Commentary on the Gospel of John

Having set forth the teaching on the spiritual life by which Christ gives life to those who have been regenerated, the Evangelist consequently deals with the spiritual nourishment by which Christ sustains those he has given life to; and first he sets forth the visible miracle which Christ performed by providing bodily nourishment; second he deals with spiritual nourishment, at the place, "Jesus answered them and said: Amen, amen, I say to you, you seek me, not because..." etc. Concerning the first he does two things. First he sets forth the visible miracle of bodily nourishment; second he shows the effect of the miracle, at the place, "Those men therefore, when they had seen..." etc. Concerning the miracle he sets forth two things: namely its circumstances, and its performance, at the place, "And when Jesus had lifted up his eyes..." Concerning the first he does three things. First he describes the multitude which he fed; second he determines the place where he fed them, at the place, "Jesus therefore went up into the mountain"; third the time when he fed them, at the place, "Now the Passover was near," etc.

Concerning the first he does three things. First he determines the place to which the multitude follows him; second, the crowd following; third he assigns the cause of their following. Now as to where the crowd followed the Lord, the Evangelist indicates this when he says, "After these things Jesus went away across the sea of Galilee"; that is, after the mystical words which the Lord had spoken concerning his power. Now this sea of Galilee is frequently named in Scripture, and in different places. But because this sea is not salty, but is a certain gathering of waters from the inflow of the Jordan, it is therefore called a lake by Luke, as is found in Luke 5:1; but because, according to the property of the Hebrew idiom, all gatherings of waters are called seas, according to that text of Genesis 1:10, "and the gatherings of waters he called seas," it is therefore called a sea. But it is surnamed Gennesareth from the nature of the place: for it is much agitated by the buffeting of winds, which are generated from the very evaporations of the water; hence Gennesareth in Greek is the same as "generating a breeze." It is also named "of Galilee" from the province of Galilee, in which it is. But "of Tiberias" from the city so called, which was on one side of this sea, having opposite it the city of Capernaum on the other side; which city was formerly called Zenereth, but was afterward restored by Herod the tetrarch in honor of Tiberius Caesar, and was called Tiberias.

Now the literal reason why Jesus went away across the sea is assigned by Chrysostom: that Christ might yield to the fury and disturbance of the Jews, which they had conceived against Christ on account of the things he had said above concerning himself. Hence, as he himself says, just as missiles, when they strike against something hard, strike more heavily, but those which have nothing to meet them, once launched, are quickly spent and come to rest; so too, when we advance impetuously and by resisting against bold men, they rage the more; but if we yield to them, we easily soften their madness. For this reason Christ, by withdrawing across the sea, mitigated the fury of the Jews that had arisen from his foregoing words, giving us in this an example of doing likewise. Ecclesiasticus 8:14: "Do not stand against the face of an insolent man."

Mystically, however, by the sea, the present turbulent world is signified; Psalm 103:25: "This sea, great and wide of hands." The Lord crossed this sea when he took on the sea of mortality and of penalty by being born, trod it underfoot by dying, and, crossing over by rising, arrived at the glory of the resurrection. Concerning this passing-over it is said below, John 13:1: "Jesus knowing that his hour had come, that he should pass from this world to the Father." As he passed over, great crowds followed him, by believing and by imitating, gathered from both peoples; Isaiah 60:5: "Then your heart shall wonder and be enlarged, when the multitude of the sea shall be turned to you"; Psalm 7:7: "Arise, O Lord, in the command which you have commanded, and the assembly of peoples shall surround you." The following crowd is described therefore as abundant, because "a great multitude followed him." Now the cause on account of which they followed was the working of miracles; hence he says, "because they saw the signs which he performed upon those who were sick."

It should be known that some followed him on account of his teaching, namely those who were better disposed; but others, more imperfect, followed him out of admiration for the visible signs, being of a coarser mind. For signs, as is said in 1 Corinthians 14:22, "are not given to believers, but to unbelievers." Some also followed him out of devotion and faith, namely those whom he had healed in body: for they were healed by the Lord in body in such a way that they were also perfectly healed in soul; Deuteronomy 32:4: "The works of God are perfect." And this is clear, because to the paralytic (above, 8:11) he said pointedly: "Go, and sin no more"; and Matthew 9:2: "Son, your sins are forgiven you"; words which pertain more to the health of the soul than of the body. Now it should be noted that, whereas the Evangelist has made mention only of three miracles, namely of the wedding, of the ruler's son, and of the paralytic, here nevertheless he speaks indefinitely of "the signs which he was performing," so as to give one to understand that Christ performed many other signs, as is said below, at the end, of which he makes no mention in this book. For he intended especially to make known the teaching of Christ.

Next he determines the place of the miracle, which is the mountain; hence he says, "He therefore went up into the mountain," that is, Jesus ascended privately, "and there he sat with his disciples." And indeed the mountain is a quite fitting place for a refreshment: for by the mountain is signified the perfection of justice, according to that text of Psalm 35:7: "Your justice is like the mountains of God." Since, therefore, these earthly things do not satisfy — indeed "whoever drinks of this water will thirst again," as is said above, II, 13 — but spiritual things do satisfy; therefore the Lord ascended to higher things with his disciples, to show that satiety is found in spiritual things, and the perfection of justice: concerning which mountain it is said in Psalm 67:16: "A mountain of God, a fat mountain." Hence there too he exercised the office of teacher, sitting with his disciples: for he it is who teaches every man knowledge.

Next the time is described, when he says, "Now the Passover was near," which time indeed befits a refreshment. For Passover is interpreted as "passing-over": Exodus 12:11: "For it is the Phase, that is, the passing-over of the Lord," so as to give one to understand that whoever desires to be refreshed with the bread of the divine Word and the body and blood of the Lord must pass over from vices to virtues. 1 Corinthians 5:7: "Christ our Passover is sacrificed; therefore let us feast on the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth." Ecclesiasticus 24:26, divine Wisdom says: "Pass over to me, all you who desire me." Now this is the second Passover of which the Evangelist makes mention: to which, indeed, according to the precept of the law, which is found in Exodus 23:17, the Lord did not go up to Jerusalem. The reason for this is that Christ was God and man: and inasmuch as man he was indeed subject to the law; inasmuch as God he was above the law. Therefore, that he might show himself to be man, he sometimes kept the law; but that he might show himself to be God, he set the law aside. Hence also, by the fact that he did not go, he gave one to understand that the observances of the law would little by little, and shortly, cease.

Next he deals with the performance of the miracle, when he says, "When Jesus therefore had lifted up his eyes, and had seen," etc.; and first the necessity of performing the miracle is shown; second the performance itself is added, at the place, "Jesus therefore says: Make the men sit down," etc. Now the necessity of the miracle's being performed is taken from the Lord's question and the disciples' answer; and therefore first the Lord's question is set forth; second the disciples' answer, at the place, "Philip answered him," etc. Concerning the first he does three things. First the occasion for questioning is set forth; second Christ's question is added; and third the intention of the one questioning is disclosed.

Now the occasion for questioning was the sight of the multitude coming to Christ. And therefore he says, "When Jesus had lifted up his eyes," being on the mountain with his disciples as with those who were more perfect, "and had seen," etc. In which two things are to be considered concerning the Lord. One, that we may learn the maturity of Christ, who did not raise his eyes here and there, but sat modestly and attentively with his disciples: contrary to which it is said in Proverbs 30:13: "A generation whose eyes are lofty, and whose eyelids are lifted up on high"; and Ecclesiasticus 19:26: "A man is known by his look." The second, that we may learn that he did not sit idly with his disciples either; but, teaching them attentively, and turning their hearts to himself, he looked upon the disciples whom he was teaching; Luke 6:20: "And he, lifting up his eyes upon his disciples, said," etc. And therefore it is said, "When Jesus had lifted up his eyes," etc. Mystically, however, the eyes of the Lord are the spiritual gifts which, when he mercifully grants them to his elect, then he lifts up his eyes upon them, that is, he bestows a look of loving-kindness. This is what Psalm 85:16 asked, saying: "Look upon me, O Lord, and have mercy on me."

Now the question concerns the feeding of the multitude; hence he said to Philip: "Whence shall we buy bread, that these may eat?" He presupposes one thing, and asks about another. He presupposes indeed their want, because they did not have the means to provide food for so great a multitude; but he asks the manner of finding it, when he says, "Whence shall we buy bread, that these may eat?" Here it should be noted that every teacher must spiritually feed the crowd that comes to him. And because no man has of himself the means to feed it, he must therefore buy it from elsewhere, by labor, by study, by assiduity in prayers; Isaiah 55:1: "You who have no money, make haste, buy, without any exchange, wine and milk." And again: "Why do you weigh out your money" — that is, your eloquence — "and not for bread" — that is, not for true wisdom, which refreshes (Ecclesiasticus 15:5: "he fed him with the bread of life and understanding") — "and your labor not unto fullness," by learning things that do not satisfy, but rather empty out?

Now the intention of the one questioning is disclosed when he says, "But this he said trying him," etc. Here the Evangelist, excluding one doubt, leads into another. For it could have been doubted that the Lord questioned Philip as though he were ignorant; but he excludes this, saying, "for he himself knew what he would do." But since to try someone seems also to belong to one who is ignorant, since it is the same as taking a trial of something, it seems that the Evangelist introduces another doubt when he says, "trying him." But it must be said that one person tries another in different ways, so as to take a trial of him: for a man tries in one way, in order to learn; the Devil in another way, in order to deceive; 1 Peter 5:8: "Your adversary the Devil, as a roaring lion, goes about seeking whom he may devour." But God, and Christ, indeed try not in order to learn, since he it is who searches hearts and minds; nor in order to deceive, since "he tries no one," as is said in James 1:13; but he tries in order to give to others a trial-proof of the one tried. Thus God tried Abraham; Genesis 22:1: "God tried Abraham," etc., and it follows: "Now I know that you fear the Lord" — that is, I have made it known that you fear the Lord. Thus from this he tries Philip in order that he might make known to others his answer, leading them thereby into the most certain knowledge of the sign to come.

Next the disciples' answer is set forth, when he says, "Philip answered him," and first Philip's answer; second Andrew's answer, at the place, "One of his disciples says to him," etc. Now it should be known concerning the first, that Philip was, among the others, rather slow and untrained, and therefore among the others he questioned the Lord more frequently; below, John 14:8: "Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us." But in the questioning of these two, as far as the letter is concerned, Andrew was better disposed than Philip, because Philip seems to have had no intention or disposition toward the miracle's being performed. And therefore he introduces that manner by which all those men could be fed, namely by money, saying, "Two hundred denarii worth of bread is not sufficient for them" — which we do not have, and therefore we cannot give them to eat. In which the poverty of Christ is suggested, who did not even have two hundred denarii.

Andrew, however, seems to have regard to the miracle's being performed. For perhaps he had in memory the sign which Elisha had performed with barley loaves, when he fed a hundred men with twenty loaves, as is read in 4 Kings 4:42 and following, and therefore he says, "There is a boy here who has five barley loaves." But nevertheless he supposed that Christ would not perform a greater miracle than Elisha. For he reckoned that from fewer loaves fewer would be miraculously produced, and from more, more (although for him who does not need the underlying matter, it is equally easy to feed the crowds from more or from fewer), and therefore he adds, "But what are these among so many?" As if to say: even if they are multiplied as Elisha multiplied them, it is not sufficient.

Mystically, spiritual refreshment is signified by wisdom. Now there is one wisdom, which Christ taught, who is true wisdom; 1 Corinthians 1:24: "Christ, the power of God and the wisdom of God." But before the coming of Christ there was a twofold teaching. One human, which the philosophers had; the other of the written law. Of the first, therefore, Philip makes mention, and therefore uses the term of buying, saying, "Two hundred denarii worth of bread is not sufficient for them." For human wisdom is possessed through acquisition. The number one hundred imports perfection. Hence two hundred suggests the twofold perfection necessary for this wisdom; for its perfection is arrived at by a twofold path: namely, by experience and by contemplation. He says therefore, "Two hundred denarii worth of bread is not sufficient for them," because whatever human reason can experience and think concerning truth is not sufficient for the perfect satiety of wisdom; Jeremiah 9:23: "Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom, and let not the strong man glory in his strength, and let not the rich man glory in his riches; but let him who glories, glory in this, to know and understand me." For no philosopher's wisdom was so great that men could be recalled from error by it; rather they lead many into error.

Of the second, however, Andrew makes mention; and therefore he did not wish that other loaves be bought, but that the crowd be fed from what was at hand, namely from those things which the law contained; hence he was better disposed than Philip; and therefore he says, "There is a boy here who has five barley loaves." This boy can be called Moses, on account of the imperfection of the state of the law: Hebrews 7:19: "The law brought no one to perfection"; or the people of the Jews, who served under the elements of the world, as is said in Galatians 4:3. This boy, therefore, has five loaves, that is, the teaching of the law: either because it is contained in the five books of Moses — above, John 1:17: "The law was given through Moses" — or because it was given to men occupied with sensible things, which are expressed by the five senses: and they are of barley, because the law itself was given so that in it the vital nourishment might be covered over by bodily sacraments — for the pith of barley is covered by a very clinging husk — or because the people of the Jews were not yet stripped of carnal desire, but clung to their hearts like husk: for in the Old Testament they experienced an outward hardness, on account of the ceremonial observances; Acts 15:10: "This is a burden which neither we, nor our fathers, were able to bear." And the Jews themselves, given over to bodily things, did not grasp the spiritual sense of the law; 2 Corinthians 3:15: "A veil is placed over their hearts."

Now by the two fish, which gave a pleasant flavor to the bread, is understood the teaching of the Psalms and the prophets: and thus the Old Law had not only loaves, namely the five books of Moses, but also two fish, namely the prophets and the Psalms. Hence the Scripture of the Old Testament is divided into these three, Luke 24:44: "the things which are written in the Law and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning me." Or by the two fish, according to Augustine, two persons are signified: namely the royal and the priestly, by whom that people was ruled; which two persons, however, prefigured Christ, who was true king and priest. "But what are these among so many?" Because through these the human race could not be perfectly led to the knowledge of truth: for although God was known in Judea, the nations nevertheless did not know him.

Next, when it says, "Jesus therefore said," the performance of the miracle is dealt with, and first the arrangement of the men is set forth; second their feeding, at the place, "Jesus therefore took the loaves," etc.; third the gathering of the fragments, at the place, "But when they were filled," etc. Concerning the first he does two things. First the command concerning the arrangement of the crowds is set forth; second the opportuneness of the arrangement; and third the number of those arranged.

Now the command was from the Lord to the disciples, that they should arrange the crowd for eating; hence Jesus says, "Make the men sit down," that is, sit down to eat. For, as was said above, II, in ancient times men used to dine reclining on couches, whence the custom grew up that those who sit down to eat are said to "recline." By which is mystically signified the rest which is necessary for the perfection of wisdom; Ecclesiasticus 38:25: "He who is diminished in activity will perfect wisdom." This arrangement is made through the disciples, because through them the knowledge of truth has been passed down to us; Psalm 71:3: "Let the mountains receive peace for the people."

Now the opportuneness of the arrangement is drawn from the place: "now there was much grass in the place," which, according to the letter, is convenient for those reclining. Mystically, however, by the grass, flesh is signified, Isaiah 40:6: "All flesh is grass"; and according to this it can be referred to two things. It fits the teaching of the Old Testament, which was given to one resting in carnal things, and to a people wise in a carnal way; Isaiah 1:19: "If you be willing, and will hearken to me, you shall eat the good things of the land"; Deuteronomy 33:28: "The eye of Jacob upon a land of wheat, wine, and oil." Or it fits one who perceives true wisdom, to which one cannot come except by treading carnal things underfoot; Romans 12:2: "Do not be conformed to this age."

Now the number was great; hence he says, "The men therefore sat down, in number about five thousand." The Evangelist numbers only the men, following the custom of the law, in which Moses numbered the people from twenty years old and upward, with no mention made of women, as is said in Numbers 1. This the Evangelist did for this reason, because these alone are capable of perfect teaching; 1 Corinthians 2:6: "We speak wisdom among the perfect"; Hebrews 5:14: "Solid food is for the perfect."

Next, when he says, "Jesus therefore took the loaves," he deals with the feeding, and first the disposition of the one feeding is suggested; second the matter of the feeding; and third the perfect satiety. Now in the disposition of Jesus as he feeds them, first indeed his humility is noted; second, his giving of thanks. Humility indeed, because he took the loaves, and distributed them. And indeed Christ, about to perform the miracle, could have fed the crowds with loaves created out of nothing. But by dispensation he multiplied pre-existing loaves for the feeding of the crowds. First, indeed, that he might show that sensible things are not from the Devil, as the erring Manichees say. For if this were true, the Lord would not use sensible things for the work of divine praise, especially since he himself came "that he might destroy the works of the Devil," as is said in 1 John 3:8. Second, that he might show it to be false what they themselves say, namely that the teaching of the Old Testament is not from God, but from the Devil. Therefore, in order to show that the teaching of the New Testament is no other than that which was prefigured and contained in the teaching of the Old Testament, he multiplied the pre-existing loaves, indicating that it is he who perfects and fulfills the law; Matthew 5:17: "I have not come to destroy the law."

Now the giving of thanks, because he gave thanks, so as to show that he has from another, namely from the Father, whatever he has: in which he shows us an example of doing likewise. He gave thanks especially, however, so as to give us an example that, when we begin a meal, we ought to give thanks to God; 1 Timothy 4:4: "Nothing is to be rejected which is received with the giving of thanks"; Psalm 21:27: "The poor shall eat, and shall be filled, and they shall praise the Lord." Likewise, that he might show that he was not praying for his own sake, but for the sake of the crowd, which was present, and it was necessary to persuade them that he had come from God. And therefore, when he performs a miracle before many, he prays, so as to show that he is not contrary to God, but works according to his will.

It is said, however, in Mark, that Christ distributed the loaves to the crowds through the apostles. But here it is said that he himself distributed them, because he is seen to have done what he did through others. But both, according to the mystery, are true, because he alone refreshes inwardly, and others refresh outwardly and as ministers. Now the matter of the refreshment was bread and fish, concerning which enough has been said above. The satiety of the refreshment, however, was perfect, because they had "as much as they wanted." For Christ alone is he who feeds the empty soul, and fills the hungry soul with good things; Psalm 16:15: "I shall be satisfied when your glory shall appear." Others, however, as having grace by measure, perform miracles; but Christ, by absolute power, worked all things with great overabundance: hence it is said that "they were filled."

Next, when he says, "But when they were filled, he said to his disciples," etc., the gathering of the fragments is dealt with, and first the Lord's command is set forth; second the disciples' execution of it, at the place, "They gathered therefore," etc. He says therefore, "But when they were filled, he said to his disciples: Gather up the fragments that remain." This indeed the Lord did not do for superfluous ostentation, but so as to show that the miracle performed was not illusory, through the fact that the remains, once gathered, were kept for a long time, and served as food for others. He also wished by this that that miracle should cling more firmly to the hearts of the disciples, whom he also commanded to carry the fragments; since he wished especially to instruct those who were to be the teachers of the whole world. But the disciples faithfully carry it out; hence it follows, "They gathered therefore," etc.

Here it should be noted that the remains left over were not just any amount, nor by chance, but according to a fixed measure: because he made neither more nor less, but as much as he willed, to be superfluous. A sign of this is that each apostle's basket was full. Now a basket is a vessel assigned to rustic service. The twelve baskets, therefore, signify the twelve apostles and their imitators, who, although in the present they are held in contempt, are nevertheless inwardly filled with the riches of the spiritual sacraments: and they are said to be twelve, because the faith of the Holy Trinity was to be preached by them in the four parts of the world.

Having set forth the visible sign concerning bodily nourishment, here is set forth the effect of the sign upon the crowds, which is threefold: first, as to the confession of faith; second, as to the attempted rendering of honor, at the place, "Jesus therefore, when he knew," etc.; third, as to their diligent seeking, at the place, "And when evening was come," etc. It should be known, concerning the first, that it was said as it were out of the mouth of the Jews in Psalm 73:9: "Our signs we have not seen, there is now no prophet." Now it was formerly the custom that the prophets worked many signs, whence, signs being lacking, prophecy seemed to have ceased. But when they do see signs, they confess that prophecy has been restored to them. Hence they had already so far profited from the miracle they had seen that they called the Lord a prophet. It is said therefore that those men, who had been filled from the five loaves, when they had seen the sign that Jesus had done, said, "This is truly the prophet." Yet they had not come to perfect faith, because they believed him to be a prophet who is even the Lord of the prophets. Nor, however, are they altogether deceived, because the Lord himself also names himself a prophet. Now it should be known that a prophet is called one who sees. 1 Kings 9:9: "He that is now called a prophet, in time past was called a seer." Now sight pertains to the cognitive power. But in Christ there was a threefold knowledge. Namely, sensitive knowledge: and according to this he had some likeness with the prophets, inasmuch as in the imagination of Christ certain sensible species could be formed, by which future or hidden things might be presented, especially on account of the passibility that belonged to him by reason of his state as a wayfarer. Likewise intellective knowledge: and as to this he does not have a likeness with the prophets, but is even above the angels, since he was a comprehensor more excellently than any creature. Likewise divine knowledge: and as to this he was the inspirer of the prophets and of the angels, since all knowledge is caused through participation of the divine Word. Yet they seem to recognize in Christ the excellence of prophecy in this, that they say "truly the prophet." For although there were many prophets among the Jews, yet one was awaited, preeminent among them, according to Deuteronomy 18:15: "The Lord will raise up to you a prophet."; and it is of this that they speak; whence he says pointedly, "who is to come into the world."

Then, when he says, "Jesus therefore, when he knew," etc., the second effect is set forth, as to the attempted rendering of honor, which nevertheless Christ shunned. And so first the endeavor of the people is set forth; second, the flight of Christ. The endeavor indeed, when it is said, "that they would take him by force, and make him king." For that is said to be seized which is taken apart from the will and the fitting occasion of him from whom it is taken. Now it was true that the disposition of God the Father had been, from eternity, to manifest the kingship of Christ, but this manifestation was not yet fitting according to the time; for he had come then, but not to reign, in the way in which he reigns in that we say in Matthew 6:10, "Thy kingdom come," where he will reign also according to that which he was made man. And therefore for this manifestation another time is appointed, namely, when the open glory of his saints shall be, after the judgment made by him. It was concerning this manifestation that the disciples asked, Acts 1:6: "Lord, wilt thou at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?" The crowds, therefore, believing that he had come to reign, wished to make him king. The reason for this is that men frequently want such a one for a lord as will feed them in temporal things. Whence, because Christ had fed them, they wished to make him king; Isaiah 3:6: "Thou hast a garment, be thou our prince." Whence Chrysostom says: "See how great is the power of gluttony. They no longer have any care for the transgression of the sabbath, nor are they any longer zealous for God, but all things are set aside, the belly being filled: but already a prophet was among them, and they wished to enthrone him as king." Now the flight of Christ is set forth, when he says, "he fled again into the mountain himself alone." Where it is given to be understood that the Lord, seeing the crowds, had come down from the mountain, and had fed the crowds in the lower places: for unless he had come down from the mountain, it would not be said that he "fled again into the mountain." But since he himself is truly king, why does he flee? To which a threefold reason is assigned. One, because it would have derogated from his dignity, if he had received a kingdom from man, he who was such a king that all kings were kings by participation in him; Proverbs 8:15: "By me kings reign." Another reason is that it would have prejudiced his teaching, if he had received glory or strength from men. For thus he worked and taught so that everything might be ascribed to divine power, and not to human favor; above, 5:41: "I receive not glory from men." The third reason is that he might teach us to despise worldly dignities; below, 13:15: "For I have given you an example, that as I have done to you, so you also should do"; Ecclesiasticus 7:4: "Seek not of man to be made a leader." Thus, therefore, he refused the glory of the world, so that yet he might of his own will undergo the penalty, according to that of Hebrews 12:2: "Who, having joy set before him, endured the cross, despising the shame." But contrary to this seems what is said in Matthew 14:23, namely, that "he went up alone into a mountain to pray." But, according to Augustine, these are not contrary, because the cause of fleeing is joined to the cause of praying. For then the Lord teaches us that there is a great cause for praying, when a cause for fleeing threatens. But mystically he ascends into the mountain then, when the crowds, having been refreshed, were prepared to submit themselves to him, because he ascends into heaven then, when the peoples are prepared to submit themselves to the truth of the faith, according to Psalm 7:8: "The congregation of the people shall surround thee; and for their sakes return thou on high"; that is, that the congregation of the peoples may surround thee, return thou on high. But it is said "he fled," so as to signify that his height could not be understood: for what we do not understand, we say flees from us.

Here the third effect is treated, namely the diligent seeking, and first as to the disciples; second as to the crowds, at the place, "And the next day," etc. Concerning the first he does two things. First he sets forth the endeavor of the disciples; second he explains it, at the place, "and it was now dark," etc. Concerning the first he does two things. First he describes the descent of the disciples to the sea; second, the crossing of the sea, at the place, "and when they had gone up into a ship," etc. It should be known, therefore, concerning the first, that Christ went up the mountain without the disciples knowing, whence they waited until evening, thinking that he would come to them. But evening having come, they could bear no longer not to seek him: so great a love held them. And therefore he says, "And when it was now late, his disciples went down to the sea, seeking him." Now mystically, by "evening" is designated the Lord's Passion, or his Ascension: for as long as Christ was present in the body with the disciples, no disturbance weighed them down, no bitterness troubled them; Matthew 9:15: "The children of the bridegroom cannot mourn, as long as the bridegroom is with them." But with Christ withdrawing from them, they go down to the sea, that is, to the disturbances of the world; Psalm 103:25: "This great sea." But because the love with which they were on fire did not allow them to be without the Lord's presence any longer, he therefore adds their crossing, when he says, "and when they had gone up into a ship, they came over the sea to Capharnaum." Then when he says, "and it was now dark," etc., he explains what he had set forth summarily, and first concerning the arrival at the sea; second concerning the crossing, at the place, "and the sea arose, a great wind blowing." As to the first he says, "it was now dark, and Jesus had not come to them": which the Evangelist expresses not without cause, so as to show through this their fervent love. For neither evening nor night held them back. Now mystically, "darkness" designates a defect of charity; for light is charity, according to 1 John 2:10: "He that loveth his brother abideth in the light." Darkness, therefore, is in us when Jesus, the true light, does not come to us, as is said above in chapter 1, in whose presence all darkness is driven away. Now Christ withdrew himself for so long from the disciples, first indeed that they might feel what his absence would be; which indeed they experienced in the storm of the sea. Jeremiah 2:19: "Know thou, and see that it is an evil and a bitter thing for thee to have left the Lord." Second, that they might seek more diligently; Song of Songs 5:17: "Whither is thy beloved gone, O thou most beautiful among women? … And we will seek him with thee." As to the crossing he says, "and the sea arose, a great wind blowing." And first the storm of the sea is set forth; second, the appearance of Christ and the time of the appearance, at the place, "and when they had rowed," etc.; third, the effect of the appearance, at the place, "and they were afraid," etc. Now the storm on the sea was caused by the blowing of the wind that had arisen; and therefore he says, "and the sea arose, a great wind blowing," on high. By that wind is figured the temptation and persecution which is to come upon the Church on account of a defect of charity. For, as Augustine says, whence charity grows cold, thence the waves increase, and the ship is troubled. Yet those winds and the storm and the waves and the darkness did not so act that either the ship should not move forward, or, having come loose, should be broken, because "he that shall persevere unto the end, he shall be saved," Matthew 24:13; and in the same, chapter 7:27: "the winds blew, and the streams beat against that house, and it fell not." Now the appearance of Christ was not immediately from the beginning of the storm, but after some space; and therefore he says, "when they had rowed, therefore, about five and twenty or thirty furlongs, they see Jesus." And this so that it might be given to be understood, that the Lord permits us to be troubled for a time, so that our virtue may be tested; yet in the end he does not abandon us in necessity, but becomes near to us; 1 Corinthians 10:13: "God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that which you are able; but will make also with temptation issue, that you may be able to bear it." According to Augustine, the twenty-five furlongs which they row are the five books of Moses. For a number of this sort is a square number, arising from this number five multiplied into itself: for five times five is twenty-five; now a number multiplied retains the meaning of its root: whence just as by five the old law is signified, so by twenty-five is signified the perfection of the New Testament. Now by thirty is signified the perfection of the New Testament, which was lacking to the law: for if the same five be multiplied by six, which is a perfect number, the number thirty arises. To those, therefore, who row twenty-five or thirty furlongs, that is, who fulfill the law, or the perfection of the Gospel, Jesus comes, treading down all the swellings of the world, the heights of the present age. Psalm 88:10: "Thou rulest the power of the sea: and appeasest the motion of the waves thereof." And then we shall see Christ near to the ship, because divine help draws near. Psalm 144:18: "The Lord is nigh unto all them that fear him." It appears, therefore, that those who rightly seek Christ have him present. Now these men most fervently desired Christ: which is clear from the darkness of the time, from the storm of the sea, and from the distance of the harbor, notwithstanding which they were endeavoring to go to him. And therefore Christ was present to them.

Now the effect of the appearance is set forth when he says, "and they were afraid. But he saith to them: it is I, be not afraid," and first the interior effect is set forth; second, the exterior, at the place, "and immediately the ship was at the land." Now the interior effect was fear; and therefore is set forth the fear of the disciples conceived from the sudden appearance of Christ, when he says, "and they were afraid," with a good fear, because caused by humility; Romans 11:20: "Be not high-minded, but fear." Or with a bad fear, because, as is said in Matthew 14:26, "they thought it was an apparition." Psalm 13:5: "There have they trembled for fear, where there was no fear." Since fear especially belongs to carnal men, who are terrified at spiritual things. Second is set forth Christ's comforting against a twofold danger. Namely, against the danger to faith in the intellect, and as to this he says, "it is I," as it were repelling all doubt; Luke, last chapter, 39: "See my hands and feet, that it is I myself." Second, against the danger of fear in the affections; and as to this he says, "be not afraid"; Jeremiah 1:8: "Be not afraid at their presence"; Psalm 26:1: "The Lord is my light and my salvation, whom shall I fear?" Third is set forth the disciples' acceptance, because "they willingly took him into the ship": by which it is signified that when servile fear is excluded from our hearts, then we receive Christ, by loving and contemplating him. Apocalypse 3:20: "I stand at the gate and knock: if any man shall open to me, I will come in." Now the exterior effect was as to two things. First, that the storm was calmed; second, that immediately the ship was at the land, when it was far distant from it: for he furnished them not a deceptive, but a tranquil navigation; and wishing to work a greater miracle, he did not go up into the ship. Thus, therefore, a threefold miracle here concurs: namely, the walking upon the sea, the sudden cessation of the storm, and the bringing of the distant ship to the harbor: that we may learn that the faithful, in whom Christ is, press down the swelling of the world, tread upon the waves of tribulations, and swiftly pass over to the land of the living, according to Psalm 142:10: "Thy good spirit shall lead me into the land."

But here there is a manifold question. One is concerning the letter, in which Matthew seems to say the contrary: for, Matthew 14:22, it is said that the disciples came to the sea at the Lord's command; here, however, that they went down seeking him. Another question is that Matthew in the same place says that the disciples, crossing the sea, came into the land of Genesareth; here, however, it is said that they came to Capharnaum. The third question is that Matthew says that Christ entered the ship; here, however, that he did not. But concerning these three, Chrysostom, dispatching the matter briefly, says that this was not the same miracle as that of Matthew. For, as he himself says, Christ frequently worked a miracle of this kind, walking upon the sea, yet not before the crowds, but before his disciples, lest the crowds should believe that he did not have a true body. According to Augustine, however, it is said, and more truly, that it was the same miracle which John narrates here, and Matthew there. And therefore, answering the first question, he says that it does not matter that Matthew says that they went down to the sea at Christ's command. For it could be that the Lord had commanded them this, and they went down believing that Christ would sail with them: whence they waited for him until night. And because Christ did not come, then they themselves crossed the sea. To the second question there is a twofold response. One is, that Capharnaum and Genesareth are on the same shore, and neighboring. And perhaps the disciples arrived across the sea at the boundary of both, and so Matthew names the one, and John the other. Or it can be said that Matthew does not say that they came immediately into Genesareth, and so perhaps they first came to Capharnaum, and afterward into Genesareth, etc.

After the Evangelist has set down how the disciples sought Christ, he here consequently treats of the crowds seeking him, and first the motive for seeking is set down; second, the opportunity for seeking, at the words "but other boats came," etc.; third, the seeking itself is set down, at the words "when therefore the crowd had seen," etc. Now what moved the crowds to seek Christ was the preceding miracle, namely that he had crossed the sea without a vehicle. This indeed became known to them, because in the evening he was not on the shore that was near the place where he had worked the miracle of the loaves, where there was only one boat, and that boat had crossed with the disciples to the other side without Christ. Hence, when in the morning they had not found Christ on the same side where he had been on the previous day, but he was already on the other side, and he had had no other boat in which to cross, they suspected that he had crossed by walking upon the sea. And this is what he says: on the next day — that is, the day after that on which he had worked the miracle of the loaves — the crowd that was standing across the sea, where he had worked the miracle, saw that there was no other boat there but one, because on the previous day there had been only that one, and saw that Jesus had not entered the boat with his disciples, etc.

By this one boat is signified the Church, which is one, by the unity of faith and of the sacraments; Ephesians 4:5: "one faith, one Baptism." But by the fact that Jesus is not with the disciples is signified the bodily separation of Christ from them at the ascension; Mark, last chapter, 19: "the Lord Jesus indeed, after he had spoken to them, was taken up into heaven."

The opportunity for seeking is given by the arrival of other boats from the other side of the sea, with which they were able to cross over to seek Christ; and therefore he says, "but other boats came" from the other side, namely from Tiberias, near the place where they had eaten the loaves, etc. By these other boats that came are signified the conventicles of heretics and of those who seek the things that are their own, and not the things of Jesus Christ — below: "you seek me because you ate of my loaves" — and which are separated either in faith, as regards heretics, or lacking charity, as regards the carnal, who are not properly in the Church, but are nevertheless alongside it, insofar as they put forward a feigned faith and have the appearance of holiness; according to that saying, 2 Timothy 3:5: "having indeed a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof." And 2 Corinthians 11:14: "it is no wonder if the ministers of Satan transform themselves."

But the seeking was earnest; hence he says "when therefore the crowd had seen," etc., and first he shows how the crowd seeks Christ; second, how, once he is found, they question him. He says therefore first, that when the crowd had seen that Jesus was not there, nor his disciples, they got into the boats that had come from Tiberias, seeking him — which is praiseworthy; Isaiah 55:6: "seek the Lord while he may be found"; and Psalm 68:33: "seek the Lord, and your soul shall live." But once he is found they question him; hence he said, and when the crowds had found him, namely Christ, across the sea, they said to him: Rabbi, when did you come here?

But this question can be understood in two ways. In one way, that they ask only about the time; and then, according to Chrysostom, their crudeness is to be reproached, because after so great a miracle they do not ask about the manner of crossing, namely how he had crossed without a boat, but only about the time of the crossing. Or it can be said that by saying "when," they ask not only about the time, but also about the other circumstances that concurred in the miraculous crossing.

But note that above, after the meal, they wanted to make him king; but now, though they have him present, they do not want to make him king. The reason for this is that they wanted to make him king, stirred up by the passion of joy caused by the meal. Now passions of this kind quickly pass away, and therefore the things that are disposed according to these very passions are transitory; but the things that are disposed by reason endure more; Ecclesiasticus 27:12: "a wise man continues in wisdom as the sun; but a fool is changed as the moon"; Proverbs 11:18: "the wicked man makes unstable work."

Next, when he says "Jesus answered them," etc., the Lord treats of spiritual food; and first he sets forth the truth concerning the spiritual; second, he excludes a contradiction, at the words "the Jews therefore murmured about him." Concerning the first he does three things. First he sets forth the truth of the spiritual food; second he intimates its origin, at the words "they said therefore to him: what sign then do you work?" etc.; third he teaches the manner of receiving this food itself, at the words "they said therefore to him: Lord, always give us this bread." Concerning the first he does two things. First he shows the spiritual food, and its power; second he makes manifest what it is, at the words "they said therefore to him: what shall we do that we may work the works of God?" Concerning the first he does two things. First he argues against their perverse desire; second he exhorts them to the truth, at the words "labor," etc.

He says therefore: amen, amen I say to you, although you show yourselves as it were devout, yet you seek me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate of the loaves, and were filled; as if he were to say: you seek me on account of the flesh, not on account of the spirit, namely so that you may be fed again. And, as Augustine says, the place of these is held by those who seek Jesus, not for his own sake, but so that they may obtain certain worldly advantages; such as those who, having business dealings, approach prelates and clerics, not on account of Christ, but so that by their intercession they may be advanced with the great; such as those who take refuge in churches, not on account of Jesus, but because they are oppressed by those more powerful; such also as those who, drawing near to the Lord through holy orders, seek not the merits of the virtues, but the aids of the present life, namely riches and honors, as Gregory says in Moralia 23. And this is clear: for to work signs belongs to divine power; but to eat multiplied bread is something temporal. Since, therefore, they do not come to Christ on account of the power which they see in him, but on account of the fact that they eat of the loaves, they do not serve Christ but their own belly, as is said in Philippians 3, and Psalm 48:19: "he will confess to you when you have done well to him."

He leads them back to the truth by setting before them the spiritual food, saying labor not for the food that perishes, but for that which endures unto eternal life, and first he sets forth its power; second its authority, at the words "which the Son of man has given you." The power of that food is considered in the fact that it does not perish. Hence it must be known concerning this, that bodily things are certain likenesses of spiritual things, inasmuch as they are caused and derived from them, and therefore they imitate the spiritual things themselves in some way. Hence, just as the body is sustained by food, so that by which the spirit is sustained is called its food, whatever that may be. But that by which the body is sustained, since it passes over into the nature of the body, is corruptible; but the food by which the spirit is sustained is incorruptible, because it is not changed into the spirit itself, but rather, conversely, the spirit is changed into the food. Hence it is the saying of Augustine: "I am the food of the full-grown: grow, and you shall eat me. Nor shall you change me into yourself, as the food of your flesh, but you shall be changed into me," as is said in the Book of Confessions.

And therefore the Lord says "labor"; that is, seek by laboring, or merit by works, not the food that perishes, namely the bodily food; 1 Corinthians 6:13: "food for the belly, and the belly for food, but God will destroy both this and that" — because the use of foods will not always exist; but labor for that food, namely the spiritual, which endures unto eternal life; which food indeed is God himself, insofar as he is truth to be contemplated, and goodness to be loved, by which the spirit is refreshed; Proverbs 9:5: "eat my bread"; Ecclesiasticus 15:3: "he fed him with the bread of life and understanding." Likewise, obedience itself to the divine commandments; above, 4:34: "my food is to do the will of him who sent me." Likewise, also Christ himself. Below, in the same chapter: "I am the bread of life"; likewise: "my flesh is truly food, and my blood is truly drink." And this insofar as it is joined to the Word of God, which is the food by which the Angels live.

Now he assigned a similar difference above in chapter 4:13, concerning bodily drink and spiritual drink, when he said: "whoever drinks of this water shall thirst again; but whoever drinks of the water that I shall give him shall not thirst forever" — the same difference which he here assigns between bodily and spiritual food. The reason for this is that bodily things are corruptible, but spiritual things, and especially God, are eternal.

But it must be known, according to Augustine in the book On the Work of Monks, that from this saying, namely "labor not for the food that perishes," certain monks took occasion for error, saying that spiritual men ought not to work anything bodily. But this understanding is false, because Paul, who was most spiritual, labored with his own hands, as is found in Ephesians 4:28, where he himself says: "he who stole, let him now steal no more; but rather let him labor with his hands." Therefore the true understanding is that we should direct our work — that is, our principal study and intention — toward seeking the food that leads to eternal life, namely the spiritual goods. But we ought not to attend principally to temporal things, but only accessorily, that is, to procure them only by reason of the corruptible body, which must be sustained as long as we live in this life. Hence, against this, the Apostle pointedly says, 2 Thessalonians 3:10: "he who does not work, let him not eat"; as if he were to say: those who say that nothing bodily is to be done — since eating is something bodily — such men ought not to eat.

Next, when he says "which the Son of man will give you," he sets down the giver of the spiritual food: and first he sets down the author of this food; second he makes manifest whence he has the authority to feed. Now the author and giver of the spiritual food is Christ; and therefore he says which — namely, the food that does not perish — the Son of man will give you. If he had said "the Son of God," it would not have seemed remarkable; but the fact that the Son of man gives it more raises attention. Yet in a spiritual sense the Son of man gives it for this reason: because human nature, weakened by sin, loathed spiritual food, and could not take it in its own spirituality; hence it was necessary that the Son of God take on flesh, and through it refresh us; Psalm 22:5: "you have prepared a table before me."

But whence he has the authority of giving, he adds when he says "for this one the Father, God, has sealed"; as if he were to say: that the Son of man will give this, he has this only insofar as, by the singularity and eminence of the fullness of grace, he excels all the sons of men; hence he says this one — namely the Son of man — the Father has sealed: that is, has markedly distinguished him from the rest; Psalm 44:8: "God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness above your fellows." Or, according to Hilary, "has sealed," that is, has stamped with a seal. Now when a seal is impressed in wax, the wax retains the whole figure of the seal, just as the Son also received the whole figure of the Father. Now there is a twofold reception which the Son received from the Father. One is eternal; and it is not of this that what is here said, "has sealed," is to be understood, because in sealing, the nature receiving is one thing, and the nature impressing is another. But this is understood of the mystery of the Incarnation, because upon human nature God the Father impressed the Word, who is "the splendor and the figure of his substance," as is said in Hebrews 1:3. Or according to Chrysostom, "has sealed," that is, God the Father specially instructed him for this, that he should give eternal life to the world; below, 10:10: "I came that they may have life," etc. For thus, when someone is chosen to carry out some great office, he is said to be sealed for that office; Luke 10:1: "after these things the Lord appointed also seventy others as disciples," etc. Or "has sealed," that is, has made manifest by the voice at the Baptism, and by works, as was said above, chapter 5.

Next, when he says "they said therefore to him: what shall we do that we may work the works of God?", he makes manifest what the spiritual food is, and first the question of the Jews is set down; second the response of Jesus Christ is added, at the words "Jesus answered," etc. Concerning the first it must be known that the Jews, instructed from the law, believed that nothing was eternal except God. Hence, when he had said that the spiritual food endures unto eternal life, they understood that food to be something divine. And therefore, seeking, they make mention not of food, but of the work of God, when they say "what shall we do that we may work the works of God?" In which they were not far from the truth, since the spiritual food is nothing other than to work the works of God; Luke 18:18: "what shall I do to possess eternal life?"

The Lord's response is set down when he says "this is the work of God, that you believe in him," etc. Here it must be considered that the Apostle, in Romans 4, distinguishes faith from works, saying that Abraham was not justified by works, but by faith. What then is it that the Lord here says, that faith itself, or believing, is the work of God? But to this there is a twofold response. One, that the Apostle does not distinguish faith from works absolutely, but from exterior works. For there are certain exterior works, which are carried out with the bodily members, and which, because they are better known, are called works according to common usage; but others are interior, which are carried out in the soul itself, which are known only to the wise, and which turn to the heart. In another way it is said that believing itself can be reckoned among exterior works, not because faith is itself the works, but because it is their principle; hence he also pointedly says "that you believe in him."

For it makes a difference whether one says "to believe God" — for thus I designate the object — or "to believe God" (as a witness) — for thus I designate a witness — or "to believe in God" — for thus I designate an end: so that in this way God can be held as the object of faith, as witness, and as end, but in different respects. For the object of faith can be a creature — for I believe that heaven was created; likewise a creature also can be a witness of faith, for I believe Paul, or any of the saints; but the end of faith cannot be anything but God, for our mind is borne only toward God as toward an end. But since the end has the character of the good, it is the object of love; and therefore to believe in God as in an end is proper to faith formed by charity; and this faith, thus formed, is the principle of all good works; and to this extent believing itself is called the work of God.

But if faith is the work of God, how do men do the works of God? But this is resolved by Isaiah 26:12, when it says: "all our works he has wrought in us." For this very thing that we believe, and whatever good we work, is in us from God; Philippians 2:13: "it is he who works in us both to will and to accomplish." And therefore he pointedly says that believing is the work of God, in order to show that faith is a gift of God, as is said in Ephesians 2:8.

Next, when he says "they said therefore to him: what sign then do you work?", the origin of the food is treated, and first the question of the Jews is set down; second the response of Christ, at the words "amen, amen I say to you, Moses did not give you bread from heaven." Concerning the first they do three things. First they ask for a sign; second they specify it; third they adduce the testimony of Scripture.

Now they ask for a sign by proposing the question; hence they said: what sign do you work, that we may see, and believe you? Now this question is explained differently by Augustine, and differently by Chrysostom. For Chrysostom says that the Lord had invited them to faith. Now the arguments leading to faith are miracles; 1 Corinthians 14:22: "signs are given to unbelievers." And therefore for this they seek a sign by which they may believe; for it is the custom of the Jews to ask for signs; 1 Corinthians 1:22: "for the Jews seek signs." Hence he says "what sign then do you work?" But this seems ridiculous, that they should ask for some miracles for this purpose, since he had just performed some, by multiplying the loaves, and by walking upon the sea, which had occurred in their very presence, and which they could believe. But they say this for this reason: to provoke the Lord, and to induce him always to feed them. This is clear, because they make no mention of any other sign except that which was done for their fathers through Moses for forty years, as if by this they were asking that he should always feed them; hence they say "our fathers ate manna in the desert." Nor do they say: God fed our fathers with manna, lest they should seem to want to make him equal to God. Likewise they do not say, Moses fed them, lest they should seem to prefer Moses to Christ — as if wanting by this to entice him, so that he might continually feed them. Concerning that food it is spoken of in Exodus 16, and in Psalm 77:25: "man ate the bread of Angels."

But Augustine says that the Lord said that he would give them food that endures unto eternal life; hence he seems, as it were, to prefer himself to Moses. But the Jews reckoned Moses greater than Christ; hence they said, below, chapter 9:29: "we know that God spoke to Moses; but as for this man, we do not know where he is from." Hence they required that Christ should do certain things greater than Moses had done; and therefore they bring back to memory the things that Moses did, saying: our fathers ate manna in the desert; as if he were to say: what you say about yourself is greater than what Moses did, because you promise food that does not perish; but the manna that Moses gave, if it was kept for another day, swarmed with worms. If therefore you wish us to believe you, you should do something greater than Moses; for what you did is not greater, because you satisfied five thousand men, but with five barley loaves, and only once; whereas he satisfied the whole people with manna from heaven for forty years, and this in the desert, just as it is written in Psalm 77:24: "he gave them bread from heaven to eat."

The question of the Jews having been posed, here the response of Christ is set forth. And first he shows the origin of the spiritual food; second he proves it, at the words "For the bread that comes down from heaven is the true bread." Concerning the first, it must be known that the Jews had proposed two things to Christ concerning the origin of the bodily food which their fathers had: namely, the giver, who was Moses, and the place, because it was from heaven; and so the Lord, removing these two things concerning the origin of the spiritual food, asserts that the giver of the spiritual food is different, and the place is different. Hence he says, removing the aforesaid points, "Amen, amen I say to you, Moses did not give you bread from heaven." It is another who gives, because it is my Father — not bodily bread, but the true bread from heaven.

But against this: was not the bread which the fathers had in the desert truly bread? I answer: if "true" is taken as it is divided against the false, then that bread was true, for the miracle of the manna was not false; but if "true" is taken as truth is divided against figure, then that bread was not true, but a figure of the spiritual bread, namely of our Lord Jesus Christ, which the manna itself signified, as the Apostle says, 1 Corinthians 10:3: "all ate the same spiritual food."

Likewise, against what he says — "he did not give you bread from heaven" — is what is said in Psalm 77:24: "he gave them the bread of heaven." I answer: heaven is taken in three ways. Sometimes for the air; Matthew 13:4: "the birds of the air ate it"; and in Psalm 17:14: "the Lord thundered from heaven." Sometimes for the starry heaven, according to that verse, Psalm 113:16: "the heaven of heaven is the Lord's"; and Matthew 24:29: "the stars will fall from heaven." Sometimes, indeed, for the spiritual goods themselves; Matthew 5:12: "rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven." The manna, therefore, was from heaven not the starry or spiritual heaven, but the aerial. Or it is said to be from heaven inasmuch as it was a figure of the true heavenly bread, our Lord Jesus Christ.

Consequently, when he says "for the true bread is that which comes down from heaven and gives life to the world," he proves that it is from heaven also by its effect. For the true heaven is of a spiritual nature, to which life belongs of itself, and therefore it gives life of itself; below: "it is the spirit that gives life." Now God himself is the author of life. From this, then, it is known that this spiritual bread is from heaven, since it produces its proper effect, if it gives life. For that bodily bread did not give life, since all who ate the manna died; but this bread gives life, and therefore he says it is "the true bread," and not figural, "which comes down from heaven." And this is evident, because "it gives life to the world." For Christ, who is the true bread, gives life to whom he wills; below, 10:10: "I came that they may have life," and so on. He also comes down from heaven; above, 3:13: "no one has ascended into heaven except him who descended from heaven, the Son of Man who is in heaven." Thus, therefore, Christ, the true bread, gives life to the world by reason of his divinity, and comes down from heaven by reason of his human nature. For, as was said above at chapter 3, he is said to have descended from heaven by assuming human nature; Philippians 2:7: "he emptied himself, taking the form of a servant."

"They said therefore," and so on. Here the obtaining of the spiritual food is treated, and first the petition for that food itself is set forth; second the exposition is given, at "But Jesus said to them: I am the bread of life," where he shows the manner of obtaining it. It must be known, concerning the first, that the Jews understood the Lord's words carnally; and therefore, because they were in a desire for carnal things, they ask carnal food from Christ; hence they said to him, "Lord, always give us this bread," that would refresh in this way. And the Samaritan woman understood the word about spiritual water carnally, and wishing to be free from need, said: "Lord, give me this water." And although these people understand the Lord's words about food carnally, and ask carnally, nevertheless their petition, understood spiritually, is fitting for us; Matthew 6:11: "give us this day our daily bread": because we cannot live without this bread.

Consequently, when he says "But Jesus said to them: I am the bread of life," he shows the manner of obtaining it, showing first what this bread is; second how it is acquired, at "all that the Father gives me will come to me." Concerning the first he does three things. First he sets forth the explanation of the aforesaid bread; second he assigns the reason for the explanation, at "he who comes to me shall not hunger"; third he manifests the necessity of the explanation, at "but I said to you," and so on.

Jesus therefore said to them, "I am the bread of life": for, as was said above, the word of wisdom is the special food of the mind, because by it the mind is sustained; Ecclesiasticus 15:3: "he fed him with the bread of life and understanding." Now the bread of wisdom is said to be the bread of life, to distinguish it from bodily bread, which is the bread of death, which is fitting only for restoring the defect of mortality, whence it is necessary only in this mortal life. But the bread of divine wisdom is of itself life-giving, and has no contrary death. Likewise, bodily bread does not give life, but only sustains for a time a life already existing; but spiritual bread so gives life that it grants life, for the soul begins to live through this, that it cleaves to the Word of God; Psalm 35:10: "with you is the fountain of life." Since, therefore, every word of wisdom is derived from the only-begotten Word of God, Ecclesiasticus 1:5: "the fountain of wisdom is the only-begotten of God, abiding on high," therefore the Word of God itself is principally called the bread of life; and therefore Christ says, "I am the bread of life."

And because the flesh of Christ is united to the Word of God itself, it also has the property of being life-giving, whence his body too, taken sacramentally, is life-giving: for through the mysteries which Christ fulfilled in his flesh, he gives life to the world; and thus the flesh of Christ, on account of the Lord's word, is bread — not of the accustomed life, but of that life which is not unlocked by death. And therefore the flesh of Christ is called bread; Genesis 49:20: "Asher, his bread is fat."

It is also signified through the manna, 1 Corinthians 10:1ff. "Manna" is interpreted "what is this?" Because the Jews, seeing it, marveled, saying to one another, "what is this?" But nothing is more marvelous than the Son of God made man, so that it falls to anyone to ask, "what is this?" That is, how is the Son of God the son of man; how do two natures come to make one person of Christ? Isaiah 9:6: "his name shall be called Wonderful." It is also marvelous how Christ is under the sacrament.

Consequently, when he says "he who comes to me shall not hunger," he assigns the reason for the explanation, and this from the effect of this bread. For bodily bread, once eaten, does not take away hunger forever, since it is corrupted and fails; and therefore it must be sought again for nourishment; but spiritual bread, giving life of itself, is never corrupted; and therefore a man, having eaten once, never hungers. And therefore he says, "he who comes to me shall not hunger, and he who believes in me shall never thirst." Now, as to what he says — namely, that "he who comes" and "he who believes" shall not hunger nor thirst — these do not differ, according to Augustine, because to come to him and to believe in him are the same thing: for we come to God not by steps of the body, but of the mind, the first of which is faith. To eat and to drink are likewise the same: for by both is signified the eternal satisfaction, where there is no want. Matthew 5:6: "blessed are they who hunger and thirst for justice, for they shall be satisfied": so that the same thing is food sustaining and drink refreshing.

Now the reason why temporal things do not take away thirst forever is, first, because they are not taken all at once, but little by little, and as it were with movement, and therefore something always remains to be taken; and on account of this, just as delight and satisfaction arise from what has already been taken, so too desire remains from the taking. The other reason is that they are corrupted, whence a memory remains from the corrupted thing, and desire for them is generated again. Spiritual things, however, are both taken all at once, and are not corrupted nor do they fail; and therefore their satisfaction remains forever. Revelation 7:16: "they shall neither hunger nor thirst." Psalm 15:10: "you shall fill me with joy with your countenance; delights are at your right hand," that is, in spiritual goods, "even to the end."

Consequently, when he says "but I said to you," etc., the necessity of the explanation is set forth. For someone might say: we asked for bread; but you do not answer, "I will give it to you," or "I will not"; but rather you say, "I am the bread of life"; and therefore your answer does not seem a good one. But that it is a good answer, the Lord shows, saying, "I said to you that you have also seen me, and have not believed": which is the same as if someone had bread before him, being ignorant of it, and it were said to him, "behold, bread is before you." And therefore he says, "I said to you (I am the living bread) and you have seen me, and have not believed"; that is, you desire bread, and you have it before you; and yet you do not take it, because you do not believe. In this he reproaches them for their unbelief; below, 15:24: "but they have seen, and have hated both me and my Father."

Consequently, when he says "all that the Father gives me will come to me," he shows how it is acquired, and first he sets forth the manner of acquiring it; second, the assurance of arrival, at "and him who comes to me I will not cast out"; third he manifests what he says, at "because I came down from heaven," and so on. It must be known, concerning the first, that our very believing comes to us from the gift of God. Ephesians 2:8: "by grace you are saved, and not of yourselves, for it is the gift of God"; Philippians 1:29: "it has been given to you not only to believe in him, but also to suffer for him." Now it is sometimes said that God the Father gives believing men to the Son, as here, "all that the Father gives me will come to me." Sometimes the Son gives to the Father, as that text, 1 Corinthians 15:24: "when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God and the Father." From which we understand that just as the Father, in giving, does not take the kingdom away from himself, so neither does the Son. Now the Father gives to the Son, inasmuch as he makes a man cleave to his Word. 1 Corinthians 1:9: "through whom," namely the Father, "you have been called into the fellowship of his Son." But the Son delivers to the Father, inasmuch as the Word is manifestative of the Father himself. Below, 17:6: "Father, I have manifested your name to men." Thus, therefore, he says, "all that the Father gives me will come to me"; that is, those who believe in me, whom the Father makes cleave to me by his gift.

But perhaps someone would say that it is not necessary that anyone make use of the gift of God: for many receive the gift of God who do not use it. How then does he say, "all that the Father gives me will come to me"? To which it must be said that in that giving is understood not only the habit, which is faith and the like, but also the interior instinct toward believing. Whatever, then, one does toward salvation, all of it is from the gift of God. But a question remains: for if all that the Father gives to Christ goes to him, as he himself says, then only those go to God whom the Father gives to him; therefore it ought not to be imputed to those who do not go, since they are not given to him. To which it must be said that it is not imputed to them, if they cannot come to faith without the help of God; but this is imputed to the one who does not come, because he himself provides the impediment that keeps him from coming, turning himself away from salvation, whose way, as far as it is in itself, is open to all.

Now the goal of the arrival is set forth when he says "and him who comes to me I will not cast out." For someone might say: we will come to you; but you will not receive us. And therefore he says, excluding this, "him who comes to me" — by the steps of faith and good works — "I will not cast out," in which he gives us to understand that he himself is within: for that is "within" from which one goes out to "without." Let us therefore consider what this interior thing is, and how one is cast out from it.

It must be known, then, that since all visible things are said to be, as it were, certain exterior things with respect to spiritual things, the more something is spiritual, the more interior it is. There is, therefore, a twofold interior. One is the deepest, namely the joy of eternal life, which, according to Augustine, is the more inward and sweet secret, without weariness, without the bitterness of evil thoughts, without the interruption of temptations and sorrows; concerning which it is said, Matthew 25:21: "enter into the joy of your lord." And Psalm 30:21: "you shall hide them in the secret of your face"; that is, in the full vision of your essence. And from this interior thing no one shall be cast out. Revelation 3:12: "he who shall overcome, I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go out no more," because, as is said in Matthew 25:46, "the just shall go into life everlasting."

The other interior thing is the rectitude of conscience, which is a spiritual joy; and concerning this it is said, Wisdom 8:16: "entering into my house, I shall rest." And Song of Songs 1:3: "the king has brought me into his storerooms." And from this some are cast out. And therefore what the Lord says, "I will not cast out," can be understood in two ways. In one way, so that those are said to come to him who are given to him by the Father through eternal predestination; and concerning these he says, "him who comes to me," predestined by the Father, "I will not cast out"; Romans 11:2: "God has not cast away his people whom he chose." In the other way, because those who go out do not go out as though cast out by Christ, but the cause of their casting-out is on their own part, who, through unbelief and sins, withdraw from the secret place of a right conscience. And thus it is said, "I do not cast out," but they themselves cast themselves out; Jeremiah 23:33: "you are the burden, and I will cast you off, says the Lord." And in this way that man was cast out who had entered the wedding feast not having a wedding garment, as is said in Matthew 22:11ff.

Now he assigns the reason for the foregoing, when he says "because I came down from heaven," etc., and first he sets forth the intention of fulfilling the Father's will; second he manifests what the Father's will is, at "this is the will of him who sent me, the Father"; third he shows the final fulfillment of the will, at "and I will raise him up on the last day." Concerning the first it must be known that this text can be read in two ways: in one way according to Augustine, in the other according to Chrysostom.

According to Augustine, thus: "him who comes to me I will not cast out," and this because he comes to me who imitates my humility. Matthew 11:28, when the Lord said, "come to me, all you who labor," he consequently adds: "learn from me, for I am meek and humble of heart." Now the true meekness of the Son of God consists in this, that he subjected his own will to the will of the Father. And therefore he says "I will not cast out," because "I came down from heaven not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me." On this account the soul went out from God, because it was proud; and therefore it is necessary to return by humility, coming to Christ through the imitation of his humility, which consists in this, that he does not do his own will alone, but the will of God the Father.

It must be known, moreover, that in Christ there was a twofold will. One according to the human nature, which is proper to him both by nature and by the will of the Father; the other according to the divine nature, which is the same as the will of the Father. His own will, therefore, namely the human will, he ordered under the divine will, because he himself showed his obedience under the effect of the paternal will, wishing to fulfill the Father's will. Psalm 39:9: "that I should do your will, O my God, I have desired it." We ask that this will be done in us when we say, Matthew 6:10: "your will be done." Those, therefore, are not cast out who do not do their own will, but the will of God. For the Devil, wishing to do his own will, which is a mark of pride, was cast out of heaven, and the first man out of Paradise.

According to Chrysostom, however, thus: I do not cast out him who comes to me because I came for this, to fulfill the Father's will concerning the salvation of men. If, therefore, I was incarnated for the salvation of men, how ought I to cast them out? And this is what he says: "therefore I do not cast out, because I came down from heaven not to do my own will," that is, the human will, so as to acquire something proper to myself, "but the will of him who sent me," the Father, "who wills all men to be saved," as is said in 1 Timothy 2:4. And therefore, as far as it is from me, I cast no one out. Romans 5:10: "for if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, shall we be saved by his life."

Now what the Father's will is, he explains first, when he says "for this is the will of him who sent me, the Father," etc.; second he assigns the reason, at "for this is the will of my Father," etc. He said, then: I will not cast out those who come to me, because I assumed flesh in order to do the Father's will. Now the will of him who sent me, the Father, is this: namely, that I should not cast out; and therefore I will not cast out. 1 Thessalonians 4:3: "this is the will of God, your sanctification." And therefore he says "that of all that he has given me, I should lose nothing of it"; that is, that I should lose nothing, until it comes to the future resurrection, in which some will be lost — not, however, of those who were given to him through eternal predestination, but the impious; Psalm 1:6: "the way of the impious shall perish." But those who are preserved up to that time will not be lost.

By this, however, that he says "I will not lose," it is not to be understood that he has need of them, or that it would be a detriment to him if they perish. But he says this on account of his affection for their salvation, and their good, which he reckons as his own. But against this is what is said below, chapter 17:12: "none of them," namely of those whom you gave me, "has perished, except the son of perdition." Therefore some of those who were given to him through eternal predestination are lost. This, then — what he says, "I will not lose of it" — is not true. But it must be said that it is from among those who are given to him through present righteousness that some are lost; not, however, from among those given through eternal predestination.

Now he sets forth the reason for the divine will when he says "for this is the will of my Father," etc. The reason why the Father wills that I should not lose anything of what he has given me is that it is the Father's will to give life spiritually to men, since he himself is the fountain of life. And because he is eternal, as far as concerns himself, it is his will that everyone who comes to me should have eternal life. And this is what he says: "this is the will of the Father who sent me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in him should have eternal life."

But it must be noted that above, 5:24, he said: "he who sees the Son, and believes him who sent me, has eternal life," whereas here he says "he who believes in him" — so as to give us to understand the same divinity of the Father and the Son, the vision of which through essence is our ultimate end, and the object of faith. But what he says, "sees," is not to be understood of the vision through essence, which faith precedes, but of the bodily vision of Christ, which leads to faith. And therefore he says pointedly, "he who sees the Son, and believes in him"; above, 5:24: "he who believes in him (...) is not judged, but shall pass from death to life"; below, 20:31: "but these things are written, that you may believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and that believing, you may have life in his name."

This will of the Father, moreover, will likewise be fulfilled, and therefore he adds, "and I will raise him up on the last day": because he thus wills that not only in soul, but also in body, he should have eternal life (Daniel 12:2: "of those who sleep in the dust of the earth, some shall awake to life everlasting, and others to everlasting reproach") just as Christ also rose again; Romans 6:9: "Christ rising from the dead dies now no more," and so on.

Having set forth the teaching of Christ, here the contradiction of the aforesaid teaching is excluded, and first with respect to the murmuring crowds; second with respect to the doubting disciples, at the place "Many therefore of his disciples, hearing this, said" etc. Concerning the first he does two things. First he expresses the murmuring of the crowds about the origin of the spiritual food; second he mitigates their dispute about the eating of the spiritual food, at the place "The Jews therefore disputed among themselves." Concerning the first he does two things. First the murmuring of the crowds is set down; second the repression of the murmuring, at the place "Jesus therefore answered, and said to them." Concerning the first he does two things. First the occasion of the murmuring is set down; second the words of those murmuring are set down, at the place "Is not this the son of Joseph?"

He concludes therefore from the aforesaid words of Christ, that certain persons murmured about a certain one of the words spoken, namely because he had said: "I am the living bread, which came down from heaven" (John 6:51); which spiritual bread indeed they did not grasp nor desire. And therefore they murmured, because they did not have a mind grounded in spiritual things, and they had an ancient custom of this matter, according to Psalm 105:25: "they murmured in their tents"; and 1 Corinthians 10:10: "neither murmur, as some of them murmured." Now, as Chrysostom says, up to this point they had not murmured, because they always hoped that they would obtain bodily food; when that hope was withdrawn, they immediately begin to murmur, although they put forward another cause. But they do not openly contradict him, because of the reverence which they still had for him, from the memory of the preceding miracle.

Now he sets down the words of those murmuring when he says "Is not this the son of Joseph?" For because they were carnal, they considered only the carnal generation of Christ, by which they were hindered from knowing the spiritual and eternal generation; and therefore they speak only of the carnal generation, according to what was said above, John 3:31: "he who is of the earth, speaks of the earth," and they do not grasp the spiritual; hence they add: "How then does he say, that I came down from heaven?" Now they call him the son of Joseph on account of common reputation: because Joseph was his foster-father, according to Luke 3:23: "as he was supposed, the son of Joseph."

Now the repression of the murmuring is set down when he says "Jesus therefore answered, and said to them," and first he represses their murmuring; second he satisfies their doubt, at the place "Amen, amen I say to you: he who believes in me has eternal life." Concerning the first he does two things. First he restrains their murmuring; second he assigns the cause of their murmuring, at the place "No one can come to me" etc. Knowing therefore their murmuring, Jesus answered; and repressing their very murmuring, he said to them, "Murmur not" etc. For this is a wholesome teaching: for he who murmurs shows that his mind is not made firm in God, and therefore it is said in Wisdom 1:11: "Keep yourselves from murmuring, for it profits nothing."

Now the cause of the murmuring is their unbelief; and therefore he shows this, saying "No one can come to me" etc., where first he shows that the drawing of the Father is necessary in order that one may come to Christ; second he shows the manner of drawing, at the place "it is written in the prophets" etc. Concerning the first he does three things. First he sets down the deficiency of human capacity; second the aid of divine help; third the end, or fruit, of that help. Human capacity, therefore, is deficient for coming to Christ through faith; and therefore he says, "No one can come to me." Second, divine help is efficacious to come to the rescue, hence he adds, "unless the Father, who sent me, draws him." But the end, or fruit, is the best; hence it follows, "and I will raise him up on the last day."

He says therefore first: it is not surprising if you murmur, because you have not yet been drawn by the Father to me. For "no one can come to me" — by believing in me — "unless the Father, who sent me, draws him." But here there is a threefold question. The first concerns what he says, "unless the Father draws him." For since we come to Christ by believing, as was said above in this same chapter, to come to Christ is to believe in him; but no one can believe except willingly. Since, then, drawing implies a certain violence, therefore whoever comes to Christ drawn, is compelled.

I answer that it must be said that what is here said about this drawing of the Father does not imply compulsion, since not everything that draws exercises violence. Thus, then, the Father draws to the Son in many ways, according to the manifold manner of drawing without violence in human beings. For one man draws another by persuading through reason; and in this way the Father draws men to the Son, by showing him to be his Son; and this in two ways: either through interior revelation — Matthew 16:17: "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona, because flesh and blood has not revealed to you" — namely, that Christ is the Son of the living God — "but my Father"; or through the working of miracles, which he has from the Father — John 5:36: "the works which the Father has given me, these very works give testimony of me." Likewise, one draws another by alluring; Proverbs 7:21: "with the flatteries of her lips she drew him on." And in this way those who attend to Jesus because of the authority of the paternal majesty are drawn by the Father. For whoever believes in Christ because he believes him to be the Son of God — this man the Father draws to the Son, that is, the paternal majesty draws him. In this way Arius is not drawn, who believed Christ not to be the true Son of God, nor begotten of the substance of the Father. Nor was Photinus drawn in this way, who taught that Christ was a mere man.

Thus, then, they are drawn by the Father, enticed by his majesty; but they are also drawn by the Son, by the admirable delight and love of the truth, which is the Son of God himself. For if, as Augustine says, "each man's own pleasure draws him," how much more strongly ought a man to be drawn to Christ, if he delights in truth, beatitude, justice, everlasting life — all of which is Christ? If, then, we are to be drawn by him, let us be drawn through the love of truth; according to Psalm 36:4: "delight in the Lord, and he will give you the petitions of your heart." Hence the bride said, Song of Songs 1:3: "Draw me after you; we will run to the odor of your ointments." But because not only exterior revelation, or its object, has the power of drawing, but also an interior instinct impelling and moving one to believe, therefore the Father draws many to the Son through the instinct of a divine operation moving the heart of man interiorly to believe; Philippians 2:13: "it is God who works in us to will and to accomplish"; Hosea 11:4: "I will draw them with the cords of Adam, with the bands of love"; Proverbs 21:1: "the heart of the king is in the hand of the Lord: he will incline it wherever he wills."

The second question is this: since it is said that the Son draws to the Father — Matthew 11:27: "no one knows the Father but the Son, and he to whom the Son wills to reveal him"; and below, John 17:6: "Father, I have manifested your name to the men whom you gave me" — how is it here said that the Father draws to the Son? But it must be said that this can be answered in two ways: for we can speak of Christ either according as he is man, or according as he is God. Now according as he is man, Christ is the way; below, John 14:6: "I am the way"; and according as he is Christ, he leads to the Father, as a way leads to its terminus or end. But the Father draws to Christ as man insofar as he gives us his power, that we may believe in Christ; Ephesians 2:8: "by grace you have been saved, and this not of yourselves, for it is the gift of God." Insofar as he is Christ, he is the Word of God, and manifestative of the Father. Thus the Son draws to the Father. But the Father draws to the Son insofar as he manifests him.

The third question concerns what he says, that no one can come unless drawn by the Father: because according to this, if someone does not come to Christ, it is not imputed to him, but to him who does not draw them. I answer that it must be said that truly no one can come unless drawn by the Father: for just as a heavy body cannot by nature be carried upward of itself unless it is drawn by another, so the human heart, tending of itself toward lower things, cannot be raised upward unless drawn. But if it is not raised up, the deficiency is not on the part of the one drawing, who, as far as is in him, fails no one; but it is on account of an impediment in the one who is not drawn.

But, as far as this pertains, we can speak in one way about men in the state of unimpaired nature, and in another way in the state of corrupted nature; for in unimpaired nature there was no impediment prohibiting this drawing, whence at that time all men could be participants of this drawing. But in corrupted nature all are equally prohibited from this drawing by the impediment of sin; and therefore all need to be drawn. But God, as far as is in him, extends his hand to all to draw them, and, what is more, not only draws the hand of the one receiving, but even converts those turned away from himself, according to Lamentations 5:21: "Convert us, Lord, and we shall be converted"; and Psalm 84:7, according to another reading: "God, you, turning us, will give us life." Since, then, God is ready to give grace to all, and to draw them to himself, it is not imputed to him if someone does not accept, but to him who does not accept.

But as to why he does not draw all those turned away, but only some, although all are equally turned away: a reason indeed can be assigned in general, namely that in those who are not drawn, the order of divine justice may appear and shine forth; but in those who are drawn, the immensity of divine mercy. But why in particular he draws this one, and does not draw that one, there is no reason at all, except the good pleasure of the divine will. Hence Augustine says: "whom he draws and whom he does not draw, why he draws that one and does not draw this one, do not wish to judge, if you do not wish to err. But receive, and understand: if you are not yet drawn, pray that you may be drawn."

This can also be shown by an example. For a reason can be assigned why a builder places some stones lower down, and some higher up, and some on the sides, from the arrangement of the house, whose completion requires this. But why he places these stones here and those there, depends on his simple will. And hence it is that the first reason of the arrangement is referred to the will of the builder. Thus, then, God, for the completion of the universe, draws some indeed, that his mercy may appear in them; but he does not draw others, that his justice may be shown in them. But he draws these, he does not draw those, according to the good pleasure of his will. Likewise also, why in the Church he made some apostles, others confessors, others martyrs, the reason is on account of the adornment and completion of the Church. But why he made Peter an apostle, Stephen a martyr, and Nicholas a confessor, there is no other reason than his own will.

Thus, then, the deficiency of human capacity, and the aid of divine help, are evident. There follows the end and fruit of the help, when he says "and I will raise him up on the last day" — even insofar as he is man: for through the things which Christ did in his flesh, we obtain the fruit of the resurrection; 1 Corinthians 15:21: "as by man came death, so also by man comes the resurrection of the dead." "I," therefore, according as I am man, "will raise him up," not only to the life of nature, but also to the life of glory, and this "on the last day." For the Catholic faith holds that the state of the world will be renewed; Revelation 21:1: "I saw a new heaven and a new earth." And among the other things which will concur toward this renewal, we believe that the motion of the heavens will cease, and consequently time; Revelation 10:5: "and the angel whom I saw standing upon the sea and upon the earth, lifted up his hand to heaven." And further on: "that there shall be time no longer." Because, then, with time ceasing at the resurrection, night and day will also cease, according to Zechariah 14:7: "there shall be one day, which is known to the Lord, not day nor night"; therefore he says, "I will raise him up on the last day."

But as to why the motion of the heavens, and time, will last until then, neither less nor more, it must be known that that which exists for the sake of another thing is disposed in different ways according to the different disposition of that for the sake of which it exists. But all bodily things were made for the sake of man; and therefore they must be disposed in different ways according to the different disposition of man. Because, then, in men, when they rise again, the state of incorruption will begin, according to 1 Corinthians 15:54: "this mortal shall put on incorruption," therefore corruption will then also cease in things; hence the motion of the heavens will cease, which is the cause of generation and corruption in bodily things; Romans 8:21: "the creature itself shall be delivered from the servitude of corruption into the liberty of the children of God." Thus, then, it is evident that the drawing of the Father is necessary for us for faith.

Consequently, when he says "it is written in the prophets" etc., he determines the manner of drawing, and first he sets down the manner of drawing; second, the efficacy of the drawing, at the place "everyone who has heard from the Father, and has learned, comes to me"; third, he excludes a supposed manner of drawing, at the place "not that anyone has seen the Father." Now the manner of drawing is fitting, because he draws by revealing and teaching; and this is what he says: "it is written in the prophets: they shall all be teachable by God" etc. Bede says this is written in Joel; but it does not seem to be expressly there, although something consonant with it is said; and Joel 2:22: "sons of Zion, rejoice in the Lord your God, because he will give you a teacher of justice." Therefore, according to Bede, he says "in the prophets," so as to give one to understand that this sense can be gathered from various sayings of the prophets. But this seems to be said more expressly in Isaiah 54:13: "I will make all your sons taught by the Lord." It is also said in Jeremiah 3:15: "I will give you shepherds according to my own heart, who shall feed you with knowledge and doctrine."

Now this that he says, "they shall all be," can be understood in three ways. In one way, so that the word "all" stands for all the men of the world; in another way, so that it stands for all who are in the Church of Christ; in a third way, for all who will be in the kingdom of heaven. But if it is said in the first way, it seems not to be true; for he immediately adds, "everyone who has heard from the Father and has learned, comes to me." If, then, all men of the world will be teachable, therefore all will come to Christ. But this is false, because faith is not the possession of all.

But to this a threefold response is given. For, according to Chrysostom, in the first way it must be said that this is said of the majority: "they shall all be," he says, "all," that is, the majority; according to which manner it is said in Matthew 8:11: "many will come from the east and the west," etc. Second, that "all," as far as it is from God, will be teachable; but that some are not taught, is on their own part. For the sun, as far as it is in itself, illumines all; but it can fail to be seen by some, if they close their eyes, or if they are blind. And in this way the Apostle says, 1 Timothy 2:4: "he wills all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth." In a third way, according to Augustine, that this is a fitting distribution, so that it is said "all shall be teachable by God," that is, all who are taught, are taught by God, just as we speak of some master of letters. For we say, if he is in a city: this man alone teaches all the boys of the city, because no one is taught in it except by him. And in this way it is said above, John 1:9: "that was the true light, which enlightens every man coming into this world."

But if it is explained of those who are gathered in the Church, it is said "they shall all be" — namely, those who are in the Church — "teachable by God"; for in Isaiah 54:13 it is said: "I will make all your sons taught by the Lord" — in which indeed is shown the sublimity of the Christian faith, which does not cling to human doctrine, but to the doctrine of God. For the doctrine of the Old Testament was given through the prophets; but the doctrine of the New Testament is through the Son of God himself; Hebrews 1:1: "in many parts and in many ways" — that is, in the Old Testament — "God speaking to the fathers by the prophets, last of all in these days has spoken to us by his Son"; and in the same place, 2:3: "which having begun to be declared by the Lord, was confirmed unto us by them that heard him." Thus, then, all who are in the Church are taught, not by the apostles, not by the prophets, but by God himself. And, according to Augustine, this very fact that we are taught by a man, is from God, who teaches interiorly; Matthew 23:10: "one is your master, Christ." For understanding, which is necessary above all for doctrine, is given to us from God.

But if it is explained of those who are in the kingdom of heaven, etc., then "all shall be teachable by God," because they will see his essence immediately; 1 John 3:2: "we shall see him as he is."

Now the drawing of the Father is most efficacious: because "everyone who has heard from the Father, and has learned, comes to me." Where he sets down two things: one, namely, that pertains to the gift of God, when he says "has heard," that is, with God revealing; the other that pertains to free will, when he says "and has learned," that is, through assent; and these two things are necessary in every teaching of the faith. "Everyone who has heard from the Father" — teaching and manifesting — "and has learned" — offering assent — "comes to me"; he comes, I say, in three ways: through the knowledge of the truth, through the affection of love, and through the imitation of works. And in each of these it is necessary that one hear and learn.

For he who comes through the knowledge of the truth must hear, with God inspiring, according to Psalm 84:9: "I will hear what the Lord God will speak in me," and learn through affection, as has been said. But he who comes through love and desire, as is said below, John 7:37: "if anyone thirsts, let him come to me, and drink" — he too must hear the word of the Father, and grasp it, so that he may learn, and be moved in affection. For he learns the word who grasps it according to the intention of the one speaking; but the word of God the Father breathes forth love: whoever, therefore, grasps it with the fervor of love, learns it; Wisdom 7:27: "she conveys herself into holy souls, she makes them friends of God and prophets." But through the imitation of works one goes to Christ, according to Matthew 11:28: "come to me, all you who labor and are burdened, and I will refresh you." And in this way too, whoever learns, comes to Christ: for as the conclusion stands in relation to things knowable, so does operation in relation to things that can be done. Now in the sciences, whoever learns perfectly arrives at the conclusion; therefore in matters of action, he who perfectly learns the words arrives at right action; Isaiah 50:5: "the Lord has opened my ear; and I do not contradict."

But because some might suppose that all men visibly hear and learn from the Father, therefore, so that the Lord might exclude this, he adds, "not that anyone has seen the Father" — that is, no man living in this life has seen the Father in his essence, according to Exodus 33:20: "man shall not see me, and live" — "except he," namely the Son, "who is from God, he has seen the Father" — his own Father — through essence. Or: no one has seen the Father with the vision of comprehension, with which vision neither man nor angel has ever seen him, nor can see him, except him who is from God, that is, the Son; Matthew 11:27: "no one knows the Father but the Son." The reason for this indeed is that, since every vision or cognition comes about through some likeness, according to the mode of likeness which creatures have to God, according to this they have knowledge of him. Hence the philosophers also say that the intelligences know the first cause according to this likeness of it which they have. But every creature indeed participates in some likeness of God, but one infinitely distant from the likeness of his nature, and therefore no creature can know him perfectly and totally, as he is in his own nature. But the Son, because he received the whole nature of the Father perfectly through eternal generation, therefore sees and comprehends him totally.

But attention must be paid to the fitting order of speaking. For above, when he was speaking of the knowledge of others, he used the word "hearing"; but here, when he speaks of the knowledge of the Son, he uses the word "vision": for the knowledge that is through sight is immediate and open; but that which is through hearing comes about by the mediation of the one who has seen. Thus we too have received the knowledge which we have of the Father from the Son, who has seen him: so that in this way no one knows the Father except through Christ, who manifests him, and no one comes to the Son unless he has heard from the Father manifesting him.

With the murmuring of the Jews checked, the Lord accordingly satisfies the doubt that had arisen in the hearts of the Jews concerning the word he had spoken, namely, I am the bread which came down from heaven, where he intends to prove that this is true of himself; and he argues thus: that bread came down from heaven which gives life to the world; but I am the bread giving life to the world; therefore I am the bread which came down from heaven, and so on. Concerning this he does three things. First, he sets down, as it were, the minor premise of his argument, namely, I am the bread of life; second, he sets down the major premise, namely, that the bread which came down from heaven ought to give life, at the place, your fathers ate manna in the desert, and they died; third, he sets down the conclusion, at the place, I am the living bread. Concerning the first he does two things. First he makes clear his proposal; second he brings forward what was intended as, so to speak, proven, at the place, I am the bread of life. His proposal is to show that he is the bread of life.

Now bread gives life inasmuch as it is taken. But it is agreed that whoever believes in Christ takes him within himself, according to that word of Ephesians 3:17: that Christ may dwell through faith in our hearts. If therefore he who believes in Christ has life, it is clear that by eating this bread he is given life; therefore this bread is the bread of life. And this is what he says: Amen, amen, I say to you, whoever believes in me — namely with formed faith, which perfects not only the intellect but also the affection (for one does not tend toward the thing believed unless one loves it) — has eternal life. Now Christ is in us in two ways: namely in the intellect through faith, inasmuch as it is faith; and in the affection through charity, which informs faith: 1 John 4:16, whoever abides in charity abides in God, and God in him. Whoever therefore believes in Christ in such a way as to tend toward him has him in affection and in intellect; and if we add that Christ is eternal life, as is said in 1 John 5:20, that we may be in his true Son Jesus Christ: this is the true God and eternal life; and above, John 1:4, in him was life — we can infer that whoever believes in Christ has eternal life. He has it, I say, in cause and in hope, and will one day have it in reality.

Having made clear his proposal, he brings forward what was intended, when he says, I am the bread of life, that is, giving life, as evidently follows from what has been said. Concerning this bread, Genesis 49:20: Asher, his bread is fat, he shall yield delights — namely of eternal life — to kings. Accordingly, when he says, your fathers ate manna in the desert, and they died, he sets down the major premise: namely, that to give life is the effect of bread descending from heaven. And first he prefaces the manifestation of the proposal; second he sets down what was intended, at the place, this is the bread which comes down from heaven. Now he makes clear his proposal by its contrary. For it was said above that Moses did not give the Jews bread from heaven, but only from the air; but all bread which is not from the true heaven cannot give sufficient life; therefore this is proper to heavenly bread, that it gives life. And therefore the bread of Moses, in which you take pride, does not give life; and this he proves when he says, your fathers ate manna in the desert, and they died.

Here he first reproaches their vice, when he says your fathers, etc. — whose sons you are, not only according to the origin of the flesh, but also according to the imitation of their works, because you are murmurers, just as they also murmured in their tents, as is said in Psalm 105:25; and therefore he said to them, Matthew 23:32, fill up the measure of your fathers. Whence, as Augustine says, the people are said to have offended God in no matter more than by murmuring against God. Second, he insinuates the short span of time, when he says in the desert: for it was not a long time in which the manna was given to them, nor did it come with them into the land of promise, but only in the desert, as is said in Joshua 5:12. This bread, however, preserves and refreshes forever. Third, he makes clear the deficiency of the food, because it did not preserve unfailing life; hence he says, and they died. For, as is found in Joshua 5, all who murmured, except Joshua and Caleb, died in the desert. Whence this was also the cause of the second circumcision, namely that all the people who went out from Egypt died in the desert, as is said in the same place.

But it is asked of what death God here speaks. For if he speaks of bodily death, there will be no difference between that bread which was in the desert and our bread which came down from heaven, because even Christians who take this one die bodily. But if he speaks of spiritual death, it is clear that here and there some die spiritually and some do not. For Moses, and many who pleased God, did not die, although others died. Likewise, those who take this bread unworthily also die spiritually; 1 Corinthians 11:29: for he who eats and drinks unworthily eats and drinks judgment to himself.

To this it must be said that that food agrees with our spiritual food. They agree indeed as to this, that each signifies the same thing: for both that one and this one signify Christ, on account of which it is called the same food; 1 Corinthians 10:3: all ate the same food. He says the same because both are a figure of spiritual food. But they differ, because that one only prefigured, whereas this bread contains what it prefigures, namely Christ himself.

It must therefore be said that each of these foods can be taken in two ways: either as to the sign only, that is, that it is taken only as food, its meaning not understood; and by this neither spiritual nor bodily death is removed. Or it can be taken as to both, that is, that the visible food is so taken that the spiritual food is understood, and is spiritually tasted, so that it spiritually satisfies; and in this way those who ate the manna spiritually did not die spiritually. But those also who eat the Eucharist spiritually, and now live spiritually without sin, will also live bodily forever. Our food, therefore, has more than their food, because it contains in itself what it prefigures.

Having made clear the proposal, therefore, he brings forward what was intended; hence he says, this is the bread which comes down from heaven. And according to the Gloss, he says this pointing to himself. But this is not the Lord's meaning, because since he immediately adds, I am the living bread which came down from heaven, it would be a repetition of words. It must therefore be said that the Lord intends this: namely, to say that that bread comes down from heaven which can do this, namely give life; but I am such; therefore I am the bread which comes down from heaven. And the reason that bread coming down from heaven gives unfailing life is that all food nourishes according to the property of its own nature; but heavenly things are incorruptible; and therefore, because that food is heavenly, it is not corrupted, and as long as it remains it gives life. Whoever therefore eats of it will not die. Just as if some bodily food were never corrupted, giving nourishment, it would always give life. And therefore this bread was signified by the tree of life which was in the middle of paradise, in a certain way giving life forever, according to that word of Genesis 3:22: now therefore lest perhaps he put forth his hand, and take of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever. If therefore this is the effect of this bread, namely that whoever eats of it does not die, and I am such: therefore, and so on.

I am the living bread, etc. Concerning this, then, he does two things. First he speaks of himself in general; second specifically, at the place, and the bread which I will give is my flesh. Concerning the first he does two things. First he concludes the origin of himself. Second he shows his power, at the place, if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever.

He said, then, I am the living bread, and therefore I can give life. For bodily bread does not give life forever, because it does not have life in itself; but it gives life, once altered and converted into nourishment, by the power of the one living. Who came down from heaven: this was expounded above, in chapter 3, namely how he came down. And by this the heresies of those saying Christ was a mere man are excluded, because according to this he would not have come down from heaven. Now his power is to give eternal life; and therefore he says, if anyone eats of this bread — spiritually, that is — he will live, not only in the present through faith and righteousness, but forever; below, John 11:26: everyone who lives and believes in me will never die.

Accordingly he speaks of the body, when he says, and the bread which I will give is my flesh. For he had said that he was the living bread, and lest it be understood that this belonged to him only inasmuch as he is the Word, or according to the soul only, he therefore shows that his flesh also is life-giving: for it is the instrument of his divinity; hence, since an instrument acts by the power of the agent, just as the divinity of Christ is life-giving, so also, as Damascene says, the flesh, by the power of the Word joined to it, gives life; hence Christ by his touch healed the sick. Thus, then, what he said above, I am the living bread, pertains to the power of the Word; but what he adds here pertains to the communion of his body, namely to the sacrament of the Eucharist.

Here we can consider four things concerning this sacrament: namely, its species, the authority of its institutor, the truth of the sacrament, and its usefulness.

The species of the sacrament indeed: this is bread; Proverbs 9:5: come, and eat my bread. The reason for this is that this is the sacrament of the body of Christ; but the body of Christ is the Church, which rises into the unity of one body out of many faithful; hence this is the sacrament of the unity of the Church; Romans 12:5: we are all one body. Because, then, bread is made up of many grains, therefore this species is fitting for this sacrament; and therefore he says, and the bread which I will give is my flesh.

The author of this sacrament is Christ: for although the priest consecrates, nevertheless Christ himself gives power to the sacrament, because even the priest himself consecrates in the person of Christ. Hence in the other sacraments the priest uses his own words, or those of the Church, but in this one he uses the words of Christ: because just as Christ gave his own body to death by his own will, so by his own power he gives himself as food; Matthew 26:26: taking bread, he blessed, and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, and said, take and eat: this is my body. And therefore he says, which I will give: and he says I will give, because this sacrament was not yet instituted.

Now the truth of this sacrament is insinuated when he says, is my flesh. He does not say, however, signifies my flesh, but is my flesh; because according to the truth of the matter, what is taken is truly the body of Christ; Job 31:31: if the men of my tabernacle have not said: who will give us of his flesh, that we may be filled?

But since in this sacrament the whole Christ is contained, why did he say only, is my flesh? In answer to this, it must be known that in that mystical sacrament the whole Christ is contained according to truth, but the body is there by force of the conversion, while the divinity and the soul are there by natural concomitance. For if it be granted — though impossible — that the divinity were separated from the body of Christ, the divinity would no longer be in the sacrament. Likewise also, if someone had consecrated during the three days of his death, the soul of Christ would not have been there, but such a body as it was on the cross, or in the tomb.

The reason he rather says flesh is that, since this sacrament is a remembrance of the Lord's passion, according to that word of 1 Corinthians 11:26: as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the cup, you shall show forth the death of the Lord — and the passion of Christ was from weakness, according to that word of 2 Corinthians 13:4: he died from weakness, etc. — therefore, so that the weakness from which he died might be insinuated, he rather says, is my flesh: for this word signifies weakness.

Now the usefulness of this sacrament is great, and universal. Great indeed, because it works in us now spiritual life, and at length eternal life, as has been said. For, as appears from what has been said above, since this sacrament is of the Lord's passion, it contains in itself Christ having suffered; hence whatever is the effect of the Lord's passion is also wholly the effect of this sacrament. For this sacrament is nothing other than the application of the Lord's passion to us. For it was not fitting that Christ should always be with us according to his presence; and therefore he willed to supply for this through this sacrament. Whence it is clear that the destruction of death, which Christ destroyed by dying, and the reparation of life, which he effected by rising, is the effect of this sacrament.

Universal, however, because the life which it confers is not only the life of one man, but, as far as it is in itself, of the whole world: for which the death of Christ is sufficient; 1 John 2:2: he is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.

It must be noted, however, that it is one way in this sacrament, and another way in the others: for the other sacraments have singular effects, as in Baptism only the one baptized receives grace; but in the immolation of this sacrament the effect is universal, because not only does the priest obtain the effect, but also those for whom he prays, and the whole Church, both of the living and of the dead. The reason for this is that in it is contained the universal cause itself of all the sacraments, namely Christ. Nor yet, if a layman takes this sacrament, does it profit others as far as concerns the work performed, inasmuch as it is considered as reception; although from the intention of the one performing it and of the one receiving it, it can be communicated to all to whom he directs his intention. From which it is clear that laypeople who receive the Eucharist for those who are in Purgatory are in error.

Above, the Lord repressed the murmuring of the Jews, which had arisen from the origin of the spiritual food; here he represses their quarreling, which was among them concerning the eating of this food. And first he sets down their quarrel; second the Lord suppresses it, at the words "Jesus therefore said to them," etc.; third the Evangelist designates the place, at the words "these things he said in the synagogue, teaching in Capharnaum." Concerning the first, it should be known that the Evangelist introduces the quarrel of the Jews by way of a conclusion, when he says "the Jews therefore quarreled," etc. And indeed quite fittingly: for, according to Augustine, the Lord had spoken to them of the food of unity, by which those who are refreshed are made of one mind, according to that word of Psalm 67:4: "let the just feast, and rejoice in the sight of God, and be delighted with gladness," and there follows, according to another reading: "who makes those of one mind to dwell in the house." Because, therefore, the Jews had not partaken of the food of concord, they therefore quarreled with one another; Isaiah 58:4: "behold, you fast unto strife and contention." Now from the fact that they quarreled with one another they showed themselves to be carnal; 1 Corinthians 3:3: "since there is among you envying and contention, are you not carnal?" And therefore they understood these words of the Lord in a carnal manner; namely, that the flesh of Christ would be eaten as carnal food; hence they say, "how can this man give his flesh to eat?" As if they were saying: this is impossible, just as their fathers also spoke against the Lord, Numbers 21:5: "our soul is nauseated with this exceedingly light food."

But this quarrel of theirs is suppressed by the Lord; hence he says "Jesus therefore said to them," etc. Here he first sets down the power of the eating of this food; second he manifests it, at the words "he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life." Concerning the first he does three things. First he sets down the necessity of eating the flesh; second its usefulness, at the words "he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life"; third he adds its truth, at the words "for my flesh is truly food." Jesus therefore said, "Amen, amen I say to you: unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you," as if he were saying: you consider it impossible and unfitting that you should eat my flesh; but it is not only not impossible, but is even very necessary, to such an extent that unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have — that is, you shall not be able to have — in you life, namely spiritual life. For just as bodily food is so necessary for bodily life that without it life cannot be, Lamentations 1:11: "they have given all their precious things for food"; and Psalm 103:15: "bread may strengthen man's heart" — so spiritual food is necessary for spiritual life, to such a degree that without it spiritual life cannot be sustained; Deuteronomy 8:3: "man does not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God."

It should be noted, however, that this statement can be referred either to spiritual eating or to sacramental eating. But if it be referred to spiritual eating, the statement admits of no doubt. For he eats the flesh of Christ and drinks his blood spiritually who becomes a participant in ecclesiastical unity, which comes about through charity; Romans 12:5: "you are all one body in Christ." He, therefore, who does not eat in this way is outside the Church, and consequently outside charity; therefore he does not have life in himself; 1 John 3:14: "he who does not love abides in death." But if it be referred to sacramental eating, what is said involves a doubt; for above, in chapter 3:5, it is said: "unless one be reborn of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of heaven." But just as that statement was set forth, so is this one: "unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man," etc. Since, therefore, Baptism is a sacrament of necessity, it seems that the Eucharist is too. But this indeed the Greeks grant, and hence they give the Eucharist even to baptized infants; and in this they have on their side the rite of Dionysius, who says that the reception of any sacrament whatsoever ought to be consummated in the communion of the Eucharist, which is the consummation of all the sacraments. But this is true in the case of adults, not, however, in the case of infants: since in one receiving the Eucharist actual reverence and devotion are required, which those who do not have the use of free judgment — such as infants and the insane — cannot have; and therefore it should in no way be given to them.

It must therefore be said that the sacrament of Baptism is necessary for all, such that it be really received, since without it no one is regenerated unto life; and therefore it must be had either in fact or in desire, in respect of those who are prevented; for if contempt in anyone excludes the Baptism of water, neither the baptism of desire nor the baptism of blood profits him unto eternal life. The sacrament of the Eucharist, however, is of necessity only in respect of adults, so that it be received either in fact or in desire according to the institutions of the Church. But according to this a further doubt arises: because by these words of the Lord, not only the eating of the body but also the partaking of the blood is of the necessity of salvation, especially since a perfect refection of food is not without drink. Since, therefore, the custom of some Churches is that the priest alone communicates of the blood, while the others communicate only of the body, this seems to be contrary to this statement.

I answer that it must be said that, according to the ancient custom of the Church, all, just as they communicated of the body, so also communicated of the blood; which is even still observed in certain Churches, where also the ministers of the altar continually communicate both of the body and of the blood. But on account of the danger of spilling, it is observed in some Churches that the priest alone communicates of the blood, and the rest of the body. Nor is this, however, against the statement of the Lord, because he who communicates of the body communicates also of the blood, since under either species the whole Christ is contained, even as regards body and blood. But under the species of bread the body of Christ is contained by force of the conversion, and the blood by natural concomitance; while under the species of wine the blood of Christ is contained by force of the conversion, and the body by natural concomitance. Thus, then, appears the necessity of partaking of this spiritual food.

Its usefulness is shown when he says, "he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life," and first as to the spirit or soul; second as to the body, at the words "and I will raise him up on the last day." The usefulness of this eating, then, is great, because it gives eternal life; hence he says, "he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life." For this spiritual food is indeed like bodily food in this, that without it spiritual life cannot be, just as bodily life cannot be without bodily food, as was said above. But it has more than bodily food, because it causes a life that does not fail in the one who partakes of it, which bodily food does not effect: for it is not the case that whoever partakes of it shall live forever; for it can happen, as Augustine says, that through old age or disease, or some mishap, very many who have partaken of it should die. But he who partakes of this food and drink of the body and blood of the Lord has eternal life; and therefore it is compared to the tree of life; Proverbs 3:8: "it is a tree of life to those who lay hold on her"; hence it is called the bread of life; Ecclesiasticus 15:3: "he fed him with the bread of life and understanding." And therefore he says "eternal life": and this, because he who eats this bread has in himself Christ, who is true God and eternal life, as it is said in 1 John, at the end, 20.

But he has eternal life who eats and drinks, as is said, not only sacramentally but also spiritually. He, however, eats and drinks sacramentally who receives the sacrament itself; but spiritually, he who attains to the reality of the sacrament; which reality is twofold: one both contained and signified, which is Christ entire, who is contained under the species of bread and wine; the other reality is signified but not contained, and this is the mystical body of Christ, which is in the predestined, the called, and the justified. Thus, then, one eats the flesh and drinks the blood spiritually in relation to Christ contained and signified, who is joined to him through faith and charity, so that he is transformed into him and is made his member: for this food is not converted into him who partakes of it, but converts the one eating into itself, according to Augustine, when he says: "I am the food of grown men: grow, and you shall eat me; nor shall you change me into yourself, but you shall be changed into me." And therefore it is a food capable of making a man divine, and of inebriating him with divinity. Likewise, in relation to the mystical body which is only signified, if one becomes a participant in ecclesiastical unity.

He, therefore, who eats in this way "has eternal life." And concerning the first, in relation to Christ, this is already sufficiently evident. Likewise, in relation to the mystical body, he will of necessity have eternal life, if he perseveres. For the unity of the Church comes about through the Holy Spirit, Ephesians 4:4: "one spirit and one body," which is "the pledge of our eternal inheritance," as is said in Ephesians 1:14. There is, then, great usefulness in this food, because it gives eternal life to the soul; but it is also great because it gives eternal life to the body as well. And therefore he adds "and I will raise him up on the last day." For as has been said, he who eats and drinks spiritually becomes a participant of the Holy Spirit, through whom we are united to Christ by the union of faith and charity, and through whom we are made members of the Church. Now it is the Holy Spirit who causes us to merit the resurrection; Romans 4:24: "he who raised up Jesus Christ our Lord from the dead shall also raise up our mortal bodies, because of his Spirit that dwells in us." And therefore the Lord says that him who eats and drinks he will raise up unto glory, not unto condemnation: because this resurrection would not profit him. And indeed quite fittingly is an effect of this kind attributed to the sacrament of the Eucharist, because, as Augustine says, and as was said above, the Word raises up souls, but the Word made flesh gives life to bodies. Now in this sacrament there is not only the Word according to his divinity, but also according to the truth of his flesh; and therefore it is a cause not only of the resurrection of souls, but also of bodies; 1 Corinthians 15:21: "by man came death, and by man the resurrection of the dead." The usefulness of this eating is therefore evident.

Its truth, however, is shown when he says, "for my flesh is truly food." For someone might believe that the things said of the flesh and blood were an enigma and a parable; and therefore the Lord, excluding this, says "my flesh is truly food"; as if he were saying: do not understand that I am speaking figuratively; but according to truth my flesh is contained in the food of the faithful, and my blood is truly contained in the sacrament of the altar; Matthew 26:26: "this is my body... and this is my blood of the new testament." Or otherwise, according to Chrysostom: because food and drink are taken for the refreshment of man. Now in man there are two parts; the principal part, which is the soul, and the secondary part, which is the body. Now that which man is, he is through the soul, not through the body: that, therefore, is truly the food of man which is the food of the soul; and this is what the Lord says, "for my flesh is truly food": because it is food not only of the body, but also of the soul. And likewise the blood. Psalm 22:2: "he brought me up over the water of refreshment, he converted my soul." As if he were saying: this refreshment is ordered especially to the soul. Or otherwise, according to Augustine: that is truly said to be a certain thing which produces its effect; now the effect of food is that it satisfies: that, therefore, which truly produces satiety is truly food and drink. Now this the flesh and blood of Christ do, which lead to the state of glory, where there is neither hunger nor thirst: Apocalypse 7:16: "they shall neither hunger nor thirst any more"; and therefore he says "my flesh is truly food, and my blood is truly drink."

"He who eats," etc. Here the Lord proves the power of the spiritual food set down above, namely that it gives eternal life: and he uses an argument of this kind. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood is joined to me; but he who is joined to me has eternal life: therefore he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life. According to this, then, he does three things. First he sets down the major premise; second the minor, and proves it, at the words "as the living Father has sent me, and I live because of the Father"; third he infers the conclusion, at the words "this is the bread which came down from heaven." It should be known, then, as to the first, that if what he says, "he who eats my flesh," etc., be referred to flesh and blood mystically, there is no doubt in the statement. For, as has been said, he eats spiritually, in relation to the reality signified alone, who is incorporated into the mystical body through the union of faith and charity: and charity causes God to be in man, and conversely; 1 John 4:16: "he who abides in charity abides in God, and God in him." And this is what the Holy Spirit accomplishes; hence in the same place, verse 13: "in this we know that we abide in God, and he in us, because he has given us of his Spirit." But if it be referred to sacramental partaking, then whoever eats the flesh and drinks the blood abides in God: because, as Augustine says, there is a certain manner of eating that flesh and drinking that blood, by which he who eats and drinks abides in Christ, and Christ in him. But this is he who eats the body of Christ and drinks his blood not merely sacramentally, but in reality. There is also another manner, by which those who eat do not abide in Christ, nor Christ in them; this is the case with those who approach it with a feigned heart: for the sacrament has no effect in one who is feigned. For one is feigned when what is signified outwardly does not correspond to what is within. Now in the sacrament of the Eucharist there is indeed signified outwardly that Christ is incorporated in him who receives it, and he himself in Christ. He, therefore, who does not have in his heart the desire of this union, nor strives to remove every impediment to it, is feigned. And therefore Christ does not abide in him, nor he in Christ.

Here he sets down the minor premise: namely, that he who is joined to Christ has life; and he introduces this by way of the manifestation of a certain likeness, which is as follows. The Son, on account of the unity which he has with the Father, receives life from the Father: therefore he who is united to Christ receives life from Christ; and this is what he means when he says, "as the living Father has sent me, and I live because of the Father." These words, indeed, can be expounded of Christ in two ways, namely according to the human nature, and according to the divine. For if they be expounded of Christ the Son of God, then the word "as" imports a likeness of Christ to the creature as regards something, but not as regards everything, but as regards this, that he has being from another. For this is common to Christ the Son of God and to the creature, that they are from another: but as regards another point there is dissimilarity. For the Son has something proper to himself, namely that he is from the Father in such a way that he nevertheless receives the whole fullness of the divine nature, to such an extent that whatever is natural to the Father is also natural to the Son. The creature, however, receives some particular perfection and nature; above, in chapter 5:26: "as the Father has life in himself, so has he given to the Son also to have life in himself." And this he shows, because he does not say: "as I eat the Father, and I live because of the Father," when he is speaking of his procession from the Father — just as he said, "he who eats me, he also shall live because of me," when he speaks of the participation of his body and blood, by which we are made better: for eating denotes a certain participation. But Christ says that he lives because of the Father, not indeed as one eaten, but as one who begets, without any detriment to equality.

If, however, it be expounded of Christ the man, then as regards something the word "as" imports a likeness between Christ the man and us: namely in this, that just as Christ the man receives spiritual life through union with God, so also we receive spiritual life in the communion of the sacrament. But nevertheless there is dissimilarity: because Christ the man received life through the union of the Word, to whom he is united in person; but we are united to Christ through the sacrament of faith. And therefore he says two things: "sent me" and "the Father." If, then, it be referred to the Son of God, he then says "I live because of the Father": because the Father himself is living. But if it be referred to the Son of man, then he says "I live because of the Father," because "he sent me": that is, he caused me to be incarnate: for the mission of the Son of God is his incarnation; Galatians 4:4: "God sent his Son, made of a woman, made under the law." Through this, then, according to Hilary, the error of Arius is excluded; for if we live because of Christ, since we have something of his nature, as he himself says, "he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life"; therefore Christ also lives because of the Father, because he has in himself the nature of the Father: not, however, a part of it, since it is simple and indivisible; therefore he has the whole nature of the Father. The Son, therefore, lives because of the Father, since his birth brought upon him no alien and different nature.

Consequently, when he says, "this is the bread which came down from heaven," he sets down two conclusions: for they had been quarreling about two things, namely about the origin of the spiritual food, and about its power. The first conclusion, then, is about the origin; the second is about the power; and this he principally intends, at the words "he who eats this bread shall live forever." It should be known, as to the first, that the Jews had been troubled, because he had said: "I am the living bread which came down from heaven," and therefore, against them, he again concludes this from what he says, "I live because of the Father," when he says "this is the bread." For to come down from heaven is to have one's origin from heaven; but the Son has his origin from heaven, because he lives because of the Father: therefore Christ is he who came down from heaven. And therefore he says, "this is the bread which came down from heaven" — that is, from the paternal life — and this as regards the divinity; or he also came down as regards the body: inasmuch, namely, as its formative power, which was the Holy Spirit, was from heaven, as a heavenly power. Hence those who eat this bread do not die, in the way that our fathers died, who ate manna which was not from heaven; nor was it living bread, as was said above. But how those who ate the manna died is manifest from what has been said before.

The second conclusion, concerning the power of the bread, is set down when he says, "he who eats this bread shall live forever": which follows from what he said, "he who eats my flesh." For he who eats this bread abides in me, and I in him; but I am eternal life: therefore he who eats this bread, as he ought, shall live forever. The place, moreover, where Jesus said this was in the synagogue, in which Christ was teaching in Capharnaum. For wishing to draw the multitude, he taught in the temple and in the synagogue, so that, out of many, at least some might profit; Psalm 39:10: "I have declared your justice in the great church."

After he had quelled the wrangling of the Jews, and their murmuring, the Lord next allays the scandal of the disciples, and first the scandal of the departing disciples is treated; second, the devotion of those who remain is examined, at the place, "Jesus therefore said to the twelve." Concerning the first he does three things. First, the scandal of the disciples is set forth; second, the kindness of Christ in repressing it, at the place, "But Jesus knowing," etc.; third, the obstinacy and unbelief of those departing is set forth, at the place, "After this many of his disciples went back."

It must be known, then, concerning the first, that there were many among the people of the Jews who clung to Christ, believing in him, and followed him, yet not having left all things, as the twelve had; and all of these were called disciples. And of these he says that many, namely among the people, who believed in him, hearing the things he had said above, said: "This saying is hard." Of these it is said in Luke 8:13: "They believe for a while, and in time of temptation they fall away." Now it says many, because, as it is said in Ecclesiastes 1:15, "the number of fools is infinite." And Matthew 20:16: "Many are called, but few are chosen." These, then, said: "This saying is hard." A thing is called hard which is not easily divided, and which offers resistance. A saying, then, is hard either because it resists the intellect, or because it resists the will—namely, when we cannot grasp it with the intellect, or it does not please the will; and in both ways this saying was hard for these men. Hard indeed to the intellect, because it exceeded the weakness of their understanding; for since they were carnal, they could not grasp what he said, that he would give them his own flesh to eat. But hard to the will, because he said many things about the power of his divinity. And although these men believed him as they would a prophet, they did not yet believe him to be God; and therefore it seemed to them that he was speaking things greater than himself. 2 Corinthians 10:10: "The letters are weighty." Ecclesiasticus 6:21: "Wisdom is exceedingly harsh to unlearned men." And therefore it follows: "Who can hear him?" They say this to excuse themselves. For since they had given themselves to him, they ought to have heard him; but because he was not teaching them pleasing things, they wished to seek some occasion for withdrawing; Proverbs 18:2: "A fool receiveth not the words of prudence, unless you say the things that are turning in his heart."

Next, when he says, "But Jesus, knowing within himself that his disciples murmured at this, said to them: Doth this scandalize you?" the kindness of Christ in allaying the scandal is set forth, and first he declares and makes manifest the scandal; second he removes the cause of the scandal, at the place, "If then you shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?"; third he indicates the cause itself, at the place, "But there are some of you that do not believe." Now he declares the scandal, because they had said secretly, "This saying is hard," so as not to be heard by him. But he who by the power of his divinity knew what they were saying makes this manifest; and this is what is meant by "But Jesus, knowing within himself"—that is, what they were saying within themselves—namely, that his disciples murmured at this (above, John 2:25: "He needed not that any should give testimony of man, for he knew what was in man"; Psalm 7:10: "God searcheth hearts and reins"); he said to them: "Doth this scandalize you?" As if to say: you ought not to be scandalized at this. Or it can be read as a concession, as if to say: I know that you are scandalized at this; Isaiah 8:4: "He shall be"—namely to those believing in Christ—"for a sanctification indeed; but for a stone of stumbling to the two houses of Israel," that is, to the murmuring disciples and to the crowds. But since teachers ought to avoid scandalizing their hearers, why does the Lord set forth such teachings to them, that they should be scandalized and depart? I answer. It must be said that the necessity of the teaching required that the Lord set forth such things to them. For they had pressed upon him for bodily food, whereas he had come in order to lead them to a desire for spiritual food; and therefore it was necessary that he should set forth to them the teaching concerning spiritual food. Nor, however, was their scandal caused by any fault in Christ's teaching, but by their own unbelief. For if they did not understand the Lord's words on account of their carnality, they could have questioned the Lord, as the apostles did on other occasions. But this, according to Augustine, the Lord permitted by way of dispensation, so that he might furnish to those who teach well a cause of patience and consolation against those who speak ill of their words, since even disciples presumed to detract from the words of Christ.

Next, when he says, "If then you shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?" he removes the occasion of scandal, which occasion was, as Chrysostom says, both concerning the person of the speaker and concerning the words spoken; and therefore he first removes the occasion of scandal as regards the person of the speaker, and second as regards the words spoken, at the place, "It is the spirit that quickeneth." Now the occasion of these men's scandal was that they had heard the Lord speak divine things of himself; hence, because they believed him to be the son of Joseph, they were scandalized by what he said of himself. And therefore, removing this occasion, God shows them his divinity more openly; hence he says: you are troubled at the things I have said concerning myself—"if then you shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before"—supply: what will you say? As if to say: you will never be able to deny that I have descended from heaven, that I am the giver or teacher of eternal life. He did something similar with Nathanael: for when Nathanael said, "Thou art the king of Israel," he wished to raise him to a more perfect knowledge; hence he said to him: "Thou shalt see greater things than these." And therefore he makes manifest to these men something greater that would come to pass concerning himself, saying, "If then you shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?" Now he ascended into heaven with the disciples watching, as it is said in Acts 1:9. If then he ascended to where he had been before, then he had been in heaven before; above, John 3:13: "No man hath ascended into heaven, but he that descended from heaven." But observe that although the person of the Son of God and the Son of man in Christ is the same, yet because the nature is other, something belongs to him by reason of his humanity—namely, to ascend—which does not belong to him by reason of his divinity, according to which he has nowhere to ascend to, since he is eternally at the highest summit of all things, namely in the Father; but according to his humanity it belongs to him to ascend to where he was before, namely in heaven, where he was not according to human nature; which is against the error of Valentinus, who said that Christ brought a heavenly body. Thus, then, to where he had been before according to his divinity, he ascended, with the apostles watching, and by his own power, according to his humanity; below, John 16:28: "I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world; again I leave the world, and I go to the Father." But, according to Augustine, these words are introduced in another way: for he says that these men were scandalized at the Lord's saying that he would give them his flesh to eat, which they understood carnally, as though they were to eat it according to the letter, like the flesh of animals, and were scandalized. And removing this understanding, he says, "If then you shall see the Son of man ascend," with his body whole, "to where he was before"—supply: will you then say that I was going to give you my flesh to eat as you eat the flesh of animals?

Next, when he says, "It is the spirit that quickeneth," he removes the occasion of scandal on the part of the words spoken, and, according to Chrysostom, he first distinguishes a twofold understanding of these words; second he shows which of the two befits the words themselves, at the place, "The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life." It must be known, then, as to the first, that the words of Christ can be understood according to a twofold sense, namely according to the spiritual and according to the bodily. And therefore he says, "It is the spirit that quickeneth," that is, if you understand the words which I have said according to the spirit, that is according to the spiritual sense, they will give life; "the flesh profiteth nothing," that is, if you understand them according to the fleshly sense, they profit you nothing—indeed they harm you; because, as it is said in Romans 8:13, "If you live according to the flesh, you shall die." Now the Lord's words about eating his flesh are understood carnally when they are taken according to how the words sound outwardly, and as the nature of flesh has it; and it was in this way that they understood them, as has been said. But the Lord was saying that he would give himself to them as spiritual food—not that the true flesh of Christ is not in the sacrament of the altar, but because it is eaten in a certain spiritual and divine manner. Thus, then, the fitting sense of the words spoken is not carnal, but spiritual. Hence he adds, "The words that I have spoken to you"—namely, concerning the eating of my flesh—"are spirit and life"; that is, they have a spiritual sense, and, understood in this way, they give life. Nor is it a wonder that they have a spiritual sense, since they are from the Holy Spirit; 1 Corinthians 14:2: "It is the spirit that speaketh mysteries." And therefore the mysteries of Christ give life; Psalm 118:93: "Thy justifications I will never forget: for by them thou hast given me life." But according to Augustine it is expounded otherwise: for what he said, "the flesh profiteth nothing," is understood of the flesh of Christ. For it is manifest that the flesh of Christ, as joined to the Word and the Spirit, profits greatly in every way; otherwise the Word would have been made flesh in vain, the Father would have manifested him in the flesh in vain, as it is said in 1 Timothy chapter 4. And therefore it must be said that the flesh of Christ, considered in itself, profits nothing, and has no profitable effect, except as any other flesh. For if it be separated in the understanding from the divinity and the Holy Spirit, it has no other power than any other flesh; but if the spirit and the divinity come to it, it profits many, because it makes those who receive it remain in Christ: for it is the spirit of charity through which man remains in God; 1 John 4:13: "In this we know that we abide in God, and he in us: because he hath given us of his spirit." And therefore the Lord says: this effect, namely of eternal life which I promise you, you ought not to attribute to the flesh considered in itself, because the flesh so considered profits nothing; but if you attribute it to the spirit, and to the divinity joined to the flesh, then it confers eternal life; Galatians 5:25: "If we live in the spirit, let us also walk in the spirit." And therefore he adds, "The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life"; that is, they are to be referred to the spirit joined to the flesh; and understood in this way, they are life, namely of the soul. For just as the body lives a bodily life through the bodily spirit, so too the soul lives a spiritual life through the Holy Spirit; Psalm 103:30: "Thou shalt send forth thy spirit, and they shall be created."

Next, when he says, "But there are some of you that do not believe," he shows the cause of the scandal, which was their unbelief, as if to say: the cause of your scandal is not the hardness of the saying which I have spoken to you, but your unbelief. And therefore he first shows their unbelief; second he excludes a false opinion; third he makes manifest the cause of their unbelief. The Lord shows their unbelief indeed when he says, "There are some of you that do not believe." He did not say "who do not understand," but, what is more, he intimates the cause why they do not understand: for they did not understand for this reason, that they did not believe; Isaiah 7:9, according to another reading: "Unless you believe, you shall not understand." And he said "some," so as to except the disciples; 2 Thessalonians 3:2: "All men have not faith"; Romans 10:16: "All do not obey the gospel"; Psalm 105:25: "They believed not his words." The Evangelist excludes a false suspicion when he adds, "For Jesus knew," as if to say: Jesus did not say, "There are some of you that do not believe," as though this had newly become known to him; but because he knew from the beginning—namely of the world—who they were that believed, and who it was that would betray him; Hebrews 4:13: "All things are naked and open to his eyes"; and Ecclesiasticus 23:29: "All things were known to the Lord God before they were created." Now the Lord next assigns the cause of their unbelief, which arises from the withdrawal of the grace that draws; hence he was saying, "Therefore did I say to you," as if to say: therefore it was necessary that I should say the foregoing things to you, because no one can come to me—namely, by faith—unless it has been given him by my Father. From which it follows, according to Augustine, that even the very act of believing is given to us by God. But why it is not given to all has been shown above, in the same place where the Lord said almost the same words. He repeats them here, however, for two reasons: to show that his receiving them into the faith was more for their benefit and advantage than for Christ's; Philippians 1:29: "To you it is given ... that you should believe in him"; as if to say: it is your own good that you believe; and therefore Augustine says: it is indeed a great thing to believe; rejoice that you have believed. Second, to show that he is not the son of Joseph, as they supposed, but of God: for it is God the Father who draws men to the Son, as appears from what has gone before.

Next, when he says, "After this many of his disciples went back," the obstinacy of these disciples is set forth. For although the Lord had reproved them, and had removed the cause of the scandal, so far as it lay on his part, nevertheless they persevered in unbelief; and therefore it says that many of his disciples went back. He did not say "they departed," but "they went back"—from the faith which they had according to power, and, cut off from the body of Christ, they lost life, because perhaps they had not even been in the body, as Augustine says. For there are some who simply go back: namely, those who follow the Devil, to whom it was said, Matthew 4:10: "Get thee behind me, Satan." And of certain women it is said, 1 Timothy 5:15: "Some are already turned aside after Satan." Peter does not go back in this way, but after Christ; Matthew 16:23: "Go behind me, Satan." But these men went back after Satan. Hence it follows, "and after this they walked no more with him"—namely although it is required of us that we walk with Jesus; Micah 6:8: "I will judge for thee, O man, what is good," and it follows, "to walk carefully with thy God."

Next, when it is added, "Jesus therefore said to the twelve: Will you also go away?" the Lord examines the disciples who remained; and first the examination of the disciples is set forth by Christ's question; second the devotion of those remaining is added, by Peter's answer, at the place, "Simon Peter therefore answered him"; third Peter's answer is corrected, at the place, "Jesus answered them." Now the Lord examines the twelve who had remained, whether they wished to persist; and therefore he said to the twelve—namely, the apostles: "Will you also go away?" And this for two reasons. First, lest, because these had remained while the others departed, they should ascribe this to their own righteousness and grow proud, thinking that they had done Christ a favor by not abandoning him; and therefore, by showing that he did not need their following, he holds and confirms them the more. Job 35:7: "And if thou do justly, what shalt thou give him, or what shall he receive of thy hand?" Second, because it sometimes happens that someone has the will to depart from another, and yet is held back by shame; and therefore, not wishing them to be constrained by shame to remain with him (since to serve unwillingly is the same as not to serve at all), he removes even the shame and the necessity of remaining, placing it in their own judgment whether they wished to remain or to depart, because "God loveth a cheerful giver," as it is said in 2 Corinthians 9:7.

There follows the devotion of those who remained, by Peter's answer: for he, a lover of his brethren, a preserver of friendship, and bearing a special affection toward Christ, answers on behalf of the whole company, saying: "Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life. And we have believed." Here he does three things. First, he extols Christ's excellence; second, he commends his teaching; and third, he professes his faith. He extols his excellence indeed when he says, "Lord, to whom shall we go?" As if to say: you are driving us away from you; give us another better than you, to whom we may go. But certainly "there is none like unto thee among the strong, O Lord": Exodus 15:11, and Psalm 88:7: "Who is like to God?" And therefore we will not leave you; Psalm 138:7: "Whither shall I go from thy spirit?" And, according to Chrysostom, Peter's word is greatly indicative of friendship: for by now Christ was more honorable to them than fathers and mothers. But he commends his teaching when he says, "Thou hast the words of eternal life." Now Moses had the words of God, and likewise the prophets, but rarely the words of eternal life; but you promise eternal life—what greater thing, then, do we seek? Above: "he that believeth in me hath life everlasting"; and above, John 3:39: "he that believeth in the Son of God hath life everlasting." But he professes his faith when he adds, "And we have believed and have known that thou art the Christ, the Son of God." For in our faith two things must chiefly be believed, namely the mystery of the Trinity and of the Incarnation; and these two things Peter here confesses. The mystery of the Trinity indeed, when he says, "Thou art the Son of God." For in saying that he is the Son of God, he makes mention of the person of the Father and of the Son, and at the same time also of the Holy Spirit, who is the love of the Father and the Son, and the bond of both. But the mystery of the Incarnation, when he says, "Thou art the Christ"; for "Christ" in Greek is called "anointed" in Latin—namely with the invisible oil of the Holy Spirit; but not according to the divine nature, because one who is anointed with the Holy Spirit is made better by that very anointing, but according as he is God, Christ is not made better; therefore he is anointed according as he is man. Now he says "we have believed and have known," because to believe comes before to know; and therefore if we wished to know before believing, we would not know, nor would we be able to believe, as Augustine says. Isaiah 7:9, according to another reading: "Unless you believe, you shall not understand."

Now the Lord corrects Peter's answer when he says, "Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?" And first the Lord's answer is set forth; second the Evangelist's explanation, at the place, "Now he meant Judas." Because Peter had been generous in his answer, including all of them, saying thus, "And we have believed, and have known that thou art the Christ, the Son of God," by which it seemed that all would attain to eternal life, therefore the Lord excepted Judas from the company of believers. But this indeed was a commendable confidence in Peter, that he suspected no evil of a companion; but in the Lord it is a wisdom to be admired, that he saw hidden things. And therefore he says, "Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?" Not by nature, but by imitation of diabolical malice. Wisdom 2:24: "By the envy of the devil, death came into the world: and they follow him that are of his side"; below, John 13:27: "After the morsel, Satan entered into him," namely because he was made conformed to his malice. But if Christ chose Judas, and he became evil, it seems that he erred in his choosing. To this it is answered, first, according to Chrysostom, that this is not said of the election of predestination, but of election to some office, and to a state of present righteousness, to which someone is sometimes chosen not according to what is future, but according to what he presently is in fact; because by this kind of election free will is not taken away, nor is the possibility of sinning removed; hence it is said, 1 Corinthians 10:12: "He that thinketh himself to stand, let him take heed lest he fall." Thus, then, the Lord chose Judas not as one who was then evil, yet the possibility of sinning was not taken from him by this election. Second, it is answered, according to Augustine, that the Lord chose Judas though evil; and because it belongs to the good to use evil for good, although he knew him to be evil, God made good use of his evil, in that he endured being betrayed by him in order to redeem us. Or it must be said that the choosing of the twelve apostles is not here referred to the persons, but to the number; as if to say: I chose in you the number twelve. For this number is fittingly consecrated to those who were to preach the faith of the Holy Trinity through the four corners of the world; and this number indeed did not perish, because in the place of the perishing traitor Matthias was put in his stead. Or, according to Ambrose, he chose Judas though evil for this reason, that he might console our weakness, if it should ever happen to us to be betrayed by friends, since we read that the Lord and Master was betrayed by a disciple. But it is asked here why, when the Lord says, "One of you is a devil," the disciples say nothing; and afterward, when he says, below John 13:21, "One of you shall betray me," they said, "Is it I, Lord?" I answer that it must be said that the reason for this is that here the Lord spoke generally, saying that one of them was a devil, which can be referred to any kind of malice whatsoever, and therefore they were not moved; but there, hearing of so great a deed—namely, the betrayal of their Master—they were not able to contain themselves. Or it must be said to this, that when the Lord spoke these words, each of them had confidence in his own strength, and therefore they did not fear for themselves. But when they heard Peter told, "Get behind me, Satan," they were terrified, and thought more meanly of themselves; and therefore, wavering, they said: "Is it I, Lord?" Now this answer, which the Lord had made obscurely, the Evangelist explains, saying, "Now he meant Judas," as the outcome of the event proved, as is evident below, in chapter 13.