Thomas Aquinas
Super Evangelium S. Matthaei lectura
(Commentary on Saint Matthew's Gospel)


Chapters 1-12
translated by
R.F. Larcher, O.P.
except for portions in brackets, and in 5:10-22


Prologue
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

P. de Scala & Besançon on 5:11—6:34

Argumentum S. HieronymiARGUMENT
[Said to be by Jerome, but not in Jerome's Commentary on Matthew]
Matthaeus ex Iudaea sicut in ordine primus ponitur, ita Evangelium in Iudaea primus scripsit, cuius vocatio ad Dominum ex publicanis actibus fuit, duorum in generatione Christi principia praesumens: unius cuius prima circumcisio in carne, alterius cuius secundum cor electio fuit: ex utrisque enim patribus Christus. Sicque quaterdenario numero triformiter posito, principium a credendi fine in electionis tempus porrigens, et ex electione usque in transmigrationis diem dirigens, atque a transmigrationis die usque in Christum definiens, decursum adventus Domini ostendit generationem, et numero satisfaciens et tempori; ut et se quid esset ostenderet, et Dei in se opus monstrans, etiam in his quorum genus posuit, Christi operantis a principio testimonium non negaret. Just as Matthew of Judea is placed first in order, so he first wrote a Gospel in Judea. His call to the Lord was from a publican's life. In the very beginning [of his Gospel] he mentions two principles of the generation of Christ. One of these was the first to undergo circumcision of the flesh; the other was the one chosen according to the heart. For Christ is from both these fathers. Consequently, using the number 14 three times, the first reaches from the father of believers to the time of the choice; then, stretching from the time of the choice to the day of transmigration, he passes from the day of transmigration to Christ. Thus he narrates the descending generation of the Lord's coming, satisfying both the number and the time, in order both to show that he was and, attesting to God's work in him as well as in those whose stock he presented, not deny Christ's testimony from the beginning.
Quarum omnium rerum tempus, ordo, numerus, dispositio, vel ratio quod fidei necessarium est, Deus Christus est, qui factus ex muliere, factus sub lege, natus ex virgine, passus in carne, omnia in cruce fixit, ut triumphans ea in semetipso, resurgens in corpore et patris nomen in patribus filio, et filii nomen patri restitutens in filiis, sine principio, sine fine, ostendens unum se cum patre esse, quia unus est. Of all of which things the time, order, number, disposition, or reason which is necessary to the belief that Christ is God, that he was made from a woman, made under the law, born of a virgin, suffered in the flesh, was fixed on the cross and triumphing over them in himself, rising in the body, and restoring the name of father to the son in the fathers and the name of son to the father in the sons; without beginning and without end he shows himself one with the Father, because he is one.
In quo Evengelio utile est desiderantibus Deum, sic prima vel media vel perfecta cognoscere, ut et vocationem Apostoli, et opus Evangelii, et dilectionem Dei in carne nascentis per universa legentes intelligant, atque id in eo, in quo reprehensi sunt et apprehendere appetunt, recognoscant. In this Gospel it is useful for those desiring God to know what is first and what is midway and what is perfect, so that the call of the apostle and the work of the Gospel and the love of God born in the flesh, may be completely understood by all readers, and that they may recognize in it that in which they were rebuked, and seek to understand.
Nobis autem in hoc studio argumenti fuit, et fidem factae rei tradere, et operantis Dei intelligendam diligenter ese dispositionem a quaerentibus non tacere. Our aim in this pursuit of the argument has been to present faithfully the real facts and not conceal from those disposed to search diligently, an understanding of God's works.

Prooemium
Reportatio Petri de Andria
PROLOGUE
Matthaeus ex Iudaea et cetera. Evangelio Matthaei Hieronymus praemittit prologum, in quo tria facit: primo enim ipsum auctorem describit; secundo Evangelii mysteria aperit, ibi duorum in generatione Christi principia praesumens; tertio suam intentionem ostendit, ibi nobis autem in hoc studio argumenti fuit. Matthew of Judea... Jerome begins with a prologue to Matthew's Gospel and in it does three things: first, he describes the author; secondly, he discloses the mysteries of the Gospel: In the very beginning; thirdly, he indicates his intention: Our aim in this pursuit...
Auctorem vero ipsum describit ex quatuor: primo ex nomine, cum dicit Matthaeus; secundo ex origine, cum dicit ex Iudaea; tertio ex scribendi ordine, ibi sicut in ordine primus ponitur; quarto ex vocatione, ibi, cuius vocatio ad dominum, idest ad Christum et cetera. De hoc Matth. IX, 9 et Luc. V, 27. The author is described from four viewpoints: first, from his name, when he says, Matthew; secondly, from his origin, of Judea; thirdly from the order of writing, Just as he is placed first in the order of writing; fourthly, from the calling, His call to the Lord, i.e., to Christ. On this see Matthew 9 and Luke 5.
Et nota quod Glossa interlinearis, quae dicit: primus, idest ante quem nullus etc., videtur velle, quod alii post Matthaeum scripserint in Iudaea, quod non est verum: solus enim Matthaeus scripsit in Iudaea, Marcus in Italia, Lucas in Achaia, Ioannes in Asia. Note that an interlinear Gloss which says "first, i.e., before whom no one," seems to imply that others after Matthew wrote in Judea. But this is not true; for Matthew alone wrote in Judea, Mark in Italy, Luke in Achaia, John in Asia.
Consequenter ipsius Evangelii mysteria aperit. Et primo aperit mysteria circa principium Evangelii; secundo ostendit eadem mysteria requirenda esse et in medio, et in fine, ibi in quo Evangelio utile est et cetera. Then he discloses the mysteries of the Gospel: first, the mysteries touching the beginning of the Gospel; secondly, that the same mysteries are sought midway and at the end, when he says, In this Gospel it is useful.
In principio autem Evangelii duo tanguntur. Primo ponitur quasi quidam titulus, cum dicitur, liber generationis; secundo generationis cuiusdam series describitur, cum dicitur, Abraham genuit Isaac et cetera. But in the beginning of the Gospel two things are touched: the first is presented as a sort of title, when it says, The Book of the Genealogy; secondly, the sequence of a certain generation is mentioned, when he says, Abraham was the father of Jacob.
Primo ergo ponit mysteria tituli, vel quae tanguntur in titulo; secundo mysteria generationis, ibi sicque quaterdenario. First, therefore, he presents the mysteries in the title or those touched in the title; secondly, the mysteries of the generation, and so fourteen generations.
In titulo autem dicitur liber generationis Iesu Christi; ubi tanguntur duo principia, scilicet David et Abraham. Et hoc quia Abrahae prius datum est praeceptum de circumcisione; ad Rom. IV, 11: signum accepit circumcisionis, signaculum iustitiae fidei, quae est in praeputio, ut sit ipse pater omnium credentium. David autem electus est a domino; I Reg. XIII, 14: inveni virum secundum cor meum. Unde propter hoc isti duo tanguntur, ut denotetur quod Christus traxit originem ex circumcisis patribus et electis. Et hoc est, duorum, hominum, vel duorum principiorum, idest duo principia, scilicet David et Abraham. In the title it says, The Book of the Genealogy of Jesus Christ. Here two principles are mentioned; namely, David and Abraham. And this is because the command of circumcision was given first to Abraham (Rom 4:11): "He received the circumcision as a sign or seal of the righteousness he had by faith, while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the father of all who believed." But David was chosen by the Lord: "I have found a man after my own heart" (1 Sam 13:14). Hence these two are mentioned to denote that Christ drew his origin from circumcised fathers and from chosen fathers. And these are the two men or "two principles," i.e., David and Abraham.
Consequenter ponit mysteria, quae tanguntur in genealogia. Et primo tangit mysteria ipsius Evangelii, vel Evangelistae; secundo ipsius Christi, ibi quarum omnium rerum et cetera. Then he presents the mysteries mentioned in the genealogy: first, he touches on the mysteries of the Gospel or of the evangelist; secondly, of Christ himself: Of all of which things.
Et est mysterium quod Evangelista genealogiam Christi per tres tesseradecades distinxit: quarum prima est ab Abraham usque ad David; secunda a David usque ad transmigrationem; tertia usque ad Christum; ut ostenderet Christum esse et de circumcisis, et de electis, et de transmigrantibus. Et hoc est triformiter posito, idest tripliciter repetito, supra in genealogia, a credendi fide, idest ab ipso Abraham, qui fuit primum exemplar credendi, in electionis tempus porrigens, idest usque ad ipsum David deducens, et ab electione, idest ab ipso David, in transmigrationis diem dirigens; et a transmigrationis die usque in Christum definiens, patet, decursam, idest breviter et cursorie tactam, adventus domini ostendit generationem, et numero satisfaciens et tempori. Patet. And it is a mystery that the evangelist distinguished Christ's genealogy into three sets of fourteen: the first of these is from Abraham to David; the second , from David to the transmigration, and the third to Christ. Thus, he shows that Christ is from the circumcised and from the elect and from the transmigrants. And this is presented three times, i.e., repeated three times in the genealogy: from the father of believers, i.e., from Abraham, who was the first example of believing, moving to the time of choice, i.e., reaching to the time of David; and from the choice, i.e., from David to the day of transmigration; and ending from the day of transmigration to Christ, he shows the descending (briefly and cursorily mentioned) generation of the Lord's coming, satisfying both the number and the time.
Quarum omnium rerum et cetera. Nota quod in hac generationis serie quatuor tanguntur, tempus, numerus, ordo et dispositio sive ratio; quia ab Abraham usque ad David et cetera. Omnia ista nil aliud ostendunt nisi quod Deus Christus est: hoc enim intendit secundum dispositionem et rationem allegoricam, quod Christus est Deus. Quod est fidei necessarium, scilicet quod Christus Deus est, idest in omnibus non est plus de necessitate fidei, nisi quod Christus est Deus. Of all of which things... Note that in this series of generation four things are mentioned: the time, number, order and disposition or reason, because from Abraham to David... All those show nothing, except that Christ is God. For he aims to show, according to an allegorical disposition and reason, that Christ is God. Which is necessary to the faith, namely, that Christ is God, i.e., in all nothing is more necessary to the faith than that Christ is God.
Qui factus ex muliere et cetera. Nota, et expone, et signa capitula. Who was made from a woman. Note and explain and mark the headings.
Et omnia in cruce fixit, idest peccata, secundum quod de medio tulit, quod adversum nos chirographum erat. Item melius: Christus secundum Deum et hominem qui est omnia, secundum illud, Ioan. XII, 32, ego si exaltatus fuero a terra, omnia traham ad meipsum, et Phil. II, 10: ut in nomine domini omne genuflectatur caelestium, terrestrium et Infernorum. Ut triumphans ea in semetipso, quia per trophaeum crucis omnia sibi subiecit, et de quolibet triumphavit. And he fixed [all things] on the cross, i.e., sins, in as much as he took from the midst the decree that was against us. Also and better: Christ, as God and man, who is all things, as it says in John (12:32): "When I am lifted up from the earth, I will draw all things to myself"; "that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow in heaven and on earth and under the earth" (Phil 2:10).
Et patris nomen in patribus filio. Ad evidentiam autem huius notandum, quod in serie generationis ponuntur quidam patres et quidam filii, sicut patet. Item ponitur ibi quidam pater sine patre, sicut Adam: quidam filius sine filio, sicut Iesus. Item ponuntur quidam qui sunt patres et filii, sicut omnes intermedii. Per hoc autem mystice designatur, quod in Trinitate est pater et filius, sicut in hac genealogia sunt quidam patres, quidam filii. Item per hoc quod primus pater non habet patrem in hac serie, nec ultimus filius filium, ostenditur quod isti sunt ab aeterno. Item per hoc quod unus et idem in persona est pater et filius respectu diversorum, tangitur quod isti sunt unum, non quidem in persona, sed natura. Et hoc est quod dicit et patris nomen restituens filio in patribus, idest quod filius habeat patrem; in patribus, idest per hoc quod ponuntur ibi quidam patres. Et nomen restituens patri, idest quod pater habeat filium, et hoc in filiis, idest per hoc quod ponuntur ibi aliqui filii sine principio et sine fine: quia pater primus non habet patrem, nec ultimus filius filium. And the name of father to the son in the fathers. To understand this it should be noted that in the series of generations presented, some are fathers and some are sons, as is clear. Also presented was a father without a father, as Adam; and a son without a son, as Jesus. Also some were presented who were fathers and sons, as those between. By this is mystically designated that in the Trinity is a Father and a Son, just as in the genealogy some are fathers, and some, sons. Also by the fact that the first father does not have a father in this series or the last son a son, it is shown that they are eternal. Also by the fact tht the Son and Father are one and the same in respect to diverse things, it is stated that they are one, not in person but in nature. And this is what he says: An restoring the name of father to the son, i.e., that the son have a father; among the fathers, i.e., by the fact that certain fathers are mentioned there: and restoring the name of son to the father, i.e., that the father have a son; and this in the sons, i.e. by the fact that some sons without a beginning and end are mentioned, because the first father does not have a father or the last son a son.
Ostendens se unum esse cum patre, idest unus naturae, quia unus, in persona, scilicet pater et filius, respectu tamen diversorum, in dicta genealogia. He shows himself one with the Father, i.e., of one nature, because they are each one in person, i.e., the Father and the Son although in relation to diverse things in this genealogy.
Nota interlinearem quae dicit: unus Christus; quod nihil est dictum. Note that nothing is said of the interlinear Gloss: "One Christ".
Consequenter ostendit consimilia mysteria requirenda esse in dicto Evangelio, non solum in principio, sed etiam in medio et fine: et hoc est, in quo Evangelio, scilicet Matthaei, utile est desiderantibus Deum sic, idest eodem modo sicut diximus, cognoscere prima, idest principium, vel media, vel perfecta, finem, et consummationem; ut et vocationem apostoli et cetera. Scriptum est Phil. III, 12: sequor autem, si quo modo comprehendam. Then he shows that similar mysteries should be looked for in this Gospel, not only in the beginning, but also in the middle and the end. And this is what he says: In this Gospel, namely, Matthew's, it is useful for those desiring God thus, i.e., in the same way as we have said, to know the first things, i.e., the principle, the intermediate and the end and consummation, so that the call of the apostle... It is written in Phil (5:12): "I press on to make it my own."
Nobis autem. Hic ostendit intentionem suam, scilicet quod intendit quod ea quae hic dicuntur, vera sunt in historia, et tamen spiritualiter intelligenda. Nobis autem fuit hoc, idest haec intentio, in studio argumenti, idest prologi. Our aim... Here he manifests his intention, namely, that the things stated here are true in history, and yet they must be understood spiritually. This has been our intention in developing this argument, i.e. prologue.

Caput 1
Lectio 1
Reportatio Petri de Andria
1—1
Matthew 1:1
1 βίβλος γενέσεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ υἱοῦ δαυὶδ υἱοῦ ἀβραάμ.
1. The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham:
Inter Evangelistas Matthaeus praecipue versatur circa humanitatem Christi: unde secundum Gregorium per hominem significatur in figura quatuor animalium. Per humanitatem autem Christus in mundum introivit, progressus est, et exivit. Et ideo dividitur totum Evangelium in tres partes. Primo enim agit Evangelista de Christi humanitatis in mundum ingressu; secundo de eius processu; tertio de eius egressu. Among the evangelists, Matthew is chiefly concerned with the humanity of Christ. Hence, according to Gregory, in the symbol of the four animals, he is signified as a man. By his humanity Christ entered the world, progressed, and then departed. Therefore, the Gospel is divided into three parts: first, the evangelist treats of Christ's entry into the world; secondly, of his progress (ch. 3); thirdly, of his exit (c. 21).
Secunda pars incipit cap. III, 1, ibi in diebus autem illis venit Ioannes Baptista praedicans in deserto Iudaeae. Tertia, capite XXI, 1 et cum appropinquassent Ierosolymis et venissent Bethphage ad montem oliveti. [The second part starts at 3:1 And when he came near Jerusalem and came to Bethphage, at the Mount of Olives.]
In prima parte duo facit: primo describitur Christi generatio; secundo ipsius generationis subditur manifestatio, cap. II, ibi cum natus esset Iesus in Bethlehem Iudae in diebus Herodis regis. In the first part he does two things: first, the generation of Christ is described; secondly, it is manifested (c. 2).
In prima parte tria facit: primo enim quasi titulus totius libri praeponitur, cum dicitur liber generationis Iesu Christi; secundo patrum series texitur, Abraham genuit Isaac; tertio cum dicitur Christi autem generatio sic erat, generatio Christi in speciali describitur. In the first part he does three things: first, the quasi-title of the entire book is presented; secondly, the series of fathers is traced (v. 2); thirdly, the generation of Christ is described in particular (v. 18).
Titulus autem qui praemittitur, est iste liber generationis Iesu Christi. Et videtur esse oratio imperfecta. Ponitur enim ibi nominativus sine verbo; sed non est. Matthaeus enim Evangelium Hebraeis conscripsit, et ideo in scribendo morem Iudaeorum servavit. Consuetum est autem apud Hebraeos sic loqui, sicut cum dicitur: visio Isaiae filii Amos, subauditur, haec est nec oportet apponere. Ita hic cum dicitur liber generationis, subauditur, hic est. The title mentioned beforehand is The Book of the Genealogy of Jesus Christ. This seems to be an incomplete sentence. For it presents a nominative without a verb. But not so; for Matthew wrote his Gospel for the Hebrews. Therefore, in writing he followed the custom of the Jews. But is is customary among the Jews to speak in this manner, as when it says: "The vision of Isaiah, son of Amos," "This is" is understood, and it is not necessary to add it. So here, when it says, The Book of the Genealogy of Jesus Christ, "This is" is understood.
Et hic etiam modus loquendi consuetus est apud nos: si enim velimus aliquem librum intitulare, dicitur Priscianus maior vel minor; nec oportet apponere hic est vel incipit. Nor is this way of speaking unusual among us: for if we wish to title a book, it is called "Priscian the Elder" or "Younger", and there is no need to add "This is" or "Begins".
Item quaeritur, cum parva particula istius libri sit de generatione Christi, quare intitulavit librum suum sic. Et dicendum, quod Matthaeus, qui scripsit Hebraeis, in scribendo modum Hebraeorum servavit. Consuetum est autem apud Hebraeos libros suos a principio intitulare, sicut dicitur Genesis, quia ibi agitur de generatione; unde Gen. V, 1: hic est liber generationis Adam. Et liber Exodi, quia in prima parte agitur de exitu filiorum Israel de Aegypto. Likewise, one might ask, since only a small part of this book is about the generation of Christ, why does the book get this title? The answer is that Matthew, who wrote to the Hebrews, follows their custom in writing. But the Hebrews were wont to entitle books from their beginnings, as the Book of Genesis, because generation is treated there; hence Genesis (5:1): "This is the genealogy of Adam." And the Book of Exodus, because in the first part the departure of the children of Israel from Egypt is described.
Sed quaeritur quare additur Iesu Christi. Et dicendum quod secundum apostolum, I Corinth. XV, 22, sicut in Adam omnes moriuntur, ita in Christo omnes vivificabuntur. Viderat autem Matthaeus librum primum veteris testamenti, in quo agitur de generatione, in quo dictum est cap. V, 1, hic est liber generationis Adam. Ut ergo novum testamentum, in quo agitur de regeneratione et restauratione, ei responderet per oppositum, dicit liber generationis Iesu Christi, ut ostenderet quod idem est auctor utriusque. But one might ask why Jesus Christ is added. The answer is that according to the Apostle in 1 Cor 15:22: "As in Adam all die, so in Christ shall all be made alive." But Matthew had seen the first book of the Old Testament, in which generation is discussed and in which it says (5:1): "This is the book of the genealogy of Adam." Therefore, in order that the New Testament, which deals with regeneration and restoration, might agree with the Old, he says: The Book of the Genealogy of Jesus Christ, to show that the author of both is the same.
Hic autem quaeritur de hoc quod hic dicitur liber generationis Iesu Christi. Contrarium enim habetur Isa. LIII, 8, ubi dicitur, generationem eius quis enarrabit? Sed sensus est, secundum Hieronymum, quod in Christo est duplex generatio. Scilicet divina, quae enarrari non potest: quia etsi aliquo modo dicimus filium genitum, modum tamen quo gignitur, nec homo, nec Angelus potest comprehendere. Alia autem est humana, de qua agit, sed tamen in hac etiam generatione sunt multa difficilia. Et ideo, secundum Remigium, perpauci sunt qui possint eam enarrare. Then the question arises about the fact that it says here: The Genealogy [The Book of the Generation] of Jesus Christ, for Isaiah (53:8) has the contrary: "As for his generation, who shall tell it?" But the senses, according to Jerome, is that there is in Christ a twofold generation, namely, the divine, which cannot be expressed; because, although we call him in some way a begotten Son, in another way the manner in which he was born neither man nor angel can comprehend. The other is the human, about which he deals; but in this generation there are many difficult things. Therefore, according to Remigius, very few can express it.
Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit generationis, cum hic plures texantur generationes. Sed dicendum, quod licet multae enumerentur generationes, omnes tamen introducuntur propter unam, scilicet propter generationem Christi, de qua inferius: Christi autem generatio sic erat. There is the question also why he says Generation, since many generations are grouped here. But the answer is that, although many generations are listed, they are introduced for one, namely, for the generation of Christ, about which it says below: "The generation [birth] of Christ took place in this way."
Describitur autem ille cuius generatio texitur primo a nomine, cum dicitur Iesu; secundo ab officio, cum dicitur Christi; tertio ab origine, cum dicitur filii David, filii Abraham. The one whose generation is constructed is described from the name, when it says Jesus; secondly, from his office, when it says Christ; thirdly, from his origin, when it says son of David, son of Abraham.
Quamvis autem fuerint et alii, qui vocati sunt Iesus, sicut Iesus filius Nave, de quo Eccli. XLVI, 1: fortis in bello Iesus Nave successor Moysi in prophetis, et alius circa aedificationem templi, de quo in Zach. III, 1, isti tamen fuerunt Iesus nominales et figurales, inquantum scilicet figurabant istum. Ille Iesus introduxit populum Israel in terram promissionis; sed iste Iesus, idest salvator noster, non in terram carnalem, sed introducit nos in caelestem; Hebr. XII, 2: ipsum enim habemus auctorem, et consummatorem in sanguine eius et cetera. Et recte dicitur Iesu, quod nomen convenit ei secundum utramque naturam, scilicet divinam et humanam. Secundum quidem humanam in carne sua passus est, et explevit mysterium nostrae redemptionis: et cum passio illa non haberet efficaciam nisi ex virtute divinitatis adiunctae, propter hoc dicitur infra: vocabitur nomen eius Iesus: ipse enim salvum faciet populum suum a peccatis eorum. Although there have been others with the name, Jesus, as Jesus the son of Nun: "Jesus [Joshua] the son of Nun was mighty in war and was the successor of Moses in prophesying" (Sir 46:1), and another about the time of the construction of the temple, about whom Zechariah (3:21) speaks. Yet they were figurative and nominal Jesus', in as much as they were a figure of him. Jesus introduced the people of Israel into the Promised Land; but this Jesus, i.e., our Savior, introduced us not into a material land but into the heavenly: "We have Jesus, the author and perfector of our faith in his blood" (Heb 12:2). And he is rightly called Jesus, for this name suits him according to both natures, namely, divine and human. Indeed, according to the human he suffered in the flesh and fulfilled the mystery of our redemption; and since that passion would have no efficacy except in virtue of the adjoined divinity, it says below: "You shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins."
Sed quaeritur quare dicit Christi. Nonne suffecisset Iesu? Respondeo, hoc ideo factum esse, quia, ut dictum est, et alii vocati sunt Iesus. But why say Christ? Would not Jesus have been enough? I answer that this was done because, as we have said, others too were called "Jesus".
Ab officio autem describit eum, cum dicit Christi, idest uncti. Nota autem tres unctiones in veteri lege. Unctus enim est Aaron in sacerdotem, Levit. VIII, 11. Unctus est Saul a Samuele in regem, I Reg. X, 1, et David, I Reg. XVI, 13. Unctus est et Eliseus in prophetam, III Reg. c. XIX, 16. Quia ergo Christus fuit verus sacerdos in Psal. CIX, 4: tu es sacerdos in aeternum secundum ordinem Melchisedech etc., et rex et propheta, ideo dicitur recte Christus, propter tria officia quae ipse exercuit. He describes him from his office, when he says Christ, i.e., anointed. But note three anointings in the Old Law. For Aaron was anointed a priest (Lev 8:11); Saul was anointed king by Samuel (1 Sam 10:11), as was David (1 Sam 16:13); Elisha was anointed a prophet (1 Kg 19:16). Therefore, because Christ was the true priest in Ps 110 (v. 4): "You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek," and king and prophet, it is right to call him Christ on account of the three offices he exercised.
Filii David, filii Abraham. Hic est duplex quaestio, scilicet de numero, et de ordine. Ad primum, quare istos duos nominavit. Propter illam rationem quae in prologo dicta est, quod Abraham propheta fuit. Gen. XX, 7 dixit dominus ad Abimelech regem Gerarae: redde uxorem viro suo, quia propheta est. Item fuit sacerdos, Genes. XV, 9, dum implevit officium sacerdotis, offerendo scilicet hostiam domino: sume, inquit, mihi vaccam triennem et cetera. David autem propheta fuit, sicut patet Act. II, 30. Fuit etiam rex, sicut patet II Reg. II, 4. Quia ergo Christus fuit rex, et propheta, et sacerdos; ideo recte dicitur filius istorum. Si enim solum Abraham nominasset, non signaretur quod Christus rex fuisset. Item si solum David, non denotaretur in Christo sacerdotalis dignitas; et ideo utrumque posuit. Son of David, son of Abraham. This raises a question about the number and about the order. As to the first, why does he name those two? For the reason given in the prologue, namely, that Abraham was a prophet. In Gen (20:7) the Lord said to Abimelech, king of Gerar: "Restore the man's wife, for he is a prophet." He was also a priest (Gen 15:9), for he fulfilled the office of priest, namely, by offering a victim to the Lord: "Bring me," he says, "a heifer three years old..." But David was a prophet, as is clear from Acts (2:30). He was also a king, as it says in 2 Sam (2:4). Therefore, because Christ was king and prophet and priest, he is correctly called their son. For if he had mentioned only Abraham, there would be no sign that Christ would be a king; if only David, the priestly dignity would not be denoted in Christ. Therefore, both are mentioned.
Ad secundum dicendum quod, secundum Hieronymum, David praeponitur, et commutatur ordo propter necessitatem texendi genealogiam; si enim primo diceret filii Abraham, secundo filii David, oporteret secundo repetere Abraham, ut continuaretur ordo genealogiae. Secundum Ambrosium autem dicendum, quod David praeponitur ratione dignitatis; ad David enim facta est repromissio de ipso capite, cum dicitur Ps. CXXXI, 11: de fructu ventris tui ponam super sedem tuam. Sed ad Abraham de membris, scilicet de Ecclesia; unde Genes. XXII, 18: in semine tuo benedicentur omnes gentes terrae. The answer to the second, according to Jerome, is that David is mentioned first and the order changed for the purpose of constructing the genealogy. For if he had first said "son of Abraham" and secondly "son of David", he would have had to repeat Abraham in order to continue the order of the genealogy. According to Ambrose, however, David is placed first by reason of dignity; for the promise about that head was made to David in Ps 132 (v. 11): "one of the sons of your body I will set on your throne"; but to Abraham about the members, namely, of the Church: "And by your descendants shall all the nations of the earth be blessed" (Gen 22:18).
Hic notandum, quod multi fuerunt terrores de Christo. Quidam enim erraverunt circa eius divinitatem, sicut Paulus Samosatenus, Photinus, et Sabellius; quidam circa humanitatem; et quidam circa utramque. Alii autem erraverunt circa eius personam.
  • Circa humanitatem eius primus erravit Manichaeus, qui dixit eum non verum corpus, sed phantasticum accepisse. Contra quod est quod dicit dominus Luc. ult., 39: palpate, et videte, quia spiritus carnem et ossa non habet, sicut me videtis habere.
  • Secundo post eum erravit Valentinus, qui dixit eum corpus caeleste secum attulisse, non de virgine assumpsisse, sed per eam sicut aquam per canale transisse. Sed contra est quod dicitur Rom. c. I, 3: qui factus est ei ex semine David secundum carnem.
  • Tertius error fuit Apollinaris, qui dixit eum tantum accepisse corpus, et non animam, sed loco animae habuisse divinitatem. Sed contra est quod frequenter dicitur: nunc anima mea turbata est. Sed propter hoc ipse idem mutavit postea opinionem, et dixit Christum habuisse animam vegetabilem et sensibilem, non tamen rationalem, sed loco eius divinitatem. Sed tunc sequeretur inconveniens, quod Christus non esset plus homo quam unum brutum.
Here it should be noted that there have been many errors about Christ. For some erred in regard to his divinity, as Paul of Samosata, Photinus and Sabellius; some in regard to his humanity, and some in regard to both. Still others have erred in regard to his person.
  • The first error in regard to his humanity was that of Manicheus, who said that he did not receive a true, but an imaginary, body. Against this is what the Lord says in Luke (24:39): "Handle and see; for a spirit has not flesh as you see that I have."
  • Secondly, after him erred Valentine, who said that he brought a heavenly body with him, that it was not assumed from the Virgin, but that it passed through her as water through a channel. But Rom (1:3) says against this: "Who was made from the seed of David according to the flesh."
  • The third error was that of Apollinaris, who said that he received only a body and no soul, but that in place of a soul he had his divinity. But against this is the fact that Christ frequently says: "My soul is sorrowful" (Jn 12:27). but on this account he later changed his opinion and said that Christ had a vegetal and sensitive soul, but sill no rational soul, in place of which was his divinity. But then would follow the awkward situation that Christ would not have been any more man than a brute.
Hos autem errores quasi quadam sorte diviserunt sibi quatuor Evangelistae. Marcus enim et Ioannes principaliter errores illos, qui sunt circa divinitatem, destruxerunt; unde Ioannes in principio statim dixit: in principio erat verbum. Et Marcus exorsus est sic: initium Evangelii Iesu Christi filii Dei, non dixit filii Abraham. Matthaeus autem et Lucas illos, qui circa eius humanitatem sunt errores, destruunt in principio. These errors were assigned as though by lot to the four evangelists. For Mark and John mainly destroyed the errors touching the divinity; hence John asserted immediately in the beginning: "In the beginning was the Word." And Mark began thus: "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the son of God. He did not say, "the son of Abraham". Matthew and Luke destroy in the beginning those errors which concern the humanity.
Unde nota quod in hoc quod dicitur filii David, filii Abraham, omnes errores qui fuerunt circa Christi humanitatem excluduntur. Filius enim non dicitur alicuius aliquis, nisi per generationem univocam, quae est secundum convenientiam in specie. Quantumcumque enim aliquid generetur ex homine, nisi participet eamdem specie naturam, numquam dicitur filius, sicut patet de pediculis et huiusmodi. Si igitur Christus est filius David et Abraham, oportet eum habere eamdem naturam ratione eiusdem speciei; non autem haberet eamdem naturam secundum speciem, si non haberet corpus verum et naturale, nec si illud de caelo attulisset; nec etiam si careret anima sensitiva, sive rationali. Unde patet exclusio omnis erroris. Hence in the statement, son of David, son of Abraham, all errors about the humanity of Christ are excluded. For one is not called the son of someone except in virtue of univocal generation, which is according to agreement in species. For no matter what is generated from a man, unless it shares in the nature of the species, it is never called a son; as is evident in the case of lice and the like. Therefore, if Christ is the son of David and of Abraham, he should have the same nature by reason of the same species; but he would not have the same specific nature, if he had not a true and natural body, or if he took it from heaven, or even if it lacked a sensitive or a rational soul. Hence, the exclusion of every error is clear.

Lectio 2
Reportatio Petri de Andria
1—2
Mt 1:2-6a
2 ἀβραὰμ ἐγέννησεν τὸν ἰσαάκ, ἰσαὰκ δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Ἰακώβ, ἰακὼβ δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Ἰούδαν καὶ τοὺς ἀδελφοὺς αὐτοῦ, 3 Ἰούδας δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν φάρες καὶ τὸν ζάρα ἐκ τῆς θαμάρ, φάρες δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν ἑσρώμ, ἑσρὼμ δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν ἀράμ, 4 ἀρὰμ δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν ἀμιναδάβ, ἀμιναδὰβ δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν ναασσών, ναασσὼν δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν σαλμών, 5 σαλμὼν δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν βόες ἐκ τῆς ῥαχάβ, βόες δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν ἰωβὴδ ἐκ τῆς ῥούθ, ἰωβὴδ δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν ἰεσσαί, 6 ἰεσσαὶ δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν δαυὶδ τὸν βασιλέα.
2. Abraham begot Isaac. And Isaac begot Jacob. And Jacob begot Judas and his brethren. 3. And Judas begot Phares and Zara of Thamar. And Phares begot Esron. And Esron begot Aram. 4. And Aram begot Aminadab. And Aminadab begot Naasson. And Naasson begot Salmon. 5. And Salmon begot Booz of Rahab. And Booz begot Obed of Ruth. And Obed begot Jesse. 6. And Jesse begot David the king.
Proposito titulo, hic series genealogiae texitur: et dividitur in partes tres, secundum tres quaterdenarios quibus dicta genealogiae series texitur. Primus quaterdenarius est ab Abraham usque ad David, qui procedit per patriarchas. Secundus procedit a David usque ad transmigrationem Babylonis, qui procedit per reges. Tertius a transmigratione Babylonis usque ad Christum, qui incipit a ducibus, et procedit per personas privatas. Secunda, ibi David autem rex genuit Salomonem. Tertia, ibi et post transmigrationem Babylonis et cetera. Having presented the title, the genealogical series is woven. This is divided into three parts according to the three series of fourteen, out of which the aforesaid genealogical series is woven. The first set of fourteen is from Abraham to David, who came forth through patriarchs. The second goes from David to the Babylonian transmigration and proceeds through the kings. The third is from the transmigration to Christ, and begins with leaders and proceeds through private persons. The second is at and David was the father of Solomon; the third at and after the transmigration to Babylon...
Prima dividitur in tres. Primo enim ponuntur patres qui fuerunt ante ingressum in Aegyptum; secundo ponuntur illi qui fuerunt in ipso exitu, et terrae promissionis ingressu; tertio illi qui fuerunt post ingressum terrae promissionis. Dicit ergo primo Abraham genuit Isaac. The first is divided into three parts: first are mentioned the fathers who lived before the entry into Egypt; secondly, those who were involved in the exodus and in the entry into the promised land; thirdly, those who existed after the entry into the promised land. He says, therefore: Abraham was the father of Isaac.
Hic considerandum est, antequam ulterius procedamus, quod duo Evangelistae generationem Christi secundum carnem prosequuntur, scilicet Lucas, et Matthaeus; sed differenter. Et haec differentia attenditur quantum ad quinque. Here it should be noted, before we proceed any further, that two evangelists describe the generation of Christ according to the flesh; namely, Luke and Matthew, but differently. This difference consists in five things.
Primo enim differunt quantum ad situm; secundo quantum ad ordinem; tertio quantum ad modum; quarto quantum ad terminum; quinto quantum ad personas numeratas. Primo dico quod differunt quantum ad situm: quia Matthaeus generationem Christi in principio Evangelii incipit texere; Lucas autem non in principio, sed post Baptismum. Et ratio huius est, secundum Augustinum, quoniam Matthaeus generationem Christi carnalem suscepit describendam, et ideo statim in principio debuit eam ponere. Lucas autem maxime intendit commendare in Christo personam sacerdotalem: ad sacerdotem autem pertinet expiatio peccatorum, et ideo post Baptismum, in quo fit peccatorum expiatio, convenienter a Luca ponitur Christi generatio. For, first, they differ as to its position in the work: because Matthew begins to weave the generation of Christ at the beginning of his Gospel, but Luke not at the beginning, but after the baptism. The reason for this, according to Augustine, is that Matthew undertook to describe the fleshly generation of Christ; therefore, he should have presented it immediately in the beginning. But Luke's main purpose was to comment in Christ the priestly person. It pertains to a priest to expiate for sins. Therefore, after the baptism, in which expiation of sins takes place, was the suitable time to present the generation of Christ.
Secundo autem, Lucas et Matthaeus in texendo genealogiam Christi differunt quantum ad ordinem: quia Matthaeus texit Christi generationem incipiendo ab Abraham, et descendendo usque ad Christum, Lucas autem incipit a Christo et ascendendo procedit usque ad Abraham et etiam ultra. Et ratio est quia, secundum apostolum, Rom. IV, 25, in Christo fuerunt duo, scilicet humilitas suscipiendi defectus naturae nostrae, et potestas divinitatis et gratiae, per quam nos ab huius defectibus expiavit; Rom. VIII, 3: misit Deus filium suum in similitudinem carnis peccati, propter primum, et de peccato damnavit peccatum in carne, propter secundum. Matthaeus ergo, qui intendit generationem Christi carnalem, per quam descendit usque ad infirmitatis nostrae assumptionem, congrue eius generationem descendendo describit. Sed Lucas, qui in ipso commendat sacerdotalem dignitatem, per quam Deo reconciliamur, et ipsi Christo unimur, congrue ascendendo procedit. But secondly, Luke and Matthew in the genealogy of Christ differ in regard to order; because Matthew wove Christ's generation by beginning with Abraham and by descending to Christ, but Luke begins with Christ and by ascending proceeds to Abraham and much further. The reason is that according to the Apostle (Rom 4:25), there were two things in Christ, namely, the humility to assume the defects of our nature and the power of divinity and grace, through which he purged us from these defects. (Rom 8:3): "God sent his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh," on account of the first; "and for sin he condemned sin in the flesh," on account of the second. Therefore, Matthew, who is interested in Christ's fleshly generation through which he descended so far as to assume our weakness, fittingly describes his generation by descending. But Luke, who commends in him his priestly dignity, through which we are reconciled to God and united to Christ, fittingly proceeded by ascending.
Tertio differunt quantum ad modum: quia in enarratione genealogiae Matthaeus utitur hoc verbo genuit, sed Lucas hoc verbo fuit. Et hoc est, quia Matthaeus in tota enarratione sua non ponit nisi patres carnales; sed Lucas ponit multos patres secundum legem, sive per adoptionem. Praeceptum enim fuit in lege quod si aliquis moreretur sine filiis, quod frater eius acciperet sponsam eius, et generaret sibi filios: unde filii illi non erant eius qui generabat, sed per quamdam adoptionem imputabantur priori. Unde Lucas, qui ponit multos filios genitos per adoptionem, non dicit genuit, sed fuit; quia quamvis ipsi eos non generassent, eorum tamen per quamdam adoptionem erant. Matthaeus autem, qui ponit solum patres carnales, dicit genuit. Ratio autem huius est quia, sicut dictum est, Matthaeus versatur maxime circa Christi humanitatem. Et quia secundum carnem natus est ex patribus carnalibus, ideo in genealogia Matthaei nullus ponitur, qui non fuerit pater carnalis. Lucas autem commendat maxime in Christo sacerdotalem dignitatem, per quam adoptamur in filios Dei; et ideo non solum carnales, sed etiam legales patres posuit. Thirdly, they differ as to manner: because in the narration of the genealogy Matthew used the word begot [Lat. Vulg.] and Luke the word "was of". And this occurs, because Matthew in the entire narration mentions only fathers according to the flesh; but Luke mentions many fathers according to the Law or by adoption. For it had been commanded in the Law that if a man should die without children, his brother should take his wife and raise up children for him. Hence, they were not the children of the one who begot them, but by adoption they were regarded as belonging to the previous husband. Hence, Luke, who mentions many sons by adoption, does not say "begot"; because, although they had not begotten them, yet they were theirs by adoption. But Matthew, who mentions only fathers according to the flesh, says begot. The reason for this is that, as has been stated, Matthew is concerned mainly with Christ's humanity. And because according to the flesh he was born of parents according to the flesh, no one is mentioned Matthew's genealogy who was not a father according to the flesh. But Luke stresses in Christ the priestly dignity through which we are adopted as God's sons; therefore, he mentioned fathers not only according to the flesh but also those according to the Law.
Quarto differunt quantum ad terminum: quia Matthaeus generationem suam incipit ab Abraham, et protendit usque ad Christum; Lucas autem a Christo, non solum usque ad Abraham, sed etiam usque ad Deum. Cuius ratio potest sumi ex hoc quod Matthaeus scripsit Hebraeis. Hebraei autem maxime gloriabantur de Abraham, Ioan. VIII, 33: semen Abrahae sumus, qui fuit primum credendi principium; et ideo Matthaeus ab Abraham incepit. Lucas autem scripsit Graecis, qui nihil de Abraham sciebant nisi per Christum: si enim non fuisset Christus, nihil unquam scivissent de Abraham; et ideo Lucas incepit a Christo, et terminavit non solum in Abraham, sed in Deum. They differ, fourthly, as to termini: because Matthew begins his genealogy with Abraham and continues it to Christ; but Luke goes from Christ not only to Abraham but as far as God. The reason for this can be taken from the fact that Matthew wrote to the Hebrews, who boasted of Abraham: "We are descendants of Abraham" (Jn 8:33), who was the first principle of believing; and therefore, Matthew begins with Abraham. But Luke wrote to the Greeks, who knew nothing about Abraham except through Christ: for if Christ had not existed, they would have known nothing about Abraham; therefore, Luke began with Christ and ended not only in Abraham, but in God.
Quinto differunt quantum ad personas enumeratas: quia in tota serie genealogiae Lucae nulla prorsus de muliere fit mentio; in Matthaeo autem aliquae interponuntur mulieres. Cuius ratio est, secundum Ambrosium, quia Lucas, sicut dictum est, commendat maxime sacerdotalem dignitatem; in sacerdote autem maxima requiritur puritas. Matthaeus autem eius texit generationem carnalem: et ideo ibi ponuntur aliquae mulieres. They differ, fifthly, as to the persons listed: because in Luke's entire genealogy no woman is mentioned; but in Matthew some women are introduced. The reason for this, according to Ambrose, is that Luke, as has been said, commands especially the priestly dignity; but the greatest purity is required in a priest. But Matthew wove his genealogy according to the flesh; therefore some women are mentioned there.
Notandum tamen quod in tota genealogia Matthaei non ponuntur nisi mulieres peccatrices, vel quae in aliquo fuerant peccato notatae, sicut Thamar, quae fornicata est, Gen. XXXVIII, 24, et Ruth, quae fuit idololatra, quia gentilis, et uxor Uriae, quae fuit adultera, II Reg. XI, 2 ss. Et hoc ad designandum, secundum Hieronymum, quod ille cuius genealogia texitur, intravit propter peccatores redimendos. Alia ratio tangitur ab Ambrosio, scilicet ut tolleretur confusio Ecclesiae. Si enim Christus ex peccatoribus nasci voluit, non debent infideles irridere, si peccatores ad Ecclesiam veniant. Alia ratio potest assignari, credo secundum Chrysostomum, ut ostendatur imperfectio legis: et quod Christus venit legem implere. Per hoc enim quod tanguntur quaedam mulieres peccatrices, denotatur quod illi, qui erant maximi in lege, erant peccatores; sicut David et Iudas. Et in hoc designat imperfectionem aliorum. Si enim isti fuerunt peccatores, multo magis et alii; Rom. III, 23: omnes peccaverunt, et egent gloria Dei. Et ideo isti ponuntur in generatione Christi, ut designetur, quod ipse legem impleverat. Nota tamen quod istae mulieres quamvis fuerint omnes peccatrices, non tamen pro tempore illo quo texitur earum genealogia, sed iam erant mundatae per poenitentiam. Yet it should be noted that in all of Matthew's genealogy only women who were sinners are mentioned, either because she had been noted for some sin, as Tamar, who committed fornication (Gen 38:24) and Ruth, who had been an idolater and a gentile; and Uriah's wife, who was an adulteress (2 Sam 11:2). These were mentioned to designate, according to Jerome, that he whose genealogy is given, entered the world to redeem sinners. Another reason is given by Ambrose, namely, in order to remove embarrassment from the Church. For if Christ willed to be born of sinners, unbelievers should not jeer, if sinners join the Church. Another reason can be assigned, I believe, according to Chrysostom, in order to show the imperfection of the Law and that Christ came to fulfill the Law. The fact that certain female sinners are mentioned denotes that those who were greatest in the Law were sinners; as David and Judah. And in this is designated the imperfection of others. For if those were sinners, then much more the others: "All have sinned and need the glory of God" (Rom 3:23). And therefore they are mentioned in the genealogy of Christ to designate that he had fulfilled the Law. Note, however, that those women, although they had been sinners, were not so far the time in which their genealogy is woven; but they had already been cleansed by penance.
Dicit ergo Abraham genuit Isaac. Notandum primo, quod hic duo sunt consideranda secundum litteram, sive sensum litteralem. Primo, quod per patres istos positos designatur Christus; secundo, quod etiam ista referuntur, et possunt referri, ad instructionem nostram. Dicit ergo primo Abraham genuit Isaac. Et hoc habetur Genes. XXI. Isaac autem genuit Iacob, Genes. XXV. Iacob autem genuit Iudam et fratres eius. Hic quaeritur, cum Abraham alium habuerit filium quam Isaac, scilicet Ismael, et similiter Isaac, quare non fit mentio de eis, sicut hic dicitur Iudam et fratres. Item, quare magis exprimitur Iudas ex nomine, quam alii. He says, therefore, Abraham was the father of Isaac. Here two things should be considered according to the letter, or literal sense. First, that by those fathers mentioned Christ is designated; secondly, that even those are referred or can be referred to our instruction. He says, therefore, first: Abraham was the father of Isaac. And this is stated in Gen (c. 21). But Isaac was the father of Jacob (Gen c. 25). And Jacob was the father of Judah and his brothers. Here one asks, since Abraham had another son besides Isaac, namely, Ishmael, as did Isaac, why no mention is made of them here, when it says, Judah and his brothers. Also, why is Judah expressly mentioned by name rather than the others.
Ratio est, quia Iudas et fratres eius sub cultura unius Dei permanserunt: et ideo de eis fit mentio in generatione Christi, non autem Isaac, et Ismael, nec Iacob, et Esau. Ad secundum, quod hoc fuit ut impleri ostenderetur in Christo prophetia Iacob, Genes. XLIX, 10: non auferetur sceptrum de Iuda, et dux de femore eius, donec veniat, qui mittendus est: et ipse erit expectatio gentium. Manifestum enim est quod de Iuda ortus est dominus, ut dicitur Hebr. VII, 14; et ideo fit magis mentio de ipso quam de aliis. The reason is that Judah and his brothers continued in the worship of the one God and, therefore, they are mentioned in the genealogy of Christ; but not Isaac and Ishmael, or Jacob and Esau. As to the second, this occurred to show that in Christ Jacob's prophecy was fulfilled: "The scepter shall not depart from Judah nor the ruler's staff from between his feet, until he comes to whom it belongs. And he will be the expected of the gentiles" (Gen 29:10); "For it is evident that our Lord was descended from Judah" (Heb 7:14); and that is why he is mentioned rather than the others.
Iudas autem genuit Phares et cetera. Hic quaeritur, cum dominus non sit natus de Zaram, sed de Phares, quare fit mentio de eo. Item, quare nominaliter exprimitur. Prius enim dixit fratres eius, quare ergo expressit nomen Zaram? Et dicendum, secundum Ambrosium, quod hoc in mysterio factum est. Ad cuius evidentiam nota historiam, quae habetur Genes. XXXVIII, quod in partu Thamar prior apparuit Zaram, in cuius manu obstetrix ligavit filum coccineum dicens: iste egredietur prior, et ideo vocavit nomen eius Zaram: postea illo retrahente manum egressus est alter, dicente obstetrice: quare propter te divisa est maceria? Zaram autem, qui prior apparuit, significat populum Iudaeorum, in cuius manu obstetrix filum coccineum ligavit, hoc est circumcisionem, quae fiebat cum sanguinis effusione. Sed illo retrahente manum etc. egressus est alter: quia caecitas ex parte contigit in Iudaeis. Sic enim populus gentilis divisus intravit in lucem fidei, egressus de vulva ignorantiae et infidelitatis. Judah was the father of Perez and Zerah by Tamar. Here one asks, since the Lord was not born of Zerah but of Perez, why was the former mentioned? Also, why was he expressed by name, whereas previously he said, his brothers? The answer, according to Ambrose, is that this took place in a mystery. To understand this, note the story in Gen (c. 38) that in Tamar's delivery, Zerah appeared first and the midwife tied a scarlet thread on his hand and said: (5:28) "This one came out first." Therefore, his name was called Zerah. But as he drew back his hand, the other came out. The midwife said: "What a breach you have made for yourself." But Zerah, who appeared first, signifies the Jewish people on whose hand the midwife tied the scarlet thread, i.e., circumcision, which involves a flow of blood. But as he drew back his hand, the other came out, because "a blinding has come upon part of Israel" (Rom 11:25). For thus the divided gentile people entered into the light of faith, having come from the matrix of ignorance and unbelief.
Secundo notandum, quod per patres positos in generatione Christi signatur Christus ratione vel nominis, vel facti, vel alicuius alterius, sicut per se patet. Abraham enim interpretatur pater multarum gentium, et significat Christum, de quo Hebr. c. II, 10: qui multos filios in gloriam adduxerat. Item Abraham ex praecepto domini exivit de terra sua, Gen. XII, 4, et Christus est, qui dixit, Ierem. XII, 17: reliqui domum meam, dimisi haereditatem meam et cetera. Similiter Abraham, qui risit dicendo: nunc risum fecit mihi dominus, Gen. XXI, 6, et Christus est, in cuius nativitate non solum uni personae, sed toti mundo gaudium nuntiatur; Luc. II, 10: ecce evangelizo vobis gaudium magnum, quod erit omni populo, quia natus est vobis hodie salvator, qui est Christus dominus. Similiter per Iacob, et ratione interpretationis, et ratione facti, sicut patet in hoc, quod supposuit lapidem, idest duritiem crucis, capiti suo. Similiter per Iudam, et Phares, qui interpretatur divisio: ipse enim dividet oves ab hoedis, infra XXV, 32. Secondly, it should be noted that by the fathers mentioned in the genealogy of Christ, Christ is signified either by reason of the name or of a deed or of something else, as is clear. For Abraham means the father of many nations and signifies Christ, about whom Heb (2:10) says: "Who had brought many sons to glory." Furthermore, at the Lord's command Abraham left his homeland (Gen 12:4), and it is Christ who said in Jeremiah (12:7): "I have forsaken my house, I have abandoned my heritage." In like manner Abraham, who laughed, saying: "God has made laughter for me" (Gen 21:6); and it is Christ at whose birth joy is announced not to one person alone but to the entire world: "Behold, I bring you news of great joy, which will come to all the people; for to you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord" (Lk 2:10). Similarly, by Jacob, both by reason of its meaning and by reason of an action, as is evident from his putting a stone, i.e., the hardness of the passion, under his head. In like manner by Judah and Perez, which means division: for he will divide the sheep from the goats (Mt 25:32).
Moraliter autem in istis generationibus designatur status nostrae iustificationis, secundum sex quae requiruntur ad iustificationem.
  1. Scilicet fides per Abraham iustificatum ex fidei iustitia; alibi enim ipse principium dicitur fidei; Rom. IV, 11: ut sit pater omnium credentium per praeputium.
  2. Isaac spes, quia interpretatur risus; Rom. XII, 12: spe gaudentes.
  3. Iacob caritas, qui duxit duas uxores, Liam, quae interpretatur laborans, et Rachel; idest duas vitas, quae sunt in caritate secundum duo praecepta: contemplativa enim delectatur in Deo, activa autem est per quam subvenitur proximo.
  4. Iudas, confessio, quae duplex est: fidei, Rom. X, 10: corde creditur ad iustitiam; ore autem confessio fit ad salutem, et peccatorum: confitemini alterutrum peccata vestra, Iac. V, 16.
  5. Ex hoc autem sequitur duplex effectus, scilicet destructio vitiorum, quae per Phares designatur,
  6. et origo virtutum, quae significatur per Zaram. Et ista oriuntur de Thamar, quae interpretatur amaritudo; Isa. XXXVIII, 15: recogitabo tibi omnes annos meos in amaritudine animae meae.
But morally, in those generations the status of our justification is designated according to the six requirements for justification:
  1. namely, faith, by Abraham, who was justified by the righteousness of faith; for elsewhere he is called the principle of faith: "The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised" (Rom 4:11).
  2. Isaac, hope, because it means laughter: "Rejoice in hope" (Rom 12:12).
  3. Jacob, charity, for he took two wives: Leah, which means labor, and Rachel, i.e., the two lives inspired by charity according to the two precepts: for the contemplative delights in God; the active is the life through which the neighbor is helped.
  4. Judah, confession, which is twofold: of faith: "Man believes with his heart and so is justified, and he confesses with his lips and so is saved" (Rom 10:10). The other confession is of sins: "Confess your sins to one another" (James 5:16).
  5. But two effects follow from this, namely, the destruction of vices, which is designated by Perez,
  6. and the origin of virtue, which is signified by Zerah. And these arise from Tamar, which means bitterness: "All my sleep has fled because of the bitterness of my soul" (Is 38:15).
Phares autem genuit Esron. Hic ponitur series genealogiae patrum, qui nati sunt in Aegypto, vel in exitu eius. Sicut enim per Phares, qui interpretatur divisio, significatur Christus, infra XXV, 32: separabit agnos ab hoedis, ita per Esron, qui interpretatur sagitta, vel atrium. Dicitur enim sagitta propter efficaciam praedicationis, qua audientium corda penetravit; Psalm. XLIV, 6: sagittae tuae acutae, populi sub te cadent in corda inimicorum regis. Atrium autem propter latitudinem caritatis, qua non solum amicos, sed etiam inimicos dilexit; Rom. V, 10: cum inimici essemus, reconciliati sumus Deo per mortem filii eius; Isa. LIII, 12: ipse pro transgressoribus rogavit; et idem Luc. XXIII, 34: pater, dimitte illis: non enim sciunt quid faciunt. Perez was the father of Hezron. Here is mentioned a list of the fathers born in Egypt or during the exodus. For just as by Perez, which means division, is signified Christ (Mt 25:32): "He will separate the sheep from the goats"; so by Hezron, which means arrow or inner court. For he is called arrow on account of the efficacy of preaching, which penetrates the hearts of the audience: "Your arrows are sharp in the heart of the king's enemies; the peoples fall under you" (Ps 45:5); but inner court on account of the breadth of charity, because it loved not only friends but enemies as well: "While we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son" (Rom 5:10); "He made intercession for the transgressors" (Is 53:12); "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do" (Lk 23:34).
Esron autem genuit Aram. Aram autem interpretatur electus, vel excelsus: Isa. XLII, 1: ecce puer meus, et ipse est excelsus super omnes; Ephes. I, 21: ipsum constituit super omnem principatum. Hezron was the father of Ram. Ram means chosen or on high: "Behold my servant, and he is high above all" (Is 42:1); "He put him above every principality" (Eph 1:21).
Aram autem genuit Aminadab, qui interpretatur spontaneus. Ipse est in cuius persona dicit Psalmista LIII, 8: voluntarie sacrificabo tibi, et confitebor nomini tuo, quoniam bonum est, domine; et Isa. LIII, 7: oblatus est, quia ipse voluit, et non aperuit os suum etc., Io. VI, 38: non veni facere voluntatem meam, sed eius qui misit me. Ram was the father of Amminadab, which means voluntarily. For it is in his person that Ps 54 (v. 6) says: "With a freewill offering I will sacrifice to you; I will give thanks to your name, O Lord, for it is good"; (Is 53:7): "He was offered, because he willed it; yet he opened not his mouth"; (Jn 6:38): "I came not to do my will but his who sent me."
Aminadab autem genuit Naasson, qui interpretatur augurium vel serpentinum: quia Christus non solum praesentia, sed etiam praeterita, et futura cognovit; ad Hebr. IV, 13: omnia nuda et aperta sunt oculis eius. Item serpentinum propter prudentiam; prudentia enim attribuitur serpenti, infra X, 16: estote prudentes sicut serpentes; Iob XII, 16: ipse novit decipientem et eum qui decipitur. Aminadab was the father of Nahshon, which means augury, or serpentine, because Christ knew not only present things but also the past and future: "All are open and laid bare to his sight" (Heb 4:13). Serpentine on account of prudence, for prudence is attributed to the serpent: "Be prudent as serpents" (Mt 10:16); "The deceived and the deceiver he knows" (Job 12:16).
Nota quod iste Naasson fuit in tempore Moysi, et exivit cum eo de Aegypto, et fuit unus princeps in tribu Iuda in deserto, sicut habetur in Numer. I, 7. Sed advertendum, quod Exodi XIII, 18, ubi nostra littera habet, filii Israel ascenderunt armati de Aegypto, aquila transtulit instructi, propter aequivocationem; melior est autem littera Septuaginta: filii Israel quinta generatione exierunt de Aegypto. Note that Nahshon lived in the time of Moses and departed with him from Egypt. He was also a chief in the tribe of Judah in the desert (Num 1:7). But note that Ex (13:18), where the text has, "The children of Israel left Egypt armed for battle," Aquila translated "prepared for battle," but the LXX text is better: "The children of Israel left Egypt in the fifth generation.
Sed contra. Naasson iste non fuit quintus a Iacob, sed septimus, sicut patet computando Iacob, Iudam etc. usque ad Naasson. Ergo non quinta, sed septima generatione. Sed dicitur quod non est computandum per tribum Iuda, sed per tribum levi, sub cuius ductu exierunt filii Israel de Aegypto; Ps. LXXVI, 21: deduxisti sicut oves populum tuum in manu Moysi et Aaron. Et patet quod tantum sunt quinque generationes. Iacob enim genuit levi, levi autem genuit Caath, Caath genuit Amram, Amram autem genuit Moysen et Aaron, sicut patet Exod. II; et sub Moyse exierunt de Aegypto. But it is said that one should count not through the tribe of Judah but through the tribe of Levi, under whose leadership the children of Israel left Egypt: "You lead your people like a flock, by the hand of Moses and Aaron" (Ps 77:20). And it is evident that there are only five generations: for Jacob was the father of Levi, Levi of Khath, Kohath of Amram, Amram of Moses and Aaron, and under Moses they left Egypt.
Ubi nota quod inter omnes tribus magis multiplicabatur tribus Iuda: et hoc quia ex ea erant reges futuri, qui debebant pugnare. Inter omnes autem minus multiplicabatur tribus levi: et hoc quia praeordinata erat ad officium divinum, et sacerdotium, ad quod pauciores sufficiebant. Et ideo vult quod etiam computando per tribum Iuda, sit verum quod dicitur Gen. XV, 16: quinta generatione revertentur huc. Dicit ergo Hieronymus, illud quod ibi dicitur, intelligendum esse computando per tribum levi; quod autem hic dicitur, per tribum Iuda. Phares enim ipse cum Iacob et Iuda patre suo intravit in Aegyptum. Et ideo istae generationes non sunt computandae a Iacob, sed a Phares, qui et ipse intravit in Aegyptum. Et patet quod Naasson fuit quintus a Phares. Similiter levi ipse intravit in Aegyptum cum patre suo Iacob. Et ideo a levi, et non a Iacob, computandae sunt generationes. Clarum autem est quod Moyses fuit quartus a levi. Note here that the tribe of Judah was multiplied more than all the other tribes, because kings, who should fight, were destined to come from it. The tribe which multiplied the least was Levi's, because it was pre-ordained to divine duties and the priesthood, for which fewer sufficed. Therefore, he desires that even by counting through the tribe of Judah the statement in Genesis (15:16) is true: "They shall come back here in the fifth generation." Therefore, Jerome says that what is said there should be understood by counting through the tribe of Levi; but what is said here, through the tribe of Judah. For Perez entered Egypt with Jacob and with Judah, his father. And it is evident that Nahshon was the fifth from Perez. Similarly, Levi entered Egypt with his father, Jacob. And therefore, the generations must be counted from Levi and not from Jacob. But it is clear that Moses was the fourth from Levi.
Naasson autem genuit Salmon. Salmon interpretatur sensibilis: et significat Christum, in quo sunt omnes thesauri sapientiae et scientiae absconditi. Moraliter hic notandum, quod sicut in prima generatione significatur ordo nostrae iustificationis quantum ad statum incipientium; ita in ista secunda generatione, quae similiter continet quinque, significatur profectus proficientium. Primum enim quod sequitur ex quo homo est iustificatus a peccato, est quod ipse habet zelum animarum. Et ideo bene Phares genuit Esron, qui interpretatur sagitta, propter efficaciam praedicationis qua penetrantur corda auditorum; Isa. XLIX, 2: posuit me quasi sagittam electam. Et ita adapta alia. Nahshon was the father of Salmon. Salmon means sensible and signifies Christ, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. Morally, it should be noted here that just as in the first generation is signified the order of our justification as to the state of beginners; so in this second generation, which similarly contains five, is signified the progress of the proficients. For the first thing to follow from the fact that a man has been justified from sin is that he has zeal for souls. Therefore, it was fitting that Parez beget Hezron, which means arrow, on account of the efficacy of preaching, by which the hearts of the audience are penetrated: "He made me a polished arrow" (Is 49:2). The others are also adapted thus.
Salmon autem genuit Booz et cetera. Hic ponuntur patres qui fuerunt nati post ingressum terrae promissionis. Salmon enim fuit genitus in deserto, et intravit cum Iosue in terram promissionis, et accepit uxorem Rahab meretricem, de qua genuit Booz. Booz interpretatur fortis; Ier. XVI, 19: dominus fortitudo mea et robur meum. Rahab autem interpretatur fames, vel latitudo: et significat Ecclesiam, quia ad ipsam pertinet illa beatitudo, Matth. V, 6: beati qui esuriunt, et sitiunt iustitiam, quoniam ipsi saturabuntur et cetera. Interpretatur etiam latitudo, quia Ecclesia per totum orbem dilatata est; Isa. LIV, 2: dilata locum tentorii tui, et pelles tabernaculorum tuorum extende et cetera. Item interpretatur impetus, quia impetu praedicationis reges et philosophos convertit. Item significat Ecclesiam ratione facti. Rahab filum coccineum misit in fenestram, per quem liberata est a subversione Iericho, Iosue II, 21. Fenestra nostra est os: filum ergo in fenestra est confessio passionis Christi, per quam Ecclesia liberata est a morte. Item ratione coniugii, quia sicut Rahab iuncta est in matrimonio Salmon, qui fuit princeps in tribu Iuda; sic Christus desponsavit sibi Ecclesiam; II Cor. c. XI, 2: despondi enim vos uni viro virginem castam exhibere Christo. Salmon was the father of Boaz... Here are mentioned fathers born after the entry into the promised land. For Salmon was fathered in the desert and entered the promised land with Joshuah; he took as his wife Rahab, a prostitute, from whom Boaz was born. Boaz means strong: "O Lord, my strength and my stronghold" (Jer 16:19). Rahab, however, means hunger or width, and signifies the Church, because beatitude is related to that hunger: "Blessed are they who hunger and thirst after justice, for they shall have their fill" (Mt 5:6). It means width, because the Church has been spread through the whole world: "Enlarge the place of your tent and let the curtains of your tents be stretched out" (Is 54:2). Likewise it means impetus, because by the impetus of preaching it converts kings and philosophers. It signifies, too, the Church by reason of the fact that Rahab placed in her window a scarlet thread, by which she was saved from the destruction of Jericho (Jos 2:21). Our window is the mouth: therefore, the thread in the window is our confession of the passion of Christ, through which the Church is freed from death. Likewise, by reason of the marriage: because just as Rahab was joined in marriage to Salmon, who was a chief in the tribe of Judah, so Christ espoused the Church to himself: "I betrothed you to Christ to present you as a pure bride to her one husband" (2 Cor 11:2).
Sed hic quaeritur, secundum litteram, cum Rahab fuerit meretrix, quomodo tanto principi, qui erat maior inter alios, desponsata est? Et est dicendum, quod Rahab maximum quid fecit, eo quod contempto populo suo et ritu paterno, cultum Dei Israel elegit. Et ideo quasi pro maximo honore nobilissimo principi data fuit. But here one asks according to the letter, since Rahab was a prostitute, how was she espoused to such a great chief, who was greater than many others? The answer is that Rahab did something great, in as much as she scorned her own people and her paternal rite and chose the worship of the God of Israel. Therefore, as if to show the greatest honor, she was given to the noblest chief.
Booz autem genuit Obed ex Ruth. Hoc habetur Ruth ult. cap. Obed interpretatur serviens vel servitus: et significat Christum, de quo per prophetam: servire me fecistis peccatis vestris, Is. XLIII, 24. Ruth autem significat Ecclesiam de gentibus natam ratione loci: fuit enim Moabitis. Moab interpretatur ex patre; Io. VIII, 44: vos ex patre Diabolo estis; et iterum ratione coniugii, ut patet in Glossa. Boaz was the father of Obed by Ruth. This is quoted from the last chapter of the Book of Ruth. Obed means serving or service; and it signifies Christ, of whom a prophet says: "You have made me serve in your sins" (Is 43:24). But Ruth signifies the Church born of the gentiles by reason of place: for she was a Moabitess. Moab means from the father: "You are from your father the devil" (Jn 8:44). And again by reason of marriage, as it says in a Gloss.
Sed quaeritur, quare istae mulieres hic nominantur, cum fuerint peccatrices. Hieronymus assignat rationem de Ruth, ut scilicet impleretur vaticinium Isa. XVI, 1: emitte agnum, domine, dominatorem terrae de petra deserti. Petra deserti est, scilicet mali, et significatur Ruth Moabitis. Ambrosius autem assignat rationem dicens: futurum enim erat ut Ecclesia congregaretur de gentibus infidelibus; et ideo poterat erubescere et confundi, nisi viderent Christum etiam de peccatricibus nasci. Unde ut tolleretur eorum erubescentia, et confusio, nominandae sunt. But why were these women mentioned here, since they were sinners? Jerome gives a reason touching Ruth, namely, that a prophecy be fulfilled: "Send a lamb, O Lord, to rule the earth from a rock in the desert" (Is 16:1). The rock of the desert is of evil, and Ruth the Moabitess is signified. Ambrose, however assigns another reason, saying: "It would come to pass that the Church would be composed of gentile unbelievers; and, therefore, it could blush and be embarrassed, unless they saw that even Christ was descended from sinners." Hence, in order to remove such embarrassment and confusion, they were to be listed.
Sed quaeritur, Deut. XXIII, 3 dicitur: Moabitae et Ammonitae non intrabunt Ecclesiam; cum ergo Ruth fuerit Moabitis, quomodo recepta est in Ecclesiam? Sed dicendum per apostolum ad Gal. V, 18, quod qui spiritu ducuntur, non sunt sub lege: semper enim in lege magis debet observari intentio legislatoris quam verba legis. Quae enim fuit causa quare prohibuit dominus ut non intrarent Ecclesiam? Quia scilicet invenit in eis idololatriam, ne scilicet pertraherent Iudaeos ad idololatriam. Unde ista, quae iam erat conversa, non erat idololatra; et ideo non erat subiecta prohibitioni. But it says in Dt (25:3): "Moabites and Ammonites will not enter the Church." Therefore, since Ruth was a Moabitess, how was she received into the Church? The answer is from the Apostle to the Galatians (5:18) that those led by the Spirit are not under the law. But in a law the intention of the lawgiver is more to be considered than the words of the law. For what was the cause why the Lord forbade them to enter the Church? Because he found idolatry among them, he did not wish the just to be drawn into idolatry. Hence, when she was not converted, she was no longer an idolatress and, therefore, not subject to the prohibition.
Obed autem genuit Iesse, Ruth ultim. Iesse autem interpretatur sacrificium vel incendium; et significat eum qui obtulit semetipsum hostiam Deo in odorem suavitatis. Sed quaeritur: cum iste alio nomine vocatus sit Isai, sicut patet I Reg. in multis locis, et illud nomen esset solemnius, quare non nominavit eum Evangelista sic? Et dicendum, quod hoc fuit ut ostenderetur in Christo impletum esse quod dictum est per prophetam Isaiam, XI, 1: egredietur virga de radice Iesse. Obed was the father of Jesse. This is from the last chapter of Ruth. Jesse is taken to mean sacrifice or conflagration and signifies the one who offered himself as a victim to God in an odor of sweetness. But since he was also called Isai, as is clear in 1 Samuel in many places, why did not the evangelist use that name here? The answer is that this was one to show that in Christ was fulfilled the word of the prophet: "There shall come forth a shoot from the stump of Jesse" (Is 11:2).
Iesse autem genuit David regem. David interpretatur manu fortis et aspectu desiderabilis; quae omnia competunt Christo, sicut patet. Ipse enim fortis est qui Diabolum superavit; Luc. XI, 22: si autem fortior illo superveniens vicerit eum, universa arma eius auferet, in quibus confidebat, et spolia eius distribuet. Item ipse speciosus forma prae filiis hominum, Psal. XLIV, 3. Sed hic quaeritur: cum plures alii fuerint reges, quare solus iste dicitur rex? Et dicendum quod iste primus rex fuit in tribu Iuda, de qua ortus est dominus: quamvis enim Saul fuerit rex, ipse tamen fuit de tribu Beniamin. Secunda ratio, quia alii propter meritum ipsius David regnaverunt; Psal. LXXXVIII, 30: et ponam in saeculum saeculi semen eius, et thronum eius sicut dies caeli. Tertia ratio, ut ostenderetur impleta prophetia Ier. XXIII, 5: suscitabo David germen iustum, et regnabit rex, et sapiens erit, et faciet iudicium, et iustitiam in terra; Isa. c. IX, 7: super solium David, et super regnum eius sedebit et cetera. Jesse was the father of David the king. David is taken to mean strong hand and fair to behold; both of which suit Christ, as is evident. For he was strong in overcoming the devil. "But when one stronger than he assails him and overcomes him, he takes away his armor in which he trusted and divides his spoil" (Lk 11:22). Also "he is the fairest of the sons of men" (Ps 45:2). But why was it that, since many of the others were kings, he is called king? The answer is that he was the first king in the tribe of Judah, from which the Lord was born. For although Saul had been king, he was from the tribe of Benjamin. The second reason is that the others reigned on account of the merits of David: "I will establish his line for ever and his throne as the days of the heavens" (Ps 89:29). The third reason is to show the fulfillment of Jeremiah's prophecy (23:5): "I will raise up for David a righteous branch and he shall reign as king and deal wisely, and shall execute justice and righteousness in the land"; "Upon the throne of David and over his kingdom to establish it" (Is 9:7).
Moraliter vero in ista generatione designatur fructus perfectorum, sicut in aliis fructus incipientium, et proficientium. Primum enim quod requiritur in homine perfecto est quod ipse sit fortis ad aggrediendum adversa, ut scilicet non retardetur propter aliquam difficultatem: et hoc significatur per Booz; interpretatur enim fortis; Isa. XL, 31: qui sperant in domino, mutabunt fortitudinem, assument pennas sicut aquilae; current, et non laborabunt, ambulabunt, et non deficient; Prov. ult., 10: mulierem fortem quis inveniet? et cetera. Secundum est humilitas servientis, ut quanto scilicet magnus est, tanto humiliet se in omnibus; et hoc significatur per Obed, qui et ipse interpretatur serviens vel servitus; Luc. c. XXII, 26: qui maior est vestrum, fiat sicut minister. Tertium est fervor caritatis, quod significatur per Iesse, qui interpretatur incensum vel incendium; Psal. CXL, 2: dirigatur oratio mea sicut incensum in conspectu tuo et cetera. Et ex hoc pervenitur ad regnum, et ad gloriam: quia Iesse genuit David regem; Apoc. c. V, 10: fecit nos Deo nostro regnum, et sacerdotes Deo patri suo; I Petr. II, 9: vos estis genus electum, regale sacerdotium, gens sancta, populus acquisitionis. But morally in this generation the fruit of the perfect is designated, just as in other generations the fruit of beginners and proficients. For the first requirement for a perfect man is that he be brave in attacking adversities, so that he is not held back on account of some difficulty: and this is signified by Boaz, which is taken to mean brave: "They who hope in the Lord shall renew their strength, they shall mount up with wings like eagles; they shall run and not be weary, they shall walk and not faint" (Is 40:31); "Who shall find the valiant woman?" (Pr 31:10). The second is the humility of the servant, so that the greater one is, the humbler he is in all things; and this is signified by Obed, which is taken to mean incense or conflagration: "Let my prayer be directed as incense in your sight" (Ps 14:2). And from this, one arrives at the kingdom and glory, because Jesse was the father of David the king: "Who made them a kingdom and priests to our God" (Rev 5:20); "You are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God's own people" (1 Pt 2:9).

Lectio 3
Reportatio Petri de Andria
1—3
Mt 1:6-11
6b δαυὶδ δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν σολομῶνα ἐκ τῆς τοῦ οὐρίου, 7 σολομὼν δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν ῥοβοάμ, ῥοβοὰμ δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν ἀβιά, ἀβιὰ δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν ἀσάφ, 8 ἀσὰφ δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν ἰωσαφάτ, ἰωσαφὰτ δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν ἰωράμ, ἰωρὰμ δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν ὀζίαν, 9 ὀζίας δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν ἰωαθάμ, ἰωαθὰμ δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν ἀχάζ, ἀχὰζ δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν ἑζεκίαν, 10 ἑζεκίας δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν μανασσῆ, μανασσῆς δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν ἀμώς, ἀμὼς δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν ἰωσίαν, 11 ἰωσίας δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν ἰεχονίαν καὶ τοὺς ἀδελφοὺς αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ τῆς μετοικεσίας βαβυλῶνος.
6b And David the king begot Solomon, of her that had been the wife of Urias. 7. And Solomon begot Roboam. And Roboam begot Abia. And Abia begot Asa. 8. And Asa begot Josaphat. And Josaphat begot Joram. And Joram begot Ozias. 9. And Ozias begot Joatham. And Joatham begot Achaz. And Achaz begot Ezechias. 10. And Ezechias begot Manasses. And Manasses begot Amon. And Amon begot Josias. 11. And Josias begot Jechonias and his brethren in the transmigration of Babylon.
Posita serie genealogiae patrum, quae cucurrit per patriarchas, hic ponit seriem patrum, quae procedit per reges: et dividitur in duo. Primo ponuntur reges, qui nati sunt ex Israel sine commixtione seminis alieni; secundo ponuntur reges, qui secuti sunt coniunctionem alienae copulae, ibi Ioram autem genuit Oziam. Having presented the genealogical series of the fathers which ran through the patriarchs, he now presents the series of fathers which came forth from kings. An it is divided into two parts: first are presented the kings born of Israel without a mixture of alien seed; secondly, the kings who undertook a union with foreigners at Joram was the father of Uzziah.
Hic est duplex quaestio. Lucas enim computando generationem Christi ascendit per Nathan; Matthaeus autem descendendo procedit a David ad Christum per Salomonem: unde videtur esse quaedam contrarietas. Sed dicendum, sicut dictum est, Lucas in genealogia Christi ponit multos patres, qui non fuerunt patres carnalis originis per propagationem, sed secundum legalem adoptionem; Matthaeus autem nullum ponit, qui non fuerit pater carnalis. Et verum est quod secundum carnem dominus descendit a David per Salomonem, et non per Nathan; et tamen, secundum Augustinum, non vacat mysterio quod Matthaeus a David per Salomonem descendit ad Christum, Lucas autem a Christo ad David per Nathan ascendit. Matthaeus enim generationem Christi carnalem susceperat describendam, secundum quam Christus usque ad similitudinem carnis peccati descendit: et ideo recte Matthaeus in eius generatione a David per Salomonem descendit, cum cuius matre ipse David peccavit; Lucas autem, qui maxime commendare intendit in Christo sacerdotalem dignitatem, per quam fuit peccatorum expiatio, recte per Nathan ad David ascendit, qui fuit vir sanctus. Nota tamen quod secundum eumdem Augustinum in libro Retractationum, non est intelligendum quod idem fuit Nathan propheta, qui eum reprehendit, et filius quem genuit; sed solum quod fuerunt similes in nomine. Here two questions arise: for Luke in recounting the generation of Christ ascends through Nathan; but Matthew proceeds in descending order from David to Christ through Solomon. Hence, there seems to be some contrariety. The answer, as has been said, is that Luke in the genealogy of Christ mentions many fathers who were not fathers of fleshly origin by propagation but according to legal adoption; but Matthew mentions no one who was not a father according to the flesh. And its is true that according to the flesh the Lord descended from David through Solomon and not through Nathan; nevertheless, according to Augustine there is no lack of mystery that Matthew goes from David through Solomon to Christ, but Luke ascends from Christ to David through Nathan. For Matthew had undertaken to describe the origin of Christ according to the flesh, in virtue of which Christ descended even unto the likeness of sinful flesh; and therefore, Matthew is correct in his genealogy's descending from David through Solomon, with whose mother David had sinned. But Luke, who intends to stress in Christ the priestly dignity, through which was expiation of sins, is correct in ascending to David through Nathan, who was a holy man. But note that according to the same Augustine in the Book of Retractions it is not supposed that this prophet Nathan who rebuked David was the same as the son he fathered, but that they were alike in name only.
Secundo quaeritur quare Bersabee non nominatur ex nomine, sicut Thamar, Rahab et Ruth. Et dicendum, quod aliae, quamvis per aliquod tempus fuerint peccatrices, tamen postea fuerunt conversae et poenitentes; haec autem turpiter peccavit crimen adulterii et in consensu homicidii: et ideo propter verecundiam subticetur eius nomen. The second question is why Bathsheba is not mentioned by name as were Tamar, Rahab and Ruth. The answer is that the others, although they had been sinners for a while, were later converted and repentant; but she committed the crime of adultery basely and consented to murder. Therefore, on account of the shame her name is kept silent.
Nota tamen quod in Scriptura recitantur aliquando peccata magnorum, sicut David et aliorum; et hoc, quia Diabolus non solum parvos et inferiores, sed etiam magnos prostravit: adversarius enim noster est. Et ideo propter cautelam recitantur, ut qui stat videat ne cadat. Alia ratio est, ne aliquis putaret eos plusquam homines esse. Si enim aliquis solam in eis perfectionem consideraret, decipi posset per idololatriam; sed cum videt eos per peccatum corruisse, non credit iam aliquid amplius ab homine in eis esse. But note that in Scripture sometimes the sins of the great are recorded, as David and others; and this, because the devil prostrates not only the small and lowly, but also the great; for he is our adversary. And therefore, as a warning they are mentioned, so that he who stands may not fall. Another reason is that they not think themselves more than men. For if someone were to consider only the perfection in them, he could be deceived into idolatry; but when he sees that they have fallen into sin, he no longer believes that they are superhuman.
Nota etiam hoc, secundum Gregorium, quod aliquando factum litterale est malum et significatum est bonum; aliquando vero factum bonum et significatum malum. Urias enim fuit vir bonus et iustus, nec de aliquo in Scriptura reprehenditur; et tamen significat Diabolum. Bersabee autem fuit peccatrix; et tamen rem bonam significat, scilicet Ecclesiam, ut notat Glossa II Reg. XII, et etiam Glossa quae dicitur exponere figuram secundum sensum allegoricum. Urias enim interpretatur lux mea Deus, et significat Diabolum, qui lucem divinitatis appetivit; Isa. XIV, 14: ero similis altissimo. Bersabee interpretatur puteus septem, vel puteus societatis; et significat Ecclesiam de gentibus, propter septiformem gratiam baptismalem. Hanc sibi desponsaverat primo Diabolus; sed David, idest Christus, abstulit eam ab eo, et copulavit sibi, et ipsum Diabolum interfecit. Aliter Bersabee significat legem, per cuius vias populus inductus est, qui non vult ingredi in domum per spiritualem intelligentiam, et ideo defert litteras mortis suae, quia littera occidit, II Cor. III, 6. Sed David, idest Christus, abstulit a Iudaeis legem, quando docuit eam spiritualiter intelligendam. Note, too, according to Augustine, that sometimes the literal fact is evil and the thing is very good; and sometimes the deed is good and the thing signified evil. For Uriah was a good and just man is not reprehended for anything in Scripture; yet he signifies the devil. Bathsheba on the other hand was a sinner; yet she signifies a good thing, namely, the Church. For Uriah is taken to mean God my light and signifies the devil, who desired the light of divinity: "I will be like the Most High" (Is 14:14). Bathsheba is taken to mean seven wells or the well of a group and signifies the Church of the gentiles on account of the seven-fold grace of baptism. The devil first married her, but David, i.e., Christ, took her from him and became one with her and killed the devil. Or Bathsheba signifies the Law, through whose ways were led the people who do not want to enter the house through spiritual understanding but bring in the letters of their death, because "the letter kills" (2 Cor 3:6). But David, i.e., Christ, removed the Law from the Jews, when he taught how to understand it spiritually.
Salomon autem genuit Roboam et cetera. Sicut autem David interpretatur manu fortis, vel aspectu desiderabilis, ita Salomon pacificus: et hoc est rectum, quia ex fortitudine operationis bonae provenit pax conscientiae; Ps. CXVIII, 165: pax multa diligentibus legem tuam. Contingit autem quod ex pace conscientiae homo velit alios ad bonum venire. Unde Salomon genuit Roboam, qui interpretatur impetus: quia impetu praedicationis movetur, habens pacem conscientiae ad dilatandum nomen Christi; sicut legitur de apostolis, Is. XXVII, 6: qui ingrediuntur impetu ad Iacob, florebit et germinabit Israel, et implebunt faciem orbis semine. Utrumque autem significat Christum, quia ipse est pax. Item ipse Roboam, qui populum impetu praedicationis convertit. Solomon was the father of Rehoboam. But just as David is taken to mean stronghanded or fair to behold, so Solomon, peaceful: and this is correct, because from the vigor of good activity arises peace of conscience: "Great peace have those who love they law" (Ps 119:165). But it happens that from peace of conscience a man wants to arrive at the good. Hence, Solomon begot Rehoboam, which is taken to mean force, because by the force of preaching one with peace of conscience is moved to extend Christ's name, as it says of the apostles in Is (27:6): "They will come to Jacob with force, Israel shall blossom and bring forth fruits and fill the whole world with fruit." But both signify Christ, because he is peace. Also Rehoboam, who converted the people by the force of preaching.
Roboam autem genuit Abiam, qui interpretatur pater Deus: quia ex hoc quod homo studet ad profectum aliorum spiritualem, vel corporalem per opera misericordiae, efficitur dignus paternitate Dei, ut infra V, 44: benefacite his qui oderunt vos, ut sitis filii patris vestri, qui in caelis est et cetera. Et Luc. VI, 36: estote misericordes. Hoc etiam competit Christo, cui dicitur: ego ero illi in patrem, et ipse erit mihi in filium. Rohoboam was the father of Abijah, which is taken to mean God the Father, because, from the fact that a man is eager for the spiritual or bodily progress of others through works of mercy, he is made worthy of God's fatherhood, as it says below: (5:44): "Do good to those who hate you, that you may be children of your Father who is in heaven"; and in Lk (6:36): "Be merciful." This , too, befits Christ, to whom it is said: "I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son" (Heb 1:5).
Abias autem genuit Asa, qui interpretatur attollens: quia quandoque homo ex hoc quod efficitur pater et superior aliorum, incurrit quamdam negligentiam securitatis; ideo Abias genuit Asa, ut scilicet homo sit in continuo profectu, et attollat se semper ad maiora. Hoc etiam competit Christo, qui dicitur attollens, idest crescens; Luc. II, 40: puer autem crescebat. Vel attollens, quia abstulit peccata mundi. Abijah was the father of Asa, which is taken to mean raise up: because sometimes a man, after being made the father and superior over others, experiences an absence of confidence. Therefore, Abijah was the father of Asa, in order that a man make continual progress and raise himself always to higher things. This befits Christ, who is said to be raised up, i.e., growing: "The boy grew" (Lk 2:40). Or "raising up," because he took away the sins of the world.
Asa autem genuit Iosaphat, qui interpretatur iudicans, quia ex hoc quod semper crescit homo spiritualis, efficitur iudicans; I Cor. II, 15: spiritualis homo omnia diiudicat. Et hoc Christo competit, quia pater omne iudicium dedit filio. Iosaphat autem genuit Ioram, qui interpretatur habitans in excelsis; quia ille qui iudex constituitur, debet in excelsis habitare; Isa. XXXIII, 16: iste in excelsis habitabit. Quomodo autem hoc sit, dicit apostolus: nostra conversatio in caelis est. Et hoc competit Christo, quia excelsus super omnes gentes dominus, Psal. CXII, 4. Asa was the father of Jehoshophat, which is taken to mean living on high, because the one appointed judge ought to live on high: "He will dwell on the heights" (Is 33:6). How this happens is told by the Apostle: "Our commonwealth is in heaven" (Phil 3:20). And this befits Christ, because "the lord is high above all the nations."
Ioram autem genuit Oziam. Hic est quaestio litteralis. Nam I Par. III, 11 dicitur quod Ioram genuit Ochoziam. Ochozias autem genuit Ioram. Ioras autem genuit Amasiam, qui et Azarias dicitur. Amasias autem genuit Oziam. In duobus ergo videtur Evangelista in genealogiae serie defecisse. Primo quia Ioram non genuit Oziam, sed Amasiam; secundo, quia omisit tres generationes. Et dicendum ad primum, quod generare aliquem alium potest intelligi dupliciter, mediate vel immediate: immediate, sicut pater carnalis immediate generat filium; et sic Ioram non genuit Oziam. Alio modo mediate, sicut nos dicimur filii Adam; et sic filius potest dici genitus ab avo vel proavo, quia ab ipso per generationem mediatam descendit. Joram was the father of Uzziah. Here a question arises. For it says in 1 Chronicles (3:11) that Joram was the father of Ahaziah, who was the father of Joash, who was the father of Amaziah, also called Azariah. Amaziah was the father of Uzziah. Therefore, the evangelist seems to have erred twice in the genealogical series: first, because Joram was not the father of Uzziah; secondly, because he left out three generations. The answer to the first difficulty is that for one to generate another can be understood in two ways: mediately and immediately. Immediately, as the father according to the flesh immediately generates his son. In this sense, Joram did not generate Uzziah. In another way, mediately, as we are called sons of Adam; and so a son can be said to be generated by a father or grandfather, because he descended from him through a mediate generation.
Quare autem omisit tres reges, triplex ratio assignatur. Prima a Hieronymo; qui dicit (sicut scriptum est Exod. XX, 5): dominus visitat peccata patrum in tertiam et quartam generationem, his qui patrum sceleris efficiuntur imitatores. Ioram autem duxit uxorem filiam Iezabel, scilicet Athaliam, quae traxit eum ad idololatriam. Ochozias etiam magis quam pater idololatriae deditus fuit. Et similiter Ioras, qui cum scelere idololatriae etiam Zachariam filium Ioiadae occidit: et ideo isti tres quasi indigni excluduntur a generatione Christi. These are three reasons why he left out three kings. The first is from Jerome, who says (as it is stated in Ex 20:5): "The Lord visits the sins of the fathers upon the children of the third and fourth generation of those who hate me." Now Joram married the daughter of Jezebel, named Athalia, who drew him to idolatry. Ahaziah was more given to idolatry than his father. Similarly Joram, along with the crime of idolatry, also slew Zechariah, the son of Jehoiada. Therefore, those three, as though unworthy, were excluded from the genealogy of Christ.
Chrysostomus aliam assignat rationem. Praecepit enim dominus IV Reg. IX Iehu filio Nansi, quod ipse extirparet domum Achab, qui diligens fuit in executione praecepti, et tamen a cultura deorum non recessit: adoravit enim vitulos conflatiles. Et quia diligenter perfecit domini imperium destruendo domum Achab, dictum est ad eum, quod filii eius usque in quartam generationem sederent super thronum domus Israel; unde sicut Iehu meruit regnum Israel usque in tertiam vel quartam generationem, ita per oppositum Ioram, qui commiscuit se feminis gentilibus, et transtulit iniquitatem domus Israel ad domum Iuda, debuit amittere nomen posteritatis in genealogia Christi usque in quartam generationem, facta expiatione peccati. Chrysostom gives another reason. For the Lord (2 Kg 9) commanded Jehu, the son of Nimshi, to destroy the house of Ahab. He was diligent in executing the command, and yet he did not cease worshiping the gods, for he adored calves cast out of metal. And because he was diligent in carrying out the Lord's command by destroying Ahab's house, it was said to him that his sons to the fourth generation would sit upon the throne. Hence, just as Jehu merited the kingdom of Israel to the third or fourth generation, so oppositely, Joram, who had intercourse with pagan women and transferred the sin of the house of Israel to the house of Judah, was due to lose the name of his posterity in the genealogy of Christ to the fourth generation, having made expiation for his sin.
Augustinus in quaest. novi et Vet. Test. aliam assignat rationem. Dicit enim, quod quidam fuerunt boni, et bonos invenerunt patres, sicut Isaac et Iacob; quidam mali, et tamen bonos invenerunt patres, sicut Salomon, qui peccator fuit, et tamen David virum iustum et sanctum habuit patrem; quidam nec boni fuerunt, nec bonos patres habuerunt, sicut fuerunt isti tres, ut patet per praedicta. Ioram peccavit, et peccatum eius continuatum fuit usque ad Oziam, qui pene nihil mali fecit, nisi quod incensum adolevit; continuatio autem peccati causa vel ratio est destructionis. Et ideo isti tres qui in peccato idololatriae permanserunt, excluduntur a genealogia Christi. In Questions of the New and Old Testaments Augustine assigns another reason. For he says that some were good and they found good fathers, as Isaac and Jacob; some were evil and yet found good fathers, as Solomon was a sinner and yet had David, a just and holy man, as his father. Some were not good and did not have good fathers, as those three, as is clear from the foregoing. Joram sinned and his sin continued to Uzziah, who did almost no evil, except that he burned incense; but continuation in sin is the cause or reason of destruction. Therefore, those three, who persisted in the sin of idolatry, are excluded from the genealogy of Christ.
Ratio autem mystice assignatur propter tres quaterdenarios, per quos Matthaeus genealogiam Christi describere intendit. Ozias autem interpretatur robustus domini; et signat Christum, de quo in Psal. CXVII, 14: fortitudo mea, et laus dominus, factus est mihi in salutem et cetera. Mystice autem Ioram genuit Oziam, quia qui in excelso habitant, debent esse fortiter operantes. Nota quod sub hoc Ozia prophetavit Isaias, ut patet Isa. I, 1. Propter enim peccatum principum, et regum, et etiam populi, abstulit Deus prophetiam et doctrinam; unde sub rege bono coepit iterum emanatio prophetiae. A mystical reason is assigned on account of the three uses of fourteen by which Matthew intends to describe the genealogy of Christ. Uzziah is taken to mean the Lord's robust one and it signifies Christ about whom it says in Ps 118 (v. 14): "The Lord is my strength and my song; he has become my salvation. " Mystically, Joram was the father of Uzziah, because those who live in high places ought to act bravely. Note that Isaiah prophesied under this Uziah, as is clear from Is (c. 13). For God removed prophecy and teaching on account of the sins of princes and kings; hence, under a good king prophecy began once more.
Ozias autem genuit Ioatham, qui interpretatur profectus; et significat Christum, per quem Ecclesia proficit quotidie. Et sic bene Ozias genuit Ioatham quia qui fortiter operantur, sunt in continuo profectu; Psalmi LXXXIII, 8: ibunt de virtute in virtutem. Uzziah was the father of Jotham, which is taken to mean perfect, and it signifies Christ, through whom the Church grows perfect daily. And so it was that Uzziah was the father of Jotham, because those who act bravely make continual progress: "They will go from virtue to virtue" (Ps 84:8).
Ioatham autem genuit Achaz, qui interpretatur comprehendens; quia per continuum profectum virtutum venit homo ad cognitionem Dei; Ps. CXVIII, 104: a mandatis tuis intellexi, propterea odivi omnem viam iniquitatis; Ps. LXIII, 10: annuntiaverunt opera Dei, ostendendo in opere, et facta eius intellexerunt. Propter quod Paulus ad Philippenses III, 12: sequor, si quo modo comprehendam, in quo et comprehensus sum a Christo Iesu. Et hoc competit Christo, qui solus perfecte divinitatem comprehendit; Lc. X, 22: nemo novit patrem nisi filius. Jotham was the father of Ahaz, which is taken to mean comprehending, because by continuous progress in the virtues a man comes to the knowledge of God: "Through your precepts I get understanding; therefore I hate every false way (Ps 119:104); "They declared God's works and have understood what he has wrought" (Ps 64:9). Therefore, Paul says: "I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me his own" (Phil 3:12). And it befits Christ, who alone comprehends the godhead perfectly: "No one knows the Father, but the Son" (Lk 10:22).
Achaz autem genuit Ezechiam, idest fortis dominus: quia talis habet fortitudinem a domino; II regum XXII, 2: dominus fortitudo mea, et robur meum. Et hoc competit Christo, qui fortis est in praelio. Ahaz was the father of Hezekiah, i.e., the strong lord, because he had such strength from the Lord: "The Lord is my rock and my fortress" (2 Sam 22:2). and this befits Christ, who is strong in battle.
Ezechias autem genuit Manassen, et interpretatur oblivio: quia qui iam perfecte Deum cognoscit, istorum temporalium obliviscitur; Ps. XLIV, 11: obliviscere populum tuum, et domum patris tui; Gen. XLI, 51: oblivisci me fecit dominus Deus omnium laborum meorum. Et hoc Christo convenit, de quo dicitur Ez. XVIII, 21: si impius egerit poenitentiam ab omnibus peccatis suis, quae operatus est, omnium iniquitatum eius, quas operatus est, non recordabor. Hezekiah was the father of Manasseh and it means forgetful, because one who knows God so well forgets temporal things: "Forget your people and your father's house" (Ps 45:10); "God has made me forget all my hardship" (Gen 41:51). An this befits Christ of whom it says: "If a wicked man turns away from all his sins, I will not remember the sins he has committed" (Ez 18:21).
Manasses autem genuit Amon, idest fidelis et nutriens: quia vere est ille fidelis qui contemnit temporalia. Secundum enim Gregorium, fraus est filia avaritiae: et ideo qui temporalia perfecte contemnit, iam non curat de infidelitate. Unde recte Manasses genuit Amon. Hoc etiam interpretatur nutriens: quia qui temporalia contemnit, debet inde nutrire pauperes per misericordiam; infra XIX, 21: si vis perfectus esse, vade, et vende omnia quae habes, ecce contemptus, et da pauperibus, ecce nutrimentum. Hoc autem Christo competit, qui vere fidelis est, Ps. CXLIV, 13: fidelis dominus in omnibus verbis suis, et iterum nutritius, Os. XI, 3: ego qui nutritius Ephraim, portabam eos in brachiis meis, et nescierunt quod curarem eos; infra XXIII, 37: quoties volui congregare filios tuos quemadmodum gallinae congregant pullos suos sub alas, et noluisti? Manasseh was the father of Amon, i.e., faithful and nourishing, because he is truly faithful who spurns temporal things. For, according to Gregory, fraud is the daughter of greed; therefore, one who perfectly scorns temporal things is no longer worried about unbelief. Hence, it is well said that Manasseh was the father of Amon. For this is taken to mean nourishing, because one who spurns temporal things should mercifully use them to nourish the poor: "If you would be perfect, go and sell all you have": behold the scorn; "and give to the poor": behold the nourishment (Mt 19:21). This befits Christ, who is truly faithful: "It was I who taught Ephraim to walk, I took him up in my arms; but they did not know that I healed them" (Hos 11:3); "How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen her brood under her wings and you would not" (Mt 23:37).
Amon autem genuit Iosiam, qui interpretatur salus domini, vel incensum; quia ex hoc consequitur homo salutem, quod etiam temporalia obliviscitur et largitur, sive distribuit. Vel incensum. Hoc competit Christo; Ps. LXXIII, 12: qui operatus est salutem in medio terrae, et se obtulit sacrificium Deo in odorem suavitatis, Eph. V, 2. Amon was the father of Josiah, which is taken to mean the Lord's salvation, or incense, because man obtains his salvation by forgetting temporal things, which he gives away and distributes. Or this incense befits Christ: "In the sight of their fathers he wrought marvels" (Ps 78:12); "He gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God" (Eph 5:2).
Iosias autem genuit Iechoniam et fratres eius, qui interpretatur praeparatio domini, vel resurrectio; et significat Christum, qui praeparavit nobis locum, Ioan. XIV, 2, et qui dicit Ioan. XI, 25: ego sum resurrectio et vita, et per hanc venimus ad resurrectionem. Josiah was the father of Jechoniah and his brothers. This is taken to mean the Lord's preparation or the resurrection, and it signifies Christ, who prepared a place for us (Jn 14) and who says: "I am the resurrection and the life" (Jn 11:22). And through this we come to the resurrection.
Hic autem triplex est quaestio secundum litteram. Primo quaeritur, quomodo dicatur Iosias genuisse Iechoniam; et tamen non ipsum, sed patrem eius Ioakim genuit. Et ad hoc est duplex responsio. Secundum enim Chrysostomum, cui consentit Augustinus, nomen Ioakim praetermittitur omnino; et hoc quia non per divinam ordinationem regnavit, sed per Pharaonis potentiam, qui ipsum in regno instituit, incarcerato primogenito fratre eius Ioathan, qui regnaverat ante eum. Et ad hoc nota historiam IV Reg. XXII, et II Paral. XXXVI, 1 ss. Habuit etiam Iosias tres filios, Ioathan, Ioakim, qui et Eliacim, et Sedeciam. Si enim, ut dicit Augustinus, illi tres reges removentur de genealogia, quia per idololatriae depravati sunt, quanto magis iste, qui non per Deum, vel prophetam, sed per gentilis hominis positionem institutus est in regno? Sententia est non verba Hieronymi, ut vult et ei consentit Ambrosius, quod uterque dictus est Ioakim, et ille qui ponitur in fine quaterdenarii, et qui ponitur in principio tertii, et uterque Iechonias et Ioakim idem sunt. Unde notandum, quod Iosias tres habuit filios, Ioakim, qui et Eliacim, Ioathan, et Sedeciam. Mortuo autem Iosia regnavit pro eo Ioathas, medius scilicet filius; quo capto a Pharaone rege Aegypti, et incarcerato, constituit fratrem eius primogenitum Ioakim regem, imponens ei tributum; postea Nabuchodonosor rex Babylonis, superato rege Aegypti, obsedit Ierusalem, et cepit Ioakim, quem sub tributo remisit in Ierusalem. Postea autem cum vellet Ioakim rebellare contra regem Babylonis, confisus de auxilio regis Aegypti, ascendit Nabuchodonosor Ierusalem, et cepit eum, et occidit, et constituit filium eius pro eo Ioachim, quem et Iechoniam nominavit nomine patris; quo facto timens Nabuchodonosor, ne iste memor mortis patris confoederaretur cum rege Aegypti, rediit in Ierusalem, et obsedit eam; et Iechonias, vel Ioachim iste, filius scilicet alterius, de consilio Ieremiae tradidit se regi Nabuchodonosor, et uxorem, et filios; et isti proprie dicuntur transmigrasse in transmigrationem. Nabuchodonosor vero constituit regem eius Sedeciam fratrem patris eius, et ipsum Ioachim duxit in Babylonem; et ille est de quo dicitur post: et post transmigrationem. Here arise three textual questions: first, how Josiah is said to be the father of Jechoniah, whereas he begot not him but his father, Jehoiakim. There are two answers to this. According to Chrysostom, with whom Augustine agrees, the name of Jehoiakim is entirely omitted, because he reigned not by God's decree but by the power of Pharaoh, who established him in the kingdom after imprisoning his brother, Jotham, who had reigned before him. In regard to this, note the history in 2 Kings (c. 22) and 2 Chronicles (c. 36). Josiah had three sons, Jotham, Jehoahaz (also called Eliakim) and Zedekiah. For if, as Augustine says, those three kings are removed from the genealogy, because they were guilty of idolatry; how much more the one who was installed not by God or a prophet but by a pagan? The opinion is Jerome's but not the words, as he wishes and Ambrose concurs, that both were called Jehoiakim, i.e., the one mentioned at the end of the second 14 and at the beginning of the third; and both Jechoniah and Jehoiakim are the same. Hence, it should be noted that Josiah had three sons: Jehoiakim, also called Eliakim, Jotham and Zedekiah. But when Josiah was dead, Jotham reigned, although he was the second son. After his capture and imprisonment by Pharaoh, king of Egypt, Jehoiakim was made king with the obligation of paying tribute. After Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, overcame the king of Egypt, he besieged Jerusalem and took Jehoiakim, whom he sent to Jerusalem under tribute. Later, when Jehoiakim, trusting in the king of Egypt's help, attempted to rebel against the king of Babylon, Nebuchadnezzar went up to Jerusalem, captured and slew him, and put Jehoiakim's son in his place and called him Jehoiakim, the same name as his father. After this action Nebuchadnezzar feared that he might recall his father's death and form an alliance with the king of Egypt. So he returned to Jerusalem, attacked it, and this Jehoiakim, the son of the other Jehoiakim, surrendered himself and his wife and sons on the advice of Jeremiah to king Nebuchadnezzar; and they are properly said to have migrated in the transmigration. Nebuchadnezar, however, appointed the father's brother, Zedekiah, king in his place and brought Jehoiakim to Babylon. He is the one about whom it is said later: and after the departure to Babylon.
Sed quare nominatus est Iechonias, cum nomen eius fuerit Ioachim? Et dicendum, quod istud nomen impositum fuit a propheta, scilicet Ieremia; Ier. XXII, 24: haec dicit dominus: si fuerit Iechonias filius Ioakim regis Iuda, annulus in manu dextera mea, inde evellam eum; et infra: numquid vas fictile atque contritum vir iste Iechonias? Et ideo potius nominatur ab Evangelista tali nomine, ut ostendatur Evangelistam concordare cum propheta. Nota etiam quod quamvis idem sit nomen, diversimode tamen scribitur. Primi enim Ioakim nomen scribitur per k, et videtur dici Ioakim; sed secundi scribitur per ghimel, unde dicitur Ioachim: et ideo diversas habent interpretationes. Primum enim interpretatur resurrectio; secundum vero praeparatio domini. But why was he called Jechoniah, when his name was Jehoiakim? The answer is that the name was given him by the prophet Jeremiah (22:24): "Thus says the Lord: though Coniah, the son of Jehoiakim, king of Judah, wore the signet ring on my right hand, yet I would tear you of." and in v. 28: "Is this man Coniah a despised broken pot?" And , therefore, the evangelist preferred to use that name, to show that he agrees with the prophet.
Secundo quaeritur quare dicitur Iechoniam et fratres eius. Multi enim fuerunt de regibus qui fratres habuerunt, sed numquam dicitur, vel fit mentio de fratribus. Et dicendum, secundum Ambrosium, quod ubicumque fit mentio de fratribus, sicut cum dicitur Iudam et fratres eius, et Phares et Zaram de Thamar, hoc significat quod aequales fuerunt in sanctitate, vel malitia. Isti autem tres omnes sunt mali. Aliter potest dici, quod ideo quia istorum fratrum quilibet regnavit, sicut patet per ea quae dicta sunt, sic autem non fuit de fratribus aliorum regum. The second question is why it says Jechoniah and his brothers. For there were many kings who had brothers, but no mention is made of them. The answer is, according to Ambrose, that wherever mention is made of brothers, as when it says, "Judah and his brothers," and "Perez and Zerah by Tamar," it signifies that they were equal in holiness or malice. But those three were all evil. Or it can be said that it was because each of those brothers reigned, as is clear from what has been said. This was not true of the brothers of other kings.
Tertio quaeritur de hoc quod dicitur in transmigratione. Videtur falsum, quia Iosias numquam transmigravit. Et dicendum hoc accipiendum esse secundum praescientiam divinam, secundum quam ordinatum erat eos quos tunc generabat, transmigrandos esse. Vel dicendum, quod in transmigratione idem est ac prope transmigrationem, sive iam imminente. The third question concerns the phrase, in the transmigration. It seems to be false, because Josiah never transmigrated. The answer is that this must be taken according to God's foreknowledge, according to which it was ordained that those whom he then generated would transmigrate. Or it can be said that in the transmigration in the same as near the transmigration, or when it was now imminent.

Lectio 4
Reportatio Petri de Andria
1—4
Mt 1:12-21
12 μετὰ δὲ τὴν μετοικεσίαν βαβυλῶνος ἰεχονίας ἐγέννησεν τὸν σαλαθιήλ, σαλαθιὴλ δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν ζοροβαβέλ, 13 ζοροβαβὲλ δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν ἀβιούδ, ἀβιοὺδ δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν ἐλιακίμ, ἐλιακὶμ δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν ἀζώρ, 14 ἀζὼρ δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν σαδώκ, σαδὼκ δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν ἀχίμ, ἀχὶμ δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν ἐλιούδ, 15 ἐλιοὺδ δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν ἐλεάζαρ, ἐλεάζαρ δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν ματθάν, ματθὰν δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Ἰακώβ, 16 ἰακὼβ δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν ἰωσὴφ τὸν ἄνδρα μαρίας, ἐξ ἧς ἐγεννήθη Ἰησοῦς ὁ λεγόμενος Χριστός. 17 πᾶσαι οὖν αἱ γενεαὶ ἀπὸ ἀβραὰμ ἕως δαυὶδ γενεαὶ δεκατέσσαρες, καὶ ἀπὸ δαυὶδ ἕως τῆς μετοικεσίας βαβυλῶνος γενεαὶ δεκατέσσαρες, καὶ ἀπὸ τῆς μετοικεσίας βαβυλῶνος ἕως τοῦ Χριστοῦ γενεαὶ δεκατέσσαρες. 18 τοῦ δὲ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἡ γένεσις οὕτως ἦν. μνηστευθείσης τῆς μητρὸς αὐτοῦ μαρίας τῷ ἰωσήφ, πρὶν ἢ συνελθεῖν αὐτοὺς εὑρέθη ἐν γαστρὶ ἔχουσα ἐκ πνεύματος ἁγίου. 19 ἰωσὴφ δὲ ὁ ἀνὴρ αὐτῆς, δίκαιος ὢν καὶ μὴ θέλων αὐτὴν δειγματίσαι, ἐβουλήθη λάθρᾳ ἀπολῦσαι αὐτήν. 20 ταῦτα δὲ αὐτοῦ ἐνθυμηθέντος ἰδοὺ ἄγγελος κυρίου κατ' ὄναρ ἐφάνη αὐτῷ λέγων, ἰωσὴφ υἱὸς δαυίδ, μὴ φοβηθῇς παραλαβεῖν μαρίαν τὴν γυναῖκά σου, τὸ γὰρ ἐν αὐτῇ γεννηθὲν ἐκ πνεύματός ἐστιν ἁγίου: 21 τέξεται δὲ υἱὸν καὶ καλέσεις τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦν, αὐτὸς γὰρ σώσει τὸν λαὸν αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν αὐτῶν.
12. And after the transmigration of Babylon, Jechonias begot Salathiel. And Salathiel begot Zorobabel. 13. And Zorobabel begot Abiud. And Abiud begot Eliacim. And Eliacim begot Azor. 14. And Azor begot Sadoc. And Sadoc begot Achim. And Achim begot Eliud. 15. And Eliud begot Eleazar. And Eleazar begot Mathan. And Mathan begot Jacob. 16. And Jacob begot Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ. 17. So all the generations from Abraham to David, are fourteen generations. And from David to the transmigration of Babylon, are fourteen generations: and from the transmigration of Babylon to Christ are fourteen generations. 18. Now the generation of Christ was in this wise. When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child, of the Holy Ghost. 19. Whereupon Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing publicly to expose her, was minded to put her away privately. 20. But while he thought on these things, behold the Angel of the Lord appeared to him in his sleep, saying: Joseph, son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife, for that which is conceived in her, is of the Holy Ghost. 21. And she shall bring forth a son: and thou shalt call his name Jesus. For he shall save his people from their sins.
Hic ponitur tertius quaterdenarius generationis Christi, qui procedit per personas privatas. De isto Iechonia, sicut dictum est supra, fuit duplex opinio. Hieronymus enim et Ambrosius volunt quod alter fuerit ille qui ponitur in fine primi quaterdenarii et vocatus est Ioakim; alter vero qui dictus est Ioachim. Secundum vero Augustinum, ut supra. Ista enim transmigratio filiorum Israel significat translationem fidei ad gentes; Act. XIII, v. 46: vobis oportebat primum loqui verbum Dei. In illa transmigratione facta est quasi quaedam reflexio Iudaeorum ad gentes. Unde quasi quidam constituitur angulus; et ideo Iechonias iste significat Christum, qui factus est lapis angularis, in seipso utrumque copulans populum, Iudaeorum et gentium; Ps. CXVII, v. 22: lapidem quem reprobaverunt aedificantes, hic factus est in caput anguli. Here is given the third series of fourteen in the genealogy of Christ, and it lists private persons. Concerning Jechoniah, as was indicated above, there were two opinions: for Jerome and Ambrose think that the one was placed at the end of the first series of fourteen and went by the name of Jehoiakim; the other is the one named Jehoiachim. Augustine's opinion has been given above. For the transmigration of the children of Israel signifies the transfer of the faith to the gentiles: "It was necessary that the word of God should be spoken first to you:" (Acts 13:46). In that transmigration was made, as it were, a certain reflection of the Jews upon the gentiles. Hence, someone is, as it were, constituted a corner; and therefore, Jechoniah signifies Christ, who was made the corner-stone, uniting in himself both the Jewish people and the gentiles: "The stone which the builders rejected has become the head of the corner" (Ps 118:22).
Sed hic quaeritur, Ier. XXII, 30 dicitur: scribe virum istum, Sedeciam, virum sterilem, qui in diebus suis non prosperabitur; nec enim erit qui sedeat de semine eius super solium David. Quomodo ergo dicitur Christus descendisse a David per Sedeciam, cum de Christo scripserit sic Is. IX, 2: super solium David, et super regnum eius sedebit? Et dicendum, secundum Ambrosium, quod cum Christus dicitur sedere super solium, intelligitur de regno spirituali, non corporali, nisi inquantum per regnum David corporale significatur spirituale. In Jeremiah (22:30) it says: "Write this man, Zedekiah, down as childless, a man who shall not succeed in his days; for none of his offspring shall succeed in sitting on the throne of David." How then is Christ said to have descended from David through Zedekiah, since it is written of Christ: "Upon the throne of David and over his kingdom sit" (Is 9:7)? The answer is that, according to Ambrose, when Christ is said to sit upon the throne, it means a spiritual, not a material, throne, except in as much as a spiritual kingdom is signified by David's material kingdom.
Salathiel autem genuit Zorobabel. Contra: I Paralipom. III, 17 dicitur, quod filii Iechoniae fuerunt Asir, Salathiel, et Melchiram, et Phadaia. Phadaia autem filios habuit Zorobabel, et Semei; de Abiud autem nulla prorsus fit ibi mentio. Ergo videtur, quod male dicit Evangelista, quod Salathiel genuit Zorobabel, et quod Zorobabel genuit Abiud. Ad hoc tripliciter respondetur in Glossa.
  • Una responsio, quod in libro Paralipomenon multa depravata sunt vitio scriptorum, praecipue de his quae pertinent ad numerum et ad nomina. Unde istis generationibus vitiatis prohibet apostolus intendere, quae magis quaestionem quam utilitatem inducunt, I Tim. I, 4.
  • Alia est responsio, quod Salathiel binomius fuit: vocatus est enim Salathiel, et Caphadara; et ideo liber Paralipomenon dicit Zorobabel filium Capha, Evangelista vero filium Salathiel. Nulla est ergo contrarietas.
  • Tertia est responsio, et verior, quod Salathiel, et Caphadara fuerunt fratres, sicut dicit liber Paralipomenon. Caphadara autem genuit filium quem vocavit eodem nomine, scilicet Zorobabel, et iste genuit Abiud. Dicendum etiam quod liber Paralipomenon narrat genealogiam ipsius Capha; Evangelista generationem Salathiel, quia de eo erat Christus nasciturus.
Shealtiel was the father of Zerubbabel. But 1 Ch (c. 3) says that the sons of Jechoniah were Shealtiel, Malchiram, Pedaiah, whose sons were Zerubbabel and Shimei. No mention is made of Abiud. Therefore, it seems that the evangelist erred in saying that Shealtiel was the father of Zerubbabel and that Zerubbabel was the father of Abiud. Three answers are given to this in a Gloss.
  • One answer is that in the book of Chronicles many things are marred by the mistakes of writers, especially matters pertaining to numbers and names. On account of these errors, the Apostle forbids the converts to occupy themselves with those genealogies, which promote speculation rather than divine training (1 Tim 4).
  • Another answer is that Shealtiel had two names: for he was called Shealtel and Caphadar; and therefore the book of Chronicles says that Zerubbabel is the son of Caphadara, but the evangelist that he is the son of Shealtiel. Therefore, there is no contrariety.
  • A third answer is the truer one, namely, that Shealtiel and Caphadara were brothers, as it says in the book of Chronicles. Caphadara fathered a son whom he called by the same name, Zerubbabel, who was the father of Abiud. It should be noted that the book of Chronicles narrates the genealogy of Caphadara, but the evangelist that of Shealtiel, because Christ was to be born from him.
Notandum autem quod de illis qui fuerunt ab Abiud usque ad Ioseph, nulla fit mentio in libris sacrae Scripturae, sed ex annalibus Hebraeorum, quos Herodes pro magna parte comburi fecit ut occultaretur ignobilitas sui generis, accepta sunt. Patet littera. Sensum mysticum prosequamur. Nota ergo quod in hac parte genealogiae ponuntur tres ordines. Primus est ordo doctorum, et continet quatuor generationes. Ante orationem enim requiritur praeparatio, secundum illud Eccli. XVIII, 23: ante orationem praepara animam tuam; et ideo de Iechonia, qui interpretatur praeparatio domini, sequitur Salathiel, qui interpretatur petitio mea; et designant Christum, qui in omnibus exauditus est pro sua reverentia, Hebr. V, 7. Oratio autem debet praecedere doctrinam, secundum illud ad Eph. VI, 19: orate, ut detur sermo in apertione oris mei; et ideo Salathiel sequitur Zorobabel, qui interpretatur magister Babel, idest confusionis; quia per doctrinam et praedicationem apostolorum revocatae sunt gentes ad Deum verum, et hoc fuit ad confusionem idololatriae; et hoc competit principaliter Christo, qui dicit: vocatis me, magister, et domine, et bene dicitis, Io. XIII, v. 13. Per doctrinam autem, et praedicationem acquirit homo patris dignitatem; unde patres dicuntur eorum qui instruuntur spiritualiter; I Cor. IV, 15: nam et si decem millia paedagogorum habeatis in Christo, sed non multos patres: in Christo enim Iesu per Evangelium filii sumus. Et ideo sequitur Zorobabel autem genuit Abiud, qui interpretatur pater meus iste; et hoc competit Christo; Ps. LXXXVIII, 27: ipse invocabit me, pater meus es tu. Note, too, that of those who were from Abiud to Joseph, no mention is made in the books of Sacred Scripture, but they were taken from the Hebrew people's annals, most of which Herod burned, in order to conceal the ignobility of his own ancestors. The text is evident; let us take up the mystical sense. Note, therefore, that in this section of the genealogy three orders are mentioned. The first is the order of teachers and contains four generations; for preparation is required before prayer: "Before prayer prepare your soul" (Sir 18:23) and therefore, after Jechoniah, which is taken to mean the Lord's preparation, comes Shealtiel, which means my petition; and it designates Christ, who in all things "is heard for his reverence" (Heb 5:7). But the prayer should come before teaching: "Pray that utterance may be given to me in opening my mouth" (Eph 6:19). And therefore, Shealtiel follows Zerubbabel, which means teacher of Babel, i.e., of confusion; because by the teaching and preaching of the apostles the gentiles were recalled to the true God, to the confusion of idolatry. And this especially befits Christ, who says: "You call me master and Lord, and you say well" (Jn 213:15). By teaching and preaching, however, a man acquires the dignity of a father; hence, those who give spiritual instruction are called father: "For although you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers" (1 Cor 4:15). And therefore there follows, Zerubbabel was the father of Abiud, which is interpreted as my father, and this befits Christ: "He shall cry to me, 'You are my father'" (Ps 89:26).
Abiud autem genuit Eliacim. Hic designatur ordo incipientium, scilicet auditorum. Primum autem quod fit per praedicationem in auditore, et quod debet praedicator intendere, est quod resurgat a vitiis ad virtutes, secundum illud Eph. V, 4: surge qui dormis; et ideo Abiud genuit Eliacim, qui interpretatur resurrectio; et competit Christo, qui dicit, Io. XI, 26: omnis qui credit in me, habet vitam aeternam. Non autem resurgens potest pervenire ad statum iustitiae nisi per auxilium Dei: et ideo, postquam resurrexit, indiget homo auxilio Dei, secundum illud Ps. CXX, 2: auxilium meum a domino; et ideo sequitur Eliacim autem genuit Azor, qui interpretatur adiutus. Et hoc etiam competit Christo, de quo in Ps. XXVI, 9: adiutor meus esto, domine. Et per hoc auxilium devenitur ad iustitiam: unde Azor genuit Sadoch, qui interpretatur iustus; Rom. III, v. 22: iustitia Dei per fidem Iesu Christi in omnes, et super omnes qui credunt in eum. Consummatio autem iustitiae sive finis, est caritas: finis iustitiae Christus, finis praecepti est caritas, I Tim. I, 5. Tantum sunt duo praecepta, scilicet dilectio Dei, et proximi; I Io. c. IV, 21: et hoc mandatum habemus a Deo, ut qui diligit Deum, diligat et fratrem suum. Et ideo Sadoch sequitur Achim, et Achim Eliud. Achim interpretatur frater meus: unde signat dilectionem proximi; Ps. CXXXII, 1: ecce quam bonum et quam iucundum habitare fratres in unum. Hoc competit Christo, qui caro, et frater noster est. Et quia dilectio proximi non potest esse sine dilectione Dei, ideo sequitur Eliud autem genuit Achim. Eliud interpretatur Deus meus; Ps. XVII, 2: diligam te, domine: et hoc competit Christo; Ps. XXX, v. 15: Deus meus es tu. Abius was the father of Eliakim. Here is designated the order of beginners or hearers. But the first effect which preaching makes in the hearer and which the preacher should intend is that he rise from vices to virtues, according to Eph (5:4): "Awake, O sleeper." And therefore, Abiud was the father of Eliakim, which is interpreted resurrection, and befits Christ, who says in Jn (11:26): "Everyone who believes in me has everlasting life." The one rising cannot reach the state of righteousness except by God's help, as it says in Ps 121 (v. 2): "My help is from the Lord." And therefore it follows: Eliakim was the father of Azor, which is interpreted helped. And this befits Christ, of whom it says in Ps 27 (v. 9): "Be my helper, O Lord." By means of this help one reaches righteousness; hence, Azor was the father of Zadok, which means just: "It is the justice of God for salvation to everyone who has faith" (Rom 1:22). The consummation or end of righteousness is charity: "The end of righteousness is Christ, the end of the precept is charity" (1 Tim 1:5). There are only two precepts, namely, the love of God and of neighbor: "An this commandment we have from God, that he who loves God shall also love his brother" (1 Jn 4:21). And therefore, Zadok follows Achim; and Achim Elius. Achim means brother; hence, it signifies love of neighbor: "Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brothers to dwell together in unity" (Ps 133:1). This befits Christ, who is our flesh and brother. And because love of neighbor cannot exist without love of God, it follows Eliud was the father of Achim. Elius means my God: "I will love you, O Lord" (Ps 18:2). And this befits Christ: "You are my God" (Ps 34:15).
Achim autem genuit Eleazar. Hic designatur ordo proficientium. Non potest autem profici sine auxilio divino, unde primum quod requiritur ad proficiendum est auxilium divinum; et ideo Eliud recte sequitur Eleazar, qui interpretatur Deus meus adiutor; Ps. LXXXIII, 6: beatus vir cuius est auxilium abs te. Sed quia Deus multis modis potest iuvare ad salutem, ut removendo prohibentia et dando occasiones, potissimum adiutorium est per donum gratiae suae; I Cor. c. XV, 10: gratia Dei sum id quod sum. Et ideo Eleazar, idest adiutorium Dei, sequitur Mathan, qui interpretatur donum, scilicet gratiae divinae: et hoc competit Christo, qui est etiam donans; Io. III, 16: sic Deus dilexit mundum, ut filium suum unigenitum daret; Eph. IV, 8: dedit dona hominibus. Sed quia homo posset tantum confidere de dono gratiae, quod ipse incideret in negligentiam, non cooperando per liberum arbitrium gratiae, ideo sequitur Iacob, qui interpretatur luctator; propter hoc I Cor. XV, 10: gratia Dei sum id quod sum, et sequitur: et gratia eius in me vacua non fuit; II Cor. VI, 1: hortamur vos ne in vacuum gratiam Dei recipiatis. Nunc autem sequitur Ioseph, idest augmentum, quia per gratiam, et liberi arbitrii conatum venit homo ad augmentum; Prov. IV, 8: iustorum semita quasi lux splendens procedit, et crescit usque ad perfectam diem. Unde Iacob genuit Ioseph virum Mariae. Achim was the father of Eleazar. Here is designated the order of proficients. But one cannot make progress without God's help; hence, the first thing required for making progress is divine help. Therefore, Eliud is rightly followed by Eleazar, which means God, my helper: "Blessed is the man whose help is from you" (Ps 88:6). But because God can help towards salvation in many ways, as by removing obstacles and by giving occasions, the strongest help is by the gift of grace: "By the grace of God I am what I am" (1 Cor 15:10). And therefore, Eleazar, i.e., the help of God, is followed by Matthan, i.e., gift, namely, of divine grace. And this befits Christ, who is also the giver: "God so loved the world that he gave his only-begotten son" (Jn 3:16): "He gave gifts to men" (Eph 4:8). But because man could so rely on the gift of grace, that he would become negligent by not cooperating with grace through his free will, there follows Jacob, which means wrestler. Tehrefore 1 Cor (15:10) says: "By the grace of God I am what I am." and then, "and his grace in me has not been void"; "We urge you not to receive the grace of God in vain" (2 Cor 6:1). Now follows Joseph, i.e., increase, because by grace and the effort of free will a man reaches increase: "The path of the righteous is like the light of dawn, which shines brighter and brighter until full day" (Pr 4:18). Hence, Jacob was the father of Joseph the husband of Mary.
Sed hic oritur duplex quaestio. Primo enim quaeritur de contrarietate quae videtur esse inter Lucam et Matthaeum: Lucas enim dicit quod Ioseph fuit Heli, qui fuit Mathat; Matthaeus autem dicit quod fuit Iacob: ergo videtur esse contrarietas inter eos. Sed dicendum est ad hoc, quod duo fuerunt de eadem stirpe, sed non de eadem familia, scilicet Mathan et Mathat. Fuerunt enim de stirpe David; sed unus descendit de stirpe David per Salomonem, scilicet Mathan; alius per Nathan, scilicet Mathat. Accepit ergo Mathan uxorem Hesta nomine, ex qua genuit Iacob; mortuo autem Mathan, quia lex non prohibebat viduam nubere, nupsit fratri eius Mathat, qui genuit de ea Heli. Unde Iacob et Heli fuerunt fratres de eadem matre, sed non de eodem patre. Accepit autem Heli uxorem, et mortuus est sine liberis; unde Iacob, ut suscitaret semen fratri suo, accepit eamdem uxorem, et genuit Ioseph. Unde Ioseph fuit filius Iacob secundum carnem, sed filius Heli secundum adoptionem. Et ideo Matthaeus, qui ponit in genealogia Christi solum patres carnales, dicit Ioseph filium Iacob; Lucas autem, qui ponit multos qui non fuerunt patres carnales, dicit eum filium Heli. Ratio autem huius diversitatis dicta est superius. But two questions arise here. The first concerns the contrariety which seems to exist between Luke and Matthew: for Luke says that Joseph was from Eli, who was from Matthat; but Matthew says that he was from Jacob. Therefore, there seems to be contrariety between them. The answer is that the two were from the same stock but not from the same family, namely Matthan and Matthat. Matthan married Hesta, from whom Jacob was born. But when Matthan died, because the Law did not forbid a widow to marry, she married his brother Matthat, who begot Eli through her. Hence, Jacob and Eli were brothers from the same mother but not from the same father. Eli took a wife and died without children; hence, Jacob, to raise up seed to his brother, took the same wife and begot Joseph. Consequently, Joseph was Jacob's son according to the flesh, but Eli's by adoption. Therefore, Matthew, who mentions only fathers according to the flesh in his genealogy, says that Joseph was the son of Jacob; but Luke, who mentions many fathers not according to the flesh, calls him the son of Eli. The reason for this diversity has been explained above.
Notandum autem quod quando frater accipiebat uxorem fratris, ut suscitaret nomen eius, non est ita intelligendum quod filius ille qui generabatur, vocaretur nomine fratris defuncti: Booz enim qui accepit Ruth, ut suscitaret semen Elimelech, genuit filium, quem non vocavit Elimelech, sed Obed; sed pro tanto dicitur suscitare nomen eius, quia filius ille ei adscribebatur secundum legem: nec est hoc inconveniens, quia, sicut dicitur in ecclesiastica historia, ipsi apostoli et Evangelistae fuerunt instructi a proximis parentibus Christi de genealogia Christi, qui eam partim memoria, partim ex dictis libris Paralipom. corde tenebant. But it should be noted that when a brother took the wife of his brother, in order to restore his name, it should not be supposed that the son produced was called by the name of the dead brother. For Boaz, who took Ruth to raise up seed to Elimelech, begot a son, whom he did not call Elimelech but Obed. However, he is said to have revived this name, because that son was ascribed to him according to the Law. This is not unbelievable; because, as we read in the history of the Church, the apostles and evangelists were instructed about the genealogy of Christ by his immediate parents, who got some of it from their memory and some from the books of Chronicles.
Secunda quaestio est: Matthaeus intendit scribere generationem Christi. Cum ergo Christus non fuerit filius Ioseph, sed solum Mariae, ad quid necesse fuit protendere generationem Christi ab Abraham usque ad Ioseph? Ad quod dicendum, quod consuetum fuit apud Iudaeos, et est usque hodie, accipere uxorem de tribu sua, unde Num. XXXVI, 7 dicitur quod accipiat uxorem quisque de tribu et cognatione sua. Et quamvis hoc non necessario observaretur, tamen ex consuetudine observabatur. Unde Ioseph Mariam tamquam sibi propinquissimam duxit uxorem. Et ideo quia erant de eodem genere, per hoc quod ostenditur Ioseph a David descendisse, ostenditur etiam Mariam et Christum de semine David fuisse. Sed unde potest haberi hoc quod Ioseph et Maria fuerint de eadem tribu? Patet ex hoc quod habetur Luc. II, 4, quia cum debuisset fieri descriptio, ascendit ipse Ioseph et Maria in civitatem David, quae est Bethlehem. Unde per hoc quod eam duxit secum, patet quod de eadem erant familia. The second question is this: Matthew intended to write the genealogy of Christ; therefore, since Christ was not the son of Joseph but only of Mary, why was it necessary to extend the genealogy of Christ from Abraham to Joseph ? The answer is that it was customary among the Jews, and still is to this day, to take one's wife from hi own tribe. Hence, it says in Num (36:7) that each one took a wife from his own tribe and relatives. And although this was not necessary to observe, yet from custom it was observed. Hence, Joseph took as his wife, Mary, who was his closest relative. And therefore, because they were from the same stock, this shows that since Joseph descended from David, also Mary and Christ were from the seed of David. But where does it say that Joseph and Mary were from the same tribe? The answer is clear from Luke (2:4), because at the time of the census Joseph and Mary went into the city of David, which is Bethlehem. Hence, the fact that he took her with him shows that they were from the same family.
Sed quaeritur quare per Mariam non ostendit Christi generationem ex David. Dicendum quod non est consuetum apud Hebraeos, nec etiam gentiles, genealogiam texere per mulieres; unde Christus, qui venerat pro salute hominum, voluit in hoc imitari, vel observare mores hominum; et sic non per feminas eius genealogia describitur, praecipue cum sine periculo veritatis posset per viros eius genealogia cognosci. But why does he not show Christ's genealogy from David through Mary? The answer is that it was not the custom among the Hebrews or even the gentiles to weave a genealogy through the woman. Hence, Christ, who had come for the salvation of men, willed in this matter to observe the customs of men. And so his genealogy is described not through women especially since without danger to the truth his genealogy through men could be known.
Virum Mariae. Hieronymus: cum audieris virum, suspicio non oriatur nuptiarum. Contra. Nonne fuit verum matrimonium? Dicendum quod sic, quia ibi fuerunt tria bona matrimonii: proles, ipse Deus; fides, quia nullum adulterium; et sacramentum, quia indivisibilis coniunctio animarum. Quid ergo dicendum? Hoc intelligitur quantum ad nuptiarum complementum, quod est per carnalem copulam. Ideo autem, ut dicit Augustinus, nominatur vir Mariae, ut ostendatur matrimonium esse inter pari voto continentes. Sed quomodo fuit matrimonium? Votum enim impedit matrimonium contrahendum et dirimit contractum. Cum ergo beata virgo voverit virginitatem, nullum videtur fuisse matrimonium. Praeterea. Consensit in carnalem copulam, si fuit matrimonium. Sed dicendum quod beata virgo angebatur inter duo: ex una enim parte angebatur propter maledictum legis, cui subiacebat sterilis; ex alia parte angebatur propter propositum servandae castitatis; et ideo virginitatem proposuit, nisi dominus aliter ordinaret; unde divinae dispositioni se commisit. Quod dicitur, quod consensit in carnalem copulam, dicendum quod non; sed in matrimonium directe, in carnalem autem copulam quasi implicite, si Deus voluisset. The husband of Mary. Jerome says: "When you hear 'husband', suspicion should not be aroused about the wedding." But wasn't it a true marriage? The answer is that it was, because the three goods of marriage were there: the child, God himself; fidelity, because no adultery; and sacrament, because it was an indissoluble union of souls. What then is to be said? This is understood in regard to the completion of the wedding, which is by carnal union. But, as Augustine says, he is called the husband of Mary to show that the marriage is between two who vowed to be continent. But how was it a marriage? For the vow is an obstacle to contracting marriage and destroys the contract. Therefore, since the Blessed Virgin had vowed virginity, there seems to have been no marriage. Furthermore, there was consent to carnal union, if it was a marriage. The answer is that the Blessed Virgin faced a dilemma. For on the one hand was the Law's curse, to which a sterile woman was subject; on the other hand was her proposal to observe virginity, unless the Lord should ordain otherwise. Hence, she committed herself to the divine arrangement. As far as the statement that she consented to carnal union is concerned, it must be denied; but she consented to marriage directly and to carnal union, as it were, implicitly, if God willed it.
De qua natus est Iesus qui vocatur Christus. Hic duplex error excluditur. Unus qui dicit Christum fuisse filium Ioseph: et hoc excluditur per hoc quod dicitur de qua. Si enim fuisset filius Ioseph, dixisset de quo, vel saltem de quibus. Alius excluditur error, scilicet Valentini, qui dicit Christum non assumpsisse corpus de beata virgine sed de caelo apportasse, et per beatam virginem, sicut per canale, transisse. Contra est quod dicitur de qua. Si enim ita esset sicut dicit, dixisset Evangelista non de qua, sed per quam, vel a qua, vel ex qua, vel aliquid tale. Haec enim praepositio de semper notat consubstantialitatem; non autem haec praepositio ex; unde potest dici: ex mane fit dies, et quod arca procedit ex artifice, numquam dicitur, de artifice. Unde per hoc quod dicit de, denotat quod de corpore b. virginis formatum est corpus Christi; Gal. IV, 4: misit Deus filium suum factum ex muliere, factum sub lege. Hic cavendus est error Nestorii, qui duas in Christo personas posuit, et ideo non concedit Deum natum, vel passum; nec alia quae sunt Dei, ut esse ab aeterno, vel creasse stellas, attribuit homini. Unde in quadam sua epistola accipit istam auctoritatem ad confirmationem sui erroris: de qua natus est Iesus, non dicit Deus, sed Iesus: quod est nomen hominis, et Christus. Sed secundum hoc nulla esset unio in Christo, nec Christus diceretur unus. Of whom Jesus was born, who is called Christ. Here two errors are excluded: one of them says that Christ was the son of Joseph. This is excluded by the fact that it says of whom [de qua]. For if he had been the son of Joseph, he would have said of whom [de quo] or at least of whom [de quibus]. Valentine's error is also excluded, for he said that Christ did not assume a body from the Blessed Virgin, but that he brought it from heaven and it passed through the Blessed Virgin as through a channel. Opposed to this is the fact that it says of whom. For if the case were as Valentine said, the evangelist would not have said of whom but "through whom" or "from whom", or something of that sort. For this preposition "de" in de qua always denotes consubstantiality; but not the preposition "ex" from. Hence, one can say from [ex] the dawn of the day comes to be and that the box proceeded from the artisan [ex artifice] but never [de artifice]. Hence, by the fact that he says de, he denotes that the body of Christ was from, from [de] the body of the Blessed Virgin: "God sent his Son, born of woman, born under the law" (Gal 4:4). Here one must avoid Nestorius' error, who put two persons in Christ. Consequently, he did not admit that God was born and suffered. Neither did he attribute to the man things of God, such as to be eternal or to have created the stars. Hence in one of his letters he takes that text to confirm his error: of whom Jesus was born. He does not say "God" but Jesus, which is a man's name, and Christ. But according to this there would be no union in Christ, nor would Christ be described as one.
Unde nota, quod in Christo, quia fit unio duarum naturarum in una persona, fit communicatio idiomatum, ut illa quae sunt Dei attribuantur homini, et e converso. Et potest poni exemplum qualecumque de duobus accidentibus in subiecto, sicut pomum dicitur album et saporosum. Et quantum ad saporosum dicitur album, ratione qua pomum est album, et e converso. Hence, note that in Christ, because there is a union of two natures in one person, there is a "communication of idioms", so that things of God are attributed to the man, and conversely. And any example can be given of two accidents in a subject, as an apple is said to be white and tasty. As to the tasty thing, it is said to be white by reason of the fact that the apple is white, and conversely.
Qui vocatur Christus. Nota. Simpliciter dicitur Christus sine additione, ad denotandum quod oleo invisibili unctus est, non materiali, sicut reges, vel prophetae in lege. Ps. XLIV, 8: unxit te Deus, Deus tuus oleo laetitiae prae consortibus tuis. Who is called Christ. Note that he is simply called Christ without any addition. This denotes that he has been anointed with an invisible oil, not with a material oil as the kings and prophets in the Law: "Therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness above your fellows" (Ps 45:7).
Omnes ergo generationes. Posita generatione Christi, hic concludit numerum generationum: et dividit eas per tres quaterdenarios. Primus quaterdenarius est ab Abraham usque ad David inclusive, ut scilicet David numeretur in illo primo quaterdenario; et hoc est omnes ergo generationes. Secundus quaterdenarius protenditur a David exclusive, ita scilicet quod ipse David non numeretur, sed incipiatur a Salomone, et terminatur ad transmigrationem Babylonis; et hoc est et a David usque ad transmigrationem Babylonis. Tertius incipit a transmigratione Babylonis, et terminatur in Christum, ita quod Christus sit quaterdenarius. So all the generations. Having mentioned the generation of Christ, he concludes to the number of generations. The first series of fourteen is from Abraham to David inclusively; hence David is included in that first set of fourteen. The second set of fourteen extends from David exclusively, namely, in such a way that David himself is not counted; but it begins with Solomon and ends at the transmigration to Babylon. And this is: and from David to the transmigration to Babylon. The third begins with the transmigration to Babylon and ends in Christ, so that Christ is the fourteenth.
Sed quaeritur quare Evangelista ita diligenter et attente distinxit generationem Christi per tres quaterdenarios.
  • Chrysostomus assignat rationem: quia in istis tribus quaterdenariis semper facta est aliqua mutatio in populo Israel. In primo enim quaterdenario fuerunt sub ducibus; in secundo sub regibus; in tertio sub pontificibus. Et ipse Christus est dux, et rex, et pontifex; Is. XXXIII, 22: dominus iudex noster, dominus legifer noster, dominus rex noster. Et de eius sacerdotio dicitur in Ps. CIX, 4: tu es sacerdos in aeternum secundum ordinem Melchisedech.
  • Aliam rationem assignat ipse, ut scilicet ostenderetur necessitas adventus Christi. In primo enim quaterdenario petierunt regem contra voluntatem Dei, et legem transgressi sunt. In secundo autem propter peccata sua ducti sunt in captivitatem. Sed in tertio per Christum ab omni culpa, et miseria, et a servitute peccati spirituali liberamur.
  • Hieronymus tertiam assignat rationem, quia per istos signantur tria tempora, quibus omnium hominum vita ducitur. Per primum enim quaterdenarium signatur tempus ante legem, quia in illo ponuntur aliqui patres qui fuerunt ante legem; per secundum, tempus sub lege, quia omnes illi qui ponuntur sunt sub lege; per tertium autem, tempus gratiae, quia terminatur ad Christum, per quem scilicet gratia et veritas facta est, Io. I, 17. Congruit etiam ista distinctio mysterio: quia quaterdenarius est numerus compositum ex quatuor et decem. Per decem ergo vetus intelligitur testamentum, quod datum est in decem mandatis. Per quatuor autem, Evangelium, quod in quatuor libris distinguitur. Tres autem quaterdenarii designant fidem Trinitatis. Unde per hoc quod Matthaeus genealogiam in tres quaterdenarios dividit, designatur quod per novum et vetus testamentum in fide Trinitatis pervenitur ad Christum.
But why was the evangelist so diligent and careful to distinguish Christ's generation into three sets of fourteen?
  • Chrysostom assigns a reason: because in those three sets of fourteen there always occurred some change in the people of Israel. For during the first fourteen they were under leaders; in the second under kings; in the third under high priests. And Christ himself is leader and king and high priest: "The Lord is our judge, the Lord is our lawgiver, the Lord is our king" (Is 33:22). About his priesthood it says in Ps 110 (v. 4): "You are a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek."
  • He assigns another reason, namely, to show the need for Christ's coming. For in the first fourteen they asked for a king against God's will and they transgressed the Law; in the second, however, they were led into captivity on account of their sins; but in the third through Christ we are freed from all the guilt and misery and slavery of sin.
  • Jerome assigns a third reason: because by those three are signified the three times in which the life of all men is led. For by the first fourteen is signified the time before the Law, because in it are mentioned certain fathers who lived before the Law; by the second time under the Law, because all those mentioned are under the Law; by the third, however, the time of grace, because it is terminated at Christ, through whom "grace and truth come" (Jn 1:17). This distinction also suits a mystery, because fourteen is a number composed of ten and four. By ten, therefore, is understood the Old Testament, which was given in ten commandments; but by four, the Gospel, which is distinguished into four books. These fourteens designate faith in the Trinity. Hence, by the fact that Matthew divides his genealogy into three sets of fourteen is designated that through New and Old Testaments by faith in the Trinity one arrives at Christ.
De numero autem generationum est duplex opinio. Secundum enim Hieronymum, qui dicit quod alius est Iechonias in fine primi quaterdenarii et in principio secundi, sunt quadraginta duae generationes: tot enim faciunt quaterdenarii tres. Sed secundum Augustinum non sunt nisi quadraginta una; et quod Christus sit ille unus. Et hoc competit mysterio. Quadragenarius enim numerus consurgit ex ductu quatuor in decem, et e converso. Secundum autem Platonicos, quatuor est numerus corporum: corpus enim componitur ex quatuor elementis; decem autem est numerus, qui consurgit ex aggregatione numerorum linealium: unus enim, duo, tres et quatuor faciunt decem. Et quia Matthaeus intendit declarare quomodo Christus linealiter descendit ad nos, ideo per quadraginta generationes venit ad nos Christus. Lucas autem qui intendit in Christo commendare sacerdotalem dignitatem, cui competit expiatio peccatorum infra XVIII, 22: non dico tibi usque septies, sed usque septuagies septies etc. ponit generationes septuaginta septem; consurgit enim iste numerus ex ductu septem in undecim: septies enim undecim sunt septuaginta septem. Per undecim ergo intelligitur transgressio Decalogi; per septem autem septiformis gratia, per quam fit remissio peccatorum. Quod autem secundum Hieronymum sunt quadraginta duae generationes, etiam non vacat a mysterio, quia per illas duas intelliguntur duo praecepta caritatis; vel duo testamenta: novum et vetus. Concerning the number of generations there are two opinions. For according to Jerome, who says that the Jechoniah at the end of the second set of fourteen is not the same as the one at the beginning of the third; there are forty-two generations; as many as three fourteens make. But according to Augustine, there are only forty-one and that Christ is that one. And this befits a mystery. For fourteen arise by adding four to 10 and conversely. But according to the Platonists, four is the number for bodies; for a body is composed of four elements. Ten is the number resulting from the addition of the linear numbers: for one, two, three and four make ten. And because Matthew intends to declare how Christ descended linearly to us, he comes to us by forty generations. But Luke, who intends to commend in Christ the priestly dignity, to which belongs expiation of sins: "I say to you, not seven times, but seventy times seven times" (Mt 18:22), presents seventy-seven generations. This number comes from multiplying seven by eleven. By eleven, therefore, the transgression of the decalogue is understood; by seven the sevenfold grace, through which remission of sins comes about. The fact that Jerome posits forty-two generations is not devoid of mystery, because by those two are understood the two precepts of charity, or the two Testaments, New and Old.
Christi autem generatio sic erat. Posita genealogia Christi in generali, hic describitur generatio eius in speciali: et dividitur in tres partes. Primo ponit quemdam titulum; secundo Evangelista describit generationis modum, ibi cum esset desponsata mater eius Maria Ioseph: tertio probat generationis modum, ibi Ioseph autem vir eius. (18) Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. Having presented Christ's genealogy in general, his generation is particular is now described. And it is divided into three parts: first, he presents a title; secondly he describes the manner of the generation (v. 18b), thirdly he proves the manner of generation (v 19).
Dicit ergo Christi autem. Hoc dupliciter legitur. Secundum Chrysostomum enim est quasi quidam prologus dicendorum; sed secundum Remigium est quidam epilogus dictorum. Primo modo legitur sic: ita dictum est de genealogia Christi, quomodo Abraham genuit Isaac etc. per carnalem admixtionem, sed Christi generatio sic erat, supple: sicut dicetur in sequentibus. Secundo modo legitur sic, ut sit epilogus praecedentium: ita Abraham etc. usque ad Christum. Christi autem generatio sic erat; supple: ut ab Abraham per David et alios protenderetur ad Christum. He says, therefore of Christ. This is read in two ways: for according to Chrysostom it is a kind of prologue to what is to be said; but according to Remigius it is an epilogue of what has been said. In the first way, it is read thus: "Thus we have spoken about the genealogy of Christ, how Abraham was the father of Isaac, etc., by descent according to the flesh, but the birth of Christ took place in this way: supply: "as will be said in the following." In the second way it is read thus, so that it is an epilogue of what went before: "Thus Abraham etc. to Christ. But the birth of Christ took place in this way: supply: "so that from Abraham through David and others they stretch forth to Christ."
Consequenter describit generationis modum; et primo describit personam generantem, cum dicit cum esset desponsata; secundo ipsam Christi generationem, cum dicit antequam convenirent inventa est in utero habens; tertio generationis actorem, de spiritu sancto. Then he describes the manner of the birth: first, he describes the person giving birth; secondly, the generating of Christ; thirdly the person generating.
Personam generantem describit a tribus. Primo a conditione, cum dicit desponsata (...) Ioseph; secundo a dignitate mater eius; tertio a proprio nomine Maria. He describes the person giving birth: first, from her condition, secondly, from her dignity; thirdly from her name.
Dicit ergo cum esset desponsata mater eius Maria Ioseph. Sed hic statim oritur quaestio. Cum Christus voluerit nasci de virgine, quare voluit matrem suam desponsari? Ratio, secundum Hieronymum, triplex assignatur. Prima est ut credibilius esset testimonium virginitatis eius. Si enim non fuisset desponsata, et diceret se esse virginem, cum esset impraegnata, non videretur ob aliud dicere, nisi ut celaret crimen adulterii. Sed cum desponsata erat, non habebat necesse mentiri. Et ideo magis esset credendum ei; Ps. XCII, 5: testimonia tua credibilia facta sunt nimis. Alia ratio est ut haberet praesidium viri, sive cum fugeret in Aegyptum, sive cum inde rediret. Tertia fuit, ut partus eius Diabolo celaretur, ne scilicet si ipse sciret, impediret passionem eius, et fructum nostrae redemptionis; I Cor. II, 8: si enim cognovissent, numquam dominum gloriae crucifixissent; exponitur de Daemone, idest non crucifigi permisisset. He says, therefore, When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph. But immediately a question arises. Since Christ willed to be born of a virgin, why should he want his mother to be betrothed? According to Jerome there are three reasons: the first is that the testimony to her virginity be more credible. For if she had not been betrothed and said that she is a virgin, when she was pregnant, it would seem that she claimed to be a virgin merely to conceal the crime of adultery. But there was no need to lie, when she was betrothed. And therefore, there was more reason to believe her: "Your testimonies were made exceedingly credible" (Ps 119:144). Another reason is that she would have the protection of a man, both when she fled into Egypt and when she returned. The third reason was in order that her offspring would be concealed from the devil; otherwise, if he knew, he would impede his passion and the fruit of our redemption: "If they had known, they would never have crucified the Lord of glory" (1 Cor 2:8). This is explained of the devil, i.e., not to permit him to be crucified.
Sed contra. Diabolus numquid non cognoscit an ista est virgo? Virginitas enim eius erat in carne non corrupta. Ergo Diabolus potuit scire eam esse virginem. Sed dicendum, secundum Ambrosium, qui etiam istam rationem assignat, quod Diaboli possunt aliqua subtilitate naturae, quae tamen non possunt nisi divina permissione. Unde Diabolus eius virginitatem cognosceret, nisi a diligenti consideratione divinitus fuisset prohibitus. Secundum Ambrosium assignatur triplex ratio.
  • Prima est propter honorem matris domini conservandum: maluit dominus de ortu suo homines dubitare, quam de pudicitia matris. Et ideo voluit eam desponsari, ut tolleretur suspicio adulterii: ipse enim venerat legem adimplere, non solvere; Matth. V, 17: non veni solvere, sed adimplere; Ex. XX, 12 dicitur, honora patrem tuum et matrem tuam.
  • Alia ratio est, ut virginibus notatis de adulterio auferretur excusatio: si enim mater domini non fuisset desponsata, et tamen gravida, possent similiter se per eam excusare; Ps. CXL, 4: non declines cor meum in verba malitiae, ad excusandas excusationes in peccatis.
  • Tertia ratio, quia Christus Ecclesiam sibi desponsavit, quae virgo est; II Cor. II, 2: despondi enim vos. Et ideo de virgine desponsata nasci voluit in signum quod Ecclesiam sibi desponsavit.
But on the other hand, could not the devil know whether she was a virgin? For her virginity was in inviolate flesh. Therefore, the devil could know that she was a virgin. The answer is, according to Ambrose, who also assigns this reason: namely, that devils are by the subtlety of their nature capable of things which they cannot do without God's permission. Hence the devil would have known her virginity, if God had not prevented him from making a careful examination. According to Ambrose, there are three reasons for this:
  • the first is to preserve the honor of the mother of God: "The Lord preferred that men wonder about his origin, rather than about his mother's purity. Therefore, he willed that she be espoused, in order that any suspicion of adultery be removed; for he had come to fulfill the Law, not to destroy it: "I have come not to destroy the law but to fulfill it" (Mt 5:17); "Honor your father and your mother" (Ex 20:12).
  • Another reason is so that virgins observed in adultery might have no excuse; for if the Lord's mother had not been betrothed and yet pregnant, others could excuse themselves through her: "Incline not my heart to any evil to busy myself with wicked deeds" (Ps 141:4).
  • The third reason is because Christ espoused the Church to himself, and it is a virgin: "I have betrothed you to Christ" (2 Cor 11:2). Consequently, he willed to be born of a betrothed virgin as a sign that he had betrothed the Church to himself.
Cum ergo esset desponsata. Sed cui? Ioseph. Secundum Chrysostomum, Ioseph fuit faber lignarius; et signat Christum, qui per lignum crucis omnia restauravit, caelestia et cetera. When his mother Mary had been betrothed. But to whom? To Joseph. According to Chrysostom, Joseph was a wood-worker and he signifies Christ, who restored all things through the wood of the cross in heaven and on the earth.
Mater eius, idest Dei. Hic ostenditur eius dignitas: nulli enim creaturae hoc concessum est, nec homini, nec Angelo, ut esset pater, aut mater Dei; sed hoc fuit privilegium gratiae singularis, ut non solum hominis, sed Dei mater fieret; et ideo in Apoc. c. XII, 1 dicitur: mulier amicta sole, quasi tota repleta divinitate. Quod negavit Nestorius; et hoc quia divinitas non fuit accepta a virgine. Contra quem Ignatius martyr pulchro exemplo utitur ad ostendendum quod fuit mater Dei. Constat, inquit, quod in generatione hominum communium mulier dicitur mater: et tamen mulier non dat animam rationalem, quae a Deo est, sed ministrat substantiam ad corporis formationem. Sic igitur mulier dicitur mater totius hominis, quia id quod sumptum est de ea, unitur animae rationali. Similiter cum humanitas Christi sumpta sit de beata virgine, propter unionem ad divinitatem dicitur beata virgo non solum mater hominis, sed etiam Dei; quamvis ab ipsa non sumatur divinitas; sicut nec in aliis anima rationalis sumitur a matre. His mother, i.e., of God. Here is shown her dignity: for it has been granted to no creature, no man, no angel, to be the father or mother of God. But this was a privilege of a singular grace that she become the mother not only of a man but of God. Therefore, it says in Rev (12:1): "A woman clothed with the sun," as though filled with the Holy Trinity. Nestorius denied this, because the divinity was not received from the virgin. Against this the martyr Ignatius uses a beautiful example to show that she was the mother of God. "It is obvious," he says, "that in the generation of men in general the woman is called the mother; yet the woman does not give the rational soul, which is from God, but she gives the substance for the formation of the body. But the woman is called the mother of the whole man, because that which was taken from her is united to the rational soul. Similarly, since the humanity of Christ was taken from the Blessed Virgin, then on account of its being united to the divinity, the Blessed Virgin is called not only the mother of a man but also of God; although the divinity was not received from her any more than the rational soul in other is obtained from the mother.
Maria, proprium nomen. Interpretatur maris stella, vel illuminatrix, et suo sermone domina: unde in Apoc. XII, 1 describitur luna sub pedibus eius. Mary, a proper name is taken to mean star of the sea or enlightener and lady; hence in Rev (12:1) she is described with the moon under her feet.
Antequam convenirent et cetera. Hic obiicit Elvidius: si antequam convenirent, ergo aliquando convenerunt. Unde iste negavit virginitatem matris Christi: non ante partum, nec in partu, sed post partum dicit quod fuit cognita a viro. Et respondet Hieronymus, quod sine dubio hoc quod dicitur antequam, semper importat ordinem ad futurum. Sed hoc potest esse dupliciter: vel secundum rationem, vel secundum intellectus acceptionem. Si enim dicatur: antequam comederem in portu Romae, navigavi ad Africam, non est intelligendum quod postquam navigaverim ad Africam comederim; sed quia proposueram comedere, et praeventus navigatione non comedi. Ita est hic. Non est ita intelligendum quod postea realiter convenirent, sicut dicit impius ille; sed quia ex hoc ipso quod sibi desponsata erat secundum communem opinionem, licebat eis aliquando convenire, quamvis numquam convenerint. Before they came together... Here Elvidius objects: "If before they came together, then at some time they did come together." Hence, he denied the virginity of Christ's mother: not before birth, not during the birth, but after the birth, he says that she was known by her husband. Jerome answers that no doubt the word "before" always implies a relationship to the future. But his can be in two ways: either according to reason or according to the acceptation of the intellect. For if one says: "Before I ate in the port at Rome, I sailed to Africa," that does not mean that after I sailed to Africa, I ate; but that I had intended to eat and, prevented by the sailing, I did not eat. And that is the case here. It should not be interpreted in such a way that later they really came together, as that knave says, but because from the very fact that she was betrothed to him according to general opinion, it was lawful for them to come together, although they never did.
Remigius aliter exponit, ut intelligatur de solemni celebratione nuptiarum: ante enim erat et fiebat per aliquos dies desponsatio, et interim sponsa non erat sub custodia viri; postea autem fiebat solemnis celebratio nuptiarum, et tunc traducebatur ad domum viri. De his nuptiis loquitur Evangelista hic. Et secundum hoc non habet locum obiectio Elvidii. Remigius explains it another way, so that it is understood of the solemn celebration of marriage: the betrothal occurred and took place for some days, and in the meantime the spouse was not under the husband's care. Later the solemn celebration of the marriage took place, and then the wife was brought to the husband's house. It is about this marriage ceremony that the evangelist is speaking here. Accordingly, Elvidius' objection has no place.
Nota proprietatem verbi: proprie enim illud inventum dicitur, de quo non sperabatur, nec putabatur; et Ioseph tantam habebat opinionem de pudicitia Mariae, quod praeter aestimationem eius fuit quod invenit eam gravidam. She was found... Note the appropriateness of the word. For, properly speaking, that is said to be found, concerning which there was no thought or hope; and Joseph had such an opinion of Mary's purity, that it was beyond his expectation to find her pregnant.
In utero habens, supple ab ipso Ioseph, qui, sicut dicit Hieronymus, maritali licentia pene omnia secreta eius rimabatur. Found to be with child. Found by Joseph who, as Jerome says, in virtue of the marriage searched out all her secrets.
De spiritu sancto. Hic tangitur actor conceptionis. Hoc autem legendum est divisim ab illo praecedenti. Non enim legendum est, aut intelligendum quod Ioseph invenerit eam habentem in utero de spiritu sancto; sed solum quod invenit eam gravidam. Et ne oriretur auditoribus interim suspicio adulterii, addidit de spiritu sancto, idest de virtute spiritus sancti, non de substantia, ne filius spiritus sancti credatur; Luc. I, 35: spiritus sanctus superveniet in te, et virtus altissimi obumbravit tibi. Of the Holy Spirit. Here he touches on the cause of the conception. This must be read separately from the preceding phrase. For it should not be read or understood that Joseph found her with child of the Holy Spirit, but merely that he found her pregnant. But in order that no suspicion of adultery arise in the mind of the hearers, he added of the Holy Spirit, i.e. from the power of the Holy Spirit not from his substance, lest he be regarded the son of the Holy Spirit: "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow you" (Lk 1:35).
Quamvis autem secundum Augustinum indivisibilia sint opera Trinitatis, et ideo ipsam conceptionem non solum spiritus sanctus, sed etiam pater et filius operati sint; tamen per quamdam appropriationem spiritui sancto attribuitur. Et hoc tribus rationibus.
  • Prima ratio est, quia spiritus sanctus amor est. Hoc autem fuit signum maximi amoris, quod Deus filium suum incarnari voluerit; Io. III, 16: sic Deus dilexit mundum, ut filium suum unigenitum daret.
  • Secunda, quia spiritui sancto attribuitur gratia; I Cor. XII, 4: divisiones gratiarum sunt, idem autem spiritus; et hoc fuit maxima gratia.
  • Tertia ratio assignatur in gestis Nicaeni Concilii, et est, quod in nobis est duplex verbum: verbum cordis et verbum vocis. Verbum cordis est ipsa conceptio intellectus, quae occulta est hominibus, nisi quatenus per vocem exprimitur, sive per verbum vocis. Verbo autem cordis comparatur verbum aeternum ante incarnationem, quando erat apud patrem, et nobis absconditum; sed verbo vocis comparatur verbum incarnatum quod iam nobis apparuit, et manifestum est. Verbum autem cordis non coniungitur voci nisi mediante spiritu; et ideo recte incarnatio verbi, per quam nobis visibile apparuit, mediante spiritu sancto facta est.
But although, according to Augustine, the works of the Trinity are indivisible, so that not only the Holy Spirit but also the Father and Son produced this conception; yet by a certain appropriateness it is attributed to the Holy Spirit. There are three reasons for this:
  • the first is that the Holy Spirit is love. But this is the greatest sign of live, that God will his Son to be incarnate: "God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son" (Jn 3:16).
  • Secondly, because grace is attributed to the Holy Spirit: "There are varieties of graces but the same Spirit" (1 Cor 12:4).
  • The third reason is assigned in the deliberations of the Council of Nicea, namely, that there are two words in us: the word of the heart and the word of the voice. The heart's word is the intellect's conception, which is hidden from men, except in so far as it is uttered by the voice or by a word of the voice. To the word of the heart is compared the eternal Word before the incarnation, when he was with the Father and hidden from us; but to the voice's word is compared the incarnate Word, which has already appeared to us and has been manifested. But the heart's word is not joined to the voice save through the spirit; and therefore, it was correct to say that the incarnation of the Word, through which he appeared visible to us was made through the medium of the Holy Spirit.
Nota hic quatuor rationes quare Christus de virgine nasci voluit.
  • Quarum prima fuit, quia peccatum originale contrahitur in prole ex commixtione viri et mulieris: unde si Christus natus fuisset de concubitu coniugali, peccatum originale contraxisset. Hoc autem esset inconveniens, cum ipse ad hoc venisset in mundum ut peccata nostra tolleret: unde peccati contagione infici non debuit.
  • Secunda, quia Christus praecipuus fuit doctor castitatis; infra XIX, 12: sunt eunuchi qui se castraverunt propter regnum caelorum.
  • Tertia propter puritatem et munditiam. In malevolam animam non introibit sapientia, Sap. I, 4. Unde decuit ut venter matris eius nulla corruptione pollueretur.
  • Quarta propter proprietatem verbi: quia sicut verbum sine corruptione cordis emanat a corde, ita Christus de virgine nasci voluit et debuit sine corruptione.
Note here four reasons why Christ willed to be born of a virgin:
  • first, because original sin is contracted in the offspring from the union of man and woman; hence, if Christ had been born of a marriage act, he would have contracted original sin. But this would be unbecoming, since he had come into the world to take away our sins. Hence, he ought not have been infected with the contagion of sin.
  • The second is that Christ was the principal teacher of chastity: "There are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven" (Mt 19:12).
  • The third is on account of purity and cleanness: "Wisdom will not enter into a sinful soul" (Wis 1:4). Hence, it was fitting that his mother's womb not be defiled with any corruption.
  • The fourth is on account of a property of a word: because as a word emanates from the heart, so Christ willed and should have been born from the Virgin without any defilement.
Ioseph autem vir eius cum esset iustus. Postquam posuit generationis modum, hic confirmat ipsum per testimonium. Cum enim supra dixerit Evangelista, quod mater Iesu inventa est in utero habens, et quod hoc erat de spiritu sancto, posset aliquis credere quod Evangelista hoc apposuisset ob gratiam magistri; ideo hic Evangelista confirmat generationis modum supradictum. Et primo praenuntiatione prophetica, hoc autem factum est; secundo revelatione angelica, ibi exurgens autem Ioseph. In prima parte sunt tria. Primo introducitur persona, cui facta est revelatio; secundo persona revelans, ibi haec autem eo cogitante, ecce Angelus domini apparuit; tertio ponuntur verba revelationis, ibi Ioseph fili David. (19) Her husband Joseph being a just man. After indicating the manner of the generation, he now confirms it with witnesses. For when he had said above that the mother of Jesus was found with child and that this was of the Holy Spirit, someone might believe that the evangelist mentioned this out of respect for the Master. Therefore, the evangelist now confirms the aforesaid manner of generation: first, by a prophetic pronouncement: "All this took place..." (v. 22); secondly, the person revealing: "But as he considered this..." (v. 20); thirdly, the words of the revelation are presented: "Joseph, son of David..." (v. 20b).
Persona autem, cui fit revelatio, commendatur ex duobus, scilicet ex hoc quod est iustus, et ideo non mentiretur; secundo ex hoc quod sponsus, sive vir, et ideo crimen in ea non pateretur; Prov. VI, 34: zelus et furor viri non parcet in die vindictae. The person to whom the revelation is made is commended for two things, namely, that he is just and, therefore, did not lie; secondly, from the fact that he was her spouse or husband and, therefore, would not tolerate any crime in her: "The zeal and fury of the husband will not spare, when he takes revenge" (Pr 6:34).
Dicit ergo ita: inventa est a Ioseph habens in utero, sed Ioseph vir eius cum esset iustus, et nollet eam traducere. Hic est duplex sanctorum sententia, Ambrosii videlicet, et Augustini. Augustinus enim vult, quod Ioseph, qui non erat praesens, quando facta est Annuntiatio angelica, rediens, et inveniens eam gravidam, habuit suspicionem adulterii. Sed tunc statim oritur quaestio: quomodo iustus erat, si eam quam suspectam habebat de adulterio, nolebat traducere, idest crimen ipsius propalare? In hoc enim videbatur ei in peccato consentire, et Rom. I, 32 dicitur, quod non solum qui faciunt, sed etiam qui consentiunt facientibus, digni sunt morte. Sed ad hoc est triplex responsio.
  • Prima est secundum Chrysostomum, quod duplex est iustitia: una enim est iustitia, quae est virtus cardinalis, quae dicitur iustitia specialis; alia est iustitia legalis, quae includit omnem virtutem, et pietatem, et clementiam, et huiusmodi. Quando ergo dicitur quod Ioseph iustus erat, intelligendum est de iustitia generali, ut iustitia accipiatur pro pietate. Unde quia iustus erat, idest pius, noluit eam traducere.
  • Alia est responsio Augustini, qui dicit, quod duplex est peccatum, scilicet peccatum occultum et peccatum manifestum: peccatum enim occultum non est publice arguendum, sed aliter est ei remedium adhibendum. Suspicio ergo adulterii, quam habuit Ioseph, erat suspicio peccati occulti, et non manifesti, quia ipse solus sciebat; et iterum si alii scirent eam gravidam, non possent opinari nisi quod de ipso esset; et ideo crimen eius non debuisset propalasse.
  • Tertia vero responsio est Rabani, quod etiam Ioseph iustus fuit et pius: in hoc enim quod pius, non voluit crimen propalare; sed in hoc quod voluit eam dimittere, apparuit iustus: sciebat enim quod qui tenet adulteram, stultus et insipiens est, ut dicitur Prov. XVIII, 22. Secundum autem Hieronymum et Origenem non habuit suspicionem adulterii. Noverat enim Ioseph pudicitiam Mariae; legerat in Scriptura quod virgo concipiet, Is. VII, 14 et cap. XI, 1: egredietur virga de radice Iesse, et flos de radice eius ascendet etc.; noverat etiam Mariam de David generatione descendisse. Unde facilius credebat hoc in ea impletum esse, quam ipsam fornicatam fuisse. Et ideo indignum reputans se tantae cohabitare sanctitati, voluit occulte dimittere eam, sicut Petrus dixit: exi a me, domine, quia homo peccator sum, Luc. V, 8. Unde nolebat eam traducere, idest ad se ducere, et in coniugem accipere, se indignum reputans. Vel, secundum aliorum sententiam, ignorans finem, ne tamquam reus haberetur si celaret, et secum eam teneret.
He says, therefore: she was found by Joseph with child. But Joseph, her husband, being a just man and unwilling to put her away. There are two opinions here, namely, of Ambrose and of Augustine. For Augustine suggests that Joseph, not being present when the angel's announcement was made, returned and finding her pregnant, had suspicions of adultery. But then the question immediately arises: how was he just, if he was unwilling to put her to shame whom he suspected of adultery, i.e., divulge her crime? For he seemed thereby to consent to her sin, and it says in Rom (1:32): "Not only those who do such things but approve those who do them deserve to die." Three answers are given to this.
  • The first is according to Chrysostom, namely, that justice is twofold. For one is the justice which is the cardinal virtue, which is called special justice; the other is legal justice, which includes every virtue, as piety and clemency and so on. Therefore, when it is said that Joseph was just, it should be understood of general justice, so that justice is taken for piety. Hence, because he was just, i.e., pious, he was unwilling to put her to shame.

  • Another answer is Augustine's, namely, that sin is of two kinds, namely hidden and open. For a hidden sin is not to be made a matter of public knowledge, but a remedy should be applied in a different way. Therefore, the suspicion of adultery which Joseph had was suspicion of a hidden and not open sin, because he alone knew; and again, if others knew that she was pregnant, they could not think but that it was from him. Therefore, her crime was not divulged.

  • The third answer is that of Rabanus: that Joseph was just and pious. He was pious in that he was unwilling to divulge, but he appeared just in not wishing to put her away. For he knew that "one who keeps an adulteress is stupid and unwise" as it says in Pr (18:22(). But according to Jerome and Origen, he had no suspicion of adultery. For Joseph knew Mary's purity and had read in the Scripture that a virgin would conceive (Is 7:14) and in 11:1): "There shall come forth a shoot from the stump of Jesse, and a branch shall grow out of his roots." He had also known that Mary had descended from David. Hence, it was easier for him to believe that this had been fulfilled in her than that she had fornicated. And so, considering himself unworthy to live together with such holiness, he wanted to put her away secretly; just as Peter said: "Depart from me, O Lord, for I am a sinful man" (Lk 5:8). Hence, he was unwilling to put her away, i.e., bring her to him and take her in marriage, for he thought himself unworthy.
Haec autem eo cogitante. Hic persona revelans introducitur: et tanguntur tria. Primo enim tangitur tempus; secundo persona revelans introducitur; ecce Angelus: tertio revelationis modus exprimitur, apparuit in somnis. (20) But as he considered this... Here we are introduced to the person revealing, and three things are mentioned: first, the time; secondly, the person revealing is introduced; thirdly, the manner of the revelation is expressed.
Dicit ergo haec autem eo cogitante, idest dum ista secum in mente revolveret, ecce Angelus domini apparuit. Nota quod duo commendantur hic de Ioseph, scilicet sapientia et clementia. Sapientia quidem in hoc, quod ipse antequam ageret, deliberavit; Prov. IV, 25: palpebrae tuae praecedant gressus tuos: hoc est, nihil facias sine iudicio et deliberatione rationis. Item, clementia sive pietas in hoc quod factum eius non propalavit, vel promulgavit, contra multos qui statim illud quod habent in corde, volunt exterius publicare; Prov. XXV, 28: sicut urbs patens, et absque murorum ambitu, ita vir, qui non potest in loquendo cohibere spiritum suum. Et ideo meruit instrui, sive consolari. Unde sequitur ecce Angelus domini apparuit: quasi in promptu sit adiutorium Dei; Ps. IX, 10: adiutor in opportunitatibus, in tribulatione; Ps. LIII, 6: ecce enim Deus adiuvat me, et dominus susceptor est animae meae. He says, therefore: But as he considered this, i.e., while he was revolving these things in his mind, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared. Note that two things are commended about Joseph here, namely, wisdom and kindness. Wisdom, indeed, in the fact that he deliberated before he acted: "Take heed to the path of your feet" (Pr 4:26), i.e., do nothing without the judgment and deliberation of reason. There was kindness in his not divulging her deed: this is the opposite of many who want to make public at once whatever they have in their heart: "A man without self-control in speaking is like a city broken into and left without walls" (Pr 25:28). Therefore, he deserved to be instructed or consoled. Hence, he continues: behold, an angel of the Lord appeared, as though God's help was before his eyes: "The Lord is a helper in prosperity and in adversity" (Ps 9:10); "For, behold, God helps me, and the Lord defends my soul" (Ps 53:6).
Angelus domini: nihil enim melius potuit excusare, quam ille qui conscius erat virginitatis servatae. Unde ille idem Angelus qui missus est ad Mariam, Luc. I, 26, creditur missus ad Ioseph, Ps. XXXIII, 8: immittet Angelus domini in circuitu timentium eum, scilicet Mariae, et Ioseph, ut ipsam liberaret ab infamia, et Ioseph in perturbatione non dimitteret. An angel of the Lord: for nothing was better able to bring relief than one who knew that virginity had been preserved. Hence, the same angel sent to Mary was being sent to Joseph: "The angel of the Lord encamps around those who fear him" (Ps 34:7), i.e., Mary and Joseph, to free her from infamy and that Joseph not put her away in his disquiet.
Sed hic quaeritur, quare non a principio facta est Ioseph revelatio, antequam ita perturbaretur. Item, quare Maria ei non revelavit Annuntiationem angelicam, quae sibi facta fuerat. Et dicendum ad primum, quod hoc fecit ut testimonium eius esset credibilius. Sicut enim dominus Thomam apostolum permisit dubitare de sua resurrectione, ut scilicet dubitans palparet, et palpans crederet, et credendo infidelitatis in nobis vulnus amoveret; sic permisit dominus Ioseph de pudicitia Mariae dubitare, ut dubitans revelationem angelicam acciperet, et accipiendo firmius crederet. Ad hoc quod quaeritur secundo, dicendum, quod si Maria ei dixisset, ipse non credidisset. But here the question arises why the revelation was not made to Joseph in the beginning, before he became so disturbed? Also, why did not Mary reveal to him the angelic announcement, which had been made to her? The answer to the first is that he did this to make his testimony more credible. For just as the Lord permitted the apostle Thomas to doubt his resurrection, so that while doubting he would feel, and feeling he would believe, and believing would remove the wound of unbelief in us, so the Lord permitted Joseph to doubt Mary's purity, so that while doubting, he would receive the revelation from the angel and, after receiving it, believe more firmly. The answer to the second is that if Mary had told him, he would not have believed.
Apparuit ei in somnis: ecce modus revelationis. Nota quod apparere proprie est illius rei, quae de natura sua est invisibilis, tamen in potestate sua est ut videatur: sicut est Deus, vel Angelus; illa enim quae de sui natura habent ut videantur, proprie apparere non dicuntur: unde dicitur apparitio divina, vel angelica. Unde proprie loquitur. Apparuit in somnis. Sed hic quaeritur quare in somnis. Ratio redditur in Glossa, quia Ioseph quodammodo dubitans erat: unde quasi quodammodo dormiebat, et ideo recte in somnis dicitur Angelus apparuisse ei. Alia ratio potest assignari melior, sicut enim dicit apostolus, I Cor. XIV, 22, prophetia data est fidelibus, signa autem infidelibus. Proprie autem revelatio, quae dicitur prophetica, fit in somnis; Num. XII, 6: si quis fuerit inter vos propheta domini, in visione apparebo ei, vel per somnium loquar ad illum: et ideo quia Ioseph iustus erat, et fidelis, ipsi tamquam fideli debuit fieri apparitio, quae competit credentibus, scilicet revelatio quasi prophetica. Quia vero apparitio corporalis est miraculosa, talis apparitio sibi non competebat, cum ipse crederet, et esset fidelis. Appeared to him in a dream. Behold the manner of the revelation. Note that, properly speaking, to appear is concerned with that which of its nature is invisible, yet it is in its power to be seen such as God or angels. For things whose nature is to be seen will not, properly speaking, be said to appear. Hence, it is called a divine apparition or angelic. Therefore, it is in the proper sense that "he appeared in a dream." But why in a dream? The reason is presented in a Gloss: because Joseph was somewhat doubtful. Hence, he was in a certain sense sleeping; and therefore, it is correct to say that the angel appeared to him in sleep or [in a dream]. For as the Apostle says: "Prophecy has been given for believers, signs for unbelievers (1 Cor 14:22). Properly speaking, a prophetic revelation occurs during sleep: "If there is a prophet of the Lord among you, I, the Lord, make myself known to him in a vision. I speak with him in a dream" (Num 12:6). Therefore, because Joseph was just and faithful, an appearance should have been made to him as to one faithful, namely, a revelation, as it were, prophetic. But because a bodily appearance is miraculous, such an appearance was not suited to him, since he believed and was faithful.
Sed tunc quaeritur, quare Mariae facta est visibilis apparitio, cum ipsa esset fidelissima. Et dicendum est, quod mysterium incarnationis a principio revelatum est virgini Mariae, quando difficilius erat ad credendum; et ideo oportuit quod sibi fieret apparitio visibilis. Ipsi vero Ioseph non est revelatum a principio, sed magis quando iam pro magna parte erat impletum, cum iam videret alvum eius intumescere, unde facilius poterat credere; et ideo sufficiebat sibi apparitio quae fit in somnis. But then why was a visible appearance made to Mary, since she was most faithful? The answer is that the mystery of the Incarnation was revealed from its beginning, when it was more difficult to believe; therefore, it is fitting that a visible appearance be made to her. But it was not revealed to Joseph from its beginning but rather when it had been for the most part fulfilled, since he already saw her womb enlarged. Hence, he could believe more easily; and therefore, the appearance made in sleep was enough.
Ioseph fili David. Hic revelationis verba ponuntur: et dividitur in tres partes, secundum tria quae facit Angelus: primo enim Mariae et Ioseph prohibet divortium; secundo incarnationis aperit mysterium, cum dicit quod in ea natum est, de spiritu sancto est; tertio ipsius Ioseph futurum praenuntiat obsequium, quod scilicet puero exhibebat, ibi pariet autem filium. Joseph, son of David. Here the words of the revelation are presented. And it is divided into three parts in keeping with the three things the angel does. For, first of all, he forbids Mary and Joseph to divorce; secondly, he discloses the mystery of the Incarnation: that which is conceived in her...; thirdly, he foretells the devotedness Joseph would show to the child: she will bear a son.
Dicit igitur Ioseph. Vocat eum ut reddat eum attentum ad audiendum, et ut revocet eum ad seipsum. Hoc commune est in Scriptura, quod scilicet quando praemittitur apparitio, quae est de superius, requirit in auditore quamdam mentis elevationem, et attentionem; Ez. II, 1: fili hominis, sta super pedes tuos, et loquar tecum, et infra, fili hominis, audi quaecumque loquor ad te, et noli esse exasperans. Hab. II, 1: super custodiam meam stabo. Fili David. Ideo genus exprimit ut avertat illud quod dicitur Is. VII, 13: audite, domus David: numquid parum est molestos esse hominibus, quia molesti estis et Deo meo? et cetera. Signum enim datum fuit non uni personae, sed toti tribui sive domui: unde quia de hoc debebat eum instruere, iubetur in expressione generis sui vaticinium prophetae ad memoriam reducere. Noli timere. Omnis apparitio, sive sit boni, vel mali Angeli, timorem quemdam incutit: et hoc, quia talis apparitio est inconsueta, et quasi extranea naturae hominis; et ideo ponit hominem quasi extra se. Sed in hoc est differentia, quia apparitio mali Angeli terrorem incutit, et in ipso terrore hominem dimittit, ut scilicet hominem quasi extra se positum facilius pertrahat ad peccatum; sed boni Angeli apparitio, quamvis terrorem incutiat, tamen statim subditur conclusio, et assecutio consolationis, ut scilicet homo ad se redeat, et quae sibi dicuntur advertat; unde Luc. I, ubi dicitur quod apparuit Angelus Zachariae, statim sequitur: ne timeas, Zacharia, et similiter in eodem: ne timeas, Maria. Unde post apparitionem factam Ioseph statim subditur consolatio. Duplicem habebat iste timorem, scilicet Dei, et etiam peccati, ne scilicet Mariae cohabitando peccaret tamquam conscius peccati, et ideo, ne timeas, subditur, scilicet metu peccati, accipere Mariam coniugem tuam. Nota quod coniux dicitur, non propter matrimonium, sed propter desponsationem: consuetudo enim est Scripturae et sponsas vocare coniuges, et coniuges sponsas. He says, therefore, Joseph. He calls him and draws his attention, so that he will listen, and to recall him to himself. This is common in Scripture, namely, that when an appearance which concerns higher things is about to occur, it required in the hearer a certain elevation and attention of the mind: "Son of man, stand upon your feed and I will speak with you" (Ez 2:11); and in (2:8): "I will take my stand to watch" (Heb 2:1). Son of David. Therefore, he expresses his lineage, to avoid what Isaiah (7:13) says: "Hear then, O house of David. Is it too little for you to weary men, that you weary my God also?" for the sign was not given to one person but to a whole tribe or house. Hence, because he had to instruct him about this, he is commanded in the expression of his lineage to fix the prophet's prediction in his memory. Do no fear. Every appearance, whether it be of a good or bad angel, causes some fear; and this, because such an appearance is extraordinary and, as it were, foreign to man's nature. Therefore, in a way, it puts a man outside himself. But in this there is a difficulty: because the appearance of an evil angel strikes terror, and he leaves a man in that terror, in order more easily to lead into sin a man put, as it were, outside himself. But the appearance of a good angel, although ti produces terror, it ends at once and consolation is obtained, in order that the man may return to himself and understand what is being said to him. Hence, Luke (c. 1) says that an angel appeared to Zechariah and immediately adds: "Fear not, Zechariah" (1:13), and in (1:30): "Fear not, Mary." Hence, after the appearance to Joseph, consolation follows immediately. But he has two fears, namely, of God and of sin, i.e., that by living with Mary he was aware of sin; and therefore, Do not be afraid, namely, without sin, to take Mary, your wife. Note that she is called wife, not because of marriage but because of espousal. For it is the custom in Scripture to call espoused persons married and married persons espoused.
Sed quaeritur, quomodo iubet eam accipere, cum eam nondum dimisisset. Et dicendum quod licet eam corporaliter non dimisisset, tamen in animo eam dimiserat: et ideo iubetur eam accipere. Vel ne timeas accipere quantum ad solemnitatem, et nuptiarum celebrationem. But why is he commanded to accept her, since he had not yet put her away? The answer is that although he had not put her away bodily, he had put her away in his attitude. And that is why he is commanded to accept her. Or fear not to accept her as to the solemnities and celebration of marriage.
Quod enim in ea natum est, de spiritu sancto est. Hic aperit incarnationis mysterium. Et nota quod cum tria ibi fuerint, scilicet ipsa virgo concipiens, filius Dei conceptus, et virtus activa spiritus sancti; duo bene exprimit Angelus, scilicet concipientem, et conceptionis actorem; sed tertium, ipsum Dei filium conceptum, non exprimit nisi indefinite: quod enim, inquit, in ea natum est: et hoc ut denotetur quod ipsum est ineffabile et incomprehensibile, non solum homini, sed etiam ipsis Angelis. Quod enim, inquit, in ea natum est, non dicit, de ea, quia nasci de matre est in lucem prodire: in matre nasci est ipsum concipi, de spiritu sancto est. Hoc est ergo testimonium angelicum, quod inducit Evangelista ad probandum quod supra dixerat inventa est in utero habens de spiritu sancto. That which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. Here the mystery of the Incarnation is presented. And note that whereas there were three there; namely, the Virgin conceiving, the Son of God conceived, and the power of the Holy Spirit, the angel mentions two of them; namely, the one conceiving and the author of the conception. But the third, namely, the Son of God conceived, he only expresses indefinitely: that which is conceived in her. This suggests that he is ineffable and incomprehensible not only to men but also to angels. He says, that which is born in her, not "of her," because to be born of a woman is to come forth into the light; to be born in a mother is for the child to be conceived. Is of the Holy Spirit. This therefore, is the angel's testimony, which the Evangelist advances to prove what he had said above: she was found with child of the Holy Spirit.
Nota quod in conceptione aliarum mulierum, in semine viri est virtus formativa, cuius subiectum est semen, et per hanc virtutem formatur foetus, et vegetatur in corpore mulieris. Hanc autem supplevit virtus spiritus sancti. Et ideo aliquando invenitur dictum a sanctis, quod spiritus sanctus fuit ibi pro semine, aliquando tamen dicitur quod non fuit ibi semen. Et hoc est, quia in semine viri sunt duo, scilicet ipsa corrupta substantia, quae descendit a corpore viri, et ipsa formativa virtus. Dicendum ergo, quod spiritus sanctus fuit pro semine quantum ad virtutem formativam; sed non fuit ibi pro semine quantum ad corpulentam substantiam, quia non de substantia spiritus sancti facta est caro Christi, vel conceptio eius. Et ideo patet, quod spiritus sanctus non potest dici pater Christi, quia nec secundum divinam naturam, nec secundum humanam. Secundum divinam naturam quidem, quia quamvis Christus sit eiusdem gloriae cum spiritu sancto, filius tamen secundum divinam naturam nihil accipit a spiritu sancto: et ideo non potest dici filius eius; filius enim aliquid accipit a patre. Similiter nec secundum humanam, quia pater et filius debent convenire in substantia; Christus autem, quamvis sit conceptus virtute spiritus sancti, non tamen de substantia spiritus sancti. Note that in the case of other women, when they conceive, a formative power is resident in the male seed. It is by this power that the fetus is formed and grows in the mother's womb. But the power of the Holy Spirit supplied this; therefore, the saints sometimes say that the Holy Spirit was there in place of the seed; sometimes it is said that there was no seed there at all. The answer is that in the male seed are two things: the bodily substance, that descends from the body of the male, and the formative power. Therefore, one must say that the Holy Spirit was there for the seed as to its formative power, but he was not there for the seed as to its bodily substance. For the body of Christ or his conception came to be not from the substance of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, it is clear that the Holy Spirit cannot be called the father of Christ, because he is not so either according to his human nature or his divine nature: not according to the divine, because, although Christ is of the same nature and glory as the Holy Spirit, the Son receives nothing according to this divine nature from the Holy Spirit. Therefore, he cannot be called his Son, for a son receives something from his father. Nor according to his human nature, because the father and the son must agree in nature; but Christ, although he was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit, was not of the substance of the Holy Spirit.
Sed contra hoc quod dicitur de spiritu sancto est, quod Prov. IX, 1 dicitur, quod sapientia aedificavit sibi domum. Ergo videtur quod ipsamet divina sapientia, idest Dei filius, sibi humanam naturam univit, et ita non est facta virtute spiritus sancti. Sed duplex est responsio, secundum Augustinum. Prima, quod verbum illud quod scribitur Prov. IX, 1, intelligitur de Ecclesia, quam Christus in sanguine suo fundavit. Alia est, quod indivisa sunt opera Trinitatis: et ideo illud quod facit filius, facit etiam spiritus sanctus, sed tamen per quamdam appropriationem attribuitur spiritui sancto. Et ratio huius dicta fuit superius. But on the other hand, when it says, of the Holy Spirit, it is the same as what Pr (9:1) says: "Wisdom built herself a home." Therefore, it seems that divine wisdom itself, i.e., the Son of God, united the human nature to himself. Consequently, it was not done by the power of the Holy Spirit. There are two answers to this, according to Augustine: first, that the passage in Proverbs is understood of the Church which Christ founded in his blood. The second is that the works of the Trinity are undivided; and therefore, what the Son does, the Holy Spirit also does. But yet by a certain appropriation it is attributed to the Holy Spirit. The reason for this has been explained above.

Lectio 5
Reportatio Petri de Andria
1—5
Mt 1:22-23
22 τοῦτο δὲ ὅλον γέγονεν ἵνα πληρωθῇ τὸ ῥηθὲν ὑπὸ κυρίου διὰ τοῦ προφήτου λέγοντος, 23 ἰδοὺ ἡ παρθένος ἐν γαστρὶ ἕξει καὶ τέξεται υἱόν, καὶ καλέσουσιν τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ ἐμμανουήλ, ὅ ἐστιν μεθερμηνευόμενον μεθ' ἡμῶν ὁ θεός.
22. Now all this was done that it might be fulfilled which the Lord spoke by the prophet, saying: 23. Behold a virgin shall be with child, and bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.
Pariet autem filium. Hic praenuntiat obsequium, quod exhibebit Ioseph puero iam nato, et facit tria: primo enim praenuntiat virginis partum; secundo praemonstrat obsequium ab ipso Ioseph puero exhibendum, cum dicit et vocabis nomen; tertio aperit nomen impositum ipsi puero, cum dicit Iesum. (21) She will bear a Son. Here he foretells the obeisance Joseph will show to the child when born. And he does three things: first, he foretells the virgin birth; secondly, he shows beforehand the obeisance Joseph will show to the child; thirdly, he mentions the name conferred on the child, when he says Jesus.
Dicit ergo pariet. Ita concepit de spiritu sancto quidem primo, sed pariet filium. Non dicit tibi, quia ipse puerum non genuit. Luc. I, 13 dictum est Zachariae: uxor tua pariet tibi filium, quia ipsum Zacharias genuit. Vel ideo non dicit, tibi, ut ostendatur, quod pro omnibus natus est: non solum tibi, vel ipsi pariet filium, sed toti mundo; Luc. II, 10: ecce annuntio vobis gaudium magnum, quia natus est vobis hodie salvator, qui est Christus dominus in civitate David et cetera. Sed quia Ioseph posset dicere: ita concepit ipsa de spiritu sancto, et pariet filium, quid ergo ad me? In nullo sum ei necessarius. Ideo subdit ipsius Ioseph obsequium vocabis nomen eius. Consuetudo erat apud Hebraeos, et est hodie, quod die octavo circumcidebant puerum, et tunc imponebant ei nomen; et hoc factum est per Ioseph: unde in hoc opere minister fuit. Unde dicitur ei vocabis; non dicitur impones, quia iam est sibi impositum; Is. LXII, 2: vocabitur tibi nomen novum, quod os domini nominavit. Iesum, hoc est nomen a Deo impositum. Et reddit causam ipse enim salvum faciet populum suum, quem sibi acquisivit sanguine suo, hoc est populum eius. Dan. IX, v. 26 dicitur: non erit populus eius, qui est eum negaturus; unde est populus domini per fidem; I Petr. II, 9: vos estis genus electum, regale sacerdotium, gens sancta, populus acquisitionis. A peccatis eorum. In libro Iudic. frequenter dicitur quod talis, vel talis salvavit Israel: sed a quibus? Ab inimicis carnalibus; hic autem a peccatis, remittendo peccata, quod soli Deo competit. Luc. V, 24: ut autem sciatis, quia filius hominis habet potestatem in terra dimittendi peccata. He says, therefore, she will bear a son. He does not say, "to you," because he did not beget the child. In Luke (1:15) it says: "Your wife will bear you a son," because Zechariah himself begot it. Or he does not say, "to you," in order to show that he was born for all: she will bear a Son not only to you but to the whole world: "Behold, I bring you good news of great joy, because today is born to you in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord" (Lk 2:10). But because Joseph could say: So she has conceived of the Holy Spirit and will bear a Son. What does that have to do with me? She does not need me in any way. Therefore, he mentions Joseph's assistance. You shall call his name... It was a custom among the Jews, and it persists to this day, that they circumcised a son on the eight day and then gave him a name. This was done by Joseph; hence in this work he was a minister, and it is said to him: You shall call, and not "you will give," because he was already named: "You shall be called by a new name, which the mouth of the Lord will give" (Is 62:2). Jesus. This is the name imposed by God. And he mentions the cause: for he will save his people..., a people acquired by his blood: "Those who deny him will not be his people" (Dan 9:26). Hence, they are the people of God by faith: "You are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a purchased people" (1 Pt 2:9). In the book of Judges it is frequently said that such or such a one has saved Isaac: but from whom? From material enemies. But here it is from their sins, by remitting them, which God alone can do: "In order that you may know that the Son of man has power on earth to forgive sins" (Lk 5:24).
Nota, quod hic confunditur Nestorius, qui dicebat, quod illa, quae Dei sunt, ut esse ab aeterno, esse omnipotens, vel huiusmodi, non conveniunt illi homini. Ecce quod ille idem homo, qui natus est de virgine, qui vocatur Iesus, ipse salvum faciet populum suum a peccatis eorum. Unde cum peccata dimittere non possit nisi solus Deus, oportet dicere quod iste homo sit Deus, et quod ea, quae Dei sunt, ei verissime conveniunt. Note that Nestorius is confused here, because he said that God's attributes, such as to be eternal and omnipotent and so on, do not belong to that man. Lo, the very same man, who was born of a virgin and is called Jesus, will save his people from their sins. Hence, since God alone can forgive sins, it is necessary to say that this man is God, and that the attributes of God belong to him in the truest sense.
Praemiserat Evangelista, quod mater Dei inventa est in utero habens de spiritu sancto, et hoc supra probavit per angelicam revelationem, hic probat per prophetiae praenuntiationem; unde dicit hoc totum factum est ut adimpleretur quod dictum est a domino per prophetam. Et sciendum quod ista particula dupliciter potest introduci hic. Chrysostomus enim vult quod totum hoc dixerit Angelus et prophetiam introduxerit. Et ratio est, quia ipse, ne quod praenuntiabat videretur novum, subito voluit ostendere quod ab antiquo praenuntiatum erat; Is. XLVIII, 3: qui fecit iam quod futurum est, secundum aliam translationem. Alii dicunt, et credo melius, quod istud, scilicet hoc totum factum est etc., sunt verba Evangelistae. Nam ibi terminantur verba Angeli: et ipse salvum faciet et cetera. Et inducit ea Evangelista propter tria.
  • Primo, ut ostendat quod vetus testamentum est de Christo; Act. c. X, 43: huic omnes prophetae testimonium perhibent, remissionem peccatorum accipere per nomen eius omnes qui credunt in eum.
  • Secundo ut facilius Christo credant: Io. V, 46: si crederetis Moysi, crederetis forsitan et mihi: de me enim ille scripsit.
  • Tertio ad ostendendum conformitatem veteris et novi testamenti; Col. II, 17: quae sunt umbra futurorum, corpus autem Christi.
(22) The evangelist had indicated that the mother of God was found with child of the Holy Spirit, and he proved this above by the angel's revelation; here he proves it by appealing to an earlier prophecy. Hence, he says: All this too place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet. And it should be noted that this passage can be understood here in two ways. For Chrysostom supposes that the angel said all this and introduced the prophecy, the reason being that he did not wish what he foretold to appear new. Consequently, he suddenly willed to show that it had been foretold many ages ago: "Who already made what will be" (Is 48:3), according to another translation. Others say (and I believe better) that the passage all this took place... are the words of the evangelist; for the angel's words end at He will save his people... And the evangelist introduces them for three reasons:
  • first, to show that the Old Testament is about Christ: "All the prophets bear witness to him, that those who believe in him receive forgiveness of their sins" (Acts 10:45).
  • Secondly, in order that they might more easily believe Christ: "If you believed Moses, you would perhaps also believe me; for he wrote of me" (Jn 5:46).
  • Thirdly, to show the agreement between the Old and New Testaments: "These are the shadow of things to come, but the body is Christ" (Col 2:17).
Sed ad hoc quod sciatur quid in ista prophetia contineatur, sciendum quod tria annuntiat Angelus. Primo enim dixit quod in ea natum est etc.; secundo pariet filium; tertio vocabitur nomen eius Iesum. Ista per ordinem in prophetia continentur. Et primum probat quod dicit ecce virgo; secundo pariet autem; tertio et vocabitur. Ergo de spiritu sancto erat, quod per virginitatem concepit. But to understand what is contained in that prophecy, it should be noted that the angel announces three things: first, he said that which is born in her...; secondly, she will bear a son; thirdly, and his name shall be called. Therefore, it was of the Holy Spirit that she conceived through virginity.
Et hoc est, quod dicitur in prophetia, ecce virgo concipiet; Is. XXXV, 2: germinans germinabit, et exultabit laetabunda, et laudans et cetera. Item virgo pariet filium, quia in pariendo in nullo laesa est virginitas; Is. XI, 1: egredietur virga de radice Iesse, et flos de radice eius ascendet et cetera. Christus quidem flos est. Ergo in nullo laesa est virginitas. Sequitur et vocabitur nomen eius Emmanuel. (23) And this is stated in the prophecy: Behold, a virgin shall conceive; "Like the crocus it shall blossom abundantly, and rejoice with joy and signing" (Is 35:2). Likewise, A virgin shall bear a son, because in bearing, her virginity was not impaired in any way: "There shall come forth a shoot from the stump of Jesse, and a branch [blossom] shall grow out of his roots. Christ is the blossom; therefore, the virginity was not harmed in any way. He continues, and his name shall be called Emmanuel.
Sed quaeritur, quare non consonat hoc cum verbis Angeli, dicendo et vocabitur Iesus? Dicendum, quod ista repromissio facta fuit Iudaeis, qui ex adventu Christi salutem haberent. Et Iesus salvator interpretatur, quod idem est quod Emmanuel, nobiscum Deus. Est enim Deus nobiscum quatuor modis: per naturae assumptionem, Io. I, 14: verbum caro factum est, per naturae conformitatem, quia in omnibus similis, Phil. II, 7: in similitudinem hominum factus, et habitu inventus ut homo, per conversationem corporalem, Bar. III, 38: post hoc in terris visus est, et cum hominibus conversatus est, per spiritualem conversationem, infra ult., 20: ecce ego vobiscum sum omnibus diebus usque ad consummationem saeculi. But why does this not agree with the angel's words, and he shall be called Jesus? The answer is that the promise was made to the Jews, who had obtained salvation from the coming of Christ. And Jesus means savior, which is the same as Emmanuel, God with us. For God is with us in four ways: by assuming our nature: "The Word was made flesh" (Jn 1:14); by a conformity in nature, because alike in all things: "Being born in the likeness of man" (Phil 2:8); by his bodily life: "After this he appeared on earth and lived among men" (Bar 3:37); by his spiritual mode of life: "Behold I am with you all days, even to the end of the world" (Mt 28:20).
Sed quaerendum, circa litteram, cur Evangelista non utitur eisdem verbis cum propheta, sed utitur nomine Iesu. Sed dicendum, quod eodem spiritu loquebatur. Tamen Hieronymus dicit quod ideo Evangelista dixit habebit, quia iam de facto loquebatur. [But, concerning the text, why does the Evangelist not use the same words as the prophet, but uses the name Jesus? The answer is that he spoke by the same spirit. But Jerome says that the Evangelist said "had" because he spoke about an event that had already transpired.]
Item quaerendum, cur in Isaia dicitur et vocabitur, hic autem dicitur et vocabunt. Sed Hieronymus dicit, quod hic dicitur vocabunt, quia quod primo Angeli vocaverunt annuntiando, Luc. II, 21, postea apostoli vocaverunt praedicando et magnificando. Ut in nomine Iesu omne genu flectatur etc., Phil. c. II, 10. But why does it say in Isaiah, "And he will be called," whereas it says here they shall call? Jerome says that here it says they shall call, because what the angel first called him at the annunciation (Lk 2:21) the apostles later called him when preaching and telling of his glory: "The in the name of Jesus every knee should bend" (Phil 2:10).
Quod est interpretatum nobiscum Deus. Sed quaeritur, quis apposuit hanc interpretationem prophetiae nobiscum Deus, propheta, an Evangelista? Et videtur quod non Evangelista, quia hac non indiguit, quia scripsit in Hebraeo. Sed dicendum, uno modo, quia Emmanuel est nomen compositum, ideo Evangelista illud etiam in Hebraeo interpretatus est. Vel dicendum, quod ille, qui primo transtulit de Hebraeo, interpretatus est. (Which means God with us). But who added this interpretation of the prophecy, God with us? A prophet or the evangelist? And it seems that it was not the evangelist, because there was no need, since he wrote in Hebrew. One might answer in one way that Emmanuel is a composite name; hence, the evangelist interpreted it even in Hebrew. Or one might say that the person who first translated from the Hebrew inserted this interpretation.
Et notandum, quod in Glossa dicitur quod triplex est species prophetiae, scilicet praedestinationis, praescientiae et comminationis; et differunt. Prophetia enim dicitur praenuntiatio eorum, quae sunt procul, idest futurorum; sed futurorum quaedam sunt quae solus Deus facit; quaedam vero, etsi Deus facit, tamen fiunt per nos et per alias etiam creaturas; quaedam autem sunt quae nullo modo Deus facit, ut mala. Praenuntiatio illorum, quae solus Deus facit vocatur prophetia praedestinationis, sicut conceptus virginis; unde illud Is. VII, 14: ecce virgo concipiet, est prophetia praedestinationis. Sed ea quae fiunt a causis secundis, possunt dupliciter considerari. Primo, secundum quod sunt in praescientia Dei, verbi gratia de Lazaro; si enim aliquis consideret causas naturales, diceret quod numquam surgeret, et verum diceret: cum tamen deberet resuscitari secundum ordinem divinae praescientiae. Ergo quando prophetia est praenuntiatio secundum quod est in praescientia divina, semper impletur; quando autem secundum ordinem causarum inferiorum, non semper, sicut patet Is. XXXVIII, v. 1, quando Isaias ad Ezechiam dixit: dispone domui tuae, quoniam morieris tu, et non vives et cetera. It should be noted that in a Gloss it says that there are three kinds of prophecy, namely, of predestination, of foreknowledge and of threatening; and they differ. For prophecy is said to be the fore telling of things that are far off, i.e., of future things. And among future things some are such that God alone does them; others are such that, even though God does them, yet they are done by us and by other creatures; others, finally, are such that God does not do them at all, as evil things. The foretelling of things that God alone can do is called the prophecy of predestination, as the Virgin's conception; hence, "Behold, a virgin shall conceive" (Is 7:14), is a prophecy of predestination. But things done by secondary causes can be considered in two ways: first, as they are in the foreknowledge of God; for example, about Lazarus. For if someone considered natural causes, he would say that he would never rise, and he would be stating the truth; but he was destined to rise according to the order of divine foreknowledge. Therefore, when a prophecy is a foretelling of something as it exists in the divine foreknowledge, it is always fulfilled; but when it is according to the order of secondary causes, not always, as is clear from Isaiah (38:1), when Isaiah says to Hezekiah: "Set your house in order; for you shall die, you shall not recover."
Sed numquid prophetia imponit necessitatem praescientiae? Et dicendum quod non; quia prophetia est quoddam signum divinae praescientiae, quae non imponit necessitatem rebus praescitis, quia considerat futura in sua praesentialitate. Quicquid enim agitur, est Deo praesens, quia eius intuitus se extendit ad omne tempus; si enim video aliquid praesens, non imponit necessitatem meus intuitus, sicut quando aliquem sedere video. Et hoc modo istas prophetias, quae in isto libro inducuntur, intelleximus. Considerandum est enim tres errores fuisse.
  1. Unus Manichaeorum dicentium, quod in toto veteri testamento non invenitur prophetia de Christo: et quicquid inductum est in novo testamento de veteri, totum est ex corruptione. Contra quod Rom. I, 1: Paulus servus Christi, vocatus apostolus, segregatus in Evangelium Dei, quod ante promiserat per prophetas suos et cetera. Et quod loquatur de Iudaeorum prophetiis, patet infra c. IX, 5: quorum patres, ex quibus est Christus secundum carnem et cetera.
  2. Alius fuit Theodori dicentis, quod nihil eorum quae inducuntur de veteri testamento, sunt ad litteram de Christo, sed sunt adaptata, sicut quando inducunt illud Virgilii talia pendebat memorans, fixusque manebat hoc enim adaptatum est de Christo; et tunc illud ut adimpleretur, debet sic exponi, quasi diceret Evangelista: et hoc potest adaptari. Contra quod Lc. ult., 44: oportet impleri omnia quae scripta sunt in lege Moysi, et prophetis, et Psalmis de me. Et sciendum quod in veteri testamento aliqua sunt quae referuntur ad Christum, et de eo solo dicuntur, sicut illud ecce virgo in utero concipiet, et pariet filium, Is. VII, 14; et illud Ps. XXI, 2: Deus, Deus meus, respice in me, quare me dereliquisti? et cetera. Et si quis alium sensum litteralem poneret, esset haereticus, et haeresis damnata est. Sed quia non solum verba veteris testamenti, sed etiam facta significant de Christo, aliquando dicuntur aliqua ad litteram de aliquibus aliis, sed referuntur ad Christum, inquantum illa gerunt figuram Christi, sicut de Salomone dicitur: et dominabitur a mari usque ad mare etc.; hoc enim non fuit impletum in eo.
  3. Tertius error fuit Iudaeorum. Sciendum autem, quod Iudaei specialiter obiiciunt contra istam auctoritatem, quia in Hebraeo non habetur virgo, sed alma, quod idem est quod adolescentula. Unde ad litteram non sunt dicta de Christo sed de Emmanuel, vel de quodam filio Isaiae, secundum alios.
But does a prophecy impose necessity on foreknowledge? The answer is that it does not, because prophecy is a sign of divine foreknowledge, which does not impose necessity on things foreknown, because it considers future things in their presentiality. For whatever is done is present to God, because his scrutiny extends to all time; for if I see something present, my scrutiny imposes no necessity, as when I see someone sitting. And this is the way we understood those prophecies listed in the book. For three errors must be considered.
  1. One was that of the Manichees asserting that no prophecy about Christ is found in the entire Old Testament, and any found in the New Testament are adulterations. On the other hand it says in Rom (1:1): "Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, set apart for the gospel of God, which he promised beforehand through his prophets." That he is speaking of the Jewish prophets is clear in (c. 9:5): "Of their patriarchs is Christ according to the flesh."
  2. Another was that of Theodore, who says that none of the statements cited from the Old Testament are in the literal sense about Christ, but they are adaptations, as when they quote Virgil's line: "Remembering such things, he hung suspended; and he stayed where he was affixed"; for this has been adapted to Christ. Then the expression, to fulfill, should be explained, as though the evangelist were saying: "And this can be adapted." On the other hand, Luke (24:44) says: "Everything written about me in the law of Moses and the prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled." And it should be noted that in the Old Testament tare some things that are referred to Christ and said of him alone, as in Is (7:14): "Behold, a virgin shall conceive in her womb and shall bear a son," and in Ps 22 (v. 1): "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" And if anyone taught a different literal sense, it would be heretical; and heresy is condemned. But because not only the words of the Old Testament but also deeds signify something about Christ, some are sometimes said literally of certain others, but are referred to Christ, in as much as these function as a figure of Christ; as when it is said of Solomon: "He shall rule from sea to sea" (Ps 72:8), for this was not fulfilled in him.
  3. The third error was that of the Jews. Here it should be noted that the Jews especially object to that text, because in Hebrew it does not say "virgin" but "fair", which is the same as a young woman. Hence, in the literal sense they are not said of Christ but of Emmanuel, or, according to others, of a certain son of Isaiah.
Sed contra hos obiicit Hieronymus: et quod de filio Isaiae non potuerit dici, probatur, quia iam erat natus, quando hoc dictum fuit. Item non invenitur aliquis famosus fuisse tempore illo, qui vocaretur Emmanuel. Item non est signum quod iuvencula pariat. Unde dicit Hieronymus, quod alma est aequivocum, et significat quandoque aetatem, quandoque absconditam, et tunc significat virginem studiose conservatam; et sic significat hic. Item obiiciunt Iudaei, quod illud datum fuit ut signum. Is. VII, 3: venient duo reges contra Achaz etc., et promisit quod liberarentur ab his dando hoc signum ad Achaz. Sed dicendum, quod dedit hoc signum non solum ad Achaz, sed etiam ad domum David, quia dicit audite ergo, domus David; quasi dicat propheta: dominus adiuvabit te contra istum regem, quia ipse multo maiora faciet, quia non solum ipsius liberatio erit, sed totius mundi. But Jerome objects against them: that it could not have been said of Isaiah's son is proved, because he had already been born, when this was said. Furthermore, there is no record at that time of any famous person named Emmanuel. Likewise, it is not a sign that a girl would give birth. Hence, he sais that "fair" is equivocal and sometimes signifies age; sometimes hidden, and then is signifies a virgin carefully guarded: and that is what is signifies here. Again, the Jews object that is was given as a sign: "Two kings shall go forth to meet Ahaz" (Is 7:3) and he promised that they would be freed from them by giving this sign to Ahaz. The answer is that he gave this sign not only to Ahaz but also to the house of David, because he says: "Hear, therefore, house of David"; as if the prophet were saying: The Lord will help you against that king, because he will do much greater things, because he will be the liberation not only of him but of the whole world.
Sed revertamur ad litteram. Hoc totum factum est. Sed contra. Angelus multa praemiserat, scilicet quod in ea natum est etc., pariet etc., et iterum, vocabitur et cetera. Hoc vero non totum factum erat. Sed dicendum uno modo, secundum Rabanum, ut hoc totum factum etc. referatur ad praeterita facta, quod Angelus apparuit virgini, et dixit illa verba, hoc totum factum fuit, ad conservationem virginis, ut ly ut teneatur causaliter. Vel refertur ad ea quae praenuntiaverat; et potest dici totum factum propter praedestinationem. Vel dicendum, quod Evangelista scribebat quando totum factum erat; et ideo refertur ad id. Unde ly ut tenetur consecutive, quia non voluit Deus incarnari propter hoc ut impleretur prophetia, quasi vetus testamentum dignius sit novo; sed consecutum est ad prophetiam hoc quod Christus incarnaretur. But let us return to the text: All this took place to fulfill... But on the other hand, the angel had foretold many things, namely, that which is conceived in her; she will bear a son; and again, he shall be called... But not all this had taken place. One might answer one way according to Rabanus that all this took place... refers to past events; that the angel appeared to the Virgin and said those words, all this has taken place to preserve the Virgin, so that the to is taken in a causal sense. Or it refers to the things he had foretold, and it can be said that all took place on account of predestination. Or one might say that the evangelist wrote when all this had taken place; and therefore, it refers to that. Hence, the to is taken in a consecutive sense, because God did not will to be incarnated to fulfill a prophecy, as though the Old Testament has more dignity than the New; but after the prophecy Christ was made incarnate.

Lectio 6
Reportatio Petri de Andria
1—6
Mt 1:24-25
24 ἐγερθεὶς δὲ ὁ ἰωσὴφ ἀπὸ τοῦ ὕπνου ἐποίησεν ὡς προσέταξεν αὐτῷ ὁ ἄγγελος κυρίου καὶ παρέλαβεν τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ: 25 καὶ οὐκ ἐγίνωσκεν αὐτὴν ἕως οὗ ἔτεκεν υἱόν: καὶ ἐκάλεσεν τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦν.
24. And Joseph rising up from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord had commanded him, and took unto him his wife. 25. And he knew her not till she brought forth her first born son: and he called his name Jesus.
Supra probavit Evangelista, quod mater Dei de spiritu sancto concepit, ex duobus, scilicet ex revelatione Angeli, et ex praenuntiatione prophetae, hoc idem intendit ostendere ex obedientia Ioseph, qui non acquievisset verbis Angeli, ut Mariam susciperet in sponsam, nisi cognovisset eam impraegnatam de spiritu sancto. Et circa hoc duo facit: primo ponitur obedientia ipsius sponsi ad Angelum; secundo describitur obedientiae modus, ibi et accepit. (24) Having proved from the angel's revelation and from the prophet's prediction that the Mother of God conceived of the Holy Spirit, the evangelist plans to show the same thing from the obedience of Joseph, who would not have acquiesced in the angel's words that he take Mary as his spouse, unless he had known that she had been with child of the Holy Spirit. In regard to this he does two things: first, the spouse's obedience to the angel is mentioned; secondly, the manner of the obedience is described.
Et nota quod quia per inobedientiam primi hominis prolapsi sumus in peccatum, Rom. V, 19: per inobedientiam unius hominis peccatores constituti sunt multi, ideo in principio reparationis nostrae proponitur obedientia. Note that because we lapsed into sin by the disobedience of the first man —"By the disobedience of one man many were made sinners" (Rom 5:19)— obedience is proposed at the beginning of of our restoration.
Et possumus quatuor notare, quae sunt necessaria ad obedientiam.
  • Primum est ut sit ordinata. Et dico ordinata, quia primo deserenda sunt vitia, et postea obediendum est ad operationem virtutum; Hier. IV, 3: novate vobis novale, et nolite serere super spinas et cetera. Et ideo hic dicitur, quod Ioseph exurgens a somno, pigritiae scilicet et dubietatis. De hoc somno dicitur Eph. V, 14: surge qui dormis, et exurge a mortuis.
  • Secundum vero est, quod debet esse festina: et hoc est quod dicitur Eccli. V, 8: non differas de die in diem, non tardes converti ad dominum. Subito enim veniet ira illius. Et ideo hic dicitur quod statim fecit sicut praecepit ei. Glossa: quisquis a Deo monetur, solvat moras, surgat a somno, faciat quod iubetur.
  • Tertium vero, quod debet esse perfecta, ut non solum quod iubetur, sed eo modo quo iubetur fiat et quo eis imperatur. Unde hic dicitur sicut praeceperat. Glossa: perfecta obedientia. Col. c. III, 20: filii, obedite parentibus per omnia.
  • Quartum, quod debet esse discreta, ut obediatur cui obediendum est, et in quo, ut non fiat aliquid contra Deum: unde dicit quod fecit sicut praecepit ei Angelus, non malus sed Dei. I Io. IV, 1: nolite omni spiritui credere, sed probate spiritus, si ex Deo sint, quoniam multi pseudoprophetae exierunt in mundum et cetera.
And we can note four things necessary for obedience:
  • The first is that it be well-ordered. I say well-ordered, because vices should be first abandoned and then one must obey in order to act virtuously: "Break up your fallow ground, and sow not among thorns" (Jer 4:3). And therefore, it is stated here that Joseph rising from sleep, i.e., from laziness and doubt. Concerning this sleep Eph (5:14) says: "Awake, O sleeper, and arise from the dead."
  • The second is that it be quick: "To not delay from day to day, do not put off being turned to the Lord. For his anger will come suddenly" (Sir 5:8). And therefore, it is stated here that he did at once as the angel commanded him. A Gloss says: "Whoever is advised by God should avoid delays, rise from sleep and do what he is commanded."
  • The third is that it be perfect, so that not only what is commanded is done, but the way in which it is commanded. Hence, it says here as he had commanded him. A Gloss: "perfect obedience." "Children, obey your parents in all things" (Col 3:20).
  • The fourth is that it be discerning, so that one obeys the person who should be obeyed and in matters in which he should be obeyed, in order that nothing be done against God. Hence, he says that he did as the angel of the Lord (not an evil one) commanded him: "Do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see if they are from God, because many false prophets have gone forth into the world" (1 Jn 4:1).
Et accepit. Hic ostenditur in quibus obedivit: et ponuntur tria. Primo obedientia quam exhibuit ad Angelum; secundo reverentia quam exhibuit ad matrem; tertio obsequium quod exhibuit Christo nato. Angelus praecepit Ioseph noli timere accipere Mariam coniugem tuam. Et fecit Ioseph sicut praecepit et cetera. Ubi patet quod invenit mulierem bonam. Sed numquid non habebat eam in domo? Quare ergo dicit, exurgens (...) accepit? Respondet Chrysostomus: quia eam non eiecerat a domo, sed a corde. Vel quia primo ducebatur, sed postea celebrandae sunt nuptiae, et tunc dicitur, et est coniux. He took his wife. Here is shown the matter in which he obeyed. Three things are presented: first, the obedience he rendered to the angel; secondly, the reverence he showed the mother; thirdly, the service he offered the newborn Christ. The angel commanded Joseph: "Do not fear to take Mary, your wife." And Joseph did as the angel commanded. Here it is evident that he found a good wife. But didn't he have her in his house? Why then does he say: "And rising up, he took her"? Chrysostom answers: because he had not expelled her from the house but from his heart. Or because she was first brought, but the marriage was to be celebrated later, and then it is said that she is a wife.
Et ne aliquis suspicaretur quod copula carnalis interveniret, subiungit et non cognoscebat eam. Ubi sciendum quod hoc verbum cognoscere dupliciter accipitur in sacra Scriptura: quandoque pro agnitione, Io. XIV, 7: et amodo cognoscetis eum et vidistis eum, aliquando pro carnali copula, sicut Gen. IV, 1: Adam vero cognovit uxorem suam Evam etc., scilicet carnaliter. (25) But lest anyone suppose that intercourse had taken place, he continues but he knew her not. Here it should be noted that the word, "know", is taken in two ways in Sacred Scripture: sometimes for knowledge, as in John (16:7): "And you shall know him and have seen him"; sometimes for carnal intercourse, as in Gen 4:1): "But Adam knew Eve, his wife," i.e., carnally.
Sed obiicitur, quia non dicitur simpliciter cognoscebat etc., sed, donec peperit filium suum. Ergo postea cognovit; unde etiam dixit Elvidius: quamvis virgo concepit Christum, tamen postea habuit alios filios ex Ioseph. Et ideo dicit Hieronymus, quod donec aliquando significat aliquid finitum, et determinatum, sicut dicam non veniam donec comedo quia postea significo me venturum; quandoque significat infinite, et indeterminate, verbi gratia I Cor. XV, 25: oportet et illum regnare, donec ponat omnes inimicos sub pedibus eius. Numquid postea non regnabit? Immo: sed utitur Scriptura tali modo loquendi quia intendit removere illud quod potest esse dubium. Dubium enim esse poterat utrum regnaret, quando non posuerat inimicos sub pedibus. Item dubium esse poterat, cum beata virgo peperisset, an ante partum fuisset cognita a Ioseph, quia primum nulli debebat venire in dubium; scilicet quoniam Angeli decantaverunt: gloria in excelsis Deo, et in terra pax hominibus bonae voluntatis, Lc. II, 14. Et ideo hoc intendit Evangelista. Et argumentatur optime Hieronymus contra Elvidium: tu dicis, Elvidi, quod ante non cognovit Ioseph, quia fuit admonitus in somnis ab Angelo. Si ergo admonitio in somnis tantum valuit quod non coniungeret se Mariae, quanto magis Angelorum cognitio, pastorum et magorum adoratio? Chrysostomus autem accepit cognitionem pro agnitione intellectuali. Non cognoscebat scilicet quantae dignitatis esset; sed postquam peperit, cognovit. Alii dicunt quod accipitur pro agnitione sensibili; et sic est satis probabilis horum opinio. Dicunt enim quod Moyses ex locutione domini habuit tantam claritatem in facie, ut filii Israel non posset intendere in faciem eius, II Cor. III, 7. Ergo si ex consortio Dei hoc habuit Moyses, multo magis haec beata virgo, quae portavit eum in utero, habuit tantam claritatem in facie quod Ioseph non cognoscebat eam. Sed prima expositio est magis litteralis. But one might object that it does not say absolutely that he knew her not, but until she had borne a son. He knew later; hence, even Elvidius said: "Although the virgin conceived Christ, later she had other sons from Joseph." Therefore, Jerome says that "until" sometimes signifies something finite and determinate, as when I say: "I will not come, until I eat," because I signify that I will come after this; sometimes it signifies infinitely and indeterminately, for example: "He must reign, until he puts all enemies under his feet" (1 Cor 15:25). Does that mean that he will not reign after this? Not at all. But Scripture uses such a way of speaking, because it intends to remove what can be doubtful. For there could be a doubt, when the Blessed Virgin had brought forth, whether she had been known by Joseph before the birth of Christ, because the first should not have been a matter of doubt to anyone, because the angels sang: "Glory to God in the highest and on earth peace to men of good will" (Lk 2:14). And therefore, this is what the evangelist intends. And Jerome's argument against Elvidius is excellent: "You say, Elvidius, that she did not know Joseph before the birth, because he had been warned in sleep by an angel. If, therefore, a warning in sleep was strong enough to keep him from knowing Mary, how much more the knowledge of the angels and the adoration of the shepherds and the Magi? Chrysostom, however, took "knowledge" for intellectual knowledge. He did not know how great was her dignity; but after she brought forth, he knew. Others say that from speaking with the Lord, Moses' face shone so brightly, that the children of Israel could not gaze upon his face (2 Cor 3:7). Therefore, if Moses had this from communing with God, much more did this Blessed Virgin, who carried him in her womb have such facial brilliance, that Joseph did not know her. But the first explanation is more to the letter.
Item dicit Elvidius quod littera dicit, donec peperit filium suum primogenitum. Primum dicitur respectu posterioris. Ergo habuit alios. Respondet Hieronymus, quod consuetum est in sacra Scriptura quod primogeniti vocantur illi, quos alii non praecedunt: Ex. XIII, 12 dicitur quod primogeniti Iudaeorum offerrentur domino. Quaerit Hieronymus: numquid oportebat expectare quod non offerrentur donec nasceretur secundus? Ergo primogeniti dicuntur quos alii non praecedunt; et sic intelligitur hic. Elvidius likewise says that the words are "until she brought forth her firstborn son." But "first" is said with respect to others that follow. Therefore, she had other sons. Jerome answers that it is a custom in Scripture to call firstborn all those whom others did not precede; thus it says in Ex (13:12) that the firstborn of the Jews were offered to the Lord. Jerome asks: Was it necessary to wait and not offer him to the Lord, until a second son was born? Therefore, the firstborn are those whom others did not precede; and that is the sense here.
Sequitur obsequium. Lc. II, 21, plenius exequitur hoc, sed Matthaeus breviter tangit. Ita enim vult spiritus sanctus, quod quae unus dixit, alius taceat. Vocavit nomen eius Iesum; istud quidem nomen non parum celebre fuit apud antiquos et desideratum; Gen. XLIX, 18: salutare tuum expectabo, domine. Et Hab. III, 18: ego autem in domino gaudebo, et exultabo in Deo Iesu meo. Then he mentions the service he rendered. Luke (2:2) mentions this in greater detail, but Matthew touches it lightly. For thus the Holy Spirit wills that what one says, the other passes over in silence. He called his name Jesus. This name was quite renowned and desired among the ancients: "I will await your salvation, O Lord" (Gen 49:11); "I will rejoice in the Lord and exult in God, my Jesus" (Hab 3:18).

Caput 2
Lectio 1
Reportatio Petri de Andria
2—1
Mt 2:1-2
1 τοῦ δὲ Ἰησοῦ γεννηθέντος ἐν βηθλέεμ τῆς ἰουδαίας ἐν ἡμέραις ἡρῴδου τοῦ βασιλέως, ἰδοὺ μάγοι ἀπὸ ἀνατολῶν παρεγένοντο εἰς ἱεροσόλυμα 2 λέγοντες, ποῦ ἐστιν ὁ τεχθεὶς βασιλεὺς τῶν ἰουδαίων; εἴδομεν γὰρ αὐτοῦ τὸν ἀστέρα ἐν τῇ ἀνατολῇ καὶ ἤλθομεν προσκυνῆσαι αὐτῷ.
1. When Jesus therefore was born in Bethlehem of Juda, in the days of king Herod, behold, there came wise men from the East to Jerusalem, 2. Saying: Where is he that is born king of the Jews? For we have seen his star in the East, and are come to adore him.
Supra egit Evangelista de Christi generatione, hic intendit manifestare eius nativitatem. Et primo, testimonio magorum; secundo, testimonio innocentum, ibi qui cum recessissent. Having dealt with the birth of Christ, the evangelist now intends to make it manifest: first, by the testimony of the Magi; secondly by the testimony of the Innocents (v. 13).
Circa primum tria ponuntur: primo enim annuntiatur Christi nativitas; secundo inquiritur locus; tertio inquiritur persona. Secundum ibi audiens autem Herodes. Tertium ibi tunc Herodes. In regard to the first he presents three things: first, the birth of Christ is announced; secondly, the place is inquired into (v. 3); thirdly, the person of Jesus is sought (v. 7).
Circa primum tria facit: primo enim proponitur Christi nativitas, cui testimonium perhibetur; secundo inducuntur testes; tertio ponitur testimonium. Secundum ibi ecce magi. Tertium ibi ubi est qui natus est? In regard to the first he does three things: first, Christ's birth is declared and testimony given; secondly, the witnesses are introduce (v. 1b); thirdly, their testimony is given (v. 2).
Circa primum quatuor tanguntur: nativitas, nomen nati, locus et tempus. In regard to the first he touches on four things: the birth, the name of the newborn, the place and the time.
Primum ibi cum ergo natus esset. Et notandum, quod Lucas plenius exequitur nativitatem, sicut e converso Matthaeus plenius exequitur de adoratione magorum, quam Lucas. Nomen tangitur ibi Iesus. Locus ibi in Bethlehem Iudae, non Iudaeae, quia Iudaea vocatur tota regio populi Israelitici; sed Iudae; ista est terra illa, quae venerat in sortem Iudae. Dicitur Bethlehem Iudae ad differentiam alterius Bethlehem, quae est in tribu Zabulon, de qua Iosue IX, 10. (1) The first is mentioned, when he says, Now when Jesus was born. And it should be noted that Luke discusses the birth more fully, whereas Matthew discusses the adoration of the Magi more fully than Luke. The name is mentioned, when he says, Jesus; the place, when he says, in Bethlehem of Judah, not of Judea, which the entire region of the people of Israel is called, but of Judah, i.e., that portion of the land which fell by lot to Judah. It is called "Bethlehem of Judah" to distinguish it from the other Bethlehem, which is in the tribe of Zebulun, which Joshua mentions (9:10).
Et nota, quod ista tria verba cum natus esset Iesus in Bethlehem Iudae in diebus Herodis regis, congrue ponuntur. Bethlehem enim significat Ecclesiam, in qua natus est Iesus, qui est verus panis, de quo Io. VI, 51: ego sum panis vivus qui de caelo descendi. Nulli ergo provenit salus, nisi sit in domo domini. In his salvator natus est Christus; Is. LX, 18: occupabit salus muros tuos, et portas tuas laudatio et cetera. Et addidit regis, ad differentiam alterius Herodis: hic enim fuit, sub quo natus est Christus, Ascalonita; alius autem, qui Ioannem occidit, fuit filius huius Herodis, et non fuit rex. Note that those three phrases, When Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judah in the days of Herod, the king, are fittingly placed. For Bethlehem signifies the Church, in which was born Jesus, the true bread, about which John (6:35) says: "I am the true bread which came down from heaven." Therefore, salvation comes to no one, unless he is in the Lord's house. In these is Christ, the Savior, born: "You shall call your borders salvation and your gates praise" (Is 60:18). And he added, the king, to distinguish him from another Herod: for he was the one under whom Christ was born; the other, who killed John, was a son of this Herod but was not a king.
Sed quaeritur quare Scriptura facit mentionem de isto tempore. Et dicendum propter tres rationes. Primo, ut completam ostendat esse prophetiam Iacobi, Gen. penult., 10: non auferetur sceptrum de Iuda, et dux de femore eius, donec veniat, qui mittendus est, et ipse erit expectatio gentium. Herodes enim fuit primus alienigena, qui regnavit in Iudaea. Secunda ratio est, quod maior morbus indiget maiori et meliori medico. Populus autem Israel tunc erat in maxima afflictione sub gentili dominio, et ideo indigebat maximo consolatore: in aliis enim afflictionibus suis mittebantur eis prophetae, sed nunc propter magnitudinem afflictionis mittebatur eis prophetarum dominus; Ps. XCIII, 19: secundum multitudinem dolorum meorum in corde meo consolationes tuae laetificaverunt animam meam. But why does Scripture mention the time? There are two reasons: first, to show that Jacob's prophecy is fulfilled: "The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor the ruler's staff from between his feet, until he comes to whom it belongs, and he will be the desired of the nations" (Gen 49:10). For Herod was the first foreigner to reign in Judea. The second is that a more serious disease needs a greater and better physician. But the people of Israel at that time were suffering considerable distress under gentile rule; and therefore, they needed a very special consoler. For prophets were sent to them in their other afflictions, but now on account of the greatness of the affliction the Lord of the prophets was sent to them: "When the cares of my heart are many, your consolations cheer my soul" (Ps 94:19).
Inde ponuntur testes, ibi ecce magi. Et describuntur tripliciter: a professione, a regione, et a loco, ubi testimonium dederunt. De primo dicit ecce magi: qui secundum communem usum loquendi vocantur incantatores; sed lingua Persica vocat magos philosophos et sapientes. Isti quidem venerunt ad Iesum, quia gloriam sapientiae, quam possidebant, recognoverunt a Christo. Et sunt quidem primitiae gentium, quia primo venerunt ad Christum. Et impletur, secundum Augustinum, in istorum adventu illud Isaiae VIII, 4: antequam sciat puer vocare patrem suum, et matrem suam, auferetur fortitudo Damasci, et spolia Samariae coram rege Assyriorum etc.; ante enim quam Christus loqueretur, eripuit fortitudinem Damasci, et divitias et spolia Samariae, idest idololatriam. Dimiserunt enim illi idololatriam, et munera obtulerunt. Item considerandum quod ad Christum venerunt aliqui ex Iudaeis, scilicet pastores; aliqui ex gentibus, scilicet magi: ipse enim Christus est lapis angularis, qui fecit utraque unum. Then the witnesses are presented and described in three ways: from their profession, from their origin and from the place where they give testimony. In regard to the first he says Magi [wise men]. In ordinary speech they are called "enchanters", but in the Persian tongue they are called philosophers and wise men [Magi]. They came to Jesus, because they recognized from Christ the glory of the wisdom they possessed. They are, indeed, the first fruits of the gentiles, because they were the first to come to Christ. According to Augustine, in their coming is fulfilled the word of Is (8:4): "Before the child knows how to cry 'my father' or 'my mother', the wealth of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria will be carried away before the king of Assyria." For before Christ had spoken, he had removed the courage of Damascus and the riches and spoils of Samaria, i.e., idolatry. For they had removed idolatry and offered gifts. We should also remember that some Jews, namely, the shepherds, came to Christ; and some gentiles, namely, the Magi: for Christ is the cornerstone who made the two one.
Et quare magi et pastores? Quia pastores magis simplices, et isti magis peccatores, ad significandum quod Christus utrosque recipit. Quot autem fuerint illi magi, Evangelista non dicit. Videtur autem, secundum munera, quod fuerunt tres reges, quamvis plures alii in eis repraesentabantur; Is. LX, 3: ambulabunt gentes in lumine tuo. Why the magi and shepherds? Because the shepherds were simple and the Magi sinners, to show that Christ receives both. The evangelist does not say how many Magi there were. But in view of the gifts there seem to have been three kings, although many others were represented in them: "The gentiles shall walk in your light" (Is 60:3).
De secundo, scilicet de regione, dicit ab oriente. Et notandum quod quidam ab oriente exponunt a finibus orientis; sed tunc quomodo in tam paucis diebus venissent? Et respondetur, ut quidam dicunt, quod miraculose venerunt; alii quod dromedarios habuerunt. Chrysostomus tamen dicit, quod stella apparuit eis per duos annos ante nativitatem, et quod tunc se paraverunt, et venerunt Ierosolymam in duobus annis et tredecim diebus. Aliter autem potest exponi, ut dicatur ab oriente, idest a quadam regione quae erat prope Ierusalem a parte Orientali; dicuntur enim isti fuisse de secta Balaam, qui dixit Num. XXIV, 17: orietur stella ex Iacob, qui Balaam habitabat iuxta terram promissionis in parte Orientali. Concerning the second, namely, the origin, he says, from the East. It should be noted that some take from the East to mean the "far East"; but then how would they come in such a few days? Some answer that they came miraculously; others that they had camels. But Chrysostom says that the star appeared to them for two years before the birth, and it was then that they prepared themselves and came to Jerusalem in two years and thirteen days. But it can be explained in another way as signifying a region near Jerusalem on the east; for they are said to have been of the sect of Balaam, who said: "A star shall come forth our to Jacob" (Num 24:17). This Balaam lived near the promised land on the east.
Sequitur de loco Ierosolymam venerunt. Sed quare venerunt Ierusalem? Duplex est ratio. Una quia erat civitas regia; unde regem Iudaeorum in regia civitate quaerebant; item hoc factum fuit ex divina dispensatione, ut primo testimonium ferretur de Christo in Ierusalem, ut adimpleretur prophetia Is. II, 3: de Sion exibit lex, et verbum domini de Ierusalem. Then he mentions the place, came to Jerusalem. But why did they come to Jerusalem? For two reasons: one was that it was a royal city; hence they looked for the king of the Jews in the royal city. Furthermore, this happened according to God's plan, that testimony about Christ be given first in Jerusalem, as it says in Is (2:3): "Out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem."
Consequenter ponitur testimonium, ibi ubi est qui natus est? In quo tria dicunt: primo denuntiant regis nativitatem; secundo afferunt nativitatis signum, ibi vidimus enim stellam eius; tertio profitentur pium propositum, ibi et venimus adorare. (2) Then the testimony is presented, when it says, Where is he who is born king of the Jews? In this testimony they say three things: first, they announce the birth of a king; secondly, they mention the sign of this birth, we have seen his star in the East; thirdly, they profess their pious intention, we have come to adore him.
Dicunt ergo ubi est? Considerandum autem quod isti magi sunt primitiae gentium, et praefigurant in se statum nostrum. Isti enim aliquid supponunt, scilicet Christi nativitatem, et aliquid quaerunt, scilicet locum; et quidem nos fide tenemus Christum, sed aliquid quaerimus, scilicet spe: videbimus enim eum facie ad faciem. II Cor. V, 7: per fidem ambulamus, et non per speciem. They say, therefore, where is he? It should be noted that those Magi are the first-fruits of the nations and prefigure in themselves our condition. For they presuppose something, namely, the birth of Christ, and the look for something, namely, the place. We, indeed, have Christ by faith, but we look for something by hope: for we shall see him face to face: "We walk by faith, not by sight" (2 Cor 5:7).
Sed quaestio est. Cum ipsi audissent regem esse in Ierusalem, quomodo ista dicebant? Omnis enim qui alium regem profitetur in civitate regis, se exponit periculo. Sed certe hoc zelo fidei faciebant. Unde in istis nuntiabatur fides illa intrepida. Infra c. X, 28: nolite timere eos qui occidunt corpus. Consequenter proponunt signum huius nativitatis vidimus. Et nota quod in istis verbis fuit occasio duorum errorum. Quidam, sicut Priscillianistae, dixerunt omnes actus hominum fato agi et regi. Et confirmant per hoc, vidimus enim stellam eius. Ergo natus est sub aliqua stella. Alius error Manichaeorum, qui reprobant fatum, et per consequens istud Evangelium; quia dicebant quod Matthaeus introducit fatum. Sed excluditur error utriusque. But since they had heard of a king in Jerusalem, why did they say these things? For anyone who acknowledges another king in the king's city exposes himself to danger. But surely they did this through the zeal of faith. Hence, in them was announced that fearless faith suggested below (10:24): "Do not fear those who kill the body." Then they mention the sign of this birth, we have seen... Note that these words were the occasion of two errors: Some, as the Priscillianists, said that all of men's acts are performed and ruled by fate. And they confirm it by these words, we have seen his star. Therefore, he was born under some star. The other was the error of the Manichees, who deny fate and, consequently, this gospel. But both errors are rejected.
Sed antequam procedamus ad expositionem litterae, oportet primo videre quid est fatum, et quomodo sunt haec credenda, et quomodo non. Nota ergo quod videmus multa in rebus humanis per accidens et casualiter accidere. Contingit autem aliquid casuale et fortuitum esse relatum ad causam inferiorem, quod relatum ad causam superiorem non est fortuitum: sicut si aliquis dominus mittat tres ad quaerendum aliquem, et unus nesciat de alio, si occurrant sibi invicem, est eis casuale; sed si referantur ad intentionem domini, non est casuale. Sed secundum hoc fuit duplex opinio de fato. Quidam dixerunt quod ista casualia non reducuntur in aliam causam superiorem ordinantem: et isti sustulerunt fatum, et ultra hoc omnem providentiam divinam. Et fuit, secundum Augustinum, haec opinio Tullii. Sed dicimus quod ista casualia reducuntur in causam superiorem ordinantem. Sed cum fatum dicatur a for faris, quasi quoddam pronuntiatum et prolocutum, a qua causa sit ista ordinatio, est differentia. Quidam enim dixerunt quod est ex virtute corporum supercaelestium. Unde dicunt fatum nihil aliud esse quam dispositio siderum. Alii ista contingentia reducunt in providentiam divinam. But before proceeding to explain the letter, let us see what fate is and how these things should be believed and how not. Note, therefore, that in human affairs we see many things happening by accident and by chance. But it happens that something fortuitous and by chance relative to a lower cause is not fortuitous when related to a higher cause. For example, if an employer sent three men for someone and none knows the other, if they all met, it would be by chance, so far as they are concerned; but relative to the employer's intention, it would not be chance. But according to this there were two opinions about fate. Some said that things of chance are not explained by a higher cause planning them; and they denied fate as well as all divine providence. And according to Augustine this was Cicero's opinion. But we say that things of chance are explained by a higher cause planning them. Since fate suggests something commanded and proclaimed beforehand, there is a difference of opinion about the source of this arrangement. For some say that it is due to the power of the heavenly bodies; in other words, fate is nothing more than the arrayal of the stars. Others explain contingent events by divine providence.
Sed primo modo negandum est esse fatum. Actus enim humani non reguntur secundum dispositionem corporum caelestium: quod patet ad praesens, cum multae sint ad hoc rationes efficaces.
  • Primo, quia impossibile est, quod virtus corporalis agat supra virtutem incorpoream, quia nihil inferius in ordine naturae agit in superiorem naturam. In anima autem sunt quaedam potentiae elevatae supra corpus; quaedam potentiae sunt organis affixae, scilicet potentiae sensitivae et nutritivae: et corpora quidem caelestia, quamvis directe agant supra corpora inferiora, et mutent ea per se, per accidens tamen agunt in potentiis organis affixis. In potentiis autem organis non affixis nullo modo agunt necessitando, sed inclinando tantum. Dicimus enim istum hominem iracundum, idest pronum ad iracundiam, et hoc ex causis caelestibus, sed directe electio ut sic in voluntate est. Unde numquam potest fieri tanta dispositio in corpore humano, quin superabundet iudicium liberi arbitrii. Unde quicumque poneret liberum arbitrium sub corporibus caelestibus, de necessitate poneret sensum ab intellectu non differre.
  • Secundo, quia per hoc excluditur omnis cultus divinus, quia tunc omnia essent ex necessitate; et sic tunc etiam regimen reipublicae destrueretur, quia nec oporteret consiliari, neque aliquid providere, et huiusmodi.
  • Tertio, quia nos attribueremus Deo malitias hominum; quod esset ipsum infamare, qui creator est stellarum. Patet ergo quod hoc dicere est contra fidem omnino. Et ideo dicit Gregorius: absit a fidelium cordibus ut fatum aliquid esse dicatur.
But the other opinion must be rejected. For human acts are not ruled by the arrangement of the heavenly bodies. This is clear for the present, as many valid reasons testify.
  • First, because it is impossible for a bodily force to act on a non-bodily force, for in the order of nature the lower cannot act on the higher nature. Now there are in the soul certain powers superior to the body and some equipped with bodily organs, such as the nutritive and the sense powers. Now, heavenly bodies, although they act directly on lower bodies and produce changes in them, can also act indirectly on powers equipped with organs. But they cannot act on powers equipped with organs by compelling them, but only by inclining them. For we say that this person is prone to anger, and this from heavenly causes; but directly, the choice as such is in the will. Hence, no disposition can be formed in the human body, such that the judgment of free will would not surpass it. Hence, anyone who would rank free will lower than the heavenly bodies would necessarily have to admit that the senses are not different from the intellect.
  • Secondly, because all divine worship is thereby excluded, because all things would occur by necessity; and so, even the direction of all governments would be ruined, because there would be no need to take counsel or provide for anything, and so on.
  • Thirdly, because we would attribute to God the malice of men; which would be to insult him who created the stars. Therefore, it is clear that to say this is altogether contrary to the faith. Hence, Gregory says: "Far be it from the hearts of the faithful to say that fate is anything."
Si autem vis vocari fatum divinam providentiam, tunc aliquid est. Sed, sicut dicit Augustinus, quia nihil commune debemus habere cum infidelibus, non hoc nomen ei imponere debemus, unde dicit: linguam corrigas, sententiam teneas. Non ergo potest dici vidimus stellam, idest a qua tota vita eius dependeat; quia, secundum Augustinum, tunc stella non sequeretur generatum, quia tunc Christus magis diceretur fatum stellae, quam e converso. But if you wish to call divine providence "fate", then it is something. But as Augustine says, because we should have nothing in common with unbelievers, we must not apply this name to it. Hence, he says: "Correct the wording and you may hold the opinion." Therefore, it cannot be said we have seen his star, i.e., on which his entire life depends; because, according to Augustine, in that case the star would not follow the new-born, for then Christ should be called more the fate of the star, rather than the converse.
Et notandum quod ista stella non fuit de primis causatis: quod patet ex quatuor. Primo ex motu, quia nulla stella movetur de Septentrione in meridiem. Regio autem Persarum, unde isti magi veniebant, est posita ad Septentrionem. Item, aliae numquam quiescunt; ista autem non continue movebatur. Tertio ex tempore, quia in die nulla lucet; ista autem de die praebebat lucem magis. Quarto ex situ, quia non in firmamento, quod patet, quia isti per eam determinate distinxerunt domum. Ergo dicendum quod ista specialiter creata fuit ad servitium Christi. Et ideo dicit vidimus stellam eius, idest ad obsequium eius factam. It should be noted that that star was not among those originally created. This is evident for the following reasons: first, from its movement, because no star is moved from north to south. But the locale of the Persians, whence the Magi came, is situated in the north. Secondly, other stars never rest; but this one was not moving without interruption. Thirdly, from the time, because during the day no star gives light; but this one afforded light to the Magi during the day. Fourthly, from its location, because it was not in the firmament. This is clear, because the star enable them to pick the right house exactly. Therefore, it must be admitted that it was specially created for the service of Christ. Therefore, he says we have seen his star, i.e., created for his service.
Quidam autem dicunt, quod ista stella fuit spiritus sanctus, qui, sicut super baptizatum apparuit in specie columbae, ita et nunc in specie stellae. Alii dicunt quod fuit Angelus. Sed dicendum est quod vera stella fuit. Et voluit ostendi sub indicio stellae, primo, quia conveniebat ei. Est enim rex caelorum, et ideo per caeleste indicium voluit manifestari; Ps. XVIII, 1: caeli enarrant gloriam Dei et opera manuum eius annuntiat firmamentum; Iudaeis quidem per Angelos, per quos legem acceperant; Gal. III, 19: lex data est per Angelos; gentilibus per stellam, quia per creaturas in cognitionem Dei venerunt; Rom. I, 20: invisibilia Dei per ea quae facta sunt, intellecta conspiciuntur. Secundo, quia congruebat his quibus demonstrabatur, scilicet gentilibus, quorum vocatio promissa fuit Abrahae in similitudinem stellarum; Gen. XV, 5: suspice caelum, et numera stellas si potes et cetera. Unde tam in nativitate, quam in passione factum est signum in caelo, quod omnibus gentibus Christum notum fecit. Item, congruebat omnibus, quia ipse est salvator omnium. Some say that this star was the Holy Spirit, who appeared in the form of a star, just as later at Christ's baptism he appeared in the form of a dove. Others say that it was an angel. But one must admit that it was a true star. And he wished to be manifested by the evidence of a star, because it befitted him. For he is the king of the heavens and, therefore, he willed to be manifested by the heavenly disclosures: "The heavens are telling the glory of God; and the firmament proclaims his handiwork" (Ps 19:1); to the Jews through angels, through whom they had received the Law: "The law was given by angels" (Gal 3:19); to the gentiles by a star, because they came to a knowledge of God through creatures: "His invisible nature has been clearly perceived through the things that were made" (Rom 1:20). Secondly, because it befitted those to whom he was made manifest, namely, the gentiles, whose call was promised to Abraham by an allusion to the stars: "Look up at the heavens and count the stars, if you can" (Gen 15:5). Hence, both at his birth and during his passion a sign was made in heaven which made Christ known to all the gentiles. Thirdly, it suited everyone, because he is the savior of all.
Sed dicit in oriente, quod exponitur dupliciter. Secundum Rabanum, sic: stella existens in Iudaea apparuit illis gentibus in oriente. Vel: nos vidimus stellam in oriente. Istud melius dicitur. Unde ecce stella, quam viderant in oriente antecedebat eos. Item patet ex hoc quod ista secundum situm erat propinqua terrae, quia aliter non distinxisset locum. Ergo non potuisset videri a tam remota regione. But he says in the east. This can be explained in two ways. According to Rabanus in the following way: a star existing in Judea appeared to the gentiles in the east; or, we have seen the star in the east. This seems better. Hence, it says: And lo, the star they had seen in the east went before them. This is also clear from its being located near the earth, because otherwise, it would not have pointed out the place. Therefore, it could not be seen from such a far-away place.
Consequenter ponitur pium propositum et venimus adorare. Hic est duplex quaestio. Dicit enim Augustinus: numquid isti erant curiosi, quod quandocumque fieret aliquod indicium per aliquam stellam quaererent regem natum? Hoc enim stultum fuisset. Sed dicendum quod non praestaverunt obsequium regi terreno, sed caelesti: in quo virtus divina ostenditur affuisse; quia aliter si terrenum regem quaesissent, totam devotionem amisissent, quando vilibus pannis invenerunt involutum. Then they mention their devout intention, and have come to worship him. Here are two questions. For Augustine says: "Were they curious, so that whenever any indication was made by a star, they would look for a king." This would be foolish. But it should be noted that they paid homage not to an earthly king but to a heavenly. This shows that a divine power was present; otherwise, if they had been seeking an earthly king, they would have lost all devotion, when they found one wrapped in cheap clothing.
Sed quaerit iterum Augustinus: quomodo ex stella potuerunt scire, quod homo Deus natus esset? Et respondet quod hoc fuit Angelo revelante; qui enim ostendit eis stellam, misit Angelum qui hoc revelaret. Leo Papa dicit, quod sicut exterius oculi replebantur lumine istius stellae: ita interius radius divinus revelabat. Tertia ratio: quia isti erant de stirpe Balaam, qui dixit: orietur stella ex Iacob. Unde habuerunt a prophetia eius. Et ideo videndo tantam claritatem stellae, suspicati sunt, quod rex caelestis natus esset, et ideo quaerebant. Et hoc est et venimus adorare. In hoc impletum est illud Ps. LXXI, 11: et adorabunt eum omnes reges, omnes gentes servient ei. But Augustine asks again: How were they able to know from the star that the God-man was born? He answers that they knew from an angel revealing it; for the one who showed them the star sent them an angel to reveal this. Pope Leo says that "just as outwardly the eyes were filled with the light of that start, so inwardly a divine ray revealed." The third reason is that they were from the stock of Balaam who said (Num 24:17): "A star shall arise out of Jacob." Hence, they had it from his prophecy. And so, seeing a star of such brilliance, they suspected that the heavenly king had been born; and therefore, they inquired. And we have come to worship him. In this was fulfilled the words of Ps 72 (v. 11): "May all kings fall down before him, all nations serve him."

Lectio 2
Reportatio Petri de Andria
2—2
Mt 2:3-9a
3 ἀκούσας δὲ ὁ βασιλεὺς ἡρῴδης ἐταράχθη καὶ πᾶσα ἱεροσόλυμα μετ' αὐτοῦ, 4 καὶ συναγαγὼν πάντας τοὺς ἀρχιερεῖς καὶ γραμματεῖς τοῦ λαοῦ ἐπυνθάνετο παρ' αὐτῶν ποῦ ὁ Χριστὸς γεννᾶται. 5 οἱ δὲ εἶπαν αὐτῷ, ἐν βηθλέεμ τῆς ἰουδαίας: οὕτως γὰρ γέγραπται διὰ τοῦ προφήτου: 6 καὶ σύ, βηθλέεμ γῆ Ἰούδα, οὐδαμῶς ἐλαχίστη εἶ ἐν τοῖς ἡγεμόσιν Ἰούδα: ἐκ σοῦ γὰρ ἐξελεύσεται ἡγούμενος, ὅστις ποιμανεῖ τὸν λαόν μου τὸν Ἰσραήλ. 7 τότε ἡρῴδης λάθρᾳ καλέσας τοὺς μάγους ἠκρίβωσεν παρ' αὐτῶν τὸν χρόνον τοῦ φαινομένου ἀστέρος, 8 καὶ πέμψας αὐτοὺς εἰς βηθλέεμ εἶπεν, πορευθέντες ἐξετάσατε ἀκριβῶς περὶ τοῦ παιδίου: ἐπὰν δὲ εὕρητε ἀπαγγείλατέ μοι, ὅπως κἀγὼ ἐλθὼν προσκυνήσω αὐτῷ. 9 οἱ δὲ ἀκούσαντες τοῦ βασιλέως ἐπορεύθησαν,
3. And king Herod hearing this, was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him. 4. And assembling together all the chief priests and the scribes of the people, he inquired of them where Christ should be born. 5. But they said to him: In Bethlehem of Juda. For so it is written by the prophet: 6. And thou Bethlehem the land of Juda art not the least among the princes of Juda: for out of thee shall come forth the captain that shall rule my people Israel. 7. Then Herod, privately calling the wise men learned diligently of them the time of the star which appeared to them; 8. And sending them into Bethlehem, said: Go and diligently inquire after the child, and when you have found him, bring me word again, that I also may come and adore him. 9. Who having heard the king, went their way;
Praenuntiata Christi nativitate per magos, hic inquirit de loco nativitatis: et ponuntur tria: primo ponitur motivum ad inquirendum; secundo imponitur inquisitio; tertio inventio veritatis. Secundum ibi et congregans. Tertium ibi at illi dixerunt ei: in Bethlehem Iudae. After the announcement of the birth of Christ, inquiry is made as to the place of his birth. Three things are mentioned: first, their motive for asking; secondly, the inquiry is made (v. 4); thirdly, the truth is found (v. 5).
Motivum fuit turbatio Herodis; unde audiens. Et signanter vocat Herodem regem, ut ostendat esse alium a rege, quem quaerebant. Fuit autem triplex causa turbationis.
  • Prima processit ex ambitione, quam habebat circa custodiam regni sui, propterea quia alienigena erat. Sciebat enim vel audiverat illud Danielis II, 44: in diebus regnorum Israel suscitabit Deus caeli regnum, quod in aeternum non dissipabitur, et regnum eius alteri populo non tradetur et cetera. Sed in hoc decipiebatur, quia regnum illud spirituale erat; Io. XVIII, 36: regnum meum non est de hoc mundo. Unde Herodes turbabatur timens amissionem regni sui; sed magis turbabatur Diabolus timens regni sui destructionem totalem; Io. XII, 31: nunc princeps mundi huius eiicietur foras. Et nota quod homines, sicut dicit Chrysostomus, in sublimibus constituti ex levi verbo contra se prolato conturbantur; Ps. LXXXVII, 16: exaltatus autem, humiliatus sum et conturbatus; humiles autem numquam timent.
  • Secunda causa processit ex timore Romani imperii. Statutum enim erat a Romano imperio quod nullus Deus aut rex diceretur sine eorum consensu; unde timebat. Sed iste timor mundanus erat, qui prohibetur; Is. LI, 12: quis tu ut timeas ab homine mortali, et filio hominis, qui quasi foenum ita arescet?
  • Tertia ex rubore verecundiae. Verecundabatur enim coram populo ut alius rex vocaretur; similis in hoc Sauli, qui dixit: peccavi, sed nunc honora me coram senioribus populi mei, et coram Israel et cetera. I Reg. XV, 30.
(3) The motive was Herod's disquiet. Hence, when he heard this. It is significant that he calls Herod a king, to show that he was not the king they were seeking. There were three reasons for his disquiet:
  • the first came from his ambition to preserve his kingdom, since he was a foreigner. For he knew or had heard the words of Dan (2:44): "In the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that shall never be destroyed, nor shall its sovereignty be left to another people." but here he was deceived, because that kingdom was spiritual: "My kingdom is not of this world" (Jn 18:36). Hence, Herod was disturbed, because he feared the loss of his kingdom; but more disturbed was the devil, fearing the total destruction of his kingdom: "Now is the prince of this world cast out" (Jn 12:31). And note that, as Chrysostom says, men established in lofty places are disturbed by any slight word spoken against them.
  • The second reason came from fear of the Roman Empire. For it had decreed that no one be called god or king without their consent; hence, he feared. But this was a worldly fear, which is forbidden: "Who are you that you are afraid of man who dies, of the son of man who is made like grass?" (Is 51:12).
  • The third was shamefacedness. For one is embarrassed before his people, when someone else is called king. Thus he was like Saul, who said: "I have sinned; yet honor me know before the elders of the people and before Israel" (1 Sam 15:30).
Sed mirum quod sequitur et omnis Ierosolyma cum illo. Videbatur enim quod deberent gaudere. Sed sciendum quod triplicem causam turbationis habuerunt.
  • Prima fuit ipsorum iniquitas; iniqui enim erant, quibus semper detestabilis est conversatio iustorum. Prov. XIII, 19: detestantur stulti eos qui fugiunt mala.
  • Secunda ut placerent Herodi; Eccli. X, 2: secundum iudicem populi, sic et ministri eius.
  • Tertia quia timebant ne Herodes hoc audito amplius desaeviret in gentem Iudaeorum.
What follows is strange: and all Jerusalem with him. For it seems that they should have rejoiced. But it should be noted that they had three reasons for being disturbed:
  • the first was their wickedness; for they were wicked, since they always detested the life style of the Jews: "Fools detest those who flee from evil" (Pr 13:19);
  • the second was to please Herod: "As the judge of the people is, so are his ministers" (Sir 10:2).
  • The third was that they feared that Herod on hearing this world rage more against the Jewish people.
Mystice autem in hoc significatur quod iste terrenus erat. Gregorius: rex terrae turbatus est, caeli rege nato, quia nimirum terrena altitudo confunditur, cum caelestis celsitudo aperitur. Is. XXIV, 23: erubescet luna, et confundetur sol, cum regnaverit dominus exercituum in monte Sion, et in Ierusalem. Et notandum quod, sicut dicit Augustinus, quid autem erit tribunal iudicantis, quando superbos reges cuna terrebat infantis? Pertimeant reges ad dexteram patris sedentem, quem rex impius timuit matris ubera lambentem. The mystical meaning is that he was earthly. Gregory: An earthly king was disturbed, when the king of heaven was born, because earthly greatness is bewildered when heavenly loftiness is disclosed. "Then the moon will be confounded and the sun ashamed, when the Lord of hosts shall reign on Mount Zion and in Jerusalem" (Is 24:21). And it should be noted, as Augustine says: "but what will the judge's tribunal be, when the infant's cradle terrified proud kings? Let kings fear him sitting at the right hand of the Father, whom a wicked king feared, when he was taking nourishment from his mother's breasts."
Et congregans. Hic ponitur inquisitio. Et, sicut dictum est, Herodes sollicitus erat inquirere, et propter regnum, et propter timorem Romanorum: unde inquisivit veritatem. Sed ad habendam certitudinem de aliquo tria requiruntur ab inquirentibus: creditur enim multitudini, auctoritati, et litteratis. Unde congregavit multos, et auctoritatem habentes, et sapientes. Et hoc est quod dicit congregans omnes, quantum ad primum Sap. VI, 26: multitudo sapientium sanitas est orbis terrarum. Principes sacerdotum, quantum ad secundum; Mal. II, 7: labia sacerdotum custodiunt scientiam, et legem requirunt ex ore eius (...). Et Scribas, quantum ad tertium: non ad scribendum tantum dicitur, sed ad interpretandum legis Scripturam; per istos quidem volebat investigare veritatem. Eccl. XXXII, 13: in medio magnatorum loqui non praesumas, et ubi sunt senes non multum loquaris. (4) And assembling... Here the inquiry is mentioned. And, as has been said, Herod was led to inquire both for the sake of his kingdom and for fear of the Romans. Hence, he was looking for the truth. but in order to have certainty about something, three things are required of the investigators, for credence is given to the multitude, to authorities and to the learned. Hence, he assembled many having authority and recognized as wise. And this is what he says: assembled all, as to the first; "A multitude of wise men is the salvation of the world" (Wis 6:24); the chief priests, as to the second: "The lips of a priest should guard knowledge, and men should seek instruction from his mouth" (Mal 2:7); and scribes, as to the third. They are called scribes, not only because they wrote, but because they interpreted the writings of the Law. It was through them that he wished to investigate the truth: "Do not presume to speak much among the great, and do not say much in the presence of the old" (Sir 32:13).
Sciscitabatur ab eis ubi Christus nasceretur. Magi regem vocaverunt, sed ipsi Christum quaerebant: sciebant enim ex conversatione cum Iudaeis regem Iudaeorum legitimum inungi. Sed quaeritur: aut ipse credebat prophetiae, aut non. Si credebat, sciebat quod non poterat impediri quin ipse regnaret; quare ergo interfecit pueros? Si non credebat, quare ergo quaerebat? Sed dicendum quod non perfecte credebat, quia ambitiosus erat et ambitio hominem caecum reddit. He inquired of them where the Christ was to be born. The Magi called him king, but the others were looking for the Christ; for they knew from talking with the Jews that the lawful king of the Jews is anointed. But he either believed the prophecy or he did not. If he believed, he knew that he could not be prevented from reigning. Then why did he kill the children? If he did not believe, why did he search for him. The answer is that he did not believe completely, because he was ambitious; and ambition makes a man blind.
At illi dixerunt: in Bethlehem Iudae. Hic invenitur veritas. Et primo ponitur veritas; secundo confirmatur eius prophetia, ibi et tu, Bethlehem, terra Iuda. Et sciendum quod Christus voluit nasci in Bethlehem propter tria. Primo ad vitandam gloriam. Propter hoc enim elegit duo loca: unum in quo nasci voluit, scilicet Bethlehem; alium in quo passus fuit, scilicet Ierusalem. Et hoc est contra illos qui gloriam quaerunt, qui volunt nasci in sublimibus locis, et nolunt pati in loco honoris. Ioan. VIII, 50: ego gloriam meam non quaero. Secundo ad confirmationem suae doctrinae, et ostentationem suae veritatis. Si enim natus fuisset in aliqua magna civitate, virtus suae doctrinae potuisset adscribi humanae virtuti; II Cor. VIII, 9: scitis gratiam domini nostri Iesu Christi. Tertio ad ostendendum se esse de genere David; Lc. II, 3: Ioseph et Maria ibant in Bethlehem ut profiterentur ibi, eo quod essent de domo, et familia David. Competit etiam mysterio, quia Bethlehem interpretatur domus panis: et Christus est ille panis vivus, qui de caelo descendit, Io. VI, 51. (5) They told him: "In Bethlehem of Judah." Here the truth is presented: first, the truth (v. 5); secondly, it is confirmed by a prophecy (v. 6). It should be noted that Christ willed to be born in Bethlehem for three reasons: first, to avoid glory. For this reason he chose two places: one in which he willed to be born, namely, Bethlehem; the other in which he suffered, namely, Jerusalem. This, of course, is against those who seek glory, who wish to be born in high places and refuse to suffer in a place of honor: "I do not seek my glory" (Jn 8:50). Secondly, to confirm his doctrine and show its truth. For if he had been born in some large city, the power of his doctrine could have been ascribed to human power: "You know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ" (2 Cor 8:9). Thirdly, to show that he was of the house of David: "Joseph and Mary went to Bethlehem to be enrolled there, because they were of the house and family of David" (Lk 2:4). It also befits a mystery, because Bethlehem means house of bread; and Christ is that "living bread which came down from heaven" (Jn 6:51).
Consequenter confirmatur veritas. Unde et tu, Bethlehem, et cetera. Ex ista prophetia duo possemus considerare: magi enim aliquid annuntiabant, et aliquid quaerebant. Et ex ista prophetia ostenditur utrumque: quia quantum ad primum dicit et tu Bethlehem; quantum ad secundum dicit ex te enim exiet dux. Et ita confirmatur nativitas Christi duplici testimonio, scilicet stellae et prophetiae, quia in ore duorum vel trium testium est veritas; Deut. XIX, 15: in ore duorum aut trium testium stabit omne verbum. Et nota, quod quando erant omnes infideles, data sunt signa corporalium; quando iam erant fideles, data est prophetia; I Cor. XIV, 22: itaque linguae in signum sunt non fidelibus, sed infidelibus; prophetiae autem non infidelibus, sed fidelibus. (6) Then the truth is confirmed by the prophecy, And you, O Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are by no means least among the rulers of Judah; for from you shall come a ruler, who will govern my people Israel. From this prophecy we can consider two things: for the Magi announced something and sought something. And both are from this prophecy: In regard to the first he says, And you, O Bethlehem; in regard to the second, from you shall come a ruler. Thus the birth of Christ is confirmed by a double testimony, namely, of a star and of a prophecy, because in the mouth of two or three witnesses is the truth: "In the mouth of two or three witnesses every word shall stand: (Dt 19:15). And note that when they were all unbelieving, they were given signs of bodily things; when they now believed, prophecy was given: "Tongues are a sign not for believers but for unbelievers; while prophecy is not for unbelievers but for believers" (1 Cor 14:22).
Et sciendum quod Iudaei dupliciter defecerunt in prolatione prophetiae. Quia ibi dicitur et tu, Bethlehem Ephrata, et iterum quia non est ibi, nequaquam minima es. Et potest assignari duplex ratio quare mutaverunt. Uno modo potest dici, quod hoc fecerunt ex ignorantia. Alio modo potest dici quod isti usi sunt scienter aliis verbis. Et dicunt sententiam. Quia cum Herodes esset alienigena, non intellexisset auctoritatem prophetae, et ideo dixerunt illud quod notum erat Herodi. Unde dicunt: terra Iuda, et nequaquam minima es, idest tu non es minima inter millia hominum Iuda; vel in principibus Iuda, idest inter principales civitates Iuda. Ex te enim exiet dux qui regat populum meum Israel. De isto duce habetur Dan. IX, 25: usque ad Christum ducem; et Ps. XXX, 5: dux mihi eris: regit enim populum Israel non solum carnaliter, sed etiam spiritualiter; Rom. XI, 1: numquid Deus repulit populum suum? et cetera. Ps. LXXIX, 2: qui regis Israel, intende, qui deducis velut ovem Ioseph. It should be noted that the Jews made two errors in this prophecy, because there (Mic 5:2) it says: "And you, Bethlehem-Ephrathah," and again it does not say: "Are by no means least." There are two possible reasons why they changed it: first, it can be said that they did it out of ignorance; secondly, that they knowingly used the words. But they give the sense. For since Herod was a foreigner, he would not have understood the prophet's text; consequently, they said something which was known to Herod. Hence they say, "land of Judah" and "you are not the least," i.e., you are not the least among the thousands of the men of Judah. Or "among the rulers of Judah," i.e., among the principal cities of Judah. "From you shall come a ruler, who will govern my people Israel. That ruler Dan (9:25) speaks of: "To the coming of the Christ, a prince"; and Ps 31 (v. 5): "You shall be a leader to me," for he rules the people of Israel not only materially but also spiritually. "Has God rejected his people?" (Rom 11:1); "Give ear, O shepherd of Israel, you who lead Joseph like a flock (Ps 80:2).
Et nota quod truncant caudam auctoritatis, scilicet et egressus eius sicut ab initio, a diebus aeternitatis. Per quod insinuatur quod non debebat esse rex terrenus, sed caelestis; quod si scivisset Herodes, non fuisset impius. Unde fuerunt causa necis illorum. Item ex illa etiam cauda patet esse falsam interpretationem Iudaeorum, qui exponunt de Zorobabel: quia non convenit ei et egressus eius ab initio a diebus aeternitatis. Item non in Iudaea, sed in Babylone natus est. And notice that they omit the end of the prophecy: "His origin is from of old from the days of eternity." This suggests that he was not to be an earthly king but heavenly; which if Herod knew, he would not have been wicked. Hence, they were the cause of the slaughter. Furthermore, from that ending is shown the falsity of the interpretation made by the Jews, who explain them of Zerubbabel, because "his origin is from of old from the days of eternity" does not apply to him. Again, he was born not in Judea but in Babylon.
Consequenter inquiritur de persona nati, cum dicit tunc Herodes, clam vocatis magis, diligenter didicit ab eis tempus stellae quae apparuit eis. Et primo ponitur inquisitio; secundo inventio inquisiti, ibi invenerunt eum etc.; tertio veneratio inventi, ibi et procidentes adoraverunt eum. Then inquiry is made about the person of the newly-born (v. 7). First, the inquiry is presented; secondly, the discovery (v. 11); thirdly, the veneration of the child (v. 11b).
Ad inquirendum personam ex duobus moti sunt: ex persuasione Herodis, et ex ductu stellae. They were moved to search for the person for two reasons: because Herod persuaded them, and because the star was leading them.
Unde circa primum ponitur exhortatio; secundo studium magorum in mutatione stellae, ibi qui cum audissent regem abierunt. Hence, in regard to the first the exhortation is mentioned; secondly, the Magi's zeal in following the star (v. 9).
Circa primum tria ponuntur: primo enim inquirit tempus; secundo annuntiat locum, ibi et mittens illos in Bethlehem; tertio iniungit officium inquisitionis, ibi ite, et interrogate diligenter de puero. In regard to the first, three things are mentioned: first, he asks about the time of the star; secondly, he announces the place (v. 8); thirdly, he asks them to make inquiry (v. 8b).
Dicit ergo tunc Herodes. Ubi considerandum quod Iudaei sciebant locum, sed non tempus. Unde confutantur a domino, Lc. XIX, 44: eo quod non cognovisti tempus visitationis tuae, et Is. I, 3: cognovit bos possessorem suum, et asinus praesepe domini sui; Israel autem me non cognovit, et populus meus non intellexit. Ergo inquiritur tempus. Et dicit Chrysostomus quod per biennium ante apparuit istis stella. Alii autem quod in ipsa die nativitatis. (7) He says, therefore, Then Herod. Here it should be noted that the Jews knew the place but not the time. Hence, they are upbraided by the Lord: "Because they did not know the time of their visitation" (Lk 19:44), and "The ox knows its owner, and the as its master's crib; but Israel does not know, my people does not understand" (Is 1:3). Therefore, the time is investigated. And Chrysostom says that the star appeared to them for two years; others that it appeared on the day of his birth.
Annuntiat locum, ibi et mittens. Iungit officium inquisitionis, ibi ite, et interrogate et cetera. Et admonet duo: et ad hoc quod impleant praemittit tertium. (8) He announces the place at he sent them to Bethlehem. He asks them to make inquiry at Go and search diligently. He tells them to do two things, and in order that they do them, he adds a third.
Quantum ad primum dicit ite et cetera. Et quaerit insidiose ad occidendum, sicut illi quibus dicitur Io. VII, 34: quaeretis me, et non invenietis. Quantum ad secundum dicit sic cum inveneritis renuntiate mihi. Et hoc propter malum etiam dicebat; Eccli. XIII, 14: ex multa loquela tentabit te. Quantum ad tertium dicit ut et ego veniens adorem eum; et quidem dolose promittit Dei cultum; Ier. IX, 8: sagitta vulnerans lingua eorum dolum locuta est; Ps. XXVII, 3: qui loquuntur pacem cum proximo suo, mala autem in cordibus eorum. As to the first he says, Go and search diligently. And he asks deceitfully, because his intent was to kill, as those to whom it is said in Jn (7:34): "you will seek me and you will not find me." In regard to the second he says, and when you have found him, bring me word. This, too, he said for the sake of evil: "He will test you through much talk" (Sir 13:11). In regard to the third he says, that I too may come and worship him; and truly he craftily promises worship of God: "Their tongue is a deadly arrow; it speaks deceitfully" (Jer 9:8); "They speak peace with their neighbor, while mischief is in their hearts" (Ps 28:3).
Et nota quod cum magi profiterentur regem, iste vocat puerum, quia ex abundantia cordis os loquitur. Nota etiam, quod petit a Iudaeis ubi Christus nasceretur, volens experiri, et tentare utrum gauderent. Note that whereas the Magi call him king, Herod calls him a child, because from the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. Note, too, that he asks Jews where the Christ would be born, because he wanted to test and see whether they would rejoice.
Consequenter ponitur studium magorum. Duo iniunxerat: quod inquirerent, et reverterentur; sed unum fecerunt magi. Unde qui cum audissent regem abierunt. Aliud autem non fecerunt. Tales quidem debent esse auditores, quod bona addiscant, mala vero relinquant; infra XXIII, 3: quae dicunt facite, secundum opera eorum nolite facere et cetera. (9)Then the zeal of the Magi is mentioned, for he had asked them to do two things: to inquire and to return. But the Magi did one. Hence, when they heard the king, they went their way. But they did not do the other. Hearers, indeed, should be such that they learn good things but relinquish evil: "Do what they say, but do not act according to their works" (Mt 23:3).

Lectio 3
Reportatio Petri de Andria
2— 3
Mt 2:9b-12
9b καὶ ἰδοὺ ὁ ἀστὴρ ὃν εἶδον ἐν τῇ ἀνατολῇ προῆγεν αὐτοὺς ἕως ἐλθὼν ἐστάθη ἐπάνω οὗ ἦν τὸ παιδίον. 10 ἰδόντες δὲ τὸν ἀστέρα ἐχάρησαν χαρὰν μεγάλην σφόδρα. 11 καὶ ἐλθόντες εἰς τὴν οἰκίαν εἶδον τὸ παιδίον μετὰ μαρίας τῆς μητρὸς αὐτοῦ, καὶ πεσόντες προσεκύνησαν αὐτῷ, καὶ ἀνοίξαντες τοὺς θησαυροὺς αὐτῶν προσήνεγκαν αὐτῷ δῶρα, χρυσὸν καὶ λίβανον καὶ σμύρναν. 12 καὶ χρηματισθέντες κατ' ὄναρ μὴ ἀνακάμψαι πρὸς ἡρῴδην, δι' ἄλλης ὁδοῦ ἀνεχώρησαν εἰς τὴν χώραν αὐτῶν.
9b and behold the star which they had seen in the East, went before them, until it came and stood over where the child was. 10. And seeing the star they rejoiced with exceeding great joy. 11. And entering into the house, they found the child with Mary his mother, and falling down they adored him: and opening their treasures, they offered him gifts; gold, frankincense, and myrrh. 12. And having received an answer in sleep that they should not return to Herod, they went back another way into their country.
Supra Evangelista posuit unum motivum magorum, scilicet persuasionem Herodis, hic ponit aliud motivum magorum ad inquirendum Christum, scilicet ducatum stellae; et circa hoc duo facit: primo enim ponit ducatum stellae; secundo effectum laetitiae huius ducatus, ibi videntes autem stellam, gavisi sunt gaudio magno valde. Having presented one of the factors moving the Magi, namely, Herod's urging, the evangelist now mentions the other factor moving them to search for Christ, namely, the star leading them. In regard to this he does two things: first, he mentions the star leading them; secondly, the joy they felt at this (v. 10).
Et nota, quod stella primum exequitur suo motu, quia directe ducebat magos ad Christum; item manifestat suo statu pueri locum, ibi usque dum veniens staret supra ubi erat puer. Unde quantum ad primum dixit antecedebat eos. Ex hoc autem quod dicit ecce stella, quam viderant in oriente, antecedebat eos, datur intelligi quod quando magi declinaverunt in Ierusalem, stella disparuit; recedentibus autem ab Herode, apparuit. Disparuit autem propter tria.
  • Primo propter confusionem Iudaeorum, qui cum instructi essent in lege, ut Christum quaererent, et gentes non essent instructae, tamen gentes quaerunt, et Iudaei contemnunt. Unde impletur illud Is. LV, 5: gentes quae te non cognoverunt, ad te current.
  • Secundo propter magorum instructionem: non enim solum per stellam dominus voluit se eis manifestare, sed etiam per legem, ut sic adiungeretur cognitioni creaturarum cognitio legis. In ore duorum vel trium testium stabit omne verbum, Deut. XIX, 15. Is. VIII, 20: ad legem magis et ad testimonium.
  • Tertio propter instructionem nostram. Et instruimur de duobus, secundum Glossam. Primo quod qui humanum auxilium quaerunt, deseruntur a divino. Illicitum est enim humanum auxilium quaerere, non quaerendo divinum; Is. XXXI, 1: vae qui descenditis in Aegyptum ad auxilium, in equis sperantes, habentes fiduciam super quadrigis, quia multae sunt, et super equitibus, quia praevalidi nimis, et non sunt confisi super sanctum Israel et dominum non requisierunt. Secundo instruimur quantum ad hoc, quod nos, qui fideles sumus, non debemus quaerere signa, sicut isti, qui videntes stellam gavisi sunt etc.; sed debemus esse contenti doctrinis prophetarum, quia signa data sunt infidelibus.
And note that the star first performs its own motion, because it leads the Magi directly to Christ; also when it came to rest, it indicated where the child was (v. 9). Hence, in regard to the first he says, the star went before them. From the statement that the star they had seen in the East went before them, we are given to understand that when the Magi turned aside to go to Jerusalem, the star disappeared; but when they left Herod, it appeared again. It disappeared for three reasons:
  • First, to shame the Jews who, although instructed in the Law to seek Christ, scorned him; whereas the gentiles, non-instructed, seek him. Thus Isaiah (55:5) is fulfilled: "Nations that knew you not shall run to you."
  • Secondly, for the instruction of the Magi. For the Lord's will is to make himself manifest to them not only by the star but also by the Law, so that knowledge of the Law might be joined to their knowledge of creatures: "In the mouth of two or three witnesses every word shall stand" (Dt 19:15); "To the law and to the testimony (Is 8:20).
  • Thirdly, for our instruction. And we are instructed about two things according to a Gloss: first, that those who seek human help are deserted by the divine. For it is unlawful to seek human help without seeking divine: "Woe to those who go down to Egypt for help and rely on horses, who trust in chariots because they are many, and in horsemen, because they are very strong, but do not look to the Holy One of Israel" (Is 31:1). Secondly, we are instructed that we, who are believers, should not seek signs, as those did who, seeing the star, rejoiced exceedingly; but we ought to be content with the doctrines of the prophets, because signs are given for unbelievers.
In hoc etiam est duplex mysterium. Stella enim significat Christum; Apoc. ult., 16: ego sum radix David, stella splendida et matutina. Unde per istam stellam intelligere possumus gratiam Dei, quam amittimus, cum ad Herodem, idest Diabolum, accedimus; Eph. V, 8: eratis aliquando tenebrae, nunc autem lux in domino. Item, cum ab Herode, idest Diabolo, recedimus, stellam, idest Christi gratiam, invenimus: simile Ex. XIII, 21, ubi dicitur, quod dominus praecedebat Israel, quando exivit de Aegypto, in specie ignis et cetera. Hic autem praecedebat in specie stellae. There are two mysteries in this. For the star signifies Christ: "I am the root of David, the bright morning star" (Rev 22:16). Hence, by that star we can understand God's grace, which we lose, when we come to Herod, i.e., the devil: "We were once darkness, but now light in the Lord" (Eph 5:8). Again, when we depart from Herod, i.e., the devil, we find the star, i.e., Christ's grace. This is like Ex (13:2), where it says that the Lord went ahead of Israel in a pillar of fire. Here, however, he went ahead in the form of a star.
Usque dum veniens staret supra ubi erat puer. Duo intelligimus hic. Unum quod ista stella non erat multum alta, quia aliter non discrevissent domum pueri. Aliud quod stella completo officio suo redacta est in suam materiam. Ubi erat puer. Frequenter puerum vocat, ut scias illum esse de quo dicitur Is. IX, 6: puer natus est nobis. Till it came to rest over the place where the child was. Here we understand two things: one is that the star was not very high; otherwise, they would not have been able to distinguish the child's house. The other is that after the star had served its purpose, it was dissolved into its matter. Where the child was., He often calls him child, in order to tell us that he is the one about whom it is said: "A child is born to us" (Is 9:6).
Consequenter ponitur effectus ducatus huius quantum ad magos. Unde videntes autem stellam gavisi sunt et cetera. Gavisi sunt propter spem, quam recuperaverunt. Timebant enim, quia de longinquis partibus venerunt, amittere quod sperabant; Rom. XII, v. 12: spe gaudentes. Item addit gaudio; aliqui enim gaudent, et non gaudent, quia laetitia humana non est perfectum gaudium; Prov. XIV, 13: extrema gaudii luctus occupat. Verum autem et perfectum gaudium de Deo est; Is. LXI, 10: gaudens gaudebo in domino, et exultabit anima mea in Deo meo. Tertio addit magno, quia isti magna iam cognoscebant de Deo, quia Deum incarnatum, et multum misericordem; Is. XII, 6: exulta et lauda, habitatio Sion, quia magnus in medio tui sanctus Israel. Quarto addit valde, quia intense gaudebant; recuperaverant enim quod amiserant; Luc. XV, 10: gaudium erit Angelis Dei et cetera. (10) Then the effect on the Magi of the star's leading them is mentioned. Hence, seeing the star they rejoiced. The rejoiced on account of the hope they recovered. For they feared to lose what they hoped for, because they had journeyed a long distance: "Rejoicing in hope" (Rom 12:12). He says, with joy. For some rejoice and do not rejoice: "Even in laughter, the heart is sad, and the end of joy is grief" (Pr 14:13). But true and perfect joy deals with God: "Rejoicing, I shall rejoice in the Lord, and my soul shall exult in my God" (Is 61:10). Thirdly he adds great, because they now knew great things about God, namely, God Incarnate and most merciful: "Shout and sing for joy, O inhabitant of Zion, for great in your midst is the holy one of Israel" (Is 12:6). Fourthly, he adds, exceedingly, because they rejoiced intensely. For they had recovered what they had lost: "There is joy before the angels of God..." (Lk 15:10).
Consequenter agitur de inventione pueri. Unde et intrantes domum, invenerunt puerum. Et tangit tria: domum, quae, si quaeratur qualis erat, ostenditur Luc. II, 7. Item si quaeratur qualis puer, in nullo ab aliis differebat, sicut dicunt sancti. Quantum ad apparentiam, non loquebatur, infirmus videbatur, et huiusmodi. Item si quaeratur qualis mater, respondetur, qualis est uxor carpentarii. Et hoc ideo dico, quia si isti quaesivissent regem terrenum, videndo ista scandalizati fuissent; sed videntes vilia, et considerantes altissima, moti sunt ad admirationem, et adoraverunt eum. Et hoc est et procidentes adoraverunt eum. Sed quare non fit mentio de Ioseph? Dicendum quod divina dispensatione factum est quod non adesset, ne istis qui primitiae gentium erant, daretur suspicio pravae opinionis. (11) Then he deals with the finding of the child. Hence, and entering the house, they found the child. And he touches on three things: the house which, if one were to inquire what sort it was, is revealed in Lk 2:7). Again, if it be asked what sort of child it was, he did not differ in any way from infants, as the saints say. As to externals, he did not speak, he seems helpless, and so on. If one asks about the mother, the answer is that she looked like the wife of a carpenter. I say this, because, if they had been looking for an earthly king, they would have been shocked at what they saw. But seeing lowly things and considering the loftiest, they were moved to admiration and adored him: and they fell down and worshipped him. But why is there no mention of Joseph? Because by God's plan he was not present, so that no grounds for an improper opinion be given to those who were the firstfruits of the gentiles.
Consequenter tangitur reverentia quam exhibuerunt ad puerum, ibi et procidentes. Et fuit triplex: in adorando, offerendo et obediendo. Dicit ergo et procidentes adoraverunt eum, tamquam Deum in homine latentem; Ps. LXXI, 9: coram illo procident Aethiopes. Item offerendo, reverentiam exhibuerunt; unde et apertis thesauris suis. Consuetudo enim erat apud Persas, quod semper cum munere adorabant; et hoc est et apertis thesauris suis, obtulerunt ei munera, aurum, thus et myrrham. Ps. LXXI, 10: reges Tharsis et insulae munera offerent, reges Arabum et Saba dona adducent. Is. LX, 6: omnes de Saba venient, aurum et thus deferentes, et laudem domino annuntiantes. Then he mentions the reverence they showed the child by adoring and offering and obeying. He says, therefore, and they fell down and worshipped him as God concealed in man: "The Ethiopians will fall down before him" (Ps 72:9). They also showed reverence by offering; hence, opening their treasures. For it was the custom of Persians always to adore with a gift: opening their treasures, they offered him gifts, gold and frankincense and myrrh. "May the kings of Tarshish and of the isles bring him gifts, may the kings of Sheba and Seba bring gifts" (Ps 72:10); "All those from Sheba shall come. They shall bring god and frankincense, and shall proclaim the praise of the Lord" (Is 60:6).
Mystice considerandum est quod isti non in via, sed tunc primo aperuerunt thesaurum, quando venerunt ad Christum: similiter nos bona nostra in via non debemus manifestare. Unde reprehenditur hoc inf. XXV de virginibus, et XIII, 44 dicitur: simile est regnum caelorum thesauro abscondito in agro, quem qui invenit homo abscondit, et prae gaudio illius vadit, et vendit universa quae habet et emit agrum illum. Mystically, it should be considered that they opened their treasures not during their journey, but only when they came to Christ. Similarly, we should not make our goods manifest, while we are wayfarers. Hence, this is reprehended below (c. 25) in the parable of the virgins, and in (13:44): "The kingdom of heaven is like a treasure hidden in a field, which a man found and covered up; then in his joy he goes and sells all that he has and buys that field."
Obtulerunt ei munera et cetera. Aliqui assignant rationem istorum munerum litteralem et dicunt isti, quod tria invenerunt: domum sordidam, puerum infirmum, et matrem pauperem. Et ideo obtulerunt aurum ad sustentationem matris, myrrham ad sustentationem membrorum pueri, thus ad tollendum foetorem. Sed dicendum, quod aliquid mystice hic praetenditur, et potius ista tria ad tria referuntur, quae offerre debemus, sc. fidem, actionem et contemplationem.
  1. Quantum ad fidem dupliciter:
    • primo quantum ad ea, quae in Christo concurrunt. Scilicet regia dignitas; Ier. XXIII, 5: regnabit rex, et sapiens erit etc.; et ideo in tributum obtulerunt aurum. Sacerdotii magnitudo; et ideo thus in sacrificium. Hominis mortalitas; et ideo myrrham.
    • Item quantum ad fidem Trinitatis, quia designantur in nobis personae Trinitatis.
  2. Secundo possunt referri ad actionem nostram. Per aurum enim potest signari sapientia; Prov. II, 4: si quasi thesauros effoderis illam, tunc intelliges timorem domini. Per thus oratio devota; Ps. CXL, 2: dirigatur, domine, oratio mea, sicut incensum in conspectu tuo et cetera. Per myrrham mortificatio carnis: Col. III, 5: mortificate membra, quae sunt super terram; Cant. V, 5: manus meae distillaverunt myrrham.
  3. Quantum autem ad contemplationem, per ista tria possunt significari vel tres sensus sacrae Scripturae, scilicet litteralis, sub quo comprehenditur allegoricus, anagogicus et moralis; vel tres partes philosophiae, scilicet moralis, logica et naturalis: omnibus enim his debemus uti ad servitium Dei.
They offered him gifts... Some assign a literal reason for these gifts and say that the Magi found three things: a squalid house, a helpless child and a poor mother. Therefore, they offered gold to sustain the mother, myrrh to sustain the child's members, frankincense to remove the stench. But it should be noted that something mystical is involved here, such that those three refer to the three things we should offer, namely, faith, action and contemplation.
  1. As to faith in two ways:
    • first as to the things found in Christ, namely, royal dignity: "The king will reign and be wise" (Jer 23:5); and therefore, they offered gold in tribute. The greatness of the priesthood and, therefore, frankincense, as a sacrifice. Man's mortality: and therefore, myrrh.
    • Secondly, as to faith in the Trinity, because the persons of the Trinity are designated in us.
  2. Secondly, they can be referred to our action. For by gold can be signified wisdom: "If you search for wisdom as for hidden treasures, then you will understand the fear of the Lord" (Pr 2:4). By frankincense devout prayer: "Let my prayer, O Lord, be directed as incense in your sight" (Ps 144:2). By myrrh mortification of the flesh: "Mortify your members which are on earth" (Col 3:5); "My hands dripped with myrrh" (Song of Songs 5:5).
  3. As to contemplation by those three can be signified the three senses of Sacred Scripture, under which are included the allegorical, anagogical and moral; or the three parts of philosophy, namely, moral, logic and natural. For we ought to use all these for the service of God.
Consequenter ponitur quomodo reverentiam exhibuerunt in obediendo. Unde et responso accepto in somnis, ne redirent ad Herodem, per aliam viam reversi sunt in regionem suam. Sed quomodo responsum acceperunt qui non interrogaverunt? Sed dicendum quod dominus respondet aliquando interrogationi mentali, et isti intus quaerebant quid placeret Deo de reversione; Ex. XIV, 15: quid clamas ad me? Sed numquid sunt revelationes immediate a Deo? Dionysius probat quod non, nisi mediantibus Angelis. Quare ergo non nominat Angelum? Sed dicendum, quod quandoque Scriptura facit mentionem de Deo, et non de Angelo, hoc fit per quamdam excellentiam illius manifestationis; Gal. III, 19: lex ordinata per Angelum in manu mediatoris; Act. VII, 37: hic est Moyses, qui dixit filiis Israel: prophetam suscitabit vobis Deus de fratribus vestris, tamquam me ipsum audietis et cetera. Unde quod dicit Glossa, quod hoc fuit immediate per Deum, refertur ad modum loquendi Scripturae. (12) Then he mentions how they showed reverence in obeying. Hence being warned [answered] in a dream not to return to Herod, they departed to their own country by another way. But how could they have received an answer, if they put no question? The answer is that God sometimes answers a question still in the mind, and they inwardly asked what would be pleasing to God concerning their return: "Why do you cry to me?" (Ex 14:15). But do revelations come directly from God? Denis proves that he does not but uses angels. This is done to indicate the importance of the information: "It was ordained by angels through an intermediary" (Gal 3:19); "This is the Moses who said to the Israelites, 'God will raise up for you a prophet, from your brethren, as he raised me up'" (Acts 7:37).
Per aliam viam reversi sunt in regionem suam. In hoc ostenditur quod ad regionem nostram Paradisum, a qua per peccatum expulsi sumus, per obedientiam pervenimus. Prov. IV, 27: vias quae a dextris sunt novit dominus; perversae vero sunt quae sunt a sinistris. Chrysostomus hic dicit, quod isti reversi egerunt sanctam vitam, et postea facti sunt coadiutores s. Thomae apostoli; tamen nihil de eis invenitur scriptum in sacra Scriptura post recessum eorum. They returned to their own country by another way. This shows that we return to our own country, paradise, from which we were expelled by sin, through obedience: "Do not swerve to the right or to the left; turn your foot away from evil" (Pr 4:27). Chrysostom says here that those who returned led holy lives and later became helpers of St. Thomas, the apostle; however, nothing is found in Scripture about them after their departure.

Lectio 4
Reportatio Petri de Andria
2— 4
Mt 2:13-23
13 ἀναχωρησάντων δὲ αὐτῶν ἰδοὺ ἄγγελος κυρίου φαίνεται κατ' ὄναρ τῷ ἰωσὴφ λέγων, ἐγερθεὶς παράλαβε τὸ παιδίον καὶ τὴν μητέρα αὐτοῦ καὶ φεῦγε εἰς αἴγυπτον, καὶ ἴσθι ἐκεῖ ἕως ἂν εἴπω σοι: μέλλει γὰρ ἡρῴδης ζητεῖν τὸ παιδίον τοῦ ἀπολέσαι αὐτό. 14 ὁ δὲ ἐγερθεὶς παρέλαβεν τὸ παιδίον καὶ τὴν μητέρα αὐτοῦ νυκτὸς καὶ ἀνεχώρησεν εἰς αἴγυπτον, 15 καὶ ἦν ἐκεῖ ἕως τῆς τελευτῆς ἡρῴδου: ἵνα πληρωθῇ τὸ ῥηθὲν ὑπὸ κυρίου διὰ τοῦ προφήτου λέγοντος, ἐξ αἰγύπτου ἐκάλεσα τὸν υἱόν μου. 16 τότε ἡρῴδης ἰδὼν ὅτι ἐνεπαίχθη ὑπὸ τῶν μάγων ἐθυμώθη λίαν, καὶ ἀποστείλας ἀνεῖλεν πάντας τοὺς παῖδας τοὺς ἐν βηθλέεμ καὶ ἐν πᾶσι τοῖς ὁρίοις αὐτῆς ἀπὸ διετοῦς καὶ κατωτέρω, κατὰ τὸν χρόνον ὃν ἠκρίβωσεν παρὰ τῶν μάγων. 17 τότε ἐπληρώθη τὸ ῥηθὲν διὰ ἰερεμίου τοῦ προφήτου λέγοντος, 18 φωνὴ ἐν ῥαμὰ ἠκούσθη, κλαυθμὸς καὶ ὀδυρμὸς πολύς: ῥαχὴλ κλαίουσα τὰ τέκνα αὐτῆς, καὶ οὐκ ἤθελεν παρακληθῆναι, ὅτι οὐκ εἰσίν. 19 τελευτήσαντος δὲ τοῦ ἡρῴδου ἰδοὺ ἄγγελος κυρίου φαίνεται κατ' ὄναρ τῷ ἰωσὴφ ἐν αἰγύπτῳ 20 λέγων, ἐγερθεὶς παράλαβε τὸ παιδίον καὶ τὴν μητέρα αὐτοῦ καὶ πορεύου εἰς γῆν Ἰσραήλ, τεθνήκασιν γὰρ οἱ ζητοῦντες τὴν ψυχὴν τοῦ παιδίου. 21 ὁ δὲ ἐγερθεὶς παρέλαβεν τὸ παιδίον καὶ τὴν μητέρα αὐτοῦ καὶ εἰσῆλθεν εἰς γῆν Ἰσραήλ. 22 ἀκούσας δὲ ὅτι ἀρχέλαος βασιλεύει τῆς ἰουδαίας ἀντὶ τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτοῦ ἡρῴδου ἐφοβήθη ἐκεῖ ἀπελθεῖν: χρηματισθεὶς δὲ κατ' ὄναρ ἀνεχώρησεν εἰς τὰ μέρη τῆς γαλιλαίας, 23 καὶ ἐλθὼν κατῴκησεν εἰς πόλιν λεγομένην ναζαρέτ, ὅπως πληρωθῇ τὸ ῥηθὲν διὰ τῶν προφητῶν ὅτι ναζωραῖος κληθήσεται.
13. And after they were departed, behold an angel of the Lord appeared in sleep to Joseph, saying: Arise, and take the child and his mother, and fly into Egypt: and be there until I shall tell thee. For it will come to pass that Herod will seek the child to destroy him. 14. Who arose, and took the child and his mother by night, and retired into Egypt: and he was there until the death of Herod: 15. That it might be fulfilled which the Lord spoke by the prophet, saying: Out of Egypt have I called my son. 16. Then Herod perceiving that he was deluded by the wise men, was exceeding angry: and sending killed all the menchildren that were in Bethlehem, and in all the borders thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently inquired of the wise men. 17. Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremias the prophet, saying: 18. A voice in Rama was heard, lamentation and great mourning; Rachel bewailing her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not. 19. But when Herod was dead, behold an angel of the Lord appeared in sleep to Joseph in Egypt, 20. Saying: Arise, and take the child and his mother, and go into the land of Israel. For they are dead that sought the life of the child. 21. Who arose, and took the child and his mother, and came into the land of Israel. 22. But hearing that Archclaus reigned in Judea in the room of Herod his father, he was afraid to go thither: and being warned in sleep retired into the quarters of Galilee. 23. And coming he dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was said by the prophets: That he shall be called a Nazarene.
Supra habitum est quomodo nascenti Christo magi testimonium perhibuerunt, nunc autem agitur quomodo innocentes testimonium perhibent, non loquendo sed moriendo. Et circa hoc tria facit Evangelista. Primo enim ponitur occultatio Christi; secundo interfectio puerorum, ibi tunc Herodes; tertio ponitur reditus ipsius Christi, ibi defuncto Herode. Having showed how the Magi bore witness to the newborn Christ, the evangelist now shows how the Innocents gave testimony, not by speaking but by dying. In regard to this he does three things: first, he shows how Christ was concealed; secondly, the murder of the children (v. 1); thirdly, Christ's return (v. 19).
Circa primum tria facit. Primo enim ponitur admonitio Angeli; secundo ostenditur obedientia Ioseph; tertio impletio prophetiae. Secundum ibi ut adimpleretur. In regard to the first he does three things: first, he mentions the angel's warning; secondly, Joseph's obedience (v. 14); thirdly, the fulfillment of a prophecy (v. 17).
Circa primum tria tanguntur. Primo ponitur tempus apparitionis; secundo describitur ipsa apparitio et modus apparitionis ibi ecce Angelus; tertio ponitur ipsa admonitio facta per Angelum, ibi surge et accipe puerum. In regard to the first, three things are mentioned: first, the time of the appearance; secondly, the appearance itself and the manner of the appearance (v. 13b); thirdly, the warning given by the angel (v. 13c).
Tempus describitur ibi qui cum recessissent. Et intelligendum quod non statim post recessum magorum facta est ista apparitio, quia totum quod dicitur Luc. II, 6, debet interponi, scilicet de purificatione: postquam impleti sunt dies et cetera. Non enim Herodes statim cogitavit de interfectione puerorum. Unde cum dicit qui cum recessissent, debet interponi tota historia purificationis. Consequenter ponitur ipsa apparitio; unde ecce Angelus apparuit in somnis et cetera. In somnis dicitur apparere, quia tunc homines ab actibus exterioribus cessant, et talibus fit revelatio per Angelos; Ps. IV, 9: in pace in idipsum dormiam, et requiescam; Prov. III, 24: quiesces, et suavis erit somnus tuus. (13) The time is described at When they had departed. And it should be noted that the appearance did not occur immediately after the departure of the Magi, because everything mentioned in Luke (2:22), namely, the purification, should be interpose: "And when the time came for their purification..." For the thought of killing the child did not come to Herod right away. Hence, when he says Behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph..., he is said to have appeared in sleep, because that is when men cease their external activities, and a revelation can be made by angels: "In peace I will both lie down and sleep" (Ps 4:8); "When you lie down, your sleep will be sweet" (Pr 3:24).
In ista admonitione tria ponuntur. Primo enim persuadet Angelus fugere; secundo determinat moram; tertio assignat causam. Dicit ergo surge. Et nota, quod, sicut dicit Hilarius, beata virgo ante nativitatem ab Angelo nominatur coniux, supra I, 5, sed post nativitatem non. Et hoc propter duo. Primo ad commendationem virginis; sicut enim virgo concepit, ita virgo peperit. Secundo propter dignitatem eius: erat enim mater Dei, qua dignitate nulla maior, et denominatio fit a digniori. Item quod, sicut dicit Chrysostomus, puer non venerat propter matrem, sed potius e converso; et ideo dicit accipe puerum, et matrem eius et cetera. Sed quare fuge in Aegyptum? Nonne dicit Ps. XVIII, 15: dominus adiutor meus, et redemptor meus? Sed sciendum quod propter tria fugit.
  • Primo ad manifestandam suam humanitatem; sicut enim divinitas in stella apparuit, ita humanitas in fuga. Phil. II, 7: in similitudinem hominum factus.
  • Secundo propter exemplum; illud enim exemplo ostendit, quod verbo docuit. Infra X, 23: cum autem persequentur vos in civitate ista, fugite in aliam.
  • Tertio propter mysterium: sicut enim voluit mori, ut nos a morte revocaret, ita voluit fugere, ut fugientes a facie sua propter peccatum revocaret. Ps. CXXXVIII, 7: quo ibo a spiritu tuo?
In the warning the angel does two things: first, the angel persuades him to flee; secondly, he gives the reason. He says, therefore Rise. And note that, as Hilary says, the Blessed Virgin is called "wife" by the angel before the birth (Mt 1:5) but not after for two reasons: first to commend the Virgin, for as a virgin she gave birth. Secondly, on account of her dignity, for she was the mother of God, than which there is no greater dignity. Also because, as Chrysostom says, the child had not come on account of the mother, but rather conversely. Therefore, he says Take the child and its mother. But why flee into Egypt? Does it not say in Ps 18 (v. 3): "The Lord is my helper and my redeemer." But he fled for three reasons:
  • first, to manifest his humanity; for as the divinity appeared in the star, so in flight the humanity: "Made in the likeness of men" (Phil 2:7).
  • Secondly, as an example: "When the persecute you in one city, flee into another" (Mt 10:23).
  • Thirdly, on account of the mystery; for just as he willed to die in order to call us back from death, so he willed to flee in order to call back those who flee from his face through sin: "Where shall I flee from your spirit?" (Ps 139:7).
Et esto ibi. Sed quare potius in Aegyptum, quam alibi in aliam regionem? Dicendum propter duas rationes.
  • Prima est, quia proprium est Dei, ut memor sit misericordiae in ira, Hab. III, 8. Dominus enim iratus fuit contra Aegyptios persequentes filios Israel, quia filii Israel erant primogenitus Dei. Et ideo datum est ei, ut obsequeretur unigenito; Is. XIX, 1: ecce dominus ascendet super nubem levem, et ingredietur Aegyptum etc.; ibid. IX, 2: populus qui ambulabat in tenebris, vidit lucem magnam: habitantibus in regione umbrae mortis lux orta est eis; Io. I, 14: vidimus gloriam eius, gloriam quasi unigeniti a patre, plenum gratiae, et veritatis.
  • Secunda, quia ipse induxerat tenebras in Aegypto, ideo voluit eam primo illuminare; et ideo bene ibi fugit; Is. IX, 2: populus qui ambulabat in tenebris, vidit lucem magnam; habitantibus in regione umbrae mortis lux orta est eis.
And remain there. But why to Egypt rather than some other region: For two reasons:
  • first, because it is distinctive of God to be mindful of mercy in his anger (Hab 3:2). For the Lord had been angry at the Egyptians pursuing the sons of Israel, because the sons of Israel were God's firstborn. Therefore, the Egyptians were granted the privilege of serving the Lord: "Behold, the Lord, riding on a swift cloud, comes to Egypt" (Is 19:1); "We have seen his glory, the glory, as it were, of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth" (Jn 1:14).
  • Secondly, because he had brought forth darkness in Egypt, he willed to enlighten it first. Therefore, it was well that he fled there: "The people who walked in darkness have seen a great light; those who dwelt in the land of the shadow of death, on them has light shined" (Is 9:2).
Nota quod quando aliquis vult fugere peccatum, primo debet excutere pigritiam; Eph. V, 14: surge qui dormis, et exurge a mortuis, et illuminabit te Christus. Secundo debet accipere fiduciam a matre, et filio, scilicet Christo; Eccli. XXIV, 25: in me omnis spes vitae et virtutis. Tertio debet fugere a peccato adiutus auxilio matris et pueri; Ps. LIV, 8: ecce elongavi fugiens, et mansi in solitudine. Note that when anyone wills to flee sin, the first thing to do is shake off laziness: "Awake, O sleeper, and arise from the dead and Christ shall enlighten you" (Eph 5:14). Secondly, he should take trust from the mother and from the Son, namely, Christ: "In me all hope of life and virtue" (Sir 24:18). Thirdly, he ought to flee from sin with the help of the mother and child: "Yes, I have wandered far, I have lodged in the wilderness" (Ps 55:7).
Subdit causam huius fugae futurum est enim, ut Herodes quaerat puerum ad perdendum eum. Deceptus fuit Herodes, quia voluit perdere qui venerat regnum suum communicare; Lc. XXII, 29: et ego dispono vobis, sicut disposuit mihi pater meus regnum. Secundo, quia eum qui non gloriam mundanam quaerebat; Hebr. XII, 2: qui proposito sibi gaudio, sustinuit crucem. He adds the cause of the flight. For Herod is about to search for the child to destroy him. Herod was deceived, because he wanted to destroy the one who would come to share his kingdom: "As my father appointed a kingdom for me, so do I appoint one for you" (Lk 22:29); secondly, because he wanted to destroy him who sought no worldly glory: "Who for the joy that was set before hi endured the cross" (Heb 12:2).
Qui consurgens. Hic ponitur executio mandati angelici, et ponit eam quantum ad fugam, et quantum ad moram. Unde qui consurgens accepit puerum et matrem eius. Et fit mentio de tempore, unde dicit nocte, propter timorem et tribulationem, secundum illud Is. XXVI, 9: anima mea desideravit te in nocte, idest in tribulatione; in tribulationibus enim recurrendum est ad Deum: Os. VI, 1: in tribulatione sua mane consurgent ad me. Qui consurgens. Tunc adimpletum est illud Is. XIX, 1: ecce dominus ascendet super nubem levem, et ingredietur Aegyptum; quod ad litteram impletum est. Et erat ibi. (14) And he rose. Here is mentioned the execution of the angel's command both as to the flight and the length of the stay. He rose and took the child and his mother. The time is mentioned, when he says at night, on account of the fear and distress: "My soul desired you at night," i.e., in distress (Is 26:9); for in times of distress one must have recourse to God: "In the morning, they will come to me in their trouble" (Hos 10:1). He rose. Then was fulfilled the word of Is (19)1): "Behold, the Lord is riding on a swift cloud and comes to Egypt," which was fulfilled to the letter.
Dicitur quod septem annos fuit ibi, et habitavit in civitate Heliopoli. Quantum autem ad mysterium, per Ioseph signantur praedicatores, hoc est apostoli, qui ponuntur ad expellendas tenebras per doctrinam, qui recedentes a Iudaeis conversi sunt ad gentes; Act. XIII, 16: vobis oportebat primum loqui verbum Dei; sed quoniam repellitis illud, et indignos vos iudicatis aeternae vitae, ecce convertimur ad gentes. (15) And remained there. It is said that he was there seven years and lived in the city of Heliopolis. In regard to the mystery, by Joseph is signified preachers, i.e., the apostles, whose task is to replace the darkness with doctrine—they left the Jews and turned to the gentiles: "It was necessary that the word of God should be spoken first to you. Since you thrust it from you and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, behold we turn to the gentiles" (Acts 13:46).
Et esto ibi usque dum dicam tibi, idest usquequo finiatur infidelitas Iudaeorum. Rom. II, 25: caecitas ex parte contigit in Israel. Consequenter adhibet testimonium prophetiae; unde dicit ut adimpleretur quod dictum est a domino per prophetam. Istud est, secundum translationem Hieronymi, Osee c. XI, 1. In translatione autem Septuaginta non est ita, sed ex Aegypto vocavi filium eius. And remain there till I tell you, i.e. until the unbelief of the Jews is ended: "Blindness has come upon part of Israel" (Rom 11:25). Then he applies the testimony of the prophet; hence he says, This was to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet, "Out of Egypt I have called my son." The Septuagint is not the same, for it says: "Out of Egypt I have called his son."
Videtur hic esse quaestio: quia non videtur hoc facere ad propositum, quia praemittitur ibi, puer Israel etc., et sic loqui videtur de vocatione Israel de Aegypto. Sed dicendum quod in omnibus auctoritatibus, quae in Evangeliis vel in epistolis ponuntur de Christo, quaedam distinctio notanda est; quia quaedam dicuntur specialiter de Christo sicut illud Is. LIII, 7: tamquam ovis ad occisionem ducetur; quaedam autem dicuntur de quibusdam secundum quod duxerunt figuram Christi. Et sic est ista auctoritas: isti enim non fuerunt filii Israel, nisi inquantum similitudinem gesserunt veri filii unigeniti. Et hoc est: ex Aegypto vocavi filium meum, scilicet specialem. There seems to be a question here, because this text does not appear to apply, in as much as it is preceded by the words: "When Israel was a child, I loved him"; hence, it seems to speak of Israel's call from Egypt. But it must be noted that in all the texts presented in the Old or New Testaments about Christ a certain distinction must be made: because some refer specifically to Christ, as Is (53:7): "He was led as a sheep to the slaughter"; but some are said of certain ones accordingly as they are a figure of Christ, such as the text in question. For they were called sons of Israel, because they possessed a likeness to the true only-begotten Son. And this is the meaning of "Out of Egypt I have called my son," i.e., special.
Tunc Herodes. Hic agitur de interfectione puerorum; et circa hoc duo facit. Primo ponitur occasio interfectionis; secundo ponitur interfectio; ibi et mittens occidit omnes pueros; tertio inducuntur prophetiae, ibi tunc impletum est. (16) Then Herod... Here he tells of the slaughter of the infants. In regard to this he does three things: first, the occasion of the slaughter is mentioned; secondly, the slaying (v. 16b); thirdly, the prophecies are quoted (v. 17).
Occasio fuit ira Herodis: unde tunc Herodes iratus est. Iac. I, 20: ira viri iustitiam Dei non operatur. Et notandum quod quando aliquis rex amissionem regni suspicatur, cito irascitur et accenditur. The occasion was Herod's anger; hence Herod was in a furious rage: "Man's anger does not work the justice of God" (Jas 1:20). And it should be noted that when a king suspects the loss of his kingdom, he quickly becomes inflamed with anger.
Videns quoniam illusus esset a magis, iratus est valde. Et dicitur iratus valde propter duo: quia quando aliquis irascitur, de modica occasione fortiter accenditur. Unde quia in suspicione erat amissionis regni, et illusus fuit a magis, iratus est valde. Eccli. XI, 34: a scintilla una augetur ignis. Et mittens. In ira ista fuit crudelitas quantum ad tria: quantum ad locum, quantum ad multitudinem et quantum ad tempus.
  • Quantum ad multitudinem, ut unum quaereret, omnes occidit. Unde dicitur et mittens occidit omnes pueros. Et nota quod dicit Augustinus quod iste numquam profuisset tantum obsequio, quantum profuit odio. Sed quaeritur, cum non habuerint liberum arbitrium, quomodo dicti sunt mori pro Christo. Sed, sicut dicitur Io. III, 17, non misit Deus filium suum in mundum, ut iudicet mundum, sed ut salvetur mundus per ipsum. Numquam enim Deus permisisset eos occidi, nisi fuisset eis utile. Unde dicit Augustinus quod idem est dubitare utrum profuerit illis ista occisio, quod est dubitare utrum pueris prosit Baptismus: passi sunt enim ut martyres et Christum moriendo confessi sunt, quamvis non loquendo. Apoc. VI, 9: vidi subtus altare animas interfectorum propter verbum Dei.
  • Secunda crudelitas est, quia occidit in omnibus finibus, timebat enim ne fugeret, scilicet ad aliquam civitatem. Et contigit ei sicut bestiae vulneratae, quae non attendit quem vulnerare debeat; Prov. XXVIII, v. 15: leo rugiens, et ursus esuriens, princeps impius super populum pauperem.
  • Tertia quantum ad tempus. Unde a bimatu, idest duorum annorum. Et nota quod Augustinus dicit quod illo anno, quo Christus natus est, innocentes sunt occisi.
Then Herod, seeing that he had been tricked by the wise men, was in a furious rage. He is said to have been in a furious rage for two reasons: because when one is angry, he become furious at the slightest provocation. Hence, because he suspected the loss of his kingdom and had been tricked by the wise men, he went into a furious rage: "From a spark of fire come many burning coals" (Sir 11:32). And he sent... In that fury was cruelty in regard to three things: the place, the multitude and the time.
  • In regard to the multitude, because to find the one he kills all. Hence it says, He sent and killed all the male children. And note that Augustine says: "He would never have benefited them as much by paying homage, as he benefited them by his hatred." But one might ask, since they did not have free will, how they are said to die for Christ? but, as it says in John (3:17): "God did not send his son into the world to judge the world, but that the world be saved by him." For God would never permit them to be killed, unless it were useful for them. Hence Augustine says that it is the same thing to doubt whether their killing profited them as to doubt whether baptism would have profited them: for they suffered as martyrs, and by dying confessed Christ, though not by speech: "I saw under the altar the souls of those slain for the word of God" (Rev 6:9).
  • The second cruelty is that he killed in all that region, for he feared that he might flee to another city. He acted like a wounded beast, which does not care whom it injures: "Like a roaring lion or a charging bear, a wicked ruler over a poor people" (Pr 28:15).
  • The third was in regard to time. Hence those who were two years old and under. And note that Augustine says that "the Innocents were killed in the year Christ was born."
Sed quare dicit a bimatu et infra? Dicunt quidam quod stella apparuit per duos annos ante; unde Herodes dubitabat utrum a tempore stellae natus fuisset. Et ideo dicit secundum tempus quod exquisierat a magis. Alii autem dicunt quod isti non sunt occisi eodem anno, sed post duos annos. Sed quare tantum distulit? Triplex ratio redditur a diversis.
  • Una est, quia a principio putabat quod magi fuissent decepti et quod nihil invenissent, sed postquam audivit multa verba de Christo a Zacharia et Simeone et Anna, tunc motus fuit ad quaerendum.
  • Alii dicunt quod hoc fecit ex cautela: timebat enim ne puerum, quem quaerebat, parentes occultassent. Unde primo voluit eos assecurare.
  • Alii quod occupatione impeditus, quia misit post magos usque ad Tharsum Ciliciae et fecit incendi naves eorum. Item fuit occupatus, quia citatus fuit Romae accusatus a filiis. Et sic post reversionem incepit saevire.
But why does he say from two years old and under? Some say that the star appeared for two years previously. Hence, Herod was not sure that he was not born as soon as the star appeared. Hence, he says, according to the time which he had ascertained from the wise men. But others say that they were not killed in the same year but two years later. But why did he wait so long? Three reasons are given by different persons.
  • One is that in the beginning he thought that the Magi had been deceived and would find nothing, but after he heard many things about Christ from Zechariah and Simeon and Anna, he felt it was necessary to make inquiries.
  • Others say that he did this out of wariness, for he feared that the parents would conceal the child he sought. Hence, at first he wished to follow them.
  • Others say that he was prevented by his business, because he sent after the Magi as far as Tharsus of Cilicia and burned their ships. He was also occupied, because he had been summoned to Rome, where his sons had accused him. And so, after his return he began to vent his rage.
Et dicit et infra etc., quia cogitavit illum esse tantae potentiae, quod posset commutare faciem suam. He says or under, because he knew that he had such power that he could change his features.
Per istam occisionem significatur occisio martyrum, quia pueri per humilitatem et innocentiam, infra XIX, 14: sinite parvulos, et nolite eos prohibere ad me venire; item infra XVIII, 3: nisi conversi fueritis, et efficiamini sicut parvuli, non intrabitis in regnum caelorum. By that killing is signified the killing of the martyrs, because they were children in humility and innocence: "Suffer the little children to come unto me and forbid them not" (Mt 19:14); likewise below (18:3): "Unless you be converted and become as little children, you shall not enter the kingdom of heaven.
In Bethlehem, et in omnibus finibus eius; quia per totum mundum occiduntur: Act. I, v. 8: eritis mihi testes, scilicet moriendo. Duo anni sunt duplex caritas, Dei et proximi, quia fides sine operibus mortua est, Iac. c. II, 20. Et nota quod nato Christo, statim persecutio saevit, quia statim quando quis convertitur ad Christum, incipit tentari. Eccli. II, v. 1: fili, accedens ad servitutem Dei, sta in iustitia et in timore, et praepara animam tuam ad tentationem. In Bethlehem and in all that region, because they are killed through the whole world: "You will be witnesses to me," namely, by dying (Acts 1:8). The two years are the two loves—of God and of neighbor, because "faith without works is dead" (Jas 2:20). And note that after Christ was born, a persecution at once rages: because as soon as one is converted to Christ, he begins to be tempted: "Son, coming to the service of God, stand in justice and in fear, and prepare your soul for temptation" (Sir 2:1).
Tunc impletum est quod dictum est per Ieremiam prophetam. Posita occisione puerorum, hic more suo Evangelista prophetiam annuntiantem ponit, quae est Ier. c. XXXI, 15: vox in Rama audita est, lamentationis, luctus et fletus, Rachel plorantis filios suos, et nolentis consolari super eis, quia non sunt. Et notandum quod, sicut dicit Hieronymus, ubicumque per apostolos et Evangelistas introducitur aliqua auctoritas veteris testamenti, non oportet introducere verbum ex verbo semper, sed sicut dedit eis spiritus sanctus, aliquando sensum ex sensu in usu nostro. Ita habemus Ier. XXXI, 15: vox in excelsis audita est lamentationis, luctus et fletus, Rachel plorantis filios suos, et nolentis consolari super eis, quia non sunt. Et sensus idem est. (27) Then was fulfilled what was spoken by the prophet Jeremiah. Having mentioned the slaughter of the infants, the evangelist according to custom now mentions the prophecy foretelling this: (28) A voice was heard in Ramah, wailing and loud lamentation, Rachel weeping for her children; she refused to be consoled, because they were not (Jer 31:15). And it should be noted that, as Jerome says, wherever any text is introduced by the apostles and evangelists, it is not necessary to present it always word for word, but as the Holy Spirit gave it to them, sometimes sense for sense in our use. Thus we have in Jeremiah (31:15): "A voice is heard on high of lamentation and weeping and mourning. Rachael is weeping for her children; she refuses to be comforted for her children, because they are not." The sense is the same.
Et considerandum quod, quantum ad hanc auctoritatem pertinet, ista est una de illis quae introducuntur in Evangelio, quae tamen sensum litteralem habet, qui est figura eius, quod fuit in novo testamento. Unde ad intellectum eius consideranda est quaedam historia, quae legitur Iudicum XIX ubi dicitur quod propter peccatum commissum circa uxorem Levitae fere tota tribus Beniamin extincta est; et dicitur quod ibi fuit maximus planctus, ita quod fuit auditus de Gabaa usque in Rama longe a Bethlehem per duodecim miliaria. Hoc dicitur Rachel plorare, quia mater fuit Beniamin; et est locutio figurativa, scilicet ad exprimendum magnitudinem doloris. Sed haec est prophetia de praeterito. Alio modo est de futuro dupliciter. Quia uno modo potest referri ad captivitatem Israel, qui quando in captivitatem ducebantur, dicuntur in via iuxta Bethlehem plorasse; et tunc dicitur Rachel plorasse, quia sepulta erat ibi, Gen. XXXV, 19. Et dicitur hoc eodem modo loquendi quo locus dicitur plorare mala quae in loco accidunt. Vult ergo dicere propheta quod sicut maximus dolor et luctus fuit, quando extincta est tribus Beniamin, ita futurus est maximus alius tempore captivitatis. Tertio modo exponitur sic. Evangelista assumit factum de occisione innocentum et exaggerat istum dolorem quadrupliciter. Ex diffusione doloris, ex multitudine doloris, ex materia, et inconsolabilitate. We should notice that as far as this text is concerned, it is one of those which are brought into the gospel, but which has a literal sense that is a figure of something in the New Testament. Hence, to understand it one must consider a bit of history, which is recorded in Judges, where it says that almost the whole tribe of Benjamin was wiped out on account of a sin committed against the wife of a Levite. It also states that there was greatest mourning there, so great, indeed, that it was heard from Gabsa to Ramah, a distance of 12,000 paces. Rachel is said to mourn this, because she was the mother of Benjamin; and it is a figure of speech used to express how great was the pain. But this is a prophecy about the past. In another way it is about the future in two ways: in one way it can refer to the captivity of Israel who, when they were led into captivity, are said to have wept on the road near Bethlehem; and then Rachel is said to have mourned, because she had been buried there (Gen 35:19). And this is said in the same manner of speaking as a place is said to weep over the evils which happen in the place. The prophet, therefore, desires to say that just as there was the greatest pain and grief when the tribe of Benjamin was destroyed, so in the future would be another excruciating pain in the time of the captivity. It is explained in a second way thus: the evangelist accepts the fact of the killing of the Innocents and amplifies the pain in four ways: first, from its extent; secondly, from the amount; thirdly, what the pain concerned; fourthly, its inconsolability.
Dicit ergo: vox in Rama. Quaedam civitas est in tribu Beniamin, Iosue XVIII, 25, et potest accipi pro civitate Liae. Hic autem accipitur pro excelso; et potest dupliciter exponi. Primo sic: vox, in excelso prolata, audita est, quia vox quae in loco alto est, longe lateque diffunditur; Is. XL, 9: supra montem excelsum ascende tu qui evangelizas Sion, exalta in fortitudine vocem tuam. Vel audita est in excelso, idest in caelo apud Deum; Eccli. XXXV, 21: oratio humiliantis se nubes penetrabit, et donec propinquet, non consolabitur, et non discedet donec altissimus aspiciat. Et iterum: nonne lacrimae viduae ad maxillam descendunt, et exclamatio eius super deducentes eas? Ploratus: hoc potest referri ad fletum infantium occisorum. He says, therefore: A voice in Ramah. This is a city in the tribe of Benjamin (Jos 18:25) and can be taken as the city of Liah. But here it is taken for the heights and can be interpreted in two ways: first, a voice uttered on high was heard, because a voice in a lofty place is spread far and wide: "Go up in a high mountain, O Zion, herald of good tidings; lift up your voice with strength" (Is 40:9). Or was heard in Ramah, i.e., in heaven before God (Sir 35:21): "The prayer of the humble pierces the clouds, and he will not be consoled until it reaches the Lord"; "Do not the tears of the widow run down her cheek, as she cries out against him who has caused them to fall?" (Sir 35:15).
Et ululatus multus; hoc ad matrum ploratus. Vel utrumque ad pueros: ploratus inquantum elevabantur a militibus, ululatus inquantum iugulabantur. Maior est dolor matrum, quam filiorum. Item matrum erat dolor assiduus, puerorum fuit brevis: propter quod dicit Zach. XII, 10: plangent eum quasi super unigenitum, et dolebunt super eum, ut doleri solet in morte primogeniti. Item ex materia doloris, quia de morte filiorum. Unde Rachel plorat. Sed obiicitur, quia Bethlehem non erat in tribu Beniamin, sed in tribu Iuda, qui fuit filius Liae. Wailing: This can refer to the weeping of the infants who were slaughtered. And loud lamentation: This refers to the weeping of the mothers. Or both can refer to the infants: wailing, in as much as they were lifted up by the soldiers; lamentations, in as much as they were slain. The pain of the mothers is greater than that of the infants. Again, the mothers' pain was continual, that of the infants, brief. For this reason Zechariah (12:10) says: "They shall mourn for him, as one mourns for an only child, and weep bitterly over him, as one weeps over a first-born." Also from the source of the pain, because it was concerned with the death of the infants. Hence, Rachel laments. But it might be objected that Bethlehem was not in the tribe of Benjamin but in the tribe of Judah, who was Liah's son.
Et solvitur tripliciter. Primo, quia Rachel sepulta fuit iuxta Bethlehem, Gen. XXXV, 19. Et ita ploravit pueros eo modo, quo aliquis locus dicitur plorare; Ier. II, 12: obstupescite, caeli, super hoc, et portae eius, desolamini vehementer, dicit dominus. Vel aliter. Supra habitum est quod Herodes occidit pueros in Bethlehem, et in omnibus finibus eius et cetera. Bethlehem autem erat in confinio duarum tribuum, scilicet Iudae et Beniamin; unde de pueris Beniamin occisi sunt: et sic cessat obiectio, sicut exponit Hieronymus. Augustinus autem aliter exponit et dicit quod consuetudo est quod quando alicui aliqua prospera succedunt, ille, quando adversitates veniunt, magis dolet. Lia et Rachel sorores fuerunt, et isti qui occisi sunt fuerunt de filiis Liae. Et sic corporaliter occisi sunt, ne aeternaliter punirentur, ut in facto Gabaa. Dicitur ergo plorare videns filios suos occidi et damnari. Vel per Rachel Ecclesia signatur, quia interpretatur videns Deum, et Ecclesia per fidem videt: quae plorat filios suos occisos, non quia occisi sunt, sed quia per ipsos poterat alios acquirere. Vel non plorat propter occisos, sed propter occidentes. This is answered in three ways: first, because Rachel was buried near Bethlehem (Gen 35:19). Accordingly, she wept for the infants in the way in which any place is said to weep: "Be appalled, O heavens, at this, be shocked, be utterly desolate, says the Lord" (Jer 2:12). Or in another way: it was stated above that Herod killed the infants in Bethlehem and in all its surrounding territory. But Bethlehem lay within the confines of two tribes, namely, Judah and Benjamin. Hence, some infants from the tribe of Benjamin were killed. Thus the objection ceases, as Jerome explains. But Augustine explains it another way and says that it is customary, when one is habituated to prosperity, that he becomes sadder when adversities come. Liah and Rachel were sisters, and the ones killed were among the children of Liah. Thus they were killed bodily, lest they be punished eternally, as in the case of Gabaa. Therefore, she is said to weep, when she sees her children killed or damned. Or the Church is signified by Rachel, because it means "seeing God," and the Church sees by faith. She weeps over her slain children, not because they were slain, but because through them she could obtain others. Or she weeps not for the slain but for the slayers.
Sequitur de inconsolabilitate doloris: et noluit. Et exponitur illud multipliciter. Primo ut referatur ad populum, qui tunc erat. Consolatio enim debetur quamdiu speratur aliquod remedium; sed quando non speratur, non est consolatio, sicut patet in infirmo desperato; et ideo dicit, ut referatur ad opinionem matrum, quia non sunt, quia scilicet non apparent; Gen. XXXVII, 30: puer non comparet. Vel noluit consolari, quia non sunt, idest ac si non essent: consolatio enim non debetur nisi de malis. Unde secundum hoc refertur ad opinionem Ecclesiae, quae habet eos tamquam regnarent; unde, sicut de regnantibus, gaudet de eis, I Thess. IV, v. 12: nolumus vos ignorare de dormientibus, ut non contristemini, sicut et ceteri qui spem non habent vel noluit consolari de praesenti, sed expectat consolationem in futuro; infra V, 5: beati qui lugent, quoniam ipsi consolabuntur. Then he mentions the inconsolable pain: she refused... This is explained in a number of ways: first, as referring to the people who existed then. For consolation should be forthcoming, as long as a remedy is hoped for; but when there is no hope for it, there is no consolation, as in the case of the hopelessly infirm. Therefore, he says in regard to the mothers' opinion, because they were no more, i.e., no longer visible: "The lad is gone" (Gen 37:30). --- Or she refused to be consoled, because they were no more, i.e., as if they were no more: for consolation is expected only for evil things. Hence, according to this it is referred to the opinion of the Church, which regards them as reigning; hence, it rejoices over them as reigning: "But we would not have you ignorant, brethren, concerning those who are asleep, that you may not grieve as others do who have no hope" (1 Thes 4:13). --- Or she refused to be consoled at present but awaited consolation in the future: "Blessed are they that mourn, for they shall be comforted" (Mt 5:5).
Consequenter agitur de revocatione Christi; unde defuncto Herode, ecce Angelus domini apparuit in somnis Ioseph. Et primo ponitur apparitio Angeli; secundo mandatum Angeli; tertio executio mandati Angeli. (19) Then he deals with Christ's being called back; hence, when Herod died, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared in a dream to Joseph. First, he mentions that the angel appeared; secondly, the angel's command; thirdly, the execution of the angel's command.
Circa primum tria ponuntur. Primo describitur tempus; secundo persona; tertio modus apparitionis. In regard to the first, three things are done: first, the time is described; secondly, the person; thirdly, the manner of the appearance.
Dicit ergo defuncto Herode: non ille qui fuit in morte Christi, quia ille fuit filius istius. Ecce Angelus apparuit. He says, therefore, But when Herod died: not the one involved in Christ's death, because that was his son; behold an angel appeared.
Notandum quod omnis turbatio Ecclesiae secundum mysterium terminatur per mortem persecutorum quia in perditione impii erit laudatio Prov. XI, 10. Item nota quod infidelitate Iudaeorum terminata, Christus redibit ad eos. Rom. XI, 26: et tunc omnis Israel salvus fiet. It should be noted that all trouble in the Church is terminated by the death of the persecutors: "When the wicked perish, there are shouts of gladness" (Pr 11:10). Note, also, that when the unbelief of the Jews has ended, Christ will return to them: "And then all Israel will be saved" (Rom 11:26).
Ecce (...) apparuit. Notandum quod talis est ordo Angelorum et hominum, ut divinae illuminationes non fiant nobis nisi per Angelos; ad Hebr. I, 14: omnes sunt administratorii spiritus in ministerium missi propter eos qui haereditatem capiunt salutis. Unde etiam Christus secundum quod homo, voluit per Angelos nuntiari. Behold... appeared. It should be noted that the order between men and angels is such that divine illuminations are produced in us only by angels: "Are they not administering spirits sent forth to serve for the sake of those who are to obtain salvation?" (Hab 1:14). Hence, even Christ as man willed to be announced by angels.
Modus, ibi in somnis Ioseph in Aegypto. The manner: in a dream to Joseph in Egypt.
Mandatum, ibi surge, et accipe puerum. Non dicit filium, non coniugem, sed puerum, ut designetur dignitas pueri, et integritas matris. In hoc significatur, quod Ioseph non fuit ei datus ad carnalem copulam, sed ad ministerium et custodiam. Consequenter assignat causam defuncti sunt enim qui quaerebant animam pueri. (20) The command: Rise, take the child and his mother. He does not say, "son" or "wife", but child, in order to designate the dignity of the child and the purity of the mother. In this is shown that Joseph was not given to her for the purpose of carnal intercourse but to minister and guard. And he assigns the cause: for those who sought the child's life are dead.
Sed quaeritur, quare dicit sunt. Non enim nisi Herodes mortuus erat. Hoc solvitur dupliciter.
  • Primo quia iste tot mala fecerat, quod Iudaei gaudebant de morte eius: qui praesentiens mandavit adhuc vivens sorori suae, quod nobiliores de Iudaeis interficeret in morte sua; et isti quaesiverant animam pueri cum Herode; et hoc est defuncti sunt enim qui quaerebant animam pueri.
  • Vel aliter. Mos est sacrae Scripturae ponere plurale pro singulari: unde mortui sunt, idest mortuus est et cetera. Unde in hoc quod dicit qui quaerebant animam pueri, destruitur error Apollinaris, qui dixit, quod divinitas erat in Christo loco animae.
But one might ask why he says, are, for Herod alone had died. This is answered in two ways:
  • first, because he had done so much evil that the Jews rejoiced in his death. When he had a foreboding of his death, he commanded his sister to kill the nobler Jews when he died. These had sought the life of the child with Herod: for those who sought the child's life are dead.
  • Or another way: It is the custom of Sacred Scripture to use the plural for the singular: hence, they are dead, i.e. he is dead. Hence, the statement that those who sought the child's life destroys Apollinaris' error, that the godhead was in Christ in place of a soul.
Ponitur executio huius mandati qui consurgens, accepit puerum et matrem eius; et circa hoc duo facit: primo ostendit quomodo reversus est in terram Israel; secundo quam partem vitavit; tertio qua parte declinavit, ibi et admonitus in somnis secessit in partes Galilaeae. Dicit ergo qui consurgens. Notandum, quod Angelus non dixit vade in terram Iuda, vel in Ierusalem, sed universaliter in terram Israel, sub qua etiam Galilaea potest comprehendi. Unde potest dici, quod Ioseph intravit fines terrae, quam habitabat Iudas. (21) Then he mentions the execution of the command: and he rose and took the child and his mother. In regard to this he does three things: first, he shows how he returned to the land of Israel (v. 21); secondly, the section he avoided (v. 22); thirdly, the section he chose (v. 22b). He says, therefore, and he rose. Note that the angel did not say: "Go into the land of Judah," or "into Jerusalem," but universally, to the land of Israel, under which even Galilee can be included. Hence, it can be said that Joseph entered the boundaries of the land which Judah inhabited.
Consequenter ponitur quam partem vitavit, ibi audiens autem quod Archelaus regnaret in Iudaea. Et notanda est hic historia Herodis. Iste Herodes habuit sex filios, et ante mortem suam occidit Alexandrum et Aristobolum; in morte autem sua mandavit ut occideretur Antipater. Unde tres remanserunt, inter quos Archelaus primogenitus fuit, et usurpavit sibi regnum; sed tandem accusatus a Iudaeis apud Caesarem Augustum, ablatum fuit ei regnum et divisum fuit in quatuor partes, et duas habuit Archelaus, duas alias alii diviserunt sibi, ita quod unam tetrarchiam habuit Herodes, aliam Philippus, sicut habetur Lc. III, v. 1. Iste Archelaus missus est in exilium post novem annos regni sui. (22) Then he mentions the area he avoided: when he heard that Archelaus reigned in Judea. Here the history of Herod should be noted. For he had six sons, and before his death he killed Alexander and Aristobulus; at his death he commanded that Antipater be killed. Thus three remained, among whom Archelaus was the firstborn and usurped the kingdom; but he was later accused before Caesar Augustus by the Jews and his kingdom was taken away. It was then divided into four parts. Two were given to Archelaus and one each to Herod and Philip, as Luke (3:1) says. Archelaus himself was sent into exile after reigning for nine years.
Et admonitus in somnis. Dixerat primo Angelus, quod iret ad terram Israel; sed quia Ioseph nondum intellexerat, ideo Angelus, qui prius indeterminate revelaverat, nunc determinat. Et hoc est et admonitus (...) secessit in partes Galilaeae. Being warned in a dream. First the angel had said that he should go to the land of Israel, but because Joseph had not yet understood, the angel's message made explicit what was previously implicit. And this is indicated, when he says, being warned in a dream, he withdrew to the district of Galilee.
Sed contra. Sicut Archelaus in Iudaea, ita Herodes in Galilaea regnabat. Sed dicendum, quod hoc fuit statim post mortem Herodis, quando Archelaus tenebat totum, quia postmodum facta est divisio. Sed tunc etiam quaeritur, quare non timuit Archelaum. Dicendum, quod in Ierusalem erat sedes regni; unde ibi quasi semper morabatur. Sed quaeritur, quare Luc. II, 41 dicitur quod singulis annis ducebant puerum in Ierusalem. Et solvit Augustinus, quod secure ducebant per turbam magnam, quae tunc ascendebat; sed periculum fuisset si ibi diu moratus fuisset. Item quaeritur, quare innuit Evangelista quod quasi per accidens venit Ioseph in Nazareth, sed Lc. II, 39 dicitur quod in Nazareth habuit proprium domicilium. Sed dicendum, quod Angelus dixerat ei, quod iret in terram Israel, quae stricte accepta non continebat Galilaeam, nec Nazareth: et sic intellexit Ioseph; et ideo non proponebat ire in Nazareth. But on the other hand, just as Archelaus ruled in Judea, so Philip in Galilee. But one must answer that this was immediately after the death of Herod, when Archelaus had the entire kingdom, because the division was made later. But then why did he not fear Archelaus? The answer is that Jerusalem was the seat of the kingdom; hence, he practically stayed there always. But why does Luke (2:41) state that they brought the child to Jerusalem every year? Augustine answers that it was safe to bring him on account of the vast throng that came there at that time; but it would have been dangerous, if he had tarried there for a long time. But why does the evangelist suggest that it was by accident that Joseph came to Nazareth, whereas Luke (2:39) says that he had his personal domicile in Nazareth. The answer is that the angel had told him to go into the land of Israel which, strictly speaking, did not include Galilee or Nazareth. That is the way Joseph understood it; therefore, he made no decision to go to Nazareth.
Ut adimpleretur quod dictum est per prophetam: quoniam Nazaraeus vocabitur. Hoc non invenitur scriptum, sed potest dici, quod ex multis locis colligitur. Nazarenus igitur interpretatur sanctus: et quia Christus dicitur sanctus; Dan. IX, 24: donec ungatur sanctus; ideo signanter dicitur per prophetam. Vel potest dici, quod per Nazarenum interpretatur floridus; et hoc habetur Is. XI, 1: egredietur virga de radice Iesse, et flos de radice eius ascendet etc.; et convenit cum eo, quod dicitur Cant. II, 1: ego flos campi et lilium convallium. (23) That what was spoken by the prophet might be fulfilled, "He shall be called a Nazarene." This is not found written, but it can be said that it was gathered from many passages. For Nazarene means holy; and because Christ is called holy: "Until the holy one is anointed" (Dan 9:24), therefore, he is said to be so called by the prophet. Or it can be said that by Nazarene is meant abounding with flowers, as in Is (11:1): "There shall come forth a shoot from the stump of Jesse and a flower shall grow out of his roots." This agrees with Song of Songs (2:1): "I am a rose of Sharon, a lily of the valleys."

Liber 3
Lectio 1
Reportatio Petri de Andria
3—1
Mt 3:1-12
1 ἐν δὲ ταῖς ἡμέραις ἐκείναις παραγίνεται ἰωάννης ὁ βαπτιστὴς κηρύσσων ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ τῆς ἰουδαίας 2 [καὶ] λέγων, μετανοεῖτε, ἤγγικεν γὰρ ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν. 3 οὗτος γάρ ἐστιν ὁ ῥηθεὶς διὰ ἠσαΐου τοῦ προφήτου λέγοντος, φωνὴ βοῶντος ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ, ἑτοιμάσατε τὴν ὁδὸν κυρίου, εὐθείας ποιεῖτε τὰς τρίβους αὐτοῦ. 4 αὐτὸς δὲ ὁ ἰωάννης εἶχεν τὸ ἔνδυμα αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ τριχῶν καμήλου καὶ ζώνην δερματίνην περὶ τὴν ὀσφὺν αὐτοῦ, ἡ δὲ τροφὴ ἦν αὐτοῦ ἀκρίδες καὶ μέλι ἄγριον. 5 τότε ἐξεπορεύετο πρὸς αὐτὸν ἱεροσόλυμα καὶ πᾶσα ἡ ἰουδαία καὶ πᾶσα ἡ περίχωρος τοῦ ἰορδάνου, 6 καὶ ἐβαπτίζοντο ἐν τῷ ἰορδάνῃ ποταμῷ ὑπ' αὐτοῦ ἐξομολογούμενοι τὰς ἁμαρτίας αὐτῶν. 7 ἰδὼν δὲ πολλοὺς τῶν φαρισαίων καὶ σαδδουκαίων ἐρχομένους ἐπὶ τὸ βάπτισμα αὐτοῦ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς, γεννήματα ἐχιδνῶν, τίς ὑπέδειξεν ὑμῖν φυγεῖν ἀπὸ τῆς μελλούσης ὀργῆσ; 8 ποιήσατε οὖν καρπὸν ἄξιον τῆς μετανοίας: 9 καὶ μὴ δόξητε λέγειν ἐν ἑαυτοῖς, πατέρα ἔχομεν τὸν ἀβραάμ, λέγω γὰρ ὑμῖν ὅτι δύναται ὁ θεὸς ἐκ τῶν λίθων τούτων ἐγεῖραι τέκνα τῷ ἀβραάμ. 10 ἤδη δὲ ἡ ἀξίνη πρὸς τὴν ῥίζαν τῶν δένδρων κεῖται: πᾶν οὖν δένδρον μὴ ποιοῦν καρπὸν καλὸν ἐκκόπτεται καὶ εἰς πῦρ βάλλεται. 11 ἐγὼ μὲν ὑμᾶς βαπτίζω ἐν ὕδατι εἰς μετάνοιαν: ὁ δὲ ὀπίσω μου ἐρχόμενος ἰσχυρότερός μού ἐστιν, οὗ οὐκ εἰμὶ ἱκανὸς τὰ ὑποδήματα βαστάσαι: αὐτὸς ὑμᾶς βαπτίσει ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ καὶ πυρί: 12 οὗ τὸ πτύον ἐν τῇ χειρὶ αὐτοῦ, καὶ διακαθαριεῖ τὴν ἅλωνα αὐτοῦ, καὶ συνάξει τὸν σῖτον αὐτοῦ εἰς τὴν ἀποθήκην, τὸ δὲ ἄχυρον κατακαύσει πυρὶ ἀσβέστῳ.
1. And in those days cometh John the Baptist preaching in the desert of Judea. 2. And saying: Do penance: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. 3. For this is he that was spoken of by Isaias the prophet, saying: A voice of one crying in the desert, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make straight his paths. 4. And the same John had his garment of camel's hair, and a leathern girdle about his loins: and his meat was locusts and wild honey. 5. Then went out to him Jerusalem and all Judea, and all the country about Jordan: 6. And were baptized by him in the Jordan, confessing their sins. 7. And seeing many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his baptism, he said to them: Ye brood of vipers, who hath shewed you to flee from the wrath to come? 8. Bring forth therefore fruit worthy of penance. 9. And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham for our father. For I tell you that God is able of these stones to raise up children to Abraham. 10. For now the axe is laid to the root of the trees. Every tree therefore that doth not yield good fruit, shall be cut down, and cast into the fire. 11. I indeed baptize you in water unto penance, but he that shall come after me, is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you in the Holy Ghost and fire. 12. Whose fan is in his hand, and he will thoroughly cleanse his floor and gather his wheat into the barn; but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire.
Supra egit Evangelista de ingressu Christi in mundum; nunc autem agit de eius processu, qui quidem est attendendus secundum processum suae doctrinae: ad hoc enim venit, Io. XVIII, 37. Circa doctrinam autem duo considerantur. Primo enim ponitur praeparatio ad doctrinam; secundo ponitur ipsa doctrina cap. V. The evangelist dealt above with Christ's entry into the world; now he deals with the spread of his teaching, for he came for this purpose (Jn 18:37). In regard to his teaching two things are considered: first, the preparation for teaching is mentioned: secondly, the teaching itself (ch. 5).
Ad doctorem autem evangelicae doctrinae duo requiruntur. Primo ut sit velatus sacris mysteriis; secundo ut probatus sit virtutibus: et sic duo praemittuntur ante doctrinam, scilicet Baptismus eius, et tentatio cap. IV. In a teacher of the Gospel two things are required: first that he be surrounded with sacred mysteries; secondly, that he be of proven virtue: thus two things are mentioned before the teaching, namely, his baptism and temptation (ch. 4).
Circa primum duo facit. Primo introducitur Ioannis Baptismus, ibi exibat ad eum Ierosolyma; secundo instructio baptizatorum, ibi videns autem multos. Invitantur autem dupliciter a Ioanne, scilicet verbo et exemplo. Secundum ibi ipse autem Ioannes habebat vestimentum de pilis camelorum et cetera. In regard to the first he does two things: first, John's baptism is introduced (v. 5); secondly, the instruction of the baptized (v. 7). They are invited in two ways by John; namely, by word and by example (v. 4).
Circa doctrinam Ioannis tria facit, sive tanguntur. Primo persona doctoris introducitur; secundo ponitur doctrina; tertio confirmatio. Secundum ibi poenitentiam agite; tertium ibi hic est enim de quo dictum est. In regard to John's teaching he does three things: first, the person of the teacher is introduced; secondly, the teaching is presented (v. 2); thirdly, its authenticity (v. 3).
Circa personam quinque ponuntur, scilicet tempus, persona, officium, studium, et locus.
  • Primum ibi in diebus illis et cetera. Et notandum quod tempus praedicationis Lucas describit per principes reipublicae et Iudaeorum. Illud ergo quod dicit Lucas, exprimitur hic, cum dicit in diebus illis. Nec debet hoc referri ad dies, de quibus facta est mentio, scilicet ad tempus infantiae Christi; non enim est intelligendum hoc fuisse in diebus illis, in quibus Christus reversus est de Aegypto. Sed hoc sic ponitur, quia Christus habitavit continue in Nazareth; Luc. II, 40: puer autem crescebat, et confortabatur plenus sapientia, et gratia Dei erat in illo.
  • Secundo ponitur persona, ibi venit Ioannes; venit, idest apparuit, qui primo occultus erat. Hic est de quo Io. I, 7: hic venit in testimonium, ut testimonium perhiberet de lumine. Sed quare Christus voluit eius testimonium, cum haberet testimonium operum? Dicendum quod propter tria.
    • Primo propter nos qui ducimur in cognitionem spiritualium per ea quae sunt similia nobis; Io. I, 7: hic venit ut testimonium perhiberet de lumine. Et quare? Ut omnes crederent per illum.
    • Secundo propter malitiam Iudaeorum, quia non solum Christus sibi testimonium perhibet, secundum quod ipsi dicebant, Io. VIII, 13: tu de teipso testimonium perhibes, sed etiam alius; Io. V, 33: vos misistis ad Ioannem, et testimonium perhibuit veritati.
    • Tertio ad ostendendum aequalitatem Christi ad patrem, quia sicut pater praenuntios habuit, scilicet prophetas, ita Christus; Luc. I, 76: tu, puer, propheta altissimi vocaberis: praeibis enim ante faciem domini parare vias eius.
  • Tertio ponitur officium baptizandi. Hoc fuit speciale eius officium, quia primus baptizavit, et fuit eius Baptismus praeparatorius ad Baptismum Christi: quia si Christus novum ritum adiunxisset, statim potuissent homines scandalizari. Et ideo praevenit Ioannes ut praepararet homines ad Baptismum; Io. I, 31: ut manifestetur in Israel.
  • Quarto ponitur studium, quia venit, ut diligenter praedicaret. Et hoc est praedicans Baptismum. Christus quidem baptizaturus ista adiunxit, Matth. ult., 19: ite, docete omnes gentes, baptizantes eos in nomine patris, et filii, et spiritus sancti. Ioannes autem in utroque praeparavit viam. Et notandum quod Ioannes in trigesimo anno hoc fecit, in qua aetate David etiam factus est rex, et Ioseph gubernacula regni Aegypti suscepit, Gen. XLI, 46. Per quod datur intelligi, quod ad nullum officium debet aliquis assumi ante perfectam aetatem.
  • Quinto ponitur locus in deserto. Praedicavit autem in deserto propter quatuor. Primo ut quietius audirent: in civitate enim multi curiosi impedientes convenissent, sed in deserto non nisi studiosi ibant; Eccle. XII, 11: verba sapientium sicut stimuli, et quasi clavi in altum defixi, quae per magistrorum consilium data sunt a pastore uno. Secundo quia congruebat suae praedicationi; quia ipse poenitentiam praedicabat. Talis autem debet esse locus poenitentiae, vel corporaliter, vel mentaliter; Ps. LIV, 8: ecce elongavi fugiens, et mansi in solitudine. Tertio ad designandam conditionem Ecclesiae, quae per desertum significatur: datur enim intelligi, quod non est in synagoga praedicatio salutis, sed in Ecclesia; Is. LIV, 1: laetare, sterilis, quae non paris; decanta laudem, et, hinni, quae non pariebas, quoniam multi filii desertae, magis quam eius quae habebat virum, dicit dominus. Quarto ad designandam conditionem Iudaeae, quae iam derelinquebatur a Deo; inf. XXIII, 38: ecce relinquetur vobis domus vestra deserta.
In regard to the person five things are presented; namely, the time, the person, the office, the dedication and the place.
  • (1) The first is presented at In those days. And it should be noted that Luke describes the time of preaching in relation to the heads of the republic and of the Jews. Therefore, what Luke says is expressed here, when it says, In those days. This does not refer to the days already mentioned, namely, the time of Christ's infancy. For this does not refer to those days when Christ returned from Egypt. But this is mentioned in this way, because Christ continually lived in Nazareth: "The child grew and became strong, filled with wisdom, and the favor of God was upon him" (Lk 2:40).
  • Secondly, the person is mentioned, In those days came John: he came, i.e., appeared, for he had been previously hidden: "He came for testimony, to bear witness to the light" (Jn 1:7). But why did Christ wish his testimony, when he had the testimony of works? The answer gives three reasons:
    • first, for our sake, who are led to a knowledge of spiritual things by means of things that are like us: "He came for testimony, to bear testimony to the light" (Jn 1:7). And why? "that all might believe through him."
    • Secondly, on account of the malice of the Jews, because not only Christ gives testimony of himself, as they said: "You give testimony of yourself" (Jn 3:26), but so did another: "You sent to John and he has borne witness to the truth" (Jn 5:33).
    • Thirdly, he mentions his office of baptizing. This was his special office, because he baptized first, and his baptism was a preparation for that of Christ; because if Christ had introduced a new rite, men might be immediately scandalized. Therefore, John came first and prepared men for baptism: "That he might be revealed to Israel" (Jn 1:31).
  • Fourthly, his main interest is mentioned, because he came to preach diligently, i.e., to preach baptism. When Christ baptized, he joined the two: "Go, teach all nations, baptizing them..." (Mt 27:19). But John prepared the way for both, i.e. the preaching and the baptism. It should be noted that John did this in his thirty-third year, the age at which David was made king and Joseph began to exercise power in Egypt (Gen 41:46). This gives us to understand that no one should be elevated to any office, before he reaches the perfect age.
  • Fifthly, the place is mentioned, in the desert. Now he preached in the desert for four reasons: first, that they might hear him more calmly, for in the city many of the curious would have come and been obstacles, but in the desert only those desirous of learning came: "The sayings of the wise are like goads, and like nails firmly fixed are the collected sayings given by one Shepherd" (Ec 12:11). Secondly, because they suited his preaching, because he preached penance. Such should be a place of penance either bodily or spiritually: "Yes, I would wander afar, I would lodge in the wilderness" (Ps 55:7). Thirdly, to indicate the condition of the Church, which is signified by the desert, for it is given to be understood that it is not in the synagogue but in the Church that salvation is preached: "Sing, O barren one, who did not bear; break forth into singing and cry aloud, you that have not been in travail. For the children of the desolate one will be more than the children of her that is married, says the Lord" (Is 54:1). Fourthly, to designate the condition of Judea, which had already been abandoned by God: "Behold, your house is forsaken and desolate" (Mt 23:38).
Sequitur poenitentiam agite et cetera. Ioannes annuntiat quamdam novam vitam, sicut dicit Augustinus in libro de poenitentia: nullus qui suae voluntatis arbiter constituitur, potest novam vitam inchoare, nisi poeniteat veteris vitae. Quaere in Glossa. Et ideo primo monet ad poenitentiam; secundo annuntiat salutem, ibi appropinquabit enim regnum caelorum. Item poenitentiam agite, per quam est remissio peccatorum. Chrysostomus: nato filio Dei, Deus misit praeconem in mundum. Et notandum quod aliud est poenitentiam agere et poenitere. Ille poenitet qui peccata deflet, et flenda non committit. Et sciendum, quod totum refertur ad propositum mentis, ut scilicet dicatur et flenda non committit, idest, proponit non committere: hoc enim requirit poenitentia. Poenitentiam autem agere est satisfacere pro peccatis; Luc. III, 8: facite fructus dignos poenitentiae. (2) He continues with Do penance... John announces a new life, as Augustine says in the book On Penance: "No one who is made arbiter of his own will can begin a new life, unless he repents of his former life." Therefore, first he warns them to repent; secondly, he announces salvation (v. 2). Also, Do penance, by which there is remission of sin: "When the Son of God was born, God sent a preacher into the world" (Chrysostom). But it should be noted that it is one thing to do penance and another to repent. One repents who weeps over his sins and does not commit things over which he should weep. And notice that it all refers to a proposal of the mind, so that it is said: And does not commit things over which he should weep, i.e., proposes not to commit; for penance demands this. But to do penance is to satisfy for sins: "Bring forth fruits worthy of penance" (Lk 3:8).
Et fit hic quaestio. Cum omnia peccata dimittantur in Baptismo, quare Ioannes praenuntians Baptismum Christi, incepit a poenitentia? Et respondetur in Glossa, quod triplex est poenitentia, scilicet ante Baptismum, quia oportet ut doleat de peccatis quando accedit; secunda post Baptismum, de mortalibus; tertia, de venialibus. Hic agitur de poenitentia quae est post Baptismum; unde Petrus dixit Act. II, 38: poenitentiam agite, scilicet ut sitis parati ad salutem consequendam. Appropinquabit. Here a question arises. Since all sins are forgiven in baptism, why does John, when announcing Christ's baptism, begin with penance? The answer in a Gloss states that penance is threefold: namely, before baptism, because one must be sorry for sin, when he comes to baptism; secondly, after baptism, for mortal sins; thirdly, for venial sins. Here he is concerned with penance after baptism; hence, Peter says "Do penance, that you may be prepared for attaining salvation" (Acts 2:38).
Et nota quod numquam in Scriptura veteris testamenti invenitur promissum regnum caelorum; sed primo Ioannes nuntiat, quod pertinet ad dignitatem eius. Regnum autem caelorum in Scriptura quatuor modis accipitur.
  • Quandoque enim dicitur ipse Christus habitans in nobis per gratiam; Luc. XVII, 21: regnum Dei intra vos est. Et dicitur regnum caelorum, quia per inhabitantem gratiam inchoatur nobis via caelestis regni.
  • Secundo, sacra Scriptura; infra XXI, 43: auferetur a vobis regnum Dei, idest sacra Scriptura. Et dicitur regnum, quia lex eius ducit ad regnum.
  • Tertio, dicitur praesens Ecclesia militans; infra XIII, 47: simile est regnum caelorum sagenae missae in mare, et ex omni genere piscium congreganti et cetera. Et dicitur regnum caelorum, quia ad modum caelestis Ecclesiae est institutum.
  • Quarto dicitur regnum caelorum caelestis curia; infra VIII, 11: venient ab oriente, et occidente, et recumbent cum Abraham, et Isaac, et Iacob in regno caelorum. Ante tempus autem Ioannis non fiebat mentio, nisi de regno Iebusaeorum, Ex. III, 8, sed modo promittitur regnum caelorum suae Ecclesiae.
Is at hand. Note that the kingdom of heaven is never found promised in the Old Testament; but John is the first to announce it, and this pertains to his greatness. But the kingdom of heaven is taken in four ways in Scripture.
  • For sometimes it refers to Christ himself dwelling in us by grace: "The kingdom of heaven is within you" (Lk 16:21). He is called the kingdom of heaven, because the road to the heavenly kingdom is begun in us through his indwelling grace.
  • Secondly, Sacred Scripture: "The kingdom of God will be taken away from you" (Mt 21:43). It is called a kingdom, because its law leads to a kingdom.
  • Thirdly, the present Church Militant: "The kingdom of heaven is likened to a net cast into the sea and collecting fish of every kind" (Mt 13:47). It is called a kingdom, because it is established after the manner of the heavenly Church.
  • Fourthly, the heavenly assembly is called the kingdom of heaven: "They shall come from the east and from the west and sit at table with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven" (Mt 8:2). Before the time of John the only kingdom mentioned was that of the Jebusites (Ex 3:8); but now the kingdom of heaven is promised to his Church.
Consequenter ponitur confirmatio huius praedicationis hic est de quo dictum est per Isaiam prophetam et cetera. Et, sicut dicit Augustinus, istud potest dupliciter exponi. Primo quod hoc, scilicet hic est de quo scriptum est, sint verba Evangelistae; et tunc sensus est planior. Secundo, illud introducitur a Matthaeo, velut sint verba Ioannis poenitentiam agentis. Unde hic est, idest ego sum; et loquitur de se sicut de alio, sicut Ioan. I loquitur de alio sicut de se. Sed non est vis cuius sint verba, quia sensum eumdem habent. Hic est ergo de quo scriptum est, Is. XL, 3: vox clamantis in deserto: parate viam domini, rectas facite in solitudine semitas Dei nostri. Tria ponuntur, per quae confirmantur tria praedicta. Primo praenuntiatur locus praedicationis Ioannis, quia vox clamantis in deserto; secundo adventus regni caelorum; unde parate viam. Tertio poenitentiam, ibi rectas facite semitas eius. Dicit ergo vox clamantis in deserto. Et dicit vox propter tria.
  • Primo quia, sicut dicit Gregorius, vox verbum praecedit; et Ioannes Christum. Luc. I, 17: ipse praecedet ante illum in spiritu et virtute Eliae.
  • Secundo, quia per vocem verbum cognoscitur; vox enim verbum deducit in cognitionem, ita Ioannes Christum; Io. I, 31: ut manifestetur in Israel, propterea veni ego in aqua baptizans.
  • Tertio, quia vox sine verbo non facit animi certitudinem; I Cor. XIV, 8: si incertam vocem det tuba, quis parabit se ad bellum?
(3) Then this preaching is confirmed: This is he who was spoken of by the prophet Isaiah... And, as Augustine says, this can be explained in two ways: first, so that the words, This is he who was spoken of, are the words of the evangelist; and then the sense is plainer. Secondly, that they are introduced by Matthew as being the words of John doing penance. Hence, this is he, i.e., "I am"; and he speaks of himself as of another, as John (c. 1) speaks of another as of himself. But it is not important whose words they are, because they have the same sense. He is the one, therefore, of whom it was written, the voice of one crying in the wilderness. Prepare the way of the Lord, make his paths straight. Three facts are presented to support the three details mentioned: first, the place of John's preaching: the voice of one crying in the wilderness; secondly, the coming of the kingdom of heaven: prepare the way; thirdly, penance: make straight his paths. He says this for three reasons:
  • first, because, as Gregory says, "The voice precedes the word and John, Christ: "He will go before him in the spirit and power of Elijah" (Lk 1:17);
  • secondly, because by the voice the word is known: for as the voice brings the word into knowledge, so John, Christ: "For this I came baptizing with water, that he might be revealed in Israel" (Jn 1:31).
  • Thirdly, because the voice without a word does not give certitude to the mind: "If the bugle gives an uncertain sound, who will get ready for battle?" (1 Cor 14:8).
Et revelatio divinorum mysteriorum non facta est per Ioannem, nisi inquantum annuntiavit Christum, sed per Christum verbum; Io. I, 18: unigenitus qui est in sinu patris ipse enarravit. Igitur vox clamantis; et potest intelligi dupliciter. Primo Christi clamantis, qui in Ioanne loquebatur; II ad Cor. XIII, 3: an experimentum quaeritis eius qui in me loquitur Christus? Ita etiam clamavit in omnibus prophetis. Unde semper dicitur: factum est verbum domini ad Ieremiam, vel Isaiam et cetera. Et tamen nullus est dictus vox, quia non immediate praecesserunt Christum; Mal. III, 1: ecce ego mitto Angelum meum qui praeparabit viam ante faciem meam. Et statim veniet ad templum sanctum suum dominator quem vos quaeritis, et Angelus testamenti quem vos vultis. Vel vox clamantis, idest Ioannes clamans. Sciendum quod clamor fit ad surdos, et tales erant Iudaei; Is. XLII, 18: surdi, audite, et caeci, intuemini ad videndum. Quis caecus, nisi servus meus, et quis surdus, nisi ad quem nuntios meos misi? Secundo ex indignatione; Ps. CV, 40: iratus est furore dominus in populum suum, et abominatus est haereditatem suam. Tertio ad distantes: et isti elongati a Deo. And the revelation of divine mysteries was not made by John, except in so far as he announced Christ; but through Christ was the word: "The only begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made him known" (Jn 1:18). Therefore, the voice of one crying... This can be understood in two ways: first, of Christ crying: "Since you desire proof that Christ is speaking in me" (2 Cor 13:3). This is the way he cried in all the prophets. Hence, it always says: "The word of the Lord was made to Jeremiah or Isaiah, etc." Yet none is called a voice, because they did not immediately precede Christ: "Behold, I sent my messenger to prepare a way before me, and the Lord whom you seek will suddenly come to his temple; the messenger of the covenant in whom you delight" (Mal 3:1). Or the voice of one crying, i.e. John shouting. It should be noted that a shout is made to the deaf: "Hear, you deaf; and look, you blind, that you may see. Who is blind but my servant, or deaf as my messenger whom I sent?" (Is 42:18) Secondly, from indignation: "Then the anger of the Lord was kindled against his people, and he abhorred his heritage" (Ps 106:40). Thirdly, to those who are distant; and they were far from God.
Parate viam domini. Et videtur magis fuisse consonum quod dixisset parate viam vestram ad suscipiendum dominum. Et sciendum quod nos adeo eramus infirmi, quod non poteramus accedere ad dominum, nisi ipse veniret ad nos. Et ideo supra dixit Ioannes appropinquabit enim regnum caelorum: et hoc est parate. Sed quae est ista via? Fides quae est per auditum; Eph. III, 17: habitare Christum per fidem in cordibus vestris. Gregorius: via fidei devotus auditus est; Amos IV, 12: praepara te in occursum Dei tui, Israel. Rectas facite. Fides est communis, est una; sed dirigit in diversis operibus. Et ideo rectas facite. Tunc autem sunt rectae istae viae operum, quando non discordant a lege divina, quae est regula actuum humanorum, sicut secundum voluntatem figuli est regula bonitatis in vasis fictilibus, ut haberi potest Ier. XVIII, 4. Vel hoc, scilicet parate, pertinet ad caritatem, quae est de necessitate salutis; Is. c. XXX, 21: haec est via, ambulate in ea, et non declinetis neque ad dexteram, neque ad sinistram. Ergo via intelligitur totum illud quod pertinet ad communem salutem; I Cor. c. XII, 31: adhuc excellentiorem vobis viam demonstro. Semitae vero sunt observationes consiliorum: quae semitae dicuntur esse rectae, quia non propter inanem gloriam debent fieri; infra VI, 1: non faciatis iustitiam coram hominibus, ut videamini ab eis; et Prov. III, 17: viae eius, viae pulchrae, et omnes semitae eius pacificae. Prepare the way of the Lord. Now it seems more suitable to have said, "prepare your way" to receive the Lord. But it should be noted that we were so weak that we could not get near God, unless he came to us. Therefore, John said above, "The kingdom of heaven is at hand" and this is prepare. But what is that way? Faith, which comes by hearing: "That Christ may dwell by faith in your hearts" (Eph 3:17). Gregory: "The way of faith is devout hearing; "Prepare to meet your God, O Israel" (Am 4:12) Faith is common and one, but it directs one in diverse works. Therefore, make straight. The ways of our works are straight, when they are not in conflict with the divine law, which is the rule of human acts, just as according to the will of the potter is the rule of goodness of earthen vessels, as is clear from Jeremiah (18)4). Or this, i.e., prepare, pertains to charity, which is necessary for salvation: "This is the way, walk in it, and turn neither to the right nor to the left" (Is 36:21). There fore, way is taken to mean the sum total of all that pertains to general salvation: "I show you a more excellent way" (1 Cor 12:31). But the paths are submission to the counsels, which are called straight paths, because they should not be observed for the sake of vainglory: "Beware of practicing your piety before men in order to be seen by them" (Mt 6:1); "Her ways are ways of pleasantness, and all her paths are peace" (Pr 3:17).
Consequenter ostenditur, quomodo Ioannes testimonium perhibuit Christo in vita, ibi ipse autem Ioannes. Sed quis perhibuit testimonium de Ioanne, qui perhibebat testimonium Christo? Et dicendum quod vita sua: quia, sicut dicit Chrysostomus, nullus idoneus testis alterius est, nisi sit testis suus, et hoc bona vita; Eccli. c. XIX, 27: amictus corporis, et risus dentium, et ingressus hominis enuntiant de illo. Unde hic describitur austeritas eius in vita, et cibo: et hoc est ipse autem erat indutus pilis camelorum et cetera. Alii de lana, Ioannes de pilis: reputabat enim vestimentum de lana mollitiem, quae non convenit praedicatori. Item zona pellicea. Illud dupliciter exponitur. Hieronymus dicit, quod tunc temporis Iudaei habebant cingulum de lana, sed Ioannes reputans ad mollitiem, accipit de pellibus imitans Eliam, sicut dicitur IV Reg. I, 8. Rabanus exponit sic, et dicit quod Ioannes accipiebat pelles crudas, non paratas, et utebatur eis, ut refraenaret libidinem: et hoc est et zonam. Sed sive sic, sive sic exponatur, in utroque tamen austeritas vitae intelligitur. Cibus autem eius locustae et mel silvestre. Hic cibus non paratus, sed quem natura ministrabat; et sunt locustae animalia quaedam apta ad comedendum. Et mel silvestre. Hoc dupliciter potest intelligi. Proprie enim mel silvestre dicitur illud, quod non reconditur in alveis artificiose factis, sed invenitur in silvis in aliquibus arboribus. Alii dicunt quod est canna mellis, et quoddam quod invenitur intus in cannis valde dulce; tamen in omnibus his nihil aliud habetur, nisi quod simplicibus erat contentus; I Tim. VI, 8: habentes alimenta, et quibus tegamur, his contenti sumus. (4) Then he shows how John bore witness to Christ by his life: Now John wore... But who bore witness concerning John, who bore witness to Christ? The answer is that his own life did, because, as Chrysostom says, no one is a worthy witness of another, unless he is his own witness; and this by a good life: "A man's attire and open-mouthed laughter and a man's manner of walking show what he is" (Sir 19:30). Hence, his austere life is described here: he wore a garment of camel's hair. Though others wore wool, John wore camel's hair, for he considered a woolen garment softness, which does not suit a preacher. And a leather girdle. This is explained in two ways: Jerome says that in those days the Jews had a girdle of wool, but John regarding that as softness, chose camel's hair in imitation of Elijah (2 Kg 1:8). Rabanus explains it another way and says that John chose untreated skins rather than ones prepared, in order to bridle bad desires: and this is and a leather girdle. But whichever way it is explained, in both ways an austere life is meant. His food was locusts and wild honey. This food was not prepared but was eaten as nature provided; and locusts are animals suitable for eating. And wild honey. This can be understood in two ways: for, properly speaking, wild honey is not something formed in a hive but in the forest in certain trees. Some say that it is a reed of honey, i.e., something very sweet found inside it; yet in all this nothing less is implied than that he was satisfied with simple things: "If we have food and clothing, with these we shall be content" (1 Tim 6:8).
Consequenter agitur de Baptismo: unde dicitur tunc exibant: et tangit tria. Primo quomodo visitabatur a turbis; secundo quomodo turbae baptizabantur; et tertio quomodo confitebantur peccata sua. (5) Then he treats of baptism; hence he says, then went out to him. And he touches on three things: first, how he is visited by the crowds; secondly, how they are baptized (v. 6a); thirdly, how they confessed their sins (v. 6b).
Et quantum ad primum sciendum, quod tria sunt quae invitabant homines ad exeundum ad Ioannem.
  • Primo nova praedicatio. Numquam audiverant fieri mentionem de regno caelorum, et ideo mirabantur; Iob c. XXXVIII, 33: numquid nosti ordinem caeli, et pones rationem eius in terra? Ioannes primo docuit quod ratio regni caelorum non esset ponenda in terra.
  • Secundo propter vitam. Unde dicit tunc exibant, videntes scilicet vitam ipsius; Iac. II, 18: ostende mihi fidem tuam sine operibus, et ego ostendam tibi ex operibus fidem meam et cetera.
  • Tertio, quia Iudaea privata erat instructione prophetarum. Ps. LXXIII, 9: signa nostra non vidimus, iam non est propheta. Et ideo exibant a Iudaea ad videndum; et hoc est tunc exibant (...) et baptizabantur ab eo in Iordane.
In regard to the first it should be noted that three things invited men to go out to John:
  • first, the new preaching. They had never heard mention made of the kingdom of heaven; therefore, they were amazed: "Do you know the ordinances of the heavens? Can you establish their rule on the earth?" (Jb 38:33). John was the first to teach that the notion of the kingdom of heaven does not consist in any thing earthly.
  • Secondly, his life. Hence he says, then there went out to him, namely, because they saw his life: "Show me you faith without works, and I will show you from my works my faith: (Jas 2:8).
  • Thirdly, because the Jews had been deprived of instruction from prophets: "We do not see our signs; there is no longer any prophet" (Ps 74:9). And therefore they went from Judea to see: (6) Then they went out and were baptized by him in the river Jordan.
Sed quare in Iordane?
  • Quia in Iordane primo fuit praefiguratus Baptismus. IV Reg. c. II, 8-11, ubi dicitur de Eliseo quod transivit per Iordanem, et Elias raptus est in caelum.
  • Item ibi fuit mundatus Naaman leprosus, qui significat mundatum a peccatis in Baptismo.
  • Item quia ipsa interpretatio convenit Baptismo; interpretatur enim descensus; et significat humilitatem, quam homo debet habere in Baptismo; I Petr. II, 2: quasi modo geniti infantes, rationabile, et sine dolo, lac concupiscite.
  • Tertium ponitur ibi confitentes peccata sua. Causa quare confessio est inducta, supra est ostensa, quia de necessitate salutis; Iac. V, 16: confitemini alterutrum peccata vestra. Et dicit Glossa, quod ideo inducta est, ut homo habeat erubescentiam. Sed sciendum quod erubescentia est causa concomitans, sed principalis est propter virtutem clavium: nullus enim posset ligare, vel solvere, nisi sciret quid ligandum, vel solvendum esset. Unde sicut nullus potest amovere necessitatem clavium, ita nullus posset amovere confessionem vocalem.
    Sed quaeritur, an accedens ad Baptismum confiteri teneatur. Videtur quod non indigeat virtute clavium, cum omnia dimittantur peccata in Baptismo. Sed dicendum, quod tenetur saltem in generali; et hoc facit quando abrenuntiat Satanae, et omnibus pompis eius: in hoc enim profitetur se esse Satanae obligatum.
But why in the Jordan?
  • Because in the Jordan was first prefigured baptism. In 2 Kg (2:8-11) it says of Elisha that he passed through the Jordan, and Elijah went up to heaven.
  • It was there also that Naaman the leper was cleansed. This signifies being cleansed from sins in baptism.
  • Again, this interpretation suits baptism, for it is translated "descent" and signifies humility, which a man should have in baptism: "As new born infants, long for the pure spiritual milk" (1 Pt 2:2).
  • He mentions the third when he says, confessing their sins. The reason confession is mentioned was shown above, namely, because it is necessary for salvation: "Confess your sins to one another" (Jas 5:16). And a Gloss says that it was mentioned, in order that a person experience shame. But it should be noted that shame is a concomitant cause, the principal cause being the power of the keys; for no one can bind or loose, unless he knows what should be bound or loosed. Hence, just as no one can remove the need for the keys, so no one can remove oral confession.
    But why is one who comes to baptism bound to confess? For it seems that they need not resort to the power of the keys, since all sins are removed in baptism. The answer is that one is bound at least in general; and he does this, when he renounces Satan and all his pomps. In this way he acknowledges that he is under the yoke of Satan.
Videns autem multos. Ostenso quod multi a Ioanne baptizabantur, hic agit de instructione eorum. Et circa hoc duo facit: primo ponuntur qui sunt qui instruantur; secundo ponitur eorum instructio, ibi quis demonstravit vobis fugere a ventura ira? (7) But when he saw many... Having showed that many were baptized by John, he now deals with their instruction. In regard to this he does two things: first, he mentions the ones instructed; secondly, their instruction (v. 7c).
Dicit ergo videns autem multos Pharisaeorum et Sadducaeorum. Sciendum quod apud Iudaeos sunt aliquae sectae, inter quas istae duae erant praecipuae. Pharisaei enim dicebantur quasi a communi vita divisi, propter suas observantias. Isti in multis bene dicebant, tamen deficiebant, quia, ut dicitur, omnia provenire ex necessitate ponebant. Alii, scilicet Sadducaei, dicebantur iusti propter quasdam speciales observantias legis; qui non recipiebant prophetas, nec dicebant animas post corruptionem corporis resuscitari, nec spiritum esse. Utrique autem ex ipso nomine notabantur, quia Phares divisionem significat, quae opponitur caritati. Et hi omnino erant divisi ab aliis, quasi haberent superabundantem spiritum sanctum: hoc enim bonum esset. Alii etiam, scilicet Sadducaei, sibi iustitiam usurpabant; contra quos Rom. X, 3: ignorantes enim iustitiam Dei, et suam quaerentes statuere, iustitiae Dei non sunt subiecti. Et tamen quamvis magis iusti apparerent, tamquam ad magistrum, ad Ioannem veniebant; Is. XLIX, 7: reges videbunt, et consurgent principes, et adorabunt propter dominum, quia fidelis est, et sanctum Israel, qui elegit te. Isti ergo hic convenienter instruuntur. He says, therefore: But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming for baptism. It should be noted that among the Jews were certain sects, among which those two were the most prominent: for the Pharisees were so called as though separated from the common life on account of their observances. In many matters they were correct, yet they erred, for it is said that they taught all things happened of necessity. The others, i.e., the Sadducees, were called just on account of certain special observances of the Law; but they did not accept the prophets and did not believe that souls would be raised after the corruption of the body or that they are spirit. But both were conspicuous by their names, because "Phares" signifies division, which is opposed to charity. And they were completely separated from the others, as though they had a superabundant holy Spirit; for this would be good. The others too, i.e., the Sadducees, laid claim to righteousness. Against these Rom (10:3) says: "Being ignorant of the righteousness that comes from God, and seeking to establish their won, they would not submit to God's righteousness." And although they appeared to be more just, they came to John as to a teacher: "Kings shall see and arise; princes, and they shall prostrate themselves; because of the Lord, who is faithful, the holy one of Israel, who has chosen us" (Is 49:7). They, therefore, are instructed in a suitable way.
Unde quis demonstravit vobis fugere a ventura ira? Et notandum quod instructio debet variari secundum conditiones auditorum. Simplicibus enim sufficit ea quae ad salutem pertinent breviter loqui; sed sapientibus debent singula explicari; quod innuit apostolus I Cor. III, v. 1: non potui vobis loqui tamquam spiritualibus sed quasi carnalibus. Ita fecit Ioannes: breviter turbas admonuit de poenitentia, et annuntiavit regnum caelorum. Ista duo hic explicat per singula Pharisaeis. Unde primo exhortatur ad poenitentiam; secundo nuntiat de appropinquatione regni caelorum, ibi ego quidem baptizo vos et cetera. Circa primum duo facit: primo ponit inductivum ad poenitentiam; secundo removet ea quae possent a poenitentia retrahere, ibi et ne velitis dicere intra vos: patrem habemus Abraham. Circa primum duo facit: primo ponit inductionem ad poenitentiam; secundo ponit perfectae poenitentiae modum, ibi facite ergo fructum dignum poenitentiae. Hence, who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? And it should be noted that instruction should vary according to the conditions of the audience. For it is enough to speak briefly to the simple about matters of salvation; but to the learned each point should be explained: "I have no been able to speak to you as to spiritual persons, but as to carnal" (2 Cor 3:1). This John did, for he admonished the crowds briefly about penance and announced the kingdom of heaven. These two he explains in detail to the Pharisees. Hence, first he exhorts to penance; secondly, he announces that the kingdom of heaven is near (v. 11). In regard to the first he does two things: first, he gives an inducement to penance; secondly, he removes things which could keep them from penance (v. 9). In regard to the first he does two things: first, he gives the inducement to penance; secondly, he mentions the way of perfect penance (v. 8). Now there are two things that inspire to penance: first, the recognition of one's own sins: "Announce to my people their sins" (Is 58:1); secondly, the fear of God's judgment (v. 7b).
Duo autem sunt quae inducunt ad poenitentiam: recognitio proprii peccati; Is. LVIII, v. 1: annuntia populo meo scelera eorum: secundo timor divini iudicii. Ista duo annuntiat Ioannes. Unde dicit progenies viperarum. Et notandum, quod in sacra Scriptura dicitur filius alicuius ad imitationem; Ez. XVI, v. 45: pater vester Amorrhaeus; Io. VIII, 44: vos ex patre Diabolo estis, et desideria patris vestri vultis facere. Isti similes erant viperis; et ideo dicit progenies viperarum. Et sunt similes in tribus, secundum Chrysostomum. Natura enim illius est, quando mordet aliquem, recurrere ad aquam; et si invenit non moritur, alias moritur. Unde Ioannes perpendens intentionem eorum, quare veniebant ad aquam Baptismi, dixit progenies viperarum. Sed quomodo venenati veniebant ad Baptismum? Quia Ioannes promittebat remissionem peccatorum, unde faciebat intrare aquam deponentem pravam intentionem, ideo dicit agite poenitentiam (...) et baptizabantur ab eo. Secunda proprietas est quod nascendo occidit parentes; unde dicitur quasi vi pariens, et isti similiter. Infra XXIII, 31: quem prophetarum non occidistis? Tertia ratio est, quia est pulchra exterius, interius habens venenum: isti etiam pulchri sunt exterius quadam simulata iustitia, interius habentes peccata; infra XXIII, 27: vae vobis quia similes estis sepulcris dealbatis, quae foris apparent hominibus speciosa, intus vero plena sunt ossibus mortuorum et omni spurcitia; et secundum hoc progenies viperarum sonat in malum. These two John announced; hence he says, You brood of vipers. And it should be noted that in Sacred Scripture one is called a son of another by imitation: "Your father was an Amorite" (Ez 16:45); "you are from your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desired" (Jn 8:44). They were similar to vipers; therefore he says, You brood of vipers. And they are similar in three ways, according to Chrysostom. For its nature is that when it bites someone, it returns to the water. If it finds water, it does not die; otherwise, it dies. Hence, John considering the intention with which they came to the water of baptism, said, You brood of vipers. But if they were saturated with poison, how did they come for baptism? Because John promised remission of sins, enabling them to enter the water after putting aside their evil intention. Therefore, he says: "Do penance..., and they were baptized by him" (3:2&6). The second property is that in being born, it kills its parents: "Which of the prophets have you not killed?" (Jn 23:31). The third reason is that it is beautiful outwardly but has poison within. These persons are also beautiful outwardly by reason of their pretended righteousness, but within they are infected with sin: "Woe to you, because you are like whitewashed tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but within are full of dead men's bones and all uncleanness" (Mt 23:27). According to this, brood of vipers has an evil connotation.
Ambrosius exponit aliter, et dicit, quod prudentia serpentibus adscribitur; inf. X, 16: estote prudentes sicut serpentes. Unde Ioannes, commendans eos de prudentia, quia veniebant ad Baptismum, dicit progenies viperarum. Primum ergo quod inducit ad poenitentiam est recognitio proprii peccati; secundum est timor divini iudicii; Prov. XV, 27: per timorem domini declinat omnis a malo; Iob XIX, 29: scitote esse iudicium. Et hoc est, quod dicit quis demonstravit vobis fugere a ventura ira? Et sciendum quod Ambrosius et Chrysostomus exponunt de praeteritis, Rabanus de futuris; unde dicit quis demonstrabit? Et secundum Ambrosium sic: progenies etc., quasi diceret: quis demonstravit, ut recederetis a malo? Quasi dicat: nullus, nisi Deus. Ps. LXXXIV, 8: ostende nobis, domine, misericordiam tuam, et salutare tuum da nobis. Ambrose explains it another way and says that prudence is ascribed to serpents: "Be prudent as serpents" (Jn 10:16). Hence, John is commending them on their prudence, because they came to be baptized; so he says, brood of vipers. The first thing, therefore, that motivates to penance is the recognition of one's own sin; the second is fear of God's judgment: "By the fear of the Lord a man avoids evil" (Pr 16:6): "Know that there is a judgment" (Jb 19:29). This is why he says, Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? And it should be noted that Ambrose and Chrysostom explain this about the past, but Rabanus about the future; hence, he says: "Who will show you?" Ambrose explains it thus: Brood of vipers... As if to say: Who has shown you to withdraw from evil? As if to say: No one but God: "O Lord, show us your mercy, and give us your salvation" (Ps 85:7).
Secundum Chrysostomum, sic: progenies viperarum, quia retinent voluntatem peccati, quis demonstravit vobis fugere, sicut vos vultis? Non, quia dixit Isaias I, 16: lavamini, et mundi estote, auferte malum cogitationum vestrarum ab oculis meis. Non, quia dixit David, Ps. l, 4: amplius lava me, domine, ab iniquitate mea, et a peccato meo munda me; et post: sacrificium Deo spiritus contribulatus, cor contritum et humiliatum, Deus, non despicies. Rabanus de futuro sic, quasi diceret: bonum est quod agatis poenitentiam, quia aliter quis demonstrabit? Ps. CXXXVIII, 7: quo ibo a spiritu tuo, et quo a facie tua fugiam? Ira de Deo non accipitur pro affectu mentis, sed pro effectu: unde eius ira est ultio. According to Chrysostom thus: Brood of vipers, because they retain the will to sin, who warned [showed] you to flee as you wish? It wasn't Isaiah, who said: "Be washed and made clean, and remove the evil of your thoughts from my eyes" (1:16). Nor David, who said: "Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin" (Ps 51:2); and later: "The sacrifice acceptable to God is a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise" (Ps 51:17. Rabanus applies it to the future, as if he were saying: It is good that you are doing penance, because otherwise, who will show...? "Where shall I go from your spirit? or where shall I flee from your presence?" (Ps 139:7). Anger said of God is not taken for an emotion of the mind, but for its effect; hence, his anger is vengeance.
Praemissis his duobus ducentibus ad poenitentiam, consequenter concludit Evangelista facite ergo fructum dignum poenitentiae. In arbore fructus sunt post flores, et si flores non sequantur fructus, arbor illa nihil valet. Flos enim quidam poenitentiae apparet in contritione, sed fructus est in executione. Eccli. XXIV, 23: flores mei fructus honoris et honestatis. Et notandum quod alius est fructus iustitiae, et alius poenitentiae: plus enim requiritur a poenitente, quam ab eo, qui non peccat. Est autem triplex fructus dignus poenitentiae. Primus est ut puniat in se, quod commisit, et hoc iudicio sacerdotis. Ier. XXXI, v. 19: postquam convertisti me, egi poenitentiam, et postquam ostendisti mihi, percussi femur meum: idest carnem meam afflixi. Secundus est ut fugiat peccata, et occasiones peccati, unde dicitur, quod satisfacere est causas peccatorum excidere. Eccli. XXI, 1: fili, peccasti? Ne adiicias iterum: sed et de pristinis deprecare, ut tibi dimittantur et cetera. Quasi a facie colubri fuge peccatum, Eccli. c. XXI, 2. Tertius est, ut tantum studeat ad bene agendum, quantum studuit ad peccandum. Rom. VI, 19: humanum dico propter infirmitatem carnis nostrae. Sicut enim exhibuistis membra vestra servire immunditiae et iniquitati ad iniquitatem, ita nunc exhibete membra vestra servire iustitiae in sanctificationem. (8) After mentioning these two things leading to repentance, the evangelist concludes: Bear fruit that befits repentance. Fruit comes after the flowers in a tree, and if the fruit does not follow the flowers, that tree is nothing. For the flower of repentance appears in contrition, but the fruit is in performance. And it should be noted that the fruit of righteousness is one thing and the fruit of repentance another, for more is required of the repentant than of one who does not sin. But the fruit of repentance is threefold: the first is that one punish in himself what he committed: "After you converted me, I did penance; and after I was instructed, I smote upon my thigh," i.e., afflicted my flesh (Jer 31:19). The second is that he flee sins and the occasions of sin; hence, it is said that to make satisfaction is to remove the causes of sin: "Have you sinned, my son? Do so no more, but pray about your former sins... Flee from sin as from a snake" (Sir 21:1-2). The third is that you be as eager to do good as you were to sin: "I am speaking in human terms because of your natural limitations. For just as you once yielded your members to impurity and to greater and greater iniquity, so now yield your members to righteousness and sanctification" (Rom 6:19).
Consequenter excludit impedimentum poenitentiae, cum dicit et ne velitis dicere intra vos: patrem habemus Abraham. Duplex impedimentum est poenitentiae. Praesumptuositas de se, et desperatio de divino iudicio. Primo removet primum; secundo secundum, ibi iam enim securis ad radicem arborum posita est. (9) Then he excludes the obstacle to repentance, when he says, And do not presume to say to yourselves: "We have Abraham as our father." The obstacle to repentance is twofold: presuming on oneself and despair about the divine judgment. First, he removes the first; secondly, the second (v. 10).
Circa primum duo facit: primo excludit impedimentum; secundo assignat rationem, ibi dico enim vobis. In regard to the first he does to things: first he excludes the obstacle; secondly, he assigns the reason (9b).
Dicit ergo et ne velitis dicere intra vos: patrem habemus Abraham. Isti secundum carnem erant de genere Abrahae: unde poterant credere, quod quantumcumque peccarent, Deus misereretur eis propter Abraham; Ex. XXXII, 11: cur, domine, irascitur furor tuus? Et post: recordare Abraham, Isaac, et Iacob servorum tuorum et cetera. Et ideo excludit hoc Ioannes: et ne velitis dicere. Et est modus loquendi; quasi diceret, non dicatis hoc, quia non valebit vobis. Rom. IX, 8: non qui filii sunt carnis, hi filii Dei; sed qui filii sunt promissionis, aestimantur in semine et cetera. Isti enim multum gloriabantur de Abraham, sed dominus dicit Io. VIII, 39: si filii Abrahae estis, opera Abrahae facite. Contra tales dicit Chrysostomus: quid prodest ei quem mores deturpant, generatio clara? Et est etiam hoc in spiritualibus. He says, therefore, Do no presume to say to yourselves, We have Abraham as our father." They were of the stock of Abraham according to the flesh; hence, they could believe that no matter how much they sinned, God would have mercy for the sake of Abraham: "Why does your wrath burn hot against your people, O Lord? ... Remember Abraham, Isaac and Israel, your servants" (Ex 31:11,13). Therefore, John rejects this: and do not presume to say... This is his way of telling them not to say this, because it will not help them: "It is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are reckoned as descendants" (Rom 9:8). For they gloried greatly in Abraham, but the Lord says: "If you are the sons of Abraham, do the works of Abraham" (Jn 8:39). Against such Chrysostom says: "What does a glorious lineage profit one whose morals degrade him?" The same applies in spiritual matters.
Consequenter assignat rationem dico enim vobis, magis est enim magnum imitari patrem, quam nasci ex eo, potens est Deus de lapidibus istis suscitare filios Abrahae. Legitur Iosue IV quod quando populus Israel transivit Iordanem siccis pedibus, in memoriam miraculi, mandavit Iosue, quod extraherentur duodecim lapides ex fundo fluminis, et ponerentur extra, et duodecim de lapidibus exterioribus ponerentur intus. Ioannes autem in illo loco baptizans, eos ostendit. Potest autem intelligi dupliciter.
  • Ad litteram primo: hoc enim est primum fidei fundamentum, credere omnipotentiam Dei; Iob c. XLII, 2: scio quia potes, et nulla te latet cogitatio. Vel possumus intelligere per lapides gentiles, qui dicuntur lapides propter duo: primum quia lapides adorant; secundo propter duritiem. Et licet lapides sint duri, tamen diu conservant impressionem: et licet etiam aedificium ex eis factum tarde fiat, tamen forte est, et durabile. Unde gentiles quamvis fuerint duri ad recipiendum fidem Christi, tamen tenuerunt fortiter. Hoc significatur Ez. XI, 19: auferam a vobis cor lapideum de carne vestra, et dabo vobis cor carneum, et spiritum meum ponam in medio vestri.
  • Secundum autem Hieronymum in verbis istis videtur reducere ad memoriam prophetiam Is. LI, 2: attendite ad Abraham patrem vestrum, et ad Saram quae peperit vos et cetera. Nominat enim petram Abraham propter impotentiam generandi, et Saram propter sterilitatem; quasi dicat: Deus, qui fecit potentem Abraham, et foecundam Saram potens est de lapidibus istis suscitare filios Abrahae.
Then he assigns the reason, for I tell you, since it is a greater thing to imitate a great father than to be born of him, God is able from these stones to raise up children to Abraham. It is written in Joshua (c. 4) that when the people of Israel passed across the Jordan on dry ground, Joshua ordered that in memory of the miracle twelve stones outside the river be placed in it. Now John refers to this event, as he baptizes in that place. But this can be understood in two ways:
  • first, literally, for this is the first foundation of faith, to believe in the omnipotence of God: "I know that you are powerful and no thought is hid from you" (Jb 42:2). —Or by stones we can understand the gentiles, who are called stones for two reasons: first, because they adore stones; secondly, on account of their hardness. And although stones are hard, yet they retain an impression for a long time: and although a building can be slowly made of them, it is strong and durable. Hence, the Gentiles, although they were hard as far as accepting the faith of Christ was concerned, they nevertheless held it firmly. This is signified in Ezekiel (11:19): "I will take a stony heart out of their flesh and give them a heart of flesh; I will put a new spirit within them."
  • Secondly, according to Jerome, in these words John seems to lead back to the memory of the prophets: "Look to Abraham your father and to Sarah who bore you. Look to the rock from which you were hewn" (Is 51:2). He calls Abraham a rock on account of his inability to reproduce, and Sarah on account of her sterility. As if to say: "God, who made Abraham virile and Sarah fecund, can from these stones raise up children to Abraham.
Iam enim securis ad radicem arborum posita est. Possent enim dicere: nec credimus quod aliqua ira superveniat nobis; et ideo hoc removet dicens iam enim. Unde primo ponit iudicium; secundo ponit sententiam iudicii. Dicit ergo iam enim et cetera. Dupliciter enim aliqui poenitere nolunt:
  • ex desperatione iudicii, quia non credunt iudicium esse; Eccli. V, 1: ne dixeris: est mihi sufficiens vita; Iob XIX, 29: fugite a facie gladii, quoniam ultor iniquitatum gladius est, et scitote esse iudicium.
  • Aliqui autem ex mora; II Petr. III, 9: non tardat Deus promissionem suam, sicut quidam aestimant, sed patienter agit propter nos, nolens aliquos perire, sed omnes ad poenitentiam reverti.
(10) Even now the axe is laid to the root of the tree. For they could say: "We do not believe that any anger will come upon us; therefore, he removes this by saying, Even now... First, he presents the judgment; secondly, the meaning of the judgment (v. 10b). He says, therefore, Even now..., for there are two reasons why some are not willing to repent:
  • one is because they do not believe that there is a judgment: "Do not say, I have a sufficiency" (Sir 5:1); "Flee from the face of the sword, because it is the avenger of iniquity; and know that there is a judgment" (Jb 19:29).
  • The other is because of the delay: "The Lord is not slow about his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance" (2 Pt 3:9).
Sed utramque Ioannes excludit. Primo primam, cum dicit iam enim securis; secundo secundam, cum dicit posita est; quasi dicat, non tardabit. Et tripliciter intelligitur hoc.
  • Chrysostomus dicit, quod per securim intelligitur districtio divini iudicii, quae quandoque per securim, quandoque per arcum, et gladium designatur; Ps. VII, 13: nisi conversi fueritis, gladium suum vibrabit, arcum suum tetendit, et paravit illum.
  • Hieronymus: per securim praedicatio Evangelii intelligitur, quia sicut per doctrinam Evangelii aliqui ducti sunt ad vitam, ita contemptores ad mortem. Ier. XXIII, 29: nonne verba mea sicut ignis, et quasi malleus conterens petram? Lc. II, 34: ecce positus est hic in ruinam, et resurrectionem multorum in Israel, et in signum cui contradicetur et cetera. Iam enim securis ad radicem arborum posita est; quasi dicat: in promptu est, ut veniat.
  • Secundum Gregorium per securim redemptor noster intelligitur, qui velut ex manubrio et ferro, ex humanitate et divinitate constat; cuius humanitas, quia patienter expectat, quasi tenetur: divinitas, quasi ferrum incidit. Securis ergo ad radicem ponitur, quia iudicium fit per Deum et hominem. Et dicit ad radicem propter duo, quia in radice fit praecisio universalis, eius etiam quod est in ramis. Item quia quod a radice exciditur, non germinat: quasi diceret: universalis erit extirpatio malorum.
But John excludes both: first, the first, when he says, Even now the axe; secondly, the second, when he says, is laid to the root. As if to say: He will not delay. This is understood in three ways:
  • Chrysostom says that by axe is understood the rigor of divine judgment, which is sometimes designated by axe, sometimes by arrow and by sword: "If a man does not repent, God will whet his sword; he has bent and strung his bow; he has prepared his deadly weapons" (Ps 7:13).
  • Jerome: "By axe is understood the preaching of the Gospel, because just as by the Gospel teaching some have been brought to life, so its scorners, to death." "Are not my words like fire, and like a hammer that breaks the rock in pieces?" (Jer 23:29); "This child is set for the fall and rising of many in Israel, and for a sign that is spoken against" (Lk 2:34). Even now the axe is laid to the root of the tree. As if to say: It is evident that he is coming.
  • According to Gregory, by axe is understood our Redeemer, who consists of human and divine nature as of a handle and sword. His human nature, because it waits patiently, is, as it were, held; the divinity cuts as a sword. The axe is laid to the root, because judgment comes through God and men. He says, to the root, for two reasons: first, because in the root is made a general cutting even of that which is in the branches. Secondly, because what is cut off from the root does not germinate. As if to say: the eradication of evils will be universal.
Sequitur ergo, et ponit primo universalitatem dicens omnis arbor; quasi dicat: tam Iudaeus quam gentilis; Rom. II, 11: non est acceptatio personarum apud Deum. Item culpam, quia non facit fructum, propter solam enim omissionem fit punitio; infra XXV, v. 42: esurivi, et non dedistis mihi manducare. Tertio ponit duplicem poenam: scilicet temporalem, excidetur, scilicet ex hac vita; Lc. XIII, 7: ecce tres anni sunt, ex quo venio quaerens fructum in ficulnea hac, et non invenio: succide ergo illam, et post: ut quid terram occupat? Et hoc est excidetur, cum prosperitate terrena. Item ponit poenam aeternam, unde dicitur in ignem mittetur; Is. ult., 24: vermis eorum non morietur, et ignis eorum non extinguetur. Et inf. XXV, 41: ite, maledicti, in ignem aeternum. Then he continues and mentions first the universality, saying, every tree. As if to say: As the gentile, so the Jew: "God shows no partiality" (Rom 2:11). Secondly, the guilt, because it does not bear fruit; for punishment comes also for merely omitting: "I was hungry and you did not give me to eat" (Mt 25:42). Thirdly, he mentions two punishments: first, temporal, it is cut down, namely, from this life: "Lo, these three years I have come seeking fruit on this fig tree, and I find none. Cut it down" (Lk 13:;7), and after that: "Why should it use up the ground?" This means that it will be cut down along with earthly prosperity Secondly, he mentions the eternal punishment: and thrown into the fire: "Their worm shall not die" (Is 66:24); "Depart, you accursed, into everlasting fire" (Jn 25:41).
Ego quidem baptizo. Supra Ioannes exhortatus fuit ad poenitentiam explendam, modo intendit facere quod frequenter dixerat, scilicet annuntiare regnum caelorum: et circa hoc duo facit. Primo ponitur praeparatio ad regnum; secundo agitur de praenuntiatione regni, ibi qui autem post me venturus est. (11) I baptize you with water. Above, John exhorted them to do penance, now he intends to do what he had frequently said, namely, to announce the kingdom of heaven. In regard to this he does two things: first, he mentions preparation for the kingdom; secondly, he foretells the kingdom (11b).
Regnum illud Christus est, de quo Lc. XVII, 21: regnum Dei intra vos est. Praeparatio quidem est Baptismus; unde ego quidem, quod mirabile est vobis, baptizo, in aqua sola, scilicet quia sum purus homo. Unde non poterat nisi corpus lavare, nec poterat dare spiritum sanctum, cum nondum esset solutum pretium pro peccato; Hebr. IX, v. 22: non enim fit remissio sine sanguine. Item spiritus sanctus nondum descenderat, nec Christus tactu suae carnis aquam sanctificaverat. Quare ergo baptizabat? Propter tria.
  • Primo, ut praeveniret Christum, baptizando; Lc. I, 76: praeibis ante faciem domini parare vias eius.
  • Secundo, ut congregatis hominibus haberet opportunitatem praedicandi de Christo; Io. I, 31: ut manifestaretur in Israel, propterea veni ego in aqua baptizans.
  • Tertio, ut ad Baptismum Christi praepararet. Unde consuetudo est in Ecclesia, ut prius catechumeni fiant qui baptizari debent, scilicet ut fiat quaedam praeparatio, et accipiant quoddam signaculum, per quod idonei reputantur: et hoc est quod dicit, ego baptizo, ut scilicet sciatis vos aptos esse, qui a Christo baptizari intenditis.
That kingdom is Christ, of whom Luke says: "The kingdom of heaven is within you" (17:21). The preparation, of course, is baptism; hence I, indeed, (and this is a marvel to you) baptize in water only, i.e., because I am only a man. Hence, he could merely wash the body and could not give the Holy Spirit, since the payment for sinning had not yet been paid: "Without the shedding of blood there is not forgiveness of sin" (Heb 9:22). Furthermore, the Holy Spirit had not yet descended, nor had Christ sanctified the water by its contact with his flesh. Why then was he baptizing? For three reasons:
  • first, to anticipate Christ by baptizing: "You will go before the Lord to prepare his ways" (Lk 1:76);
  • secondly, to have the opportunity to preach about Christ before so many people assembled: "That he might be revealed in Israel, I came baptizing in water" (Jn 1:31);
  • Thirdly, to prepare them for the baptism of Christ. Hence, the custom in the Church that those desiring baptism be catechumens first, namely, that they be prepared and receive a sign by which they are considered worthy. That is why he says, I baptize, in order that you might know that you who intend to be baptized in Christ are suitable.
Nota, quod Magister in IV Sent. dicit, quod baptizati a Ioanne non baptizabantur a Christo, nisi illi qui ponebant spem suam in Ioanne. Sed hoc falsum est; unde dicit ipse vos baptizabit. Item nota, quod Augustinus movet quaestionem. Si post Baptismum Ioannis rebaptizabantur, quare non rebaptizabantur post Baptismum haereticorum? Dicendum, quod Ioannes baptizabat in persona sua; haeretici in persona Christi; unde Baptismus Christi iudicandus est. Note that in IV Sent. the Master says that those baptized by John were not baptized by Christ, unless they put their hope in John. But this is false; hence he says, He will baptize you. Note, too, that Augustine raises the question: If they were re-baptized after John's baptism, why were they not re-baptized after baptism by heretics? The answer is that John baptized in his own person, but heretics, in the person of Christ. Hence, it must be regarded as Christ's baptism.
Consequenter agitur de regno. Et primo ostendit dignitatem ipsius; secundo officium eius, ibi ipse vos baptizabit. Dicit ergo qui post me venit, nascendo, baptizando, praedicando, moriendo, ad Inferos descendendo. Sed hic de duobus tantum loquitur, videlicet de praedicatione et Baptismo; unde dicit qui post me venit, ad baptizandum et docendum; Lc. I, 17: ipse praecedet ante illum in spiritu et virtute Eliae. Fortior me est, et fortior eius Baptismus; I Reg. II, 2: non est sanctus ut est Deus; Iob IX, 19: si fortitudo quaeritur, robustissimus est. Et ne sic credatur quod sit comparatio inter eos, dicit cuius non sum dignus calceamenta portare; quasi dicat: incomparabiliter me dignior est, ut exponit Chrysostomus, ita ut ei officium non debeam exhibere. Then he deals with the kingdom: first, he shows Christ's dignity; secondly, his office, He will baptize you. He says, therefore, He who is coming after me by birth, by baptizing, by preaching, by dying, by descending into hell. But here he speaks of two only, namely, of preaching and of baptism; hence he says, He who is coming after me to baptize and preach: "He will go before you in the spirit and power of Elijah" (Lk 1:17). Is mightier than I, and his baptism is mightier: "There is none holy like the Lord" (1 Sam 2:2); "If it is a matter of strength, behold him" (Jb 9:19). And so that no one suppose that there is any comparison between them, he says, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. As if to say: He is incomparably greater than I, as Chrysostom explains, to such an extent that I do not deserve to render him any service.
Sed sciendum quod in aliis tribus Evangeliis non est sic: quia illic dicitur solvere, hic portare. Unde dicit Augustinus quod Ioannes voluit tantum suam humilitatem, et Christi excellentiam ostendere, et tunc idem significatur in omnibus. Unde dicit, quod hoc fuit per spiritus sancti inspirationem, quod in talibus Evangelistae dissonent in verbis, ut documentum accipiamus, quod non mentimur, si eumdem sensum cum aliis loquimur, quamvis non eadem verba dicamus. Si vero mysticum aliquid significare voluit, tunc differentia est in verbis Matthaei et aliorum: et possunt in corrigia calceamenti duo significari, quia per calceamentum humanitatem; Ps. LIX, 10: in Idumaeam extendam calceamentum meum. Corrigia est unio, qua humanitas ligata est divinitati. Et quia non reputabat se sufficientem ad explicandum mysterium unionis, ideo dicit cuius non sum dignus calceamenta portare. Vel mos erat apud Iudaeos, Deut. XXV, 9, quod si quis nollet accipere uxorem fratris sui, deberet solvere corrigiam ab illo, qui uxorem accipiebat. Sponsa Christi Ecclesia est. Tunc ergo Ioannes reputabat se indignum esse accipere sponsam Christi. But it should be noted that in the other three evangelists, it is not stated in the same way: because it says there "to loose", here "to carry". Hence Augustine says that John wished only to show his own lowliness and the dignity of Christ, and then the same thing is signified in all. Therefore, he says that it was through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit that in such matters the evangelists not use the same words, in order to show proof that we are not lying, although we do not use the same words. But if he desired to signify something mystical, then there is a difference between the words of John and of the others: and two things can be signified by "the strap of a shoe," because by shoe is signified the humanity: "Upon Edom I have cast my shoe" (Ps 60:8). The strap is the union, whereby the humanity was tied to the divinity. And because he did not consider himself adequate to explain the mystery of the union, he said, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. Also it was a custom among the Jews (Dt 25:9) that if one was not willing to take his brother's wife, he was supposed to loose the strap of the person who accepted the wife. The spouse of Christ is the Church. At that time, therefore, John considered himself unworthy to take the spouse of Christ.
Vel aliter secundum Hilarium. Calceamentum portant quippe nuntiatores humanitatis Christi per mundum; quod fuit reservatum apostolis; Is. LII, 7: quam pulchri super montes pedes annuntiantis et praedicantis pacem, annuntiantis bonum, praedicantis salutem. Ergo Ioannes dicit se non esse dignum portare calceamentum quod apostolis erat reservatum: maius enim officium est evangelizare, quam baptizare; I Cor. I, 17: non misit me Christus baptizare, sed evangelizare. Numquid ergo maiores apostoli Ioanne? Non merito, sed officio novi testamenti. Et secundum hunc sensum dicitur infra XI, 11: qui minor est in regno caelorum, maior est illo. Hilary gives another explanation, namely, that those who announce the humanity of Christ throughout the world carry his shoes, and this was reserved to the apostles: "How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him who brings good tidings, who publishes peace, who brings good tidings of good, who preaches salvation" (Is 52:7). Therefore, John says that he is not worthy to carry the shoes which were reserved for the apostles, for it is a greater office to preach the Gospel than to baptize: "Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel" (1 Cor 1:17). Were the apostles, therefore, greater than John? Not in merit but by their role in the New Testament. And according to this sense it is stated below (11:11): "He who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he."
Vel aliter secundum Chrysostomum. Pedes sunt apostoli, et alii eius famuli, inter quos Ioannes erat. Calceamentum est infirmitas eorum: quia sicut decor pedum non cognoscitur quamdiu teguntur calceamento, ita decor apostolorum; II Cor. XII, 9: libenter gloriabor in infirmitatibus meis, ut inhabitet in me virtus Christi. Cuius non sum dignus calceamenta portare: quia nec ipse, nec apostoli se dignos reputant, ut sint ministri Evangelii Christi; II Cor. III, 4: fiduciam talem habemus per Christum ad Deum: non quod sufficientes simus cogitare aliquid a nobis quasi ex nobis, sed sufficientia nostra ex Deo est. Si ergo diversa significat secundum mysterium, quid horum dixit Ioannes? Dicendum, secundum Augustinum, quod si verba Ioannis ad diversa referuntur, sic utrumque dixit. Vel quod Ioannes turbis praedicans quandoque dixit illud, quandoque aliud. Chrysostom gives another explanation, namely, that the feet are the apostles and other servants of Christ, among whom was John . The shoe is their weakness; because, just as the elegance of the feet is not known as long as they are covered with a shoe, so the greatness of the apostles: "Gladly will I glory in my weaknesses, that the grace of Christ may dwell in me" (2 Cor 12:1). Whose shoes I am not worthy to carry, because neither he nor the apostles regarded themselves worthy to be ministers of Christ's gospel: "Such is the trust we have through Christ toward God. Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to claim anything as coming from ourselves; our sufficiency is from God" (2 Cor 3:4-5). If, therefore, it signifies diverse things according to a mystery, which of these did John say? The answer, according to Augustine, is that if John's words are referred to different things, then he said both. Or that John, preaching to the crowds, sometimes said one and sometimes the other.
Consequenter agit de officio Christi. Et primo de officio baptizandi; secundo de officio iudicandi, ibi cuius ventilabrum in manu sua. Dicit ergo ipse vos baptizabit in spiritu sancto et igni. Multi libri habent et ignis. Sed loquuntur more Graecorum, qui carent ablativo. Et dicit spiritu sancto et igni: in quo datur intelligi quod Baptismus Christi habet amplius quam Baptismus Ioannis, quia addit super illud, quia Christus in aqua et spiritu; Io. III, 5: nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua et spiritu sancto, non potest introire in regnum Dei. Sed nota quod, cum dicit baptizabit vos in spiritu sancto, insinuat habendam esse affluentiam spiritus sancti, quam habentes totaliter abluuntur; Act. I, 5: vos autem baptizabimini spiritu sancto. Insinuat etiam facilem immutationem. Then he deals with Christ's office: first, with the office of baptizing; secondly, with the office of judging (v. 12).He says, therefore, He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire. Many books have "and fire". But they are speaking after the manner of the Greeks, who do not have the ablative case. And he says with the Holy Spirit and with fire. In this we are given to understand that Christ's baptism has more than John's baptism, because it adds over the latter, because Christ baptized in water and the Spirit: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of heaven" (Jn 3:5). But note that when he says, He will baptize you in the Holy Spirit, he asserts that the copious gifts of the Holy Spirit must be had, the recipients of which are completely cleansed: "Bt you will be baptized by the Holy Spirit" (Acts 1:5). He also intimates that the change will be easy.
Et igni. Istud multipliciter exponitur. Hieronymus dicit, quod idem designatur per spiritum sanctum et ignem; Lc. XII, v. 49: ignem veni mittere in terram, et quid volo nisi ut accendatur? Idest spiritum sanctum. Et ideo etiam in igne apparuit; Act. II, v. 3: et apparuerunt illis dispartitae linguae tamquam ignis. Secundum Chrysostomum per ignem significatur praesens tribulatio, quae purgat peccata; Eccli. XXVII, 6: vasa figuli probat fornax, et homines iustos tentatio tribulationis. Sed sciendum, quod dicit, istud Baptisma esse necessarium, quia Baptismus spiritus sancti continet mentem, ne vincatur a tentationibus, sed non totaliter tollit germina carnis: et ideo necessaria est tribulatio, quia caro tunc attrita non germinabit concupiscentiam. Necessarius ergo est ignis qui reficiat carnem. Vel per ignem intelligitur purgatio futura in Purgatorio; I Cor. III, 13: quale sit opus, ignis probabit. Hilarius autem exponit de igne Inferni, et dicit quod duo intendit in hoc quod dicit, ipse vos baptizabit spiritu sancto et igni, salutem scilicet quam efficit in praesenti et in futuro. In futuro purgabit per ignem Inferni, inquantum attrahet malos; et hoc consonat ei quod sequitur, paleas autem comburet igni inextinguibili. And with fire. This is explained in a number of ways. Jerome says that the same thing is designated by the Holy Spirit and fire: "I have come to send fire on the earth, and what will I but that it be kindled?" i.e., the Holy Spirit (Lk 12:49). Therefore, he also appeared in fire: "And he appeared to them in parted tongues of fire" (Acts 2:3). According to Chrysostom by fire is signified present tribulations, which expiate for sins: "The kiln tests the potter's vessel, and the trial of tribulation the just man" (Sir 27:5). But it should be noted that he says that this baptism is necessary, because the baptism of the Holy Spirit keeps the mind from being overcome by temptations; but it does not entirely remove the consequences of the flesh. Therefore, tribulation is necessary, because the flesh, then weakened, will not sprout forth concupiscence. Hence, there is need for fire which refreshes the soul. Or by fire is understood the future cleansing in purgatory: "Fire will test what kind of work each one has done" (1 Cor 3:13). Hilary explains it of the fire of hell and says that he intends two things, when he says, he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire, namely, the salvation he effects in the present and in the future. In the future he will cleanse through the fire of hell, in as much as it will attract the wicked; and this agrees with what follows, the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire.
Consequenter agitur de iudiciaria potestate cuius ventilabrum in manu eius. Et primo tangitur iudiciaria potestas; secundo iudicii effectus; tertio iudicii modus. Dicit ergo cuius ventilabrum, et utitur similitudine. Area dicitur Ecclesia; fruges, fideles, qui congregabuntur per Angelos; Lc. c. X, 2: rogate dominum messis, ut mittat operarios in messem suam; Io. IV, 34 qui misit me ut perficiam opus eius. Ventilabrum, iudiciaria potestas Christi, quae discernet triticum a paleis; Io. V, 22: pater omne iudicium dedit filio; Act. X, 42: ipse est qui constitutus est a Deo iudex vivorum et mortuorum. Permundabit, idest perfecte mundabit.
  • Primo per tribulationes quae sunt quasi quidam ventus, qui si non est, paleae sunt cum tritico: ita etiam quamdiu sunt in Ecclesia, non discernuntur boni a malis; et sicut per minorem ventum paleae tenues expelluntur, et per fortem grossae, ita in Ecclesia, si crescat tribulatio, etiam qui firmi videntur, cadunt; Lc. VIII, 13: ad tempus credunt, et in tempore tentationis recedunt.
  • Secundo per sententias praelatorum, quando scilicet excommunicantur; I ad Cor. V, 13: auferte malum ex vobisipsis.
  • Tertio in die iudicii, quando segregabuntur boni a malis; infra XXV, 32. Congregabit in horreum suum, scilicet Paradisi, triticum, idest electos; Ps. CV, 47: salvos nos fac, domine Deus noster, et congrega nos de nationibus. Paleas autem comburet.
    Et nota quod differentia est inter paleas et zizania: aliud enim est semen palearum et zizaniorum, quia palearum est idem semen cum tritico. Unde per zizania possumus intelligere schismaticos, qui non communicant nobiscum in sacramentis; per paleas, fideles, licet malos. Sed utrique igni comburentur. Igni inextinguibili; Is. ultim., 24: ignis eorum non extinguetur. Et dicit inextinguibili, ad differentiam ignis Purgatorii. De hoc igne infra XXV, 41: ite, maledicti, in ignem aeternum et cetera.
(12) Then he mentions the judiciary power: His winnowing fork is in his hand. First, the judiciary power is mentioned; secondly, the effect of the judgment; thirdly, the manner of the judgment. He says, therefore, His winnowing fork, and he employs a comparison. The Church is called the threshing floor; the wheat is the faithful, who will be gathered together by the angels: "Ask the lord of the harvest to send laborers into his harvest" (Lk 10:2); "He sent me to accomplish his will" (Jn 4:34). The winnowing fork is Christ's judiciary power, which will separate the wheat from the chaff: "The Father has given all judgment to the Son" (Jn 5:42); "He it is who has been appointed by God the judge of the living and the dead" (Acts 10:42). He will clear, i.e., thoroughly cleanse:
  • first, by tribulations which are as it were, certain winds, without which the chaff remains with the wheat: so, too, as long as they are in the Church, the good are not discerned from the wicked; and just as the smaller bits of chaff are expelled by a weak wind and the larger by a stronger, so in the Church, if tribulation increases, even those who seem strong fall: "They believe for a time, and in time of trial they fall away" (Lk 8:13).
  • Secondly by the sentences of prelates, when they excommunicate: "Remove the evil person from among you" (1 Cor 5:13).
  • Thirdly, on the day of judgment, when the good will be separated from the wicked (Mt 25:32). He will gather the wheat into his granary of paradise, i.e., the elect: "Save us, O Lord our God, and gather us from among the nations" (Ps 106:47). But the chaff he will burn.
    Note that there is this difference between chaff and cockle. For the seed of chaff and of cockle are different, because that of chaff is the same seed as that of wheat. Hence, by cockle we can understand schismatics, who do not communicate with us in the sacraments; by chaff, the faithful, although evil. But both will be burned by fire. With unquenchable fire: "Their fire shall not be quenched" (Is 66:24). He says unquenchable, to distinguish it from the fire of purgatory: "Depart, you accursed, into eternal fire..." (Mt 25:41).

Lectio 2
Reportatio Petri de Andria
3— 2
Mt 3:13-17
13 τότε παραγίνεται ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἀπὸ τῆς γαλιλαίας ἐπὶ τὸν ἰορδάνην πρὸς τὸν ἰωάννην τοῦ βαπτισθῆναι ὑπ' αὐτοῦ. 14 ὁ δὲ ἰωάννης διεκώλυεν αὐτὸν λέγων, ἐγὼ χρείαν ἔχω ὑπὸ σοῦ βαπτισθῆναι, καὶ σὺ ἔρχῃ πρός με; 15 ἀποκριθεὶς δὲ ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν πρὸς αὐτόν, ἄφες ἄρτι, οὕτως γὰρ πρέπον ἐστὶν ἡμῖν πληρῶσαι πᾶσαν δικαιοσύνην. τότε ἀφίησιν αὐτόν. 16 βαπτισθεὶς δὲ ὁ Ἰησοῦς εὐθὺς ἀνέβη ἀπὸ τοῦ ὕδατος: καὶ ἰδοὺ ἠνεῴχθησαν [αὐτῷ] οἱ οὐρανοί, καὶ εἶδεν [τὸ] πνεῦμα [τοῦ] θεοῦ καταβαῖνον ὡσεὶ περιστερὰν [καὶ] ἐρχόμενον ἐπ' αὐτόν: 17 καὶ ἰδοὺ φωνὴ ἐκ τῶν οὐρανῶν λέγουσα, οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ υἱός μου ὁ ἀγαπητός, ἐν ᾧ εὐδόκησα.
13. Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to the Jordan, unto John, to be baptized by him. 14. But John stayed him, saying: I ought to be baptized by thee, and comest thou to me? 15. And Jesus answering, said to him: Suffer it to be so now. For so it becometh us to fulfil all justice. Then he suffered him. 16. And Jesus being baptized, forthwith came out of the water: and lo, the heavens were opened to him: and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove, and coming upon him. 17. And behold a voice from heaven saying: This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
Supra introduxit Evangelista Ioannem baptizantem, nunc introducit Christum ad Baptismum Ioannis venientem: et circa hoc duo facit. Primo ponit ea quae praecesserunt Baptismum; secundo consequentia ad Baptismum, ibi baptizatus autem Iesus. Earlier the evangelist introduced John baptizing, now he introduces Christ coming to John's baptism. In regard to this he does two things: first, he mentions things which preceded the baptism; secondly, those which followed (v. 16).
Circa primum ponuntur quatuor. Primo mira Christi humilitas; secundo humilitatis admiratio; tertio Christi satisfactio admirationi; quarto Ioannes satisfactioni consentit. Secundum ibi Ioannes autem prohibebat eum; tertium ibi respondens autem Iesus; quartum ibi tunc dimisit eum. In regard to the first, four things are mentioned: first ,the marvelous humility of Christ; secondly, reverence for his humility (v. 14); thirdly, Christ's response to this reverence (v. 15a); fourthly, John consents to this response (v. 15b).
Circa primum quatuor ponuntur: tempus, personae, loca et officium.
  1. Tempus, cum dicit tunc, scilicet Ioanne lumen suum habente. Sicut enim sol oritur adhuc apparente Lucifero, ita Christus Ioanne praedicante et baptizante, Lc. III, 21. Iob XXXVIII, 32: numquid producis Luciferum in tempore suo, et vesperum super fines terrae consurgere facis? Vel tunc quando Christus fuit in trigesimo anno, Lc. III, 23, ut daret intelligi quod officium praedicationis, et praelationis non debet aliquis sumere ante perfectam aetatem. Vel tunc quando secundum cursum aliorum multa peccata poterat perpetrasse. Unde noluit statim baptizari, sed multo tempore legem servavit, quasi constitutus sub lege, et ut Iudaei non haberent causam scandali, quia non venit solvere legem, infra V, 17. Sed posset alicui videri, quod ideo Christus terminasset legem, quia non potuisset legem implere; et ideo voluit diu observare; et ideo non ita cito baptizatus est.
  2. Ponuntur personae, cum dicitur venit Iesus ad Ioannem, dominus ad servum, creator ad creaturam; infra XI, 29: discite a me, quia mitis sum et humilis corde.
  3. Loca a Galilaea. Ista mystice conveniunt baptizatis, quia Galilaea significat transmigrationem: oportet enim baptizatos transmigrare de vitiis ad virtutes; I Petr. II, v. 1: deponentes omnem malitiam, et omnem dolum, et simulationes, et invidias, et omnes detractiones. Item, in Iordanem. Iordanis interpretatur descensus, et significat humilitatem, quae debet esse in baptizando ad gratiam percipiendam; Iacob. IV, 6: humilibus autem dat gratiam.
  4. Ponitur officium ut baptizaretur. Deus voluit baptizari a Ioanne quatuor rationibus. Primo ut Baptismum Ioannis conservaretur, quia illi aliqui detrahebant, infra XXI, v. 24. Secundo, ut suo tactu totam consecraret aquam; et ideo Baptismus dicitur fieri de fontibus salvatoris; Is. XII, 3: haurietis aquas in gaudio de fontibus salvatoris. Tertio, ut demonstraret in se veram conditionem hominis, quia sicut fuit in similitudinem carnis peccati, Rom. VIII, 3, ita voluit mundari quasi peccator. Quarto, ut aliis imponeret necessitatem baptizandi: prius enim voluit servare quae imposuit; Act. I, 1: coepit Iesus facere et docere, contra illos de quibus infra XXIII, 4: alligant onera gravia et importabilia, et imponunt in humeros hominum: digito autem suo nolunt ea tangere. Consequenter ponitur admiratio. Et nota tria. Primo enim Ioannes recusat honorem sibi oblatum; secundo confitetur suam humilitatem; tertio suam infirmitatem. Secundum ibi Ioannes autem prohibebat eum; Eccli. VII, 4: noli quaerere ab homine ducatum, neque a rege cathedram honoris. Tertium ibi ego a te debeo baptizari. Cognoscebat enim quod interius baptizaret; et ideo dicit baptizari idest ab originali peccato mundari: ita dicit Glossa.
In regard to the first, four things are mentioned: the time, the person, places and the service.
  1. (13) The time, when he says, Then, i.e., John having his own light. For as the sun rises, when the morning star is still visible, so Christ, when John was preaching and baptizing (Lk 3:21); "Do you bring forth the morning star in its season and make the evening star rise over the face of the earth?" (Jb 38:32). Or Then, when Christ was in his thirtieth year (Lk 3:23), to give us to understand that one should not assume the office of preaching or prelacy before the perfect age. Or Then, when in conformity with the course of other men he could have committed many sins. Hence he did not wish to be baptized at once but observed the Law for a long time, as though established under the Law, and so that the Jews would have no cause for scandal, because he did not come to abolish the Law (Mt 5:17). But it could seem to someone that Christ would have ended the Law, because he could not fulfill it; and therefore, he wished to observe it for a long time. That is why he was not baptized so soon.

  2. The persons are mentioned, when he says, Christ came to John, the Lord to the servant, the Creator to the creature: "Learn of me, because I am meek and humble of heart" (Mt 11:29).
  3. The places, from Galilee. These places befit those baptized, because Galilee signifies transmigration. For it behooves the baptized to transmigrate from vices to virtues: "Put away all malice and all guile and insincerity and envy and all slander" (1 Pt 2:1). Also, to the Jordan, which is interpreted descent and signifies humility, which ought to be in the one to be baptized in order to receive grace: "He gives his grace to the humble" (Jas 4:6).

  4. The office is mentioned, to be baptized. God willed to be baptized by John for four reasons: first, to defend John's baptism, because some where speaking ill of it (Mt 21:24). Secondly, that by his touch he might consecrate all water; and therefore, baptism is said to be made from the fountains of the Savior: "You will draw water joyfully from the fountains of the Savior" (Is 12:3). Thirdly, to demonstrate the true condition of man in himself, because, as he was "in the likeness of the flesh of sin" (Rom 8:3), so he willed to be cleansed as though a sinner. Fourthly, to place on others the necessity of being baptized, for he willed first to observe the things he imposed on others: "Jesus began to do and to teach" (Acts 1:1), contrary to those of whom it is said below (23:41): "They bind heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with a finger." Then he mentions the reverence. And note three things: first, John refuses the honor offered him; secondly, he confesses his lowliness (v. 14), thirdly, his weakness (14b). For he knew that he would baptize inwardly; therefore he says, to be baptized, i.e., cleansed, from original sin. So says a Gloss.
Sed contra, quia erat sanctificatus in utero. Sed dicendum quod ante adventum Christi aliqui quodammodo mundati sunt quantum ad infectionem personae per circumcisionem, et huiusmodi; sed quantum ad culpam et infectionem totius naturae nullus mundatus fuit ante passionem Christi. Et tu venis ad me? Ps. CXXXVIII, 6: mirabilis facta est scientia tua ex me, confortata est, et non potero ad eam. (14) But on the other hand, he had been sanctified in the womb. The answer is that before Christ's entrance into the world, some were in a way cleansed as to personal infection through circumcision and the like, but as to the guilt and infection of the entire nature no one was cleansed before the passion of Christ. And do you come to me? "Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; it is high, I cannot attain it" (Ps 139:6).
Consequenter ponitur Christi satisfactio. Nota quod Ioannes unum fecerat, quia prohibebat; et duo dixerat: ego a te debeo baptizari, et tu venis ad me? Et tamen Christus ad unum non respondit, ad hoc scilicet ego a te; sed respondit ad hoc quod prohibebat: unde sine modo. Et dicit modo, quia, secundum Chrysostomum, Ioannes postmodum baptizatus est a Christo, non solum Baptismo flaminis, sed etiam aquae. Vel sine modo, hoc dicit, quia postmodum baptizatus est Ioannes Baptismo spiritus sancti. Vel sine modo, ut baptizer Baptismo aquae, quia alio Baptismo habeo baptizari, scilicet Baptismo passionis; Lc. XII, v. 50: Baptismo habeo baptizari, et quomodo coarctor usque dum perficiatur? Et isto etiam Ioannes baptizatus est a Christo, inquantum mortuus est pro iustitia, quod idem est quod mori pro Christo. Vel sine modo, quando gero formam servilem, implere me humilitatis officium: quia quando apparebo gloriosus, tunc baptizabo te Baptismo gloriae. (15) Then he gives Christ's response. Note that John had done one thing, because he forestalled; and had said two things: "I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?" Yet Christ does not respond to these two things, but to the fact that he forestalled him; hence he says, Let it be so now. He says, now, because, according to Chrysostom, John was later baptized by Christ, not only with the baptism of fire but also of water. Or, Let it be so for now, that I be baptized with the baptism of water, because I have to be baptized with another baptism, namely the baptism of the Passion: "I have another baptism with which to be baptized, and I am straitened until it be fulfilled" (Lk 12:50). John was also baptized with it by Christ, in as much as he died for justice, which is the same as dying for Christ. Or, Let it be so now, when I bear the form of a servant, let me fulfill the requirements of humility; because when I will appear glorious, I will baptize you with the baptism of glory.
Consequenter respondet Christus admirationi, et dicit sic enim decet nos implere omnem iustitiam. Quod exponitur tripliciter.
  • Primo sic decet nos implere omnem iustitiam, scilicet per Baptismum: futurum enim erat, quod Christus impleret omnem iustitiam, et legis, et naturae; sed voluit per istam viam implere, quia sine Baptismo non impletur; Io. III, 3: nisi quis natus fuerit denuo, non potest videre regnum Dei et cetera.
  • Remigius sic exponit: sic enim decet nos implere omnem iustitiam. Decet me dare exemplum huius sacramenti, in quo datur plenitudo omnis iustitiae, quia datur plenitudo gratiae et aliarum virtutum; Ps. LXIV, 10: flumen Dei repletum est aquis, scilicet gratiarum.
  • Vel sic: sic enim decet etc., idest, decet me habere perfectam humilitatem. Primus gradus est non praeferre se pari, et subiicere se maiori, quod quidem est necessitatis. Secundum cum subiicit se aequali. Perfecta autem, quando praelatus se subiicit inferiori: et hoc est sic enim decet etc., idest perfectam humilitatem implere. Sed cum esset inter eos talis altercatio, Christus vicit. Unde tunc dimisit eum etc., hoc est permisit ut ab eo baptizaretur. Glossa: vera est humilitas quam non deserit obedientia: pertinaciter enim resistere, superbiae est. I Reg. XV, 23: quasi scelus idololatriae nolle acquiescere: sic enim laudantur Ieremias et Moyses qui finaliter consenserunt.
Then Christ responds to the reverence and says, Let it be so now; for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all justice. This is explained in three ways:
  • first, thus it is fitting to fulfill all justice, namely, through baptism. For it would come to pass that Christ would fulfill all justice both of the Law and of nature; but he willed to fulfill it in that way, because it is not fulfilled without baptism: "Unless a man be born again, he cannot enter the kingdom of heaven" (Jn 3:3).
  • Remigius explains it this way: for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all justice. It behooves me to give an example of this sacrament, because the fullness of grace and of the virtues is given: "The river of God is full of water" (Ps 65:9), i.e., of grace.
  • Or another way: for thus it is fitting..., i.e., it is fitting to have perfect humility. The first degree is not to prefer oneself to an equal and to subject himself to one who is superior, which, of course, is a matter of necessity. The second is when he subjects himself to an equal. But it is perfect, when a prelate subjects himself to his inferior. And this is what he says: for thus it is fitting..., i.e., to fulfill perfect humility. But although there was this difference between them, Christ prevailed. Hence he consented, i.e., permitted him to be baptized by him: "That humility is genuine which obedience does not abandon; for to resist obstinately is a sign of pride" (Gloss); "Rebellion is as the crime of idolatry" (1 Sam 15:23). For Jeremiah and Moses are praised for finally consenting.
Consequenter cum dicit baptizatus autem Iesus confestim ascendit de aqua, ponuntur quatuor consequentia ad Baptismum. Et sciendum, quod sicut Christus in suo Baptismo dedit exemplum baptizandi aliis, ita in consequentibus Baptismum dedit intelligere quae nos consequamur. Sunt autem quatuor consequentia, scilicet ascensus Christi, aperitio caeli, apparitio spiritus sancti, et protestatio patris. (16) Then when he says, When Jesus was baptized, he went up immediately from the water, four things that followed the baptism are mentioned. And it should be noted that as Christ in his baptism gave to others the example of being baptized, so in the things that follow the baptism he gives us to understand what we obtain. But there are four things which followed the baptism; namely, Christ's coming up from the water, the opening of the heavens, the appearance of the Holy Spirit and the witness of the Father.
Primum ibi baptizatus autem Iesus confestim ascendit de aqua. Et ad litteram hoc dicit, quia fluvius habebat alveos altos. In hoc tamen significatur, quod illi qui baptizantur ascendunt per bona opera. Et dicit statim, quia immediate baptizati in Christo induunt Christum; Gal. III, 27: quicumque enim in Christo baptizati estis, Christum induistis. Item adipiscuntur haereditatem caelestem; I Petr. I, 3: regeneravit nos in spem vivam per resurrectionem in haereditatem incorruptibilem: et hoc est et aperti sunt caeli. Hoc non est intelligendum corporaliter, sed imaginaria visione. Et aperti sunt ei caeli. Et significat hoc quod humano generi clausum erat caelum per peccatum; Gen. III, 24: et collocavit ante Paradisum voluptatis Cherubim, et flammeum gladium atque versatilem ad custodiendam viam ligni vitae. Dicitur quod posuit Seraphim, sed apertum est per Christum. The first is mentioned at He went up immediately from the water. He means this literally, because the river had deep beds. Yet in this is signified that those who are baptized ascend by their good works. He says, immediately, because those baptized in Christ put on Christ immediately: "For all of you who have been baptized in Christ, have put on Christ" (Gal 3:2). Furthermore, they obtain a heavenly inheritance: "We have been born anew to a living hope through the resurrection and to an inheritance which is imperishable" (1 Pt 1:3). And this is to say, the heavens were opened. This is not to be considered a bodily occurrence but by an imaginary vision. The heavens were opened. This signifies that the heavens had been closed to the human race by sin: "At the east of the garden of Eden he placed the Cherubim and a flaming sword, which turned every way to guard the way to the tree of life" (Gen 3:24). It is said that he placed the Seraphim, but it was opened by Christ.
Sed quaeritur, quare aperti sunt ei caeli, cum semper fuerint ei aperti? Et dicendum, secundum Chrysostomum, quod Evangelista loquitur secundum communem modum locutionis, quia merito Baptismi eius aperti sunt nobis: sicut rex amico suo petenti pro alio gratiam, dicit: concedo hoc vobis. But why were the heavens opened for him, since they had always been open for him? The answer, according to Chrysostom, is that the evangelist is speaking according to the general manner of speaking, because by the merit of baptism the heavens have been opened for us; just as a king says to his friend seeking a favor for someone: I grant you this.
Et sciendum quod tria sunt hominum genera, qui statim ad caelum evolant post mortem: baptizati, ut hic; martyres, unde Act. c. VII, 56: ecce video caelos apertos, et filium hominis stantem a dextris virtutis Dei, et qui peregerunt poenitentiam, Act. X, 19 dicitur quod Petro oranti apertum est caelum. It should be noted that there are three classes of men who reach heaven immediately after death: the baptized, as here; martyrs; hence (Acts 7:55): "Behold I saw the heavens opened and the Son of Man standing on the right hand of God's power"; and those who have performed penance, as in Acts (10:19): "As Peter was praying, the heavens were opened."
Consequenter ponitur apparitio spiritus sancti; unde et vidit spiritum Dei descendentem sicut columbam, et venientem super se. Hoc est quod competit baptizatis, qui accipiunt spiritum sanctum in se; Io. III, v. 6: quod natum est ex spiritu, spiritus est, idest spiritualis est. Et vidit, non imaginaria visione, alias ipse solus vidisset, spiritum Dei, idest columbam. Et sciendum, quod nihil corporale dicitur de Deo secundum substantiam suam, sed vel per imaginariam visionem, Is. VI, 1: vidi dominum sedentem super solium excelsum et elevatum etc., vel per significationem, I cor c. X, 4: petra autem erat Christus, vel per assumptionem in unitatem personae, Io. I, 14: verbum caro factum est. Nullo autem istorum modorum spiritus sanctus dicitur columba. Quod non per imaginariam visionem, patet, quia communiter ab omnibus visa est. Non per significationem, quia non primo extiterat. Non per assumptionem in unitatem personae. Et ideo est quartus modus, qui est quando de novo formatur aliqua species ad repraesentationem divinorum effectuum, sicut in Ex. III, 2 apparuit dominus in igne et rubo; et in legislatione, in fulgure et in tonitruo, Ex. XIX, 16. Unde columba fuit ad repraesentandam influentiam spiritus sancti: et hoc est et vidit spiritum Dei descendentem. Then is mentioned the apparition of the Holy Spirit: And I saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and alighting on him. This is what befits the baptized, who receive the Holy Spirit within themselves: "He that is born of the Spirit is spirit" (Jn 3:6). And I saw, not with an imaginary vision; otherwise, he alone would have seen, the Spirit of God, i.e., a dove. Note that nothing bodily is said of God, so far as his substance is concerned, but by imaginary vision: "I saw the Lord seated upon a throne high and elevated..." (Is 6:1); or by signification: "The rock was Christ" (1 Cor 10:1); or by assuming into the unity of person: "The Word was made flesh" (Jn 1:14). In none of those ways is the Holy Spirit called a dove. That it is not by imaginary vision is evident, because it was seen generally by all; not by signification, because it had not previously existed; not by assuming it into the unity of his person. Therefore, there is a fourth way, which is when some form is newly produced to represent divine effects, as in Ex (3:2) the Lord appeared in fire and a bush; and in the giving of the Law in lightning and in thunder (Ex 19:16). Hence the dove existed to represent the influence of the Holy Spirit; thus, I saw the Spirit of God descending...
Apparuit autem in specie columbae propter quatuor.
  • Primo propter caritatem; columba enim est animal amorosum. Chrysostomus: alia dona habet etiam servus Diaboli in simulatione, quae habet servus Dei in veritate: solam caritatem sancti spiritus non potest immundus spiritus imitari. Cant. V, 2: aperi mihi, soror mea, amica mea, columba mea, immaculata mea.
  • Secundo propter innocentiam et simplicitatem; infra X, 16: estote prudentes sicut serpentes, et simplices sicut columbae.
  • Tertio quia habet gemitum pro cantu; et homo sanctificatus per spiritum sanctum debet gemere pro peccatis; Nahum II, 7: et ancillae eius minabantur, gementes ut columbae.
  • Quarto propter foecunditatem. Unde etiam praecipiebatur in lege, ut offerrent columbam: et hoc convenit baptizatis, quia, sicut dicit Io. III, 6: quod natum est ex spiritu, spiritus est. Descendentem sicut columbam. Semper emanatio donorum divinorum a Deo in quacumque creatura est per descensum, quia creatura non potest recipere nisi per descensum in illam; Iac. I, 17: omne datum optimum, et omne donum perfectum desursum est, descendens a patre luminum. Et venientem super se.
He appeared in the form of a dove for four reasons:
  • first, on account of charity; for the dove is an amorous animal: "The servant of the devil has certain gifts of the Holy Spirit in counterfeit, which the servant of God truly has. It is only the charity of the Holy Spirit that the unclean spirit cannot imitate" (Chrysostom); "Open to me, my sister, my live, my dove, my immaculate one" (S of S 5:2).
  • Secondly, on account of its innocence and simplicity: "Be wise as serpents, and simple as doves" (Mt 10:16).
  • Thirdly, because it has a groan for its song, and a man sanctified by the Holy Spirit should groan for his sins: "Her maidens lamented, moaning like doves" (Nah 2:7).
  • Fourthly, on account of their fertility; hence it was commanded in the Law that they should offer doves. This befits the baptized, because, as John (3:6) says: "That which is born of the spirit, is spirit." Descending as a dove. The emergence of divine gifts from God is always by descent, because the creature cannot receive except by descending into it: "Every best gift and every perfect gift is from above, descending from the Father of lights" (Jas 1:17). And alighting on him.
Nota. Missio visibilis semper est signum missionis invisibilis: et significat aut gratiam de novo acceptam, aut augmentum gratiae: sicut in apostolis, quando in linguis apparuit spiritus sanctus, significavit augmentum gratiae. Item missio talis vel significat gratiam tunc factam, aut prius factam. In Christo autem non significavit novum effectum, quia ab instanti conceptionis suae fuit plenus gratia et veritate; sed gratia quae fuit ante super se, fuit inquantum homo, non inquantum Deus. Note that the visible sending is always a sign of the invisible sending, and it signifies either grace newly received or an increase of grace: as in the apostles, when the Holy Spirit appeared in tongues, it signified an increase of grace. Furthermore, such a sending either signifies the grace then produced or previously produce. But in Christ it does not signify a new effect, because from the instant of his conception he was full of grace and truth; but the grace previously upon him was as man, not as God.
Consequenter cum dicit et ecce vox de caelo dicens, ponitur protestatio patris hic est filius meus. Nota quod Baptismus non solum facit spirituales, sed etiam filios Dei; Io. I, 12: dedit eis potestatem filios Dei fieri. Et sciendum quod ista vox quasi exprimit illud, quod columba significavit. Dilectus, non sicut aliae creaturae, Sap. II, 13, sed tamquam filius naturalis; Io. V, 20: pater diligit filium, et omnia demonstrat ei quae ipse facit, et maiora his demonstrabit ei opera, ut vos miremini. Hoc etiam significat Ps. II, 7: dominus dixit ad me: filius meus es tu, ego hodie genui te. Sed quia sancti etiam diliguntur ab eo, addit filius, per quod distinguit filium, secundum unum intellectum, ab aliis. In quo mihi complacui. In quocumque enim relucet bonum alicuius, in illo aliquid complacet sibimet, sicut artifex sibi complacet in pulchro artificio suo, et sicut si homo videat suam pulchram imaginem in speculo. Bonitas divina est in qualibet creatura particulari; sed numquam tota perfecta nisi in filio et spiritu sancto; et ideo totum non complacet sibi nisi in filio, qui tantum habet de bonitate quantum pater: et hoc est in quo, idest, ego complaceo mihi in ipso; Io. III, 35: pater diligit filium, et omnia dedit in manu eius. (17) Then, when he says, And lo, a voice from heaven saying, he presents the Father's testimony, This is my Son. Note that baptism makes men not only spiritual but also sons of God: "He gave them power to become sons of God" (Jn 1:12). Note, also, that the voice, as it were, expresses what the dove signified. Beloved, not as other creatures (Son of Songs 2:13), but as the natural Son: "The Father loves the Son, and shows him all that he himself is doing; and greater works than these will he show him, that you may marvel" (Jn 5:20). Ps 2 (v. 7) also signifies this: "You are my son, today I have begotten you." But because the saints are also loved by him, he adds, Son, by which he distinguishes "son" according to one meaning from the others. With whom I am well pleased. For in whatever one's good is reflected, in it something is pleased with it, as an artisan takes pleasure in his beautiful work of art, and as a man in his beautiful image reflected in a mirror. The divine goodness is in every individual creature; but never whole and perfect except in the Son and the Holy Spirit. Therefore, he is not totally pleased except in the Son, who has as much goodness as the Father. This is why he says, in whom, i.e., I am entirely pleased in him: "The Father loves the Son, and has given all things in his hands" (Jn 3:55).
Sed nota quod contrarietas quaedam videtur esse inter istum Evangelistam, et alios, quia Marcus I, 11 et Lucas III, 22 dicunt, tu es filius meus dilectus; Matthaeus vero, est filius meus dilectus, et: in te. Sed eadem est sententia, quia quod dicitur tu es, hoc directe videbatur dici ad Christum; sed dicebat propter alios, quia Christus certus erat de dilectione patris. Et ideo Matthaeus expressit intentionem dicentis, et dicit hic est et cetera. Unde demonstrat quasi aliis dictum esse; ita dixit Augustinus. But note that there seems to be a difference between this evangelist and the others, because Mk (1:11) and Luke (3:22) say: "You are my beloved son"; but Matthew says, He is my beloved Son and in you. But the idea is the same, because "You are" seems to be said directly to Christ; but he said it for the sake of the bystanders, because Christ was certain of the Father's love. Therefore, Matthew expressed the intention of the speaker and said, This is... Hence, he shows that it was said, as if to others: thus said Augustine.
Item quaeritur, quare Matthaeus et Marcus dicunt in quo mihi, Lucas vero, in te. Augustinus dicit quod pater in filio complacet sibi, et hominibus. Propter hoc ergo quod dicitur in quo, significat quod complaceat sibi in hominibus. Unde complaceat aliis mihi, idest ad honorem meum, quia aliqui videntes filium, glorificaverunt patrem. Vel secundum utrumque sensum: in quo mihi complacui, idest placitum meum fuit implere salutem hominum: et hoc est in te, idest per te. Also one asks why Matthew and Mark say, "in whom I am," but Luke says, "in you." Augustine says that the Father is pleased, and men are pleased in the Son. Hence, others are pleased in me, i.e., to my honor, because some, seeing the Son, have given glory to the Father. Or, according to another sense: "In whom I am well pleased," i.e., my pleasure was to fulfill man's salvation; and this is why he says, "in you," i.e., "through you."
Et nota quod in isto Baptismo non solum repraesentatur finis et fructus, sed etiam forma Baptismi, quae est, in nomine patris, et filii, et spiritus sancti, infra. Filius enim fuit in carne, pater in voce, spiritus sanctus in columbae specie. Et nota quod hoc quod seorsum fuit, non pertinet ad divisionem operationis personae de Trinitate, cum, sicut est communis essentia, ita operatio; sed hoc dicitur propter appropriationem quamdam, quia tota Trinitas illud et columbam creavit, et carnem creavit; sed referuntur ista ad diversas personas. Note that in the baptism itself is not only represented the end and fruit, but even the form of baptism, which is, "In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" (Mt 28:19). For the Son was in the flesh, the Father in the voice and the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove. Note, also, that what was separated from the others does not pertain to a division of activity on the part of a person of the trinity, since, as the essence is common, so the activity. But this is said by way of appropriation, because the whole Trinity created both the dove and the flesh. But they are referred to diverse persons.

Caput 4
Lectio 1
Reportatio Petri de Andria
4—1
Mt 4:1-11
1 τότε ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἀνήχθη εἰς τὴν ἔρημον ὑπὸ τοῦ πνεύματος, πειρασθῆναι ὑπὸ τοῦ διαβόλου. 2 καὶ νηστεύσας ἡμέρας τεσσεράκοντα καὶ νύκτας τεσσεράκοντα ὕστερον ἐπείνασεν. 3 καὶ προσελθὼν ὁ πειράζων εἶπεν αὐτῷ, εἰ υἱὸς εἶ τοῦ θεοῦ, εἰπὲ ἵνα οἱ λίθοι οὗτοι ἄρτοι γένωνται. 4 ὁ δὲ ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπεν, γέγραπται, οὐκ ἐπ' ἄρτῳ μόνῳ ζήσεται ὁ ἄνθρωπος, ἀλλ' ἐπὶ παντὶ ῥήματι ἐκπορευομένῳ διὰ στόματος θεοῦ. 5 τότε παραλαμβάνει αὐτὸν ὁ διάβολος εἰς τὴν ἁγίαν πόλιν, καὶ ἔστησεν αὐτὸν ἐπὶ τὸ πτερύγιον τοῦ ἱεροῦ, 6 καὶ λέγει αὐτῷ, εἰ υἱὸς εἶ τοῦ θεοῦ, βάλε σεαυτὸν κάτω: γέγραπται γὰρ ὅτι τοῖς ἀγγέλοις αὐτοῦ ἐντελεῖται περὶ σοῦ καὶ ἐπὶ χειρῶν ἀροῦσίν σε, μήποτε προσκόψῃς πρὸς λίθον τὸν πόδα σου. 7 ἔφη αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς, πάλιν γέγραπται, οὐκ ἐκπειράσεις κύριον τὸν θεόν σου. 8 πάλιν παραλαμβάνει αὐτὸν ὁ διάβολος εἰς ὄρος ὑψηλὸν λίαν, καὶ δείκνυσιν αὐτῷ πάσας τὰς βασιλείας τοῦ κόσμου καὶ τὴν δόξαν αὐτῶν, 9 καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ, ταῦτά σοι πάντα δώσω ἐὰν πεσὼν προσκυνήσῃς μοι. 10 τότε λέγει αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς, ὕπαγε, σατανᾶ: γέγραπται γάρ, κύριον τὸν θεόν σου προσκυνήσεις καὶ αὐτῷ μόνῳ λατρεύσεις. 11 τότε ἀφίησιν αὐτὸν ὁ διάβολος, καὶ ἰδοὺ ἄγγελοι προσῆλθον καὶ διηκόνουν αὐτῷ.
1. Then Jesus was led by the spirit into the desert, to be tempted by the devil. 2. And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, afterwards he was hungry. 3. And the tempter coming said to him: If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread. 4. Who answered and said: It is written, Not in bread alone doth man live, but in every word that proceedeth from the mouth of God. 5. Then the devil took him up into the holy city, and set him upon the pinnacle of the temple, 6. And said to him: If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down, for it is written: That he hath given his angels charge over thee, and in their hands shall they bear thee up, lest perhaps thou dash thy foot against a stone. 7. Jesus said to him: It is written again: Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God. 8. Again the devil took him up into a very high mountain, and shewed him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them. 9. And said to him: All these will I give thee, if falling down thou wilt adore me. 10. Then Jesus saith to him: Begone, Satan: for it is written: The Lord thy God shalt thou adore, and him only shalt thou serve. 11. Then the devil left him; and behold angels came and ministered to him.
Supra ostensum est, quod Christus se praeparavit ad doctrinam, Baptismum accipiendo; nunc autem tentationem superando. Circa hoc duo facit: primo ponitur victoria, quam de tentatione habuit; secundo, quomodo discipulos ad doctrinam audiendam vocavit, ibi ambulans autem Iesus iuxta mare Galilaeae. It was shown above that Christ prepared himself for preaching by receiving baptism, but now by overcoming temptation. In regard to this he does two things: first, the victory over temptation; secondly, the calling of disciples to hear the doctrine (v. 18).
Circa primum tria facit: primo praemittit quaedam praeambula de tentatione; secundo ponitur tentationis insultus, ibi et accedens tentator dixit; tertio victoria, ibi tunc reliquit eum Diabolus. Regarding the first he does three things: first, he mentions certain preludes to the temptation; secondly, the onslaught of the temptation (v. 3); thirdly, the victory (v. 11).
Three preludes to the temptation are mentioned, namely, the place, the fast and the experience of hunger.
Ponuntur autem tria praeambula, scilicet locus, ieiunium et famis experientia. Quantum ad primum quatuor tanguntur: tempus et locus, ductor et finis huius ducatus. In regard to the first he touches on four things: the time, the place, the leader, and the purpose of the leading.
Tempus tunc, quando scilicet iam declarabatur voce paterna quod esset filius Dei. In quo dat intelligi, quia illis tentatio imminet, qui efficiuntur filii Dei per Baptismum; Eccli. II, 1: fili, accedens ad servitutem Dei sta in iustitia et timore, et praepara animam tuam ad tentationem. Istud desertum erat inter Ierusalem et Iericho, ubi multi occidebantur, de quo Lc. X, v. 30: homo quidam descendit ab Ierusalem in Iericho, et incidit in latrones, qui etiam despoliaverunt eum, et plagis impositis abierunt, semivivo relicto. Et nota quinque rationes, quare quis post acceptam spiritualem gratiam tentatur.
  • Prima ut accipiat experimentum suae iustitiae; Eccli. XXXIV, 9: qui non est tentatus, qualia scit?
  • Secundo ad reprimendam superbiam; II Cor. XII, 7: ne magnitudo revelationum extollat me, datus est mihi stimulus carnis meae, Angelus Satanae qui me colaphizet et cetera.
  • Tertio ad confundendum Diabolum, ut sciat quanta sit virtus Christi, ut superare non possit. Huius exemplum habetur Iob I, 8: numquid considerasti servum meum Iob? et cetera.
  • Quarto, ut fortior reddatur, sicut milites fortes redduntur per experientiam; Iudic. III: quare voluit dimittere hostes cum filiis Israel?
  • Quinto, ut suam dignitatem cognoscat: quia quando Diabolus aggreditur aliquem, hoc cedit ad honorem, quia Diabolus sanctos aggreditur; Iob XL, 10: cibus eius foenum (...), et habet fiduciam quod influat Iordanis in os eius.
(1) The time, Then, i.e., when the Father's voice had announced him Son of God. In this we are given to understand that temptation is imminent for those made sons of God through baptism: "My son, if you come forward to serve the Lord, prepare yourself for temptation" (Sir 2:1). That desert was between Jerusalem and Jericho, where many were killed: "A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho and fell among robbers, who stripped him and beat him and departed, leaving him half dead" (Lk 10:29). And note five reasons why one is tempted after receiving spiritual grace:
  • First, to receive a test of his rigtheousness: "He that is not tempted, what sort of things does he know?" (Sir 34:10).
  • Secondly, to repress pride: "To keep me from being too elated by the abundance of revelations, a thorn was given me in the flesh, a messenger of Satan to harass me" (2 Cor 12:7).
  • Thirdly, to confound the devil, so that he would know that the virtue of Christ is so great that he cannot overcome him. An example of this is found in Job (1:8): "Have you considered my servant Job?
  • Fourthly, that he might become stronger, as soldiers become stronger through experience: "These are the nations which the Lord left to test Israel by them, that is, all in Israel who had no experience of any war in Canaan" (Jg 3:1).
  • Fifthly, that he might recognize his dignity, because when the devil attacks anyone, it is an honor, because the devil attacks holy persons: "If the river is turbulent, he is not frightened; he is confident though Jordan rushes against his mouth" (Jb 40:23).
Sequitur de loco tunc ductus est Iesus in desertum. Hoc convenit praecedentibus et subsequentibus: quia conveniens fuit quod post Baptismum desertum intraret. Hoc significatur in populo Israelitico, qui post transitum maris rubri, qui fuit figura Baptismi, in terram promissionis venit per desertum et solitudinem: ita baptizati vitam solitariam et quietam debent quaerere, corpore mundum derelinquendo, vel mente; Osee II, v. 14: ducam eam in solitudinem, et loquar ad cor eius. Ps. LIV, 8: ecce elongavi fugiens, et mansi in solitudine. Conveniens enim erat ut exiret in desertum, quasi ad singulare certamen cum Diabolo. Chrysostomus: ille in desertum vadit, qui exit extra fines (idest voluntatem) carnis et mundi, ubi non est locus tentationis. Quomodo enim de libidine tentatur, qui tota die est cum uxore? Sed qui non exeunt a voluntate carnis et mundi, non sunt filii Dei, sed filii Diaboli, qui etiam uxorem propriam habentes, appetunt alienam; Then the place, Jesus was led up into the desert. This befits the preceding and the following, because it was fitting that after the baptism he should go into the desert. This is signified in the Israelites, who, after crossing the Red Sea, which was a figure of baptism, came into the promised land through the desert and wilderness; so the baptized should try to lead a solitary and quiet life by forsaking the world in body or in mind: "I will bring her into the wilderness and speak to her heart" (Hos 2:14); "I would lodge in the wilderness" (Ps 55:7). For it was fitting that after baptism he should go into the desert as to an individual struggle with the devil. Chrysostom: "He went into the desert, who went outside the confines (i.e., the will) of the flesh and of the world, where there is no room for temptation. For how can he be tempted by passion, who is all day with the wife?" But those who do not go out from the will of the flesh and of the devil are not sons of God but children of the devil; they have their own wife but seek another.
sed filii Dei habentes spiritum sanctum ducuntur in desertum, ut tententur cum Christo, de quo sequitur: ductus est a spiritu, intellige sancto. Sed ille qui ducit, maior est eo qui ducitur. Ergo spiritus sanctus maior Christo. Respondendum: si referatur ad Iesum secundum quod est filius Dei, sic est aequalis spiritui sancto. Et aliquis potest alium ducere, vel imperio, et sic est maior: vel exhortatione, et sic est par; Io. I, 40 s., Andreas duxit Petrum ad Iesum; et sic ductus est Iesus. Hilarius refert ad Christum, secundum quod homo: scilicet spiritus sanctus hominem quem repleverat, exponit tentationi. Homines enim tunc ducuntur a spiritu sancto, quando caritate moventur, sic quod non motu proprio moventur, sed alieno, quia sequuntur impetum caritatis; II Cor. V, 14: caritas Dei urget nos. But the sons of God, having the Holy Spirit, are led into the desert to be tempted with Christ, of whom he continues: "He was led by the Spirit, i.e., Holy. But the one who leads is greater than the one led. Therefore, the Holy Spirit is greater than Christ. I answer that if it is referred to Jesus, in so far as he was Son of God, he is equal to the Holy Spirit. And someone can lead another either by commanding, and then he is greater, or by exhorting, and then he is equal; (Jn 1:40 ff) Andrew led Peter to Jesus; and thus was Jesus led. Hilary refers it to Christ as man, i.e., the Holy Spirit exposes to temptation the man whom he had filled. For men are led by the Holy Spirit, when they are moved by charity in such a way that they are not moved on their own initiative but by another; because they follow the impulse of charity: "The charity of God drives us" (2 Cor 5:14).
Et sic filii Dei aguntur a spiritu sancto, ut tempus huius vitae, quae plena est tentationibus Iob VII, 1: tentatio est vita hominis super terram, transeant cum victoria per Christi virtutem. Ipse enim tentari voluit, ut sicut morte sua vicit nostram, sic tentatione sua superet omnes tentationes nostras; Hebr. IV, v. 15: non habemus pontificem, qui non possit compati infirmitatibus nostris; tentatum autem per omnia pro similitudine absque peccato. In this way the sons of God are driven by the Holy Spirit, so that they pass through the time of this life, which is full of trials; (Jb 7:1): "Man's life on earth is a trial," in victory through Christ. For he willed to be tempted, in order that, as he overcame our death by his, so he would overcome all our temptations by his: "We have not a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin" (Heb 4:15).
Gregorius dicit, quod est triplex tentationis gradus, scilicet per suggestionem, delectationem et consensum. Prima ab extrinseco est, et potest esse sine peccato; secunda est ab intrinseco, in qua incipit esse peccatum; quae quidem perficitur per consensum. Primus gradus potuit esse in Christo, non alii. Et nota quod Diabolus non fuisset ausus accedere ad tentandum Christum, nisi prius Christus accessisset ad eum. [Gregory says the there are three grades of temptation: by suggestion, by taking delight, and by consent. The first is from without, and can be without sin. The second in from within, where sin begins, but it is perfected by consent. The first grade could take place in Christ, but not the other grades. Note that the the devil could not have dared approach Christ to tempt him, unles Christ had first approached him.]
Consequenter ponitur secundum praeambulum, scilicet ieiunium et cum ieiunasset etc., quod convenit et praeteritis, et futuris: praeteritis, quia convenienter aliquis post Baptismum ieiunat, cum post Baptismum non sit otio vacandum, sed exercendum in bonis operibus; Gal. V, 13: vos autem, fratres, in libertate vocati estis; libertas autem vera non est committenda carnali vitae. Item futuris competebat, ut is ieiunaret quem Diabolus erat tentaturus, quia hoc genus Daemoniorum non eiicitur nisi per orationem et ieiunium, inf. XVII, 20. Quadraginta diebus. Ad litteram hoc intelligendum est. Et addit et noctibus, ne crederent aliqui quod comedere liceret in nocte, sicut Saraceni faciunt. (2) Then the second prelude is given, namely, the fast. And when he had fasted..., which suits both the past and the future: the past, because it is fitting for one to fast after baptism, since he should not take his ease after baptism but should exercise himself in good works: "You were called to freedom, brethren" (Gal :13); but through freedom he should not be dedicated to a carnal life. It also befits the future, so that one whom the devil is about to tempt should fast, because "this kind of devil is not cast out save by prayer and fasting" (Mt 17:20). Forty days. This is to be taken literally. He adds and forty nights, so that no one suppose that it would be lawful to eat at night, as the Saracens do.
Et sciendum quod hic numerus praefiguratur in veteri testamento in Moyse et Elia, Ex. XXIV, 18, et III Reg. XIX, 8. Et latet in hoc mysterium, quia numerus huiusmodi consurgit ex denario ducto per quaternarium. Denarius significat legem, quia in decem praeceptis tota lex continetur. Quaternarius significat compositionem carnis, quia caro composita est ex quatuor elementis. Quia igitur nos per suggestionem carnis transgredimur legem divinam, iustum est ut carnem nostram affligamus diebus quadraginta. Secundum autem Gregorium hic numerus est ad ieiunandum ab Ecclesia institutus, quod per hoc decimas solvimus totius anni: a prima enim dominica usque ad Pascha sunt triginta sex dies ieiunabiles, qui sunt decima pars ipsius anni, sex diebus exceptis. Et ideo ab antiquo a quibusdam addita fuit dies media, qui ieiunabant usque ad mediam noctem sabbati sancti. It should be noted that this number is prefigured in the Old Testament in Moses and Elijah (Ex 24:18 and 1 Kg 19:8). And a mystery is concealed in this, because such a number arises from ten multiplied by four. Ten signifies the Law, because the whole Law is contained in ten commands. Four signifies the composition of the flesh, because flesh is composed of four elements. Therefore, because we transgress the divine law through the influence of the flesh, it is proper that we afflict our flesh for forty days. According to Gregory, however, this number was established by the Church for fasting, and by it we pay the tenths of the whole year; for from the first Sunday to Easter are thirty-six days of fast; and this is one-tenth of the year with six days left over. And therefore from early times another half-day was added by those who fasted until midnight of Holy Saturday.
Tertium additur, quia postea esuriit. Non legitur hoc de Moyse et Elia, qui homines erant; sed Christus esurire voluit, ut suam humanitatem demonstraret; quia aliter Diabolus ausus non fuisset accedere ad tentandum eum; Phil. II, 7: in similitudinem hominum factus, et habitu inventus ut homo. The third prelude is added, because afterward he was hungry. This is not recorded of Moses and Elijah, who were men; but Christ willed to be hungry to prove that he was human; otherwise, the devil would not have dared to come near to tempt him: "Being born in the likeness of men, and being found in human form" (Phil 2:7).
Consequenter insultus tentationis ponitur; et est triplex. Primus de gula; secundus de inani gloria; tertius de ambitione. Secundum ibi tunc assumpsit eum Diabolus in sanctam civitatem. Tertium ibi iterum assumpsit eum Diabolus in montem excelsum valde. Then the onslaught of the temptation is presented: first, to gluttony; secondly to vain glory (v. 5); thirdly to ambition (v. 8).
Circa primum duo facit. Primo ponit insultum Diaboli; secundo quomodo Christus respondit, ibi qui respondens et cetera. Et accedens tentator dixit. Hoc enim poterat effici, ut ipse ad Iesum accederet in aliqua forma corporea. (3) In regard to the first, he does two things: first, he presents the devil's attack; secondly, how Christ responded (v. 4). And the tempter came and said to him... For this could be done, so that he would approach Jesus in a bodily form.
Et est triplex tentatio, quia Deus tentat ut instruat; Gen. XXII, 1: tentavit Deus Abraham. Quandoque homo ut addiscat, sicut regina Saba tentavit Salomonem, III Reg. X, 1, ubi de ea dicitur, sed et regina Saba, audita fama Salomonis, venit tentare eum in aenigmatibus. Diabolus tentat ut decipiat; I Thess. c. III, 5: ne forte tentaverit vos is qui tentat. Quicumque vult tentare de scientia, primo de communibus tentat. Communia autem totius generis humani vitia sunt vitia carnis; et praecipue gula. Item qui vult obsidere castrum, incipit a debiliori parte; homo autem habet duas partes, carnalem et spiritualem. Diabolus ex parte debiliori semper tentat: unde primo de vitiis carnalibus tentat, sicut patet in primo parente, quem primo tentavit de gula. Sed notanda est mira astutia in tentando: si filius Dei es: ita enim directe de uno tentavit, quod ex obliquo de altero. Unde in primo homine suadebat quod comederet de ligno, quod ad peccatum carnale, scilicet gulae, directe pertinebat; sed latenter inducebat ad superbiam et avaritiam, quae sunt peccata spiritualia; unde dixit, et eritis sicut dii Gen. III, 5. Ita in Christo: audierat enim quod Christus venturus esset in mundum, et hic videbatur esse filius Dei; sed in dubitationem venerat, utrum hic esset ille de quo erat prophetatum, quia nihil inveniebat in eo; Io. XIV, 30: venit princeps mundi huius, et in me non habet quicquam. Unde suggerebat quod homini esurienti delectabile est. Item induxit ad appetendum ea quae sunt Dei; et hoc est si filius Dei es, dic ut lapides isti panes fiant. Eccle. VIII, 4: sermo illius potestate plenus est; et Ps. XXXII, 6: verbo domini caeli firmati sunt, et spiritu oris eius omnis virtus eorum. Ergo potest eius verbo lapis mutari. Ergo volebat inclinare ad hoc, quod si faceret, sciret esse filium Dei, si non, inducebat ad arrogantiam. Et notandum quod multi homines sunt qui consentiunt peccatis carnalibus, aestimantes, quod non debeant amittere statum spiritualem. Sed si in hoc quod tentatur consentiens homo, non amitteret spiritualitatem, levis esset tentatio. Ita persuadere voluit mulieri Diabolus, et Christo, promittens spiritualia. And there are three temptations, because God tests to instruct: "God tested Abraham" (Gen 22:1). Man sometimes tests to learn, as the Queen of Sheba tested Solomon (1 Kg 10:1), where it is said of her: "Now when the queen of Sheba heard of the fame of Solomon, she came to test him with hard questions." The devil tests to deceive: "For fear that somehow the tempter had tempted you" (1 Th 3:5). One who wants to test another about knowledge first test him about general matters. But general to the whole human race are vices of the flesh, and especially gluttony. Likewise, one who wishes to attack a camp begins at the weaker part; but man has two parts, the bodily and the spiritual. The devil always tests the weaker side; hence, he first tests for bodily vices, as is clear from our first parents, whom he tested first in regard to gluttony. But the devil's marvelous astuteness in tempting should be noted: If you are the Son of God. Thus, he directly tempts about one thing and indirectly about another. Hence, in the first man he persuaded him to eat of the tree, which pertained directly to a bodily sin, namely, gluttony; but secretly he led him into pride and greed, which are spiritual sins. Hence, he said: "You will be as gods": (Gen 3:5). So in the case of Christ, for he had heard that Christ would come into the world and he seemed to be the Son of God. But he had begun to doubt whether this was the one about whom the prophecies had been made, because he found nothing in him: "The ruler of this world is coming. He has no power over me" (Jn 14:30). Hence, he suggested something pleasant to a hungry man. He also induced him to desire things that are God's. And this is, if you are the Son of God, command these stones to become loaves of bread: "His word is full of power" (Ec 8:4); "By the word of the Lord the heavens were made and all their host by the breath of his mouth" (Ps 33:6). Therefore, a stone can be changed by his word. Hence, he wanted to incline him to this. If he did it, he would know that he is the Son of God; if not, he would have led him to arrogance. And it should be noted that there are many men who consent to sins of the flesh, thinking that they would not lose their spiritual stature. But if the consenting man were not to lose his spirituality by the matter to which he is tempted, the temptation would be light. This is the way the devil decided to persuade the woman by promising spiritual things.
Qui respondens dixit: scriptum est: non in solo pane vivit homo. In ista responsione dat tria documenta, quae facienda sunt tentato.
  • Primum ut recurrat ad Scripturae medicinam; Ps. CXVIII, 11: in corde meo abscondi eloquia tua, ut non peccem tibi et cetera. Unde dixit, scriptum est.
  • Secundum documentum ut homo nihil faciat ad arbitrium Diaboli. Vegetius: nihil umquam sapiens dux debet facere ad arbitrium sui hostis, etiam si bonum videatur. Et ideo dominus cum posset sine peccato lapides in panem commutare, noluit, quia ille suggerebat.
  • Tertium est, quod non debet facere sine utilitate, ad ostentationem suae virtutis, quia hoc est vanitas. Qui respondens dixit: scriptum est: non in solo pane vivit homo.
(4) But he answered, "It is written": 'Man does not live by bread alone." In this answer he gives three lessons that must be followed by one being tempted:
  • first, that he have recourse to the medicine of Scripture: "I have laid up your word in my heart, that I might no sin against you" (Ps 119:11).
  • The second is that a man do nothing that accords with the devil's strategy. Vegetius: "A wise leader should never do anything that conforms with the enemy's strategy, even if it seems good." And therefore, although the Lord could without sin have changed stones into bread, he willed no to, because he suggested.
  • The third is that he should not do anything useless to show his power, because this is vanity.
Notandum, quod Diabolus ad duo nitebatur: primo ducere in affectum carnalium, item praesumptionis. Christus autem contra utrumque primo vitat iactantiam; quasi dicat, tu vocas filium Dei, ego nomino hominem; unde non in solo pane vivit homo. Item trahit Diabolus in affectum carnalium: dic ut lapides isti panes fiant; hic trahit se in affectum spiritualium: sed in omni verbo quod procedit de ore Dei. Quasi dicat, non tantum vita corporalis affectanda est, quantum vita spiritualis, quae conservatur per cibum spiritualem, sed in omni verbo quod procedit de ore Dei. Io. VI, 69: domine, ad quem ibimus? Verba vitae aeternae habes; Ps. CXVIII, 93: in aeternum non obliviscar iustificationes tuas, quia in ipsis vivificasti me. Et dicit in omni verbo, quia tota spiritualis doctrina est a Deo, sive ab homine, sive a Deo dicatur. Et iterum de ore: quia praedicator os Dei; Ier. XV, 19: si separaveris pretiosum a vili, quasi os meum eris. Vel aliter. Non in solo, idest, non vivit solum homo per panem, sed etiam verbo, idest imperio Dei potest conservari sine aliquo cibo. It should be noted that the devil was aiming at two things: first, to draw Christ to a desire for bodily things; secondly, to presumption. But Christ acts against both, first, by avoiding arrogance. As if to say: You say Son of God, I say of man; hence Man shall not live by bread alone. Likewise, the devil draws him to a desire for bodily things: Command these stones to become loaves of bread. Here he draws him to a desire for something spiritual: but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God. As if to say: Bodily life should not be loved as much as spiritual, which is preserved by spiritual food, by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God: "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life" (Jn 6:69); "I will never forget your precepts; for by them you have given me life" (Ps 119:93). He says by every word, because all spiritual teaching is from God, whether it is spoken by man or by God. And again from the mouth, because the preacher is the mouth of God: "If you separate what is precious from what is worthless, you shall be as my mouth" (Jer 15:19). Or in another way: Not in bread alone, i.e., man does not live only by bread but also by the word, i.e., by the command of God he can be preserved without any food.
Tunc assumpsit eum Diabolus in sanctam civitatem. Posita prima tentatione, de qua Diabolus victus fuit, nunc ponitur secunda, scilicet de inani gloria. Et ordo congruus est, quod postquam Diabolus se vinctum videret vitio carnali, tentaret de inani gloria, vel superbia: quia superbia bonis operibus insidiatur, ut pereant, Augustinus in regula. Circa istam ergo tentationem tria facit. Primo ponitur locus tentationis; secundo insultus, sive conatus tentationis, ibi si filius Dei es, mitte te deorsum: tertio resistentia Christi, ibi ait ei Iesus. (5) Then the devil took him to the holy city. Having described the first temptation, the second is not presented, namely, about vain glory. The order is fitting, namely, that after the devil saw himself defeated concerning a bodily vice, he should try him on vain glory or pride: "Because pride lies in wait for good works, to destroy them" (Augustine in The Rule). Regarding this temptation he does three things: first, the place of the temptation is given, secondly, the attack or endeavor of the temptation (v. 6); thirdly, Christ's resistance (v. 7).
Sed sciendum, quod Lucas posuit tertiam tentationem, hic e converso; sed non est vis, secundum Augustinum: quia omnia quae narrantur hic, et in Luca narrantur; nec ponitur in Luca, vel hic quae fuit prima, vel secunda. Rabanus vero dicit quod Lucas attendit ad ordinem historiae; et ideo sic ordinavit, secundum quod factum est. Matthaeus vero naturam tentationis secutus est, quia post tentationem de gula, et de inani gloria, sequitur tentatio de ambitione: ita enim fuit tentatus Adam, quia primo de gula; unde Gen. II, 17: in quacumque die comederis ex eo, morte morieris; secundo de gloria: eritis sicut dii; tertio de avaritia, sive ambitione, scientes bonum et malum. It should be noted that Luke makes this the third temptation; here it is the second. But according to Augustine it makes no difference, because everything mentioned here is also mentioned by Luke. Furthermore, neither in Luke nor here is there any indication which was first and which was second. But Rabanus says that Luke is interested in the historical order; consequently, he arranged them as they occurred. Matthew, on the other hand, followed the nature of the temptation, because after the temptations to gluttony and vain glory, the temptation to ambition follows. For that is the way Adam was tempted: first, to gluttony, "On whatsoever day you shall eat of it, you shall die the death" (Gen 2:17); secondly, to glory: "You will be as gods" (Gen 3:5; thirdly, to greed or ambition: "Knowing good and evil."
Sed quare dicit tunc assumpsit? Hoc enim nomen assumptio vim importat. Et respondet Hieronymus, quod hoc dicit Evangelista secundum opinionem Diaboli, quia quod Christus sustinuit ex virtute, Diabolus accepit quasi faceret sua potentia. Dicit sanctam, vel quia ibi agebantur sancta, temporalia scilicet sacrificia, et huiusmodi. Vel dicit propter sanctitatem patrum eorum qui ibi fuerunt. Unde ex antiqua consuetudine vocat sanctam, licet cessaverit; Is. I, 21: quomodo facta est meretrix civitas fidelis, plena iudicii? Sed post dicit, vocaberis civitas iusti, urbs fidelis et cetera. Sed sciendum quod Mc. I, 13 dicitur, quod erat in deserto quadraginta diebus et quadraginta noctibus, et tentabatur a Satana. Ex quo videtur quod omnes tentationes fuerint in deserto. Ergo non videtur verum esse quod dicitur tunc assumpsit eum Diabolus. Et est hic duplex responsio. Quidam dicunt, quod omnes tentationes fuerunt in deserto, et quod fuerunt secundum imaginariam visionem, scilicet quod Christus ita imaginabatur, ipso etiam permittente. Alii dicunt, quod fuerunt secundum visionem corporalem: et quod Diabolus apparuit ei in specie corporali. Hoc videtur innui, quia dicit, quod assumpsit eum in sanctam civitatem. Quidam dicunt quod hoc ideo ad desertum pertinet, quia Ierusalem deserta erat a Deo. Sed dicendum melius, quod illud, quod dicitur Mc. I, 13 non est intelligendum, quod omnes tentationes fuerint in deserto, nec etiam ipse hoc dicit; sed quod tentabatur a Satana. Et ideo sciendum, quod prima tentatio fuit in deserto; aliae duae extra desertum. Sed quaeritur quomodo assumpsit. Dicunt quod deportavit eum supra se. Alii (et melius), quod exhortando induxit ad hoc quod iret; et Christus ex dispositione suae sapientiae ivit in Ierusalem. But why does he say He took him? For this word "taken" implies force. Jerome answers that the evangelist was describing the devil's opinion, because what Christ endured through virtue, the devil took as done by his own power. He says holy, either because holy actions were performed there, namely, temporal sacrifices and the like, or on account of the holiness of the fathers of those living there. Hence, from an ancient custom he calls it holy, although it had ceased to be holy: "How the faithful city has become a harlot, she that was full of justice" (Is 1:21). But it should be noted that Mk (1:13) says that "he was in the desert forty days tempted by Satan." From this it seems that all the temptations were in the desert. Therefore, it does not seem correct to say then the devil took him... There are two responses to this: some say that all the temptations were in the desert and that they occurred according to imaginal vision, namely, that Christ so imagined and also permitted. Others say that they occurred according to bodily vision and that the devil appeared to him in a bodily form. This seems to be implied, because he says that he took him into the holy city. Some say that the reason this pertains to the desert is that Jerusalem had been deserted by the Lord. But it is better to say that what is stated in Mk (1:13) should not be understood as meaning that all the temptation took place in the desert, for he does not say this, but that he was tempted by Satan. Therefore, one must admit that the first temptation was in the desert and the other two outside the desert. But the question remains: How did the devil take him up? Some say that he carried him; others (and better) that he persuaded him to go; and Christ by the discretion of his wisdom went to Jerusalem.
Et statuit eum super pinnaculum templi et cetera. Sciendum quod legitur III Reg. c. VI, quod Salomon fecit tria tabulata in templo cum tecto plano, et quaedam pinnacula iuxta templum, per quae poterant homines ascendere: et de hoc dicitur hic et statuit eum super pinnaculum templi. Utrum autem accesserit in primum, vel secundum, vel tertium, hic non dicitur; sed certum est, quod aliquod ascendit. And set him on the pinnacle of the temple. It should be recalled from 1 Kings (c. 6) that Solomon made three stories in the temple with a flat roof. Next to the temple he made pinnacles by which men could ascend. Concerning this he says here: He set him on the pinnacle of the temple. But whether he went to the first, or second, or third, the evangelist does not say. But it is certain that he did ascend.
Sed numquid homines non videbant quando Diabolus Christum portabat? Dicendum, secundum illos qui dicunt quod eum portabat, quod Christus sua virtute faciebat, quod videri non posset. Vel dicendum quod Diabolus in figura hominis erat; et consuetudo erat quod homines sic ascenderent. But did the people not see the devil carrying Christ? The answer according to those who say that he carried him is that Christ by his own power did what others could not see. Or it can be said that the devil was in the shape of a man, and it was a custom for men to ascend that way.
Et dixit ei: si filius Dei es, mitte te deorsum. Semper Diabolus duabus sagittis percutit: ex una parte enim inducit inanem gloriam, ex alia parte homicidium; et hoc est si filius Dei es et cetera. Sed certe ista consequentia Christo non convenit, quia ei competit ascendere; Io. III, v. 13: nemo ascendit in caelum, nisi qui descendit de caelo, filius hominis, qui est in caelo et cetera. Et dicit mitte, quia eius intentio est semper praecipitare, sicut ipse praecipitatus est; Apoc. XII, 4: cauda draconis trahebat tertiam partem stellarum caeli, et misit eam in terram. Notat etiam Diabolus infirmitatem suam, quia nullus nisi volens ab eo vincitur; unde dicit mitte, non praecipitat; Is. XLI, 23: incurvare ut transeamus. (6) And said to him: "If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down. The devil always strikes with two arrows: for with the one he entices to vain glory, with the other to suicide. And this is if you are the Son of God. But, certainly, to throw himself down does not suit Christ, because it befits him to ascent: "No one has ascended into heaven but he who descended from heaven, the son of man, who is in heaven" (Jn 3:13). He says throw down, because is intention is always to throw headlong, as he was thrown headlong: "The dragon's tail swept down a third of the stars of heaven and cast them to the earth" (Rev 12: 4). The devil also recognizes his own weakness, because those willing are overcome by him; hence he says throw yourself down, but he does not himself throw him: "Bow down, that we may pass over" (Is 53:23).
Sed quare supra pinnaculum? Glossa: quia in illo loco docebant. Unde significat quod Diabolus magnos de inani gloria tentat. Contra quod apostolus I Thess. c. II, 6: nec quaerentes ab hominibus gloriam, neque a vobis, neque ab aliis. Et dicit mitte te deorsum etc., quia homines qui quaerunt gloriam, oportet quod intantum persuadeant ut ostendant Dei filiationem in multis humilem; et ideo dicit Tullius in libro de officiis: cavenda est gloriae cupiditas: eripit enim animi libertatem, pro qua magnanimis viris omnis debet esse contentio. But why on the pinnacle? A Gloss says: because they taught in that place. Hence, it signifies that the devil tempted the great to vain glory, against which the Apostle says (1 Th 2:6): "Nor did we seek glory from men, whether from you or from others." And he says throw yourself down, because men who seek glory should convince others that they are showing God's sonship humble in many ways. Therefore, Cicero says in de Officiis: "The desire for glory must be avoided; for it snatches away freedom of the spirit, for which every effort should be made by magnanimous men.
Consequenter inducit auctoritatem scriptum est: et utitur ista, non ut doceat, sed ut decipiat; et hoc sumitur argumentum, quod sicut ipse transfigurat se in Angelum lucis, ita et sui ministri, qui utuntur auctoritate sacrae Scripturae ad simplices decipiendum; II Petr. ult., 16: indocti et instabiles depravant Scripturas ad suam ipsorum perditionem. Unde hoc praefigurabat Diabolus in se sicut in capite. Quia Angelis suis mandavit de te. Then he cites and authority: For it is written; and he uses it not to teach but to deceive. And this is taken as an argument that, as he transforms himself into an angel of light, so also his ministers, who use the authority of Sacred Scripture to deceive the simple: "The ignorant and unstable twist the scriptures to their won destruction" (2 Pt 3:16). Hence, the devil prefigured this in himself as in the head. Because he has commanded his angels concerning you.
Nota quod tribus modis depravat quis auctoritatem sacrae Scripturae:
  • aliquando sicut cum dicitur de uno, et exponitur de alio: sicut si dicitur de uno iusto, et exponitur de Christo; verbi gratia: qui potuit transgredi, et non est transgressus, Eccli. XXXI, v. 10. Item Io. XIV, 28 pater maior me est, hoc dicitur de Christo, secundum quod homo. Unde si exponatur de eo secundum quod filius Dei, depravatur auctoritas. Ita Diabolus hic dicit Angelis, quia Ps. XC dicit hoc de membro Christi, qui indiget custodia Angelorum, quod patet, quia subdit ne forte offendas: hoc enim non potest dici de Christo, quia non poterat offendere occasione alicuius peccati.
  • Secundo modo depravat, quando inducit quis auctoritatem ad aliquid, ad quod non est auctoritas; sicut illud Prov. XXV, 21 et Rom. XII, 20: si esurierit inimicus tuus, ciba illum et cetera. Si enim aliquid facit alicui ut ille puniatur a Deo, hoc facit contra sensum auctoritatis. Ita Diabolus, quia Scriptura intendit quod homo iustus ita per Angelos custoditur, quod in periculo non incidat; Ps. IX, v. 10: adiutor in opportunitatibus in tribulatione et cetera. Diabolus autem exponit quod homo periculo se ingerat, quod est Deum tentare.
  • Tertio modo quando illud quod est pro se, de auctoritate accipit, et aliud quod est contra se dimittit, quod est mos haeretici: ita fecit hic Diabolus quia dimisit illud quod subditur, quod erat contra eum, scilicet: super aspidem et basiliscum ambulabis, et conculcabis leonem et draconem. Unde factus est exemplar omnium Scripturas depravantium.
Note that one twists the authority of Sacred Scripture in three ways:
  • first, when it refers to one thing and is explained of another; as when it refers to one just person and is explained as referring to Christ. For example, "Who has had the power to transgress and did not transgress" (Sir 31:10). Again, (Jn 14:28): "The Father is greater than I," is said of Christ as man. Hence, if it is explained of him as Son of God, the text is twisted. This is the way the devil says angels here, because Ps 91 (v. 11) says this of Christ's member, who needs the guardianship of angels. This is evident, because he adds, lest you strike your foot [offend]; for this could not be said of Christ, who cannot offend by falling into any sin.
  • It is twisted in a second way, when someone quotes a text in favor of something for which it is not a text, as Pr (25:21) and Rom (12:20): "If your enemy is hungry, feed him." For if anyone does something to someone in order to be punished by God, he does this against the meaning of this text. This is what the devil did, because the Scripture intends that the just man be guarded by angels in such a way that he does not fall into danger: "The Lord is a stronghold for the oppressed" (Ps 9:9). The devil, however, suggests that one should expose himself to danger, which is to tempt God.
  • In the third way, when one takes what is in his favor from a text and ignores what is against him; as heretics do. This is what the devil did here, because he ignored what follows: "You will tread on the lion and the adder, the young lion and the serpent you will trample under foot" (Ps 91:13). Hence, he became the exemplar of all who twist the Scriptures.
Ait illi dominus. Non violentia, sed sapientia se defendit; Sap. VII, 30: sapientiam non vincit malitia. Et ideo contra auctoritatem ponit auctoritatem quae exponit praemissam; quasi dicat, tu dicis ut proiiciam me, ut videam an Deus eripiat me; sed hoc prohibetur in Scriptura; unde non tentabis dominum Deum tuum, Deut. VI, 16. Vel aliter, tu tentas, et tentando contra auctoritatem facis; non debet autem uti auctoritate sacrae Scripturae, qui contra auctoritatem facit. Et Scriptura dicit non tentabis et cetera. Sed tu tentas dominum Deum tuum, qui sum ego; Io. XIII, 13: vos vocatis me, magister et domine, et bene dicitis, sum etenim et cetera. Tamen prima est magis litteralis. (7) Jesus said to him... He defends himself not by force but by wisdom: "Against wisdom, evil does not prevail" (Wis 7:30). Therefore, against that test he uses the text which explains it. As if to say: You say that I should throw myself down to see whether God will rescue me: but this is forbidden in the Scripture hence, You shall not tempt the Lord, your God (Dt 6:16). Or another way: You tempt and by tempting you act contrary to a text; but one who acts against a text of Scripture should not use the authority of Scripture. And the Scriptures says, You shall not tempt... But you are tempting the Lord, your God, who I am: "You call me Master and Lord, and you say well, for so I am" (Jn 13:13). But the first is more in accord with the letter.
Consequenter ponitur tertia tentatio, scilicet de ambitione, vel de avaritia; unde tunc assumpsit. Et ponitur insultus tentationis; secundo resistentia Christi, ibi tunc dicit ei Iesus: vade, Satana. Tentat autem Diabolus dupliciter, facto et verbo; unde haec omnia tibi dabo et cetera. Then the third temptation is presented, namely, concerning ambition or concerning reed: first, the temptation, secondly, Christ's resistance (v. 10). But the evil tempts in two ways, by deed and by word (v. 9).
In facto duo consideranda sunt. Quia primo assumpsit in montem; secundo ostendit omnia regna mundi. In the deed two things were involved: first, he took him to a mountain; secondly, he showed him all the kingdoms of the world (v. 8b).
Dicit ergo tunc assumpsit. De assumptione dictum est supra; sed hoc, scilicet in montem, potest dupliciter exponi.
  • Rabanus dicit, quod iste mons erat in deserto, quia secundum eum omnes tentationes in deserto fuerunt. Dicitur autem excelsus in comparatione ad aliquos qui in circuitu erant.
  • Chrysostomus autem dicit, quod duxit eum ad maiorem montem de mundo; et hoc videtur littera sonare, cum dicitur excelsum valde. In hoc autem significatur, quod Diabolus semper ad superbiam erigit, sicut et ipse superbus est; Ier. XIII, 16: antequam offendant pedes vestri ad montes caliginosos. Unde etiam dicitur mons; Ier. I, 15: ecce ego convocabo omnes cognationes regnorum Aquilonis, ait dominus.
(8) He says The devil took him. The taking has been explained above. But this, namely, to a mountain, can be explained in two ways.
  • Rabanus says that this mountain was in the desert, because, according to him, all the temptations took place in the desert. But it is called very high, as compared to others in its neighborhood.
  • Chrysostom, however, says that he led him to one of the larger mountains of the world; and this is what the letter seems to assert, since it says a very high mountain. In this is signified that the devil always incites to pride, as he himself is proud: "Before your feet stumble on the twilight mountains" (Jer 13:16). Hence, he is also called a mountain.
Et ostendit ei omnia regna mundi. Sciendum quod regnum mundi dupliciter accipitur. Primo spiritualiter: et sic Diabolus dicitur regnare in eo; Io. XII, 31: nunc princeps mundi huius eiicietur foras. Secundo ad litteram dicitur regnum mundi, secundum quod unus regnat super alium. Hoc autem quod hic dicitur, videtur quibusdam quod dicatur de regno Diaboli; unde ostendit omnia regna mundi, scilicet super quae regnabat, et gloriam eorum etc., quia quando perfecte regnat super homines, facit eos etiam gloriari; Prov. II, 14: laetantur cum male fecerint, et exultant in rebus pessimis; Ps. LI, 3: quid gloriaris in malitia? Et hic est ultimus gradus peccati. Alii exponunt de regno carnali. Sed tunc quaeritur, quomodo potuit ostendere omnia regna mundi. Remigius dicit, quod miraculose: quia omnia regna in ictu oculi ostendit, sicut etiam de beato Benedicto legitur, quod ostensus est ei totus mundus in uno intuitu. Sed sciendum quod istae duae non videntur bonae expositiones, quia non oporteret dicere, quod assumpsit in montem excelsum valde: quia totum hoc potuisset fieri in valle. Unde dicit Chrysostomus aliter: ostendit ei, non quod ostenderit ei singula regna, sed ad quam partem singulum regnum esset; et non solum hoc, sed ostendit gloriam eorum, hoc est expressit ei temporalem gloriam mundi; Osee IV, 7: gloriam eorum in ignominiam commutabo; Phil. III, 19: gloria in confusione ipsorum qui terrena sapiunt. He showed him all the kingdoms of the world. It should be noted that a kingdom of the world can be taken in two ways: first, spiritually; and this is the way the devil is said to reign in it: "Now is the prince of this world cast out" (Jn 12:31). Secondly, in a literal sense, so that one reigns over another: "Lo, I am calling all the tribes of the kingdoms of the north, says the Lord" (Jer 1:15). But what is said here seems to some to refer to the devil's kingdom; hence, he says He showed him all the kingdoms of the world, namely, over which he rules, and the glory of them, because when he completely rules over men, he also makes them glory: "They rejoice in doing evil and delight in the perverseness of evil" (Pr 2:14); "Why do you glory in mischief?" (Ps 52:1). Others explain it of an earthly kingdom. But then one asks, how could he show all the kingdoms of the world? Remigius says that it was done miraculously; because he showed him all the kingdoms in the twinkling of an eye, just as we read of St. Benedict that the whole world was shown to him in one glance. But it should be noted that those two do not seem good explanations, because there would have been no need to say that he took him to a very high mountain, because all this could have occurred in a valley. Hence Chrysostom explains it another way: he showed him, not that he showed each particular kingdom, but the direction in which each lay; and not only this, but the glory of them, i.e., he expressed to him the temporal glory of the world: "I will change their glory into shame" (Hos 4:7); "They glory in their shame, with minds set on earthly things" (Phil 3:19).
Et dixit ei: haec omnia tibi dabo. In istis verbis duo facit: unum promittit, et aliud expetit: et in promissione est mendax, in expetitione superbus. Diabolus in primis exploravit si esset filius Dei; modo credens iam deprehendisse quod non esset, dicit haec omnia tibi dabo etc.; ubi mendax est quia haec non erant in potestate sua; Prov. VIII, 15: per me principes regnant, et potentes decernunt iustitiam. Daniel IV, 14: donec cognoscant viventes, quoniam dominatur excelsus in regno hominum, et cuicumque voluerit dabit illud; alias non dixisset haec omnia tibi dabo; nullus enim malus regnat nisi permissione divina; Iob c. XXXIV, 30: qui regnare facit hominem hypocritam propter peccata populi. Expetiit aliud; unde si cadens adoraveris me. (9) And he said to him: "All these I will give you..." In those words he does two things: he promises one thing and seeks to obtain another. In the promise is a lie, and in the seeking is pride. In the first two temptations the devil was exploring whether he was the Son of God; now, believing that he had discovered he was not, he says All these I will give you... where the lie is that these were not in his power: "By me princes rule and nobles govern the earth" (Pr 8:16); "That the living may know that the Most High rules the kingdom of men and gives it to whom he will" (Dan 4:17); otherwise, he would not have said all these I will give you; for no evil person rules without God's permission: "He makes a godless man to reign on account of the sins of the people" (Jb 34:30).
Nota tria.
  • Primo quod Diabolus semper in id quod in principio appetiit, perseverat; Is. XIV, 13: in caelum conscendam, super astra Dei exaltabo solium meum, sedebo in monte testamenti in lateribus Aquilonis, ascendam super altitudinem nubium, similis ero altissimo. Et propterea inducit ad idololatriam homines, volens usurpare sibi quod Dei est.
  • Item nota quod nullus adorat Diabolum nisi cadat, sicut et ipse cecidit; Dan. III, 7: cadentes adoraverunt statuam auream. Et ideo dicit si cadens adoraveris me.
  • Tertio, nota hic esse avaritiam. Unde promittit regnum, in quo intelligitur abundantia divitiarum, et excellentia honorum. Et petit quod cadat: quia ambitiosi semper humiliant se ultra debitum. Unde Ambrosius: habet ambitio domesticum periculum: curvatur obsequio, ut honori donetur: et dum vult esse sublimis, fit deiecta.
Note three things:
  • first, that the devil always pursues his original objective: "I will ascend into heaven above the stars of God; I will set my throne on high: I will sit on the mount of assembly in the far north; I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High" (Is 14:14). And for that reason he induces men to idolatry, desiring to usurp what belongs to God.
  • Likewise, note that no one adores the devil, unless he falls as he fell: "They fell down and worshipped the golden image" (Dan 3:7). And therefore, he says if you will fall down and worship me.
  • Thirdly, note greed here. Hence, he promises a kingdom, by which is understood abundance of riches and excellence of honors. And he asks that he fall down, because the ambitious always humble themselves more than they ought. Hence Ambrose: "Ambition has its own danger: it bends down in deference in order to be paid honor; and while it wishes to be exalted, it is hurled down."
Consequenter ponitur deprehensio hostis; unde tunc dicit ei Iesus: et circa hoc duo facit. Primo cohibet tentationem; secundo inducit auctoritatem, ibi scriptum est et cetera. The curbing of the enemy is described. In regard to this he does two things: first, he checks the temptation; secondly, he cites a text (v. 10b).
Dicit ergo tunc dicit ei Iesus. (10) He says, therefore, Then Jesus said to him.
Nota quod Christus audierat multas iniurias, sed non curavit. Sed hoc si cadens adoraveris me, non sustinuit: quia primae cedebant in iniuriam sui, sed hoc ad iniuriam Dei. Unde Chrysostomus: iniuria propria toleranda est: iniuriam Dei dissimulare nimis est impium. Et ideo dicit vade, Satana. III Reg. XIX, 10: zelo zelatus sum pro domino Deo exercituum: quia dereliquerunt pactum suum filii Israel; Ps. LXVIII, 10: zelus domus tuae comedit me. Item quod non est in potestate Diaboli, ut tentet quantum vult, sed quantum Deus permittit; unde dicit vade; quasi dicat: nolo quod amplius tentes: I Cor. X, 13: fidelis Deus qui non patietur vos tentari supra id quod potestis, sed faciet etiam cum tentatione proventum, ut possitis sustinere; Iob XXXVIII, v. 11: hucusque venies, et non procedes amplius, et hic confringes tumentes fluctus tuos. Et notandum quod dominus quasi similia verba dixit Petro infr. XVI, 23. Sed ibi dixit retro. Unde alia est sententia hic et ibi: quia Satan interpretatur adversarius. Voluit ergo dominus, quod Petrus iret post eum, qui volebat impedire passionem; sed hic dicit vade tantum; quia Diabolus eum sequi non potest; et ideo dicit vade, scilicet ad Infernum; inf. XXV, 41: ite, maledicti, in ignem aeternum, qui paratus est Diabolo et Angelis eius. Scriptum est; Deut. VI, 16. Et inducit frequenter tales auctoritates ex Deuteronomio, ut significet doctrinam novi testamenti per Deuteronomium significari. Note that Christ had heard many insults, but did not care. But this, if you will fall down and adore me, he did not endure, because the others were insults against himself, but this one was an insult against God. Hence Chrysostom: "A personal insult should be endured, but to take no notice of an insult against God is exceedingly irreverent." Therefore, he says Be gone, Satan! (2 Sam 19:10): "With zeal I have been zealous for the Lord God of hosts"; "Zeal for your house has consumed me" (Ps 69:9). Note also that it is not in the devil's power to tempt as much as he wills, but as much as God permits; hence, he says Be gone! As if to say: I do not wish you to tempt me any more: "God is faithful and will not lest you be tempted beyond your strength, but with the temptation will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it" (2 Cor 10:13); "Thus far shall you come and no farther, and here shall your proud waves be stayed" (Jb 38:11). And it should be noted that the Lord used almost similar words to Peter (Mt 16:23). But there he said: "Get behind me." Hence the thought here and there is not the same, because Satan is taken to mean adversary. Therefore, the Lord wished that Peter, who wanted to obstruct his passion, go behind him; but here he says, Be gone only, because the devil cannot follow him. Therefore, he says Be gone, namely, to hell: "Depart, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels" (Mt 25:4). It is written: (Dt 6:16). He adduces these texts from Dt to signify that the doctrine of the New Testament is signified by Deuteronomy.
Quod insequitur dominum Deum, hoc dupliciter inferri potest; quasi dicat, tu Diabole, dicis quod cadens adorem te; sed lex dicit dominum Deum tuum adorabis. Unde potest induci ad hoc quod purus homo non debet adorari. Vel accipiendum est quod loquatur de se tamquam de Deo, dominum Deum tuum adorabis etc., quasi dicat, magis debes adorare me, quam e converso: quia scriptum est et cetera. Prima tamen est magis litteralis. Et nota, quod duo dicit, scilicet adorabis, et servies: et est inter ista differentia. Homo enim dupliciter se habere debet ad Deum, quia debet ei subiectus esse; et debet se in eum erigere sicut in ultimum finem. Quantum ad primum debemus ei omnem obedientiam; Act. V, 29: obedire oportet Deo magis quam hominibus. Tunc enim sumus ei subiecti, quando omnem eius voluntatem facimus. In Deum autem erigimur dupliciter: quia aliquando trahimus nos ad ipsum; Ps. XXXIII, v. 6: accedite ad eum, et illuminamini, et facies vestrae non confundentur; aliquando alios ad ipsum trahimus; I Cor. III, 9: Dei enim sumus coadiutores. Utrumque istorum demonstramus sensibiliter: quia dum prostrationes facimus, admonemus nos quod debemus esse subiecti Deo; et ideo dicit, dominum Deum; Ps. LXXI, 11: omnes gentes servient ei. Item in hoc quod offerimus sacrificia et laudes, significamus hoc quod mentem nostram debemus elevare in ipsum: et ad hoc pertinet servitus; et hoc est et illi soli servies. What follows, namely, The Lord your God, can be taken in two ways. As if to say: You, O devil, say that I should fall down and adore you; but the Law says, The Lord your God shall you worship. It can, therefore, be cited to show that a mere man should not be adored. Or it can be taken that he is speaking of himself as God: The Lord your God shall you adore. As if to say: You should rather adore me than I you, because it is written... Yet the first is more in accord with the letter. And note that he says two things: you shall adore and you shall serve, and there is a difference between them. For a man should relate himself to God in two ways: he should be subject to him and should elevate himself toward him as the ultimate end. In regard to the first we owe him total obedience: "We must obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29). For we are subject to him, when we do his entire will. We are elevated to God in two ways: sometimes we draw ourselves to him: "Go to him and be radiant; so your faces will never be ashamed" (Ps 34:5); sometimes we draw others to him: "We are fellow workers for God:" (1 Cor 3:9). We show both of these in a sense-perceptible way: because, when we bow, we tell ourselves that we should be subject to God; therefore he says the Lord your God: "May all nations serve him" (Ps 72:11). Also by offering sacrifice and praises we signify that we should raise our minds to him; and to this pertains service. Therefore, and him only shall you serve.
Et est duplex servitus; quaedam quae debetur soli Deo; et ista in Graeco dicitur latria: et haec est duplex. Quaedam enim est adoratio quae soli Deo debetur, quae est ut ei prae omnibus serviatur; alia servitus est ut in ipsum tendamus sicut in ultimum finem, aliqua enim est adoratio vel servitus quae solum subiectorum est, sicut quando superioribus serviunt inferiores; Rom. XIII, 1: omnis anima potestatibus sublimioribus subiecta sit. Sed non debet illi obedire super omnia, quia numquam contra Deum. Similiter nulla creatura est quae debeat haberi sicut finis ultimus; Ps. CXLV, 3: nolite confidere in principibus, in filiis hominum, in quibus non est salus. Ier. XVII, 5: maledictus homo qui confidit in homine. Est etiam servitus secunda, quae debetur praelatis; quae in Graeco vocatur dulia. Service is twofold: one is reserved for God alone; and this is called latria, which is twofold. For there is an adoration owed only to God, such that he is served before all else; the other service consists in tending toward him as the ultimate end, for there is an adoration or service which is rendered only by subjects, as when inferiors serve superiors: "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities" (Rom 13:1). But they should not be obeyed above all things, because never contrary to God. Similarly, there is no creature that should be regarded as the ultimate end: "Put not your trust in princes, in a son of man, in whom there is no help" (Ps 146:3); "Cursed is the man who trusts in man" (Jer 17:5). There is another service, which is owed to prelates; in Greek it is called dulia.
Consequenter ponitur victoria Christi, et insinuatur in duobus. In recessu Diaboli tunc reliquit eum Diabolus. Iac. IV, 7: resistite Diabolo et fugiet a vobis. Et sicut consuetudo erat apud antiquos, quod quando aliqui victoriam habebant, venerabantur; ita hic celebratur triumphus Christi ab Angelis. Unde et ecce Angeli accesserunt, et ministrabant ei. Non dicit descenderunt: quia semper cum eo erant, etsi ad horam recesserunt de eius voluntate, ad hoc ut Diabolus locum tentandi haberet: exhibebant enim ministerium in exterioribus, scilicet in miraculis, et aliis corporalibus quae fiunt mediantibus Angelis, in interioribus enim non indigebat. In hoc significatur quod homines qui vincunt Diabolum, merentur ministerium Angelorum; Lc. XVI, 22: factum est ut moreretur mendicus, et portaretur ab Angelis in sinum Abrahae. Et sciendum quod Diabolus reliquit Christum usque ad tempus: quia post usus est Iudaeis tamquam membris suis ad eum impugnandum et cetera. (11) Then Christ's victory is presented, and it is suggested in two ways: in the devil's departure: The devil left him: "Resist the devil and he will flee from you" (Jas 4:7). And as the custom was in olden days, when men won a victory, they were honored; so here Christ's triumph is celebrated by angels. Hence, and behold angels came and ministered to him. He does not say "they descended," because they were always with him, even though they had departed for a little while according to his wish, so that the devil might have room for tempting. For they ministered in external matters, namely, in miracles and other bodily things done through the medium of angels; but in internal matters he did not need them. In this is signified that men who overcome the devil deserve the ministry of angels: "It came to pas that the beggar died, and he was carried into Abraham's bosom" (Lk 16:22). And it should be noted that the devil left Christ for a time, because later he used the Jews as his members to oppose him...

Lectio 2
Reportatio Petri de Andria
4—2
Mt 4:12-22
12 ἀκούσας δὲ ὅτι ἰωάννης παρεδόθη ἀνεχώρησεν εἰς τὴν γαλιλαίαν. 13 καὶ καταλιπὼν τὴν ναζαρὰ ἐλθὼν κατῴκησεν εἰς καφαρναοὺμ τὴν παραθαλασσίαν ἐν ὁρίοις ζαβουλὼν καὶ νεφθαλίμ: 14 ἵνα πληρωθῇ τὸ ῥηθὲν διὰ ἠσαΐου τοῦ προφήτου λέγοντος, 15 γῆ ζαβουλὼν καὶ γῆ νεφθαλίμ, ὁδὸν θαλάσσης, πέραν τοῦ ἰορδάνου, γαλιλαία τῶν ἐθνῶν, 16 ὁ λαὸς ὁ καθήμενος ἐν σκότει φῶς εἶδεν μέγα, καὶ τοῖς καθημένοις ἐν χώρᾳ καὶ σκιᾷ θανάτου φῶς ἀνέτειλεν αὐτοῖς. 17 ἀπὸ τότε ἤρξατο ὁ Ἰησοῦς κηρύσσειν καὶ λέγειν, μετανοεῖτε, ἤγγικεν γὰρ ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν. 18 περιπατῶν δὲ παρὰ τὴν θάλασσαν τῆς γαλιλαίας εἶδεν δύο ἀδελφούς, σίμωνα τὸν λεγόμενον πέτρον καὶ ἀνδρέαν τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ, βάλλοντας ἀμφίβληστρον εἰς τὴν θάλασσαν: ἦσαν γὰρ ἁλιεῖς. 19 καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς, δεῦτε ὀπίσω μου, καὶ ποιήσω ὑμᾶς ἁλιεῖς ἀνθρώπων. 20 οἱ δὲ εὐθέως ἀφέντες τὰ δίκτυα ἠκολούθησαν αὐτῷ. 21 καὶ προβὰς ἐκεῖθεν εἶδεν ἄλλους δύο ἀδελφούς, ἰάκωβον τὸν τοῦ ζεβεδαίου καὶ ἰωάννην τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ, ἐν τῷ πλοίῳ μετὰ ζεβεδαίου τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτῶν καταρτίζοντας τὰ δίκτυα αὐτῶν: καὶ ἐκάλεσεν αὐτούς. 22 οἱ δὲ εὐθέως ἀφέντες τὸ πλοῖον καὶ τὸν πατέρα αὐτῶν ἠκολούθησαν αὐτῷ.
12. And when Jesus had heard that John was delivered up, he retired into Galilee: 13. And leaving the city Nazareth, he came and dwelt in Capharnaum on the sea coast, in the borders of Zabulon and of Nephthalim; 14. That it might be fulfilled which was said by Isaias the prophet: 15. Land of Zabulon and land of Nephthalim, the way of the sea beyond the Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles: 16. The people that sat in darkness, hath seen great light: and to them that sat in the region of the shadow of death, light is sprung up. 17. From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say: Do penance, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. 18. And Jesus walking by the sea of Galilee, saw two brethren, Simon who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea (for they were fishers). 19. And he saith to them: Come ye after me, and I will make you to be fishers of men. 20. And they immediately leaving their nets, followed him. 21. And going on from thence, he saw other two brethren, James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother, in a ship with Zebedee their father, mending their nets: and he called them. 22. And they forthwith left their nets and father, and followed him.
Supra Evangelista ostendit quomodo Christus examinatus est, et approbatus, scilicet vincendo Diabolum, hic ostendit quomodo Christus docere incepit: et circa hoc tria facit. Primo enim describitur locus in quo praedicat; secundo ostendit quomodo ministros suae praedicationis elegit, ibi ambulans autem Iesus iuxta mare Galilaeae, vidit duos fratres; tertio quomodo turbam ad audiendum induxit, ibi et circuibat Iesus totam Galilaeam. After showing how Christ was tested and approved, namely, by overcoming the devil, the evangelist now shows how Christ began to teach. Regarding this he does three things: first, he describes the place where he preached; secondly, how he chose the ministers of his preaching (v. 18); thirdly, how he led the crowd to listen (v. 23).
Circa primum describit tempus, locum et modum praedicandi; secundum ibi secessit in Galilaeam etc.; tertium ibi et exinde coepit Iesus praedicare. In regard to the first he describes the time, place (v. 12b) and method of preaching (v. 17).
Tempus istud publicae praedicationis Christi fuit post incarcerationem Ioannis; unde dicit cum autem audisset Iesus quod Ioannes traditus esset, a Deo scilicet, quia ipso permittente. (12) The time of Christ's public preaching was after John's imprisonment; hence, he says, Now when Jesus heard that John had been handed over, namely, by God, because he permitted it.
Et notandum hoc pro intellectu Evangeliorum, quod hic videtur quaedam contrarietas esse inter Ioannem et alios tres: quia illi dicunt quod Christus descendit in Capharnaum post incarcerationem Ioannis; Ioannes vero dicit quod descendit in Capharnaum ante incarcerationem Ioannis: quae tamen in Galilaea erat. Respondetur, quod Ioannes qui ultimus fuit, supplevit ea quae ab aliis praetermissa sunt. Sed quare praetermiserunt? Dicendum, quod licet Christus aliqua fecerit primis duobus annis, pauca tamen fecerat respectu eorum quae facta sunt ultimo anno. Ergo dicendum quod Ioannes loquitur de his quae fecit primo et secundo, et aliqua de tertio: isti vero, quae facta sunt ultimo anno. To understand the gospels, it should be noted that there seems to be a difference here between John and the other three; because they say that Christ descended into Capernaum after John's arrest, but John says that he descended there before that. Yet it was in Galilee. The answer is that John, who wrote last, supplied what had been omitted by the others. But why did they omit? The answer is that although Christ had done certain things in the first two years, they were few compared to the third year. Therefore, it is necessary to say that John speaks about things he did in the first and second, and some things done in the third year; but the others about things done in the third year.
Item quaeritur quot annis Christus praedicavit. Quidam dicunt, quod duobus annis et dimidio, ut dimidius computetur ab Epiphania usque ad Pascha, licet non sit completus: Ioannes enim non fecit mentionem nisi de triplici Pascha, quia post Baptismum dicit quod ivit in Ierusalem, Io. II, 13. Postea facit mentionem de Pascha, quando factum fuit miraculum de quinque panibus, et post unus annus fuit usque ad passionem. Sed ista opinio non videtur vera pro tanto, quia non concordat opinioni Ecclesiae: tenet enim Ecclesia, quod tria miracula sint facta in die Epiphaniae, scilicet de adoratione magorum, de Baptismo et de conversione aquae in vinum. Oportet ergo dicere quod a Baptismo usque ad conversionem aquae in vinum fuerit annus unus. Unde videtur quod Christus tribus annis praedicavit, quia usque ad miraculum de vino fuit unus annus: et inde ad Pascha fuit medius alius: a purificatione alius usque ad passionem: ita enim sentit Ecclesia. Et secundum hoc dicendum quod Ioannes parum dicit de primo anno; de secundo vero dicit aliquid, scilicet quomodo descendit Capharnaum: et de quaestione quae fuit de purificatione inter ipsum Christum et Iudaeos. Sciendum etiam quod Ioannes circa Pascha occisus fuit: quia legitur Io. VI, v. 4, quod quando factum fuit miraculum de quinque panibus, quod Pascha proximum erat; et Matth. XIV, 13 dicitur quod Christus, audita morte Ioannis, secessit in Galilaeam. Patet ergo quod Ioannes decollatus fuit circa Pascha: et Christus publice praedicationem non tenuit, nisi per unum annum. There is also a question about the number of years Christ preached. Some say two and one-half years; so that the half is counted from Epiphany to Passover, although it is not a complete half, for John mentions only three Passovers, because he says that after the baptism he went to Jerusalem (Jn 2:13). After that he mentions the Passover, when the miracle of the five loaves occurred; after that it was one year to the passion. But this does not seem to agree with the opinion of the Church; for the Church holds that three miracles were performed on Epiphany, namely, the adoration of the Magi, the baptism and the changing of water into wine. It is necessary, therefore, to say that from the baptism to the changing of water into wine was one year. Hence, it seems that Christ preached for three years, because until the changing of water into wine was one year; from then to the Passover was the second year; from the purification to the passion was another. For this is the way the Church reckons it. Accordingly, one must admit that John says little about the first year, something about the second, namely, how he went down to Capernaum, and about the question which arose between Christ and the Jews about purification. It should also be noted that John was killed near Passover time, because it says in Jn (6:4) that when the miracle of the five loaves was performed, the Passover was at hand; and in Mt (14:13) it says that when Christ heard of John's death, he withdrew into Galilee. Therefore, it is clear that John was beheaded near the Passover, and that Christ did not preach publicly except for one year.
Deinde agitur de loco, cum dicitur secessit in Galilaeam. Et primo agitur de loco provinciae; secundo de civitate. Dicit ergo secessit; ista secessio non est prima de qua Ioannes dicit, sed post unum vel duos annos hoc fuit, quia hanc tacent Evangelistae. Secessit autem propter duo. Primo ut differret tempus passionis suae; Io. VII, 6: tempus meum nondum advenit. Secundo propter exemplum nostrum, ut scilicet persecutiones fugeremus; Io. XV, 20: si me persecuti sunt, et vos persequentur. Sed mystice declarat quod praedicatio Christi transitura erat ad gentes: quia Iudaei persequebantur gratiam Dei; Act. XIII, 46: vobis oportebat primum loqui verbum Dei: sed quoniam repulistis illud, et indignos vos iudicatis aeternae vitae, ecce convertimur ad gentes. Veniens autem in Galilaeam venit primo in Nazareth, sicut dicit Lucas IV, v. 18 ss., et ibi intravit in synagogam, et docuit spiritus domini super me. Et inde duxerunt eum Iudaei ad supercilium montis, et voluerunt eum praecipitare, et post Christus fugit, et venit in Capharnaum, et ibi statim curavit daemoniacum, de quo Mc. I, 23. Sed hoc Matthaeus omittit. Nazareth autem interpretatur flos. Per hoc intelliguntur doctores legis, qui non veniunt ad maturitatem. Capharnaum enim interpretatur villa pulcherrima, et significat Ecclesiam; Cant. VI, 3: pulchra es, amica mea, et cetera. Capharnaum est maritima ad litteram, quia iuxta lacum quemdam dulcem. Iudaei enim omnem congregationem aquarum appellant mare: et mystice, quia Ecclesia posita est iuxta tribulationes mundi. In finibus Zabulon et Nephtalim. Galilaea enim divisa erat, et una pars erat in tribu Zabulon et Nephtalim. Inde enim electi sunt principes Ecclesiae, scilicet apostoli. (13) Then he treats of the place: first, the place of the province; secondly, of the city (v. 12b). He says, therefore, He withdrew. This withdrawal is not the first one about which John speaks; but this was after one or two years, because the evangelists are silent about this. He withdrew for two reasons: first to put off the time of the passion: "My time has not yet come" (Jn 7:6); secondly, as an example to us, namely, that we should flee persecutions: "If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you" (Jn 15:20). but mystically it declares that Christ's preaching was destined to pass to the Gentiles, because the Jews persecuted God's grace: "It was necessary that the word of God be spoken first to you. Since you cast it from you and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, behold, we turn to the Gentiles" (Acts 13:46). Arriving in Galilee, he came first to Nazareth, as Luke (4:16 ff) says. There he entered the synagogue and taught: "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me." As a result of his preaching they led him to the brow of the hill, that they might throw him down headlong. After this, Christ fled and came to Capernaum, where he immediately cured the demoniac (Mk 1:23). But Matthew omits this. Now Nazareth means flower. By this is understood the doctors of the law who do not come to maturity. For Capernaum means most beautiful villa and signifies the Church: "You are beautiful, my love" (Song of Songs 6:4). Capernaum is really a sea-coast town, because it lies near a fresh-water lake. For the Jews called every body of water a sea, because the Church has been placed near the tribulations of the world. In the territory of Zebulon and Naphtali. For Galilee was so divided that one part was in the tribe of Zebulon and Naphtali. From it were selected the princes of the Church, namely, the apostles.
Ut adimpleretur quod dictum est per Isaiam prophetam. Nota quod hic non dicitur sicut Is. IX, 1; sed ponitur sensus tantum. Isaias sic: primo tempore alleviata est terra Zabulon et terra Nephtalim: et novissimo aggravata est via maris trans Iordanem Galilaeae gentium: populus qui ambulabat in tenebris vidit lucem magnam et cetera. Et exponitur tripliciter secundum Hieronymum.
  • Primo sic. Primo tempore alleviata est per praedicationem Christi a peccatis, et novissimo via, quae iuxta mare Galilaeae, aggravata est onere peccatorum, quia post praedicationem Christi persecuti sunt apostolos.
  • Vel aliter. Primo tempore. Tangit historiam: quia rex Assyriorum Teglatphalassar, qui primo venit super terram Iudaeorum, primo duxit in captivitatem illas tribus. Et hoc est primo tempore alleviata est: quia tunc peccatores fuerunt primo in captivitatem ducti. Et novissimo etc., quia postea totus populus ductus fuit in captivitatem. Sed quid ad propositum? Dicendum quod ubi primo incepit persecutio, ibi prius dominus voluit dare consolationem.
  • Vel aliter. Primo tempore, idest tempore praedicationis Christi, alleviata etc., idest onere peccatorum exonerata per praedicationem Christi, et novissimo aggravata est, idest condensata Christi praedicatio, et multiplicata per Paulum qui ibi praedicavit.
(14) That what was spoken by Isaiah the prophet might be fulfilled. Note that not the exact words but only the sense of Isaiah (9:11) are given here. Isaiah says: "In the former time he brought into contempt the land of Zebulon and the land of Naphtali, but in the latter time he will make glorious the way to the sea, the land beyond the Jordan, Galilee of the nations. The people who walked in darkness have seen a great light." This is explained in three ways according to Jerome:
  • first, in the following way. The former time was reduced by the preaching of Christ from sins; and in the latter the way, which is near the Sea of Galilee, was burdened by the weight of sins, because after the preaching of Christ they persecuted the apostles.
  • Or another way: the former time. It touches history, because the king of the Assyrians, Tiglath-Pileser, who was the first to invade the land of the Jews, first led those tribes captive. And this is the former time that was shortened, because then the sinners were first led into captivity. And the latter time..., because later all the people were led into captivity. But why mention all this? Because the Lord willed to give consolation first where the persecution first began.
  • Or another way, the first time, i.e., during the time Christ preached, the burden of sin was lightened by the preaching of Christ; in the latter time it was increased, i.e., the preaching of Christ was condensed and multiplied by the preaching of Paul, who preached there.
Evangelista enim non ponit nisi sensum in constructione: terra Zabulon, et terra Nephtalim, via maris trans Iordanem, idest iuxta mare. Et dicit terra, idest populus, ut omnes sint nominati. Et dicit Galilaea gentium, quia Galilaea dividitur in duas partes: una gentium, alia Iudaeorum: et tunc divisa erat secundum quod dicitur III Reg. c. IX, 11, quia Salomon propter ligna quae rex Tyri misit ad eum in aedificationem templi, dedit ei viginti oppida: qui cum esset gentilis posuit gentiles ad habitandum; et ideo dicitur Galilaea gentium et erat in tribu Nephtalim; licet alia in tribu Iuda. Alia littera: trans Iordanem Galilaeae, idest in comparatione ad Galilaeam. Sed prima expositio melior est. (15) For the evangelist gives only the sense in the text: The land of Zebulon and the land of Naphtali, toward the sea across the Jordan, i.e., near the sea. He says land, i.e., people, because Galilee is divided into two parts: one of Gentiles, the other of Jews. And then it had been divided in keeping with 1 Kings (11:11), because Solomon gave the king of Tyre twenty towns for the wood he sent him for the construction of the temple. Since he was a Gentile, he sent Gentiles there to inhabit it. That is why it is called the Galilee of the Gentiles; and it was in the tribe of Naphtali, although others were in the tribe of Judah.
Populus qui ambulabat in tenebris, vidit lucem magnam. Duo dicit qui ambulabat, et qui sedebat; qui enim est in tenebris a principio quae non sunt multum condensae, nec stupefit ab eis, vadit, maxime quando sperat invenire lucem: et dum stupefactus est a tenebris, stat. Ista est differentia inter Iudaeos et gentiles: quia Iudaei quamvis essent in tenebris, non tamen totaliter oppressi erant ab eis, quia non omnes colebant idola, sed sperabant Christum venturum, et ideo ambulabant; Is. l, 10: quis ambulavit in tenebris, et non est lumen ei? Speret in nomine domini et cetera. Gentiles vero non expectabant; et ideo non erat spes de luce. Et iterum oppressi erant tenebris, quia idola colebant, quia secundum Ps. LXXV, 2, notus in Iudaea Deus, et ideo stabant. Et hoc est quod dicitur populus qui sedebat in tenebris, vidit lucem magnam. Lux Iudaeorum non magna, II Pet. I, 19: habemus propheticum sermonem, cui bene facitis attendentes sicut lucernae lucenti in caliginoso loco, sed ista magna sicut solis lux; Mal. IV, 2: vobis autem timentibus nomen domini orietur sol iustitiae. Et sedentibus, idest gentibus, in regione umbrae mortis. Mors est damnatio in Inferno; Ps. XLVIII, 15: mors depascet eos. Umbra mortis est similitudo futurae damnationis, quae est in peccatoribus. Magna autem poena eorum qui in Inferno sunt, est separatio a Deo. Et quia peccatores iam separati sunt a Deo, ideo similitudinem habent futurae damnationis, sicut et iusti similitudinem habent futurae beatitudinis; II Cor. III, 18: nos autem gloriam domini speculantes in eamdem imaginem transformamur a claritate in claritatem. Et nota quod gentibus lux orta est, quia ipsi non iverunt ad lucem, sed lux venit ad eos; Io. III, 19: lux venit in mundum. Orta est eis. Et illa terra est in confinio Iudaeorum et gentium, ut ostenderet quod utrosque vocavit; Is. XLIX, 6: parum est ut sis mihi servus ad suscitandas tribus Iacob, et faeces Israel convertendas. Et post: dedi te in lucem gentium, ut sis salus mea usque ad extremum terrae. (16) The people who sat [walked] in darkness have seen a great light. He says two things who walk and who sat; for one in the darkness, which is not very dense, and who is not dazed by it, walks, especially when he hopes to find light; but when he is dazed by the darkness, he stands. That is the difference between Jews and Gentiles; because although the Jews were in darkness, they were not entirely overcome by it, because not all of them worshiped idols but hoped that Christ would come. Therefore, they walked: "Who walks in darkness and has no light? Let him hope in the Lord and rely upon his God" (Is 50:10). But the Gentiles were not waiting for anyone; and therefore, there was no hope for light. Again, they were overcome by the darkness, because they worshiped idols; for in Ps 76 (v. 1) it says: "In Judah God is known." Therefore, they were standing. And this is what is stated: The people who sat in darkness have seen a great light. The light of the Jews was not great: "We have the prophetic word made more sure. You will do well to pay attention to this as to a lamp shining in a dark place" (2 Pt 1:19); but that was as great as the light of the sun: "But for you who fear my name the sun of righteousness shall shine" (Mal 4:2). And for those who sat, i.e., the Gentiles, in the region and shadow of death. Death is damnation in hell: "Death will be their shepherd" (Ps 49:14). The shadow of death is the likeness of future damnation, which is in sinners. But the major punishment of those in hell is separation from God. And because sinners are already separated from God, they have the likeness of future damnation, just as the just have likenesses of future happiness: "And we all, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being changed into his likeness from one degree of glory into another" (2 Cor 3:18). And note that light has dawned for the Gentiles, because they did not go to the light, but the light came to them: "The light came into the world" (Jn 3:19). And that land is in the confines of Jews and Gentiles to show that he called both: "It is too light a thing that you should be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob and to restore the preserved of Israel" (Is 49:6); and later: "I will give you as a light to the nations, that my salvation may reach to the end of the earth" (49:6).
Exinde coepit Iesus praedicare. Posito loco ubi Christus primo praedicare incepit, hic ponitur modus praedicandi. Exinde, scilicet post superationem gulae, inanis gloriae et ambitionis, sive avaritiae, coepit praedicare: tales enim convenienter praedicare possunt. Et sic impletur illud Act. I, 1: coepit Iesus facere et docere. Vel exinde, idest post incarcerationem Ioannis, incepit publice praedicare: prius enim occulte et quibusdam, Io. I, 38 ss., scilicet Petro, Andreae, Philippo et Natanaeli, sed hic publice. Noluit autem primo praedicare publice, ut daret locum praedicationi Ioannis: aliter nihil valuisset, sicut lumen stellarum offuscatur per lumen solis. Significatur autem per hoc quod cessantibus figuris legis, incepit praedicatio Christi; I Cor. XIII, 10: cum venerit quod perfectum est, evacuabitur quod ex parte est. Per Ioannem enim significatur lex; infra XI, 13: lex et prophetae usque ad Ioannem. Poenitentiam agite. Notandum quod eadem verba dicit hic Christus, quae Ioannes, propter duo. Primo enim admonet nos de humilitate, ut scilicet nullus dedignetur verba ab aliis dicta praedicare, cum ipse fons ecclesiasticae scientiae eadem praedicaverit. Secundo quia Ioannes est vox; ipse vero verbum. Idem autem significatur per verbum et vocem, nisi quia verbum est expressivum vocis. Circa hoc autem duo facit: unum admonet; aliud promittit. Primum ibi poenitentiam agite; secundum ibi appropinquabit enim regnum caelorum. (17) From that time Jesus began to preach. Having mentioned the place where Christ first began to preach, the method of preaching is now described. From that time, i.e., after the victory over gluttony, vain glory and ambition or greed, he began to preach, for such can fittingly preach. And thus is fulfilled Acts (1:1): "Jesus began to do and to teach." Or From that time, i.e., after John's arrest, he began to preach publicly, for previously it was in secret and to certain ones (Jn 1:38), namely, to Peter, Andrew, Philip and Nathanael, but here publicly. He did not wish to preach publicly at first, so that John would have opportunity to preach; otherwise, he would have preached to no avail, as the light of the stars is obscured by the light of the sun. By this is signified that with the end of the figures of the Law, the preaching of Christ begins: "When the perfect comes, the imperfect will pass away" (1 Cor 13:10). By John is signified the Law: "for al the prophets and the law prophesied until John" (Mt 11:13). Do penance. Note that Christ says the same words here as John and for two reasons: first, he admonishes us about humility, namely, that no one should disdain to preach what has been said by others, since the very font of ecclesiastical knowledge preached the same. Secondly, because John is the voice, but heist the word. But the same is signified by the word and the voice, except that the word is a vehicle of the voice. In regard to this he does two things: one admonishes, Repent; the other promises, the kingdom of heaven is at hand.
Sed quare non admonuit de iustitia in principio suae praedicationis, sed ad poenitentiam? Dicendum quod causa fuit, quia prius admonuit de iustitia per legem naturae, et Scripturae, sed transgressi erant; Is. XXIV, 5: transgressi sunt leges, mutaverunt ius, dissipaverunt foedus sempiternum. In hoc enim dat intelligere quod omnes peccatores invenit; I Tim. I, 15: Christus Iesus venit in hunc mundum peccatores salvos facere; Rom. III, v. 23: omnes enim peccaverunt, et egent gloria Dei. Et hoc est poenitentiam agite. Promittit autem aliud; unde appropinquabit enim regnum caelorum. Ista promissio in duobus differt a promissione veteris testamenti; quia ibi temporalia, hic caelestia, et aeterna; Is. I, 19: si me audieritis, bona terrae comedetis. Item ibi regnum Chananaeorum et Iebusaeorum; hic regnum caelorum; unde appropinquabit, in vos, regnum caelorum. But why did he not admonish to justice in the beginning of his preaching but to penance? The reason was that he admonished about justice before by the law of nature and of the Scripture, but they had been violated: "They have transgressed the laws, violated the statutes, broken the everlasting covenant" (Is 24:5). For by this he gives us to understand that he found all sinners: "Christ Jesus came into this world to save sinners" (1 Tim 1:15); "For all have sinned and need the glory of God" (Rom 3:23). And this is Repent. But he promises something else: hence, the kingdom of heaven is at hand. This promise differs in two ways from the promise of the Old Testament, because there the promises were temporal things, but here heavenly and eternal: "If you listen, you shall eat the good things of the land" (Is 1:19). Likewise, it was the kingdom of the Chananeans and Jebusites; here the kingdom of heaven. Hence, the kingdom of heaven is at hand.
Et ideo doctrina Christi dicitur novum testamentum: quia facta est ibi nova pactio inter nos et Deum de regno caelorum; Ier. XXXI, 31: feriam domui Israel et domui Iuda foedus novum. Secundo quia vetus lex simul cum promissione habebat comminationem; Is. I, 19: si volueritis, et audieritis me, bona terrae comedetis: quod si nolueritis, et me ad iracundiam provocaveritis, gladius devorabit vos. Et Deut. XXVIII idem habetur: ubi multae benedictiones promittuntur his qui legem servaverint, et multas comminatur Moyses maledictiones transgressoribus legis. Et hoc ideo est, quia vetus erat lex timoris, nova vero amoris. Augustinus: brevis differentia, timor et amor. Hebr. XII, 18: non enim accessistis ad tractabilem et accessibilem ignem, et turbinem, et caliginem, et procellam, et tubae sonum, et vocem verborum, quam qui audierunt excusaverunt se, ne eis fieret verbum. Et ideo dicit appropinquabit regnum caelorum, scilicet beatitudo aeterna. Et dicit appropinquabit, quia ille qui dabat, ad nos descendit, quia nos non poteramus ascendere ad Deum. Therefore, the doctrine of Christ is called the New Testament, because in it a new pact between us and God was struck concerning the kingdom of heaven: "I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah" (Jer 31:31). Secondly, because the old law contained a threat along with the promise: "If you are willing and obedient, you will eat the good things of the land. But if you refuse and rebel, you shall be devoured by the sword" (Is 1:19). Dt (c. 28) says the same thing: there are many blessings promised those who observe the Law, and Moses threatened many curses on its transgressors. The reason is that the old law was a law of fear, but the new of love. Augustine: "A slight difference, fear and love"; "You have not come to what may be touched, a blazing fire, and darkness, and gloom, and a tempest, and the should of a trumpet, and a voice whose words made the hearers entreat that no further messages be spoken to them" (Heb 12:18). Therefore, he says the kingdom of heaven is at hand, namely, eternal happiness. And he says at hand, because the one who gave it came down to us, since we were unable to go up to God.
Ambulans autem et cetera. Postquam incepit praedicare, voluit suae praedicationis habere ministros: unde hic advocat ad se eos: et circa hoc duo facit, secundum quod duo paria ministrorum advocat. Quia primo Petrum et Andream; secundo Iacobum et Ioannem. (18) As he walked. After he began to preach, he wanted ministers of his preaching. Hence, he calls them to himself. In regard to this he does two things in that he calls two pairs of ministers: first, Peter and Andrew; secondly, James and John.
Circa primum quatuor facit: primo enim describitur locus vocationis; secundo ponitur conditio vocatorum, ibi erant enim piscatores; tertio vocatio, ibi et ait illis; quarto ipsorum obedientia perfecta, ibi at illi continuo relictis retibus secuti sunt eum. In regard to the first, four things are done: first, the place of the calling is mentioned; secondly, the occupation of those called (v. 18b); thirdly, the call (v. 19); fourthly, their perfect obedience (v. 20).
Dicit ergo ambulans iuxta mare Galilaeae. Locus congruus: quia, sicut dicit Glossa, piscatores vocaturus, ambulat iuxta mare. Quantum autem ad mysterium, sciendum, quod stare Dei significat aeternitatem et immobilitatem; ipsius ambulare, temporalem nativitatem. Per hoc ergo quod ambulans discipulos vocavit, significatur quod per mysterium suae incarnationis nos ad se traxit; Ps. VII, 7: exsurge, domine, in praecepto quod mandasti, idest disposuisti implendum, et synagoga populorum circumdabit te. Et dicit Galilaeae, per quod intelligitur turbulentia huius mundi; Is. LVII, 20: cor impii quasi mare fervens, quod quiescere non potest, et redundant fluctus eius in conculcationem et lutum. Christus similitudinem habuit peccatoris; Rom. VIII, 3: misit Deus filium suum in similitudinem carnis peccati et cetera. He says, therefore, As he walked by the Sea of Galilee: a fitting place, because, as a Gloss says, since he was about to call fishermen, he walked near the sea. As far as the mystery is concerned, it should be noted that for God to stand signifies God's eternity and unchangeableness; to walk signifies his birth in time. Therefore, by the fact that when walking he called his disciples is signified that he drew us to himself by the mystery of the Incarnation: "Awake, O my God, you have appointed a judgment" (Ps 7:6), i.e., arranged for it to be fulfilled, "and the assembly of the people will gather about you." He says, of Galilee, by which is understood the turbulence of this world: "The heart of the wicked is as the tossing sea; for it cannot rest, and its waters turn up mire and dirt" (Is 57:20). Christ assumed a likeness to sinners: "God sent his Son in the likeness of sinful flesh" (Rom 8:3).
Consequenter vocatorum describitur conditio. Et primo quantum ad numerum; secundo quantum ad nomina; tertio quantum ad actum; quarto quantum ad officium.
  • Dicit ergo vidit duos, non oculo corporis tantum, sed etiam mentis: visus enim eius est respectus misericordiae; unde Ex. III, 7: videns vidi afflictionem populi mei, qui est in Aegypto et cetera. Et nota quod idem significatur per duos, et fratres: utrumque enim ad caritatem pertinet, quae consistit in dilectione Dei et proximi. Et ideo binos elegit, et binos ad praedicandum misit: et voluit significari per hoc caritas spiritualis, quia caritas firmatur magis, quando in natura fundatur; Ps. CXXXII, v. 1: ecce quam bonum et quam iucundum habitare fratres in unum.
  • Simonem qui vocatur Petrus, nunc scilicet, sed non tunc: quia Christus postea imposuit ei hoc nomen, sed primo promisit; Io. I, 42: tu vocaberis Cephas, sed imposuit Matth. XVI, 18: tu es Petrus. Et Andream. Ista nomina debet habere quilibet praedicator. Simon enim interpretatur obediens; Petrus agnoscens; Andreas fortitudo. Et praedicator debet esse obediens, ut alios possit ad hoc invitare, Prov. XXI, 28: vir obediens loquetur victorias: agnoscens, ut alios sciat instruere: I Cor. XIV, 19: volo quinque verba sensu meo loqui, ut alios instruam, fortis, ut non terreatur comminationibus; Ier. c. I, 18: dedi te hodie in civitatem munitam, et in columnam ferream, et in murum aereum; Ez. III, 8: dedi faciem tuam valentiorem faciebus eorum, et frontem tuam duriorem frontibus eorum, ut adamantem, et ut silicem dedi faciem tuam.
  • Sequitur mittentes rete in mare. Quaerit Chrysostomus quare dominus captavit istam horam. Et dicit, ut daretur exemplum quod numquam debemus omittere servitium Dei propter occupationes. Vel ideo, quia per hunc actum praefigurabatur actus futurorum praedicatorum, quia per verba praedicantium quasi per retia trahuntur homines.
  • Ponitur officium erant enim piscatores. Et sciendum quod inter omnes homines, piscatores sunt simpliciores; et dominus de simplicissimo statu voluit habere homines, et illos eligere, ut non imputaretur sapientiae humanae id quod factum fuit per eos; I Cor. I, 26: videte vocationem nostram, fratres, quia non multi sapientes secundum carnem, non multi potentes, non multi nobiles; sed quae stulta sunt mundi eligit Deus, ut confundat sapientes. Et ideo non elegit Augustinum, aut Cyprianum oratorem, sed Petrum piscatorem: et de piscatore lucratus est et imperatorem, et oratorem.
Then those called are described: first, their number; secondly, their names; thirdly, what they were doing; fourthly, as to their livelihood.
  • He says, therefore, He saw two, not only with the bodily eye, but also with that of the mind; for his vision is a regard of mercy. Hence, Ex (3:7): "I have seen the affliction of my people, who are in Egypt." And note that the same thing is signified by two and brothers,for both pertain to charity, which consists in the love of God and neighbor. Therefore, he chose by two's, and by two's he sent them to preach. By this he wished spiritual charity to be signified, because charity is made more firm, when it is founded on nature: "Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brothers to dwell together in unity" (Ps 133:1).
  • Simon, who is called Peter, i.e., now, but not then; because Christ gave him this name later, but first he promised: "You shall be called Cephas (Jn 1:42). Then he gave it: "You are Peter" (Mt 16:18). And Andrew. Every preacher should have those names. For Simon means obedient; Peter, comprehending; Andrew, courage. For a preacher should be obedient, that he might invite others to it: "The obedient man shall speak of victories" (Pr 21:28); comprehending, that he may know how to instruct others: "I had rather speak five words with my mind, in order to instruct others" (1 Cor 14:19); courageous, in order not to be terrified by threats: "I make you this day a fortified city, an iron pillar, and a bronze wall" (Jer 1:18); "I have made your face hard against their faces, and your forehead hard against their foreheads. Like adamant harder than flint I have made your face" (Ez 3:8).
  • He continues: casting a net into the sea. Chrysostom: Why did God choose that hour? He answers: to give an example that we should never neglect the service of God for our occupations. Or, because by this act the action of future preachers was prefigured, for men are drawn by the words of the preacher as though by nets.
  • There occupation is described: for they were fishermen. It should be noted that fishermen are simpler than other men; and the Lord wanted to have and to pick men of the simplest condition, so that what they accomplished would not be attributed to human wisdom: "Consider your calling, brethren; not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise" (1 Cor 1:26). Therefore, he did not choose Augustine or the orator Cyprian, but Peter, the fisherman; and by the fisherman he gained both an emperor and an orator.
Et ait. Hic ponitur vocatio, circa quam tria consideranda sunt. Primo enim invitat; secundo ducatum promittit; tertio praemium.
  • Dicit ergo venite. Hoc ex sola liberalitate divina est, ut ad se trahat; Eccli. XXIV, 26: transite ad me omnes qui concupiscitis me, et a generationibus meis adimplemini; infra c. XI, 28: venite ad me omnes qui laboratis et onerati estis, et ego reficiam vos. Post me, quasi dicat: ego vado, et vos venite post me, quia ego ero dux vester; Prov. IV, 11: viam sapientiae monstrabo tibi, et ducam te per semitas aequitatis; quas cum ingressus fueris, non arctabuntur gressus tui, et currens non habebis offendiculum; Ps. CXXXVIII, 17: mihi autem nimis honorificati sunt amici tui, Deus, nimis confortatus est principatus eorum.
  • Faciam, quasi, commutabo vestrum officium in maius. De istis dicitur Ier. XVI, 16: ecce ego mittam piscatores multos, dicit dominus, et piscabuntur eos et cetera. Et dicit faciam, quia frustra laborat praedicatio exterius, nisi adsit interius gratia redemptoris: non enim virtute sua trahebant homines, sed operatione Christi.
  • Et ideo dicit faciam. Ista quidem est maxima dignitas; unde Dionysius: nihil dignius in officio hominum quam Dei cooperatorem fieri. Dignitas enim sola in sua claritate consistit. Ad illam autem dignitatem magis appropinquant qui sic illuminantur quod alia illuminent. Quamquam vero illuminent homines qui sequuntur Christum, et quantum ad iustitiam magna faciunt, sed tamen asserunt dignitatem Christi quantum ad unum tantum; vita autem praedicatorum quantum ad duo; Dan. XII, 3: qui ad iustitiam erudiunt multos, fulgebunt quasi stellae in perpetuas aeternitates.
(19) And he said to them. Here is described their call, concerning which three things must be considered: first, he invites them; secondly, he promises them a new position; thirdly, a reward.
  • He says, therefore: Come. This is entirely from God's generosity that he draws them to himself: "Come to me, you who desire me, and eat your full of my produce" (Si 24:19); "Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest" (Mt 11:28). After me. As if to say: I go, and you come after me, because I will be your leader: "I will teach you the way of wisdom; I will lead you into the paths of righteousness. When you walk, your step will not be hampered; and if you run, you will not stumble" (Pr 4:11).
  • I will make, i.e., I will change your occupation into something higher: "I am sending for many fishers, says the Lord, and they shall catch them" (Jer 16:16). He says, I will make, because the preacher labors in vain outwardly, unless the grace of the Redeemer is present inwardly; for it is not by his power that he draws men but by the action of Christ.
  • Therefore, he says I will make. this, indeed, is the greatest dignity; hence, Denis: "Nothing is more dignified among men's occupations than to be made a cooperator with God." For the dignity consists in its splendor. But those so enlightened as to enlighten others draw more closely to that dignity. But although men who follow Christ enlighten and do great things regarding righteousness, yet they assert the dignity of Christ in regard to one thing only; but the life of preachers in regard to two things: "Those who turn many to righteousness shall shine like the stars forever and ever" (Dan 12:3).
Ponitur eorum obedientia at illi, relictis retibus et navi, secuti sunt eum. Et ostendit obedientiam eorum quantum ad tria.
  • Primo quantum ad promptitudinem, quia non distulerunt: unde at illi. Contra illos de quibus Eccli. V, 8: ne differas de die in diem; Gal. I, 15: cum autem placuit ei qui me segregavit ex utero matris meae, et vocavit per gratiam suam, ut revelaret filium suum in me, ut evangelizarem illum in gentibus, continuo non acquievi carni et sanguini. Is. l, 5: dominus aperuit mihi aurem, ego autem non contradico, retrorsum non abii.
  • Secundo quantum ad expeditionem, quia reliquerunt; quia non pensandus est census, sed affectus; quia omnia dimittit qui quicquid habere potest, dimittit. Sed quae necessitas relinquendi omnia? Chrysostomus: nullus potest possidere divitias, et perfecte ad regnum caelorum venire; sunt enim impedimentum virtutis, diminuunt enim sollicitudinem aeternorum, propter quod non perfecte potest homo inhaerere divinis. Et ideo dimittenda sunt; I Cor. c. IX, 25: omnis qui in agone contendit, ab omnibus se abstinet et cetera.
  • Tertio quantum ad executionem, quia secuti sunt eum: non est enim nimis magnum dimittere omnia, sed perfectio consistit in sequela ipsius, quae est per caritatem; I Cor. XIII, 3: si distribuero in cibos pauperum omnes facultates meas, et si tradidero corpus meum ita ut ardeam, caritatem autem non habuero, nihil mihi prodest. Non enim consistit per se in exterioribus perfectio, scilicet paupertate, virginitate, et huiusmodi, nisi quia ista sunt instrumenta ad caritatem; et ideo dicit et secuti sunt eum.
(20) Their obedience is indicated, when he says immediately they left their nets and followed him. He indicates their obedience in regard to three things:
  • first, as to promptness: "Do not postpone from day to day" (Sir 5:7); "But when he who had set me apart before I was born, and had called me through his grace..., I did not confer with flesh and blood" (Gal 1:15); "The Lord God has opened my ear, and I was not rebellious, I turned not backward" (Is 50:5).
  • Secondly, as to disencumbering themselves, because they left behind; here one must not consider the amount, but the affection. For one who leaves everything he could have, leaves all things. But what was the need for leaving all things? Chrysostom: "No one can possess riches and come to the kingdom of heaven completely; for they are an obstacle to virtue, because they lessen anxiety for eternal things, i as much as man cannot cling to riches in a perfect way." "Therefore, they should be abandoned: "Every athlete exercises self-control in all things" (1 Cor 9:25).
  • Thirdly, in regard to execution, because they followed him. For it is no great thing to leave all things, but perfection consists in following, which is through charity: "If I give away all I have, and if I deliver my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing" (1 Cor 13:3). For perfection per se does not consist in external things, namely, poverty, chastity and the like, except in the sense that they are instruments to charity. Therefore, he says followed him.
Consequenter agitur de alia vocatione: et procedens inde vidit alios duos fratres, Iacobum Zebedaei et Ioannem fratrem eius. Et primo describuntur vocati; secundo ponitur vocatio, ibi et vocavit etc.; tertio obedientiam vocatorum, ibi illi autem, relictis retibus et patre, secuti sunt eum.
  1. Vocati quadrupliciter describuntur. Quantum ad numerum, nomina, pietatem, et paupertatem.
    • Dicit ergo et procedens inde vidit alios duos fratres. Nota quod a principio vocavit fratres: et quamvis multos alios vocavit, tamen de istis specialiter fit mentio, quia praecipui erant, et quia binos vocavit eos; lex enim nova in caritate fundatur; unde et in veteri testamento duos fratres vocavit, Aaron et Moysen, quia etiam ibi dabatur mandatum de caritate.
    • Et quia perfectior est nova, ideo in principio vocatur duplex numerus fratrum. Iacobum Zebedaei, et Ioannem fratrem eius. Per istos quatuor designatur doctrina quatuor Evangeliorum, vel quatuor virtutes: quia per Petrum, qui interpretatur agnoscens, virtus prudentiae; per Andream, qui interpretatur virilis, seu fortissimus, virtus fortitudinis; per Iacobum, qui interpretatur supplantator, virtus iustitiae; per Ioannem propter virginitatem, virtus temperantiae.
    • Ponitur pietas, quia erant cum Zebedaeo patre. Chrysostomus: admiranda est eorum pietas, quia pauperes arte piscatoria panem quaerunt, et tamen senem patrem non derelinquunt. Eccli. III, 8: qui timet Deum, honorat parentes.
    • Paupertas designatur in hoc, quia reficiebant retia sua. Nihilominus per istos qui mittebant retia, signantur illi qui in prima aetate negotiantur in mundo; per istos qui iam miserunt, et reficiebant, significantur illi qui diu negotiati sunt in mundo; et sunt iam per peccatum absorpti, et vocantur ad Christum. Thren. III, 27: bonum est viro, cum portaverit iugum domini ab adolescentia sua.
  2. Et vocavit eos, interius et exterius; ad Rom. VIII, 30: quos praedestinavit, hos et vocavit. Vocare interius nihil aliud est quam praebere auxilium humanae menti cum vult convertere nos.
  3. Sequitur de obedientia illi autem, relictis retibus et patre, secuti sunt eum. Nota quod duo superiores navem tantum, isti autem reliquerunt retia, navem et patrem: in quo significatur quod propter Christum debemus omittere omnes terrenas occupationes, quae designantur per rete; II Tim. II, 4: nemo militans Deo implicat se negotiis saecularibus; divitias, sive possessiones, quae designantur per navem; infra XIX, 21: si vis perfectus esse, vade et vende omnia quae habes, et da pauperibus, et habebis thesaurum in caelo, et veni, sequere me; affectum carnalem, qui per patrem; Ps. XLIV, 11: obliviscere populum tuum, et domum patris tui. Mystice vero per Zebedaeum significatur mundus, qui interpretatur fluxus vehemens.
(21) Then he deals with another call: And going on from there he saw two other brothers, James the son of Zebedee and John his brother. First, those called are described; secondly, their call (v. 21b); thirdly, their obedience (v. 22).
  1. The ones called are described in four ways: the number, name, piety and poverty.
    • He says, therefore, and going on from there he saw two other brothers. Note that in the beginning he called brothers; and although he called many others, special mention is made of them, because they were important and because he called them by two's. For the New Law is based on charity; hence, even in the Old Law he called two brothers, Aaron and Moses, because even there the command about charity was given.
    • And because the New is more perfect, he called two more brothers: James, the son of Zebedee, and John, his brother.
    • By the four brother is designated the four gospels or four virtues: by Peter, which means comprehending, the virtue of prudence; by Andrew, which means very courageous, the virtue of courage; by James, which means supplanter, the virtue of justice, by John on account of his virginity, the virtue of temperance.
    • Piety is mentioned, because they were with their father, Zebedee. Chrysostom: Their piety must be admired, because they were poor and obtained their living by the art of fishing, and yet they did not leave their aged father: "Whoever fears the Lord, honors his parents" ( Sir 3:7).
    • Poverty is designated by the fact that they were mending their nets. But by those who cast the nets are signified people who transact business in the world at an early age; by those who have already cast them are signified those who have been transacting business for a long time in the world: "It is good for a man that he bear the yoke in his youth" (Lam 3:27).
  2. And he called them inwardly and outwardly: "Those whom he predestined, he also called" (Rom 8:30). To call inwardly is no more than to offer help to the human mind, when he wills to convert us.
  3. (22) He follows with obedience: They left the boat and their father, and followed him. Note that the other two only left their boat, but these left nets, boat and father. This signifies that for the sake of Christ we should give up all worldly occupation, which are designated by the net: "No soldier on service gets entangled in worldly pursuits" (2 Tim 2:4); riches or possessions, which are designated by the boat: "If you would be perfect, go and sell all you have, and give to the poor, and you shall have treasure in heaven, and come, follow me" (Mt 19:21); carnal affection, which is designated by the father: "Forget your people and your father's house" (Ps 45:10). But mystically the world is signified by Zebedee, which means turbulent flow.
Sed hic est quaestio: videtur enim quod isti peccaverunt dimittendo patrem senem et pauperem, quia filii tenentur subvenire parentibus. Et generaliter quaeritur utrum alicui liceat dimittere parentes in ultima necessitate, intrando religionem. Dicendum quod consilium numquam praeiudicat praecepto; sed hoc, scilicet honora patrem tuum et matrem tuam, Ex. XX, 12 est praeceptum; et ideo si pater nullo modo possit vivere nisi adiutus a filio, filius non debet intrare religionem. Sed hic casus non erat in Zebedaeo, quia poterat se iuvare, et habebat necessaria. But there is a question here: for it seems that they sinned by leaving their poor and aged father, because children are supposed to support parents. And , in general, one might ask whether it is lawful for anyone to neglect parents in extreme necessity by entering the religious life. The answer is that a counsel never conflicts with a precept; but "honor your father and mother is a precept. Therefore, if a father can in no way live without help from his son, the son should net enter the religious life. But this was not the case with Zebedee, because he was able to help himself and had what was necessary.
Item est quaestio litteralis. Matthaeus enim videtur hic contrarius Ioanni et Lucae: Ioannes enim I, 28 dicit eos vocatos iuxta Iordanem; hic dicit iuxta mare Galilaeae. Item Lucas V, 10 dicit quod simul vocavit Petrum et Andream, Iacobum et Ioannem, licet de aliis duobus non fiat mentio, quia creditur quod ibi fuerint. Item ibi dicitur quod omnes simul, hic quod seorsum. Sed sciendum quod trina fuit vocatio apostolorum. Primo enim vocati sunt ad Christi familiaritatem, et illud dicitur Io., I, et hoc in primo anno praedicationis Christi. Nec obstat quod dicitur post: ascenderunt cum eo discipuli eius in Cana Galilaeae, quia secundum Augustinum non tunc erant discipuli, sed futuri erant: sicut si dicatur quod Paulus apostolus natus fuerit in Tharso Ciliciae, cum tunc non esset apostolus. Vel dicendum quod loquitur de aliis discipulis, qui vocantur omnes credentes in Christo. Secundo vocati fuerunt ad discipulatum; et de ista dicitur Lc. cap. V. Tertia vocatio fuit ut totaliter Christo adhaererent: et de ista hic dicitur; quod patet, secundum Augustinum, quia Luc. V, 11 de hoc habetur, et subductis ad terram navibus; ergo habebant navim, et curabant de ea, quasi ad eam redituri; hic vero dicit, at illi, relictis omnibus et cetera. Et ideo dicendum, quod de ultima sequela loquitur hic. There is also a textual question. For Matthew seems to be contrary to John and Luke here; because John (1:28) says that they were called near the Jordan, but Matthew says it was near the Sea of Galilee. Again, Luke (5:10) says that he called Peter and Andrew, James and John at the same time, although the other two are not mentioned, because it is believed that they were there. Also it says there that he called them all together, but here separately. The answer is that there was a threefold calling of the apostles: first, they were called to intimacy with Christ, and that is mentioned in John (c. 1); and this was in the first years of Christ's preaching. This does not conflict with John's later statement (2:2) that he went with his disciples to Cana of Galilee, because, according to Augustine, they were not disciples then, but would be. It is like saying that Paul the apostle was born in Tarsus of Cilicia, since he was not an apostle then. Or one might say that he is speaking of other disciples, who were all called, believing in Christ. Secondly, the were called to discipleship: it is of this that Luke speaks in c. 5. The third call was that they adhere to Christ completely. It is of this that Matthew speaks here. This is clear, because, according to Augustine, it is stated in Luke (5:11): "When they had brought their boats to land." Therefore, they had a boat and took care of it, as though they would return to it; but there he says, "leaving all things they followed him." Therefore, he is speaking here of the final following.

Lectio 3
Reportatio Petri de Andria
4—3
Mt 4:23-25
23 καὶ περιῆγεν ἐν ὅλῃ τῇ γαλιλαίᾳ, διδάσκων ἐν ταῖς συναγωγαῖς αὐτῶν καὶ κηρύσσων τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τῆς βασιλείας καὶ θεραπεύων πᾶσαν νόσον καὶ πᾶσαν μαλακίαν ἐν τῷ λαῷ. 24 καὶ ἀπῆλθεν ἡ ἀκοὴ αὐτοῦ εἰς ὅλην τὴν συρίαν: καὶ προσήνεγκαν αὐτῷ πάντας τοὺς κακῶς ἔχοντας ποικίλαις νόσοις καὶ βασάνοις συνεχομένους [καὶ] δαιμονιζομένους καὶ σεληνιαζομένους καὶ παραλυτικούς, καὶ ἐθεράπευσεν αὐτούς. 25 καὶ ἠκολούθησαν αὐτῷ ὄχλοι πολλοὶ ἀπὸ τῆς γαλιλαίας καὶ δεκαπόλεως καὶ ἱεροσολύμων καὶ ἰουδαίας καὶ πέραν τοῦ ἰορδάνου.
23. And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom: and healing all manner of sickness and every infirmity, among the people. 24. And his fame went throughout all Syria, and they presented to him all sick people that were taken with divers diseases and torments, and such as were possessed by devils, and lunatics, and those that had the palsy, and he cured them: 25. And much people followed him from Galilee, and from Decapolis, and from Jerusalem, and from Judea, and from beyond the Jordan.
Consuetudo est apud reges, quod congregato exercitu procedunt ad bellum: ita Christus, congregato exercitu apostolorum, procedit ad pugnandum contra Diabolum per officium praedicationis, ad expellendum eum de mundo. Unde hic agitur de doctrina et praedicatione Christi. Et ponitur primo Christi praedicatio; secundo effectus praedicationis, ibi abiit opinio eius in totam Syriam et cetera. It is customary among kings that, when the army is gathered, they go to war. In the same way Christ, after gathering an army of apostles, goes forth to fight against the devil with the weapons of preaching, in order to expel him from the world. Hence, here the doctrine and preaching of Christ are treated: first, the preaching is mentioned; secondly, its effect (v. 24).
Circa primum tria tangit. Primo sollicitudinem docentis et modum docendi, et propositae doctrinae confirmationem.
  • Et sollicitudo ostenditur in duobus,
    • quia non quaerebat propriam quietem; unde circuibat; Rom. XII, 11: sollicitudine non pigri.
    • Secundo quia non erat acceptator personarum, terrarum, vel villarum, sed circuibat totam Galilaeam, absque differentia; Mc. I, 38: eamus in proximas civitates, ut et ibi praedicem; Ps. CII, 22: in omni loco dominationis eius. Modus, ibi in synagogis docens.
  • Duo dicit docens et praedicans; docens quae agenda sunt in praesenti, praedicans de futuris: vel docens ea quae pertinent ad instructionem morum, Is. XLVIII, 17: ego dominus docens te utilia, praedicans futura; Is. LII, 7: quam pulchri super montem pedes annuntiantis et praedicantis pacem, annuntiantis bonum, praedicantis salutem. Vel docens naturales iustitias: quaedam enim in theologia traduntur quae naturalis ratio dictat, scilicet iustitia, et huiusmodi: et quantum ad hoc dicit docens; quaedam vero quae excedunt rationem, sicut mysterium Trinitatis, et huiusmodi: et quantum ad hoc dicit praedicans. Sed obiicitur de hoc quod dicit Glossa, quod doceret naturales iustitias, ut est castitas, et humilitas, et huiusmodi: naturales enim virtutes non videntur posse dici virtutes, quia virtutes sunt per gratiam. Et dicendum quod inclinatio et inchoatio est naturalis; sed perfectio, qua gratus homo redditur, est ex gratia, politica, et ex assuetudine. In synagogis eorum.
    • Nota duo. Primum quia quaerebat multitudinem, ut praedicatio magis proficeret; Ps. XXXIV, 18: confitebor tibi in Ecclesia magna.
    • Item quia solum Iudaeis praedicabat; Act. XIII, 46: vobis primum oportuit praedicari verbum Dei. Et praedicans Evangelium regni: non fabulas et curiosa, sed quae ad Dei regnum pertinebant, et ea quae hominibus proficerent.
    • Consequenter confirmatur praedicatio miraculis; Mc. ult., 20: illi autem profecti praedicaverunt ubique, domino cooperante, et sermonem confirmante sequentibus signis. Unde sanans. Languor potest referri ad infirmitates corporales, infirmitas ad infirmitatem animae: non enim minores sunt infirmitates animae quam corporis. Vel per languores graves infirmitates et diuturnas; per infirmitates quamcumque aliam; Ps. CII, 3: qui sanat omnes infirmitates tuas; Eccli. X, 12: brevem languorem praecidit medicus. Datur intelligi etiam in hoc quod praedicatores debent suam doctrinam confirmare per opera; et si non per miracula, per vitam virtuosam; Rom. XV, 18: non audeo aliquid loqui eorum quae per me non efficit Christus in obedientiam gentium in verbo et factis, in virtute signorum et prodigiorum, in virtute spiritus sancti.
In regard to the first, three things are touched: first, the solicitude of the teacher; secondly, the manner of teaching; thirdly, confirmation of the doctrine proposed.
  • (23) The solicitude is shown in two ways,
    • because he did not seek his own ease; hence, He went about: "Never flag in zeal" (Rom 12:11).
    • Secondly, because he was not an acceptor of persons, of lands or of villas; rather he went about all Galilee without distinction: "Let us go on to the next towns, that I may preach there also" (Mk 1:38); "In all places of his dominion" (Ps 103:22).
  • The manner is shown at teaching in their synagogues. He says two things, teaching and preaching: teaching what must be in the present, preaching about future things. Or teaching what pertains to the formation of morals: "I am the Lord, who teaches you useful things" (Is 48:17); "How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him who beings good tidings, who publishes salvation" (Is 52:7). Or teaching natural justices: for some things, which natural reason dictates, are treated in theology, namely, justice and the like. In regard to this he says, teaching. Other matters, which transcend reason, such as the Trinity and so on. In regard to these he says, preaching.
    But against this is a statement found in a Gloss which teaches natural justices, such as chastity, humility and the like; for natural virtues do not seem able to be called virtues, because virtues exist through grace. The answer is that the inclination and beginning is natural; but the perfection, by which a man is made pleasing, is from grace, discipline and from habit.
    In their synagogues. Note two things:
    • first, that he sought the multitude, in order that the preaching might make more progress: "Then I will thank you in the great congregation" (Ps 35:18).
    • Also that he preached only to the Jews: "It was necessary that the word of God should be spoken first to you" (Acts 13:46). Preaching the gospel of the kingdom: not fables and curiosities, but matters pertaining to the kingdom of God and beneficial to men.
  • Then the preaching is confirmed by miracles: "They went forth and preached everywhere, while the Lord worked with them and confirmed the message by the signs that attended it" (Mk 16:20). Hence, healing. Disease can refer to bodily sickness; infirmity to infirmity of the soul, for the infirmities of the soul are not less than those of the body. Or by diseases are meant serious and prolonged infirmities; by infirmities, any other: "Who heals all your infirmities" (Ps 103:3); "A long illness baffles the physician" (Sir 10:10). We are also given to understand by that, that preachers should confirm their teaching with works; if not by miracles, then by a virtuous life: "I will not venture to speak of anything except what Christ has wrought through me to win obedience from the gentiles, by word and by deed, by the power of signs and wonders, by the power of the Holy Spirit" (Rom 15:18).
Et abiit opinio eius in totam Syriam. Hic ponitur effectus praedicationis: et est triplex, scilicet fama circa exemplum, fiducia quam homines de eo habebant, et devotio qua homines eum sequebantur.
  • Dicit ergo abiit opinio eius in totam Syriam. Syria est regio a Capharnaum usque ad mare magnum: unde et in terra gentilium divulgatum est. Hoc etiam pertinet ad praedicatores, ut habeant testimonium bonum; Eccli. XLI, 15: curam habe de bono nomine; II Tim. II, 15: sollicite autem cura teipsum probabilem exhibere Deo operarium inconfusibilem, recte tractantem verbum veritatis. Per Syriam autem potest intelligi superbia mundi, quia sic interpretatur: et fama Christi per totum mundum diffusa est.
  • Fiducia, ibi et obtulerunt ei omnes male habentes; sciebant enim quod sanare poterat; Ier. XVII, 14: sana me, domine, et sanabor; salvum me fac, et salvus ero. Et dicit primo abiit opinio eius etc., et post, obtulerunt ei etc., quia quando aliquis habet famam de sanctitate, homines facilius detegunt ei conscientiae vulnus. Variis languoribus et tormentis comprehensos. Per istas graves infirmitates designantur infirmitates spirituales. Per languores possunt intelligi diuturnae infirmitates, et signatur infirmitas diu perseverans; Eccli. X, 11: languor prolixior gravat medicum. Et quia aliqui gravantur infirmitate, aliqui vero acerbitate doloris, hoc significatur cum dicit et tormentis comprehensos: et significantur illi qui habent conscientiam gravatam remordentem; Ps. XVII, 5: circumdederunt me dolores mortis, dolores Inferni circumdederunt me.
    Et qui Daemonia habebant
    ; et hoc est quod dicitur Lc. VI, 1: et qui vexabantur a spiritibus immundis, curabantur. Per hoc intelliguntur illi qui colebant idola; Ps. XCV, 5: omnes dii gentium Daemonia; I Cor. X, 20: nolo vos socios fieri Daemoniorum. Lunatici proprie dicuntur qui patiuntur infirmitatem cuiusdam amentiae in defectu lunae: et tunc arripiuntur a Daemonibus. Et Diabolus tunc magis affligit propter duas rationes. Unam assignat Hieronymus, et est ut infamet creaturam Dei; et hoc etiam fit in effectibus magicae artis, qua invocantur Daemones sub certis constellationibus et Daemones veniunt ad hoc ut extollant creaturam, et inducant ad idololatriam. Secunda ratio est melior, quia Diabolus non potest aliquid, nisi per virtutes corporis. Non est autem dubium, quod corpora inferiora immutantur secundum diversas immutationes corporum superiorum. Et ideo tunc Diabolus invocatus libenter venit, quando videt superiora corpora operari ad illum effectum pro quo invocatur. In defectu autem lunae, sicut patet, humiditates deficiunt; et ideo defectus lunae facit ad talem infirmitatem, quando terra non abundat humoribus; et ideo Diabolus tunc magis vexat: et hoc est et lunaticos. Per istos possumus intelligere inconstantes Eccli. XXVII, 12: homo sanctus in sapientia manet sicut sol: nam stultus sicut luna mutatur, qui habent propositum caste vivendi, sed vincuntur passionibus, secundum illud Rom. VII, 15: non enim quod volo bonum, hoc facio, sed quod odi malum, illud ago. Et paralyticos. Paralytici proprie dicuntur, qui habent membra resoluta, ita quod non possunt habere officium membrorum. Per istos significantur ignorantes: et isti omnes a Christo curantur; unde et curavit eos, scilicet perfecte.
  • Consequenter ponitur tertius effectus, scilicet devotio sequentium; unde et secutae sunt eum turbae multae; Ps. VII, 8: exurge, domine, in praecepto quod mandasti, et synagoga populorum circumdabit te. Sciendum autem quod diversimode aliqui sequebantur, quia quidam studio salutis, scilicet spiritualis, scilicet apostoli; unde supra: relictis omnibus sequuti sunt eum; et infra XIX, 27: ecce nos reliquimus omnia, et secuti sumus te. Quidam studio salutis corporalis; Lc. VI, 17: turba copiosa plebis ab omni Iudaea, et Ierusalem, et maritima, et Tyri, et Sidonis, qui venerant ut audirent eum, et sanarentur a languoribus suis. Quidam curiositate tantum videndi miracula; Io. VI, 2: et sequebantur eum multi, quia videbant signa quae faciebat super his qui infirmabantur. Alii ad insidiandum, ut Pharisaei et Scribae; Ier. XX, 10: audivi contumelias multorum, et terrorem in circuitu. De Galilaea. Provincia est ubi Christus praecipue praedicabat, et interpretatur transmigratio. Per hoc significantur illi qui debent transmigrare de vitiis ad virtutes. Et Decapoli. Regio est ubi sunt decem villae; et significantur illi qui student ad observantiam decem mandatorum. Et de Ierosolymis. Ierosolyma interpretatur visio pacis; et significat illos qui desiderio pacis ad Christum veniunt; Ps. CXVIII, 165: pax multa diligentibus nomen tuum. Et de Iudaea. Iudaea interpretatur confessio; et significat illos qui per peccatorum remissionem ad Christum veniunt; Ps. CXIII, v. 2: facta est Iudaea sanctificatio eius. Et de trans Iordanem; et significantur illi qui per Baptismum ad Christum veniunt: in Iordane enim fuit figuratus Baptismus.
(24) So his fame spread throughout all Syria. Here is mentioned the effect of the preaching and it is threefold, namely, the fame of his example, the trust men had in him, and the devotion with which men followed him.
  • He says, therefore, His fame spread throughout Syria. Syria is the territory from Capernaum to the great sea; hence, it also was spread even into the land of the Gentiles. This, too, applies to preachers, namely, that they have a good reputation: "Have regard for a good name" (Sir 41:12); "Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth" (2 Tim 2:15). By Syria can also be understood the pride of the world, because that is its meaning; and Christ's fame was spread throughout the whole world.
  • Trust is indicated at they brought him all the sick, for they knew that he could heal: "Heal me, O Lord, and I shall be healed" (Jer 17:14). First, he says His fame spread, and then they brought him all the sick, because when anyone has a reputation for holiness, men more readily disclose to him a wound of conscience. Those afflicted with various diseases and pains. By these serious infirmities are designated spiritual infirmities. By diseases can be understood lingering sicknesses. And because some are burdened with infirmity and others with sharp pains, this is signified, when he says those afflicted with pains. And they signify persons with a disturbed and burdened conscience: "The pains of death encompassed me, the cords of Sheol assailed me" (Ps 18:4).
    Demoniacs: and this is what it says in Luke (6:1): "Those troubled with unclean spirits were cured" (Lk 6:18). By this are understood those who worship idols: "All the gods of the Gentiles are idols" (Ps 96:5); "I do not want you to be partners with demons" (1 Cor 10:20). Epileptics [lunatics]. Properly speaking, they are people who suffer the infirmity of madness, when the moon wanes; and then they are seized by demons. The devil afflicts them more at that time for two reasons. Jerome assigns one, namely, to disgrace God's creature: and this is even done in the effects of magic, in which the demons are invoked under certain constellations and they respond by praising the creature and inducing him to idolatry. The second reason is better, because the devil cannot do anything except by bodily powers. But there is no doubt that lower bodies are changed according to diverse changes of higher bodies; and therefore, the devil when invoked comes gladly, when he sees higher bodies acting toward that effect for which he is invoked. But while the moon is waning, moisture fails; and therefore, the waning of the moon makes for such infirmity, when the earth has no abundance of moisture. Consequently, the devil harasses more at that time; and this is and lunatics. By these we can understand inconstant persons: ["A holy man abides in wisdom as the sun; for the fool changes as the moon" (Sir 27:11)], who intend to live chastely but are overcome by passions: "For I do not do what I want, but I do the very things I hate" (Rom 7:15). And paralytics. Properly speaking, these are persons with enfeebled members, such that they cannot have the use of their members. They signify the ignorant. All these were cured by Christ: and he cured them, i.e., perfectly.
  • (25) Then is mentioned the third effect, namely, the devotion of the followers; hence, he says Great crowds followed him. "Awake, O my God; you have appointed a judgment. Let the assembly of peoples be gathered about you" (Ps 7:6). But it should be noted that people follow him in different ways: because some with an interest in health, i.e., spiritual; hence, "having left all things, they followed him" (Mt 4:22); "Lo, we have left all things and followed you" (Mt 19:27). Others follow with an interest in bodily health: "A great multitude of people from all Judea and Jerusalem and the seacoast of Tyre and Sidon came to hear him and be healed of their diseases" (Lk 6:17). Some followed only out of curiosity to see miracles: "And many followed him, because they saw the signs he did on those who were diseased" (Jn 6:2). Some followed to entrap, as the Pharisees and Scribes: "I hear many whispering. Terror is on every side" (Jer 20:10). From Galilee, which is the province in which Christ chiefly preached and it means transmigration. By this is signified those who should transmigrate from vices to virtues. And the Decapolis. This region is where there are ten villages, and they signify those who are eager to observe the ten commandments. And Jerusalem, which means vision of peace and signifies those who come to Christ with a desire for peace: "Great peace have those who love your law" (Ps 119:165). And Judea, which means confession and signifies those who come to Christ by the remission of sins: "Judea became his sanctuary" (Ps 114:2). And from beyond the Jordan. This signifies those who come to Christ by baptism, of which the Jordan was the figure.

Liber 5
Lectio 1
Reportatio Petri de Andria
5—1
Mt 5:1-2
1 ἰδὼν δὲ τοὺς ὄχλους ἀνέβη εἰς τὸ ὄρος: καὶ καθίσαντος αὐτοῦ προσῆλθαν αὐτῷ οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ: 2 καὶ ἀνοίξας τὸ στόμα αὐτοῦ ἐδίδασκεν αὐτοὺς λέγων,
1. And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain, and when he was set down, his disciples came unto him. 2. And opening his mouth he taught them, saying:
Videns autem Iesus turbas. Hic dominus suam doctrinam proponit: et dividitur in partes tres. In prima ponitur doctrina Christi; in secunda ponitur virtus doctrinae; in tertia finis ad quem perducit. Secundum in cap. XIII; tertium in cap. XVII. Seeing the crowds. Here the Lord proposes his doctrine, and it is divided into three parts. In the first the doctrine of Christ is presented; in the second the power of the doctrine (c. 13); in the third the end to which it leads (c. 17).
Prima dividitur in tres. In secunda instruuntur ministri doctrinae; in tertia confunduntur adversarii. Secunda in cap. X; tertia in capite XI. The first is divided into three parts: in the second the ministers of the doctrine are formed (c. 10); in the third the opponents are confounded (c. 11).
Prima dividitur in duas. In prima proponitur doctrina Christi; in secunda confirmatur per miracula, in cap. VIII. The first is divided into two parts: in the first the doctrine of Christ is propounded; in the second it is confirmed by miracles (c. 8).
Prima in duas. In prima praemittitur quasi quidam titulus ad doctrinam; in secunda explicatur ipsa doctrina, ibi beati pauperes spiritu. The first is divided into two: in the first is given, as it were, a title to the doctrine; in the second the doctrine is explained (v. 3).
Circa primum tria facit. Primo describit locum, ubi doctrina fuit proposita; secundo auditores doctrinae; tertio ponit modum docendi. Secundum ibi et cum sedisset; tertium ibi et aperiens os suum docebat eos. In regard to the first he does three things: first, he describes the place where the doctrine was proposed; secondly, the audience (v. 1b); thirdly, the method of teaching (v. 2).
Dicit ergo, ita dixi quod secuti sunt et cetera. Videns autem Iesus turbas. Ista littera duplicem intellectum habere potest.
  • Primo sic. Ascendit ad docendum turbas, scilicet non fugiens. Unde Chrysostomus dicit, quod sicut artifex, quando videt praeparatam materiam, delectatur operari, ita sacerdos delectatur praedicare, quando populum videt congregatum; et ideo, ascendit; Ps. XXXIV, 18: confitebor tibi in Ecclesia magna.
  • Vel aliter. Ascendit, fugiens scilicet turbas, ut securius discipulos doceret; Eccl. IX, v. 17: verba sapientium audiuntur in silentio.
(1a) He says, therefore: I have said that the crowds followed him. Seeing the crowds, Jesus went up on the mountain. This text can be understood in two ways:
  • First, in the way: He went up to teach the crowds and not to flee. Hence Chrysostom says that as an artisan, seeing the material ready, likes to work, so the priest likes to preach, when he sees the congregation assembled; and therefore, he went up: "I will thank you in the great congregation" (Ps 35:18).
  • Or in this way: he went up, fleeing the crowds, so that he might more securely teach the disciples: "The words of the wise are heard in silence" (Sir 21:17).
Et notandum quod legitur quod Christus habebat tria refugia: quandoque enim fugiebat ad montem, sicut dicitur hic; et Io. VIII, 1: Iesus autem perrexit in montem oliveti. Aliquando ad navem; Lc. V, 1: cum turbae multae irruerent in eum (...) ascendens in unam navim, quae erat Simonis (...) sedens docebat. Tertium in desertum; Mc. VI, 31: eamus seorsum in desertum. Et satis convenienter; in tribus enim homo potest habere refugium ad Deum:
  • in protectione divinae altitudinis, quae per montem significatur; Ps. CXXIV, 1: qui confidunt in domino sicut mons Sion.
  • In societate ecclesiastica, quae per navem designatur; Ps. CXXI, v. 3: Ierusalem quae aedificatur ut civitas, cuius participatio eius in idipsum.
  • In solitudine religionis, quae per desertum accipitur, per contemptum temporalium; Osee II, 14: ducam eam in solitudinem, et loquar ad cor eius; Ps. LIV, 8: ecce elongavi fugiens, et mansi in solitudine.
It should be noted that Christ is said to have had three refuges: for sometimes he fled to the mountain, as it says here and in John (8:7): "Jesus went to the Mount of Olives"; sometimes to a ship: "Getting into one of the boats" (Lk 5:3); thirdly, into the desert: "Come away by yourselves to a lonely place" (Mk 6:31). These are quite suitable, for man can find refuge in God in three ways:
  • in the protection afforded by God's loftiness, which is signified by the mountain: "Those who trust in the Lord are like Mount Zion" (Ps 125:1).
  • In the society of the Church, which is designated by the ship: "Jerusalem, built as a city, which is bound firmly together" (Ps 122:3).
  • In the solitude of religion, which is signified by the desert, through contempt for temporal things: "I will bring her into the desert, and speak tenderly to her" (Hos 2:14); "I would wander afar, I would dwell in solitude" (Ps 55:7).
Ascendit autem in montem propter quinque rationes.
  • Prima ad ostensionem suae excellentiae: ipse enim est mons, de quo Ps. LXVII, 16: mons Dei, mons pinguis.
  • Secunda ad ostendendum quod doctor huius doctrinae debet ad eminentiam vitae conscendere; Is. XL, 9: super montem excelsum ascende tu qui evangelizas Sion. Chrysostomus: nemo potest in valle consistere, et de caelo loqui et cetera.
  • Tertia ratio ad ostendendum altitudinem Ecclesiae cui doctrina proponitur; Is. II, 2: erit mons domus domini in vertice montium, et elevabitur super colles.
  • Quarto ad ostendendum perfectionem huius doctrinae, quia perfectissima; Ps. XXXV, 7: iustitia tua sicut montes Dei.
  • Quinto ut congrueret ista veteri legislationi, quae data fuit in monte. Exod. XIX et XXIV.
He went up on the mountain for five reasons:
  • First, to show his greatness, for he is the mountain about which Ps 68 (v. 15) "O mighty mountain, mountain of Bashan."
  • Secondly, to show that the teacher of this doctrine ought to rise to eminence of life: "Get you up to a high mountain, you who instruct Zion" (Is 40:9).
  • The third reason was to show the dignity of the Church, to which the doctrine is proposed: "The mountain of the house of the Lord shall be established as the highest of the mountains" (Is 2:2).
  • Fourthly, to show the perfection of this doctrine, because it is most perfect: "Your righteousness is like the mountains of God" (Ps 37:6).
  • Fifthly, that it might agree with the old legislation, which was given on a mountain (Ex c. 19 and c. 24).
Consequenter ponuntur auditores et cum sedisset, accesserunt ad eum discipuli eius. Duo possunt notari in sessione eius. Humiliatio; Ps. CXXXVIII, 2: tu cognovisti sessionem meam. Quando erat in altitudine divinae maiestatis, non poterat capi eius doctrina; sed tunc coeperunt homines capere, quando se humiliavit. Vel hoc pertinet ad dignitatem magisterii; infra XXIII, 2: super cathedram Moysi sederunt Scribae et Pharisaei. Ad studium enim sapientiae requiritur quies. Accesserunt ad eum discipuli eius etc., non tantum corpore, sed animo; Ps. XXXIII, 6: accedite ad eum, et illuminamini; Deut. XXXIII, 3: qui appropinquant pedibus eius, accipient de doctrina illius. Et nota quod quando dominus praedicavit turbis, stetit; Lc. VI, 17: descendens Iesus de monte stetit in loco campestri; sed hic quando discipulis, sedit. Ex hoc inolevit consuetudo quod turbis praedicatur stando, religiosis sedendo. (1b) Then the hearers are mentioned: When he sat down, his disciples came to him. Two things can be noted in his sitting: humiliation: "You know when I sit down" (Ps 139:2). When he was in the loftiness of divine majesty, his doctrine could not be grasped; but men began to grasp it when he humbled himself. Or this pertains to the dignity of his office of teacher: "The Scribes and Pharisees sit on Moses' seat" (Mt 23:2). For leisure is required for the study of wisdom. His disciples came to him, not only in body but in mind: "Look to him and be enlightened" (Ps 34:5); "So they followed in your steps, receiving direction from you" (Dt 33:3). And note that when the Lord preached to the multitude, he stood: "He came down with them and stood in a level place" (Lk 6:17); but here, when he taught the disciples, he sat. From this arose the custom that one preaches to the crowds standing, but sitting to religious.
Et aperiens os suum docebat eos. Hic ponitur modus doctrinae. In hoc quod dicit aperiens, significatur quod diu ante tacuerat. Et demonstrat quod magnum et longum erat facturus sermonem, sicut dicit Augustinus. Vel quod magna et profunda dicturus erat; sic enim consueverunt facere homines; Iob III, 1: post hoc Iob aperuit os suum, et maledixit diei suo. Et dicit suum: prius enim aperuit ora prophetarum; Sap. X, 21: sapientia aperuit os mutorum, et linguas infantium fecit disertas: ipse enim est sapientia patris. (2) He opened his mouth and taught them. By saying, he opened, is signified that for a long time previously he had been silent. And it shows that he was about to make a great and long sermon, as Augustine says. Or that he was about to utter great and profound things; for men were wont to do that: "After this, Job opened his mouth and cursed the day of his birth" (Jb 3:1). He says, his, for previously he had opened the mouth of the prophets: "Wisdom opened the mouth of the dumb and made the tongues of babes speak clearly" (Wis 10:21); for he is the wisdom of the Father
Sed hic est quaestio: hic enim sermo ponitur quantum ad multa etiam Lc. VI, 20 ss. Sed videtur hic et ibi contrarietas, sicut patet in textu. Et ponit Augustinus duas solutiones. Una est quod iste est alius sermo ab illo: ipse enim primo ascendit in montem, et fecit hunc sermonem discipulis, et postea descendens invenit turbam congregatam, cui eadem praedicavit, et multa recapitulavit: et de hoc dicitur Lc. VI, 20 ss. Vel aliter dicendum, quod unus mons erat, et habebat planitiem in latere: illam planitiem elevabat monticulus alius. Unde dominus ascendit in montem, idest in planitiem illius montis. Et primo ascendit superius, et convocavit discipulos, et ibi elegit duodecim apostolos, sicut patet in Luca: et postea descendens invenit turbam congregatam, et venientibus discipulis sedit, et habuit sermonem istum ad turbas et discipulos. Et hoc videtur verius: quia Matthaeus dicit in fine sermonis, quod mirabantur turbae super doctrina eius. Tamen quodcumque accipiatur, non est contrarietas. But here a question arises: for many statements of this sermon are also presented in Luke (6:20ff). But there seems to be contrariety between the one and the other, as is clear from the text. Augustine presents two solutions to this: one is that this sermon is distinct from that; for he first went up the mountain to give this sermon to disciples and later came down to find a crowd assembled, to whom he gave the same sermon in summary form. The latter is what Luke recorded. Or it might be that there was one mountain, which had a plateau on the side and this plateau was atop a small mountain. Hence, the Lord went up the mountain, i.e., the plateau of that mountain. First, he went up higher and assembled the disciples. Then he chose 12 apostles. Later, he descended and found a crowd assembled. When the disciples joined them, he sat down and gave that sermon to the crowd and to the disciples. And this seems to be correct, because Matthew says at the end of the sermon (7:28) that the crowds were astonished at his teaching. Yet, whichever way it is taken, there is no contrariety.

Lectio 2
Reportatio Petri de Andria
5—2
Mt 5:3-12
3 μακάριοι οἱ πτωχοὶ τῷ πνεύματι, ὅτι αὐτῶν ἐστιν ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν. 4 μακάριοι οἱ πενθοῦντες, ὅτι αὐτοὶ παρακληθήσονται. 5 μακάριοι οἱ πραεῖς, ὅτι αὐτοὶ κληρονομήσουσιν τὴν γῆν. 6 μακάριοι οἱ πεινῶντες καὶ διψῶντες τὴν δικαιοσύνην, ὅτι αὐτοὶ χορτασθήσονται. 7 μακάριοι οἱ ἐλεήμονες, ὅτι αὐτοὶ ἐλεηθήσονται. 8 μακάριοι οἱ καθαροὶ τῇ καρδίᾳ, ὅτι αὐτοὶ τὸν θεὸν ὄψονται. 9 μακάριοι οἱ εἰρηνοποιοί, ὅτι αὐτοὶ υἱοὶ θεοῦ κληθήσονται. 10 μακάριοι οἱ δεδιωγμένοι ἕνεκεν δικαιοσύνης, ὅτι αὐτῶν ἐστιν ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν. 11 μακάριοί ἐστε ὅταν ὀνειδίσωσιν ὑμᾶς καὶ διώξωσιν καὶ εἴπωσιν πᾶν πονηρὸν καθ' ὑμῶν [ψευδόμενοι] ἕνεκεν ἐμοῦ: 12 χαίρετε καὶ ἀγαλλιᾶσθε, ὅτι ὁ μισθὸς ὑμῶν πολὺς ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς: οὕτως γὰρ ἐδίωξαν τοὺς προφήτας τοὺς πρὸ ὑμῶν.
3. Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. 4. Blessed are the meek: for they shall possess the land. 5. Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted. 6. Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after justice: for they shall have their fill. 7. Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy. 8. Blessed are the clean of heart: they shall see God. 9. Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God. 10. Blessed are they that suffer persecution for justice' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. 11. Blessed are ye when they shall revile you, and persecute you, and speak all that is evil against you, untruly, for my sake: 12. Be glad and rejoice for your reward is very great in heaven. For so they persecuted the prophets that were before you.
Posuit supra Evangelista quasi brevem titulum doctrinae Christi, nunc ponit ipsam doctrinam, et effectum eius, scilicet admirationem turbarum. Considerandum autem, quod secundum Augustinum in isto sermone domini tota perfectio vitae nostrae continetur. Et probat per id quod dominus subiungit finem ad quem ducit, scilicet repromissionem aliquam. Id autem quod maxime homo desiderat, est beatitudo. Unde dominus hic tria facit. Primo praemittit praemium quod consequitur istos qui istam doctrinam accipiunt; secundo ponit praecepta, ibi nolite putare quoniam veni solvere legem etc.; tertio docet quomodo aliquis potest pervenire ad observandum ea, ibi petite et accipietis. After giving a brief title to the doctrine of Christ, the evangelist now presents the doctrine itself and its effect, namely, the crowd's astonishment. But it should be remarked that, according to Augustine, the whole perfection of our life is contained in that sermon of the Lord. He proves this by the fact that it mentions the end to which it leads, namely, a promise. But what man chiefly desires is happiness. Hence, the Lord does three things here: first, he mentions the reward attained by those who accept this doctrine; secondly, he lays down precepts (v. 17); thirdly, he teaches how one can arrive at observing them (v. 20).
Circa primum duo facit, quia huius doctrinae aliqui sunt observatores tantum, aliqui ministri. Primo ergo describit beatitudinem observantium; secundo ministrantium, ibi beati estis cum maledixerint vobis. In regard to the first he does two things, because some are only observers of this doctrine, and others ministers: first, therefore, he describes the happiness of those who observe it; secondly, of its ministers (v. 11).
Notandum autem quod hic ponuntur plura de beatitudinibus; sed numquam aliquis in verbis domini posset ita subtiliter loqui, quod pertingeret ad propositum domini. Sciendum tamen quod in istis verbis includitur omnis plena beatitudo: omnes enim homines appetunt beatitudinem, sed differunt in iudicando de beatitudine; et ideo quidam istud, quidam illud appetunt. Invenimus autem quadruplicem opinionem de beatitudine.
  1. Quidam enim credunt, quod in exterioribus tantum consistat, scilicet in affluentia istorum temporalium; Ps. CXLIII, v. 15: beatum dixerunt populum cui haec sunt.
  2. Alii quod perfecta beatitudo consistit in hoc quod homo satisfaciat voluntati suae; unde dicimus: beatus est qui vivit ut vult. Eccle. III, 12: et cognovi quod non esset melius nisi laetari et cetera.
  3. Alii dicunt quod perfecta beatitudo consistit in virtutibus activae vitae.
  4. Alii quod in virtutibus contemplativae vitae, scilicet divinorum et intelligibilium, sicut Aristoteles.
It should be noted that many things are presented here about the beatitudes; but no one could have spoken so exactly in the Lord's words, that he would attain the Lord's purpose. Yet it should be known that all complete happiness is included in those words: for all men seek happiness, but they differ in judging about happiness; and therefore, some seek this and some that. But we find four opinions about happiness (or beatitude):
  1. Some believe that it consists only in external things, i.e., in an affluence of temporal things: "Happy the people to whom such blessings fall" (Ps 144:15);
  2. others, that it consists in man's satisfying his own will; hence, we say: "Happy the man who lives as he wishes." (Ec 3:12): "I know there is nothing better for them than to be happy."
  3. The third say that happiness consists in the virtues of the active life;
  4. others say in the virtues of the contemplative life, namely, of divine and intelligible things, as Aristotle.
Omnes autem istae opiniones falsae sunt: quamvis non eodem modo. Unde dominus omnes reprobat.
  1. Opinionem illorum qui dixerunt quod consistit in affluentia exteriorum, reprobat: unde dicit beati pauperes, scilicet quasi, non beati affluentes.
  2. Opinionem vero eorum qui ponebant beatitudinem in satisfactione appetitus, reprobat cum dicit beati misericordes. Sed sciendum quod triplex est appetitus in homine:
    • irascibilis, qui appetit vindictam de inimicis, et hoc reprobat, cum dicit beati mites.
    • Concupiscibilis, cuius bonum est gaudere et delectari: hoc reprobat cum dicit beati qui lugent.
    • Voluntatis, qui est duplex, secundum quod duo quaerit. Primo quod voluntas nulla superiori lege coerceatur; secundo quod possit restringere alios ut subditos: unde desiderat praeesse, et non subesse. Dominus autem contrarium ostendit quantum ad utrumque.
      • Et quantum ad primum dicit beati qui esuriunt et sitiunt iustitiam.
      • Quantum autem ad secundum dicit beati misericordes. Ergo et illi qui ponunt beatitudinem in exteriori affluentia, et qui in satisfactione appetitus, errant.
  3. Illi autem qui ponunt beatitudinem in actibus activae vitae, scilicet moralibus, errant; sed minus, quia illud est via ad beatitudinem. Unde dominus non reprobat tamquam malum, sed ostendit ordinatum ad beatitudinem: quia vel ordinantur ad seipsum, sicut temperantia et huiusmodi, et finis eorum est munditia cordis, quia faciunt vincere passiones; vel ordinantur ad alterum, et sic finis eorum est pax, et huiusmodi: opus enim iustitiae est pax. Et ideo istae virtutes sunt viae in beatitudinem, et non ipsa beatitudo; et hoc est beati mundo corde quoniam ipsi Deum videbunt. Non dicit vident, quia hoc esset ipsa beatitudo. Et iterum beati pacifici, non quia pacifici, sed quia in aliud tendunt, quoniam filii Dei vocabuntur.
  4. Illorum autem opinio qui dicunt quod beatitudo consistit in contemplatione divinorum, reprobat dominus quantum ad tempus, quia alias vera est, quia ultima felicitas consistit in visione optimi intelligibilis, scilicet Dei: unde dicit videbunt. Et notandum quod, secundum philosophum, ad hoc quod actus contemplativi faciant beatum, duo requiruntur: unum substantialiter, scilicet quod sit actus altissimi intelligibilis, quod est Deus; aliud formaliter, scilicet amor et delectatio: delectatio enim perficit felicitatem, sicut pulchritudo iuventutem. Et ideo dominus duo ponit
    • Deum videbunt et
    • filii Dei vocabuntur: hoc enim pertinet ad unionem amoris; I Io. cap. III, v. 1: videte qualem caritatem dedit nobis pater, ut filii Dei nominemur et simus.
All those opinions are false, although not in the same way. Hence, the Lord rejects all of them.
  1. He rejects the opinion of those who said that it consists in an abundance of external goods; hence he says, Blessed are the poor in spirit, i.e., the affluent are not blessed.
  2. He rejects the opinion putting happiness in the satisfaction of appetite, when he says, Blessed are the merciful. But it should be known that in man are three appetites:
    • the irascible, which seeks revenge against enemies; this he rejects when he says, Blessed are the meek;
    • the concupiscible, whose good is to be joyful and gratified; he rejects this when he says, Blessed are those who mourn;
    • the will, which is twofold accordingly as it seeks two things: first, that it not be coerced by a higher law; secondly, that it be able to bind others as subjects; hence it desires to rule and not be subject. But the Lord shows the opposite of both.
      • In regard to the first he says, Blessed are those who hunger and thirst after justice.
      • As to the second, Blessed are the merciful. Therefore, they err who place happiness either in an abundance of external goods or in the satisfaction of appetite.
  3. But those who place happiness in the acts of the active life, namely, moral acts, also err, but less so, because that is the road to happiness. Hence, the Lord does not reject them as evil, but shows that they are directed to happiness; because they are directed either to the self, as temperance and the like, and their end is a clean heart, because they make one overcome the passions. Or they are directed to another, and then their end is peace and so on, for peace is the work of justice. Consequently, those virtues are roads to happiness and not happiness itself; and this is Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God. He does not say, "They see," because this would be happiness itself. Again, Blessed are the peacemakers, not because they are peacemakers, but because they tend toward something else, for they shall be called sons of God.
  4. But the opinion of those who say that happiness consists in contemplation of divine things the Lord rejects, as far as the time is concerned; because otherwise it is true, for the ultimate felicity consists in the vision of the best intelligible, namely, of God. Hence, he says, they shall see. It should be noted, according to the Philosopher, that in order for contemplative acts to make one happy, two things are required: the one substantially, namely, that it be the act concerned with he supreme intelligible, which is God; the other formally, namely, love and delight. For delight perfects happiness as beauty does youth. Therefore, the Lord presents two:
    • they shall see God and
    • they shall be called sons of God. For this pertains to the union of love: "See what love the Father has given us, that we should be called and be children of God" (1 Jn 3:1).
Item notandum quod in istis beatitudinibus quaedam ponuntur ut merita, et quaedam ut praemia: et hoc in singulis. Beati pauperes spiritu: ecce meritum; quoniam ipsorum est regnum caelorum: ecce praemium, et sic in aliis. Et notandum est etiam aliquid circa meritum in communi, et aliquid circa praemium in communi. Circa meritum sciendum, quod philosophus distinguit duplex genus virtutis: unum communis, quae perficit hominem humano modo; aliud specialis, quam vocat heroicam, quae perficit supra humanum modum. Quando enim fortis timet ubi est timendum, istud est virtus; sed si non timeret, esset vitium. Si autem in nullo timeret confisus Dei auxilio, ista virtus esset supra humanum modum: et istae virtutes vocantur divinae. Isti ergo actus sunt perfecti, et virtus etiam, secundum philosophum, est operatio perfecta. Ergo ista merita vel sunt actus donorum, vel actus virtutum secundum quod perficiuntur a donis. There should also be noted something in regard to merit in general and something in regard to reward in general. In regard to merit: that the Philosopher distinguishes two genera of virtues: one is common and perfects man in a human way; the other is special, which he calls heroic and perfects man in a superhuman way. For when a brave man fears where there should be fear, it is a virtue; but if he were not to fear, it would be a vice. But if he feared in no case, because he had confidence in God, that virtue would be superhuman; and those virtues are called divine. Therefore, those actions are perfect; and virtue, according to the Philosopher, leads to perfect action. Consequently, those merits are either actions of the gifts or acts of the virtues, in so far as they are made perfect by the gifts.
Item nota quod actus virtutum sunt illi de quibus lex praecipit; merita autem beatitudinis sunt actus virtutum; et ideo omnia quae praecipiuntur et infra continentur, referuntur ad istas beatitudines. Unde sicut Moyses primo proposuit praecepta, et post multa dixit, quae omnia referebantur ad praecepta proposita: ita Christus in doctrina sua, primo praemisit istas beatitudines, ad quas omnia alia reducuntur. Circa primum autem notandum, quod Deus est praemium eorum qui ei serviunt; Thren. III, 24: pars mea dominus, dixit anima mea, propterea expectabo eum; Ps. XV, 5: dominus pars haereditatis meae et calicis mei; Gen. XV, 7: ego dominus qui eduxi te de Ur Chaldaeorum, ut darem tibi terram istam, et possideres eam. Et sicut Augustinus dicit in II confessionum, anima cum recedit a te, bona quaerit extra te. Homines autem diversa quaerunt; sed quidquid inveniri potest in qualibet vita, totum dominus repromisit in Deo.
  • Aliqui enim ponunt summum bonum affluentiam divitiarum, per quam possunt pervenire ad maximas dignitates; dominus promittit regnum quod complectitur utrumque; sed ad hoc regnum dicit perveniri per viam paupertatis, non divitiarum. Unde beati pauperes.
  • Alii perveniunt ad istos honores per bella; dominus autem dicit beati mites et cetera. Alii consolationes quaerunt per voluptates; dominus dicit beati qui lugent.
  • Aliqui nolunt subdi; dominus autem dicit, beati qui esuriunt et sitiunt iustitiam.
  • Aliqui volunt vitare malum opprimendo subditos; dominus dicit beati misericordes et cetera.
  • Aliqui ponunt visionem Dei in contemplatione veritatis in via; dominus autem promittit in patria; unde beati mundo corde et cetera.
Note also that the acts of the virtues are the ones about which the law commands. But things meriting happiness are the acts of the virtues. Therefore, all things commanded and contained below are referred to those happinesses. Consequently, As Moses first set forth commands and later said many things, all of which were referred to the commands set forth; so Christ in his doctrine first set forth those beatitudes, to which all other things are referred. In regard to the reward it should be noted that God is the reward of those who serve him: "The Lord is my portion," says my soul, "therefore, will I hope in him" (Lam 3:24); "The Lord is my chosen portion and my cup" (Ps 16:5); "I am the Lord who brought you from Ur of the Chaldeans, to give you this land to possess" (Gen 15:7). And as Augustine says in Confessions II: "My soul departs from you, it seeks good things outside of you." But men seek various things; yet whatever can be found in any life, the Lord promised all in God.
  • For some place as the supreme good an abundance of wealth, through which thy can reach the loftiest dignity. The Lord promises a kingdom which includes both; but he says that one reaches this kingdom by the power of poverty, not of riches. Hence Blessed are the poor.
  • Others reach those honors through wars; but the Lord says, Blessed are the meek.
  • Others seek consolations through pleasures; the Lord says, Blessed are those who mourn.
  • Some are not willing to be made subject; but the Lord says, Blessed are those who hunger and thirst after justice.
  • Some wish to avoid evil by oppressing those under them; the Lord says, Blessed are the merciful. Some put the vision of God in the contemplation of truth in this life, but the Lord promises it in the future life; hence Blessed are the clean of heart.
Et notandum quod ista praemia, quae dominus hic tangit, possunt dupliciter haberi, scilicet perfecte et consummate, et sic in patria tantum: et secundum inchoationem et imperfecte, et sic in via. Unde sancti habent quamdam inchoationem illius beatitudinis. Et quia in hac vita non possunt explicari illa sicut erunt in patria; ideo Augustinus exponit secundum quod sunt in hac vita beati ergo pauperes spiritu: non spe tantum, sed etiam re. Lc. XVII, v. 21: regnum Dei intra vos est. Unde istis praemissis, accedamus ad litteram. It should also be noted that those rewards which the Lord mentions here can be possessed in two ways, namely, perfectly and consummately, and thus in heaven only or inchoately and imperfectly, and thus in this life. Hence, the saints have the beginning of that happiness. And because they cannot be explained as they will be in heaven, Augustine explains them as they are in this life. Blessed, therefore, are the poor in spirit, not in hope only, but also in reality: "The kingdom of heaven is within you" (Lk 17:21). With this as an introduction, let us proceed to the text.
In istis beatitudinibus duo facit Evangelista. Primo ponuntur ipsae beatitudines; secundo manifestatio beatitudinum, ibi beati qui persecutionem patiuntur propter iustitiam; quoniam ipsorum est regnum caelorum; hoc enim est declarativum omnium beatitudinum. Virtus autem tria facit: quia removet a malo, operatur et facit operari bonum, et disponit ad optimum. In the beatitudes the evangelist does two things: first, the beatitudes are presented; secondly, the manifestation of these beatitudes: Blessed are those who are persecuted for justice' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven; for this is expressive of all the beatitudes. But virtue does three things: it removes from evil, does and makes one do good, and disposes one toward the best.
Primo ergo determinat de primo, ibi beati pauperes; de secundo, ibi beati qui esuriunt; de tertio, ibi beati mundo corde, determinat. Removet autem virtus a tribus malis: cupiditatis, crudelitatis sive inquietudinis, et voluptatis noxiae. First, therefore, he deals with the first (v. 3); secondly, with the second (v. 6); thirdly, with the third (v. 8). Furthermore, virtue removes one from three evils: covetousness, cruelty or unrest, and harmful pleasures.
Primum notatur ibi beati pauperes; secundum ibi beati misericordes; tertio ibi beati qui lugent. The first is noted in v. 3; the second in v. 7, the third in v. 4.
Dicit ergo beati pauperes, dupliciter legitur. Primo sic beati pauperes, idest humiles, qui se aestimant pauperes: illi enim sunt vere humiles, qui se pauperes aestimant, non solum in exterioribus, sed etiam in interioribus; Ps. XXXIX, 18: ego autem mendicus sum et pauper, contra illud Apoc. III, 17: dicis quia dives sum, et locupletatus, et nullius egeo, et nescis quia tu es miser, et miserabilis, et pauper, et caecus, et nudus et cetera. Et tunc hoc quod dicit spiritu, potest tripliciter legi.
  • Spiritus enim aliquando dicitur superbia hominis; Is. II, 22: quiescite ab homine, cuius spiritus in naribus est, quia excelsus reputatus est ipse; Is. XXV, 4: spiritus robustorum quasi turbo impellens parietem. Et dicitur superbia spiritus quia sicut per flatum inflantur utres, ita per superbiam homines; Col. II, 18: inflatus sensu carnis suae. Ergo beati pauperes, scilicet hi, qui parum habent de spiritu superbiae.
  • Vel accipitur spiritus pro voluntate hominis. Quidam enim sunt necessitate humiles, et isti non sunt beati, sed qui humilitatem affectant.
  • Tertio accipitur pro spiritu sancto; unde beati pauperes spiritu, qui humiles sunt per spiritum sanctum. Et istae duae quasi ad idem redeunt.
(3) He says, therefore, Blessed are the poor, i.e., the humble, who regard themselves as poor; for they are truly humble who regard themselves as poor not only in external, but also in internal things: "I am poor and needy" (Ps 40:17), contrary to Rev (3:17): "You say, I am rich, I have prospered, and need nothing; not knowing that your are wretched, pitiable, poor, blind, and naked." The in spirit can be understood in three ways.
  • For sometimes "spirit" refers to man's pride: "Turn away from a man whose breath is in his nostrils, for of what account is he?" (Is 2:22); it is called pride, because as wineskins are inflated with air, so men by pride: "Puffed up by his sensuous mind" (Col 2:18). Therefore, Blessed are the poor, i.e., those who have little of the spirit of pride.
  • Or "spirit" is taken for man's will. For some are humble of necessity and are not happy, but they pretend humility.
  • Thirdly, it is taken for the Holy Spirit; hence blessed are the poor in spirit, who are humble through the Holy Spirit. And those two practically turn out to be the same.
Et dicit pauperes spiritu, quia humilitas dat spiritum sanctum; Is. LXVI, 2: ad quem respiciam nisi ad pauperculum, et contritum spiritu, et trementem sermones meos? Istis pauperibus repromittitur regnum, in quo intelligitur summa excellentia. Et licet istud retribuatur cuilibet virtuti, specialiter tamen datur humilitati; quia omnis qui se humiliat exaltabitur, infra cap. XXIII, 12. Et Prov. XXIX, 23: humilem spiritum suscipiet gloria. Vel aliter, secundum Hieronymum. Pauperes spiritu, ad litteram, in abdicatione rerum temporalium. Et dicit spiritu: quia quidam pauperes necessitate sunt, sed non debetur illis beatitudo, sed illis qui voluntate. He says, poor in spirit, because humility gives the Holy Spirit: "This is the man to whom I will look, he that is humble and contrite in spirit, and trembles at my word" (Is 66:2). To those poor a kingdom is promised, in which is understood supreme excellence. And although it is the reward for every virtue, it is given in a special way to humility; because "everyone who humbles himself shall be exalted" (Mt 23:12); "He who is lowly in spirit will obtain honors" (Pr 29:22). Or another way, according to Jerome: poor in spirit literally, in disowning temporal goods. He says, in spirit, because some are poor by necessity, but happiness is not owed to such but to those who are poor by will.
Et isti dicuntur dupliciter;
  • quia etsi aliqui divitias habent, tamen non habent eas in corde; Ps. LXI, 11: divitiae si affluant, nolite cor apponere.
  • Aliqui nec habent, nec affectant, et istud securius est, quia mens trahitur a spiritualibus ex divitiis: et isti dicuntur proprie pauperes spiritu, quia actus donorum, qui sunt supra humanum modum, sunt hominis beati: et quod homo omnes divitias abiiciat, ut nec aliquo etiam modo appetat, hoc est supra humanum modum. Istis autem repromittitur regnum caelorum, in quo notatur non solum altitudo honoris, sed affluentia divitiarum; Iac. II, 5: nonne Deus eligit pauperes in hoc mundo, divites in fide?
The poor are described in two ways,
  • because even though some have riches, they do not have them in their heart: "If riches increase, set not your heart on them" (Ps 62:10).
  • Some neither have nor desire them, and that is more secure, because the mind is drawn from spiritual things by riches. And these are properly called poor in spirit, because the acts of the gifts, which are above the human way of acting, belong to the happy man. And that a man reject all riches, so that he does not seek them at all is also above the human way of acting. To those is promised the kingdom of heaven, which is marked not only by the loftiness of honor but by abundance of wealth: "Has not God chosen the poor of this world to be rich in faith?" (Jas 2:5).
Et nota quod Moyses primo promisit divitias; Deut. XXVIII, 1: faciet te dominus Deus tuus excelsiorem cunctis gentibus, quae versantur in terra; et infra: benedictus tu in civitate, et benedictus in agro. Et ideo ut distinguat dominus legem veterem a nova, primo ponit beatitudinem in contemptu divitiarum temporalium. Note that Moses first promised riches: "The Lord your God will set you high above all the nations of the earth" (Dt 28:1), and in v. 3: "Blessed shall you be in the city and blessed in the field." Therefore, to distinguish the old law from the new, the Lord first places happiness in the contempt for temporal things.
Item, secundum Augustinum nota, quod ista beatitudo pertinet ad donum timoris: quia timor, maxime filialis, facit habere reverentiam ad Deum; et ex hoc contemnit homo divitias. Note also, according to Augustine, that this beatitude pertains to the gift of fear, because fear, particularly filial, makes one have reverence for God and, as a result, a man despises riches.
Ponit Isaias beatitudines descendendo; Is. XI, 1: egredietur virga de radice Iesse, et flos de radice eius ascendet, et requiescet super eum spiritus domini, spiritus sapientiae et intellectus, spiritus consilii et fortitudinis, spiritus scientiae et pietatis, et replebit eum spiritus timoris domini. Christus e converso a dono timoris, scilicet a paupertate, quia Isaias praenuntiavit adventum Christi ad terram; Christus autem de terra sursum trahebat. Note also that Isaiah presents the beatitudes in descending order: "There shall come forth a shoot from the stump of Jesse, and a branch shall grow out of his roots. And the Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and fear of the Lord, and his delight shall be in the fear of the Lord" (Is 11:1). Christ, on the other hand, begins with the gift of fear, namely, from poverty, because Isaiah foretold Christ's coming to earth; but Christ attracted his followers upwards from the earth.
Beati mites. Haec est secunda beatitudo; sed ne aliquis dicat quod sufficit paupertas ad beatitudinem, ostendit quod non sufficit: immo requiritur mansuetudo, quae temperat circa iras, sicut temperantia circa concupiscentias: ille enim est mitis, qui nec irritatur. Hoc autem poterit fieri per virtutem, ut scilicet non irascaris nisi causa iusta; sed si habeas etiam causam iustam, et non provocaris, hoc est supra humanum modum; et ideo dicit beati mites. Pugna enim est propter abundantiam exteriorum rerum; et ideo numquam esset turbatio, si homo divitias non affectaret; et ideo qui non sunt mites, non sunt pauperes spiritu. Et propterea statim subiungit beati mites. Et nota, quod hoc in duobus consistit. Primo quod homo non irascatur; secundo, quod si irascatur, iram temperet. (5) Blessed are the meek. This is the second beatitude. But lest anyone suppose that poverty is sufficient for happiness, he shows that it is not; indeed, meekness, which puts a restraint on anger is required, as temperance does to pleasures. For one is meek who is not irritated. But this could be done by a virtue, so that one does not become angry without just cause; however, even if you have a just cause and are not vexed, it is strictly beyond human power. Therefore he says, Blessed are the meek. For a struggle arises on account of an abundance of external goods; therefore, there would never be conflict, if man were not affected by riches. Hence those who are not meek are not poor in spirit. That is why he says immediately, Blessed are the meek. Note that this consists in two things: first, that a man not become angry; secondly, that if he becomes angry, he tempers the anger.
Ita dicit Ambrosius: prudentis est irae motus temperare, nec minor virtus dicitur temperate irasci, quam omnino non irasci est: plurimumque hoc levius, illud fortius existimo et cetera. Thus Ambrose says: "It is the mark of a prudent man to temper movements to anger, nor is it less virtuous to get angry temperately than not to get angry at all. And in general I consider the latter milder, the former stronger."
Chrysostomus dicit: inter multas promissiones aeternas ponit unam terrenam. Unde, ad litteram, terram istam possident mites. Multi enim litigant, ut possessiones acquirant, sed frequenter vitam et omnia perdunt; sed frequenter mansueti totum habent; Ps. XXXVI, 11: mansueti haereditabunt terram. Sed melius exponitur, ut referatur ad futurum. Et potest tunc exponi multipliciter. Chrysostom says: "In the midst of eternal promises he places one which is earthly." Hence according to the letter the meek possess this earth. For many fight to acquire possessions, but frequently they lose life and everything else; whereas the meek often have the whole: "The Meek shall possess the land" (Ps 37:11). but it is better to explain it in reference to the future. Then it is explained in a number of ways.
Hilarius sic: possidebunt terram,
  • idest corpus Christi glorificatum, quia erunt conformes in corpore suo illi claritati; Is. XXXIII, v. 17: videbunt regem in decore suo; oculi eius cernent terram de longe; Phil. III, 21: reformabit corpus humilitatis nostrae configuratum corpori claritatis suae.
  • Vel aliter. Ista terra modo est mortuorum, quia subiecta est corruptioni, sed liberabitur a corruptione secundum apostolum, Rom. c. VIII, 21. Ergo ista terra, quando erit clarificata et liberata a servitute corruptionis, vocabitur terra viventium.
  • Vel per terram intelligitur caelum Empyreum, in quo sunt beati: et vocatur terra, quia sicut se habet terra ad caelum, ita caelum illud ad caelum sanctae Trinitatis.
  • Vel possidebunt terram, idest corpus suum glorificatum.
Hilary, in this way: They shall inherit the earth,
  • i.e., the glorified body of Christ, because they will be conformed in their bodies to that brightness. "Your eyes will see the king in his beauty; they will behold a land that stretches far" (Is 33:17); "He will change our lowly body to be like his glorious body" (Phil 3:21).
  • Or in another way: this is the earth of the dead, because it is subject to corruption; but it will be freed from corruption, according to the Apostle (Rom 8:21). Therefore this earth, when it will be renewed and freed from the slavery of corruption, will be called the earth of the living.
  • Or by earth is understood the empyrean heaven, in which are the blessed; and it is called earth, because as earth is to heaven, so that heaven to the heaven of the Holy Trinity.
  • Or they shall merit the earth, i.e., their glorified body.
Augustinus exponit metaphorice: et dicit quod per hoc intelligenda est quaedam soliditas sanctorum in cognitione primae veritatis; Ps. XXVI, 13: credo videre bona domini in terra viventium. Augustine explains it metaphorically and says that "by this must be understood a certain stability of the saints in their knowledge of the first truth"; "I believe that I shall see the goodness of the Lord in the land of the living" (Ps 27:13).
Ista secunda beatitudo adaptatur dono pietatis: quia illi proprie irascuntur, qui non sunt contenti divina ordinatione.

Beati qui lugent et cetera. Positae sunt duae beatitudines, per quas abstrahimur a malo cupiditatis et crudelitatis; hic ponitur tertia, per quam abstrahimur a malo noxiae voluptatis, vel iucunditatis: et hoc est beati qui lugent. In veteri testamento terrena promittebat, et terrenam iucunditatem; Ier. XXXI, 12: confluent ad bona domini super frumento, vino et oleo etc.; et post: laetabitur virgo in choro, iuvenes et senes simul. Sed per contrarium dominus ponit beatitudinem in luctu. Notandum autem quod non quicumque ploratus luctus dici potest; sed ille quo quis mortuum plorat sibi dilectum: dominus enim per excessum loquitur hic. Sicut supra beati pauperes, ita hic de maximo luctu mentionem facit; sicut enim nullam recipiunt consolationem hi qui mortuum plorant, ita dominus vult vitam nostram in luctu esse; Ier. VI, 26: luctum unigeniti fac tibi, planctum amarum et cetera. Et potest iste luctus tripliciter exponi.

  • Primo pro peccatis non solum propriis, sed etiam alienis: quia si lugemus mortuos carnaliter, multo magis spiritualiter; I Reg. XVI, v. 1: usquequo tu luges, Saul? et cetera. Ier. IX, 1: quis dabit capiti meo aquam, et oculis meis fontem lacrimarum? Et plorabo die ac nocte interfectos filiae populi mei. Ponitur autem satis congrue ista beatitudo post praemissam. Posset enim quis dicere: sufficit non facere malum: et verum est a principio ante peccatum; sed post commissum peccatum non sufficit nisi satisfacias.
  • Secundo potest accipi de luctu pro incolatu praesentis miseriae; Ps. CXIX, 5: heu mihi, quia incolatus meus prolongatus est. Istud est irriguum superius et inferius, de quo Ios. XV, 19: pro peccatis plorate, et pro caelestis patriae incolatu.
  • Tertio, secundum Augustinum, pro luctu quem habent homines de gaudiis saeculi, quae dimittunt veniendo ad Christum: homines enim aliqui saeculo moriuntur, et saeculum moritur eis; Gal. ult., 14: per quem mihi mundus crucifixus est, et ego mundo. Nos autem sicut de mortuis lugemus, ita illi lugent: quia non potest esse quin, in dimittendo, aliquem dolorem sentiant.
(4) The second beatitude is adapted to the gift of piety, because, properly speaking, those not content with the divine order get angry. Blessed are those who mourn. Two beatitudes, through which we are drawn from the evil of covetousness and cruelty, have been presented. Here is presented a third, by which we are drawn from the evil of harmful pleasure, and it is Blessed are those who mourn. In the Old Testament earthly things were promised and earthly happiness: "They shall be radiant over the goodness of the Lord, over the grain, the wine and the oil" (Jer 31:12). But contrariwise the Lord promises happiness in mourning. Yet is should be noted that not just any weeping is mourning, but that by which one weeps over a dead person beloved to him. For the Lord speaks here by hyperbole. As above he said, Blessed are the poor, so here he mentions the bitterest mourning; for as those who mourn the dead receive no consolation, so the Lord wishes our life to be a mourning: "Make mourning as for an only son" (Jer 6:26) This mourning can be expounded in three ways:
  • first, for sins, not only one's own but those of others; because if we mourn the bodily dead, much more the spiritually:"How long will you grieve over Saul?" (1 Sam 16:1); "O that my head were waters, and my eyes a fountain of tears, that I might weep day and night for the slain of the daughter of my people" (Jer 9:1). This beatitude is fittingly placed after the preceding one, for someone could say that it is enough not to do evil. This is true in the beginning before sin; but after sin has been committed, it is not enough, unless he makes satisfaction.
  • Secondly, it can be taken for the mourning about sojourning with present misery: "Woe is me, that my sojourning is prolonged" (Ps 120:5). This is watered above and below: "Caleb gave her the upper springs and the lower springs" (Jos 15:19).
  • Thirdly, according to Augustine, for mourning which men have in regard to the joys of the world, which they abandon by coming to Christ; for some men die to the world and the world dies to them: "By which the world has been crucified to me and I to the world" (Gal 6:14) But as we mourn over the dead, so they mourn; because one cannot escape the fact that in abandoning they feel some pain.
Isti autem triplici luctui triplex consolatio respondet:
  • quia luctui pro peccatis datur remissio peccatorum, quam petebat David dicens Ps. l, 14: redde mihi laetitiam salutaris tui.
  • Dilationi caelestis patriae, et incolatui praesentis miseriae respondet consolatio vitae aeternae, de qua Ier. XXXI, v. 13: convertam luctum vestrum in gaudium, et consolabor eos, et laetificabo a dolore suo; et Is. ult., 13: in Ierusalem consolabimini.
  • Tertio luctui respondet consolatio divini amoris: quando enim aliquis dolet de amissione rei dilectae, consolationem recipit si aliam rem magis dilectam acquirit.
Three consolations correspond to these three kinds of mourning:
  • because for mourning over sins one is granted forgiveness, as David sought in Ps 51 (v. 12): "Restore to me the joy of my salvation."
  • To the postponement of the heavenly fatherland and the continued dwelling with present misery corresponds the consolation of eternal life: "I will turn their mourning into joy, I will comfort them and give them gladness for sorrow" (Jer 3:13); "You shall be comforted in Jerusalem" (Is 66:13).
  • Thirdly, to mourning corresponds the consolation of divine love; for when one weeps over the loss of a treasured object, he is consoled, if he acquires something more valuable.
Unde homines consolantur, quando pro temporalibus rebus recipiunt spirituales et aeternas, quod est spiritum sanctum recipere; quare dicitur Paraclitus Io. XV, 26. Per spiritum sanctum enim, qui est amor divinus, homines gaudebunt; Io. XVI, 20: tristitia vestra convertetur in gaudium. Hence men are consoled, when in place of temporal they receive spiritual and eternal things, which is to receive the Holy Spirit; hence he is called Paraclete (Jn 15:26). For in virtue of the Holy Spirit, who is divine love, men rejoice: "Your sorrow will be turned into joy" (Jn 16:20)
Et notandum, quod ista beatitudo appropriatur dono scientiae, quia illi lugent qui miserias aliorum cognoscunt: unde de quibusdam talem scientiam non habentibus dicitur Sap. XIV, 22: in magno viventes inscientiae bello, et tot et tam magna mala pacem appellant; e converso Eccle. I, 18: qui addit scientiam, addit et laborem. It should be noted that this beatitude is associated with the gift of knowledge, because those morn who know others' misery; hence Wisdom (14:22) says of some who do not have such knowledge: "They live in great strife due to ignorance, and they call such great evils peace"; and on the other hand: "He who increases knowledge increases sorrow" (Ec 1:18).
Et notandum quod ista praemia ita ordinantur, quod semper secundum addit super primum. Primo enim dixit beati pauperes, quoniam ipsorum est regnum caelorum; postea quoniam ipsi possidebunt terram: plus enim est possidere, quam habere tantum. Item postea quoniam ipsi consolabuntur: plus enim est consolari, quam possidere, aliqui enim possident ista, sed non delectantur in eis. It should also be noted that those rewards are so arranged that the subsequent always adds to the preceding. For, first, he said, Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven; then, because they shall inherit the earth. For it is better to possess than merely to have. Then, after these, they shall be comforted; for it is more to be comforted than to possess, because some posses things but are not delighted with them.
Consequenter positis beatitudinibus, quae pertinent ad remotionem mali, hic ponitur beatitudo quae pertinet ad operationem boni. Est autem duplex bonum nostrum, iustitiae scilicet, et misericordiae. Et ideo duo ponit. Quantum ad primum dicit beati qui esuriunt et sitiunt iustitiam. Iustitia tripliciter sumitur, secundum Chrysostomum et philosophum. Quandoque enim pro omni virtute: et dicitur omnis virtus iustitia legalis, quae praecipit de actibus virtutum. Unde inquantum homo obedit legi, implet opus omnium virtutum. Alio modo secundum quod est specialis virtus, de quatuor cardinalibus, quae opponitur avaritiae, vel iniustitiae, et est circa emptiones, venditiones, conductiones. Quod ergo dicit hic qui esuriunt iustitiam, potest intelligi generaliter, vel specialiter.
  • Si intelligatur de generali, hoc dicit propter duas rationes.
    • Prima Hieronymi, qui dicit quod non sufficit quod homo iustitiae opus operetur, nisi cum desiderio operetur; Ps. LIII, 8: voluntarie sacrificabo tibi et cetera. Et alibi, Ps. XLI, 3: sitivit anima mea ad Deum fontem vivum et cetera. Amos VIII, 11: mittam famem in terram istam, non famem panis, neque sitim aquae, sed audiendi verbum Dei. Ergo est esuries quando cum desiderio operatur quis.
    • Alia ratio. Iustitia est duplex, perfecta et imperfecta: perfectam in mundo habere non possumus, quia si dixerimus quia peccatum non habemus, ipsi nos seducimus, et veritas in nobis non est, I Io. I, 8. Et Is. LXIV, 6: omnes iustitiae nostrae quasi pannus menstruatae. Sed hanc habemus in caelo; Is. LX, v. 21: populus tuus omnes iusti in perpetuum haereditabunt terram. Sed desiderium iustitiae possumus hic habere: et ideo dicit beati qui esuriunt et sitiunt iustitiam et cetera. Et est simile illud quod Pythagoras fecit. Tempore enim Pythagorae illi qui studebant, vocabantur sophi, idest sapientes; Pythagoras autem noluit vocari sophos, idest sapiens, sed philosophus, hoc est sapientiae amator: ita vult dominus quod sui sint, et vocentur amatores iustitiae.
  • Si autem intelligatur de iustitia speciali, quae est, quod homo reddat unicuique quod suum est, convenienter dicitur beati qui esuriunt etc.; quia esuries et sitis proprie avarorum est, quia numquam satiantur qui aliena iniuste possidere desiderant: unde ista esuries, de qua dicit dominus, opponitur huic, scilicet avarorum. Et vult dominus quod ita anhelemus ad istam iustitiam, quod numquam quasi satiemur in vita ista, sicut avarus numquam satiatur.
(6) Then, having given the beatitudes which pertain to removing evil, he now gives one which pertains to producing good. But our good is twofold, namely, of justice and of mercy. In regard to the first he says, Blessed are they who hunger and thirst after righteousness [justice]. Justice is taken in three ways according to Chrysostom and the Philosopher: sometimes for every virtue, which is called legal justice, which commands acts of the virtues. Hence, to the extent that a man obeys the law, he fulfills every virtue. In another way, in as much as it is a special virtue listed among the cardinal virtues and opposed to greed or injustice, and deals with buying and selling and hiring. Therefore, you thirst after justice can be understood in a general sense and in a specific sense.
  • If it is understood in a general sense, he says this for two reasons.
    • The first is Jerome's, who says that it is not enough that a man perform a work of justice, unless he acts with desire: "With free will I will sacrifice to you" (Ps 54:6); "My soul thirsts for God, for the living God" (Ps 42:2); "I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the Lord" (Am 8:11). Therefore, it is thirst, when one acts with desire.
    • Another reason: Justice is twofold, perfect and imperfect. We cannot have the perfect in this world, because "if we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us" (1 Jn 1:8); "All our righteous deeds are like a polluted garment" (Is 64:6). But we have it in heaven: "Your people shall all be righteous; they shall possess the land forever" (Is 60:21). But we can have the desire for justice here; hence, he says, Blessed are they who hunger and thirst for justice. This is similar to what Pythagoras did. For in his time those who studied were called wise; but Pythagoras did not wish to be called wise, but a philosopher, i.e., a lover of wisdom. In like manner the Lord wishes that his people be and be called lovers of justice.
  • But if it be understood of specific justice, it consists in a man's rendering to each what is his due. Then it is fitting to state that blessed are they..., because hunger and thirst, properly speaking, pertain to the greedy. For those who desire to possess what belongs to others are never satiated; hence, that hunger about which the Lord speaks is opposed to that of the greedy. And the Lord wishes that we so yearn for that justice, that we are never, as it were, satiated in this life, as the greedy person is never satiated.
Beati ergo qui esuriunt et sitiunt iustitiam, quoniam ipsi saturabuntur. Conveniens praemium ponitur saturabuntur,
  • et primum in aeterna visione, videbunt enim Deum per essentiam; Ps. XVI, v. 15: satiabor cum apparuerit gloria tua: ibi enim nihil restabit ad desiderandum; Ps. CII, 5: qui replet in bonis desiderium tuum; Prov. X, 24: desiderium suum iustis dabitur.
  • Secundo in praesenti. Et haec est duplex.
    • Una est in bonis spiritualibus, hoc est in impletione mandatorum Dei; Io. IV, 34: meus cibus est ut faciam voluntatem eius qui misit me, ut perficiam opus eius: et de isto exponit Augustinus.
    • Alio modo accipitur de saturitate rerum temporalium. Homines iniusti numquam saturantur, sed homines qui habent terminum suum ipsam iustitiam, ultra non procedunt; Prov. XIII, 25: iustus comedit, et replet animam suam.
For they shall be satisfied. A fitting reward is mentioned, they shall be satisfied:
  • first, in the eternal vision, for they shall see God in his essence: "I shall be satisfied when your glory shall appear" (Ps 17:15). For nothing will remain to be desired there: "He who pursues righteousness and kindness will find life" (Pr 21:21).
  • Secondly, in the present, and this is twofold:
    • one is in spiritual goods, i.e., in fulfilling the commandments: "My food is to do the will of him who sent me, and to accomplish his work" (Jn 4:34).
    • In another way, it is taken for a fullness of temporal things. Unjust men are never satisfied, but men who have justice itself as their goal can go no further: "The just man eats and satisfies his soul" (Pr 13:25).
Ista beatitudo secundum Augustinum reducitur ad donum fortitudinis: quia quod homo iuste operetur, hoc pertinet ad fortitudinem. Item superaddit aliquid praemio supra posito, quia saturari est implere totaliter desiderium. This beatitude, according to Augustine, is reduced to the gift of courage, namely, because it belongs to courage that a man act justly. Furthermore, the Lord adds something to the previous reward, because to be satisfied is to have one's desire totally fulfilled.
Item nota quod primo dicit beati qui lugent: homo enim quando infirmus est, non appetit comedere, sed tunc appetere incipit, quando iam incipit sanari; et ita est in spiritualibus, quod quando homines sunt in peccato, non sentiunt famem spiritualem, sed quando dimittunt peccata, tunc sentiunt; et ideo statim subdit beati misericordes: quia iustitia sine misericordia crudelitas est, misericordia sine iustitia mater est dissolutionis. Et ideo oportet quod utrumque coniungatur, secundum illud Prov. III, 3: misericordia et veritas non te deserant et cetera. Ps. LXXXIV, 11: misericordia et veritas obviaverunt sibi et cetera. Note also that first he says Blessed are those who mourn, for when a man is infirm, he does not desire to eat; but he begins to desire when he begins to get well. So it is in matters of the spirit: when men are in sin, they do not feel spiritual hunger; but when their sins are forgiven, they experience that hunger. Therefore he continues at once: Blessed are the merciful, because justice without mercy is cruelty, while mercy without justice is the mother of destruction. Therefore, it is necessary for the two to be joined, as it says in Proverbs (3:3): "Let not mercy and truth forsake you"; "Mercy and truth will meet" (Ps 85:10).
Beati misericordes, quoniam ipsi misericordiam consequentur. Misericordem esse est habere miserum cor de miseria aliorum: tunc autem habemus misericordiam de miseria aliorum, quando illam reputamus quasi nostram. De nostra autem dolemus, et studemus repellere. Ergo tunc vere misericors es, quando miseriam aliorum studes repellere. Est autem duplex miseria proximi.
  • Prima in istis rebus temporalibus; et ad istam debemus habere miserum cor; I Io. III, 17: qui habuerit substantiam huius mundi, et viderit fratrem suum necesse habere, et clauserit viscera sua ab eo, quomodo caritas Dei manet in eo?
  • Secunda qua homo per peccatum miser efficitur: quia, sicut beatitudo est in operibus virtutum, ita miseria propria in vitiis; Prov. XIV, 34: miseros facit populos peccatum. Et ideo quando admonemus corruentes ut redeant, misericordes sumus; infra IX, v. 36: videns autem Iesus turbas, misericordia motus est. Isti ergo misericordes beati. Et quare? Quoniam ipsi misericordiam consequentur.
(7) Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy. To be merciful is to have a compassionate heart for the wretchedness of others; but we have mercy toward the wretchedness of others, when we regard it as our own. But we grieve over our own wretchedness and strive to remove it. Therefore, you are truly merciful, when you work to relieve the wretchedness others; but we have mercy toward the wretchedness of others, when we regard it as our own. But we grieve over our own wretchedness and strive to remove it. Therefore, you are truly merciful, when you work to relieve the wretchedness of others. Now the wretchedness of our neighbor is twofold:
  • the first is in temporal matters, and in regard to that wretchedness we should have a compassionate heart: "If anyone has the world's goods and sees his brother in need, yet closes his heart against him, how does God's love abide in him?" (1 Jn 3:17).
  • The second is that whereby man is made wretched through sin; because just as happiness lies in the works of the virtues, so one's wretchedness lies in vices: "Sin makes a people wretched" (Pr 14:34). Therefore, when we admonish the fallen to return, we are merciful: "Seeing the crowds he had compassion on them" (Mt 9:36). Therefore, the merciful are blessed. And why? Because they shall obtain mercy.
Et sciendum quod semper dona Dei excedunt merita nostra; Eccli. XXXV, 13: quoniam dominus retribuens est, et septies tantum retribuet tibi. Ergo multo maior est misericordia quam dominus impendet nobis, quam illa quam impendimus proximo. Ista misericordia inchoatur in hac vita dupliciter.
  • Primo, quia relaxantur peccata; Ps. CII, 3: qui propitiatur omnibus iniquitatibus tuis.
  • Secundo, quia removet defectus temporales, ita quod solem suum facit oriri; perficietur tamen in futuro, quando omnis miseria, et culpae, et poenae removebuntur; Ps. XXXV, 6: domine, in caelo misericordia tua. Et hoc est quoniam ipsi misericordiam consequentur.
Here it should be noted that God's gifts always outweigh our merits: "The Lord is the one who repays, and he will repay you sevenfold" (Sir 35:13). Consequently, the mercy God bestows on us is much greater than that we bestow on others. That mercy begins in this life in two ways:
  • first, because our sins are forgiven: "Who forgives all your iniquity" (Ps 103:3).
  • Secondly, because he removes temporal imperfections, so that he makes his sun to rise. This will be perfected in the future, when all wretchedness, both of guilt and punishment, will be removed: "Your mercy, O Lord, is in heaven" (Ps 36:6). And this is because they shall obtain mercy.
Ista beatitudo reducitur ad donum consilii: quia hoc est singulare consilium ut inter pericula huius mundi misericordiam consequamur; I Tim. IV, 8: pietas ad omnia utilis est; Dan. IV, 24: consilium meum regi placeat. This beatitude is reduced to the gift of counsel, because this is unique counsel, that amid the dangers of this world we should obtain mercy: "Godliness is of value in every way" (1 Tim 4:8); "Let my counsel be acceptable to the king" (Dan 4:27).
Sic ergo positi sunt actus virtutum, quibus removemur a malo, et operamur bonum. Nunc ponuntur actus quibus disponimur ad optimum; unde beati mundo corde et cetera. Ista beatitudo in duobus consistit: in visione Dei et dilectione proximi, unde primo ponit beatitudinem quae pertinet ad visionem Dei; secundo beatitudinem quae pertinet ad dilectionem proximi, ibi beati pacifici et cetera. Dicit ergo beati mundo corde, quoniam ipsi Deum videbunt. (8) Thus have been presented the acts of virtues by which we are removed from evil and do good. Now are presented the acts by which we are disposed for the best; hence Blessed are the pure in heart.This beatitude consists in two things: in the vision of God and the love of neighbor. Hence, he first presents the beatitude pertaining to the vision of God; secondly, to the love of neighbor (v. 9). Therefore Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.
Hic primo est quaestio litteralis. Habemus enim quod Deus videri non potest: I Io. IV, v. 12: Deum nemo vidit unquam. Et ne aliquis diceret, quod quamvis nullus videat in praesenti, videbit in futuro, removet hoc apostolus I Tim. ult., 16: lucem habitat inaccessibilem, quem nullus hominum vidit, sed nec videre potest. Sed sciendum quod circa hoc sunt diversae opiniones.
  1. Aliqui enim posuerunt quod numquam Deus per essentiam videatur, sed in aliqua refulgentia suae claritatis; sed hoc reprobat Glossa super illud Exod. XXXIII, 20: non videbit me homo, et vivet, propter duo. Primo, quia hoc repugnat auctoritati sacrae Scripturae, I Io. III, 2: videbimus eum sicuti est. Item I Cor. XIII, 12: videmus nunc per speculum in aenigmate, tunc autem facie ad faciem. Item rationi, quia beatitudo hominis est ultimum bonum hominis, in quo quietatur desiderium eius. Naturale autem desiderium est, quod homo videns effectus inquirat de causa: unde etiam admiratio philosophorum fuit origo philosophiae, quia videntes effectus admirabantur, et quaerebant causam. Istud ergo desiderium non quietabitur, donec perveniat ad primam causam, quae Deus est, scilicet ad ipsam divinam essentiam. Videbitur ergo per essentiam.
  2. Alii plus etiam erraverunt ponentes contrarium: quia dixerunt quod non solum videbimus oculo mentis, sed etiam corporis, essentiam Dei, et quod Christus videt oculo corporali essentiam divinam. Sed hoc non convenit:
    • quod patet primo ex auctoritate quae hic ponitur, quia non diceret beati mundo corde; sed, beati qui habent mundos et puros oculos. Ergo dat intelligere, quod non videtur nisi corde, idest intellectu: sic enim accipitur hic cor, sicut et Ephes. I, 18: illuminatos oculos cordis vestri.
    • Secundo, quia sensus corporis non potest nisi in suum obiectum; si autem dicatur quod tunc habebit maiorem potentiam, dicendum quod tunc non esset visio corporalis, quia oculus corporalis non videt nisi colores, essentiam autem per accidens, secundum Augustinum Lib. ult. de civitate Dei, c. XIX. Sicut cum video vivens, possumus dicere quod video vitam, inquantum video quaedam indicia quibus indicatur mihi vita sua; ita erit in visione divina, quia tanta erit refulgentia in caelo novo, et terra nova, et corporibus glorificatis, quod per ista dicemur videre Deum quasi oculis corporalibus. Ergo beati mundo corde et cetera.
But a literal question arises here. For we hold that God cannot be seen: "No one has ever seen God" (1 Jn 4:12). And lest someone say that, although no one sees him in the present life, he will see him in the future, the apostle dismisses this in 1 Timothy (6:16): "He dwells in unapproachable light, whom no man has ever seen or can see." In regard to this it should be noted that there are various opinions.
  1. For some have posited that God is never seen in his essence, but in some refulgence of his brightness. But a Gloss on Exodus (33:20): "Man shall not see me and live," rejects this for two reasons. First, because it conflicts with a text of Sacred Scripture: "We shall see him as he is" (1 Jn 3:2). Likewise, 1 Corinthians (13:12):"Now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face." It also conflicts with reason, because man's happiness is man's ultimate good, in which his desire is set at rest. But it is a natural desire that man, seeing effects, inquires about the cause; hence the wondering of philosophers was the origin of philosophy, because seeing effects, they wondered and searched for the cause. Therefore that desire is not set at rest until it arrives at the first cause, which is God, namely, at the divine essence. Therefore, he will be seen in his essence.
  2. Others fell into a greater error by positing the contrary. They said that not only will we see God's essence with the eye of the mind, but also of the body, and that Christ sees the divine essence with a bodily eye. But this is not suitable,
    • as is clear first of all from the text presented here; for it would not say Blessed are the clean of heart, but "blessed are those with clean and pure eyes." Therefore it gives us to understand that he is not seen except by the heart, i.e., the intellect; for that is the way heart is taken here, as also in Ephesians (1:18): "Having the eyes of your hearts enlightened."
    • Secondly, because a bodily sense is restricted to its own object. But if it is said that it will have greater power then, the answer to be given is that then it would not be bodily vision, which sees only colors, and essences only incidentally, according to Augustine in The city of God (c. 19). For example, when we see a living thing, we can say that we see life, in as much as we see indications by which life is indicated to us. Similarly, in the divine vision, because the refulgence will be so great in the new heaven and new earth and the glorified bodies, we shall be said to see God through them as if with bodily eyes. Therefore blessed are the pure in heart...
Solvit vero illud, Deum nemo vidit unquam, tripliciter. Primo quia non visione comprehensiva; secundo oculis corporalibus; tertio in hac vita: quia si alicui datum fuerit quod viderit in hac vita Deum, hoc fuit quia totaliter alienatus est et elevatus supra sensus corporales. Et ideo dicitur beati mundo corde: quia sicut oculus videns colorem oportet quod sit depuratus, ita mens videns Deum; Sap. I v. 1: in simplicitate cordis quaerite illum, quoniam invenitur ab his qui non tentant illum; apparet autem his qui fidem habent in illum: fide enim purificatur cor; Act. XV, 9: fide purificans corda eorum. Et quia visio succedet fidei, ideo dicitur quoniam ipsi Deum videbunt. Beati mundo corde, qui scilicet habent munditiam generalem ab alienis cogitationibus, per quam cor eorum templum Dei sanctum est, in quo Deum contemplandum vident: templum enim a contemplando dici videtur. The objection that "no one has ever seen God" is answered in three ways: first, because not with a comprehensive vision; secondly, not with bodily eyes; thirdly, not in this life. For if it were granted to anyone to see God in this life, this would be because he was totally alienated and raised above the bodily senses. Therefore it is stated, Blessed are the pure in heart; because, just as an eye seeing a color should be purified, so the mind seeing God: "Seek him in simplicity of heart, because he is found by him who does not put him to the test, and manifests himself to those who have faith in him" (Wis 1:1). For by faith is the heart purified: "He cleansed their hearts by faith" (Acts 15:9). And because vision succeeds faith, it is said, for they shall see God. Blessed are the pure in heart, i.e., who have a general cleanliness form alien thoughts. By such cleanliness their heart is a holy temple of God, in which they see God to be contemplated, for temple seems to be named form contemplation.
Specialiter vero beati mundo corde, idest qui habent munditiam carnis: nihil enim ita impedit spiritualem contemplationem, sicut immunditia carnis. Pacem sequimini, et sanctimoniam, sine qua nemo videbit Deum, Hebr. XII, 14. Et ideo quidam dicunt quod virtutes morales proficiunt ad vitam contemplativam, et praecipue castitas. Et secundum hoc beati mundo corde, potest intelligi de visione viae: sancti enim qui habent cor repletum iustitia, vident excellentius quam alii qui vident per effectus corporales: quanto enim effectus sunt propinquiores, tanto Deus magis cognoscitur per illos. Unde sancti qui habent iustitiam, caritatem, et huiusmodi effectus, qui sunt simillimi Deo, cognoscunt magis quam alii; Ps. XXXIII, 9: gustate, et videte quoniam suavis est dominus. But in a particular way blessed are the pure in heart, i.e., who have cleanliness of the flesh; for nothing so impedes contemplation as bodily uncleanness: "Strive for peace with all men, and for the holiness without which no one will see the Lord" (Heb 12:14). Therefore some say that the moral virtues contribute to the contemplative live, and especially chastity. According to this, blessed are the pure in heart, can be understood of the vision in this life, for the saints with their heart full of righteousness see more clearly than others see by means of bodily effects. For the nearer the effects, the better God is known through them. Hence, the saints who have justice, charity and effects of that sort, which are most similar to God, know more than others: "Taste and see that the Lord is good" (Ps 34:8).
Beati pacifici, quoniam filii Dei vocabuntur. Hic ponitur septima beatitudo: et, sicut dictum est, virtutes ad optimum disponentes disponunt ad duo, scilicet ad visionem Dei et dilectionem. Et sicut munditia cordis disponit ad visionem Dei, ita pax ad dilectionem Dei disponit, qua filii Dei nominamur et sumus; et sic disponit ad dilectionem proximi, quia, sicut dicitur I Io. IV, v. 20, qui non diligit fratrem suum quem videt, Deum quem non videt, quomodo potest diligere? Et notandum quod hic ponuntur duo praemia beatitudinis, videlicet beati pacifici, et beati qui persecutionem patiuntur propter iustitiam. Et omnia praecedentia reducuntur ad ista duo, et sunt effectus omnium praecedentium. Quid enim agitur per paupertatem spiritus, per luctum, per mansuetudinem, nisi ut mundum cor habeatur? Quid per iustitiam et misericordiam, nisi ut pacem habeamus? Is. XXXII, 17: fructus iustitiae pax, et cultus iustitiae silentium, et securitas usque in sempiternum. Beati ergo pacifici. (9) Blessed are the peace makers, for they shall be called the sons of God. This is the seventh beatitude and, as has been said, virtues disposing toward the best dispose toward two things, namely, to the vision of God and to love. And just as purity in heart disposes toward the vision of God, so peace disposes toward the love of God, by which we are called and are sons of God. Thus it disposes to the love of neighbor, because it says in 1 John (4:20): "He who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen." And it should be noted that two rewards of beatitude are presented here, namely, blessed are the peacemakers and blessed are those who suffer persecution for justice' sake. And all the previous ones are reduced to those two and are their effect. For what is attained by poverty of spirit, by mourning, by meekness, but that a clean heart be had What by justice and mercy, but that we have peace? "The fruit of justice will be peace, and the result of justice quietness and trust forever" (Is 32:17). Therefore blessed are the peacemakers.
Sed videndum est quid sit pax, et quomodo ad eam possimus pervenire. Pax est tranquillitas ordinis. Ordo autem est parium dispariumque sua loca cuique tribuens dispositio. Ergo pax est in hoc quod omnes teneant sua loca.
  • Unde debet mens hominis primo Deo subiecta esse.
  • Secundo motus et vires inferiores, quae sunt nobis et brutis communes, subiecta esse homini: per rationem enim homo praeest animalibus; Gen. I, 26: faciamus hominem ad imaginem et similitudinem nostram, et praesit piscibus maris, et volatilibus caeli, et bestiis universaeque terrae, omnique reptili quod movetur in terra.
  • Tertio ut homo pacem habeat ad alios, quia sic totaliter erit ordinatus. Ista autem ordinatio non potest esse nisi in hominibus sanctis; Ps. CXVIII, 165: pax multa diligentibus nomen tuum; Is. XLVIII, v. 22: non est pax impiis: pacem enim interiorem habere non possunt; Sap. XIV, 22: in magno viventes inscientiae bello, tot et tam magna mala pacem appellant.
Let us now see what peace is and how we can attain it. Peace is the tranquility of order. Order is an arrangement of equal and unequal things, which assigns its own place to each. Therefore, peace lies in all things keeping their own places.
  • Hence, man's mind should first be subjected to God.
  • Secondly, the lower movements and powers, which are common to us and the beasts, should be subjected to reason; for it is through reason that man excels animals: "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth" (Gen 1:26).
  • Thirdly, that man be at peace with others, because in that way he will be completely set in proper order. But this arrangement in proper order is found only in holy men: "Great peace have they who love hour name" (Ps 119:165); "There is no peace for the wicked" (Is 48:22), for they cannot have inner peace: "They live in great strife due to ignorance, and they call such great evils peace" (Wis 14:22).
Pacem talem mundus dare non potest; Io. XIV, 27: non quomodo mundus dat, ego do vobis. Item non sufficit totum hoc, sed debent inter discordes pacem facere; Prov. XII, 20: qui ineunt pacis consilia, sequitur eos gaudium. Tamen sciendum quod ista pax hic inchoatur, sed non perficitur, quia nullus potest totaliter habere motus brutales rationi subiectos; Rom. VII, 23: video aliam legem in membris meis repugnantem legi mentis meae, et captivantem me in lege peccati, quae est in membris meis. Unde vera erit in vita aeterna; Ps. IV, 9: in pace in idipsum dormiam et requiescam; Phil. IV, 7: pax Dei exuperat omnem sensum. True peace the world cannot give: "Not as the world gives, do I give to you" (Jn 14:27). However, all this is not enough, but they should make peace between those in conflict: "Those who enter into the counsels of peace and joy" (Pr 12:20). Yet it should be noted that peace begins here, but it is not perfect, because no one can have his animal inclinations completely subject: "I see in my members another law at war with the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin which dwells in my members" (Rom 7:23). Hence it will be true in eternal life: "In peace I will both lie down and sleep" (Ps 4:8); "The peace of God surpasses all understanding" (Phil 4:7).
Quoniam filii Dei vocabuntur, triplici ratione.
  • Prima est, quia habent officium filii Dei: ad hoc enim filius dicitur venisse in mundum, ut congregaret dispersos; Ephes. II, 14: ipse enim est pax nostra; Col. I, 20: pacificans in sanguine crucis eius, sive quae in terris, sive quae in caelis.
  • Secundo, quia per pacem cum caritate pervenitur ad regnum aeternum, in quo omnes filii Dei vocabuntur; Sap. V, 5: ecce quomodo computati sunt inter filios Dei, et inter sanctos sors illorum est. Ephes. IV, 3: solliciti servare unitatem spiritus in vinculo pacis.
  • Tertio, quia per hoc homo assimilatur Deo, quia ubi est pax, non est aliqua resistentia; Deo autem nullus resistere potest; Iob IX, 4: quis restitit ei, et pacem habuit?
Because they shall be called sons of God for three reasons:
  • first, because they have the office of the Son of God. For the Son is said to have come into the world to assemble those who are scattered: "For he is our peace" (Eph 2:14); "Reconciling to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven" (Col 1:20).
  • Secondly, because through peace with charity one reaches the eternal kingdom: "Why has he been numbered among the sons of God? And why is his lot among the saints?" (Wis 5:5); "Eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace" (Eph 4:3).
  • Thirdly, because by it man becomes like unto God; for where peace is, there is no resistance, and no one can resist God: "Who resisted him and had peace?" (Jb 9:4).
Et notandum quod istae beatitudines sibi invicem superaddunt: plus enim est misericordiam consequi quam saturari; quia saturari est impleri eo quod est sibi proportionatum, sed misericordia superabundat. Item non omnes qui misericordiam accipiunt, admittuntur a rege ad videndum regem. Item plus est esse filium regis, quam regem videre. Et tamen sciendum, quod per omnia ista unum praemium designatur. It should be noted that those beatitudes add something to one another. For it is a greater thing to obtain mercy than to be filled, because being full depends on one's capacity; but mercy is superabundant. Furthermore, not all who receive mercy are admitted by the king to see the king. Finally, it is a greater thing to be the king's son than to see the king. Yet it should be noted that by all these one only reward is designated.
Sed quare ita dominus per multa voluit significare illud? Dicendum quod omnia quae in inferioribus divisa sunt, in superioribus congregantur. Et quia in rebus humanis ista inveniuntur dispersa, et nos manuducimur per sensibilia, ideo dominus per multa significavit illud praemium aeternum. But why did the Lord wish to signify that one reward by many? The answer is that all things which are separate among lower beings are assembled into one in the higher. And because in matters human they are found scattered, and we are led to God through sense-perceptible things, the Lord signified that one eternal reward by many rewards.
Ista autem septima beatitudo adaptatur dono sapientiae: sapientia enim facit esse filios Dei. Item notandum, quod in septima beatitudine ponitur pax, sicut in die septima requies, Gen. II, 2. This seventh beatitude is adapted to the gift of wisdom, for wisdom makes men be children of God. It should also be noted that in the seventh beatitude is placed peace, and on the seventh day rest (Gen 2:2).
Consequenter ponitur octava beatitudo, quae designat perfectionem omnium praecedentium: tunc enim homo in omnibus illis perfectus est, quando nullam deserit propter tribulationes; Eccli. XXVII, 6: vasa figuli probat fornax, et homines iustos tentatio tribulationis. Beati ergo qui persecutionem patiuntur et cetera. Sed aliquis forte audiens beati pacifici, dicet hos non esse beatos propter persecutionem: quia persecutio pacem turbat, vel totaliter tollit; sed certe non interiorem, sed exteriorem; Ps. CXVIII, 165. Pax multa diligentibus legem tuam et cetera. (10) Then the eight beatitude is presented. This one designates the perfection of all the preceding ones, for a man is perfect in all things when he abandons none on account of tribulations: "The kiln tests the potter's vessels, and the trial of tribulation just men" (Sir 27:5). Blessed, therefore, are those who are persecuted for justice' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. But perhaps someone hearing, blessed are the peacemakers, will say that these are not happy on account of persecutions, because persecution disturbs the peace or totally destroys it; but certainly not inner but outer: "Great peace have those who love your law" (Ps 119:165).
Ipsa autem persecutio non facit beatum, sed eius causa: unde dicit propter iustitiam; I Pet. III, 14: si quid patimini propter iustitiam, beati. Chrysostomus: non dicit a Paganis et pro fide, sed propter iustitiam. Not the persecution itself, but its cause, makes one blessed; hence he says, for justice' sake: "If you suffer for justice's sake, you will be blessed" (1 Pt 3:14); "He does not say from the pagans and for the faith, but for justice' sake" (Chrysostom).

An additional section of Reportatio Petri de Andria, 5:10—6:36 (from Basel Ms), which Fr. Lacher did not have.
5:10
Unde dicit: propter iustitiam, I Petr. III 14: si quid patimini. Chrysostomus: non dicit: a Paganis et secundum fidem, sed: propter iustitiam, quia (non) a quo et propter quamcumque causam sed propter iustitiam patris martyrium est, Eccli. IV 33: pro iustitia agonizare. Prophetae occisi sunt non quia negaverunt fidem sed quia veritatem annuntiaverunt; Ioannes Baptista quia veritatem annuntiabat occisus est et martyr fuit. Thus he says: for justice' sake: : "If you suffer for justice's sake, you will be blessed" (1 Pt 3:14); "He does not say from the pagans and for the faith, but for justice' sake", because suffering from anyone and for any cause is not martyrdom, but suffering for justice' sake is. (Chrysostom). Sirach 4:33 Struggel for justice. The prophets were not killed because they (did not) deny the faith, but because they proclaimed the truth. John the Baptist was killed because the proclaimed the truth, and he was a martyr.]
Et notandum quod haec beatitudo octavo loco ponitur, sicut octava die circumcisio fiebat in qua quaedam generalis circumcisio martyrum praenuntiatur. Quoniam ipsorum est regnum. Hoc videtur esse ex eo quod ponitur in prima beatitudine; unde a sanctis diversimode exponitur.
  • Quidam enim dicunt quod idem est istud et id quod dicitur: beati pauperes quoniam ipsorum, et hoc ad designandum perfectionem patientiae, Iac. I 4; perfectio autem semper designatur per hoc quod revertitur ad sui principium, sicut apparet in circulo.
  • Item ille qui persecutionem patitur propter iustitiam pauper est et debentur sibi omnia alia, quia mites et misericordes et sic de omnibus; et ideo non solum primum praemium debetur sibi sed omnia praemia.
  • Alii dicunt quod non est idem; unde dicit Ambrosius quod ponitur regnum caelorum quantum ad gloriam animae et cordis: virtuti enim animae respondit regnum caelorum, sed martyrio respondit beatitudo quae consistit in glorificatione corporum, propter supplicia quae passa sunt.
  • Vel aliter: regnum caelorum pauperibus promittitur in spe quia non statim evolant, sed martyribus in re quia statim evolant.
Note that this beatitude is put in the eighth place, just as circumcision is done on the eighth day, which is a kind of general circumcision of the martyrs is foretoled. For theirs is the kingdom. This seems to come from what is placed in the first beatitude; thus the saints give different interpretations of it.
  • Some say that it is this beatitude is equivalent to Blessed are the poor, for theirs..., and that to designate the perfection of patience (cf. James 1:4). But perfection is always designated by what goes back to its beginning, as happens in a circle.
  • Again, he who suffers persecution for the sake of justice is poor, and everything else is owed to him, because he is meek and merciful etc. Therefore he has claim not only on the first reward, but all the others as well.
  • Others say that it is not the same. Thus Ambrose says that the kingdom of heaven has to do with the glory of soul and heart. For the kingdom of heaven corresponds to the soul, but the happiness that consists in thte glorification of the body corresponds to martyrdom, because of the tortures it undergoes.
  • Or otherwise: The kingdom of heaven is promised to the poor in hope, because they do not fly away immediately, but it is promised to martyrs as a possession, because they fly away immediately.]
Beati estis. Hic tangit dignitatem illorum qui debent docere ipsam doctrinam apostolorum. Et sciendum quod omnes beatitudines ad tria pertinent, quia primae tres sunt ad removendum malum, scilicet: beati pauperes, beati mites et beati qui lugent; aliae quattuor, ad operandum bonum; ultima autem pertinet ad patienter sustinendum malum. Debent autem ista tria esse per excellentiam in doctore sacrae Scripturae, quia in tolerando mala non solum deberet patienter sustinere sed deberet gaudere; item deberet removere mala ab aliis; item deberet tertio illuminare ad bonum. Unde in istis tribus apostolicam dignitatem commendat per ordinem, et incipit a persecutione quia per hoc designatur perfectio omnium aliarum et significat quod nullus debet assumere officium praedicationis nisi sit perfectus, Prov. XIX 11: doctrina viri per patientiam, Ps. (XCI 15): bene patientes erunt.
Circa hoc ergo tria facit: primo enumerat mala quae passuri erant; secundo docet modum patiendi: gaudete et exultate; tertio assignat rationem: quoniam merces. Mala autem vel sunt praesentia vel absentia; item praesentia verbo et facto fiunt: unde totum ponit. Dicit ergo: beati estis.
Sed hic movet Augustinus quaestionem, quia primo dicit: cum vobis maledixerint, et post: et dixerint omne malum, quod idem videtur. Sed sciendum quod maledicunt qui contumeliam visu gerunt, sed omne malum dicunt qui absentibus detrahunt. Maledicunt enim illis quibus multa improperia fiunt, Ier. XV 10: omnes maledicunt, I Petr. II 23: qui cum malediceretur. Beati ergo cum maledixerint, idest offenderint verbo et facto. Chrysostomus: meritum vitae aeternae consistit in duobus: in faciendo bonum et sustinendo malum, et sicut quodcumque factum bonum quantumcumque minimum non caret merito, ita omnis iniuria habet praemium.
Et persecuti, idest expellendo de civitate in civitatem, I Cor. IV 12: maledicimur et benedicimus, et infra XXIII 34: ecce mitto ad vos prophetas et Scribas, et ex illis persequimini de civitate. Et dixerint, idest confixerint et infamaverint de multis malis, II Cor. VI 8: ut seductores, I Petr. IV 14: si exprobramini in nomine Christi.
Sed sciendum quod non omnes de quibus dicuntur mala beati sunt, sed requiritur primo ut mendaciter dicatur et secundo quod propter Christum, unde dicit: mentientes propter me, et hoc propter me refertur ad omnia praedicta.
Item nota quod idem est quod dicit: propter me, et supra: propter Christum.
Gaudete. Hic docet modum, quomodo scilicet toleranda sunt mala. Supra quando de omnibus loquebatur, dixit: beati qui patiuntur idest qui non indignantur; sed in apostolis hoc non sufficit, immo oportet quod exultent, Iac. I 2: omne gaudium, Act. V 41: ibant apostoli gaudentes. Sed contra, Augustinus: tolerari ea iubes, non amari. Dicendum quod non est gaudendum de tribulationibus sed de spe quam habent propter tolerantiam earum, sicut qui accipit medicinam non gaudet de amaritudine medicinae sed de spe sanitatis. Et dicit: gaudete et exultate, ubi sciendum quod delectari, exultare, gaudere et laetare idem sunt secundum rem, sed differunt ratione. Delectatio enim proprie est ex coniunctione ipsius rei amatae et convenientis; gaudium est non solum in coniunctione sed et in apprehensione; interius laetitia et exultatio sunt effectus consequentes gaudium et delectationem, quia ex his primo dilatatur cor: unde laetitia quasi latitia; item non solum cor interius dilatatur, sed quando significatur, exterius apparet, et tunc dicitur exultatio quasi extra apparens. Gaudendum est autem quia erit ad confusionem infidelium et gaudium fidelium; sic gaudebat beatus Laurentius in craticulam, sicut de eo legitur. Et est duplex causa gaudii: (primo) praemium, unde: quoniam merces copiosa in caelo, scilicet Empyreo, unde I Thess. IV 16: sic semper cum domino erimus. Augustinus: in hoc quod dicit in caelo, nominat obiectum beatitudinis et substantiam quae non in corporalibus erit sed in spiritualibus, scilicet in fruitione Dei; et ista spiritualia bona designantur per caelos propter soliditatem et firmitatem. Et dicit copiosa, propter superabundantem mercedem apostolorum, Luc. VI 38: mensuram bonam, Gen. XV 1: ego Deus merces tua. Secunda causa quare gaudendum est exemplum, unde: sic enim. Magna enim confortatio est quando assimilantur aliqui magnis et praecedentibus patribus, Act. VII 52: quem prophetarum, Iac. V 10: exemplum accipite, fratres. Et nota quod in hoc designatur dignitas Christi quia habet prophetas suos patientes pro se sicut in veteri testamento, et etiam dignitas apostolorum qui assimilantur prophetis.

Lectio 3
Reportatio Petri de Andria
5—3
Mt 5:13-16
13 ὑμεῖς ἐστε τὸ ἅλας τῆς γῆς: ἐὰν δὲ τὸ ἅλας μωρανθῇ, ἐν τίνι ἁλισθήσεται; εἰς οὐδὲν ἰσχύει ἔτι εἰ μὴ βληθὲν ἔξω καταπατεῖσθαι ὑπὸ τῶν ἀνθρώπων. 14 ὑμεῖς ἐστε τὸ φῶς τοῦ κόσμου. οὐ δύναται πόλις κρυβῆναι ἐπάνω ὄρους κειμένη: 15 οὐδὲ καίουσιν λύχνον καὶ τιθέασιν αὐτὸν ὑπὸ τὸν μόδιον ἀλλ' ἐπὶ τὴν λυχνίαν, καὶ λάμπει πᾶσιν τοῖς ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ. 16 οὕτως λαμψάτω τὸ φῶς ὑμῶν ἔμπροσθεν τῶν ἀνθρώπων, ὅπως ἴδωσιν ὑμῶν τὰ καλὰ ἔργα καὶ δοξάσωσιν τὸν πατέρα ὑμῶν τὸν ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς.
13. You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt lose its savour, wherewith shall it be salted? It is good for nothing anymore but to be cast out, and to be trodden on by men. 14. You are the light of the world. A city seated on a mountain cannot be hid. 15. Neither do men light a candle and put it under a bushel, but upon a candlestick, that it may shine to all that are in the house. 16. So let your light shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven.
Vos estis sal. Supra ostendit dominus dignitatem apostolorum quantum ad hoc quod in tribulationibus non solum patientes sed etiam gaudentes debebant esse; nunc autem dicit eorum excellentiam quantum ad hoc quod debent alios a malis coercere, et ideo comparat eos sali: vos estis. Et circa hoc duo facit: primo enim determinat eorum officium quantum ad hoc ut a malis arceant alios; secundo ostendit quomodo debent se ipsos a malis arcere, ibi: [quod si sal evanuerit]. Dicit ergo: vos estis sal. Comparat eos sali propter quattuor rationes.
  • Prima, propter salis generationem quae ex aqua est et vento et calore solis: generatio enim spiritualis ex aqua Baptismi est et virtute spiritus sancti, Ioh. III 5: nisi quis renatus fuerit, et ex calore solis, idest fervore dilectionis quae est a spiritu sancto, Rom. V 5: caritas Dei.
  • Secundo, propter utilitates salis quarum prima est usus quia omnia sale condiuntur: unde significat sapientiam quam debent habere viri apostolici, Eccli. VI 23: sapientia doctrinae, Col. IV 5: in sapientia ad eos qui foris. Secunda ratio erat Lev. II 13 quod in omni sacrificio adiungeretur sal, quia doctrina apostolica debet in omni opere nostro relucere.
  • Tertia est quia consumit superfluitatem humorum et per hoc praeservat a putredine: ita apostoli sua doctrina refrenabant super concupiscentias carnales, I Petr. IV 3: sufficit praeteritum tempus, Rom. XIII 13: non in comessationibus.
  • Quartus effectus est quia reddit terram sterilem: unde dicitur quod aliqui victores extra civitatem quam ceperant superseminabant salem ut scilicet nihil oriretur; ita etiam doctrina evangelica facit terram sterilem, ut scilicet terrena opera in nobis non oriantur, Eph. V 11: nolite communicare. Ergo (apostoli) dicuntur sal quia habent mordacitatem retrahendo a peccatis, Marc. IX 49: habete in vobis sal.
Sed posset aliquis dicere: sufficit quod habeam sal. Immo oportet quod virtutes salis praeservent te a peccato, et ad hoc inducit quattuor rationes.
  • Prima sumitur ex incorrigibilitate, unde: quod si sal evanuerit. Illa proprie evanescunt quae amittunt virtutem suam: sicut vinum forte quando amittit virtutem, ita sal quando amittit mordacitatem, Marc. IX 49: si sal insulsum fuerit, in quo illud condietis? Unde tunc evanescit aliquis quando in peccato subiacet, Rom. I 21: evanuerunt in cogitationibus. Si ergo propter tribulationes vel aliquid aliud a virtute recedis, in quo salieris, idest quo alio sale salietur? Si enim plebs peccat potest corrigi, sed si praelatus, nullus potest emendare, Os. VIII 5: usquequo non poterunt. Et notandum quod Luc. XIV 34 dicitur: quod si sal infatuatum: magna enim fatuitas est dimittere aeterna pro temporali.
  • Secunda ratio sumitur ex utilitate, unde: ad nihilum, et hoc exponit Lucas XIV 35: neque in terra neque in stercore, quia terram facit sterilem et stercora non fecundat. Ita spirituales quando peccant ad nihilum valent quia non ad saecularia negotia sicut milites et huiusmodi, Ez. XV 2: fili hominis, quid fiet de ligno vitis? etc., Ps. (XIII 3): omnes declinaverunt.
  • Tertia ratio sumitur ex periculo imminenti et habet duos ramos secundum duo pericula. Primum est expulsio, unde: nisi ut mittatur foras, de Ecclesia scilicet, Apoc. ult. (XXII 15): foris canes. Item ut auferatur ei dignitas sacerdotalis magisterii, Os. IV 6: quia scientiam repulisti, infra XXI 43: auferetur a vobis, et hoc: nisi (ut) mittatur foras.
  • Secundum periculum (est) vilificatio, quia qui primo vivunt supernaturaliter et deficiunt, contemptibiles fiunt, et hoc est: et conculcetur, Luc. XIV 30: hic homo coepit aedificare, Mal. II 8: recessistis de via et scandalizastis plurimos in lege. Et notandum, secundum Augustinum, quod si aliqui sancti homines vilificantur, sicut dicitur supra (V 11): et dixerint omne malum etc., numquam tamen possunt conculcari, quia semper cor habent in caelo, et illi proprie conculcantur qui in terra iacent.
Vos estis lux. Hic ponitur tertia dignitas apostolorum. Sicut enim debent arcere alios a malis, ita debent et illuminare. Et circa hoc duo facit: primo ostendit eorum dignitatem, secundo removet pusillanimitatem, ibi: non potest civitas. Dicit ergo: vos estis lux mundi, quasi non Iudaeae tantum vel Galilaeae, sed totius mundi, Act. XIII 47: sic enim praecepit dominus: posui te in lucem gentium. Et hoc mirabile fuit quod vix in terra sua cognoscebatur et tamen in omnem terram exivit. Sed obicitur quia videtur quod hoc quod dicit lux conveniat soli Christo, Ioh. I 8: "non erat ille lux", et post: "erat lux vera". Dicendum quod lux essentialiter solus Christus est, sed apostoli dicuntur lux illuminata, scilicet per participationem, sicut oculus est lux illuminans et tamen illuminata.
Et nota quod ista tria, scilicet: beati estis cum vobis maledixerint, et vos estis sal, et vos estis lux, videntur pertinere ad tres ultimas beatitudines, scilicet ad: beati qui persecutionem patiuntur, secunda ad: beati pacifici, quia scilicet pacificant se et alios, tertia ad: beati mundo corde. Si enim apostoli in his tribus ultimis excellentes fuerunt, multo magis in superioribus. Dixerat dominus: beati estis cum vobis maledixerint et qui persecutionem; possent ergo dicere: nos sustentabimus tot persecutiones, ergo volumus occultare. Et ideo dominus removet consequenter pusillanimitatem, unde: non potest civitas abscondi. Et primo prohibet absconsionem, secundo ostendit modum quomodo debeant se manifestare, ibi: sic luceat. Quod non debeant se abscondere, probat duabus rationibus: primo quia non possent etiam si vellent, secundo quia non debent, et hoc est: neque accendunt.
Non potest civitas. Civitas congregatio fidelium erat, scilicet ipsa collectio apostolorum, Ps. (LXXXVI 3): gloriosa dicta sunt. Sita autem erat in monte, scilicet Christo, Mich. IV 1: erit mons domus, Dan. II 34: lapis abscissus. Vel in monte, idest in perfectione iustitiae, Ps. (XXXV 7): iustitia tua sicut mons. Civitas autem in monte sita non potest se abscondere, ita apostoli: Chrysostomus. Homines in infimo constituti si peccant possunt latere, si constituti in culmine non possunt, III Reg. I 20: in te oculi respiciunt totius Israel. Hilarius aliter exponit, et quasi idem est sensus: civitas in monte Christus est, quia ex parte humanae naturae in qua nobiscum communicat civitas est, Ier. I 18: dedi te hodie in civitatem; in monte est, quia in divinitate quae mons est, Ps. (LXVII 16): mons Dei, mons pinguis. Et ideo Christus latere non potuit; et ideo vos, apostoli, non debetis me occultare.
Secundum ibi: neque accendunt, quasi: ponamus quod posset latere, tamen non debetis. Nullus enim beneficium accipiens debet facere contra intentionem dantis. Deus dedit vobis scientiam ad hoc quod communicetis, I Petr. IV 10: unusquisque gratiam quam accepit. Et hoc est: neque accendunt lucernam, homines scilicet, vel pater et filius et spiritus sanctus. Per lucernam potest intelligi primo doctrina evangelica, Ps. (CXVIII 105): lucerna pedibus: lucerna enim habet lumen incorporatum; lumen veritatis in sacra Scriptura positum est; accensa autem est a patre et filio et spiritu sancto. Vel per lucernam possunt intelligi apostoli in quantum inditum est eis lumen gratiae, Ioh. V 35: ille erat lucerna, Ps. (CXXX 17): paravi lucernam. Vel per lucernam, Christus, quia sicut lucerna lux in testa, ita divinitas in humanitate, II Reg. II 22: tu es lucerna mea. Sic accepta lucerna, per modium possumus intelligere tria.
  • Primo, secundum Augustinum, res corporales, propter duas rationes: prima quia modius mensura est, Deut. (XXV 15); id autem quod agimus in corpore retribuetur nobis, II Cor. V 10: omnes astabimus; vel quia omnia corpora mensurata sunt, divina autem infinita quia extra mensuram. Ponunt ergo lucernam sub modio qui doctrinam suam referunt ad commodum temporale, unde pretiosius est illud; contra quod apostolus I Thess. II 5: neque enim fuimus.
  • Secundo modo, secundum Chrysostomum, modius dicuntur homines saeculares, quia vacui superius et solidi inferius: superius enim habent insanitatem quia nihil sentiunt de spiritu sancto, I Cor. II 14: animalis homo, sed inferius, in saecularibus scilicet negotiis, sapientes sunt, Luc. XVI 8: filii huius saeculi; et ista est magis litteralis expositio. Tunc ergo, secundum hoc, lucerna sub modio ponitur quando doctrina occultatur saeculari timore, Is. LI 12: quis tu ut timeas ab homine, II Tim. II 9: laboro usque ad vincula.
  • Si autem per lucernam intelligatur doctrina evangelica vel Christus, tunc per modium potest intelligi synagoga: non enim propter hoc Christus incarnatus est ut latitaret sub Iudaea, sed ut manifestaret se toti mundo, Is. XLIX 6: dedi te in lucem.
Sed super candelabrum. Hoc tripliciter potest exponi,
  • quia per candelabrum potest significari corpus, per lucernam doctrina evangelica; unde idem est per modium et candelabrum, quasi: non debet doctrina evangelica submitti rebus temporalibus, sed debent omnia ministrare sibi; unde quando tu das res, corpus et etiam vitam ad mortem amore Christi, tunc ponis lucernam super candelabrum.
  • Vel per candelabrum intelligitur Ecclesia, quia illi qui lucerna sunt ponuntur in superiori loco, Eccli. XXVI 22: lucerna splendens.
  • Si autem intelligatur de Christo, tunc per candelabrum: crucem, Col. I 20: per sanguinem crucis.
Ut luceat omnibus. Istud etiam tripliciter exponitur.
  • Per domum Ecclesia potest intelligi, I Tim. III 15: ut scias quomodo oportet conversari.
  • Vel domus est totus mundus, Hebr. III 4: omnis enim domus fabricatur et cetera.
Consequenter ponitur modus quomodo debent se manifestare,
  • et primo ponit modum, quia debent lucere coram hominibus, illuminando eos, Eph. III 8: mihi autem omnium sanctorum minimo;
  • ordinem: ut videant, Iac. II 18: ostende mihi ex operibus;
  • finem, quia non propter gloriam propriam, II Cor. II 17: non sumus sicut plurimi, et hoc est: et glorificent; propter gloriam enim Dei debemus bona operari ut in bona vita glorificetur Deus, I Cor. X 31: sive manducaveritis et cetera.

Lectio 4
Reportatio Petri de Andria
5—4
Mt 5:17-19
17 μὴ νομίσητε ὅτι ἦλθον καταλῦσαι τὸν νόμον ἢ τοὺς προφήτας: οὐκ ἦλθον καταλῦσαι ἀλλὰ πληρῶσαι. 18 ἀμὴν γὰρ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἕως ἂν παρέλθῃ ὁ οὐρανὸς καὶ ἡ γῆ, ἰῶτα ἓν ἢ μία κεραία οὐ μὴ παρέλθῃ ἀπὸ τοῦ νόμου ἕως ἂν πάντα γένηται. 19 ὃς ἐὰν οὖν λύσῃ μίαν τῶν ἐντολῶν τούτων τῶν ἐλαχίστων καὶ διδάξῃ οὕτως τοὺς ἀνθρώπους, ἐλάχιστος κληθήσεται ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τῶν οὐρανῶν: ὃς δ' ἂν ποιήσῃ καὶ διδάξῃ, οὗτος μέγας κληθήσεται ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τῶν οὐρανῶν.
Nolite putare. Nota hic quod dominus quinque modis adimplevit legem: primo quia ea quae erant praefigurata ipse adimplevit, Luc. ult. (XXII 37): oportet implere; secundo legalia observando, Gal. IV 4: cum venerit plenitudo; tertio operando per gratiam, scilicet in sanctificando per spiritum sanctum, quod lex facere non poterat, Rom. VIII 3: nam quod impossibile erat; quarto satisfaciendo pro peccatis per quae eramus facti transgressores legis: unde transgressione sublata implevit legem, Rom. III 25: quem proposuit Deus propitiationem; quinto quaedam perfectiones legi apponendo quae vel erant de intellectu legis, vel ad maiorem iustitiae perfectionem.
Nota quod lex solvitur tripliciter: negando totaliter, vel eam male exponendo, vel moralia non adimplendo.
Nolite putare. Posita beatitudine ad quam pertinet doctrina Christi, hic incipit doctrinam suam promulgare, et primo aperit intentionem suam, secundo proponit regulam et praecepta suae doctrinae, ibi: dico autem vobis.
Circa primum duo facit: primo excludit opinatam intentionem, secundo adstruit veram, ibi: non veni. Dixerat dominus apostolis (V 11): beati eritis cum vobis maledixerint etc.; unde poterant suspicari apostoli quasi tradenda esset doctrina talis propter quam oportebat eos occultari, quasi diceret Christus aliquid contra legem; et ideo dominus excludit hoc dicens: nolite et cetera. Et item quia posset dici quod nullus alius propheta, post Moysen qui dedit, legem solvit, ideo dominus dicit se amplius facturum, unde: sed adimplere; nullus enim adimplevit.
Et nota quod istud verbum est multum efficax contra illos qui damnant legem tamquam sit a Diabolo, I Ioh. III 8: in hoc apparet filius Dei; sed ipse confitetur: non veni solvere legem; ideo non est opus Diaboli. Per istud argumentum quidam conversus fuit ad fidem et fuit frater praedicator. Unde Manichaei abhorrent multum istud capitulum; unde Faustus multipliciter obicit secundum Augustinum, et omnes obiectiones reducuntur ad tres.
  • Primo ex auctoritate legis: dicitur enim Deut. IV 2: non addetur (ad) verbum quod vobis loquor, nec auferetur ab eo; sed Christus addidit; ergo fecit contra legem.
  • Item, Hebr. VIII 13: dicendo novum veteravit prius etc.; sed Christus dixit se institutorem novae legis, infra XXVI 28: hic est sanguis meus; ergo destruxit vetus.
  • Tertio, Ioh. XIII 15: exemplum enim dedi vobis; omnis ergo Christi actio vera est instructio; si ergo implevit, et nos debemus adimplere: ergo debemus circumcidi et servare omnia legalia; et ista est communis etiam Nazaraeis et Manichaeis.
Dicebat ergo Faustus quod vel ista verba non dixit Iesus sed dixit Matthaeus qui non interfuit sermoni, sed Iohannes qui interfuit non dixit; vel quod si Christus dixit et Matthaeus scripsit, Evangelium aliter exponitur. In sacra enim Scriptura tripliciter exponitur lex: quia est Mosayca (Rom. VII 6: soluti sumus a lege mortis in lege Dei); lex naturae (Rom. II 14: cum enim gentes quae legem etc.); lex veritatis (Rom. VIII 2: lex spiritus venit etc.). Ita probatur tripliciter ergo, scilicet: veteris legis, legis naturae (Tit. I 12: dixit autem quod ex illis priusquam propheta, Cretenses etc.), veritatis (infra XXIII 34: ecce ego mitto). Quod ergo dicit hic: non veni etc., intelligendum de lege naturae vel veritatis, quae etiam fit in quibusdam antiquis patribus; et huius signum est quod dominus, quando loquebatur de praeceptis, quaedam videbatur approbare, quaedam non, scilicet quae sunt propria legis Mosaycae, scilicet illud: oculum pro oculo et huiusmodi.
Sed contra ista Augustinus sic obicit. Primo quia quicumque negat aliquid de Evangelio, pari ratione poterit negare quodcumque aliud et sic annullare Scripturam; sed homo fidelis quaecumque sunt in Scriptura debet credere. Item quod dicit: loquitur de alia lege et prophetis, falsum est, quia in toto novo testamento ubicumque fit mentio de lege, intelligitur de lege Mosayca, Rom. IX 4: quorum est legislatio; ergo et dominus de istis loquitur.
Unde videndum primo quomodo Christus venit adimplere legem et postea solvemus rationes. Sciendum ergo quod Christus quinque modis adimplevit legem et prophetas.
  • Primo quia ea quae erant praefigurata in lege et prophetis de Christo, opere implevit, Luc. ult. (XXIV 44): oportet implere omnia.
  • Secundo ad litteram legalia observando, Gal. IV 4: cum venit plenitudo.
  • Tertio operando gratiam, quod lex naturae facere non poterat: omnis enim lex ad hoc est quod efficiamur homines iusti; sed hoc fecit Christus per spiritum sanctum, Rom. VIII 3: nam quod impossibile erat legi.
  • Quarto, secundum Augustinum, satisfaciendo pro peccatis secundum quae eramus facti transgressores legis; unde sublata transgressione dicitur implevisse legem, Rom. III 25: quem proposuit Deus propitiationem et cetera.
  • Quinto quaedam perfectiones legi apponendo quae vel erant de intellectu legis vel ad maiorem iustitiae perfectionem, Hebr. VII 19: neminem ad perfectum; et ista videtur intentio Christi quia, quando iam fecit mentionem de omnibus legalibus, subiungit: estote ergo perfecti etc. (Matth. V 48).
Solvamus ergo ad rationes Fausti sicut Augustinus solvit.
  • Ad illud (Deut. IV 2): non addetur verbum, dicendum quod Christus non addidit sed explicavit; illi enim intelligebant de homicidii actu, cum dixit: non occides; Christus exponit quod etiam prohibuit odium et iram.
  • Item ad illud (Hebr. VIII 13): novum veteravit, dicendum quod istud novum est idem, quia illud erat figura et istud adimpletio figurarum.
  • Ad illud quod nos debemus observare, dicendum quod aliquid potest significari locutione et figura, et non differt qualitercumque significetur. Christus antequam nasceretur potuit dici: Christus est nasciturus et moriturus, sed modo dicitur: Christus est natus, et huiusmodi, et tamen per hoc configuratur quia diversis verbis pronuntiatur res facta et futura. Unde illud quod figuris significabatur ut futurum, quando iam praeteriit significatur ut praesens per novas figuras, scilicet sacramenta novae legis. Unde Christus licet impleverit, tamen, quia iam venit veritas, quicumque impleret faceret iniuriam veritati. Ita ergo intelligitur non veni solvere.
Amen quippe. Hic ponitur ratio adimpletionis, et videtur triplicem rationem assignare: prima ex immobilitate legis, secunda ex poena solventium, tertia ex praemio adimplentium; secundum ibi: solverit, tertium ibi: fecerit et docuerit. Dicit ergo amen, et sciendum quod in veteri lege praefigurata fuerunt omnia mysteria Christi, sed, sicut dicitur Amos III 7, non faciet dominus verbum nisi; mysteria ergo Christi durabunt usque in finem ultimum, infra ult. (XXVIII 20): ecce ego vobiscum. Unde non omnia prophetarum mysteria in primo Christi adventu impleta sunt, immo implebuntur usque ad finem mundi. Et id quod dixit non potest mutari, Num. XXIII 19: dixit dominus et non faciet?; Ergo si lex praedixit ea quae futura sunt, et oportet quod de necessitate fiant. Inde dicit: amen dico, idest omnia implebuntur successive usque ad finem mundi.
Sciendum quod amen Hebraeum est, et nullus interpres pro reverentia huius vocabuli, quia dominus frequenter utebatur eo, ausus fuit mutare; et sumitur aliquando in vi nominis, unde amen: verum; aliquando adverbium est, idest vere, et ita hic sumitur; aliquando pro fiat, unde in Psalmo (XL 14) ubi nos fiat Hebraice amen; unde dicitur versus: pro vero, vere, pro fiat dicitur amen. Unde dominus hic excitat attentionem in audiendo.
Donec transeat, non secundum substantiam, sed secundum dispositionem, I Cor. VII 31: praeterit figura, II Petr. III 12: caeli ardentes. Donec, usque ad finem mundi. Iotha. Iotha apud Graecos est littera quam nos vocamus I parvum; apud Hebraeos autem vocatur iod; et iotha apud Graecos significat y et est nova littera (omnes enim litterae significant aliquem numerum), unde pertinet ad perfectionem Decalogi, et forte propter hoc magis posuit iotha quam iod, secundum quod dicunt sancti. Apex litteris superponitur tam in Hebraeo quam in Graeco, sed alia et alia ratione, quia apud Hebraeos aleph aliquando sonat a aliquando e, et scitur hoc per quaedam puncta et illa vocantur apices; item apud Graecos superponuntur quaedam signa ad distinguendum aspirationes et accentus, et ista etiam vocantur apices apud Graecos. Vult ergo dicere dominus quod nihil minimum quin etiam oportet adimpleri.
Qui ergo solverit. Hic ponitur secunda ratio et sumitur a poena solventium, quasi: quicumque solverit erit reus poena quasi transgressor divinae observantiae. Sunt autem minima mandata, secundum Chrysostomum, mandata Christi; unde: quicumque solverit de mandatis istis minimis quae dicturus sum. Et continuatur sic: quia lex non potest solvi, ergo ex quo ego non solvo, quicumque solverit erit reus poena. Et dicuntur ea minima primo propter humilitatem, sicut et se vocat parvulum, infra XVIII 3: nisi efficiamini; vel dicuntur minima quantum ad transgressionem quia minus peccat qui solvit; sed maiora (sunt) legi quae praecepit (Christus), quantum ad observationem, quia lex praecepit: non occides, Christus non irasci. Aliter Augustinus dicit et Hieronymus: ad litteram loquitur de minimis praeceptis quae sunt in lege quia dixit: iotha et apex; et dicuntur minima, quia principalia sunt: diliges dominum Deum tuum et proximum tuum; unde aliquae observationes dicuntur praecepta minima, sicut multa sunt Lev. XIX. Et dicit hoc in suggillationem Pharisaeorum, quia Pharisaei propter suas observantias transgrediebantur multa, infra XV 6: irritum fecisti. Solvitur autem lex tripliciter: primo totaliter eam negando, secundo male interpretando, tertio moralia non implendo. Et docuerit. Male facit qui male operatur, sed peius qui docet alios (male) operari, Apoc. II 14: habes tenentes doctrinam Balaam; et ideo dicit: qui solverit et docuerit, scilicet solvere mandata. Et secundum hoc videtur quod qui solvit erit in regno caelorum.
Sed sciendum quod, secundum Augustinum, regnum caelorum hic accipitur pro vita aeterna, et voluit dominus dare intelligere quod nullus erit ibi qui solverit et docuerit etc., quia ibi non erit nisi magnus, Rom. VIII 30: quos iustificavit etc.; unde qui nimis parvus numquam intrabit. Secundo, secundum Rabanum, sic: homines quaerunt famam apud homines quia hoc gloria quaedam est quod homo in regno hominum reputetur magnus; sed qui solverit minimus reputabitur in regno caelorum, non existens ibi: parvus enim reputatur ibi qui transgreditur mandata, minimus qui docet transgredi; et haec satis bona est.
Chrysostomus aliter: Scriptura quandoque vocat regnum caelorum finale iudicium, sicut dicit Psalmus (XCVI 1): dominus regnavit; et ibi erunt ordines diversi, sed minimus qui docet transgredi mandata, quia ad regnum caelorum, secundum hoc, pertinent etiam illi qui sunt in Inferno.
Gregorius: pro Ecclesia, unde: minimus vocabitur in Ecclesia, quia cuius vita despicitur restat ut eius praedicatio contemnatur. Qui fecerit et docuerit. Magnus qui bene facit, sed maior qui facit et docet; unde habebit magnam gloriam, infra X 32: qui me confessus fuerit, Sap. ult. (XIX 20): in omnibus populum tuum magnificasti

Lectio 5
Reportatio Petri de Andria
5—5
Mt 5:20-26
20 λέγω γὰρ ὑμῖν ὅτι ἐὰν μὴ περισσεύσῃ ὑμῶν ἡ δικαιοσύνη πλεῖον τῶν γραμματέων καὶ φαρισαίων, οὐ μὴ εἰσέλθητε εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τῶν οὐρανῶν. 21 ἠκούσατε ὅτι ἐρρέθη τοῖς ἀρχαίοις, οὐ φονεύσεις: ὃς δ' ἂν φονεύσῃ, ἔνοχος ἔσται τῇ κρίσει. 22 ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι πᾶς ὁ ὀργιζόμενος τῷ ἀδελφῷ αὐτοῦ ἔνοχος ἔσται τῇ κρίσει: ὃς δ' ἂν εἴπῃ τῷ ἀδελφῷ αὐτοῦ, ῥακά, ἔνοχος ἔσται τῷ συνεδρίῳ: ὃς δ' ἂν εἴπῃ, μωρέ, ἔνοχος ἔσται εἰς τὴν γέενναν τοῦ πυρός. 23 ἐὰν οὖν προσφέρῃς τὸ δῶρόν σου ἐπὶ τὸ θυσιαστήριον κἀκεῖ μνησθῇς ὅτι ὁ ἀδελφός σου ἔχει τι κατὰ σοῦ, 24 ἄφες ἐκεῖ τὸ δῶρόν σου ἔμπροσθεν τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου, καὶ ὕπαγε πρῶτον διαλλάγηθι τῷ ἀδελφῷ σου, καὶ τότε ἐλθὼν πρόσφερε τὸ δῶρόν σου. 25 ἴσθι εὐνοῶν τῷ ἀντιδίκῳ σου ταχὺ ἕως ὅτου εἶ μετ' αὐτοῦ ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ, μήποτέ σε παραδῷ ὁ ἀντίδικος τῷ κριτῇ, καὶ ὁ κριτὴς τῷ ὑπηρέτῃ, καὶ εἰς φυλακὴν βληθήσῃ: 26 ἀμὴν λέγω σοι, οὐ μὴ ἐξέλθῃς ἐκεῖθεν ἕως ἂν ἀποδῷς τὸν ἔσχατον κοδράντην.
20. For I tell you, that unless your justice abound more than that of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. 21. You have heard that it was said to them of old: Thou shalt not kill. And whosoever shall kill, shall be in danger of the judgment. 22. But I say to you, that whosoever is angry with his brother, shall be in danger of the judgment. And whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council. And whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire. 23. If therefore thou offer thy gift at the altar, and there thou remember that thy brother hath anything against thee; 24. Leave there thy offering before the altar, and go first to be reconciled to thy brother, and then coming thou shalt offer thy gift. 25. Be at agreement with thy adversary betimes, whilst thou art in the way with him: lest perhaps the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison. 26. Amen I say to thee, thou shalt not go out from thence till thou repay the last farthing.
Dico autem vobis: nisi abundaverit. Supra ostendit dominus quod non erat sua intentio solvere legem sed adimplere, unde hic incipit adimplere. In lege quattuor erant: quaedam scilicet praecepta moralia, quaedam iudicialia, quaedam figuralia et quaedam promissa; tria istorum dominus adimplet verbis, scilicet moralia, promissa et iudicialia, idest docet ea adimplere; figuralia autem adimplevit facto in sua passione. Unde pars ista dividitur in tres: in prima adimplet legem quantum ad praecepta moralia, in secunda quantum ad promissa, in tertia quantum ad iudicialia.
Moralia sunt duorum generum: quaedam prohibitiva, quaedam permissiva; primo adimplet prima, secundo secunda, ibi: dictum est (V 31). Circa primum duo facit: primo prohibet homicidium, secundo adulterium, ibi (V 27): audistis et cetera. Non moechaberis. Circa primum duo facit: primo ponit necessitatem, secundo adimpletionem, ibi: audistis.
Et dicit ergo: dico autem vobis. Nota quod iustitia dupliciter sumitur: quandoque enim est quaedam particularis virtus, una de quattuor cardinalibus, et habet materiam determinatam, scilicet bona commutabilia quae veniunt in usum vitae; aliter dicitur virtus generalis quae est communis virtus quam philosophus vocat iustitiam legalem, quae est quantum ad impletionem legis: et ita accipitur hic.
Et plusquam Scribarum. Et dicit: Scribarum et Pharisaeorum, quia illi erant potiores in iustitia legis quia etiam superaddebant quasdam observantias; ut ergo designet excellentiam novi testamenti, ostendit quod etiam illorum iustitiam transcendit. Ideo dicitur quod minor est in regno caelorum, idest Ecclesia maior est illo. Est ergo sensus: nisi abundaverit, idest nisi perfectior sit vestra iustitia quam Scribarum et Pharisaeorum, non intrabitis et cetera.
Et sciendum quod status Evangelii est medium inter statum legis et gloriae, et hoc patet quia Gal. IV 3 apostolus comparat puero statum legis et Evangelium perfectae aetati, unde dicit: quamdiu eramus parvuli etc., et post (III 24): lex paedagogus etc., et I Cor. XIII 11: cum essem parvulus etc.; ergo est medius status, et hoc naturale est quia nullus potest pervenire ad terminum unum nisi transcendat alium: nullus enim potest pervenire ad senectutem nisi transcendat pueritiam; ita dicit dominus non posse pervenire ad statum regni caelorum nisi transcendat et cetera.
Item maiori labori acquiritur merces, II Cor. IX 6: qui parce seminat; in lege autem promittebantur temporalia et terrena, Is. I 19: si volueritis, sed hic promittuntur caelestia; ergo iustitia debet in nos abundare quia maior exspectatur merces.
Sed obicitur contra hoc quod dominus dicit: nisi abundaverit, quia iustitia legis consistit in impletione Decalogi; sed qui adimplet praecepta Decalogi habebit vitam aeternam, infra XIX 17: si vis ad vitam ingredi. Et solvitur: dicitur universaliter primo quia observatores Decalogi numquam potuerunt intrare nisi in fide et per redemptionem sanguinis Christi, (Gal. II 21): si enim per legem iustitia. Et ideo dicendum quod illud: si vis ad vitam ingredi intelligendum (est) supposita fide; Scribae autem et Pharisaei non habebant fidem, Rom. IX 31: Israel (vero sectando legem) iustitiae, in legem iustitiae non pervenit. Quare? Quia etc.; et est ista satis bona solutio.
Alia Augustini qui dicit quod omnes istae impletiones quas Christus facit continentur omnes in veteri lege, quia ibi et ira prohibetur, Lev. XIX 17: ne oderis fratrem. Ergo quid dominus superaddit? Dicendum quod addit quantum ad pravum intellectum illorum Scribarum scilicet et Pharisaeorum, quia credebant quod in illo praecepto: non occides, non prohiberentur nisi ex timore actus, actus homicidii. Unde dominus hoc exposuit, et ideo non simpliciter dicit: nisi abundaverit iustitia supra legem, sed: plusquam Scribarum et Pharisaeorum.
Alia etiam solutio cum Augustino: Christus enim dixerat: qui fecerit et docuerit etc., et qui solverit etc.; Pharisaei autem et Scribae non faciunt et docent, infra XXIII: dicunt enim etc.; ergo nisi abundaverit etc., idest: quod vos dicitis et faciatis. Non intrabitis et cetera.
Sed remanet alia quaestio, quia dominus dixit: qui ergo solverit (minimus vocabitur in regno caelorum), et qui non abundat non intrabit; ergo qui solvit erit. Et solvit Chrysostomus quod aliud est esse in regno et aliud intrare: illi enim proprie intrant qui in dominio regni partem habent, illi sunt qui in quibuscumque morantur; unde etiam illi qui detinentur in carcere dicuntur esse in regno; ita etiam est caelorum, quia adducti poenae sunt in regno sed non participant regnum. Augustinus aliter, et dicit quod ex hoc possumus intelligere quod dupliciter dicitur regnum caelorum: quoddam in quod non intrant non habentes iustitiam, et haec est vita aeterna; aliud in quod intrant solventes, et haec est praesens Ecclesia.
Audistis. Hic ponitur adimpletio praecepti, et circa hoc tria facit: primo ponit praecepta, secundo adimplet, tertio monet ad observantiam impletionis; secundum ibi: ego autem dico, tertium ibi: si ergo offers. Circa primum duo facit: primo ponit praecepta de prohibitione homicidii, secundo poenam homicidii.
Dicit ergo: audistis istud Ex. XX 13 et Deut. V 17, et dicit antiquis quia, secundum Chrysostomum, sicut si magister alicui suo discipulo dicit: diu est quod elementa docui te, tempus est quod maiora discas, ita dominus, Hebr. V 12: etenim cum magistri et cetera.
Et notandum quod in isto praecepto fit triplex error, quia quidam dixerunt quod non licebat occidere etiam animalia minuta; sed hoc falsum est quia non est peccatum uti illis quae subdita sunt hominis potestati: est enim naturalis ordo quod plantae sint in nutrimento animalium et quaedam animalia in nutrimento aliorum; et omnia sunt hominis nutrimentum, Gen. IX 3: quasi olera virentia. Et philosophus etiam in politicis dicit quod venatio est sicut iustum bellum.
Secundum, est error quorundam qui dixerunt: non occides, hominem scilicet; unde dicunt homicidas omnes iudices saeculares qui condemnant secundum leges aliquas. Contra quod Augustinus dicit quod Deus non abstulit sibi potestatem occidendi, unde (Deut. XXXII 39): ego occidam et ego vivere etc.; ergo licitum est illis quod mandato Dei occidunt, quia tunc Deus facit. Omnis autem lex mandatum Dei est, Prov. VIII 15: per me reges regnant, Rom. XIII 4: non enim sine causa gladium; ergo intelligendum: non occides, auctoritate propria.
Tertius error est quia aliqui crediderunt: non occides alium sed licitum est occidere seipsum, quia invenitur hoc de Samsone et etiam Catone et de quibusdam virginibus quae iniecerunt in flammam, secundum quod recitat Augustinus. Sed respondit Augustinus quod qui se occidit hominem occidit, quia alium non debet occidere nisi auctoritate Dei, nec seipsum nisi a voluntate Dei vel instinctu spiritus sancti, et ita excusat Samsonem.
Qui autem occiderit. Hic ponitur poena: reus erit iudicio, idest poena quam lex adiudicabit, Ex. XXI 12.
Sequitur: ego autem dico, et cetera. Posito praecepto veteris legis, hic dominus adimplet, et ista adimpletio non evacuat legem, immo facit ad maiorem adimpletionem, quia qui irascitur pronus ad homicidium est, sed quando irascitur non committit homicidium. Ista quodammodo in isto praecepto continetur quia lex ista a Deo data est, et est differentia inter legem hominis et Dei, quia homo est iudex exteriorum actuum, Deus autem interiorum, I Reg. XVI 7: homines vident ea quae parent; unde in hoc non occides includitur etiam motus ad occidendum. Sed est duplex motus ad nocumentum proximi, scilicet irae et odii; nec est odium idem quod ira inveterata, sed est praedicatio per causam, quia (ex ira inveterata fit odium). Est ergo differentia, quia ira non appetit malum proximo nisi inquantum vult vindictam: unde facta vindicta quiescit; in odio autem ipsum nocumentum est per se volitum et numquam quiescit appetitus; ergo gravior est motus odii quam irae. Deus autem non solum prohibet motum odii sed irae qui levior est, I Ioh. II 11: qui odit fratrem.
Ponit autem tres gradus irae: primus gradus est irae latentis in corde, secundus apparentis exterius, tertius prorumpentis in nocumentum. Primus ibi: ego autem dico vobis, et dicit Augustinus quod lectio debet esse: sine causa, quia ille qui sine causa irascitur reus erit iudicio. Hieronymus autem dicit quod sine causa non est de textu, quia tunc relinqueretur locus irae; dominus autem nullum locum irae relinquit.
Sed numquid omnis ira contrariatur virtuti? Sciendum quod, sicut Augustinus dicit, circa hoc fuerunt duae opiniones philosophorum: Stoici enim dixerunt quod nulla passio animi cadit in sapientem, immo volebant quod vera virtus; Peripatetici autem dixerunt quod ira cadit in sapientem sed moderata, et est ista verior opinio; quod patet et auctoritate, quia in Evangeliis invenimus istas passiones quodammodo Christo attributas in quo fuit plenitudo sapientiae; et ratione quia (si) omnes passiones contrariarentur virtuti, essent aliquae (potentiae animae) quae deservirent in nocumentum quia non haberent aliquos actus convenientes, et tunc irascibilis et concupiscibilis frustra datae fuissent homini. Et ideo dicendum quod ira aliquando est virtus, aliquando non.
Accipitur autem ira tripliciter: primo prout est in solo iudicio rationis absque commotione animi; ista autem non dicitur ira sed iudicium: sic enim dominus puniens malos iratus apparet, Mich. VII 9: iram domini portabo.
Secundo accipitur prout est passio, et ista est in appetitu sensitivo et est duplex, quia aliquando ordinatur ratione et continetur sub terminis rationis, quando scilicet irascitur quantum debet, cui debet, et huiusmodi, et tunc est actus virtutis et dicitur ira per zelum. Unde philosophus etiam dicit quod mansuetudo non est in nullo modo irasci. Et ideo dicit Chrysostomus quod si ira tota tolleretur, tolleretur et disciplina, et cetera. Ista ergo non est peccatum.
Est tertia ira quae effugit iudicium rationis, et ista semper est peccatum, sed quandoque veniale quandoque mortale et hoc dicetur ex motu pessimo. Aliquid enim est peccatum mortale vel veniale dupliciter: ex genere vel ex circumstantiis, vel actu et ex consensu; verbi gratia, homicidium enim est actus peccati mortalis ex suo genere quia directe contrariatur praecepto divino, et ideo consensus in homicidium est peccatum mortale: quia si actus mortalis, et consensus; similiter si fuerit peccatum veniale, et consensus, et huiusmodi. Aliquando autem peccatum mortale est ex genere, sed tamen motus non est peccatum mortale quia est sine consensu, sicut si ascendit motus concupiscentiae ad fornicandum: si non consentitur non est mortale. Similiter ira est motus ad vindicandam iniuriam illatam: hoc enim est proprie ira; si ergo iste motus, verbi gratia in homicidio, est solum in passione ita quod etiam ratio deducatur, tunc est peccatum mortale; si autem non pervertatur ratio, tunc est veniale. Si autem non sit motus ex genere peccatum mortale, tunc si consensus adhibeatur non est mortale.
Quod ergo dicit dominus: qui irascitur fratri suo reus erit iudicio, intelligendum est de motu tendente in nocumentum, qui motus est peccatum mortale ita quod sit cum consensu, Eccl. ult. (XII 14): cuncta quae serviunt adducet et cetera. Et hoc est: ego autem et cetera.
Et nota quod nullus propheta loquens de lege Moysis sic locutus est: ego autem dico etc., sed tantum inducebant ad observantiam legis Moysis. Ex quo patet quod dominus ostendit se auctoritatem habere et ostendit se legislatorem quando dicit: ego autem et cetera.
Consequenter ponitur secundus gradus irae, scilicet quando apparet exterius sine illatione nocumenti.
Racha, secundum quosdam, non est vox significans aliquem determinatum conceptum sed est interiectio irascentis. Secundum Augustinum, (est) sicut heu interiectio dolentis et significat quemdam affectum; unde iam prorumpit ira exterius non tamen in nocumentum. Secundum Chrysostomum, est interiectio vilipendentis et sonat in vilipentionem. Utrumque autem istorum prohibitum est, scilicet et ostendere amaritudinem ad fratrem, apostolus (Eph. IV 31): omnis amaritudo, et despicere eum, Mal. II 10: quare despicit et cetera.
Vel racha secundum alios est vox (significans) determinatum (conceptum), et secundum hoc sunt duae opiniones, quia, secundum Augustinum, idem est quod pannosus a rachos, et haec opinio concordat cum illa Chrysostomi; secundum Hieronymum, racha significat vacuum, unde racha, quasi absque cerebro, et ista est magna iniuria, immo fit iniuria spiritui sancto quando sapientem fratrem plenum spiritu sancto (Act. II 4: repleti sunt omnes spiritu sancto) vocat vacuum et cetera.
Sed quaerit Chrysostomus: si vacuus est idem quod fatuus, quare dominus dixit postea: qui autem dixerit: fatue? Et dixit quod in omnibus idiomatibus sunt verba significantia iniuriam, sed ex usu et consuetudine loquendi fit iniuria: racha enim, licet sit idem quod fatuus, tamen non in eodem usu quia racha dicitur familiariter; et est peccatum quando dicitur cum ira.
Reus est Concilio. Augustinus: plus est Deo reum Concilio quam iudicio, quia iudicium quando adhuc de reo agitur et dubitatur utrum reus sit, I Tim. V 21: nihil absque iudicio, sed postquam convincitur de crimine non plus agitur cum reo sed iudices trahunt se in Concilium de poena inferenda. Hilarius: reus est Concilio sanctorum, quia qui facit iniuriam spiritui sancto dignum est quod a sanctis condemnetur. Chrysostomus dicit quod apostoli sic exposuerunt: reus Concilio, idest ut sit de notitia eorum qui venerunt in Concilium contra Christum.
Qui autem dixerit: fatue. Hic tertius gradus qui est quando infert nocumentum verbo. Et sicut qui vocat racha infert iniuriam spiritui sancto, ita qui fatue, filio Dei qui factus est nobis sapientia I Cor. I 30.
Reus erit Gehennae. Iste est primus locus ubi fit mentio de Gehenna, ut aliquis numquam prius usus sit isto verbo. Ier. XIX: circa Ierusalem erat quaedam vallis delectata quae vocatur vallis Topheth sive filiorum Ennon; in illa autem valle filii Israel coluerunt idola et Deus comminatus est eis per Ieremiam quod in illa debebant prostrari cadavera eorum, unde Ier. XIX 6: vocabitur locus iste et cetera. Gehenna, secundum Hebraeos, idem est quod vallis Ennon. Quia ergo in illa a Nabuchodonosor quando descendebant de Ierusalem multi prostrati sunt et occisi, ideo Gehennam dominus vocat locum Inferni. Sicut enim promissiones terrenas quae erant in veteri lege commutavit in bona caelestia et aeterna, ita poenas temporales quas infligebat vetus lex commutavit in poenas aeternas. Sicut autem et culpae se habent quia plus est ostendere iram exterius quam tenere interius, et ulterius plus est inferre nocumentum, ita primo est iudicium, secundo Concilium, tertio poena determinata; et omnia ista, scilicet iudicium, Concilium, Gehenna, significant poenam Inferni. Et dicit multa quia ostendit in hoc diversitatem poenarum, quia magis punientur illi qui inferunt nocumentum.
Set tunc est questio : nunquid qui dicit fratri fatue, peccat mortaliter? Quidam dicunt quod yperbolice loquitur ad terrendum, set falsum est, quia doctrina Christi est doctrina ueritate plena. Vnde sciendum quod tertium includit primum et secundum, et secundum includit primum; in primo intelligitur de ira que est peccatum mortale, et si ex illa prorumpit in uerbum uel nocumentum, peccat mortaliter ; ita similiter qui dixit fatue: est ira que est peccatum mortale. Set uidetur opus fecisse qui istos Gal. 3: o insensati Galate. Dicendum quod non dicebat ex ira, set ex necessitate iustitie, quia secundum hoc etiam flagellum non est peccatum. Et ideo dicit Augustinus quod quando dixit qui ira[scitur], addidit sine causa, et in secunda sententia et tertio etiam dicit esse sine causa ; tamen secundum eum etiam idem sensus est si non ponatur sine causa.
Consequenter, cum dicit si ergo offers, posita adimpletione ostendit quomodo debeat obseruari. Et primo ostendit quomodo debeat aliquis se habere ad eum quem lesit, secundo, quomodo ad eum qui eum lesit, ibi: esto conse[ntiens]. Circa primum tria facit: primo [ponit] bonum propositum, secundo, usus boni propositi inpeditiuum, tertio, remedium, [secundum] ibi: et ibi reco[rdatus], tertium ibi: relinque.
Dicit ergo: si off[ers], quasi: ergo quia non debes aliquem offendere si offer[s]. Per hoc honoramus Deum in quantum omnia a Deo recognoscimus esse data nobis, Paral. ult.: tua sunt omnia et que [de manu tua accepimus, dedimus tibi] etc.. Item, honoramus Ecclesiam, quia inde pauperes sustententur Ecclesie. Honora Deum tuum, non alienum, Ys. xli: ego Dominus habens. Ante al[tare], non ioculatoribus, Deutero. 12: caue ne offe[ras] holo[causta tua in omni loco quem uideris, set in eo quem elegerit Dominus].
Inpeditiuum est offensio proximi, unde: et ibi re[corda tus]. Nota quod aliquando tu habes aliquid aduersus fratrem tuum, aliquando frater aduersum te, quando scilicet uel tu offendis eum uel ille offendit te, set tu debes parcere, Apostolus: [supportantes] inuicem [et donantes uobis ipsis] si quis aduersus [aliquem habet querellam]. Et quia qui est offensus non dicitur petere ueniam ab eo qui offendit, set e conuerso, ideo dicit: et ibi re[cordatus fueris quia frater tuus habet aliquid aduersum te] etc., cum secundum Crisostomum hoc habundatis, perfectius est. Ps.: cum hiis qui oderunt pa[cem eram pacificus].
Et dicit ibi re[cordatus] quia forte ante non fuit recordatus; quoniam dat triplex consilium. Primum, relinque. Dominus nunquam uult quod bonum dimittatur totaliter propter malum quod offert istud bonum, set desistere propter malum, Leuit, ult.: [ animal quod immolari potest Domino,] si quis uouerit, [sanctum erit et mutari non poterit, idest nec melius malo, nec peius bono]; et ideo dicit: relin[que], non: desiste, idest retine propositum et remoue inpeditiuum, et hoc est et uade prius. Set Augustinus hoc obicit quia si Dominus intelligit hoc ad litteram, sequitur inconueniens, quia posset esse ille ultra mare. Set intelligendum quod si non habet oportunitatem inueniendi eum, debet ire corde. Intelligatis etiam per altare fidem sine qua inpossibile est placere Deo. Dicit etiam Augustinus quod si etiam memor esset ante altare peccati mortalis et uellet offerre, si non haberet oportunitatem confitendi, potest offerre cum contritione et proposito confitendi; uade ergo reco[nciliari], saltem in affectu, et tunc ue[niens] off[eres], Eccli. 34: dona impiorum non [probat Altissimus].
Secundum, off[eres] m[unus]: in quo notatur quod per exercitium caritatis in proximum, uenimus in caritatem Dei, Io. [4]: si fratrem tuum quem ui[des] etc.
Esto consentiens. Supra Dominus premisit unum documentum utile ad obseruantiam impletionis, nunc ponit aliud. Et potest dupliciter continuari cum precedentibus. Primo sic: Dominus supra determinat quomodo te debeas habere ad eum quem lesisti, nunc docet quomodo tc debeas habere ad eum qui te lesit, et hoc est esto. Vel aliter, ut aduersarius accipiatur large: uel ille qui lesit te, uel quem tu lesisti.
Ita Dominus docet quod reconcilieris fratri tuo. Set posset aliquis dicere: reconciliabor, et non ita cito; ideo Dominus dicit: cito, Eph. 4: sol non occi[dat super iracundiam uestram] 73. Et notandum quod, sicut dicit Ieronimus, greco consentiens dicit quoddam uerbum quod sonat beniuolum uel clementem.
Set queritur quis sit iste aduersarius. Et sciendum quod sunt quinque aduersarii quibus consentire debemus, scilicet caro, dyabolus, homo, Deus et uerbum Dei. De primo, Ie. 18: audi uoces aduersa[riorum meorum]. De secundo, Iob 27: sicut impius inimicus meus [et aduersarius meus quasi iniquus]. De tertio, Gal. v: caro concupiscit [aduersus spiritum] et Ro. 7: uideo aliam legem [in membris meis aduersantem legi mentis mee]. De quarto, scilicet Deo qui aduersatur peccantibus et dum punit et dum contraria preeipit, Iob 30: mutatus es mihi [in crudelem et in duritia manus tue aduersaris mihi]. De quinto, Ps.: eripe [me] de manu pec[catoris] et de manu contra [legem agentis et iniqui], Eccli. 6: aspera est nimis [sapientia indoctis hominibus] etc.. Quare ergo Augustinus: De quo horum intelligatur? Non de homine, propter duo. Primo, propter id quod sequitur: ne forte tra[dat te aduersarius] iu[dici]; quomodo enim hominem traderet Christo qui simul iudicabit utrumque? Secundo, quia si moritur, nunquid aufferetur spes uenie? Non ergo potest intelligi de homine. Non de dyabolo. Hoc enim Deus nollet: per hoc quod prius homo ei consentit, in miseria deuenit; quamuis quidam, secundum Ieronimum, de eo exponant, qui dicunt quod tunc consentimus dyabolo quando obseruamus pactum quod ferimus cum eo in baptismo, sicut illud : abrenuntio Sathan; set hec expositio est extorta. Non de carne. Non de Deo, cum dicit: esto con[sentiens] adu[ersario tuo cito] dum [es] in uia [cum eo]; licet enim Deus sit cum omni homine, tamen non omnis homo cum Deo. Vnde Augustinus dicit quod intelligitur de uerbo Dei et lege, que lex aduersatur nobis in quantum peccamus. Tamen leronimi et Crisostomi expositio est magis litteralis, qui dicunt: esto con[sentiens] ad[uersario], idest concorda cum homine qui te lesit uel quem tu lesisti et hoc cito, Eccli v.: ne tarde conuerti [ad Deum], in uia, idest in uita ista.
Consequenter assignat rationem ex inconuenientibus, que sunt quattuor, Primum: ne for[te tradat te aduersarius iudici]. Hoc si de uerbo Dei intelligatur, plana est littera: iudex hic accipitur Christus, Io. v: Pater omne iudicium [dedit Filio, Act. x: hic [est qui] constitutus est [a Deo iudex uiuorum et mortuorum]; unde, sermo Dei tradit nos Christo in quantum accusat nos de peccato quod commisimus contra legem, unde: sermo quem locutus [sum, ille iudicabit eum in nouissimo die] etc. Si autem intelligatur de homine, tunc tradat causaliter uel occasionaliter, quia discordia causa est ut iudici tradaris et ex ipso peccato efficeris reus judici. Et dicit forte, quia si moritur et tu remanseris in uita ista, non auferetur tibi locus penitentie, quia superest Deus propter quem eum debebas diligere; tamen si aduersarius esset, facilius fit reconciliatio.
Sequitur secundum inconueniens: et iudex [tradat te ministro] etc. Hic minister secundum Augustinum est angelus bonus, Ps.: benedicite Domino omnes an[geli eius] etc., ministri [eius] etc.; nec est dubium quod angeli cum Christo uenient ad iudicium et erunt executores eorum qui ibi agentur, infra xxv: cum uenerit Filius [hominis in maiestate sua et omnes angeli cum eo]. Crisostomus intelligit de angelo malo, quasi ut sit sub potestate dyaboli. Set nunquid dyabolus dicitur minister Dei? Dicendo dum quod dupliciter potest aliquis dici minister alicuius: quantum ad factum, idest quia facit uoluntatem alterius, uel quantum ad intentionem; et isto secundo modo non est minister dyabolus, quia non seruit propter iustitiam Dei, set propter odium hominum quos punit; unde primo modo tantum dicitur minister, et simile habetur Ie. 27: omnia regna terre dedi [in manu] Nabucho[donosor regis Babylonis serui mei] etc.
Tertium inconueniens: et in car[cerem mittaris]. Hic de carcere inferni intelligitur, de quo Apoc. 2 : dyabolus miss[ur]us est ex uobis. [in carcerem ut temptemini] etc.. Et dicitur carcer per similitudinem, quia illi qui sunt ibi, habent libertatem arbitrii ligatam in quantum sunt obstinati in malo. Tamen, si intelligatur de bonis angelis, sciendum quod bonus angelus interdum punit; secundum Dyonisium, nunquam tamen punit bonos, set malos, sicut quod percussit exercitum Senache[rib].
Quartum inconueniens: amen, dico [tibi, non exies inde, donec reddas nouissimum] quadra[ntem]. Quadrans est quidam denarius minutus qui habet duo minuta sub se, et dicebatur quadrans quia erat quarta pars unius denarii magni. Vult ergo dicere Dominus: non exi[es] donec exsoluas penas et satisfacias pro minimis peccatis etiam uenialibus; unde accipitur similitudo quadrantis propter paruitatem. Vel secundum Augustinum methaphora potest accipi etiam secundum numerum, non tantum secundum quantitatem; unde potest significare peccata que committuntur amore terrenorum, et terra est quartum elementum.
Set quare dixit non exi[es] donec, ergo contingit exire. Dicendum quod li donec quandoque designat finitum tempus, quandoque infinitum sicut illud: oportet autem illum regnari [donec ponat omnes inimicos sub pedibus eius] etc., Cor. 15. Nunquid ergo postea regnare desinet? Absit. Vnde, ibi ponitur infinite et sic hic: non exi[es] donec, idest nunquam exibit, quia nunquam reddet nouissimum quadrantem. Et quare Ylarius exponit: nullum enim peccatum dimittitur nisi per caritatem, Prou.; uniuersa delicta [operit caritas]; ergo, qui decedit cum discordia, decedit sine caritate et ita nunquam purgabitur a peccatis. Et nota in hoc quod inferno eternaliter puniuntur non solum pro peccatis mortalibus set etiam uenialibus, dum modo non sint dimissa prius quando sint in caritate, et hoc est non exies inde.
Propter istam difficultatem de li donec ponuntur alie expositiones. Vnde: in car[cerem], idest in carcere presentis tribulationis, Apoc. 2: ecce dyabolus miss[ur]us est [ex uobis in carcerem, ut temptemini et habebitis tribulationem diebus decem]; quando dum Deus aliquem in presenti punit pro peccatis, non relaxat nisi totaliter purgetur. Crisostomus, cum dicit quod totum potest exponi pro presenti uita, unde dicit: esto consen[tiens] tam cito, quia non solum propter hoc imminet pena eterna, set etiam dampnum temporale, unde ne for[te] ad litteram. Et dicit forte, quia non semper contingit hoc, quia licet ewangelica promissa sint de bonis eternis, tamen quandoque Dominus ponit promissa temporalia et penas eternas, et hoc est amen dico tibi etc.

Lectio 6
Reportatio Petri de Andria
5—6
Mt 5:27-30
27 ἠκούσατε ὅτι ἐρρέθη, οὐ μοιχεύσεις. 28 ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι πᾶς ὁ βλέπων γυναῖκα πρὸς τὸ ἐπιθυμῆσαι αὐτὴν ἤδη ἐμοίχευσεν αὐτὴν ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ αὐτοῦ. 29 εἰ δὲ ὁ ὀφθαλμός σου ὁ δεξιὸς σκανδαλίζει σε, ἔξελε αὐτὸν καὶ βάλε ἀπὸ σοῦ: συμφέρει γάρ σοι ἵνα ἀπόληται ἓν τῶν μελῶν σου καὶ μὴ ὅλον τὸ σῶμά σου βληθῇ εἰς γέενναν. 30 καὶ εἰ ἡ δεξιά σου χεὶρ σκανδαλίζει σε, ἔκκοψον αὐτὴν καὶ βάλε ἀπὸ σοῦ: συμφέρει γάρ σοι ἵνα ἀπόληται ἓν τῶν μελῶν σου καὶ μὴ ὅλον τὸ σῶμά σου εἰς γέενναν ἀπέλθῃ.
27. You have heard that it was said to them of old: Thou shalt not commit adultery. 28. But I say to you, that whosoever shall look on a woman to lust after her, hath already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29. And if thy right eye scandalize thee, pluck it out and cast it from thee. For it is expedient for thee that one of thy members should perish, rather than thy whole body be cast into hell. 30. And if thy right hand scandalize thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is expedient for thee that one of thy members should perish, rather than that thy whole body go into hell.
Audistis quia dictum [est antiquis: non mechaberis]. Supra Dominus adimpleuit legem quantum ad preceptum prohibitiuum homicidii, nunc adimplet quantum ad preceptum prohibitiuum adulterii. Et circa hoc tria facit: primo ponit preceptum, secundo adimpletionem, tertio docet quale obseruari possit, secundum ibi: ego autem, tertium ibi: si oculus tu[us]. Et conuenienter post preceptum prohibitiuum homicidii ponitur preceptum prohibitiuum adulterii, quia adulterium secundum locum tenet post homicidium. Homicidium enim est contra uitam hominis iam existentis, set adulterium contra uitam hominis generandi; tollit enim certitudinem prolis et per consequens educationem eius.
Non mecha[beris]. Mechia enim est proprie adulterium, Hoc preceptum est Exo. 20 et Deut. 5.
Et sciendum quod, quia in preceptis decalogi non prohibetur fornicatio simplex set solum adulterium, aliqui crediderunt quod fornicatio simplex non sit peccatum mortale quia non contariatur legi cum non sit in preceptis decalogi. Primum, dicitur Lcu. 19: homo si dormierit [cum muliere] choitu seminis etc., [uapulabunt ambo et non morieniur] etc.; ergo fornicatio simplex peccatum est ueniale. Preterea, omne peccatum iniquitas, set qui commitit simplicem fornicationem, nulli facit iniquitatem: non sibi, quia adimplet uoluntatem suam, non alteri, non Deo, quia non est directe contra eum sicut blasfemia et ydolatria et huiusmodi; ergo non est mortale. Dicendum quod certissimum debet esse apud fideles quod omnis simplex fornicatio est peccatum mortale et breuiter omnis usus menbrorum genitalium preter usum matrimonii: Heb. ult.: fornicatores et adulteros [iudicabit Deus] etc., et dedit seorsum, quia sicut adulteros, ita et fornicatores iudicabit; Thob. 4: attende tibi ab omni [fornicatione] etc. et Deut. 23: non est meretrix de filiabus [Israel]. Patet ergo per auctoritates ue[teris] et no[ui] testamenti quod est peccatum mortale. Et ratio huius est quia matrimonium est naturale non solum secundum fidem nostram set etiam secundum gentiles, quia naturale est quod homo matrimonialiter coniungatur non cuicumque indeterminate set uni et determinate, nec refert quacumque celebritate fiat quantum ad intentionem nature. Quid autem sit de lege naturali? Peruertitur in hiis que carent ratione. Coniunctio enim maris et femine ordinatur ad generationem et educationem. In aliquibus animalibus sola femella sufficit ad educationem et in talibus pater nunquam intromittit se de educatione filiorum; et ideo non est certitudo prolis neccessaria et propterea indifferenter commiscetur cuicumque, sicut patet in canibus. In aliis autem uidemus quod in quibuscumque femella non sufficit ad educationem prolis, quod ibi commanent mas et femina usque ad prolis educationem. Ergo patet quod, cum coniunctio sit propter educationem omnis coniunctio ex qua non sequitur debita educatio, est contra naturam; cum ergo natus indigeat multa cura patris, oportet quod habeat homo determinatam feminam, et hoc est matrimonium. Vtrum autem habeat plures, de hoc est alia questio. Erit ergo fornicatio sic contra istam educationem; ergo est contra naturam et peccatum mortale. Moyses autem iudeis loquebatur sicut magister rudibus auditoribus propositiones manifestissimas; decalogus est initia[tio] legis et ideo non expressit ibi nisi ea que erant manifesta; unde aliqui dicunt quod Deus locutus est per seipsum decalogum, omnia alia reseruauit aliis explicanda. Vnde in hoc non mechaberis intelligitur omne peccatum quod est per usum menbrorum [genitalium] preter matrimonium. Item peccat contra se, Cor. 6: qui forn[icatur], in corpus s[uum] pec[cat], quia actus huiusmodi non debet esse nisi propter generationem alterius. Item, in lege [quedam] peccata non puniebantur per mortem, sicut furtum et multa alia; ergo non ualet illud quod obicitur de Leu. Patet ergo quod fornicatio est mortale.
Ego autem. Hic Dominus adimplet legem. Pharisei enim et scribe hoc non mech[aberis] intelligebant solum quantum ad actus; Dominus autem prohibet etiam concupiscentiam. Set obicit hic Augustinus quod preceptum decalogi est: uxorem proximi tui non concu[pisces, non domum, non agrum, non seruum, non ancillam] etc.; ergo Dominus non adimpleuit. Et respondet quod intelligit: non concupisces ad auferendum; unde simul ponit: non concupisces uxorem et ancillam.
Et nota quod non dicit: qui uidet et concupiscit, set: qui uiderit ad concupiscendum. Et exponitur dupliciter. Primo sic: qui ui[derit] ad con[cupiscendum], idest ut concupiscat, ut ponatur concomitantia. Et est duplex concupiscentia: una que est propassio, alia que est passio. Propassio appellatur, quasi inperfecta passio, quando motus sistit in solo appetitu sensibili non ratione consentiente. Passio est quando ratio consentit, et tunc est peccatum mortale. Et ideo dicit: iam mecha[tus] in cor[de], quia Deus jnspector est cordium et talis non dimittit actum nisi propter impedimentum.
Vel li ad secundum Augustinum inportat finem, idest: qui ui[derit] ad con[cupiscendum], idest eo fine ut concupiscat. Set regula est quod quicquid homo facit sub fine peccati mortalis, totum mortale, et quicquid propter finem meritorium, totum meritorium, sicut patet de illo qui uadit ad ecclesiam uel ad furandum: quicquid interim fiat, totum est uel meritorium uel peccatum. Est autem duplex consensus: unus in actu, sicut quando ratio procedit intantum quod uult committere ad ultimum, alius in delectatione, sicut quando excitat sibi delectationes turpes ut delectetur. Quamuis non consentiat primo modo, est mortale quando respicit propter hunc finem ut delectetur, et ideo consentit iam mech[atus] in co[rde] quantum ad Deum, Io. 31: pepigi fedus cum oculis [meis ut ne cogitarem quidem de uirgine], Eccli. 9: uirginem ne respi[cias ne forte scandalizeris in decore illius]. Crisostomus etiam dicit quod mulieres que se parant ad hoc quod concupiscantur, peccant mortaliter, Exo. 21: si aliquis aperuerit [cisternam et foderit] et non cooperi[t] etc.; et si nullus concupiscit eam, dicendum quod peccat mortaliter sicut et ille qui parat uenenum: quamuis non sumatur ab illo cui paratur, tamen parans peccat mortaliter, quia quantum est in se eum occidit.
Quod si oculus. Hic ostendit Dominus quomodo istud preceptum potest facilius obseruare, scilicet sic: uitando occasiones peccati. Designantur autem per occulum et per manum quattuor. Primo, occulus et manus corporalis, et sic intelligendum: abscide corporaliter. Secundum Crisostomum hoc non potest stare, quia non est aliquod menbrum quod non scandalizet, Ro. 7: scio quod non habitat [in me, hoc est in carne mea, bonum], unde omnia menbra oporteret abscidere; ergo non est hic sensus. Vel aliter: corpus enim dicitur occidi dupliciter: quantum ad uitam nature et culpe, Ro. 6: ut destruatur corpus peccati [ut ultra non seruiamus peccato], et sic abscide peccato; set tunc sinister non esset innocens; ergo non est hic sensus.
Dicendum ergo quod per oculum aliquando intelligitur proximus qui tui est in auxilium; officium enim oculi est ut te in uia dirigat; unde consiliator tuus in rebus mundanis est occulus sinister, in diuinis dexter. Officium manus est quod adiuuet te; unde proximum qui facit negotia in temporalibus manus sinistra, in spiritualibus dextera, Iob [29]: occulus fui ceco [et pes claudo]. Ergo secundum hunc sensum intelligendo, dupliciter oculus uel manus scandalizat. Quia si consiliarius aliquis in rebus mundanis uel diuinis scandalizat te, [abscide etc.]; non facit mentionem de sinistro, quia si dexter debet abscidi, multo magis abscide etc. Vel aliter: Dominus uult quod non solum in te, set etiam in familiam serues puritatem; unde, si aliquis immunde uiuat, abscide etc., Ps.: non habitabit in medio [domus mee qui facit superbiam].
Vel possumus oculum uel manum intelligere interioris hominis, Cor. iv: licet is qui foris est [noster homo corrumpitur, tamen is qui intus est renouatur de die in diem], quia sicut exterior, ita et interior, Eph. 1: det uobis illuminatos [oculos cordis uestri]. Dicitur autem ibi manus uis motiua, occulus intellectiua, et secundum hoc potest exponi dupliciter. Primo sic: ex hoc quod occulus qui est in parte intellectiua que habet liberum arbitrium, et est in dextra, exterior in sinistra, non dicit Dominus quod abscidas sinistram, quia non est in potestate liberi arbitrii quod exteriora menbra non moneantur, set quod interiora non male moueantur et respiciam. Dicit ergo: si occulus tuus scan[dalizat] ad male cogitandum, remoue hunc intellectum; item, si mala uoluntas, remoue eam.
Vel aliter: occulus designat bonam intentionem, manus bonam uoluntalem; si ex istis sequatur scandalum uel occasio concupiscentie, remoue etc., sicut si habet bonam uoluntatem uisitandi pauperes mulieres, si ex ista sequatur occasio concupiscentie, abscide etc.
Quarto, per oculum potest significari uita eontemplatiua, per manus actiua. Ista aliquando scandalizant, quia aliquando ex contemplatione nimia incurritur error. Item, aliquis quia non est aptus, non implet opus contemplationis, set degenerat in pigritiam, Tren. I: uideruni eam hostes [et deriserunt sabbata eius]; abscide ergo et uade ad exercitium operis. Vel in uita actiua aliquando efficiuntur inquieti et incurrunt occasiones peccati; unde transseundum ad alium statum.
Primus ergo modus excludendus est; secundus de proximo, tertius de homine interiori, quartus de uita actiua et contemplatiua faciunt ad expositionem expedit enim tibi etc., et quinto, de bono respectu et bona operatione.

Lectio 7
Reportatio Petri de Andria
5—7
Mt 5:31-32
31 ἐρρέθη δέ, ὃς ἂν ἀπολύσῃ τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ, δότω αὐτῇ ἀποστάσιον. 32 ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι πᾶς ὁ ἀπολύων τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ παρεκτὸς λόγου πορνείας ποιεῖ αὐτὴν μοιχευθῆναι, καὶ ὃς ἐὰν ἀπολελυμένην γαμήσῃ μοιχᾶται.
31. And it hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a bill of divorce. 32. But I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, excepting the cause of fornication, maketh her to commit adultery: and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery.
Dictum est autem: quicumque [dimiserit] uxorem suam, det illi li[bellum] re[pudii]. Postquam Dominus adimpleuit precepta legis prohibitiua, nunc adimplet precepta legis permissiua. Et diuiditur pars ista in partes duas. Primo adimplet legem quantum ad precepta permissiua que pertinent ad Deum, secundo quantum ad precepta que pertinent ad proximum, ibi: audistis quia dictum est: oculum pro oculo. Prima in duas: prima adimplet preceptum permissiuum de libello repudii, secunda de iuramento, ibi: audistis quia dictum est antiquis: non per iurabis. Quantum ad primum duo facit: primo ponit uerba legis, secundum ipsorum adimpletionem: ego autem dico uobis quia omnis etc.
Dicit ergo: dictum est etc., Deut. xxiiii. Questio: si dimiserit ux[orem] suam, det illi li[bellum] re[pudii], hoc est preceptum, set dimittere est permissio; Moyses enim permisit, non precepit. Est autem multiplex permissio, scilicet: concessionis, quando licita conceduntur, ut monacho conceditur uisitare patrem ab abbate; dispensationis, quando non licita fiunt licita per dispensationem, ut cum aliis dispensatiue permititur monachum comedere carnes; indulgentie, quando permittitur aliquid licitum cuius oppositum melius est, ut permissio apostoli de secundis nuptiis et tamen melior est continentia uidualis (et secundum hoc soluas quod hic dicit Glosa scilicet quod apostoli preceperunt secundas nuptias, idest indulserunt: uel preceptum est nisi uelis continere, alias non obliget ut preceptum); sustinentie, sicut [quando] Deus permitit mala aliqua fieri, licet ex eis semper aliquod bonum eliciat; tollerantie, quando aliquod malum tolleratur ne peius fiat, sicut hic.
Quicumque dimi[serit] ux[orem] suam. Nunquid inseparabilitas matrimonii est de lege nature, set nunquid per dispensationem est [quod] in lege Moy[sis] fuit hic det illi libellum re[pudii] in quo cause repu[dii] scri[bebantur]? Vel secundum Iose[phum]. Vel secundum Augustinum: ideo scribe[batur] ut mora [interueniente et consilio scribarum dissuadente, uir a proposito repudiandi desisteret]. Secundum [Ieronimum] super hoc, causa autem permissionis repudiandi uxo[rem] fuit uitatio uxoricidii.
Set nunquid repudiate licebat nubere? Ego autem di[co]: facit eam mechari. Set est questio: nunquid propter for[nicationem] licet uiro uxorem dimittere? Et uidetur quia non est malum pro malo reddendum. Dicendum quod Dominus conces[sit] dimit[tere] ux[orem] propter for[nicationem] in penam illius qui fidem fregit. Set nunquid tenetur ad hoc ex precepto? Dicendum quod dimissio uxoris for[nicarie] introduc[ta] est ad cor[rigendum] ux[oris] crimen. Set nunquid proprio iudicio potest eam dimittere? Et qui dimissam duxerit adulterat, quia uir adueniens supra matrimonium.

Lectio 8
Reportatio Petri de Andria
5—8
Mt 5:33-37
33 πάλιν ἠκούσατε ὅτι ἐρρέθη τοῖς ἀρχαίοις, οὐκ ἐπιορκήσεις, ἀποδώσεις δὲ τῷ κυρίῳ τοὺς ὅρκους σου. 34 ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν μὴ ὀμόσαι ὅλως: μήτε ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὅτι θρόνος ἐστὶν τοῦ θεοῦ: 35 μήτε ἐν τῇ γῇ, ὅτι ὑποπόδιόν ἐστιν τῶν ποδῶν αὐτοῦ: μήτε εἰς ἱεροσόλυμα, ὅτι πόλις ἐστὶν τοῦ μεγάλου βασιλέως: 36 μήτε ἐν τῇ κεφαλῇ σου ὀμόσῃς, ὅτι οὐ δύνασαι μίαν τρίχα λευκὴν ποιῆσαι ἢ μέλαιναν. 37 ἔστω δὲ ὁ λόγος ὑμῶν ναὶ ναί, οὒ οὔ: τὸ δὲ περισσὸν τούτων ἐκ τοῦ πονηροῦ ἐστιν.
33. Again you have heard that it was said to them of old, thou shalt not forswear thyself: but thou shalt perform thy oaths to the Lord. 34. But I say to you not to swear at all, neither by heaven for it is the throne of God. 35. Nor by the earth, for it is his footstool: nor by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great king: 36. Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black. 37. But let your speech be yea, yea: no, no: and that which is over and above these, is of evil.
Audistis quia dic[tum] est an[tiquis: non periurabis]. Supra Dominus adimpleuit unum preceptum permissiuum, scilicet de libello repudii, hic adimplet aliud permissiuum, scilicet de iuramento. Et circa hoc tria facit: primo enim ponit uerba legis, secundo adimplet, tertio questioni respondet, secundum ibi: ego autem, tertium ibi: sit sermo.
Est autem considerandum quod in uerbis legis duo continentur, quorum unum erat simpliciter prohibitiuum, aliud permissiuum. Prohibitiuum: periurium, et hoc est audistis etc., Leu. 19, et quasi in eundem sensum Exo.: non assumes nomen [Domini Dei tui in uanum] etc.. Permissiuum: reddes Domino, idest quando contigerit te iurare, non per creaturas iurabis, set per Deum, Deut. 6: Dominum Deum tuum [timebis et ipsi seruies ac per nomen illius iurabis]. Et secundum hoc uidetur quod hoc sacramentum, scilicet iurare per Deum, non est peccatum, set quod permiserit lex hoc quia iudei proni erant ad ydolatriam, non tanquam liceret, set ut uitaretur peius, scilicet ydolatria.
Set constat autem quod reuerentiam exhibere Deo secundum se bonum est; iurare per Deum est reuerentiam exibere Deo, quia in Glosa dicitur: unusquisque etc. et Heb. [6]: homines enim per maio[rem sui] iurant; ergo iurare per Deum secundum se bonum est. Preterea iurare per Deum est testem Deum inuocare; set hoc secundum se bonum est; ergo iurare per se bonum est.
Et sciendum quod iurare secundum se non est aliquid ordinatum, immo in se inportat inordinationem. Nichil est aliud iurare per Deum quam inuocare Deum testem super dicto humano; hoc autem contingit dupliciter: aut quia inducitur diuinum testimonium ad confirmandum dictum humanum tantum et hoc non est malum, aut quia expetitur diuinum iudicium, quasi: si non ita est, condempnetur a Deo. In factis autem hominum nichil ita est fragile sicut uerbum, Iac. 3: si quis in uerbo non offen[dit, hic perfectus est uir]; unde inuocare testem Deum in hoc in quo homo est ita fragilis, hoc est contempnere iudicium Dei, Eccli. 23: uir multum iurans [implebitur iniquitate].
Dominus autem consequenter hic adimplet, unde: ego autem dico [uobis]: nolite etc. Ergo iuramentum secundum se est illicitum. Cum ergo iudices compellant homines iurare in causibus suis, uidetur quod faciant contra preceptum, et hec est opinio quorumdam hereticorum dicentium quod nulli iurare licet. Et respondet Ieronimus quod Dominus hic prohibet iurare per creaturas et hoc propter iudeos qui proni ad ydolatriam, unde non simpliciter prohibet iuramentum. Set hec non uidetur bona expositio, quia tunc Dominus nichil adderet uerbis legis que dicit: reddes Domino iura[menta] t[ua]. Et ideo dicendum secundum Augustinum quod Dominus prohibet iurare per Deum et creaturas.
Set tunc remanet duplex questio: prima, quod Dominus noster destrueret legem que dicit: reddes Domino iuramenta tua, secunda, quia secundum hoc uidetur quod iuramentum sit illicitum. Et respondet Augustinus quod sicut libellus repudii non fuit intentus a lege set permissus propter crudelitatem Iudeorum, et Dominus adimpleuit quia nullo modo uoluit quod daretur, similiter hic lex mandauit quod non periurarent, set si iurarent, non per creaturas set per Deum; set Dominus adimplet cum dicit: nolite etc. Et sicut qui tacet, nullo modo est mendax, ita qui nullo modo iurat, magis remouetur a periurio.
Ad illud quod dicitur quod iuramentum est illicitum, dicendum secundum Augustinum quod idem Spiritus Sanctus est qui locutus est in sacris scripturis et qui operatus est in sanctis suis; unde, quis sit intellectus scripturarum patet ex dictis sanctorum. Paulus motus est a Spiritu Sancto et tamen iurauit dupliciter, quia et iuramento simplicis attestationis, Ro. 1: testis mihi [est Deus], et iuramento execrationis, quod est quando quis inpignorat salutem suam uel anima sui Deo, Cor. [1]: ego testem Deum inuoco in anima mea. Et si dicatur quod hoc non est iuramentum, hoc ridiculum est, quia idem est per Deum et in anima mea, Cor. [15]: cotidie morior per gloriam [uestram, fratres, quam habeo in Christo Iesu Domino nostro], et in greco li per intelligitur jurante. Ergo si Paulus iurauit, uidetur quod Dominus non intendat iuramentum prohibere, [set] facilitatem iurandi. Et ostendit quod juramentum non est secundum se appetendum, immo non nisi propter necessitatem iurantis. Et ideo dicit Augustinus quod Paulus nunquam iurauit nisi in scribendo, quia non debet fieri nisi cuni magna cautela et deliberatione et propter neccessitatem, nisi scilicet exposcit utilitas aliorum.
Set posset dici quod iurare per Deum malum est, set non per aliquid minus Deo. Et hoc Dominus excludit, unde: neque per celum etc. Iurare per creaturas potest esse uel ydolatria uel absque ydolatria. Si enim attribuatur iudicium rebus illis, scilicet exposcendo iudicium a creaturis, hoc est ydolatrare, sicut antiqui qui dicebant celum esse deum. Alio modo potest sine peccato et ydolatria dupliciter: primum, in quantum creatura inpignoratur Deo exposcendo iudicium in ea, sicut quando homines iurant per capud suum; secundo, in quantum in aliqua creatura apparet aliqua euidentia diuine maiestatis, sicut si iuretur per celum, eius uirtus et potentia in celo manifestatur. Vnde hic ponit creaturas excellentes per quas aliquis posset iurare.
Et est ista excellentia in tribus manifesta, scilicet duo elementa, celum et terra, sub quibus continentur omnia alia sicut media inter extrema. Et quantum ad hoc dicit: neque per ce[lum], Ys. ult.: celum mihi se[des et terra scabellum pedum meorum] etc.. Crisostomus: non dicit neque per celum quia quoddam magnum corpus est, neque per terram que mater est omnium, set ostendit excellentiam istorum per comparationem ad Deum.
Set nunquid Deus habet menbra et situm et huiusmodi? Vnde dupliciter exponitur. Primo ad litteram: illud enim dicitur sedes ubi aliquis requiescit, et ibi requiescit ubi perfecte stat; quia igitur inter creaturas corporales celum magis de diuina bonitate participat et terra est minus, ideo celum dicitur sedes, terra scabellum. Item, homines consueuerunt sedere ad iudicandum et quia Dominus per ea que de celo ueniunt aliquando iudicat Iob 36: per hec iudicat populos, scilicet per fulgura et huiusmodi, dicitur celum.
Mistice autem per celum intelliguntur sancti uiri quorum conuersatio est in celis. Phil. 3 1S7; in hiis Deus iudicat, Cor. 2: spiritualis iudicat omnia, Terra: peccatores, propter affectum terrenorum, Phil. 3: qui terrena sapiunt. Et super scabellum: quia si legem sub qua sunt non inplent, punientur.
In conuersatione hominum ponit ciuitatem et inter alias Ierusalem excellit quia ibi colebatur Deus, et hoc est neque per Ie[rosolymam], Ps.: gloriosa dicta sunt [de te ciuitas Dei] et Ierusalem que edifi[catur ut ciuitas].
Et in menbris corporalibus. Set quia posset dici quod non debemus iurare per ista maiora set per minora, ideo dicit: neque per ca[put]. Quilibet enim potest facere de eo quod suum est quod uult, set homo non habet potestatem super caput suum quantum ad minima: ergo non debet iurare per illud et hoc est quia non potes [unum] ca[pillum] album [facere aut nigrum] secundum naturam, scilicet infra 6: nemo potest adicere ad sta[turam suam cubitum unum].
Set posset dici: quomodo ergo loquemur? Respondet, et primo satisfacit questioni, secundo ponit rationem. Dicit ergo: sit autem serm[o]. Et potest tripliciter exponi. Primo sic: si aliquis querat: estne hoc?, sit sermo uester: est uel non. Secundo: ut non aliud dicat os et aliud sentiat cor et aliud demonstret opus, Ps.: qui loquuntur pacem [cum proximo suo, mala autem sunt in cordibus eorum] etc.. Tertio sic, et est magis litteralis: sit sermo uester: uereque est, est, uereque non est, non est, quasi dicat: dicatis utrum [que] simpliciter; hec est enim diffinitio ueri: omne quod est, et non esse: quod non est; et ista est Ylarii, Cor. 1: Christus Ihesus [...non fuit est et non, set est in illo fuit] etc..
Quod autem etc. Non dicit malum est, set a malo est, non tuo set ab alio, quia [iurare] cogeris cum tamen expediret illi credere; et sic Apostolus jurauit. Vel secundum Crisostomum, Quod [autem his] habun[dantius], per hoc apparet quod in ueteri lege unum iuramentum prohibitiuum, scilicet periurare; aliud permisit, scilicet ex neccessitate iurare; tertium iuramentum remouet, scilicet superstitiosum, quod est quando reuerentia exhibetur creature que debetur creatori.

Lectio 9
Reportatio Petri de Andria
5—9
Mt 5:38-42
38 ἠκούσατε ὅτι ἐρρέθη, ὀφθαλμὸν ἀντὶ ὀφθαλμοῦ καὶ ὀδόντα ἀντὶ ὀδόντος. 39 ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν μὴ ἀντιστῆναι τῷ πονηρῷ: ἀλλ' ὅστις σε ῥαπίζει εἰς τὴν δεξιὰν σιαγόνα [σου], στρέψον αὐτῷ καὶ τὴν ἄλλην: 40 καὶ τῷ θέλοντί σοι κριθῆναι καὶ τὸν χιτῶνά σου λαβεῖν, ἄφες αὐτῷ καὶ τὸ ἱμάτιον: 41 καὶ ὅστις σε ἀγγαρεύσει μίλιον ἕν, ὕπαγε μετ' αὐτοῦ δύο. 42 τῷ αἰτοῦντί σε δός, καὶ τὸν θέλοντα ἀπὸ σοῦ δανίσασθαι μὴ ἀποστραφῇς.
38. You have heard that it hath been said: An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. 39. But I say to you not to resist evil: but if one strike thee on thy right cheek, turn to him also the other. And if a man will contend with thee in judgment, and take away thy coat, let go thy cloak also unto him. 41. And whosoever will force thee one mile, go with him other two. 42. Give to him that asketh of thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not away.
Audistis [quia dictum est: oculum pro oculo]. Supra Dominus adimpleuit legem quantum ad precepta permissiua que pertinent ad Deum, nunc quantum ad ea que pertinent ad proximum, et hoc quantum ad duo: quantum ad actum et quantum ad affectum, secundum ibi: diliges proxi[mum]. Circa primum duo facit: primo ponit dictum legis, secundo adimplet.
Dicit ergo: audistis etc. oculum p[ro] o[culo] debes exigere, Exodo 21 et Deut. 19. In istis autem uerbis legis alius fuit intellectus legis latoris et iudeorum, quia legis latoris intentio fuit statuere modum indicandi iustitie quantum ad iudices, ut scilicet penam determinatam inferrent; iudei intelligebant quod unusquisque uindictam acciperet de iniuria sibi illata, quod erat contra legem, Leu. 19: non querat ultio[nem].
Adimplet ergo Dominus quantum ad malum intellectum, unde: ego autem. Et circa hoc duo facit. Dupliciter enim adimplet: primo quantum ad hoc quod non expetatur uindicta, secundo quantum ad hoc quod bonum faciat inferenti iniuriam, ibi: set [qui] petit a te. Circa primum duo facit: primo adimplet in generali, secundo in speciali, ibi: set si quis.
Quantum ad superficiem littere uidetur quod mala lex e conuerso. Set secundum Augustinum Dominus non destruit, sci implet. Legis enim intentio erat retrahere homines a nimia ultione et inmoderaia, Dominus autem totaliter prohibet ultionem; unde si lex dixissei: non queras ultionem ultra debitum et Dominus: nullo modo queras, adimplesset dictum legis.
Et considerandi sunt hic secundum Augustinum quinque gradus: unus, illius qui iniuriam intulit, et hic esi maximus in nequitia; secundus, eius qui lesus iniuriam infert equalem: hic minor esi iniquitatis positio; tertius, qui rependit set minorem quam passus sit; quartus, qui nullam penam rependit; quintus, qui non rependit, set etiam non impedit quod etiam aliud malum sibi inferatur, et hoc Dominus docet, unde: ego autem d[ico uobis] non resi[siere malo] etc.; et intelligitur scilicet de malo non culpe, set pene uel iniurie, Ro. 12: non nos defe[ndentes]; et istud satis conuenit cum promisso.
Set posset aliquis dicere: uolo uindicare me [non] ut deiceretur in uindicta, set ut de cetero non offendar; set hoc etiam excludit Dominus: non resi[stere] etc.
Set uidendum est quomodo intelligenda sit ista sententia Domini. Dupliciter enim obicitur secundum duos errores. Vnus gentilium, ut dicit Augustinus in epistola contra Marcellianum, qui ita arguunt quod sine uindicta nulla res puplica conseruetur: sic resistitur hostibus et puniuntur fures, quod si non fieret, totaliier res puplica periret; ergo, lex ewangelica destruit societatem hominum, ergo est abicienda. E conuerso heretici dicunt quod sustinent ewangelia et nolunt detrahere ea que pertinent ad societatem auferendo uindictam. Vnde dicendum quod isti ex falso intellectu processerunt. Potest enim aliquis resistere malo dupliciter: ex amore puplici boni ei priuati. Deus autem non intendit prohibere quod non resistatur malo pro bono rei puplice, set quod non exardescat quis in uindictam pro bono priuato; nichil enim magis conseruat societatem hominum quam quod homo non habeat potestatem malefaciendi in priuato.
Set item uidetur quod Deus non intendat hoc prohibere, quia naturalis inclinatio est cuiuslibet rei quod resistat malo corumpenti bonum suum; ergo istud preceptum non potest seruari. Set dicendum quod naturalis inclinatio est quod quelibet res repellat proprium nocumentum et item naturalis inclinatio quod quelibet res exponat se ad proprium detrimentum ut uitet detrimentum comune, sicut manus exponit se periculo propter corpus et quelibet pars pro suo toto. Vnde naturale est quod homo sustineat malum pro bono rei puplice et ad hoc pertinet uirtus pollitica sicut fortitudo et huiusmodi.
Set Augustinus dicit quod istud non resistat etc. intelligendum est secundum preparationem animi, quia homo pro utilitate proximi debet esse paratus omnia mala sustinere uel sufferre, et ponit exemplum; si enim aliquis custodiret freneticum et ille percuteret eum uel huiusmodi, si habet beniuolentiam ad eum, debet esse paratus pro sua salute etiam alia mala sustinere; ita et nos pro utilitate Ecclesie.
Et notandum quod hoc quod Dominus dicit, quodam modo est preceptum, quodam concilium. Preceptum, si aliquis dimitteret ea ad que tenetur timore alicuius incomodi temporalis, sicut prelatus qui custodit gregem debet esse paratus in animo sustinere omnia dampna antequam dimittat ea ad que tenetur. Concilium, si non pretermitteret ea ad que non tenetur; sicut si aliquis propter introitum religionis sustinet plura dampna a parentibus, consilium [f. 43vb] est ut non pretermittat quod melius est.
Consequenter, quod dixerat Dominus in generali, manifestat in speciali: set si quis te per[cusserit]. Triplex dampnum potest inferri alicui: in lesione corporis, in ablatione rerum, in coactione operum. Et ponit exemplum de hiis tribus.
Dicit ergo: set si quis [te] per[cusserit] in unam max[illam], pre[be] al[teram] maxillam, Tren. 3: dabit percudenti se ma[xillam], Ys. 1: dedi corpus meum [percutientibus et genas meas uellentibus]. Quomodo ista debeant intelligi, considerandum est ex gestis sanctorum. Dominus enim qui cepit facere et docere, hoc non adimpleuit, Io. [18]: si male locutus sum etc. et post: cur me cedis, et Apostolus, Act.: percutiat te Deus, paries [dealbato. Et ex hoc Augustinus argumentatur quod nos per gesta sanctorum scimus qualiter intelligenda est scriptura; unde dicit esse intelligendum in preparatione animi. Et expone hoc sicut supra.
Mistice. Tamen Sciendum quod ille in faciem te cedit, qui in conspectu tuo tibi contumelias infert. Cor. xi: sustinetis enim si quis in facciem uos cedit]. Maxilla dextera pertinet ad spiritualia, sinistra ad temporalia; uult ergo dicerc quod si sustines iniuriam in spiritualibus, multo magis in temporalibus quam quod prelati faciunt, qui sustinent dampna ecclesiarum set non consanguineorum.
Et qui uult tecum in iudi[cio] conten[dere]. Hoc contingit dupliciter: ad hoc quod aliquis recipiat sua, et tunc non magnum si cedis, set quod auferat tua, hoc perfectionis si cedas, et hoc est et tunicam tol[lere], idest quamcumque rem temporalem, dans et pu[llium], idest quamcumque aliam rem. Et hoc etiam in preparatione animi, quia si aliquis calumpniam tibi facit, caritatem tamen non dimittas quam habes ad eum. Cor. 6: iam omnino delictum est [uobis quod indicia habetis inter uos].
Istud iudicium uitandum est propter duas rationes: una est quia si clericus est, [se] subdendo iudici seculari derogat dignitati sue; alia ratio quia quamuis non intendit aliquam calumpniam, tamen si uidet causam sue contentionis calumpniari, datur ei occasio similia faciendi et ideo contendere in iudicio periculosum est.
Item, repetere iudicio contingit dupliciter; licite et non licite. Illicitum est repetere in iudicio infidelium. Item, quod non repetat cum contentione; est enim contentio inpugnatio ueritatis cum confidentia clamoris, Prou. 20: honor est homini qui separat se [a contenlionibus] Licitum, immo quasi uotiuum, est dupliciter: quando sunt res pauperum uel ecclesie, unde si prelatus non repetat, peccat; alia causa est quando ille qui auffert, insollentior efficitur et magis procax nisi ei resistatur: caritas est quia tunc anima eius liberatur a morte; quando autem esset res priuata et non speraretur correctio, tunc non contendendum. Omnia ista tamen intelligenda sunt in preparatione animi.
Si quis te ang[ariauerit]. Angariare proprie est sine iustitia ad aliqua seruilia opera mancipare. Vade ali[a] duo, scilicet milia, Cor. xi: sustinetis si quis [uos] in ser[uitutem redigit].
Et notandum quod Dominus quodam ordine processit: primo dixit non esse resistendum malo, postea quod debet homo esse paratus non tantum non resistere set penam equalem sustinere, modo plus quia ascendit usque ad duplum.
Qui petit a te. Hic dicit quod debemus benefacere malefaciendum dupliciter: per modum simplicis dationis et mutui. Quantum ad primum dicit: qui pe[tit], Thob. 4: si multum tibi fuerit, [abundanter tribuo, Iob 31: si negaui, quod uo[lebant pauperibus]. Set obicitur quia hoc non possunt facere pauperes; item, diuites si semper darent, nichil eis remaneret. Et soluit dupliciter Augustinus. Primo sic: quod non omnia debes dare que petit, quia non inhonestum nec iniustum uel inrationabile uel illud quo tu magis indiges, set quando iuste petit aliquis, debes dare. Et hoc est preceptum si teneris, consilium si non teneris. Ieronimus tamen dicit quod intelligitur de bono spirituali, quia tale nulli potest esse nocumentum.
Et uolenti. Mutuum accipe, hoc dupliciter: quia quicumque benefacit alteri, etiam si simpliciter det aliquid, expectat retributionem, Prou. 19: feneratur Domino [qui miseretur pauperis, et uicissitudinem suam reddet ei], Ecce. xi: mitte panem [tuum super transeuntes aquas quia post multa tempora inuenies illum]. Vel aliter: uolenti aliquid accipere ut reddat, non auer[taris]. Et posset uideri alicui quod Deus non recompensaret proprium quod speraret ab homine et ideo posset magis moueri ad dandum quam mutuandum ut reciperet a Deo; set Dominus dicit quod etiam a Deo recipiet. Vel dicit non auer[taris] quia timent aliquando defraudari et ideo non mutuant, Eccli. 29: multi [non causa nequitie non fenerauerunt, set fraudari gratis timuerunt] etc. et post: perdet peccuniam [pro fratre et amico. Et notandum quod hoc potest esse preceptum et consilium secundum diuersas conditiones, quod patet ex dictis.

Lectio 10
Reportatio Petri de Andria
5—10
Mt 5:43-48
38 ἠκούσατε ὅτι ἐρρέθη, ὀφθαλμὸν ἀντὶ ὀφθαλμοῦ καὶ ὀδόντα ἀντὶ ὀδόντος. 39 ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν μὴ ἀντιστῆναι τῷ πονηρῷ: ἀλλ' ὅστις σε ῥαπίζει εἰς τὴν δεξιὰν σιαγόνα [σου], στρέψον αὐτῷ καὶ τὴν ἄλλην: 40 καὶ τῷ θέλοντί σοι κριθῆναι καὶ τὸν χιτῶνά σου λαβεῖν, ἄφες αὐτῷ καὶ τὸ ἱμάτιον: 41 καὶ ὅστις σε ἀγγαρεύσει μίλιον ἕν, ὕπαγε μετ' αὐτοῦ δύο. 42 τῷ αἰτοῦντί σε δός, καὶ τὸν θέλοντα ἀπὸ σοῦ δανίσασθαι μὴ ἀποστραφῇς. 43 ἠκούσατε ὅτι ἐρρέθη, ἀγαπήσεις τὸν πλησίον σου καὶ μισήσεις τὸν ἐχθρόν σου. 44 ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν καὶ προσεύχεσθε ὑπὲρ τῶν διωκόντων ὑμᾶς, 45 ὅπως γένησθε υἱοὶ τοῦ πατρὸς ὑμῶν τοῦ ἐν οὐρανοῖς, ὅτι τὸν ἥλιον αὐτοῦ ἀνατέλλει ἐπὶ πονηροὺς καὶ ἀγαθοὺς καὶ βρέχει ἐπὶ δικαίους καὶ ἀδίκους. 46 ἐὰν γὰρ ἀγαπήσητε τοὺς ἀγαπῶντας ὑμᾶς, τίνα μισθὸν ἔχετε; οὐχὶ καὶ οἱ τελῶναι τὸ αὐτὸ ποιοῦσιν; 47 καὶ ἐὰν ἀσπάσησθε τοὺς ἀδελφοὺς ὑμῶν μόνον, τί περισσὸν ποιεῖτε; οὐχὶ καὶ οἱ ἐθνικοὶ τὸ αὐτὸ ποιοῦσιν; 48 ἔσεσθε οὖν ὑμεῖς τέλειοι ὡς ὁ πατὴρ ὑμῶν ὁ οὐράνιος τέλειός ἐστιν.
43. You have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thy enemy. 44. But I say to you, Love your enemies: do good to them that hate you: and pray for them that persecute and calumniate you: 45. That you may be the children of your Father who is in heaven, who maketh his sun to rise upon the good, and bad, and raineth upon the just and the unjust. 46. For if you love them that love you, what reward shall you have? do not even the publicans this? 47. And if you salute your brethren only, what do you more? do not also the heathens this? 48. Be you therefore perfect, as also your heavenly Father is perfect.
Audistis quia diaum [est: diliges proximum tuum]. Supra Dominus adimpleuit legem quantum ad actum permissiuum ei hic quantum ad affectum odii secundum quod uidebatur. Et est ultima adimpletio. Et sunt satis congrue ad impletioncm in dilectione Ro.: plenitudo legis est dilectio Ro. 13. Circa hoc ergo duo facit: primo ponit ea que sunt legis, secundo adimplet, ibi: ego autem. In istis uerbis duo tangit, scilicet diliges et odio habe[bis].
Circa primum considerandum quod aliqui intelligebant proximum dici solum familiarem uel consanguineum et secundum rei ueritatem omnis horno dicitur proximus et etiam angeli, quia dicitur Luc. x quod ille qui fecit misericordiam semiuiuo dicitur proximus: ex quo possumus accipere quod ille dicitur proximus a quo misericordiam accipimus, sic angeli, uel cui misericordiam debemus, sic homo. Hoc preceptum est Leu. 19.
Et uoluit Dominus uti isto nomine proximus quia per hoc datur intelligj ratio dilectionis. Omnis enim amicitia super aliquam similitudinem uel propinquitatem fundatur, Eccli. 13: omne animal dili[git similem sibi]. Est autem quedam similitudo naturalis secundum quam omnes homines conueniunt in specie; unde, sicut naturale est quod omne animal diligit sibi simile, ita naturale quod omnis homo diligit sibi simile. Alia est similitudo pollitica, quia aliquis debet diligere aliquem in quantum est eius ciuis, et hec pollitica amicitia. Est etiam similitudo gratie et ista est amplior, quia se extendit ad omnes qui habent ordinem ad beatitudinem, scilicet angelos et homines, et hoc est preceptum caritatis quod fundatur super istam unionem. Ergo quod dicit diliges prox[imum], non intelligendum est tantum in origine sanguinis uel familiaritatis, set in ordine ad beatitudinem.
Et odio habe[his] inimicum tuum]. Hec uerba in nullo loco scripta sunt in lege, set accipi possunt ex quibusdam uerbis: Exo. 23, ubi Dominus dixit quod non inirent fedus cum hominibus etc. et Deut. 7 mandat quod deleant eos usque ad internicionem; quoniam ex hoc accipiebant quod inimici habendi sunt odio et propter hunc intellectum dicit: et odio habe[bis]. Contrarium autem dicunt heretici: lex dicit odio habe[bis] etc., set omne odium est peccatum, ergo lex mandat peccatum. Et respondet Augustinus: iubet diligere inimicos; hoc arguo quia ipse benefacit bonis et malis; ergo in quantum in hoc Deo assimilamur, debemus diligere inimicos. Set Deus aliquos odio habet, Ro. 1: detractores Deo odibiles], et tamen Deus omnia diligit, Sap.: diligis omnia que sunt; unde dicendum quod Deus diligit naturam, set odit culpam. et similiter lex hoc uoluit.
Vnde Dominus adimplet quantum ad prauum intellectum scribarum et phariseorum qui retorquebant ad odium per se quod tamen erat contra legem, Leu. 19: non oderis fratrem tuum, set ipsi intelligebant fratrem de iudeis; sunt tamen omnes a Deo creati et ordinati ad unam beatitudinem, adimplet ergo Dominus: ego autem etc. Et circa hoc tria facit: ponitur primo adimpletio, secundo ratio probans, tertio concludit principale intentum, secundum ibi: ut sitis filii, tertium ibi: estote ergo per[fecti]. Adimplet autem quantum ad tria, scilicet quantum ad affectum cordis, officium operis in benefaciendo et oris in orando, secundum ibi: benefa[cite], tertium ibi: et orate pro per[sequentibus].
Dicit ergo: diligite inimi[cos]. Set uidetur hoc esse inconueniens. Manifestum est enim quod nulla res potest aufferre motum nature; set hic est motus naturalis, scilicet odire inimicum; unde quelibet res aduersatur suo contrario, sicut ouis fugit lupum, etiam in carentibus cognitione, quia ignis persequitur aquam. Ergo, quare dicit Dominus: dili[gite] inimi[cos]?
Set sciendum quod, sicut Crisostomus dicit, duplex est amor et duplex odium, scilicet carnis et rationis. Dominus istud preceptum non dedit carni set rationi. Quando igitur sentis oriri in te motum odii et ideo compescis illum ad hoc quod non noceas, tunc est odium carnis tantum.
Set nunquid etiam secundum rationem debemus diligere inimicos? Dicendum secundum Augustinum quod sic quantum ad naturam et non quantum ad culpam. Vnde, in quo aduersarius similis est, diligendus est, sicut etiam apparet in rebus naturalibus, quia album aduersatur nigro in quantum dissimile est, in quantum enim nigrum et non in quantum color. Vnde debemus destruere odium, idest debet nobis displicere hoc quod inimicus est et hoc destruere in eo.
Set iterum questio est: nunquid tenentur omnes ad hoc? Videtur quod non, quia Augustinus in Encheri[dion] dicit quod diligere inimicos perfectionis est et non est tante multitudinis quanta credit exaudiri in oratione cum dicit: dimitte nobis debi[ta nostra, sicut et nos dimisimus] etc.; ergo dimitit Deus debita alicui qui non diligit inimicum; set nulli dimittitur debitum nisi in caritate existenti; ergo diligere inimicum non est de neccessitate salutis.
Set sciendum, sicut idem dicit Augustinus, quod dupliciter loqui possumus de isto inimico, uno modo antequam ueniam petat, alio modo postquam petit; postquam autem ueniam petit, iam non inimicus set amicus reputandus est. Et Dominus non remittit nisi ueniam petenti; non ergo precipit quod dimittas nisi ueniam petenti; ergo, si non petit, remanebit in odio.
Dicendum quod diligere inimicum ueniam non petentem est quodam modo preceptum et alio consilium. Omnis enim amicitia fundatur super aliquam unionem; unio autem que est inter duos, quedam est comunis, quedam specialis; specialis est illius a quo multa bona recepi et cum quo familiaritatem habeo semper et huiusmodi, generalis, in quantum sumus conciues celestis Ierusalem. Et secundum hanc dilectionem non oportet quod in speciali affectu afferar ad quemlibet illius multitudinis, tamen debeo omnes uelle esse sicut me ipsum et omnes homines saluos fieri. Et secundum hoc non tenemur diligere inimicum speciali affectu, set tenemur non excludere eum a comuni dilectione; unde contra preceptum esset si desiderarem omnes saluos fieri preter inimicum. Quod autem speciali dilectione ferar in eum, hoc est perfectionis et consilium. Et hoc dicit Augustinus: sufficit non odire, idest ut non excludas generalem dilectionem.
Et sciendum quod diligere aliquem est bonum ei uelle. Est autem duplex bonum: uite eterne, et hoc intendit caritas quia teneor diligere proximum ad uitam eternam ut me ipsum, aliud temporale, et in hoc non teneor diligere proximum nisi in quantum ista ordinantur ad consequendam uitam eternam. Vnde salua caritate possum optare aliquod malum temporale proximo in quantum datur per hoc occasio benefaciendi et perueniendi ad uitam eternam. Vnde dicit Gregorius in Moralibus quod signum quod non diligis proximum est quando in eius ruina letaris; set possum letari in ruina temporalium in quantum ordinatur in bonum eiusdem uel aliorum, set multitudinis.
Set quia probatio dilectionis exhibitio est operis et Io. 3 dicitur: non diligamus uerbo neque [lingua, set opere et ueritate] etc., ideo Dominus subdit: benefacite hiis etc., Prou. 25: si esurit inimicus [tuus, ciba illum], si uideris asinum [odientis te iacere sub onere, non pertransibis set subleuabis cum eo]. Et hoc in aliquo casu est preceptum, in aliquo concilium: preceptum, in casu in quo teneris homini omni etiam inimico, etiam scilicet in extrema necessitate; consilium autem: si dares eleemosynam, non dico comunem, quia ab illa non debet excludi inimicus, set si specialem et non excludas inimicum ab ea, hoc consilium et perfectionis.
Orate pro perse[quentibus et calumpniantibus uos]. Posset enim dicere aliquis: non possum benefacere quia pauper; ideo dicit: orate pro per[sequentibus ]. Persecutores dicuntur qui manifeste persecuntur, calumpniatores, qui per fraudes uel circumuentiones nocent, Ys. lii: in Egyptum descendit populus meus [et Assur absque ulla causa calumpniatus est eum]. Et habemus exemplum quia Dominus orauit pro crucifissoribus, Luc. 23, et Stephanus, Act. Et est hoc preceptum in quantum non debet excludi a communi oratione Ecclesie, consilium autem si aliquam orationem specialem fiunt pro eo, quia hoc facere non teneris etiam pro omnibus animatis.
Set sunt grauiores questiones, quia inuenimus multos prophetas orare contra inimicos, Ps.: fiant filii eius orphani, Ie. [11]: uideam ultionem tuam ex eis, et multa talia inueniuntur. Et dicendum quod ista uerba non dicuntur affectu uindicte, set spiritu prophetie, non affectu optantis, set spiritu predicentis; unde, uideam ultionem, idest uidebo. Vel dicendum quod sancti gaudebunt cum uiderint uindictam; ita sancti, quod perfecti sunt in iustitia Dei, exoptant diuinam iustitiam adimpleri.
Alia questio est quod Io. v dicitur: si quis scit fratrem suum [peccare peccatum non ad mortem, petet] et post tamen: est peccatum ad mo[rtem: non pro illo dico ut roget] etc.; ergo, in fratribus sunt peccata ad mortem; ergo, si non debemus pro illis orare, multo minus pro persecutoribus. Et soluit Augustinus quod non omne peccatum mortale dicitur ad mortem, sel peccatum in Spiritum Sanctum quod proprie est inpenitentia finalis. Et hoc sufficiat ad presens quia de hoc habebitur in 12. Nec est credendum quod sit aliquod peccatum quod non possit ueniam consequi, quia nullum ita magnum quod illud Chayn: maior est iniquitas mea [quam ut ueniam merear] etc.. Set sicut Deus propter aliqua peccata procedentia deserit a gratia et propter homines cadunt in peccatis, unde et dicuntur indurati uel exceati. Ro.: tradidit illos Deus [in desideria cordis eorum, in immunditiam], ita, propter inmanitatem alicuius peccati. Deus non dat gratiam ut peniteat, et istud peccatum est cum homo cognoscit bonum et persequitur. Vnde non dicitur peccatum ad mortem quin aliqui peniteant, set quia quantum est de se non merentur ut apponatur gratia; unde quia graue est penitere et cum difficultate, ideo dicitur peccatum ad mortem. Et quia oratio non fit pro peccatoribus nisi ut conuertantur, ideo frustra fit pro talibus. Vnde quando Dominus dixit; Pater, ignosce illis etc., non orauit pro omnibus persecutoribus, set pro illis qui predestinati erant, Et ipse sciebat qui erant illi qui conuerti debebant; set quia nos nescimus predestinatos et qui sint in peccato ad mortem, ideo debemus pro omnibus orare.
Tertia questio est, et habetur in Glosa, quia uidetur quod non sit conueniens orare pro persecutoribus quia Apoc. dicitur: uindica sanguinem sanctorum etc.; ergo possumus petere uindictam et nos. Et soluitur dupliciter ab Augustino. Vna solutio, quia cum dicitur uindica san[guinem], potest intelligi dupliciter: de hominibus uel de rege iniquo; dicitur enim aliquis uindicare, uno modo quod destruatur nequitia illius qui per nequitiam te offendit, et ista est optima uindicta: sic Sthephanus uindicatus est de Paulo, uno modo quod inferatur pena, non quod ipsi uindictam appetant, set zelo iustitie. Vel uindi[ca] non est intelligendum quasi ipsi exoptent uindictam, set dicuntur clamare in quantum ipsa mors iniusta expetit a Deo ultionem, sicut dicitur Gen. 4: en sanguis fratris tui Abel [clamat ad me] etc.
Consequenter Dominus ponit rationes probantes. Et sunt due, una ex exemplo diuino, alia ex fine.
Quantum ad primum dicit: ut sitis [filii patris uestri]. Set hic uidetur nichil esse dictum: homo enim fit filius Dei per gratiam, ergo non est ex operibus; Dominus autem uidetur innuere quod homo debet bene agere ut gratiam acquirat. Set sciendum quod ista filiatio non est naturalis, set similitudinis, Ro. 8: quos presciuit et prede[stinauit conformes fieri imaginis Filii eius]; unde, quanto aliquis crescit in diuina similitudine, tanto in diuina filiatione. Inceptio diuine similitudinis est a fide; nullus autem credit nisi uolens, unde ibi operatur libertas arbitrii, Io. 1: dedit eis [potestatem] filios Dei [fieri, his qui credunt in nomine eius]; crescit autem similitudo ista ex caritate, amplius crescit per opera, maxime autem quando adipiscetur gloriam, Sap. v: ecce quomodo computati sunt [inter filios Dei], tunc Io. 3: uidebimus eum [sicuti est]. Vt sitis ergo filii: per ymitationem operum in spe, in re autem per gloriam in uita eterna.
Qui est in celis, quia presidet celum corporalibus et spiritualibus.
Qui solem. Hoc potest intelligi de sole et pluuia materiali ad litteram. Et nota secundum hoc duo. Quia si ipse dat bona que creauit, quare tu non dabis? Qui dispensas super bonos, idest amicos, et malos, idest inimicos; et dicit super bonos et ma[los], quia aliter dat bonis et aliter malis: bonis enim cedit in utilitatem, quia nec exaltantur prosperis nec deiciuntur aduersis, malis in detrimentum. Aliud nota quod bona temporalia non sunt affectanda, nec mala temporalia timenda, ex quo bonis aliquando mala et malis multotiens bona dantur.
Vel qui solem potest exponi de sole spirituali et pluuia spirituali. Sed obicitur Sap. v: sol intelligenti[e non est ortus nobis] et Ys. v: [nubibus] mandabo [ne pluant super eam imbrem]. Set dicendum quod bonis et malis dat ista quantum ad sufficientiam, set quantum ad efficaciam solum bonis, sicut doctrina Christi bonis esi efficax, malis non. Vel per ista duo intelligitur baptismus, et in sole feruor Spiritus Sancti, in pluuia aqua.
Si enim. Hic ponitur secunda ratio. Duo dixerat: diligite inimicos etc, et benefacite etc. Et hec non meritoria sunt nisi ex caritate, unde: si enim dili[gatis]. Suple rationem: nulla enim dilectio est meritoria nisi ex caritate que est qua diligitur aliquis propter Deum. Ergo, principaliter diligendus est Deus et omnes homines propter Deum.
Nonne et publi[cani]. Puplicani dicebantur quod preerant puplicis tributis, et dicuntur instituti a Publio romano consule, et reputabantur isti sicut modo usurarii propter fraudes quas faciebant, Eccli. 26: difficile exiit negotians a ne[gligentia].
Et si salu[taueritis] etc. nonne eth[n]i[ci] qui sunt sine caritate gentiles; ethnos enim grece, gens dicitur latine.
Consequenter Dominus totum quod in hoc capitulo dixerat concludit: estote ergo [uos perfecti sicut et pater uester], Gn. 17: ambula coram me [et esto perfectus], Heb. 6: intermittentes inchoationis [Christi sermonem, ad perfectionem feramur]. Set questio est utrum hoc si preceptum uel consilium; si preceptum: ergo omnes tenemur ad perfectionem; si consilium: cum omnes sint filii, omnes debent ymitari Patrem.
Set dicendum quod sicut natura distincta est, triplex est perfectio, scilicet simpliciter, secundum naturam et secundum tempus. Prima: solus Deus perfectus; secundum naturam: quando aliquis habet ea que natura sua requirit; secundum tempus: sicut puer dicitur perfectus. Loquendo ergo de perfecta dilectione, tunc similiter perfectio: Deus diligitur quantum diligendus est, et hoc est in solo Deo; nulla enim creatura potest diligere quantum diligendus est; diligitur enim ex sua bonitate que infinita est. Et ideo dicendum quod li sicut inportat similitudinem ymitationis.
Est autem alia perfectio dilectionis possibilis creature, ut scilicet Deum diligat secundum totalitatem suam. Et est triplex gradus istius perfectionis. Et unus non est possibilis in uita ista, alie due possibiles. Ad unum horum omnes tenentur, quia ista totalitas potest referri ad actum, et sic est perfectio patrie; in uita enim ista propter multas occupationes non est possibilis ista perfectio.
Est etiam totalitas in uia que est intentionis, ut scilicet habeas Deum in omnibus tuis tanquam finem ultimum nichil cogitato contra eum. Et hoc est preceptum; omnes enim tenentur se et sua ordinare in Deum.
Alia est perfectio media. Et ista est religiosorum. Quanto enim magis eximitur homo ab actibus mundi, tanto magis cogitat de Deo in actu et plus ascedit ad similitudinem eorum qui sunt in patria. Et propterea apostoli uoluerunt esse pauperes, non propter paupertatem, set ut facilius contemplationi uacarent. Et ideo est uirginitas uel continentia de perfectione consilii; que nupte cogitant que mundi sunt et ideo non ita feruntur in Dei contemplatione.
Patet ergo quod alia est dilectio que est perfectio simpliciter, alia que possibilis creature, alia media sicut dictum est.

Caput 6
Lectio 1
Reportatio Petri de Andria
6—1
Mt 6:1-4
1 προσέχετε [δὲ] τὴν δικαιοσύνην ὑμῶν μὴ ποιεῖν ἔμπροσθεν τῶν ἀνθρώπων πρὸς τὸ θεαθῆναι αὐτοῖς: εἰ δὲ μή γε, μισθὸν οὐκ ἔχετε παρὰ τῷ πατρὶ ὑμῶν τῷ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς. 2 ὅταν οὖν ποιῇς ἐλεημοσύνην, μὴ σαλπίσῃς ἔμπροσθέν σου, ὥσπερ οἱ ὑποκριταὶ ποιοῦσιν ἐν ταῖς συναγωγαῖς καὶ ἐν ταῖς ῥύμαις, ὅπως δοξασθῶσιν ὑπὸ τῶν ἀνθρώπων: ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀπέχουσιν τὸν μισθὸν αὐτῶν. 3 σοῦ δὲ ποιοῦντος ἐλεημοσύνην μὴ γνώτω ἡ ἀριστερά σου τί ποιεῖ ἡ δεξιά σου, 4 ὅπως ᾖ σου ἡ ἐλεημοσύνη ἐν τῷ κρυπτῷ: καὶ ὁ πατήρ σου ὁ βλέπων ἐν τῷ κρυπτῷ ἀποδώσει σοι.
1. Take heed that you do not your justice before men, to be seen by them: otherwise you shall not have a reward of your Father who is in heaven. 2. Therefore when thou dost an alms-deed, sound not a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may be honoured by men. Amen I say to you, they have received their reward. 3. But when thou dost alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doth. 4. That thy alms may be in secret, and thy Father who seeth in secret will repay thee.
Attendite ne iustitiam. Supra Dominus adimpleuit legem quantum ad precepta, nunc incipit adimplere quantum ad promissa. In ueteri enim lege promittebantur temporalia, sicut dicit Augustinus, que erant maxima duo desiderabilia, scilicet gloria mundana et affluentia diuitiarum, Deut. 28: si audieris uocem Domini [Dei tui... faciet te Dominus Deus tuus excelsiorem cunctis gentibus, que uersantur in terra] etc.. Dominus autem docet in hoc capitulo non facere iustitie opera propter temporalia, neque propter gloriam mundi, neque propter affluentiam diuitiarum. Diuiditur autem hoc capitulum in partes duas. In prima parte docet non esse facienda opera iustitie propter gloriam mundi, secundo non esse facienda propter diuitias, ibi: nollite thesa[urizare]. Circa primum duo facit: primo ponit doctrinam in generali, secundo exequitur per partes, ibi: cum ergo facis. Circa primum duo facit: primo ponit documentum, secundo documenti rationem assignat, ibi: alioquin.
Dicit ergo attendite. Signanter dicit "attendite" propter tres rationes:
  • Primo quia ibi est opus attentione ubi aliquid occulte subintelligitur. Ita est de appetitu humanae laudis. Unde Chrysostomus: Occulte intrat et omnia quae intus sunt insensibiliter aufert. Psalmus (90,6): "A sagitta volante".
  • Secundo opus est attentione contra ea quibus difficile resistitur. Augustinus in [Ep. ad] Aurelium: Quas virtutes ad volendum habeat humanae gloriae cupido non facile noverunt nisi illi qui eis bellum indixerint quia etsi facile non quaeritur cum negatur, difficile tamen relinquitur cum offertur. Ioh. 3: propterea credere non poterant,
  • tertio quia quam opera sunt maiora, tam minus potest homo praecavere. Chrysostomus: [omne malum] vexat filios diaboli, hoc autem filios Dei, Zach. 3(1): Sathan sedebat a dextris, id est diabolus insidians bonis operibus.
Et non dixit attendite (6.1) nisi postquam removit iram animi et concupiscentiam et odium. Animus enim subiectus passionibus non potest attendere quid in corde geratur, Prov. 4: "Omni custodia serva" et post "oculi videant recta".
"Ne iustitiam", id est opus iustitiae. Iustitia quandoque sonat in vicium, quandoque scilicet praesumitur ex propriis viribus, Rom. 10: "Ignorantes Dei iustitiam" etc., aliquando sonat in virtutem sicut hic "ne iustitiam", quae scilicet a nobis exigitur. Dixerat enim dominus: "Nisi abundaverit" etc., et determinat quomodo poterat observari, et si totum referretur ad laudem hominum, non valeret, et ideo necessaria est recta intentio et hoc est "ne iustitia" etc.
Sed quaerit Chrysostomus: Quid si traham pauperem in partem? Dicendum quod si gloriam habeat in corde et ad gloriam habeat intentionem non valet, et ideo Gregorius dicit: Ita opus fiat in publico ut intentio maneat in occulto et hoc est "ne videamini". Sed numquid semper quaerimus gloriam quando volumus videri ab hominibus? Augustinus dicit quod dupliciter aliquid quaeritur, uno modo ut finis ultimus, alio ut necessarium ad finem. Illud autem proprie quaerimus quod volumus ut finem ultimum, aliud autem non proprie quaerimus quod volumus ut necessarium ad finem sicut aliquis quaerit navem [ut] vadat in patriam. Hic non proprie quaerit navem, sed patriam. Unde si ergo vis videri ab hominibus ut des eis exemplum et propter gloriam Dei, non prohiberis quia supra dixit: "Sic luceat lux vestra" etc. Prohibetur autem ne intentio feratur sicut in principalem finem et hoc est "ut videamini ab eis" tantum, scilicet sicut etiam placere hominibus aliquando vituperatur: Gal.: "Si adhuc hominibus placerem", Aliqando laudatur: Cor. 10.
Consequenter assignat rationem sui documenti, unde alioquin mercedem. Nullus meretur aliquid apud aliquem cui nihil dat. Unde qui facit aliquid propter homines et non propter Deum, dicitur nihil dare. Chrysostomus: Quae sapientia elemosynam dare et mercedem Dei perdere. De hac mercede loquitur de qua Gen. 15: "Ego Deus merces" et supra "merces vestra copiosa est?" etc.

Lectio 2
Reportatio Petri de Andria

To Reportatio Leodegarii Bissuntini
6— 2
Mt 6:5-8
5 καὶ ὅταν προσεύχησθε, οὐκ ἔσεσθε ὡς οἱ ὑποκριταί: ὅτι φιλοῦσιν ἐν ταῖς συναγωγαῖς καὶ ἐν ταῖς γωνίαις τῶν πλατειῶν ἑστῶτες προσεύχεσθαι, ὅπως φανῶσιν τοῖς ἀνθρώποις: ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀπέχουσιν τὸν μισθὸν αὐτῶν. 6 σὺ δὲ ὅταν προσεύχῃ, εἴσελθε εἰς τὸ ταμεῖόν σου καὶ κλείσας τὴν θύραν σου πρόσευξαι τῷ πατρί σου τῷ ἐν τῷ κρυπτῷ: καὶ ὁ πατήρ σου ὁ βλέπων ἐν τῷ κρυπτῷ ἀποδώσει σοι. 7 προσευχόμενοι δὲ μὴ βατταλογήσητε ὥσπερ οἱ ἐθνικοί, δοκοῦσιν γὰρ ὅτι ἐν τῇ πολυλογίᾳ αὐτῶν εἰσακουσθήσονται. 8 μὴ οὖν ὁμοιωθῆτε αὐτοῖς, οἶδεν γὰρ ὁ πατὴρ ὑμῶν ὧν χρείαν ἔχετε πρὸ τοῦ ὑμᾶς αἰτῆσαι αὐτόν.
5. And when ye pray, you shall not be as the hypocrites, that love to stand and pray in the synagogues and corners of the streets, that they may be seen by men: Amen I say to you, they have received their reward. 6. But thou when thou shalt pray, enter into thy chamber, and having shut the door, pray to thy Father in secret, and thy father who seeth in secret will repay thee. 7. And when you are praying, speak not much, as the heathens. For they think that in their much speaking they may be heard. 8. Be not you therefore like to them for your Father knoweth what is needful for you, before you ask him.
Consequenter exequitur per partes cum dicit: Cum ergo facis et hoc quantum ad elemosynam, orationem et ieiunium. Secundum ibi: Cum oratis, tertium cum ieiunatis. Et ponit ista tria quia secundum Chrysostomum dominus voluit instruere contra illa quibus sint temptatus, scilicet de gula, de avaritia et de inani gloria, sicut patet supra 4, et est contra gulam ieiunium, contra avaritiam elemosyna, contra inanem gloriam oratio. Nihil enim eam vincere potest cum etiam de bonis operibus amplietur.
Considerandum quod ista tria sunt partes iustitiae dupliciter. Satisfactoriae enim iustitiae est ut qui peccat satisfaciat. Peccatum autem est triplex. Vel contra Deum, vel conra se ipsum, vel contra proximum. Contra Deum peccatur per superbiam et huic opponitur humilitas orationis. Eccli. (Sir 35,21): "Oratio humiliantis se". Contra proximum per avaritiam et ideo satisfacit per elemosynam. Contra se per carnis concupiscentiam et ideo satisfacit per ieiunium. Hieronymus: Oratione sanantur pestes cunctae mentis, ieiunio pestis corporis.
Item ista tria sunt partes iustitiae quae est religionis proprius actus. Religiosi enim debent offerre sacrificium Deo. Est autem triplex bonum: Exterius, scilicet res, interius corpus et anima. Per elemosynam ergo offerunt exteriora bona. Hebr. ultimo (13,16): "Beneficientiae et communionis". Per ieiunium corpora propria. Rom. 12: "Exhibeatis corpora vestra hostiam". Per orationem animam, est enim oratio "assensus mentis in Deum", Psalmus (141,2): "Dirigatur oratio mea".
Circa elemosynam ergo quae prima est duo facit. Primo excludit modum indebitum, secundo ponit debitum ibi: Te autem. Circa primum excludit modum indebitum, secundo assignat rationem ibi: Amen dico. Modum indebitum excludit ex tribus: Ex signo, loco et fine. Quantum ad primum dicit: Cum ergo facies. Continuatio: Attendite ne iustitiam etc. Unde cum elemosyna sit pars iustitiae cum facis elemosynam noli etc. Consuetudo erat apud Iudaeos quod quando faciebant publicas elemosynas clangebant tubis ad hoc quod pauperes congregarentur. Istud ergo quod ex quadam necessitate inductum fuit, malitia hominum pervertit ad gloriam inanem. Et ideo dominus prohibet et secundum Chrysostomumxv idem est quasi tuba clangens quando de quocumque13 bono appetis apparere etiam si in occulto fiat. Is. 24 (40,9): "Exalta in fortitudine vocem".
Sicut hypocritae. Hic prirno ponitur de hypocritis. Unde videndum quid est hoc nomen "hypocrita" proprie. Derivatum est et productum a repraesentatione quae fiebat in ludis theatralibus ubi inducebant homines habentes facies larvatas ad repraesentandum homines quibus gesta repraesentabant. Unde dicebatur "hypocrita" ab "hypo" quod est "sub" et "crisio" quod est "iudicium". Alius enim erat et alius videbatur et talis est hypocrita qui exterius habet speciem sanctitatis et interius non implet quae ostendit. Gregorius dicit quod non si aliquando cadit propter infinnitatem, illi enim proprie sunt hypocritae qui tantum ut videantur speciem sanctitatis habent.
Consequenter excludit quantum ad locum et hoc etiam reprehenditur si simulatorie fiat, non autem si propter exemplum. In synagogis sicut modo in ecclesia, et in angulis sicut in loco publico. Ut videantur et hoc est quod supra dixit coram ut honorificentur etc. Io. 5: "Quomodo potestis" etc.
Consequenter assignat rationem: Amen dico vobis mercedem. Illud est enim merces uniuscuiusque propter quid operatur, Ioh. (Mat. 20:13) "Nonne ex denario convenisti" etc.
Consequenter assignat modum debitum et convenientem et postea assignat rationem ibi: ut sit elemosyna. Dicit ergo: Te autem faciente. Istud multipliciter exponitur. Chrysostomus enim dicit quod in libro Canonum apostolorum sic exponitur quod per sinistram intelligitur populus infidelis, per dexteram fidelis. Unde vult quod nihil fiat coram infidelibus.
Contra hoc Augustinus: Quia cum facit elemosynam propter gloriam et tunc etiam neque a fidelibus debet videri, vel propter utilitatem, et tunc debet fieri coram infidelibus: [hoc] "proprie [utilis] est" ut videntes etc. Matt.
Alii autem exponunt quod per sinistram intelligit uxorem quae solet impedire aliquando virum ab operibus misericordiae. Unde vult quod etiam uxor nescia et similiter intelligendum de quocumque alio. Et similiter obicit contra hoc Augustinus quia hoc praeceptum datur etiam, nullus ergo deberet dicere nesciat dextera tua etc. Unde Augustinus aliter exponit et etiam Chrysostomus et quasi in idem reducitur: Dicunt quod in scriptura per sinistram intelliguntur temporalia bona, per dexteram spiritualia, Prov. 4: "In dextera illius longitudo" etc. Unde voluit dominus quod non fieret per gloriam terrenam. Vel aliter et quasi in idem redit, per dexteram aliquando intelliguntur opera virtutis, per sinistram peccata quasi quando fit opus virtutis non fiat cum aliquo peccato. Chrysostomus tamen ponit litteralem et dicit quod dominus loquitur per excessum sicut si aliquis dicat si posset fieri nollet quod hoc sciret pes meus.
Ponitur ratio ut sit elemosyna in abscondito et in conscientia tua quae occulta est, Cor. 3: "Quae sunt hominis nemo" et iterum Cor.: "Gloria nostra haec est, testimonium". Sic enim accipitur illud Rom. 2(28): "Non enim qui in manifesto Iudaeus" etc.
Et pater tuus reddet tibi: Hebr. 4(13): "Omnia nuda et aperta" etc. Jer.: "Pravum est cor hominis." Augustinus dicit quod in quibusdam exemplaribus invenitur "reddet tibi palam" quia sicut diabolus conatur aperire et publicare quae in conscientia sunt ut scandalum faciat, ita Deus ad maiorem utilitatem et etiam ad exemplum malorum adducet bona. Unde etiam sancti multi non potuerunt latere. Psalmus: "Edducet quasi lumen iustitiam" quam scilicet in occulto tenebas. Hoc tarnen non videtur esse de textu.
Et cum oratis. Supra dominus ostendit de opere elemosynae quod non est faciendum per humanam gloriam, hic ostendit idem de oratione et circa hoc duo facit. Primo docet modum orandi, secundo docet quid sit in oratione petendum, [ibi:] Sic ergo orabitis.
Circa primum duo facit, primo docet vitare in oratione vanitates hypocritarum, secundo vanitatem gentilium ibi: Orantes. Circa primum duo facit, primo excludit modum inconvenientem orandi, secundo assignat convenientem ibi: Tu autem. Excludit modum orandi exemplo hypocritarum. Unde primo excludit exemplum istud, secundo exponit, tertio rationem assignat. Secundum ibi: Qui amant, tertium: Amen dico.
Satis convenienter post elemosynam agit hic [de] oratione quia sicut Eccli. 18, "ante orationem" etc. Per bona enim opera inter quae prima est elemosyna anima praeparatur ad orationem, Treni 3(41): "Levemus corda nostra" etc., quod fit quando bona opera consonant.
Et notandum quod dominus non inducit ad orandum sed docet modum orandi et hoc est cum oratis non eritis sicut hypocritae qui amant in synagogis et in angulis. Per 'hypocritae' intelliguntur simulatores qui faciunt totum propter laudem humanam et quamvis hoc vicium sit in omni opere vitandum, tamen in oratione specialiter secundum Chrysostomum, quia oratio est quoddam sacrificium quod offerimus Deo ex intimis cordis. Psalmus: "dirigatur oratio" etc. Sacrificium non licet offerri nisi Deo, offertur autem hominibus si fiat propter humanam gloriam. Unde tales sunt idolatrae. Describitur autem hypocrita quantum ad affectandum locum supra et infra totum. Quantum ad primum dicit qui amant. Contingit enim aliquando fieri aliqua titillatio in viris sanctis inanis gloriae, sed non sunt propter hoc in numero hvpocritarum nisi ex proposito hoc agant, Ier. 2: "In desiderio animae suae."
Et nota duo genera hypocritarum qui manifeste gloriam humanam quaerunt, scilicet qui in locis publicis orant. Unde dicit In synagogis ubi erat congregatio populorum. Psalmus: "Synagoga". Aliqui orant in locis privatis et ex ipsa vitatione gloriae gloriam quaerunt. Volunt enim videri quaerere occultum cum tamen ament publicum, et hoc est in synagogis et angulis. Si enim occultum in rei veritate quaererent, non angulum platearum, sed camerae locum quaererent. Vel possumus dicere quod quaerunt apertum publicum. Sed duplex est publicum, quoddam deputatum31 orationi, scilicet "synagoga", aliud non deputatum orationi, scilicet "angulum", et est proprie angulus ubi duae lineae sese intersecant. Unde "anguli platearum" enim duae plateae se intersecant ita quod fit ibi quadrivium et hoc est valde publicum nec orationi deputatatum, Treni 4: "Dispersi sunt lapides".
Notandum etiam quod unum de rebus facientibus ad orationem est humilitas, Iudith 9: Humilium et mansuetorum, Psalmus: "Respexisti humilitatem meam", sed isti stant quasi superbi. Sed videtur quod in nullo loco sit prohibitum orare ante Tim. 2: "Volo omnes viri etc.". Psalmus: "in ecclesiis benedicite". Sed dicendum quod non est peccatum nisi sub hac intentione ut videantur ab hominibus et sicut dicit Chrysostomus etsi velle videri ab hominibus noceat in aliis operibus, tamen specialiter in oratione quia nocet et quantum ad finem et quantum ad substantiam quia etsi fiat in bona intentione, vix potest homo tenere animum quin evagetur per diversa, multo magis ergo quando fit propter gloriam hominum et hoc est ut videantur. Numquid ergo non est orandum in loco publico?
Sciendum quod Deus intendit prohibere modum orandi per quem tollitur inanis gloria quae numquam quaeritur nisi de aliquo singulari quia quando sunt multi qui servant unum ibi non quaeritur gloria ab alio. Unde dominus tollit singularem modum orandi ut scilicet nullus oret in loco non deputando orationi nisi aliquis sit tantae auctoritatis quod etiam aliis ad orandum inducat. Unde secundum Chrysostomum hoc quod dicit in angulis referendum est ad omne illud per quod videris discretus esse ab aliis cum quibus conversaris.
Amen dico. Hic assequat rationem et dicit duo: merces et suam. Merces uniuscuiusque est per quam pascitur de opere suo. Unde quando nos facimus aliquid propter gloriam hominum, gloria hominum est merces nostra, cum tamen debemus expectare gloriam Dei veram, et hoc est [receperunt mercedem suam] ratione quia usurpaverunt, Gal. ultimo: "Quae seminaverit homo".
Tu autem. Hic ponit debitum modum, et primo ponit eum, secundo assignat rationem: Et pater. Dicit ergo: Tu cum orabis, id est orare disponeris. Intra in cubiculum. Hoc tripliciter exponitur. Intelligitur primo ad litteram de secreto camerae. Sed numquid contrarium faciunt qui ad ecclesiam vadunt? Sed dicendum quod loquitur de oratione privata quae non est facienda nisi in loco privato et hoc propter tria, primo quia concordat fidei quia tunc confiteris Deum ubique esse praesentem. Psalmus: "Domine ante te omne", Ieremias 23: "Caelum et terram". Secundo quia quamvis cum multis impeditur oratio quae in secreto quieta est, Osee 2: "Ducam eam in solitudinem". Tertio quia vitatur inanis gloria, Reg. 14: "Ingressus".
Tamen dicendum ut oraret coram domino, solus, scilicet et clauso ad litteram, ut etiam excludas possibilitatem adeundi. Secundo per cubiculum potest intelligi interius secretum cordis. Psalmus: "Quae dicitis in cordibus". "Cluso ostio" Eccles. (Sir) 28: "Ori tuo facito ostia" quasi dicat: Ora silenter, et hoc propter tria, primo quia attestantur fidei quia tunc confiteris quod Deus cogitationes cordium sciat. 1 Reg. 16: "Homo videt ea quae parent". Secundo quia non debet quod alii sciant petitiones tuas, Isaia 4: "Secretum meum mihi". Tertio quia si voce loqueris alios impedires, Reg. 6: "Malleus et securis non sunt auditae" etc.
Sed quid dicemus de oratione publica? Dicendum quod dominus loquitur de privata in qua quaeritur utilitas unius. Sed etiam in publica quaeritur utilitas multitudinis, et quia per huiusmodi clamores ad devotionem excitantur aliqui, ideo instituti sunt cantus. Unde Augustinus dicit in libro de Confessionibus quod beatus Athanasius ne nimis delectaretur in cantu volebat quod omnia legerentur submisse. Sed quia beatus Augustinus antequam converteretur multum profuerunt sibi huiusmodi cantus, non ausus est contradicere sed approbat.
Sed quaestio utrum aliquis in loco privato orans debeat dicere verba vel non. Sed distinguendum est hic quia aliquando verba proveniunt ex intentione, aliquando ex impulsione cordis quia sicut dicitur Iob: "Conceptum sermonem". Unde ex ipso irnpetu spiritus aliqui proferuntur ad aliqua verba dicenda, et hoc est omnis47 effectus.
Verba autem dupliciter possunt considerari: Vel ut debita et tunc reddenda. Sic sunt horae. Psalmus: "Voce mea ad dominum". Vel ut utilia ad orandum et tunc distinguendum de principio et fine quia melior est finis orationis etc. ecclesiae. Si enim in principio orationis affectus excitatur per verba ad devote orandum, tunc utile est proferre verba, quando autem non excitatur affectus, tunc non sunt proferenda verba et operi(endus) [affectus] quia sicut calidum evaporando diminuitur, ita affectus evacuatur per verba sicut etiam patet de dolore expresso aliis. Psalmus: "Concaluit cor meum intra me". Ieremias (20,9): "Dixi non loquar in nomine domini et factus est ignis" etc. Hoc sic exponit Augustinus: Sed clauso ostio tertio modo sic exponit Augustinus quod per "cubiculum" intelligitur cor, per "ostium" exteriores sensus et etiam imaginatio quasi quia talis debet intrare cor suum et claudere sensus et imaginationem ut nihil interius intret nisi quod pertinet ad orationem. Et Cyprianus assignat duas rationes. Primo quia vituperabile est quod non attendis quae dicis cum loqueris cum rege aliquo. Secundo quia Deus quomodo intelligit te si tu te ipsum non intelligis. Hoc est ostium de quo Apoc. 2: "Ecce [ego] sto ad ostium et pulso".
Et pater tuus hic assignat rationem. Nullus enim orat nisi ilium quem videt. Deus autem "omnia nuda et aperta" etc. Hebr. 4. In abscondito vel cordis vel loci reddet tibi.
Orantes etc. Hic docet vitare secundum vicium, scilicet multiloquium gentilium, et circa hoc tria facit. Primo docet vitare exemplum gentilium, secundo ponit intentionem, tertio assignat rationem. Secundum ibi: Putant enim. Tertium ibi: Nolite. Dicit ergo Orantes, et nota quod non dicit "nolite multum orare" quia hoc est contra illud Rom. 12: "Orationi instantes" et Luc. 22(43): "Factus in agonia", 26 (Luc. 6,12): Orabat "pernoctans in oratione", sed dicit nolite. Augustinus in libro De orando: Non sit multa locutio sed sit multa precatio si non desit fervens intentio. Sed multum et paucum, magnum et parvum relativa sunt, multum enim potest dici dupliciter, in comparatione ad orationem quae est "assensus ad Deum", vel multum loquuntur quando verba excedunt orationem et hoc potest esse dupliciter, si scilicet verba sunt de illicitis et haec sunt nociva, et quando non adest devotio, tunc magis homo redditur taediosus et orare redditur odiosum, et ideo dicit Augustinus quod monachi in Aegypto habebant crebras orationes sed breves. Videbant enim quod devotio erat oranti necessaria quae evacuabatur per multitudinem verborum, et ideo in ecclesia statutum est quod diversis horis diversa dicantur, Eccle. 5: "Ne temere quid loquaris". Augustinus: "Hoc negotium, scilicet orationis, plus gemitibus quam verbis" etc.
Sicut ethnici. Gentiles colebant daemonia pro diis. Psalmus: "Omnes dii gentium". In daemonibus scilicet considerandum, scilicet quod nesciunt futura vel occulta cordium nisi inquantum eis revelantur. Unde necessarium erat gentilibus quod totum diceretur per verba. Reg. 14: "Clamate" altius etc.
Item daemones habent affectum mutabilem. Unde per verba mutari possunt. Unde dicit Augustinus quod Plato dixit quod verbis mutabantur. Deus autem et omnia scit nec verbis flectitur. Mal. "Ego deus et non mutor". Numeri 23: "Non est Deus ut homo". Iob 14: "Non parcet ei et" verbis potentibus et ad deprecandum compositis.
Putant enim etc. Nolite ergo etc. et quare: scit enim etc. Psalmus: Dominus "ante te omne". Ergo si scit non debemus verba multiplicare. Sed dicetur: Deus scit quae nobis sunt necessaria. Quare ergo oramus? Et respondet Hieronymus quod non petimus verbis ut significemus, sed ut postulemus. Et iterum posset dici: Quare proferimus verba? Respondet Augustinus quod aliter est in oratione quam facimus homini et Deo quia in homine multum valent verba ad hoc quod flectemus eum, in Deo ad hoc ut cor nostrum ad eum levemus, et ideo dicit Augustinus quod cum semper sit habendus affectus ad Deum, tamen oportet aliquando verbis orare ut non deficiat. Et sicut dicit Chrysostomus, ex frequenti oratione provenit quod homo redditur Deo familiaris et Deus ei. Exo. 33: "Loquebatur Moyses" etc.
Item ex hoc provenit humilitas quia consideratur altitudo Dei et infirmitas propria, Gen. 14: "Loquar ad dominum meum".
Item homo ex hoc in actibus suis dirigitur et auxilium a Deo petit. Psalmus (121,1): "Levavi oculos meos in montes" etc. Col. 3(17): "Omne quodcumque facitis" etc.

Lectio 3
Reportatio Petri de Andria

To Reportatio Leodegarii Bissuntini
6—3
Mt 6:9-15
9 οὕτως οὖν προσεύχεσθε ὑμεῖς: πάτερ ἡμῶν ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς, ἁγιασθήτω τὸ ὄνομά σου, 10 ἐλθέτω ἡ βασιλεία σου, γενηθήτω τὸ θέλημά σου, ὡς ἐν οὐρανῷ καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς. 11 τὸν ἄρτον ἡμῶν τὸν ἐπιούσιον δὸς ἡμῖν σήμερον: 12 καὶ ἄφες ἡμῖν τὰ ὀφειλήματα ἡμῶν, ὡς καὶ ἡμεῖς ἀφήκαμεν τοῖς ὀφειλέταις ἡμῶν: 13 καὶ μὴ εἰσενέγκῃς ἡμᾶς εἰς πειρασμόν, ἀλλὰ ῥῦσαι ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ τοῦ πονηροῦ. 14 ἐὰν γὰρ ἀφῆτε τοῖς ἀνθρώποις τὰ παραπτώματα αὐτῶν, ἀφήσει καὶ ὑμῖν ὁ πατὴρ ὑμῶν ὁ οὐράνιος: 15 ἐὰν δὲ μὴ ἀφῆτε τοῖς ἀνθρώποις, οὐδὲ ὁ πατὴρ ὑμῶν ἀφήσει τὰ παραπτώματα ὑμῶν.
9. Thus therefore shall you pray: Our Father who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name. 10. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven. 11. Give us this day our supersubstantial bread. 12. And forgive us our debts, as we also forgive our debtors. 13. And lead us not into temptation. But deliver us from evil. Amen. 14. For if you will forgive men their offences, your heavenly Father will forgive you also your offences. 15. But if you will not forgive men, neither will your Father forgive you your offences.
Sic ergo orabitis. Supra dominus docuit modum orandi, scilicet ut vitemus et vanitatem hypocritarum et multiloquium gentilium; hic docet quid debeamus petere in oratione, et circa hoc duo facit: primo ponitur titulus orationis, secundo proponitur oratio. Continuat autem ad praecedentia sic: dixi: orantes nolite multum etc.; ergo, ut paucis loquebaris, sic orabitis.
Et nota quod non dicit dominus: hoc orabitis, sed: sic orabitis; non enim prohibet quin aliis verbis possimus orare sed docet modum orandi. Et sicut Augustinus in libro de oratione ad Probam: nullus orat sicut debet nisi petat aliquid eorum quae in oratione dominica continentur. Est autem conveniens ut istis verbis oremus quia, sicut dicit Cyprianus in libro de oratione dominicali, amica et familiaris est oratio dominum de suo rogare, et ponit exemplum quia solet esse apud advocatos qui ponunt verba in ore aliquorum quae dicere debeant in iudicio. Unde oratio ista securissima est, sicut a nostro advocato formata qui sapientissimus est, in quo sunt omnes thesauri, Col. II 3. Unde dicit Cyprianus: cum Christum habeamus advocatum apud patrem pro peccatis nostris, quando pro delictis nostris petimus advocati nostri verba promamus. I Ioh. II 1: advocatum habemus; ideo dicitur Hebr. IV 16: cum fiducia adeamus etc.; Iac. I 6: postulet autem in fide.
Et habet tria ista oratio: brevitatem, perfectionem et efficaciam. Brevitatem, propter duo: ut omnes de facili addiscerent, et parvi et magni, quia ipse est dominus omnium dives, Rom. X 12; secundo ut daret fiduciam de facili impetrandi. Perfecta etiam est, unde Is. X 23: verbum abbreviatum, et, sicut dicit Augustinus, quidquid in aliis orationibus contineri potest, totum continetur in ista; unde dicit quod si convenienter oramus et recte, quaelibet autem verba dicamus, nihil aliud dicimus quam quod in dominica oratione positum est; Deut. XXXII 4: Dei perfecta sunt opera. Efficax est, quia oratio, secundum Damascenum, est petitio decentium a Deo, Iac. IV 3: petitis et non accipitis. Scire autem quod sit petendum difficillimum est, sicut etiam quod sit desiderandum, Rom. VIII 26: nam quod oremus nescimus, ipse autem. Et quia hanc orationem Deus docuit, ideo efficacissima est, et ideo dicitur Luc. XI 1: domine, doce nos.
Dominus autem in ista oratione duo facit: primo ponit orationem, secundo orationis rationem assignat, ibi: si enim dimiseritis.
Sciendum autem quod in omni oratione, etiam rhetorum, ante petitionem captatur benevolentia. Unde sicut fit in oratione quae fit ad homines, similiter debet fieri in oratione quae fit ad Deum, sed alia et alia intentione, quia in homine captatur benevolentia in quantum flectimus animum eius, in Deo in quantum animum nostrum elevamus ad ipsum. Ponit ergo dominus duo ad captandum benevolentiam quae necessaria sunt oranti: necessarium est enim ut credat eum a quo petit et quod (iste) velit dare et possit; et ideo ponit: pater et qui es in caelis. Quod autem dicit pater ad quinque valet. Primo ad fidei instructionem: fides enim necessaria est oranti.
Tres autem errores fuerunt quibus excludebatur oratio: et duo omnino destruebant orationem, et tertius dabat plus quam debebat; et illi excluduntur per hoc quod dicit: pater noster. Quidam enim dixerunt Deum non habere curam de rebus humanis, Ez. IX 9: derelinquit Deus, unde secundum hoc frustra aliquid petitur a Deo. Alii dixerunt quod Deus habet providentiam, sed providentia illa imponit necessitatem rebus. Tertius error plus dabat, quia dixit quod Deus omnia disponit providentia sua, sed per orationem mutatur dispositio divina.
Isti autem errores excluduntur per hoc quod dicit: pater noster qui es in caelis, quia si pater, providentiam habet, Sap. XIV 3: tu autem pater. Item secundus (error) excluditur: pater enim dicitur ad filium et dominus ad servum; ergo in hoc quod dicimus pater, vocamus nos liberos. Numquam enim fere in sacra Scriptura invenitur quod Deus dicatur pater insensibilium creaturarum, licet aliter Iob XXXVIII 28: quis est pluviae pater?. Ergo pater dicitur ad filium et per hoc vocamus (nos) liberos: filius enim habet rationem libertatis; ergo non imponitur nobis necessitas.
Per hoc autem quod dicit in caelis, excluditur dispositio mutabilis. Valet autem oratio ad hoc ut credamus quod Deus ita disponit omnia secundum quod congruit naturis rerum: ex providentia enim est quod homo per actus suos consequatur finem suum; unde oratio nec mutat providentiam nec est extra providentiam, sed cadit sub ea. Primo ergo valet ad fidei instructionem. Secundo ad sublevationem spei: si enim pater est, vult dare, quia, sicut infra VII 11, si vos cum sitis mali et cetera. Tertio ad caritatem excitandam: naturale enim est quod pater diligat filium et e converso, Eph. V 1: estote imitatores, ideo per hoc provocamur ad imitationem: filius enim debet imitari patrem quantum potest, Ier. III 19: patrem vocabis me. Quarto provocamur ad humilitatem, Mal. I 6: si ego pater. Quinto per hoc affectus noster ordinatur ad proximum, Mal. II 10: nonne unus est pater omnium.
Sed quare non dicimus: pater mi? Duplex est ratio: primo quia hoc sibi voluit Christus reservare quasi sibi proprium, quia est filius per naturam, nos autem per adoptionem, quod est omnibus commune, Ioh. XX 17: ascendo ad patrem meum etc.; secundo quia, secundum Chrysostomum, dominus docet nos non facere singulares orationes sed communiter pro toto populo orare, quae quidem oratio magis est apud Deum accepta. Unde Chrysostomus: dulcior est ante Deum oratio, non quam transmittit necessitas, sed quam caritas et cetera. Iac. V 16: orate pro invicem et cetera.
Secundum (quod) pertinet ad captandum benevolentiam est: qui es in caelis. Quod dupliciter exponitur. Primo ad litteram, ut intelligamus caelos corporales; non quod sit ibi conclusus, quia Ier. XXIII 24: caelum etc., sed dicitur propter eminentiam ipsius creaturae secundum illud Is. ult. (LXVI 1): caelum mihi sedes. Item per hoc informantur illi qui non possunt elevari supra corporalia, et ideo dicit Augustinus quod ista est ratio quare adoramus in oriente quia ab oriente surgit caelum; et sicut caelum est supra corpus nostrum ita Deus supra spiritum; unde datur intelligi quod spiritus noster debet converti in ipsum Deum, sicut corpus nostrum convertitur ad ipsum caelum in orando. Dicit autem: qui es in caelis, ut relevetur intentio tua a terrenis, I Petr. I 4: in hereditatem immarcescibilem.
Vel per caelos intelliguntur sancti, secundum illud Is. I 2: audite caeli, Ps. (XXI 4): tu autem in sancto habitas etc.; et dicit hoc ad maiorem fiduciam impetrandi, quia non longe est a nobis, Ier. XIV 9: tu in nobis es, domine.
Sanctificetur. Hic ponuntur petitiones, et dicamus eas primo in generali, postea in speciali. In istis petitionibus debemus tria considerare; petitio enim deservit desiderio: illa enim petimus quae volumus habere; in oratione autem ista continetur totum quidquid desiderare possumus; secundo continetur ordo quo debemus desiderare; tertium est quia istae petitiones respondent et donis et beatitudinibus.
Sciendum autem quod naturaliter homo duo desiderat, scilicet consequi bonum et vitare malum. Quattuor autem bona ponuntur hic desideranda. Desiderium autem prius tendit in finem quam in his quae sunt ad finem; finis autem ultimus omnium Deus est; unde primum desiderabile debet esse honor Dei, I Cor. X 31: omnia in honorem Dei facite; et hoc petimus primo hic: sanctificetur nomen tuum. Inter ea autem quae pertinent ad nos, finis ultimus est vita aeterna; et hoc petimus cum dicimus: adveniat regnum. Tertium quod debemus petere est de his quae sunt ad finem, scilicet quod habeamus virtutem et merita bona, et hoc ibi: fiat voluntas; et quid petimus de virtutibus nihil aliud est nisi hoc. Ergo beatitudo nostra ordinatur ad Deum, virtutes ad beatitudinem. Sed necesse est habere subsidium sive temporale sive spirituale, sicut sacramenta Ecclesiae, et hoc petimus ibi: panem nostrum, exteriorem vel sacramentalem. In istis quattuor omne bonum continetur. Malum autem vitat homo in quantum est impeditivum boni. Primum autem bonum, scilicet honor divinus, non potest impediri, quia si fiat iustitia honoratur Deus, si malum, honoratur similiter in quantum illud punit, quamvis non honoretur quantum est in peccante. Peccatum autem impedit beatitudinem, et ideo hoc primo removet cum dicit: et dimitte. Bono virtutum contrariatur tentatio, et ideo petimus: et ne nos; defectus quicumque contra necessitatem vitae, et hoc est: sed libera. Patet ergo quod quidquid desideratur, totum continet dominica oratio.
Et sciendum quod dona spiritus sancti possunt istis petitionibus applicari, sed diversimode, quia ascendendo et descendendo: ascendendo, ut prima petitio applicetur timori qui facit paupertatem spiritus et facit quaerere honorem Dei, et ideo dicimus: sanctificetur; (descendendo ut dicamus quod ultimum donum, scilicet sapientia quae facit filios Dei, applicetur huic petitioni. Sed videndum est de petitione ista: sanctificetur).
Videtur autem esse incompetens: nomen enim Dei semper sanctum est. Et sciendum quod hoc multipliciter exponitur a sanctis; primo ab Augustino, et credo quod sit magis litteralis: sanctificetur, idest: nomen quod semper sanctum, sanctum appareat apud homines; et hoc est honorare Deum: ex hoc enim non accrescit gloria Deo, sed nobis cognitio ipsius, Eccli. XXXVI 4: sicut in conspectu nostro et cetera. Et satis convenienter post: pater noster qui es in caelis, dicit sanctificetur, quia nihil ita probat filios Dei: bonus enim filius manifestat honorem patris. Secundum Chrysostomum: sanctificetur, per nostra opera, quasi: fac nos ita vivere ut ex operibus nostris nomen tuum sanctum appareat, I Petr. III 15. Vel secundum Cyprianum: sanctificetur, idest: sanctifica nos in tuo nomine, Ioh. XVII 17: sanctifica eos in nomine, Is. VIII 14: et erit vobis.
Et sciendum quod primo sanctificetur intelligitur ut illi qui non sunt sancti fiant sancti: ista enim oratio fit pro toto genere humano; secundo sanctificetur, idest in sanctitate perseverant; tertio sanctificetur, ut si quid in sanctitate admixtum est, removeatur: quotidie enim indigemus sanctificatione propter quotidiana peccata.
Versiculus 10
Adveniat. Ista petitio potest respondere vel dono intellectus quod mundat cor, vel pietatis. Adveniat. Secundum Chrysostomum et Augustinum, regnum Dei est vita aeterna, et credo quod hoc sit litteralis expositio; petimus ergo adveniat, idest fac nos pervenire et participare aeternam beatitudinem, infra XXV 34: venite benedicti, Luc. XXII 29: ego dispono vobis.
Vel aliter, etiam secundum Augustinum: adveniat, Christus regnare incepit ex tunc ex quo mundum redemit, Ioh. (Matth. XXVIII 18): data est mihi potestas; adveniat ergo regnum tuum, idest consummatio regni tui. Et hoc erit quando inimicos suos ponet sub pedibus suis; unde adveniat, idest: domine, venias ad iudicium ut appareat gloria regni tui, Luc. XXI 28: his fieri incipientibus et cetera. Et desiderant sancti adventum Christi, quia tunc gloriam perfectam possidebunt, II Tim. IV 8: non solum autem mihi sed et his;
sed contrarium dicitur (Amos V 18): vae desiderantibus diem domini, quia tantum, secundum Hieronymum, securae conscientiae est iudicem non timere.
Vel adveniat, idest destruatur regnum peccati, et tu, domine, regna super nos: quando enim servimus iustitiae tunc Deus regnat, quando autem peccato, Diabolus; Rom. VI 12: non ergo regnet in vestro, I Reg. VIII 7: non te repulerunt.
Et nota quod satis iuste poterant petere adveniat regnum tuum, qui se filios comprobaverant dicendo: pater noster etc.: filiis enim debetur hereditas; sed regnum istud in caelis est, unde ire non potes nisi caelestis efficiaris. Et ideo consequenter subiungit: fiat voluntas, idest fac nos esse imitatores caelestium, I Cor. XV 49: sicut portavimus.
Et nota quod non dicit: fiat voluntas, quasi: Deus faciat voluntatem nostram, sed quasi: voluntas sua impleatur per nos, quae vult omnes homines salvos fieri, I Tim. II 4; I Thess. IV 3, Ps. (CXLII 10): doce me facere; in quo destruitur error Pelagii qui dicebat quod non indigebamus auxilio divino.
Sicut in caelo. Hoc ab Augustino multipliciter exponitur. Primo sic: sicut in caelo, idest sicut Angeli in caelo faciunt voluntatem tuam, ita nos in terra voluntatem tuam impleamus; de Angelis dicitur Ps. (CII 21): ministri eius qui facitis: in quo destruitur error Origenis qui posuit Angelum posse peccare.
Vel aliter: fiat voluntas sicut in caelo et in terra, idest sicut in Christo ita et in Ecclesia. Caelo enim terra fecundatur: unde et gentiles dicebant deos caelorum masculos, terrae feminas; Ioh. VI 38: descendi de caelo.
Vel per caelos intelliguntur sancti quorum conversatio in caelis est; qualis autem est proportio caeli ad terram, talis sanctorum ad peccatores; quasi: domine, converte peccatores ad faciendum voluntatem tuam.
Vel fiat etc.: sicut enim caelum comparatur in mundo ad terram, ita spiritus ad carnem in homine; spiritus quantum est de se facit voluntatem Dei, sed caro repugnat, Rom. VII 23: video aliam, Ps. (l 12): cor mundum. Omnes istae petitiones partim hic inchoantur, sed in futuro implebuntur.
Chrysostomus autem hoc, scilicet sicut in caelo, refert ad omnia praecedentia; unde: adveniat regnum, sicut in caelo et in terra, et sic de aliis. Item, secundum Chrysostomum, nota quod non dixit: sanctificemus, neque: sanctifices, sed medio modo; nec dixit: eamus ad regnum, sed: adveniat. Sic in omnibus medium tenuit, et hoc quia ad salutem nostram duo requiruntur: gratia Dei et liberum arbitrium; unde si dixisset: sanctifica, nullum locum dedisset libero arbitrio; si: faciamus, totum dedisset libero arbitrio, sed medie locutus est et hic: fiat voluntas et cetera.
Panem nostrum. Postquam docuit petere gloriam Dei, vitam aeternam et operationem virtutum quibus vitam aeternam meremur, hic docet petere omnia quae necessaria sunt ad praesentem vitam. Exponitur autem hoc: panem nostrum, quattuor modis: potest (enim) exponi de quadruplici pane. (Primo) de pane qui est Christus, Ioh. VI 35: ego sum panis etc., qui praecipue panis est secundum quod continetur sub sacramento altaris, Ioh. VI 52: panis quem ego dabo, et iterum (VI 56): caro mea vere est cibus.
Et dicit: nostrum, quia non est quorumlibet sed fidelium, Is. IX 5: parvulus enim datus est; ex hoc enim quod aliquis fit membrum Christi in Baptismo, potest participare istum panem: et ideo nullo modo debet dari infidelibus non baptizatis.
Supersubstantialem. Hieronymus dicit quod in Graeco est epiousion, et Symmachus transtulit: praecipuum vel egregium; antiqua autem translatio habet: quotidianum. Quod autem sit supersubstantialem, idest super omnes substantias, apparet Eph. I 20: constituens illum super omnes principatus et cetera. Quotidianum dicit, quia quotidie debet sumi, sed non ab unoquoque; unde dicitur in libro de ecclesiasticis dogmatibus: nec laudo nec vitupero hoc.
Sed debet quotidie sumi in Ecclesia; vel saltem a fidelibus spiritualiter sumatur quotidie ex fide. In Ecclesia autem Orientali non quotidie sumitur in Ecclesia, quia non quotidie celebratur Missa, immo solum in septimana. Sed quia Ecclesia sustinet, sufficit quod quotidie sumant spiritualiter et non sacramentaliter.
Da nobis. Si noster, quomodo dicit: da nobis? Cyprianus: da nobis, idest fac nos ita vivere ut istum panem ad utilitatem nostram sumere possimus; unde qui hoc petit, nihil aliud petit nisi perseverantiam in bono, ut scilicet nihil contrarium admisceatur sanctitati, I Cor. XI 29: qui enim indigne et cetera. Panem nostrum (da nobis hodie).
Hic obicit Augustinus quia ista oratio dicitur qualibet hora diei, etiam in completorio; numquid ergo tunc petimus quod det nobis sumere istum panem? Sed dicendum quod hodie dupliciter accipitur: quandoque enim significat determinatum diem, quandoque tota vita praesens; Hebr. III determinatum hodie tangit; unde: da ut in tota praesenti vita possimus istum panem participare.
Et ratione dicit: da nobis hodie, quia iste sacramentalis panis in hac vita tantum necessarius est: quando enim videbimus eum sicuti est, non indigebimus sacramentis et signis. Unde hic panis singularis et peculiaris tantum necessarius est in praesenti; et nunc quotidie specialiter sumimus, sed tunc continue. Secundo per panem intelligitur Deus, scilicet ipsa divinitas, Luc. XIV 15: beatus qui manducabit panem, Ps. (LXXVII 25): panem Angelorum manducavit. Da ergo panem supersubstantialem hodie, ut scilicet secundum modum praesentis vitae possimus eo frui. Tertio possunt intelligi Dei praecepta quae sunt panis sapientiae, Prov. IX 5: venite, comedite; hic enim comedit qui praecepta sapientiae custodit, Ioh. IV 34: meus cibus est. Haec divina praecepta nunc sunt panis, quia cum quadam difficultate teruntur considerando et operando, sed postea erunt potus quia sine difficultate reficient. Quarto intelligitur ad litteram panis corporalis. Dixerat enim dominus: fiat voluntas, et voluerat in impletione divinae voluntatis nos esse caelestes; sed memor fragilitatis nostrae, docet petere etiam temporalia quae necessaria sunt ad sustentationem vitae; unde non docet petere magnifica vel superflua, sed necessaria, I Tim. VI 8: habentes alimenta; ita petiit Iacob, Gen. XXVIII 20: si dederis mihi panem ad edendum.
Dicit autem nostrum, propter duo. Ut nemo sibi temporalia appropriet, secundum Chrysostomum: primo quia nullus debet comedere panem de rapina, sed de proprio labore; secundo quia bona temporalia quae dantur propter necessitatem ita debemus accipere ut aliis communicemus, Iob. XXXI 17: si comedi bucellam meam.
Et dicit Augustinus, in libro de orando ad Probam, quod ab eo quod excellit et principale est in omnibus particularibus, ad facultatem nostram significat totum: panis enim est magis necessarium homini, Eccli. XXIX 28: initium vitae hominis; et hoc est: supersubstantialem, quia principaliter pertinet ad necessaria.
Si autem dicis: quotidianum, tunc duplicem habet rationem, secundum Cyprianum. Primo, ut non quaeras temporalia in longinquum tempus, quia alias esses contrarius tibi ipsi: dixisti enim: adveniat regnum tuum; sed quamdiu sumus in corpore peregrinamur a domino, II Cor. V 6; unde dicendo: adveniat regnum tuum, et petendo longam vitam, contrarius (es) tibi ipsi. Vel quotidianum dicit contra prodigos qui superflue expendunt et non utuntur pane quotidiano qui sufficiat ad unius diei victus.
Sed si noster, quare dicit da nobis? Propter duo, secundum Chrysostomum. Primo quia temporalia bona dantur bonis et malis, sed aliter et aliter: quia bonis ad utilitatem, malis ad damnum quia male utuntur; unde malis non datur quia abutuntur, et hoc fit non a Deo sed a Diabolo. Et dicit quod simile est sicut si aliquis offerat panem sacerdoti ut sanctificet et postea repetat; posset dicere: da mihi panem quod meus est possessione, da sanctificationi.
Hodie dicit, quia noluit nos in longinquum tempus petere. Sed movet Augustinus quaestionem, quia dominus in sequentibus docet non habere sollicitudinem de temporalibus: unde nolite solliciti esse etc.; ergo videtur quod non debemus orare pro temporalibus. Et respondet quod de omni desiderabili licito possumus orare, quia desiderabilem a Deo exspectamus, et quae a Deo exspectamus petere possumus; et hoc non tantum in extrema necessitate sed etiam ad competentem sibi statum. Aliud autem est desiderare, aliud sollicitum esse de aliquo sicut de ultimo fine, quia hoc dominus prohibet sicut dicetur infra.
Sed iterum quaeritur de hoc: da nobis hodie, quia videtur quod non debeamus desiderare nisi ad unum diem; ergo omnes qui aliter desiderant peccant, et tunc peribit vita humana quia nullus congregabit messem in aestate ut comedat in hieme. Et dicendum quod dominus non intendit prohibere quod aliquis non cogitet de futuris, sed prohibet quod sollicitudinem non debeat sibi usurpare ante tempus: si nunc enim incumbit sollicitudo hanc debes exsequi, sed non illam quae incumbere posset in antea.
Et dimitte. Hic incipit ponere petitiones quae pertinent ad remotionem mali, et primo ponit illam per quam removetur malum praecipuum, scilicet culpae, unde: et dimitte nobis. Repugnans est quod homo qui vivit de rebus Dei vivat contra Deum. Debita sunt peccata, quia pro peccatis sumus Deo obligati debito: si enim ab alio accepisti aliquid iniuste, teneris ad restitutionem; et quia quando peccas usurpas quod Dei est, quia Dei est quod omnis voluntas reguletur secundum voluntatem Dei, ergo subtrahis quod Dei est et teneris ad restitutionem; solvis autem quando contra voluntatem tuam sustines aliquid secundum voluntatem Dei, infra XVIII 32: omne debitum dimisi. Dimitte ergo debita, idest peccata, Ps. (XXXVIII 14): remitte mihi ut refrigerer.
Ex hoc verbo duo haereses confutantur, scilicet Pelagii et Novatiani. Pelagius dixit quod aliqui perfecti homines in vita ista poterant vivere sine peccato et implere illud Eph. V 27: ut exhiberet gloriosam Ecclesiam; sed si hoc, tunc non diceremus dimitte, Prov. XXIV 16: septies cadit; I Ioh. I 8: si dixerimus quia peccata. Novatianus dixit quod homo qui peccat post Baptismum mortaliter non potest agere paenitentiam; sed si hoc, tunc frustra diceremus dimitte, Ioh. I 12: dedit eis potestatem filios Dei fieri, scilicet per adoptionem gratiae.
Sicut et nos dimittimus debitoribus. Debitores autem aliqui possunt esse dupliciter: vel quia peccaverunt contra nos, vel quia debent pecuniam; nos autem non monet quod ista secunda debita dimittamus, sed peccata quaecumque, etiam in ablatione bonorum temporalium: indignum enim esset petere veniam a Deo et non dare conservo, Eccli. XXVIII 3: homini conservat, (Eccli. XXIX 2): et iterum dimitte proximo et cetera.
Sed quid dicendum de illis qui nolunt dimittere et tamen dicunt pater noster? Videtur quod numquam deberent dicere, quia mentiuntur; unde dicitur quod quidam subtrahebant istam clausulam: sicut et nos. Sed hoc improbatur a Chrysostomo dupliciter: primo quia non servat formam Ecclesiae in orando, secundo quia oratio non est accepta Deo cum id quod Christus dictavit non servat. Unde dicendum quod non peccat dicendo pater noster, quantumcumque sit in rancore et gravi peccato, quia tales deberent facere quidquid boni possunt, et eleemosynas, et orationes et huiusmodi quae sunt dispositiva ad gratiae recuperationem; nec mentitur, quia ista oratio non funditur in propria persona sed totius Ecclesiae, et constat quod Ecclesia dimittit debita omnibus qui sunt in Ecclesia; talis autem amittit fructum quia illi soli consequuntur fructum qui dimittunt.
Sed videtur quod non solum consequuntur fructum illi qui dimittunt offensas. Sed sciendum quod Augustinus sic solvit quantum ad praesens pertinet, quia de dilectione inimicorum dictum est supra quia Deus eo tenore vult nos dimittere offensas quo tenore dimittit ipse nobis culpas: non autem dimittit nisi rogantibus; et ideo quicumque est ita dispositus quod paratus est dare veniam petenti, hic non amittit fructum dummodo in generali non habeat odio quemcumque, sicut supra dictum est.
Et ne nos. Hic aliam petitionem ponit. Alia littera: et ne inferas; et alia: et ne nos sinas, et haec est expositio illius: Deus enim neminem tentat quamvis tentari permittat. Et non dicit: ne nos permittas tentari, quia tentatio utilis est et tentatur ut sibi et aliis innotescat qui notus est Deo, Eccli. XXXIV 9: qui non est tentatus; sed dicit: et ne nos, idest non permittas succumbere, sicut si diceret aliquis: volo igne calefieri sed non cremari, I Cor. X 13: fidelis Deus qui non patietur.
In ista narratione confutatur error Pelagii quantum ad duo: dixit enim quod homo poterat persistere per liberum arbitrium absque Dei auxilio, quod nihil aliud est nisi tentationi non succumbere; item dixit quod ad Deum non pertinet immutare hominum voluntates; sed si hoc, non diceret: et ne nos inducas, quod idem est quod: fac nos non consentire; ergo in potestate sua est mutare voluntatem et non mutare, Phil. II 13: Deus est qui operatur in vobis.
Sed libera. Haec est ultima petitio: libera a malo praeterito, praesenti et futuro, culpae et poenae, et ab omni malo. Augustinus: quilibet Christianus in quacumque tribulatione in haec verba lacrimas fundit et gemitus facit, Ps. (LVIII 2): eripe me de inimicis; Is. LI 12: quis tu ut timeas.
Amen, idest fiat. Hoc nullus voluit interpretari propter reverentiam, quia dominus frequenter utebatur eo. In hoc datur securitas impetrandi, dummodo serventur quae dicta sunt.
Sciendum autem quod in Hebraeo adduntur tria verba quae Chrysostomus exponit: primum est: quoniam tuum est regnum, postea: et virtus et gloria. Amen; et videntur respondere tribus praemissis: tuum est regnum, ad illud: adveniat regnum tuum; virtus, ad fiat voluntas; gloria, ad pater noster et ad omnia alia quae sunt ad honorem Dei. Vel aliter, quasi: alia ista facere potes quia tu es rex, et ideo nullus potest; tua est virtus, et ideo potes regnum dare; tua gloria, et ideo Ps. (CXIII 1): non nobis, domine, non nobis et cetera.
Si enim dimiseritis. Dominus in oratione quamdam conditionem adiecerat, scilicet dimitte; posset autem ibi ista conditio gravis videri alicui; et ideo dominus rationem illius ostendit, et circa hoc duo facit: primo ostendit istam conditionem esse utilem, secundo necessariam. Utilis est quia per eam consequimur remissionem peccatorum, et hoc est: si enim dimiseritis hominibus peccata quae contra vos peccaverunt, dimittet etc., quae contra eum peccasti, Eccli. XXVIII 2: relinque proximo tuo.
Sed nota quod dicit: si enim dimiseritis hominibus; homines enim quamdiu innocenter vivunt, dii sunt; quando autem peccant, cadunt in humanam conditionem, Ps. (LXXXI 6): ego dixi etc., post (LXXXI 7): vos autem etc.; ergo vos qui dii et spirituales estis, hominibus peccatoribus dimittetis.
Item nota quod dicit: pater vester etc.; offensae enim quae secundum homines fiunt, (fiunt) propter aliquid terrenum; e contra homines caelestes qui patrem habent in caelis nihil discordiae debent habere propter terrenum, Luc. VI 36: estote misericordes.
Est etiam ista conditio necessaria, quia sine ea non fit remissio peccatorum, unde: si autem non etc.; nec mirum, quia numquam aliquod peccatum potest dimitti sine caritate, Prov. X 12: universa delicta; qui enim habet odium super unum non est in caritate, et ideo non dimittitur ei peccatum, Eccli. XXVIII 3: homo homini servat, Iac. II 13: iudicium sine misericordia.
Sed posset aliquis credere quod ex quo ita est quod dimittenda est offensa, ergo Ecclesia peccat quando non dimittit. Dicendum quod si ille petat veniam, peccaret si non dimitteret; si autem non petat, tunc non dimittit (vel) propter odium et sic peccat, vel propter bonum illius vel aliorum, ut scilicet malum non frequentetur, et sic non peccat.

Lectio 4
Reportatio Petri de Andria
6—4
Mt 6:16-18
16 ὅταν δὲ νηστεύητε, μὴ γίνεσθε ὡς οἱ ὑποκριταὶ σκυθρωποί, ἀφανίζουσιν γὰρ τὰ πρόσωπα αὐτῶν ὅπως φανῶσιν τοῖς ἀνθρώποις νηστεύοντες: ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀπέχουσιν τὸν μισθὸν αὐτῶν. 17 σὺ δὲ νηστεύων ἄλειψαί σου τὴν κεφαλὴν καὶ τὸ πρόσωπόν σου νίψαι, 18 ὅπως μὴ φανῇς τοῖς ἀνθρώποις νηστεύων ἀλλὰ τῷ πατρί σου τῷ ἐν τῷ κρυφαίῳ: καὶ ὁ πατήρ σου ὁ βλέπων ἐν τῷ κρυφαίῳ ἀποδώσει σοι.
16. And when you fast, be not as the hypocrites, sad. For they disfigure their faces, that they may appear unto men to fast. Amen I say to you, they have received their reward. 17. But thou, when thou fastest anoint thy head, and wash thy face; 18. That thou appear not to men to fast, but to thy Father who is in secret: and thy Father who seeth in secret, will repay thee.
Cum ieiunatis. Postquam determinavit modum orandi et elemosynam faciendi hic determinat modum ieiunandi, et primo excludit modum inconvenientem, secundo astruit verum ibi: Tu autem;
Circa primum tria facit. Primo docet vitare hypocritarum modi exemplum, secundo manifestat illud, tertio rationem sui documenti assignat. Secundum ibi: Exterminant (lb), tertium ibi Amen.
Satis convenienter post orationem de ieiunio tractat quia gracilis est oratio quam non concomitatur ieiunium, et non est quia oratio est "levatio mentis in Deum." Quanto autem caro magis roboratur tanto magis debilitatur, Tob. 12: "Bona est oratio cum ieiunio", et ubicumque legitur aliqua oratio solemnis facta, ibi sit mentio de ieiunio. Dan. 9 et Joel 2: "Sanctificate".
Dicit ergo cum ieiunatis. Chrysostomus: Non dicit "nolite esse" quia impossibile est quod ieiunantes non incidant in passiones tristitiae sicut e converso illi qui ieiunant ex comestione et potatione redduntur laeti. Sed dicit nolite fieri, id est non detis operam ut tristes fiamini exterius, sed interius dolendo de peccatis, Cor. 8 (2 Cor. 7:10): tristitiam "saeculi". Eccles. 30: "Tristitiam non des animae tuae et ne affligas temet ipsum in consilio tuo." Sicut hypocritae, id est ea intentione. 'Hypocritae' dicuntur simulatores qui simulant personam iusti sicut supra expositum est. Quando autem fiant tristes subiungit exterminant. Hieronymus: Hoc, scilicet 'exterminant' improprie positum est ut metaphorice quia exterminare proprie dicitur 'extra tenninos ponere'. Unde sumptum est ab exulibus civitatum. Unde dicitur quod Saul exterminavit magos et ariolos de terra. Hic autem proprie ponitur quod demoliuntur. Vel dicendum quod "exterminant facies" ponendo extra modum communem. Ut videantur. Ista est oratio Eccles.: "Ex visu cognoscitur vir et ab occursu faciei."
Hic nota secundum Augustinum quod non solum gloria quaeritur de pompa vestium sed etiam de vilitate vestium et secundum eum hoc est magis periculosum quia quod alii fallant de pompa vestium et huiusmodi, non potest nocere cum cognoscatur, sed quando quaeritur de scalore corporis potest esse periculum quia si non est spiritualis homo potest de facili inducere in errorem. Dicit tamen Augustinus quod talis potest discerni ex aliis actibus quia si ex una parte sequitur abiectionem mundi et ex alia acquirit lucra, simulator est. Sed numquid propter quod quod aliqui hypocritae usurpant sibi vilitatem vestium ad malitiam occultandam, debent demittere illi qui faciunt propter Deum? Dicendum quod non quia sicut dicit Glossa, non debet dimittere pellem suam ovis quamvis lupus aliquando ea se contegat.
Amen. Assignat rationem sui documenti. Stultum enim est pro laude hominum amittere praemium aeternum. Gen. (15,1): "Ego Deus merces tua magna".
Tu autem. Hic ponitur modus conveniens ieiunandi et circa hoc tria facit. Primo ponit modum, secundo assignat rationem, tertio utilitatem. Dicit ergo "tu autem", simile Ecl. 9: "Omni tempore sint vestimenta tua candida et oleum de capite tuo non deficiat", et movet hic Augustinus quaestionem quod quamvis consuetudo sit apud multos quod cotidie faciem suam lavent, tamen quod caput ungant ad lasciviam reputatur. Numquid ergo hoc dominus vult?
Item dicit Chrysostomus quod ieiunium occulte debet fieri. Sed quandocumque videmus aliquem unctum dicemus quod ieiuniat.
Istis obiectionibus tripliciter respondent. Hieronymus ita dicit, et credo quod sit magis litteralis, quod consuetudo erat apud palaestinos tempore illo quod homines cotidie ungebant caput oleo et lavabant faciem. Unde illa dixit Regum: "Non habeo nisi modicum oleo quo ungar". Unde consuetudo ista inter necessaria computabatur. Vult ergo dominus dicere quod ille qui ieiunat non debet mutare modum vivendi qui est quod caput ungat et faciem lavet.
Vel aliter secundum Chrysostomum: Dominus loquitur per excessum sicut etiam supra "te autem faciendo elemosynam" quare si conveniens esset, deberes facere communia hvpocritis.
Tertio secundum Augustinum et etiam Chrysostomum, dominus loquitur similitudine, et ista expositio est mystica. Per 'caput' duo intelliguntur, Cor. 11: "Caput viri Christus." Tunc autem ungis caput quando misericordiam proximo impendis. Infra 25: "Quod "uni ex minimis" etc. Vel caput hominis ratio est vel spiritus secundum Augustinum, qui est vir, quasi: Sic debes carnem affligere ut spiritus interius reticetur per devotionem. Cor. 5 (2 Cor. 4:16), "licet is qui foris est noster homo corrumpitur, tamen is qui intus est renovatur de die in diem". "Noster homo", id est caro, "qui foris est", id est expositus malis, "corrumpitur", "is qui intus est", id est anima munita spe futuri cui non accedit humanus furor, "Renovatur de die in diem", id est assidue purior a viciis efficitur per ignem "tribulationis", Cor. 11, "licet is qui foris homo noster".
Dicit autem faciem tuam lava, id est conscientiam. Sicut enim homo redditur gratiosus propter faciem honestam hominibus, ita per conscientiam puram Deo. Prov.: "Qui diligunt cordis munditiam". Ies. 58: "Nonne hoc est ieiunium quod elegi" et dicit unge caput et non 'lava' quia Christus non indiget lotione, sic conscientia nostra.
Ne videaris. Haec est ratio. Intelligendum est de ieiunio singulari, non de communi. "Sed patri qui est in abscondito" aeternitatis. Iob 28(21): "Abscondita est ab oculis" vel "in abscondito conscientiae" quia Deus habitat in nobis per fidem (Eph. 3:17). Reddet. Cor. (Rom. 2,6): "Reddet unicuique secundum opera sua", "sic scrutans corda et renes" Psalmus (7,10).

Lectio 5
Reportatio Petri de Andria

To Reportatio Leodegarii Bissuntini
6—5
Mt 6:19-34
19 μὴ θησαυρίζετε ὑμῖν θησαυροὺς ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, ὅπου σὴς καὶ βρῶσις ἀφανίζει, καὶ ὅπου κλέπται διορύσσουσιν καὶ κλέπτουσιν: 20 θησαυρίζετε δὲ ὑμῖν θησαυροὺς ἐν οὐρανῷ, ὅπου οὔτε σὴς οὔτε βρῶσις ἀφανίζει, καὶ ὅπου κλέπται οὐ διορύσσουσιν οὐδὲ κλέπτουσιν: 21 ὅπου γάρ ἐστιν ὁ θησαυρός σου, ἐκεῖ ἔσται καὶ ἡ καρδία σου. 22 ὁ λύχνος τοῦ σώματός ἐστιν ὁ ὀφθαλμός. ἐὰν οὖν ᾖ ὁ ὀφθαλμός σου ἁπλοῦς, ὅλον τὸ σῶμά σου φωτεινὸν ἔσται: 23 ἐὰν δὲ ὁ ὀφθαλμός σου πονηρὸς ᾖ, ὅλον τὸ σῶμά σου σκοτεινὸν ἔσται. εἰ οὖν τὸ φῶς τὸ ἐν σοὶ σκότος ἐστίν, τὸ σκότος πόσον. 24 οὐδεὶς δύναται δυσὶ κυρίοις δουλεύειν: ἢ γὰρ τὸν ἕνα μισήσει καὶ τὸν ἕτερον ἀγαπήσει, ἢ ἑνὸς ἀνθέξεται καὶ τοῦ ἑτέρου καταφρονήσει: οὐ δύνασθε θεῷ δουλεύειν καὶ μαμωνᾷ. 25 διὰ τοῦτο λέγω ὑμῖν, μὴ μεριμνᾶτε τῇ ψυχῇ ὑμῶν τί φάγητε [ἢ τί πίητε,] μηδὲ τῷ σώματι ὑμῶν τί ἐνδύσησθε: οὐχὶ ἡ ψυχὴ πλεῖόν ἐστιν τῆς τροφῆς καὶ τὸ σῶμα τοῦ ἐνδύματοσ; 26 ἐμβλέψατε εἰς τὰ πετεινὰ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ὅτι οὐ σπείρουσιν οὐδὲ θερίζουσιν οὐδὲ συνάγουσιν εἰς ἀποθήκας, καὶ ὁ πατὴρ ὑμῶν ὁ οὐράνιος τρέφει αὐτά: οὐχ ὑμεῖς μᾶλλον διαφέρετε αὐτῶν; 27 τίς δὲ ἐξ ὑμῶν μεριμνῶν δύναται προσθεῖναι ἐπὶ τὴν ἡλικίαν αὐτοῦ πῆχυν ἕνα; 28 καὶ περὶ ἐνδύματος τί μεριμνᾶτε; καταμάθετε τὰ κρίνα τοῦ ἀγροῦ πῶς αὐξάνουσιν: οὐ κοπιῶσιν οὐδὲ νήθουσιν: 29 λέγω δὲ ὑμῖν ὅτι οὐδὲ σολομὼν ἐν πάσῃ τῇ δόξῃ αὐτοῦ περιεβάλετο ὡς ἓν τούτων. 30 εἰ δὲ τὸν χόρτον τοῦ ἀγροῦ σήμερον ὄντα καὶ αὔριον εἰς κλίβανον βαλλόμενον ὁ θεὸς οὕτως ἀμφιέννυσιν, οὐ πολλῷ μᾶλλον ὑμᾶς, ὀλιγόπιστοι; 31 μὴ οὖν μεριμνήσητε λέγοντες, τί φάγωμεν; ἤ, τί πίωμεν; ἤ, τί περιβαλώμεθα; 32 πάντα γὰρ ταῦτα τὰ ἔθνη ἐπιζητοῦσιν: οἶδεν γὰρ ὁ πατὴρ ὑμῶν ὁ οὐράνιος ὅτι χρῄζετε τούτων ἁπάντων. 33 ζητεῖτε δὲ πρῶτον τὴν βασιλείαν [τοῦ θεοῦ] καὶ τὴν δικαιοσύνην αὐτοῦ, καὶ ταῦτα πάντα προστεθήσεται ὑμῖν. 34 μὴ οὖν μεριμνήσητε εἰς τὴν αὔριον, ἡ γὰρ αὔριον μεριμνήσει ἑαυτῆς: ἀρκετὸν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ ἡ κακία αὐτῆς.
19. Lay not up to yourselves treasures on earth: where the rust, and moth consume, and where thieves break through, and steal. 20. But lay up to yourselves treasures in heaven: where neither the rust nor moth doth consume, and where thieves do not break through, nor steal. 21. For where thy treasure is, there is thy heart also. 22. The light of thy body is thy eye. If thy eye be single, thy whole body shall be lightsome. 23. But if thy eye be evil thy whole body shall be darksome. If then the light that is in thee, be darkness: the darkness itself how great shall it be! 24. No man can serve two masters. For either he will hate the one, and love the other: or he will sustain the one, and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon. 25. Therefore I say to you, be not solicitous for your life, what you shall eat, nor for your body, what you shall put on. Is not the life more than the meat: and the body more than the raiment? 26. Behold the birds of the air, for they neither sow, nor do they reap, nor gather into barns: and your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are not you of much more value than they? 27. And which of you by taking thought, can add to his stature one cubit? 28. And for raiment why are you solicitous? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow: they labour not, neither do they spin. 29. But I say to you, that not even Solomon in all his glory was arrayed as one of these. 30. And if the grass of the field, which is to day, and to morrow is cast into the oven, God doth so clothe: how much more you, O ye of little faith? 31. Be not solicitous therefore, saying: What shall we eat: or what shall we drink, or wherewith shall we be clothed? 32. For after all these things do the heathens seek. For your Father knoweth that you have need of all these things. 33. Seek ye therefore first the kingdom of God, and his justice, and all these things shall be added unto you. 34. Be not therefore solicitous for to morrow; for the morrow will be solicitous for itself. Sufficient for the day is the evil thereof.
6:19-34
Nolite thesaurizare. Supra dominus determinavit ne opera propter gloriam faceremus. Hic docet quod non debemus in bonis operibus ponere divitiarum finem. Duo enim mala sunt, cupiditas et inanis gloria quae se invicem consequuntur. Multi enim quaerunt divitias non ad necessitatem sed ad pompam, vel potest sic continuari: Dominus supra non docuit nec ammonuit ut elemosynas vel orationes faceremus, sed docuit modum faciendi. Nunc vult inducere ad hoc quod ista opera faciamus, et primo quod elmosynas, secundo quod orationes ibi: Petite, tertio quod ieiunium ibi: Arcta est via.
Vel aliter: Supra docuit quod elemosynas et ieiunium faceremus non propter gloriam, hic vult ultra ostendere quod "nullus [homo potest duobus dominis servire]". Sed prima est magis consona litterae et est Chrysostomus. Secundum ergo hunc sensuum quia omnes quasi idem sint, duo facit: Primo docet vitare superfluam curam divitiarum, secundo sollicitudinem necessariorum ibi: Ideo dico vobis.
Circa primum duo facit. Primo monet non congregare superfluas divitias et probat ex ratione instabilitatis, secundo ex damno quod inde provenit ibi: "Ubi est thesaurus".
Circa primum duo facit. Primo ponit instabilitatem divitiarum terrenarum, secundo ponit stabilitatem divitiarum caelestium quas congregare debemus ibi: Thesaurizate.
Dicit ergo primo ita: Dico quod non debemus facere bona opera propter gloriam terrenam sed etiam nec divitias congregare, et hoc est: Nolite etc., in terra, id est in quacumque re terrena. Sed secundum hoc videtur quod reges et episcopi faciant contra istud praeceptum. Sed dicendum quod in thesauro duo intelligere, scilicet abundantiam quae est duplex, scilicet necessaria et superflua. Homini enim privato superfluum est congregare divitias regias, regi autem non quia indiget ad regni custodiam et defensionem. Unde hoc prohibetur, scilicet congregare divitias ultra necessitatem personae vel officii. Aliud quod in thesauro intelligitur est fiducia quae habetur in eis et hoc etiam prohibetur et hoc est nolite thesaurizare. Tim ultimo (1, 6,17): "Divitibus huius saeculi", Baruch 4: "Argentum thesaurizant et aurum".
Consequenter ostendit instabilitatem: Ubi erugo, et ponit tria genera quibus ad litteram divitiae destruuntur, divitiae enim aut habentur in metallis aut in vestibus aut in lapidibus et huiusmodi. Metalla consumuntur rubigine, vestes tinea, fures autem asportant lapides. Vel aliter: Alia littera habet: ubi tinea et comeduntur et comestura exterminant, et istam exponit Chrysostomus: Temporalia enim tripliciter destruuntur, ex parte rerum quia de vestimento procedit tinea, ex luxuria possidentis, unde dicit comeduntur, ab extraneis, unde dicit fures. Sed posset dici quia hoc non semper contingit, et dicit Chrysostomus quod si non semper fiat, tamen frequenter contingit et si non frequenter contingat, tamen possibile est fieri et hoc dominus vult argumentari quia docet ponere spem in perpetuis et stabilibus, Joel 1: "Residuum comedet locusta". Mystice erugo apparet, sed tinea latet, unde per 'erugo' possunt intelligi peccata carnalia, per 'tinea' spiritualia. Quaedam enim peccata committunt in se ipsum et hoc intelligitur per eruginem et tineam, quaedam in scandalum alterius et hoc per fures. Vel aliter: Rubigo efuscat decora, unde potest intelligi superbia quae bonis operibus insidiatur ut pereant, Eccles. 12. Quasi aeramentum tinea corrodit vestimenta quae sunt exteriora opera quae consumuntur per invidiam: Prov. 25: "Sicut vermis ligno" etc. Daemones autem quando non possunt decipere furtive trahunt ad inanem gloriam et hoc ubi fures. Posita instabilitate terrena ponit stabilitatem thesauri caelestis. Unde thesaurizant, id est congregant multitudinem praemiorum in caelestibus.
Et notandum secundum Augustinum quod non est intelligendum de caelo corporeo quia in mala re corporali cor nostrum figere [non] debemus nec thesaurum ibi habere. Unde intelligendum in caelo, id est in spiritualibus bonis, id est in ipso Deo: Psalmus: "Caelum caeli domino". Et dicit "thesaurum" quia si homo carnalis vult magis et magis congregare in terra, non debet ei sufficere quod qualemcumque statum habeat in re caelorum, sed quod habeat maiorem mercedem, et ideo dicit thesaurum, id est abundant praemiis, et dicit vobis quia sicut dicitur Iob 35, "porro si iuste egeris." Quomodo autem thesaurizandum sit ostendit Luc. 19 (Mat. 19,21): "Si vis perfectus esse". Ergo per elemosynam thesaurizatur et ideo dicit Chrysostomus quod hic inducit ad elemosynam. Hic thesuarus incorruptibilis est quia nec ex se habet corruptionem quia nec aerugo ex parte corporis, Cor. 15, "corruptible hoc induet," nec ex parte animae, Ies.(60:21): "Populus tuus omnes iusti", nec ab exterioribus, hoc est ab insidiatoribus, id est daemonibus, et hoc est "ubi fures", nec occulte nec manifeste, Ies. 11(9): "Non Occident nec nocebunt. Ubi est thesaurus. Hic vult ostendere quod debemus in caelo et non primum propter nocumentum quod inde provenit et est duplex. Primum distractio cordis, secundum alienatio a Deo ibi: "Nemo potest duobus". Circa primum duo facit. Primo ponit nocumentum distractionis cordis, secundo ostendit huius damni magnitudinem ibi: Lucerna.
Dicit ergo: Dixi quod fures effodiunt etc. Sed restat aliud inconveniens. Unde ubi est thesaurus. Ubi enim est amor, ibi oculus, Cor. 4: "Non contemplantibus nobis" sed isti e converso. Prov. 17(24): "Oculi stultorum". Et quia hoc damnum, scilicet distractio cordis pauci considerant, ideo dominus ostendit quantum sit hoc periculum quodam exemplo. Unde Lucerna per sensibilia instruit de intelligentibus, et potest hoc dupliciter legi. Primo ut dominus proponat similitudinem de caelo corporali et post adaptet similitudinem ad spiritualia ibi: Si ergo lumen, et haec expositio plana est. Et circa hoc tria facit, primo demonstrat officium oculi, secundo utilitatem boni et tertio damnum mali occulti. Dicit ergo: Lucerna corporis est oculus corporalis qui sicut lucerna dirigit. Si oculus tuus fuerit simplex, id est fortis ad videndum, secundum Hieronymum, alias non posset intelligi de oculo corporali. Unde simplex, id est fortis ad videndum. Homo enim quando habet oculum debile, una res videntur duae. Unde si oculus in uno figere potest propter fortitudinem, totum corpus tuum lucidum erit per lumen enim oculi lux capitur ad dirigenda omnia membra in suis actibus. Si autem nequam fuerit, id est turbatus, scilicet lippus, etiam corpus, id est membra omnia ita agent sicut in tenebris.
Consequenter adaptat: Si ergo lumen quod in tenebris in te est, scilicet lumen rationis, tenebrae sunt, ipsae tenebrae. De hoc lumine Psalmus: "Signatum est super nos". Vult ergo dicere quod si cor quod est oculus animae obtenebratur applicando se terrenis alii oculi qui secundum suam naturam sunt tenebrae quia non possunt cognoscere nisi corporalia, erunt maximae tenebrae. Unde si ratio quae potest in spiritualia, dirigitur ad terrena, tunc omnes sensus ad terrena dirigentur, et hoc est: si ergo etc. Vel aliter. Dominus vult hic loqui de oculo spirituali et hoc si ergo lumen etc. inducere ad probandum praemissa per locum a minori, et dicuntur sic prius. Dicit ergo lucerna corporis tui oculus tuuus. Hic 'oculus' potest quattuor modis exponi, scilicet de ratione sicut dictum est, et hoc secundum Chrysostomum et Hilarium. Sicut enim per lucernam illuminantur ad videndum, ita per rationem ad operandum, Prov. 30: "Lucerna [domini] spiraculum". Si oculus tuus fuerit simplex, id est si ratio tua tota dirigatur in unum, scilicet in Deum, totum etc. et si nequam, id est applicatur ad terrena, totum corpus etc., et potest hoc intelligi dupliciter. Erit enim lucidum vel tenebrosum quantum ad praesentia opera, lucidum si omnia exterior a membra propter Deum operantur, et hoc fit ratio dirigatur in Deum quia tunc membra pura conservantur a peccato cum peccatum non procedat nisi ex consensu mentis. Tenebrosum autem, si ratio fuit occupata terrenis quia tunc membra occupabuntur operibus tenebrosis, Rom. 13(12): "Abiciamus opera tenebrarum."
Vel aliter secundum Hilarium: Si oculus, id est si ratio simpliciter dirigatur in Deum, totum corpus tuum lucidum quia ex claritate animae redundat claritas ad corpus. Ita (dicitur Mt. 13, 43): "fulgebunt iusti." Si autem nequam etc. Aliter secundum Augustinum per oculum intelligitur intentio. Sicut enim homo primo respicit distantia ad terminum, postea procedit. Ita in operando primo determinat finem et ex fine intentio procedit ad operandum, ergo oculus dirigit, Prov. ultimo: "Non extinguetur in nocte lucerna". Unde si intentio fuerit pura et opus sive congeries operum ex ilia intentione procedens erit purum et hoc intelligendum est de his quae secundum se bona quia sicut dicitur Rom., "damnatio iusta est" illorum qui dixerant: "Faciamus mala" etc. Si autem intentio fuerit perversa, tota operatio redditur tenebrosa, nec debet videri extraneum si per opera corpus significatur quia sicut dicitur Col. 3, "mortificate membra vestra" etc.
Tertio [Chromatius] ponit: Oculus animae est fides quae dirigit totum opus. Psalmus (119,105): "Lucerna pedibus" simplex est quando non vacillat. Sed (Gal. 5:6): "per dilectionem operatur". Si autem fides fuerit depravata, totum corpus, id est opus, est tenebrosum, Rom. 14: "Omne quod non est ex fide". Vel aliter: Oculus praelatus qui est visibilium secundum Reges: "Dixerunt viri" etc., "ne extinguas lucernam Israel", etc. Eccles. 11: "secundum iudicem populi."
Quod autem dicit: Si ergo lumen, secundum primam expositionem syllogizat ex praecedentibus, sed secundum istas probat praecedens quasi: Tu dicis: si oculus tuus etc., probatio: "Si ergo lumen" de quo minus providetur "ipsae tenebrae" etc., si lumen rationis tenebra, et opus et quantum ad hoc non mutatur expositio sed ad alia sic quia sicut dicit Augustinus quilibet potest scire ex intentione qualis sit, sed quales effectus habeat opus non potest, unde lucerna est intentio, sed opus est tenebra, Eph. 5: "Omne quod manifestatur", opus autem non manifestatur. Vel aliter secundum Augustinum, duplicia sunt opera lucis et tenebrae. Rom.: Opera lucis sunt opera iustitiae. Si ergo opus iustitiae in te sit tenebrosum, id est fiat propter malam intentionem, "ipsae tenebrae", id est actiones malae "quantae erunt". Vel aliter: Si fides mala omnia alia mala quae per fidem dirigantur et similiter si praelatus malus, multo magis subditi.
Nemo potest. Supra dominus posuit unum documentum quod non debemus congregare thesauros in terra quia distrahitur ex hoc cor, nunc ponit aliud quia scilicet facit alienum a Deo, et hoc est "nemo potest". Vel aliter potest continuari: Supra monuit quod non debemus thesauros congregare in terra, sed in caelo, posset autem aliquis dicere: Volo in caelo et in terra congregare, et ideo dominus hic ostendit esse impossible dicens nemo potest. Sed prima melior est et est Chrysostomi. Potest autem haec littera legi dupliciter, primo ut hoc nemo potest intelligatur conclusivum vel illative, et tunc dominus secundum expositionem Chrysostomi et Hieronymi procedit a communibus opinionibus ad propositum ostendendum. Alio modo potest intelligi legi ut dominus primo proponit quod intendit et postea procedat et hoc secundum Augustinum. Prosequamur autem utrumque. Secundum ergo primam expositionem duo facit, primo ponit communem hominum opinionem et consuetudinem, secundo rationem assignat ibi: Aut enim unum. Dicit ergo nemo potest. Ratio autem huius apparet si accipiamus quid sit proprie servus et quid dominus. Servi enim ratio consistit in hoc quod est alterius, scilicet domini. Unde finis eius est dominus. Impossibile autem est quod unurn feratur in duo tamquam in ultimos fines. Si ergo hoc est esse servi ordinare actus suos in dominum tamquam in ultimum finem, impossibile est quod servat duobus dominis. Ies. 34: "Angustatum est stratum" etc. Posset tamen servus habere duos, quorum unus sit sub alio sicut finis sub fine est, vel secundum Glossam: "Nemo potest duobus dominis servire" contrariis, quia si consentiunt, sunt unum.
Assignat rationem "aut unum odio habebit". Et sciendum quod duplex est dominium. Quidam enim dominantur hoc modo quod a subditis diliguntur et hoc est dominium regale, quidam dominantur ut timeantur, et hoc est tyrannorum. Si ergo servus servat dominum amore et ita oportet quod odiat contrarium, si autem timore servus, tunc oporet quod sustineas, id est toleres et alterum, et hoc est aut unum etc., de hoc dominio quod magis sit sustinendum quam diligendum habetur Proverb. 29(2): "Cum impii sumpserint fingere" etc., id est "sustinebit" patientur tollerando, "nemo ergo potest duobus", sed Deus et diabolus sunt contrarii quia ad contraria inclinant, ergo non potestis etc. Mammona, id est divitiis, persica lingua, secundum Hieronymum.
Sciendum tamen quod aliud est abundare divitiis et servire. Aliqui enim abundant et tamen ad bonum ordinatum et isti non serviunt divitiis, aliqui habent et tamen ex eis fructum non capiunt nec corporalem nec spiritualem, et isti serviunt quia se affligunt ut divitias congregent. Ecl. 6: "Est et aliud malum" etc. In quacumque enim re homo constituit ultimam finem, illa res est Deus suus, Phil. 3, "quorum Deus venter est", vel per "mammonem" intelligitur diabolus qui praeest divitiis, non quod eas dare possit sed quia utitur eis ad decipiendum. Singulis enim viciis aliquis spiritus praeest. Unde spiritus avaritiae dicitur per avaritiam homines allicit ad peccandum. Haec est una expositio huius. "Nemo potest" ut scilicet legatur illative et generaliter. Augustinus autem intelligit spiritualiter, scilicet de Deo et diabolo qui sunt contrarii, Cor. 6: "Quae conventio Christi" et quod non potestis simul esse participes. Reges 18: "Usquequo claudicatis". Aut unum, id est diabolum, et alterum diliget, id est Deum.
Et nota quod non dixit e converso, sed dixit aut unum sustinebit quia quaelibet creatura naturaliter convertitur ad diligendum Deum. Sed diabolus quia habet naturam depravatam statim est in horrore cum nullus diligat malum et ideo dixit aut unum sustinebit quia diabolus sustinetur sicut tyrannus opprimens sicut aliquis sustineret dominum ancillae cui coniungitur non quia diligat dominum sed propter ancillam. Ita cupidus sustinet diabolum propter cupiditatem quae est ancilla diaboli. Unde quando aliquis vult frui quocumque peccato ad hoc quod eo fruatur patitur servitutem diaboli et hoc est aut unum sustinebit et inquantum sustinet recedet a mandatis Dei et recedendo contemnit et hoc est et alterum contemnet. Sed obicitur hic de hoc quod dicitur quod Deus non habetur odio quia Psalmus dicit: "Superbia eorum qui te oderunt" etc., ergo aliquis Deum habet odio. Propter istam auctoritatem Augustinus in libro Retractationum retractat quod prius dixerat quod Deus non habetur odio, sed tamen utrumque verum est quia si consideretur id quod est Deus, scilicet ipsa bonitas, non potest haberi odio quia bonum semper diligitur secundum se, potest autem haberi odio quantum ad effectum qui est contrarius voluntati. Sic ergo patet quod non potest duobus dominis serviri. Eccli. 2: V[a]e peccatori terram ingredienti.
Ideo dico vobis. Postquam dominus ostenderat quod non debemus ponere finem in thesauris terrenis et superfluis, vult etiam ostendere quod in necessariis acquirendis et hoc est ideo dico vobis, et circa hoc duo facit, primo prohibet sollicitudinem necessariorum quantum ad praesentia, secundo quantum ad futura ibi: nolite. Circa primum duo facit, primo proponit quod intendit, secundo probat propositum ibi: Nonne anima. Dicit ergo ideo dico vobis quasi quia non potestis Deo servire et mammone, ideo nullus debet servire divitiis ad hoc quod Deo serviatis.
Neque animae. Sed videtur quod anima non indiget cibo. Sed dicendum quod quamvis non indigeat secundum se, tamen indiget inquantum coniuncta corpori quia aliter ibi esse non posset vel vocetur ibi anima absque vita, Ioh. 12: "Qui amat animam".
Neque corpori vestro. Nota quod ex hoc verbo sumpserunt exordium haereses. Secundum Augustinum enim fuerunt quidam dicentes non licere hornini contemplativo operari, et contra istos fecit Augustinus librum De opere monachorum. Sed qualiter sit intelligendum hoc quod dominus dicit debemus investigare a sanctis. Dicitur autem Cor. (2 Thess 3:10): "Qui non vult operari non manducet", et intelliget de opere manuum sicut patet per ea quae praemittit. Unde etiam in exemplum ipse Apostolus operatus est manibus.
Sed numquid omnes tenentur? Si omnes, aut est praeceptum aut consilium. Si praeceptum, nullus debet praemittere, si consilium: Cui dabatur hoc consilium? Constat quod plebi illi quia tunc non erant religiosi. Ad consilium autem nullus tenetur nisi ex voto, ergo possent omnes desistere. Dicendum quod hoc est praeceptum et ad hoc omnes tenentur quia omnibus datur. Apostolus enim toti ecclesiae loquitur. Sed est aliquid praeceptum dupliciter, per se ipsum et propter aliud. Verbi gratia: Si accepistis crucem ad eundum ultra mare, praeceptum est quod vadat et praeceptum per se ipsum, sed quod quaeras navem hoc non propter se sed propter aliud est praeceptum quia quicumque tenetur ad aliquem finem et ad omnia quae sunt ad finem tenetur. Quilibet autem tenetur ad conservationem vitae suae lege naturae, et ideo tenentur ad omnia alia quibus vita conservatur. Si ergo aliquis habeat unde vivere possit, non tenetur laborare manibus et ideo Apostolus non dicit "manibus", sed "qui non vult operari" etc. quasi: Eo modo tenemini laborare quo manducare. Qui autem teneantur laborare manibus, hoc ad praesens dimittatur. Quod autem dicit "solliciti" sciendum quod sollicitudo pertinet ad providentiam, sed non quaelibet providentia est sollicitudo, sed 'sollicitudo' proprie nominat providentiam cum studio quod est vehemens applicatio animi. Unde hic importat sollicitudo vehementem animi applicationem. In ista autem vehementi applicatione quattuor rnodis potest esse peccatum. Primo quando est ad temporalia sicut ad ultimum finem, et secundum hoc reprehenditur Prov. 11: "Expectatio sollicita ducet in perditionem". Secundo quando superflue intendit ad temporalia conquirenda, et sic accipitur Ecl. 2: "Peccatori autem dedit" Deus etc. et post "et hoc vanitas et cassa sollicitudo". Tertio quando animus nimis se occupabit circa cogitationem temporalium. Unde Hieronymus: "Sollicitudo vitanda est, sed labor exercendus" et sic accipitur 1 Cor. 7: "Qui coniunctus est uxori sollicitus est" quia cor distrahitur ad diversa. Quarto quando sollicitudo est cum quodam timore et desperatione. Videtur enim quibusdam quod numquam tantum acquirere possunt quod possit eis sufficere et omnia ista hic prohibentur sicut patet per sequentia. Et sic isto ultimo modo accipitur Reg. 9 (1 Sam. 9:20): "Ne sis sollicitus" quaerere asinos, id est ne desperes de inventione.
Nonne anima. Supra docuit dominus ut non essemus solliciti de necessariis, hic inducit huius admonitionis rationem et ponit tres rationes. Prima sumitur a maiori, secunda a minori, tertia ex opposito. Secundum ibi: Respicite volatilia. Tertium ibi: Nolite. Prima talis: qui dedit maiora dabit minora. Sed dominus dedit animam et corpus, ergo dabit cibum. Et hoc est nonne anima, id est vita, non enim vivimus ut manducemus sed econverso. Esca enim ordinatur ad vitam et ideo simpliciter vita melior est sicut finis rnelior est his quae sunt ad finem, et similiter vestimentum propter corpus et non e converso. Quod autem Deus dederit animam et corpus habetur quando primo "formavit Deus" materiam ad corpus, inspiravit materiam ad animam. Sed qui dedit conservabit dando ea quae necessaria sunt. Sap. 5: "Creavit Deus ut essent". Hilarius hoc exponit aliter quia enim sollicitudo importat quamdam dubitatem dominus vult removere dubietatem futurae resurrexionis animi. Ne solliciti, id est non velitis discredere de resurrexione quia ille qui reformabit corpus in resurrexione conservabit absque indumento et cibo. Sed hoc non est litteralis.
Consequenter ponitur secunda ratio a minori et est talis: Ille qui providit minoribus de quibus minus videtur, et maioribus providebit. Sed Deus providet plantis et avibus etc. et circa hanc duo facit. Primo deducit rationem quantum ad cibum, secundo quantum ad vestitum ibi: Et de vestimento. Circa primum duo facit, primo docet abicere sollicitudinem exemplo animalium, secundo propter inefficaciam ejus ibi: Quis autem vestrum. Circa primum quattuor facit, primo inducit ad considerandum bruta animalia, secundo ponit defectum consequentem ea, tertio divinam providentiam, quarto ex hoc argumentatur. Ergo respicite, id est considerate. Iob 12: "Interroga iumenta". Ex consideratione enim istorum homo aliqando addiscit. Prov. 5: "Vade ad formicam".
Quoniam non serunt". Cibus cottidianus panis est. Ad eius acquisitionem triplici opere pervenitur, per seminationem, per metitionem et per reconditionem. Unde haec tria excludit ab avibus. Non serunt etc. Est autem seminatio etiam spirituals doctrinae - infra 13: "Exiit qui seminat" bonorum operum, Prov. 11: "Seminanti" elementarum. Cor. 9: "Qui parce seminat parce" etc. Est et mala seminatio carnalium peccatorum. Gal. ultimo: "Qui seminat in carne" spiritualium peccatorum. Iob 5(4,8): "Quin immo vidi eos qui seminant". Metuunt autem sancti praedicatores quando rapiunt aliquos ad fidem, Ioh. 4: "Ego misi vos metere".
Consequenter ponitur auxilium divinae providentiae, et pater dicit, vester. Non illorum quia proprie Deus pater est creaturae rationalis quae ad imaginem eius est, Gen. 1. Dicit: etiam caelestis quia nos habemus aliquid ad caelum attinens, scilicet animam quae pertinet ad similitudinem substantiarum. Unde pater noster pascit illa quorum est Deus tantum, multo magis nos quorum est pater. Psalmus: Qui "dat iumentis". Consequenter argumentatur: Nonne plus, id est maioris valoris ordinatione, scilicet Gen. 1, "ut praesit piscibus". Aliquando enim plus venditur equus quam homo quia duplex est aestimatio rerum. Quantum ad ordinem naturae et sic homo melior omnium rerum, vel quantum ad aestimationem sive delectationem, et sic aliquando animal plus venditur.
Circa istam litteram considerandum quod quidam, et credo quod Origenes, exponit aliter et dicunt quod per 'Volatilia' intelliguntur sancti angeli qui non exercent labores carnales et tamen Deus pascit eos cibo spirituali de quo Psalmus: Panem angelorum. Sed sicut dicit Hieronymus, hoc non potest stare quia Deus subiungit nonne plus. Hilarius autem per volatilia intelligit daemones itaque aves caeli qui pascuntur inquantum conservantur in esse naturae et homines sunt pluris illis quia dominus argumentatur quia si illi qui sunt praedestinati ad mortem sustentantur a Deo multo magis nos. Sed secundum Augustinum ista quae dominus dicit non allegorice accipienda quia dominus vult trahere argumentum ab istis sensibilibus ad propositum ostendendum.
Sed sciendum quod hic fuit error quorundam dicentium non licere spiritualibus viris laborare corporaliter propter similitudinem avium, contra quos Augustinus in libro De operibus monachorum dicit quod impossibile est quod homines in omnibus vitam imitari. Unde aliqui perfecti qui iverunt in desertum et raro ibant ad civitatem unde oportebat eos multum congregare de victualibus, apostoli autem secundum Augustinum operati sunt manibus, unde non laborare non pertinet ad perfectionem et ponit exemplum Augustinus quia Deus sperantes in se in tribulatione liberat sicut patet de Daniele et pueris in fornace. Numquid ergo constitutus in tribulationibus nihil debet agere ad hoc quod liberetur? Imino quod dominus dixit "si vos persecuti fuerint in una civitate, fugite in aliam" et ideo dicendum quod dominus vult quod in omnibus homo faciat quod in se est et sperando in Deum. Deus dabit ei quae viderit expedire quod autem aliter faceret temptator esset et stultus. Habet igitur Deus providentiam de factis hominum, ita tamen quod unicuique providet secundum modum suum quia aliter hominibus et avibus quia avibus non dedit rationem qua procuret sibi necessaria, sed totum ei inditum est a natura, homini vero dedit rationem qua sibi necessaria procuraret. Unde omnia dedit homini dando rationem qua sibi necessaria procuraret. Unde omnia dedit homini dando rationem et ideo si fecerimus quod in nobis est et ipse faciet quod in se est.
Quis vestrum. Trahit argumentum ex experimento. Manifestum est enim quod sicut Deus animalibus providet in operibus naturae ita hominibus. In homine enim est quaedam pars quae subiacet rationi sicut pars in motiva et appetitiva, quaedam quae non, sicut nutritiva et augmentativa. Sed homo secundum ea quae subiacent rationi differt a brutis et ideo aliter providetur ei quia sibi per rationem, aliis per naturam. Sed quantum ad ea in quibus cum brutis communicat aequaliter providetur omnibus. Omnia enim augentur per opus naturae et quia augmentum corporis est ex divina providentia non debemus prae minima sollicitudine temporalium opera spiritualia dimittere. Sap. 13: "Pusillum et magnum" et hoc est: "Quis autem vestrum". Hilarius exponit de statu futurae resurrexionis et dicit quod in resurrexione omnes erunt aequales in quantitate et ideo aliquibus addetur de quantitate, et hoc est quis autem vestrum. Sed hoc improbat Augustinus in libro De civitate Dei, et credo quod melius dicit. Dicitur enim Phil 3: quod "reformabit corpus [humilitatis] nostrae configuratum corpori claritatis", ergo ea quae in Christo resurgente apparuerunt et manifestata sunt discipulis, haec debemus sperare in nobis. Sed Christus in eadem quantitate resurrexit in qua prius fuit, ergo nihil ei accrevit vel item alicui subtrahitur quia dominus dicit capillus de capite nostro non peribit. Unde dicendum quod in resurrexione omnes conformabuntur Christo quantum ad aetatem et unusquisque resurget in quantitate in qua habiturus fuisset in illa aetate. Quod autem est de defectu naturae sicut in nannis, tolletur. Unde resurgent in tali quantitate in quali pervenissent si natura non defecisset usque ad talem aetatem, scilicet Christi.
Et de vestimento. Hic deducit rationem quantum ad vestimentum, et primo ponit quod intendit, secundo inducit similitudinem, tertio ex illis argumentatur. Secundum ibi: Considerate, tertium ibi: Si enim faenum. Convenienter post sollicitudinem cibi et potus de sollicitudine vestimenti agitur quia sicut cibus et potus pervenirent ad necessitatem vitae ita et vestimentum, Tim. ultimo: "Habentes vestimentum". Et Iacob dixit Gen. 18: Si fuerit mecum dominus.
Considerate. Inducit exemplum et proponit duo, comparationem et auxilium divinae promissionis ibi: Dico autem. Dicit considerate. Consideratio autem divinorum operum valet ad hoc quod animus prorumpit in laudem creatoris: "Meditabor in omnibus". quomodo crescunt. Cor. 3: "Deus" enim "[dabit] incrementum".
Non laborant. Ad vestimentum necessarium est opus viri et mulieris et hoc est non laborant neque nent, vel non laborant ad colorandum neque nent ad praeparandum, unde nec propter colorem nec propter substantiam vestimenti laborant.
Dico autem. Hic ponitur beneficium divinae promissionis. Ita enim providet quod totum studium humanum non posset ei adaequari quia quae fiunt secundum artem non possunt adaequari eis quae fiunt secundum naturam, et hoc est quod nec Salomon qui gloriosior omnibus regibus notis a Iudaeis, Par. 1, et dicit in omni quia nec per unum diem habere potuit vestimentum sicut habent flores et hoc est expositio Chrysostomi et litteralis. Aliter nec Salomon etc. quia ista corporalia habent vestimentum sine sollicitudine quod non Salomon. Hilarius: Anagogice per lilium sancti angeli. Canticum: "Dilectus meus mihi et ego", et vult dominus amovere sollicitudinem de resurrexione de vestimentis in resurrexione. Sicut enim angeli induuntur claritate ita et corpora nostra induentur.
Si enim faenum. Hic ex exemplo argumentatur. Supra dominus fecerat mentionem de liliis, hic commutat in faenum quia intendit argumentari a minori. Unde ponit defectum ex una parte ut ostendit praeeminentiam, ex alia unde ostendit praeeminentiam quantum ad dignitatem substantiae quia nos homines.
flos, faenum: Ies. 11 (40,7): "Exsiccatum est". Durationem quia nos perpetui quantum ad animam, flos quasi momentaneum quia "hodie est etc. Et ponit futurum indeterminatum pro detenninato sicut Gen. 20: "Respondebit mihi eras." Psalmus: "Fiant sicut faenum tectorum". Finem quia homo factus est propter beatitudinem, huiusmodi autem ut in hominis usum veniant. Psalmus: "Qui producit in montibus faenum". Vel ideo dixit supra "lilia" et postea "faenum" quia flores ad herbas sicut vestimenta ad homines. Est enim usus vestimentorum, scilicet ad protegendum et ornandum, et si Deus minoribus providet ad ornatum, multo magis maioribus ad necessitatem, et hoc est si faenum etc.
Modicae fidei, qui nec minora a Deo sperata, infra 14: "modicae fidei", quare [dubitasti]?" Hilariusc autem non continuat cum praecedenti, sed sicut per 'lilia' sancti angeli, ita per 'faenum' infideles intelligantur. Ies. 40(7): "Vere faenum est populus" quia si Deus providet infidelibus praescitis ad poenam quanto magis nobis praescitis ad vitam aeternam.
Nolite ergo. Hic argumentatur, et circa hoc duo facit, primo infert unam conclusionem, secundo ad eandern conclusionem inducit aliam ibi: Haec enim omnia. Seorsum determinat de sollicitudine cibi et potus et de vestimentis, hic concludit de utroque. Unde Nolite. Et recitanda sunt ea quae supra dicta sunt quia sollicitudo teinporalium prohibetur quantum ad quattuor, ut scilicet non ponamus in eis finem, ut non superflue quaeramus, ut non nimis occupemus mentem in eis, ut non desperemus de providentia Dei. Hic ponuntur quaedam alia et ponit unum alium sensum. Unde dicit "Nolite ergo" etc., id est quando vivitis in aliqua societate nunc sitis solliciti habere aliquid speciale in cibis, potibus et vestiinentoruin. Eccles. 32: "Esto in eis quasi unus".
Haec enim omnia, quasi non debent facere infideles, unde infideles vituperantur, sed gentiles de hoc vituperantur, ergo etc. Et primo ponit errorem infidelium, secundo improbat, tertio ostendit quid sit faciendum fidelibus. Secundum ibi: Scit, tertio ibi quaerite ergo). Dicit ergo ita: Dico quod vos non debetis circa hoc esse solliciti quia non debetis "conformari huic saeculo", Rom. 12.
Haec enim omnia inquirunt et hoc propter duo secundum quod inquirere dupliciter potest surni quia potest importare in principio rationem finis et sic gentes non credunt aeterna qui ista inquirunt ut finem, vel si non quaerunt ut finem ultiinuin, tarnen quaerunt tota sollicitudine quia non credunt divinam providentiam et per consequens nec Deum, Eph. 5 (1 Thess 4,5): "Sicut et gentes quae ignorant".
Consequenter asserat providentiam divinam, et sciendum quod providentia duo praesupponit, cognitionem et voluntatem, et ideo utrumque ostendit. Nihil est enim aliud providentia nisi ordinatio aliquorum in finem, scilicet praefixo fine eligere vias per quas perveniatur in finem. Unde primo oportet quod cognoscat et velit finem, secundo quod cognoscat ordinem in proportionem eorum quae sunt ad finem sicut aedificator cognoscit ordinem lapidum ponendorum in domo. Unde oportet ad hoc quod Deus, ad hoc quod habeat providentiam de rebus humanis, requiritur quod sciat et cognoscat ea et quod velit dirigere in finem, et ideo dicit scit enim. Eccles. 23: "Domino Deo nostro" etc. Hebraeos 4: "Omnia nuda". Pater ergo vult administrare. Sap. 11(14,3): "Tua autem pater gubernat". Non enim esset pater nisi esset provisor, infra: "Si vos cum sitis mali".
Quaerite ergo. Tria hic ponit, regnum tamquam finem quia in regno Dei intelligitur beatitudo aeterna. Tunc enim proprie aliquid regitur quando subditur regulae gubernantis. Sed in vita ista non subduntur totaliter Deo quia non sumus sine peccatis et haec erunt in gloria ubi perfecte faciemus voluntatem divinam: Lucas 9: "Beatus qui manducabit". Secundo viam rectam. In regnum enim itur per iustitiam. Unde si vis ire ad regnum Dei oportet quod serves iustitiam regni. Et dicit iustitiam non simpliciter, sed eius, quia duplex est iustitia, hominis qua suis viribus praesumit posse Dei mandata implere, et Dei quae per auxilium gratiae credit homo se posse salvari. Rom. 10: "Ignorantes Dei iustitiam". Tertium est quod ponit et haec omnia adicientur. Liberalis venditor possessorum aliquid dat et adicit, nos convenimus cum Deo "ex denario diurno" infra, "qui est vita aeterna". Unde quicquid superaddit totum est quaedam adiectio et non computatio et hic est et haec omnia adicientur. Non dicit 'dabuntur', Prov. 10: "Non affliget". Prov. 3: "tantum victui meo".
Et nota quod 'quaerere primo' intelligitur dupliciter, sicut finem aut mercedem et sic dicit: Quaerite primum regnum Dei et non temporalia. Non enim debemus evangelizare ut manducemus, sed e converso. Si non primo quaeras regnum Dei pervertis ordinem.
Et sciendum quod dominus idem docet in oratione sua ubi ponuntur septem petitiones quia primo debemus quaerere ipsum bonum Dei, scilicet gloriam eius. In aliis autem primo regnum Dei, secundo iustitiam, tertio "fiat voluntas tua", [quarto] quae sunt adicienda, "Panem nostrum" etc.
Sed contra hoc, "et haec omnia adicientur", obicit Augustinus quia Apostolus dicit "in fame et siti", Cor. 4, et 2. Cor 11, et respondet quod Deus sicut medicus sapiens scit quod expediat. Unde sicut medicus aliquando subtrahit cibum propter salutem corporis, ita Deus propter salutem animae subtrahit temporalia quia propter bonum nostrum, ut scilicet puniantur peccata praeterita et caveamus de futuris vel propter bonum aliorum ut videndo patientiam proficiant in bonum.
Nolite. Hic prohibet sollicitudinem futurorum, et primo ponit suam admonitionem, secundo exponit ibi: Crastinus. Dicit ergo: nolite solliciti. Et nota quod et non intendit dominus prohibere quod homo non sit aliquid sollicitus quid comedere debeat in crastinum. Non enim docet servare maiorem perfectionem quam ipsi apostoli servaverunt, sed ipse habebat loculos ut dicitur Ioh. de Iuda qui portabat pecuniam domini. Unde non docuit quod non fecit qui coepit facere et docere, et iterum apostoli congregaverunt victualia sicut dicitur Acta 11. Unde hic ponuntur quattuor expositiones quarum ultima est magis litteralis. Prima Augustini qui sic dicit: "Nolite solliciti in crastinum", id est de temporalibus. Crastinus enim ponitur pro futuro in scriptura, temporalia autem variantur per heri et eras, Cor. 4, "non contemplantibus nobis", sed ista temporalia quae pertinent ad tempus habent suam sollicitudinem annexam et ideo dicit crastinus enim. Sufficit diei, id est praesenti vitae, malitia, id est necessitas qua cogimur ad providendum de temporalibus et dicitur 'malitia' quia ex culpa primi parentis derivata est. Chrysostomus:cxxxl11 Quae congregantur semper congregantur ut sufficiant ad multum tempus. Unde "nolite sollicitati" id est ad congregandum superflua. Crastinus enim, id est superfluitas rerum temporalium invenit sibi sollicitudinem quia homines sunt solliciti quomodo eripiant tibi istas divitias. Sufficit diei, id est sufficit ut accipias necessaria. Hilarius: In qualibet actione duo sunt consideranda, scilicet ipsa actio et eventus actionis. Quod enim homo seminet hoc est actio quaedam, sed quid invenire debeat, hoc eventus quidam est. Vult ergo dominus quod de his quae non sunt in nobis non debeamus solliciti esse et hoc est magis litteralis et subtilior. Quarta etiam est Hieronymi et plana: Nolite solliciti non est intelligendum de tempore futuro, sed vult quod sollicitudo quae debet incumbere in futurum non sit in praesenti. Tempore enim messis quaerendi sunt messores et non tempore vindemiarum et e converso, et hoc consona litterae. Crastinus, id est futurum tempus, habebit suam sollicitudinem. Sufficit diei malitia, id est poena afflictio, sic Eccles. 11: "Malitia unius".

Caput 7
Lectio 1
Reportatio Leodegarii Bissuntini
7—1
Mt 7:1-14
1 μὴ κρίνετε, ἵνα μὴ κριθῆτε: 2 ἐν ᾧ γὰρ κρίματι κρίνετε κριθήσεσθε, καὶ ἐν ᾧ μέτρῳ μετρεῖτε μετρηθήσεται ὑμῖν. 3 τί δὲ βλέπεις τὸ κάρφος τὸ ἐν τῷ ὀφθαλμῷ τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ σου, τὴν δὲ ἐν τῷ σῷ ὀφθαλμῷ δοκὸν οὐ κατανοεῖσ; 4 ἢ πῶς ἐρεῖς τῷ ἀδελφῷ σου, ἄφες ἐκβάλω τὸ κάρφος ἐκ τοῦ ὀφθαλμοῦ σου, καὶ ἰδοὺ ἡ δοκὸς ἐν τῷ ὀφθαλμῷ σοῦ; 5 ὑποκριτά, ἔκβαλε πρῶτον ἐκ τοῦ ὀφθαλμοῦ σοῦ τὴν δοκόν, καὶ τότε διαβλέψεις ἐκβαλεῖν τὸ κάρφος ἐκ τοῦ ὀφθαλμοῦ τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ σου. 6 μὴ δῶτε τὸ ἅγιον τοῖς κυσίν, μηδὲ βάλητε τοὺς μαργαρίτας ὑμῶν ἔμπροσθεν τῶν χοίρων, μήποτε καταπατήσουσιν αὐτοὺς ἐν τοῖς ποσὶν αὐτῶν καὶ στραφέντες ῥήξωσιν ὑμᾶς. 7 αἰτεῖτε, καὶ δοθήσεται ὑμῖν: ζητεῖτε, καὶ εὑρήσετε: κρούετε, καὶ ἀνοιγήσεται ὑμῖν. 8 πᾶς γὰρ ὁ αἰτῶν λαμβάνει καὶ ὁ ζητῶν εὑρίσκει καὶ τῷ κρούοντι ἀνοιγήσεται. 9 ἢ τίς ἐστιν ἐξ ὑμῶν ἄνθρωπος, ὃν αἰτήσει ὁ υἱὸς αὐτοῦ ἄρτον _ μὴ λίθον ἐπιδώσει αὐτῷ; 10 ἢ καὶ ἰχθὺν αἰτήσει _ μὴ ὄφιν ἐπιδώσει αὐτῷ; 11 εἰ οὖν ὑμεῖς πονηροὶ ὄντες οἴδατε δόματα ἀγαθὰ διδόναι τοῖς τέκνοις ὑμῶν, πόσῳ μᾶλλον ὁ πατὴρ ὑμῶν ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς δώσει ἀγαθὰ τοῖς αἰτοῦσιν αὐτόν. 12 πάντα οὖν ὅσα ἐὰν θέλητε ἵνα ποιῶσιν ὑμῖν οἱ ἄνθρωποι, οὕτως καὶ ὑμεῖς ποιεῖτε αὐτοῖς: οὗτος γάρ ἐστιν ὁ νόμος καὶ οἱ προφῆται. 13 εἰσέλθατε διὰ τῆς στενῆς πύλης: ὅτι πλατεῖα ἡ πύλη καὶ εὐρύχωρος ἡ ὁδὸς ἡ ἀπάγουσα εἰς τὴν ἀπώλειαν, καὶ πολλοί εἰσιν οἱ εἰσερχόμενοι δι' αὐτῆς: 14 τί στενὴ ἡ πύλη καὶ τεθλιμμένη ἡ ὁδὸς ἡ ἀπάγουσα εἰς τὴν ζωήν, καὶ ὀλίγοι εἰσὶν οἱ εὑρίσκοντες αὐτήν.
1. Judge not, that you may not be judged. 2. For with what judgment you judge, you shall be judged: and with what measure you mete, it shall be measured to you again. 3. And why seest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye; and seest not the beam that is in thy own eye? 4. Or how sayest thou to thy brother: Let me cast the mote out of thy eye; and behold a beam is in thy own eye? 5. Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thy own eye, and then shalt thou see to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye. 6. Give not that which is holy to dogs; neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest perhaps they trample them under their feet, and turning upon you, they tear you. 7. Ask, and it shall be given you: seek, and you shall find: knock, and it shall be opened to you. 8. For every one that asketh, receiveth: and he that seeketh, findeth: and to him that knocketh, it shall be opened. 9. Or what man is there among you, of whom if his son shall ask bread, will he reach him a stone? 10. Or if he shall ask him a fish, will he reach him a serpent? 11. If you then being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children: how much more will your Father who is in heaven, give good things to them that ask him? 12. All things therefore whatsoever you would that men should do to you, do you also to them. For this is the law and the prophets. 13. Enter ye in at the narrow gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there are who go in thereat. 14. How narrow is the gate, and strait is the way that leadeth to life: and few there are that find it!
Implevit legem quoad praecepta et quoad promissa, nunc quoad iudicia. Primo ergo ordinat ut non sit temerarium iudicium, et dicit nolite iudicare etc., idest ex amaritudine odii; Amos VI, 13: convertisti iudicium in amaritudinem. Vel sic. Nolite, quantum ad ea quae nostro iudicio non sunt commissa. Domini est iudicium, nobis commisit iudicare de exterioribus, de interioribus vero sibi retinuit. Nolite ergo iudicare de eis; I Cor. IV, 5: nolite iudicare ante tempus; Ier. XVII, 9: pravum est cor hominis, et quis cognoscet illud? Nullus enim debet iudicare de aliquo quod sit malus homo: dubia enim in meliorem partem interpretanda sunt. Item iudicium debet esse congruum quantum ad personam iudicantis. Unde si es in eodem peccato, vel maiori, non debes iudicare; ad Rom. II, 1: in quo enim iudicas alterum, teipsum condemnas. Item non prohibetur praelatis, sed subditis: unde non debent iudicare nisi subditum. Sed Chrysostomus: nolite iudicare etc., idest nolite iudicare vosmetipsos vindicando. Unde si remittitis, non inde iudicabimini; immo ratione huius misericordiae misericordiam consequemini. (1) Having completed the Law in regard to the precepts and promises, he completes it now in regard to judgments. First, he dictates that judgment not be rash and says, Judge not..., i.e., from the bitterness of hatred: "You have turned judgment into bitterness" (Am 6;13). Or, Judge not those matters that have not been entrusted to us. Judgment belongs to God, who has entrusted us with judging externals, but he has reserved internals to himself. Do not, therefore, judge about them: "Do not judge before the time" (1 Cor 4:5); "The heart of man is deceitful, and who can understand it?" (Jer 17:9). For no one ought to judge that another is an evil man, for doubts must be interpreted in the more favorable light. Likewise, judgment should be congruent to the person judging. Hence, if you are in the same sin or greater, you ought not judge: "For in passing judgment on another, you condemn yourself" (Rom 2:1). Likewise, it is not forbidden to prelates, but to subjects; hence they should judge only a subject. But Chrysostom: "Judge not..., i.e., do not judge to vindicate yourselves. Hence, if you forgive, you will not thereby be judged; rather, by reason of this mercy you will obtain mercy."
Sequitur ratio in quo enim iudicio iudicaveritis, iudicabimini; idest, pro quo iudicio iudicaveritis, iudicabimini; Ps. VII, 17: convertetur dolor eius in caput eius et cetera. Et infra XXVI, 52: qui percusserit gladio, gladio peribit. Vel sic. Timere debent qui iudicant, ne hoc iudicio dominus permittat eos puniri, ut in Is. XXXIII, 1: vae tu qui praedaris, nonne et tu praedaberis? (2) The reason follows: For with the judgment you pronounce, you will be judged, i.e., according the judgment with which you have judged you will be judged: "The wicked are ensnared in the work of their own hands" (Ps 9:16); and below (26:52): "He that strikes with the sword shall die by the sword." Or, in this way: Those who judge should fear that the Lord might allow them to be punished with this judgment: "Woe to you, destroyer, who yourself have not been destroyed" (Is 33:1).
In qua mensura et cetera. Hic ponit rationem sub similitudine iudicii; iudex enim est sicut regula animata: cum enim vis aequare duo, defers ad regulam, et quod superabundat de uno, resecas; sic si aliquis habeat de alieno plusquam debeat habere, id resecat, et reddit unicuique quod suum est, idest pro ista mensura remetietur nobis. The measure you give will be the measure you get... Here he presents a reason in the likeness of a judgment. For a judge is, as is were, a living rule; for when you wish to weigh two things, you use a balance, and whatever is excessive in one you cut off. In the same way, if anyone has more than he ought of someone else's, let it be cut off and returned to each according to his due, i.e., according to that measure it will be measured to us.
Sed obiicitur. Aliquis peccat temporaliter, et inde punitur aeternaliter; videtur quod non sit aequum iudicium. Dico quod in peccato duo sunt consideranda: duratio et offensa; et in offensa duo, scilicet aversio et conversio. Ex parte conversionis culpa finita est; ex parte aversionis, infinita, quia avertitur a Deo qui est infinitus. Cum ergo avertat se ab infinito, infinite puniri debet. Item ex parte durationis est duo considerare, scilicet actum et maculam. Actus momentaneus est, macula infinita, idest aeterna; ideo infinite, idest aeternaliter, puniri debet. Unde si a Daemonibus posset deseri macula, possent liberari a culpa et poena. Similiter a parte poenae est acerbitas, et haec est finita. Item duratio, et haec est infinita. But it is objected: Someone sins in time and is punished eternally. This does not seem to be a balanced judgment. I say that two things must be considered in a sin: the duration and the offense. In the offense are two things: turning away and turning to. On the part of turning to, the sin is finite; on the part of turning away, it is infinite, because one turns from God, who is infinite. When, therefore, one turns away from the infinite, he should be punished in an infinite way. Likewise, on the part of duration two things must be considered, namely, the act and the stain of sin. The act is momentary, but the stain infinite, i.e., eternal. Therefore, it should be punished in an infinite way, i.e., eternally. Hence, if the stain could be abandoned by the devils, they could be freed of sin and punishment. Similarly, on the part of punishment there is bitterness, which is finite; likewise, duration, which is finite.
Quid autem vides festucam in oculo fratris tui, et trabem in oculo tuo non vides? Hic dicit quod non debet esse iudicium inordinatum: inordinatum enim est quando ab aliquo incipit, non plene examinata causa, aut gravitate delicti. In iudicando enim duo sunt necessaria: cognitio causae et iudicium. De primo Iob XXIX, 16: causam quam nesciebam, diligentissime investigabam et cetera. Quid autem vides festucam, leve peccatum, in oculo, idest in conscientia fratris, trabem autem, idest grave peccatum, in oculo tuo non vides? Per trabem et festucam docet considerare quantitatem peccatorum: saepe enim qui gravia peccata committunt, reprehendunt eos qui levia, sicut contingit in iudicandis religiosis. Cum aliqui qui gravia faciunt, quae vident levia, in religiosis iudicant gravia; sed absorbentur illa sicut una gutta aquae in multitudine vini. Item contingit quod aliquis ex infirmitate peccet leviter, et aliquis iudex malus et male affectus, qui vellet punire illum ex odio, considerat festucam in oculo illius, non autem trabem in oculo suo. (3) Why do you see the speck in your brother's eye and do not see the log in your own eye? Here he says that judgment should not be inordinate; for it is such, when it begins from someone, before the cause or its gravity have been fully investigated. For in judging, two things are necessary: knowledge of the cause, and judgment. Concerning the first, Job (29:16): "I searched out the cause which I did not know." Why do you see the speck, i.e., the slight sin, in the eye, i.e., in your brother's conscience, but do not notice the log, i.e., the grave sin, in your own eye? By log and speck he teaches us to consider the quantity of sins; for those who commit grave sins often reprehend those who commit slight ones, as happens in judging religious. When some who commit grave sins which they consider light, they consider them grave in religious; but they are absorbed as a drop of water in a cask of wine. Likewise, it happens that some sin slightly from weakness, and an evil, ill-affected judge, who would punish from hatred, considers the speck in their eye and not the log in his own.
Quomodo ergo, idest qua fronte dicere potes: frater, sine eiiciam festucam de oculo tuo? Verecundari debes. Chrysostomus: quo animo diligit homo magis alium quam se? Si enim corrigis eum animo correctionis, prius corriges te; sed hoc facis odio, vel inani gloria; ideo et cetera. (4) How, therefore, i.e., with what sincerity can you say: Let me take the speck out of your eye. You ought to blush. Chrysostom: "With what effort does a man love another more than himself?" For you correct him with the idea of correcting, you should first correct yourself; but this you do for hatred or vainglory. Therefore...
Sed quaeritur utrum qui in peccato mortali est, possit alium corrigere. Dico quod aut aliquando fuit in peccato, aut non: si numquam fuit in peccato, debet timere ne cadat, ideo invite debet corrigere; si aliquando in peccato fuit, cum mansuetudine corripere debet. Et ideo forte dominus permisit Petrum cadere, qui debebat esse pastor Ecclesiae, ut mitius se haberet cum peccatoribus; et de Christo dicit Paulus Hebr. IV, v. 15: non habemus pontificem qui non possit compati infirmitatibus nostris, tentatum per omnia pro similitudine absque peccato. But one asks whether a person in mortal sin can correct another. I say that either he was in sin at one time or was not: if he was never in sin, he should fear lest he fall; therefore, he ought to correct reluctantly. If he has been in sin at some time, he ought to correct with gentleness. And therefore, the Lord perhaps permitted Peter to fall, because he would be the ruler of the Church and should deal meekly with sinners. And Paul says of Christ: "We have not a high priest who is unable to sympathize with sinners, but one who in every respect has been tempted, yet without sin" (Heb 4:15).
Si autem subiacet peccato, aut est publicum, aut occultum: si occultum, aut ex infirmitate, quia displicet ei quod peccat; et sic corripere potest, quia quod corripit in alio, corripit in seipso; si ex malitia, numquam debet corripere. Si autem publicum, non debet arguere cum severitate, sed mansuete seipsum coniungere illi. Unde contra peccatores non est obiurgandum cum asperitate. But if one lies under sin, it is either public or private: if private, it is either from weakness, because he is not pleased with sinning; and so he can correct another, because what he corrects in another he corrects in himself; or from malice, and then he should never correct. But if it is public, he should not scold severely, but meekly join himself to him. Hence sinners should not be severely reprimanded.
Sequitur hypocrita, eiice primum trabem de oculo tuo. Incipit dominus arguendo sicut inferius contra servum nequam et cetera. Augustinus: ostendit quod intendit reprehendere eum qui assumit auctoritatem quae non est sua. Ps. XLIX, 16: peccatori autem dixit Deus: quare tu enarras iustitias meas, et assumis testamentum meum per os tuum? Tu vero odisti disciplinam et cetera. Eiice primum, ieiunando, oran