciples to see the Blessed Virgin, about which Denis seems to speak, was much later. Therefore, it seems better to say that He appeared to five hundred brethren all at once before His ascension: and it is not important that there were said to be 120 disciples, because although the ones in Jerusalem were 120, nevertheless in Galilee there were many disciples and perhaps all were assembled at one time, when He appeared. To make his testimony more certain he says that most of them are still alive, but some of them have fallen asleep, i.e., died, in the hope of the resurrection. They call the death of the saints “sleep,” because they die with corruptible flesh and rise with incorruptible. “We know that Christ being raised from the head, will never die again” (Rom 6:9). Deinde, id est post, visus est Iacobo, scilicet Alphaei. Et ratio huius potest assignari, quia, ut legitur, Iacobus vovit se non sumpturum cibum, nisi prius videret Christum. Sed secundum hoc non servaretur ordo apparitionis, quia, si post omnes numeratas apparitiones apparuisset Iacobo, nimis fuisset sine cibo: et hoc est difficile. Et ideo dicendum est quod ideo singulariter Christus apparuit Iacobo, quia specialem devotionem Iacobus ad Christum habuit. Et de ista etiam apparitione nihil habetur in Evangelio. Deinde, post hoc scilicet, visus est omnibus apostolis in ascensione, ut legitur Matth. ult. et Act. I, 3 ss. 902. – Then, i.e., after this, he was seen by James, i.e., of Alphaeus. The reason for this can be assigned because, as it is read, James vowed that he would not take food, until he saw the Lord. But according to this the order of appearances is not observed, because if after all those listed an appearance was made to James, he would have been too long without food and this is difficult. Therefore, it must be said that Christ made a special appearance to James, because James had a special devotion to Christ, and furthermore nothing is found in the gospel about that appearance. Then, namely, after this, He was seen by all the apostles in the ascension, as it says in Matt (218:16) and in Ac (1:3 ff.). Novissime autem omnium, et cetera. Hic apostolus commemorat apparitionem factam sibi soli. Et circa hoc duo facit. Primo ostendit ordinem apparitionis; secundo rationem eius assignat, ibi ego enim sum, et cetera. 903. – Last of all. Here the Apostle recalls the appearance made to him alone. In regard to this he does two things: first, he shows the order of the appearances; secondly, he assigns its reason (v. 9). Dicit ergo ita: dixi quod omnibus manifestatus est Christus, novissime, id est ultimo et post ascensionem, visus est et mihi tamquam abortivo, et ideo novissime. Dicit autem tamquam abortivo, propter tria. Abortivus dicitur aliquis foetus vel quia nascitur extra tempus debitum, vel cum violentia educitur, vel quia non perducitur ad debitam quantitatem; et quia haec tria videbat in se apostolus, ideo dicit tamquam abortivo. Primo enim ipse extra tempus aliorum apostolorum renatus est Christo. Nam alii apostoli renati sunt Christo ante adventum spiritus sancti, Paulus vero post. Secundo quia alii apostoli spontanee conversi sunt ad Christum, sed Paulus coactus. Act. IX, 4: prostravit eum ad terram, et cetera. Et hoc multum valet contra haereticos, qui dicunt quod nullus debet cogi ad fidem, quia Paulus coactus fuit. Et sicut dicit Augustinus, plus profecit in fide Paulus cum coacte conversus est, quam multi qui spontanee venerunt. Tertio quia reputat se aliis minorem, et non pervenisse ad virtutem aliorum apostolorum. 904. – He says, therefore: I have said that Christ was manifested to all, but last of all, i.e., finally and after the resurrection he appeared to me as to one untimely born, and therefore as the latest. He says, as one untimely born for three reasons. One, untimely born refers to a fetus, because it is born outside the proper time or because it is brought forth with violence or because it is not born with due quantity; and because the Apostle saw these three things in himself, he says: as one untimely born. For, first of all, all he was reborn outside the time of the other apostles. For the other apostles were reborn in Christ before the coming of the Holy Spirit, but Paul after. Secondly, because the other apostles were converted to Christ spontaneously, but Paul by coercion: “He fell to the ground and heard a voice” (Ac 9:4). And this is of great value against heretics, who say that no one should be forced to the faith, because Paul was forced. And as Augustine says: Paul made more progress in the faith, although he was forcibly converted, than many who came spontaneously. Thirdly, because he regards himself as less than the others and that he had not arrived to the virtue of the other apostles. Et ideo, quasi rationem assignans, dicit ego enim sum minimus, et cetera. Circa hoc duo facit. Primo enim ostendit suam parvitatem; secundo rationem huius exponit, ibi quoniam persecutus sum, et cetera. 905. – And therefore, as though assigning a reason he says: I am the least of the apostles. In regard to this he does two things: first, he shows his smallness; secondly, he explains the reason for this (v. 9b). Parvitatem autem suam manifestat, primo, in comparatione ad apostolos cum dicit ego enim sum minimus. Is. LX, v. 22: minimus erit in mille, et parvulus in gentem fortissimam, Eccli. III, 20: quanto magnus es, et cetera. Et licet sit minimus in comparatione ad apostolos, posset tamen dici quod est magnus in comparatione ad alios, quia est apostolus; et ideo, secundo, ostendit suam parvitatem in comparatione ad alios, cum dicit qui non sum dignus, non solum esse sed vocari apostolus, licet vocer, II Cor. III, 5: non quod sufficientes, et cetera. 906. – He explains his smallness, first, in comparison to the apostles, when he says: for I am the least of the apostles: “The least one shall become a clan, and the smallest one a mighty nation” (Is 60:22); “The greater you are, the more you must humble yourself” (Sir 3:18). And although he is the least in relation to the apostles, yet it could be said that he is great in comparison to others; and therefore, secondly, he shows his smallness in comparison to others, when he says: unfit not only to be but to be called an apostle, although I should be called: “Not that we are sufficient of ourselves but our sufficiency is from God” (2 Cor 3:5). Sed posses dicere: o apostole, propter humilitatem nullus debet dicere falsum; cum ergo tu sis magnus, quare vocas te minimum? Et ideo cum dicit quoniam persecutus, etc., ostendit quomodo sit minimus, et quomodo non minimus. Minimum autem dicit se, considerando praeterita facta sua. Et dicit non sum dignus, et cetera. Quare? Quia persecutus sum Ecclesiam Dei, quod alii apostoli non fecerunt. Gal. I, 13: supra modum persequebar, et cetera. I Tim. I, 13: qui fui blasphemus et persecutor, et cetera. Et licet ex me sim minimus, tamen ex Deo non sum minimus; et ideo dicit gratia Dei sum id quod sum. Et circa hoc duo facit. Primo commendat conditionem suam quantum ad statum; secundo quantum ad executionem status, ibi et gratia eius, et cetera. 907. – But it could be said: O Apostle, for the sake of humility no one say anything false: therefore, since you are great, why do you call yourself the least? Therefore, when he says: because I persecuted the church of God, he shows how he is the least and how he is not the least. He calls himself the least, when he considers his past deeds. And he says: I am not worthy Why? Because I persecuted the church of God, which the other apostles did not do: “I persecuted the church of God violently” (Gal 1:13); “Though I formerly blasphemed and persecuted and insulted him” (1 Tim 1:13). And although of myself I am the least, yet from the grace of God I am not the least; and therefore he says: by the grace of God I am what I am. In regard to this he does two things: first, he commends his condition as to its state; secondly, as to the execution of his state (v. 10b). Dicit ergo primo: ex me nihil sum, sed id quod sum, gratia Dei sum, id est ex Deo, non ex me. Eph. III, 7: cuius factus sum minister, et cetera. Et dicit id quod sum, quia homo sine gratia nihil est. Supra c. XIII, 2: si habuero omnem prophetiam, et cetera. Sed qualiter usus sit et executus statum suum, ostendit, dicens et gratia eius, et cetera. 908. – Therefore he says first: of myself I am nothing, but what I am, I am by the grace of God, i.e., from God, not from me: “Of this gospel I was made a minister” (Eph 3:7). And he says, what I am, because without grace a man is nothing: “If I have prophetic powers and understand all mysteries” (1 Cor 13:2). But how he used and executed his state he shows, saying: and his grace. Ubi primo ostendit quomodo usus sit gratia ista, quia ad bonum, et ideo dicit in me vacua non fuit, id est otiosa, quia ea usus est ad id ad quod data est sibi. Gal. c. II, 2: non in vacuum cucurri, et cetera. Secundo manifestat quomodo alios excessit, et ideo subdit sed abundantius illis omnibus, id est apostolis sigillatim, laboravi, praedicando, quia nullus per tot loca praedicavit et annuntiavit Christum, unde dicit Rom. XV, 19: ita quod a Ierusalem usque ad Illyricum, etc., et etiam usque ad Hispaniam; operando, quia licet ipse, sicut alii apostoli, posset exigere sumptus sibi necessarios, tamen specialiter voluit de labore manuum quaerere sumptus suos, ut ipse dicit II Thess. III, 8: nocte et die manibus nostris, etc.; tribulationes sustinendo; nullus enim apostolorum tot persecutiones et tribulationes sustinuit, ut ipse enumerat II Cor. XI, 23: in laboribus plurimis et carceribus, et cetera. Tertio ostendit usus efficaciam, quia hoc non a se solo sed ex instinctu et adiutorio spiritus sancti. Et ideo dicit non autem ego, solus operor, sed gratia Dei mecum, quae movet voluntatem ad hoc. Is. XXVI, 12: omnia opera nostra, et cetera. Phil. II, 13: qui operatur in nobis velle, et cetera. Deus enim non solum infundit gratiam, qua nostra opera grata fiunt et meritoria, sed etiam movet ad bene utendum gratia infusa, et haec vocatur gratia cooperans. 909. – Here he shows, first, how he used that grace, namely, for good; therefore he says: toward me was not in vain, i.e., idle, because he used it for that for which it was given to him: “Lest somehow I should be running in vain” (Gal 2:2). Secondly, he manifests how he exceeded others; therefore he adds: on the contrary I worked harder than any of them, i.e., than any of the apostles singly, by preaching, because no one preached in so many places and announced Christ. Hence he says: “So that from Jerusalem to Illyricum I fully preached” (Rom 15:19) and even as far as Spain – by working, because although he, as the other apostles, could require expenses necessary for them, yet he particularly wished to seek his expenses from the labor of his hands, as he says in 2 Th (3:8): “Night and day we have worked with our hands – by enduring tribulation”; for none of the apostles endured such persecutions and tribulations as he mentions in 2 Cor (11:23): “With far greater labors, far more imprisonments, with countless beatings. Thirdly, he shows the efficacy of use, because this was not from himself alone but from the instinct and help of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, he says: though it was not I alone acting but the grace of God, which is with me, which moves the will to this: “Thou has wrought for us all our works” (Is 26:12): “God is at work in you both to will and to work” (Phil 2:13). For God not only infuses but He also moves us to use the graces infused well, and this is called cooperating grace. Sive ego enim, et cetera. Hic ostendit concordiam praedicantium; et hoc potest dupliciter legi. Primo ut sit confirmatio dictorum, quasi dicat aliquis: tu ita praedicas sed tamen non credimus tibi soli, quia minimus es inter apostolos. Ideo respondens apostolus ait: immo debetis mihi credere, quia ego non praedico alia; sive ego, sive alii apostoli sic praedicamus, scilicet Christum resurrexisse et visum fuisse, et cetera. Et vos etiam credidistis sicut ego et illi praedicaverunt, scilicet quod Christus resurrexit, et visus est, et cetera. II Cor. c. IV, 13: habentes eumdem spiritum, et cetera. Secundo potest legi ut efficacia praedicationis sit omnibus apostolis ex uno, id est a gratia Dei, quasi dicat: sive ego praedicem, sive illi, id est apostoli, sicut praedicamus, hoc fecimus adiuti et firmati per gratiam Dei; et etiam vos ipsi credidistis, scilicet inspirati spiritu sancto et gratia Dei, sine qua nihil facere possumus. Io. XV, 5: sine me nihil potestis facere. 910. – Whether then it was I or they, so we preach. Here he shows the agreement of the preachers; and this can be read in two ways: first, as confirming what has been said. As if one were to say: You preach thus, but we do not believe you alone, because you are the least of the Apostles. Therefore, the Apostle says in reply: Indeed you should believe me, because I do not preach other things; whether it was I or the other apostles you saw, they preached that Christ rose and was seen, and you also believed, just as I and those who preached, namely, that Christ rose and was seen: “Since we have the same spirit of faith” (2 Cor 4:13). Secondly, it can be read so that the efficacy of preaching comes to the apostles from one source, i.e., from the grace of God. As if to say: whether I preach or they, i.e., the apostles, as we preach, we have done this by the help and strength of God’s grace; and so even you have believed, namely, inspired by the Holy Spirit and grace of God without which we can do nothing: “Without me you can do nothing” (Jn. 15:5).
15-2
1 Cor 15:12-19Supra apostolus astruxit fidem per resurrectionem Christi, hic vero probat per resurrectionem Christi, resurrectionem mortuorum futuram. Et primo probat futuram resurrectionem; secundo ostendit qualitatem resurgentium, ibi sed licet aliquis, etc.; tertio vero describit ordinem resurrectionis, ibi ecce mysterium vobis dico, et cetera. Circa primum duo facit. Primo probat resurrectionem mortuorum futuram, ratione sumpta ex resurrectione Christi; secundo ratione sumpta ex vita sanctorum, ibi alioquin quid facient, et cetera. Probat autem mortuorum resurrectionem ex resurrectione Christi, tali ratione: si Christus resurrexit, ergo et mortui resurgent. Circa ergo hanc rationem tria facit. Primo ponit conditionale, scilicet si Christus resurrexit, et mortui resurgent; secundo vero probat antecedens ipsius conditionalis, ibi si autem resurrectio mortuorum, etc.; tertio probat conditionalem esse veram, ibi nunc autem Christus resurrexit, et cetera. 911. – Having built up faith in the resurrection of Christ, the Apostle now proves by the resurrection of Christ the future resurrection of the dead. First, he proves the future resurrection; secondly, he shows the quality of those rising (v. 35); thirdly, he describes the order of the resurrection (v. 54). In regard to the first he does two things: first, he proves the future resurrection of the dead with a reason taken from the resurrection of Christ; secondly, with a reason taken from the lives of the saints (v. 29). He proves the resurrection of the dead from the resurrection of Christ with this reason: If Christ arose, then the dead will rise. In regard to this reason he does three things: first, he presents a conditional proposition, namely, if Christ arose, the dead also will rise; secondly, he proves the antecedent of this conditional (v. 13); thirdly, he proves that the conditional is true (v. 20). Dicit ergo primo: dixi, quod sive ego praedicaverim, sive illi, scilicet alii apostoli, sic credidistis. Sed si praedicatur a nobis, quod Christus resurrexit a mortuis, quomodo quidam in vobis, id est, inter vos, dicunt, etc.; quasi dicat: si Christus resurrexit a mortuis, secundum quod nos praedicamus I Thess. IV, 13: si credimus quod Christus, etc., nullus debet dubitare resurrectionem mortuorum futuram. Unde Rom. c. VIII, 11: qui suscitavit Iesum, et cetera. 912. – First, therefore, he says: I have said that whether I preached or others, namely, the apostles, you have so believed. But if Christ is preached by us as raised from the dead, how can some of you, i.e., among you, say that there is no resurrection of the dead? As if to say: If Christ rose from the dead, as we preach: “Since we believe that Christ died and rose again” (1 Th 4:13), no one should doubt the future resurrection of the dead. Hence Rom (8:10): “He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will give life to our mortal bodies.” Sed videtur quod haec argumentatio non valeat, cum sit locus a maiori affirmando. Quia, licet Christus resurrexit specialiter ex virtute divinitatis suae, non sequitur quod alii homines resurgant. Sed ad hoc dicunt aliqui quod non est locus a maiori, sed a simili. Mori enim et resurgere competit Christo secundum humanam naturam, et dicunt, quod est simile argumentum, sicut si dicerem: anima Socratis est immortalis, ergo omnes, scilicet animae hominum, sunt immortales. Videtur autem quod sit melius dicendum quod sit locus a causa, quia resurrectio Christi est causa resurrectionis nostrae. Et ideo, secundum Glossam dicendum est: si Christus, qui est causa efficiens nostrae resurrectionis, resurrexit, quomodo dicunt, et cetera. Sed tamen non est dicendum quod sit causa efficiens tantum per modum meriti, quia resurgendo non meruit eam, cum iam esset comprehensor et viveret vita gloriosa, nisi forte meritum resurrectionis mortuorum referatur ad passionem Christi. Nec est causa exemplaris tantum, ut quidam dicunt, sed est causa efficiens et exemplaris. Unde Augustinus dicit super Ioannem, quod verbum caro factum vivificat animas, et resuscitat mortuos. Sic ergo patet quod si Christus resurrexit, et mortui resurgent. 913. – But this argument seems invalid, since it argues from the greater by affirming. For although Christ rose in particular in virtue of His divinity, it does not follow that other men will rise. To this some answer that it is not from the greater but from a similar. For to die and to rise belong to Christ according to His human nature, and they say, that the argument is similar, as though I should say: The soul of Socrates is immortal; therefore all souls of men are immortal. But it seems better to say that it is arguing from a cause, because the resurrection of Christ is the cause of our resurrection. Therefore, according to a Gloss is should be said: If Christ, Who is the efficient cause of our resurrection, has risen, how do you say that there is no resurrection? Yet one should not say that He is the efficient cause only after the manner of merit, because by rising He did not merit it, since He was already a comprehensor, and lived the life of glory, unless perhaps the merit of the resurrection of the dead be referred to the death of Christ. Neither is He merely the exemplary cause, as some say, but He is the efficient and exemplary cause. Hence Augustine says, On John, that “the Word made flesh vivifies souls and raises the dead. Therefore, it is clear that if Christ rose, the dead also will rise. Sed contra: resurgere a mortuis est supra naturam, hoc autem non est nisi virtutis infinitae, qui Deus est; non ergo resurrectio corporis Christi est causa efficiens resurrectionis mortuorum, cum humanitas Christi, seu corpus, sit creatura: licet de Christo vel de homine, non possit dici quod est creatura. Responsio. Dicendum quod inquantum Deus, sive inquantum divinitas est in Christo, Christus est et exemplar et causa efficiens resurrectionis mortuorum per humanitatem suam, sicut per instrumentum divinitatis suae. Ad illud quod obiicitur, dicendum quod caro Christi seu humanitas non dicitur facere effectum virtutis infinitae, inquantum caro vel humanitas, sed inquantum caro Christi vel humanitas Christi. 914. – But on the other hand, to rise from the dead is above nature; but this is done only by the infinite power of God: therefore, the resurrection of Christ’s body is not the efficient cause of the resurrection of the dead, since the humanity of Christ or the body is a creature, although it cannot be said of Christ or of “the man,” that he is a creature. The answer is that inasmuch as God or the godhead is in Christ, Christ is the exemplary and efficient cause of the resurrection of the dead through His humanity, as through an instrument of His divinity. To answer the objection it should be noted that the flesh of Christ or the humanity is not said to produce an effect of infinite power, inasmuch as it is flesh or humanity, but inasmuch as it is the flesh and humanity of Christ. Sed quaeritur adhuc: nam, posita causa sufficienti, statim ponitur effectus; si ergo resurrectio Christi est sufficiens causa resurrectionis mortuorum, statim deberent mortui resurgere et non tantum differre. Responsio. Dicendum, quod effectus sequitur ex causis instrumentalibus secundum conditionem causae principalis. Et ideo cum Deus sit principalis causa nostrae resurrectionis, resurrectio vero Christi sit instrumentalis, resurrectio nostra sequitur resurrectionem Christi secundum dispositionem divinam, quae ordinavit ut tali tempore fieret. 915. – But there is another question: once the sufficient cause is posited, the effect follows at once; therefore, if the resurrection of Christ is the sufficient case of the resurrection of the dead, then the dead should all rise and not merely be delayed. The answer is that an effect follows from instrumental causes according to the condition of the principal cause. Therefore, since God is the principal cause of our resurrection, but Christ’s resurrection is the instrumental cause, our resurrection follows Christ’s resurrection according to God’s arrangement, which directed that it happen at such a time. Sed numquid si Deus non fuisset incarnatus, homines resurrexissent? Dicendum videtur quod non, quia Christus non fuisset passus, nec resurrexisset. Dicendum est autem ad hoc quod haec obiectio nulla est, quia quando aliquid ordinatur ab aliqua causa, debet argumentari ad illud, servato ordine illius causae. Et ideo dicendum est quod Deus ordinavit resurrectionem mortuorum fore per istum modum; potuisset tamen et alius modus adhuc inveniri a Deo si voluisset. 916. – But if God had not been incarnate, would men rise? It seems not, because Christ would not have suffered and arisen. I answer that this objection is null, because when something is directed by some cause, one should argue to it, observing the order of that cause. Therefore, it must be said that God directed the resurrection of the dead to occur in that manner; yet another manner could still be found by God, if He willed. Deinde cum dicit si autem resurrectio mortuorum non est, etc., probat antecedens, scilicet quod Christus resurrexit, et hoc ducendo ad inconvenientia. Et circa hoc duo facit. Primo ducit ad inconvenientia; secundo ostendit illa esse inconvenientia, ibi invenimur autem et falsi testes, et cetera. 917. – Then when he says: But if there is no resurrection, Christ has not risen, he proves that Christ has risen, and this by leading to incongruities. In regard to this he does two things: first, he leads to the incongruities, secondly, he shows that they are incongruities. Circa primum facit deductionem suam supponendo quod si Christus non resurrexit, neque mortui resurgent: quod, si ita est, sequuntur duo inconvenientia: unum est quod inanis est praedicatio apostoli et inutilis; aliud est quod inanis est fides Corinthiorum. Unde dicit si autem Christus non resurrexit, inanis est, et cetera. Et hoc est quod dicit: ex hoc quod sive ego, sive illi, si sic praedicant, et cetera. Dicit ergo si autem Christus non resurrexit, inanis est, id est falsa, praedicatio nostra, quia sic credidistis; et hoc magnum est inconveniens, quod praedicationem eorum non suffulserit veritas, cum apostolus dicat Phil. II, 16: non in vacuum cucurri neque laboravi. 918. – In regard to the first he makes his deduction by supposing that if Christ had not risen, the dead will not rise. If this is so, two undesirable things follow: one is that the Apostle’s preaching is vain and useless; the other is that the faith of the Corinthians is in vain. Hence he says: If Christ has not risen, then our preaching is in vain. And this is what he says: from the fact that I or others preach this. He says, therefore: If Christ had not risen, our preaching is in vain, i.e., false, because you have so believed; and this is a great incongruity, that the truth did not underprop their preaching, especially since the Apostle says: “I have not run or labored in vain” (Phil 2:16). Invenimur autem, et cetera. Hic ostendit illa duo esse inconvenientia. Et primo ostendit quod sit inconveniens, si praedicatio apostolorum esset inanis seu falsa; secundo ostendit quod sit inconveniens, si fides illorum esset inanis, ibi quod si Christus non resurrexit, et cetera. 919. – We are even found to be misrepresenting God. Here he shows that those two things are incongruous. First, he shows that it is incongruous, if the preaching of the apostles were in vain or false; secondly, he shows that if it is incongruous, their faith would be in vain (v. 17). Ostenditur autem primum esse inconveniens, quia essent falsi testes, non solum dicendo aliqua vana vel aliqua contra aliquem hominem false, quod est mortale peccatum, sed falsi testes adversus Deum, quod est sacrilegium. Quia si Deus non suscitavit Christum a mortuis, secundum quod nos praedicamus, invenimur falsi testes; et si mortui non resurgunt, Deus non resuscitavit Christum a mortuis. Iob XIII, 7: numquid Deus indiget vestro mendacio? et cetera. Et hoc est pessimum, scilicet quod aliquid attribuatur Deo quod non facit et laudare in eo quod non est. Unde dicit Augustinus: non minori, sed maiori fortasse scelere in Deo laudatur falsitas, quam vituperetur veritas. Cuius ratio est quia intellectus noster numquam potest tantum laudare Deum, quin deficiat a perfectione eius; et ideo si non totaliter intellectus omnem veritatem possit de Deo intelligere, hoc est, ad excellentiam Dei; sed si attribuitur aliquid Deo quod non habet, vel non facit, videtur quod intellectus noster est maior Deo, et intelligat aliquid maius eo quod sibi false attribuit. Et hoc contra illud I Io. III, 20: Deus maior est corde nostro. 920. – First, it is shown to be incongruous, because they would be false witnesses not only for saying vain things or things against any man falsely, which is a mortal sin, but false witnesses against God, which is a sacrilege. For if God did not raise Christ from the dead, we are found to be false witnesses; and if the dead do not rise, God did not raise Christ from the dead: “Will you speak falsely for God?” (Jb 13:7). And this is the worst, namely, that something be attributed to God which He does not do and to praise in Him what is not His. Hence Augustine says: “When something false is praised in God, it is not lesser but a greater crime than if the truth were reviled.” The reason for this is that our intellect can never praise God so much as not to fall short of His perfection; therefore, if the intellect knows every truth about God totally, this is due to God’s excellence. But if something He does not have to do is attributed to God, it seems that our intellect is greater than God and understands something greater than He, which is falsely attributed to Him. And this is contrary to 1 John (3:20): “God is greater than our heart.” Quod si Christus. Hic ostendit quod inconveniens sit, si fides illorum esset inanis. Et hoc ostendit per tria inconvenientia, quae sequuntur inde. Primum est, quia constat quod falsitas non habet virtutem purgandi, sed constat quod fides purgat peccata. Act. XV, 9: fide purificans, et cetera. Si ergo fides nostra sit inanis, quod esset si Christus non resurrexit, quia sic credidistis, scilicet quod resurrexit, peccata vestra non sunt vobis dimissa. Et hoc est quod dicit adhuc estis in peccatis vestris. 921. – But if Christ has not been raised, your faith is in vain. Here he shows that it is incongruous, if their faith were vain. He shows this with three incongruities, which follow therefrom. The first is that it is clear that falseness does not have the power to cleanse. But faith cleanses from sins: “He cleansed their hearts by faith” (Ac 15:9). If, therefore, our faith is in vain, which would be the case if Christ has not risen, because you did believe that He arose, your sins are not forgiven. And this is what he says: You are still in your sins. Sed quia posset aliquis dicere: licet fides non purget peccata, possunt tamen purgari ab eis per bona opera; ideo addit secundum inconveniens, scilicet quod mortui, qui non possunt purgari in alia vita, perierunt absque spe salutis. Et ideo, quasi concludens, dicit ergo qui in Christo, id est in fide Christi, dormierunt, id est mortui sunt in spe salutis, perierunt, quia in alia vita nulla sunt opera meritoria. 922. – But because someone could say: although faith does not cleanse sins, they can be cleansed by good works. Therefore, he adds a second incongruity, namely, that the dead, who cannot be cleansed in the other life, have perished without hope of salvation. And so, as if concluding, he says: Those who have fallen asleep, i.e., died in hope of salvation, in Christ, i.e., in the faith of Christ, have perished, because in the other life, there are no meritorious works. Sed quia posset adhuc dicere: non curo de peccatis, non curo de mortuis, dummodo habeam in vita ista quietem et tranquillitatem, ideo addit tertium inconveniens cum dicit si in hac tantum vita, et cetera. Et innititur tali argumento: si resurrectio mortuorum non est, sequitur quod nihil boni habeatur ab hominibus, nisi solum in vita ista; et si hoc est, tunc illi sunt miserabiliores, qui in vita ista multa mala et tribulationes patiuntur. Cum ergo plures tribulationes apostoli et Christiani patiantur, sequitur quod sint miserabiliores caeteris hominibus, qui ad minus perfruuntur huius mundi bonis. 923. – But because someone could still say: I do not care about sins, I do not care about the dead, as long as in this life I have peace and quiet. Therefore, he adds a third incongruity, when he says: If for this life only, we have hoped in Christ, we are of all men most to be pitied. And he rests on this argument: if there is no resurrection of the dead, it follows that nothing good is possessed by men except in this life alone; and if this is so, then those who suffer many evils and tribulations in this life are more miserable. Therefore, since the apostles and Christians suffer many tribulations, it follows that they are more miserable than other men, who at least enjoy the good things of this world. Sed circa hanc rationem videntur duo dubitanda. Unum quia non videtur quod sit verum universaliter quod apostolus dicit, scilicet quod Christiani sunt confidentes in hac vita tantum, quia possent dicere illi, quod licet corpora non habeant bona nisi in vita ista, quae est mortalis, tamen secundum animam habent multa bona in alia vita. Ad hoc obviatur dupliciter. Uno modo, quia si negetur resurrectio corporis, non de facili, imo difficile est sustinere immortalitatem animae. Constat enim quod anima naturaliter unitur corpori, separatur autem ab eo contra suam naturam, et per accidens. Unde anima exuta a corpore, quamdiu est sine corpore, est imperfecta. Impossibile autem est quod illud quod est naturale et per se, sit finitum et quasi nihil; et illud quod est contra naturam et per accidens, sit infinitum, si anima semper duret sine corpore. Et ideo Platonici ponentes immortalitatem, posuerunt reincorporationem, licet hoc sit haereticum: et ideo si mortui non resurgunt, solum in hac vita confidentes erimus. Alio modo quia constat quod homo naturaliter desiderat salutem sui ipsius, anima autem cum sit pars corporis hominis, non est totus homo, et anima mea non est ego; unde licet anima consequatur salutem in alia vita, non tamen ego vel quilibet homo. Et praeterea cum homo naturaliter desideret salutem, etiam corporis, frustraretur naturale desiderium. 924. – But there seem to be two doubts about this reasoning: one is that what the Apostle says does not seem to be universally true, namely, that Christians are confident in this life only, because they could say that, although our bodies do not possess any good things except in this life, which is mortal, yet according to the soul they have many good things in the other life. This can be turned aside in two ways: in one way, because if the resurrection of the body is denied, it is not easy, yea it is difficult, to sustain the immortality of the soul. For it is clear that the soul is naturally united to the body and is departed from it, contrary to its nature and per accidens. Hence the soul devoid of its body is imperfect, as long as it is without the body. But it is impossible that what is natural and per se be finite and, as it were, nothing; and that which is against nature and per accidens be infinite, if the soul endures without the body. And so, the Platonists positing immortality, posited re-incorporation, although this is heretical. Therefore, if the dead do not rise, we will be confident only in this life. In another way, because it is clear that man naturally desires his own salvation; but the soul, since it is part of man’s body, is not an entire man, and my soul is not I; hence, although the soul obtains salvation in another life, nevertheless, not I or any man. Furthermore, since man naturally desires salvation even of the body, a natural desire would be frustrated. Secundum dubium est quia videtur quod, dato quod corpora non resurgant, non essemus nos Christiani miserabiliores caeteris hominibus, quia illi qui sunt in peccatis, sustinent maximos labores. Ier. IX, 5: ut inique agerent, laboraverunt, et Sap. V, v. 7: dicunt impii: ambulavimus vias difficiles. At vero de bonis et iustis dicitur Gal. c. V, 22: fructus autem spiritus est charitas, gaudium, pax, et cetera. Ad hoc dicendum quod mala quae sunt in hoc mundo, non sunt secundum se appetenda, sed secundum quod ordinantur ad aliquod bonum. Apostoli autem et Christiani multa mala passi sunt in hoc mundo. Nisi ergo ordinarentur ad aliquod bonum, essent miserabiliores caeteris hominibus. Aut ergo ordinantur ad bonum futurum, aut ad bonum praesens; sed ad bonum futurum non ordinantur, si non est resurrectio mortuorum. Si autem ordinantur ad bonum praesens, hoc vel est bonum intellectus, sicut philosophi naturales paupertates et alia multa mala passi sunt, ut pervenirent ad veram veritatem. Sed ad hoc non possunt ordinari, si non est resurrectio mortuorum: quia sic fides eorum esset falsa, quia ipsi praedicaverunt resurrectionem futuram; falsitas autem non est bonum intellectus. Vel est bonum moris, sicut morales philosophi multa mala passi sunt, ut pervenirent ad virtutes et famam. Sed nec ad hoc ordinari possunt, quia si resurrectio mortuorum non sit, non reputatur virtus et gloria velle omnia delectabilia dimittere, et sustinere poenas mortis et contemptus, sed potius reputatur stultitia. Et sic patet quod miserabiliores essent caeteris hominibus. 925. – The second doubt is that it seems that if bodies do not rise, we Christians would be not more miserable than other men, because those who are in sins undergo greater labors: “They have labored to commit iniquity” (Jer 9:4); “The impious say: we have walked difficult paths” (Wis 5:7). But of the good and just it says in Gal (5:22): “The fruit of the spirit is love, joy, peace…” The answer to this is that evils in this world are not to be sought as such, but inasmuch as they are directed to some good. But the apostles and Christians have suffered many evils in the world. Therefore, unless they were directed to some good, they would be more miserable than other men. Either they are directed to a future good or to a present good; but they are not ordained to a future good, if there is no resurrection of the dead. But if they are ordained to a present good, this is either the good of the intellect, as philosophers of nature suffered poverty and many other evils, in order to know the truth. But it cannot be directed to this, if there is no resurrection of the dead, because then their faith would be false, because they preached a future resurrection. But falsity is not a good of the intellect. Or it is a good of morals, as moral philosophers suffered many evils to acquire virtues and fame. But neither can they be directed to this, because if there is no resurrection of the dead, it is not regarded as virtuous and glorious to wish to renounce all pleasant things and undergo the punishments of death and contempt; rather it is considered folly. And so it is clear that they would more miserable than other men.
15-3
1 Cor 15:20-28Hic probat positam superius conditionalem esse veram, scilicet si Christus resurrexit, mortui resurgunt. Et circa hoc tria facit. Primo ostendit quomodo se habeat resurrectio Christi ad resurrectionem aliorum; secundo ostendit ordinem resurrectionis, ibi unusquisque autem in suo ordine, etc.; tertio ostendit finem resurrectionis, ibi deinde finis, et cetera. Circa primum duo facit. Primo ostendit habitudinem resurrectionis Christi ad resurrectionem aliorum, per conditionalem praedictam, probans hoc; secundo probat ipsam habitudinem, ibi quoniam quidem, et cetera. 926. – Here he proves that the conditional statement above set forth is true, namely, if Christ arose, the dead will rise. In regard to this he does three things: first, he shows how Christ’s resurrection is related to that of others; secondly, he shows the order of the resurrection (v. 23); thirdly, he shows the end of the resurrection (v. 24). In regard to the first he does two things: first, he shows the relationship of Christ’s resurrection to that of others; secondly, he proves this relationship (v. 21). Dicit ergo nunc, id est ex quo dicta inconvenientia sequuntur si Christus non resurrexit, ideo ad ipsa vitanda dicamus, quod Christus resurrexit. Hoc autem verum est, secundum quod Matth. ult. dicitur, et aliis locis Evangeliorum. Sed resurrectionis Christi habitudo ita se habet ad resurrectionem aliorum, sicut primitiae fructuum ad sequentes fructus, quae excedunt alios fructus tempore et melioritate, seu dignitate; et ideo dicit quod resurrexit, non sicut alii, sed primitiae, id est primo tempore et dignitate. Apoc. I, 5: primogenitus mortuorum. Primitiae, dico, dormientium, id est, mortuorum qui in spe resurrectionis quiescunt. Ex hoc potest inferri conditionalis posita, quia, sicut dicimus et verum est, si Christus, qui est primitiae dormientium, resurrexit, ergo et alii dormientes. 927. – He says, therefore: Now, i.e., inasmuch as the aforesaid incongruities follow, if Christ has not risen, then to avoid them, let us say: Christ has risen. This is true according to what is stated in the last chapter of Matthew and in other texts of the gospels. But Christ’s resurrection is related to that of others as the first fruits to those that follow, for they exceed the latter in time and superiority or worth; therefore, he says: He arose, not as the others, but as the first fruit, i.e., first in time and dignity: “The first born of the dead” (Rev 1:5). The first fruits, I say, of those who have fallen asleep, i.e., of the dead who rest in hope of the resurrection. From this can be inferred the conditional statement previously made, because we say and it is true, if Christ Who is the first fruit of those that sleep, arose, then also all others asleep. Sed contrarium videtur, scilicet quod Christus non resurrexit primitiae dormientium, quia Lazarus fuit resuscitatus a Christo nondum passo, et aliqui prophetae suscitaverunt alios a mortuis, ut habetur in veteri testamento. Ad hoc dicendum quod duplex est resurrectio. Una est ad vitam mortalem, et ad istam Lazarus et alii, qui suscitati fuerunt, resurrexerunt ante Christum. Alia ad vitam immortalem, et de hac loquitur hic apostolus. 928. – But something seems contrary to this, namely, that Christ did not arise the first fruits of those who sleep, because Lazarus had been raised by Christ not yet suffering, and some raised others from the dead, as it says in the Old Testament. The answer is that resurrection is twofold: one is to mortal life, to which Lazarus and the others had been raised. The other is to immortal life, and it is about this that the Apostle speaks. Sed contra Matth. XXVII, 52 dicitur, quod multa corpora sanctorum surrexerunt. Cum ergo hoc legatur ante Christi resurrectionem, et constet quod non resurrexerunt ad vitam immortalem, videtur quod adhuc restet quaestio prima. Responsio. Dicendum est, quod hoc quod Matthaeus dicit de resurrectione illorum, dicit per anticipationem, quia licet dicatur in tractatu de passione, non tunc resurrexerunt, sed postquam Christus resurrexit. 929. – But on the other hand it says in Matt (27:52) “Many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised.” Therefore, since this happened before the resurrection of Christ and it is obvious that they did not rise to an immortal life, it seems that the first question still remains. I answer that what Matthew says about the resurrection of those souls, he says by anticipation, because although it is written in the tract on the passion, they did not rise then, but after Christ arose. Quoniam quidem, et cetera. Hic probat habitudinem positam, scilicet quod Christus sit primitiae dormientium. Et primo probat in generali, secundo in speciali, ibi et sicut in Adam, et cetera. 930. – For as by a man came death, by a man has also come the resurrection of the dead. Here he proves the relationship posited, namely, that Christ is the first fruits of them that sleep. First, he proves this in general; secondly, in special (v. 22). Probat in generali tali ratione: Deus voluit reintegrare humanam naturam, sed humana natura corrupta est per hominem, quia mors intravit per hominem. Pertinebat ergo ad dignitatem humanae naturae, ut reintegraretur per hominem, hoc autem est ut reducatur ad vitam. Conveniens ergo fuit, sicut mors intravit per hominem, scilicet per Adam, ita resurrectio mortuorum fieret per hominem, scilicet per Christum. Rom. c. V, 17: si enim unius delicto, et cetera. Et sicut in Adam. 931. – He proves it in a general way with the following reason: God willed to reintegrate human nature, which had been corrupted by man, because death entered through a man. Therefore, it pertained to the dignity of human nature that it be reintegrated by a man, but this is so that it be brought back to life. Therefore, it was fitting that just as death entered through a man, namely, Adam, so the resurrection of the dead be accomplished by a man, namely, Christ: “If because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more” (Rom. 5:17). Hic probat idem in speciali, dicens quod sicut in Adam omnes morimur morte corporali, ita et omnes vivificamur in Christo. Rom. V, 12: per unum hominem, et cetera. Et non dicit per Evam, quod videtur contra illud Eccli. XXV, 33: per illam omnes morimur. Dicendum quod hoc est per illam Evam, scilicet suggerentem, sed per Adam sicut causantem. Nam si solum Eva peccasset, peccatum originale non fuisset traductum in posteros. Vivificabuntur, inquam, in Christo, scilicet boni et mali vita naturae, sed vita gratiae non nisi boni; sed tamen apostolus loquitur hic de resurrectione ad vitam naturae, ad quam omnes vivificabuntur. Io. V, 26: sicut pater habet vitam in semetipso, ita et filio dedit vitam habere, id est vivificandi virtutem. Io. V, 28: omnes qui in monumentis sunt, et cetera. 932. – For as in Adam. Here he proves the same in special, saying that as in Adam we all die a bodily death, so too we are all made alive in Christ: “As sin came into the world through one man” (Rom 5:12). He does not say through Eve, which seems contrary to Sir (25:33): “Through her we all die.” I answer that this is through Eve suggesting, but through Adam as cause. For if Eve alone had sinned, original sin would not have been passed on to their descendants. That shall all be made alive, I say, in Christ, namely, the good and the bad with the life of nature, but the good only with the life of grace. Yet the Apostle speaks here of a resurrection to a life of nature, to which all shall be made alive. “As the Father has life in himself, so He has granted the Son also to have life in himself” (Jn. 5:26), i.e., the power to grant life: “All who are in the tombs will hear his voice” (Jn. 5:28). Unusquisque autem in suo ordine, et cetera. Hic ostendit ordinem resurrectionis. Et primo insinuat ipsum ordinem; secundo manifestat id quod dixerat, ibi primitiae Christus, et cetera. 933. – But each in his own order. Here he shows the order of the resurrection. First, he gives the order itself; secondly, he exhibits what he had said (v. 23). Dicit ergo quod verum est quod omnes in Christo vivificabuntur, sed tamen differenter, quia differentia erit inter caput et membra, et differentia quantum ad bonos et malos. Et ideo dicit quod unusquisque resurget in suo ordine, scilicet dignitatis. Rom. XIII, 1: quae autem sunt, a Deo ordinata sunt. 934. – Therefore I say that it is true that in Christ shall all be made alive, but differently, because there will be a difference between head and members, and a difference as to the good and the evil. And therefore he says that each will rise in his own order, namely in dignity: “Those that exist have been instituted by God” (Rom 13:1). Sed hunc ordinem consequenter manifestat, quia primitiae Christus, quia ipse est prior tempore et dignitate, quia plus de gloria. Io. I, 14: vidimus eum quasi unigenitum, et cetera. Deinde resurgent omnes qui sunt Christi, posteriores tempore et dignitate. Isti sunt qui carnem suam crucifixerunt cum vitiis, et cetera. Gal. IV, 4: at ubi venit plenitudo. I Tim. VI, v. 14: serves mandatum sine macula irreprehensibile usque in adventum domini nostri. Qui autem sint Christi exponit, dicens qui crediderunt per fidem, per dilectionem operantem. Hebr. XI, 6: accedentem ad Deum oportet credere, et cetera. In adventu eius, primo et secundo. Sed sciendum quod inter alios sanctos non erit ordo temporis, quia omnes resurgent in ictu oculi, sed bene secundum dignitates, quia martyr resurget ut martyr, apostolus ut apostolus, et sic de aliis. 935. – Then he clarifies this order, because Christ is the first fruits, for He is prior in time and worth, because He had more glory: “We have beheld his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father” (Jn. 1:14). Then those who belong to Christ will also rise, because they are later in time and worth. They are those who crucified their flesh with its vices: “But when the fullness of time came, God sent his Son” (Gal 4:4); “I charge you to keep the commandment unstained and free from reproach until the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Tim 6:14). He explains who are Christ’s when he says: who believed by faith working through love: “For whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists” (Heb 11:6), and in his coming both the first and the second. But it should be noted that among the other saints there is not order of time, because all will rise in the twinkling of an eye, but an order of worth, because a martyr will rise as a martyr, and an apostle as an apostle, and so on. Deinde finis. Hic ostendit finem resurrectionis, et hunc duplicem. Unum quantum ad adeptionem boni, alium quantum ad remotionem mali, ibi oportet illum regnare, et cetera. Circa primum duo facit. Primo ostendit quod adeptio ipsius boni consistit in inhaerentia ad Deum; secundo ostendit, quod in immediata inhaerentia, ibi cum evacuaverit, et cetera. 936. – Then comes the end. Here he shows the end of the resurrection and it is twofold: one as to attaining the good; the others as to removal of the wicked (v. 25). In regard to the first he does two things: first, he shows that the attainment of the good consists in inhering to God; secondly, he shows that it consists in immediate inherence (v. 24b). Dicit ergo, quod deinde, id est post hoc, erit finis resurrectionis. Et finis huiusmodi non erit, ut vivant vita corporis et voluptatibus, ut Iudaei et Saraceni fingunt; sed quod inhaereant Deo per immediatam visionem et beatam fruitionem: et hoc est tradere regnum Deo et patri. Et ideo dicit cum tradiderit, id est, perduxerit, regnum, id est fideles suos quos proprio sanguine acquisivit, Apoc. V, 9: redemisti nos Deo in sanguine tuo, Deo et patri, id est ante conspectum Dei, id est creatoris sui, inquantum est homo, et patris, inquantum est Deus. Et hoc est, quod petebat Philippus, Io. XIV, 8: domine, ostende nobis patrem, et cetera. Sed sic tradet, ut sibi non adimat, imo ipse unus Deus cum patre et sancto spiritu regnabit. Vel cum tradiderit regnum Deo et patri, id est cum ostendet Deum patrem regnare. In Scriptura enim tunc dicuntur aliqua fieri, quando primo innotescunt, et huiusmodi innotescentia fit per Christum. Matth. XI, 27: nemo novit patrem, nisi filius, et cui, et cetera. 937. – He says, therefore: that then, i.e., after this, will come the end of the resurrection. And an end of this kind will not be that they will live the life of the body and voluptuousness, as the Jews and Saracens pretend, but that they will inhere to God by immediate vision and happy enjoyment: and this is to hand over the kingdom to God and the Father. Therefore, he says: when he delivers, i.e., brings the kingdom, i.e., his believers, whom He acquired by His own blood: “By thy blood thou didst ransom men for God” (Rev 5:9), to God the Father, i.e., before the sight of God, i.e., of his Creator, inasmuch as He is man, and of the Father, inasmuch as He is God. And this is what Philip sought: “Lord, show us the Father and we shall be satisfied” (Jn. 14:18). But He will deliver it up in such a way that He does not take it from Himself; indeed, He, the one God with the Father and the Holy Spirit will reign. Or when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father, i.e., when he will show God the Father reigning. For in Scripture something is to said be done, when it first becomes known, and such knowledge is made by Christ: “No one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him” (Matt 11:27). Cum evacuaverit. Hic ostendit immediationem dictae inhaerentiae. Sicut enim dicitur Gal. IV, 1 s., quanto tempore haeres parvulus est, est sub tutoribus, et cetera. Sed quando iam est magnus et perfectus, tunc immediate absque paedagogo et tutore sub patre est in domo. Status autem huius vitae praesentis assimilatur pueritiae, et ideo in vita ista sumus sub Angelis, sicut sub tutoribus, inquantum praesunt nobis et dirigunt nos; sed quando tradetur regnum Deo et patri, tunc immediate erimus sub Deo, et cessabunt omnia alia dominia. Et hoc est quod dicit et cum evacuaverit omnem principatum et potestatem et virtutem, id est cum cessaverit omne dominium, tam humanum quam angelicum, tunc immediate erimus sub Deo. Is. II, 12: exaltabitur dominus solus in die illa. Ier. c. XXXI, 34: non docebit ultra vir proximum suum, et cetera. 938. – After he does away with every principality. Here he shows the immediacy of the aforementioned inherence. For as it says in Gal (4:1): “The heir, as long as he is a child, is no better than a slave but is under tutors.” But when he is now large and mature, then he is immediately under his father in the home without a pedagogue an tutor. But the condition of this present life is akin to childhood; therefore, in this life we are under angels as under tutors, inasmuch as they over us and direct us. But when the kingdom is delivered over to God the Father, then we will be immediately under God, and all other powers will cease. And this is what he says: After he does away with every principality, power and virtue, i.e., when all dominion both human and angelic shall have ceased, then we shall be immediately under God: “The Lord alone will be exalted on that day” (Is 2:11); “And no longer shall each man teach his neighbor, for they shall all know me, says the Lord” (Jer 31:34). Sed numquid non remanebunt ordines Angelorum distincti? Dicendum quod sic, quantum ad eminentiam gloriae, qua unus alteri praeeminet, sed non quantum ad efficaciam executionis ad nos. Et ideo illos dicit evacuari, quorum nomina pertinent ad executionem, scilicet principatus, potestates et virtutes. Illos autem qui sunt de superiori hierarchia non nominat, quia non sunt exequentes; nec Angelos, quia est nomen commune. Dominationes autem non dixit evacuari, quia licet sint de exequentibus, non tamen ipsi exequuntur, sed dirigunt et imperant. Dominorum enim est dirigere et imperare, non exequi; Archangeli vero intelliguntur cum principatibus; archos enim idem est quod princeps. Hi tres ordines secundum Gregorium leguntur descendendo, quia secundum ipsum principatus sunt super potestates, et potestates super virtutes; sed secundum Dionysium, ascendendo, quia vult quod virtutes sint super potestates, et potestates super principatus. Vel aliter cum evacuaverit, etc., id est tunc erit notum, quod principatus, et potestates, et dominationes nihil potestatis habuerunt ex seipsis, sed a Deo, ex quo sunt omnia. 939. – But will not the orders of angels remain distinct? It seems so, as to the eminence of glory, by which one excels another, but not as to the efficacy of their activity toward us. Therefore, he says that those will be done away with whose names pertain to outward activity, namely, principalities, powers and virtues. He does not name those who belong to the higher hierarchy, because they are not outwardly active; not angels, because it is their common name. He does not say dominations will be done away with, because although they are among the outwardly active, they do not perform outward activity, but they direct and command. For it belongs to lords to direct and command, not to act outwardly. Archangels are included with the principalities, for archos is the same as prince. According to Gregory these three orders are presented in descending order, because according to him principalities are above powers, and powers above virtues; but according to Denis in ascending order, because he wants the virtues over the powers, and the powers over the principalities. Or in another way: when every rule and every authority and power is done away with, i.e., then it will be known that they had no power of themselves but from God, from Whom are all things. Deinde cum dicit oportet illum, etc., ostendit apostolus finem resurrectionis quoad remotionem mali. Quod quidem ostendit per destructionem omnium inimicorum ad Christum. Et primo ponit ipsorum destructionem; secundo subiectionis perfectionem, ibi novissime autem, etc.; tertio subiectionis finem, ibi cum autem subiecta fuerint. 940. – For he must reign. Here the Apostle shows the end of the resurrection as to the removal of the wicked. This he shows by the destruction of all enemies of Christ: first, he mentions their destruction; secondly, the perfection of subjection (v. 26); thirdly, the end of the destruction (v. 28). Dicit ergo primo: dixi quod finis erit, cum tradiderit regnum Deo et patri; sed numquid Christus habet regnum ita quod oportet illum regnare? Sic enim dicitur Matth. ult.: data est mihi, et cetera. Lc. I, 32: et regnabit in domo Iacob. Oportet, inquam, donec ponat inimicos suos sub pedibus eius. Sed numquid modo non sunt inimici eius sub pedibus eius, id est, sub potestate Christi? Dicendum quod modo inimici Christi sunt sub potestate eius, sed dupliciter. Vel inquantum per ipsum convertuntur sicut Paulus, quem prostravit Act. IX, 3 s.; vel inquantum Christus facit voluntatem suam, etiam de his qui faciunt hic contra voluntatem Christi. Sic ponit inimicos suos sub pedibus suis, puniendo eos; sed in futuro ponet sub pedibus, id est sub humanitate Christi. Sicut enim per caput deitas Christi intelligitur, quia caput Christi Deus, I Cor. XI, 3, ita per pedem, humanitas. Ps. CXXXI, 7: adorabimus in loco ubi steterunt pedes eius, et cetera. Sic ergo inimici erunt non solum sub deitate, sed etiam sub humanitate Christi. Phil. II, 10: in nomine Iesu omne genu, et cetera. 941. – First, therefore, he says: I have said that the end will be when He has delivered the kingdom to God the Father. But will Christ have a kingdom in which He should reign: “All power is given to me in heaven and on earth” (Matt 28:18); “and he will reign in the house of Jacob forever” (Lk 1:32)? He must reign, I say, until he has put all enemies under his feet. But aren’t they under His feet now, i.e., under Christ’s power? The answer is that the enemies of Christ are now under His power, but in two ways: either because they are converted by Him, as Paul, whom he caused to fall on the ground” (Ac 9:3); or inasmuch as Christ does His own will, even in regard to those who act here against Christ’s will. So He puts His enemies under his feet by punishing them; but in the future He will put them under His feet, i.e., under Christ’s humanity. For just as by the head is understood Christ’s godhead, because “the head of Christ is God” (1 Cor 11:3), so by the feet, His humanity. “We will adore in the place where his feet stood” (Ps 132:5). Thus, therefore, the enemies will not only be under the godhead, but also under the humanity of Christ: “At the name of Jesus every knee shall bow” (Phil 2:10). Sed quid est quod dicit donec ponat? et cetera. Numquid non regnabit, priusquam posuerit inimicos sub pedibus? Dicendum quod hoc potest intelligi dupliciter, nam ly donec quandoque determinat tempus, et ponitur pro finito, sicut si dicerem: non videbo Deum donec moriar, quia usque tunc non videbo, sed postea videbo. Quandoque ponitur pro infinito, sicut cum dicitur: non cognovit eam donec peperit filium suum. Non quod velit dicere, quod non cognovit eam solum usque ad partum filii, sed nec etiam postea unquam cognovit, sicut dicit Hieronymus. Iste modus servatur quando aliqui intendunt excludere illa solum de quibus est dubium. Unde Evangelium exclusit illud solum, quod videtur esse dubium, scilicet quod Ioseph cognovisset beatam virginem ante partum. Hoc vero quod post partum non cognovit eam, nulli est dubium, cum tot mysteria pueri viderit et toties ab Angelis monitus sit, et adoratus etiam a magis Iesus fuisset; unde poterat eam iam Dei matrem cognoscere, et ideo non curavit hoc excludere: sic etiam loquitur hic apostolus. Quod enim aliquis regnet, adhuc inimicis non subiugatis, videtur esse dubium; sed quod regnet postquam inimici subiugati sunt, nulli est dubium. Et ideo illud excludit principaliter dicens donec ponat, etc., quasi dicat: verum est, quod Christus habet regnum, et licet sint aliqui inimici, dum non faciunt voluntatem suam, tamen regnat donec ponat, et cetera. 942. – But why does he say, until he has put all his enemies under his feet? Will he not reign until He does that? The answer is that this can be taken in two ways: for “until” sometimes determines time, as if I should say: I will not see God, until I die; because until them I will not see, but after that I shall see. Sometimes it is taken for the infinite, as when it says in (Matt 1:25): “He did not know her until she brought forth her son.” Not that he wanted to say that he did not know her only up to the birth of her Son, but neither did he afterwards ever know her, as Jerome says. This manner is observed, when one intends to exclude only those about which there is doubt. Hence, the Gospel excluded only that which seems to be in doubt, namely, that Joseph knew the Blessed Virgin before she gave birth. But the fact that he did not know her after giving birth is doubted by no one, since he saw so many mysteries concerning the child, and he was so often warned by angels, and Jesus had been adored by the Magi; hence he could already have known that she was the mother of God and, therefore, he did not wish to preclude this. This is the way the Apostle speaks here. For the fact that anyone should reign with his enemies not yet subdued, seems to be doubtful, but that He should reign after His enemies have been subjugated, no one doubts. Therefore, he excludes the first, saying: Until he puts his enemies. As if to say: it is true that Christ has a kingdom and although there are some enemies, while they do not do His will, nevertheless He rules and puts his enemies under his feet. Potest etiam alio modo intelligi donec ponat, etc., ut ly donec determinet tempus, et ponatur pro futuro, ut dicatur sic oportet illum regnare, sed quando? Donec ponat, et cetera. Quasi dicat: usque tunc regnabit, quousque ponat inimicos sub pedibus, postea vero non regnabit. Sed secundum hanc expositionem, regnare non importat regnum habere, sed in regnando proficere et regnum augeri, et hoc quantum ad manifestationem perfectam regni Christi. Quasi dicat: regnum Christi paulatim proficit, inquantum scilicet manifestatur et innotescit, donec ponat inimicos sub pedibus, id est quousque omnes inimici regnare eum fateantur: boni quidem cum gaudio beatitudinis, mali vero cum confusione; et postea non regnat, id est regnum suum non proficit, et non amplius manifestatur, quia iam plene manifestum erit. 943. – The phrase, until he puts his enemies can be understood in another way, so that “until” determines a time and is put for the future. As if to say: He should reign. But when? Until he puts his enemies under his feet. As if to say: until then He will reign, until He puts his enemies under his feet, but after that He will not reign. But according to this explanation “to reign” does not imply having a kingdom, but in making progress in reigning and increasing the kingdom, and this as to a perfect manifestation of a kingdom of Christ. As if to say: Christ’s kingdom grows gradually, namely, inasmuch as it is manifested and becomes known, until he puts his enemies under his feet, i.e., until all enemies admit that He is reigning, i.e., my kingdom does not grow and it is not further manifested, because it will already be fully manifest. Sic ergo patet omnium adversantium subiectio, quae quidem subiectio perfectissima erit, quia etiam illud quod maxime inimicatur, subiicietur sibi. Hoc autem est mors, quae maxime contrariatur vitae; et ideo dicit novissime autem, etc.; ubi tria facit. Primo ponit subiectionem mortis; secundo probat hoc per auctoritatem, ibi omnia enim subiecit, etc.; tertio ex ipsa auctoritate arguit, ibi cum autem dicat, et cetera. 944. – So, therefore, the subjection of all adversaries is clear, which subjection will, indeed, be most complete, because even that which is extremely hostile will be subjected to Him. This, however, is death, which is contrary to life most of all; and therefore, he says: the last enemy, where he does three things. First, he mentions death’s subjection; secondly, he proves this by an authority (v. 26b); thirdly, he argues from this authority (v. 26c). Dicit ergo: dixi quod omnes inimicos subiecit sub pedibus eius. Sed qualiter? Perfectissime, inquam, quia novissime inimica mors destruetur, scilicet in fine, quia non poterit esse cum vita, ubi omnes per resurrectionem vivent. Os. XIII, 14: ero mors tua, o mors. Is. XXV, 8: praecipitabit mortem in sempiternum. 945. – He says, therefore: I have said that He has subjected all enemies under his feet. But how? Most completely, I say, because last of all death will be destroyed, namely, at the end, because it could not exist with life, when all shall be alive through the resurrection: “I will be your death, O death” (Hos 13:14); “He will swallow up death forever” (Is 25:8). Sciendum est autem, quod Origenes ex hoc verbo sumpsit occasionem erroris sui, quem ponit in periarchon. Ipse enim voluit quod poenae damnatorum essent purgatoriae et non aeternae, et voluit quod omnes, qui sunt in Inferno, quandoque converterentur ad Christum et salvarentur, et etiam Diabolus. Et hoc confirmat per ista verba donec ponam inimicos, et cetera. Et intelligit quod hoc quod dicitur inimicos sub pedibus, solum intelligitur de subiectione, quae fit per conversionem peccatorum ad Deum, non de subiectione qua sunt subiecti Christo etiam illi, qui numquam convertuntur ad Christum, inquantum punit eos in Inferno. Et ideo dicit oportet illum regnare, donec ponat inimicos sub pedibus, quia tunc omnes damnati et qui sunt in Inferno salvabuntur, inquantum scilicet convertentur ad ipsum, et servient ei, et non solum ipsi homines damnati; autem, pro sed, novissime ipsa mors, id est Diabolus, destruetur, non quod non sit omnino, sed quod non sit mors, quia etiam ipse Diabolus in fine salvabitur. Sed hoc est haereticum et damnatum in Concilio. 946. – It should be noted that from this word Origen took the occasion of his error, which appears in Periarchon. For he wanted the punishments of the damned to be a cleansing and not eternal, and he wanted that all in hell will be converted to Christ at some time and be saved, including the devil; and he confirms this with the words, “until I put my enemies under my feet.” And he understands by “enemies under my feet” the subjection which occurs when sinners are converted to God, not of the subjection by which those are subject to Christ who are never converted to Christ, inasmuch as He punishes them in hell. Therefore, he says: “It is fitting that He reign, until He puts His enemies under his feet,” because at that time all the damned and those in hell will be saved, inasmuch as they will be converted to Him and will serve Him, and not only those condemned men; but “last of all death,” i.e., the devil “will be destroyed, not that he will not exist at all, but that he will not be death, because even in the end the devil himself will be saved. But this is heretical and condemned by a Council. Iterum sciendum est quod apostolus signanter posuit hoc quod dicitur novissime autem, etc., ad removendum duas quaestiones, quae possunt fieri circa praedicta de resurrectione, scilicet utrum Christus posset vivificare mortuos. Et hoc solvitur, quia omnes inimicos posuit sub pedibus eius, et etiam ipsam mortem. Et quare non statim omnes resuscitavit? Ad quod respondetur, quod oportet quod primo subiiciat inimicos sub pedibus, et novissime cum destruetur ipsa mors, tunc resurgent omnes ad vitam. Non ergo differt, quia non potest, sed ut servet ordinem, quia quae a Deo sunt, ordinata sunt. 947. – Again it should be noted that the Apostle clearly stated that last of all death will be destroyed, in order to remove two questions which can arise concerning things predicted about the resurrection, namely, whether Christ could give life to the dead. And this is solved, because He has put all His enemies under his feet, and even death itself. And why has He not raised all at once? The answer to this is that He must first subject the enemies under his feet, and finally when death itself is destroyed, then all will rise to life. Therefore, he delays, not because he is unable, but that he might preserve order, because things that are from God are in order. Quod autem ipsa mors subiiciatur Christo, probat per auctoritatem Ps. VIII, 8: omnia subiecisti sub pedibus eius, id est, sub humanitate eius, scilicet Christi. Phil. II, v. 11: omnis lingua, et cetera. Is. XLV, 24: mihi curvabitur omne genu, et cetera. 948. – That death itself will be subjected to Christ he proves with an authority (Ps 8:8): Thou hast put all things under his feet, i.e., under His humanity, namely, Christ’s. “And every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord” (Phil 2:11); “To me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear” (Is 45:23). Ex hac autem auctoritate argumentatur, dicens cum autem dicat, et cetera. Et est ratio sua talis: propheta dicit omnia subiecisti, etc., sed dicendo omnia, constat quod nihil exclusit, nisi illum qui subiecit; ergo subiecta sunt Christo omnia et ipsa mors. Dicit ergo: cum autem dicat, Psalmista scilicet, omnia subiecta sunt ei, scilicet Christo, inquantum homini, praeter eum, scilicet patrem, qui subiecit ei omnia. Hebr. II, v. 8: in eo qui omnia sibi subiecit, et cetera. Matth. ult.: data est mihi omnis potestas, et cetera. Sed contra. Si pater subiecit omnia filio, ergo filius est minor patre. Responsio. Dicendum est, quod pater subiecit omnia filio, inquantum est homo, ut dictum est, et sic pater est maior filio. Est enim minor patre secundum humanitatem, aequalis vero secundum divinitatem. Vel dicendum, quod etiam ipse filius, inquantum Deus, subiecit sibi omnia, quia sic potest omnia quae pater potest, Phil. III, 20: salvatorem expectamus, etc., secundum operationem qua potens est subiicere omnia. 949. – From this authority he argues, saying: But when it says. The reasoning is this: The prophet says, you have subjected all things; by saying all things, nothing is excluded, except the one who subjects. Therefore, all things including death are subjected to Christ. He says, therefore: When it says, all things are subjected to him, namely, Christ as man, except him, namely, the Father, who subjected all things to him: “Putting everything in subjection under his feet” (Heb 2:8); “All power is given to me in heaven and on earth” (Matt 28:18). But on the other hand. If the Father subjected all things to the Son, the Son is less than the Father. The answer is that the Father subjected all to the Son as man, as has been stated, and so the Father is greater than the Son. For He is less according to his humanity, but equal according to His divinity. Or it might be said that even the Son Himself as God subjected all things to Himself, because as God He can do all that the Father does: “We await a Savior who will change our lowly body to be like his glorious body, by the power which enables him even to subject all things to himself” (Phil 3:20). Consequenter cum dicit cum autem subiecta fuerint illi omnia, etc., ostendit finem huius resurrectionis non esse in humanitate Christi, sed ulterius perducetur rationalis creatura ad contemplationem divinitatis, et in ea est beatitudo nostra, et finis noster ipse Deus est. Et ideo dicit cum autem subiecta, etc., quasi dicat: nondum Deus subiecit omnia Christo, sed cum omnia fuerint ei subiecta, scilicet Christo, tunc ipse filius secundum humanitatem subiectus erit illi, scilicet patri, Io. XIV, 28: pater maior me est; et subiectus est nunc etiam Christus secundum quod homo patri, sed hoc tunc manifestius erit. Et ratio huius subiectionis est ut sit Deus omnia in omnibus, id est ut anima hominis totaliter requiescat in Deo, et solus Deus sit beatitudo. Modo enim in uno est vita et virtus in alio et gloria in alio, sed tunc Deus erit vita et salus et virtus, et gloria et omnia. Vel aliter ita, ut sit Deus omnia in omnibus, quia tunc manifestabitur quod quidquid boni habemus est a Deo. 950. – Then when he says: When all things are subjected to him, he shows that the end of this resurrection is not in the humanity of Christ, but the rational creature will be further led to contemplating the divinity, and in it is our happiness. Therefore, he says, when all things are subjected to him. As if to say: God has not yet subjected all things to Christ, but when all things shall have been subjected to Him, namely, to Christ, then the subject Himself according to His humanity will be subjected to Him, namely, to the Father: “The Father is greater than I” (Jn. 14:28), and even now Christ as man is subjected to the Father, but this will be more manifest then. The reason for this subjection is that God may be everything to everyone, i.e., that the soul of men rest entirely in God, and God alone be beatitude. For now there is life and virtue in one and glory in another; but then God will be the life and salvation and virtue and glory and all things. Or in another way: that God may be everything in everyone, because then it will be clear that whatever good we have is from God.
15-4
1 Cor 15:29-34Ostensa resurrectione mortuorum ex resurrectione Christi, hic consequenter ostendit resurrectionem mortuorum ex vita sanctorum. Et circa hoc duo facit. Primo probat propositum; secundo subiungit admonitionem, ibi nolite seduci, et cetera. Probat autem propositum, ducendo ad tria inconvenientia. Primum inconveniens est quod frustraretur devotio hominum ad Baptismum; secundum est quod frustraretur labor sanctorum, et hoc ponit ibi ut quid et nos periclitamur, etc.; tertium est quod daretur occasio fruendi voluptatibus. Et hoc ponit, ibi manducemus et bibamus, et cetera. Circa primum duo facit. Primo ponit primum inconveniens; secundo explicat illud, ibi si omnino mortui, et cetera. 951. – Having shown the resurrection of the dead from the resurrection of Christ, the Apostle then shows the resurrection of the dead from the life of the saints. In regard to this he does two things: first, he proves his proposition; secondly, he adds an admonition (v. 33). He proves his proposition by leading to three incongruities: first, it is incongruous that men’s devotion to baptism be frustrated; secondly, that the laborers of the saints would be frustrated (v. 30); thirdly, that there would be given the occasion to enjoy pleasure (v. 32b). In regard to the first he does two things: first, he presents the first incongruity; secondly, he explains it (v. 29b). Dicit ergo primo: dixi quod mortui resurgunt, alioquin, scilicet si non est resurrectio mortuorum futura, ut nos praedicamus, quid facient qui, et cetera. Hoc potest dupliciter intelligi. Uno modo, ut per hoc quod dicit mortui, intelligantur opera peccati, quae sunt mortua, quia carent vita gratiae, et ducunt ad mortem. Hebr. IX, 14: sanguis Christi emundabit, et cetera. Et secundum hoc plana est littera. Quid, scilicet facient illi, qui baptizantur pro mortuis, id est pro peccatis abluendis, si non sint vitam gratiae habituri? Alio modo, quia quidam tunc temporis volebant, quod homines possent primo baptizari, ut sibi ipsis remissionem peccatorum consequerentur; et iterum baptizabantur pro aliquo consanguineo suo defuncto, ut etiam post mortem dimitterentur ei peccata. Et secundum hoc sit littera: quid facient qui baptizantur pro mortuis, scilicet consanguineis, pro quorum salute baptizantur, si non sit resurrectio mortuorum? Sed isti in aliquo commendari possunt, scilicet in hoc quod fidem resurrectionis videbantur habere. Sed in aliquo possunt reprehendi, in hoc scilicet quod unum credebant posse pro alio baptizari. 952. – First, therefore, he says: I have said that the dead rise, otherwise, namely, if there is not resurrection of the dead, as we preach, what do people mean by being baptized on behalf of the dead. This can be understood in two ways: in one way so that by “dead” the works of sin are understood. They are dead, because they lack the life of grace and lead to death: “The blood of Christ will purify your conscience from dead works” (Heb 9:14). And according to this the words are plain. What do people mean by being baptized on behalf of the dead? i.e., for washing away their sins, if they are not to have the life of grace? In another way, because some at that time wanted men to be baptized: first, in order that they might obtain for themselves the remission of sins; and they were baptized again for some dead relative, so that he too would be freed from sins after death. And according to this the text reads: what do people mean by being baptized for the dead, namely, their relatives, for whose salvation they were baptized, if there is no resurrection of the dead. But they can be commended in something, namely, in the fact that they seemed to have faith in the resurrection. But in something they can be reprehended, in the fact that they believed that one can be baptized for another. Sed tunc est quaestio: si oratio unius prodest alteri, quare non etiam Baptismus? Ad hoc est duplex responsio. Una est, quod opera quae faciunt vivi, prosunt mortuis propter unionem charitatis et fidei. Et ideo non prosunt nisi illis qui decedunt cum charitate et fide. Unde infidelibus nec oratio, nec Baptismus vivorum prosunt; tamen oratio prodest illis qui sunt in Purgatorio. Alia responsio, et melior, quia bona opera valent mortuis, non solum ex vi charitatis, sed etiam ex intentione facientis. Sicut si ego dicerem Psalterium pro aliquo qui est in Purgatorio, qui tenebatur dicere, ut satisfaciam pro eo, valet quidem quantum ad satisfactionem solum illi pro quo dico. Dicendum est ergo secundum hoc, quod Baptismus non habet virtutem ex intentione nostra, sed ex intentione Christi. Intentio autem Christi est ut Baptismus illis proficiat, qui in Christi fide baptizantur. 953. – But then there is a question: If one’s prayers profit another, why not his baptism? To this there are two answers: one is that works performed by the living do profit the dead on account of the union of charity and faith. And therefore, they benefit only those who die with charity and faith. Hence, neither prayer nor the baptism of the living profit unbelievers; yet prayer can help those in purgatory. Another answer and better is that good works help the dead not only in virtue of charity but also from the intention of the one who performs them. Just as if I should say the psalter for someone who is in purgatory and was bound to say it to satisfy for him, it will be profitable indeed as to satisfying only for the one for whom I say it. It must be said according to this that baptism has no value from our intention but from the intention of Christ. But the intention of Christ is that baptism should benefit those who are baptized in the faith of Christ. Consequenter istud inconveniens explicat, dicens si omnino, et cetera. Et ista explicatio videtur magis convenire secundae expositioni supra positae, quasi dicat: ut quid baptizantur pro illis, id est, pro mortuis, si non resurgunt? Sed si secundum primam expositionem exponatur, tunc sic potest dici si omnino mortui non resurgunt, ut quid etiam baptizantur pro illis, id est pro peccatis, cum ipsa non dimittantur? 954. – Then he explains that incongruity, saying: If the dead are not raised at all. And this explanation seems to agree more with the second explanation given above. As if to say: Why are they baptized for them, i.e., for the dead, if they do not rise. But if it is explained according to the first explanation, then it can be said: if the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized on their behalf, i.e., for their sins, since they are not forgiven. Ut quid periclitamur, et cetera. Hic ponit secundum inconveniens, et circa hoc duo facit. Primo ponit inconveniens in communi; secundo in speciali, ibi quotidie, et cetera. 955. – Why am I in peril every hour? Here he presents the second incongruity. In regard to this he does two things: first, he mentions the incongruity in general; secondly, in special. Dicit ergo: non solum frustra baptizantur aliqui pro remissione peccatorum, sed nos etiam frustra affligimur, si resurrectio mortuorum non est. Et hoc est quod dicit ut quid et nos, sancti apostoli, periclitamur, id est pericula patimur, omni hora? II Cor. c. XI, 26: periculis fluminum, periculis, et cetera. Constat enim, quod sancti exponunt se tribulationibus, et affligunt seipsos propter spem vitae aeternae, secundum illud Rom. V, 11: non solum autem, sed et gloriamur, et cetera. Spes autem non confundit, et cetera. Si ergo resurrectio mortuorum non sit, totaliter spes perit. Frustra ergo affligerent se, si mortui non resurgunt. Nec obstat, si dicatur quod anima separata praemiatur, quia, ut probatum est supra, non posset probari quod anima esset immortalis. 956. – He says, therefore: Not only are some baptized in vain for the remission of sins, but we also are afflicted in vain, if there is no resurrection of the dead. And this is what he says: Why are we also, the holy apostles, in peril, i.e., endure dangers, every hour: “In danger at sea, in danger from false brethren” (2 Cor 11:26). For it is clear that the saints expose themselves to tribulation and afflict themselves on account of the hope of eternal life, as it says in Rom (5:11): “Not only so, but we also rejoice in God through the Lord Jesus Christ.” Therefore, if there no resurrection of the dead, hope utterly vanishes. Therefore, they have afflicted themselves in vain, if there is no resurrection. Nor is that conclusion hindered by saying that the separated soul will be rewarded, because, as has been proved above, it cannot be proved that the soul would be immortal.” Consequenter cum dicit quotidie, etc., enumerat pericula in speciali, et primo quantum ad personam; secundo quantum ad locum, ibi si, secundum hominem, ad bestias, et cetera. 957. – Then when he says: Every day I die for your glory, he enumerates the dangers in special: first, as to the person; secondly, as to the place (v. 32). Manifestat ergo in speciali pericula quantum ad personam suam; unde dicit quotidie morior, etc., quasi dicat: non quaecumque pericula patimur, sed etiam mortis, quia quotidie morior, id est sum in periculis mortis. Ps. XLIII, 22: propter te mortificamur tota die. Et hoc ostendit apostolus Roman. 8 in persona apostolorum esse dictum, II Cor. IV, v. 10: semper mortificationem, et cetera. Propter gloriam vestram, id est ut ego acquiram gloriam, quam expecto ex vestra conversione ad fidem. II Thess. II, 20: vos estis gloria mea et gaudium, quam habeo, id est, spero me habiturum, in Christo Iesu domino nostro, id est per charitatem Christi. Alia littera habet per gloriam, etc., et tunc ly per gloriam, est verbum iurantis; quasi dicat: per gloriam vestram, quam scilicet expectatis, quae est Deus. Ac si diceret: iuro per Deum, quem habeo in spe in Christo Iesu, id est per passionem, et cetera. Ex quo apparet, quod etiam apostolus iuravit, et quod in viris perfectis iurare non est peccatum. Si secundum hominem, et cetera. 958. – Therefore, he manifests the dangers as to his own person; hence he says: Every day I die, i.e., I suffer not just any dangers, but even those of death, because I die daily, i.e., am in danger of death: “For thy sake we are slain all day long” (Ps 44:22). And the Apostle shows that this was said in the person of the apostles: “Always carrying in the body the death of Jesus” (2 Cor 4:10). For your glory, i.e., that I may acquire the glory I await from your conversion to the faith: “You are my glory and my joy” (2 Th 2:20), which I have i.e., hope to have, in Christ Jesus our Lord, i.e., through the charity of Christ. Another text has, by the glory, and then “by the glory” is an oath. As if to say: By your glory which you await, which is God. As if to say: I swear by God, Whom I have in hope in Christ Jesus, i.e., by His passion. From which it appears that even the Apostle swore, and that among those who are perfect, swearing is not a sin. Hic specificat pericula quantum ad locum. Ubi sciendum est, quod hoc legitur Act. c. XIX, ubi dicitur quod, cum Paulus apud Ephesum multos convertisset ad fidem, quidam concitaverunt contra eum populum, intantum quod non esset ausus exire in theatrum, et quod multa pericula sit ibi passus. Ergo forte facit hic de hoc mentionem, quia e vicino passus hoc fuerat. Dicit ergo: si secundum hominem, id est secundum rationem ex qua homo est, hoc disputando de resurrectione, concludens quod homo non moritur sicut bestia. Pugnavi ad bestias, id est ad homines bestialiter viventes apud Ephesum. Vel si pugnavi ad bestias Ephesi, et hoc dico non ex revelatione divina, sed secundum hominem, id est ex instinctu humano, si tot pericula passus sum, et cetera. 959. – The when he says, What do I gain, he specifies the dangers as to place. Here it should be noted that this is read in Ac (chap. 19), which says that when St. Paul had converted many to the faith at Ephesus, some stirred up the people against him, so that he would not dare to go out into the theatre, and that he endured many dangers. Therefore, perhaps he mentions this, because he had suffered from a neighboring town. He says, therefore: What do I gain, if humanly speaking, i.e., according to reason, from which man is man, by disputing about the resurrection, I conclude that man does not die as the beast. I have fought with beasts at Ephesus, with men living in a beastly manner at Ephesus. Or if I have fought with beasts at Ephesus, and I say this not from divine revelation but humanly speaking, i.e., from human instinct, if I have endured such perils. Deinde cum dicit manducemus, etc., ponit tertium inconveniens, quod est: si resurrectio mortuorum non esset, daretur occasio fruendi voluptatibus. Quasi dicat: si non est alia vita, stulti sumus si affligimus nos, sed manducemus et bibamus, id est utamur deliciis et fruamur voluptatibus. Sap. II, v. 1: non est, qui sit agnitus, etc.: venite, fruamur, et cetera. Cras enim, id est, in proximo, moriemur; totaliter enim deficiemus in anima et corpore, si mortui non resurgunt. 960. – Then when he says, Let us eat and drink, he presents the third incongruity, which is: if there is no resurrection of the dead, occasion would be given for enjoying pleasures. As if to say: If there is not another life, we are foolish, if we afflict ourselves, but let us eat and drink, i.e., use the delights and enjoy the pleasures: “No one has been known to return from Hades” (Wis 2:1); “Come, let us enjoy the good things that exist (v. 6). For tomorrow i.e., soon, we die; for we shall totally fail, if the dead do not rise. Deinde cum dicit nolite seduci, ex praedictis concludit admonitionem, et primo quantum ad infirmos; secundo vero quantum ad perfectos et iustos, ibi vigilate, iusti, et cetera. 961. – Then when he says: Do not be deceived, he concludes to a warning from the preceding: first, as to the sick; secondly, as to the perfect and just (v. 34). Circa primum duo facit. Primo reddit eos attentos, dicens nolite seduci, quasi dicat: dictum est, quod si resurrectio mortuorum non sit, stultum esset non uti lasciviis et voluptatibus. Ne ergo ad lascivias inducamini, nolite seduci ab his qui negant resurrectionem. Col. II, 18: videte ne quis vos seducat, et cetera. Secundo rationem attentionis assignat, dicens corrumpunt, etc., quasi dicat: ideo nolite seduci, quia colloquia mala, illorum scilicet qui negant resurrectionem, corrumpunt bonos mores, II Tim. II, 17: sermo eorum serpit ut cancer. Hieronymus dicit quod hoc est sumptum ex dictis gentilium, et est versus cuiusdam Menandri. Et ex hoc, ut ipse dicit, argumentum habemus, quod licet nobis quandoque in sacra Scriptura uti auctoritatibus gentilium. 962. – In regard to the first he does two things: first, he makes them attentive, saying: Do not be deceived. As if to say: It has been stated that if there is no resurrection of the dead, it would be foolish not to use lascivious and voluptuous things. Therefore, lest you be tempted to lascivious things, do not be deceived by those who deny the resurrection. “Let no one disqualify you” (Col 2:18). Secondly, he assigns the reason for their attention, saying: Bad company ruins good morals. As if to say: Do not be deceived, because the bad speech of those who deny the resurrection ruins good morals: “Their talk will eat its way like gangrene” (2 Tim 2:17). Jerome says that was taken form the statements of the Gentiles and is a verse of a certain Menandrus. And from this he says we have an argument that it is lawful sometimes in Sacred Scripture to use the authorities of Gentiles. Deinde cum dicit vigilate, etc., ponit admonitionem quantum ad perfectos. Posset enim dicere, quod a colloquiis illorum debent cavere infirmi qui de facili seducuntur; perfecti autem non sic seduci possunt. Apostolus autem vult, quod etiam perfecti sint cauti. Unde circa hoc duo facit. Primo reddit eos attentos, dicens vigilate, iusti, id est vos, qui reputamini iusti, vigilate, id est, solliciti sitis. Matth. XXIV, 42: vigilate, quia nescitis, et cetera. Apoc. XVI, 15: beatus qui vigilat, et cetera. Secundo rationem assignat, dicens nolite, etc., et hanc duplicem, quarum unam propter seipsos. Nullus enim est adeo perfectus, quin debeat sibi cavere a peccatis. Inertia autem et torpor frequenter inducit ad peccatum, unde ne peccent inducit eos ad vigiliam, et ideo dicit et nolite peccare, id est ne peccetis, Tob. IV, 6: in mente habeto Deum, et cave ne aliquando peccato consentias. Aliam rationem inducit propter alios, quia non solum propter seipsos sint solliciti, sed et propter alios, ne illi seducantur. Et hoc est quod dicit quidam enim habent ignorantiam Dei, id est non rectam fidem. Rom. X, v. 3: ignorantes Dei iustitiam, et cetera. Et hoc loquor vobis ad reverentiam vestram, ut sitis cauti. Vel ad verecundiam vestram, quia verecundum est vobis, qui reputamini sapientes, et instructi in fide, quod sint aliqui inter vos ignorantiam Dei habentes, id est non rectam fidem. 963. – Then when he says: Come to your right mind and sin no more, he presents an admonition as to the perfect. For someone could say that from their conversations the weak should take care, because they are easily deceived; but the perfect cannot be so deceived. But the Apostle wishes that even the perfect be cautious. Hence he does two things in this regard. First, he makes them attentive, saying: O just ones, watch, i.e., you who are regarded as just, watch, i.e., be careful: “Watch, therefore, for you do not know on what day your Lord will come.” (Matt 24:42); “Blessed is he who is awake keeping his garments” (Rev 16:15). Secondly, he assigns the reason, saying: Sin no more, and this twofold, one of which is on account of themselves. For no one is so perfect that he does not need to be wary of sin. But inertia and inactivity frequently lead to sin; hence, lest they sin, he induces them to be vigilant. Therefore, he says: sin no more: “Remember the Lord our God all your days, and refuse to sin” (Tob 4:5). He presents another reason for the benefit of others, because they are not solicitous only for themselves but also for others, lest they be deceived. And this is what he says: For some have no knowledge of God, i.e., do no have a correct faith: “Being ignorant of the righteousness of God, they did not submit to God’s righteousness” (Rom 10:3). And this I say to your shame, that you should be careful. Or to your shame, because it is shameful to you who are regarded wise and instructed in the faith, that some among you are ignorant of God, i.e., do not have the correct faith.
15-5
1 Cor 15:35-38Superius apostolus probavit resurrectionem mortuorum, hic ostendit qualitatem et modum resurgentium. Et circa hoc duo facit. Primo movet quaestionem circa qualitatem resurgentium; secundo solvit, ibi insipiens tu, et cetera. 964. – Having proved the resurrection of the dead, the Apostle now shows the quality and mode of those rising. In regard to this he does two things: first, he raises a question about the quality of those rising; secondly, he answers it (v. 36). Circa resurrectionem fuerunt duo errores. Quidam enim totaliter negabant resurrectionem mortuorum futuram. Cum enim non considerarent nisi principia naturae et posse, et viderent quod secundum principia naturae et posse nullus de morte potest redire ad vitam, nec caecus potest recuperare visum, ideo totaliter negaverunt resurrectionem, ex quorum persona dicitur Sap. II, 5: umbrae transitus est tempus nostrum, et cetera. Et ibidem: de nihilo nati sumus, et cetera. Iob XIV, v. 14: putasne mortuus homo rursum vivet, et cetera. Alii autem dixerunt resurrectionem mortuorum futuram esse, sed dicebant quod resurgebant ad eumdem modum vivendi, et ad eosdem actus. Et hoc etiam posuerunt quidam philosophi qui dicunt: post multa annorum curricula Plato adhuc resurget, et habebit eosdem scholares Athenis, quos aliquando habuit. Hoc etiam asserunt Pharisaei, Matth. XXII, 28, de muliere septem virorum, unde dicebant: in resurrectione cuius erit? Saraceni etiam fingunt quod habebunt post resurrectionem uxores, et voluptates, et delicias corporales. Iob XX, 17: non videat rivulos fluminis torrentis mellis et butyri. Contra quos dicitur Matth. XXII, 30, quod erunt sicut Angeli Dei in caelo. Has ergo duas quaestiones movet hic apostolus. Primam cum dicit quomodo resurgunt mortui? Quomodo est possibile quod mortui qui sunt cinis possint resurgere? Secundam, cum dicit quali autem corpore venient? Quasi dicat: numquid cum tali corpore resurgent cum quali sumus modo? 965. – In regard to the resurrection there have been two errors. For some absolutely denied the future resurrection of the dead. For since they considered only the principles and capabilities of nature and saw that according to natural principles and capabilities no one could return to life or a blind person recover sight, they absolutely denied the resurrection. From their mouth it says in Wis (2:5): “Our allotted time is the passing of a shadow”; “We are born of nothing” (Wis. 2:2); “Do you think a dead man will live again?” (Jb 14:14). Others, on the other hand, have said there will be a resurrection, but they will rise to the same manner of living and to the same acts. Even philosophers have posited this when they said: After many years Plato will rise again and will have the same scholars in Athens, whom he had at some time. The Sadducees also assert this Matt (22:29) about the woman with seven husbands. Hence they asked: “In the resurrection to which of the seven will she be wife?” The Saracens, too, pretend that after the resurrection they will have wives and voluptuous and bodily pleasures: “He will not move upon the rivers, the streams flow with honey and curds” (Jb 20:17). Against these Matt (22:30) says that “they will be as the angels in heaven.” Therefore the Apostle raises two questions here. The first is when he says, How will the dead rise? How is it possible that the dead who are dust can rise? The second when he says, With what kind of body will they come? As if to say: will they rise with the same kind of body as we have now? Has duas quaestiones solvit cum dicit insipiens, et cetera. Primo solvit secundam, secundo vero solvit primam, ibi ecce mysterium vobis dico, et cetera. Ad intellectum autem eorum quae apostolus ponit in prima parte, oportet investigare quid apostolus intendat. Intendit autem in ista parte apostolus ostendere quod mortui resurgunt, et quod erit eadem substantia. Ubi primo ponit similitudines; secundo adaptat, ibi sic etiam resurrectio mortuorum, etc.; tertio probat, ibi si est corpus animale, et cetera. Circa primum duo facit. Primo proponit similitudines in una specie, secundo in diversis speciebus, ibi non omnis caro, eadem caro, et cetera. 966. – He answers these two questions when he says, you foolish man! First, he solves the second; secondly, he solves the first (v. 44b). To understand what the Apostle presents in the first part, it is necessary to investigate what the Apostle intends. But in this part the Apostle intends to show that the dead will rise and that their substance will be the same. Here he first presents likenesses; secondly, he adapts (v. 42); thirdly, he proves (v. 44b). In regard to the first he does two things: first, he proposes likenesses in one species; secondly, in diverse species (v. 39). Circa primum sciendum est quod videmus in una et eadem specie quod una res in via generationis habet diversas qualitates et formas; sicut granum aliam formam et qualitatem habet quando seminatur, aliam quando pullulat, aliam quando iam est in herba. Et ideo ex hac similitudine apostolus intendit ostendere qualitatem resurgentium. Unde circa hoc tria facit. Primo comparat ordinem seminationis ad pullulationem; secundo differentiam qualitatis in semine et in pullulatione, ibi tu quod seminas, etc.; tertio causam qualitatis in pullulatione, ibi Deus autem, et cetera. 967. – In regard to the first it should be noted that we see in one and the same species that one thing on the way to generation has diverse qualities and forms: as grain has one form and quality, when it is planted, and another, when it shoots up, and another, when it is in herb. From this likeness the Apostle intends to show the quality of the rising. Hence, in regard to this he does three things: first, he compares the order of sowing to growing; secondly, the difference in quality in sowing and growing (v. 37); thirdly, the cause of the quality in growing (v. 38). Dicit ergo insipiens, et cetera. Sed contra Matth. V, 22: qui dixerit fratri suo: racha, et cetera. Dicendum quod dominus prohibet dici fratri racha seu fatue, ex ira non ex correctione. Causa autem quare dicit insipiens, est quia haec obiectio contra resurrectionem procedit ex principiis humanae sapientiae, quae tamdiu est sapientia, quamdiu est subiecta sapientiae divinae; sed quando recedit a Deo, tunc vertitur in insipientiam; unde cum contradicat sapientiae divinae, vocat eam insipientem. Quasi dicat: insipiens, nonne quotidie experiris, tu, quia quod seminas, in terra, non vivificatur, id est vegetatur, nisi prius moriatur, id est putrescat? Io. XII, 24: nisi granum frumenti, et cetera. Ex hoc videtur apostolus facere comparationem, quod quando corpus hominis ponitur in sepulchro in terra, tunc est quaedam seminatio; quando vero resurgit, tunc est quaedam vivificatio. 968. – He says, therefore, O foolish man! But on the other hand it says in Matthew (5:22): “Whoever says to his brother, ‘You fool’, shall be liable to hell.” The answer is that God forbids saying, “you fool” or “stupid” to your brother in anger and not correction. Now the reason he say foolish is that this objection against the resurrection proceeds from the principles of human wisdom, which is wisdom as long as it is subjected to divine wisdom. But when one departs from God, he falls back on unwisdom; hence, when he contradicts divine wisdom, he calls him foolish. As if to say: You foolish man! Do you not experience every day that what you sow in the earth does not come to life unless it dies, i.e., decays: “Unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains alone” (Jn. 12:24). And the Apostle seems to make this comparison, that when a man’s body is put in a tomb, it is a form of sowing; but when it rises, it is coming to life. Unde ex hoc opinantur aliqui, resurrectionem mortuorum esse naturalem, propter hoc quod apostolus hic resurrectionem comparat pullulationi seminis quae est naturalis. Opinantur enim in pulveribus resolutis, in quos resolvuntur humana corpora, esse quasdam virtutes seminales activas ad corporum resurrectionem. Sed istud non videtur esse verum. Fit enim resolutio corporis humani in elementa, sicut et aliorum mixtorum corporum, unde pulveres in quos humana corpora resolvuntur, nullam aliam habent virtutem activam quam alii pulveres, in quibus constat non esse aliam virtutem activam ad corporis humani constitutionem, sed solum in semine hominis; differunt autem pulveres in quos humana corpora resolvuntur, ab aliis pulveribus solum secundum ordinationem divinam, prout huiusmodi pulveres sunt ex divina sapientia ordinati, ut iterum ex eis humana corpora reintegrentur. Unde resurrectionis activa causa solus Deus erit, etsi ad hoc utatur ministerio Angelorum, quantum ad pulverum collectionem. Propter quod apostolus infra modum resurrectionis exponens, attribuit sono tubae, et supra attribuit Christo resurgenti, non autem alicui virtuti activae in pulveribus. Non ergo intendit hic probare apostolus quod resurrectio sit naturalis, per hoc quod semen naturaliter pullulat, sed intendit hic manifestare per exempla quaedam, quod non sit eadem qualitas corporum resurgentium et corporum morientium, et primo per hoc quod non est eadem qualitas seminis et pullulationis, ut ex sequentibus manifeste ostendetur. 969. – Hence, from this some suppose that the resurrection of the dead is natural, inasmuch as the Apostle here compares the resurrection of the dead to the sprouting of a seed, which is natural. For they believed that in the dust, into which human bodies are resolved, there were certain active seminal powers for the resurrection of bodies. But this does not seem to be true. For the resolution of human bodies into elements happens in the same way as other mixed bodies; hence, the dust into which human bodies are resolved has no other active power than other dust, in which there is no evidence of any active power to constitute a human body, but only in man’s seed. However, the dusts into which human bodies are reduced differ from other dust only according to God’s plan, inasmuch as these dusts are ordained by divine wisdom that human bodies be formed from them again. Hence the active cause of the resurrection is God alone, even though for this he uses the service of angels to collect the dust. Hence, the Apostle explaining the manner of the resurrection below attributes it to Christ’s raising, but not to any active power in the dusts. Therefore, the Apostle does not intend to prove here that the resurrection is natural, but to manifest by certain examples that the quality of rising bodies and that of dying bodies is not the same; and, first of all, by the fact that the quality of the seed and of the sprouting bud are not the same, as will be clearly shown from the following. Nam consequenter cum dicit et quod seminas, etc., ostendit qualitatem seminis differentem esse a qualitate pullulationis, cum dicit et quod seminas, non corpus, quod futurum est, seminas, id est non quale futurum est seminas. Quod exponens subdit sed nudum granum, puta tritici vel alicuius caeterorum, scilicet seminum, quia seminatur nudum semen, pullulat autem ornatum herba, et aristis, et huiusmodi. Et similiter corpus humanum aliam qualitatem habebit in resurrectione quam nunc habet, ut infra exponetur. Est tamen differentia inter resurrectionem humani corporis, et pullulationem seminis; nam surget idem corpus numero, sed habebit aliam qualitatem, sicut infra dicit apostolus, quod oportet corruptibile hoc induere incorruptionem; et Iob XIX, 27 dicitur quem visurus sum ego ipse, et non alius. Sed in pullulatione nec est eadem qualitas, nec idem corpus numero, sed solum idem specie. Et ideo signanter apostolus de pullulatione loquens, dixit non corpus, quod futurum est, seminas, dans intelligere quod non sit idem numero. Et in hoc opus naturae deficit ab opere Dei. Nam virtus naturae reparat idem specie, sed non idem numero: virtus autem Dei reparare potest etiam idem numero. 970. –For when he says, and what you sow, he shows that the quality of seed is different from the quality of the sprout. Hence he says, what you sow is not the body which is to be, i.e., you do not plant it as it will be. Explaining this he says, but a bare kernel, perhaps of wheat or of some other grain, namely, a seed, because a bare kernel is sowed, but what sprouts is fashioned as a herb, or an ear of corn and so on. Similarly, the human body will have another quality in the resurrection than it has now, as will be explained below. Yet there is a difference between the resurrection of the human body and the sprouting of a seed, for the same numerical body will rise, but it will have another quality, as the Apostle says below (v. 53): “For this perishable nature must put on the imperishable”; and Job (19:27): “And my eyes shall behold and not another.” But in sprouting there is neither the same quality nor the same numerical body, but only the same in species. And therefore, the Apostle speaking about sprouting said, what you sow is not the body which is to be, giving us to understand that it is not the same numerically. And in this the work of nature falls short of God’s work. For the power of nature restores what is the same in species, but not the same numerically; but God’s power can restore even the same numerically. Et sic etiam ex hoc quod hic dicitur potest sumi probatio ad hoc quod resurrectionem futuram fieri non est impossibile, sicut insipiens obiiciebat. Quia si natura ex eo quod mortuum est, potest reparare idem specie, multo magis Deus potest reparare idem numero; quia et hoc ipsum quod natura facit, opus Dei est. Habet enim hoc natura a Deo, quod hoc facere possit. 971. – And so, even from what is stated here can be taken a proof that the future is not something impossible as the foolish man objected. For if nature, from what is dead, can restore the same thing specifically, much more can God restore the same numerical thing, because whatever nature can do is a work of God. For nature has from God that it can do this. Et ideo consequenter describens qualitatem pullulationis, attribuit eam primum quidem Deo, secundo proportioni naturae. 972. – Then, describing the quality of sprouting, he attributes it first to God; secondly, to the proportion of nature. Dicit autem primo Deus autem dat illi corpus sicut vult, quia scilicet ex ordinatione divinae voluntatis procedit, quod ex tali semine talis planta producatur, quae quidem planta est quasi corpus seminis. Ultimus enim fructus plantae est semen. Et hoc ideo attribuit operationi divinae, quia omnis operatio naturae est operatio Dei, secundum illud supra XII, 6: idem autem Deus qui operatur omnia in omnibus. Et hoc sic potest considerari. Manifestum est enim quod res naturales absque cognitione operantur ad finem determinatum, alioquin non semper, vel in maiori parte, eumdem finem consequerentur. Manifestum est etiam, quod nulla res cognitione carens in certum finem tendit, nisi directa ab aliquo cognoscente, sicut sagitta tendit ad certum signum ex directione sagittantis. Sicut ergo si aliquis videret sagittam directe tendere ad certum signum, quamvis sagittantem non videretur, cognosceret statim quod dirigeretur a sagittante. Ita cum videamus res naturales absque cognitione tendere ad certos fines, possumus pro certo cognoscere quod operantur ex voluntate alicuius dirigentis, quem dicimus Deum. Et sic dicit apostolus quod Deus dat, semini, corpus, id est, ex semine producit plantam, sicut vult. 973. – First he says, God gives it a body as he has chosen, because it proceeds from an ordination of the divine will that from such a seed such a plant is produced, which plant is as the body of a seed. For the ultimate fruit of a plant is the seed. And therefore, he attributes this to the activity of God, as it says above (12:6): “It is the same God who inspires them all in every one.” And this can be considered in this way. For it is manifest that natural things act without knowledge for a fixed end; otherwise, they would not always or for the most part attain the same end. But it is manifest that nothing lacking knowledge tends to a fixed end unless directed by a knower, as an arrow tends to a fixed target by the direction of the bowman. Therefore, just as if someone saw an arrow directly moving toward a definite target would immediately know that it was directed by a bowman, so when we see natural things without knowledge tend to definite ends, we can know for certain that they are acting under the will of some director, which we call God. And the Apostle says, God gives to the seed a body, i.e., he produces from the seed a plant, as he has chosen. Sed rursus, ne aliquis crederet huiusmodi naturales effectus ex sola Dei voluntate provenire, absque operatione et proportione naturae, subiungit et unicuique seminum proprium corpus, puta ex semine olivae generatur oliva, et ex semine tritici generatur triticum. Unde et Gen. I, 11: germinet terra herbam virentem et facientem semen iuxta genus suum. Sic ergo et in resurrectione erit alia qualitas corporis resurgentis, quae tamen proportionabitur meritis morientis. 974. – But again, lest anyone believe that such natural effects arise solely from God’s will without the activity and proportion of nature, he adds, and to each kind of seed its own body; for example, from the olive seed an olive is produced, and wheat from the seed of wheat. Hence, it says in Genesis (1:11): “Let the earth put forth vegetation, plants yielding seed, each according to its kind.” Thus therefore in the resurrection too, there will be another quality of the rising body, which will be proportionate to the merits of the dying person.
15-6
1 Cor 15:39-44aHic apostolus ponit exemplum de diversitate qualitatis corporis resurgentis in diversis speciebus. Et primo comparando caelestia ad terrestria; secundo terrestria ad caelestia, ibi sunt corpora caelestia, etc.; tertio corpora caelestia ad invicem, ibi alia claritas, et cetera. 975. – Here the Apostle presents an example of the diverse qualities of a rising body in diverse species. First, by comparing heavenly to earthly bodies; secondly, earthly to heavenly (v. 40b); thirdly, celestial bodies to each other (v. 41). Quia posset aliquis dicere: quomodo est possibile quod mortui resumant corpus et carnem, si non sint habituri eamdem corporis qualitatem? Ideo ad hoc excludendum introducit diversas qualitates corporis et carnis, ut sic manifestum sit quod non oportet, si non erit eadem qualitas, quod non resumatur idem corpus, vel eadem caro. Dicit ergo primo quod non omnis caro est eadem caro, secundum formam, sed alia est caro hominum, alia piscium, alia pecorum, alia volucrum, et cetera. Et similiter est alia morientis, et alia resurgentis. Sicut autem exemplum superius inductum de semine et pullulatione deficiebat in hoc quod in seminatione et pullulatione non est idem numero, nec eaedem qualitates, ita haec exempla deficiunt, quia in his exemplis nec est eadem species, nec eadem qualitas. Sed caro hominis resurgentis est eadem secundum speciem cum carne morientis, sed tamen erit alia secundum qualitatem. Erit enim eiusdem naturae, sed alterius gloriae, ut Gregorius de corpore Christi dicit. Si quis autem haec quae dicta sunt, ad diversum statum resurgentium referre vellet, posset dici quod per homines intelliguntur boni secundum rationem viventes, secundum illud Ez. XXXIV, 31: vos autem greges mei, greges pascuae meae, homines estis. Per pecora vero intelliguntur luxuriosi, secundum illud II Petr. II, 12: hi vero velut irrationabilia pecora, et cetera. Per volucres, superbi, per pisces, cupidi, secundum illud Ps. VIII, v. 9: volucres caeli et pisces maris, et cetera. 976. – Because someone could say: how is it possible that the dead re-assume their body and flesh, if they are not to have possession of the same bodily qualities? Therefore, to exclude this he introduces diverse qualities of body and flesh, so that it will be clear that it is not fitting, if the quality will not be the same, that the same body be re-assumed or the same flesh. He says, therefore: Not all flesh is the same flesh according to form, but there is one kind for men, another for animals, another for birds, and another for fish. Similarly there is one for the dying and another for the rising. But just as the example given above about the seed and the sprout failed, inasmuch in planting seed and in sprouting there is not the same thing numerically nor the same quality, so these examples fall short, because in these examples there is neither the same species nor the same qualities. But the flesh of a rising man is the same specifically as the dying fish, but it will be different in its qualities. “For it will be of the same nature but of another glory,” as Gregory says of the body of Christ. If anyone should wish to refer what has been said to a different state of those who rise, it could be said that by men are understood good men living according to reason, as Ezekiel (34:31) says: “And you are my sheep, the sheep of my pasture, and I am your God.” By animals are understood the lustful, as it says in 2 Peter (2:12): “But these like irrational animals... will be destroyed.” By birds, the proud; by fish, the greedy, as it says in Psalm 8 (v. 8): “The birds of the air and the fish of the sea.” Ad idem autem introducit diversitatem caelestium et terrestrium corporum, cum subdit: sunt corpora caelestia, ut sol et luna et huiusmodi, et sunt corpora terrestria, ut ignis, aqua, etc.; sed alia quidem est gloria, id est pulchritudo et decor, caelestium corporum, alia autem terrestrium, Eccli. XLIII, v. 10: species caeli gloria stellarum. Et possunt per caelestia corpora intelligi contemplativi. Phil. III, 20: nostra conversatio in caelis est. Per terrestria activi, qui circa terrena occupantur; unde Marthae dictum est, Lc. X, 41: turbaris erga plurima. 977. – For the same reason he introduces the diversity of heavenly and earthly bodies, when he says: There are celestial bodies, as the sun and moon and so on, and there are terrestrial bodies, as fire, water and so on. But the glory, i.e., the beauty and splendor, of celestial bodies is one and that of the terrestrial bodies is another: “The glory of the stars is the beauty of heaven” (Sir. 44:9). Again, by celestial bodies can be understood contemplatives: “Our commonwealth is in heaven” (Phil. 3:20); by the terrestrial the actives, who are occupied with earthly things. Hence it is said to Martha: “You are concerned about many things” (Lk. 10:41). Et ad idem ulterius introducit diversam qualitatem caelestium corporum, cum dicit alia claritas solis, et cetera. Similiter inter stellas est differentia, stella enim differt, et cetera. Et potest intelligi per solem Christus, Mal. ult.: orietur vobis timentibus nomen meum sol iustitiae, et cetera. Per lunam beata virgo, de qua Cant. VI, 9: pulchra ut luna. Per stellas ad invicem ordinatas, caeteri sancti. Iudic. V, 20: stellae manentes in ordine suo, et cetera. 978. – For the same purpose he further introduces the diverse qualities of celestial bodies, when he says, there is one glory of the sun and another of the moon. Similarly, there is a difference among the stars, for star differs from star in glory. Furthermore, by the sun can be understood Christ: “But for you who fear my name the sun of righteousness shall rise” (Mal. 4:2); by the moon, the Blessed Virgin: “Fair as the moon” (S. of S. 6:10); by the stars mutually situated, the other saints: “The stars from their courses” (Jdg. 5:20). Consequenter cum dicit sic erit resurrectio mortuorum, adaptat praedicta exempla ad resurrectionem mortuorum. Nec intelligendum est, quantum ad litteralem expositionem, quod apostolus hoc dicat ad designandum in resurgentibus generis diversitatem, propter id quod praemiserat stella differt, et cetera. Sed hoc refert ad omnia praecedentia, ut ostendatur ex omnibus praemissis, quod sicut in rebus inveniuntur diversae qualitates corporum, ita erit diversa qualitas resurgentium a qualitate morientium. Unde sequitur seminatur corpus, et cetera. Ubi apostolus maxime ostendit aliam esse qualitatem corporis morientis, et corporis resurgentis. 979. – Then when he says, So it is with the resurrection of the dead, he adapts the above examples to the resurrection of the dead. It should not be supposed as to the literal explanation that the Apostles is saying this to indicate a diversity of genus in those rising, just because he had stated, star differs from star. But this refers to all the preceding, that it might be shown from all the foregoing that just as in things are found diverse qualities in bodies, so there will be a quality of the rising diverse from the quality of the dying. Hence, he continues, a body is sown. Here the Apostle especially shows that the quality of a dying body is one thing and that of the rising body another. Et agit hic de corpore resurgente glorioso, cuius propriae qualitates dotes corporis gloriosi dicuntur. Quae quidem sunt quatuor, quas hic apostolus tangit. Primo enim tangit dotem impassibilitatis, cum dicit seminatur in corruptione, et cetera. Et quamvis seminatio accipi posset pro prima corporis origine, secundum quod generatur ex semine, tamen convenientius est, secundum intellectum apostoli, ut seminatio referatur ad mortem et sepulturam, ut respondeat ei quod supra dictum est: quod seminas non vivificatur, nisi prius moriatur. Dicitur autem mors et resolutio, seminatio, non quod in corpore mortuo, vel in cineribus ex eo resolutis sit aliqua virtus ad resurrectionem, sicut est virtus activa in semine ad generationem; sed quia a Deo talis ordinatio est deputata, ut ex eo iterato reformetur corpus humanum. Sic igitur corpus humanum, quando seminatur, id est, quando moritur, est in corruptione, id est secundum suam proprietatem est corruptioni subiectum, secundum illud Rom. VIII, 10: corpus quidem mortuum est propter peccatum. Sed resurget in incorruptione. Dicitur autem hic incorruptio, non solum ad excludendum separationem animae a corpore, quia hanc incorruptionem et corpora damnatorum habebunt, sed ad excludendum tam mortem quam quamlibet noxiam passionem, sive ab interiori, sive ab exteriori. Et quantum ad hoc intelligitur impassibilitas corporis gloriosi, secundum illud Apoc. VII, 16: non esurient, neque sitient amplius, et cetera. 980. – And he is dealing here with the glorified rising body, whose distinctive qualities are called the marks of the glorified body. These marks are four which the Apostle touches on here. First, he touches on the mark of incapacity of suffering, when he says: what is sown is perishable. And all the sowing can be taken for the first origin of the body, inasmuch as it is generated from seed. Yet it is more fitting according to the mind of the Apostle that sowing be referred to death and burial to correspond to what was said above (v. 36): “What you sow does not come to life unless it dies.” Death, however, is called both a dissolution and a sowing, not that in a dead body or in the dust dissolved from it there is some power for rising, as there is an active power in seed for generation; but because from God such an ordination was directed that from it a human body be formed again. Thus, therefore, the human body, when it is sown, i.e., when it dies, is in corruption, i.e., according to its own properties it is subjected to corruption, as it says in Romans (8:10): “Your bodies are dead because of sin.” What is raised is imperishable. Here he says imperishable not only to exclude separation of the soul and the body, because even the bodies of the damned will have this imperishability, but to exclude both death or any harmful suffering either from within or from without. And in regard to this is the imperishability of the glorified understood: “They shall hunger no more, neither thirst any more” (Rev. 7:16). Secundo tangit dotem claritatis, cum dicit seminatur in ignobilitate, id est corpus quod ante mortem, et in morte est deformitatibus et miseriis multis subiectum, secundum illud Iob XIV, 1: homo natus de muliere, et cetera. Sed resurget in gloria, quae claritatem significat, ut Augustinus dicit super Ioannem. Erunt enim corpora sanctorum clara et fulgentia, secundum illud Matth. XIII, v. 43: fulgebunt iusti, sicut sol, et cetera. 981. – Secondly, he touches on the mark of clarity, when he says: It is sown in dishonor, i.e., the body, which before death was subject to many deformities and miseries: “Man that is born of a woman is of few days, and full of trouble” (Job 14:1). But it is raised in glory, which signifies clarity, as Augustine says (On John). For the bodies of the saints will be clear and shining: “The righteous will shine as the sun in the kingdom of their Father” (Matt. 14:43). Tertio tangit dotem agilitatis, cum dicit seminatur in infirmitate, id est, corpus animale, quod ante mortem est infirmum et tardum, et ab anima non facile mobile, secundum illud Sap. IX, 15: corpus quod corrumpitur aggravat animam. Sed surget in virtute, quia scilicet fiet ut ex tanta virtute ab anima moveri possit, ut in nullo difficultatem ad motum exhibeat, quod ad dotem agilitatis pertinet. Tanta enim erit ibi facilitas, quanta felicitas, ut Augustinus dicit. Unde dicitur Sap. III, 7 de iustis: fulgebunt iusti, et tamquam scintillae in arundineto discurrent. Et Is. XL, 31: qui sperant in domino habebunt fortitudinem, assument pennas, et cetera. 982. – Thirdly, he touches on the mark of agility, when he says, It is sown in weakness, i.e. the animal body, which before death is weak and slow and not easily moved by the soul: “A perishable body weighs down the soul” (Wis. 9:15). It is raised in strength, namely, because it will come to pass that from such strength it can be moved by the soul and in no case will it show difficulty being moved, which pertains to the mark of agility. For there will be as much facility as felicity, as Augustine says. Hence it says in Wisdom (3:7): “The just will shine forth and will run like sparks through the stubble”; and in Isaiah (40:31): “They who wait for the LORD shall renew their strength, they shall mount up with wings like eagles, they shall run and not be weary, they shall walk and not faint.” Quarto tangit dotem subtilitatis, cum dicit seminatur corpus animale, et cetera. Quam quidam ad hoc referre volunt quod corpori glorioso secundum hanc dotem competat ut possit simul esse cum corpore non glorioso in eodem loco. Quod quidem sustineri posset, si corpori secundum statum praesentem competeret, quod non posset simul cum alio corpore esse in eodem loco secundum aliquid quod a corpore removeri posset. Nunc autem si diligenter consideretur, quod secundum hoc nihil aliud corpori competit nisi secundum quod habet dimensiones corporales. Unde videmus corpora quantumcumque subtilia, non compati secum alia corpora, ut patet in aere et in igne; et, ulterius, si essent corpora separata omnino absque materia, sicut quidam posuerunt, non possent simul cum corporibus naturalibus esse in eisdem locis, ut philosophus dicit. Remanentibus igitur dimensionibus in quocumque corpore, est contra suam naturam quod sit cum alio corpore in eodem loco. Unde si hoc aliquando contingit, erit ex miraculo. Propter quod Gregorius et Augustinus miraculo adscribunt quod corpus Christi ad discipulos ianuis clausis intravit. Nulla enim virtus terminata potest facere miraculum, hoc enim solius Dei est. Relinquitur ergo quod esse simul cum alio corpore in eodem loco, non possit esse ex dote seu ex qualitate corporis gloriosi. Non tamen negandum est quin corpus gloriosum possit esse simul cum alio corpore in eodem loco, quia corpus Christi post resurrectionem intravit ad discipulos ianuis clausis, cui corpus nostrum in resurrectione conformandum speramus; sed sicut corpus Christi hoc habuit non ex proprietate corporis, sed ex virtute divinitatis unitae, ita corpus cuiuslibet alterius sancti hoc habebit non ex dote, sed ex virtute divinitatis existentis in eo. Per quem modum corpus Petri habuit quod ad umbram eius sanarentur infirmi, non per aliquam proprietatem ipsius. 983. – Fourthly, he touches on the mark of subtility, when he says, It is sown a physical body, it is raised a spiritual body. In virtue of this mark some desire that it belongs to a glorified body to be able to exist in the same place with a body not glorified. This can indeed be sustained, if it belonged to a body in the present state that it could be in the same place at the same time with another body in virtue of something which could be removed from the body. But now, if it is examined closely, it will be seen that according to this nothing else belongs to the body, except inasmuch as it has bodily dimensions. Hence, we see that bodies, no matter how subtle, do not allow other bodies to be with them, as is evident in air and fire; and furthermore, if there were separated bodies absolutely without matter, as some supposed, they could not exist with natural bodies at the same time in the same place, as the Philosopher says. Therefore, as long as dimensions remain in a body, it is against its nature to be with another body in the same place. Hence, if this happens sometimes, it will be from a miracle. For this reason Gregory and Augustine ascribe to a miracle Christ’s entering the room of the disciples, while the door was closed. For no limited power can perform a miracle, because this belongs to God alone. It follows, then, that to be in the same place at the same time with another body cannot be due to a quality of a glorified body. However, it must not be denied that a glorified body can be with another body at the same time in the same place, because the body of Christ after the resurrection entered where the disciples were, while the door was shut, to whom we hope our bodies will be conformed in the resurrection. But just as the body of Christ had this not from a property of his body, but in virtue of the divinity united, so the body of whatever one of the saints has this, not as given, but in virtue of the divinity existing in it. In this manner the body of Peter had the power that the sick be healed by his shadow, not through any property of his own. Est ergo dicendum quod ad dotem subtilitatis pertinet quod hic apostolus tangit dicens seminatur corpus animale, surget spirituale. Quod quidam male intelligentes, dixerunt quod corpus in resurrectione vertetur in spiritum, et erit simile aeri aut vento, qui spiritus dicitur. Quod maxime excluditur per illud quod ad apostolos dicitur Lc. ult.: palpate et videte, quia spiritus, et cetera. Unde et hic apostolus non dicit quod resurgat spiritus, sed spirituale corpus. Ergo in resurrectione spirituale erit, non spiritus, sicut nunc est animale, non anima. 984. – Therefore it must be said that what the Apostle touches on here pertains to the mark of subtility, when he says, It is sown a physical body, it is raised a spiritual body. Some have interpreted this badly and said that in the resurrection the body is changed into a spirit and will be similar to air or the wind, which is called a spirit. This is particularly excluded by what was said to the apostles: “Handle me, and see; for a spirit has not flesh and bones as you see that I have” (Lk. 24:39). Hence, also, the Apostle does not say that a spirit will rise, but a spiritual body. Therefore, in the resurrection it will be spiritual, not a spirit, just as now it is animal, not soul. Ad horum autem differentiam cognoscendam considerandum est, quod unum et idem in nobis est quod dicitur et anima et spiritus; sed anima dicitur secundum quod perficit corpus, spiritus autem proprie secundum mentem, secundum quam spiritualibus substantiis assimilamur, secundum illud Eph. c. IV, 23: renovamini spiritu mentis vestrae. 985. – To understand the difference between these it should be noted that what is called the soul and what is called the spirit is one and the same in us; but it is called soul, inasmuch as it perfects the body, but spirit in virtue of the mind according to which we are like spiritual substances: “Be renewed in the spirit of your minds” (Eph. 4:23). Item considerandum est, quod triplex est differentia potentiarum in anima; quaedam enim potentiae sunt quarum operationes ad bonum corporis ordinantur, sicut generativa, nutritiva, et augmentativa. Quaedam vero sunt, quae quidem corporeis organis utuntur, ut omnes potentiae sensitivae partis; sed earum actus ad corpus non ordinantur directe, sed magis ad perfectionem animae. Quaedam vero sunt potentiae quae neque utuntur corporeis organis, neque directe ad bonum corporis ordinantur, sed magis ad bonum animae, sicut quae pertinent ad intellectivam partem. Primae ergo potentiae pertinent ad animam, inquantum animat corpus; secundae vero maxime pertinent ad animam, inquantum est spiritus; tertiae vero medio modo se habent inter utrasque: quia tamen iudicium de potentia aliqua magis debet sumi ex obiecto et fine, quam ex instrumento, ideo secundae potentiae magis se tenent cum tertiis, quam cum primis. 986. – One should also consider that there is a threefold difference in the powers of the soul. For some powers are such that their activities are directed to the good of the body, i.e., the generative, nutritive and augmentative; some there are that use bodily organs, as the power of the sensitive part, but their activity is not directly ordained to the body, but rather to the perfection of the soul. But there are some powers which neither use bodily organs nor are directly ordained to the good of the body, but more to the good of the soul, as those which pertain to the intellective part. Therefore, the first powers pertain to the soul inasmuch as it animates the body; the second pertain especially to the soul inasmuch as it is a spirit; but the third are midway between them. Yet because a judgment about a power should be taken more from its object and end than from the instrument, then the second powers are closer to the third than to the first. Item considerandum est quod cum unaquaeque res sit propter suam operationem, corpus ad hoc perficitur ab anima, ut sit subiectum operationibus animae. Nunc autem in statu isto corpus nostrum est subiectum operationibus, quae pertinent ad animam, inquantum est anima, prout generatur et generat, nutritur, crescit et decrescit. Quantum autem ad spirituales animae operationes, corpus, licet aliquo modo subserviat, tamen multum impedimentum affert, quia corpus quod corrumpitur aggravat animam, ut dicitur Sap. IX, 5. Sed in statu resurrectionis cessabunt operationes animales a corpore, quia non erit generatio, nec augmentum aut nutrimentum, sed corpus absque aliquo impedimento et fatigatione incessanter serviet animae ad spirituales operationes eius, secundum illud Ps. LXXXIII, 5: beati qui habitant in domo tua, domine, et cetera. Sicut ergo nunc est corpus nostrum animale, tunc vero erit spirituale. 987. – Likewise one should consider that since every single thing is for the sake of its own activity, the body is perfected to this by the soul, just as it is the subject of the activities of the soul. Now, however, in this state our body is the subject of activities which belong to the soul, as far as it is the soul, according as it is generated and generates, is nourished, grows and decreases. However, as to the spiritual activities of the soul, the body, although subject in another way, nevertheless causes much impediment, because “for a perishable body weighs down the soul,” as it says in Wisdom (9:5, Vulgate). But in the resurrected state the animal (physical) activities by the body will cease, because there will be no generation, or growth or nourishment, but the body without any impediment and weariness will unceasingly serve the soul in its spiritual activities, as it says in Psalm 84 (4): “Blessed are those who dwell in your house, Lord.” Therefore, just as our body is now animal (physical), then it will be truly spiritual. Causam autem harum proprietatum quidam attribuunt luci, quam dicunt esse de natura quintae essentiae, et venire in compositionem humani corporis, quod quia frivolum est et fabulosum, sequentes Augustinum, dicimus quod procedunt ex virtute animae glorificatae. Dicit enim Augustinus in epistola ad Dioscorum: tam potenti natura Deus fecit animam, ut eius plenissima beatitudo, quae in fine temporum promittitur sanctis, redundet etiam in inferiorem naturam, quae est corpus; non beatitudo, quae fruentis est propria, sed plenitudo sanitatis, id est, incorruptionis vigor. Videmus autem ex anima quatuor corpori provenire, et tanto perfectius, quanto anima fuerit virtuosior. Primo quidem dat esse; unde quando erit in summo perfectionis, dabit esse spirituale. Secundo conservat a corruptione; unde videmus homines quanto sunt fortioris naturae, minus a calore et frigore pati. Cum ergo anima fuerit perfectissima, conservabit corpus omnino impassibile. Tertio dat pulchritudinem et claritatem; infirmi enim et mortui propter debilitatem operationis animae in corpus, efficiuntur discolorati, et quando erit in summa perfectione, faciet corpus clarum et fulgidum. Quarto dat motum, et tanto facilius, quanto virtus animae fuerit fortior supra corpus. Et ideo quando erit in ultimo suae perfectionis, dabit corpori agilitatem. 988. – Some however will attribute the cause of these properties to a star, which they say is from the nature of the five essences, and comes in the composition of the human body. Because this is frivolous and incredible, we say, following Augustine, that they will proceed as a consequence of the virtue of the glorified soul. For Augustine says in his Letter to Dioscorus (Ep. 118.3): “God made the soul with such a natural power, that its fullest blessedness, which at the end of time is promised to the saints, overflows even into lower nature, which is the body, not the blessedness which is proper to the one enjoying it, but the fullness of health, that is, the strength of incorruption.” We see, however, that four things come forth from the soul to the body, and to the degree it is perfected, so the soul will have been more virtuous. First indeed it gives existence; therefore, when it will come to its highest perfection, it will cause [the body] to be spiritual. Secondly, it conserves it from corruption; therefore we see men who are so much stronger by nature, suffer less from heat and from cold. Therefore, when the soul will become most perfect, it will conserve the body wholly impassible. Thirdly, it gives beauty and clarity. For to weakness and death on account of the debilitation of the working of the soul in the body, they become opaque [discolorati], and when it comes to its highest perfection, it will make the body clear and shining. Fourthly, it gives movement, and according to its degree of facility, so the capacity of the soul will have been stronger than the body. And therefore, when it will come to its highest perfection, it will give mobility to the body.
15-7
1 Cor 15:44b-50Hic apostolus differentiam qualitatis corporum morientium ad corpora resurgentium supra exemplis ostensam, ostendit ratione. Circa autem hoc duo facit. Primo enim praemittit quod probare intendit; secundo praemissum probat, ibi sicut scriptum est, et cetera. 989. – Here the Apostle shows by reason the difference of the quality of the dead body to the body of the resurrection, indicated by the examples above. Regarding this he does two things. First, he presents what he intends to prove; secondly, he proves what he presented (v. 44b). Dicit ergo primo: dixi quod id quod seminatur animale, surget spirituale, et, quod hoc sit verum, scilicet quod sit aliquod corpus spirituale, ostendo, quia si est corpus animale, est et spirituale. Et non intendit apostolus ex hoc arguere ad propositum sed hoc supponit, intendens probare ipsum quod dicit si est corpus, et cetera. Eccli. XXXIII, 15: intuere in omnia opera altissimi, duo contra duo, et unum contra unum. 990. – Therefore he says first: I say that what is sown animal (physical) rises spiritual, and I show that this is true, namely, that something is a spiritual body, because if it is an animal (physical) body, it is also spiritual. And the Apostle does not intend to argue from this to the proposition, but he accepts this, intending to prove just what he says, If there is a physical body: “Look upon all the works of the Most High; they likewise are in pairs, one the opposite of the other” (Sir. 33:15). Sicut scriptum est, et cetera. Hic probat propositum. Est autem sua probatio talis: duo sunt principia humani generis; unum secundum vitam naturae, scilicet Adam, aliud secundum vitam gratiae, scilicet Christus; sed animalitas est derivativa in omnes homines a primo principio, scilicet Adam; ergo constat quod multo amplius a secundo principio, scilicet Christo, spiritualitas derivabitur in omnes homines. Huius rationis, primo, probat primam diversitatem principiorum, secundo mediam, scilicet determinationem similitudinis ex utroque principiorum, ibi qualis terrenus, et cetera. Circa primum tria facit. Primo ostendit principiorum differentiam; secundo principiorum ordinem ad invicem, ibi sed non prius quod spirituale, etc.; tertio rationis ordinem assignat, ibi primus, et cetera. 991. – Thus it is written. Here he proves the proposition. His demonstration is as follows: there are two principles of human generation; one according to natural life, namely Adam; the other according to the life of grace, namely Christ. But animality is distributed in all men by the first principle, namely, Adam. Therefore, it is certain that to a much greater extent, by means of the second principle, that is to say, Christ, spiritual life is distributed in all men. The reason for this, first, he proves, the first difference of the principles; secondly the middle term, namely, the determination of likeness from both of the principles (v. 48). In regard to the first, he does three things. First, he shows the difference of the principles; secondly, the mutual order of the principles (v. 46); thirdly, he assigns the order of reason (v. 47). Ponit ergo, primo, conditionem primi principii secundum vitam naturae, sumens auctoritatem Gen. II, 7. Unde dicit sicut scriptum est: factus est, a Deo, primus homo Adam in animam viventem, vita scilicet animali, qualem anima potest dare, cum scilicet spiravit dominus in faciem eius spiraculum vitae, Gen. II, 7. Forma enim humana et anima dicitur et spiritus. Inquantum enim intendit curae corporis, scilicet vegetando, nutriendo et generando, sic dicitur anima; inquantum autem intendit cognitioni, scilicet intelligendo, volendo et huiusmodi, sic dicitur spiritus. Unde cum dicit factus est primus homo Adam in animam viventem, intendit hic apostolus de vita qua anima deservit circa corpus, non de spiritu sancto, sicut quidam fingunt, propter hoc quod praecedit et inspiravit in faciem eius spiraculum vitae, dicentes hoc esse spiritum sanctum. Secundo ponit conditionem secundi principii, dicens novissimus vero Adam, id est Christus. Et dicitur novissimus, quia Adam induxit unum statum, scilicet culpae, Christus vero gloriae et vitae. Unde cum post statum istum nullus alius sequatur in vita ista, ideo dicitur novissimus. Is. LIII, 2 s.: desideravimus eum despectum et novissimum virorum. Et alibi scilicet Apoc. I, 17: ego primus et novissimus. Et alibi: ego sum alpha et omega, et cetera. Dicit autem Adam, quia de natura Adae factus in spiritum viventem. 992. – Therefore he lays down first the condition of the first principle according to natural life, drawing on the authority of Gen. 2:7. Hence he says, thus it is written: the first Adam was made by God a living being, namely, an animal life which the soul is able to give, when, namely, “God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life” (Gen. 2:7). For the human form and soul is also called spirit. For insofar as he is concerned with the care of the body, namely, with animating, nourishing and generating, thus it is called “soul.” However, insofar as he is concerned with knowledge, namely, with understanding, willing and the like, thus it is called “spirit.” Therefore when he says, the first Adam became a living being, the Apostle has in mind here with the life by which the soul is devoted concerning the body, not the Holy Spirit, as some imagine, by reason of what was cited above: “And he breathed into his nostrils the breath of life,” saying that this is the Holy Spirit. Secondly, he lays down the condition of the second principle, saying, the last true Adam, i.e., Christ. And he is called the last because Adam introduced one state, namely of guilt; Christ [the state] of true glory and life. Hence, since after that state no other one followed in that life, therefore he is called the last: “We desired him, despised and last of men” (Is. 53:2-3, Vulgate); “I am the First and the Last” (Rev. 1:17); and elsewhere: “I am the Alpha and the Omega” (Rev. 21:6). But he says, Adam, because from the nature of Adam he was made a living spirit. Et ex hoc, conditionibus principiorum visis, apparet eorum diversitas, quia primus homo factus est in animam, novissimus in spiritum. Ille autem in animam viventem solum, iste vero in spiritum viventem et vivificantem. Cuius ratio est: quia, sicut Adam consecutus est perfectionem sui esse per animam, ita et Christus perfectionem sui esse, inquantum homo, per spiritum sanctum. Et ideo cum anima non possit nisi proprium corpus vivificare, ideo Adam factus est in animam, non vivificantem, sed viventem tantum; sed Christus factus est in spiritum viventem et vivificantem, et ideo Christus habuit potestatem vivificandi. Io. I, 16: de plenitudine eius, etc., et Io. X, 10: veni ut vitam habeant et abundantius habeant. Et in symbolo: et in spiritum sanctum vivificantem. 993. – And from this, with the conditions of the principles perceived, the difference between them is evident, because the first man was made ‘animal’, the last man ‘spiritual’. The former was made a living animal only, the latter truly a living and life-giving spirit. The reason for this is because, just as Adam obtained the perfection of his being through the soul, so too Christ obtained the perfection of his being, as far as he was man, through the Holy Spirit. And therefore, since the soul could not give life to the body except properly, so Adam was made ‘animal’, not life-giving, but just living. But Christ was made a living and life-giving spirit, and so Christ had life-giving power: “From his fulness” (Jn. 1:16): “I have come that they may have life, and have it abundantly” (Jn. 10:10); and in the Creed: “And in the life-giving Holy Spirit.” Sed ne aliquis diceret: si Christus factus est in spiritum vivificantem, quare dicitur novissimus? Ideo, consequenter, cum dicit sed non prius, etc., ostendit ordinem principiorum. Videmus enim in natura quod in uno et eodem, prius est imperfectum quam perfectum. Unde cum spiritualitas se habeat ad animalitatem, sicut perfectum ad imperfectum, ideo in humana natura non prius debet esse spirituale, quod est perfectum, sed, ut servetur ordo, prius debet esse imperfectum, scilicet quod animale est, deinde perfectum, scilicet quod spirituale est. Supra c. XIII, 10: cum venerit quod perfectum est, et cetera. Sicut dicit Augustinus, huius signum est, quod primogeniti antiquitus consueverunt esse animales, sicut Cain ante Abel natus, Ismael ante Isaac, et Esau ante Iacob. 994. – But someone might say, If Christ was made a life-giving spirit, why is he called “last”? Therefore, accordingly, when he says, but it is not the spiritual which is first, he shows the order of principles. We see in nature that in one and the same thing, the imperfect is prior to the perfect. And so since the spiritual state is situated with respect to the animal state, as the perfect to the imperfect, then in human nature the spiritual must not be prior, which is the perfect, but so that order might be preserved, the imperfect must be first, namely, what is animal, then the perfect, namely, what is spiritual: “But when the perfect comes, the imperfect will pass away” (1 Cor 13:10). As Augustine says, the sign of this is that the firstborn of antiquity are commonly “animal”, as Cain was born before Abel, Ishmael before Isaac, and Esau before Jacob. Rationem autem dictae diversitatis assignat dicens primus homo, etc., quasi dicat: vere primus homo factus est in animam viventem, quia de terra, Gen. II, 7: formavit dominus hominem de limo terrae, et ideo dicitur esse terrenus, id est animalis; secundus homo, scilicet Christus, factus est in spiritum vivificantem, quia de caelo; quia divina natura quae fuit huic naturae unita, de caelo est. Et ideo debet esse caelestis, id est, talem perfectionem debet habere, qualem decet de caelo venire, scilicet perfectionem spiritualem. Io. III, 31: qui de caelo venit, super omnes est. Dicit autem primum hominem de terra, secundum modum loquendi, quo res de illo esse dicuntur quia prima pars est in eorum fieri, sicut cultellus dicitur de ferro quia prima pars, unde est cultellus, est ferrum. Et quia prima pars unde Adam factus est, terra est, ideo, dicitur de terra. Secundus homo dicitur de caelo, non quod attulerit corpus de caelo, cum de terra assumpserit, scilicet de corpore beatae virginis, sed quia divinitas (quae naturae humanae unita est) de caelo venit, quae fuit prior quam corpus Christi. Sic ergo patet principiorum diversitas, quod erat maior propositio rationis principalis. 995. – He assigns the reason for what is said about diversity, saying, the first man. As if to say: truly the first man was made a living animal, because he is of the earth: “God formed man of dust from the ground” (Gen. 2:7), and therefore he is said to be of the earth, i.e., animal. The second man, namely Christ, was made a life-giving spirit, because he is of heaven. Because it is the divine nature that was united to this nature, he is from heaven. And therefore he must be heavenly, i.e., he ought to have such perfection that it is fitting it come from heaven, namely, spiritual perfection: “He who comes from heaven is above all” (Jn. 3:31). He says that the first man is from the earth, in the manner described, by which things from that one are said to be because the first part is in their coming to be, as a knife is said to be from iron because the first part whence the knife is is iron. And because the first part of whence Adam was made is earth, he is said to be from the earth. Accordingly [Christ] is called the man from heaven, not that he will have borne his body from heaven, since he will have assumed it from the earth, namely, from the body of the Blessed Virgin, but because the divinity (which was united to the human nature) comes from heaven, which was prior to the body of Christ. So then the diversity of principles is clear, which was the major proposition of the principal reason. Consequenter cum dicit qualis terrenus, etc., ostendit derivationem similitudinis horum principiorum ex utroque, et primo in communi, secundo dividit eam per partes, ibi igitur sicut portavimus, et cetera. 996. – Then when he says, As is the man of dust, he shows the derivation of the likeness of these principles from each one: first, in common; secondly, he divides it into parts (v. 49). Dicit ergo qualis terrenus, etc., quasi dicat: primus homo, quia terrenus fuit et mortalis, ideo derivatum est ut omnes essent et terreni et mortales. Supra eodem v. 22: et sicut in Adam omnes moriuntur. Zach. XIII, 5: Adam exemplum meum, et cetera. Quia vero fuit secundus homo caelestis, id est spiritualis et immortalis, ideo omnes et immortales et spirituales erimus. Rom. c. VI, 5: sed complantati facti sumus similitudini, et cetera. 997. – He says, therefore, As is the man of dust. As if to say: because the first man was of the earth and mortal, so it follows that all were both of the earth and mortal: “For as in Adam all die” (1 Cor 15:22); “Adam was my exemplar” (Zech. 13:5, Vulgate). Because the second man was from heaven, i.e., spiritual and immortal, so we all will be both immortal and spiritual: “For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his” (Rom. 6:5). Igitur sicut portavimus, et cetera. Hic concludit qualiter in speciali debeamus conformari homini, scilicet caelesti. Possumus autem dupliciter conformari caelesti in vita scilicet gratiae et gloriae, et una est via ad aliam: quia sine vita gratiae non pervenitur ad vitam gloriae. Et ideo dicit sicut portavimus, etc., id est quamdiu peccatores fuimus, in nobis fuit similitudo Adae. II Reg. VII, 19: ista est lex Adam, domine Deus, et cetera. Ut ergo possimus esse caelestes, id est pervenire ad vitam gloriae, portemus imaginem caelestis, per vitam gratiae. Col. c. III, 9 s.: exuentes veterem hominem, induite novum hominem, scilicet Christum. Rom. VIII, 29: quos praescivit et praedestinavit conformes, et cetera. Sic ergo debemus conformari caelesti in vita gratiae, quia alias non perveniemus ad vitam gloriae. 998. – Just as we have borne. Here he concludes with how we ought to be specially conformed to the man, that is to say, the heavenly man. We can be conformed to the heavenly man in life in two ways, namely, of grace and of glory, and the one is the way to the other, because without the life of grace we cannot attain to the life of glory. And so he says, just as we have borne, i.e., inasmuch as we are sinners, the likeness of Adam is in us: “That is the law of Adam, O Lord God” (2 Sam. 7:19, Vulgate). Therefore, so that we might be of heaven, i.e., attain to the life of glory, let us bear the image of the man of heaven, by the life of grace: “Those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son” (Rom. 8:29). And so we ought to be conformed to the man of heaven in the life of grace, because otherwise we will not attain to the life of glory. Et hoc est quod dicit hoc autem dico, fratres, quasi dicat: nisi vivatis, scilicet vita gratiae, non poteritis pervenire ad regnum Dei, scilicet ad vitam gloriae, quia caro et sanguis regnum Dei non possidebunt. Quod quidem non est intelligendum, sicut quidam haeretici dicunt, quod non resurget caro et sanguis secundum substantiam, sed quod totum corpus vel vertetur in spiritum, vel in aerem: quod est haereticum et falsum; nam apostolus dicit quod conformabit corpus nostrum corpori claritatis suae. Unde cum Christus post resurrectionem habuerit carnem et sanguinem, sicut dicitur Lc. ult.: palpate et videte, quia spiritus carnem et ossa non habet, etc., constat quod et nos in resurrectione carnem et sanguinem habebimus. 999. – And this is what he says: I tell you this, brethren; as if to say: unless you live, namely, the life of grace, you cannot attain to the kingdom of God, i.e., to the life of glory, because flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God. What we must not think, as some heretics say, is that flesh and blood will not rise according to substance, but rather that the whole body will be changed into spirit or into air. This is heretical and false. For the Apostle says that our body will be conformed to his body of radiance. Therefore, since Christ after his resurrection, has body and blood, as it says in Luke (24:39): “See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself; handle me, and see; for a spirit has not flesh and bones as you see that I have,” it is certain that we too will have flesh and blood in the resurrection. Non est intelligendum caro et sanguis, id est substantia carnis et sanguinis, regnum Dei non possidebunt, sed caro et sanguis, id est, carni et sanguini operam dantes, scilicet homines dediti vitiis et voluptatibus, regnum Dei non possidebunt. Et sic accipitur caro, id est, homo carnaliter vivens, Rom. VIII, 9: vos autem non in carne, et cetera. Vel: caro et sanguis, id est, opera carnis et sanguinis regnum Dei non possidebunt, quod est contra Iudaeos et Saracenos, qui fingunt se habituros post resurrectionem uxores, fluvios mellis et lactis. Vel: caro et sanguis, id est corruptio carnis et sanguinis, regnum Dei non possidebunt, id est post resurrectionem, corpus non subiicietur corruptioni carnis et sanguinis, secundum quam vivit homo. Unde, et secundum hoc, subdit neque corruptio incorruptionem possidebit, id est neque corruptio mortalitatis, quae nomine carnis hic exprimitur, possidebit incorruptionem, id est, incorruptibile regnum Dei, quia resurgemus in gloria. Rom. VIII, 21: ipsa creatura liberabitur a servitute corruptionis, et cetera. 1000. – We must not think that by flesh and blood, he means that the substance of the flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, but rather flesh and blood, i.e., those devoting themselves to flesh and blood, namely, men given to vices and lusts, cannot inherit the kingdom of God. And thus is flesh understood, i.e., a man living by the flesh: “But you are not in the flesh, you are in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you” (Rom. 8:9) Or: flesh and blood, i.e., the works of flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, which is against the Jews and Muslims who imagine that after the resurrection they will possess for themselves wives and rivers of honey and milk. Or: flesh and blood, i.e., the corruption of flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; that is, after the resurrection, the body will not be subject to the corruption of flesh and blood, as it is of the man who lives [now]. Therefore and accordingly, he adds, nor does the corruptible inherit incorruption, i.e., nor can the corruption of mortality, which is expressed here by the term “flesh,” inherit incorruption, i.e., the incorruptible kingdom of God, because we will rise in glory: “Because the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and obtain the glorious liberty of the children of God” (Rom. 8:21).
15-8
1 Cor 15:51-52Hic apostolus postquam respondit quaestioni de qualitate resurgentium, respondet consequenter quaestioni qua quaerebatur de modo et ordine resurgendi. Et circa hoc duo facit. Primo ostendit modum et ordinem resurrectionis; secundo confirmat per auctoritatem, ibi cum autem mortale hoc, et cetera. Circa primum duo facit. Primo enim proponit intentum; secundo ostendit quo ordine fiat, ibi in momento, in ictu oculi, et cetera. 1001. – After responding to the question on the quality of the resurrection, the Apostle then responds to the question which was asked about the mode and order of the resurrection. And concerning this he does two things. First, he shows the mode and order of the resurrection; secondly, he confirms it by an authority (v. 54). Concerning the first, he does two things. First, he sets forth the aim; secondly, he shows by what order it will be done (v. 52). Primo igitur reddit eos attentos, ostendens id quod proponit esse arduum et occultum, dicens ecce mysterium, id est occultum quoddam, dico vobis, id est aperio vobis, fratres, quod debet vobis aperiri et omnibus credentibus. Lc. VIII, 10: vobis datum est nosse, et cetera. Supra, II, 6: sapientiam loquimur inter perfectos, et, post: sed loquimur Dei sapientiam quae abscondita est, et cetera. Quid autem sit istud mysterium, subdit omnes quidem, et cetera. Circa primum sciendum est, quod sicut Hieronymus dicit, in quadam epistola ad Minervium et Alexandrum monachos, hoc quod hic dicitur omnes quidem resurgemus, etc., in nullo libro Graecorum habetur; sed in quibusdam habetur omnes quidem dormiemus, id est omnes moriemur. Et dicitur mors somnus, propter spem resurrectionis. Unde idem est ac si diceret omnes quidem resurgemus, quia nullus resurget nisi moriatur. Sed non omnes immutabimur. Hoc non mutatur in libris Graecis. Et hoc est verum, quia ista mutatio, de qua hic loquitur, non erit nisi secundum corpora beatorum, quia immutabuntur ad illa quatuor quae supra posita sunt, quae dicuntur dotes corporum gloriosorum. Et hanc desiderabat Iob. XIV, 14: cunctis diebus quibus nunc milito, expecto, donec veniat immutatio mea. 1002. – First, then, he renders them attentive, showing that what he is setting forth is difficult and hidden, saying, Behold, a mystery, i.e., a certain mystery I tell you, i.e., I uncover for you, brethren, what ought to be uncovered for you and for all believers: “To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of God” (Lk. 8:10); “Yet among the mature we do impart wisdom... but we impart a secret and hidden wisdom of God” (1 Cor 2:6, 7). 1003. – What that mystery is, he adds, we shall all rise. It should be understood concerning the first that, as Jerome says in a certain letter to the monks Minerva and Alexander: what is said here, we shall all rise, is not found in any book of the Greeks, but in certain ones is found, “we shall all sleep,” i.e., we shall all die. And it is called the death of sleep because of the hope of the resurrection. Hence it is the same as if one said, “we shall all rise,” because no one rises unless he has died. But not all shall be changed. This is not altered in the books of the Greeks. And this is true, because that change which is spoken of here will not occur except according to the blessed body, because they shall be changed to those four qualities set down above, which are called the marks of glorified bodies. And this is what Job desired: “All the days of my service I would wait, till my release [immutatio] should come” (Job 14:14). In quibusdam vero libris invenitur: non omnes quidem dormiemus, id est, moriemur, sed omnes immutabimur. Et hoc intelligitur dupliciter. Primo ad litteram, quia quorumdam opinio fuit quod non omnes homines morientur, sed quod aliqui in adventu Christi ad iudicium venient vivi, et isti non morientur sed isti mutabuntur in statum incorruptionis, et, propter hoc dicunt non omnes quidem dormiemus, id est moriemur, sed omnes immutabimur, tam boni quam mali et tam vivi quam mortui. Unde secundum hos immutatio non intelligitur de statu animalitatis ad statum spiritualitatis, quia, secundum hanc, soli boni immutabuntur, sed de statu corruptionis ad statum incorruptionis. Alio modo exponitur mystice ab Origene, et dicit quod hoc non dicitur de somno mortis, quia omnes morientur, Ps. LXXXVIII, 49: quis est homo qui vivet, etc., sed de somno peccati, de quo in Ps. XII, 4: illumina oculos meos ne unquam obdormiam, ut sic dicatur: non omnes moriemur, id est non omnes peccabimus mortaliter, sed omnes immutabimur, sicut supra de statu corruptionis ad incorruptionem. Et licet haec littera, scilicet non omnes moriemur, etc., non sit contra fidem, tamen Ecclesia magis acceptat primam, scilicet quod omnes moriemur sive resurgemus, etc.; quia omnes morientur etiam si sint tunc aliqui vivi. 1004. – In certain books is found: “We shall not all sleep,”, i.e., die, “but we shall all be changed.” And this is understood in two ways. First, literally, because the opinion of certain men is that not all men will die, but that at the coming of Christ some will come alive to the judgment, and these will not die, but they will be changed to the state of incorruption; and because of this they say, “We shall not all sleep,” i.e., die, “but we shall all be changed,” as much to good as to evil, as much to live as to die. Hence, according to these, the change is not understood from the state of animal to the state of spiritual, because according to this, they will be changed only to good, but from the state of corruption to the state of incorruption. It is explained in another way, mystically, by Origen, who says that this is not said about the sleep of death, because all will die: “What man can live and never see death?” (Ps. 89:48); from which in Psalm 13 (v. 3): “Lighten my eyes lest I sleep the sleep of death”; so that thus it is said, “We shall not all sleep,” i.e., we shall not all sin mortally, “but all will be changed,” just as above, from the state of corruption to incorruption. And although these words, namely, “we shall not all sleep,” are not contrary to the faith, nevertheless the Church accepts with better reason the first explanation, namely, that we shall all die if we shall rise, because all will die even if some are then alive. Ordinem autem et modum resurrectionis manifestat consequenter cum dicit in momento, in ictu oculi, et cetera. Et hoc quantum ad tria. Primo enim manifestat ordinem quantum ad tempus; secundo quantum ad causam resurrectionis, ibi in novissima tuba; tertio quantum ad progressum effectus a causa, ibi canet enim tuba, et cetera. 1005. – Next he exhibits the order and mode of the resurrection when he says, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye. Concerning this he does three things. First, he exhibits the order with respect to time; secondly, with respect to the cause of the resurrection (v. 52b); thirdly, with respect to the progress produced by the cause (v. 52c). Dicit ergo quod omnes resurgemus, sed quomodo? In momento. Per quod excludit errorem dicentium resurrectionem non esse futuram omnium simul, sed dicunt quod martyres resurgent ante alios per mille annos, et tunc Christus descendet cum illis, et possidebit regnum corporale Ierusalem mille annis cum eis. Et haec fuit opinio Lactantii. Sed hoc patet esse falsum, quia omnes in momento resurgemus et in ictu oculi. Excluditur etiam per hoc alius error eiusdem qui dicebat quod iudicium duraturum erat per spatium mille annorum. Sed hoc est falsum, quia non erit ibi aliquod perceptibile tempus, sed in momento, et cetera. 1006. – He says therefore that we all shall rise, but in what manner? In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye. By this he excludes the error stated that the future resurrection will not be at the same time, but they say that the martyrs will rise before the others by a thousand years, and then Christ will descend with them, and he will possess the corporeal kingdom of Jerusalem for a thousand years with them. This is the opinion of Lactantius, but this is clearly false, because we all shall rise in a moment and in the twinkling of an eye. Another of his errors is excluded by this, namely when he said that the judgment was to last for an interval of a thousand years. But this is false, because there will not be any perceptible time, but it will be in a moment, etc. Sciendum est autem quod momentum potest accipi vel pro ipso instanti temporis, quod dicitur nunc, vel pro aliquo tempore imperceptibili; tamen utroque modo potest accipi hoc, referendo illud ad diversa. Quia si nos referamus hoc ad collectionem pulverum (quae fiet ministerio Angelorum), tunc momentum accipitur pro tempore imperceptibili. Cum enim in collectione illorum pulverum sit mutatio de loco ad locum, oportet quod sit ibi tempus aliquod. Si autem referamus ad reunitionem corporum et pro unione animae, quae omnia fient a Deo, tunc momentum accipitur pro instanti temporis, quia Deus in instanti unit animam corpori et vivificat corpus. Potest etiam hoc quod dicit in ictu oculi, ad utrumque referri, quasi si in ictu oculi intelligitur tantum apertio palpebrarum (quae fit in tempore perceptibili), tunc refertur ad collectionem pulverum. Si vero in ictu oculi intelligitur ipse subitus contuitus oculi, et qui fit in instanti, tunc refertur ad unionem animae ad corpus. 1007. – It should be understood that a “moment” can be taken either for the instant of time itself, which is called “now,” or for a certain imperceptible time. Nevertheless in both ways this can be received by referring it to contrary things. Because if we refer this to the gathering of dust (which will be done by the ministry of the angels), then a “moment” is taken for an imperceptible time. For since in the gathering of that dust there is a change from place to place, it is necessary that there be a certain time. If we refer it to the reuniting of bodies and for their union with souls, all of which will be done by God, then a “moment” is taken for an instant of time, because God in an instant unites the soul to the body, and vivifies the body. It is possible that what he says, in the twinkling of an eye, is referred to either of the two; if in the twinkling of an eye is understood as the opening of the eyelids (which happens in a perceptible time), then it is referred to the gathering of dust. If however in the twinkling of an eye is understood as the instantaneous sight of the eye itself, which happens in an instant, then it is referred to the union of the soul to the body. Consequenter cum dicit in novissima tuba, ostendit ordinem resurrectionis, quantum ad causam immediatam. Et ista tuba est vox illa Christi, de qua Matth. XXVI, 6 dicitur: media nocte clamor factus est; Io. V, 25: audient vocem filii Dei, et qui audierint, et cetera. Vel ipsa praesentia Christi manifesta mundo, secundum quod dicit Gregorius: tuba nihil aliud esse designat, quam praesentiam Christi mundo manifestatam, quae dicitur tuba propter manifestationem, quia omnibus erit manifesta. Et hoc modo accipitur tuba Matth. VI, 2: cum facis eleemosynam, noli tuba canere ante te. Item dicitur tuba propter officium tubae, quod erat ad quatuor, ut dicitur Num. X, v. 1-10, scilicet ad vocandum consilium, et hoc erit in resurrectione, quia tunc convocabit ad consilium, id est ad iudicium. Is. III, v. 14: dominus ad iudicium veniet, et cetera. Ad solemnizandum festum. Ps. LXXX, 4: buccinate in Neomenia tuba. Sic et in resurrectione. Is. XXXIII, 20: respice Sion civitatem solemnitatis nostrae. Ad pugnam, et hoc in resurrectione. Sap. V, 21: pugnabit pro illo, et cetera. Is. XXX, 32: in cytharis et tympanis, et cetera. Ad movendum castra, sic et in resurrectione: quidam eundo ad Paradisum, quidam eundo ad Infernum. Matth. XXV, 46: ibunt qui bona fecerunt in vitam aeternam, qui vero mala in ignem aeternum. 1008. – Then when he says, at the last trumpet, he shows the order of the resurrection as to its immediate cause. And that trumpet is the voice of Christ, about which it is said in Matthew (25:6): “But at midnight there was a cry”; “The dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live” (Jn. 5:25). Or it is the presence of Christ himself manifested to the world, as Gregory says, “The trumpet signifies nothing other than the presence of Christ manifest to the world,” which is called a trumpet for the sake of manifestation, because it will be manifest to all. And “trumpet” is taken this way in Matthew (6:2): “Thus, when you give alms, sound no trumpet before you.” Likewise it is called a trumpet because of the office of the trumpet, which was fourfold, as it is said in Numbers (10:1-10), namely, for the calling of the assembly, and this will be in the resurrection, because then he will call to council, that is, to the judgment: “The Lord enters into judgment.” Secondly, for the solemnizing of a feast: “Blow the trumpet at the new moon” (Ps. 81:3); so too in the resurrection: “Look upon Zion, the city of our appointed feasts” (Is. 33:20). Thirdly, for war, and this too is in the resurrection: “And will leap to the target as from a well-drawn bow of clouds” (Wis. 5:21); “To the sound of timbrels and lyres” (Is. 30:32). Fourthly, for the moving of the camp, and so too in the resurrection, some by going to heaven, some by going to hell: “And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life” (Matt. 25:46). Consequenter cum dicit canet enim tuba, etc., ponit progressum effectus a causa praedicta. Et circa hoc duo facit. Primo enim ponit progressum effectus; secundo necessitatem huius assignat, ibi oportet enim mortale, et cetera. 1009. – Then when he says, and the trumpet will sound, he establishes the progress effected by the cause predicated. Concerning this, he does two things. First, he establishes the progress effected; secondly, he indicates the necessity of this (v. 53). Progressus effectus est quia statim ad sonitum tubae sequetur effectus, quia mortui, etc., Ps. LXVII, 34: dabit voci suae vocem virtutis, et cetera. Ponit autem duplicem effectum. Unus est communis, quia mortui resurgent incorrupti, id est integri, sine aliqua diminutione membrorum. Quod quidem est commune omnibus, quia in resurrectione est commune omne quod pertinet ad reparationem naturae, quia omnes habent communionem cum Christo in natura. Et licet Augustinus relinquat sub dubio, utrum deformitates remaneant in damnatis, ego tamen credo quod quidquid pertinet ad reparationem naturae, totum confertur eis: sed quod pertinet ad gratiam, solum electis confertur. Et ideo omnes resurgent incorrupti, id est, integri, etiam damnati. Hieronymus autem exponit incorrupti, id est in statu incorruptionis, ut scilicet ulterius post resurrectionem non corrumpantur, quia isti ad beatitudinem aeternam ibunt, mali vero ad poenam aeternam. Dan. XII, 2: multi de terrae pulvere evigilabunt. 1010. – The progress is effected because immediately at the sound of the trumpet the effect follows, because the dead will be raised: “He sends forth his voice, his mighty voice” (Ps. 68:33). He establishes however two effects. One is common, because the dead will be raised imperishable, i.e., renewed without any diminution of their members. That indeed is common to all, because in the resurrection the reparation of nature pertains to all, because all have communion with Christ in nature. And although Augustine [Enchir. 92] leaves open a doubt whether deformities will remain among the damned, I believe that whatever pertains to the reparation of nature is conferred entirely on them; but what pertains to grace is conferred only on the elect. And therefore all will rise incorruptible, i.e., renewed, even the damned. Jerome however explains incorruptible, i.e., the state of incorruption, as namely, that they will not be corrupted further after the resurrection, because they will have come to that eternal beatitude, the evil surely to eternal punishment: “And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake” (Dan. 12:2). Alius effectus est proprius, id est apostolorum tantum, quia nos immutabimur, scilicet apostoli, et non solum erimus incorrupti, sed etiam immutabimur, scilicet de statu miseriae ad statum gloriae, quia seminatur animale surget autem spirituale. Et secundum hunc modum exponendi apparet, quod melior est littera illa quae dicit omnes quidem resurgemus, sed non omnes immutabimur, quam illa quae habet omnes immutabimur, quia licet omnes resurgant, tamen soli sancti et electi immutabuntur. Posset tamen etiam secundum illos qui habent non omnes quidem morimur, sed omnes immutabimur, legi sic: mortui resurgent incorrupti, id est ad statum incorruptionis, et nos qui vivimus, licet non resurgamus, quia non morimur, tamen immutabimur de statu corruptionis ad incorruptionem. Et videtur consonare iis quae dicit I Thess. IV, 16: nos qui vivimus, qui relinquimur, simul rapiemur cum illis, etc.; ut sicut et ibi, et hic connumeret se vivis. 1011. – The other effect is proper, i.e., only of the Apostles, because we shall be changed, namely, the Apostles, and not only will we be incorruptible, but we shall be changed, that is, from the state of misery to the state of glory, because what is sown animal rises spiritual. And according to this way of expounding, it is clear that that reading is better which says, “We shall all rise, but we shall not all be changed,” than that which has, “We shall all be changed,” because although all shall rise, nevertheless only the holy and the elect shall be changed. But it would be possible even according to those who have, “We shall not all die, but we shall all be changed,” to be read thus: the dead will rise incorruptible, i.e., to the state of incorruption, and we who are alive, although we will not rise because we are not dead, nonetheless will be changed from the state of corruption to incorruption. And this would seem to agree with what is said in 1 Thess. (4:17): “We who are alive, who are left, shall be caught up together with them”; so that just as there, here too he reckons himself with the living.
15-9
1 Cor 15:53-58Hic apostolus ponit necessitatem effectus resurrectionis ab ipsa causa progredientis. Et circa hoc duo ponit correspondentia duobus quae posuerat in progressu effectuum ab ipsa causa. Primum fuit generale omnium, scilicet quod mortui resurgent incorrupti. Et ideo, primo, quantum ad hoc dicit oportet corruptibile hoc induere incorruptionem. Secundum fuit speciale apostolis et bonis, scilicet et nos immutabimur, et ideo, secundo, quantum ad hoc dicit et mortale hoc induere immortalitatem. 1012. – Here the Apostle established the necessary effect of the resurrection proceeding from its own cause. And concerning this he establishes two things in correspondence with the two he had established in the progress of the effects from the cause itself. The first is general for all, namely, that the dead will rise incorruptible. And so first he says concerning this, for this corruptible must put on incorruption. The second is particular for the apostles and the good, namely, “And we shall be changed,” and so secondly he says concerning this, and this mortal must put on immortality. Quia enim corruptibile opponitur incorruptibili, et in statu praesentis vitae subiicimur corruptioni, ideo dicit quod cum resurgemus, oportet hoc corruptibile, etc., necessitate scilicet congruentiae. Et hoc propter tria. Primo propter completionem humanae naturae. Nam, sicut etiam dicit Augustinus, anima quamdiu est separata a corpore est imperfecta, non habens perfectionem suae naturae, et ideo non est in tanta beatitudine separata existens, in quanta erit corpori unita in resurrectione. Ut ergo perfruatur beatitudine perfecta, oportet corruptibile hoc, id est corpus, induere, ut ornamentum, incorruptionem, ut ulterius aliquatenus non laedatur mortale. Secundo propter exigentiam divinae iustitiae, ut scilicet illi qui bona fecerunt seu mala in corpore, praemientur vel puniantur etiam in ipsis corporibus. Tertio propter conformitatem membrorum ad caput; ut sicut Christus resurrexit a mortuis per gloriam patris, ita et nos in novitate vitae ambulemus, Rom. VI, 4. 1013. – For because the corruptible is contrasted to the incorruptible, and in the present state of life we are subject to corruption, he says that when we rise, this corruptible must put on incorruption, namely, by a necessary congruence. And this for three reasons. First, for the completion of human nature. For as Augustine says [Gen. Ad litt. 12.35], the soul, inasmuch as it is separated from the body, is imperfect, not possessing the perfection of its nature, and so existing separately it is not in such beatitude as it will be when united to the body in the resurrection. Therefore, so that it might enjoy perfect beatitude, this corruptible, i.e., the body, must put on as an adornment incorruption, so that “this mortal” will not be afflicted further in any degree. Secondly, for the necessity of divine justice, so that those who have done good or evil in the body are rewarded or punished likewise in the same bodies. Thirdly, for the conformity of the members to the head, so that “just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life” (Rom. 6:4). Notandum autem quod ipsam incorruptionem seu immortalitatem assimilat vestimento, cum dicit induere. Vestimentum enim adest vestito et abest, manente eadem numero substantia vestiti, ut per hoc ostendat quod corpora eadem numero resurgant et iidem homines iidem numero erunt in statu incorruptionis et immortalitatis, in quo sunt modo. Unde ex hoc excluditur error dicentium quod corpora non resurgent eadem numero. Unde signanter dicit oportet corruptibile hoc, scilicet corpus, nam anima non est corruptibilis. Excluditur etiam error dicentium quod corpora glorificata non erunt eadem cum istis, sed caelestia, et de isto modo simile habetur II Cor. V, 2: nam in hoc ingemiscimus, etc.; Is. LII, 1: induere vestimentis gloriae tuae; Iob XL, 5: circumda tibi decorem, et cetera. 1014. – It should be noted that he compares incorruption itself or immortality to a garment, when he says, put on. For a garment is present to the one having vested, and absent, remaining the same numerical substance of the one vested, so that by this he shows that the same numerical bodies will rise and the same men will be the same numerically in the state of incorruption and immortality, in which they are now. Thus by this the error is excluded that says that the same numerical body will not rise. Hence he says expressly, this corruptible, namely the body, must put on incorruption, for the soul is not corruptible. Likewise, the error is excluded that says that glorified bodies will not be the same as these, but will be heavenly; and in a similar way 2 Cor. (5:2) says: “Here indeed we groan, and long to put on our heavenly dwelling”; “Put on your beautiful garments, O Jerusalem” (Is. 52:1); “Deck yourself with majesty and dignity; clothe yourself with glory and splendor” (Job 40:10). Sed contra hoc est, quia videtur impossibile quod corruptibile hoc induat incorruptionem, id est, quod corpora resurgant eadem numero, quia impossibile est ea, quae differunt genere vel specie, esse eadem numero; sed corruptibile et incorruptibile non solum differunt specie, sed genere; ergo impossibile est quod corpora resurgentium sint incorruptibilia, et remaneant eadem numero. Praeterea, philosophus dicit, quod impossibile est quod illa quorum substantia corruptibilis mota est, reintegrentur eadem numero, sed eadem specie; substantia autem corporum humanorum est corruptibilis, ergo impossibile est reintegrari eadem numero. Respondeo. Dicendum est, ad primum, quod unumquodque consequitur genus et speciem ex sua natura et non ex aliquo extrinseco suae naturae, et ideo dico, quod si resurrectio corporum futura esset ex principiis naturae corporum, impossibile esset quod corpora resurgerent eadem numero. Sed dico quod incorruptio corporum resurgentium dabitur ab alio principio, quam a natura ipsorum corporum, scilicet a gloria animae, ex cuius beatitudine et incorruptione, tota beatitudo et incorruptio corporum derivabitur. Sicut ergo eiusdem naturae et idem numero est liberum arbitrium, modo dum est volubile ad utramque partem et cum erit firmatum in fine ultimo, ita et eiusdem naturae et idem numero erit corpus, quod modo est corruptibile et tunc, quando per liberum arbitrium firmatum erit per gloriam animae, erit incorruptibile. Ad secundum dicendum, quod ratio philosophi procedit contra illos, qui ponebant omnia, in istis inferioribus, causari ex motu corporum caelestium, et quod revolutis eisdem revolutionibus corporum superiorum, sequebantur iidem effectus numero, qui aliquando fuerant. Unde dicebant quod adhuc Plato idem numero leget Athenis et quod habebit easdem scholas, et eosdem auditores quos habuit. Et ideo philosophus contra eosdem arguit, quod licet idem caelum numero, et idem sol sit in eisdem revolutionibus, tamen effectus, qui inde proveniunt non consequuntur identitatem numero, sed specie, et hoc secundum viam naturae. Similiter dico, quod si corpora induerent incorruptionem, et surgerent secundum viam naturae, quod non resurgerent eadem numero, sed eadem specie. Sed cum reintegratio et resurrectio, sicut dictum est, fiant virtute divina, dicimus quod corpora erunt eadem numero, cum neque principia individuantia huius hominis sint aliud, quam haec anima, et hoc corpus. In resurrectione autem redibit et anima eadem numero, cum sit incorruptibilis, et hoc corpus idem numero ex eisdem pulveribus, in quibus resolutum fuit, ex virtute divina reparatum, sic erit idem homo numero resurgens. Nec facio vim in formis intermediis, quia non pono esse aliquam aliam formam substantialem in homine, nisi animam rationalem, a qua habet corpus humanum quod sit animatum natura sensibili et vegetabili et quod sit rationale. Formae vero accidentales nihil impediunt identitatem numeralem quam ponimus. 1015. – But against this, it seems impossible that this corruptible should put on incorruption, i.e., that the same numerical bodies will rise, because it is impossible for things which differ in genus or species to be the same numerically. But corruptible and incorruptible do not differ in species, but in genus. Therefore, it is impossible that resurrected bodies will be incorruptible and will remain the same numerically. Moreover, the Philosopher says [II De Generat. 9.9] that it is impossible that the corruptible substance which is changed be restored to the same numerically, but to the same in species. But the substance of human bodies is corruptible; therefore, it is impossible for it to be restored to the same numerically. I respond: it should be said first that each thing attains to its genus or species from its own nature, and not from something extrinsic to is own nature; and therefore I say that if the resurrection of bodies would be future from the principles of the nature of bodies, it would be impossible that bodies would rise the same numerically. But I say that the incorruption of resurrected bodies will be given from another principle, that from the nature of the bodies themselves, namely, from the glory of the soul, from whose beatitude and incorruption all beatitude and incorruption of bodies will be derived. Therefore, just as free will is of the same nature and the same numerically, while it is in a changeable mode to either side, and when it will be firmly fixed in the final state, so too the body will be of the same nature and the same numerically, in that corruptible mode and then, when by free will it will be firmly fixed by the glory of the soul, it will be incorruptible. To the second objection, which the reason of the Philosopher advances against those who would maintain that all things in the sublunary bodies are caused by a change of the heavenly bodies, and that by the same turnings of the revolutions of superior bodies, the same numerical effects followed which were at some previous time. Hence they said that still the same numerical Plato will lecture to Athens and that he will have the same schools and the same pupils that he had. And so the Philosopher argues against this, that although there is the same numerical heaven, and the same sun is in its same revolutions, nonetheless the effects which arise from there do not result in numerical identity, but in identity of species, and this according to the course of nature. In like manner, I say that if bodies were to put on incorruption, and were to rise according to the course of nature, they would not rise the same numerically, but the same in species. But since the renewal and the resurrection, as was said, will occur by divine power, we say that bodies will be the same numerically, since the individual principles of that man are nothing other than this soul and this body. In the resurrection the soul too will return the same numerically, since it is incorruptible, and this body will be the same numerically from the same dust from which is was dissolved, restored by divine power; thus it will be the same numerical man who rises. I do not do violence to the intermediary forms, because I do not hold that there is any other substantial form in man except the rational soul, from which the human body will have it, that it is animated by a sensible and vegetable nature, and that it is rational. Accidental forms in no way hinder the numerical identity that we maintain. Consequenter cum dicit cum autem corruptibile, etc., confirmat quod dixerat per auctoritatem. Et circa hoc duo facit. Primo ponit auctoritatem; secundo ex ea concludit tria, ibi ubi enim est, mors, et cetera. 1016. – Then when he says, But when this mortal, he confirms what he had said by authority. And concerning this he does two things. First, he establishes the authority; secondly, from this he concludes three things (v. 55). Dicit ergo primo: dixi quod oportet corruptibile hoc induere, etc., sed cum mortale hoc induerit immortalitatem, tunc, scilicet in futuro, quod est contra illos qui dicunt iam resurrectionem factam, fiet sermo qui scriptus, scilicet, absorpta est, et cetera. Hoc secundum translationem nostram non invenitur in aliquo libro Bibliae; si tamen inveniatur in translatione Lxx, non est certum unde sumptum sit. Potest tamen dici hoc esse sumptum ex Is. XXVI, 19: vivent mortui, etc., et XXV, 8: praecipitabit mortem in sempiternum. Osee XIII, 14, ubi nos habemus: ero mors tua, o mors, Lxx habent: absorpta est mors in victoria, id est propter victoriam Christi. Et ponit praeteritum pro futuro, propter certitudinem prophetiae. I Petr. III, 22: deglutiens mortem, et cetera. 1017. – Therefore he says first: I said that this corruptible must put on incorruption, but when this mortal puts on immortality, then, namely, in the future (which is against those who say that the resurrection has already happened), then shall come to pass the saying that is written, that is, death is swallowed up in victory. This saying, according to our translation, is not found in any book of the Bible; but if it be found in the Septuagint translation, it is not certain whence it is taken. It is possible to say that this saying is taken from Is. (26:19): “The dead shall live, their bodies shall rise,” and Is. (25:8): “He will swallow up death forever.” In Hos. (13:44, Vulgate), we have: “I will be your death, O Death”; the Septuagint [see Is. 25:8] has “Death is swallowed up in victory,” i.e., on account of the victory of Christ. And he sets down the past for the future on account of the certitude of prophecy (1 Pet. 3:22). Consequenter cum dicit ubi est, mors, victoria tua? etc., concludit tria ex praemissa auctoritate; insultationem sanctorum contra mortem, gratiarum actiones ad Deum, ibi Deo autem gratias, et admonitionem suam Corinthiis, ibi itaque, fratres mei, et cetera. Circa primum duo facit. Primo ponit insultationem, secundo exponit, ibi stimulus autem, et cetera. 1018. – Then when he says, Where, O death, is your victory?, he concludes three things on the basis of authority: the scorn of the saints against death; the actions of thanks toward God (v. 57); and his admonition to the Corinthians (v. 58). Concerning the first he does two things. First, he mentions the scorn; secondly, he explains it (v. 56). Loquens ergo apostolus de victoria Christi contra mortem, quasi in quodam speciali gaudio positus, assumit personam virorum resurgentium, dicens ubi est, mors, victoria tua? Hoc non invenitur in aliquo loco sacrae Scripturae; utrum autem ex se, vel aliunde habuerit hoc apostolus, incertum est. Si tamen aliunde accepisset, videtur accepisse de Is. XIV, 4: quomodo cessavit exactor, quievit tributum, et cetera. Dicit ergo ubi est, mors, victoria tua? etc., scilicet corruptionis victoria tua, id est potentia qua totum humanum genus prosternebas, de omnibus triumphabas. II Reg. c. XIV, 14: omnes morimur, etc., Iob XVIII, v. 14: calcet super eum quasi rex interitus, et cetera. Ubi est, mors, stimulus tuus? 1019. – The Apostle, therefore, speaking of the victory of Christ over death, as if established in some special joy, takes upon himself the person of resurrected man, saying, Where, O death, is your victory? This is not found in any place of Sacred Scripture; whether the Apostle got this from himself or from another source is not certain. If however, he took it from another place, it appears that he took it from Is. (14:4): “How the oppressor has ceased, the insolent fury ceased!” He says therefore, Where, O death, is your victory?, namely, your victory of corruption, i.e., the power by which you overthrew the whole human race, but which you triumphed over all: “We must all die” (2 Sam. 14:14); “He is brought to the king of terrors” (Job 18:14). Where, O death, is your sting? Quid autem sit stimulus consequenter exponit dicens stimulus autem, et cetera. Unde duo ponit: unum per quod exponit quod dixit; aliud per quod obiectionem excludit, ibi virtus peccati, et cetera. Sciendum est autem quod stimulus mortis potest dici vel stimulans ad mortem, vel quo utitur seu quem facit mors; sed litteralis sensus est stimulus mortis, id est stimulans ad mortem, quia homo per peccatum est impulsus et deiectus ad mortem. Rom. V, 23: stipendia peccati mors, et cetera. Sed quia aliquis posset obiicere, quod iste stimulus est remotus per legem, ideo consequenter hoc apostolus excludit, subdens virtus vero, id est augmentum, peccati lex, quasi dicat: non est remotum peccatum per legem, imo virtus peccati lex, id est augmentum occasionaliter, scilicet non quod induceret ad peccatum sed inquantum dabat occasionem peccati et non conferebat gratiam; ex qua magis accedebatur concupiscentia ad peccandum. Rom. V, 20: lex subintravit, ut abundaret delictum. Rom. VII, 8: occasione accepta, peccatum per mandatum, et cetera. 1020. – What the sting is, he explains in what follows, saying, the sting of death is sin. Therefore, he sets forth two points: one by which he explains what he said; the other by which he excludes an objection (v. 56b). It should be understood that the sting of death can be described either as a goad to death, or that which death uses or makes. But the literal sense is “the sting of death,” i.e., the goad to death, because man is propelled and cast down to death by sin: “For the wages of sin is death” (Rom. 6:23). But because someone could object, that this sting is removed by the Law, the Apostle straightaway excludes this, adding, and the power, i.e., the increase, of sin is the Law; as if to say: sin is not removed by the Law, but rather the power of sin is the Law, i.e., an increase in the occasion; that is to say, not that it impels to sin, but that it gives an occasion for sin and it does not confer grace, from which concupiscence to sin was roused all the more: “Law came in, to increase the trespass” (Rom. 5:20); “But sin, finding opportunity in the commandment, wrought in me all kinds of covetousness” (Rom. 7:8). Est autem alius sensus, sed non litteralis, ut stimulus mortis dicatur quo utitur mors. Et sic per mortem intelligitur Diabolus. Apoc. VI, 8: nomen illi mors. Et sic stimulus mortis est tentatio Diaboli. Et sic totum quod dicitur de morte, exponitur de Diabolo, ut in Glossa habetur. Vel stimulus mortis, id est a morte factus, id est a carnali concupiscentia. Iac. I, 15: concupiscentia cum conceperit, et cetera. Concupiscentia enim primo volentes allicit, sicut in intemperatis; secundo repugnantes trahit, ut in incontinentibus; postea contendit, sed non vincit, ut in continentibus; postea debilitatur eius contentio, sicut in temperatis, et ultimo totaliter deficit, sicut in beatis, quibus dicere competit: ubi est, mors, contentio vel victoria tua? 1021. – There is, however, another sense, but not the literal one, so that “the sting of death” is said to be that which death uses. And so by death is understood the devil: “And its rider’s name was death” (Rev. 6:8). And so “the sting of death” is the temptation of the devil. And thus all that is said about death is interpreted of the devil, as in the Gloss [Lombard]. Or the sting of death, i.e., made by death, i.e., concupiscence of the flesh: “Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin” (Jas. 1:15). For concupiscence first draws those who are willing, as in the intemperate; secondly, it drags those who resist, as in the incontinent; next it contends, but does not conquer, as in the continent; next it is weakened in its contention, as in the temperate; and finally it is totally defeated, as in the beatified, about whom it is fitting to say: “Where, O death, is your contention or your victory?” Quia ergo stimulus mortis destructus est non per legem, sed per victoriam Christi, ideo Deo sunt reddendae gratiarum actiones. Et hoc est quod dicit Deo autem gratias, scilicet ago, seu agamus, qui dedit nobis victoriam, mortis et peccati, per Iesum Christum, non per legem. I Io. V, 4: haec est victoria, et cetera. Rom. VII, 24: quis me liberabit, et cetera. Gratia Dei, et cetera. Nam quod impossibile, et cetera. 1022. – Therefore, because the sting of death is destroyed, not by the Law, but by the victory of Christ, acts of thanksgiving are rendered to God. And this is what he says: But thanks be to God, namely, I give thanks, or we give thanks, to the one who gives us the victory, over death and sin, through Jesus Christ, not through the Law: “And this is the victory that overcomes the world, our faith” (1 Jn. 5:4); “Who will deliver me from this body of death? Thanks be to God through Jesus our Lord!” (Rom. 7:24-25); “For God has done what the Law, weakened by the flesh, could not do” (Rom. 8:3). Consequenter cum dicit itaque, fratres mei, etc., subdit admonitionem. Sicut enim dictum est, pseudo-apostoli corrumpebant Corinthios negando resurrectionem, et ideo, postquam iam astruxit fidem resurrectionis, et per exempla ostendit, admonet eos quod bene se habeant, ne seducantur a pseudo-apostolis. Et circa hoc tria facit. Primo enim eos in fide confirmat, dicens itaque, scilicet iam ostensa resurrectione, fratres mei, per fidem, per quam omnes sumus filii Dei Io. I, 12: dedit eis potestatem, etc., dilectissimi, per charitatem qua debemus nos invicem diligere I Io. IV, 21: hoc mandatum habemus a Deo, etc., stabiles estote, scilicet in fide resurrectionis, ne recedatis a fide Eph. IV, 14: non simus sicut parvuli fluctuantes, etc., et immobiles, ne scilicet ab aliis seducamini Col. I, 23: in fide fundati, stabiles, et immobiles, et cetera. Secundo inducit ad bona opera, dicens abundantes in omni opere bono semper Gal. ult.: dum tempus habemus, et cetera. Prov. XV, 5: in abundanti iustitia. Tertio roborat eos per spem, dicens scientes quod labor vester, etc., Sap. III, 15: bonorum enim laborum gloriosus est fructus. 1023. – Then when he says, Therefore my beloved brethren, he adds an admonition. For as it was said, the false apostles were destroying the Corinthians by denying the resurrection, and so, after he established faith in the resurrection, and displayed it through examples, he admonishes them to occupy themselves with good, and not be seduced by the false apostles. And concerning this he does three things. First, he confirms them in the faith, saying, therefore, namely, with the resurrection already displayed, my brethren by faith, by which we are all sons of God: “He gave power to become children of God”(Jn. 1:12) – beloved, through love which we owe to love one another: “And this commandment we have from him, that he who loves God should love his brother also” (1 Jn. 4:21) – be steadfast, that is, in the faith of the resurrection, not withdrawing from faith: “So that we may no longer be children tossed to and fro” (Eph. 4:14) – and immovable, that is, do not be seduced by others: “Provided that you continue in the faith, stable and steadfast” (Col. 1:23). Secondly, he induces to good works, saying, always abounding in the work of the Lord: “So then, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all men” (Gal. 6:10); “The righteousness of the blameless keeps his way straight” (Prov. 11:5). Thirdly, he confirms them in hope, saying, knowing that in the Lord you labor is not in vain: “For the fruit of good labors is renowned” (Wis. 3:15).
16-1
1 Cor 16:1-91 Now concerning the contribution for the saints: as I directed the churches of Galatia, so you also are to do. 2 On the first day of every week, each of you is to put something aside and store it up, as he may prosper, so that contributions need not be made when I come. 3 And when I arrive, I will send those whom you accredit by letter to carry your gift to Jerusalem. 4 If it seems advisable that I should go also, they will accompany me. 5 I will visit you after passing through Macedonia, for I intend to pass through Macedonia, 6 and perhaps I will stay with you or even spend the winter, so that you may speed me on my journey, wherever I go. 7 For I do not want to see you now just in passing; I hope to spend some time with you, if the Lord permits. 8 But I will stay in Ephesus until Pentecost, 9 for a wide door for effective work has opened to me, and there are many adversaries. Supra per totam seriem epistolae proposuit apostolus Corinthiis quamdam doctrinam generalem, in hoc ultimo capite proponit eis quaedam specialia et familiaria. Et circa hoc duo facit. Primo monet eos quid ipsi debeant aliis facere; secundo ostendit quid alii faciant ipsis, ibi salutat vos Ecclesia, et cetera. Circa primum duo facit. Primo instruit eos de his quae debent facere ad absentes; secundo vero de his quae debent facere ad praesentes, ibi vigilate et state in fide, et cetera. Circa primum tria facit. Primo instruit eos de his quae pertinent ad absentes pauperes sanctos, qui sunt in Ierusalem; secundo de his quae pertinent ad apostolum, ibi veniam ad vos, etc.; tertio de his quae pertinent ad discipulos, ibi si autem venerit, et cetera. Circa ea quae debent fieri sanctis, qui erant in Ierusalem, de tribus instruit eos apostolus. Primo qualiter eleemosyna sanctis facienda sit colligenda; secundo qualiter sit conservanda, ibi unusquisque autem vestrum, etc.; tertio qualiter sit in Ierusalem transmittenda, ibi cum autem praesens fuero, et cetera. 1024. – Above, through the entire succession of the letter, the Apostle proposed to the Corinthians a general teaching; in this final chapter, he proposes to them a special and particular teaching. And concerning this he does two things. First, he instructs them about what they ought to do for others; secondly, he shows what others would do for them (v. 19). Concerning the first, he does two things. First, he instructs them about what they should do in his absence; secondly, about what they should do in the present (v. 13). Concerning the first, he does three things. First, he instructs them about what in his absence pertains to the poor saints who are in Jerusalem; secondly, about those things that pertain to the Apostle (v. 5); thirdly, about those things that pertain to the disciples (v. 10). The Apostle instructs them about three things concerning what ought to happen for the saints who are in Jerusalem. First, how the alms to be prepared for the saints are to be collected; secondly, how the alms are to be kept (v. 2); thirdly, how they are to be sent to Jerusalem (v. 3). Circa primum sciendum est, quod, sicut legitur Act. IV, 34 s., mos erat in primitiva Ecclesia, ut conversi ad fidem venderent possessiones et omnia quae habebant, et pretium ponerent ad pedes apostolorum, et de eis unicuique (prout erat opus) provideretur, ut sic nullus haberet proprium, sed essent illis omnia communia. Et, sicut dicitur in collationibus patrum, omnis religio ab illa sancta societate sumpsit exordium. Contigit autem ut fame pervalida exorta, pauperes sancti, qui erant in Ierusalem, inopia maxima laborarent. Unde factum est, ut apostoli ordinarent ad ipsorum subventionem, quod per alias Ecclesias Christi collectae fierent, et haec commissio facta est Paulo et Barnabae, Gal. II, 9: dederunt mihi et Barnabae, et cetera. Et quia apostolus super hoc sollicitus erat, monebat illos, quos converterat, ut eis subvenirent, quia, sicut ipse ad Romanos dicit, iustum est, ut a quibus spiritualia receperant, temporalia ministrent. Et hoc est quod dicit de collectis autem quae fiunt per Ecclesias in sanctos, id est in usum sanctorum, et non quorumlibet. Eccle. XII, v. 5: da iusto, et ne recipias peccatorem. Non quod peccatoribus non sit aliquid dandum, sed quia magis debet quis dare eleemosynam iusto indigenti quam peccatori. Sicut ordinavi in Ecclesia Galatiae, ita et vos facite, id est colligite, per unam, scilicet diem, sabbati, id est, septimanae. Et hoc ideo ordinatum est, ut paulatim qualibet hebdomada aliquid parvum solverent, ne si simul totum solvissent, gravarentur. Et licet eis paululum videretur, et quasi insensibile, paulatim dare, tamen, completo anno, eleemosynae in simul collectae, magnae erant. 1025. – Concerning the first, it should be understood that, as it is written in Ac. (4:34), it was the custom in the early Church that those converted to the faith would sell their possessions and all they have, and would place the value at the feet of the Apostles, and from these each one (according as there was need) would be provided for, so that no one would have property, but that all things would be in common for them. But it happens that due to a great, rising famine, the poor saints in Jerusalem were laboring under a great want. Hence it happened that the Apostles ordained for the rendering of assistance to them, that there be a collection by other Christian churches, and this commission was made to Paul and Barnabas: “They gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship... only they would have us remember the poor” (Gal. 2:9-10). And because the Apostle was solicitous about this, he instructed those who converted, that they should render assistance to them, because just as he said to the Romans, it is right that whoever receives spiritual goods should supply temporal ones. And this is what he says: Now concerning the contribution by the churches for the saints, i.e., for the use of the saints, and not for whatever use: “Do good to the humble, but do not give to the ungodly” (Sir. 12:5). Not that there is not something that is to be given to sinners, but because with more reason ought one to give alms to the indigent just man than to the sinner. Just as I directed the churches of Galatia, so you are to do, i.e., to collect, on the first, namely, day, of the sabbath, i.e., the seventh day. And this was ordained, so that little by little a small amount might be set aside in any given week, and they might not, if all at once it were set aside, be burdened. And although it might seem very little to them, as if imperceptible to give little by little, yet over an entire year the alms were greater than in one single collection. Vel per unam sabbati intelligitur prima dies post sabbatum, scilicet dies dominicus. Et hoc ideo illo die fieri voluit apostolus, quia iam inoleverat consuetudo, ut populus in dominicis diebus ad Ecclesiam conveniret. Lev. XXIII, 35: dies primus celeberrimus erit atque sanctissimus, et cetera. Et post: est enim coetus atque collectae, et cetera. De huiusmodi eleemosyna dicitur Dan. IV, 24: peccata tua eleemosynis redime; et Eccli. XXIX, v. 15: eleemosyna viri quasi sacculus, et cetera. 1026. – Or by on the first day of the Sabbath, is understood the first day after the Sabbath, namely, the Lord’s Day. And this is what the Apostle wanted to happen on that day, because the custom was already in force, that the people would gather in the church on the Lord’s Days: “On the first day shall be a holy convocation... it is a solemn assembly; you shall do not laborious work” (Lev. 23:35-36). And in this way are alms described in Dan. (4:24): “Break off your sins by practicing righteousness [almsgiving], and your iniquities by showing mercy to the oppressed”; and Sir (29:15). Quia vero non solum debet apponi modus in colligendo, sed etiam in conservando, ideo consequenter instruit qualiter collectae conserventur, cum dicit unusquisque autem vestrum, et cetera. In quo ostenditur maxima industria apostoli, ne aliqui crederent quod apostolus faceret collectas istas magis causa quaestus proprii, quam propter necessitatem sanctorum. Ideo suspicionem hanc vitans, et quantum ad se et quantum ad suos ministros, noluit dictam pecuniam a se, seu a suis ministris custodiri, sed ordinavit quod quilibet illud quod sibi placebat elargiri, reportaret domi et conservaret seorsum, faciens sic per totum annum. Et huius ratio erat, quia apostolus nolebat, quod quando veniret Corinthum, vacarent collectis, sed doctrinae et rebus spiritualibus. Et ideo dicit ut non cum venero, et cetera. Act. VI, 2: non est aequum nos relinquere, et cetera. Notandum est ergo quod quilibet debet cavere sibi, ne videatur aliquid spirituale facere propter quaestum, et inde est quod dominus, Matth. X, 9 voluit praedicatores nihil habere. Romanis etiam mos erat, ut nullus assumeretur ad senatus officium, nisi prius probatus fuisset in officio quaestoris, quia virtutis est magnae res temporales custodire. 1027. – Because not only the manner of collecting ought to be applied, but also of setting aside, he then instructs them how the collections should be set aside, when he says, each of you is to put something aside. In this is shown the greatest skill of the Apostle, so that no one should believe that the Apostle would make these collections more for the sake of his own profit, than for the sake of the needs of the saints. Therefore, evading this suspicion, both as to himself and his ministers, he was unwilling that the money spoken of be kept by himself or by his ministers, but he established that whoever was ready to distribute that money take it home and keep it himself, doing this for the whole year. And it was for this reason, because the Apostle was unwilling, when he should come to Corinth, that they attend to the collections, but rather to teaching and to spiritual things: “It is not right that we should give up preaching the word of God to serve tables” (Ac. 6:2). [marginal note here not included] Qualiter autem debeant mitti in Ierusalem, subdit, dicens cum autem praesens fuero, etc., quasi dicat: nec in hoc volo aliquos specialiter onerare, cum praesens fuero, scilicet ad portandum pecuniam, sed mittam illos quos probaveritis, id est approbaveritis mittendos, mittam, inquam, per epistolas, id est cum epistolis missis a vobis et a nobis, laudatoriis et commendatoriis, scilicet in quibus contineatur quantitas pecuniae, commendatum studium nostrum et charitas. Mittam, inquam, perferre gratiam vestram, id est quod gratis dabitis sanctis pauperibus, in Ierusalem. II Cor. VIII, 1: notam facimus vobis gratiam Dei, et cetera. In Ierusalem, id est sanctis qui sunt in Ierusalem. Et non solum mittam illos quos probaveritis, sed si dignum fuerit, etc., id est si magna quantitas fuerit, mecum ibunt, in quo inducit eos ad bene et liberaliter solvendum. Rom. XV, 25: nunc igitur proficiscar Ierusalem ministrare sanctis, et cetera. 1028. – He adds how the alms should be sent to Jerusalem, saying, when I arrive. As if to say: I do not wish in this to burden any especially, namely for bearing the money, but I will send those whom you accredit, i.e., the ones you will approve for sending, I will send, I say, by letter, i.e., with letters sent from you and from us, with praises and commendations, namely, in which will be contained a sum of money, our zeal and love commended. I will send, I say, to carry your gift, i.e., what you will give generously to the poor saints in Jerusalem: “We want you to know, brethren, about the grace of God which has been shown in the churches of Macedonia” (2 Cor. 8:1). In Jerusalem, i.e., to the saints who are in Jerusalem. And not only will I send those whom you accredit, but if it will be advisable [fitting], i.e., if there will be a great quantity, they will accompany me, by which he leads them to contribute well and liberally: “At present, however, I am going to Jerusalem with aid for the saints” (Rom. 15:25). Consequenter apostolus instruit eos de his quae pertinent ad seipsum. Et circa hoc tria facit. Primo promittit eis suam praesentiam, dicens veniam ad vos, cum Macedoniam pertransiero, etc.; secundo dicit se facturum apud eos diutinam moram; tertio excusat suae praesentiae dilationem. 1029. – Next, the Apostle instructs them about the things that pertain to himself. And concerning this he does three things. First, he promises them his arrival, saying, I will come to you after passing through Macedonia. Secondly, he says that he is about to spend a long time with them; thirdly, he excuses the postponement of his arrival. Circa primum sciendum est, quod, sicut dicitur Act. XVI, 9, vir Macedo apparuit apostolo cum esset in Troade, deprecans eum, et dicens ei: transiens in Macedoniam libera nos. Ut ergo apostolus iussa impleret, disposuit se Macedoniam iturum. Et quia Macedonia erat media inter Asiam et Achaiam, in qua est Corinthus, ideo dicit cum pertransiero in Macedoniam, veniam ad vos, imo veniam ad vos inde, scilicet quia tunc ero vobis propior. 1030. – Concerning the first it should be understood that, as it says in Ac. (16:9), a man of Macedonia appeared to the Apostle when was in Troas, beseeching him and saying to him: “Come over to Macedonia and help us.” Therefore, so that the Apostle might fulfil the entreaties, he prepared himself to go to Macedonia. And because Macedonia was halfway between Asia and Achaia where Corinth is, he says, I will come to you after passing through Macedonia, that is, I will come to you from that place, namely, because then I will be nearer to you. Secundo promittit se facturum apud eos diutinam moram, dicens apud vos forsitan manebo, id est moram contraham, vel etiam hyemabo, id est per totam hyemem permanebo vobiscum, quia multa corrigenda sunt in vobis. Vel, causam quare ad eos vadit, subdit, cum dicit ut vos me deducatis quocumque iero. Et dicit quocumque, quia nesciebat determinare quo iret, nisi secundum quod spiritus sanctus inspirabat sibi. Deducatis, inquam, non defendatis me, sed ut doceatis vias. 1031. – Secondly, he promises that he will spend a long time with them, saying, and perhaps I will stay with you, i.e., I will restrict the time, or even spend the winter, i.e., for the whole winter I will abide with you, because there are many things to be corrected among you. Or, he adds the reason for why he is going to them when he says, so that you may speed my on my journey, wherever I go. And he says, “wherever,” because he was unable to determine where he would go, except according to what the Holy Spirit was inspiring him. You may speed, I say, not that you may protect me, but that you may show the way. Tertio cum dicit nolo enim vos, etc., excusat dilationem suae praesentiae dupliciter. Uno modo, quia Corinthii possent dicere: non est necesse quod tantum differas venire et quod primo vadas in Macedoniam, quia tu potes venire in Achaiam et permanere, ita quod non transeas per Macedoniam. Et ad hoc dicit: licet sic possem venire ad vos, tamen non diu possem manere vobiscum, quia statim oportet me ire in Macedoniam, vel redire in Asiam. Unde quia nolo vos modo in transitu videre, ideo modo non venio primo ad vos: nam ego spero aliquam moram contrahere vobiscum, si dominus permiserit. Dicit si dominus permiserit, quia forte vel antequam esset ibi, vel postquam iam esset ibi, dominus inspiraret ei quod iret ad alium locum, ubi faceret maius bonum. 1032. – Thirdly, when he says, for I do not want, he excuses the postponement of his arrival in two ways. In one way, because the Corinthians could say: it is not necessary that you defer coming and that you first go to Macedonia, because you could come to Achaia and remain, so that you do not pass through Macedonia. And to this he says: although I could come to you in this way, I could not stay with you for long, because I have to go to Macedonia or return to Asia. Hence, because I am unwilling to see you in passing, I am not coming to you in this way. For I hope to join you for some time, if the Lord permits. He says, if the Lord permits, because perhaps either before he is there, or already after he is there, the Lord may inspire him to go to another place where he might accomplish a greater good. Alio modo excusat se, et hoc videtur magis litterale, quia oportebat eum diu manere apud Ephesum, quae est in Asia. Et ideo dicit permanebo autem Ephesi usque ad Pentecosten, et cetera. Forte haec epistola missa fuit in hyeme, seu in vere, et tunc post Pentecosten debebat ire in Macedoniam et morari ibi usque ad hyemem, et tunc ire Corinthum et hyemare. Rationem autem quare volebat morari Ephesi usque ad Pentecosten, subdit, cum dicit ostium autem, etc., id est, magnum fructum facio in Epheso. Et dicit ostium esse apertum magnum, id est multa corda hominum ad credendum parata, et evidens, quia sine contradictione. Col. IV, 3: orantes simul et pro nobis, ut Deus aperiat nobis ostium, et cetera. Sed quia sunt multi adversarii, qui conantur impedire vel subintrare, si ergo absentarem me, tantus fructus posset de facili impediri, ideo nolo recedere quousque sitis bene firmati. Apoc. III, 8: ecce dedi coram te ostium apertum. 1033. – In another way, he excuses himself, and this would seem the more literal meaning, because it was necessary for him to remain for a long time at Ephesus, which is in Asia. And so he says, but I will stay in Ephesus until Pentecost. Perhaps this letter was sent in winter, or in fact, and then after Pentecost he had to go to Macedonia and stay there until winter, and then go to Corinth and winter there. He adds the reason for why he wanted to stay in Ephesus until Pentecost when he says, for a wide door for effective work has opened for me, i.e., I am producing great fruit in Ephesus. And he says, a wide door has opened for me, i.e., many human hearts prepared for believing, and it is evident, because it is without contradiction: “And pray for us also, that God may open to us a door for the word” (Col. 4:3). But because there are many adversaries, who are attempting to hinder or steal away, if then I am absent, much fruit may easily be hindered; thus I am unwilling to draw back until you are well established: “Behold, I have set before you an open door” (Rev. 3:8).
16-2
1 Cor 16:10-24Hic instruit eos de his quae pertinent ad discipulos suos. Et primo de his quae pertinent ad Timotheum, secundo de his quae pertinent ad Apollo, ibi de Apollo, et cetera. 1034. – Here he instructs them concerning the things which pertain to his disciples. And first, concerning things that pertain to Timothy; secondly, concerning things that pertain to Apollos (v. 12). De Timotheo tria mandat. Primo ut secure custodiatur, unde dicit si autem venerit ad vos Timotheus, videte, studeatis, ut sine timore sit apud vos. Forte aliqua commotio fuerat ibi propter pseudo-apostolos. II Cor. VII, 5: foris pugnae, intus timores, et cetera. Et hoc debetis facere, quia opus domini operatur, sicut et ego praedicando. II Tim. IV, 5: tu vero vigila, in omnibus labora. Secundo ut in honore habeatur, et ideo dicit ne quis ergo illum spernat. Et ratio huius est forte, quia iuvenis erat. I Tim. IV, 12: nemo adolescentiam tuam spernat. Lc. X, v. 16: qui vos spernit, me spernit. Tertio ut pacifice deducatur, et hoc est quod dicit deducite autem illum, et cetera. Et ratio huius est quia expecto illum cum fratribus, qui sunt cum eo. 1035. – Concerning Timothy, he enjoins three things. First, that he be kept free of concern; hence he says, When Timothy comes to you, see, be diligent that, you put him at ease among you. Perhaps there was a certain disturbance there because of the false apostles: “Fighting without and fear within” (2 Cor. 7:5). And this you ought to do because he is doing the work of the Lord, as I am by preaching: “As for you, be vigilant in every labor” (2 Tim. 4:5, Vulgate). Secondly, that he be held in honor, and so he says: so let no one despise him. And the reason for this is perhaps because he was young: “Let no one despise your youth” (1 Tim. 4:12); “He who rejects you, rejects me” (Lk. 10:16). Thirdly, that he be led in peace, and this is what he says: speed him on his way in peace. And the reason for this is because I am expecting him with the brethren, who are with him. De Apollo, et cetera. Iste est ille Apollo, de quo habetur Act. XVIII, 24, quod Iudaeus quidam, etc., et iste ivit in Achaiam, et fuit quasi specialis doctor eorum post apostolum, I Cor. III, 6: ego plantavi, Apollo rigavit, etc. et, ut Glossa dicit, episcopus erat. Et quia Corinthii male se habuerant, recesserat ab eis, et iverat ad apostolum. Postmodum vero Corinthii rogaverunt apostolum, ut remitteret illuc ipsum, ad quod respondet eis, dicens de Apollo autem fratre, quem rogastis remitti ad vos, notum vobis facio, tria. Primo, preces meas sibi factas, quoniam multum rogavi eum, ut veniret ad vos cum fratribus. Et dicit: rogavi eum, licet possit praecipere, quia magnis viris non de facili debet fieri praeceptum. I Tim. V, 1: seniorem obsecra, et cetera. Eccle. XXXII, 1: rectorem te posuerunt, et cetera. Sed numquid licuit sibi relinquere populum suum? Ad hoc dicendum quod, sicut Gregorius dicit, quando omnes subditi male se habent et nolunt corrigi, licet episcopo recedere ab eis. Unde quia isti erant tales, licuit ei. Vel dicendum est, quod forte non erat episcopus eorum, sed specialiter praedicaverat eis. Secundo, responsum Apollinis, quia renuit venire ad eos, ibi et utique non fuit voluntas eius ut nunc, et cetera. Et ratio huius est quia forte nondum erant bene correcti, vel quia ipse erat in aliis arduis occupatus. Tertio, promittit eum aliquando ad eos iturum. Unde dicit veniet autem cum ei vacuum, id est opportunum, fuerit, scilicet quando vos eritis correcti. 1036. – Concerning Apollos. This is the Apollos of whom Acts (18:24) says, “a certain Jew”, and the one who went to Achaia and was, as it were, their special doctor after the Apostle: “I planted, Apollos watered” (1 Cor 3:6). And as the Gloss says, he was a bishop. And because the Corinthians had behaved badly, he withdrew from them and went to the Apostle. Afterwards, the Corinthians asked the Apostle to send him back there, to which he responds to them saying, as for our brother Apollos, whom you asked to be sent back to you, I make known [to you] three things. First, my requests made to him, since I strongly urged him to come to you with the brothers. And he says, I urged him, although he could direct him, because with great men a command ought not be made easily: “Do not rebuke an older man but exhort him as you would a father” (1 Tim. 5:1); “If they make you master of the feast, do not exalt yourself” (Sir. 32:1). But is it lawful for someone to abandon his people? To this should be said, as Gregory says, when all the subjects conduct themselves badly and are unwilling to be corrected, it is lawful for the bishop to withdraw from them. Hence, because they were such as these, it was lawful for him. Or it should be said that perhaps he was not their bishop, but was preaching to them specially. Secondly, the response of Apollos, because he refuses to come to them: but it was not at all his will to come now. And the reason for this is perhaps because they were not yet properly corrected, or because he himself was occupied in other difficulties. Thirdly, he promises him that he should go to them at some time. Hence, he says, he will come when there will be space, i.e., opportunity; there will be, namely, when you will be corrected. Consequenter, postquam instruxit eos quid debeant facere absentibus hic instruit eos qualiter se habeant ad praesentes. Circa hoc duo facit. Primo ostendit qualiter se habeant quantum ad omnes in communi; secundo quantum ad quosdam in speciali, ibi obsecro autem vos, fratres. 1037. – After he instructed them about what they ought to do with respect to those who were absent, he then instructs them how to conduct themselves with those who are present. Concerning the first, he does two things. First, he shows how they should conduct themselves as to all in common; secondly, as to some in particular (v. 15). Instruit autem eos apostolus in communi de tribus, scilicet de fide, de bona operatione et de modo bene operandi. Sed tamen istis tribus praemittit unum quod est omnibus necessarium, id est, sollicitudo. Unde dicit vigilate et orate. Lc. XII, 43: beati servi illi, quos cum venerit dominus, invenerit vigilantes, etc., et, Matth. XXVI, 41: vigilate et orate, et cetera. De fide ergo instruit, cum dicit state, scilicet in fide, Eph. VI, 14: state succincti, et cetera. De bona operatione, cum dicit viriliter, id est fortiter, agite, quia fides sine operibus mortua est, Iac. II, 26. Sed quia bona operatio non est attribuenda nobis sed Deo, ideo subdit et confortamini in domino. Ps. XXX, 25: viriliter agite, et confortetur cor vestrum, et cetera. De modo agendi, cum dicit omnia vestra in charitate fiant, id est, omnia debent referri ad finem charitatis, scilicet ut fiant propter Deum et proximum, Col. III, 14: super omnia charitatem, et cetera. 1038. – The Apostle instructs them in common about three things, namely, about faith, about a good work, and about the manner of working well. But he presents first one thing that is more necessary than all these three, i.e., “watchful care.” Hence he says, be watchful and pray: “Blessed is that servant whom his master when he comes will find so doing” (Lk. 12:43); and “Watch and pray that you may not enter into temptation” (Matt. 26:41). He instructs them about faith when he says, stand firm, i.e., in faith: “Stand, therefore” (Eph. 6:14). He instructs them about a good work when he says, courageously, i.e., strongly, act, because faith without works in dead (Jas. 2:26). But because a good work should not be attributed to us, but to God, therefore he adds, and be strong in the Lord: “Be strong and let your heart take courage” (Ps. 31:25). He instructs them about the manner of acting when he says, let all that you do be done in love, i.e., all things should be referred to the end of charity, namely, that they might be done for the sake of God and neighbor: “And above all these put on love, which binds everything together in perfect harmony” (Col. 3:14). Consequenter cum dicit obsecro autem, etc., instruit eos quomodo se habeant ad quosdam in speciali. Et primo quantum ad illos qui videntur habere aliquam praerogativam in spiritualibus; secundo quantum ad illos qui in corporalibus operibus, ibi gaudeo autem, et cetera. 1039. – Then when he says, I urge you brothers, he instructs them how they ought to conduct themselves with some in particular. And first, as to those who seem to have a privilege in spiritual things; secondly as to those who seem to have a privilege in corporal works. Dicit ergo obsecro autem vos, fratres: nostis, id est approbastis, domum Stephanae, et fortunati, et Achaici. Approbastis, inquam, propter duo, et quia sunt primitiae, id est primo conversi, quia ab ipso apostolo in primis baptizati, supra I, v. 16: baptizavi autem, etc., et quia magis devoti et prompti ad ministeria sanctorum, unde dicit et in ministerio sanctorum ordinaverunt seipsos. Rom. XII, 13: necessitatibus sanctorum, et cetera. Et ideo obsecro, ut et vos subditi, etc., Hebr. XIII, 17: obedite praepositis, et cetera. Et omni cooperanti, Phil. IV, v. 3: adiuva eos qui mecum laboraverunt. Sap. III, 15: bonorum laborum gloriosus, et cetera. 1040. – Therefore he says, I urge you brothers: you know, i.e., you approve, the household of Stephanus and Fortunatus and Achaicus. You approve them, I say, on account of two things: because they are the first, i.e., the first converted, because they were the first baptized by the Apostle himself: “I did baptize also the household of Stephanas” (1 Cor 1:16); and because all the more they were devoted and available for the service of the saints. Hence he says, and they have devoted themselves to the service of the saints: “Contribute to the needs of the saints” (Rom. 12:13). And so I urge you to be subject to such men: “Obey your leaders and submit to them” (Heb. 13:17). And to every fellow worker and laborer: “Help them, for they have labored side by side with me” (Phil. 4:3): “For the fruit of good labours is renowned” (Wis. 3:15). Hic instruit eos quantum ad illos, qui praeeminent in ministeriis et potest dupliciter exponi. Uno modo ut dicatur gaudeo autem in praesentia Stephanae, fortunati, et Achaici, qui sunt praesentes vobis, quorum praesentia est vobis proficua. Quoniam ipsi id quod vobis deerat, suppleverunt, docendo vos. Et in hoc quidem refecerunt spiritum meum, inquantum gaudeo de bono vestro, et spiritum vestrum, inquantum instructi estis. Phil. IV, 5: gavisus sum valde, quia inveni, et cetera. Et ideo, quia sic se habuerunt, ergo agnoscite, id est, honorate eos, et cetera. Alio modo, ut dicatur: gaudeo in praesentia Stephanae, fortunati, et Achaici, quia scilicet personaliter mecum sunt, et serviunt mihi, in quo supplent quod deerat vobis, id est, quod vos non poteratis mihi corporaliter exhibere. In quo quidem refecerunt spiritum meum, inquantum mihi servierunt, et paverunt me, et vestrum, inquantum de bono meo gaudetis, et ideo cognoscite, et cetera. 1041. – He instructs them here as to those who are pre-eminent in ministry, and it can be expounded in two ways. In one way, so that it would say, I rejoice at the coming of Stephanus and Fortunatus and Achaicus, who are present to you, whose presence is advantageous to you. Because they have made up for your absence, by teaching you. And in this too they refreshed my spirit, insofar as I rejoice at your good; and your spirit as well, inasmuch as you are instructed: “I rejoice in the Lord greatly” (Phil. 4:10). And so, because you have conducted yourselves in this way, therefore acknowledge, i.e., honor them. In another way, so that it would say, I rejoice at the coming of Stephanus and Fortunatus and Achaicus, because namely, they are with me personally, and they serve me, by which they supply what was lacking from you, i.e., what you were not able to convey to me bodily. By this they have renewed my spirit, insofar as they have served me, and reverenced me; and refreshed your spirit insofar as you rejoice at my good, and so you acknowledge them, etc. Salutant vos, et cetera. Hic apostolus insinuat quid alii faciant Corinthiis. Et circa hoc duo facit. Primo insinuat quomodo salutentur ab aliis; secundo subdit suam salutationem, ibi salutatio mea, et cetera. 1042. – All the brethren send you greetings. The Apostle mentions here what others do for the Corinthians. And concerning this he does two things. First, he mentions how they are greeted by others; secondly, he adds his greeting (v. 21). Circa primum tria facit. Primo insinuat quomodo salutat eos tota Ecclesia Asiae in communi. Unde dicit salutant vos omnes Ecclesiae Asiae. Rom. ult.: salutant vos omnes Ecclesiae Christi. Secundo quomodo salutant eos specialiter hospites Pauli. Unde dicit salutant vos in domino multum, aquila, et cetera. Isti erant hospites apostoli, et de his habetur Rom. XVI, v. 3 et Act. XVIII, 2 s. Tertio quomodo salutant eos apostoli et familiares sui. Unde dicit salutant vos omnes fratres, qui scilicet mecum sunt, Phil. ult.: salutant vos qui mecum sunt fratres. Ex quo ergo omnes salutant vos, et vos etiam salutate invicem in osculo sancto, non libidinoso, quo mulier apprehensum deosculatur iuvenem, Prov. VII, 13, non fraudulento, quo Iudas osculatus est Christum, Matth. c. XXVI, 49. 1043. – Concerning the first he does three things. First, he mentions how the whole church of Asia greets them together. Hence he says, the churches of Asia send greetings: “All the churches of Christ greet you” (Rom. 16:16). Secondly, how the friends of Paul greet them in particular. Hence he says, Aquila and Prisca, together with the church in their house, send you hearty greetings in the Lord. There were friends of the Apostle, and concerning these it says in Rom. (16:3): “Greet Prisca and Aquila, my fellow workers in Christ Jesus”; “And he found a Jew named Aquila, a native of Pontus, lately come from Italy with his wife Priscilla” (Ac. 18:2). Thirdly, how the Apostle and his intimate companions greet them. Hence he says, all the brethren send greetings, who, namely, are with me: “All the saints greet you” (Phil. 4:22). From this, therefore, all greet you, and furthermore, you greet one another with a holy kiss; not sensually, as a woman seizes and kisses a youth: “She seizes him and kisses him” (Prov. 7:13); not fraudulently, as Judas kissed Christ: “And he came up to Jesus at once and said, ‘Hail, Master!’ And he kissed him” (Matt. 26:49). Salutatio, et cetera. Hic suam salutationem subdit, et circa hoc duo facit. Primo ponit titulum salutationis, dicens salutatio mea, scilicet scripta est, manu mea Pauli. Et hoc faciebat in epistolis suis propter quosdam, qui sub specie apostoli scribebant falsas litteras. Unde ut non deciperentur, postquam scripta erat epistola per aliquem, in fine consequenter scribebat apostolus manu sua. 1044. – I, Paul greet you. He adds his greeting, and concerning this he does two things. First, he puts down a title of the greeting, saying, my greeting, namely is written, by my own hand, by Paul. And he did this in his letters on account of some who wrote false letters under the name of the Apostle. Hence, so that they would not be deceived, after the letter was written by someone, the Apostle writes afterwards at the end in his own hand. Secundo ponit ipsam salutationem, in qua, primo, male dicit malis, dicens si quis non amat, etc., anathema sit, id est separatus vel excommunicatus; maranatha, id est dominus veniet; quasi dicat: qui non amat dominum nostrum Iesum Christum, sit anathema in adventu domini. Sed numquid sunt excommunicandi omnes qui non sunt in charitate? Respondeo. Dicendum, quod hoc intelligitur, si quis non amat dominum Iesum Christum, id est fidem Christi, et isti sunt haeretici et sunt excommunicati. Vel si quis usque ad finem mortis non perseverat in amore domini Iesu Christi, in adventu erit separatus a bonis. 1045. – Secondly, he set down the greeting itself, in which first, he speaks evil to evil ones, saying, if anyone has no love for the Lord, let him be accursed, i.e., separated or excommunicated; maranatha, i.e., may the Lord come! As if to say: whoever does not love the Lord Jesus Christ is cursed at the coming of the Lord. But should all be excommunicated who are not in charity? I respond: it should be said that this is understood if someone does not love the Lord Jesus Christ, i.e., does not have faith in Christ, and these are heretics and are excommunicated. Or: if someone does not persevere to the point of death in the love of the Lord Jesus Christ, at his coming he will be separated from good things. Secundo, benedicit bonis, bene optans eis, scilicet gratiam Christi, cum dicit gratia domini nostri Iesu Christi. Et hoc optans, optat eis omne bonum, quia in gratia domini nostri Iesu Christi continetur omne bonum. Optat etiam eis charitatem suam, dicens charitas mea, etc., ut vos invicem et Deum diligatis ea charitate qua ego vos diligo, et non propter aliquod aliud nisi in Christo Iesu, id est propter amorem Christi. Amen, id est fiat. 1046. – Finally, he blesses the good ones, wishing them well, namely, the grace of Christ, when he says: the grace of the Lord Jesus be with you. And wishing this, he wishes them every good, because in the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ is contained every good. Furthermore, he wishes them his love, saying, my love be with you all in Christ Jesus, so that you might love one another and God, with the love by which I love you, and not on account of something other save in Christ Jesus, i.e., on account of the love of Christ. Amen, it is done.