15
Lectio 1 LECTURE I Dominus in hoc sermone specialiter intendebat animos discipulorum confortare contra duo: scilicet contra unum quod imminebat in praesenti, quod erat passio eius; et aliud quod timebatur futurum, scilicet tribulatio eis superventura. Unde contra ista duo dixerat eis non turbetur cor vestrum, quantum ad primum, neque formidet, quantum ad secundum. 1978 In this talk our Lord especially wants to comfort his disciples about two things: one was near, in the present, and this was his passion; the other was what they feared in the future, and this was the troubles which would come upon them. He had said to them about these two things: Let not your hearts be troubled, referring to the first, and neither let them be afraid (14:27), referring to the second. Postquam ergo confortavit eos de recessu suo, hic confortat eos contra tribulationes eis superventuras, et primo proponit eis quamdam similitudinem; secundo ex illa procedit ad propositum, ibi iam vos mundi estis. Similitudo autem est de vite et agricola. Unde primo proponit vitem; secundo introducit agricolam; tertio studium agricolae circa palmites commendat. So now, after comforting them over his leaving (14:1), he strengthens them for the troubles which will come upon them. First, he presents a certain picture; secondly, he moves from this to his intention (15:3). The picture he presents is of a vine and a vinedresser. First, he mentions the vine; secondly, the vinedresser; and thirdly, he approves of the vinedresser's concern for the branches of the vine. Sed vitis est ipse; unde dicit per quamdam similitudinem, ego sum vitis, quia sicut vitis, licet despecta videatur, omnia tamen ligna excedit in dulcedine fructus, ita Christus etsi mundo despectus videretur, quia pauper erat et ignobilis videbatur et ignominiam sustinens, tamen dulcissimos fructus protulit; secundum illud Cant. II, 3: fructus eius dulcis gutturi meo. Et ideo Christus est vitis afferens vinum interius inebrians, quod est vinum compunctionis; Ps. LIX, 5: potasti nos vino compunctionis. Iterum vinum confortans, scilicet nostrae refectionis; supra VI, 56: sanguis meus vere est potus. Sic enim supra comparavit se grano frumenti, quia caro eius vere est cibus. 1979 He himself is the vine. So he says, making a comparison, I am the vine; for just like a vine, although it seems to be of small account, nevertheless surpasses all trees in the sweetness of its fruit, so Christ, although he seemed to be despised by the world because he was poor, and seemed of small account and was publicly disgraced, nevertheless produced the sweetest fruit: "His fruit was sweet to my taste" (Song 2:3). And so Christ is a vine producing a wine which interiorly intoxicates us: a wine of sorrow for sin: "You have given us to drink the wine of sorrow" [Ps 60:3]; and a wine which strengthens us, that is, which restores us: "My blood is drink indeed" (6:55). In the same way he compared himself, above, to wheat, for his flesh is truly food. Haec est vitis illa de qua dicitur Gen. XL, v. 9: videbam coram me vitem habentem propagines tres, idest Christum, in quo sunt tres substantiae, scilicet corpus et anima et divinitas. Haec est etiam vitis de qua Iacob dicit Gen. penult., 11: ligabis ad vitem, fili mi, asinam tuam, idest Ecclesiam. This is the vine mentioned in Genesis (40:9‑10): "There was a vine before me, and on the vine there were three branches," that is Christ, in whom there are three substances: his body, soul and divinity. This is also the vine about which Jacob says: "My son, tie your she‑ass," that is, the Church, "to the vine" [Gen 49:11]. Sed haec vitis est vera. Ubi sciendum, quod verum aliquando dividitur contra similitudinarium, sicut homo verus ab homine picto; aliquando a corrupto, sicut acetum a vino, quia est vinum corruptum. Hoc ergo quod dicitur ego sum vitis vera, accipitur secundo modo, ut discernat se a vite corrupta, scilicet a populo Iudaeorum, de quo dicitur Ier. II, 21: quomodo conversa es in amaritudinem vitis aliena? Et hoc ideo, quia non faciebat uvas sed labruscas; Is. V, 4: expectavi ut faceret uvas, et fecit labruscas. 1980 This vine is true. Sometimes what is true is distinguished from its likeness, as a man is distinguished from his picture. And sometimes what is true is distinguished from what is deformed or spoiled, as true wine is distinguished from vinegar, which is spoiled wine. When Christ says here, I am the true vine, he is using true in the second sense to distinguish himself from the deformed or spoiled vine, which is the Jewish people. We read about them: "How then have you turned degenerate and become a wild vine" (Jer 2:21). This was because this vine brought forth wild grapes instead of grapes: "When I looked for it to yield grapes, why did it yield wild grapes?" (Is 5:4). Sed notandum, quod in Christo est duplex natura, divina scilicet et humana: et secundum humanam convenit nobiscum, et minor est patre; secundum divinam convenit cum Deo, et est supra nos. Est ergo vitis vera secundum hoc quod est caput Ecclesiae, homo Christus Iesus. Et hoc insinuat introducens agricolam, qui est pater, unde dicit et pater meus agricola est. Si enim est vitis secundum divinam naturam, pater vitis esset sicut et filius: quia ergo secundum humanam naturam vitis est, ideo pater se habet ad ipsum sicut agricola ad vitem. Ipse etiam secundum quod Deus agricola est. 1981 There are two natures in Christ, the divine and the human. Because of his human nature he is like us and is less than the Father. Because of his divine nature he is like God and above us. Thus he is the true vine insofar as he is the head of the Church, the man Christ Jesus. He implies this when he mentions the vinedresser, who is the Father. He says, and my Father is the vinedresser. If Christ is the vine because of his divine nature, the Father would also be the vine like the Son. But because Christ is the vine by reason of his human nature, the Father is related to him as vinedresser to vine. Indeed, even Christ himself, as God, is a vinedresser. Dicitur autem agricola a cultura: unde et vinitor inquantum colit agricola est. Sed cum colere sit studium impendere, dupliciter aliquid colimus. Vel ut id quod colimus melioretur: et hoc modo colimus agrum, vel aliquid tale. Alio modo ut nos melioremur per ipsum; et hoc modo homo colit sapientiam. Deus ergo colit nos, ut nos ex eius opere melioremur, inquantum extirpat mala semina de cordibus nostris. Aperit cor nostrum aratro sermonis; plantat semina praeceptorum; colligit fructum pietatis, ut dicit Augustinus. 1982 [The vinedresser cultivates the vine.] Now to cultivate something is to devote one's interest to it. And we can cultivate something in two ways: either to make what is cultivated better, as we cultivate a field or something of that sort, or to make ourselves better by the cultivating, and in this way we cultivate wisdom. God cultivates us to make us better by his work, since he roots out the evil seeds in our hearts. As Augustine says, he opens our hearts with the plow of his words, plants the seeds of the commandments, and harvests the fruit of devotion.[2] Nos autem colimus eum ut nos per ipsum melioremur, sed hoc adorando, non arando; supra IX, 31: si quis Dei cultor est (...) hunc exaudit. Est ergo pater agricola huius vitis ad bonum alterius. Ipse enim plantat; Ier. II, 21: ego te plantavi vineam electam, omne semen verum. Ipse augmentat; I Cor. III, 6: ego plantavi, Apollo rigavit, Deus autem incrementum dedit, quia solus Deus interius augmentat et fructificare facit: quantumcumque homo cooperetur exterius, ipse custodit et conservat; Matth. XXI, 33 et Is. V, 2 dicitur, quod aedificavit in vinea turrim et sepem circumdedit. But we cultivate God, not by plowing but by adoring, in order that we may be made better by him: "If any one is a worshiper," that is, a cultivator, "of God and does his will, God listens to him" (9:31). And so the Father is the vinedresser of this vine for the good of others. For he plants: "I planted you a choice vine, wholly of pure seed" (Jer 2:21), and makes its grow: I planted, Apollos can make one grow from within and produce fruit, no matter how much others cooperate on the exterior. And God guards and preserves, for we read that he built a watchtower in the vineyard, and put a hedge around it (Mt 21:33; Is 5:2). Studium autem agricolae est circa duo: circa vitem et circa palmites. Sed vitis de qua hic agitur, perfecta erat, non indigens agricolae studio; unde totum studium agricolae erat circa palmites impendendum, et ideo dicit omnem palmitem in me non ferentem fructum, tollet eum. Palmites autem sunt de natura vitis: unde adhaerentes Christo sunt palmites huius vitis; Ez. XVII, 6: facta est vitis in palmites. Circa hoc ergo duo facit. Primo ponit studium huius agricolae circa palmites malos; secundo circa palmites bonos. 1983 The vinedresser is concerned about two things: the vine and its branches. Now the vine considered here was perfect, and did not need care by the vinedresser. And so the entire care of the vinedresser will be directed to the branches. He says, every branch of mine and so forth. The branches of a vine, however, have the nature of the vine; and so those united to Christ are branches of this vine: "The vine brought forth branches" [Ez 17:6]. He mentions two things about the branches: first, the attitude of the vinedresser to the bad branches; his interest in the good branches. Studium autem eius circa malos est ut scindantur a vite; unde dicit omnem palmitem, idest omnem fidelem, non ferentem fructum, scilicet in vite, in me, sine quo nihil fructificare potest, tollet eum, scilicet a vite. Ex quo apparet quod non solum a Christo rescinduntur aliqui quia mala faciunt, sed etiam quia bona facere negligunt; II Cor. VI, 1: hortamur vos ne in vacuum gratiam Dei recipiatis. Unde de se dicebat apostolus, I Cor. XV, 10: gratia Dei sum id quod sum, et gratia eius in me vacua non fuit. Et Matth. XXV, 28 dicitur, quod ablatum est talentum ei qui ex eo non fructificavit, sed abscondit illud; Lc. XIII, 7, dominus ficum sterilem praecepit abscindi. 1984 The vinedresser's interest in the bad branches is to cut them off the vine. Thus he says, every branch, that is, every believer, of mine that bears no fruit, that is, bears no fruit on the vine, which is me, without whom nothing can bear fruit, he takes away from the vine. It is clear from this that not only are some cut off from Christ for doing evil, but also because they neglect to do good: "We entreat you not to accept the grace of God in vain" (2 Cor 6:1). Thus the Apostle said about himself: "By the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain" (1 Cor 15:10). We read in Matthew (25:28) that the money was taken away from the servant who did not bear fruit with it, but hid it instead; and our Lord ordered the unfruitful fig tree to be cut down (Lk 13:7). Studium autem eius circa bonos palmites est ut foveantur ad magis fructificandum; unde dicit et omnem qui fert fructum, purgabit eum, ut fructum plus afferat. Ad litteram enim in vite naturali contingit quod palmes multos surculos habens, minus fructificat propter humoris diffusionem ad omnes, et ideo cultores, ut magis fructificet, purgant eum a superfluis surculis. Ita est in homine. Nam homo bene dispositus et Deo coniunctus, si suum affectum ad diversa inclinet, virtus eius minoratur, et magis inefficax fit ad bene operandum. Et inde est quod Deus, ut bene fructificet, frequenter praescindit huiusmodi impedimenta et purgat, immittens tribulationes et tentationes, quibus fortior fiat ad operandum. Et ideo dicit purgabit eum, etiamsi purus existat: quia nullus est adeo purus in hac vita ut non sit magis magisque purgandus; I Io. I, 8: si dixerimus quia peccatum non habemus, ipsi nos seducimus et veritas in nobis non est. Et hoc ut plus fructum afferat, idest crescat in virtute, ut tanto sint fructuosiores quanto sunt mundiores; Apoc. ult., 11: qui iustus est, iustificetur adhuc, et sanctus sanctificetur adhuc; Coloss. I, 6: verbum Evangelii fructificat et crescit; Ps. LXXXIII, 8: ibunt de virtute in virtutem. 1985 His interest in the good branches is to help them so they can bear more fruit. So he says, and every branch that does bear fruit he prunes, that it may bear more fruit. Considering the literal sense, we see that a natural vine with branches that have many shoots bears less fruit, because the sap is spread out through all the shoots. Thus the vinedresser prunes away the extra shoots so that the vine can bear more fruit. It is the same with us. For if we are well‑disposed and united to God, yet scatter our love over many things, our virtue becomes weak and we become less able to do good. This is why God, in order that we may bear fruit, will frequently remove such obstacles and prune us by sending troubles and temptations, which make us stronger. Accordingly, he says, he prunes, even though one may be clean, for in this life no one is so clean that he does not need to be cleansed more and more: "If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us" (1 Jn 1:8). And he does this so that it may bear more fruit, that is, grow in virtue, so that the more pruned or cleansed the more fruitful one is: "Let the just still be justified, and the holy still be sanctified" [Rev 22:11]; "The Gospel is bearing fruit and growing" (Col 1:6); "They go from strength to strength" (Ps 84:7). Hic ex similitudine prosequitur intentum. Duo autem in praedicta similitudine tangebantur in comparatione palmitum ad vitem. Unum est palmitum ad vitem inhaesio; secundum est palmitum purgatio. Primo ergo agit de inhaesione; secundo de purgatione, ibi si mundus vos odit, scitote quia me priorem vobis odio habuit. Circa primum primo monet discipulos ut viti inhaereant; secundo rationes inhaesionis adducit, ibi sicut palmes non potest ferre fructum a semetipso etc.; tertio modum inhaesionis assignat, ibi sicut dilexit me pater, et ego dilexi vos. Circa primum duo facit. Primo commemorat eis susceptum beneficium; secundo monet ut in eo permaneant, ibi manete in me, et ego in vobis. 1986 Now he passes from this picture to his main intention. Two things were noticed in the above picture when comparing the branches to the vine: the union of the branches to the vine, and the pruning of the branches. First, he considers the union of the branches with the vine; secondly, their pruning (v 18). As to the first, he advises the disciples to cling to the vine; secondly, he gives the reason for this (v 4b); thirdly, he describes this union (v 9). He does two things concerning the first: he reminds them of a benefit already received; secondly, he tells them to abide in him (4a). Beneficia susceperunt mundationis, unde dicit iam vos mundi estis; quasi dicat: talia dixi de palmitibus; sed vos estis palmites praeparati purgari ad fructum ferendum, et hoc propter sermonem quem locutus sum vobis. 1987 The benefit they had already received was that of being cleansed. He says, you are already made clean. It is like saying: I have said certain things about branches; and you are branches ready to be pruned so as to bear fruit. And you are clean by the word which I have spoken to you. Verbum enim Christi mundat primo quidem ab erroribus, instruendo; ad Tit. I, 9: amplectentem eum, qui secundum doctrinam est, fidelem sermonem, ut potens sit exhortari in doctrina sana, et eos qui contradicunt arguere. Et hoc ideo quia in verbis Dei nulla falsitas invenitur; Prov. VIII, 9: recti sunt sermones mei. Dicit ergo mundi estis, ab erroribus Iudaicis. Secundo mundat corda a terrenis affectibus, ad caelestia inflammando. Verbum enim Dei cor hominis ad terrena depressum concutit sua virtute, ex quo inflammatur; Ier. XXIII, 29: numquid non verba mea sunt quasi ignis? Tertio mundat sermo Dei a peccatis, invocatus in Baptismo. Nam homines in Baptismo purgantur, quia in aqua verbum mundat; quia, ut dicit Augustinus: detrahe verbum, quid est aqua, nisi aqua? Accedit verbum ad elementum, et fit sacramentum. Verbum ergo facit ut aqua corpus tangat, et cor abluat. Verbum, inquam, non quia dicitur, sed quia creditur. Hoc enim verbum fidei tantum valet in Ecclesia ut etiam ipsos parvos infantes mundet, quamvis credere non valentes ex fide credentium, offerentium, benedicentium, et tangentium prolatum; Matth. ultimo, 19: baptizantes eos in nomine patris, et filii, et spiritus sancti. Quarto mundat per virtutem fidei; Act. XV, 9: fide purificans corda eorum. The word of Christ, in the first place, cleanses us from error by teaching us: "He must hold firm to the sure word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine" (Tit 1:9). This is because there is no falsity in the words of God: "All my words are right" [Prv 8:8]. He says, you are already made clean from the errors of the Jews. Secondly, the word of Christ cleanses our hearts from earthly affections by inflaming them toward heavenly things. For the word of God by its power moves our hearts, weighed down by earthly things, and sets them on fire: "Is not my word fire?" (Jer 23:29). Thirdly when God is invoked in baptism, his word cleanses us from sin. For we are cleansed in baptism because the word cleanses with the water. As Augustine says: "Take away the word and what is the water but only water? The word accompanies the element and a sacrament is formed."[3] Thus it is the word which makes the water touch the body and wash the heart. The word, I say, not because it is spoken, but because it is believed. For this word of faith is so strong in the Church that it even cleanses infants, although they themselves cannot believe, when it is proclaimed from the faith of those who believe, offer, bless and touch the infants, "baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (Mt 28:19). Fourthly, the word of Christ cleanses by the power of faith: God "cleansed their hearts by faith" (Acts 15:9).[4] Dicit ergo eis vos, iam instructi, iam commoti, iam baptizati, iam in fide firmati, mundi estis propter sermonem quem locutus sum vobis. Supra eodem: vos mundi estis, sed non omnes. Sed cum supra dixerit officium agricolae esse purgare, manifeste ostendit se esse agricolam, dicens sermonem suum purgativum. Et vere ipse, inquantum Deus, mundator est palmitum, et agricola. Thus he says to them, you already instructed, moved, baptized, strengthened in faith, are already made clean by the word which I have spoken to you. "You are clean, but not all" (13:10). Since he had said above that the work of a vinedresser was to prune, he clearly shows that he is a vinedresser when he says that his word cleanses. And indeed, Christ, as God, is a vinedresser and prunes the branches. Hic inducit eos ad perseverantiam; quasi diceret: quia mundi estis, et tantum beneficium recepistis, debetis in eo perseverare. Unde dicit manete in me, per caritatem, I Io. IV, 16: qui manet in caritate, in Deo manet, et per sacramentorum participationem, supra VI, 57: qui manducat carnem meam, et bibit sanguinem meum, in me manet. Dicit ergo manete in me, gratiam suscipiendo, et ego in vobis, vos adiuvando. 1988 Here he urges them to persevere. He is saying in effect: Because you are now cleansed and have received such a great benefit, you should remain this way. He says, Abide in me, by charity: "He who abides in love abides in God" (1 Jn 4:16); and by means of the sacraments: "He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me" (6:56). He says, Abide in me, by receiving grace, and I in you, by helping you. Consequenter cum dicit sicut palmes non potest ferre fructum a semetipso nisi manserit in vite, sic nec vos nisi in me manseritis, inducit rationes inhaesionis, quae sunt quatuor. Prima sumitur ex haerentium sanctificatione; secunda ex non haerentium punitione, ibi si quis in me non manserit mittetur foras; tertia ex voluntatis inhaerentium assecutione, ibi si manseritis in me (...) quodcumque volueritis petetis, et fiet vobis; quarta ex Dei glorificatione, ibi in hoc clarificatus est pater et cetera. Circa primum duo facit. Primo ostendit quod inhaesio ad Christum est necessaria ad fructificandum; secundo quod est efficax, ibi qui manet in me et ego in eo, hic fert fructum multum. 1989 Next (v 4b), he gives four reasons for being united to Christ. First, it sanctifies those who are united to him; secondly, those not united are punished (v 6); thirdly, those who are united to him have their desires satisfied (v 7); fourthly, it glorifies God (v 8). In regard to the first, he shows that being united to Christ is necessary in order to bear fruit; secondly that this is efficacious (v 5). Circa primum duo facit. Primo proponit similitudinem; secundo ostendit eam esse convenientem. Dicit ergo quantum ad primum: dico, quod debetis in me manere ad hoc quod fructificetis, quia sicut palmes, ad litteram, palmes materialis, non potest ferre fructum a semetipso, nisi manserit in vite, ex cuius radice humor ad vegetationem palmitum ascendit, ita et vos, supple: non potestis ferre fructum, nisi in me manseritis. Mansio ergo in Christo est ratio fructificationis. Unde de his qui in Christo non manent, dicitur Rom. c. VI, 21: quem ergo fructum habuistis in his in quibus nunc erubescitis? Iob XV, 34: congregatio hypocritarum sterilis. 1990 He does two things about the first: first, he presents an illustration; and secondly shows that it is apt. As to the first he says, I say that you should abide in me so that you can bear fruit, because just as the branch literally, a material branch, cannot bear fruit by itself, unless it abides in the vine, from whose roots sap ascends to give life to the branches, so neither can you bear fruit unless you abide in me. Thus, being united to Christ is the reason why someone bears fruit. And so of those who are not united to Christ we read: "What return [fruit] did you get from the things of which you are now ashamed?" (Rom 6:21); "The company of the godless is barren" (Job 15:34). Haec autem similitudo conveniens est: quia ego sum vitis, et vos palmites, quasi diceret: talis est comparatio vestrum ad me, qualis palmitum ad vitem. De istis palmitibus dicitur in Ps. LXXIX, 12: extendit palmites suos usque ad mare. His example is apt because I am the vine, you are the branches. It is like saying: The relation between you and me is like that of branches to the vine. We read of these branches: "It sent out its branches to the sea" [Ps 80:11]. Hic ostendit quod mansio in Christo sit efficax, et primo ostendit eius efficaciam; secundo subdit efficaciae causam. 1991 Here he shows that being united to Christ is efficacious: first, he shows that it is efficacious; secondly, the reason for this efficacy (v 5b). Dicit ergo primo: dico, quod non solum necessaria est hominis mansio in me ut fructificet, sed etiam est efficax; quia qui manet in me, credendo, obediendo, perseverando, et ego in eo, illuminando, subveniendo, perseverantiam dando, hic, et non alius, fert fructum multum. 1992 First he says: I say that it is not only necessary for a person to abide in me in order to bear fruit, it is also efficacious, because he who abides in me, by believing, obeying and persevering, and I in him, by giving enlightenment, help and perseverance, he it is and not another, that bears much fruit. Fert, inquam, triplicem fructum in vita ista. Primus est abstinere a peccatis; Is. XXVII, v. 4: hic est omnis fructus, ut tollatur peccatum. Secundus est vacare operibus sanctitatis; Rom. VI, 22: habetis fructum vestrum in sanctificatione et cetera. Tertius fructus est vacare aedificationi aliorum; Ps. CIII, 13: de fructu operum tuorum satiabitur terra. Fert etiam quartum fructum in vita aeterna; supra IV, 36: fructum congregat in vitam aeternam. Hic est ultimus et perfectus fructus laborum nostrorum; Sap. III, 15: bonorum laborum gloriosus est fructus. Such persons bear a threefold fruit in this life. The first is that they avoid sin. Secondly, they are eager to accomplish works of holiness: "the return you get is sanctification" (Rom 6:22). Thirdly, they are eager for the progress of others: "The earth will be filled with the fruit of your works" [Ps 104:13]. They also produce a fourth fruit, but in eternal life: "He gathers fruit for eternal life" (4:36). Eternal life is the last and perfect fruit of our labors: "The fruit of good works is glorious" [Wis 3:15]. Ratio autem huius efficaciae est, quia sine me nihil potestis facere. In quo et corda instruit humilium, et ora obstruit superborum, et praecipue Pelagianorum, qui dicunt bona opera virtutum et legis sine Dei adiutorio ex seipsis facere posse: in quo dum liberum arbitrium asserere volunt, eum magis praecipitant. 1993 The reason for this efficacy is because apart from me you can do nothing. With these words he instructs the hearts of the humble and silences the mouths of the proud, especially of the Pelagians, who say that they can do by themselves, without the help of God, the good works of the virtues and of the law. And although they were trying to maintain our free will, they really undermined it. Ecce enim dominus hic dicit, quod sine ipso non solum magna, sed nec minima, immo nihil facere possumus. Nec mirum quia nec Deus sine ipso aliquid facit; supra, I, 3: sine ipso factum est nihil. Opera enim nostra aut sunt virtute naturae, aut ex gratia divina. Si virtute naturae, cum omnes motus naturae sint ab ipso verbo Dei, nulla natura ad aliquid faciendum moveri potest sine ipso. Si vero virtute gratiae: cum ipse sit auctor gratiae, quia gratia et veritas per Iesum Christum facta est, ut dicitur supra I, v. 17: manifestum est quod nullum opus meritorium sine ipso fieri potest; II Cor. III, v. 5: non quod sufficientes simus aliquid cogitare ex nobis quasi ex nobis; sed sufficientia nostra ex Deo est. Si ergo nec etiam cogitare possumus nisi ex Deo, multo minus nec alia. Look at what our Lord says here! He says that without him we cannot do anything great, nor anything small, indeed, we cannot do anything at all. This is not surprising because neither does God do anything without him: "Without him was not anything made that was made" (1:3). For our works are either from the power of nature or from divine grace. If they are from the power of nature, then, since every action of nature is from the Word of God, no nature can act to do anything without him. If our works are from the power of grace, then, since he is the author of grace ‑ "grace and truth came through Jesus Christ" (1:17) ‑ it is obvious that no meritorious work can be done without him: "Not that we are capable of thinking anything of ourselves as originating from ourselves; our capability is from God" [2 Cor 3:5]. Therefore, if we cannot even think without it coming from God, much less can we do anything else.[5] Hic ponitur secunda ratio inhaesionis, quae sumitur ex comminatione poenae; quia nisi manserimus in ipso, non evademus poenam. Et ponit quinque quae poenam illam exaggerant: quorum quaedam pertinet ad poenam damni, scilicet expulsio a gloria; unde dicit mittetur foras. Sed aliquando videmus, quod in vite materiali aliquis palmes manet per exteriorem coniunctionem, non autem per humoris participationem: sic et aliqui manent in Christo solum per fidem, non tamen participant humorem vitis, quia non sunt in caritate. Unde tales mittentur foras, idest, separabuntur a societate bonorum; Ezech. c. XXXIV: stabo, et separabo et cetera. 1994 Here he mentions the second reason for remaining united to Christ, which is the threat of punishment, for unless we abide in him, we will not escape punishment. He mentions five things which describe this punishment. Some of these belong to the punishment of loss, that is to say, the exclusion from glory; so he says, he is cast forth. Sometimes on a natural vine we see a branch which remains by some sort of an external connection without sharing any of the sap. In this way also some remain connected to Christ only by faith, yet they do not share the sap of the vine because they do not have charity. Thus, such persons will be cast out, that is, separated from fellowship with the good.[6] Secunda poena damni est arefactio; unde dicit et arescet. Unde si quid habebat a radice, amittet denudatus eius auxilio et vita. Nam mali Christiani viriditatem aliquam habere videntur; sed quando a sanctis et a Christo separabuntur, eorum ariditas apparebit; Ps. XXI, 16: aruit tamquam testa virtus mea. The second punishment of loss is a withering; he says, and withers, for if such a person once took anything at all from the root, he will lose it when deprived of its help and life. Even bad Christians seem to have some kind of a freshness, but when they are separated from the saints and from Christ their dried up condition will be apparent: "My strength is dried up like a potsherd" (Ps 22:16). Tertia poena est eorum cum malis associatio; unde dicit et colligent eum, scilicet Angeli messores, ad malos; quae quidem poena maxima est. Si enim ad horam esse cum malis, magna poena est, quanto magis esse perpetuo cum pessimis hominibus et Daemonibus? Is. XXIV, 22: congregabuntur congregatione unius fascis in lacum; Matth. c. XIII, 30: colligite primum zizania, et alligate ea in fasciculos ad comburendum. The third punishment is association with those who are evil; he says, and he is gathered, by the reaping angels, to be with the wicked. This is a very great punishment. For if it is a great punishment to be with the wicked for only a little while, how much greater it is to be with the most evil men and devils forever: "They will be gathered together as prisoners in a pit" (Is 24:22); "Gather the weeds first and bind them into bundles to be burned" (Mt 13:30). Quarta poena est sensus: unde dicit et in ignem mittent, scilicet aeternum; Ez. XV, 2: quid fiet de ligno vitis? (...). Ecce igni datum est in escam. Ligna enim si in vite non permaneant, contemptibiliora sunt ceteris lignis; si vero maneant in vite, gloriosiora sunt. Unde dicit Augustinus: unum ex duobus palmiti congruit, aut vitis aut ignis: si in vite non est, erit in igne. Matth. XXV, 41: ite, maledicti, in ignem aeternum. Quinta poena est perpetuum ignis experimentum; unde subdit et ardet, in perpetuum; Matth. XXV, 46: ibunt hi in supplicium aeternum. The fourth punishment is that of sense; he says, thrown into the fire, which is eternal: "What will be done with the wood of the vine?... Look, it is given to the fire for fuel" [Ez 15:2]. If the wood of the vine does not remain united to it, it is more worthless than other woods; but if it abides on the vine it is more beautiful than the others. Thus Augustine says: "A branch is fit for two things: either the vine or the fire. If it is not on the vine, it will be in the fire."[7] "Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire" (Mt 25:41). The fifth punishment is the unending experience of fire, he says, and burned, without end: "And they will go away into eternal punishment" (Mt 25:46). Hic ponitur tertia inhaesionis causa, quae sumitur ex efficacia impetrationis, quasi diceret si manseritis in me, hunc fructum consequemini, scilicet quodcumque volueritis, petetis, et fiet vobis. 1995 Now we have the third reason for abiding in Christ: our prayers become effective. He is saying, in effect, If you abide in me, you will obtain this fruit, that is, ask whatever you will, and it shall be done for you. Sed notandum, quod supra in admonitione inhaesionis duo posuit, quae hic resumit. Primum, scilicet in me manete, quod hic resumit dicens si manseritis in me. Secundum, et ego in vobis; et loco huius dicit et verba mea in vobis manserint. Quia Christus est verbum patris, omnia verba sapientiae sunt ab ipso; Eccli. I, 5: fons sapientiae verbum Dei in excelsis. Manifestum est ergo quod Christus est in nobis, quando verba sapientiae eius sunt in nobis; supra V, 38: verbum Dei non habetis in vobis manens. Note that when before he urged them to remain united to him, he mentioned two things; and he repeats them here. First, he said before, Abide in me, and he repeats it here by saying, If you abide in me. Secondly, he said before, and I in you, in place of which he now says, and my words abide in you. Because Christ is the Word of the Father, all words of wisdom are from him: "The source of wisdom is God's Word in the highest heaven" (Sir 1:5). Thus it is clear that Christ is in us when the words of his wisdom are in us: "You do not have his word abiding in you" (5:38). Ideo dicit et verba mea in vobis manserint, scilicet quadrupliciter, amando, credendo, meditando et implendo; Prov. IV, 20: fili, ausculta sermones meos, scilicet credendo, et ad eloquia mea inclina aurem tuam, scilicet obediendo, seu implendo, ne recedant ab oculis tuis, meditando, et custodi ea in medio cordis tui, amando; Ier. XV, 16: inventi sunt sermones tui, et comedi eos. Thus he says, and my words abide in you, in four ways: by your loving them, believing them, meditating on them and accomplishing them: "My son, be attentive to my words," by believing them; "incline your ear to my sayings," by obeying or accomplishing them; "let them not escape from your sight," because you meditate on them; but "keep them within your heart," by loving them (Prv 4:20). "Your words were found and I ate them" (Jer 15:16). Tunc ergo in nobis sunt verba Christi quando facimus quae praecepit, et diligimus quod promisit. Et ex hoc sequitur quod informamur quid petere debeamus; Rom. VIII, 26: quid oremus sicut oportet, nescimus, sed ipse spiritus postulat pro nobis gemitibus inenarrabilibus. Unde et verbis suis nos orare docuit, Matth. VI, 9 et Lc. XI, 2. Sic ergo verba Dei credita et meditata informant nos ad petendum quae sunt nobis necessaria ad salutem. Sed verba Dei amata et impleta iuvant nos ad merendum; et ideo subdit quodcumque volueritis, petetis, discrete, perseveranter, et fiet vobis; infra XVI, v. 23: si quid petieritis patrem in nomine meo, dabit vobis. Therefore, the words of Christ are in us when we do as he commands and love what he promises. And from this it follows that they teach us what we ought to pray for: "We do not know how to pray as we ought, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with sighs too deep for words" (Rom 8:26). For this reason Christ taught us to pray with his own words (Mt 6:9; Lk 11:2). And so the words of God, when believed and meditated upon, teach us to ask for the things necessary for our salvation; and these words of God when loved and accomplished help us to merit it. So he adds, ask, with sound judgment and perseverance, whatever you will, and it shall be done for you: "If you ask anything of the Father in my name he will give it to you" [16:23]. Hic ponitur quarta ratio inhaesionis, quae sumitur ex gloria patris. Omnia opera nostra ad Dei gloriam referre debemus; Ps. CXIII, 1: non nobis, domine, non nobis, sed nomini tuo da gloriam; I Cor. X, v. 31: si manducatis aut bibitis, sive aliquid facitis; omnia in gloriam Dei facite. Ostendit ergo dominus quod sumus in Christo, quia ex hoc fructificamus, et ex fructificatione nostra pater glorificatur; unde dicit in hoc glorificatus est pater meus, idest ad gloriam patris redundat, ut plurimum fructum afferatis. 1996 Now the fourth reason for abiding in Christ is mentioned, and it is the glory of the Father. All our works should be directed to the glory of God: "Not to us, O Lord, not to us, but to your name give glory" (Ps 115:1); "So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God" [1 Cor 10:31]. And so our Lord shows that we are in Christ, because this is why we bear fruit, and because we bear fruit the Father is glorified. He says, By this my Father is glorified, that is, it reflects glory on my Father, that you bear much fruit. Ponit hic tria, ordine praepostero, quae se invicem consequuntur. Unum pertinet ad inhaesionem, scilicet efficiamini mei discipuli, quod idem est quod manete in me. Et ex hoc sequitur secundum, scilicet ut fructum plurimum afferatis. Et ex hoc glorificatur pater meus: quasi diceret: ad gloriam patris est quod fructum plurimum afferatis, et fructum plurimum affertis ex hoc quod estis mei discipuli. Primo quidem bene vivendo; Matth. V, 16: videant opera vestra bona, et glorificent patrem vestrum; et bene docendo, ex quo similiter Deus glorificatur, Is. XXIV, 15: in doctrinis glorificate Deum, et XLIII, 7: omnem qui invocat nomen meum, in laudem et gloriam meam, creavi eum. Ergo apostoli sunt terra illa quae fructum multum attulit, ut dicitur infra, 8: et efficiamini mei discipuli, per inhaesionem et caritatis fervorem. Here he mentions, in reverse order, three things which follow one from the other. One refers to abiding in Christ, you become my disciples, and this is the same as "Abide in me" (v 4). The second follows from this, you bear much fruit. And from this my Father is glorified. He is saying in effect: It gives glory to the Father that you bear much fruit, and you bear much fruit because you are my disciples. You do this, first of all, by living well: "That they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven" (Mt 5:16); and by teaching well, which also glorifies God: "Glorify the Lord by teaching" [Is 24:15]; "Every one who calls upon my name I have created him for my praise and glory" (Is 43:7). And so the apostles are the soil which bears much fruit because they have become the disciples of Christ by abiding in him and by the fire of their charity. Haec enim sunt signa discipulatus Christi, scilicet inhaesio ad Christum; supra VIII, 31: si manseritis in sermone meo, vere discipuli mei eritis. Et ex hoc efficiuntur idonei ut ferant fructum doctrinae. Secundo caritatis observatio; supra XIII, 35: in hoc cognoscent omnes quia mei discipuli estis, si dilectionem habueritis ad invicem et cetera. Et ex hoc efficiuntur idonei ut afferant fructum bonorum operum; I Cor. XIII, 2: si habuero prophetiam, et noverim mysteria omnia, et omnem scientiam etc. quia ibi ponuntur sine caritate nihil valere. For these are the signs of a disciple of Christ: first that one abides in him, is united to him: "If you continue in my word, you are truly my disciples" (8:31). And by doing this they become fit for bearing the fruit of teaching. The second sign is charity: "By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another" (13:35). And because of this they are able to bear the fruit of good works, because nothing has any value without charity: "If I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries ... but have not love, I am nothing" (1 Cor 13:2).
Lectio 2 LECTURE 2 Supra monuit dominus discipulos suos ut in eo manerent, hic ostendit quid sit in eo manere; et hoc tripliciter. Primo quidem quod manere in eo est manere in eius dilectione; secundo ostendit quod praecepta eius servare, est manere in eius dilectione, ibi si praecepta mea servaveritis, manebitis in dilectione mea; tertio ostendit quod observatio caritatis sit eius praeceptum, ibi hoc est praeceptum meum et cetera. Circa primum duo facit. Primo commemorat collatum discipulis beneficium; secundo hortatur eos ad perseverandum, ibi manete in dilectione mea. 1997 Above, our Lord urged his disciples to remain united with him; here he shows what this involves. He makes three points: first, to abide in him is to abide in his love; secondly, to abide in his love is to keep his commandments (v 10); thirdly, that his commandment is to love (v 12). He does two things about the first: first, he recalls the benefit granted to the disciples; secondly, he urges them to persevere, abide in my love (v 9). Dicit ergo primo, quod hoc quod in Christo manemus, est ex eius gratia; quae quidem gratia est effectus dilectionis ipsius, Ier. XXXI, 3: in caritate perpetua dilexi te. Ex quo patet quod omnia opera nostra bona sunt nobis ex beneficio divinae dilectionis. Non enim essent nobis, nisi quia fides per dilectionem operatur; nec diligeremus, nisi prius diligeremur. Et ideo hoc beneficium commemorans dixit sicut dilexit me pater, et ego dilexi vos. 1998 He says that the fact that we abide in Christ is due to his grace; and this grace is the effect of his love: "I have loved you with an everlasting love" (Jer 31:3). It is clear from this that all our good works are ours due to the benefit of divine love. For they would not be ours unless faith acted through love, and we would not love unless we were first loved. And so he reminds them of this benefit by saying, As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Sed notandum, quod ly sicut quandoque denotat aequalitatem naturae, quandoque autem similitudinem actionis. Ariani autem errantes volebant, quod ly sicut importaret aequalitatem, et per hoc, quod superius saepius expressum est, concludebant, quod esset minor patre. Sed hoc est falsum; et ideo, secundum Augustinum, dicendum, quod ly sicut dicit similitudinem gratiae et dilectionis: nam dilectio qua filius diligit discipulos, est quaedam similitudo eius dilectionis qua pater diligit filium. 1999 The word "as" sometimes indicates an equality of nature, and at other times a similarity in acting. The Arians, who erred about this passage, wanted the "as" to indicate an equality, and because of this they concluded that the Son was inferior to the Father. But this is false. We must say, then, according to Augustine, that the word "as" indicates a likeness in grace and love; for the love with which the Son loves his disciples is a certain likeness of that love with which the Father loves the Son.[9] Cum enim diligere aliquem sit velle ei bonum, pater diligit filium secundum divinam naturam, inquantum vult illi infinitum suum bonum, quod ipse habet, communicando ei eamdem naturam numero quam ipse habet; supra V, v. 20: pater diligit filium, et omnia demonstrat ei quae ipse facit. Diligit etiam eum secundum humanam naturam; Oseae XI, v. 1: puer Israel, et dilexi eum, et ex Aegypto vocavi filium meum. Et ad hoc scilicet ut simul esset Deus et homo. Now since to love someone is to will good to that person, the Father loves the Son, with respect to the Son's divine nature, because the Father wills him his own infinite good, which he has, by communicating to the Son the very same numerical nature the Father himself has: "For the Father loves the Son, and shows him all that he himself is doing" (5:20). The Father also loves the Son with respect to his human nature: "When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son" (Hos 11:1). And he loves him so that he would be at once both God and man. Et ad nihil horum filius dilexit discipulos, nam neque ad hoc dilexit eos ut essent Deus per naturam, neque essent uniti Deo in persona; sed ad quamdam horum similitudinem eos dilexit, ut scilicet essent dii per participationem gratiae; Ps. LXXXI, 6: ego dixi: dii estis; II Petr. I, 4: per quem magna nobis et pretiosa promissa donavit, ut divinae per hoc efficiamur consortes naturae. Item ut assumerentur in unitatem affectus: quia qui adhaeret Deo, unus spiritus est; I Cor. VI, 17. Rom. VIII, 29: quos praescivit, conformes fieri imaginis filii sui, ut sit ipse primogenitus in multis fratribus. Sic ergo maius bonum Deus pater posuit filio secundum utramque naturam, quam filius discipulis, sed tamen simile, ut dictum est. But the Son did not love the disciples in either of these ways. For he did not love them to the point of their being gods by nature, nor to the point that they would be united to God so as to form one person with him. But he did love them up to a similar point: he loved them to the extent that they would be gods by their participation in grace ‑ "I say, 'You are gods'" (Ps 82:6); "He has granted to us precious and very great promises, that through these you may become partakers of the divine nature" (2 Pet 1:4) ‑ and he loved them to the extent that they would be united to God in affection: "He who is united to the Lord becomes one spirit with him" (1 Cor 6:17); "For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son" (Rom 8:29). Thus the Father communicated to the Son a greater good, with respect to each nature of the Son, than the Son did to his disciples; yet there is a similarity, as was said. Manete in dilectione mea, quasi diceret: ex quo tantum beneficium recepistis ex dilectione mea, manete in ea, ut scilicet me diligatis: vel manete in dilectione mea, quia ego diligo vos, scilicet in gratia mea, ut non excidatis a bonis quae praeparavi vobis. Et haec expositio magis congruit, ut sit sensus: perseveretis in hoc statu, ut scilicet diligamini a me per effectum gratiae; I Cor. VII, 20: unusquisque in ea vocatione qua vocatus est, in illa permaneat; I Io. IV, v. 16: qui manet in caritate, in Deo manet, et Deus in eo. 2000 Abide in my love. This is like saying: Because you have received such a great benefit from my love, abide in it so that you love me. Or it could mean, abide in my love because I love you, that is, abide in my grace so you will not be excluded from the good things I have prepared for you. This meaning is the more apt, so that the thought is: Persevere in this state so that you will be loved by me through the effect of grace: "Every one should remain in the state in which he was called" (1 Cor 7:20). "He who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him" (1 Jn 4:16). Hic ostendit quid sit manere in eius dilectione, et primo ostendit quod hoc est servare eius mandatum; secundo manifestat per exemplum, ibi sicut et ego patris mei praecepta servavi; tertio excludit dubium, ibi haec locutus sum vobis ut gaudium meum in vobis sit. 2001 Now he shows what it means to abide in his love. First, he shows that it means to keep his commandment; secondly, he illustrates it with an example, as I have kept my Father's commandments; thirdly, he eliminates an assumption (v 11). Dicit ergo manete in dilectione mea, et hoc facietis, si praecepta mea servaveritis: sic enim manebitis in dilectione mea. Observatio enim mandatorum est effectus divinae dilectionis, non solum eius qua nos diligimus, sed eius qua ipse diligit nos. Ex hoc enim quod ipse diligit nos, movet nos et adiuvat ad implendum mandata eius, quae impleri non possunt nisi per gratiam, I Io. c. IV, 10: in hoc est caritas, non quasi nos dilexerimus Deum, sed quoniam ipse prior dilexit nos. 2002 He says, Abide in my love, and you will do this if you keep my commandments, for this is the way you will abide in my love. Keeping the commandments is an effect of divine love, not only of the love by which we love, but also of the love by which God loves us. For from the fact that God loves us, he influences us and helps us to fulfill his commandments, which we cannot do without grace: "In this is love, not that we love God but that he loved us first" [1 Jn 4:10]. Exemplum autem ad hoc subdit, dicens sicut et ego patris mei praecepta servavi. Sicut enim dilectio, qua pater diligit eum, est exemplum dilectionis qua ipse diligit nos; ita voluit quod obedientia sua sit exemplum obedientiae nostrae. Christus enim per hoc ostendit quod mansit in dilectione patris, quia, per omnia, mandata eius servavit. Nam et mortem sustinuit, Phil. II, 8: factus est obediens patri usque ad mortem, mortem autem crucis. Ab omni peccato abstinuit; I Petr. II, 22: qui peccatum non fecit, nec dolus inventus est in ore eius. Quae intelligenda sunt de Christo secundum quod homo; supra VIII, 29: non reliquit me solum, quia quae placita sunt ei, facio semper. Et ideo dicit: maneo in eius dilectione quia nihil in me, secundum quod homo, est dilectioni eius contrarium. 2003 He adds an example when he says, as I have kept my Father's commandments and abide in his love. For just as the love which the Father has for him is the model or standard of Christ's love for us, so Christ wants his obedience to be the model of our obedience. By saying this Christ shows that he abided in the Father's love because in all things he kept the Father's commandments. For he submitted to death: "He humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross" (Phil 2:8); and refrained from all sin: "He committed no sin; no guile was found on his lips" (1 Pet 2:22). These things are to be understood of Christ in his human nature: "He has not left me alone, for I always do what is pleasing to him" (8:29). And so he says, I abide in his love, because there is nothing in me, as a human being, opposed to his love. Ne credant quod moneat eos ad mandata eius servanda propter utilitatem propriam, et non discipulorum, dicit haec locutus sum vobis, scilicet ut mandata mea servetis propter bonum vestrum, scilicet ut gaudium meum in vobis sit. Amor enim est causa gaudii: unusquisque enim gaudet de re amata. Deus autem se amat et creaturam, praecipue rationalem, cui infinitum bonum communicat. Christus ergo de duobus ab aeterno gaudet: scilicet de bono suo et patris; Prov. VIII, 30: delectabar coram eo ludens in orbe terrarum. Item de bono creaturae rationalis; ibid. VIII, 31: deliciae meae sunt esse cum filiis hominum, idest, in hoc quod communicor filiis hominum: et de his gaudet ab aeterno; Is. LXII, 5: gaudebit super te Deus tuus. 2004 Now so they do not think he is urging them to keep his commandments for his own benefit and not for their benefit, he says, These things I have spoken to you, that you keep my commandments, for your own good, so that my joy may be in you. Now love is the cause of joy, for everyone takes joy in what he loves. But God loves himself and creatures, especially rational creatures, to whom he grants an infinite good. So Christ rejoices in two things from all eternity: first, in his own good and that of the Father: "I was delighted every day, playing before him" [Prv 8:30]; secondly, he delights in the good of the rational creature: "delighting in the sons of men" (Prv 8:31), that is, in the fact that I am shared in by the children of men. He rejoices in these things from eternity: "As the bridegroom rejoices over the bride, so shall your God rejoice over you" (Is 62:5). Vult ergo dominus ut per observantiam mandatorum suorum efficiamur participes gaudii sui; unde dicit ut gaudium meum, quo scilicet ego gaudeo de divinitate mea et patris, sit in vobis: quod nihil est aliud quam vita aeterna, quae est gaudium de veritate, ut Augustinus dicit; quasi diceret: ut habeatis vitam aeternam; Iob XXII, 26: tunc super omnipotente deliciis afflues. Et gaudium vestrum, quo ego gaudeo de humanitate mea, repleatur. Nam bona de quibus nos gaudemus, aut sunt imperfecta, aut imperfecte habentur; et ideo gaudium in hac vita plenum esse non potest. Tunc autem plenum erit quando perfecta bona perfecte consequemur; Matth. XXV, 21: intra in gaudium domini tui. Consequently, our Lord wants us to become sharers of his joy by our observing his commandments. He says, that my joy, the joy I take in my divinity and that of my Father, may be in you. This is nothing else than eternal life, which as Augustine says, is joy in the truth.[10] That my joy may be in you means, in effect, that you may have eternal life: "Then you will delight yourself in the Almighty" (Job 22:26). And that your joy, which I take in my own humanity, may be full. The goods in which we rejoice are either imperfect or imperfectly possessed; and so in this life our joy cannot be full. But it will be full when perfect goods are perfectly possessed: "Enter into the joy of your master" (Mt 25:21). Hic ostendit dominus quae sint praecepta eius, et primo proponit quid sit praeceptum suum; secundo inducit exemplum, ibi sicut dilexi vos; tertio commemorat beneficium, ibi vos amici mei estis. 2005 Now our Lord states what his precepts are: first, he states his commandment; secondly, he presents an example (v 12b); thirdly, he recalls a benefit (v 14). Praeceptum autem quod ponit, est praeceptum caritatis, quod servari vult. Hoc est, inquit, praeceptum meum ut diligatis invicem. Sed cum multa sint alia praecepta domini in sacro eloquio, quaeritur quare solum observationem caritatis dicit esse praeceptum suum. 2006 The commandment he gives is the commandment of charity, which he wants us to keep: This is my commandment, that you love one another. Since there are many other commandments of the Lord in the sacred writings, why does he say that his commandment is only the practice of charity? Ad quod, secundum Gregorium, dicendum est, quod caritas est radix et finis omnium virtutum. Radix quidem, quia ex caritate confirmata in corde hominis movetur homo ad implenda omnia alia praecepta; Rom. XIII, v. 8: qui diligit proximum, legem implevit. Ergo omnia praecepta quasi ad hoc ordinantur ut homo benefaciat proximo, et non molestet eum; quod quidem potissime ex caritate fit. Finis autem est, quia omnia praecepta ad ipsam ordinantur, et in sola caritate solidantur; I Tim. I, 5: finis praecepti est caritas. Dicit ergo hoc est praeceptum meum, ut diligatis invicem, quasi scilicet, a caritate omnia procedunt sicut a principio, et in caritate omnia ordinantur sicut in finem. Nam, sicut dicit Gregorius, ut multi arboris rami ex una radice prodeunt, sic multae virtutes ex una radice generantur: nec habet aliquid viriditatis ramus boni operis, si non manet in radice caritatis. The answer, according to Gregory, is that charity is the root and end of all the virtues.[11] It is the root, because it is from charity, firmly rooted in the human heart, that we are led to accomplish all the other commandments: "He who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law" (Rom 13:8). Therefore, all the commandments are, in a way, directed to this: that we do good to our neighbor, and not harm him; and this is done best through charity. Charity is the end because all the commandments are directed to it and by it alone are given strength: "The aim of our charge is love" (1 Tim 1:5). So he says, This is my commandment, that you love one another, since everything comes from charity as its source, and all things are directed to charity as their end. As Gregory puts it: just as many branches of a tree spring from one root, so the many virtues are produced from one root; and the branch of a good work has no life if it is not united to the root of charity.[12] Sed cum Matth. XXII, 40, dicatur, quod non solum in dilectione Dei, sed etiam proximi pendeat lex et prophetae, quare solum hic de dilectione proximi mentionem facit? Sed dicendum, quod unum includitur in alio: qui enim diligit Deum, necesse est ut proximum et ea quae sunt Dei diligat; et qui diligit proximum propter Deum, necesse est ut diligat Deum: licet enim obiecta sint diversa, tamen ipsi actus secundum consequentiam sunt unum. Est autem duplex ratio quare magis de dilectione proximi quam Dei mentionem facit. Una scilicet, quia in hoc intendit eos instruere, et inducere quomodo proximos aedificent, et quomodo fortes fierent ad tribulationes persecutorum perferendas; et ad utrumque caritas proximi necessaria est. 2007 Since we read in Matthew (22:40) that the law and the prophets depend not only on love for God, but also on love for neighbor, why does Christ mention here only love for neighbor? The answer is that one is included in the other: for a person who loves God must love his neighbor and things which belong to God; and the person who loves his neighbor for the sake of God must love God. Now although the objects of these acts are different, yet the outcomes are the same. There are two reasons why he mentions love of neighbor rather than the love of God. By doing this he wants to teach and lead them to help their neighbor, and to help them to become strong enough to endure sufferings from those who will persecute them. To do both of these, charity for our neighbor is necessary. Hic manifestat per exemplum quomodo proximum debeamus diligere, ita scilicet, quomodo Christus dilexit nos. Christus autem dilexit nos ordinate et efficaciter. Ordinate quidem, quia nil in nobis dilexit nisi Deum, et in ordine ad ipsum; Eccli. XXIV, 24: ego mater pulchrae dilectionis et cetera. Efficaciter autem, quia intantum dilexit ut semetipsum pro nobis traderet; Eph. c. V, 2: dilexit nos, et tradidit semetipsum pro nobis oblationem et hostiam Deo in odorem suavitatis. Nos ergo debemus proximos diligere, scilicet sancte ad bonum, et efficaciter scilicet ut dilectionem opere ostendamus; I Io. III, 18: non diligamus verbo neque lingua, sed opere et veritate. 2008 Here he shows by an example how we should love our neighbor, which is, as Christ loved us. Now Christ loved us in the correct order and efficaciously. His love was orderly because he loved nothing in us but God and in relation to God: "I am the mother of beautiful love" (Si 24:18), and efficacious because he loved us so much that he delivered himself for us: "Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God" (Eph 5:2). So we should love our neighbor, in a holy way, for his good, and efficaciously, by showing our love by our actions: "Let us not love in word or speech but in deed and in truth" (1 Jn 3:18). Maiorem hac dilectionem nemo habet quam ut animam suam ponat quis pro amicis suis. Hic ostendit efficaciam dilectionis, quae est ut quis mortem sustineat pro amicis, quod est signum maximae dilectionis. Sed contra hoc obiicitur, quod maioris dilectionis signum dicitur quando aliquis animam suam ponit pro inimicis suis, ut Christus fecit; Rom. V, 8: commendat Deus caritatem suam in nobis: quoniam cum adhuc peccatores essemus, secundum tempus Christus pro nobis, mortuus est. 2009 Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. Here he shows the efficacy of love, which is that one undergo death for his friends; this is a sign of the greatest love. Yet one could object that it is considered to be a sign of a greater love when someone lays down his life for his enemies, as Christ did: "But God shows his love for us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us" (Rom 5:8). Ad quod dicendum, quod Christus non posuit animam suam pro nobis inimicis, ut scilicet inimici remaneremus, sed ut amicos efficeret: vel licet non essent amici quasi amantes, erant tamen amici ut amati. Est autem manifestum quod maximae dilectionis est signum, propter amicos animam ponere, quia, in ordine diligibilium quatuor ordinata sunt, scilicet Deus, anima nostra, proximus, et corpus nostrum. Et Deum debemus diligere super nos ipsos et supra proximos, ita ut pro Deo nos ipsos, scilicet animam et corpus et proximum dare debeamus. Pro anima autem nostra corpus est ponere, non tamen eam dare. Pro proximo autem vitam corporalem et corpus debemus exponere pro salute proximi: et ideo, cum vita corporalis sit potissimum quod nos post animam habeamus, ideo potissimum est ipsam exponere propter proximum, et maioris dilectionis signum; I Io. c. IV, 9: in hoc apparuit caritas Dei in nobis, quoniam filium suum unigenitum misit Deus in mundum, ut vivamus per eum. We should answer that Christ did not lay down his life for his enemies so that they would remain his enemies, but to make them his friends. Or, one could say, that he lay down his life for his friends, not in the sense that they were friends who loved him, but rather were those whom he loved. It is clear that the sign of the greatest love is to lay down one's life for one's friends. This is so because there are four lovable things to be put in order: God, our soul, our neighbor, and our body. We should love God more than ourselves and our neighbor, so that for the sake of God we ought to give ourselves, body and soul, and our neighbor. We should lay down our body, but not give it, for the sake of our soul. For our neighbor, we should expose our body and our physical life for his salvation. Consequently, since our physical life is the best thing we have after our soul, it is the greatest thing to expose it for the sake of our neighbor, and a sign of greater love: "In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him" (1 Jn 4:9).
Lectio 3 LECTURE 3 Supra dominus monuit nos ad dilectionem fraternam, et hoc exemplo sui, hic ostendit discipulis beneficium praestitum, per quod obligati erant ad Christi imitationem: scilicet quod Christus eos ad amorem suum assumpsit. Et primo ponit amicitiae signum; secundo subiungit causam, ibi non vos me elegistis et cetera. Ponit autem duplex amicitiae signum: unum ex parte discipulorum; aliud ex parte sui ibi iam non dicam vos servos. 2010 Above, our Lord urged us to love our neighbor, based on his example. Here, Christ shows his disciples the benefit conferred upon them which obliges them to imitate him, which is, that he has embraced them in his love. First, he mentions a sign of friendship; secondly, the cause of this friendship (v 16). He gives two signs of friendship: one is found in the disciples; the other in himself (v 15). Signum autem ex parte discipulorum, quod sunt amici Christi, est observatio mandatorum eius; unde dicit vos amici mei estis, si feceritis quae ego praecipio vobis; quasi diceret: usque modo monui vos ut diligeretis invicem, sed modo moneo et dico de amicitia vestra ad meipsum. 2011 The sign in the disciples that they are friends of Christ is that they keep his commandments; he says, You are my friends if you do what I command you. He is saying in effect: Up to now I have urged you to love one another, but now I am speaking and teaching you about your friendship with me. Potest autem hoc quod dicit vos amici mei estis, dupliciter intelligi, secundum quod amicus dupliciter dicitur, scilicet qui amat et qui amatur; et secundum utrumque, verum est quod subdit si feceritis quae ego praecipio vobis. Et qui Deum amant, mandata illius servant; quia cum amicus dicatur quasi animae custos, ut Gregorius dicit, non immerito qui voluntatem Dei in praeceptis eius custodit, amicus eius vocatur. Item, quos Deus amat, mandata Dei servant, inquantum conferendo eis gratiam suam, adiuvat ad servandum: Deus enim nos amando, facit suos dilectores; Prov. VIII, 17: ego diligentes me diligo: non quasi prius fuerint diligentes, sed quia ipse eos diligentes facit diligendo. The statement, you are my friends can be understood in two ways, based on the two ways someone is called a friend. A person is called a friend either because he loves or because he is loved. And what follows, if you do what I command you is true for both meanings of friend. Those who love God keep his commandments, and because a friend is, as Gregory says, in a way the guardian of the other's soul, it is appropriate that one who guards or keeps the will of God in his commandments is called the friend of God.[14] Again, those whom God loves keep his commandments, because by conferring his grace on them he helps them to keep them: for by loving us, God makes us love him: "I love those who love me" (Prv 8:17). It is not they who first loved God, but God makes them lovers by loving them. Sed sciendum, quod mandatorum observatio non est divinae amicitiae causa, sed signum: scilicet et quod Deus diligat nos, et quod nos diligamus eum; Sap. VI, v. 19: dilectio illius custodia legum est; I Io. c. II, 4: qui dicit se amare Deum, et mandata eius non custodit, mendax est. 2012 Note that keeping the commandments is not the cause of divine friendship but the sign, the sign that both God loves us and that we love God: "Love of her [Wisdom] is the keeping of her laws" (Wis 6:19); "He who says he loves him and does not keep his commandments is a liar" [1 Jn 2:4]. Ex parte autem Christi ponitur amicitiae signum, cum dicit iam non dicam vos servos, et primo excludit quod videtur amicitiae contrarium; secundo ponit verae amicitiae signum, ibi vos autem dixi amicos et cetera. 2013 The sign of Christ's friendship for them is mentioned when he says, No longer do I call you servants. First, he excludes what seems opposed to friendship; secondly, he mentions the sign of true friendship (v 15b). Amicitiae autem contrariatur servitus, et ideo primo excludit servitutem, dicens iam non dicam vos servos; quasi dicat: etsi olim fueritis quasi servi sub lege, nunc estis quasi liberi sub gratia; Rom. VIII, 15: non accepistis spiritum servitutis iterum in timore; sed accepistis spiritum adoptionis filiorum. 2014 Servitude is opposed to friendship; and he rejects this by saying, No longer do I call you servants. It is like saying: although you were formerly servants under the law, now you are free under grace: "You have received the spirit of adoption" [Rom 8:15]. Secundo subdit rationem, dicens quia servus nescit quid faciat dominus eius: servus enim est quasi extraneus a domino; supra c. VIII, 35: servus non manet in domo in aeternum. Extraneis autem secreta committenda non sunt; Prov. XXV, 9: secreta extraneo ne reveles, unde nunc servis secreta committenda non sunt. Secondly, he adds the reason for this when he says, for the servant does not know what his master is doing: for a servant is like a stranger to his master, "The slave does not continue in the house for ever" (8:35). Now secrets should not be told to strangers, "Do not tell a secret to a stranger" [Prv 25:9]. And so secrets should not be given to those who are now servants. Potest autem hoc ad praecedentia sic continuari. Possent discipuli dicere, quod si servamus praecepta tua, sumus amici tui; sed servare praecepta est magis servitutis quam amicitiae: et ideo hoc excludens dominus dicit iam non dicam vos servos. [This can be connected with the preceding. The disciples could say that if we keep your commandments, we are your friends. But keeping commandments belongs to servitude more than to friendship. To exclude this, the Lord says: I no longer call you servants.] Sed dubitatur hic. Cum ipsi apostoli dicant se servos Christi; sicut: Paulus apostolus servus Christi Iesu, et David: servus tuus ego sum, et etiam ipsi qui introducendi sunt in vitam aeternam: Matth. XXV, 23: euge serve bone et fidelis (...) intra in gaudium domini tui: quid est hoc quod dominus dicit iam non dicam vos servos? [There is a problem here. Since the apostles themselves call themselves slaves of Christ, as Paul the slave/servant of Christ Jesus, and David: I am your servant, and such are to be introduced into eternal life: Mt 25:23 Well don, good and faithful servant... Enter into the joy of your Master. So what does our Lord mean by saying I will no longer call your servants?] Dubitatur etiam de hoc: quia cum frequenter domini servis suis secreta revelent, et etiam Deus, Amos III, 7: non faciet Deus verbum, nisi revelaverit secretum suum ad servos suos prophetas: non videtur verum quod hic dicit servus nescit quid faciat dominus eius. [But there is a problem here too, since masters frequently reveal secrets to their slaves. Even God does so: Amos 3:7 God will not do anything without revealing his secret to his slaves/servants, the prophets. So it does not seem true what is said here, that the servant does not know what his master is doing.] Respondeo. Dicendum, secundum Augustinum, quod servitus proprie ex timore creatur. Est autem duplex timor: scilicet servilis, quem expellit caritas, I Io. IV, 18: timor non est in caritate; alius est timor filialis, qui ex caritate generatur, quia timet perdere quis quod amat; et hic est timor bonus et castus, de quo dicitur in Ps. XVIII, v. 10: timor domini sanctus permanet in saeculum saeculi. Et secundum hoc sunt duae servitutes. Una quae procedit ex timore filiali; et secundum hanc servi sunt iusti omnes, et filii Dei, ut obiiciebatur. Alia servitus, est quae procedit ex timore poenae, et contrariatur dilectioni; et de hac dicit iam non dicam vos servos. [I answer. According to Augustine, servitude is, properly speaking, created by fear. But there are two kinds of fear: sevile, which charity casts out - 1 John 4:18 There is no fear in charity. The other is filial fear, which is generated by charity, since one fears to lose whe he loves. And that is the good and chaste fear mentioned in Ps 19:10 The ear of the Lord is holy, it lasts forever. So there are two kinds of servitud: one which proceeds from filial fear, and with this, all the just are servants and sons of God, as was objected. The other servitude, which comes from fear of punishement is contrary to love, and that is what he is talking about when he says I no longer call you slaves/servants.] Sciendum est etiam, quod servus proprie est qui non est causa sui: liber vero qui est sui causa. Est ergo differentia inter operationes servi et liberi: quia servus operatur causa alterius; liber autem causa sui operatur, et quantum ad causam finalem operis, et quantum ad causam moventem. Nam liber propter se operatur, sicut propter finem, et a se operatur, quia propria voluntate movetur ad opus; sed servus nec propter se operatur sed propter dominum, nec a se sed a domini voluntate, et quasi quadam coactione. Sed contingit aliquando quod aliquis servus operatur causa alterius, sicut causa finali; operatur tamen a se, inquantum se movet ad opus: et haec est bona servitus, quia ex caritate movetur ad bona opera facienda; sed non operatur propter se: quia caritas non quaerit quae sua sunt, sed quae sunt Iesu Christi et salutis proximorum. Qui autem omnino causa alterius operantur, sunt mali servi. Patet ergo quod discipuli servi erant, sed bona servitute, quae ex amore procedit. [Note also that a slave, properly speaking, is someone who is not his own mover; a freeman is his own mover. So there is a difference between the acts of a slave and a freeman, because a slave act when another moves him, but a freeman acts on his own, both with regard to the purpose of his action and the moving power. For a freeman acts for his own sake, and by himself, because he is moved to action by his own will, since he is moved by charity to do good works.] This verse shows the servant does not act for the sake of himself, because charity does not seek its own, but the interests of Jesus and the salvation of one's neighbor. Those who act entirely by reason of another are bad servants. Thus it is clear that the disciples were servants, but it was a good servitude springing from love. Ad secundam quaestionem dicendum, quod ille servus qui movetur solum ab alio, et non a se, habet se ad moventem sicut instrumentum ad artificem. Instrumentum autem communicat cum artifice in opere, sed non in operis ratione. Sic ergo tales servi participant solum in opere; sed quando servus operatur ex propria voluntate, necesse est quod rationem operis sciat, et quod revelentur ei occulta, per quae ea scire possit quae agit, Eccli. XXXIII, 31: servus si est tibi fidelis, sit tibi quasi anima tua. Apostoli autem, ut dictum est, a se movebantur ad bona opera facienda, scilicet ex propria voluntate per amorem inclinata; et ideo dominus secreta sua revelat eis. Sed de malis servis verum est quod nesciunt quid faciat dominus eorum. Sed quae sunt illa quae nesciunt? Illa proprie quae in nobis Deus facit. Omnia enim bona quae facimus, Deus in nobis operatur Is. XXVI, 12 et Phil. II, 13: operatur in nobis et velle et perficere. Servus ergo malus ex superbia cordis sui obtenebratus, dum quod facit, sibi attribuit, nescit quid faciat dominus eius. Hic ponit verum signum amicitiae ex parte sua, quod est quia quaecumque audivi a patre meo, nota feci vobis. As for the second difficulty, we should say that the servant who is moved only by another and not by himself, is related to the one who moves him as a tool to the worker. Now a tool shares with the worker in the work, but not in the reason for the work. So such servants share only in the work. But when a servant acts by his own will, it is necessary for him to know the reason for the work and have secrets revealed to him so he can know what he is doing. "If you have a servant, regard him as your own soul" [Sir 33:31]. Now the apostles, as was said, were moved by themselves to accomplish good works, that is, they were moved by their own will, inclined by love. And so our Lord revealed his secrets to them. But bad servants do not know what their master is doing. What things don't they know? Strictly speaking, they do not know what God does in us. For God acts in us in all the good we do: "O Lord ... you have wrought for us all our works (Is 26:12). So the bad servant, darkened by the pride in his own heart, does not know what his master is doing when this servant attributes to himself what he does. Verum enim amicitiae signum est quod amicus amico suo cordis secreta revelet. Cum enim amicorum sit cor unum et anima una, non videtur amicus extra cor suum ponere quod amico revelat; Prov. XXV, 9: causam tuam tracta cum amico tuo. Deus autem faciendo nos participes suae sapientiae, sua secreta nobis revelat; Sap. VII, 27: per nationes in animas sanctas se transfert, amicos Dei et prophetas constituit. 2016 Now he sets down the true sign of friendship on his own part, which is that all that I have heard from my Father I have made know to you. For the true sign of friendship is that a friend reveals the secrets of his heart to his friend. Since friends have one mind and heart, it does not seem that what one friend reveals to another is placed outside his own heart: "Argue your case with your neighbor" (Prv 25:9). Now God reveals his secrets to us by letting us share in his wisdom: "In every generation she [Wisdom] passes into holy souls and makes them friends of God and prophets" (Wis 7:27). Sed dubitatur hic primo, quae et qualiter filius a patre audit. Quod quidem pluries iam manifestatum est. Cum enim audire sit scientiam ab alio accipere, audire filium a patre nihil aliud est quam scientiam ab eo accipere; scientia autem filii est eius essentia: filium ergo audire a patre, est accipere essentiam eius ab eo. 2017 There is a question here as to what and in what way the Son hears from the Father. The answer has already been indicated in many ways. Since to hear is to receive knowledge from another, for the Son to hear from the Father is nothing other than for the Son to receive knowledge from the Father. Now the knowledge of the Son is his own essence. Thus, for the Son to hear from the Father is for the Son to receive his essence from the Father. Dubitatur etiam de hoc quod dicit omnia quaecumque audivi a patre meo, nota feci vobis. Si ergo omnia eis nota fecit, sequitur quod tot sciebant discipuli quot et filius. Responsio. Dicendum, secundum Chrysostomum omnia quaecumque audivi, quae scilicet vos audire oportebat, nota feci vobis; non autem omnia simpliciter; infra XVI, v. 12: multa habeo vobis dicere, quae non potestis portare modo. 2018 Another question concerns the statement, all that I have heard from my Father I have made known to you. If he did make all things known to them it would follow that the disciples knew as much as the Son. The answer, according to Chrysostom, is that all that I have heard means all that I have heard which you ought to hear, but not absolutely all things, I have made known to you: "I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now" (16:12).[15] Vel dicendum, secundum Augustinum, quod dominus propter certitudinem dicendorum utitur praeterito pro futuro; ut sit sensus omnia quaecumque audivi a patre meo, nota feci vobis, idest, faciam in plenitudine, de qua dicit apostolus I Cor. XIII, v. 12: tunc cognoscam sicut et cognitus sum; infra XVI, 25: in illo die palam de patre meo annuntiabo vobis, quando scilicet introducet nos ad visionem patris. Omnia enim quae scit filius, scit pater. Quando ergo revelabit nobis patrem, revelabit omnia quae scit, et id quod scimus. Or, one could say, according to Augustine, that what he would say to them was so certain that he used the past tense instead of the future.[16] So the meaning becomes, all that I have heard from my Father I have made known to you, that is, I will make known with that fullness of which the Apostle says: "Then I shall understand fully, even as I have been fully understood" (1 Cor 13:12). And below we read, "The hour is coming when I shall tell you plainly of the Father" (16:25), that is, when I lead you to the vision of the Father. For all things the Son knows the Father knows. So when he revels the Father to us, the Son will reveal all that the Son himself knows and which we know. Vel dicendum, secundum Gregorium, et melius. Eiusdem rei potest haberi cognitio perfecta et imperfecta: sicut in scientiis apparet quod qui scit principia omnia unius scientiae dicitur scire scientiam illam, sed imperfecte eam scit. Unde qui docet aliqua principia alicuius scientiae, potest dicere se docuisse scientiam illam, quia omnia quae sunt scientiae illius, sunt in principiis eius virtute; sed illam eamdem scientiam perfectius scit quando conclusiones singulas, quae virtute erant in principiis, novit. Sic ergo et de divinis potest haberi duplex cognitio. Una imperfecta: et haec habetur per fidem, quae est praelibatio illius futurae beatitudinis et cognitionis quam habebimus in patria; Hebr. c. XI, 1: est autem fides sperandarum substantia rerum, argumentum non apparentium. Unde de hac cognitione dicit omnia nota feci vobis, scilicet in fide, secundum quamdam praelibationem, sicut conclusiones virtute sunt in principiis. Unde dicit Gregorius: omnia quae nota facit servis suis, sunt gaudia internae caritatis et festa supernae patriae, quae quotidie mentibus per aspirationem sui amoris imprimit, dum enim audita superna caelestia amamus, amata iam novimus: quia ipse amor notitia est. Again, one could say with Gregory, and this is better, that the same thing can be known perfectly or imperfectly. For example, in the sciences it is obvious that a person who knows all the principles of a science is said to know that science, although imperfectly. And so a person who teaches some principles of a science can say that he teaches that science, because everything that belongs to that science is virtually contained in its principles. But one will know that same science more perfectly when he knows the individual conclusions which are virtually in the principles. In the same way we can have a twofold knowledge of divine matters. One is imperfect, and is gained by faith, which is a foretaste of that future happiness and knowledge which we will have in heaven: "Faith is the substance of things to be hoped for" [Heb 11:2]. He says of this knowledge, all ... I have made known to you, that is, in faith, by a kind of foretaste, like conclusions are virtually contained in their principles. So Gregory says: "All the things he has made known to his servants are the joys of interior love and the feasts of our heavenly fatherland, which he excites in our minds every day by the breath of his love. For as long as we love the sublime heavenly things we have heard, we already know what we love, because the love itself is knowledge."[17] Hic ponit amicitiae causam. Consuetum est autem apud homines ut unusquisque sibi attribuat causam amicitiae; Eccli. XXXVII, 1: omnis amicus dicit: et ego amicitiam copulavi. Et sic multi attribuunt sibi divinae amicitiae causam, dum sibi principium bonorum operum attribuunt et non Deo. Et dominus hoc excludens dicit non vos me elegistis; quasi dicat: quisquis ad hanc dignitatem amicitiae vocatus est, non sibi causam amicitiae attribuat, sed mihi eum ad hoc eligenti. Et primo ponit gratuitam Dei electionem; secundo exponit ad quid eliguntur, ibi et posui vos, ut eatis et fructum afferatis. 2019 Now he mentions the cause of this friendship. It is the usual practice for each one of us to say that he or she is the cause of friendship: "Every friend will say, 'I started the friendship'" [Sir 37:1]. And so many people attribute to themselves the cause of God's friendship when they attribute to themselves, and not to God, the source of their good actions. Our Lord rejects this by saying, you did not choose me. He is saying in effect: Whoever has been called to this sublime friendship should not attribute the cause of this friendship to himself, but to me, who chose him or her as a friend. First, he mentions the gratuitous choice of God; secondly, he sets forth for what they have been chosen, that you should go and bear fruit. Dicit ergo non vos me elegistis, ut scilicet ego essem amicus vester, sed ego elegi vos, ut facerem amicos meos; I Io. IV, 10: non quasi nos dilexerimus Deum, sed quoniam ipse prior dilexit nos. 2020 He says, you did not choose me to be your friend, but I chose you to make you my friends: "Not that we loved God, but that he loved us first" [1 Jn 4:10]. Est autem duplex Dei dilectio. Una aeterna qua praedestinamur; Eph. I, 4: elegit nos in ipso ante mundi constitutionem. Alia temporalis, qua ab ipso vocamur, quae nihil est aliud quam executio aeternae praedestinationis: quia quos elegit praedestinando, hos etiam elegit vocando; Rom. VIII, 30: quos praedestinavit, hos et vocavit etc.; Lc. VI, v. 13: elegit duodecim, quos et apostolos nominavit. Now God's love is twofold. One is eternal, by which we are predestined: "He chose us in him before the foundation of the world" (Eph 1:4). The other is temporal, by which we are called by him, and this is simply the carrying out of eternal predestination. And this is because those he chose by predestining them he also chose by calling them: "Those whom he predestined he also called" (Rom 8:30); "He chose from them twelve, whom he named apostles" (Lk 6:13).[18] Sunt autem aliqui dicentes, electionem Dei temporalem ex meritis electorum causari. Sed hoc est contra illud quod hic dicitur. Nam si ideo elegit te quia bonus eras, non autem poteras bonus esse nisi bonum eligeres; hoc autem bonum potissime est Deus; ergo primo elegisti bonum, quod est Deus, quam eligereris. Sed dominus dicit contrarium non vos me elegistis, sed ego elegi vos. Non ergo dicendum, quod aliquod bonum ex parte nostra totaliter praecedat electionem Dei. Dico autem totaliter, quia aliquod bonum particulare in nobis existens, potest esse causa alterius boni nobis dandi, et hoc alterius, cum sit quidam ordo in divinis donis; sed universaliter nihil potest esse causa et praecedere divinam electionem: quia omnia bona sunt nobis a Deo. 2021 Some say that God's temporal choice is caused by the merits of those who are chosen. This conflicts with what it says here. For if God chose you because you were good, you were still not able to be good unless you chose the good, and this good is especially God. Therefore, it was you who first chose the good which is God, before you were chosen. But our Lord says the contrary: you did not choose me, but I chose you. Thus we should not say that our own goodness entirely precedes God's choice. I say "entirely" because we might have some particular good which could be the cause of another good being given to us; and this good could be the cause of being given still another good, since there is a certain order in God's gifts. But in general, nothing can be the cause of and precede the divine choice, because all our goods are from God. Sed de aeterna electione adhuc magis erroneum esset dicere, quod ab electione nostra praecederetur. Fuerunt tamen aliqui qui dicerent, quod merita nostra praecedentia sunt causa illius electionis: et hic fuit error Origenis, qui dixit animas hominum simul fuisse creatas aequales, et quibusdam stantibus, quaedam minus et quaedam magis peccaverunt; et ideo quaedam meruerunt habere gratiam, quaedam non. Sed contra hoc est, quod dominus dicit: non vos me elegistis. 2022 It would be an even greater error to say that our eternal election was preceded by our own choice. Yet there are some who said that our preceding merits are the cause of that election. This was Origen's error. He said that human souls were created equal at the same time and that while some stood firm, others sinned, more and less seriously. Thus, some merited to receive grace, and others did not.[19] Our Lord's saying is opposed to this, you did not choose me. Alii autem dicunt quod verum est quod merita in actu existentia non sunt causa praedestinationis, sed praeexistentia in praescientia Dei; dicentes quod quia Deus scivit aliquos bonos futuros et bene usuros gratia, ideo proposuit eis gratiam se daturum. Sed si hoc esset, sequeretur quod ideo elegit nos, quia praescivit nos ipsum electuros. Et sic electio nostra praevia esset electioni divinae, quod est contra sententiam domini. 2023 Others say that it is true that our actually existing merits are not the cause of our predestination, but those merits preexisting in the foreknowledge of God are. Thus they say that because God knew that certain persons would be good and make good use of grace, he decided to give them grace. But if this were so, it would follow that the reason he chose us was because he foreknew we would choose him. And so our choice would be prior to the divine choice; which is contrary to our Lord's statement. Sed forsitan diceret aliquis: quae electio poterat esse, qui nihil eramus et nulla inter nos erat praeeminentia? Sed eum qui dicit huiusmodi, decipit modus electionis humanae secundum quem credit esse electionem divinam. Sed aliter et aliter se habent: quia electio nostra causatur ex bono iam praeexistente; sed electio divina est causa influentiae maioris boni in uno quam in alio. Cum enim electio sit actus voluntatis: secundum quod diversimode voluntas Dei et hominis se habent ad bona, sic diversus est electionis eorum modus. Voluntas autem Dei se habet ad bonum creatum ut causa eius; Sap. XI, 26: quomodo potuissent illa esse, nisi tu voluisses? Et sic bonum derivatur ad res creatas ex voluntate Dei. Unde Deus aliquem alteri praeeligit, inquantum plus ei de bono influit quam alteri. Voluntas autem hominis movetur ad aliquid ex bono praeexistente apprehenso: et ideo oportet in electione nostra unum bonum praeexistere alteri. Ideo autem Deus uni magis quam alteri bonum influit, ut reluceat ordo in rebus: sicut apparet in rebus materialibus, quod materia prima quantum est de se, est uniformiter disposita ad omnes formas. Ipsae etiam res antequam sint, non sunt dispositae ad hoc vel illud esse; sed ut servetur ordo in eis, diversas formas et diversum esse sortiuntur a Deo. Et similiter in creatura rationali quidam eliguntur ad gloriam, quidam reprobantur ad poenam; II Tim. II, 19: novit dominus qui sunt eius (...). In magna enim domo non solum sunt vasa aurea et argentea, sed et lignea et fictilia: et quaedam quidem in honorem, quaedam autem in contumeliam. Et sic apparet diversus ordo: dum in quibusdam rebus relucet Dei misericordia, quos absque ullis meritis praecedentibus ad gratiam praeparat; in quibusdam autem Dei iustitia, dum eos ex propriis culpis, citra condignum tamen, deputat poenae. Sic ergo elegi vos ab aeterno praedestinando et vocando ad fidem ex tempore. 2024 Perhaps someone might say: What choice could there be since we were nothing and there was no rank among us? But one who says this is mislead by thinking that the divine choice is like human choice. They are not the same. Our choice is caused by some already existing good; while God's choice is the cause of an influx of good, greater in one than in another. Since choice is an act of the will, then according as the will of God and the human will are differently related to the good, so the character of their choice will be different. Now God's will is related to a created good as its cause: "How would anything have endured if thou hadst not willed it?" (Wis 11:25). And so goodness is dispensed to created things from the will of God. Accordingly, God prefers one person to another insofar as he confers more good on that one than on another. But the human will is moved to something by a preexisting good which has become known. Therefore, in our choices it is necessary that one good exist before another. The reason why God confers more good on one than on another is so that there might be a splendor of order in things. This is clear in material things where prime matter of itself is uniformly disposed to all forms. Also, before things themselves exist, they are not disposed to this or that existence; rather, they receive different forms and existences from God so that an order can be established among them. It is like this among rational creatures, where some are chosen for glory and some are rejected for punishment: "The Lord knows who are his ... In a great house there are not only vessels of gold and silver but also of wood and earthenware, and some for noble use, some for ignoble" (2 Tim 2:19). And so we see a diversified order: the mercy of God shines forth in those whom, without any previous merits, he prepares for grace; in others we see the justice of God when, because of their own guilt, he allots them punishment, yet less than is deserved. So, I have chosen you by predestining you from all eternity, and by calling you to the faith during your lifetime. Ad quod autem eos elegit, subdit consequenter cum dicit et posui vos ut eatis et fructum afferatis, et primo ponit ad quid elegerit; secundo rationem dictorum assignat, ibi haec mando vobis, ut diligatis invicem. Circa primum duo facit. Primo ostendit quod elegit ad aliquid agendum; secundo quod elegit ad aliquid recipiendum, ibi ut quodcumque petieritis patrem in nomine meo, det vobis. 2025 Then he points out for what he has chosen them when he says, I appointed you that you should go and bear fruit. First, he states for what he chose them; secondly, he gives a reason for the above (v 17). In regard to the first he does two things: first, he shows that he chose them to do something; secondly, that he chose them to receive something, whatever you ask the Father. Dicit ergo posui vos, idest, dedi vobis ordinem in Ecclesia mea; I Cor. XII, v. 28: posuit Deus in Ecclesia primum quidem apostolos et cetera. Item posui vos, idest, firmiter vos disposui; Gen. I, 16: fecit Deus luminaria magna, et posuit ea in firmamento caeli; Iud. V, 20: stellae manentes in ordine et cursu suo adversus Sisaram pugnaverunt. Positio enim ordinem et firmitatem importat. 2026 He says, I appointed you, that is, I gave you a definite rank in my Church: "And God has appointed in the church, first apostles, second prophets" (1 Cor 12:28). Again, I appointed you, that is, firmly set you: "And God made the two great lights ... and God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light upon the earth" (Gen 1:16). Posui, inquam, ad tria. Primo quidem ad eundum: unde dicit ut eatis, per mundum discurrendo, ut totum convertatis ad fidem; Mc. ult., 15: euntes in mundum universum, praedicate Evangelium omni creaturae. Vel ut eatis, idest proficiatis de virtute in virtutem; Ps. LXXXIII, 8: ibunt de virtute in virtutem: videbitur Deus deorum in Sion; Oseae, ult., 6: ibunt rami eius ut Libani. 2027 I appointed you, I say, to three things. First to go; and so he says, that you should go, traveling over the whole world to convert the whole world to the faith: "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to the whole creation" (Mk 16:15). Or, that you should go, that is, progress from virtue to virtue: "They go from strength to strength; the God of gods will be seen in Zion" (Ps 84:7); "His shoots shall spread out" (Hos 14:6). Secundo ad fructum afferendum, unde dicit et fructum afferatis scilicet conversionis fidelium, quantum ad primum iter; Rom. I, v. 13: ut aliquem fructum habeam in vobis, sicut et in ceteris gentibus. Vel fructum spiritualem interiorem, quantum ad secundum iter; Gal. V, 22: fructus autem spiritus est caritas, gaudium, pax et cetera. Eccli. XXIV, 23: flores mei fructus honoris et honestatis. Secondly, he appointed them to bear fruit; so he says, and bear fruit. This fruit is the fruit of conversion to the faith, as in Paul's first journey, "In order that I may reap some harvest among you as well as among the rest of the Gentiles" (Rom 1:13); or an interior and spiritual fruit, as in his second journey, "The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace" (Gal 5:22); "My blossoms became glorious and abundant fruit" (Sir 24:17). Tertio ut fructum afferant qui non perdatur per mortem seu peccatum; unde dicit et fructus vester maneat, scilicet congregatio fidelium in vitam aeternam perducatur, et fructus spiritualis magis proficiat; supra, IV, v. 36: et fructum congregat in vitam aeternam. Thirdly, they were appointed to bear fruit that would not be destroyed by death or sin; so he says, and that your fruit should abide, that is, that the society of the faithful would be led into eternal life and their spiritual fruit flourish: "He gathers fruit for eternal life" (4:36). Ut quodcumque petieritis. Hic ostendit quod elegerit ad aliquid recipiendum, scilicet omnia quae petierint. Quasi diceret: posui vos ad hoc ut essetis digni recipere a patre in nomine meo; I Io. III, 21: si cor nostrum non reprehenderit nos, fiduciam habemus ad Deum, et quidquid petierimus, accipiemus ab eo. 2028 So that whatever you ask the Father in my name, he may give it to you. Here he shows that he chose them to receive something, namely, all that they ask for. He is saying: I have appointed you to be worthy to receive from the Father in my name: "If our hearts do not condemn us we have confidence before God; and we receive from him whatever we ask" (1 Jn 3:22). Haec mando vobis. Hic assignat rationem rerum quae dixit. Posset enim quis dicere, quare haec omnia Christus diceret eis. Unde dominus respondens dicit haec mando vobis, ut diligatis invicem; quasi, omnia quae dico, sunt inducentia vos ad dilectionem proximorum: I Tim. I, 5: finis praecepti est caritas. Vel dicendum, secundum Chrysostomum, quod possent discipuli dicere: domine, cur nobis tot de dilectione tua commemoras? Numquid ut improperes? Sed dominus dicit: non, immo ut incitem vos ad dilectionem proximi; I Io. IV, 21: hoc mandatum habemus a Deo, ut qui diligit Deum, diligat et fratrem suum. 2029 These things I command you so that you will love one another. Here he is giving the reason for what he has said. Someone might ask: Why did Christ tell them all these things? So our Lord answers, These things I command you so that you will love one another. He is saying in effect: Everything I said to you was to lead you to love your neighbor: "The aim of our charge is love" (1 Tim 1:5). One could also say, with Chrysostom, that the apostles could have said: Lord, why are you reminding us so much about your love? Are you reprimanding us? But our Lord says: Not at all. I am doing this to encourage you to love your neighbor: "And this commandment we have from him, that he who loves God should love his brother also" (1 Jn 4:21).
Lectio 4 LECTURE 4 Posita similitudine vitis et palmitum, et explanata quantum ad inhaesionem palmitum ad vitem, hic consequenter explanat eam quantum ad ipsorum purgationem, quae futura erit per tribulationes. Consolatur eos ergo dominus contra tribulationes quas passuri erant, et primo rationes ex quibus eos consolatur proponit; secundo ipsas rationes exponit, ibi mementote sermonis mei etc.; tertio excusationes persequentium excludit, ibi si non venissem, et eis locutus non fuissem, peccatum non haberent. Ponit autem duas rationes ad eorum consolationem, quarum una sumitur ex exemplo; secunda ex causa, ibi si de mundo fuissetis et cetera. 2030 After presenting the picture of the vine and the branches and explaining the part about the branches being united to the vine, he now explains it in regard to the pruning or cleansing they will receive from their trials. So our Lord now consoles them against the tribulations they were going to endure. First, he mentions a few considerations which will console them; secondly, he explains these (v 20); thirdly, he rejects the excuses of those who will persecute them (v 22). He mentions two reasons why they should be consoled: the first uses himself as an example; the second is based on the reason for their being hated, because you are not of the world. Consolatur ergo eos dominus exemplo sui, qui et passus est persecutiones tyrannorum; unde dicit si mundus vos odit, scitote quia me priorem vobis odio habuit. Sciendum est enim, quod sicut omnium beneficiorum principium est amor, ita et persecutionum omnium principium est odium: et ideo dominus praenuntiat eis odium futurum; Matth. XXIV, 9: odio eritis omnibus hominibus; Lc. VI, 22: beati eritis cum vos oderint homines et cetera. 2031 Our Lord consoles them by using himself as an example of one who has suffered the persecution of oppressors, saying, If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you. Note that just as the source of all benefits is love, so the source of all persecutions is hatred. And so our Lord foretells that they will be hated: "You will be hated by all nations" (Mt 24:9); "Blessed are you when men hate you" (Lk 6:22). Dicit ergo: si mundus vos odit idest futurum est quod mundus vos odio habeat, et manifestabit odium suum persequendo vos; scitote quia me priorem odio habuit, supra c. VII, 7: non potest mundus odisse vos; me autem odit. Sed haec est grandis consolatio iustis ad fortiter sustinendum persecutiones; Hebr. XII, 3: recogitate eum qui talem sustinuit a peccatoribus adversus semetipsum contradictionem, ut ne fatigemini, animis vestris deficientes; I Petr. II, 21: Christus passus est pro nobis, vobis relinquens exemplum, ut sequamini vestigia eius. Et ideo, secundum Augustinum, non debent se membra supra verticem extollere, nec recusare se in corpore esse, nolendo mundi odium sustinere cum capite. He says, If the world hates you, that is, it will come to pass that the world will hate you, and show its hatred by persecuting you, know that it has hated me before it hated you: "The world cannot hate you, but it hates me" (7:7). This thought is a great consolation for the just so that they can courageously endure persecutions: "Consider him who endured from sinners such hostility against himself, so that you may not grow weary or fainthearted" (Heb 12:3); "Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps" (1 Pet 2:21). According to Augustine, the members should not consider themselves greater than the Head, nor refuse to be part of his body by being unwilling to endure with their Head the hatred of the world.[20] Mundus autem dupliciter accipitur. Quandoque quidem in bonum, pro his qui bene vivunt in mundo; II Cor. V, 19: Deus erat in Christo, mundum reconcilians sibi. Quandoque autem in malum, scilicet pro amatoribus mundi; I Io. V, 19: mundus totus in maligno positus est. Sic ergo totus mundus totum odit mundum: quia amatores mundi, qui sunt per totum mundum diffusi, odiunt mundum totum, idest Ecclesiam bonorum per totum mundum roboratam. 2032 The world can have two meanings. First a good meaning, for those who lead a good life in the world: "God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself" (2 Cor 5:19). Secondly, it can have an evil sense, meaning those who love the world: "The whole world is in the power of the evil one" (1 Jn 5:19). And so the whole world hates the whole world, because those who love the world, and they are spread throughout the whole world, hate the whole world, that is, the Church of the good, which has been established throughout the whole world. Si de mundo fuissetis, hic ponitur secunda ratio sumpta ex causa odii. Quando enim quis odium alicuius sustinet propter culpam suam, dolendum est et tristandum; sed quando propter virtutem, gaudendum. Primo ergo ostendit quae sit causa quare aliqui diliguntur a mundo; secundo ostendit quare apostoli a mundo odio habentur, ibi quia vero de mundo non estis (...) propterea odit vos mundus. 2033 Now he mentions a second point for their consolation, and this is based on the reason for their being hated. When a person endures another's hatred because of his own sins, there is reason for regret and sorrow; but when he is hated because of his virtue he should rejoice. First, our Lord gives the reason why some are loved by the world; secondly, why the apostles are hated by the world (v 19). Causa autem quare aliqui diliguntur, est similitudo eorum ad mundum; unde dicit si de mundo fuissetis, mundus quod suum erat diligeret. Omne simile sibi simile diligit; Eccli. XIII, 20: omnis caro ad simile sibi coniungetur. Et ideo mundus, idest amatores mundi diligunt mundi amatores; unde dicit si de mundo fuissetis, idest sequentes mundum, mundus quod suum erat diligeret, sicut suos, et sibi similes; supra VII, 7: non potest mundus odisse vos; me autem odit; I Io. IV, 5: de mundo sunt: ideo de mundo loquuntur, et mundus eos audit. 2034 The reason why some are loved by the world is that they are like the world; If you were of the world, the world would love its own. Like loves like: "Every creature loves its like" (Sir 13:15). And thus the world, that is, those who love the world, love those who love the world. Accordingly, our Lord says, If you were of the world, that is, followers of the world, the world would love its own, because you would be its own and like to it: "The world cannot hate you, but it hates me" (7:7). "They are of the world, therefore what they say is of the world, and the world listens to them" (I Jn 4:5). Sed contra. Per mundum intelligit hic dominus principes mundi, qui persecuturi erant apostolos; sed ipsi iidem principes persequuntur aliquod mundanos inventos, puta homicidas et latrones: ergo mundus non diligit quod suum est, sicut nec apostolos. 2035 One might object that our Lord meant by the world the authorities of the world, who would persecute the apostles. Yet these very same authorities persecute other worldly people, like murderers and thieves. Therefore, the world does not love its own any more than it loves the apostles. Respondeo. Dicendum est quod est reperire aliquid pure bonum, sed pure malum nihil invenitur, cum subiectum mali sit bonum. Malum ergo culpae fundatur in bono naturae. Unde non potest aliquis homo esse peccator et malus, quin habeat aliquid boni. Sic ergo secundum malum quod habent, scilicet infidelitatem, pertinent ad mundum, et odiunt apostolos et eos qui de mundo non sunt; sed secundum bonum quod habent, non sunt de mundo, et odio habent eos qui de mundo sunt, scilicet fures et latrones, et cetera huiusmodi. Erant tamen aliqui in mundo bene viventes: qui apostolos diligebant, eorum facta approbando. I reply that it is possible to find something purely good, but not something purely evil, since the subject of evil is something good. Consequently, the evil of guilt is located in some good of nature. Therefore, no person can be a sinner and evil without having some good. So it is because of the evil of these authorities, the evil of their unbelief, that they belong to the world and hate the apostles and those who are not of the world. But because of the good they possess they are not of the world and hate those who are of the world, as thieves and robbers, and such. Still, there were some who were living well in the world yet loved the apostles and approved of their actions. Sed adhuc magis videtur dubium esse: quia ad mundum pertinet omne peccatum, et sic secundum quodlibet peccatum aliquis est de mundo. Sed videmus quod aliqui homines convenientes in aliquo peccato, se invicem odio habent, sicut superbi; Prov. XIII, 10: inter superbos semper iurgia sunt: et avarus odit avarum. Unde, secundum philosophum, figuli conrixantur adinvicem. Mundus ergo odit mundum. Non ergo videtur verum esse quod dominus dicit mundus quod suum erat diligeret. 2036 But now there seems to be a greater difficulty. For every sin pertains to the world, and so a person is of the world by reason of any sin. Yet we observe that people who commit the same sin hate each other, for, example, the proud: "Among the proud there is always strife" [Prv 13:10]. And one greedy person hates another who is also greedy. As the Philosopher says, potters quarrel with one another.[21] Thus, the world is hating the world, and what our Lord says here does not seem to be true, that is, the world would love its own. Responsio. Dicendum, quod duplex est amor: amicitiae scilicet et concupiscentiae, sed differunt: quia in amore concupiscentiae, quae sunt nobis extrinseca, ad nos ipsos trahimus, cum ipso amore diligamus alia, inquantum sunt nobis utilia vel delectabilia; sed in amore amicitiae est e converso, quia nosmetipsos trahimus ad ea quae sunt extra nos; quia ad eos quos isto amore diligimus, habemus nos sicut ad nosmetipsos, communicantes eis quodammodo nosmetipsos. Unde in amore amicitiae similitudo est causa amoris, non enim sic diligimus aliquem nisi inquantum sumus unum cum eo: similitudo autem est unitas quaedam. Sed in amore concupiscentiae, sive sit utilis, sive delectabilis, similitudo est causa separationis et odii. Cum enim isto amore aliquem diligam inquantum est mihi utilis vel delectabilis, quidquid est impeditivum utilitatis seu delectationis, habeo odio contrarium. Et inde est quod superbi iurgantur adinvicem, inquantum unus usurpat sibi gloriam quam alius amat, et in qua delectatur; figuli etiam, inquantum unus trahit ad se lucrum, quod alius pro se volebat. I reply that there are two kinds of love: the love of friendship and the love of concupiscence. These are quite different. With the love of concupiscence we draw external things or persons to ourselves, and we love these others insofar as they are useful to us or give us pleasure. But in the love of friendship we have the opposite, for we draw ourselves to what is external to us, because those we love in this way we treat the same as ourselves, sharing ourselves with them in some way. Thus, likeness is a cause of love, when we are speaking of the love of friendship, for we do not love a person in this way unless we are one with that person: and likeness is a certain way of being one. But with the love of concupiscence, whether it is for what is useful or gives pleasure, likeness is a cause of division and hated. For since with this love I love some person or thing insofar as it is useful to me or gives me pleasure, I hate as opposed to me whatever hinders this usefulness or pleasure. So it is that the proud feud among themselves, for one takes for himself the glory that another loves and in which he takes pleasure. As for the potters, they quarrel because one takes for himself some profit which another wants for himself. Sed sciendum, quod amor concupiscentiae non est rei concupitae, sed concupiscentis: propter hoc enim quis hoc amore aliquem diligit, inquantum est sibi utilis, ut dictum est. Et ideo magis diligit in hoc se quam illum: sicut qui diligit vinum quia est sibi delectabile, se potius quam vinum diligit. Sed amor amicitiae est potius rei amatae quam amantis, quia diligit aliquem propter ipsum dilectum, non propter ipsum diligentem. Sic ergo, quia in amore amicitiae similitudo causa est amoris, dissimilitudo causa odii, inde est quod mundus odio habet quod suum non est et sibi dissimile, et diligit, idest dilectione amicitiae, quod suum est. Sed de dilectione concupiscentiae est e converso. Et ideo dicit si de mundo fuissetis, mundus quod suum erat diligeret, scilicet amore amicitiae. Notice that the love of concupiscence is not a love for the thing desired but a love for the person desiring: for in this kind of love, one loves another because the other is useful, as was said. Therefore, in this kind of love, one is rather loving himself than the other. For example, a person who loves wine because it gives him pleasure loves himself rather than the wine. But the love of friendship is concerned rather with the thing loved than with the one loving, because here one loves another for the sake of the one loved, and not for the sake of the one loving. And so because in the love of friendship likeness is a cause of love, and unlikeness a cause of hatred, the world hates what is not its own and is unlike it; but it loves, with the love of friendship, what is its own. It is the reverse with the love of concupiscence. Thus he says, If you were of the world, the world would love its own, with the love of friendship. Hic ponit causam quare apostoli habentur odio a mundo, quae est dissimilitudo. Dicit ergo quia vero de mundo non estis, mentis scilicet elevatione, quamvis sitis per originem; supra VIII, 23: vos de deorsum estis: ego autem de supernis sum. Et hoc quidem, quia elevati estis a mundo, non ex vobis, sed ex gratia mea, quia scilicet, ego elegi vos de mundo; supra eodem: ego elegi vos; propterea, quia scilicet de mundo non estis, odit vos mundus, idest mundi amatores, ut eis dissimiles: Prov. c. XXIX, 27: abominantur iusti impios, et abominantur impii eos qui in recta sunt via. Et ibid. 10: viri sanguinum oderunt et cetera. 2037 Now he gives the reason why the world hates the apostles, which is because they are unlike the world. He says, but because you are not of the world, because your spirit has been lifted above it ‑ although you are of the world by your origin: "You are from below, I am from above" (8:23) ‑ lifted above it not by yourselves but by my grace, because I chose you out of the world, therefore, because you are not of the world, the world hates you, that is, those who love the world and who are unlike you, hate you: "An unjust man is an abomination to the righteous, but he whose way is straight is an abomination to the wicked" (Prv 29:27); and in the same chapter "Bloodthirsty men hate one who is blameless" (v 10). Potest autem triplex ratio assignari quare mundus odit sanctos. Prima est diversitas conditionis: quia scilicet mundus in morte est, sed sancti sunt in statu vitae; I Io. III, 13: nolite mirari, fratres, si odit vos mundus. Nos scimus quoniam translati sumus de morte ad vitam, quoniam diligimus fratres. Et ideo dicit Sap. II, 15: gravis est nobis etiam ad videndum. Secunda ratio est displicentia correctionis. Nam sancti viri et verbis et factis mundi facta reprehendunt; et ideo mundus odit eos; Amos V, v. 10: odio habuerunt corripientem in porta; supra VII, 7: me autem odit, scilicet mundus, quia testimonium perhibeo de illo, quod opera eius mala sunt. Tertia ratio est iniquitas aemulationis, qua mali invident viris iustis, cum eos vident crescere et multiplicari in bonitate et sanctitate; sicut Aegyptii videntes crescere filios Israel, habebant eos odio, et persequebantur, Ex. I, 9 ss., et Gen. XXXVII, 4, dicitur, quod videntes fratres Ioseph quod a cunctis plus amaretur, oderant eum. Hic explicat rationes supradictas, et primo primam, quae pertinet ad exemplum; secundo secundam, quae pertinet ad causam odii, ibi sed haec omnia facient vobis propter nomen meum. 2038 Three reasons can be given why the world hates those who are holy. First, there is a difference of condition: the world is in a state of death, but those who are holy are in a state of life: "Do not wonder, brethren, that the world hates you. We know that we have passed out of death into life, because we love the brethren" (1 Jn 3:13). And so we read: "The very sight of him is a burden to us" (Wis 2:15). The second reason is that the world does not like to be corrected: for those who are holy are, by their words and actions, a rebuke to the conduct of the world. Consequently the world hates them: "They hate him who reproves in the gate" (Amos 5:10); "But it," the world, "hates me because I testify of it that its works are evil" (7:7). The third reason is because of evil envy, for those who are evil envy the good when they see them grow and increase in goodness and holiness, just like the Egyptians hated and persecuted the children of Israel when they saw them increasing (Ex 1:9). And we also see that Joseph's brothers hated him when they saw that he was loved more than they (Gen 37:4). Circa primum duo facit. Primo commemorat diversitatem gradus sui ad discipulos; secundo ostendit similitudinem factorum, ibi si me persecuti sunt, et vos persequentur. Diversitas gradus Christi ad discipulos erat, quia ipse dominus erat, illi autem servi; unde supra XIII, 16, dicit: non est servus maior domino suo. 2039 Now he amplifies on the reasons just given for their consolation: first, the one using himself as an example; secondly, the one relating to the reason why they are hated (v 21). He does two things with the first: first, he reminds them that he and they are different in condition; secondly, he shows they are alike in what will be done to them, If they persecuted me, they will persecute you. Hanc ergo diversitatem commemorat, dicens mementote sermonis mei, quem ego dixi vobis, supra c. XIII, 16, scilicet quod non est servus maior domino suo. Ergo non debet esse vobis indignum, si patiamini ea quae passus est dominus vester; immo debetis vobis reputare hoc ad magnam gloriam. Unde Matth. c. XX, 22, discipulis petentibus sedere unus ad dexteram et alius ad sinistram, dixit: potestis bibere calicem quem ego bibiturus sum? Eccli. XXIII, 38: gloria magna est sequi dominum; Matth. X, 25: sufficit discipulo ut sit sicut magister eius. 2040 Their different conditions were that Christ was the Lord and the apostles were servants: "A servant is not greater than his master" (13:16). He reminds them of this difference when he says, Remember the word that I said to you, A servant is not greater than his master. Therefore, it is not unfitting for you to undergo the same sufferings as your Lord; rather, you should regard this as a great glory. Thus Christ said to the disciples who were asking to sit on his right and left, "Are you able to drink the cup that I am to drink?" (Mt 20:22). "It is a great honor to follow God" (Sir 23:28); "It is enough for the disciple to be like his teacher" (Mt 10:25). Sed contra. Supra eodem, dixit: iam non dicam vos servos, hic autem: non est servus maior domino suo. Respondeo dicendum, quod duplex est servitus. Una procedens ex timore servili, scilicet poenae: et secundum hanc apostoli non erant servi; alia ex timore casto, et talis servitus erat in apostolis; Lc. XII, 37: beati servi illi quos cum venerit dominus invenerit vigilantes. 2041 On the contrary. He said above, "No longer do I call you servants" (15:15), while he says here, A servant is not greater than his master. I answer that there are two kinds of servitude. One comes from a slave‑like fear, that is, from a fear of punishment; and the Apostles were not servants in this way. The other comes from a "chaste fear," [the respect of a spouse], and such servitude was in the apostles: "Blessed are those servants whom the master finds awake when he comes" (Lk 12:37). Si ergo estis servi, et ego dominus, debetis esse contenti quod ea fiant vobis quae facta fuerunt mihi. Me autem quidam contempserunt, et quidam receperunt; supra I, 11: in propria venit, et sui eum non receperunt: quotquot autem receperunt eum, dedit eis potestatem filios Dei fieri: et vos similiter si aliqui contemnent, aliqui tamen honorabunt. 2042 If then you are my servants and I am your Lord, you should be content to have happen to you what happens to me. Now some have despised me, while others have accepted me: "He came to his own home, and his own people received him not. But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God" (1:11). You will be treated the same way: if some despise you, yet others will honor you. Unde dicit si me persecuti sunt, et vos persequentur: ubi ponitur similitudo sanctorum, quia eadem est ratio persecutionis quam exercebant in discipulos et in Christum, quia in discipulis Christum persequebantur; Act. IX, 4, in persecutione discipulorum Christus dicebat se persequi: Saule, Saule, quid me persequeris? For this reason he says, If they persecuted me, they will persecute you. Here we see how the saints are like Christ: for the disciples were persecuted for the same reason that Christ was, because Christ was being persecuted in the disciples. In fact in Acts (9:4) Christ said that he was being persecuted in the persecution of his disciples: "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?" Et ideo propter identitatem causae sequitur consequentia si me persecuti sunt, et vos persequentur; Matth. X, 25: si patrem familias Beelzebub vocaverunt, quanto magis domesticos eius? De ista persecutione dicitur Matth. XXIII, v. 34: ecce mitto ad vos sapientes et Scribas, et ex illis occidetis et crucifigetis, et ex eis flagellabitis in synagogis vestris, et persequemini de civitate in civitatem. Et similiter eadem ratio est honorationis; et ideo dicit si sermonem meum servaverunt, et vestrum servabunt: quia verba vestra sunt mea verba; II Cor. ult., 3: an experimentum quaeritis eius qui in me loquitur Christus? Matth. X, 20: non enim vos estis qui loquimini, sed spiritus patris vestri qui loquitur in vobis; et ideo Lc. X, v. 16, dicit: qui vos audit, me audit. Quod autem recepti sint ab aliquibus apostoli, et honorati, patet I Thess. II, 13: et vos cum accepissetis a nobis verbum auditus Dei, accepistis illud non ut verbum hominum, sed sicut est vere, verbum Dei. And so because their reason for acting is the same in the two cases, the consequence follows: If they persecuted me, they will persecute you: "If they have called the master of the house Beelzebul, how much more will they malign those of his household" (Mt 10:25). Matthew (23:34) says of this persecution: "Therefore I send you prophets and wise men and scribes, some of whom you will kill and crucify, and some you will scourge in your synagogues and persecute from to town to town." Similarly, they will be honored for the same reason that Christ was: if they kept my word, they will keep yours also, because your words are my words: "You desire proof that Christ is speaking in me" (2 Cor 13:3); "For it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you" (Mt 10:20). And so Christ says, "He who hears you hears me" (Lk 10:16). The apostles were in truth accepted and honored by some of the people, as is clear from "When you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God" (1 Thess 2: 13). Hic explicat rationem consolationis, quae sumitur ex causa odii. Apostoli enim electi erant et elevati supra mundum, inquantum erant effecti participes divinitatis, et coniuncti Deo et ideo mundus eos odio habebat: ex quo sequitur quod potius Deum in eis quam ipsos mundus odiret. Et huius odii causa erat, quia non habebant veram Dei notitiam, scilicet per veram fidem et devotum amorem: alias si cognovissent eos Dei amicos, eos non fuissent persecuti. Et ideo dicit haec omnia, quod odiunt et persequuntur vos, facient vobis propter nomen meum, et ideo debet vobis esse gloriosum; I Petr. IV, 15: nemo nostrum patiatur quasi fur aut homicida aut maledicus aut alienorum appetitor: si autem ut Christianus, non erubescat; glorificet autem Deum in isto nomine. Non autem propter nomen meum, quasi ipsum ament, sed quia ipsum odio habent. Sicut e contrario vos patiemini propter nomen meum, quia ipsum amatis. 2043 Now he amplifies on the second consideration that would console them, which is based on the reason for their being hated. The apostles were chosen and raised above the world insofar as they had been made sharers of divinity and joined to God. This is why the world hated them. From this it follows that the world rather hated God in them than hated them. The reason for this hatred was that the world lacked the true knowledge of God which comes from the true faith and devoted love. If they did have this knowledge and recognized that the apostles were friends of God, they would not have persecuted them. Thus he says, all this they will do to you, that is, hate and persecute you, on my account. And so this should be your glory: "Let none of you suffer as a murderer, or a thief, or a wrongdoer, or a mischief‑maker; yet if one suffers as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but under that name let him glorify God" (1 Pet 4:14). On my account, not because they love me, but because they hate me; just as, on the contrary, you will suffer on my account because you love me. Et haec facient, quia nesciunt eum qui me misit; supra VIII, 19: si me sciretis, et patrem meum utique sciretis. Nesciebant enim Deo esse acceptum, quod Christo adhaererent. Sed attendendum, quod hic loquitur de cognitione perfecta, quae consistit in fide perficiente intellectum, et coniungente Deo affectum: de qua cognitione dicitur Ier. IX, v. 24: in hoc glorietur qui gloriatur, scire et nosse me; Sap. XV, 3: nosse te, sensus est consummatus et cetera. They will do these things to you because they do not know him who sent me: "If you knew me, you would perhaps know my Father also" [8:19]. For they did not know that God would be pleased by their accepting Christ. Note that he is speaking here of a perfect knowledge, which consists in a faith which perfects the intellect and joins the affections to God. We read of this kind of knowledge: "Let him who glories glory in this, that he understands and knows me" (Jer 9:24); "To know you is complete righteousness" (Wis 15:3).
Lectio 5 LECTURE 5 Supra dominus tractans de persecutione quae discipulis a Iudaeis superventura erat, rationem assignavit: quia nesciunt eum qui misit eum. Sed quia ignorantia excusare solet, ideo hic eos ostendit esse inexcusabiles; et hoc dupliciter. Primo per ea quae ipse personaliter circa eos fecit et docuit; secundo per ea quae in eius absentia futura erant, ibi cum autem venerit Paraclitus et cetera. Circa primum duo facit. Primo ostendit eos inexcusabiles esse propter veritatis doctrinam; secundo propter signorum evidentiam, ibi si opera non fecissem. Circa primum tria facit. Primo ostendit quid eis possit ad excusationem suffragari; secundo ostendit eos hoc suffragio carere, ibi nunc autem excusationem non habent de peccato suo; tertio ostendit ex qua radice procedit eorum persecutio, ibi qui me odit, et patrem meum odit. 2044 Before, when our Lord said that the Jews would persecute his disciples, he give as the reason that the Jews did not know the one who sent him. Now, since ignorance usually excuses one, he here shows that they are inexcusable. He does this in two ways: first, because of the things he personally did and taught them; secondly, because of what will occur when he is no longer present (v 26). In regard to the first he does two things: first, he shows that they were without excuse because of the truth he taught; secondly, because of the witness of the works he performed (v 24). He does three things about the first: first, he shows what could have excused them; secondly, that they did not have this excuse (v 22); thirdly, he shows the real source of their persecution (v 23). Dicit ergo quod haec omnia facient vobis propter nomen meum: et quidem de his excusari possent, si non venissem, et locutus eis non fuissem; idest, si non ostendissem me personaliter, et eos personaliter non docuissem, peccatum non haberent. 2045 He had said: "But all this they will do to you on my account." Yet they might have had an excuse. If I had not come and spoken to them, that is, if I had not shown myself personally and taught them personally, they would not have sin. Sed contra; Rom. III, 23: omnes peccaverunt, et egent gratia Dei. Sed dicendum, quod non loquitur hic dominus de quocumque peccato, sed de peccato infidelitatis, quod non credunt in Christum: quod antonomastice peccatum dicitur, quia isto peccato existente, nullum aliud peccatum remitti potest, cum nullum peccatum remittatur nisi per fidem Iesu Christi, per quem est iustitia, ut dicitur Rom. V, 1. Et ideo idem est quod dicit peccatum non haberent, ac si diceret: non imputaretur eis quod in me non credunt. Et hoc primo, quia fides est ex auditu: Rom. X, 17. Unde si non venisset, et locutus eis non fuisset, non potuissent credere. Nulli autem imputatur ad peccatum, si non facit quod nullo modo facere potest. 2046 How does this reconcile with Romans (3:23) which states that "All have sinned"? We should say that our Lord is not speaking here of just any sin, but of the sin of disbelief, that is, they do not believe in Christ. This is called here simply "sin" because it is a prime example of sin, because as long as this sin lasts, no other sin can be remitted; for no sin is remitted except by faith in Jesus Christ through whom we are justified, as we read in Romans (5:1). Consequently, they would not have sin means that they would not be charged with not believing in him. This is primarily because "faith comes from what is heard" (Rom 10:17). So, if Christ had not come and had not spoken to them, they could not have believed. And no one is charged with a sin for not doing what he can't do at all. Et si dicatur, quod tenebantur, et credere poterant, etiam si Christus non venisset, cum fuerit eis annuntiatum per prophetas, Rom. I, 2: quod ante promiserat per prophetas suos in Scripturis sanctis de filio suo etc., respondendum est, quod nec ipsa verba prophetarum Iudaei per se credere et intelligere poterant nisi eis divino auxilio ostenderentur; Dan. XII, 9: clausi sunt signatique sermones usque ad tempus. Unde Act. c. VIII, 31, dicebat eunuchus: quomodo intelligere possum nisi aliquis ostenderit mihi? Sic ergo si Christus non venisset, hoc peccatum, scilicet, infidelitatis, non haberent, quamvis alia peccata actualia habuissent propter quae fuissent puniti. Et similis ratio est de omnibus illis ad quos praedicatio verbi Dei pervenire non potuit. Unde non imputatur eis ad condemnationem infidelitatis peccatum; sed privati beneficio Dei propter alia eorum peccata actualia et originalia, damnabuntur. 2047 Yet some could say that they were bound to believe and could have believed even if Christ had not come, since he had been foretold to them by the prophets: "which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy scriptures, the gospel concerning his Son" (Rom 1:2). I answer that of themselves the Jews could not believe and understand the words of the prophets unless they were shown by divine help: "The words are shut up and sealed until the appointed time" [Dan 12:9]. Thus the eunuch said: "How can I understand, unless some one guides me?" (Acts 8:31). Therefore, if Christ had not come, they would not have this sin, the sin of disbelief, although they would have had other actual sins for which they would have been punished. And a similar reasoning holds for all those whom the preaching of God's word could not reach. For this reason they cannot be charged with the sin of disbelief for their condemnation; but they will be condemned, because deprived of God's favors because of their other actual sins and original sin. Sciendum autem quod multis Christi adventus et doctrina cessit in bonum, illis scilicet qui eum receperunt, et sermonem suum servaverunt; et multis ad malum, illis scilicet qui nec eum audire nec ei credere voluerunt; Is. VIII, 14: erit vobis in lapidem offensionis et in petram scandali duabus domibus Israel; in laqueum et ruinam habitantibus Ierusalem; Lc. II, 34: positus est hic in ruinam et in resurrectionem multorum. 2048 Note that Christ's coming and teaching resulted in good for many, that is, for those who accepted him and kept his word. And for many it turned out bad, that is, for those who decided neither to listen to him nor believe him. "He will become ... a stone of offense and a rock of stumbling to both houses of Israel, a trap and a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem" (Is 8:14); "This child is set for the fall and rising of many in Israel" (Lk 2:34). Sic ergo posuit per quid ab infidelitate excusari possent. Sed hoc excusationis suffragio carent, quia et eis personaliter se exhibuit Christus, et eos docuit. Unde dicit nunc autem, scilicet ex quo veni, et locutus fui, excusationem non habent scilicet per ignorantiam, de peccato suo; Rom. c. I, 20: ita ut sint inexcusabiles: quia cum cognovissent Deum, non sicut Deum glorificaverunt. Quod autem ipsi cognoverint Christum, patet Matth. XII, 7: hic est heres: venite, occidamus eum. Sed cognoverunt eum esse Christum promissum in lege, non autem esse Deum: quia si hoc cognovissent, numquam dominum gloriae crucifixissent. Non ergo est eis ignorantia ad excusationem: quia non ex ignorantia hoc fecerunt, sed ex alia radice, scilicet ex odio et certa malitia. 2049 He has just stated what could have excused them from unbelief. But they don't have this excuse because Christ showed himself to them in person and taught them. Thus he says, but now, since I have come and spoken to them, they have no excuse, that of ignorance, for their sin. "So they are without excuse; for although they knew God they did not honor him as God" (Rom 1:20). But they did know Christ, as is clear from Matthew (21:38): "This is the heir; come, let us kill him." However, they knew that he was the Christ promised in the law, but they did not know that he was God, because "If they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory" (1 Cor 2:8). And so their ignorance is no excuse, because they did not do this from ignorance but from another root, that is, from hatred and a certain malice. Unde subdit qui me odit, et patrem meum odit, quasi dicat: non ignorantia, sed odium quod habuerunt ad me, est eis ad peccatum, et hoc, quia redundat in odium patris. Cum enim filius et pater unum sint in essentia, veritate et bonitate, et omnis cognitio alicuius sit per veritatem quae in ipso est, quicumque diligit filium, diligit et patrem; et quicumque cognoscit unum, cognoscit et alium; et qui odit filium odit et patrem. 2050 This is why he adds, He who hates me hates my Father also. This is like saying: Their sin is not ignorance of me, but hatred for me, and this involves hatred for the Father. Since the Son and the Father are one in essence, truth and goodness, and since all knowledge of anyone is through the truth which is in him, whoever loves the Son loves the Father also; and whoever knows the one knows the other also; and whoever hates the Son hates the Father also. Sed hic est duplex quaestio. Prima, utrum aliquis possit Deum odio habere. Ad quod dicendum, quod Deum, inquantum Deus est, nullus potest odio habere. Cum Deus sit pura essentia bonitatis, quae cum sit secundum se diligibilis, impossibile est quod secundum se ab aliquo odiatur. Unde haec est ratio quare impossibile est quod malus Deum videat. Impossibile est enim Deum videri ab aliquo, quin diligatur: qui autem Deum diligit, bonus est; unde haec sunt incompossibilia, scilicet quod aliquis Deum videat et sit malus. 2051 Two problems arise here. First, whether anyone can hate God? We should say that no one can hate God as God. Since God is the pure essence of goodness, and since this is lovable in itself, it is impossible that God be hated in himself. This is the reason why it is impossible for an evil person to see God. For it is impossible for God to be seen without being loved; and one who loves God is good. So these two things are incompatible, namely, to see God and be evil. Potest tamen aliquis Deum odio habere secundum aliquid aliud, puta, qui amat voluptatem, odit Deum ut prohibentem voluptatum fruitiones, et qui quaerit impunitatem, odit Dei iustitiam punientem. Yet one can hate God from a particular point of view. For example, one who loves lustful pleasures hates God as forbidding the enjoyment of lust, and one who wants to be free from all punishment hates the justice of God when it punishes.[23] Secunda quaestio est quia nullus potest habere odio quod ignorat: Iudaei autem ignorabant patrem, supra eodem: nesciunt eum qui me misit: non ergo verum videtur quod dicit et patrem meum odit. Sed dicendum, secundum Augustinum, quod aliquis potest aliquid diligere vel odire quod numquam vidit, neque secundum veritatem cognoscit, sed fama de eo bene seu male sermocinante. Sed hoc potest contingere dupliciter. Uno modo quod habeatur odio seu diligatur secundum ipsam eius personam, vel secundum id quod de eo narratur; sicut si audiam aliquem esse furem, odio eum, non quia ipsam eius personam cognoscam vel odiam, sed quia communiter odio omnem furem: unde si esset fur, et ego eum furem esse nescirem, haberem eum odio, nec tamen scirem me eum odire. Iudaei autem habebant odio Christum, et veritatem quam praedicabat. Unde cum ipsa veritas, quam Christus praedicabat, esset in voluntate Dei patris, et opera quae Christus faciebat; similiter sicut Christum, odio habebant patrem, licet ipsi nescirent illa esse in voluntate patris. 2052 The second problem arises because no once can hate what he does not know. But the Jews did not know the Father: "They do not know him who sent me" (15:21). Therefore, what he says here does not seem to be true, that they hate my Father also. We can say, according to Augustine, that a person can love or hate something that was never seen nor truly known.[24] This can happen in two ways. In one way, I can hate or love a person according as I know him; or, according to what I am told about him. For example, if I hear that someone is a thief I hate him, not because I know or hate this very person, but because in general I hate all thieves. So, if he were a thief and I did not know it, I would hate him without knowing that I hated him. Now the Jews hated Christ and the truth that he preached. Since the very truth that Christ preached and the works he performed were in the will of God the Father, then just as they hated Christ, so also they hated the Father, even though they did not know that these things were in the will of the Father. Hic ostendit eos inexcusabiles esse per signorum evidentiam. Possent enim dicere, quod ex verbis quae contra eos dicit, non convincuntur; et ideo verba mirabilibus factis confirmat, dicens si opera non fecissem in eis quae nemo alius fecit, peccatum non haberent. Primo ostendit quod possent aliquatenus excusabiles esse; secundo radicem peccati eorum ostendit; tertio inducit auctoritatem. Secundum facit ibi nunc autem viderunt et oderunt et me et patrem meum; tertio, ibi ut impleatur sermo qui in lege eorum scriptus est. 2053 Now he shows they are without excuse because of the witness of his signs. They could say that they were not convinced by the words he spoke in opposition to them. So he corroborates his words with marvelous actions, saying, If I had not done among them the works which no one else did, they would not have sin. First, he shows that they could be somewhat excused; secondly, he reveals the root of their sin (v 24b); thirdly, he cites an authority (v 25). Circa primum ponitur duplex quaestio. Una quae est de veritate antecedentis, scilicet si opera non fecissem quae nemo alius fecit etc.: et quaeritur utrum Christus fecerit aliqua bona opera in eis quae nullus alius fecerat. Et videtur quod non: quia si dicatur quod Christus suscitavit mortuos, hoc et Elias et Eliseus fecerunt. Si Christus ambulavit supra mare, Moyses mare divisit. Sed Iosue, quod maius est, fecit, scilicet solem stare. Inconvenienter ergo videtur Christus eos arguere, nec videtur consequentia habere veritatem. 2054 There are two questions about the first point. One is about the truth of the antecedent statement, If I had not done among them the works which no one else did. Did Christ perform certain good works among them that no one else had done? It seems not. If we say that Christ raised the dead, Elijah and Elisha also did this. If Christ walked on the water, Moses parted the waters. Again, Joshua did something greater [than Christ] for he made the sun stand still. So it seems that Christ should not use this as an argument, and thus the conclusion is not true. Respondeo. Dicendum, secundum Augustinum, quod dominus non loquitur hic de quibuscumque miraculis factis in eis, idest in conspectu eorum, sed de factis in eis, idest in personis eorum. Nam in curatione infirmorum nullus tantum in eis fecit quantum Christus: quamvis etiam in aliis similiter, quia nullus homo alius factus est Deus, et nullus natus de virgine nisi Christus. Fecit ergo in eis opera quae nullus alius fecit in curatione infirmorum; et hoc in tribus. Primo quidem in magnitudine: quia mortuum quatriduanum suscitavit, caecum natum illuminavit, quod a saeculo non est auditum, ut dicitur supra IX, 32. Secundo in multitudine: quia omnes quotquot male habebant, curabat, ut dicitur Matth. XIV, 35 s. quod nullus alius fecit. Tertio in modo: quia alii faciebant invocando, ostendentes se non propria virtute facere; sed Christus faciebat imperando, quia propria virtute; Mc. I, 27: quae est haec doctrina nova? Quia in virtute et potestate etiam spiritibus immundis imperat et obediunt ei. I answer that we can say, according to Augustine, that our Lord is not speaking of the miracles he worked among them, that is, merely in their sight, but of those he worked "among" them, that is, on their very persons.[25] In curing the sick, although others did it, no one did it so much as Christ, because no other was made God and no one was born of a virgin but Christ. So in healing the sick he performed among them works which no one else performed; and this in three ways. First, because his works were so great: for he raised a person who had been dead for four days; he gave sight to a man who was born blind, which had never been heard of before, as we read above (9:32). Secondly, because of the great number of his works, for he healed all who were sick (Mt 14:35), and no one else did this. Thirdly, because of the way he did these works: others did these things by praying for help, which showed that they were not doing this by their own power; but Christ did it by command, for he did it by his own power: "What is this? A new teaching! With authority he commands even the unclean spirits, and they obey him" (Mk 1:27). Sic ergo licet alii mortuos suscitarent, et alia miraculosa facerent, quae Christus fecit, non tamen eo modo, nec propria virtute, ut Christus. Similiter quod dicitur de statione solis minus est eo quod Christus moriens lunam retrocedere fecit, et totum cursum firmamenti mutavit, ut Dionysius dicit. Therefore, although others have raised the dead and have accomplished other miracles which Christ did, they did not do it in the same manner as Christ, nor by their own power, as Christ did. Further, making the sun stand still is less than what the dying Christ did, when he made the moon move backwards and changed the whole course of the heavens, as Dionysius says.[26] Secunda quaestio est de veritate conditionalis utrum scilicet, si Christus non fecisset in eis opera quae nemo alius fecit, immunes essent a peccato infidelitatis. Responsio. Dicendum: si nos loquamur de quibuscumque miraculis, haberent excusationem, si in eis facta non fuissent per Christum. Nullus enim potest ad Christum venire per fidem nisi tractus; supra VI, 44: nemo potest venire ad me, nisi pater, qui misit me, traxerit eum. Et ideo Cant. I, 3, dicit sponsa: trahe me post te: curremus in odorem unguentorum tuorum. Unde si nullus esset qui eos traxisset ad fidem, excusabiles essent de infidelitate. Sed est attendendum, quod Christus attraxit verbo, signis visibilibus et invisibilibus, scilicet movendo et instigando interius corda; Prov. XXI, 1: cor regum in manu Dei. Est ergo opus Dei instinctus interior ad bene agendum, et qui ei resistunt, peccant: alias frustra dixisset Stephanus Act. VII, 5: vos semper spiritui sancto restitistis. Et Is. l, 5: dominus aperuit mihi aurem, scilicet cordis, ego autem non contradico. Est ergo hoc quod dominus dicit si opera non fecissem in eis quae nemo alius fecit, intelligendum non solum de visibilibus, sed etiam de interiori instinctu, et attractu doctrinae: quae quidem si in eis non fecisset, peccatum non haberent. Sic ergo patet quomodo excusari possent, per hoc scilicet, si in eis non fecisset opera miraculosa. 2055 The second question is about the truth of the conditional statement, that if Christ had not done among them works which no one else did, the Jews would not have the sin of disbelief. My reply is that if we speak of any of the miracles indiscriminately, the Jews would have been excusable if they had not been done among them by Christ. For no one can come to Christ by faith unless he is drawn: "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him" (6:44). So the spouse says in the Song (1:4): "Draw me after you." Therefore, if there were no one who had drawn them to the faith, they would have an excuse for their disbelief. Note that Christ drew by words and by signs, both visible and invisible, that is, by inciting and stirring hearts from within: "The king's heart is a stream of water in the hand of the Lord" (Prv 21:1). And so an inner impulse to act well is the work of God, and those who resist it sin. If not, Stephen would have no reason to say: "You always resist the Holy Spirit" (Acts 7:51). And Isaiah (50:5) says: "The Lord has opened my ear," that is, the ear of my heart, "and I was not rebellious." When our Lord said, If I had not done among them the works which no one else did, we have to understand this as referring not only to visible works but also to the interior impulses and attractions to his teaching. If these had not been done among them, they would not have sin. It is now clear how they could have been excused, that is, if he had not accomplished miraculous works among them. Hic ostendit ex qua radice peccatum infidelitatis incurrerent: scilicet ex odio, propter quod operibus visis non credebant. Unde dicit nunc autem viderunt, scilicet opera quae in eis fecit, et oderunt me et patrem meum; Prov. I, 29: eo quod exosam habuerunt disciplinam, et timorem domini non susceperunt. Et, sicut Gregorius dicit, sunt nonnulli in Ecclesia qui non solum bona non faciunt, sed etiam persequuntur, et quae ipsi facere negligunt, etiam in aliis detestantur: unde horum peccatum non ex infirmitate aut ignorantia, sed ex solo studio perpetratur. 2056 Now he shows the root of their sin of disbelief, namely, their hatred, because of which they did not believe the works they saw. He says, but now they have seen, the works he did among them, and hated both me and my Father: "Because they hated knowledge and did not choose the fear of the Lord" (Prv 1:29). As Gregory says, there are some in the Church who not only do not do good works, but they even persecute those who do, so that what they fail to do they detest in others.[27] Thus their sin is not one of weakness or ignorance, but is committed of set purpose. Quia possent dicere: si ita est quod Iudaei oderunt te et patrem tuum, quare in eis miracula facis? Ideo respondens dicit quod hoc facit ut impleatur sermo qui in lege eorum scriptus est. Sed hic dubitatur de hoc, quod cum scriptum sit in Psalmis, dicit quod in lege eorum scriptum est. Ad quod dicendum est, quod lex in Scriptura accipitur tripliciter. Quandoque enim communiter pro toto veteri testamento; et sic accipitur hic quia tota doctrina veteris testamenti ordinatur ad observantiam legis; Lc. XXIII, 42: memento mei et cetera. Quandoque sumitur secundum quod dividitur contra Agiographa et prophetas; Lc. ult., 44: oportet impleri omnia quae scripta sunt in prophetis, et lege, scilicet Moysi, et Psalmis; quibus etiam annumerantur Agiographa. Quandoque autem sumitur lex prout dividitur solum contra prophetas; et tunc Agiographa numerantur cum prophetis. Dicit ergo ut impleatur sermo qui in lege eorum (idest in Ps. XXXIV, 19) scriptus est, quia odio habuerunt me gratis; idest, non propter commodum consequendum, vel incommodum vitandum, propter hoc enim homo aliqua odit quae non fuerunt in Christo; immo dabat eis occasionem amoris, sanans et docens eos; Act. X, 38: pertransiens benefaciebat; Ier. XVIII, 20: numquid redditur pro bono malum, quia foderunt foveam animae meae? Ibid. II, 5: quid iniquitatis invenerunt in me patres vestri, quia elongaverunt a me? 2057 Yet some could say: If it is true that the Jews hated you and your Father, why did you perform miracles among them? He answers and says It is to fulfill the word that is written in their law. Here we could ask why he says that this was written in their law when it was written in the Psalms? We can say to this that the "law" is understood in three ways in scripture. Sometimes it is taken for the entire Old Testament; and this is the way it is understood here, because the entire teaching of the Old Testament is directed to the observance of the law: "Jesus, remember me when you come in your kingdom" (Lk 23:42). Sometimes it is taken as distinguished from the histories and the prophets: "that everything written about me in the law of Moses and the prophets and the psalms" (in which the histories are sometimes included) "must be fulfilled" (Lk 24:44). And sometimes the law is taken as distinct only from the prophets, and then the histories are included in the prophets. He says, It is to fulfill what is written in their law, that is, in the Psalms (35:19) 'They hated me without a cause,' and not to gain some benefit or avoid some trouble (for this is why people hate). Indeed, Christ gave them opportunities to love him when he healed and taught them: "He went about doing good" (Acts 10:38); "Is evil a recompense for good? They have dug a pit for my life" (Jer 18:20); "What wrong did your fathers find in me that they went far from me" (Jer 2:5). Hic ostendit quod non sunt excusabiles propter ea quae post eum superventura erant, quia habituri erant alia testimonia, scilicet spiritus sancti, et etiam apostolorum, et primo ponit id quod superventurum erat ex parte spiritus sancti; secundo id quod futurum erat ex parte apostolorum, ibi et vos testimonium perhibebitis et cetera. Quantum ad spiritum sanctum quatuor tangit. Primo quidem libertatem; secundo suavitatem; tertio processionem; quarto operationem. 2058 Now he shows that they are inexcusable because of what will come to pass after him: because they would have other testimonies, namely, those of the Holy Spirit and of the apostles. First, he states what was to come from the Holy Spirit; secondly, from the apostles (v 27). He indicates four things about the Spirit: his freedom, tenderness, procession and activity. Libertatem quidem, seu potestatem, cum dicit cum venerit Paraclitus et cetera. Ille enim proprie venire dicitur qui sponte et propria auctoritate vadit; et hoc convenit spiritui sancto, qui ubi vult spirat: supra III, 8. Sap. VII, 7: invocavi, et venit in me spiritus sapientiae. Hoc ergo quod dicit mittam, non coactionem designat, sed originem. 2059 He indicates his freedom, or power, when he says, But when the Paraclete comes. Strictly speaking that person is said to come who comes willingly and on his own authority; and this is true of the Holy Spirit, because "the Spirit blows where it wills" [3:8]; "I called upon God, and the Spirit of wisdom came to me" (Wis 7:7). Therefore, in saying, whom I shall send, he does not suggest force but origin. Suavitatem tangit cum dicit Paraclitus, idest consolator. Nam cum sit amor Dei, facit nos terrena contemnere, et Deo adhaerere; unde dolorem et tristitiam de nobis excludit, et gaudium de divinis ministrat; Gal. c. V, 22: fructus spiritus est caritas, gaudium, pax etc.; Act. IX, 31: Ecclesia replebatur consolatione spiritus sancti et cetera. 2060 He touches on his tenderness when he says, the Paraclete, that is the Consoler. Since the Paraclete is the Love of God he makes us scorn earthly things and cling to God; and thus he takes away our pain and sadness and gives us joy in divine things: "The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace" (Gal 5:22); and in Acts (9:31) we read that the Church was walking "in the comfort of the Holy Spirit." Tertio ponit processionem spiritus sancti duplicem. Primo quidem temporalem, cum dicit quem ego mittam vobis a patre et cetera. Ubi sciendum est, quod spiritus sanctus mitti dicitur, non quasi locum mutans, cum ipse impleat orbem terrarum, ut dicitur Sap. c. I, 7, sed quia novo modo per gratiam incipit habitare in eis quos templum Dei facit; I Cor. III, 15: templum Dei estis, et spiritus Dei habitabit in vobis. Nec est contrarium quod spiritus sanctus dicitur mitti et venire: nam in hoc quod venire dicitur, manifeste apparet maiestas divinitatis ipsius, qui operatur prout vult, I Cor. XII, 6. Dicitur autem mitti ut ostendatur processio ipsius ab alio: quod enim creaturam rationalem inhabitando sanctificet, ab alio habet, a quo habet ut sit, sicut filius ab alio habet quidquid operatur. 2061 Thirdly, he touches on the twofold procession of the Holy Spirit. First, he mentions the temporal procession when he says, whom I shall send to you from the Father. Note that the Holy Spirit is said to be sent not because the Spirit is changing place, since the Spirit fills the entire universe, as we read in Wisdom (1:7), but because, by grace, the Holy Spirit begins to dwell in a new way in those he makes a temple of God: "Do you not know that you are God's temple and that God's Spirit dwells in you?" (1 Cor 3:16). There is no disagreement in saying that the Holy Spirit is sent and that he comes. In saying that the Spirit comes, the grandeur of his divinity is indicated: the "Spirit, who apportions to each one individually as he wills" (1 Cor 12:11). And he is said to be sent to indicate his procession from another, for the fact that he sanctifies the rational creature by indwelling he has from that other, from whom he has it that he is, just as it is from another that the Son has whatever he does. Est etiam attendendum quod missio spiritus sancti communiter est a patre et filio: quod signatur Apoc. ult., 1: ostendit mihi fluvium aquae vitae, idest spiritum sanctum, procedentem a sede Dei et agni, idest Christi. Ideo circa missionem spiritus sancti facit mentionem de patre et filio, a quibus aequali et eadem virtute mittitur. Et ideo quandoque introducit patrem mittentem, non tamen absque filio; sicut supra XIV, 26: Paraclitus autem spiritus sanctus quem mittet pater in nomine meo. Quandoque autem introducit seipsum mittentem non sine patre, sicut hic cum dicit quem ego mittam vobis a patre, quia, scilicet, filius quidquid operatur, habet a patre; supra V, 19: non potest filius a se facere quidquam. The Holy Spirit is sent by the Father and the Son together; and this is indicated in "He showed me the river of the water of life," that is, the Holy Spirit, "flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb," that is, of Christ (Rev 22:1). Therefore, when speaking of the sending of the Holy Spirit he mentions the Father and the Son, who send the Spirit by the same and equal power. Thus sometimes he mentions the Father as sending the Spirit, but not without the Son, as above (14:26): "The Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name"; at other times he says that he himself sends the Holy Spirit, but not without the Father: as here, whom I shall send to you from the Father, because whatever the Son does he has from the Father: "The Son cannot do anything of himself" [5:19].[28] Secundo ponit processionem aeternam, ubi similiter spiritum sanctum ostendit pertinere ad filium, cum dicit spiritum veritatis; ipse enim est veritas; supra c. XIV, 6: ego sum via, veritas et vita: et ad patrem, cum dicit qui a patre procedit. Sic ergo quod dicit spiritum veritatis, idem est ac si diceret spiritum filii; Gal. IV, 6: misit Deus spiritum filii sui in corda vestra. Et quia hoc nomen spiritus quamdam impulsionem importat, omnis autem motus habet effectum convenientem suo principio, sicut calefactio facit calidum: consequens est ut spiritus sanctus eos, in quos mittitur, similes faciat ei cuius est spiritus: et ideo, cum sit spiritus veritatis, docet omnem veritatem, ut infra XVI, 13, dicitur; et Iob XXXII, v. 8: inspiratio omnipotentis dat intelligentiam. Et similiter quia est spiritus filii, facit filios; Rom. VIII, 15: accepistis spiritum adoptionis filiorum. Dicit autem spiritus veritatis, ad differentiam spiritus mendacii; Is. XIX, 14: dominus miscuit in medio Aegypti spiritum erroris; III Reg. ult., 22: egrediar, et ero spiritus mendax in ore omnium prophetarum eius. 2062 He mentions the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit when he shows in a similar way that the Spirit is related both to the Father and the Son. He shows the Spirit as related to the Son when he says, the Spirit of truth, for the Son is the Truth: "I am the way, and the truth, and the life" (14:6). He shows the Spirit as related to the Father when he says, who proceeds from the Father. So to say that the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of truth, is the same as saying the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of the Son: "God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts" (Gal 4:6). And because the word "spirit" (spiritus) suggests a kind of impulse and every motion produces an effect in harmony with its source (as heating makes something hot), it follows that the Holy Spirit makes those to whom he is sent like the one whose Spirit he is. And since he is the Spirit of Truth "He will teach you all truth" [16:13]; "The inspiration of the Almighty gives understanding" [Job 32:8]. In the same way, because he is the Spirit of the Son, he produces sons: "You have received the spirit of sonship" (Rom 8:15). He says the Spirit of truth as contrasted with the spirit of lying: "The Lord has mingled within her the spirit of error" [Is 19:14]; "I will go forth, and will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets" (1 Kgs 22:22). Sed quia dicit qui a patre procedit et non addit a patre et filio, dicunt Graeci, quod spiritus sanctus non procedat a filio, sed solum a patre; quod omnino esse non potest. Non enim posset spiritus sanctus distingui a filio nisi vel ipse procedat a filio, vel e converso filius ab eo; quod nullus dicit. Non enim potest dici, quod in divinis personis, quae sunt omnino immateriales et simplices, sit materialis distinctio, quae est secundum divisionem quantitatis, cui substat materia. Unde oportet quod distinctio personarum divinarum sit ad modum distinctionis formalis, quam oportet esse secundum aliquam oppositionem. Nam quaecumque formae non oppositae se compatiuntur ad invicem in eodem, non diversificant suppositum, sicut album et magnum. Unde in divinis personis, quia innascibilitas et paternitas non opponuntur, pertinent ad unam personam. Si igitur filius et spiritus sanctus sunt personae distinctae procedentes a patre, oportet quod aliquibus proprietatibus oppositis distinguantur: non autem oppositis secundum affirmationem et negationem aut secundum privationem et habitum, quia sic filius et spiritus sanctus se haberent ad invicem sicut ens et non ens, et sicut perfectum et privatum, quod repugnat aequalitati ipsorum; nec etiam secundum oppositionem contrariorum, quorum unum est perfectius altero. Unde relinquitur quod per solam oppositionem relativam distinguatur spiritus sanctus a filio. 2063 Because he says who proceeds from the Father and does not add "and from the Son," the Greeks say that the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Son but only from the Father. But this absolutely cannot be. For the Holy Spirit could not be distinguished from the Son unless he either proceeds from the Son, or on the other hand, the Son proceeds from him (and no one claims this). For one cannot say that among the divine persons, who are entirely immaterial and simple, there is a material distinction based on a division of quantity, which matter underlies. Thus it is necessary that the distinction of the divine persons be by way of a formal distinction, which has to involve some kind of opposition. For if forms are not opposed they are compatible with one another in the same subject and do not diversify a supposit; for example, to be white and large. So among the divine persons, since "not subject to birth" and "fatherhood" are not opposed, they belong to one person. If, then, the Son and the Holy Spirit are distinct persons proceeding from the Father, they have to be distinguished by some properties that are opposed. These properties cannot be opposed like affirmation and negation or privation and possessing are opposed, because then the Son and the Holy Spirit would be related to one another like being and non‑being and as the complete to the deprived, and this is repugnant to their equality. Nor can these properties be opposed like contraries are opposed, one of which is more perfect than the other. What remains is that the Holy Spirit is distinguished from the Son only by a relative opposition. Haec autem oppositio non potest nisi ex hoc esse quod unus eorum refertur ad alterum. Nam diversae relationes duorum ad aliquod tertium, non directe sibi opponuntur, nisi forte ex consequenti per accidens. Unde relinquitur quod ad hoc quod distinguatur spiritus sanctus a filio, oportet attribui eis oppositas relationes, quibus ad invicem opponantur. Nec possunt aliae inveniri nisi relationes originis, secundum quod unus est ab alio. Ergo impossibile est, supposita Trinitate personarum, quin spiritus sanctus sit a filio. This kind of opposition rests solely on the fact that one of them is referred to the other. For the different relations of two things to some third thing are not directly opposed except accidentally, that is by some incidental consequence. So in order for the Holy Spirit to be distinguished from the Son, they must have relations that are opposed, by which they will be opposed to each other. No such relations can be found except relations of origin, insofar as one person is from the other. Thus it is impossible, granting the Trinity of persons, that the Holy Spirit not be from the Son. Dicunt autem quidam, quod spiritus sanctus et filius distinguuntur secundum differentiam processionum, inquantum filius est a patre nascendo, et spiritus sanctus procedendo. Sed adhuc redit eadem quaestio quae oritur ex opinione praemissa, quomodo differant hae duae processiones. Non enim potest dici, quod distinguantur per diversa per generationem accepta: sicut generatio hominis et equi differunt secundum diversas naturas communicatas. Eamdem enim divinam naturam accipit filius a patre nascendo, et spiritus sanctus procedendo. Unde relinquitur quod solum secundum ordinem originis distinguantur, inquantum scilicet nativitas filii est principium processionis spiritus sancti. Unde si spiritus sanctus non esset a filio, nec distingueretur a filio, nec processio a nativitate. 2064 Some say that the Holy Spirit and the Son are distinguished by the different ways they proceed, insofar as the Son is from the Father by being born and the Holy Spirit by proceeding. But the same problem still returns which arose from the previous opinion, as to how these two processions differ. One cannot say that they are distinguished because of the diverse things received by their respective generations, like the generation of a human being and a horse differ because of the diverse natures that are communicated. For the very same nature is received by the Son by being born from the Father and by the Holy Spirit by proceeding. So we are left with the conclusion that they are distinguished only by the order of origin, that is to say, insofar as the birth of the Son is a principle of the procession of the Holy Spirit. And so, if the Holy Spirit were not from the Son, the Spirit would not be distinguished from the Son and procession would not be distinguished from birth. Unde etiam Graeci aliquem ordinem confitentur filii et spiritus sancti. Dicunt enim spiritum sanctum esse filii, et filium operari per spiritum sanctum; sed non e converso. Et aliqui etiam concedunt, quod spiritus sanctus est a filio, nolunt tamen concedere quod spiritus sanctus procedat a filio. Sed in hoc manifeste proterviunt. Utimur enim verbo processionis in omnibus quae quocumque modo sunt ab alio. Et ideo hoc verbum ratione communitatis est accomodatum ad signandum existentiam spiritus sancti a filio, quae non habet exemplum in creaturis ex quo possit assumi aliquod proprium nomen eius, sicut accipitur nomen generationis filii. Non enim in creaturis invenitur aliqua persona procedens per modum voluntatis, ut amor, sicut invenitur aliqua persona procedens per modum naturae ut filius. Et ideo quocumque modo habeat ordinem spiritus sanctus ad filium, potest concludi quod ab eo procedat. Thus even the Greeks admit some order between the Son and the Holy Spirit. For they say that the Holy Spirit is of the Son, and that the Son acts through the Holy Spirit, but not conversely. And some even admit that the Holy Spirit is from the Son, but they will not concede that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son. Yet in this they are obviously imprudent. For we use the word "procession" in all cases in which one thing is from another in any way. And so this word, because it is so general, has been adapted to indicate the existence of the Holy Spirit as from the Son. We don't have any examples of this in creatures which would lead us to give it a specific name; while we do have examples which give us the special term of "generation" which is applied to the Son. The reason for this is that in creatures we do not find a person proceeding from will, as love, while we do find a person proceeding from nature, as son. Thus, however the Holy Spirit is ordered to the Son, it can be concluded that the Spirit proceeds from the Son. Dicunt tamen aliqui Graecorum, quod non est dicendum spiritum sanctum procedere a filio, quia haec praepositio a vel ab apud eos designat principium non de principio, quod convenit soli patri. Sed hoc non cogit: quia filius cum patre est unum principium spiritus sancti, sicut etiam creaturarum. Quamvis autem filius habeat a patre quod sit principium creaturarum, tamen dicuntur creaturae esse a filio; unde eadem ratione potest dici quod spiritus sanctus procedat a filio. 2065 Nevertheless some of the Greeks assert that one should not say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son because for them the preposition "from" indicates a principle which is not from a principle, and this is so only of the Father. This is not compelling because the Son with the Father is one principle of the Holy Spirit, as also of creatures. And although the Son has it from the Father that the Son is a principle of creatures, still creatures are said to be from the Son; and for the same reason it can be said that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son. Nec obstat quod hic dicitur qui a patre procedit, non autem a patre et filio: quia similiter dicitur quem ego mittam, et tamen intelligitur pater mittere, per hoc quod additur a patre: ita et per hoc quod additur spiritum veritatis, idest filii, intelligitur quod a filio procedit. Semper enim, ut dictum est, coniungitur filius patri, et e converso, circa processionem spiritus sancti; et sic diverso modo loquendi ad designandum distinctionem personarum. Nor does it make any difference that we read here, who proceeds from the Father, instead of "from the Father and the Son," because in a similar way it is said, whom I shall send, and yet the Father is also understood to send, since there is added, from the Father. In a similar way because it says, the Spirit of truth, that is, the Spirit of the Son, we understand that the Spirit proceeds from the Son. For, as has been said, when the procession of the Holy Spirit is mentioned, the Son is always joined to the Father, and the Father to the Son; and so these different ways of expression indicate a distinction of persons. Quarto ponit operationes spiritus sancti cum dicit ille testimonium perhibebit: et hoc tripliciter. Primo quidem instruendo discipulos, et fiduciam eis praebendo ad testificandum; Matth. X, 20: non enim vos estis qui loquimini, sed spiritus patris vestri qui loquitur in vobis. Secundo suam doctrinam communicando credentibus in Christum; Hebr. II, 4: contestante Deo signis et prodigiis, et variis spiritus sancti distributionibus. Tertio emolliendo audientium corda; Ps. CIII, 30: emitte spiritum tuum, et creabuntur. 2066 Fourthly, he mentions the activity of the Holy Spirit when he says, he will bear witness to me; and this in three ways. First, the Spirit will teach the disciples and give them the confidence to bear witness: "For it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you" (Mt 10:20). Secondly, the Spirit will communicate his teaching to those who believe in Christ: "God also bore witness by signs and miracles and by gifts of the Holy Spirit" wonders and various miracles and by gifts of the Holy Spirit" (Heb 2:4). Thirdly, the Spirit will soften the hearts of their hearers: "When you send forth your Spirit, they are created" (Ps 104:30). Ultimo ponit quod futurum erat ex parte discipulorum, cum dicit et vos testimonium perhibebitis, spiritu sancto inspirati; Act. I, 8: eritis mihi testes in Ierusalem, et in omni Iudaea et Samaria, et usque ad ultimum terrae. Et de hoc duplici testimonio dicitur Act. V, 32: nos huius rei testes sumus, et spiritus sanctus, quem dedit dominus omnibus obedientibus sibi. 2067 Finally, he mentions what lies ahead for the disciples when he says, and you also are witnesses, inspired by the Holy Spirit: "You shall be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria and to the end of this earth" (Acts 1:8). We read of this twofold testimony in Acts (5:32): "We are witnesses to these things, and so is the Holy Spirit whom God has given to those who obey him." Et addit testimonii idoneitatem, cum dicit quia ab initio mecum estis, scilicet praedicationis et operationis miraculorum, ut possent testari de visu et auditu, secundum illud I Io. I, 1: quod vidimus et audivimus annuntiamus vobis. Ex quo etiam potest accipi quod Christus non fecit miracula in pueritia, ut in quibusdam apocryphis habetur; sed solum ex tunc ex quo discipulos congregavit. He adds why this testimony is appropriate when he says, because you have been with me from the beginning, that is, the beginning of my preaching and working of miracles, and so you can testify to what you have seen and heard: "That which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you" (1 Jn 1:3). We can see from this that Christ did not perform miracles in his youth, as some apocryphal gospels relate but only from the time he called his disciples.
Arial'>[1] "Times New Roman";color:blue'>St. Thomas refers to Jn 15:1 in the Summa Theologiae: III, q. 74, a. 5, s. c.; Jn 15:3: ST III, q. 74, a. 5, s. c.; Jn 15:5: ST I-II, q. 6, a. 1, obj. 3; q. 109, a. 6, ad 2; II-II, q. 156, a. 2, ad 1.
[2] Sermones de Verbis Domini 61; PL 38, col. 1859;"Times New Roman";color:black'> "Times New Roman";color:green'>cf. Catena Aurea, 15:1-3.
[3] Tract. in Io., 80, ch. 3, col. 1839; cf. Catena Aurea, 15:1-3.
[4] Summa-Word of Christ cleanses both in faith and baptism.
[5] Summa-it it impossible to do any work except by Christ.
[6] Summa-that it is possible to be united to the Church in faith, but not by charity.
[7] Tract. in Io., 81 ch. 3, col. 1841-2; cf. Catena Aurea, 15:4-7.
[8] St. Thomas refers to Jn 15:11 in the Summa Theologiae: II-II, q. 28, a. 3 s. c.; Jn 15:12: ST I-II, q. 68, a. 1; II-II, q. 22, a. 1. s. c.; Jn 15:13: ST II-II, q. 26, a. 5, obj. 3; q. 124, a. 2, obj. 2; q. 124, a. 3, q. 184, a. 5, obj. 3; q. 184, a. 2, ad 3; III, q. 66, a. 12.
[9] Tract. in Io., 82, ch. 4, col. 1844; cf. Catena Aurea, 15:8-11.
[10] Tract. in Io., 83, ch. 1, col. 1844-5; cf. Catena Aurea, 15:8-11.
[11] Homiliae in Evangelista, XXVII; 1; PL 76, col. 1205B; cf. Catena Aurea, 15:12-16.
[12] Ibid.; cf. Catena Aurea, 15:12-16.
[13] St. Thomas refers to Jn 15:14 in the Summa Theologiae: II-II, q. 23, a. 1, s. c.; Jn 15:15: ST II-II, q. 172, a. 4, obj. 2; Jn 15:17: ST I, q. 73, a. 2, arg. 1.
[14] Moralia XVII, ch. 15, no. 28; PL 76, col. 415B"Times New Roman";color:green'>; cf. Catena Aurea, 15:12-16.
[15] In Ioannem hom., 77, ch. 1; PG 59, col. 415; cf. Catena Aurea, 15:12-16.
[16] Tract. in Io., 86, ch. 1, col. 1850; cf. Catena Aurea, 15:12-16.
[17] Homiliae in Evangelista XXVII; PL 76; cf. Catena Aurea, 15:12-16.
[18] Summa-God predestines and calls men not based on their merit.
[19] Origen.
[20] Tract. in Io., 87, ch. 2, col. 1853; cf. Catena Aurea, 15:17-21.
[21] Aristotle.
[22] St. Thomas refers to Jn 15:22 in the Summa Theologiae: II-II, q. 5, a. 2, obj. 3; q. 10, a. 1; q. 10, a. 3, s. c.; III, q. 47, a. 5; q. 80, a. 5, s. c.; q. 86, a. 3, ad 2; Jn 15:24: ST II-II, q. 34, a. 1 s. c.; III, q. 43, a. 4, ad 1; q. 47, a. 5, obj. 2; Jn 15:25: ST II-II, q. 16, a. 1, obj. 5: Jn 15:26: ST I, q. 27, a. 3, s. c.; q. 36, a. 2, obj 1.
[23] Summa-man can hate God under a certain aspect.
[24] Tract. in Io., 90, ch. 1, col. 1858-9; cf. Catena Aurea, 15:22-25.
[25] Ibid., cf. Catena Aurea, 15:22-25.
[26] Dionysius.
[27] Moralia, XXV, ch. 11, no. 28; PL 76, col. 339B; "Times New Roman";color:green'>cf. Catena Aurea, 15:22-25.