ST. THOMAS AQUINAS' MYSTICAL INTERPRETATION

OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL

IN THE LECTURA SUPER IOANNEM

By

Kevin Frederick Vaughan

A Thesis submitted to the Faculty of Theology, St. Michael's College and the Department of Theology of the Toronto School of Theology

in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Theology

Awarded by the University of St. Michael's College

Toronto 2009

© Kevin F. Vaughan

1*1 Library and Archives Canada

Published Heritage Branch

395 Wellington Street OttawaONK1A0N4 Canada

Bibliotheque et Archives Canada

Direction du Patrimoine de I'edition

395, rue Wellington OttawaONK1A0N4 Canada

Your file Votre reference ISBN: 978-0-494-53124-2 Our file Notre reference ISBN: 978-0-494-53124-2

NOTICE: AVIS:

The author has granted a non­exclusive license allowing Library and Archives Canada to reproduce, publish, archive, preserve, conserve, communicate to the public by telecommunication or on the Internet, loan, distribute and sell theses worldwide, for commercial or non­commercial purposes, in microform, paper, electronic and/or any other formats.

L'auteur a accorde une licence non exclusive permettant a la Bibliotheque et Archives Canada de reproduire, publier, archiver, sauvegarder, conserver, transmettre au public par telecommunication ou par Nntemet, prefer, distribuer et vendre des theses partout dans le monde, a des fins commerciales ou autres, sur support microforme, papier, electronique et/ou autres formats.

The author retains copyright ownership and moral rights in this thesis. Neither the thesis nor substantial extracts from it may be printed or otherwise reproduced without the author's permission.

L'auteur conserve la propriete du droit d'auteur et des droits moraux qui protege cette these. Ni la these ni des extraits substantiels de celle-ci ne doivent etre imprimes ou autrement reproduits sans son autorisation.

In compliance with the Canadian Privacy Act some supporting forms may have been removed from this thesis.

Conformement a la loi canadienne sur la protection de la vie privee, quelques formulaires secondaires ont ete enleves de cette these.

While these forms may be included in the document page count, their removal does not represent any loss of content from the thesis.

Bien que ces formulaires aient inclus dans la pagination, il n'y aura aucun contenu manquant.

1*1

Canada

ABSTRACT

Title: St. Thomas Aquinas' Mystical Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel in the Ledum

Superloannem

Degree: PhD

Year of Convocation: 2009

Kevin Frederick Vaughan

Theology Department

Faculty of Theology, University of St. Michael's College

Recently, some scholars and members of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church have

criticized modern methods of interpretation for their inability to address the spiritual or

theological nature of the Bible. Reminding us of the Church's teaching on the importance

of the Church Fathers and Doctors of the Church in biblical interpretation, these critics

advocate returning to premodern methods and approaches as a way of curtailing the

excesses of the modern.

My intent in this dissertation is to contribute to our understanding of premodern

biblical exegesis by studying one of its most distinctive and elusive features, the mystical

interpretation. As a focus for this study, I have chosen St. Thomas Aquinas' interpretation

of the Gospel of St. John in the Lectura supra Evangelium S. loannis. I further focus my

study on one aspect of the mystical interpretation, namely the ratio mystica.

Conclusions are drawn by methods respecting the historical context and

compositional structure unique to the Commentary. I begin the study then by situating the

Commentary within the Dominican program of education at the University of Paris in the

ii

thirteenth century, and with an assessment of Thomas' general teaching on the mystical

interpretation of sacred Scripture. With this background in mind, I proceed to the textual

analysis of the Commentary, beginning with Thomas' prologue. I then provide a

classification and cursory overview of the forms employed by Thomas in his mystical

interpretation, followed by a detailed analysis of the 12 cases of the ratio mystica.

On the basis of the textual analysis, I conclude that the ratio mystica is the

exegetical congruent to the demands made on interpretation by the type of spiritual

signification discussed in the Summa Theologiae, la, Ql, alO. This mode of signification

allows it to transcend the literal meaning through an immediate relation to the Gospel's

end, while at the same time serving the literal by way of collating, foreshadowing, and

mnemonic functions. Finally, using Thomas' description of John's conditio and his

teaching on exercitia spiritualia, I demonstrate how the ratio mystica presupposes and

exercises a spiritual disposition in the reader requisite for encountering divine mysteries.

in

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This dissertation could not have been written without the kind assistance of my

supervisor, Dr. Robert Sweetman, who by his wisdom and experience navigated me through the

many shoals of the research and writing process. I am also indebted to the other members of my

dissertation committee, Dr. Joseph Goering and Fr. Gilles Mongeau, SJ, for their insight and

direction on this project; as well as to Thomas F. Ryan for his questions and comments during a

challenging, yet rewarding, defence. Special mention must be made of Fr. Jean-Marc Laporte,

SJ, whose patience and knowledge have benefitted this project from its inception to its finish.

I would also like to thank all those who assisted me throughout my doctoral program. I

owe special gratitude to the members of my doctoral committees, namely, Sr. Mary Ellen

Sheehan, Fr. Robert Doran, SJ, Fr. Gordon Rixon, SJ, Fr. Joseph Plevnik, SJ, Fr. Scott Lewis, SJ,

and Dr. Harold Wells. I must also mention my Advanced Degree Directors, Fr. T. Allan Smith,

CSB, and Dr. John L. McLaughlin, without whose gentle prodding, I would never have finished.

Furthermore, I would like to thank the Faculty of Theology at St. Michael's College for its

constant support, both personally and financially, especially Dr. Margaret O'Gara and Dr.

Michael Attridge for their sagely direction, and Sr. Anne Anderson and Fr. Mario O. D'Souza

for their allowing me the opportunity to teach at the Faculty.

I am also indebted to the students and staff, present and past, of St. Michael's College

Student Residence, especially, Mr. Duane Rendle, Mr. Kevin Dancy, Mr. Martin Bergeron, Dr.

Marc Cels, Mr. David Dagenais, Mr. Liam O'Hare, and Fr. Albert Trudel, OP; as well as to the

Sisters of St. Joseph, especially Sr. Anne Marie Marrin and Sr. Conrad Lauber. And I cannot

forget the assistance of Fr. David Balas, O. Cist., Fr. Roch Kereszty, O. Cist, and Dr. John

Norris, all of the University of Dallas, who first suggested this study to me.

And finally for their personal support, I would like to thank Ms. Teresa Zaleski, my

brother Geoffrey and his family, and my parents, Fred and Carol, to whom I dedicate this

dissertation.

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iv

INTRODUCTION I

CHAPTER 1: THE SETTING OF THE SUPER IOANNEM 24 1. The Bible and Dominican Education in the Thirteenth-Century 24 2. Thomas' Biblical Education 29 3. Ledum super Ioannem 30 4. The Super Ioannem and Interpretive Method 33

4.1 Biblical Interpretation 34 4.2. Concept of 'Mystery' 41

CHAPTER 2: THE PROLOGUE TO THE SUPER IOANNEM 48 1. John and Isaiah 48 2. The Contemplation of John 50

2.1. The Height of John's Contemplation .51 2.2. The Fullness of John's Contemplation 60 2.3. The Perfection of John's Contemplation 63

3. John and the Natural Sciences 65 4. The Matter of John's Gospel 67

4.1. John and the Other Evangelists 68 5. The Order of John's Gospel 70 6. The End of John's Gospel 73 7. The Author of John's Gospel 74 8. Conclusion 79

CHAPTER 3: THE RATIO MYSTICA AS AN EXEGETICAL TECHNIQUE 81 1. The Manifestations of the Mystical Interpretation in the Super Ioannem 81

1.1. The Mystical as a Mode of Interpretation 82 1.1.1 mystice 82

1.1.1.1. Signification 85 1.1.1.1.1 Signifying terms 86 1.1.1.1.2 Signifiers 86 1.1.1.1.3 Signified 89

1.1.1.2. Auctoritates 89 1.1.1.2.1. Biblical authorities 90

1.1.1.2.1.1. New Testament 90 1.1.1.2.1.2. Old Testament 90

1.1.1.2.2. Patristic Authorities 91 1.1.1.3. Literal meaning 92

VI

1.1.1.4. Other mystical meanings 92 1.1.1.5 The broader meaning of mystice 92 1.1.1.6 Distribution of mystice throughout the Super Ioannem .. .94

1.1.2. mysticus 94 1.1.2.1. ratio mystica 94 1.1.2.2. causa mystica 95

1.1.3. mysterium 97 1.2. The Mystical as an Object 99 1.3. mysticus and/or mysterium and their Variants as used in Auctoritates 101

2. Cursory Description of the rationes mysticae 101 2.1. Setting of the ratio mystica 102

2.1.1. Number and Placement within the Commentary 102 2.1.1.1. Within the Commentary as a whole 103

2.1.1.1.1. In relation to the divisio textus 103 2.1.1.2. Within Chapters and Lectures 104 2.1.1.3. In relation to other forms of the mystical interpretation 104

2.1.2. Literary genre: narration or dialogue 106 2.1.3. In relation to the ratio litteralis 107

2.2. Form of the ratio mystica 108 2.2.1 Number of rationes mysticae 108 2.2.2. Subject of the ratio mystica 109 2.2.3. Themes 112 2.2.4. Interpretive language 115 2.2.5. Auctoritates 116

3. Detailed Analysis of the rationes mysticae 117 3.1. The Nature of the Difficulty 118 3.2. The 'end' of the ratio mystica 121 3.3. The Advantage of the ratio mystica 128 3.4. Thematic unity 134

4. Conclusion 141

CHAPTER 4: THE RATIO MYSTICA AND THE SPIRITUAL LIFE 142 1. The Spiritual Vision of John the Evangelist 144

1.1. The name of John 144 1.2. John's virtue 153 1.3. His symbol 157 1.4. His privilege 161

2. The Spiritual Vision and Mystical Meaning 163 3. Spiritual Vision and the Mystical Interpretation 168 4. The Mystical Interpretation as a Spiritual Exercise 175

CONCLUSION 189

BIBLIOGRAPHY 198

vn

INTRODUCTION

In the article, "Church Pronouncements," for the New Jerome Biblical

Commentary, the late Catholic biblical scholar Raymond E. Brown, S.S., described Pope

Pius XII's encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu of 1943 as "a Magna Charta for biblical

progress." ' Brown is not alone in this opinion, but shares it with his fellow editors,

Joseph A. Fitzmyer, S.J., and Roland E. Murphy, O.Carm. The comparison to the

English charter of 1215 is meant to draw attention to the revolutionary role which the

encyclical has played within Catholic biblical interpretation. According to Brown, it

signalled that "the time of fear was over," the fear that modern tools of biblical

interpretation were allied with the heresies of Modernism. Pope Pius, in his encyclical,

endorsed the use of modern tools by Catholic scholars in their exegesis and encouraged

new translations of the Bible from the original languages.4 Pius' warm embrace of

modern methods of interpretation was officially blessed by the Church in the Second

Vatican Council's Constitution on Divine Revelation, Dei Verbum: Despite the efforts of

1 Raymond E. Brown and Thomas Aquinas Collins, "Church Pronouncements," in The New Jerome Biblical Commentary, editors Raymond E. Brown, Joseph A. Fitzmyer, and Roland E. Murphy, (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1990), 72:6. 2 Preface to the New Jerome Biblical Commentary, xix. The comparison to the Magna Carta can be seen as symbolic of the shift of focus from Leo XIII to Pius XII in the area of Catholic biblical interpretation, when seen in light of the fact that this distinction was previously reserved for Leo's encyclical Providentissimus Deus of 1893. See Augustin Cardinal Bea, S.J., Foreword to The Jerome Biblical Commentary, xvii. 3 On Brown's understanding of this period and Pius XII's break from it, see Brown and Collins, "Church Pronouncements," 72:5-6. 4 "Let the interpreter then, with all care and without neglecting any light derived from recent research, endeavor to determine the particular character and circumstances of the sacred writer, the age in which he lived, the sources written or oral to which he had recourse and the forms of expression he employed." Pope Pius XII, "Divino Afflante Spiritu" (Sept. 30, 1943), in The Papal Encyclicals 1939-1958, ed. Claudia Carlen (Raleigh: McGrath Publishing Co., 1981), par. 33. Also, "Nor is it forbidden by the decree of the Council of Trent to make translations into the vulgar tongue, even directly from the original texts themselves, for the use and benefit of the faithful and for the better understanding of the divine word, as We know to have been already done in a laudable manner in many countries with the approval of the Ecclesiastical authority." Pius XII, "Divino Afflante Spiritu," par. 22.

On the use of history and literary forms in biblical interpretation, see Second Vatican Council, "Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, Dei Verbum (Nov. 18, 1965)," in Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils,

1

2

some "ultraconservatives" who sought "to turn the clock back to 1910," Brown points out

the success of modern biblical interpretation in the Church since Vatican II, and the fact

that it "is now too much a part of the church to be rejected," as confirmed by the

endorsements of recent popes.6 The New Jerome Biblical Commentary itself is a sign to

"Ultraconservative Catholics who never accepted the changes inaugurated by Pope Pius

XII" that "there is no atmosphere of reaction against biblical studies" and that Catholic

biblical scholars "have found the interplay between faith and free biblical research

enriching on both sides, rather than antagonistic."

Although Brown is confident that the revolution has been a success, he is no

doubt aware that it has not produced a state of affairs without some controversy. Only

two years before the publication of The New Jerome Biblical Commentary, Brown

attended a conference in New York City sponsored by the Rockford Institute Center on

Religion & Society. The conference topic, chosen by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, was on

"the contemporary crisis in biblical interpretation," following his Erasmus lecture of the

same topic, entitled, "Biblical Interpretation in Crisis: On the Question of the

o

Foundations and Approaches of Exegesis Today." The Cardinal's lecture was a critique

of current practices of the historical-critical method, focusing on the undue influence of

its Enlightenment roots. In his lecture, the Cardinal explains that modern biblical

scholarship has inherited from the Enlightenment a notion of objectivity that demands a

strict separation between the Bible and tradition, and between the divine and human vol. 2 (Trent - Vatican II), ed. Norman P. Tanner (LondonAVashington: Sheed & Ward/Georgetown Universirt Press, 1990), cap. 3, par. 12. 6 Brown and Collins, "Church Pronouncements," 72:9. 7 Preface to the New Jerome Biblical Commentary, xxi. 8 Cardinal Ratzinger's lecture, along with the papers and discussions of the conference have been collected and published in Biblical Interpretation in Crisis: The Ratzinger conference on Bible and Church, ed. Richard John Neuhaus, (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1989). On Ratzinger choosing the conference topic, see Richard John Neuhaus, foreword to Biblical Interpretation in Crisis, vii-viii.

3

realms. In the service of biblical interpretation, this type of objectivity has the effect of

distancing biblical scholarship from church doctrine and the tradition of interpretation, as

well as exclusively focussing on the human element of sacred history with little regard

for God's action within it.1 What remains is the awkward task of reconciling the Bible

and Church tradition, human history and divine history, historical and theological

methods, and higher criticism and church doctrine." The Cardinal calls for a thorough

understanding of the problem and a relevant hermeneutic to bring about such

reconciliations.

Despite his criticisms, however, the Cardinal is not one of the ultraconservatives

Brown mentions in his preface to The New Jerome Biblical Commentary. ~ The Cardinal

does not seek to undo the advances made by Pius XII and Vatican II, but, instead, is a

firm supporter of modern methods of interpretation, the abandonment of which is not an

option.14 The subject of his critique, then, is not the legitimacy of the historical method,

9 Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, "Biblical Interpretation in Crisis: On the Question of the Foundations and Approaches of Exegesis Today," in Biblical Interpretation in Crisis: The Ratzinger conference on Bible and Church, ed. Richard John Neuhaus, (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1989), 1-2. 10 "Faith is not a component of this method, nor is God a factor to be dealt with in historical events." Ratzinger, "Biblical Interpretation in Crisis," 2. " Ratzinger, "Biblical Interpretation in Crisis," 5. 12 Ratzinger, "Biblical Interpretation in Crisis," 5-6. 13 See the paper by Brown, where he clearly puts Ratzinger in a different category from the ultraconservatives who seek to undo the advances made by Pius XII and Vatican II. [Raymond E. Brown, "The Contribution of Historical Biblical Criticism to Ecumenical Church Discussion," in Biblical Interpretation in Crisis: The Ratzinger conference on Bible and Church, ed. Richard John Neuhaus, (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1989), 39] It is also worth noting that neither Brown nor his "moderate" use of the historical method were the targets of Ratzinger's critique. (See, Brown, "Contribution of Historical Biblical Criticism," 38). 14 Responding to Prof. Thomas C. Oden's suggestion of returning to the patristic approach to biblical interpretation as an alternative to modern methods, Ratzinger is recorded as saying, "However, to return to the classical work and to omit what we have learned over the last two hundred years is not a possibility. We are given this time, and we live in this time. The background of this time is our background, and the questions of this time are our questions." Paul T. Stallsworth, "The Story of an Encounter," in Biblical Interpretation in Crisis: The Ratzinger conference on Bible and Church, ed. Richard John Neuhaus, (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1989), 114.

4

but its limits.15 He promotes an historical method which is "self-critical," aware of its

philosophical underpinnings and its theological goals. This would free the method from

philosophical presuppositions that prejudice its use, and set it within the hermeneutic of

faith, integral to the Church's tradition of interpretation.16

Cardinal Ratzinger, then, represents a different kind of critic from Brown's

"ultraconservative", for he seeks the refinement of the historical-critical method and not

its replacement. There are others who would join the Cardinal, both within and outside

the Catholic Church, in pointing out the shortcomings of the modern approach to

Scripture, while at the same time affirming its rightful place in contemporary biblical

studies. The body of criticism of this sort that has emerged over the last century is too

complex to treat here in its entirety. Instead, I would like to focus on one particular theme

that runs throughout much of this criticism, namely, the question of the relationship

between modern methods of interpretation and premodern approaches, such as those of

the patristic writers and medieval theologians. Of all the questions raised by critics of

modern biblical criticism, this one has special import for those Christian communions,

like the Catholic Church, which place an undeniable value on the wealth of biblical

interpretation inherited from premodern interpreters.

This question, in fact, was of great importance to Pius XII. In Divino Afflante

Spiritu, the "Magna Carta" of modern biblical progress itself, the pope makes it clear

15 Brown is well aware of this: "He wants to overcome the limitations of the method; he advocates not 'skepticism about the method' but 'an honest recognition of its limits.'" Brown, "Contribution of Historical Biblical Criticism," 39. In his lecture, the Cardinal speaks of "the undeniable insights uncovered by the historical method," and admits that "Philological and scientific literary methods are and will remain critically important for a proper exegesis." Ratzinger, "Biblical Interpretation in Crisis," 5-6, 22. 16 See the Cardinal's comments on what he calls "The Basic Elements of a New Synthesis." Ratzinger, "Biblical Interpretation in Crisis," 17-23.

5

that, however modern the methods of interpretation may be, they should be carried out in

accord with "those safe rules of Catholic exegesis" of a premodern origin:

Following the example of Our Predecessors, We also have effectively confirmed and amplified this Council using its good offices, as often before, to remind commentators of the Sacred Books of those safe rules of Catholic exegesis, which have been handed down by the Holy Fathers and Doctors of the Church^as well as by the Sovereign Pontiffs themselves.1

In his encyclical, Pius follows his own teaching by making his case for openness to

modern methods by way of these "safe rules." This can be seen in his teaching on

inspiration, for example, where he responds to the "difficulties brought to light only in

quite recent times" by appealing to what he calls "the supreme rule of interpretation," a

rule he finds in the teaching of St. Athanasius.19 Furthermore, he relies on the thought of

St. Thomas Aquinas and St. John Chrysostom for his teaching that exegetes should take

into account the modes of expression proper to the historical circumstances of the sacred

writers. For Aquinas teaches that "[i]n Scripture divine things are presented to us in the

manner which is in common use amongst men." And it is Chrysostom who shows that

the concept of the divine "condescension" of the Incarnation, as found in the Letter to the

Hebrews, should be extended to the sacred Scriptures: "For as the substantial Word of

17 Pius XII, "Divino Afflante Spiritu," par. 5. (emphasis mine) 18 "There are, in fine, other books or texts, which contain difficulties brought to light only in quite recent times, since a more profound knowledge of antiquity has given rise to new questions, on the basis of which the point at issue may be more appropriately examined." Pius XII, "Divino Afflante Spiritu," par. 32. 19 "There is no one indeed but knows that the supreme rule of interpretation is to discover and define what the writer intended to express, as St. Athanasius excellently observes: 'Here, as indeed is expedient in all other passages of Sacred Scripture, it should be noted, on what occasion the Apostle spoke; we should carefully and faithfully observe to whom and why he wrote, lest, being ignorant of these points, or confusing one with another, we miss the real meaning of the author.'" Pius XII, "Divino Afflante Spiritu," par. 34. (emphasis mine) 20 Pius XII, "Divino Afflante Spiritu," par. 37.

6

God became like to men in all things, 'except sin,' so the words of God, expressed in

9 I

human language, are made like to human speech in every respect, except error.""

Pius not only finds value for modern exegetes in the rules laid down by their

premodern predecessors, but in the fruits of their interpretation also. Although he admits

that the interpretation of the Church Fathers and Doctors of the Church may be

"sometimes less instructed in profane learning and in the knowledge of languages than

the scripture scholars of our time," nevertheless "they are distinguished by a certain

subtle insight into heavenly things and by a marvelous keenness of intellect, which

enables them to penetrate to the very innermost meaning of the divine word and bring to

light all that can help to elucidate the teaching of Christ and to promote holiness of

life."22 The Church Fathers would be indispensable then for the interpretation of the

spiritual sense, which Pius enjoins modern exegetes to address after having established

the literal meaning. For Pius XII, then, modern exegesis should be understood in light

of the premodern sources of the tradition. If Catholic biblical scholars are to take Pius'

encyclical as their staring point, as Brown would have them do, they cannot afford to be

indifferent to the question of the relation of modern criticism to its premodern

counterpart, lest they run the risk of being deemed "ultraliberals."

In his lecture, Cardinal Ratzinger reflects this need for taking into account the

premodern heritage24 of modern biblical criticism. Although warning against adopting •7c

methods that are obsolete and anachronistic, he invites the use of patristic and medieval

21 Pius XII, "Divino Afflante Spiritu," par. 37. 22 Pius XII, "Divino Afflante Spiritu," par. 28. 23 On the literal and spiritual senses, see Pius XII, "Divino Afflante Spiritu," par. 23-27. 24 I borrow this term from Fr. Dennis Farkasfalvy's essay, "A Heritage in Search of Heirs: The Future of Ancient Christian Exegesis," Communio 25 (Fall, 1998): 505-519. 25 See Stallsworth, "The Story of an Encounter," 114.

7

thought for developing a hermeneutic to address the present day crisis. In fact, he

considers Gregory of Nyssa as a "true guidepost today" for respecting the "depth and

dynamism" of God's word in sacred Scripture." In his preface to the Pontifical Biblical

Commission's The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church (1993)," a document that

took up the issues and concerns raised by his Erasmus lecture," Ratzinger says that the

fruit of the encyclicals Providentissimus Deus and Divino Afflante Spiritu, along with the

Second Vatican Council's Constitution on Divine Revelation was "a synthesis, which

substantially remains, between the lasting insights of Patristic theology and the new

methodological understanding of the moderns."30 He informs us of developments being

made on both sides of the synthesis, with new modern methods of interpretation and new

attempts to recover patristic exegesis.

Pope John Paul II also showed support for the idea of bringing modern biblical

scholarship together with premodern approaches. The theme of synthesis and harmony

pervades his address to the Pontifical Biblical Commission's The Interpretation of the

Bible in the Church: Unlike Brown, he does not single out Divino Afflante Spiritu, but

"The great outlines of patristic and medieval thought must also be brought into the discussion." Ratzinger, "Biblical Interpretation in Crisis," 22. 27 Ratzinger, "Biblical Interpretation in Crisis," 18. 28 Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, preface to The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church, trans, by John Kilgallen and Brendan Byrne (Boston: Pauline Books and Media, 1993), preface. 29 In his commentary on 1BC, Peter S. Williamson notes that Commission member Lothar Ruppert identifies Ratzinger's questions along with the general upheaval in recent biblical studies as reasons for the Commission's document. See, Peter S. Williamson, Catholic Principles for Interpreting Scripture: A Study of the Pontifical Biblical Commission's The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church, Subsidia Biblica, vol. 22, ed. James Swetnam (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 2001), 18-19; and Lothar Ruppert, "Kommentierende Einfiihrung in das Dokument," in Die Interpretation der Bibel in der Kirche: das Dokument der Papstlichen Bibelkommission vom 23.4.1993 mit einer kommentierenden Einfiihring von Lothar Ruppert und einer Wiirdigung durch Hans-Josef Klauck, vol. 161 (Stuttgart: Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1995), 15-18. See also Neuhaus, "Foreword to Biblical Interpretation in Crisis, xii. 30 Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, "Preface," The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church (1993) 31 Pope John Paul II, "Address on the Interpretation of the Bible in the Church," in The Scripture Documents: an anthology of official Catholic teachings, edited and translated by Dean P. Bechard, (Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 2002), 170-180.

8

considers it of equal weight with the earlier encyclical, Providentissimus Deus. For Pope

John Paul, they are two halves of a single effort to defend the Church's teaching on

biblical interpretation, one from the threat of rationalism, the other from a misunderstood

spiritualism. The Pope claims that in both cases the extreme of pitting the scientific

against the spiritual was avoided, and instead they were harmonized by stressing the

-IT

theological import of the spiritual, along with its venfiability. This harmony has a

Christological basis, the harmony of the human and divine natures in the person of Christ.

According to John Paul, "the two encyclicals require that Catholic exegetes remain in full

harmony with the mystery of the Incarnation, a mystery of the union of the divine and the

human in a determinate historical life."34 To maintain this harmony, Pope John Paul

encourages among Catholic exegetes fidelity to the Church, and to recognize that the

study of the Bible is better understood within the community of believers. For the Pope,

the community of believers includes those of past generations, especially the Church

Fathers, the study of which he sees as a sign of Church fidelity."

The Pontifical biblical Commission, in their document, The Interpretation of the

Bible of the Church, acknowledges the importance of Church Tradition in Catholic

biblical exegesis: "Catholic exegesis deliberately places itself within the stream of the

living Tradition of the Church, whose first concern is fidelity to the revelation attested by

" "Thus we note that, despite the great difference in the difficulties they had to face, the two encyclicals are in complete agreement at the deepest level," John Paul II, "Address," 173 (par. 5). 33 About Pius XII's teaching on scientific exegesis and spiritual interpretation, John Paul says, "he vindicated the close unity of the two approaches, on the one hand emphasizing the 'theological' significance of the literal sense, methodically defined, and on the other asserting that, to be recognized as the sense of a biblical text, the spiritual sense must offer proof of its authenticity." John Paul II, "Address," 173 (par. 5). 34 John Paul II, "Address," 174 (par. 7). 35 John Paul II, "Address," 176 (par. 10).

9

the Bible." As Williamson explains, the Commission presupposes here the

theologically pregnant concept of tradition. Tradition in its fullest sense is the "living

presence of the word of God in the life of the Church through time."37 It is the

communication of divine revelation, which includes both its content and process of

communication in the life of the Church. It is distinguished then from the particular

traditions, whether theological, disciplinary, liturgical or devotional, which attempt to

give expression to divine revelation. The Church Fathers are considered to have a special

place in serving this Tradition, especially by their contributions to the formation of the

canon of Scripture and to the doctrinal tradition of the Church, along with their

-JO

theological and spiritual insights into God's revelation for the benefit of the faithful.

Nevertheless, the Commission shares Cardinal Ratzinger's concern that fidelity to

the resources of the tradition not diminish the value or autonomy of proven modern

methods of interpretation. As Williamson points out, for the Commission, Tradition's

contribution to the process of interpretation depends on the nature of the interpretive task.

For Catholic interpretation understood as a whole, Tradition provides the 'pre-

understanding" and "lived affinity" with the Scriptures which makes interpretation

possible. By "pre-understanding," Williamson explains, more is implied than just

"cognitive aspects of a presupposition of faith," but includes "[participation in the life of

the Church and its Tradition of faith," all of which form the "matrix for Catholic

Pontifical Biblical Commission, The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church, trans, by John Kilgallen and Brendan Byrne (Boston: Pauline Books and Media, 1993), III, intro.

Williamson, Catholic Principles for Interpreting Scripture, 138. 38 "Within the broader current of the great Tradition, the particular contribution of patristic exegesis consists in this: to have drawn out from the totality of Scripture the basic orientations that shaped the doctrinal tradition of the Church, and to have provided a rich theological teaching for the instruction and spiritual sustenance of the faithful." Pontifical Biblical Commission, The Interpretation of the Bible, III, B, 2.

10

interpretation."' This pre-understanding plays a valuable role in the actualization of the

Scripture. "In the process of actualization," the Commission says, "tradition plays a

double role: on the one hand it provides protection against deviant interpretations; on the

other hand, it ensures the transmission of the original dynamism." ° Williamson

understands from this that "in pastoral ministry Tradition not only provides a pre-

understanding of faith, it guides the explanation of texts."41

For the task of scientific exegesis, however, pre-understanding of faith coming

from Tradition can have a negative effect. The Commission warns exegetes that the

Tradition can bring the risk of prejudiced results, and it is the task of the exegete, then, to

be careful of "attributing to biblical texts a meaning which they do not contain but which

is the product of a later development within the tradition."4 Williamson explains this

warning with recourse to the abovementioned concept of Tradition. The exegete is not

instructed to put his faith aside, for this is what renders him capable of seeing the biblical

text as both a means of human and divine communication; but rather to use discernment

in weighing the value of the contribution of the various traditions in helping him identify

the meaning of the text as intended on the occasion of its composition. Faith is always the

pre-understanding with which he approaches the biblical text, yet the various attempts to

conceptualize and express the meaning of God's revelation throughout Tradition may not

help the exegete's task, in fact, they may hinder it. Fidelity to Tradition, therefore, does

39 Williamson, Catholic Principles for Interpreting Scripture, 140-41. Also, "Faith traditions formed the living context for the literary activity of the authors of Sacred Scripture.... In like manner, the interpretation of Sacred Scripture requires full participation on the part of the exegetes in the life and faith of the believing community of their own time." Pontifical Biblical Commission, The Interpretation of the Bible, III.A.3.g, as found in Williamson, Catholic Principles for Interpreting Scripture, 140. 40 Pontifical Biblical Commission, The Interpretation of the Bible, IV.A.l .e, as found in Williamson, Catholic Principles for Interpreting Scripture, 141. 41 Williamson, Catholic Principles for Interpreting Scripture, 141. 42 Pontifical Biblical Commission, The Interpretation of the Bible, III.c, as found in Williamson, Catholic Principles for Interpreting Scripture, 141.

11

not entail necessarily fidelity to every tradition within it. As Williamson puts it, "To

interpret biblical texts there is absolutely no reason to 'suspend one's faith', but it is

necessary to suspend one's ideas on the subsequent conceptualization of faith so as not to

be guilty of interpreting texts anachronistically."43 For example, while the Commission

acknowledges the spiritual and pedagogical role of patristic allegory, they claim that

"Modern exegesis cannot ascribe true interpretive value to this kind of procedure."44

In summary, then, from Leo XIII's Providentissimus Deus to the Pontifical

Biblical Commission's The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church, the promotion of

modern biblical criticism was never meant to replace premodern interpretation. Instead,

both the modern and premodern approaches are to work together in attaining what the

Pontifical Biblical Commission calls the "principal goal" of Catholic biblical exegesis,

namely, "the deepening of faith."45

Some scholars claim that the synthesis between modern and premodern

approaches has not yet taken place, as evidenced by what they see as the ever greater

distance between biblical criticism and theology. Ignace de la Potterie, Catholic exegete

and theologian, has been a long time advocate of bringing the fruits of premodern

interpretation together with those of modern criticism. In 1980, he warned in his preface

to Bernard de Margerie's An Introduction to the History of Exegesis, that biblical

criticism in its all-too-exclusive use of the historical-critical method is in danger of

isolating itself from the other disciplines and of becoming ecclesially and pastorally

Williamson, Catholic Principles for Interpreting Scripture, 103-4. Pontifical Biblical Commission, The Interpretation of the Bible, II.B.2.h; and III.B.2.i-l. Pontifical Biblical Commission, The Interpretation of the Bible, Conclusion.

12

sterile.46 Sixteen years later, he showed little confidence that the state of affairs had

improved, and called again for a synthesis between the "two juxtaposed studies" of

biblical criticism and theology.47 According to de la Potterie, the separation of the

disciplines is founded on the more fundamental separation between historical and

spiritual exegesis. By limiting its focus to the historical and relegating the spiritual to

theology, biblical criticism has bifurcated the study of the Bible into two distinct

disciplines. In dividing those who interpret the text historically from those who interpret

it spiritually, biblical criticism has also drawn lines within the Church's tradition, namely,

between modern and premodern interpreters.48 It is for this reason, according to de la

Potterie, that the question facing us today is one of synthesis, synthesis of biblical

criticism with theology, and modern with premodern interpretation.

Maintaining the current state of affairs is not an option according to de la Potterie.

He understands the quest for synthesis as mandated by Dei Verbum, which grounds

scientific exegesis on the principle that Holy Scripture must be "read and interpreted in

the same Spirit in which it was written,"4 and finds its home within the living tradition of

the whole Church. The type of synthesis de la Potterie thinks would be most effective and

closest to what Vatican II called for is an "integral exegesis," where the integration of

philology and theology is done within the exegetical work itself.5 Such an integration, he

argues, calls for a revised concept of history that does not filter out the spiritual from the

historical. Only a concept of history rich enough to contain both can serve as an adequate

Ignace de la Potterie, preface to An Introduction to the History of Exegesis, by Bertrand de Margerie (Petersham, Mass.: Saint Bede's Publications, 1994), ix. 47 Ignace de la Potterie, "The Spiritual Sense of Scripture," Communio 23 (1996): 740. 48 de la Potterie, "The Spiritual Sense of Scripture," 754. 4 Dei Verbum, par. 12, as found in de la Potterie, "The Spiritual Sense of Scripture," 741. 50 de la Potterie, "The Spiritual Sense of Scripture," 740.

13

basis for an integral reading of a text that is considered both human and divine. De la

Potterie borrows Maurice Blondel's concept of "real history," "a history which is made

up of human actions, guided by a finality, a profound movement, a life, which orders

them toward the future," as opposed to scientific history, which is "interested only in

external and empirically known facts." There is no opposition then between historical

realities and spiritual realities, but rather they can be understood each in light of the other,

or, to use an expression from Cardinal Henri de Lubac, the historical can be understood

spiritually, and the spiritual historically." It is this spiritual reading of history at which

patristic and medieval exegesis excelled, and about which it can teach us much. For de la

Potterie, then, much of the solution of an integral exegesis will come from our retrieval of

the wisdom of premodern exegesis. "

Abbot Denis Farkasfalvy, a member of the Pontifical Biblical Commission since

2001, has also expressed his concern for the state of biblical studies, in particular the

failure to integrate into theology and spirituality the wealth of knowledge generated by

the biblical movement since Divino Afflante Spiritu. Like Raymond Brown, Farkasfalvy

sees the last sixty years as a time of great learning in the area of biblical studies, due

mainly to the ascendancy of modern methods like the historical-critical. At the same

time, however, the biblical movement's quest for objectivity put "the tools of history and

philology" over "theological reflection" as well as "the Catholic exegetical tradition" and

51 de la Potterie, "The Spiritual Sense of Scripture," 742. 52 de la Potterie, "The Spiritual Sense of Scripture," 743. 53 See also his preface to de Margerie's work: "It should now be clear why anyone studying and interpreting Scripture should develop renewed interest in the exegesis of the Fathers: not in order simply to resume, in a mechanical way, their hermeneutical methods, which are to a great extent superseded and which all to often led them into allegorism, to discover, above their methods, the spirit that animated them and the profound vital principle that inspired their exegesis. We must learn from them how to interpret Scripture, not only from a historical and critical point of view, but also 'in Church' and 'for Church.'" Ignace de la Potterie, preface to An Introduction to the History of Exegesis, x.

14

the "documents of the Church's Magisterium."54 This produced a situation where little

spiritual nourishment could be drawn from the wealth of biblical learning. Farkasfalvy

says, "we probably know more about the Bible than ever before, yet we do not know how

to use this knowledge for the benefit (the word is 'edification,' no matter how old-

fashioned it might sound) of the Church."55 Like Ratzinger, he calls for a new biblical

hermeneutics to clarify the principles of biblical interpretation.

The history of exegesis, Farkasfalvy argues, will provide "valuable insights and

hints" towards this hermeneutic.5 First of all, he'points out the affinity between the

present-day situation and that of the Church Fathers. The Fathers were faced with a

hermeneutical challenge of their own, posed by the heresies of Marcionism and

Gnosticism. It is this hermeneutical crisis, in fact, which led to the formation of the canon

as its response. Farkasfalvy concludes, "The importance of the biblical theology of these

Church Fathers cannot be exaggerated, since the canon, received and proclaimed with

authority by later synods, is their canon."' Without abandoning modern biblical

science,58 the contemporary exegete, according to Farkasfalvy, can benefit from four

principles of patristic exegesis: 1) acknowledges that the biblical text is an expression of

faith; 2) recognizes its context in salvation history; 3) relates the redemption of the

community to that of the individual; and 4) considers the process of interiorization as a

component of exegesis. With the aid of these principles, he hopes we will "arrive at an

" Denis Farkasfalvy, "The Case for Spiritual Exegesis," Communio 10 (1983): 335. " Farkasfalvy, "The Case for Spiritual Exegesis," 336. " Farkasfalvy, "The Case for Spiritual Exegesis," 336. 57 Farkasfalvy, "The Case for Spiritual Exegesis," 337. 58 In continuity with the doctrinal tradition of the Church, Farkasfalvy calls for a return to premodern exegesis but without abandoning modern methods (Farkasfalvy, "The Case for Spiritual Exegesis," 342-343).

Farkasfalvy treats each principle separately (Farkasfalvy, "The Case for Spiritual Exegesis," 343-348).

15

interpretation that goes beyond history and philology and is able to provide material for

contemporary catechesis, preaching and personal edification."60

The call for a return to premodern methods of exegesis is heard not only within

the Catholic Church. In fact, one of the most important advocates for such a return is the

Anglican theologian, Stephen Fowl, who, like de la Potterie, Farkasfalvy, and Cardinal

Ratzinger, sees a disconnect between modern biblical criticism and the discipline of

theology. He blames this on the fact that the concerns of modern biblical interpretation

have been governed by what he calls the "conceptual aims of modernity." ' It is integral

to modernity, according to Fowl, to set limits "on intellectual activity more generally and

theology in particular." One way of doing so, he explains, was to establish "newly

disciplined modes of inquiry," each with their own particular integrity. The desire for

disciplinary integrity became dominant, resulting in the split between philosophy and

theology, and within theology itself, causing biblical studies to be seen as its own

discipline, distinct from the other forms of theological study. The focus on disciplinary

integrity led to biblical studies and theology developing ends in isolation from each other.

This is the reason for what Fowl considers to be the current lack of cooperation between

biblical exegetes and theologians:

the work of professional biblical scholars is often seen by professional theologians as both too technical and irrelevant for their own interests. Further, professional biblical scholars tend to find the interests of, for example, systematic theologians abstract and ill-suited to their professional interests in the Bible.63

Farkasfalvy, "The Case for Spiritual Exegesis," 341-342. 61 Stephen E. Fowl, introduction to The Theological Interpretation of Scripture, ed. Stephen E. Fowl, (Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, Ltd., 1997), xiii-xvi. Fowl's most complete articulation of the problem of contemporary biblical scholarship and his solution of a "theological interpretation" may be found in his Engaging Scripture: a model for theological interpretation, (Maiden, Mass.: Blackwell Publishers, 1998). 62 Fowl, introduction to The Theological Interpretation of Scripture, xvi. 6 Fowl, introduction to The Theological Interpretation of Scripture, xiv.

16

The ends of modernity have taken over biblical interpretation from the theological

ends that have traditionally guided it: "Christians have generally read their scripture to

guide, correct, and edify their faith, worship, and practice as part of their ongoing

struggle to live faithfully before the triune God."64 Fowl claims "that over the past 250

years the aims and desires which shape and are shaped by theological interpretation of

scripture became increasingly irrelevant to professional biblical scholars."65

The disciplinary divide between theology and biblical studies is encouraged by a

change in the context in which theological research is conducted today. Traditionally,

biblical interpretation understood itself as taking place within the Church, while it is

increasingly within the domain of academia that such investigations now occur. The

academy, Fowl explains, is governed by the aims of modernity more than those of the

Church. It has institutionalized the fragmentation of the disciplines and loosened ties with

denominations and churches. The result has been the disconnect between congregations

and the work of professional biblical scholars and theologians.

It appears then that the Magisterium's call for a synthesis of modern and

premodern methods of biblical interpretation finds an echo in the scholarly community.

Like the Magisterium, these scholars warn of serious dangers if a synthesis is not found,

such as, failing to appreciate the spiritual dimension to human history, jeopardizing the

edification of the faithful, and alienating Christians from their own sacred Scriptures.

Despite these warnings, however, none of the abovementioned scholars seek a wholesale

requisition of premodern methods. In fact, they share Ratzinger's and the Pontifical

Biblical Commission's concern that discretion be used, lest outmoded methods be

Fowl, introduction to The Theological Interpretation of Scripture, xiii. Fowl, introduction to The Theological Interpretation of Scripture, xv.

adopted in interpretation. The first step to achieving this synthesis, then, is to study the

premodern methods themselves, so as to better understand their contribution to biblical

interpretation. Cardinal Henri de Lubac, considered by most scholars today as one of the

most important figures in the ressourcement of premodern interpretation, himself warns

us in the preface to his study of Latin Medieval biblical exegesis of anticipating too early

the synthesis to be sought. If modern methods are judged deficient without premodern

insights, the reverse can be said also, as Robert E. McNally implies, quoted by de Lubac,

"When the whole picture of the Bible exegesis of the early Middle Ages is finally drawn,

one will be able to see more clearly the futility of exegesis without philology, and the

hopelessness of theology without exegesis." If the synthesis called for by the

Magisterium and some scholars is to be achieved, then, a study of premodern methods

must be conducted.

In this thesis I intend to study the biblical interpretation of Thomas Aquinas as a

contribution to our understanding of premodern methods of biblical interpretation, for the

ultimate purpose of aiding the synthesis between modern and premodern methods.

Although we could turn to almost any Church Father or Doctor of the Church, there are

reasons that render St. Thomas Aquinas especially helpful to the contemporary Catholic

theologian. Recently, Pope John Paul II in his encyclical, Fides et Ratio, has reaffirmed

the Church's teaching of Thomas as "a master of thought and a model of the right way to

do theology."67 Thomas is presented as the pinnacle of a long development in the

harmonization of faith and reason, starting with St. Paul and the Church Fathers. The

Henri de Lubac, Medieval Exegesis, Vol I, The Four Senses of Scripture, translated by Mark Sebanc, (Grand Rapids, Mich.: W. B. Eerdmans; Edinburgh, Scotland: T&T Clark, 1998), xx, note 21. 67 John Paul II, "Fides et Ratio," Origins Vol. 28 (October 22, 1998): par. 43.

18

problem with present day exegesis as outlined above can be described as a tension

between biblical exegesis as an act of science and as an act of faith.

Thomas' thought is also profoundly biblical. In the 20* century, Thomistic

scholarship witnessed a rise in awareness in the biblical dimension of Thomas' thought.

According to Christopher T. Baglow, this began with Heinrich Denifle's discovery "that

the Bible was Thomas' official textbook in his various positions as a teacher."68 The

centrality of the Bible for the magister in sacra pagina has been reaffirmed most recently

by Jean-Pierre Torrell in his biography of the saint, as well as in M. Michele

Mulchahey's masterful study of Dominican education in the 131 century.7

This study will focus on what is generally considered to be one of Thomas' most

7 1

extensive and profound biblical commentaries, the Ledum super Ioannem. In my study

I will attempt to prove that the mystical interpretation used throughout the Commentary is

the exegetical congruent to the demands made on interpretation by the type of spiritual

signification discussed in the Summa Theologiae, la, Ql, a 10. Because the spiritual sense

signifies things by other things, those passages that pertain to it have ends which lie

beyond the literary structure and historical circumstances of the text in which they are

Christopher T. Baglow, "Modus et forma:" a new approach to the exegesis of Saint Thomas Aquinas with an application to the Lectura super epistolam ad Ephesios, (Roma: Pontificio Instituto biblico, 2002): 5. See also, Heinrich Denifle, "Quel livre servait de base a l'enseignement des Maitres en Theologie dans l'Universite de Paris?" Revue Thomiste 2 (1894): 129-161. 69 Jean Pierre Torrell. Saint Thomas Aquinas, Vol. I, The Person and His Work, translated by Robert Royal (Washington, D. C: Catholic University of America Press, 1996). See especially pp.54-59. 70 M. Michele Mulchahey, "First the Bow is Bent in Study... ": Dominican Education before 1350 (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1996). 71 Torrell, Vol. 1, 339. James Weisheipl calls it "the most satisfying of all the commentaries on scripture." James A. Weisheipl, "The Johannine Commentary of Friar Thomas," Reprinted from Church History, (June, 1976, Vol. xxxxv, No. 2): 11. Latin edition used in this study is Super Evangelium S. loannis Lectura, ed. P.R. Cai, (Romae: Marietti, 1952). Citations to the Super Ioannem will include both the chapter and lecture number, followed by the paragraph number used in the Marietti edition. Unless otherwise noted, English translations of the text will follow the two-part translation of James A Weisheipl and Fabian R. Larcher: Saint Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on the Gospel of St. John, Pt. 1, trans, by James A. Weisheipl (Albany, NY: Magi Books, 1980) and Pt. 2, trans, by Fabian R. Larcher (Petersham, MA: St. Bede's Publications, 1998).

19

found. In this way, their ends are mystical, that is, they are hidden from the literal

interpretation of the text. A spiritual signification, therefore, implies a mystical

interpretation.

Because of its hidden quality, the interpretation of the mystical meaning of the

text will rely on principles beyond those used for discerning the literal meaning. Such

principles will presuppose an intelligibility beyond the literal meaning of the text,

founded in the faith common to both author and reader, and animated by the Holy Spirit

himself. The mystical interpretation, then, seeks not only to uncover the spiritual sense of

the words hidden in the text, but does so by means of a 'spiritual hermeneutics,' namely

one which presupposes a type of connatural knowledge of the "secrets" (secreta) of

John's contemplation of Christ, entrusted to him in friendship by the person of Jesus.

Thus, the mystical interpretation is related to the interior life of both the interpreter and

his students, and can thus be considered a form of spiritual exercise.

Within the body of literature on Thomas' exegesis there have emerged a number

of insightful studies which justify the need for a close textual analysis of Thomas'

biblical commentaries. Recent works by Christopher T. Baglow and Thomas F. Ryan

highlight the need for studies of Thomas' scriptural commentaries that do more than

confirm teachings found in his systematic works, but also pay attention to the unique

character of the commentaries themselves.

Baglow categorizes the numerous studies of the biblical dimension of Thomas'

thought that have emerged in the 20th century into the following three categories72: a)

those studies that are oriented thematically or topically, with no specific focus on any one

Baglow, 89-91.

20

commentary ; b) works that are thematic or topical, but focussed on a particular text, or

part thereof, from Thomas' exegetical corpus ; and c) studies of individual

commentaries in their organic unity, without limiting themselves to particular themes.75

This category would include M. Arias Reyero, Thomas von Aquin als Exeget, (Einsiedeln: Johannes-Verlag, 1971); R. Barrett, "St. Thomas the Exegete", Milltown Studies, 44(1999), 6-33; John F. Boyle, "St. Thomas Aquinas and Sacred Scripture," Pro Ecclesia 4 (1996): 92-104; Marcel Dubois, "Mystical and realistic elements in the exegesis and hermeneutics of Thomas Aquinas," in Creative biblical exegesis: Christian and Jewish Hermeneutics through the Centuries, ed. Benjamin Uffenheimer and Henning Graf Reventhow (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1988): 39-54; Leo J., S.V.D. Eiders, "Aquinas on holy Scripture as the medium of divine revelation," in La doctrine de la revelation divine de saint Thomas d'Aquin. Actes du Symposium sur la pensee de saint Thomas d'Aquin term a Rolduc, les 4 et 5 Novembre 1989, ed. Leo Elders (Vatican City: Libreria Editricie Vaticana, 1990): 132-152; S. Lyonnet, "L'actualite de S. Thomas exegete", Problemi di Teologia, Vol 4, (Naples: Editione Dominicane Italiane, 1976): 9-28; R. G. Kennedy, "Thomas Aquinas and the Literal Sense of Sacred Scripture." (Ph.D. diss., University of Notre Dame, 1985); Terence McGuckin, "St. Thomas Aquinas and Theological Exegesis of Sacred Scripture," New Blackfriars 14 (April 1993): 197-213; E.F. Rogers Jr., "How the Virtues of an Interpreter Presuppose and Perfect Hermeneutics: The Case of Thomas Aquinas," Journal of Religion, 76 (1996): 64-81; J. Salguero, "Santo Tomas de Aquino y la Hermeneutica Biblica," Problemi di Teologia, Vol 4 (Naples: Editione Dominicane Italiane Napoli, 1976): 29-40; Eleonore Stump, "(Aquinas) Biblical Commentary and Philosophy," in The Cambridge Companion to Aquinas, ed. Norman Kretzmann and Eleonore Stump, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993): 252-268; Edward Synan, "The Four 'Senses' and Four Exegetes," in With Reverence for the Word: Medieval Scriptural Exegesis in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, ed. Jane Dammen McAuliffe, Barry D. Walfish, and Joseph W. Goering (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003): 225-236; T. F. Torrance, "Scientific Hermeneutics According to St. Thomas Aquinas," Journal of Theological Studies 13(1962): 259-89; Wilhelmus G. B. M. Valkenberg, Words of the Living God: Place and Function of Holy Scripture in the Theology of St. Thomas Aquinas (Peeters, Leuven: Thomas Instituut Utrecht, 2000); J. Van der Ploeg, "The Place of Holy Scripture in the Theology of St. Thomas," The Thomist 10 (October 1947): 398-422. 74 Among these we may list Marc Aillet, Lire La Bible Avec S. Thomas: Le passage de la littera a la res dans la Somme theologique, (Fribourg Suisse: Editions Universitaires, 1993); Clifton C. Black III, "St. Thomas' Commentary on the Joahannine Prologue: Some Reflections on Its Character and Implications," The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 48 (1986): 681-698.; John F. Boyle, "The Theological Character of the Scholastic 'Division of the Text' with Particular Reference to the Commentaries of Saint Thomas Aquinas," in With Reverence for the Word: Medieval Scriptural Exegesis in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, ed. Jane Dammen McAuliffe, Barry D. Walfish, and Joseph W. Goering, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003): 276-283; C. J. Callan, "The Bible in the Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas," Catholic Biblical Quarterly 9 (1947): 33-47; A.W. Keaty, "Thomas's Authority for Identifying Charity as Friendship: Aristotle or John 15?", Thomist, 62(1998): 581-601; Donal J. O'Connor, "The Concept of Mystery in Aquinas' Exegesis," The Irish Theological Quarterly 36 (July 1969): 183-210; A. Paretsky, "The Influence of Thomas the Exegete on Thomas the Theologian: the Tract on Law (Ia-IIae qq. 98-108) as a Test Case," Angelicum 71(1994): 549-577. 75 Here we can include Christopher T. Baglow, "Modus et forma:" a new approach to the exegesis of Saint Thomas Aquinas with an application to the Lectura super epistolam ad Ephesios (Roma: Pontificio Instituto biblico, 2002); Marie-Dominic Philippe, O.P., preface to Commentaire sur L'Evangile de Saint Jean par St. Thomas d'Aquin, translation and notes under the direction of M.-D. Philippe, O.P. (Versailles: Les Amis des Freres de Saint Jean, 1981): 7-49; Thomas F. Ryan, Thomas Aquinas as Reader of the Psalms (Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press, 2000); and James A. Weisheipl, O.P. "The Johannine Commentary of Friar Thomas," Church History 45 (June 1976): 185-195. For convenience sake I include Martin D. Yaffe, "Interpretative essay," in The Literal Exposition on Job: Scriptural Commentary Concerning Providence, translated by Anthony Damico with Interpretative essay and notes by Martin D.

21

Baglow points out the surprising fact that there is an "attitude which pervades this

literature itself, one which almost seems to be an absence of recognition of the growing

mountain of monographs, books and dissertations focused precisely on the Thomas/Bible

connection."76 Baglow concludes that scholars are dissatisfied with the literature because

it offers little by way of new information. The problem is with the study of the practice of

Thomas' exegesis. It is only in the past thirty years that any significant study of Thomas'

exegetical works has been done, and even this has often been "limited by the

77

presuppositions and general approach with which they were made." This has led merely

to the rediscovery in Thomas' exegetical works of the same ideas as found in his

systematic works. Baglow's own study is an attempt to rectify this problem by focussing

on Thomas' Ledum super Epistolam ad Ephesios. His intention is to study the text as a

biblical commentary, and not "merely as a doctrinal mine from which ideas can be

gathered."78

Like Baglow, Ryan in his recent work, Thomas Aquinas as Reader of the Psalms,

attempts to correct scholarship's lack of awareness of the significance of genre in

Thomas' theology. Ryan insists that unless attention is paid to the various genres in

which Thomas expresses his theology, scholars will not have an accurate portrait of his

thought. The most neglected genre, according to Ryan, is that of Thomas' biblical 79

commentaries.

Yaffe (Atlanta, Georgia: Scholars Press, 1989): 1-65. Nevertheless, I agree with Baglow's judgment that Yaffe's work straddles both the second and third categories (See Baglow, p.90). 76 Baglow, Modus et forma, 6. 77 Baglow, Modus et forma, 7. 78 Baglow, Modus et forma, 17. 79 Ryan, Reader of the Psalms, 2.

22

Martin D. Yaffe, in his interpretive essay on Thomas' Expositio super lob ad

litteram, articulates another reason why Thomas' biblical commentaries deserve close

textual analysis. Yaffe demonstrates how Thomas uses the text of Job to teach a lesson

specifically tailored to thirteenth-century students of Christian theology, namely, a lesson

on the dangers of Averroism and the limits of philosophy within a Christian setting. The

Commentary, then, serves a pedagogical function, which influences Thomas' reading of

the biblical text. Yaffe's method of close textual analysis of the Super lob demonstrates

how this pedagogical purpose cannot be predicted, but emerges from a reading of

Thomas' Commentary itself. If Yaffe is correct in his interpretation, it is then possible,

and even likely, that pedagogical intentions exist within Thomas' other biblical

commentaries, like the Super loannem.

Following Baglow, Ryan and Yaffe, my study will rely on a close reading of the

text of the Super loannem for an understanding of the mystical interpretation therein.

Other texts from Thomas' corpus will be used only when the text demands it, such as,

when the text itself cannot yield a satisfactory explanation of a concept or term. Also,

secondary sources on Thomas Aquinas and the study of the Bible in the Middle-Ages will

be used to set the historical context for Thomas' Super loannem.

The study will proceed in four chapters. Chapter 1 will provide the historical

context for the study by addressing the manner and significance of biblical studies in

Dominican education during the thirteenth-century at the University of Paris. This

chapter will also establish the context for the mystical interpretation of the Super

loannem within Thomas' thoughts on biblical interpretation as expressed elsewhere in his

corpus.

80 Yaffe, "Interpretive essay," 6.

23

Chapter 2 will serve as an introduction to the textual analysis of the Commentary,

and offer an interpretation of the prologue, so as to identify the principles, themes and

divisions operative in the Commentary itself. By doing so, this section will construct as

much as possible Thomas' own understanding of what he is doing in his Commentary,

and provide insights into the interpretive method he employs therein.

Chapter 3 will contain the textual analysis of those sections of the Commentary

pertaining to the mystical interpretation. First, the mystical interpretation will be broken

down into categories according to the terminology used by Thomas to convey it, such as,

ratio mystica, causa mystica, and mystice. Next, a closer analysis of the ratio mystica

form will be conducted for the purposes of observing how it functions as an exegetical

technique within its immediate context and the Commentary as a whole. Conclusions will

then be drawn on the basis of this data concerning the exegetical function of the mystical

interpretation.

In Chapter 4, having established its role as an exegetical technique, I will then

examine the function of the mystical interpretation as a spiritual exercise. I will

demonstrate how this technique presupposes and encourages a particular spiritual

disposition within the reader, and in this way serves as a spiritual exercise.

CHAPTER 1 THE SETTING OF THE SUPER WANNEM

To help us understand the Ledum super loannem, we will describe the setting in which it

emerged. Although we aim to study the text on its own terms, it emerges out of a larger setting,

an understanding of which will inform our analysis. This setting is both historical and doctrinal,

for the Commentary emerges as a part of a larger project within the Dominican Order, and takes

its place alongside other writings by Thomas. It is to the elucidation of its historical context and

place within Thomas' corpus at large that this chapter will devote itself.

1. The Bible and Dominican Education in the Thirteenth-Century

The Super loannem, as the work of a Dominican magister sacrae paginae, has as its

setting the general Dominican project of biblical education. The bulk of biblical education for

Dominicans of the thirteenth-century was conducted in the conventual schools, or scholae. These

were small schools which every Dominican convent had a constitutional obligation to establish

and operate for the instruction of its friars. Michele Mulchahey, in her monograph on Dominican

education in the thirteenth-century, shows how the conventual schola played a central role in

Dominican education. Mulchahey points out how the chief concern of the Order was to form

preachers and confessors, which was done primarily in the convent schools, and not in the

Order's more advanced studia. Attendance in the schola was made obligatory for every

1 Information on the Dominican schola in the thirteenth century and its biblical curriculum is drawn mainly from "Dominican conventual Education and the Training of the Fratres communes" chapter three of M. Michele Mulchahey's "First the Bow is Bent in Study," (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1996), 130-218.

24

25

Dominican, from novice to prior, and for the rest of his life.~ The student-friars were sent to a

'studium generate' with the expectation that they would return to one of the Order's scholae

ready to work as a lector: The centrality of schola education is even witnessed in the great

manuals and summae produced by the Dominicans at this time, most of which, according to

Mulchahey, had convent schools in mind and not universities.4

The doctrinal education of the schola consisted of two years of uninterrupted theological

study, beginning after the novitiate year. Mulchahey describes for us how the daily and weekly

format of the formal schola course was modelled after the studia generalia of Europe, evidence

of the influence secular masters had on Dominican education.5 In its weekly format it followed

the triune practice of lectio, repetitio, and disputatio, techniques of scholastic education well

established by the early thirteenth-century.6 Every week the friar-students were subjected to two

daily lectures, first on the Bible, and then on Peter Lombard's Sentences, a daily repetition over

these lectures, a weekly dispute, and a weekly repetitio generalis, which consisted of a review of

the week's material.

The daily lectures on the Bible and Sentences followed the format employed at the

faculty of theology at Paris, and even followed its use of the terms lectiones ordinariae, for the

lectures on the Bible, and lectiones sentenciarum, for those on the Sentences. The schola course

also adopted the same texts used at Paris: the Bible, Peter Comestor's Historia scholastica, and

Mulchahey, First the Bow is Bent in Study, 133. " Mulchahey, First the Bow is Bent in Study, 130. 4 Mulchahey, First the Bow is Bent in Study, 131. 5 Mulchahey, First the Bow is Bent in Study, 132-134. 6 In his biography of St. Thomas Aquinas, Jean Pierre Torrell shows how Thomas demonstrates a familiarity with this triune practice in one of his inaugural lectures upon receiving his Licentia docendi. (Torrell, The Person and His Work, 54) 7 Mulchahey, First the Bow is Bent in Study, 135.

26

the Sentences. According to Mulchahey, in the Dominican schola, however, these texts were

probably handled in a much more straightforward manner, as evidenced by Humbert of Romans

in his Instructiones de officiis ordinis, where he provides us a glimpse of the type of treatment

o

these texts might have received within a conventual school. He instructs lecturers to stay close

to the historical sense, sensus historicus, of the text, so as to avoid confusion on the part of their

students and to avoid straying from the teaching of the saints and glosses. In general the

Dominican schola can be described as a smaller and less sophisticated version of a studium

generate, with a special likeness to the Parisian faculty of theology.

It appears, then, on the evidence of Humbert's Instructiones and the fact that the student

friars were being trained for the mission field, that the lectures on the Bible resembled the

cursory reading of texts developed in the universities and were not magisterial lectures on the

deeper implications of Scripture.9 The purpose of such a cursory reading, Mulchahey tells us,

was to grasp the historical sense of the text, which included understanding its narrative structure

as well as its literal meaning.1 Peter Comestor's Historia scholastica, a "running commentary

on biblical history," was used as an aid to understanding the historical sense of the biblical text. '

Mulchahey reconstructs for us what the lectio ordinaria might have looked like: Thus there is a very strong likelihood that the first daily lecture in a Dominican schola, in these early years, would have been a cursory reading of a selected passage from the Bible, together with the appropriate explanation of it found in the Historia scholastica.12

Mulchahey, First the Bow is Bent in Study, 138. 9 Mulchahey, First the Bow is Bent in Study, 139. 10 Mulchahey, First the Bow is Bent in Study, 139. " Mulchahey, First the Bow is Bent in Study, 140. 12 Mulchahey, First the Bow is Bent in Study, 140.

27

The understanding of Scripture, however, did not stop with the historical sense, or with

the study of the Bible itself. Mulchahey shows how the transition from the historical sense to the

spiritual senses, and in particular, to the moral sense, the heart of the preacher's trade, required

the study of doctrine.13 Only with an introduction to theological science through the study of the

Sentences, could the Dominican obtain a deeper understanding of the sacred text.14 It would

seem then that for Dominicans the study of the Bible and that of the Sentences were mutually

beneficial, the former acting as the foundation for the latter, and the latter developing and filling

out the former.

After the conventual schola came the Dominican stadium generate. Unlike its secular

counterparts, it was strictly for the study of theology, and was the highest form of

theological training the Dominicans could offer.15 The first of these schools was St-Jacques in

Paris. Paris was the undisputed leader in theological education at the time and greatly influenced

the Dominicans in the operation of their studia. Borrowing from the Parisian faculty of

theology, the Dominican studium generate adopted as its main texts the Bible and the Sentences,

and used the scholastic exercises familiar to university men. Mulchahey, however, points out

one major difference between the Dominican studium generate and the secular version, which is

of specific interest for the history of Dominican biblical studies. According to Mulchahey, the

Dominican studium generate had no cursor biblicus, and thus no cursory lectures on the Bible.

13 Mulchahey, First the Bow is Bent in Study, 140. 14 Mulchahey, First the Bow is Bent in Study, 141. 15 Mulchahey, First the Bow is Bent in Study, 378. 16 Mulchahey, First the Bow is Bent in Study, 378. 17 Mulchahey, First the Bow is Bent in Study, 380. 18 Mulchahey, First the Bow is Bent in Study, 380.

28

Presumably Dominicans in Paris were considered to have already acquired a sufficient

knowledge of the literal sense of the Bible from their days in the conventual schola

during which "[t]he Bible was lectured upon at a rate of one book a year by every

conventual lector in the order - precisely the tempo stipulated for the cursores at Paris."1

There is evidence, however, that the absence of a cursor biblicus in the Dominican

stadium generate was a later development. There are some scholars who believe that St.

Thomas Aquinas wrote his Postilla super Jeremiah as a cursor biblicus at the studium

90

generate of St. Albert the Great in Cologne.

If the Dominican student was first introduced to the study of the Bible under the

direction of the conventual schola lector, it was under the magister in sacra pagina at the

studium generate that his most advanced biblical education would take place. The central

lecture cycle of the studium, Mulchahey tells us, following the lead of the faculty of

theology at Paris, were the ordinary lectures of the regent master, "focussing on the 9 1

theological implications of Scripture."" These lectures were much more sophisticated

than those of the lector in the schola, and provided the master with the opportunity to 99

make a much more probing commentary on Scripture. Such commentaries were usually

on one book of the Bible and took several years to complete.23 They tended to focus on

questions developed out of the biblical text while adding material of a contemporary

interest. 4 Those Dominicans who were gifted and fortunate enough to be sent to a 19 Mulchahey, First the Bow is Bent in Study, 382. 20 Mulchahey, First the Bow is Bent in Study, 382nl 19; Torrell, The Person and his Work, 27. "' Mulchahey, First the Bow is Bent in Study, 379. 22 Torrell, The Person and His Work, 54. W. J. Courtenay speculates that the high praise for Scripture commentaries suggests that not every master chose to write one. See, W. J. Courtenay, "Programs of Study and Genres of Scholastic Theological Production in the Fourteenth Century," in Manuels Programmes de cours et techniques d'enseignement dans les universites medievales, (Turnhout: Brepols, 1994), 339. 23 Courtenay, "Programs of Study," 339. 24 Courtenay, "Programs of Study," 339.

29

studium generate were exposed to what was at the time the most advanced form of

biblical education in Europe. It is this sort of biblical education that St. Thomas Aquinas

would have very likely received in Paris between 1252 and 1256, and to which he would

contribute with his own commentaries such as his Super lob and Super loannem.

2. Thomas' Biblical Education

The details of Thomas' biblical education are not well known. In his biography of

the saint, Jean Pierre Torrell mentions only the study of the liberal arts and philosophy

during his early years with the monks of Monte Casino.26 In fact, the only mention of

Thomas reading the Bible is during his imprisonment by his family at Roccasecca, where

he is reputed to have read the entire Bible, a claim Torrell is inclined to believe."

According to Torrell, Thomas' formal education in the Bible probably began in

Paris between 1246 and 1248 at the Priory of St. Jacques, soon after joining the

Dominican Order. Torrell bases this on the fact that if Thomas were commenting on the

Sentences in Cologne by 1252, he would have had to start studying theology within his

first sojourn in Paris. Torrell admits that even this would not have given the young

student-friar enough time to complete the requisite 5 years of theological study for the

baccalaureate, and that his superiors, recognizing his intellectual gifts, must have

accelerated his program of study.29 We know much more, however, about his study of the

Bible at Cologne, where Thomas lectured on Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Lamentations,

i n

probably as Albert the Great's cursor biblicus. Thomas returned to Pans in 1252 to

Torrell, The Person and His Work, 55. Torrell, The Person and His Work, 4-8. Torrell, The Person and His Work, 11 n52. Torrell, The Person and His Work, 23-24. Torrell, The Person and His Work, 23. Torrell, The Person and His Work, 24 & 27.

30

lecture on the Sentences, and was made a master of the sacred page in 1256.31 His

inaugural lecture was a comment on Ps 103:13 (Vulgate).32 From this point on, Thomas'

ordinary work would be commenting on the Bible. Thomas would eventually leave

commentaries on Job, Matthew, John, Paul's letters, the Psalms, and a commentary on

the four Gospels through a series of quotations from the Church Fathers, popularly

known as the Catena aurea in quatuor evangelia:

3. Lectura super Ioannem

The Lectura super Ioannem is a reportatio of a course on the Gospel given during

Thomas' second period of teaching at the priory of Saint-Jacques, the Dominican studium

generate in Paris. Torrell dates the course from 1270 to 1272, moving it back a year from

Mandonnet's dating of it. Torrell bases this date on the proposed date of the Super

Matthaeum, which he places in the academic year of 1269 to 1270.34

A Reportatio was a written report of lectures, sermons or disputes, taken down by

a listener or official reporter, most often a bachelor, for the purpose of establishing a

definitive text, ready to be edited by the master. ' Among theologians, the custom was

well established by the end of the twelfth-century and was the chief form in which

university courses and sermons were recorded.36 A reportatio on an entire course, as is

the case with the Super Ioannem, is often given the title lectura, the name used at the

31 Torrell, The Person and His Work, 36. 32 Torrell, The Person and His Work, 50-53. 3 Thomas Aquinas, Catena aurea in quatuor evangelia, edited by P. Angelici Guarienti (Romae: Marietti, 1953). 34 Torrell, The Person and His Work, 198. "" Olga Weijers, Terminologie des universitaires au XWe siecle, (Rome: Edizioni dell'Ateneo, 1987), p.361

Weijers, Terminologie, 361.

31

time for university courses.37 An expositio, on the other hand, was a text produced from

T O

the class-notes of a master by the master himself.'

The course on John was recorded by Reginald of Piperno, one of Thomas'

secretaries. Reginald was one of several secretaries Thomas came to rely on in the

production of his works. Torrell, following on the work of A. Dondaine and H.-D.

Saffrey, relates the important role secretaries played in Thomas' productivity.39 These

were well trusted students, who together formed what Torrell calls "a veritable workshop

for literary production."40 Not only did they take notes, but also prepared material for the

master to put in order.41 In the case of the Super Ioannem, Torrell cites a passage by

Reginald, found in the principal manuscripts, which sheds some light on Reginald's role

in its composition. Torrell translates the passage for us: Here therefore is what I, Friar Reginald of Piperno, of the Order of Preachers, at the request of certain companions and particularly at the order of the reverend Father Lord Provost of Saint-Omer, have gathered together in following Father Thomas Aquinas -just like he who gathers the grapes [left] after the harvest. Please God that it is not too inadequate to the work.42

Torrell identifies the provost as Adenulf of Anagni, one of Thomas' students at the time.

He also understands this passage as suggesting that Reginald not only took notes, but

37 Weijers, Terminologie, 300. 38 Weijers, Terminologie, 301. 39 Torrell, The Person and His Work, 239-44. 40 Torrell, The Person and His Work, 243. 41 Torrell, The Person and His Work, 243. 42 Translation by Robert Royal as found in Torrell, The Person and His Work, 198-199. Here is the Latin as found in note 5 of the same page: "Haec ergo sunt quae ego Frater Reginaldus de Piperno, ordinis Praedicatorum, ad preces quorundam sociorum et specialiter ad mandatum Reverendi Patris Domini praepositi Sancti Audomari post fratrem Thomam de Aquino, quasi qui colligit racemos post vindemiam, utinam non diminute, collegi."

32

clarified them for the provost. This is supported by the fact that the Super loannem relies

heavily on the Catena on John, which had already been composed by that time.43

The Super loannem is considerable in size, and until recently was thought to be

the result of an extended course on the Gospel.44 Torrell, however, argues that its size is

due to a rewriting done either by Thomas himself or Reginald, his secretary. 5 Although

Bartholomew of Capua and Tolomeo of Lucca report that Thomas revised this work

himself, Torrell provides evidence that this is unlikely. In the passage already cited,

Reginald petitions God that his compilation be "not too inadequate to the work." Torrell

points out that if Thomas edited the work himself, Reginald would have mentioned it, and

that he would certainly not have feared it "inadequate."46 Torrell concludes that if it is

true that "we do not find a better" reportatio, it is due to the careful work of Thomas'

faithful secretary, Reginald.47 Thomas made great use of secretaries, which seems to

explain his impressive productivity.

On the basis of the historical evidence we can say that the Super loannem is a

reportatio, composed by a skilled secretary, of a course on John given at the peak of

Thomas' career. By this time he had already written the bulk of his scripture

commentaries, including his exposition on Job, the Catena Aurea, the lectures on

Matthew and on Paul's epistles from Corinthians I to Hebrews, not to mention his

running commentaries on Isaiah, Jeremiah and Lamentations as a bachelor. All that was

left of his scriptural corpus to be written were his commentaries on Romans and the

4 Torrell references the work of C. G. Conticello, who has demonstrated the Super loannem's reliance on Thomas' commentary on John in the Catena Aurea. (Torrell, The Person and His Work, 139 and 199) 44 Torrell tells us that Mandonnet held this view. (Torrell, The Person and His Work, 198) 45 Torrell, The Person and His Work, 198-99. 46 Torrell, The Person and His Work, 199. 47 Torrell, The Person and His Work, 199. 48 Torrell, The Person and His Work, 243.

33

Psalms. Other works that were completed by this time include his commentary on the

Sentences, Quodlibets VII-IX, De Veritate, his Summa Contra Gentiles, De Potentia, and

of the Summa Theologiae, the Prima Pars and Prima Secundae. Contemporaneous with

the Super Ioannem, were the Secunda Secundae and possibly the Tenia Pars.

The fact that Thomas delivered the John lectura at Saint-Jacques, the Dominican

studium generate in Paris, tells us something about the students to whom he was

lecturing. As we have already seen, the Dominican studium generale was intended for the

best and brightest of the Dominican student-friars from the entire Order. Thomas could

have expected, then, from his students two years of uninterrupted theological study on

sacred Scripture and Lombard's Sentences in the scholae of their local provinces. The

majority of Thomas' students, if not all, were Dominicans, and so he most likely

understood the course as functioning within the Order's mission to train preachers.'

Why Thomas decided to lecture on John when he did is unclear. It may be for no

other reason than the universally high regard John's Gospel enjoyed in the Middle Ages.

On the basis of the prologue to the Super Ioannem, Torrell speculates he gave the course

on John, with its emphasis on the divinity of Christ, as a complement to his course on

Matthew, which he understood perhaps as representative of the Synoptic Gospel.51

4. The Super Ioannem and Interpretive Method

As we have already seen, Thomas wrote much by the time of the composition of

the Super Ioannem. His prior writings contain much that would aid any study of his John

49 Thomas probably started the Tenia Pars at the end of the winter of 1271-72, in which case, it would have overlapped with the lectura on John (Torrell, The Person and His Work, 333). 50 "Studia and convent schools, the magisterium and the lectorate, lectio and disputatio, collation and classroom: all were strings in that Dominican bow, drawn to give life and force to the Preacher's mission." Mulchahey, First the Bow is Bent in Study, 553. 51 Torrell, The Person and His Work, 199.

34

Commentary. Thomas' teaching on matters relating to his Commentary, such as, God, the

Trinity, revelation, the Old and New Law, is, however, too vast to treat in its entirety in

this chapter. Instead, we will focus on what he has to say that will help us understand the

mystical interpretation in the Super Ioannem, such as, his thoughts on biblical

interpretation and his concept of 'mystery'.

4.1 Biblical Interpretation

Although the Super Ioannem is a work of biblical interpretation by a magister at

the height of his career, it has very little to say about the manner of interpretation

employed within it. In the prologue to the Commentary, Thomas introduces us to the

matter, order, end, and author of the Gospel, but says nothing about interpretive methods

and techniques which he employs throughout the text, such as, the appeal to authorities,

the divisio textus, and above all, the mystical interpretation. Whether Thomas thought

these issues were sufficiently introduced for his students during their two years of

theology in the provincial scholae or in other lectures at the studium we may never know.

The fact is that Thomas wrote his Commentary in a way that suggests these topics needed

no introduction. Nevertheless, Thomas did express his thoughts on biblical interpretation

in some of his other works, to which we may look in hopes of finding an aid in our study

of the mystical interpretation used in the Super Ioannem.

Only twice in his career did Thomas devote a text solely to the topic of Scripture

and its interpretation, namely, his two inaugural lectures and Quodlibet VII, Question 6.

Both, however, are brief in their treatment and, falling near the beginning of the master's

career, cannot be taken as representing his mature thoughts on the matter. And, most

notably for our purposes, they do not address the topic of the mystical interpretation.

35

Rather, the first inaugural lecture, based on the passage "Rigans montes de superioribus"

(Psalm 103:13), focuses on Scripture as a mediation of divine wisdom and the requisite

qualities of those who wish to study and teach it; while Question 6 of Quodlibet VII,

devotes itself to a discussion of the various senses of Scripture, which it divides primarily

along the lines of the literal and the spiritual. The use of the term 'mystical' in regards to

a level of biblical meaning is wholly absent.

Thomas' most complete treatment on the topic of biblical interpretation is

generally considered to be found in Question 1 of the Summa theologiae: ~ In article 10

of the opening Question of the Prima Pars, on whether in sacred Scripture a word may

have several senses, Thomas distinguishes between the historical or literal and the

spiritual senses. This distinction is based on two modes of signification, namely, the

signification of words and the signification of the things signified by the words. This

twofold signification is unique to sacred Scripture owing to its distinction of having God

CO

as its author; for only God can signify by using things as well as words. The literal

sense pertains to the first mode of signification (by words), while the spiritual sense

pertains to the second mode (by things). And because the signification of things signified

by words is founded on and presupposes the signification of words, the spiritual sense is

founded on and presupposes the literal sense.54 Finally, Thomas goes on in the response

For Thomas' discussions on the plurality of the senses of Scripture see Scriptum super I Sententiarum, article 5; Super ad Galatas, Chapter 4, Lecture 7; and the Summa theologiae. Prima Pars, Question 1, article 10. 53 "Dicendum quod auctor Sacrae Scripturae est Deus, in cuius postestate est ut non solum voces ad significandum accommodet, quod etiam homo facere potest, sed etiam res ipsas. Et ideo cum in omnibus scientiis voces significent, hoc habet proprium ista scientia, quod ipsae res significatae per voces, etiam significant aliquid." Saint Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologiae, la UOcorpus (Ottawa: Instituti Studiorum Medievalium Ottaviensis, 1943).

"Ilia ergo prima significatio, qua voces significant res, pertinet ad primum sensum, qui est historicus vel litteralis. Illo vero significatio qua res significatae per voces, iterum res alias significant, dicitur sensus spiritualis, qui super litteralem fundatur et eum supponit." Ibid., la l.lOcorpus.

36

of this article to show how there is a multiplicity of senses within both the literal and

spiritual sense. Here, Thomas, while affirming St. Augustine's position on the

multiplicity of the literal sense, distinguishes the different spiritual senses, namely, the

allegorical, the tropological or moral, and the anagogical. These three spiritual senses are

distinguished according to the three ways things can signify other things in sacred

Scripture. According to Thomas, both the Old Law and the New Law have a figurative

character. The Old Law is a figure of the New Law, while the New Law is a figure of the

state of future glory.55 The New Law is also figurative in so far as whatever "deeds our

Head [i.e. Christ] has done, are types [signa] of what we ought to do."5 The three

spiritual senses distinguish these three different ways of signification. Where the things

of the Old Law figure those of the New, we have the allegorical sense. Where those

things done in Christ, or which signify Christ, are types of what we ought to do, we have

the moral sense. And finally, where the things of the New Law signify things of the state

of future glory, we have the anagogical sense.

But like the inaugural lecture and Quodlibet VII, it is not clear how the discussion

in the Summa illuminates for us the mystical interpretation in the Super loannem. Like

the earlier discussions, there is a difference in terminology to contend with. In the

Commentary, some terms which are important to the discussion in the Summa, like,

sensus litteralis, allegoricus, and moralis, are used very infrequently, while other terms,

55 "Hie autem sensus spiritualis trifariam dividitur. Sicut enim dicit Apostolus, Ad Hebr. VII, lex vetus figura est novae legis; et ipsa nova lex, ut dicit Dionysius in De Ecclesiast. Hier., est figura futurae gloriae," Ibid., la 1.10 corpus. 56 "in nova etiam lege, ea quae in capite sunt gesta, sunt signa eorum quae nos agere debemus," Ibid., la 1.10 corpus. 57 "Secundum ergo quod ea quae sunt veteris legis, significant ea quae sunt novae legis, est sensus allegoricus; secundum vero quod ea quae in Christo sunt facta, vel in his quae Christum significant, sunt signa eorum quae nos agere debemus, est sensus moralis, prout vero significant ea quae sunt in aeterna gloriae, est sensus anagogicus." Ibid., la 1.10 corpus.

37

such as, historicus, tropologicus, and anagogicus, are not used at all." The most

conspicuous absence, however, is that of sensus spiritualis as it is used in the Summa.

This expression appears in only two places in Thomas' Commentary,5 and is used in a

way that sets it apart from the mystical interpretation. In both places, "sensus spiritualis"

is used to indicate a spiritual or immaterial understanding of a thing as opposed to a

physical or material understanding (sensus corporalis). For example, in Thomas'

comments on Jn 1:61-64, where he discusses the hesitancy of Christ's disciples in

believing his words about eating his flesh and drinking his blood, Thomas explains that

their hesitancy is due to their failure to understand Christ's words in a spiritual sense,

grasping only their physical meaning.60 The disciples believe Christ is referring to his

flesh as physical food, which is eaten in a physical way,61 when in reality, Thomas

explains, Christ is referring to his flesh as spiritual food, which is eaten in a spiritual and

divine way. Here, the spiritual sense of Christ's words is clearly distinguished from a

physical or corporal sense and not from a literal meaning as it is in Question 1 of the

Summa.

Despite the differences in terminology between the two works, there is some

evidence to suggest an affinity between the mystical interpretation and the spiritual

" The expression "sensus lateralis" is used only once (Super loannem, chap. 1, lect. 15, 287), while allegoricus and moralis occur a total of 5 times each (for allegoricus see, chap. 1, lect. 15, 281 & 290; chap. 4, lect. 7, 677; chap. 9, lect. 1, 1311; chap. 21, lect. 2, 2599; for moralis see, chap. l,lect. 15,290; chap. 3, lect. 4, 499; chap. 3, lect. 5, 524; chap. 4, lect. 7, 678; chap. 21, lect. 2, 2602). 5 Both occurrences are found in Chapter 6 (see, Super loannem, chap. 6, lect. 1, 854, and chap. 6, lect. 8, 992). 6 Super loannem, chap. 6, lect. 8, 992: "Sciendum est ergo quantum ad primum, quod verba Christi secundum duplicem sensum intelligi possunt, scilicet secundum spiritualem sensum et secundum corporalem."(emphasis added) 61 "Tunc autem verba Domini de carne sua manducanda, carnaliter intelliguntur, quando accipiuntur secundum quod verba exterius sonant, et ut natura carnis habet; et hoc modo ipsi intelligebant, ut dictum est." Super loannem, chap. 6, lect. 8, 992. 62 "Sed Dominus dicebat daturum se eis sicut spiritualem cibum, non quin sit in sacramento altaris vera caro Christi, sed quia quodam spiritual et divino modo manducatur." Super loannem, chap. 6, lect. 8, 992.

38

senses. On a number of occasions outside of the Commentary, Thomas associates the

spiritual senses with the concept of mystery. For example, in the sed contra of the

discussion in the Summa Thomas quotes Gregory, "Holy Writ by the manner of its

speech transcends every science, because in one and the same sentence, while it describes

a fact, it reveals a mystery." In the background to Thomas' most complete treatment of

the spiritual senses, then, is Scripture's ability to reveal mysteries.

Indeed, the link between the mystical interpretation and the spiritual senses is

brought to the foreground in Thomas' Super Galatas. In his Commentary on Paul's letter,

Thomas uses the terms "mystical sense" and "spiritual sense" interchangeably. This

occurs in Thomas' comments on the meaning of the word "allegory" in Gal 4:24, "which

things are said by allegory."63 Thomas explains that the word can be taken for any

"mystical understanding," or for one of the four senses of sacred Scripture, namely, the

historical, allegorical, mystical/moral, and anagogical. With the exception of where

"mystical" stands in for "moral," this is the same enumeration of the spiritual senses as it

is found in the Summa. In the Super Galatas, Thomas proceeds to explain the plurality of

senses as he does in the Summa, namely, through reference to a twofold mode of

signification. According to Thomas, it is peculiar to sacred Scripture that things are not

only signified by words, but also by the things the words signify. This privilege is

brought about by the fact that it has God as its author, who, unlike human authors, can

signify with things as well as words. Thomas concludes, as he does in the Summa, that

the signification by words belongs to the literal or historical sense, but unlike the Summa,

where the expression "spiritual sense" is used, he says that the signification by things

6 Saint Thomas Aquinas, Super Epistolam ad Galatas Lectura, vol. I (Romae: Marietti, 1953), chap. 4, lect. 7, 252-54.

39

belongs to the "mystical sense." That Thomas does not mean anything different from the

spiritual sense becomes apparent when he divides into the allegorical, anagogical, and

moral senses, what he calls "the mystical or spiritual sense."64

The strongest link, however, between the spiritual senses and the mystical

interpretation is to be found in Thomas' discussion on the causes of the ceremonial

precepts of the Old Law in Question 102 of the Prima Secundae, where we find a

discussion of one of the forms of mystical interpretation found in the Commentary, the

ratio mystica. Thomas begins the Question by asking if there was any cause for the

ceremonial precepts. He answers in the affirmative with a quotation from Ps 18: "The

commandment of the Lord is lightsome, enlightening the eyes." The ceremonial precepts,

being commandments of God, must be "lightsome." But they would not be so, according

to Thomas, if they did not have a "reasonable cause" (rationabilem causam).65 Thomas

explains that this is so because the ceremonial precepts proceed from the divine wisdom,

and it belongs to a wise man, according to Aristotle, to set things in order. Therefore,

things that proceed from the divine wisdom must be well ordered.

Thomas goes on to explain that two things are required for something to be well

ordered. The first is that it be ordered to its due end, which he mentions is the principle of

order in matters of action. The second is that what is done in view of its end be

proportionate to the end. It follows from this, according to Thomas, "that the reason

(ratio) for whatever leads to the end is taken from the end." Thomas illustrates this with

64 The expression "sensus spiritualis" is found only one other time in the Super Galatas (C3L1, 114), and does not have the same meaning as it does in the Summa theologiae, la l.alO. Cases of a mystical interpretation are found in only two other places in the Super Galatas: chap. 4, lect. 8, 258-261, and chap. 4, lect. 9, 269. 65 "Quod non esset nisi haberent rationabilem causam." Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologiae, Iallae 102.1sc. 66 "Et ex hoc sequitur quod ratio eorum quae sunt ad finem, sumitur ex fine," Ibid., Iallae 102.1 corpus.

40

the example of a saw. The reason (ratio) for the disposition of a saw is to serve its end,

i.e., the act of cutting. 7 It appears then that the type of causality Thomas has in mind here

is final causality. In this context, the ratio of a thing stands for its intelligible relation to

its final cause. In other words, to grasp the ratio of a thing, like the saw's disposition, is

to see the thing as 'reasonable' by virtue of understanding it in relation to its end. And to

understand the ratio of a thing in this way is to afford a more complete knowledge of the

thing. A saw, to use Thomas' example, is no longer just a piece of metal, flat on one side,

jagged on the other, but a 'cutting utensil.' But because knowing a thing in relation to its

end is not just to know it as having an end, but to understand the thing in a new way, to

know the ratio of a thing is to know something about the thing itself. Therefore, a

twofold knowledge is afforded by the ratio of a thing, namely, its final cause, and what it

is in light of that cause.

Thomas concludes the response by saying the ceremonial precepts are ordered to

an end because they proceed from the divine wisdom. It follows then that they have

reasonable causes, as the passage from Deuteronomy suggests: "This is your wisdom and

understanding in the sight of nations." In the following article we discover that their end

is twofold. Thomas explains that the ceremonial precepts were ordered to the divine

worship of their time, but they were also ordered to the foreshadowing of Christ. From

these two ends, the ratio litteralis and ratio mystica of the ceremonial precepts can be

gathered and distinguished. The ratio litteralis of a ceremonial precept is gathered from

"Primo quidem quod aliqua ordinentur ad debitum finem, qui est principium totius ordinis in rebus agendis. . . Secundo oportet quod id quod est ad finem, sit proportionatum fini. Et ex hoc sequitur quod ratio eorum quae sunt ad finem, sumitur ex fine, sicut ratio dispositionis serrae sumitur ex sectione, quae est finis eius, ut dicitur in II Phy.." Ibid., Iallae 102. 1. 6 "Finis autem praeceptorum caeremonialium est duplex: ordinabantur enim ad cultum Dei pro tempore illo et ad figurandum Christum." Ibid., Iallae 102. 2.

41

its end as ordained to the Divine worship of the day; whereas, the ratio mystica is

gathered from its end as ordained to the foreshadowing of Christ.69 Therefore, because

the ceremonial precepts have two ends, they can have two rationes.

Thomas goes on to explain how the end of foreshadowing Christ is itself

threefold. The precepts can foreshadow Christ himself and the Church, which pertains to

the allegorical, or to the morals of the Christian people, which pertains to the moral, or to

the state of future glory, as we are brought there by Christ, which pertains to the

anagogical. Therefore, the mystical reasons of the ceremonial precepts are gathered from

an end which is divided the same way as are the spiritual senses.

4.2. Concept of 'Mystery'

As its name suggests, the mystical interpretation implies the concept of 'mystery,'

a concept present, as we have seen already, in the Summa's discussion of the senses of

Scripture. Donal J. O'Connor has examined the concept of mystery as it appears in

70

Thomas' biblical exegesis, focussing primarily on the Commentaries on Paul's Epistles.

According to O'Connor, in Thomas' biblical exegesis "the basic meaning of 'mystery' is

something hidden."71 This is supported by O'Connor with an impressive list of cases

where Thomas uses terms such as occulto and secreto to explain what Paul means when

"Sic igitur rationes praeceptorum caeremonialium veteris legis dupliciter accipi possunt. Uno modo, ex ratione cultus divini qui erat pro tempore illo observandus. Et rationes illae sunt litterales, sive pertineant ad vitandum idolatriae cultum, sive ad rememorandum aliqua Dei beneficia, sive ad insinuandam excellentiam divinam, vel etiam ad designandam dispsitionem mentis quae tunc requirebatur in colentibus Deum. Alio modo possunt eorum rationes assignari secundum quod ordinantur ad figurandum Christum. Et sic habent rationes figurales et mysticas, sive accipiantur ex ipso Christo et Ecclesia, quod pertinet ad allegoriam; sive ad mores populi Christiani, quod pertinet ad moralitatem; sive ad statum futurae gloriae, prout in earn introducimur per Christum, quod pertinet ad anagogiam." Ibid., Iallae 102. 2. 70 O'Connor's study is carried out over the course of two articles: Donal J. O'Connor, "The Concept of Mystery in Aquinas' Exegesis, Part I - The Mystery of God," The Irish Theological Quarterly 36 (July 1969): 183-210, and "Part II - Exegesis of Particular Texts," The Irish Theological Quarterly 36 (October 1969): 259-282. 71 O'Connor, Part I, 207.

42

he uses the word 'mystery'. In fact, in the Super Ioannem, Thomas explains mystery in

a similar way, as something secret.73

O'Connor demonstrates how 'mystery' is not restricted to divine realities alone,

but rather is used in reference to the human and even diabolical. The clearest example of

this is the term 'mysterium iniquitatis' found in 2 Thessalonians 2:7: "For the mystery of

lawlessness is already at work." O'Connor points out that, although evil does not work

independently of God's will, Thomas understands mystery in this case not as something

in God, but "an active source of evil which works evil in the world in a hidden way."

To call something a mystery, then, does not tell us the nature of the thing beyond the fact

that it is hidden. O'Connor explains that the reason mystery is most often associated with

the divine "is because the New Testament is about God, and not because the term

mystery has any such reference of itself."75

This definition, however, brings 'mystery' into a difficult relationship with the

concept of 'revelation'. O'Connor notes, "a secret (or mystery) ceases to be a secret to

the extent that it is revealed."76 How then can we speak of divine mysteries as being

For example, O'Connor quotes four cases of such a definition form Thomas' Commentary on 1 Corinthians:

"a) I Cor. 2:7 Loquimur Dei sapientiam in mysterio ... Aquinas: (id est) in aliquo occulto, vel verbo vel signo. b) I Cor. 4:1 Sic nos existemet homo ut ... dispensatores mysteriorum Dei. Aquinas: i.e. secretorum eius ... vel etiam ecclesiastica sacramenta, in quibus divina virtus secretius operatur. (Note how Aquinas here omits the note of sign, and looks rather to the secret). c) I Cor. 14:2 Spiritus est qui loquitur mysteria. Aquinas: id est occulta. d) I Cor. 15:51 Ecce mysterium vobis dico. Aquinas: Ecce mysterium i.e. occultum quoddam vobis dico." (O'Connor, Part I, 207-208)

73 Super Ioannem, chap. 13, Iect. 2, 1756: "idest, hoc mysterium est, et secretum est." 74 O'Connor, Part II, 261. Here is the text from Thomas: "Si primo modo, est sensus: dico ut suo tempore, quia etiam iam mysterium, id est, figuraliter occultam, operatur in fictis, qui videntur boni et tamen sunt mali ... Sed Secundo modo est sensus: nam Diabolus, in cuius potestate veniet Antichristus, iam incipit operari occulte iniquitatem suam, per tyrannos et seductores..." Thomas Aquinas, Super Epistolam ad II Thessalonicenses Lectura, vol. 2 (Romae: Marietti, 1953), chap. 2, lect. 2. 75 O'Connor, Part II, 261. 76 O'Connor, Part I, 205.

43

revealed? O'Connor shows us how Thomas addresses this difficulty in his comments on

Eph 3: 9, where Paul makes the statement that he is to enlighten the faithful on a mystery.

77

Thomas understands this mystery to be the mystery of our redemption. The difficulty

lies in the fact that this mystery is already known to the Ephesian community Paul is • jo

addressing. And so, the objection is raised, why the need for enlightenment on

something already known? O'Connor understands this objection as a challenge to the

mystical status of the mystery of redemption: Thus the objection might be made to St. Paul's statement in Ephesians 3:9 that Paul received the grace to enlighten all men concerning the mystery of our redemption, the objection namely that what he is calling a 'mystery' is known to

79

all, and so not a mystery (or secret) at all.

Thomas responds with a lesson on divine causality, which O'Connor summarizes

as such: "Aquinas' answer is that God, the efficient cause of everything makes some

things which are open to investigation, but other things he produces directly by himself

without intermediary causes." And since redemption is accomplished by God in this Q 1

second way, this mystery is hidden in God alone. O'Connor understands from this that

even though certain aspects of a thing may be known, the thing may be unknown in terms

of its cause, and thus merit the name mystery. About the mystery of redemption, for

example, are known certain aspects, such as the inclusion of the Gentiles. But in so far as

Thomas Aquinas, Super Epistolam ad Ephesos Ledum, vol. 2 (Romae: Marietti, 1953), chap. 3, lect. 2: "quasi dicat: de hoc illuminabo, scilicet quam mirabilis et ex quanta dilectione sit facta adimpletio arcanae redemptionis." 78 In the prologue to the Super Ephesos, Thomas tells us that Paul came to strengthen the Ephesians in their faith, for they had already been initiated into it: "ideo non immerito commendatur apostolus, quia etsi Ephesios in fide non fundavit, tamen fundatos in fide confirmavit." Super Eph., prol. 79 O'Connor, Parti, 205. 80 O'Connor, Part I, 205. 81 Super Eph., chap. 3, lect. 2: "Et quia sacramentum humanae redemptionis per seipsum operatus est Deus, ideo in eo solo hoc sacramentum est absconditum. Et hoc est quod dicit absconditi a saeculis in Deo, id est in sola notitia Dei."

44

it springs from "the infinite love of God" it remains a mystery.82 And, "[s]o even after its

revelation to the apostles it remains a mystery to some extent because of its root cause,

God's love, cannot be grasped by any finite mind." And therefore divine mysteries

remain mysteries even when revealed, for their source, God's infinite wisdom and love, is

beyond the knowledge of created intellects.

When applied to divine realities, then, 'mystery' is more than a modal term, but in

fact connotes a particular content, namely, divine love. And so, when one is confronted

by a divine mystery, one is not only confronted by something infinitely unknowable, but

also by God's infinite love. According to Torrell, the concept of mystery in Paul carries a

specifically salvific content, and "sums up at once the divine plan for salvation and the

way in which that plan was achieved in Jesus." This understanding of mystery, Torrell

argues, is found in Thomas' treatment of the mysteries of the life of Jesus: "If the entire

life of Christ is itself the mystery of the love of God that reveals itself and acts in history,

each one of His acts is also a 'mystery' in the sense that it signifies and realizes this total

'mystery.'" The concept of mystery, then, when used in connection with the divine,

connotes God's loving plan of salvation carried out in Christ.

The concept of mystery, and especially divine mystery, as outlined above, can be

applied to the discussion of the ratio mystica in the Summa. For just as the mystery of

redemption is a mystery when understood according to its cause, Thomas calls the figures

"True certain aspects of the mystery of redemption are known to the apostles fully, clearly and eminently, as, for example, the inclusion of the Gentiles in the blessing of salvation. But other aspects of that mystery are still a mystery even to the apostles, because the mystery of redemption springs ultimately from the infinite love of God which is beyond the range of all created intellects." O'Connor, Part I, 206. 83 O'Connor, Part I, 206. 4 Jean Pierre Torrell. Saint Thomas Aquinas, Vol. 2, Spiritual Master, translated by Robert Royal

(Washington, D. C: Catholic University of America Press, 2003), 131-132. See also Torrell, The Person and His Work, 264. 85 Torrell, The Person and His Work, 264.

45

of the Old Law mystical only when he considers them according to their causes. In the

preceding Question on the ceremonial precepts themselves, Thomas does not use the term

mystical. There his concern is to establish the ceremonial precepts as figures (figurae).

The ceremonial precepts were "sensible figures" by which the Divine light shone on a

people according to their state of knowledge, a state marked not only by their ignorance

of the "heavenly truth," but also by that of the means of achieving it, namely, Christ.88

Consequently, the precepts of the Old Law needed to figure not only the heavenly truth,

but Christ as well.89 The object of the figures are described as mysteries, namely, "the

divine mysteries,"90 or more specifically, "the mystery of Christ."91 It is these mysteries

that serve as the reasonable causes of the ceremonial precepts in the following

Question. It is little wonder, then, that in turning to the causes of the ceremonial

precepts, Thomas uses the term 'mystical' alongside 'figure,' since their causes are

mysteries. And so, following O'Connor, because they have a cause which is beyond the

understanding of the created intellect, no matter how much is revealed through them of

5 The subject of Question 102, in which Thomas discusses the ratio mystica, is the causes (de causis) of the ceremonial precepts. 87 See Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologiae, Iallae 101.2. 88 Ibid., Iallae 101.2 corpus: "In statu autem praesentis vitae, non possumus divinam veritatem in seipsa intueri, sed oportet quod radius divinae veritatis nobis illucescat sub aliquibus sensibilibus figuris, sicut Dionysius dicit, I cap. Cael. Hier., diversimode tamen, secundum diversum statum cognitionis humanae. In veteri enim lege neque ipsa divina Veritas in seipsa manifesta erat, neque etiam adhuc propalata erat via ad hoc perveniendi, sicut apostolus dicit, ad Heb. IX."

Ibid., Iallae 101.2 corpus: "Et ideo oportebat exteriorem cultum veteris legis non solum esse figurativum futurae veritatis manifestandae in patria; sed etiam esse figurativum Christi, qui est via ducens ad illam patriae veritatem." 90 Ibid., Iallae 101.2 ad 1: "Et ideo utilius fuit ut sub quodam figurarum velamine divina mysteria rudi populo traderentur, ut sic saltern ea implicite cognoscerent, dum illis figuris deservirent ad honorem Dei." ' Ibid., Iallae 101.3 corpus: "Turn etiam quia mysterium Christi, quod per huiusmodi caeremonialia

figurabatur, multiplices utilitates attulit mundo, et multa circa ipsum consideranda erant, quae oportuit per diversa caeremonialia figurari." 92 Ibid., Iallae 102.2 corpus: "Alio modo possunt eorum rationes assignari secundum quod ordinantur ad figurandum Christum. Et sic habent rationes figurales et mysticas, sive accipiantur ex ipso Christo et Ecclesia, quod pertinet ad allegoriam; sive ad mores populi Christiani, quod pertinet ad moralitatem; sive ad statum futurae gloriae, prout in earn introducimur per Christum, quod pertinet ad anagogiam." It appears that the heavenly truths are figured by the ceremonial precepts by way of their figuring Christ, who is the way to these truths.

46

the divine truth, they will always remain mysteries.

It appears that the same can be said for the figures of the New Law. Thomas

explains in Question 106, on the Law of the Gospel, called the New Law, that the state of

the New Law is imperfect in comparison with the heavenly state, and so is 'figurative' in

relation to it.93 The Gospel, like the Old Law, then, will provide figures that reveal truths

that cannot be known perfectly in the present state, and so are properly mystical in

relation to their reasonable causes.

By applying Thomas' concept of 'mystery' to the discussion of the ratio mystica

in Question 102 of the Summa, we can say that a mystical reason is mystical because its

end is a mystery, the mystery of Christ. This mystery, however, is incomprehensible, and

so, to know the mystical reason of something, then, is to know it in relation to its

unknowable end. But, as Torrell reminds us, in being the mystery of Christ, this mystery

is also salvific, and so, to know the mystical reason of something is also to know it in

relation to our salvation. The mystical reason, then, involves more than an act of

interpretation, but also the participation in Christ's saving action.

From our study of the setting of the Super loannem, we can draw some

conclusions that will help us in our study of the Commentary. First of all, because the

lectura on John was given as a part of the larger Dominican educational system, the

Commentary as a whole and in its mystical interpretation should reflect the aims of that

system. The chief aim of that system was to produce good Dominicans, well trained in

the way of life of the Order. It is likely that the practice of Thomas' interpretation will be

93 Ibid., Iallae 106.4 adl: "Sed sicut primus status est figuralis et imperfectus respectu status evangelici, ita hie status est figuralis et imperfectus respectu status patriae; quo veniente, iste status evacuatur, sicut ibi dicitur, videmus nunc per speculum in aenigmate, tunc autem facie adfaciem."

47

guided by more than methodological issues of interpretation, but by pastoral concerns for

the future religious development of his Dominican students. It is in light of this pastoral

aim that our study of the mystical interpretation of the Super Joannem will be conducted.

Secondly, Thomas' discussions about the interpretation of Scripture outside of the

Commentary also offer us helpful hints to orientate our reading of the mystical

interpretation in the Super Joannem. As the discussions from Super Galatas, C4L7, and

the Summa, Prima-Secundae, Question 102, clearly demonstrate, there is an affinity

between the mystical interpretation and the spiritual senses. Therefore, despite the

difference in terminology preventing us from imposing the concept of the spiritual senses

onto the mystical interpretation, we have reason to believe that they are related, a relation

to be discovered only through a close look at the Commentary itself.

And finally, in applying O'Connor's interpretation of the concept of mystery to

the discussion of the ratio mystica in the Question 102 of the Summa, we can say that the

mystical reason is an interpretative technique that is related to divine mysteries, and so

presupposes a mystical mode of knowledge.

CHAPTER 2 THE PROLOGUE TO THE SUPER IOANNEM

In our analysis of the setting of the Super loannem, we saw that much of the

interpretative method employed by Thomas in his Commentary lacks a clear articulation either in

the Commentary itself or in his other works. The best we find is in the Question on the causes of

the ceremonial precepts of the Old Law in the Summa, which discusses only one form of the

mystical interpretation, the mystical reason, saying nothing about the more prevalent forms to be

found in the Commentary. Our knowledge of Thomas' mystical interpretation must rely more on

a study of how he uses it than of what he says about it.

Our analysis will begin with the study of the prologue to the Super loannem, the only

introduction Thomas provides for his Commentary. For it is here where Thomas provides us with

what he thinks we need to know for reading the Gospel itself, namely, its matter, order, end, and

author. The prologue offers us then valuable insights into how Thomas understood his own

Commentary, and presumably the interpretive method he employs therein.

1. John and Isaiah

Thomas begins his Prologue with a quotation from Isaiah 6:1: "I saw the Lord seated on a

high and lofty throne, and the whole house was full of his majesty, and the things that were under

him filled the temple."1 Thomas uses this passage to describe the matter, order, end, and author

of John's Gospel. It was customary in the Middle Ages to explicate a text by way of a passage

1 "Vidi Dominum sedentem super solium excelsum et elevatum, et plena erat omnis terra maiestate eius, et ea quae sub ipso erant, replebant templum." Super loannem, prol.

48

49 from another text," and is used by Thomas in most of his commentaries, biblical or not.

Fortunately, for those of us who seek to understand Thomas beyond the customs of his day, he

provides us with a justification for the application of this passage from Isaiah.

According to Thomas, Isaiah and John are linked by their contemplation of God, and

more specifically, by their contemplation of Jesus Christ. Thomas begins with Augustine's

teaching in the De Consensu Evangelistarum, that "The other Evangelists instruct us in their

Gospels on the active life; but John in his Gospel instructs us also on the contemplative life."3

The source of this contemplation for John is the "Lord Jesus,"4 whom John knew personally.

John is a contemplative, then, who wrote a predominantly contemplative Gospel. Thomas

understands Isaiah's vision also as a form of divine contemplation.5 In fact, the definition of the

height and sublimity of contemplation as the knowledge of God comes from Isaiah. It is clear

that, in Thomas' mind, Isaiah was a contemplative, not only of God the Creator, but also of

Christ himself. Isaiah's contemplation was that of the glory of Christ, since, as Thomas reminds

us, John says in 12:41 that Isaiah saw the glory of Christ and spoke of him.7 For Thomas, John

" See James A. Weisheipl, "Brief Note on the Text of Isaiah (6:1) Used for the Prologue," Commentary on the Gospel of St. John, pt. I, trans., James A. Weisheipl, (Albany, New York: Magi Books, 1980), 447-449. 3 "Ut enim dicit Augustinus in libro De Consensu Evangelist., 'caeteri Evangelistae informant nos in eorum Evangeliis quantum ad vitam activam; sed Iohannes in suo Evangelio informat nos etiam quantum ad vitam contemplativam."' Super loannem, prol., 1. 4 "In verbis autem propositis describitur contemplatio Ioannis tripliciter, secundum quod Dominum Iesum est tripliciter contemplatus." Super loannem, prol., 1. See also chap. 1, lect. 8, 183: "Apostoli autem ipsam Verbi claritatem per praesentiam corporalem viderunt." Thomas reminds us that John was one of the three Apostles to see the transfiguration of Jesus: "Quia Ioannes fuit unus de tribus qui viderant Christum transfiguratum in monte, et audierunt vocem Patris dicentis [Matth. XVII, v. 5]: Hie est Filius meus dilectus, in quo mihi bene complacui." Super loannem, chap. 1, lect. 8, 186. 5 "Verba proposita sunt contemplantis." Super loannem, prol., 1. 6 "altitudo et sublimitas contemplationis consistit maxime in contemplatione et cognitione Dei; Is. XL, 26: Levate in excelso oculos vestros, et videle quis fecit haec." Super loannem, prol., 2. 7 "Et quia, sicut ipse Ioannes dicit [infr XII, 41 ]: Haec dicit Isaias quando vidit gloriam eius, scilicet Christi, et locutus est de eo, ideo Dominus sedens super solium excelsum et elevatum, Christus est." Super loannem, prol., 2. In the prologue to the commentary on John in the Catena Aurea, Thomas attributes this to Jerome, "Quis sit iste

and Isaiah are unified in sharing the same object of contemplation. Far from a simple

concession to a medieval convention, then, the quotation from Isaiah relates directly to the

contemplative nature of John's Gospel.8 And in so far as they share the same object of

contemplation, the one can be used to explain the other. The concept of contemplation, therefore,

serves as the link between these two texts, a link that exists despite their obvious differences.9

2. The Contemplation of John

Confident in the contemplative bond between Isaiah and John, Thomas gleans from

Isaiah 6:1 a threefold description of John's contemplation:

It is described as high, full and perfect. It is high: I saw the Lord seated on a high and lofty throne; it is full: and the whole house was full of his majesty; and it is perfect: and the things that were under him filled the temple.

Thomas then proceeds to discuss each feature in turn. The importance of the concept of

contemplation for Aquinas' understanding of the Gospel is evident here; for the very matter of

the Gospel is understood from what we learn of John's contemplation. Its importance is also seen

in the fact that Thomas postpones the conventional discussions of the various divisions of the

Gospel, such as its matter, order, end, and author, until after the lengthy discussion of

contemplation. Indeed, it is not until Thomas has finished explaining the height, fullness, and

perfection of John's contemplation that we are told that this pertains to the matter of the Gospel.

Clearly contemplation is the concept by which Thomas wishes to introduce John's Gospel to his

Dominus qui videtur, in Evangelista Joanne plenius discimus, qui ait, cap. 12, Haec dixit haias, quando vidit gloriam Dei, et locutus est de eo: haud dubium quin Christum significet." 8 "satis pertinent ad declarationem huius Evangelii." Super loannem, prol., 1. 9 The link between Isaiah and John is made more explicit in the Catena Aurea, where Thomas quotes Jerome commenting on Is 6:1, "Who is the Lord who is seen, in John the Evangelist we learn fully, he says in chapter 12, Isaiah said this, when he saw the glory of the Lord, and he spoke of him: no doubt he signifies Christ." [Latin]

51 students. A proper understanding of John's contemplation, then, is integral to a proper

understanding of his Gospel.

2.1. The Height of John's Contemplation

Having established that John's contemplation is of the "Lord Jesus," and is threefold,

namely, high, full, and perfect, corresponding to the contemplation of Isaiah, Thomas then

specifies what the contemplation of Christ entails.

Thomas begins with a discussion of the height of John's contemplation. Here, he begins

by explaining that John contemplated God, the Creator, in the person of Christ. Thomas

establishes this on the basis of biblical and patristic authority, Isaiah and Augustine, the same

authorities he used to introduce the concept of contemplation in the first place. Thomas begins

with a definition of contemplation as the "contemplation and knowledge of God," which he

borrows from Isaiah 40:26: "Lift up your eyes on high, and see who has created [fecit] these

things."11 Thomas concludes from this that to reach the heights of the knowledge of God is to

know him as the Creator.12 Using the authority of Augustine, Thomas indicates that John indeed

reached the knowledge of the Creator, and for this reason his contemplation was "most high."

Height in contemplation is understood here in terms of surpassing the knowledge of created

"In verbis autem propositis describitur contemplatio Ioannis tripliciter, secundum quod Dominum Iesum est tripliciter contemplatus. Describitur autem alta, ampla et perfecta. Alta quidem, quia vidi Dominum sedentem super solium excelsum et elevatum; ampla quidem, quia plena est omnis terra maiestate eius; perfecta, quia ea quae sub ipso errant replebant templum." Super loannem, prol., 1. " See note 6. 12 "Tunc ergo homo ocuJos contemplationis in excelso elevat, quando videt et contemplatur ipsum rerum omnium creatorem." Super loannem, prol., 1.

52 realities, and attaining to that which is uncreated, the Creator Himself. ~ Matthew Levering

points out how Thomas shows that John appropriates the prophetic knowledge of God as the

Creator, and thus safeguards his contemplation from idolatry. What we learn of John's

contemplation so far, then, is that although it is the knowledge of God in the person of Jesus

Christ, it does not confuse God with one of his creatures, and thus, escapes the charge of

idolatry. John's contemplation is marked by its having reached the knowledge beyond that of all

created realities, i.e., the knowledge of God the Creator, through the person of Jesus Christ.

Thomas does not explain for us at this point exactly how John's knowledge of Christ afforded

such contemplation, but he does establish it as its means. "

After having established that the height of John's contemplation of Jesus was his

knowledge of the Creator, he proceeds to enumerate it in four ways, according to the first clause

of Isaiah 6:1:

A height of authority; hence he says, I saw the Lord. A height of eternity; when he says, seated. One of dignity, or nobility of nature; so he says, on a high throne. And a height of incomprehensible truth; when he says, lofty.16

Thomas describes the fourfold height of John's contemplation by comparing it to the four ways

in which the early philosophers came to the knowledge of God.17 The first way, according to

Thomas, is the "most efficacious way," whereby the philosophers reasoned to a "Lord" over all

13 "Quia ergo Ioannes transcendit quicquid creatum est, scilicet ipsos montes, ipsos caelos, ipsos angelos, et pervenit ad ipsum creatorem omnium, ut dicit Augustinus, manifestum est, quod contemplatio sua altissima fuit." Super loannem, prol., 2. 14 Matthew Levering, Scripture and Metaphysics: Aquinas and the Renewal of Trinitarian Theology, (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2004): 43-44. 15 Later in the Commentary Thomas will discuss how the flesh of Christ served to raise John to the contemplation of the Word. (See Super loannem, chap. 1, lect. 8, 180-3) 16 "Auctoritatis, unde dicit Vidi Dominum; aeternitatis, cum dicit sedentem; dignitatis, seu nobilitatis naturae, unde dicit super solium excelsum; et incomprehensibilis veritatis, cum dicit et elevatum." Super loannem, prol., 2. 17 "Istis enim quatuor modis antiqui philosophi ad Dei cognitionem pervenerunt." Super loannem, prol., 2.

53 things, who governs and directs all of nature toward an end. The second way is their reasoning

to the immutability and eternity of the "first principle of all things." The third shows how they

came to the knowledge of the summit of all being, "whose essence is his existence." The fourth

way differs slightly from the other three in its not being based on the reflection of things as they

exist in themselves, but on things as they exist in the mind. After having obtained the truth of

many things in their intellect, certain philosophers began to realize the finite nature of their

knowledge of the truth. From this they reasoned that there must be a "first and supreme Truth,"

which "must necessarily be incomprehensible and infinite."

The format of each way is roughly the same. After having described the argument by

which the philosophers came to a certain knowledge of God by way of their reflections on

created realities, Thomas cites where in his Gospel John proves a similar knowledge of God. But

Thomas does so, however, only after having confirmed the knowledge of the philosophers with a

passage from the Psalms. Textually, at least, the Psalms link the rational demonstrations of the

philosophers to John's Christological contemplation. Philosophy - Psalm - Gospel is the order of

each exposition. The tone of Thomas' comparison of these different modes of knowledge is

overwhelmingly positive, without any hint of criticism. It appears that Thomas is suggesting here

a certain harmony between the various modes of contemplation, with the philosophical and

prophetic leading in some way to John's own.

Elsewhere in his corpus, and, indeed, in the body of the Commentary itself, Thomas

articulates a propaedeutic function of pagan philosophy and the Old Law in relation to the

Christian faith. According to Thomas, the New Law reached perfection in a way similar to how a

54 human person does, namely, through an orderly succession of time.18 Just as the human person

grows up in stages, like the passing from childhood to adulthood, so too God's Law unfolds itself

in stages, like the passing from the Old Law to the New. Following Paul, Thomas describes the

Old Law as a 'pedagogue', which prepared the Jewish people, and through them the world, for

the coming of Christ. This preparation, according to Thomas, was made in two ways: through its

prophecies, which foretold the coming of the Messiah; and in disposing the Jewish people for the

worship of the one God.19 The coming of Christ was also prepared for by the natural law, a law

presupposed by the Old Law. In the Summa, Thomas explains that the natural law is the imprint

of God's eternal law in the human person by which the person is inclined to his/her proper end.

And because the human person is a rational creature, one's end is reached through the use of the

light of natural reason. The natural law, therefore, commands us to know God through our

natural reason.

Thomas customarily speaks of the succession of the stages in God's law in the following

order: natural, Old, and New. This ordering reflects what Thomas understands to be the

chronology of the laws based on their promulgation: the natural law was given first with the

creation of the human person; the Old Law with the revelation to Moses; and, of course, the New

Law with the coming of Christ. This ordering, however, not only represents a movement in time,

but a movement in perfection. Thomas understands each subsequent stage as more perfect than

the previous. Perfection, here, is understood in terms of fulfillment. Each subsequent stage takes

18 Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologiae, Iallae 106.3 corpus. 19 Ibid., Iallae 98.2 corpus; Super Ioannem, chap. 17, lect. 4, 2195.

Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologiae, Iallae 91.2 corpus. 21 This order is found throughout the Super Ioannem, chap. 1, lect. 5, 125; chap. 2, lect. 1, 338; chap. 2, lect. 3, 404; chap. 4, lect. 5, 662; chap. 6, lect. 1, 854; chap. 11, lect. 4, 1507; and chap. 17, lect. 4, 2195.

55 up and fulfills the previous. The succession is what we would call today an organic movement,

as suggested by Thomas' comparison to the growth and development of a human person. The

Old Law takes up and perfects the natural law by directing the rational creature to its

supernatural end, which is an end beyond the scope of its natural faculties. The New Law in

turn takes up and perfects both the natural and the Old, by more perfectly manifesting

humanity's supernatural end, through the revelation of Jesus Christ.23

Because the New Law takes up and fulfills the natural and the Old, appeal can be made to

both in theological argumentation. They can be used as authorities in light of the New Law. But

as authorities they differ not only in degree but in kind. The Old Law bears a special kinship with

the New Law in its being a divine law, inspired of God; whereas the natural law, although a

participation in the eternal law, belongs to a different order from the divine. This difference has

practical consequences, namely, because the Old and New Laws are inspired of God, and thus

belong to sacred Scripture, which was written by divine inspiration.24 The effect for theological

argumentation is that both the Old and New Laws have an authoritative text, the sacred

Scriptures, divided respectively into the Old and New Testaments. This text then is the highest

authority in its being given by God. The natural law, however, has no text to call its own. Sacred

Scripture stands as an authority on matters of the natural law as it is fulfilled by the New. But for

those of the early philosophers, who knew neither the Old nor the New Law, there was no text or

canon of texts, as an embodiment of the natural law, to resort to as an authority. For theological

argumentation, therefore, the teachings of the philosophers have authority on the basis of the

Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologiae, Iallae 91.4 corpus. Super loannem, chap. 17, lect. 4, 2195. Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologiae, la 1.1 corpus.

56 strength of their arguments alone. This is why Thomas says natural reason, and not the

philosophers, prepares for the coming of Christ.25 The latter are authoritative only when their

arguments are judged to be true in the light of reason. Thomas' thoughts on the philosophers

themselves, in fact, are quite negative. In the Commentary, he says that not only have they

failed to satisfy our desire for wisdom, but have led many into error.27 Although in the prologue

Thomas is much more positive in tone with respect to the philosophers than he is in the body of

the Commentary, nevertheless, it is their reasoning that interests him, as indicated by his taking

the time to explain their arguments. In other words, these philosophers represent four occasions

in which natural reason was used well in respect to knowledge of the Creator.

Read, therefore, in light of Thomas' teaching on the propaedeutic function of natural

reason and the Old Law, it appears we can say that what the philosophers and the Prophets knew

in their own way is fulfilled in John. This fulfillment suggests that John's contemplation partakes

in something of the modes fulfilled, especially the philosophical, which appears to be Thomas'

focus in this discussion. Although not a philosopher himself, John's knowledge affords him a

certain affinity to the philosophical truths held by the philosophers. The Word is that "by which

all things of nature are directed to an end and governed." He is also the immutable and eternal

Super loannem, chap. 4, lect. 5, 662. 26 On Thomas' attitude toward philosophers and philosophy in general see Mark D. Jordan, "Theology and Philosophy," in The Cambridge Companion to Aquinas, eds. Norman Kretzmann and Eleonore Stump, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 32-251. On the philosophical knowledge of God, see Thomas Aquinas, Super Epistolam ad Romanos Lectura, (Romae: Marietti, 1953), chap. I, lect. 6, 117-122.

Super loannem, chap. 6, lect. 1, 854. Elsewhere in the Commentary, Thomas calls the 'light' of the philosophers "false" in comparison to the "symbolic" light of the law and the "true" light of the Word. (See Super loannem, chap. 1, lect. 5, 125) 28 "Et hinc est quod ipse motus rerum naturalium in finem certum, indicat esse aliquid altius, quo naturales res diriguntur in finem et gubernantur." Super loannem, pro!., 3.

57 "first principle of all things," "whose essence is its existence," and in "whom all things that

are participate existence." And lastly, the Word is "the first and supreme Truth," which

surpasses every intellect. What we have learned thus far is that not only does John's

contemplation of Jesus Christ satisfy the prophetic knowledge of the Creator, but also the

philosophical knowledge of God.

That there is a harmony between the philosophical and Scriptural modes of contemplation

is reflected in the use of the Bible as a textbook in the Medieval University. John Van Engen has

written on the development of the Bible as a school text in the twelfth- and thirteenth-centuries,

and its move from the abbey or cathedral, where it was handled as a book of worship, to the

"dusty street, to explain it word by word and argue over its difficult passages in the same way

teachers of the liberal arts handled books written by pagan authors."32 Van Engen understands

the success of theology becoming a science and the Bible its textbook as owing to the medievals'

decision to focus on the intentio auctoris of the Bible, namely, God. By focussing on God's

intention, the medievals found a way of conceptually overcoming in their reading of Scripture

"all the confusions and distractions thrown up by its variety and its literal meanings."33 Since

God is its author, "there could be nothing absurd or useless or irrational" in the Scriptures. And

"primum principium omnium rerum, et supremum et nobilius, sit immobile et aeternam." Super loannem, prol., 4. 3 "idest quod sua essentia sit suum esse: et hoc est Deus, qui est sufficientissima, et dignissima, et perfectissima causa totius esse, a quo omnia quae sunt, participant esse." Super loannem, prol., 5. ' "et ideo necesse est primam et summam veritatem, quae superat omnem intellectum, incomprehensibilem et

infinitam esse: et hoc est Deus." Super loannem, prol., 6. John Van Engen, "Studying Scripture in the Early University," in Neue Richtungen in der hoch- und

spatmittelalterlichen Bibelexegese, ed. Robert E. Lerner and Elisabeth Miiller-Luckner, 17-38, Schriften des Historischen Kollegs, 32, (Munich: Oldenbourg, 1996), 22. For a summary and treatment of Van Engen's article, see Robert Sweetman, "Beryl Smalley, Thomas of Cantimpre, and the Performative Reading of Scripture," in With Reverence for the Word: Medieval Scriptural Exegesis in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, edited by Jane Dammen McAuliffe, Barry D. Walfish, and Joseph W. Goering, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), 266-269. 33 Van Engen, "Studying Scripture," 31.

Van Engen, "Studying Scripture," 31.

58 so, in studying the words of Scripture, they derived "a sermo universalis, meaning, its abiding

intent, that is, the timeless teaching intended."3'' It was the deriving of a universal meaning from

the words that gave their reading a scientific character, as they sought to derive universal

meanings, the proper subject of science, according to Aristotle, from the particulars of the text.

The Scriptures contained singular deeds which signified universals, and it was as universals that

these particulars "could yield the nodal points of theology as a science.""

But while showing the harmony between these various modes of contemplation, the

superiority of John's contemplation is seen in the fact that John was able to do what neither the

philosophers nor prophets could, that is, give the object of their contemplation the name

I T

'Word.'J' The name 'Word,' for Thomas, is properly a personal name applying to the Son, the - 30

Second Person of the Trinity. But knowledge of the Trinity, which this implies, Thomas tells

us, can only come by way of revelation." Although the philosophers could reach a knowledge of

God, they were left with only the knowledge of an abstraction, such as, "something higher," "the

first principle of all things," "something whose essence is its act of existence," and "the first and

supreme Truth."40 But even the knowledge of the Prophets could not afford the name of 'Word,'

for, according to Thomas, not even Moses knew the mystery of the Trinity. The chief

distinction of John's Christological contemplation, therefore, is its Trinitarian nature, by which it

surpasses and fulfills the philosophic and prophetic modes of divine contemplation. 35 Van Engen, "Studying Scripture," 32. 36 Van Engen, "Studying Scripture," 33. 37 On the relation between knowing and naming God see, Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologiae, la 13 prol. See also Super Ioannem, chap. 1, lect. 3, 96.

Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologiae, la 34.1. 39 Ibid., la 12.13 ad 1. 40 "aliquid altius...primum principium omnium rerum...sua essentia sit suum esse...primam et summam veritatem," Super Ioannem, Prol., 3, 4, 5, & 6. 41 Super Ioannem, chap. 1, lect. 11, 222.

59 John's contemplation is Trinitarian in having a Christological foundation, for Jesus

Christ is the Word Incarnate. The knowledge of Christ affords John a special access to the

knowledge of God. Later in the Commentary, Thomas will distinguish John's knowledge of the

Word from that of the Prophets in its having come directly from the Word, the Only Begotten

Himself.42 Thomas understands this as John having received revelation of the "first Wisdom"

from the "first Wisdom" himself. John's contemplation is guided by a higher wisdom than that of

the philosophers or prophets. This would seem to explain the astonishing efficiency of John's

knowledge of God as compared to the philosophers and Prophets. For according to Thomas, the

four ways the philosophers came to a knowledge of God are reached within the first eighteen

verses of the Gospel. In eighteen verses, therefore, John demonstrates a knowledge that was

spread among many philosophers and found disparately throughout the Psalter. It would also

seem to explain why the order of John's exposition of these four ways follows neither the order

of the philosophers nor the Psalter. John orders his knowledge beginning with the second and

third ways, moving then to the first, and ending with the fourth. What was most efficacious for

philosophy will not be so for John's Gospel, since John orders his Gospel according to "the first

Wisdom," higher than that to which either the philosophers or David could attain. Nevertheless,

God still remains incomprehensible to John. Despite all of the advantages that John's knowledge

of Christ affords above those of the philosophers and Prophets, he does not pretend to

comprehend God.

To summarize what we know of John's contemplation so far, it is the contemplation of

the Creator in Christ, the Word, the Second Person of the Trinity. Such contemplation bears an

Super loannem, chap. 1, lect. 11, 221.

60 affinity with a type of philosophical contemplation of God that reaches a knowledge of God as

Creator, and yet is grounded in the revelation of the Trinity. And although it surpasses that of the

philosophers and Prophets, like them, it ends in mystery. It seems then that the type of

contemplation John enjoyed invites philosophical reasoning, but demands the receptivity of

divine revelation. And because John's contemplation of the Word is inseparable from his

contemplation of Christ, the mark of this receptivity is attention to the person of Jesus.

Thomas ends his discussion of the height of John's contemplation by saying that John

"passed on this contemplation to us in his Gospel."43 There are two implications we can draw

from this statement. First, if John's contemplation invites philosophical reasoning, we ought to

extend a similar invitation to philosophy in our consideration of the contemplation we receive

from him. And secondly, if we are truly to share in John's contemplation of the Word through

the reading of his Gospel, we too must be receptive to divine revelation by way of attentiveness

to Jesus Christ. John's Gospel, then, makes a demand on the reader to receive the revelation of

the Word in Christ in all piety, in imitation of John's own pious reception, while at the same time

encouraging openness to philosophical reasoning.

2.2. The Fullness of John's Contemplation

Thomas then proceeds to discuss the second feature of John's contemplation, its fullness.

4' "quam nobis in suo Evangelio tradidit Ioannes." Super loannem, prol., 6. It is not clear why Thomas does not mention that John also passes on his contemplation in its fullness or perfection. Is he implying that the Gospel contains John's contemplation only in its height? This seems unlikely considering the close identity between John's contemplation as a whole and his Gospel throughout the prologue. It is more likely that he understands the two subsequent discussions as unfolding the first. The fullness of John's contemplation, that is, his knowledge of God's power, is consequent on his knowledge of the nature of the divine Word. And because of the assistance by grace needed to know the Trinity, it was understood from the beginning that John reached the height of contemplation by being raised to it, thus perfecting his contemplation. Thomas even tells us that John was elevated to the heights of contemplation before discussing its perfection. (See Super loannem, prol., 7)

61 Like its height, the fullness of contemplation is understood in terms of John's knowledge of

God as Creator. In this case, however, Thomas begins by describing God's creative effect in

terms of causality: "contemplation is full when someone is able to consider all the effects of a

cause in the cause itself, that is, when he knows not only the essence of the cause, but also its

power, according as it can extend out to many things."44 Here we find a philosophical

justification of the order of Thomas' exposition from the essence of the Word to his power. In

the Compendium of Theology, Thomas states, "For a more perfect knowledge of a cause entails a

fuller knowledge of its power, and there can be no knowledge of this power without a knowledge

of its effects." 45 It follows that if God is the First Cause, he is known more perfectly by knowing

his effects. To know the Creator better, therefore, is to know his Creation. The knowledge of

created realities is a truly contemplative knowledge, in so far as it rests in the knowledge of

God.46

After Thomas describes the fullness of contemplation in general, he uses three passages

from the Old Testament to specify the particular aspect under which he wishes to discuss God's

creative power, namely, divine wisdom. Ecclesiasticus 25:35 informs us that integral to God's

creative power is his divine wisdom: "It overflows with wisdom, like the Pishon, and like the

Tigris in the days of the new fruits." From Psalm 64:10 we learn that this wisdom extends to all

things, and all things are understood in this wisdom. And finally, the Book of Wisdom 9:9

44 "Tunc enim contemplatio ampla est, quando in causa potest aliquis considerare omnes effectus ipsius causae; quando scilicet non solum essentiam causae, sed etiam virtutem eius." Super loannem, prol., 7. In the Summa theologiae, la 44-46, Thomas discusses God as Creator in terms of the First Cause. 45 Thomas Aquinas, Compendium of Theology, trans, by Cyril Vollert (St. Louis, MO: B. Herder Book Co., 1955), chap. 216. 46 See Thomas' discussion on the "office of the wise man" and on how meditation on divine truth involves ordering things to their highest end in the Summa Contra Gentiles, vol. 1, God, trans, by Anton C. Pegis (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1975), bk. 1, chap. 1,

62 instructs us that wisdom was not added to creation at some later date, but was with God "from

the beginning," and cannot be comprehended by any created intellect. In knowing God's creative

power, John specifically knows the power of the divine wisdom. This is consistent with John's

knowledge of the Word already demonstrated in the previous discussion. Later in the

Commentary, Thomas will show how wisdom and power are attributed to the Son;47 and how, in

a way analogous to an artisan, "God makes nothing except through the conception of his

intellect, which is an eternally conceived wisdom, that is, the Word of God, and the Son of

God."48 To know the Word as Creator, therefore, means to know him in his creative effects as

the divine wisdom. But because the Word is the divine wisdom, Thomas adds that John's

knowledge of the power of the Word includes his enlightening effect on humanity. Thomas

explains later that divine wisdom is the source of the intelligible light by which all rational

creatures, including the angels, know, whether by the natural influx of knowledge or by grace.49

In knowing the Word, therefore, John has a divine perspective on all of creation. But

what does such a perspective entail? John cannot know what God knows in its entirety, since he

cannot comprehend God's essence and power, as Wisdom 9:9 tells us. We learn later in the

Commentary that to know creation as God knows it occurs for a rational creature by way of the

Holy Spirit. To receive "the knowledge of divine wisdom"5 is to have the Holy Spirit dwell

within you. Such indwelling entails the transformation of the conscience of the person, "the heart

of the inner man,"51 whereby the believer is enabled to act in accordance with the Spirit.

Super loannem, chap.1, lect.2, 76. 48 Super loannem, chap. 1, lect.2, 77. 49 Super loannem, chap.l, lect.3, 103-4. See also chap. 1, lect. 5, 128. 50 Super loannem, chap. 7, lect. 5, 1088. 51 Super loannem, chap. 7, lect. 5, 1090.

63 Therefore, John knows the essence and power of the Word by allowing the Spirit to dwell

within him, thus enabling him to make decisions in accordance with the creative and

enlightening power of the Word. But paramount to such decisions is acting in accord with the

salvific will of the Word. Thomas tells us that to act with a spiritually transformed conscience is

to share one's grace with others.52 The life of Christian charity is an effect of spiritual

indwelling. Consequently, in knowing the essence and power of the Word, John is compelled to

share with us the knowledge and grace imparted to him by the indwelling of the Spirit. The

Gospel is the fruit of John's spiritually transformed conscience, and thus an act of charity for all.

John's actions and writings are in accord with the God who creates and enlightens, guaranteeing

their harmony with both the created order and revelation.

2.3. The Perfection of John's Contemplation

Thomas explains in greater detail this transformation in the final treatment of John's

contemplation, that is, its perfection. Thomas defines perfect contemplation as "when the one

C O

contemplating is led and raised to the height of the thing contemplated." This elevation

involves attaining the highest truth by adhering and assenting to it by affection and

understanding.54 We were told in the previous discussion that John was elevated to the

contemplation of the nature of the divine Word. Presumably, Thomas understood this as implicit

in the discussion of the height of contemplation. But what we learn here is something about what

52 Super Ioannem, chap. 7, lect. 5, 1090. 53 "Tunc enim contemplatio perfecta est, quando contemplans perducitur et elevatur ad altitudinem rei contemplatae." Super Ioannem, pro]., 8. 54 "Ad hoc ergo quod si perfecta, oportet quod ascendat et consequatur ipsum finem rei contemplatae, inhaerendo et assentiendo per affectum et intellectum veritati contemplatae." Super Ioannem, prol., 8.

that elevation involved that is specific to his contemplation of Christ. According to Thomas, it

is John's teaching on Jesus as our sanctifier that offers the key to this elevation. Sanctification

comes about not by our own power, but through Christ himself, "by the grace which he pours

into us."55 Jesus is an object of contemplation that does not stand in a passive relationship with

those who contemplate him, but rather he initiates the person into contemplation by his grace.

The adhering and assenting of John's contemplation then is achieved through the sanctifying

grace of Christ. Sanctification by grace is then a precondition for the attainment of the highest

truth by disposing our minds and will to attain the highest good. This sanctifying grace is not

limited to John, but made available to all the faithful through the sacraments of Christ's

humanity.56 To contemplate Christ, as John teaches, means to benefit from the special means of

grace, called sacraments, which flow from his humanity and Passion, whereby one's mind and

will are transformed so as to attain the highest truth.

With the discussion of the perfection of John's contemplation, Thomas highlights an

important difference between John's contemplation and its philosophic and prophetic

counterparts. The light of natural reason and the assistance offered by the Old Law are not

sufficient to achieve the heights John achieves here in his Gospel. Only through the grace of the

Word Incarnate can one's mind and will be sufficiently prepared for the contemplation of the

' Super loannem, prol., 8. 56 "Quae ergo sub Christo sunt, sacramenta sunt humanitatis, per quae fideles replentur plenitudine gratiae." Super loannem, prol., 8. It seems that by "sacramenta humanitatis" Thomas means the sacraments of the Church, such as, Baptism, the Eucharist, and the like, which have their cause in the humanity of Christ. This is how the expression is used in one of the Questions on the Eucharist in the Summa theologiae. In Ilia 80.5, Thomas describes the difference in gravity between certain sins. In doing so, he distinguishes the "humanity of Christ" from the "sacramenta humanitatis." The latter are the sacraments, such as, the Eucharist, which pertain to Christ's humanity as their cause. 57 On Christ's humanity as the cause of the sacraments, see Summa theologiae, Ilia 62.5 and Super Epistolam ad Titum Lectura, (Romae: Marietti, 1953), chap. 3, lect. 1. On how they lead one to spiritual things, see Summa theologiae, Ilia 61.1 corpus.

65 truth in Jesus. With the coming of Christ, contemplation must follow a new order, namely, the

order of grace, which employs the sacraments as its means. In short, the philosophers and

prophets remain at a lower level of contemplation because they lack the elevating effects of the

sacraments instituted by Christ himself.

3. John and the Natural Sciences

After having discussed the height, fullness, and perfection of John's contemplation,

Thomas compares it to contemplation that belongs to the sciences of Morality, Natural Science,

and Metaphysics. According to Thomas, the height, fullness, and perfection of contemplation

belong to the three sciences in different ways. Its perfection is found in Moral Science, as it is

concerned with the ultimate end. Its fullness is found in Natural Science, which considers things

as proceeding from God. And the height of contemplation among the physical sciences is found

in Metaphysics.38 Contemplation, therefore, is dispersed throughout these three sciences. If one

wished to be a contemplative, he would have to study all three in their turn. John's Gospel,

however, contains all three aspects of contemplation in one single text, and it is in this way that it

is most perfect.59 In comparison to the texts of the natural sciences, then, John's Gospel is

superior as a contemplative text, because of its self-sufficiency. Thomas is preparing his students

for the study of a text whose genius surpasses all the texts they have yet studied. But Thomas is

also preparing them for the fact that what they find in their philosophical texts will not be so

58 "Perfectionem namque contemplationis habet scientia moralis, quae est de ultimo fine; plenitudinem autem scientia naturalis, quae res a Deo procedentes considerat; altitudinem vero contemplationis inter scientias physicas habet metaphysica." Super loannem, prol., 9. 59 "Sed Evangelium Ioannis, quod divisim scientiae praedictae habent, totum simul continent, et ideo est perfectissimum." Super loannem, prol., 9.

66 neatly distinguished in the Gospel. The role of the commentator, at least in regards to bringing

out the philosophical import of the text, will be in unfolding John's contemplation by way of

distinctions made according to the various sciences. This is in fact what Thomas spends much of

his time doing in the Commentary, revealing the Gospel's underlying intelligible structure.

The Gospel also differs from the three sciences in the order of its contemplation. The

order found in the sciences is the reverse of that of the Gospel. As we have already seen, John's

contemplation follows the order of Isaiah 6:1, beginning with its height, proceeding to its

fullness, and then perfection. With the sciences, on the other hand, Thomas begins first with its

perfection, and then proceeds to its fullness, and finally its height. This change in order is

consistent with the order of the sciences as described elsewhere by Thomas. Metaphysics,

Thomas holds, is the last science to be studied because it is the loftiest and most difficult to

obtain. ° In terms of contemplation, then, the sciences proceed from the lower sciences, like

ethics and natural philosophy, and work their way up to the highest, metaphysics. But John's

contemplation begins with its height, giving it a more lofty starting point than the sciences.61 The

ordering principles of John's Gospel, then, cannot be reduced to the principles of scientific order.

Again, Thomas is preparing his students for the study of a text unlike what they have studied in

their arts curriculum.

The difference in order is due in large part to its reliance on divine revelation. Later in the

Commentary, Thomas will extol the virtues of the Gospel's lofty starting point over "all other

"For metaphysics comes at the end of man's natural knowledge as its crown and completion, just as intellectual insight comes at the end of reasoning." Armand Maurer, introduction to The Division and Methods of the Sciences, translated by Armand Maurer, (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1963), xxxvii. 61 Thomas makes a similar point regarding sacred doctrine. The principles of the science of sacred doctrine proceed from a source higher than any other science or the light of human reason, namely, the science of God. Only on the basis of divine revelation, then, can the science of sacred doctrine be conducted. (See Summa theologiae, la 1.2)

67 teachings."62 Its loftiness consists in its teaching the divinity of Christ, which it receives

"immediately" from "the Only Begotten Son, who is the first Wisdom."63 Knowledge of the

divinity of Christ, as we find in John's Prologue, affords us a knowledge of the mystery of the

Trinity, surpassing the knowledge of God offered us by the revelation made to Moses. 4 This

Trinitarian knowledge changes the order of contemplation, from that of knowing the high by way

of the low, to knowing the low in light of the high. In John's Gospel, the fullness and perfection

of contemplation are seen within the light of its height, namely, the Trinitarian origins of Christ.

Thomas' students, therefore, will not be able to rely simply on the concept of contemplation as

understood from the natural sciences, but will have to adapt their understanding to the order of

contemplation as presented in sacred Scripture. Perhaps this also explains why Thomas uses

Isaiah, a Prophet, as his guide to understanding John's contemplation, and not a philosopher.

4. The Matter of John's Gospel

After having completed his account of John's contemplation, Thomas turns his attention

to the Gospel text, by declaring that the high, full, and perfect contemplation just described, is, in

fact, the very subject matter of the Gospel. The discussion of John's contemplation turns out to

be a vehicle for exposing the matter of the Gospel, namely, the divinity of Christ. Earlier we

learned that John's Gospel was contemplative in character, but here contemplation is identified

with the matter of the Gospel itself. This offers us an important insight into Thomas' exegetical

practice, by revealing how Thomas understands the Gospel text, namely, as a form of

62 See Super loannem, chap. 1, lect. 1, 66, & chap. 1, lect. 11, 221. 63 Super loannem, chap. 1, lect. 11, 221. 64 Super loannem, chap. 1, lect. 11, 222.

68 contemplation. The Gospel text itself is the very expression of John's contemplation, and must

be read according to its nature.

4.1. John and the Other Evangelists

Thomas then proceeds to compare the matter of John's Gospel with that of the other three

Evangelists, and in so doing, he reveals the specific nature of John's contemplation. According

to Thomas, John wrote his Gospel at the request of the faithful, who were threatened by heresies

concerning the divinity of Christ.65 In response to these heresies, John wrote a Gospel

emphasizing Christ's divinity more than the other Gospels, which treated principally the

mysteries of Christ's humanity. Nevertheless, Thomas is careful to point out that in emphasizing

Christ's divinity, John did not neglect his humanity. 66 The aim of the contemplative text par

excellence, therefore, is the right knowledge of Jesus Christ. John's knowledge of Jesus contains

all that has been said about John's contemplation thus far. It is in Christ that John can

contemplate God the Creator in his authority, eternity, dignity, and incomprehensibility. It is

Christ who allows John the privilege of using the name "Word." It is in Christ that John knows

God, the Word, as the wisdom of all things, the highest intelligibility and supreme Truth. And, it

is in the knowledge of Christ's saving grace that John can adhere to God by affection and

understanding, thus perfecting contemplation. Thomas' discussions of the philosophical

65 "quod ideo factum est, quia postquam alii Evangelistae sua Evangelia scripserunt, insurrexerunt haereses circa divinitatem Christi, quae erant quod Christus erat purus homo, sicut Ebion et Cerintus falso opinabantur. Et ideo Ioannes Evangelista, qui veritatem divinitatis Verbi ab ipso fonte divini pectoris hauserat, ad preces fidelium, Evangelium istud scripsit, in quo doctrinam de Christi divinitate nobis tradidit, et omnes haereses confutavit." Super loannem, prol., 10. 66 "quia cum Evangelistae alii tractent principaliter mysteria humanitatis Christi, Ioannes specialiter et praecipue divinitatem Christi in Evangelio suo insinuat, ut supra [no. 1] dictum est: nee tamen praetermisit mysteria humanitatis." Super loannem, prol., 10.

69 contemplation of God helps prepare us for the fact that the contemplation of God is given a

new foundation in the contemplation of Christ.67 It is Christological issues that must now govern

our discussions about God and how we know Him. Any talk about God will depend on talk about

Christ.68 It is for this reason that John wrote a Gospel about Christ and not a philosophical

treatise on the Divine Nature. John knew that the best way to safeguard our knowledge of God

was by correcting Christological misunderstandings, like those that arose out of misreadings of

the previous three Gospels. The Christological focus changes the nature of the contemplative

text. With contemplation of God no longer proceeding solely from God seen through the created

order, or angelically mediated visions, contemplative texts must take on a new character,

informed by faith in Christ. The facts about Christ are the new building blocks of the

contemplation of God. It is clear now why the order of the natural sciences does not correspond

with the order of John's contemplation, for philosophical argumentation will depend on biblical

narration.

But Christ is not simply an historical figure like Socrates, but the very reality into which

believers are incorporated as for their salvation. Thomas in fact describes the end of the Gospel

as the faithful becoming the temple of God, which is achieved, he tells us, through belief in Jesus

as the Christ, the Son of God. All knowledge of God, including philosophical and scientific

knowledge, will have its end in the deeper contemplation of the mystery of Christ.

"John enters with Jesus because the contemplative life is one of familiarity with Jesus." Superloannem, chap. 18, lect. 3, 2305. 68 "the more a person wants to grasp the secrets of divine wisdom, the more he should try to get closer to Christ." Super loannem, chap. 13, lect. 4, 1807. 6 Marie-Dominique Philippe makes this point in his Preface to the French translation of the Commentary. He also states that the contemplative end of scientific knowledge is made clearer in the Commentary than in the Summa Theologiae: "on risquerait parfois de croire que le but principal de la theologie scientifique est d'expliciter une conclusion rigoureuse. Or, dans le Commentaire sur saint Jean, tout l'effort de la Somme est present et presuppose.

70

5. The Order of John's Gospel

After having set out the matter of the Gospel, Thomas explains its order, following the

same three clauses from Isaiah used earlier to describe the height, fullness, and perfection of

John's contemplation. Each of the three clauses corresponds to a passage from John's Prologue:

For John first shows us the Lord seated on a high and lofty throne, when he says below (1:1), "In the beginning was the Word." He shows secondly how the house was full of his majesty, when he says, "through him all things came into being (1:3). Thirdly, he shows how the things that were under him filled the temple, when he says, "the Word was made flesh" (1:14).70

The Gospel, then, can be divided into three parts: The first begins with 1:1 where John treats the

height of contemplation with the divine essence, the second beginning with 1:3 on its fullness,

regarding the power of the Word, and third is its perfection, concerning the grace of Christ and

the sacraments of his humanity starting at 1:14.

It is not immediately evident, however, how the divisions established by this order are to

be reconciled with those of the divisio textus found in the body of the Commentary. At the

beginning of the first chapter, Thomas appears to offer an alternative order to that proposed in

the prologue, dividing the Gospel not into the three parts corresponding to John's contemplation,

but instead into two parts according to the manner in which John shows the divinity of the

Incarnate Word.71 An explanation for this discrepancy may be found in appealing to the role of

Pour saint Thomas, on ne s'arrete jamais a une conclusion scientifique." M.-D. Philippe, O.P., "Preface," Commentaire sur L'Evangile de Saint Jean par St. Thomas d'Aquin, Traduction et notes sous la direction de M.-D. Philippe, O.P., Deuxieme edition corrigee, (Paris: Cerf, 1998), 18. 70 "Primo enim insinuate nobis Dominum sedentem super solium excelsum et elevatum, in prima parte, cum dicit [infra I, 1]: In principio erat Verbum. In secunda vero parte insinuat quomodo omnis terra plena est maiestate eius, cum dicit [ibid. 3]: Omnia per ipsum facta sunt. In tertia parte manifestat quomodo ea quae sub ipso erant, replebant templum cum ipse dicit [ibid., 14]: Verbum caro factum est." Super loannem, prol., 10. 71 "Evangelista Ioannes, sicut dictum est, intendit principaliter ostendere divinitatem Verbi incarnate; et ideo dividitur istud Evangelium in partes duas." Super loannem, chap. 1, lect. 1, 23.

71 what John F. Boyle calls the "principal theme" in Thomas' ordering.

In his essay on the divisio textus, Boyle explains that in the scholastic division of the text

divisions are made according to a principal theme. This theme, usually stated at the outset of

the divisio textus, provides the concept under which the entire text will be considered. All of the

features of the text, its words and passages, are related back to this one idea. In the theme, then,

can be found what Boyle calls the "conceptual unity" of the divisions, "a unifying idea in the

light of which the whole can be seen and, still more important, each part can be understood." "

A difference in order or division would seem to suggest a difference in principal theme.

This is indeed the case with the divisions made in the prologue and the divisio textus of the Super

Ioannem. The principal theme of the prologue is how the Gospel instructs us on the

contemplative life, while in the divisio textus it is John's intention "to show the divinity of the

Incarnate Word." The Gospel is then divided accordingly with respect to each theme: the order

of the prologue follows the order of John's contemplation, while the order of the divisio textus

follows the order of John's manifestation of Christ's divinity.

The harmony between these orders is also to be found in their principal themes. For it

appears that the theme of the divisio textus is generated by the theme of the prologue. At the

beginning of the first chapter of the Commentary, Thomas tells us the principal theme has

already been stated.74 But considering that this is the very first sentence of the Commentary, the

Boyle, "Division of the Text," 276. 73 Boyle, "Division of the Text," 277. 74 "Evangelista Ioannes, sicut dictum est, intendit principaliter ostendere divinitatem Verbi incarnate." Super Ioannem, chap. 1, lect. 1, 23 (emphasis mine).

72 only likely source for this theme is the preceding prologue.75 It is here, in fact, where Thomas

states that the matter of the Gospel is the knowledge of the divinity of the Word. But the matter

of the Gospel is derived by Thomas' discussion of contemplation, as we have already observed.

Having applied the theme of contemplation to the Gospel in the prologue, therefore, Thomas

derives the principal theme by which he will comment on the Gospel text. And so, by generating

a new principal theme, Thomas generates a new order.

The idea of applying different divisions to the same text was not uncommon among

medieval interpreters. Boyle demonstrates how they were "quite comfortable with differing

divisions,"76 and relates how Bonaventure and Thomas, for example, divide John's Gospel

differently despite their similar starting point.77 Boyle concludes that the textual divisions "were

not understood as definitive but rather as illuminative," meaning that they provide "insight into a

TO

text presumed to be rich, mysterious, multivalent, and ultimately inexhaustible." In the Super

Ioannem, then, it appears that we have two occasions of illumination: the first, in the prologue,

where the theme of contemplation illuminates the principal intention of the author; and the

second, in the body of the Commentary where the principal intention illuminates the text itself.

Although different from each other in terms of their principal objects, these illuminations

are not in competition with one another. Both provide insights into the same text, and into

themes that are mutually related. John's contemplation was of the divinity of the Word, and so

his Gospel is about the manifestation of the subject of his contemplation. Their harmony is also 75 We can rule out as a source for this theme the only other discussion next to Thomas' prologue that precedes the Commentary, namely, Thomas' commentary on Jerome's prologue to his translation of the Gospel. In that discussion there is no mention of the theme of knowledge of the divinity of the Word, as there is in Thomas' prologue. 76 Boyle, "Division of the Text," 279.

Boyle, "Division of the Text," 279. 78 Boyle, "Division of the Text," 279.

73 observed in the fact that the divisio textus does not prevent the reader from reading the text

according to the theme of contemplation. This is most evident at the places in the Gospel where

Thomas makes his divisions in the prologue, namely, 1:1, 1:3, and 1:14. His comments on these

passages can be related easily to the theme of contemplation. The height of contemplation can be

found in his comments on 1:1, where he treats "the existence of the Word as to his divine

7Q

nature;" while its fullness is represented in 1:3, where he treats the power of the Word with

respect to all creation.80 And finally, the perfection of contemplation is seen in his comments on o i

1:14, where John sets forth how the divinity of the Incarnate Word is made known to us.

Because the divisions are not definitive, but illuminative, they do not cancel each other out. They

are, instead, simply different ways of looking at the same text.

6. The End of John's Gospel

The end of the Gospel can also be inferred from its subject matter. The end of the Gospel

is that "the faithful become the temple of God, and become filled with the majesty of God,"

which is achieved through the belief that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. There is evidence

to suggest that, for Thomas, the belief in Christ has an ecclesial and transformative effect on the

believer. In the prologue to his commentary on the Gospel in the Catena Aurea, Thomas quotes

the Gloss, which understands Isaiah's use of "temple" as signifying the Church.83 In the Summa

79 Super loannem, chap. 1, lect. 1, 23. Super loannem, chap. 1, lect. 2, 68. Super loannem, chap. 1, lect. 1, 23.

82 "Patet etiam finis huius Evangelii, qui est ut fideles templum Dei efficiantur, et repleantur a maiestate Dei; unde et ipse Ioannes [infra] XX, 31: Haec autem scripta sunt, ut credatis quia Iesus est Christus Filius Dei." Super loannem, prol., 10. 83 "et inferiora eius, idest humanitatis mysteria, templum, idest, Ecclesiam, replere docet, dum in sacramentis humanitiatis Christi et gratiam et gloriam fidelibus promittit," Catena, In loan., prol.

74 theologiae, however, the expression "templum Dei" is used in reference to the individual

believer, who becomes "a temple of God" through the indwelling of the Spirit. The life of

contemplation John passes on to us in his Gospel, then, is very different from that of the

philosopher. Whether building up the Church as a whole or just the individual member, the

contemplative life ends not only with the fruits of one's own labours, but with those of the grace

of Christ as well.

7. The Author of John's Gospel

Thomas ends the prologue with a discussion of the author of the Gospel, John himself.

Since the knowledge of Christ is so central to the knowledge of God, it is only fitting to say

something about John, and how he knew Christ. Unlike the discussions on the matter, order, and

end of the Gospel, the passage from Isaiah has little role in this discussion. Here, Thomas is no

longer talking about the object of contemplation, as much as he is the state of John the

contemplative. Even though John and Isaiah contemplated the same God, their relationship with

God differs greatly; the one a Prophet, seeing only in shadows and figures, and the other the

beloved disciple of the Word made flesh.86 In fact, the only use of Is 6:1 is again in reference to

the object of contemplation: "John saw the Lord seated, because he was a virgin; for it is fitting

In this, Thomas follows 1 Cor. 3:16: "Know you not that you are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?" See also Summa theologiae, Iallae 109.9 obj2 & Ilallae 59.3 ad2. 85 It is possible to understand Thomas here as referring to both, since the growth of the Church depends on that of the individual member. On this, see Super Eph., chap. 4, lect. 5: "the body [i.e., the Church] not only grows through the faith which compacts it into a structured whole and through charity's mutual assistance, but also through the actual binding force which flows out from each member according to the degree of grace given him; and also through the actual impulse to act which God effects in us." 86 "Moyses enim et alii Prophetae Verbi gloriam manifestandam mundo in fine temporum speculabantur, in aenigmatibus et figuris; unde dicit Apostolus, I Cor. XII [Io. XII, 4]: Haec dixit Isaias, quando vidit gloriam eius. Apostoli autem ipsam Verbi claritatem per praesentiam corporalem viderunt." Super loannem, chap. 1, lect. 8, 183.

75 that such persons see the Lord."

Thomas discusses John according to his name, his virtue, his symbol, and his privilege.

OQ

According to Thomas, the name "John" means "in whom is grace." Grace is what allows John

to see the "secrets of the divinity." Thomas supports this with a quotation from 1 Cor 2:11,

which tells us that it is the "Spirit of God" who reveals these secrets.90 Earlier we saw grace as

perfecting contemplation. Here, Thomas presents it as making contemplation possible. John's

contemplation, therefore, is framed by the grace of Christ. It is dependent wholly on the gift of

grace and the life of grace in which he lives.

Thomas' use of I Cor 2:11 also brings out the pneumatological character of John's

contemplation. By the grace of Christ, John is placed in special relationship with the "Spirit of

God," who is the source of John's knowledge of the Word. Thomas is preparing us for later

discussions on the correlative role of Christ and the Spirit in the knowledge of divine mysteries.91

Thomas understands John's virtue to be his purity. Thomas tells us that "it is fitting that

such people see the Lord," as it is said in Mt 5:8, "Blessed are the pure in heart."92 The idea of

purity as a condition for knowing divine truths is a theme found in the body of the Commentary.

Thomas explains later, on the authority of Augustine, that an inordinate love of the world "is

what chiefly withdraws us from the knowledge of God."93 Thomas supports this with two

"Ioannes ergo vidit Dominum sedentem, quantum ad virtutem, quia fuit virgo: talibus enim competit videre Dominum." Super loannem, prol., 11.

"Quantum ad nomen, quia Ioannes, qui huius Evangelii auctor fuit, Ioannes autem interpretatur 'in quo est gratia.'" Super loannem, prol., 11.

"quia secreta divinitatis videre non possunt nisi qui gratiam Dei in se habent." Super loannem, prol., 11. "unde I Cor. II, 11 dicitur: Quae sunt Dei nemo cognovit, nisi Spiritus Dei." Super loannem, prol., 11.

91 See Thomas' comments on Jn 14:26 in Super loannem, chap. 14, lect. 6. Super loannem, prol., 11.

93 Super loannem, chap. 1, lect. 5, 138. See also the Summa theologiae, Ilallae 180.2 ad2, on the need for a right moral disposition for contemplation.

76 passages from the New Testament, "Love of the world makes one an enemy of God" (Jas 4:4),

and "The sensual man does not perceive the things that pertain to the Spirit of God" (1 Cor

2:14).94 John's purity also shows that his contemplation was not done in indifference to how he

lived his life. To be filled with the majesty of God, the end of the Gospel, is not merely an

intellectual exercise, but involves the whole person.95

Next, Thomas describes John as to his symbol, an eagle. The flight of the eagle

symbolizes the loftiness of John's contemplation in gazing on the deity of Jesus Christ.97 This is

compared to the other Evangelists, who were concerned with what Christ did in the flesh, and

thus symbolized by creatures that walk on the ground. Although Thomas symbolizes much of

what we already know about John and the other Evangelists, here he tells us for the first time

how John contemplated the Word in the person of Jesus Christ. It was not with his physical eyes

that he saw the Word, but by the "eyes of the heart." Although John was certainly graced with

the privilege of seeing Christ in the flesh, he was most privileged by the grace of a spiritual

seeing, for this is how he gazed upon the divinity of Christ. It is this spiritual seeing that John

"I Cor 2:14: Animalis homo non percipit ea quae sunt Spiritus Dei." Super loannem, chap. 1, lect. 5, 138. 95 For Thomas, the human person is a true whole, that is, a composite of soul and body, and so the life of the human person is to be understood as the life of this composite and not simply of its parts. The contemplative life, then, presupposes the proper ordering of the entire composite, body and soul. In his recent introduction to Aquinas, Aidan Nichols shows how the elevation of the intellect to the "superordinate function" of the person does not render the lower faculties indifferent to the virtuous life. Instead, the intellect rationally shapes the sensual appetites, affecting the transformation of the entire person. In this way, the entire person shares in reason, even those parts which are non-rational. This shaping of the person is essential for contemplation itself, as Nichols points out, "without the moral virtues disciplining our sensory appetites, feelings, emotions, we lack the necessary preparation for developing the intellectual virtues which modulate our understanding and will. And without the intellectual virtues contemplation is impossible." Aidan Nichols, Discovering Aquinas: Introduction to His Life, Work, and Influence, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 97-103. For the human person as a soul-body composite, see, Summa theologiae, la 75.4 and Summa Contra Gentiles, vol. 2, Creation, trans, by James F. Anderson (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1975), bk. 2, chap. 57. For the rational shaping of the sensual appetites, see Super loannem, chap. 21, lect. 3, 2622: "Amor enim est motus appetitus, et si quidem reguletur appetitus ratione, sic est amor voluntatis, qui proprie est dilectio, quia sequitur electionem." 96 As evidenced by the prologue to the Catena, In loan., Thomas borrows much from Augustine in this discussion. 97 "Ioannes vero, supra nebulam infirmitatis humanae sicut aquila volans, lucem incommutabilis veritatis altissimis atque firmissimis oculis cordis intuetur." Super loannem, pro!., 11.

77 passes on to us in his Gospel, as Thomas indicates when he says, "[John] has striven in his

Gospel to confide this in a manner that was sufficient for all."98 This spiritual seeing is an

important link between John's contemplation and the contemplation he passes on to us. For, how

could John have passed on his contemplation, if his relationship to Christ were bound by time

and space? Later readers of John's Gospel, therefore, can share in his contemplation because

they can share in this spiritual seeing of Christ. John's privilege of time and place does not imply

the disadvantage of later generations of believers.

Thomas also mentions John's using the "eye of the mind" to see the Word of God in the

bosom of the Father." This expression comes after "the eyes of the heart," and refers specifically

to seeing the Word in the Father. If the order is taken seriously, it suggests that John first saw the

divinity of Christ with "the eyes of the heart," and then contemplated the Word in the Father with

"the eye of the mind." If we understand "heart" as affection and "mind" as understanding, this

mirrors the order of perfect contemplation as described earlier by Thomas, where he says one

adheres and assents to God by affection and understanding.100 It seems, then, that it was the love

of Christ that moved John to see his divinity and to contemplate the Word in understanding.'

Love, therefore, precedes understanding and is the motive force behind John's contemplation and

for all those who seek to contemplate the Word. This is consistent with Thomas' discussion of

contemplation in the Summa Theologiae, where he explains that although in its essence

"earn in suo Evangelio, quantum inter omnes sufficere credidit." Super loannem, prol., 11. (my translation) 9 "quia scilicet ipsum Verbum Dei in sinu Patris oculo mentis intuetur." Super loannem, prol., 11.

' See Super loannem, prol., 8. 101 For a case where love of Christ leads to faith, see Thomas' comments on Mary Magdalen's vision of the risen Jesus in Super loannem, chap. 20, lect. 3, 2508, where Thomas explains how Jesus used her love of him to lead her to faith in his resurrection: "Quern quaerit enim interrogat ut augeatur desiderium."

78 contemplation is an intellectual exercise it is moved to act by the will.102

Finally, in his discussion on John's privilege, Thomas highlights the link between

Christ's love for John and his knowledge of God. Because John was the disciple and friend of

1 m Jesus, whom he "specially loved," Jesus confided his "secrets" to him in a special way. Once

again, the contemplative life is presented as being proportionate to the intimacy of one's

relationship with Christ. This portrait of John's personal friendship with Christ highlights the

advantage Christians have in their contemplation of God over that of the philosophers. If

contemplation is perfected by adhering and assenting in affection and understanding to God, how

much easier to do so when the means of that contemplation is a living human being, who teaches

wisdom by both word and deed? The mere created order, the means of contemplation for the

philosophers, appears mute and lifeless in comparison.

Dominant in the discussion on the author of the Gospel, is the use of the sense of sight as

a metaphor for knowing the divinity of Christ. Sight related words, like videre and oculus, occur

seven times throughout this short discussion. But alongside the metaphor of sight is the theme of

secrecy, which indicates the difficulty with which the divinity of Christ is seen. In the opening

discussion on John's name, Thomas refers to the knowledge of Christ's divinity as the

knowledge of "secrets" (secreta). Thomas' discussion on John, the author of the Gospel, reveals

how John came to 'see' what was a 'secret' of God. Thomas first sets out two conditions for

John's seeing the secrets of Christ's divinity, the first, a necessary condition, the second, an

appropriate one (competit). The necessary condition was John receiving the grace of God within

1 2 "the contemplative life, as regards the essence of the action, pertains to the intellect, but as regards what moves to the exercise of that action it belongs to the will, which moves all the other powers, even the intellect, to their actions." Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologiae, Ilallae 180.1 corpus. 103 "secreta sua huic discipulo specialiter dilecto specialiter commendavit." Super loannem, prol., 11.

79 himself. Thomas makes it very clear that "the secrets of the divinity cannot be seen except by

those who have the grace of God within themselves." The second condition is John's purity.

Thomas does not say it was necessary for his seeing the secrets of the divinity, but rather that it

was appropriate for it, since, as Matthew tells us, the pure of heart will see God. To see the

secrets of the divinity is to have God's grace work within you. And this seeing ideally should not

be done with indifference to the state of one's moral disposition. John's seeing Christ's divinity

is the fruit of his life of grace and virtue.

8. Conclusion

According to the prologue, then, Thomas views the Gospel text as a whole from the

perspective of contemplation. Throughout our study of the Commentary, it should always be kept

in mind that Thomas is reading the Gospel under this formality. Fortunately for the reader of the

Commentary, Thomas describes for us the nature of the contemplation in John's Gospel. As we

have already seen, John's Gospel passes on to us a contemplation that is both Christological and

Trinitarian, and yet philosophical at the same time. The Gospel is supposed to aid the reader in

better contemplating the Word, the Second Person of the Trinity, in the person of Christ, which,

as it turns out, is the fulfillment of the contemplation of the philosophers and the prophets, who

knew the Creator from the knowledge of his effects in creation and from the Old Law. The

reader of the Commentary should expect, therefore, a Christological and Trinitarian purpose to

Thomas' exegesis, but one that does not preclude philosophical analysis.

The prologue also teaches that the reader must already be disposed by grace to the

message of the Gospel prior to his reading of it. Thomas describes the knowledge of Christ's

80 divinity in terms of secrets, revealed only to "those who have the grace of God within

themselves." We are told earlier concerning the perfection of contemplation that this grace is

found in the sacramental life of the Church. This grace brings the faithful, like John, into a

personal relationship with Christ, in which they can contemplate his divinity. This grace also

forms a proper moral disposition within the faithful, which, as in the case of John's purity, is

fitting for the contemplation of God. It follows then that Thomas' exegesis would presuppose in

himself and his readers a certain religious and moral formation. Evidenced by the need for a

requisite formation is that the knowledge of the Word cannot be obtained on the whim of the

reader, but requires a prior commitment to God's Church and moral law. The contemplative life

presupposes a moral and Ecclesial life. In fact, the contemplation of John's Gospel seems to

contribute to it. Thomas tells us the end of the Gospel is that the faithful become the temple of

God and are filled with his majesty. Thomas' exegesis, therefore, will be deeply rooted in the life

of the Church.

And finally, in light of our look at Question 102 of the Ia-IIae in the last chapter, the one

place where Thomas discusses a form of the mystical interpretation, we must not overlook the

role divine wisdom plays in John's contemplation. If John's intention, as Thomas tells us, is to

communicate his contemplation to others through his Gospel, then those who receive it must also

receive a share in its wisdom. But is this the same wisdom mentioned in Question 102 by which

the reader of sacred Scripture judges passages by their literal or mystical ends? This can only be

answered through an analysis of the mystical interpretation itself.

CHAPTER 3 THE RATIO MYSTICA AS AN EXEGETICAL TECHNIQUE

1. The Manifestations of the Mystical Interpretation in the Super Ioannem

Introduction:

The following is a categorization of the various forms in which Thomas' mystical

interpretation of the Gospel of John manifests itself in his Super Ioannem. Because this

study is an introduction to Thomas' mystical interpretation, we will limit ourselves to the

categorization of those cases where the mystical interpretation is most manifestly present,

that is, those cases where Thomas indicates such an interpretation through the use of the

terms 'mysticus' and/or 'mysterium,' and their variants. This categorization will lay the

groundwork for our detailed study of the ratio mystica to follow.

The terms 'mysticus,' 'mysteriumj and their variants are used a total of 180 times

in the Super Ioannem. These 180 cases can be divided into categories according to how

closely related they are to the act of Thomas' interpretation of the Gospel. First, there are

those cases where the terms 'mysticus,' 'mysterium' and their variants are used in the

very act of interpretation. In almost all of these cases, Thomas makes it clear that he is

interpreting the text in a mystical way or according to a mystery. Most of these cases are

explicit in describing the act of interpretation as being mystical, while others are more

implicit. Nevertheless, what these cases all have in common is their ability to reveal

directly the mystical character of Thomas' mode of interpretation.

Secondly, there are those cases where 'mysticus,' 'mysterium' and their variants

pertain to the object being interpreted. Although these cases do not directly describe the

mode of interpretation, they are certainly related to it. Gilbert Narcisse reminds us of the

81

82

role the object of knowledge plays in the mode of knowing according to Thomas.

Narcisse calls this Thomas' "gnoseologie realiste."1 In fact, in Thomas' Commentary on

1 Corinthians, we find an application of this epistemological principle with respect to the

knowledge of divine mysteries. Here Thomas teaches that because the manner of

teaching should be in harmony with its subject matter it was fitting that Paul spoke in

mystery about the mystery of God's wisdom. Clearly, then, the mode of knowing

something is not done with indifference to the nature of the thing known.

The third and final category is where 'mysticus,' 'mysterium' and their variants

are found in quotations from biblical authorities. Although the citing of biblical

authorities is a vital part of Thomas' interpretation as a whole, these cases represent

voices different from Thomas', and are, therefore, not to be identified necessarily as

describing his mode of interpretation.

1.1. The Mystical as a Mode of Interpretation

1.1.1 mystice

The use of 'mysticus,' 'mysterium' and their variants in the very act of interpretation is

the largest of the three categories, with 126 cases throughout the Super Ioannem. Within

this category, the most common term used to indicate the mystical interpretation is

'mystice,' with 70 occurrences. Often appearing at the beginning of a sentence, mystice is

one of the clearest indicators that Thomas is engaging in the mystical interpretation of a

' "Selon cette gnoseologie realiste, c'est l'objet qui determine les regies d'un savoir dans le respect des natures engages." Gilbert Narcisse, Les raisons de Dieu: arguments de convenance et esthetique theologique selon saint Thomas d'Aquin et Hans Urs von Balthasar, (Fribourg, Suisse: Presses Universitaires de Fribourg, 1997), 9. " "And since the manner of teaching (docendi) and its subject matter (doctrinae) should be harmonious (conveniens), therefore he says that he speaks to them in mystery, that is in something hidden, either by word or sign." Thomas Aquinas, Super Primam Epistolam ad Corinthios Lectura, (Romae: Marietti, 1953), chap. 1, lect. 1, 86.

83

passage. Most often, this phrase introduces brief excursions into the mystical meaning of

a passage or word. Rarely are these excursions more than a few sentences in length. In

virtually every case, the mystical interpretation is generated by at least one figurative

meaning, drawn from one or more biblical or patristic source.

With only three exceptions, the adverb, mystice, is found modifying a specific

verb. These verbs are most often found in the passive voice. The verbs associated with

mystice can be divided into two types. The first are those where the act of interpretation is

explicitly described as mystical. The following table lists these verbs, along with the

number of cases found in the Super Ioannem, separated according to their passive and

active forms 3

Verbs modified bv mystice

intelligo

significo

signo

sum designo

Number of cases in the Super Ioannem

19

12

9

6 5

Passive constructions

intelligitur, -untur; intelligi

significatur, -antur

signatur, -antur

designatur, -antur

Number of passive constructions

16

10

7

4

Active constructions

intelligas, intelligit, intelligere

significat

signat

designant

Number of active constructions

3

2

2

1

' Word searches were conducted with the assistance of Roberto Busa, Thomae Aquinatis Opera Omnia [electronic resource]: [cum hypertextibus in CS-ROM], 2nd edition, ([Milano]: Trend: Thomistica, 1996), and Roberto Busa, Corpus Thomisticum Index Thomisticus, web edition by Eduardo Bernot and Enrique Alarcon, (Pampilonae ad Universitatis Studiorum Navarrensis: Fundacion Tomas de Aquino, 2006); available from http://www.corpusthomisticum.org/it/index.age; Internet.

84

expono refero

dico do praefiguro respondeo

4 4

1 1 1 1

exponitur referatur, referri dicitur datur

responded

3 4

1 1 0 1

exponendum

praefigurabat

1 0

0 0 1 0

The second category is comprised of only four cases, and is concerned with the

use of mystice, where the act of interpretation is not explicitly described as being

mystical. Instead, it is implied by describing the subject of the interpretation as being

mystical. These four cases include Jesus' response to the question asked by John the

Baptist's disciples concerning where he lived,4 Jesus' going up (ascendit) to Jerusalem,5

Jesus' fleeing (ascendit) to the mountains after the feeding of the five-thousand,6 and

John's entering the court of the high priest with Jesus. What has a mystical quality in

these cases is the action related in the Gospel text.

There are three cases where mystice is not used in association with a particular

verb. In these cases we cannot speak of a specific mystical signification, understanding,

or action, as we did above. Here, mystice has a broader application. It modifies the

sentence and not its verb, thus acting as a kind of indicator, instructing the reader that the

Q

sentence is to be understood in a mystical way. For example, in Chapter 19, Lecture 1,

on the soldiers mocking Christ as he hung on the cross, Thomas tells us that 'mystically'

(mystice) "those greet Christ mockingly who profess him with words 'but deny him with

Super loannem, chap. 1, lect. 15, 292. 5 Super loannem, chap. 2, lect. 2, 379. 6 Super loannem, chap. 6, lect. 2, 872. 7 Super loannem, chap. 18, lect. 3, 2305.

Super loannem, chap. 19, lect. 1, 2377.

85

their deeds' (Titus 1:16)."9 In this sentence, illusorie, not mystice, modifies the verb

salutant. Mystice, rather, serves simply to indicate that there is a mystical interpretation to

the words of the Gospel text. It clearly modifies the sentence and not the verb within it.

This presumably is James A. Weisheipl's understanding of mystice here, as evidenced

from his English translation of it as "the mystical interpretation." Mystice may be

observed as having the same function in the other two cases.

The main features common to most, if not all, of the uses of mystice are the

following: a reliance on some sort of signification, and auctoritates for generating their

meanings, and a close proximity to literal interpretations and other forms of the mystical

interpretation. The following is a cursory description of each of these features.

1.1.1.1. Signification

Perhaps the most striking feature of Thomas' use of mystice is its use of

signification. In almost every case, Thomas shows how a particular feature of the Gospel

text serves as a sign for something else. If the signification itself is not the meaning of the

interpretation, it will at least serve to unlock it. In this way, the signification, or

significations, if more than one, serves as an interpretative key to unlocking the mystical

interpretation. The following is a cursory description of this signification by looking at

the terms operative in generating the significations, the types of things that serve as

signifiers, and what is signified.

"Mystice autem illi illusorie Christum salutant qui eum confitentur ore, factis autem negant, Tit. I, 16." Super loannem, chap. 19, lect. 1, 2377.

"Mystice autem de illo qui peccare consuevit lam foetet, scilicet per pessimam famam, cuius odor deterrimus per peccatum consurgit;" (1546) and "Mystice autem a nobis pulmentum petit unde reficiatur: quod est obedientia mandatorum Dei. Supra iv, 34." Super loannem, chap. 2 1 , lect. 1,2588)

86

1.1.1.1.1 Signifying terms

The following verbs are used to generate signified meanings of words:

intelligere, significare, signare, designare, esse, referre, praefigurare.

The most frequently used are intelligere and significare, with 21 occurrences each, 20 of

which are in the passive voice for intelligere, and 13 for significare. These are followed

by signare, with 13 occurrences in total, with ten in the passive voice.

1.1.1.1.2 Signifiers

Thomas shows much variety in his use of signifiers. These include situations, events,

actions, people, things, both material and immaterial, words spoken, numbers, places,

time of day, meanings, and, in one case, a feature of the text. Most often, however,

Thomas uses things to signify meanings, which occurs 23 times throughout the

Commentary. In 20 cases, the thing used is a material reality, such as, a stone or water;

while in three cases, it is an immaterial reality, namely, wisdom, the movements of

Christ's soul, and prayer.

The next most frequent form occurs 22 times, and uses an action, situation, or

event as reported in the text, such as, Jesus' pouring the water into a basin before washing

" Super loannem, chap. 11, lect. 6, 1543; chap. 13, lect. 2, 1748. 12 Super loannem, chap. 6, lect. 1, 854; chap. 11, lect. 6, 1541; chap. 4, lect. 2, 601.

87

his disciples' feet,13 Jesus' resting by Jacob's well,14 and the vinegar soaked sponge being

held to the mouth of Jesus while on the cross.15

The next most frequent form uses people to signify things, with 9 occurrences in

1 f\ 17

total. These people include two unnamed disciples, the Samaritan woman's husband,

John the Baptist, Mary, the mother of Jesus, and Jesus himself.18

This is followed by the use of words spoken by the Evangelist or by characters of

the Gospel, with seven cases. These include statements, questions, or commands, such as,

Peter's statement that he was going fishing, the risen Jesus asking for fish, and Jesus'

command to the two disciples of John the Baptist, "Come and see."

In four cases the signifier depends on an antecedent interpretation. In two of these

cases, the signification depends on an interpretation of a word. For example, in Chapter 2,

Lecture 2,20 the name "Jerusalem" is interpreted {interpretatur) by Thomas as the "vision

of peace." Thus interpreted, we are told that it signifies (significatur) eternal happiness.

The signifier is then the name Jerusalem interpreted in a certain way. The same is done in

Chapter 11, Lecture 4,21 where, once again, Jerusalem is interpreted as the "vision of

peace," along with Bethany, which is interpreted (interpretatur) as "house of obedience."

With these interpretations in mind, Thomas shows how by Bethany and Jerusalem may

be understood "that those who are in the state of obedience are near the peace of eternal

life."

13 Super loannem, chap. 13, lect. 2, 1748. 14 Super loannem, chap. 4, lect. 1, 564. 15 Super loannem, chap. 19, lect. 5, 2450. 16 Super loannem, chap. 18, lect. 3, 2301. 17 Super loannem, chap. 4, lect. 2, 590. 18 For these last three, see Super loannem, chap. 2, lect. 1, 343. 19 Super loannem, chap. 21, lect. 1, 2577, 2588; chap. 1, lect. 15, 292. 20 Super loannem, chap. 2, lect. 2, 379.

21 Super loannem, chap. 11, lect. 4, 1508.

88

In Chapter 2, Lecture 3,22 the signification depends on a numerological and

symbolic interpretation of the name Adam. On the basis of the numerological

interpretation, Adam "signifies (significatur) that the body of Christ was derived from the

body of Adam;" while on the basis of the symbolic interpretation, Adam "signifies

(significatur) that Christ derived his flesh from Adam in order to gather his elect from the

four parts of the world."

Finally, in Chapter 6, Lecture l,23 the signification of the word "grass" as

meaning "flesh" must be explained in order to show how it refers to the Old Testament,

or "to one who perceives true wisdom." Here, then, as in the three abovementioned cases,

"grass" requires an initial interpretation to reveal how it serves as the signifier for the

mystical meaning.

Thomas also uses features of the Gospel text as signifiers. This is seen most

clearly in two cases, both involving the number seven. In Chapter 21, Lecture l,24

Thomas points out that the risen Jesus appeared to seven of his disciples by the Sea of

Tiberius. The number seven, Thomas explains, "signifies the state and appearance of

future glory, which will be after the seventh age." This number is not mentioned in the

Gospel text, but instead comes from Thomas' observation of a particular feature of the

text, namely, the number of people mentioned by the Evangelist. This is similar to an

interpretation in Chapter 1, Lecture 15,25 where Thomas bases another interpretation on

the number seven, this time pulled from the fact that the first word spoken by Christ is the

seventh word spoken in the Gospel.

22 Super Ioannem, chap. 2, lect. 3,411. ' Super Ioannem, chap. 6, lect. 1, 857.

Super Ioannem, chap. 21, lect. 1, 2575. Super Ioannem, chap. 1, lect. 15, 289.

89

1.1.1.1.3 Signified

There is quite a variety of topics signified by the signifiers. These topics may serve as the

bulk of the mystical interpretation or serve it only in part. They can be grouped under the

following headings:

i. Things pertaining to the Christian life: These may include topics such as the active and contemplative lives, conversion, prayer life, and the individual's relationship with Christ. This is the largest category with 22 occurrences in total,

ii. The Church and things related to it: Under this category may be found topics like the relationship between Christ and his Church, its wicked members and its spiritual goods, and the unity of all believers. This is the second largest category with 11 occurrences in total,

iii. The Jewish people: These include references to either the Old Law or to the Jewish people of Jesus' day. There are ten occurrences in this category,

iv. Sin: In this category we find eight cases, including references to Original Sin, God and sinners, and sinful dispositions,

v. Topics pertaining to the End Times occur in seven cases, vi. Topics concerning wisdom occur in six cases,

vii. The Passion is signified in five cases. viii. The Incarnation is signified in four cases,

ix. Topics concerning the character of the earthly Jesus occur in three cases, x. The Ascension is signified in three cases.

xi. The Holy Spirit is signified in three cases, with two having to do with the gifts of the Spirit,

xii. The Trinity is signified in two cases. xiii. Topics concerning the Mystical body of Christ occur in two cases. xiv. Gentile conversion is signified in two cases, xv. Baptism is signified in one case.

1.1.1.2. Auctoritates

Next to the significations, the mystical interpretations indicated by mystice rely heavily

on quoted authorities. These authorities include biblical and non-biblical authorities.

90

1.1.1.2.1. Biblical authorities

1.1.1.2.1.1. New Testament

In the 70 cases using mystice, the New Testament is referenced in 46 of them. The

following is a breakdown of the individual books of the New Testament and in how many

cases of mystice they are found.

i. ii. iii. iv. v. vi. vii. viii. ix. X.

xi. xii. xiii. xiv. XV.

John: 16 cases Matthew: 14 cases Luke: four cases Romans: 11 cases Ephesians: six cases 1 Corinthians: four cases Galatians: four cases 2 Corinthians: three cases Hebrews: two cases Philippians: one case Colossians: one case Titus: one case Revelations: five cases John's First Letter: three cases Acts of the Apostles: two cases

Overall, the Gospels occur in 34 cases and Paul's Letters in 33. There are a total

of 22 cases which contain no references to the New Testament, and 15 cases which

reference the New Testament without any reference to the Old Testament.

1.1.1.2.1.2. Old Testament

The Old Testament is referenced in 46 cases, with references to the Law,

Prophets, and Writings. The following is a breakdown of the individual books of the Old

Testament and in how many cases of mystice they are found.

i. Psalms: 24 cases ii. Isaiah: 16 cases iii. Book of Wisdom: five cases iv. Proverbs: five cases v. Sirach: four cases

91

vi. Jeremiah: three cases vii. Deuteronomy: two cases viii. Hosea: two cases ix. Lamentations: two cases x. Genesis: one case xi. 2 Samuel: one case xii. Joel: one case xiii. Job: one case xiv. Song of Songs: one case

The Psalms and Isaiah are clearly the most frequently occurring books of the Old

Testament in the cases of mystice. There are a total of 22 cases which make no reference

to the Old Testament, and 15 cases that reference the Old Testament without any

reference to the New Testament. There are only seven cases in which no biblical

authorities are cited.

1.1.1.2.2. Patristic Authorities

In 18 cases, Thomas cites at least one Patristic authority. Augustine is the most

frequently cited authority, with references found in 14 cases. Chrysostom is a far second,

with only three appearances. This is followed by Origen, with two; and then by Gregory,

Hilary, and the Gloss, with 1 occurrence each. In 50 cases no patristic authority is

mentioned.

There is evidence, however, that Thomas' dependence on Patristic authorities

exceeds his explicit references to them. This can be seen through a comparison of the

Super loannem with the Catena Aurea. Al of the above interpretations using mystice can

be found borrowing interpretations from the Catena. Again, the majority goes to

Augustine, with 27 cases showing influence from interpretations attributed to him in the

Catena. Interpretations can be found attributed to Origen, Gregory, and Alcuin 5 times

92

each. There are attributions to Bede and Theophylactus, each twice, and once to

Chrysostom.

In four cases, no authorities are cited, whether biblical or patristic. And in two

cases, no authorities are cited, as well as no corresponding interpretation found in the

Catena.

1.1.1.3. Literal meaning

In the 70 cases using mystice, 68 follow a literal interpretation. In only twelve of

these cases is the literal interpretation explicitly mentioned. In six of these 68 cases, the

mystical interpretation is followed by another literal interpretation, two of which are

explicitly called literal. That Thomas wishes the mystical interpretation to be understood

in distinction to the literal is indicated by the use of autem with mystice, which occurs in

47 of the 70 cases.

1.1.1.4. Other mystical meanings

In 13 cases, the mystical interpretation is itself part of a larger mystical

interpretation.26 In these cases, mystice can be found alongside other forms of the

mystical interpretation, such as, causa mystica, ratio mystica, and mysterium. These cases

show, then, that Thomas will sometimes use several forms of the mystical interpretation

to generate an interpretation.

1.1.1.5 The broader meaning of mystice

Despite its reliance on significations, mystice indicates an interpretation that is

most often broader than the signification used. Very rarely is the mystical meaning only a

26 In nine of these cases, it begins the larger interpretation, while in three it is situated in its middle, and in one case it serves as its end.

93

simple signification or designation. Rather in most cases the various figurative meanings

are themselves components of a larger meaning, one that involves perhaps several

significations, along with a differing patristic opinion. This is most apparent with verbs

like intelligo, sum, expono, refero, and respondeo. These verbs are used to introduce not

just elements of the interpretation, but the interpretation itself. We can speak, then, of an

overarching mystical explanation or response that employs several significations. For

example, in Chapter 2, Lecture 2,27 Thomas tells us that the verse, "In the temple

precincts he came upon merchants selling oxen, sheep and doves," (Jn2:14) can be

understood mystically in three ways (mystice tripliciter intelligi potest). These three

understandings are themselves generated by significations of specific words. Clearly

what is mystical is the entire interpretation of the verse, significations and all. An even

clearer example is given in Chapter 11, Lecture 6, with the mystical explanation from

Augustine for the description of Lazarus' coming out of the tomb. This explanation

depends on two ways of coming out: spiritually and by confession. The explanations of

both depend on significations of specific words to generate a larger interpretation.

Even in those cases where Thomas uses mystice to modify a specific signification

or designation, he is still expounding on a more general mystical interpretation that

extends beyond the specific significations themselves. This is evident from the fact that,

without exception, the word mystice appears as the first word of a new interpretation,

which in almost every case is presented in distinction to an accompanying literal

interpretation. That it is to be read in distinction to the literal is not only suggested in its

Super loannem, chap. 2, lect. 2, 383. Super loannem, chap. 11, lect. 6, 1560. In these cases Thomas typically uses the verbs, significo, signo, and designo.

94

placement next to it, but in the use of autem with mystice. As the word autem indicates,

this is an interpretation to be understood as being different from the previous.

Mystice, therefore, especially when accompanied by autem, extends beyond its

adverbial function to indicate or announce the start of a mystical interpretation. And in

announcing a new interpretation, it also indicates a different kind of interpretation,

namely, a shift from the literal mode to the mystical mode. In summary then, mystice not

only modifies specific verbs, but serves as a sort of tag, announcing to the reader that a

new and different interpretation is about to be explained.

1.1.1.6 Distribution of mystice throughout the Super loannem

The following is a list of the chapters in which mystice is found. The chapter

number is listed first, followed by the number of occurrences in parentheses: 1 (4), 2 (9),

4 (8), 5 (3), 6 (9), 9(1), 11 (10), 13 (3), 17(1), 18(5), 19 (4), 20 (3), and 21 (8). The

following is a ranking of the chapters in order of most number of occurrences: 11; 2 & 6;

4 & 21; 18; 1 & 19; 5, 13, & 20; 9 & 17.

1.1.2. mysticus

The next two largest categories take the adjectival form of mystica, and modify either the

ratio or causa of a word or passage of the Gospel text. They are also the first form of the

mystical interpretation encountered by the reader in the Commentary. In fact, in the very

first instance of the mystical interpretation, they are found together.30 Much more will be

said about this later in our analysis of the rationes mysticae.

1.1.2.1. ratio mystica

Super loannem, chap. 1, lect. 12, 238.

95

Of the two cases using mysticus, the most common is the one modifying ratio. This form

occurs twelve times throughout the Commentary, and will be examined in detail later in

this study: This form is found in the following chapters, with the number of occurrences

in parentheses: 1 (3), 2 (2), 4 (1), 11 (1), 13 (1), 20 (3), 21 (1). Here are the chapters in

order of most number of occurrences: 1 & 20; 2; 4, 11, 13, & 21.

1.1.2.2. causa mystica

The third most common form of the mystical interpretation involves the use of the word

causa, with a total of six cases. As with the cases using mystice, signification plays an

important role in revealing the mystical cause. In four of the cases, we find quite an

explicit use of signification using the following words: designatur, intelligitur, signatur,

significat, and indicaret. In these cases, a particular object, such as the desert, the sun,

and spittle is used to signify something else. In the remaining two cases the signification

is implied. For example, in Chapter 5, Lecture 2, Jesus' slipping away from the crowd

is clearly a sign of the Christian's retreat from worldly affairs to find Christ in spiritual

seclusion, or of Christ's leaving the Jews for the Gentiles. And in Chapter 10, Lecture

6,32 Jesus' crossing the Jordan clearly signifies his mission to the Gentiles, a signification

well established in previous mystical interpretations. What is signified by way of this

signification bears no marked difference from that of the cases with mystice. It includes

paganism, Judea, God's teaching, spiritual life, contemplation, and the evil in people's

hearts. What is most striking is the number of cases having to do with Gentile conversion.

31 Super loannem, chap. 5, lect. 2, 728. 32 Super loannem, chap. 10, lect. 6, 1469. " Super loannem, chap. 1, lect. 13, 252.

96

Four of the six cases clearly teach Jesus' movement away from the Jews and towards the

Gentiles. 4

As with the cases using mystice, in every case the mystical is found in immediate

relation to the literal. In six of the cases, the literal immediately precedes the mystical. In

five of these cases the literal is explicitly mentioned as the causa litteralis. In one case,

however, the mystical precedes the literal.35

These cases also rely on biblical and patristic authorities. The authority most

relied on is the Old Testament, books from which are referenced in five cases. These

books include: Isaiah, Psalms, Job, Hosea, Ecclesiastes, Sirach, Ezekiel, Jeremiah, and

the Song of Songs. The New Testament is referenced in only two cases, citing Matthew

and Galatians.

In only two cases are patristic authorities mentioned, with Gregory mentioned in

both and Denis in one. Nevertheless, as with the cases of mystice, a comparison with the

Catena reveals a reliance on patristic authorities. In every case, the interpretation can be

found whole or in part in the Catena. In three cases Thomas can be found drawing on the

interpretations of Augustine and Gregory, and in one case from Theophylactus.

In only two cases is the causa mystica found alongside another form of the

mystical interpretation. In both cases it's accompanied by a ratio mystica. In each case,

Thomas introduces the interpretation by telling us that there is both a literal and mystical

reason {ratio). After this introduction, Thomas drops the term ratio, and in his exposition

of the literal uses "lateralis" alone, while in that of the mystical reason he speaks of the

causa mystica. For whatever reason, Thomas expounds on the mystical reason by way of

34 Super loannem, chap. 1, lect. 12, 238; chap.5, lect.2, 728; chap.10, lect.5, 1435; chap.10, lect. 6, 1469. 35 Super loannem, chap. 10, lect. 6, 1469.

97

a mystical cause. It would appear, then, that the two are closely related to each other. This

relationship will be examined in our analysis of the ratio mystica.

The following is the chapter number followed by the number of occurrences in it:

1:1, 4:1, 5:1, 9:1, 10:2. Here are the chapters in order of most number of occurrences: 10;

1,4, 5 & 9.

1.1.3. mysterium

Another way Thomas speaks of mystical meanings is with the noun mysterium. This form

is used 37 times throughout the Commentary. It can be broken down into the following

nine forms:

i. accompanying verbs of fittingness, such as, convenio, congruo, competo' ii. nee (hoc) vacat mysterio/non vacat a mysterio

•y o

iii. secundum mysterium' 39

iv. propter mysterium v. hoc mysterium vi. est/esse mysterium vii. ad mysterium viii. nescientes mysterium ' ix. possunt habere mysterium

Even though in each case Thomas speaks of a mystery, it seems that the word

mysterium is used here less in reference to a particular mystery, like the Trinity or the

35 Convenio: chap. 8, lect. 1,1119; chap. 12, lect. 1, 1591; chap. 12, lect. 1, 1594; chap. 18, lect. 1, 2274; chap. 19, lect. 4, 2419; chap. 19, lect. 4, 2420; congruo: chap. 1, lect. 15, 303; chap. 1, lect. 15, 304; chap, l.lect. 15, 305; chap, lject. 16, 314; chap. 2, lect. 1,338; chap. 12, lect. 1, 1591; chap. 12, lect. 1, 1592; chap. 18, lect. 2, 2290; competo: chap. 1, lect. 15, 285; chap. 2, lect. 1, 363; chap. 18, lect. 2, 2290. 37 Nec(hoc) vacat mysterio/ non vacat a mysterio: chap. 1, lect. 13, 252; chap. 2, lect. 1, 338; chap. 2, lect. 2, 379; chap. 19, lect. 3, 2414; chap. 20 lect. 4, 2529. 38 secundum mysterium: chap. 6, lect. 1, 861; chap. 12, lect. 1, 1599; chap. 20, lect. 1, 2481; chap. 20, lect. 1,2483. 39 propter mysterium: chap. 4, lect. 1, 556; chap. 8, lect. 2, 1164; chap. 20, lect. 1, 2471. 40 hoc mysterium: chap. 3, lect. 1, 443; chap. 11, lect. 6, 1561. 41 est/esse mysterium: chap. 13, lect. 2, 1756; chap. 19, lect. 3, 2414. 42 ad mysterium: chap. 19, lect. 3, 2417; chap. 21, lect. 5, 2640. 4 nescientes mysterium: chap. 4, lect. 3, 622.

possunt habere mysterium: chap. 13, lect. 3, 1771.

98

body of Christ, than to how something narrated in the Gospel text should be understood.

This is most evident in the fact that the reader is hard pressed to find what mystery

Thomas is referring to in any given case. Thomas gives us no indication that there is a

specific mystery to which he is referring for his interpretation. Instead, Thomas provides

many indications that by mysterium he means to discuss the mystical meaning of a

passage. One indication is the striking similarity these cases have to other forms of the

mystical interpretation, like that of mystice and mysticus. Like these other forms, the

cases employing mysterium rely on significations and authorities, mainly biblical, and are

most often found immediately following a literal interpretation.

Concerning signification, we find the same language being used as we did with

mystice, including words like intelligitur, significatur, designatur, interpretatur, signatur,

and dicitur. These words help generate significations which yield the interpretation.

Similarity is also found in the kind of signifiers used. As with mystice and mysticus,

Thomas finds significations in people, places, things, names, events, circumstances,

numbers, things said, and things done. Furthermore, there is a similarity in the meanings

generated. Thomas shows again an interest in topics like, Jesus turning away from the

Jews to the Gentiles, Christ's teaching, and the central mysteries of Christ, such as, the

Incarnation, Passion, death, and Resurrection. As with mystice, the majority of meanings

generated have to do with the Christian life, including the life of grace, the active and

contemplative lives, the life of faith and obedience, and conversion.

We also find a similar usage of authorities. All of the forms of the mystical

interpretation looked at so far rely heavily on biblical authorities, especially in generating

their significations. 25 cases cite New Testament authorities, while 17 cite the Old

99

Testament. As with mystice, Matthew and John are the most frequently cited New

Testament books,45 while the Psalms and Isaiah are the most referenced of the Old

Testament.46

These cases are also like mystice and mysticus in their almost always being

accompanied by a literal interpretation. In only two cases, in fact, is the mystical not

accompanied by the literal.47 In the cases with a literal interpretation, 26 are implicit,

while twelve are clearly identified. The forms used to identify the literal include ad

AQ

litteram, litteralem, secundum litteram, quaestio litteralis, and historiae. The majority

of mystical meanings, 33, follow the literal, while only five precede it.

There is only one case where mysterium is used as a component of a larger

mystical interpretation.4

The distribution of the cases using mysterium is as follows, with the chapter

number followed by the number of occurrences in it: 1 (6), 2 (4), 3 (1), 4 (2), 6 (1), 8 (2),

11 (1), 12 (5), 13 (2), 18 (3), 19 (5), 20 (4), 21 (1).

1.2. The Mystical as an Object

The second category of the use of mysticus and/or mysterium and their variants concerns

their description of a thing, like the corpus mysticum or mysterium Trinitatis. These cases

differ from the above in not being directly related to the act of interpretation. Instead,

they are said to be mystical in themselves. There are 48 cases where something is called

Matthew is cited seven times, John six. 46 The Psalms are cited seven times, and Isaiah five. 47 Chap. 19, lect. 4, 2420; and chap. 20, lect. 4, 2529. 48 ad litteram: chap. 1, lect. 15, 285; chap. 2, lect. 1, 337-8; litteralem: chap. 1, lect. 13, 252; secundum litteram: chap. 20, lect. 1, 2481, 2483; chap. 21, lect. 5, 2640; quaestio litteralis: chap. 1, lect. 15, 303-305; and historiae: chap. 2, lect. 2, 379. 49 Chap. 13, lect. 3, 1771.

100

'mystical. ' The following is a list of topics discussed by Thomas which are described as

being mystical by any one of the variants of mysticus and/or mysterium:

i. Incarnationis

ii. Mysteria Christi iii. corpus mysticum iv. Passionis ' v. Trinitatis vi. Mysteria quae Christus implevit in carnelper mysteria quae in came Christi vii. humanitatis viii. Mysteria regni Deilcaelestis

58

ix. Divinitatis x. "seereta sua mysteria"' xi. Salutis xii. Circumcisioms xiii. Ecclesiae xiv. Dispensationis xv. multa mysteria eos docuit xvi. mysticum sacramentum xvii. operationibus prophetarum mysticis xviii. mysteria Christi significabant xix. "non apparuisset mysterium"

r- • - 6 9

xx.jiguras omnium mysterwrum xxi. cognitionem mysteriorum Christi xxii. mystice... dissolvi

50 Chap. 1, lect. 13, 285; chap. 1, lect. 15, 282, 285; chap. 3, lect. 2, 465; chap. 6, lect. 3, 898; chap. 6, lect. 8, 1004; chap. 8, lect. 1, 1131; chap. 16, lect. 3, 2101; chap. 20, lect. 1,2483. 51 Chap. 2, lect. 3, 420; chap. 3, lect. 2, 458; chap. 6, lect. 8, 992; chap. 20, lect. 1, 2477; chap. 20, lect. 1, 2480. 52 Chap. 2, lect. 3, 404; chap. 6, lect. 7, 972 (occurs four times); chap. 6, lect. 7, 976; chap. 19, lect. 4, 2429. 53 Chap. 3, lect. 2, 465; chap. 14, lect. 2, 1880; chap. 18, lect. 1, 2274; chap. 20, lect. 1, 2470.

Chap. 1, lect. 11,211; chap. 3, lect. 2,462; chap. 6, lect. 8, 1004. Chap. 5, lect. 4, 759; chap. 5, lect. 5, 791; chap. 6, lect. 4, 914. Prol., 10; chap. 12, lect. 1, 1599; chap. 16, lect. 6, 2140. Chap. 3, lect. 1,433; chap. 10, lect. 2, 1379. Chap. 2, lect. 2, 368; chap. 14, lect. 5, 1927.

54

55

56

57

58

59 Chap. 2, lect. 3, 420. Chap. 3, lect. 1, 433. (occurs twice)

61 Chap. l j ec t . 14,264. 62 Chap, lject. 15,285. 63 Chap. 11, lect. 4, 1520. 64 Chap. 16, lect. 7, 2151. 65 Chap. 6, lect. 6, 962. 66 Chap. 5, lect. 6, 823. 67 Chap. 20, lect. 2, 2499. 68 Chap, lject. 15,306. 69 Chap. 20, lect. 1,2480. 70 Chap. 20, lect. 1,2487.

xxiii. mysticae theologiae

101

1.3. mysticus and/or mysterium and their Variants as used in Auctoritates

The final category concerns the use of mysticus and/or mysterium and their variants by

cited authorities. This occurs only six times throughout the Commentary. The following

is a list of quotations from authorities that the mystical. They are followed by their

location in the Commentary.

i. I Cor. 14:2: Spiritus est qui loquitur mysteria ' ii. Luke 8:10: Vobis datum est nosse mysterium regni Dei, ceteris autem in

parabolis iii. I Cor 4:1: Sic nos existimet homo ut ministros Christi et dispensatores

•75

mysteriorum Dei iv. I Cor. 13:2: Si habuero prophetiam, et noverim mysteria omnia, et omnem

scientiam

All of the four authorities cited are from the New Testament, three of which are from

Paul's First Letter to the Corinthians.

2. Cursory Description of the rationes mysticae

Having already outlined the uses of mysticus and mysterium in the Commentary, I

will focus on one of the forms that pertain to the act of interpretation. The form that I

have chosen as an entry point into the mystical interpretation as a whole is the ratio

mystica. There are several reasons for doing so. First, the ratio mystica is limited to only

twelve cases in the Commentary, making it possible to study it in its entirety. It is also not

71 Chap. 2, lect. 3, 404. 72 Chap. 1, lect. 11,211. 73 Chap. 6, lect. 8, 992. 74 Chap. 10, lect. 2, 1379. 75 Chap. 12, lect. 1, 1595; chap. 12, lect. 4, 1647; chap. 20, lect. 4, 2544. 76 Chap. 15, lect. 1, 1996.

limited to one area of the Commentary, but found distributed throughout the entire text,

with representation in the two major divisions of the Gospel as made by Thomas.

Furthermore, as we saw in the first chapter of this thesis, it is the only form of the

mystical interpretation to receive an elaboration by Thomas, which we find in I-II

Question 102 of the Summa. Therefore, because of its manageability and significance in

the Commentary, and its elaboration in the Summa, the ratio mystica is well suited as an

entry point into a study of the mystical interpretation.

I will begin by offering a cursory description of the ratio mystica, describing its

setting, including where it is found throughout the text, moving then into a discussion of

its form. The intention of this cursory description is to serve as preparation for a more

detailed study of the behaviour of the ratio mystica within the Commentary. The cursory

description will be conducted according to the following schema:

2.1. Setting of the ratio mystica:

2.1.1. Number and Placement within the Commentary 2.1.1.1. Within the Commentary as a whole

2.1.1.1.1. In relation to the divisio textus 2.1.1.2. Within the Chapters and Lectures 2.1.1.3. In relation to other forms of the mystical interpretation

2.2.1.2. Literary genre, i.e., narration or dialogue, person speaking 2.2.1.3. In relation to a ratio litteralis

2.2. Form of the ratio mystica: 2.2.1. Number of rationes mysticae 2.2.2. Subject of the ratio mystica 2.2.3. Themes 2.2.4. Interpretive language used 2.2.5. Auctoritates

2.2.5.1. Biblical 2.2.5.2. Non-biblical 2.2.5.3. Catena Aurea

2.1. Setting of the ratio mystica

2.1.1. Number and Placement within the Commentary

2.1.1.1. Within the Commentary as a whole

There are a total of twelve cases of ratio mystica in the Commentary, constituting

approximately 10% of the mystical interpretation as a whole. It is found in the following

seven chapters: 1, 2, 4, 11, 13, 20, 21. It is found then in both parts of the Commentary,

namely, the first part, concerning the statement of Christ's divinity, found entirely in the

first chapter; and the second, concerning the showing of Christ's divinity by the things

77

Christ did in the flesh, found in the rest of the Gospel.

From this we can conclude that the phrase ratio mystica is present throughout the

Commentary as a whole, in so far it is found throughout its principal parts and not

clustered in one area alone. And this only serves to highlight Thomas' sparing use of it,

especially in light of the other forms of mystical interpretation.

2.1.1.1.1 In relation to the divisio textus

The ratio mystica is not introduced by way of the divisio textus, one of the most

important interpretative techniques used by Thomas. The divisio textus is the breakdown

of the text into its divisions, penetrating to the level of verse and, in some cases, even

individual words. No part of the Gospel text is left without its proper context in a

division. In providing these textual breakdowns, Thomas provides the reader with a

textual framework in which his interpretation takes place. Confident in the order of the

text, Thomas applies his arsenal of interpretative resources and methods, following the

order of the Gospel text.

These breakdowns of the text say nothing of when a mystical reason should be

given for a word or passage, nor, indeed, do they say anything about Thomas'

77 "et ideo dividitur istud Evangelium in partes duas. Primo enim insinuat Christi divinitatem; secundo manifestat earn per ea quae Christus in carne fecit, et hoc II cap." Super Ioannem, chap. 1, lect. 1, 23.

interpretation as such. The effect is that the reader has no warning that there even is a

mystical interpretation. This makes the mystical interpretation appear random and

sometimes even arbitrary. Thanks to the divisio textus, the reader knows the overall

framework of the literal meaning before he or she even comes to it in the Commentary,

while the mystical is only known once the reader stumbles across it.

2.1.1.2. Within Chapters and Lectures

As with the Commentary as a whole, we find that within the individual chapters

and lectures the placement of the ratio mystica does not correspond to any particular

division of the text. It is found at the beginning, middle, and end of chapters and lectures

alike.78 It appears, then, that we cannot attribute to it any introductory or concluding role.

2.1.1.3. In relation to other forms of the mystical interpretation

Within every lecture where the ratio mystica appears is found another form of the

mystical interpretation. These forms include mystice, non vacat (a) mysterio, causa

mystica, congruit mysterio, and competit mysterio. In three cases ratio mystica is found

linked to another form within the same paragraph. In one case, we find serving the

mystical reason an interpretation beginning with "new vacat mysterio." In Chapter 1,

The number of cases ratio mystica is found at the beginning of the chapter is three, in the middle four, and at the end five. It has a similar placement in the lecture, with four cases at beginning, three in the middle, and five at the end. 79 Mystice is found in 11 of the lectures in which ratio mystica occurs: chap. 1, lect. 13, 250; chap. 1, lect. 16, 326; chap. 2, lect. 1, 338, 343, 357, 361, 363; chap. 2, lect. 3, 411; chap. 4, lect. 1, 564; chap. 11, lect. 5, 1522, 1538; chap. 13, lect. 4, 1807; chap. 20, lect. 3, 2505; chap. 20, lect. 4, 2528; chap. 20, lect. 6, 2560; and chap. 21, lect. 1, 2575, 2577, 2584, 2588. Non vacat a mysterio is found in three lectures: chap. 1, lect. 13, 252; chap. 21ect. 1, 338; and chap. 20, lect. 4, 2529. Causa mystica is found in two lectures: chap. 1, lect. 12, 238 and chap. 4, lect. 1, 565. Congruit mysterio is found in chap. 1, lect. 16, 314 and chap. 2, lect. 1, 338. Competit mysterio is found in chap. 2, lect. 1, 363. 80 See chap. l,lect. 12, 238; chap. 1, lect. 13, 252; and chap. 4, lect. 1,565.

Lecture 13, once again, Thomas introduces the interpretation in terms of a mystical

reason, "the fact that [the Evangelist] mentions the place has both a literal and a mystical

reason."81 The place is given in Jn 1:28, "This happened at Bethany, on the far side of the

Jordan." After explaining the mystical reason for mentioning Bethany, Thomas proceeds

to show how John's mentioning the Jordan River is also not without a mystery. In this

case, therefore, the explanation of the mystical reason for mentioning the location relies

in part on the form using "non vacat mysterio."

But perhaps the most striking example of this is with the almost interchangeable

use of ratio mystica with causa mystica. In both Chapter 1, Lecture 12 and Chapter 4,

Lecture 1, Thomas announces that there is a literal and mystical reason, but proceeds to

discuss the mystical cause.83 In both of these cases it appears that the mystical causes

play an instrumental role in the deriving of the mystical reason. In Chapter 1, Lecture 12,

Thomas explains that there is a literal and mystical reason for the place of John the

Baptist's cries to be "in the wilderness" (in deserto). The literal reason is that a desert life

would make him immune from sin, thus increasing his credibility as a witness to Christ.

The mystical reason is more complicated. As it has already been pointed out, Thomas

explains the mystical reason by way of two mystical 'causes'. Thomas explains that John

the Baptist cries "in the wilderness" "in order to show that God's teaching would from

now on not be in Jerusalem alone, but also among the pagans," and also "to indicate that

the people to whom he was preaching had already been deserted by God." In both cases,

81 "Quod autem mentionem facit de loco, habet rationem litteralem et mysticam." Super loannem, chap. 1, lect. 13,252. 82 "Nee vacat mysterio quod trans Iordanem sit," Super loannem, chap. 1, lect. 13, 252. 83 "Et potest esse huiusmodi ratio et litteralis et mystica....Mystica autem causa duplex est." Super loannem, chap. 1, lect. 12, 238, and "Et ratio huius determinationis assignatur litteralis et mystica....Mystica autem causa assignatur triplex." Super loannem, chap. 4, lect. 1, 565.

then, the location of John the Baptist's preaching is intended to bring about certain

lessons, and so is related to these lessons as is something to its end. Therefore, the

causality of the mystical causes in this case is that of final causality. In explaining the

mystical reason for John's preaching "in the wilderness" Thomas gives a twofold end to

which it serves, namely, the lessons regarding God's relation to the Gentiles and to the

Jews.

If the mystical causes are indeed final causes, they bear a remarkable similarity to

the mystical causes as described in Question 102 of the Summa. As we saw in an earlier

chapter, the mystical causes of the ceremonial precepts were understood in terms of their

end. Once the end of a precept was known, the ratio for the precept could be gathered.

The ratio of a thing stood for its intelligible relation to its final cause. By revealing the

end served by the location of John the Baptist's preaching, the reason for the location is

made intelligible. In this context, then, the mystical 'causes' serve as the final causes

from which the mystical 'reason' is gathered.

2.1.2. Literary genre: narration or dialogue

As with its placement, we find that Thomas does not limit the ratio mystica to

only one literary genre. Instead, Thomas pursues mystical reasons for passages and words

said by John the Evangelist and characters alike. In fact, the cases are divided evenly

between the two: six for the Evangelist and six for the characters in his Gospel. Out of the

six cases concerning Gospel characters, four have to do with Jesus, one with Peter, and

In this case, whose intention is not clear. It seems that Thomas is interested with the fact that John lived in the wilderness, and not that John had simply mentioned it. If this is so, the intention in question would seem to be that of either John the Baptist himself or God, the Author of Scripture, or, of course, of both.

one with John the Baptist. His interest with the words and deeds of Jesus is consistent

with the Christological focus of the Gospel.

Thomas' interest with the Evangelist has not only to do with what he says but also

with what he does. In Chapter 21, Lecture 1, Thomas explains that John has a mystical

reason for not ending his Gospel with chapter 20. The reason, we are told, is that he

wanted to highlight the fact that the appearance of the risen Jesus by the Sea of Tiberias

signifies the way Jesus will appear to the faithful in heaven.85 From this, it is clear that

John structured his Gospel, at least at this point, for a mystical reason. This is further

emphasized by the fact that this is the only case of the ratio mystica without an

accompanying literal reason. The only reason offered for John's decision, then, is a

mystical one.

2.1.3. In relation to the ratio litteralis

In all but one case, the ratio mystica is accompanied by a ratio litteralis. In most

cases the ratio mystica follows the literal. There are eleven cases where this occurs, four

of which contain more than one literal reason. In only one case is the order reversed, with

the literal following the mystical. The literal reason is not always explicitly identified. In

five cases the literal is not named, but is clearly identifiable from its form.86 From a

general observation, it is clear then that Thomas intends the mystical reasons to be read in

light of their literal counterpart, and in some rare cases, to read the literal in light of the

mystical.

Super Ioannem, chap. 21, lect. 1, 2571. 86 Super Ioannem, chap. 2, lect. 3, 404; chap. 11, lect. 5, 1536; chap. 13, lect. 4, 1806; chap. 20, lect. 3, 2517; chap. 21, lect. 1,2571.

108

There is also the suggestion of a unity between the literal and mystical reasons,

especially when the literal and mystical reasons find themselves part of a larger reason.

On three occasions, Thomas states that there is a reason for something, but that this

reason is "twofold" or "threefold."87 In these cases, the literal and mystical reasons

represent one or more aspects of the same reason. Ultimately, there is a reason here that

encompasses both the literal and the mystical, and would be rendered incomplete without

both. Therefore, it seems that while Thomas wants the reader to be mindful of the tension

caused by the differences between the literal and mystical reasons; this tension should not

preclude a unity on some level.

2.2. Form of the ratio mystica

2.2.1 Number of rationes mysticae

Within the twelve cases of the ratio mystica, eight involve only one mystical

oo

reason, while in four cases it appears to involve more than one. In one case this is very

clear, where Thomas tells us that there are two mystical reasons (duae rationes mysticae) on

for why Jesus asked where they had laid Lazarus' body.

There is, however, evidence of a unity to some of the cases of multiple mystical

reasons. Once again, we find in three of these cases the terms "duplex" or "triplex." As

"Ratio autem exitus Iesu in Galilaeam assignatur triplex," 310; "ad quod triplex ratio assignatur." Super loannem, chap. 2, lect. 1, 358; "Cuius quidem ratio potest esse triplex, secundum Chrysostomum." Super loannem, chap. 13, lect. 4, 1806. 88 Super loannem, chap. 1, lect. 12, 238; chap. 4, lect. 1, 565; chap. 11, lect. 3, 1536; chap. 20, lect. 3, 2517.

"Sunt ad hoc etiam duae rationes mysticae." Super loannem, chap. 11, lect. 3, 1536. There is one case also where Thomas speaks of two literal reasons, "Ratio autem exitus Iesu in Galilaeam assignatur triplex: duae videlicet litterales." Super loannem, chap. 1, lect. 16, 310. 90 With these terms, only once is a multiplicity directly ascribed to the ratio mystica, "Est autem duplex ratio mystica quare tangi noluit," Super loannem, chap. 20, lect. 3, 2517. In the other cases, it is ascribed to a causa, "Mystica autem causa duplex est," 238; and "Mystica autem causa assignatur triplex." Super

we have already indicated, these terms suggest a unity in expressing multiple aspects of

the same thing.

Unity can also be seen in one case where Thomas does not use the terms "duplex"

to introduce the two interpretations. Here, Thomas introduces the mystical reason in the

singular, "The fact that [the Evangelist] mentions the place has both a literal and a

mystical reason."91 He then proceeds to explain how the name "Bethany" is mystical

(mysticam), and how the mentioning of the Jordan River was "not without a mystery"

(non vacat mysterio). It is clear that there are not two reasons for John's mentioning the

place, but that the place itself has two aspects, namely, it took place in the town of

Bethany, which was across the Jordan.

From the above we can say that in studying the mystical reasons some care must

be given to the number of reasons given, and whether any unity may be found among

them.

2.2.2. Subject of the ratio mystica

The subject of the ratio mystica is found in either the words or deeds of the

Evangelist, or in those of one of the characters he narrates in his Gospel. In the four cases

concerning the Evangelist, two pertain to why John mentions a specific time, and one the

reason for mentioning the location in which an event takes place. The fourth case

concerns why John structured the Gospel the way he did, namely, why John did not end

loannem, chap. 4, lect. 1, 565. On one occasion, Thomas uses "duplex" in regards to two literal reasons, "cuius duplex est ratio litteralis." Super loannem, chap. 20, lect. 4, 2524. ' "Quod autem mentionem facit de loco, habet rationem litteralem et mysticam," Super loannem, chap. 1,

lect. 13,252.

110

92

his Gospel with the completion of Chapter 20. In these cases there is no indication that

Thomas suspects John of inventing any of these details; instead, every indication points

to his regarding John as a faithful and accurate reporter of the events he witnessed or

heard directly from Christ himself. John's Gospel is first and foremost an account of his

witness of what Christ said and did. Yet, it's an account that John crafts in his own way

and according to his interests and special relationship with Christ, as Thomas explains in

his prologue to the Commentary93 These mystical reasons, then, pertain to the reasons

why John marshaled the material of his witness the way he did.

The remaining eight cases have to do with the reason behind the events of the

Gospel personae. The majority of these cases have to do with the person of Christ, and

number six in total. These include the reason Jesus left for Galilee, why he used water for

the miracle at Cana, why he prophesizes that the temple will be raised up "in three days,"

why he asked where they had lain Lazarus' body when he already knew the answer, why

the risen Jesus did not want to be touched by Mary, and why he appeared to the disciples

in the evening. Once again we see a Christological focus to Thomas' treatment of the

mystical reasons. Nevertheless, in two cases Thomas is interested in the actions of two

figures other than Christ. The first mystical reason of the Commentary is on why John the

Baptist lived in the wilderness.94 And the other has to do with Peter, and why he

remained silent when Jesus foretold that one of his disciples would betray him.95

"Sed cum supra fecerit quamdam conclusionem, dicens haec autem scripta sunt, quare addit hie hanc narrationem? Ad haec Augustinus assignat rationem mysticam. Per hanc enim apparitionem significatur Gloria futurae vitae, quando nobis apparebit sicut est. Et ideo post finem hanc posuit, ut faceret evidentiorem locum quo illam daret intelligi." Super loannem, chap. 21, lect. 1, 2571.

Super loannem, prol., 11. Super loannem, chap. 1, let. 12, 238.

' Super loannem, chap. 13, lect. 4, 1806.

in

These last two cases are significant because in them it is not clear whose intention

we are dealing with. The reason for John the Baptist' preaching in the wilderness is to

signify lessons about differences in God's relations with the Gentiles and the Jews. But it

is not clear who intends these lessons. Is it the Evangelist, who relates the account or

John the Baptist himself, the subject of the account? Another possibility is that it is God.

Thomas tells us in the Summa that the principal author of the Scriptures is God, who can

signify with words as well as with things. It is possible Thomas takes these events to be

willed by God as part of the Gospel message. Of course, it is difficult to tell whose

intention is the subject in these cases, and given the fact that the Commentary is made

from lecture notes, no doubt to be explained by the master himself in class, as Torrell

reminds us, we must be careful not to be too hasty to fill in the gaps. Nevertheless, given

Thomas' thoughts on God as the principal author of the Scriptures, I think we should be

open to the possibility that it is God's intention as the primary Author of Scripture which

is the subject in these last two cases.

There appear to be, then, three types of questions asked by Thomas, namely, those

addressed to the Evangelist concerning why he wrote the Gospel the way he did, those

addressed to the actions of the personae of the Gospel, and possibly those addressed to

God, the primary Author of Scripture. A mystical reason can be found for all three types

of questions. It follows that we have three types of rationes, those of John the Evangelist,

those of the Gospel personae, and, possibly, those of God, the author of the history to

which John bears witness.

This is not to say, however, that the same mystical significance is to be found in

the actions of the Evangelist in writing his Gospel as they are in the very actions of God

96 Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologiae, la 1.10 corpus.

112

in salvation history. It is true the mystical reasons seek to explain why John does

something, but their content is not about John or his writing. Instead, in each of the four

cases, what is presented is a signification of some detail of the life of Christ. John's

reasons are mystical because they express mysteries, mysteries of Christ's humanity and

07

divinity, as we are told in the prologue is the principal subject of the Gospel.

2.2.3. Themes

The themes treated in the mystical reasons are the following: Gentiles, especially

the Gentile Church, the Jews and the Old Law, especially God's turning away from the

Jews, the glory of the future life, the Church, timing of Christ's coming in the flesh, sin,

the active and contemplative lives, and the Ascension. All of these topics can be found

among those treated in the other forms of the mystical interpretation. Noticeably we find

a similar interest in the Jewish people as we did with cases using mystice. What is unique

to this case is its interest in the Gentiles, especially Jesus' turning to them after being

rejected by the Jews. The Gentiles as a topic comes up very seldom in the other forms.

These themes can be categorized according to the three spiritual senses Thomas

outlines in the first Question of the Summa Theologiae, the allegorical, moral, and

anagogical. In Question 1, Thomas defines the three as follows:

For as the apostle says (Hebrews 10:1) the Old Law is a figure of the New Law, and Dionysius says (De Coelesti Hierarchia i) "the New Law itself is a figure of future glory." Again, in the New Law, whatever our Head has done is a type of what we ought to do. Therefore, so far as the things of the Old Law signify the things of the New Law, there is the allegorical sense; so far as the things done in Christ, or so far as the things which signify Christ, are types of what we ought to

Super loannem, prol., 10.

113

do, there is the moral sense. But so far as they signify what relates to eternal glory, there is the anagogical sense. 98

Although Thomas does not provide a discussion of the spiritual senses in the Super

loannem, his use of the terms allegorice and moralis suggest he follows the same

understanding. The term allegorice is used five times in the Super loannem. In most of

the cases, Christ or his Church are signified by the things of the Old Law or by something

related by the Evangelist. That something during the life of Christ should have an

allegorical meaning is explained by the fact that, according to Thomas, the events of

Christ's life are taking place "midway between the events of the Old Testament and of

the New Testament," which means "Christ's actions are the rule and exemplar of the

things that are done in the New Testament, and they were prefigured by the fathers of the

Old Testament."100

Thomas uses the term moralis/moraliter five times in the Super loannem, and in

each case it refers to the Christian life, strongly resembling the Summa's teaching on the

moral sense.101 These cases also reflect the findings of Joseph Goering in his study of the

difference between the moral meaning of the literal sense and of the spiritual or mystical.

According to Goering, medieval preaching employed the moral meaning found in the

"Sicut enim dicit Apostolus, Ad Hebr. VII, lex vetus figura est novae legis; et ipsa nova lex, ut dicit Dionysius in De Ecclesiast. Hier., est figura futurae gloriae; in nova etiam lege, ea quae in capite sunt gesta, sunt signa eorum quae nos agere debemus. Secundum ergo quod ea quae sunt veteris legis, significant ea quae sunt novae legis, est sensus allegoricus; secundum vero quod ea quae in Christo sunt facta, vel in his quae Christum significant, sunt signa eorum quae nos agere debemus, est sensus moralis, prout vero significant ea quae sunt in aeterna gloriae, est sensus anagogicus." Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologiae, la 1.10 corpus. 99 Super loannem, chap. 1, lect. 15, 281 & 290; chap. 4, lect. 7, 677; chap. 9, lect. 1, 1311; chap. 21, lect. 2, 2599. 100 "Sciendum autem, quod facta Christi sunt quasi media inter facta Veteris Testamenti et Novi: et ideo tarn turba quae praecedebat quam quae sequebatur, eum laudabat, inquantum facta Christi sunt regula et exemplar eorum quae fiunt in Nova Testamento, et praefigurata a patribus Veteris Testamenti." Super loannem, chap. 12, lect. 3, 1626. 101 Super loannem, chap. 1, lect. 15, 290; chap. 3, lect. 4, 499; chap. 3, lect. 5, 524; chap. 4, lect. 7, 678; chap. 21, lect. 2, 2602.

114

spiritual or mystical level to teach lessons concerning the interior life of the person. This

was in contrast to the moral lessons of the literal sense which were concerned primarily

"with practical conduct and politics." " The spiritual moral sense, on the other hand, laid

"bear the interior life of the human person, heart and soul."103 In the Commentary, each

of the five cases of moral meaning is principally concerned with the interior life.1 4

The term anagogice is not found in the Super Ioannem, but there are several cases

of the ratio mystica where an anagogical meaning as defined in the Summa is clearly

present. The last three cases, in fact, all have to do with how Jesus will appear to the

faithful at the end of the world.105

If we use the terminology of the Summa, then, we can say that the mystical

reasons convey allegorical, moral, and anagogical meanings. Indeed, every mystical

reason conveys at least one of these spiritual meanings. The breakdown is as follows:

Allegorical106

Moral107

I OS

Anagogical

102 Joseph Goering, "Literal and Spiritual Morality in the Scholastic Sermon: An Old Distinction Recovered," in Predicazione e societa nel Medioevo : riflessione etica, valori e modelli di comportamento : atti — Preaching and society in the Middle Ages : ethics, values and social behaviour : proceedings of the XII Medieval Sermon Studies Symposium, Atti/Proceedings of the XII Medieval Sermon Studies Symposium Padova, 14-18 luglio 2000, a cura di/edited by Laura Gaffuri, Riccardo Quinto (Padova: Centra Studi Antoniani, 2002), 121.

104 Super Ioannem, chap. 1, lect. 15, 290: "Moraliter autem interrogant Ubi habitas? Quasi vellent scire, quales debent esse homines qui digni sunt quod Christus habitet in eis;" chap. 3, lect. 4, 499: "Moraliter autem Iudaea interpretatur confessio, ad quam venit Iesus, quia Christus confitentes sua peccata, vel divinam laudem;" chap. 3, lect. 5, 524: "Moraliter autem hoc debet esse in unoquoque nostrum. Oportet ilium, idest Christum, in te crescere, ut scilicet in cogitatione et amore eius proficias;" chap. 4, lect. 7, 678: "Moraliter vero in regno animae rex est ipsa ratio, secundum illud Prov. XX, 8: Rex qui sedet in solio suo;" chap. 21, lect. 2, 2602: "Si autem hoc convivium sumatur pro convivio morali, sic Christus ad convivium animae praeparat primum prunas caritatis." 105 See Super Ioannem, chap. 20, lect. 4, 2524; chap. 20, lect. 6, 2552; and chap. 21, lect. 1, 2571. 106 Super Ioannem, chap. 1, lect. 12, 238; chap. 1, lect. 16, 310; chap. 2, lect. 1, 358; chap. 2, lect. 3, 404; chap. 4, lect. 1, 565; chap. 20, lect. 3, 2517. 107 Super Ioannem, chap. 1, lect. 13, 252; chap. 11, lect. 5, 1536; chap. 13, lect. 4, 1806; chap. 20, lect. 3 2517. 108 Super Ioannem, chap. 20, lect. 4, 2524; chap. 20, lect. 6, 2552; chap. 21, lect. 1, 2571.

115

2.2.4. Interpretive language

Thomas has 4 ways of introducing a mystical reason. The most common way is to

say that it is "assigned," assignitur.]09 Only twice we are told who assigns it,"0 while in

the other cases we are not told. In 4 cases, Thomas simply states that there "is" a mystical

reason,"' while in two cases he says "there can be," potest esse, one.1 In two cases he

says something "has," habet, a mystical reason."3 In one case we see the "potest esse"

and "habet" forms used together."4 This is the only case of Thomas using more than one

form to introduce the mystical reason.

Ten of the twelve cases use explicit significations, employing signification

language common to the other forms of the mystical interpretation already looked at.

These include significatur, intelligitur, interpretatur,figurat, signatur, and designatur.

In the two cases where these terms are not used, the signification is implied."6 In every

case, then, Thomas uses some form of signification.

The terminology Thomas uses to introduce the mystical reason contributes to their

apparent randomness. Words like assignatur imply that the reason has a source. But

when using this passive form, Thomas does not tell us who assigns the reason. Only on

the two occasions when the active form, assignat, is used does Thomas tell us the Church

Used in five cases. 110 Super loannem, chap. 2, lect. 3, 404; chap. 21, lect. 1, 2571. " ' Super loannem, chap. 11, lect. 5, 1536; chap.20, lect. 3, 2517; chap. 20, lect. 4, 2524; chap. 20, lect. 6, 2552. 112 Super loannem, chap. 1, lect. 12, 238; chap. 13, lect. 4, 1806. 113 Super loannem, chap. 1, lect. 13, 252; chap. 13, lect. 4, 1806. ' '4 Super loannem, chap. 13, lect. 4, 1806. 115 Significatur: chap. 1, lect. 13, 252; chap. 4, lect. 1, 565 (significat); chap. 20, lect. 3, 2517 (significabat); chap. 21, lect. 1, 2571; interpretatur: chap. 1, lect. 13, 252; chap. 1, lect. 16, 310; signatur: chap. 11, lect. 5, 1536 (signantur); chap. 13, lect. 4, 1806; designatur: chap. 1, lect. 12, 238; chap. 20, lect. 6, 2552 (designat); intelligitur: chap. 1, lect. 12, 238; figurat: chap. 2, lect. 3, 404. 116 Super loannem, chap. 2, lect. 1, 358; chap. 20, lect. 4, 2524.

116

Father who assigns it. In the five cases using the passive form, then, the reader is left

without an answer.

2.2.5. Auctoritates

Like the other forms of the mystical interpretation, the mystical reasons rely

heavily on biblical and patristic authorities. Thomas shows a preference for New

Testament authorities, referencing them in eight of the twelve cases. By comparison, the

Old Testament appears in only four cases. References to patristic authorities are the

minority, appearing only in three cases, while a comparison with the Catena Aurea shows

that patristic opinions are sources in no less than eight cases. Including the evidence from

the Catena, we can see a patristic influence in nine of the twelve cases of the mystical

reasons.

As with the forms using mystice and mysterium, Matthew proves to be the most

popular book, found cited in four cases. The next most popular is a tie between Luke,

Romans, and the Psalms, with two each. John and Isaiah are both mentioned only once.

The following is a breakdown of the books of the Bible cited by the ratio mystica, with

the number of cases in which each is found following in parentheses: Matthew (4), Luke

(2), Romans (2), John (1), 1 Corinthians (1), 2 Corinthians (1), 1 John (1), Revelations

(1), Psalms (2), Isaiah (1), Job (1), Genesis (1), Jeremiah (1).

The following is a breakdown of the patristic authorities cited by the ratio

mystica, with the number of cases in which each is found following in parentheses:

Augustine (2), Origen (1), and Chrysostom (1). And for evident influence by the Catena,

here is the following: Augustine (4), Chrysostom (2), Alcuin (2), Origen (2), Gregory (1).

117

As with the other forms of the mystical, Augustine is the most cited and relied on

patristic authority.

3. Detailed Analysis of the rationes mysticae

From the above cursory study of the ratio mystica, we can draw two conclusions

and one difficulty. First, we can conclude that the ratio mystica is applied to the Gospel

text in a broad or general fashion, not limited to any particular division, or literary genre.

Secondly, in its relation to final causality, and its use of significations, and employment

of allegorical, moral, and anagogical meanings, it appears to bear an affinity with our

discussion in Chapter 1 on Thomas' teaching on mystical reasons and spiritual senses in

the Summa Theologiae. Thirdly, the above cursory study presents a difficulty in regards

to the mystical reason's relationship with the literal sense of the text, by suggesting at

some points a harmony, while at others a tension. For the sake of clarifying the function

of the mystical reason, I will begin by addressing this difficulty. I will begin with a

description of the nature of the tension between the mystical reason and the divisio

textus. Then I will proceed to three resolutions, according to end, pedagogical function,

and theme. The first resolution will attempt to resolve the tension by reference to what

Thomas says about the end of the Gospel in his prologue. It is here that I will relate my

findings to Thomas' teaching on mystical reasons and spiritual senses in the Summa. The

second and third resolutions will rely on a study of the behaviour of the mystical reasons

in the Commentary.

118

3.1. The Nature of the Difficulty

As seen in our cursory study, there are indications that there is a harmonious

relationship between the mystical reason and its literal counterpart. This is evident most

of all by the fact that they almost always occur together. In fact, as we have seen, there

are three cases where they seem to represent one or more aspects of the same larger

ratioul Nevertheless, this harmony is outweighed by the tension caused by the mystical

reason's apparent randomness. The mystical reasons appear without any warning and

without any order, leaving them as isolated mystical features within a greater literal

landscape. The mystical interpretation, then, has its home within the larger, non-mystical

interpretation that constitutes the bulk of Thomas' Commentary.

The randomness of the mystical is highlighted by the rigid structure of one of the

most important exegetical techniques used by Thomas in his Commentary, the divisio

textus. We have already mentioned how Thomas begins each Chapter and Lecture with a

breakdown of the text into its divisions, penetrating to the level of verse and, in some

cases, even individual words. No part of the Gospel text is left without its proper context

in a division. As John F. Boyle has shown in his article on the use of this technique in

Thomas' commentaries, the advantage of such divisions is that "every verse stands in an

articulated relation not only with the whole but ultimately with every other part, division,

and verse of the text."'I8

Nowhere in the divisio textus does Thomas make a distinction between the literal

and mystical meaning of the text. And neither do any of the brief summaries of the

textual divisions, which serve as Thomas' only form of introduction to his commentary

117 See section 1.3 above. 118 Boyle, "Division of the Text," 276.

119

on a text, prepare us for the occurrence of the mystical interpretations. Even the very

language Thomas uses in introducing the mystical reasons contributes to this sense of

randomness. In six of the twelve cases where he uses the literal/mystical reason

distinction, Thomas uses the word assignare to introduce both the literal and mystical

reasons.1 In four of the twelve cases, Thomas uses est,1 while in the remaining two, he

uses habet.m The reasons are just given, without being drawn from anything. The result

is a tension between what appear to be random occurrences of mystical meanings and an

otherwise highly ordered exposition.

In each of its twelve cases, the ratio mystica does not serve the end of its context

as specified by the divisio, but instead refers to something that is not even mentioned in

the division in which it occurs. The first case is a good example of this trait. In Chapter 1,

Lecture 12, Thomas comments that John's mentioning the fact that John the Baptist was

crying "in deserto" (1:23) has one ratio litteralis, while the ratio mystica is duplex.

The literal reason is that in the desert he would be immune from sin, with the effect that

his testimony would be more credible. This interpretation pertains directly to the end of

the division in which it is found. According to Thomas' divisions, this passage falls

within the context of the Baptist's statement of identity, as in response to his

interrogators.123 The Baptist's statement of identity itself is to serve the larger division in

which it is shown how the apostles learned of the divinity of Christ through hearing the

119Super Joannem, chap. l,lect. 16, 310; chap. 2, lect. 1, 358; chap. 2, lect. 3,404; chap. 4, lect. 1,565; chap. 20, lect. 3, 2517; chap. 21, lect. 1, 2571. 120 Super Joannem, chap. 1, lect. 12, 238; chap. 11, lect. 5, 1536; chap. 12, lect. 4, 2524; chap. 20. lect. 6, 2552. 121 Super Joannem, chap. 1, lect. 13, 252; chap. 13, lect. 4, 1806. 122 Super Joannem, chap. 1, lect. 12, 238. 123 Super Joannem, chap. 1, lect. 12, 223.

120

Baptist's words. The question, then, of the credibility of the Baptist as a witness to Christ

is of utmost importance, and it is to this that the literal reason pertains.

Unlike their literal counterparts, the mystical reasons, however, do not so easily

find a home in their immediate context. Thomas goes on to draw out two mystical

reasons for "in deserto," both of which hinge on figurative meanings of the word

"deserto." According to the first, deserto designates paganism, a meaning Thomas finds

in Isaiah 54:1, "She who is deserted has more children than she who has a husband."124

With this figurative meaning in mind, the fact of the Baptist's being in the desert shows

that God's teaching would not only be found in Jerusalem, but among the pagans as well.

Thomas supports this interpretation with Matthew 21:43, "The kingdom of God will be

taken away from you, and given to a people that will produce its fruits." According to the

second mystical reason, deserto can be interpreted as signifying Judea, which, Thomas

tells us, was already deserted. Therefore, the words "in deserto" are meant to indicate that

the people to whom the Baptist was preaching had already been deserted by God.

Thomas supports this interpretation with a verse from Psalm 62:3, "In a desert land,

where there is no way or water, so I have come to your sanctuary."

Clearly, the mystical reasons do not pertain to the object of their context, namely,

John's identity as clarification of his witness to Christ's divinity. The first mystical

reason refers to Gentile conversion, which is not mentioned once in the first chapter.

Thomas' commentary on Jn 1:9 mentions the universal character of God's salvific will,

but without specifically extending it to the Gentiles. Nor is anything said about the

subject of God's deserting the people of Judea, as found in the second mystical reason. In

124 Super Joannem, chap. 1, lect. 12, 238. ' 5 Super Joannem, chap. 1, lect. 5, 130.

121

fact, the whole focus of the first chapter is on the Word's coming to Judea. The mystical

reasons, then, are not as applicable to the context of the chapter as is the literal reason.

The mystical reason, it seems, exists alongside the divisio textus. It can neither be

reduced to it, nor derived from it. Whatever context the ratio mystica has, it cannot be

known from the literal division of the text, and in this way, is truly mystical, i.e., hidden,

from the reader of the Gospel. Within the Gospel text, then, the two run parallel to each

other.

3.2. The 'end' of the ratio mystica

Nevertheless, despite the very real tension between the literal and mystical

meanings, a harmony can be found in respect to their common end, that is, the end or

purpose of John's Gospel. This is the end described in the prologue to the Commentary

and is over and above those ends set by the divisio textus. As we saw in Chapter 2, the

prologue is not contained within the divisio textus, but is presupposed by it in having

generated its principal theme. And so the divisio textus, along with all features of the

Gospel text, must serve the end of the Gospel as established by John.

That the mystical reasons can be considered features of the text, intended by John

the human author of the text, and not read into it by Thomas the interpreter, should be

clear from our cursory description. There we saw cases where the mystical reason was

that of the Evangelist. On one occasion Thomas says that John had a mystical reason for

mentioning the place where John the Baptist's interrogation took place,126 and on two

other occasions he says John had mystical reasons for indicating the times at which

certain events occurred.127 In fact, the very composition of John's Gospel had mystical

Super Joannem, chap. 1, lect. 13, 252. 7 Super Joannem, chap. 4, lect. 1, 565; chap. 20, lect. 6, 2552.

122

reasons behind it, as seen in the fourth case, where he attributes a mystical reason to a

structural feature of John's Gospel. In Chapter 21, Lecture 1, Thomas asks why John did

not end his Gospel with the previous chapter. The reason is mystical, borrowed from

Augustine. According to Augustine, John placed the appearance of the risen Jesus by the

Sea of Tiberias at the end of the Gospel to make clear that this appearance signifies the

glory of the future life. John made a textual decision for a mystical reason. And so if

John was not blind to the mystical reasons, but wrote his Gospel with them in mind,

presumably he would have employed them in the service of the Gospel's end.

There is also reason to believe that John understood the other mystical reasons

which are attributed to personae related in the Gospel, and that he used these reasons for

the Gospel's end. That John would have understood these mystical reasons is suggested

by the privilege Thomas attributes to him in his prologue, namely, his being more loved

by Christ, and thereby having received the secrets of Christ's divinity from the very

mouth of Christ himself. By way of this secret teaching, then, John would be in a good

position to see the mysteries hidden within the events of the life of Christ. It would also

seem that if Thomas, the humble magister sacrae paginae, recognized them, then all the

more would John, the Evangelista.

There is also evidence that John would take up these mystical reasons into the

purpose of his Gospel. For as Thomas explains in his prologue, John had special reasons

for writing his Gospel, in particular the pleas from his own community to protect them

from the threat of heresies resulting from misunderstandings of the other three Gospels.

128 "Sed cum supra fecerit quamdam conclusionem, dicens haec autem scripta sunt, quare addit hie hanc narrationem? Ad haec Augustinus assignat rationem mysticam. Per hanc enim apparitionem significatur Gloria futurae vitae, quando nobis apparebit sicut est. Et ideo post finem hanc posuit, ut faceret evidentiorem locum quo illam daret intelligi," Super Joannem, chap. 21, lect. 1, 2571. 1 Super Joannem, pro]., 11.

123

These reasons influenced the composition of the Gospel to the effect of it having a

greater emphasis on Christ's divinity. John, then, marshaled the material of his witness

in a way that suited his needs. Indeed, John himself hints at the discernment used to write

his Gospel:

This is the disciple who is bearing witness to these things, and who has written these things; and we know that his testimony is true. But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.131

Understood as ingredient to the text, the mystical reasons, along with the divisio

textus, must serve the end of the Gospel. Thomas describes this end as follows:

The end of this Gospel is also clear, and it is that the faithful become the temple of God, and become filled with the majesty of God; and so John says below (20:31), 'These things are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.'132

In his comments on Jn 20:31, Thomas describes the end of the Gospel in terms of the

three benefits it affords us. The first is the effect of faith, specifically faith in Jesus Christ.

This is not only the fruit of John's Gospel, but of all sacred Scripture, including both the

Old and New Testaments.133 Following upon faith as its effect is the "fruit of life,"

namely, "the life of righteousness." ' 4 The third benefit is the "life of vision," which will

Super Joannem, prol., 10. 131 "Hie est discipulus ille qui testimonium perhibet de his et scripsit haec. Et scimus quia verum est testimonium eius. Sunt autem et alia multa quae fecit Iesus, quae si scribantur per singula, nee ipsum arbitror mundum capere posse eos qui scribendi sunt libros." Jn 21: 24-25. Revised Standard Version translation, as found in Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on the Gospel of St. John, Pt. 2, 654. 132 "Patet etiam finis huius Evangelii, qui est ut fideles templum Dei efficiantur, et repleantur a maiestate Dei: unde et ipse Ioannes [infra] xx, 31: Haec autem scripta sunt, ut credatis quia lesus est Christus Filius Dei." Super Ioannem, prol., 10. 133 "Ponitur et huius utilitas, quia effectus fidei, quia haec scripta sunt ut credatis quia Iesus Christus est Filius Dei, et ut credentes vitani habeatis in nomine eius. Ad hoc enim est tota Scriptura Novi et Veteris Testamenti; Ps. Xxxix, 9: In capite libri scriptum est de me; supra v, 39: Scrutamini Scripturas... quoniam ipsae sunt quae testimonium perhibent de me." Super Ioannem, chap. 20, lect. 6, 2568. 134 "Item fructus vitae, quia ut credentes vitam habeatis; hie vitam iustitiae, quae habetur per fidem, Heb. ii, 4: Justus autem meus ex fide vivit." Super Ioannem, chap. 20, lect. 6, 2568.

be given in the future by glory. ~ Thomas concludes that this life is in the name of

Christ, quoting Acts 4:12, "There is no other name under heaven given among men by

which we must be saved." The benefit of John's Gospel, then, is faith in Jesus Christ and

a twofold life that follows from it, one to be enjoyed on earth, and the other in heaven.

The mystical reasons clearly serve this end, when we see how this threefold

benefit closely resembles the allegorical, moral/tropological, and anagogical meanings as

enumerated by Thomas in the Summa. The first benefit, faith in Jesus Christ, is

allegorical in nature, in including not only the New Testament, but also the Old

Testament's teaching on Christ and the Church. The two remaining benefits, the life of

righteousness and the life of vision, clearly pertain to the moral and anagogical senses. In

our cursory description we discovered that in each of the twelve cases the mystical

reasons conveyed either an allegorical, moral, or anagogical meaning. It appears then that

when something is done for a mystical reason, whether by the Evangelist or one of the

Gospel characters, it serves one or more aspect of this threefold benefit. Despite their

tension with the divisio textus, then, the mystical reasons clearly serve the end of the

Gospel.

By identifying the end which the mystical reasons serve, we can establish a real

link between the mystical reasons in the Super loannem with their description in

Question 102 of the Summa. In both cases, the end which the mystical reasons serve is

divided into the allegorical, moral, and anagogical. In Question 102, it is by the end of the

ceremonial precepts that their ratio is gathered. Their mystical reasons, therefore, are

gathered from the three ways they foreshadow Christ. In the Super loannem, we see a

135 "et in futuro vitam speciei quae habetur per gloriam; et in nomine eius, scilicet Christi. Act. iv, 12: Non est aliud nomen sub caelo in quo oporteat nos salvos fieri." Super loannem, chap. 20, lect. 6, 2568.

125

similar relationship between the mystical reason and its end. We have observed that they

are done for a mystery; a mystery that we can now say is allegorical, moral, or

anagogical. In both the Summa and the Commentary, then, the mystical reasons are

understood in light of their end, and in this way employ final causality as their defining

characteristic. In both Question 102 and the Super loannem, therefore, to know the

mystical reason of a passage is to know it in light of its final cause, namely, the

allegorical, moral, and anagogical mystery of Christ. '

Having established the mystical reason's end, we can better understand its

relationship with the literal reason. As already pointed out, the literal reason pertains to

the end established for it by the divisio textus. In doing so, it serves the threefold benefit

of the Gospel in an indirect way through the divisio textus. The mystical reason, however,

does not find its end in the divisio textus, but serves the end of the Gospel as a whole

directly. It does this through its use of significations. As we have already seen, one of the

most distinctive characteristics of the mystical reason, and of the mystical interpretation

as a whole, is its use of significations. In every case, the signification is of a thing by

another thing. By contrast, no such signification is found with the literal reasons. Rather,

there we find a straightforward mode of expression, where the Evangelist speaks in words

and not in figures. In short, what we find is a similar distinction in signification as found

in the Summa Theologiae, la, Question 1, article 10: signification by words versus

signification by things. The mysteries served by the mystical reasons are themselves the

signification of things by other things.

In both Question 102 and the Super loannem, the allegorical, moral, and anagogical are related to Christ himself. See Summa theologiae, Iallae 102.2 corpus and Super loannem, chap. 20, lect. 6, 2568.

This difference in the mode of signification causes the mystical and the non-

mystical meanings to differ greatly in service to their common end. By relying on

signification by things, the mystical reasons are dependent on a mode of signification

only God can manage, as Thomas tells us in the Summa, "The author of Holy Writ is

God, in whose power it is to signify his meaning, not by words only (as man also can do),

but also by things themselves."137 For Thomas, "God, as creator and provident Lord of

creation, has invested things, persons, and events with intrinsic multivalent

signification."138 The mystical, then, pertains to the "deeper realities in the economy of

salvation."13 The knowledge it affords of Christ will not only come from John's Gospel,

but from all the texts of Scripture, including those of the Old Testament. Likewise, the

moral meanings are opened up to include all generations of readers of the Gospel and not

just those of John's community. And of course the anagogical meanings bring all aspects

of the Christian life together on which it shines the light of future glory. The scope of this

sort of signification is too broad to be contained within the divisio textus alone. The

tension between the divisio textus and mystical reasons, then, can be explained as the

juxtaposition of two very different modes of signification, the one human, dependent on

the words of the Evangelist; and the other divine, dependent on the economy of salvation.

The mystical reasons rely on mysteries, the order of which is known only to the mind of

God.

There is a real advantage to writing the Gospel with these two modes of

signification in mind. The signification employed by the mystical reasons is conducive to

137 "Dicendum quod auctor sacrae Scripturae est Deus, in cuius potestate est ut non solum voces ad significandum accomodet, quod etiam homo facere potest, sed etiam res ipsas." Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologiae, la 1.10 corpus. 138 Boyle, "Division of the Text," 280. 139 Boyle, "Division of the Text," 280.

127

the universal and salvific end of the Gospel in a way that the other form of signification is

not. The end of John's Gospel is to turn the faithful into the temple of God. This includes

all of the faithful beyond the time and space of John's community. The broad scope of

the mystical reasons directly complements this universal end of the Gospel. Through

them Thomas presents us mysteries which are meaningful for all generations of

Christians, like his own. They transcend the needs of John's community and address

those of all Christians, bringing together the wealth of the deposit of faith for the

individual reader.

We can conclude, then, that, despite their tension, the mystical reasons and divisio

textus serve the same end of the Gospel, yet using different modes of signification. By

appealing to their end and modes of signification, we can justify John's use of such

different techniques in the same Gospel. Nevertheless, this justification still leaves intact

the tension between these two techniques, both in concept and in practice. In concept, the

harmony between the two is found only in their end and not in their means. And in

practice, of course, regardless of our explanation, there is still the fact that Thomas uses

these techniques in a way that highlights their tension more than their harmony. As

already mentioned, there is no attempt by Thomas to address their relationship for the

reader. Instead, he intersperses one technique with another very different one, leaving the

reader with a clear tension, and only hints at a harmony. In order to understand these

techniques, we must respect Thomas' use of them. To this end we will turn our attention

to the behaviour of the mystical reasons, with special attention to the tension with the

divisio textus.

128

3.3. The Advantage of the ratio mystica

In observing the pattern of the mystical reasons, we can discern a pedagogical

unity with the divisio textus. Both cooperate as stimuli for the reader in grasping Thomas'

teaching.

As we have already noted, the mystical reasons emerge without warning, giving

them a random and spontaneous character, especially in light of the careful divisions

made of the Gospel text. One effect of this is that they interrupt the flow of the text. They

do so in both form and content. Their form strikes the reader as different. The literal or

non-mystical interpretation does not employ the same kind of significations. Even the

term "mystical" appears without any prior introduction to it. The reader is struck with a

very different sort of interpretation. This is most evident in the first mystical reason,

Chapter 1, Lecture 12, where the reader comes across the mystical interpretation for the

first time. Nowhere in the previous 11 lectures is any mention made of a mystical

meaning, nor does any form of interpretation resemble it. Unlike the careful exposition

that precedes it, then, the mystical reason in Lecture 12 uses a very different mode of

signification and is apparently unrelated to the context established by the division of text.

A positive effect of this interruption of form is that it makes the mystical reason

stand out. It is so different the reader cannot fail to notice that something very new is

going on. This in turn brings attention to the difference in meaning, which is another way

the mystical reason interrupts the text. As we have already shown, the mystical reasons

employ allegorical, moral, and anagogical meanings. In every case these meanings extend

well beyond the context established by the divisio textus. We have already shown how

this is the case for the mystical reason in Chapter 1, Lecture 12, the context of which is

the Baptist's statement of identity, as in response to his interrogators. 40 The mystical

reason concerns the Jewish rejection of Jesus, and his turn to the Gentiles for his saving

message. The effect of this interruption, both in form and content, then, is to draw

attention to an allegorical meaning, within a larger literal exposition of the text.

In other cases of the mystical reason, Thomas will bring our attention in a like

manner to moral and anagogical meanings. In Chapter 1, Lecture 13, on the fact that the

Evangelist mentions the town Bethany where John's interrogation took place, Thomas

presents a mystical reason with a moral meaning. The name of the town, "Bethany,"

Thomas tells us, is to be interpreted as "house of obedience." And this then teaches us

that it is through obedience to the faith that one comes to be baptized. 4I This case shares

the same context as the previous one, the context of John's witness to Christ in response

to the questions of John's interrogators, a context which itself serves to clarify how

John's witness to Christ is evidence of the Incarnate Word. And also like the previous

case, this is a meaning that extends beyond the immediate context of this passage, in its

discussion of baptism's relationship with faith. And we find an anagogical meaning in the

mystical reasons in Chapter 20, Lecture 4. The mystical reason for the risen Jesus

appearing to the disciples in the evening is to signify how Jesus will appear to all the

faithful at the end of the world.142

The effect of these allegorical, moral, and anagogical meanings is to directly

relate a passage to the threefold end of the Gospel in a way the literal exposition cannot.

Because the mystical reasons rely on a different mode of signification they do not need to

follow the argument of the text in serving the end of the Gospel. They can take us to it

140 Super loannem, chap. 1, lect. 12, 223. 141 Super loannem, chap. 1, lect. 13, 252. 142 Super loannem, chap. 20, lect. 4, 2524.

130

immediately, bypassing the order of the text. For the reader to reach the same allegorical,

moral, and anagogical meanings on the literal level would require of him or her

knowledge of the entire Gospel, if not the entire Bible. For the topic of Jesus' mission to

the Gentiles is not discussed in any sustained way until Chapter 12, and the treatment of

faith and baptism would require knowledge of Thomas' discussion on spiritual

regeneration in Chapter 3. And the topic of the vision of Christ at the end of the world

would require knowledge of the discussions in Chapters 14 and 17on the beatitudes and

eternal life.143 It appears, then, that by way of their spiritual mode of signification, the

mystical reasons relate in an immediate fashion to the threefold end of the Gospel, as

opposed to the literal, which is related to it by way of the divisio textus.

Such an immediate relation to the Gospel's end as afforded by the mystical

reasons has the advantage of foreshadowing for the reader what to expect to learn from

the literal level of the text. As we have already indicated, the mystical and literal levels of

the text serve the same end. The difference is that achieving it on the level of the literal

takes time and effort, in particular the time and effort of grasping the order of topics as

presented in the text. By contrast, the mystical reason brings us to the same end but by

way of a much simpler process. One need only grasp one or more significations to reach

the very end of the Gospel text. Thus, the mystical reasons can serve as quick indicators

for the careful reader of the literal meaning of what to find in the text. The mystical

reason of Chapter 1, Lecture 13, which links baptism to faith and eternal life, will prepare

the reader for the discussion on spiritual regeneration in Chapter 3.144

143 Super loannem, chap. 14, lect. 1, 1853-55 & chap. 17, lect.l, 2186-89. 144 It appears that Thomas is applying the principle he set out in the Summa: "ea quae in uno loco Scripturae traduntur sub metaphoris, in aliis locis expressius exponuntur." Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologiae, la 1.9 ad2.

131

Furthermore, by virtue of the advantages afforded by their mode of signification,

the mystical reasons also provide a collating function for the reader. They assemble the

various elements of a topic, such as baptism, which involves both faith and eternal life.

Not only does this discussion foreshadow the discussion of spiritual regeneration in

Chapter 3, it reminds us of the link between faith and baptism made earlier in Chapter

l.145 The mystical reasons, then, not only foreshadow discussions, but remind us of those

already encountered, bringing together for the reader the various elements that go into a

given topic.

A pedagogical function can also be seen in the mnemonic effect of the images

generated by the mystical reasons. Because of their use of significations, the mystical

reasons leave the reader with an image. For example, in Chapter 2, Lecture 1, Thomas

expounds on the mystical reason for Jesus turning water into wine as opposed to making

wine from nothing at all.146 The reason was to show that he came to fulfill the Old Law

and not to destroy it.147 In expounding this allegorical meaning, the reader is left with an

image from the Gospel of the relationship between the New and Old Law. This pouring

in of water and the drawing out of wine is a powerful image to aid the memory as the

reader continues to encounter this theme throughout the Gospel.

Another good example of this sort of image making is in Chapter 13, Lecture 4,

where Thomas says that John signifies the contemplative life, and Peter the active.

Thomas explains that the mediation of Christ's teaching through John to Peter indicates

145 See Thomas' comments on Jn 1:13: "Si vero hoc quod dicit, Dedit eis potestatem, voluit referre ad baptismum, propter quod in filios Dei regeneramur, possumus videre in hoc ordinem baptismi, ut scilicet primo requiratur fides." Super Ioannem, chap. 1, lect. 6, 164. 146 Super Ioannem, chap. 2, lect. 1, 358. 147 "Ideo enim noluit ex nihilo vinum facere, sed ex aqua vinum fecit, ut ostenderet se non omnino novam doctrinam condere et veterem reprobare, sed adimplere." Super Ioannem, chap. 2, lect. 1, 358.

132

how the active life learns of divine things from the contemplative. Again the reader is

left with an image to aid the memory as he or she encounters these topics again in the

Commentary, as well as to ponder in prayerful reading of the Gospel.

The idea of using mnemonic devices is not foreign to Thomas; in fact, he

discusses aids to memory and recollection in his Commentary on Aristotle's De Memoria

et Reminiscentia, and in the Summa theologiae in the Questions on Prudence.1 There

Thomas explains that "discovering likenesses or images is necessary because simple,

spiritual notions (intentiones) more easily slip out of the soul unless they are tied down,

so to speak, by some bodily likeness, since human cognition is more powerful when

dealing with sensible objects."150 In the abovementioned examples from the Super

Ioannem, therefore, the relationship between the Old and New Law and that between the

active and contemplative life are concretized in images making it easier for the student to

recall what he or she has learned. These images also provide occasions for meditation on

topics, another technique important to memory recall. In his Commentary on De

Memoria et Reminiscentia, Thomas says that "frequent meditations upon what we have

sensed or understood conserve the memory so that anyone may recollect well what he has

seen or understood."151 Thomas explains meditation as "nothing else than frequently

considering certain things as a likeness of previously apprehended things and not only in

"Per Ioannem enim contemplativa, per Petrum activa vita signatur. Petrus vero mediante Ioanne instruitur a Christo: quia vita activa de divinis instruitur mediante contemplativa." Super Ioannem, chap. 13, lect. 4, 1806. 14 See Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologiae, Ilallae 49.1. 15 English translation by Edward M. Macierowski, St. Thomas Aquinas: Commentaries on Aristotle's On Sense and What Is Sensed and On Memory and Recollection, translated with introductions and notes by Kevin White and Edward M. Macierowski (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 2005), 254nl2. 151 Thomas Aquinas, On Memory and Recollection, chap. 3, 451al2. See also Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologiae, Ilallae 49.1 ad2.

133

their own right." In the Super Ioannem, the mystical reasons do precisely this by

returning the reader by way of images to topics already encountered. The act of

meditation is in fact mentioned in the Super Ioannem as being indispensable for the true

disciple's study of God's word. Along with faith and an ardent love, the student must

continually meditate on God's word if he is to reap the reward of a true disciple, namely,

knowledge of truth and its liberating effects.153

The mystical reasons also have the effect of situating the literal meaning within a

much larger context, one that extends beyond the text itself. Because of its reliance on the

order of things and not just words, the mystical relates what is being said in the Gospel to

other books, including those of the Bible and of the saints, to people other than John and

his community, and to things that have not yet occurred. In this way they continually

keep the reader mindful of the greater plan of salvation in which the reader and the

Gospel text itself are found.

Another effect of the mystical reason's immediate relationship with the Gospel's

end is that for the reader, mired down in the many divisions of the Gospel text, it can

serve as a continual reminder of the salvific import of the text. In bringing to light

allegorical, moral, and anagogical meanings, the mystical reasons continually remind the

reader of what distinguishes the biblical text from the other textbooks read in the

medieval schools, namely, its salvific benefit. In the details of the literal sense and its

many divisions the reader is reminded of the spiritual benefit to be gained from the hard

work of interpretation, therefore, reinforcing the conviction that biblical interpretation is

Thomas Aquinas, On Memory and Recollection, chap. 3, 451 al 2. Super Ioannem, chap. 8, lect. 4, 1195-1199.

134

done for the benefit of the salvation of oneself and others, the very conviction that set the

young student-friar one on the task of interpretation to begin with.

It is clear, then, that the mystical reasons benefit the reading of the literal sense of

the text. What I hope to have demonstrated is that the more attentive you are to the

mystical reasons the better prepared you will be for understanding the literal. But it

would seem to work in the other direction as well. The better you understand the literal

sense, the better you will appreciate the mystical reasons. For, as already indicated, the

mystical reasons operate primarily by way of signification, meaning, they present topics,

like faith and baptism, in signs, and not by way of argument. In Chapter 1, Lecture 13,

Thomas shows us that baptism requires faith because the name "Bethany" symbolizes

this, not because it demonstrates it. And so, even though the mystical reasons relate

immediately to the end of the Gospel, they are no substitute for the literal meaning. Since,

without knowledge of the Gospel's end by way of the literal, one would have only a

symbolic and not a scientific knowledge of the Gospel's teachings. " So, where the

mystical benefits the literal by way of collation and foreshadowing, it benefits from the

literal meaning's demonstrations.

3.4. Thematic unity

If our observations above are correct, namely, that the mystical and literal both

serve the same end, but with different modes of signification, it would seem to imply that

we can find a thematic unity between the two. Our discussions of the foreshadowing and

collating function of the mystical would seem to imply this as well. For how could such

154 Compare this observation with what Thomas says in Question 1 of the Summa on theological argument being grounded in the literal sense and not the spiritual. Cf. Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologiae, la 1.10 adl.

135

foreshadowing and collating take place if there were no common themes to link the

mystical with the literal? The following is an attempt to demonstrate such a unity, and, in

fact, to show that the mystical reason illumines themes treated in the literal exposition.

The first mystical reason reminds us of the theme of God's universally salvific

will mentioned in the earlier discussion on the words of 1:9, "enlightens every man

coming into this world."155 There, Thomas cites John Chrysostom's reading of this verse,

that God intends all to be saved through grace.156 The reminder that God's call through

Christ is greater than the Baptist's is significant because of Thomas' earlier identification

of the two.157 So, lest we think the limitations of the Baptist's call is shared by that of

Christ, the mystical reason reminds us that the latter greatly outstrips the former in scope.

The second mystical reason sheds light on a future comment in Chapter 1. The

context for John's statement of identity, in which the word deserto appears, is John's

interrogation by the Levites and priests sent from Jerusalem. Thomas indicates in his

comments on verse 25 that the questioners, envious of the popular response to John's rite

of Baptism, a rite which was foreign to the Pharisees and to the Law, sought to obstruct

I C O

his baptizing, rather than to learn by their questions. ' The mystical reason helps us

understand that the obstructive attitude of the Jewish questioners is not without cause,

Super Ioannem, chap. 1, lect. 5, 130. 156 "...accipiendo mundum ratione suae creationis, et talis est sensus Illuminat. scilicet Verbum, quantum de se est, quia ex parte sua nulli deest, imo vult omnes salvos fieri, et ad agnitionem veritatis venire." Super Ioannem, chap. 1, lect. 5, 130. 157 "Quod autem addit Clamantis, potest intelligi dupliciter, ut scilicet sit vel Ioannis in deserto clamantis et praedicantis, vel Christi clamantis in ipso, secundum illud II Cor. Ult., 3: An experimentum eius quaeritis qui in me loquitur Christus?" Super Ioannem, chap. 1, lect. 12, 237. And also, "ideo hie dicitur Fuit homo missus a Deo: ut intelligas quia non annuntiavit nisi divinum, non humanum." Super Ioannem, chap. 1, lect. 4, 111. 158 "Unde notandum est, quod non quaerunt ut sciant, sed ut impediant: quia enim videbant multitudinem populi ad Joannem currere, propter novum ritum baptizandi, et extraneum a ritu Phaerisaeorum et legis, invidebant Joanni, et connabantur pro posse, impedire baptismum eius." Super Ioannem, chap. 1, lect. 13, 243.

136

namely, it is the fulfillment of a prophecy.15 In this way, then, the second mystical

reason clarifies the state of John's questioners, and helps the reader understand why

John's interrogators fail to accept John's message, the very message of Christ himself.

Their hardened hearts is not due to any failure or flaw on the part of John's message, but

rather because it was predestined by God. In fact, this second mystical reason helps

answer a question raised by the first, namely, whether the failure to convert the Jews is a

failure on God's part. In light of the second mystical reason, then, the answer is it is all

part of God's plan.

Another example is in Chapter one, Lecture 13, where Thomas discusses the

mystical meanings of v 24 that develop the theme of baptism. After dealing with a

difficulty with the name Bethany, and the possibility of the real town being called

Bethabora, Thomas interprets both names as having the same mystical reason, namely,

that they are appropriate for baptism.160 According to Thomas, Bethania is interpreted as

"house of obedience," which indicates that one must be baptized through obedience to the

faith.161 The connection between faith and baptism has already been established earlier in

Thomas' comments on the words of 1:13, "he gave them power." There Thomas outlines

the order of baptism, which, he tells us, begins with faith.162 But if Bethabora is the

name, which is interpreted as "house of preparation," it signifies that man is prepared for

" "Ps. LXII, 3: In terra deserta et invia et inaquosa sic in sancto apparui tibi." Super loannem, chap. 1, lect. 12,238. 160 "Mysticam vero, quia haec loca conveniunt baptismo." Super loannem, chap. 1, lect. 13, 252. 161 "...nam si dicatur Bethania, quae domus obedientiae interpretatur, significat quod necesse est per obedientiam fidei ad baptismum pervenire; Rom. I, 5: Ad obediendum fidei in omnibus gentibus." Super loannem, chap. 1, lect. 13, 252. 162 "Si vero hoc quod dicit, Dedit eis potestatem, voluit referre ad baptismum, propter quod in filios Dei regeneramur, possumus videre in hoc ordinem baptismi, ut scilicet primo requiratur fides." Super loannem, chap. 1, lect. 6, 164.

137

eternal life through baptism.163 Unlike faith, this is the first time that eternal life has been

mentioned in connection to baptism. Earlier in the same Lecture, Thomas compared the

baptism of John the Baptist with the perfect baptism of Christ.164 In the former the body

is washed with water; in the latter, the body is washed with water and the soul is washed

with the Spirit.165 But it is not until the mystical reason for Bethabora, however, that we

are told that the effect of this bodily and spiritual cleansing is eternal life.

After treating the names Bethany and Bethabora, Thomas offers a mystical

interpretation of the Evangelist's mentioning that all this took place "on the far side of the

Jordan."166 According to Thomas, "Jordan" can be interpreted as "the descent of them,"

thus signifying Christ, who descended from heaven to do the will of the Father.1 7 It also

signifies baptism. Thomas explains that as a border between Jews and Gentiles, it

signifies that one must pass through baptism to enter heaven, just as the Jews had to cross

the river Jordan to enter the promised land. Thomas understands this as John preaching a

baptism of repentance even to transgressors of the law and sinners.1 From these

mystical reasons, therefore, we find reiterated about baptism its connection to faith and

the person of Jesus Christ, and learn that it leads to eternal life, and is open to Jew and

Gentile, righteous and sinner alike.

"Si vero dicatur Bethabora, quae interpretatur domus praeparationis, significat quod per baptismum praeparatur homo ad vitam aeternam." Super loannem, chap. 1, lect. 13, 252. 164 Super loannem, chap. 1, lect. 13, 244. 165 "Nam ad perfectionem baptismi exigitur lotio corporis et animae; et corpus quidem secundum naturam lavatur aqua, anima vero non nisi spiritu." Super loannem, chap. 1, lect. 13, 244. 166 "Nee vacat mysterio quod trans Iordanem sit." Super loannem, chap. 1, lect. 13, 252. 167 "Iordanis enim interpretatur descensus eorum; et, secundum Originem, significant Christum, qui descendit de caelis." Super loannem, chap. 1, lect. 13, 252. 168 "Convenienter etiam Iordanis baptismum significant. Ipse enim confinium est inter illos qui acceperunt sortes hereditatis a Moyse ex una parte Iordanis, et illos qui acceperunt a Iosue ex alia; et ita baptismus quasi quoddam confinium est inter Iudaeos et Gentiles, qui proficiscuntur illuc, ut se lavent ad Christum venientes, ut opprobrium peccati deponent. Sicut enim filios Israel terram promissionis intrantes oportuit transire Iordanem, ita et per baptismum oportet patriam caelestem intrare." Super loannem, chap. 1, lect. 13,252.

138

A similar development of themes can be found running throughout some mystical

reasons that share a similar division. The three cases of mystical reasons in Chapter 1 all

fall under the same division, namely, how John the Baptist's witness to Christ clarifies

the ways in which the evidence for the divinity of Christ was made known. In each case

we learn something new about the mystery of Gentile conversion well before it is

announced in the literal text.169 In Lecture 12, as shown above, we learn that with the

coming of Christ, God's teaching will no longer be limited to the people of Israel, but, in

fact, will be rejected by them. In Lecture 13, we learn that it is through baptism that those

who were formerly excluded from God's people, will enter into a new heavenly

homeland. And in Lecture 16, we have the explicit formulation of Gentile conversion as a

part of Christ's mission: "So Christ desired to go from Judea to Galilee in order to

indicate that 'on the following day,' i.e., on the day of grace, that is the day of the Good

News, he would pass from Judea to Galilee, i.e., to save the Gentiles."

A similar unity of theme can be found in the two mystical reasons in Chapter 2. In

Lecture 1, Thomas gives the mystical reason for why the miracle at the wedding at Cana

was performed using already existing material, namely, water, instead of out of

171

nothing. The mystical reason given is that this shows that Christ's new doctrine is not a

rejection of the Old Law, but the fulfillment of it. What was prefigured in the Old Law is

disclosed by Christ.172 Once again, this mystical interpretation has little to do with the

169 For a treatment of Gentile conversion on the literal level of interpretation, see Thomas' comments on 7:35 and 12:32. Super Ioannem, chap. 7, lect. 4, 1081 & chap. 12, lect. 5, 1672. 170 "Voluit ergo exire a Iudea in Galilaeam ut insinuaret quod in crastinum, idest in die gratiae, scilicet Evangelii, exiret a Iudaea in Galilaeam, idest ad Gentes salvandas." Super Ioannem, chap. 1, lect. 16, 310. 171 Super Ioannem, chap. 2, lect. 1, 358. 172 "Ideo enim noluit ex nihilo vinum facere, sed ex aqua vinum fecit, ut ostenderet se non omnino novam doctrinam condere et veterem reprobare, sed adimplere; ut dicitur Matth. V, 17: Non veni solvere legem, sed adimplere: dumquod figurabat vetus lex, et promittebat, Christus exhibuit." Super Ioannem, chap. 2, lect. 1,358.

139

immediate context of the passage, that is, how Christ revealed his divinity through

demonstrating his power over nature. Nevertheless, it picks up on a theme that has been

running throughout the mystical interpretation of this Lecture, namely, the relationship

between the Old Law and the New Law.

Near the beginning of the Lecture, Thomas expounds on a mystery, and in doing

so presents a picture of, what we today would call, salvation history, understood in terms

of the movement from the time of the "law of nature," to the time of the "written law," to

the time of the "law of grace." ~ Later in the same Lecture, we learn that the movement

from the second to the third time is one of imperfection to perfection. The ratio

mystica, however, specifies the nature of this movement, by reassuring us that it is not the

kind of perfection that destroys what was imperfect, but instead a perfection that fulfills

it. The law of grace, therefore, preserves the written law in so far as it fulfills it. The

theme of fulfillment is picked up by another mystical interpretation later in the Lecture.

Here Thomas tells us that the role of a preacher is to reveal the Gospel hidden within the

letter of the Old Law.175 Preachers, then, are not to push the Old Law aside, but rather are

instructed to show how it can affirm faith in the law of grace.

Finally, in Lecture 3, we find once again an interest in the movement from the

"law of nature," to the "written law," to the "law of grace." Thomas ascribes a mystical

reason to Christ's statement that he will raise up the temple in three days. Following

l7' "Nee vacat a mysterio quod die tertio nuptiae factae sunt. Primus namque dies est tempus legis naturae; secundus tempus legis scriptae; tertius vero dies tempus gratiae, in quo Dominus incarnatus nuptias celebravit." Super loannem, chap. 2, lect. 1, 338. 174 "Et quidem iustitiae vinum deficiebat in veteri lege; in qua iustitia imperfecta erat. Sed Christus earn perfecit." Super loannem, chap. 2, lect. 1, 347. 175 "Mystice autem, qui hauriunt aquam sunt praedicatores; Is. Xii, 3: Haurietis aquas in gaudio de fontibus Salvatoris. Architriclinus autem est aliquis legisperitus, puta Nicodemus, Gamaliel et Paulus. Dum ergo talibus verbum Evangelii committitur, quod latebat in littera legis, quasi vinum de aqua factum architriclino propinatur: qui hoc degustans approbat fidem Christi." Super loannem, chap. 2, lect. 1, 361.

140

Origen, Thomas understands the "true body of Christ" to be "the temple of God;" and it

is this body that signifies the mystical body of Christ, the Church.176 Like Christ's

historical body, the mystical body suffers the adversities of persecutions. But, unlike

Christ, it does so "mystically."177 And again like Christ's historical body the mystical will

be raised up in three days, namely, "the day of the law of nature," "the day of the written

law," and "the day of the law of grace."178 This mystical reason, therefore, shows the

same interest in salvation history as evinced in Lecture 1. The difference here is that what

was presented in terms of a movement from imperfection to perfection, from

prefigurement to manifestation, and from expectation to fulfillment, is here described

along the lines of the passion, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Salvation history,

then, is given a Christological pattern.

Above we have shown this in two ways. First, the mystical reason may further our

understanding of a theme mentioned earlier or latter in the literal interpretation of the

text. In this way, they serve as moments of illumination, in which themes found on the

literal level are clarified by the presentation of the same themes on the mystical level.

Secondly, it may present a treatment of themes on its own level, apart from the literal

text. Whichever the case, the mystical reason furthers our knowledge of themes important

to the Gospel text.

"Origines autem huius locutionis mysticam rationem assignat, dicens: Corpus Christi verum est templum Dei, quod quidem corpus figurat corpus mysticum, idest Ecclesiam," Super loannem, chap. 2, lect. 3, 404. 177 "Et quamvis corpus istud mystice dissolvi videatur adversitatibus tribulationum, quibus affligitur." Super loannem, chap. 2, lect. 3, 404. 178 "...tamen suscitatur in tribus diebus, scilicet in die legis naturae, et in die legis scriptae, et in die legis gratiae; quia, etsi in his diebus, quantum ad aliquos corpus dissolvatur, quantum ad aliquos tamen vivat." Super loannem, chap. 2, lect. 3, 404.

141

4. Conclusion

On the basis of our cursory description and more detailed analysis of the ratio

mystica, we can make the following conclusions. First, the cursory study demonstrated

that the mystical reason is applied in a general way to the Commentary, and is not limited

to any particular division or genre within the text. Secondly, there is both a tension and a

unity between the mystical reasons and the literal meaning, in particular with respect to

the divisio textus. The mystical reason serves the threefold end of the Gospel in a direct

way by means of signification, while the divisio textus serves it through the sum total of

the literal meanings generated. With their common end in mind, the tension need not be a

negative one. As we have shown, there is a real advantage to including in one

commentary two very different modes of signification. This happy tension is observable

in the foreshadowing and collating effects of the mystical reason for the reader of the

Gospel. So too is its reminding the reader of the greater context in which the reader and

the Gospel itself are found, that of God's salvific plan for all humanity. But the mystical

also may aid the literal in a more direct way through the thematic unity that they share by

virtue of sharing the same end. What at the beginning of this study was a problematic

relationship, I hope has become a mutually beneficial one, where mystical and literal

work together to aid the reader's attainment of the Gospel's end

CHAPTER 4 THE RATIO MYSTICA AND THE SPIRITUAL LIFE

In the previous chapter, we saw how the mystical reasons relate directly to the

spiritual end of the Gospel as an exegetical technique. In this chapter, I would like to

demonstrate how this technique presupposes and encourages a particular spiritual

disposition within the reader, and in this way serves as a spiritual exercise.

Thomas puts the question of disposition at the forefront from the beginning of the

Commentary. By ending his prologue with a discussion of the disposition (conditio) of

the Gospel's human author, Thomas places the image of John's disposition in the mind of

the reader as he begins to read the body of the Commentary. The discussion rounds out

the earlier discussion on contemplation by revealing the life which made his

contemplation possible. That the discussion of John's disposition should be understood in

unity with the general discussion of John's contemplation is indicated by the fact that

Thomas is speaking of contemplation in broad terms, namely, as a life.2 To understand

and ultimately share in John's contemplation, therefore, we must understand and share in

the way of life that animated it.

That John's condition is particularly helpful for understanding the mystical

interpretation is indicated by the fact that both John's disposition and the mystical

interpretation situate the text within a larger context of the life of faith. As we saw last

chapter, the mystical reason relates the reader immediately to ends that are proper to the

1 Kevin White argues that, as a general rule, the endings of Thomas' prologues serve as "keynotes" for the body of the commentary. See Kevin White, translator's Introduction to Commentaries on Aristotle's On Sense and What Is Sensed and On Memory and Recollection, translated with introductions and notes by Kevin White and Edward M. Macierowski (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 2005), 10.

In doing so, Thomas departs from his own Catena Aurea, In loan., and Augustine's On the Harmony of the Gospels, where the expression "virtute contemplativa" is preferred.

142

143

Christian life, namely, faith, the life of righteousness and the life of vision.3 These effects

correspond to the spiritual senses, the allegorical, moral and anagogical, as articulated

elsewhere by Thomas. The mystical reason takes the reader beyond the text and its

structured argument to his or her own life, where the lesson of the text is met with on a

personal level. John's condition, likewise, is about the Christian life. Both, then, are

concerned with the personal reception of the lessons of the Gospel, which John received

from Christ in his flesh, and which we receive from Christ in his word.

The link between John's condition and the mystical interpretation emerges when

we uncover the spiritual life behind John's contemplation. As we have already seen,

Thomas describes John's disposition according to his name, virtue, symbol and privilege.

What emerges is a portrait of John laden with theological concepts found scattered

throughout the body of the Commentary. As a result, Thomas' portrait of John presents in

an outline form a spiritual vision described in greater detail in the body of the

Commentary. By using the condition of John as our guide, we hope to bring together

Thomas' teaching on the spiritual life in the Super Ioannem, which is presupposed by his

spiritual vision. In doing so, we hope to demonstrate the fittingness of this vision for both

John as the author of the mystical meaning, and Thomas as its interpreter. Finally, we

will conclude our study with a discussion of how the ratio mystica serves as a spiritual

exercise.

' Super Ioannem, chap. 20, lect. 6, 2568.

1. The Spiritual Vision of John the Evangelist

The focus of Thomas' description of John's conditio is his special powers of

"sight." In moving from John's name, to his virtue, symbol, and privilege, Thomas

unfolds for us significant elements of this vision as the source of his contemplation. This

is made apparent when the themes and sources mentioned in the prologue are pursued in

greater detail in the body of the Commentary. And so, in light of our earlier discussion on

the structure of Thomas' description of John's disposition and its place within the

prologue, I would like to examine in greater detail the elements of John's vision as

described by Thomas elsewhere in the Commentary.

1.1. The name of John

As we saw earlier, Thomas begins with a discussion of John's name, which he

interprets as "in whom is grace."4 Thomas uses this interpretation to discuss the role of

grace in John's life. According to Thomas, having grace within oneself is a necessary

condition for seeing the "secrets of the divinity," as Paul says in 1 Corinthians 2:11, "No

one knows the deep things of God but the Spirit of God."5 What it means to see such

secrets, what sort of grace enables one to do so, and what role the Spirit plays are

explained later in the body of the Commentary.

The expression "secrets of the divinity" is used only one other time in the

Commentary. In Chapter 3, Lecture 1, Thomas uses the expression in the context of

4 This interpretation is attributed to Alcuin in the Catena In loan. (Jn 1:6), and to Bede in the Catena In Luc. (Lk 1:13). Both cases concern the name of John the Baptist.

"quia secreta videre non possunt nisi qui gratiam Dei in se habent; unde I Cor. II, 11 dicitur: Quae sunt Dei nemo cognovit, nisi Spiritus Dei." Super loannem, prol., 11.

Nicodemus' inability to see the divinity of Christ. This later discussion proves to be of

fruitful comparison with the prologue. For, in addition to mentioning the secrets of the

divinity, it also takes up the other themes of the prologue's discussion, such as,

attributing this seeing to the power of grace, and using 1 Corinthians 2:11 to show the

role of the Spirit. In comparing these two discussions, we find that the latter provides a

fuller explanation of the themes found in the prologue, and shows us that the object of

this sight is a divine mystery, which is seen with the help of the grace of faith and of

baptism.

That the object of this sight is a divine mystery is clear from the comments at the

end of Chapter 2, Lecture 3. This brief discussion of Jesus' refusal to entrust himself to

the people at the Passover feast foreshadows the discussion in the following chapter on

spiritual regeneration. Thomas explains, by way of Chrysostom, that Jesus withheld

himself from the people for the reason that they were not "spiritual." Thomas quotes here

1 Corinthians 3:1, in which Paul distinguishes between 'spiritual' and 'carnal' persons.

Thomas will turn his attention to the topic of becoming a spiritual person in his

subsequent comments on Jesus' encounter with Nicodemus, relying greatly on this same

Letter of Paul's. But it is in the earlier discussion of Chapter 2 that Thomas brings out the

mystical nature of belief in the divinity of Christ. Thomas explains that, according to

Chrysostom, the people did not believe in Christ's divinity because, by virtue of their

carnal disposition, Jesus did not deem them capable of attaining his "profound

mysteries," or what he also calls, his "secret mysteries." Thomas prefaces his discussion

of spiritual regeneration, then, by indicating that it will afford a knowledge of mysteries.

In Chapter 3, Thomas describes this spiritual regeneration and its resulting

spiritual vision. It is here where Thomas specifies the kind of grace John would have

possessed in order to see the divine mysteries. They are faith and baptism. Thomas tells

us that "the mysteries of eternal salvation," and by implication, the kingdom of God as a

whole, cannot be seen unless "through the justice of faith."7 Later in the Commentary,

Thomas uses this Pauline expression again in a similar context. Like the discussion in

o

Chapter 3, this later discussion is concerned with the belief in Christ's divinity. Thomas

explains that because faith is about what cannot be seen, the "justice of faith" concerns

that which is invisible in Jesus, namely, his divinity. Earlier in Chapter 3, the major

impediment to Nicodemus' seeing the secrets of the divinity was his lack of faith.9 It

would appear, then, that faith in Christ's divinity is necessary for seeing the kingdom of

God.

Faith, however, is not sufficient for this vision, but is merely preparation for the

"full enlightenment" to take place in baptism;10 for it is through baptism that one is

spiritually regenerated. In Chapter 3, Lecture 1, the grace that affords the seeing of the

secrets of the divinity is the grace of baptism by water and the Spirit. Earlier in the

Commentary, Thomas made a distinction between baptism by water and the Spirit and by

6 "Et ratio est, secundum Chrysostomum, quia isti crediderunt in eum, sed imperfecte, quia nondum poterant attingere ad perfecta mysteria Christi, et ideo non credebat se eis, idest, secreta sua mysteria eis nondum revelabat." Super Ioannem, chap. 2, lect. 3, 420 7 "mysteria salutis aeternae, quae per fidei iustitiam inspiciuntur." Super Ioannem, chap. 3, lect. 1, 433 8 Super Ioannem, chap. 16, lect. 3, 2096 9 Super Ioannem, chap. 3, lect. 1, 429 10 "in baptismo plenam illuminationem recipiat." Super Ioannem, chap. 9, lect. 1, 1311. See also chap. 1, lect. 6, 164.

147

water alone." John the Baptist's baptism was imperfect because it was only by water.

Christ, however, baptizes with both water and the Spirit, affecting an interior as well as

an outward cleansing. The grace conferred by this latter form of baptism is the grace of a

spiritual regeneration, by which the person is given a "spiritual life" by being "made like

God and other holy spirits." n This rebirth is affected by receiving a new spirit, "a spirit

of adoption" (Rom 8:15). This spirit is the Holy Spirit himself. By receiving the Holy

Spirit one receives a cleansing (lavacrum) and is reborn "a son of God."

A consequence of this new life is a new vision. Thomas explains that since vision,

by which he means knowledge,13 is an act of life, diverse lives result in diverse visions.14

Through spiritual regeneration one moves from a "mortal life" (vita carnalis), common to

living things, and its "mortal vision" (visio carnalis), to a spiritual life with a spiritual

vision. But just as this life depends on receiving the Spirit, so too does its resultant vision.

Thomas stresses here that it is through the Spirit that one sees spiritually,15 and thus sees

the secrets of the divinity. It is clear, that without God's ongoing assistance by the power

of the Spirit dwelling within the person, there would be no hope of spiritual life or of

vision. The spiritual vision, then, never ceases to be a gift of grace.

In the Commentary, Thomas prefers to speak of the workings of grace in terms of

the activities of the Spirit. A look at the role of the Spirit in spiritual regeneration will

uncover a third form of grace operative in John's spiritual vision, namely, the gift of

wisdom.

11 Superloannem, chap. 1, lect. 13, 244 12 "Est et vita spirituals, qua homo conformatur Deo et spiritibus Sanctis." Super loannem, chap. 3, lect. 1, 432 13 "...visionem, seu cognitionem." Super loannem, chap. 3, lect. 1, 432 14 "Ubi sciendum, quod cum visio sit actus vitae, secundum diversas vitas, diversae sunt visiones." Super loannem, chap. 3, lect. 1, 432 15 "Si ergo visio spiritualis non est nisi per Spiritum sanctum." Super loannem, chap. 3, lect. 1, 432

In Chapter 3, Thomas explains what is only hinted at in the prologue, namely,

that knowledge of the secrets of the divinity is by the power of the Holy Spirit. Spiritual

indwelling is the way Thomas chooses to explain how one achieves spiritual vision in this

life. Only by receiving the Spirit are we inwardly renewed and afforded the penetrating

vision into the kingdom of God and the mysteries of eternal salvation. In short, spiritual

indwelling is the explanation for how we can see the secrets of the divinity with an

imperfect regeneration.

In Chapter 3, Thomas gives us a clue as to why the Spirit is necessary for seeing

the secrets of the divinity. As we have already seen, Thomas discusses the link between

spiritual vision, spiritual life, and the Holy Spirit. This discussion concludes with the

statement that we are reborn as sons of God through the power of the Holy Spirit. Earlier

in the Commentary, Thomas explains that because the Spirit is the Spirit of the Son, he

conforms us to the Son by regenerating us as sons of God.16 By being brought into

conformity with the Son, we participate in the first Wisdom, the Wisdom who, as the

1 -7

Son, penetrates into the hidden bosom of the Father. Through participating in the

Wisdom of the Only Begotten Son, by the power of the Spirit, spiritual vision rests

ultimately in a knowledge of the Father. The spiritual vision then has a far reaching and

penetrating character, for our seeing is by the power of the Spirit and the very Wisdom of

the Son, and penetrates into what only the Son and the Spirit could know, the secrets of

the Father.

16 "ita Spiritus Sanctus configuravit nos Filio, inquantum adoptat nos in filios Dei." Super loannem, chap. 14, lect. 6, 1957. See also chap. 15, lect. 5, 2062. '7 On the Son' s knowledge of the Father, see Super loannem, chap. 1, lect. 11,216-221, and chap. 14, lect. 6, 1958.

In Lecture 6 of Chapter 14, Thomas explains that it is through the spiritual gift of

wisdom that we participate in the Wisdom of the Son.18 In Chapter 14, Thomas

comments on Jesus' announcement that he will send his disciples the Paraclete. He

explains how the Holy Spirit "makes us know all things by inspiring us from within, by

directing us and lifting us up to spiritual things."19 It is by charity that the Spirit has this

effect.20 Charity has three effects on the person. First, it draws us to God, by uniting the

soul to God; secondly, it lifts up our eyes to see God; and thirdly, it frees us from worldly

matters which might distract one from seeing God.21 Being love itself, the Spirit satisfies

these conditions of charity. The Spirit unites us to God through his indwelling,

conforming us to the Son, thereby making us sharers in the divine wisdom.22 He lifts our

eyes to see God by enabling us to grasp the teaching of the Word through an interior

inspiration, "For unless the Spirit is present to the heart of the listener, the words of the

teacher will be useless."23 And finally, the Spirit directs us and lifts us up to spiritual

things, beyond the love of the worldly, giving the person a taste for the spiritual.24 These

effects of the Spirit are presented by Thomas as the ways in which the Spirit brings us to

a greater wisdom and understanding beyond the natural capabilities of the person. It is in

18 Although Thomas does not use the expression "dona sapientiae" in this Lecture, it is clear from the following Lecture that he understands his comments on the teaching of the Paraclete as describing the gift of wisdom. See Super loannem, chap. 14, lect. 7, 1961. 19 "Facit autem nos scire omnia interius inspirando, dirigendo, et ad spiritualia elevando." Super loannem, chap. 14, lect. 6, 1959. 20 Super loannem, chap. 14, lect. 6, 1941. 21 Super loannem, chap. 14, lect. 6, 1941. 22 Super loannem, chap. 14, lect. 6, 1957-1958. 23 "quia nisi Spiritus adsit cordi audiendis, otiosus erit sermo doctoris." Super loannem, chap. 14, lect. 6, 1958. 24 Super loannem, chap. 14, lect. 6, 1959. See also Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologiae, Ilallae 45.2 adl & 46.2 corpus, on wisdom giving one a taste for spiritual things.

150

these ways that the Spirit confers on us the gift of wisdom, thus allowing us to participate

in the divine wisdom and bringing us to an understanding of divine teaching.25

The gift of wisdom is understood in a similar way in the Summa theologiae,

Secunda-Secundae, Question 45, where it is described as a participation in the Wisdom of

the Son by way of the Holy Spirit, and is understood as the result of charity which unites

the soul to God.26 It also belongs to the gift of wisdom to be lifted above material things

and directed towards the spiritual. In Question 46, on folly, wisdom's opposing vice,

Thomas tells us that the wise man despises worldly things. In both the Commentary and

the Summa, then, wisdom is the participation in the Wisdom of the Son through the

Spirit, who unites the soul to God by charity, thereby raising the person toward spiritual

things.

Reference to the Summa theologiae is also helpful in understanding what is meant

by "inspiration" in the Commentary. It appears that the term must not be confused with

that inspiration belonging to the gratuitous gift of prophecy. Instead, it appears to be

common to all those possessing of the gift of wisdom. Thomas explains in the Summa

theologiae, Prima-Secundae, Question 68 on the gifts of the Holy Spirit that these gifts

are necessary to dispose the person to be moved by God just as a more perfect disposition

98

is required of a student in order to grasp a higher teaching from his master. These gifts

are in us by Divine inspiration, that is, by way of God's action on the person. By this 25 "Nam sicut effectus missionis Filii fuit ducere ad Patrem, ita effectus missionis Spiritus sancti est ducere fideles ad Filium. Filius autem, cum sit ipsa sapientia genita, est ipsa Veritas; supra XIV, 6: Ego sum via, Veritas et vita. Et ideo effectus missionis huiusmodi est ut faciat homines participes divinae sapientiae, et cognitores veritatis. Filius ergo tradit nobis doctrinam, cum sit Verbum; sed Spiritus sanctus doctrinae eius nos capaces facit." Super loannem, chap. 14, lect. 6, 1958. 26 Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologiae,, Ilallae 45.2 corpus; 45.6corpus & adl. 27 Ibid., Ilallae 46.1 ad2. 28 "Quanto igitur movens est altior, tanto necesse est quod mobile perfection dispositione ei proportionetur; sicut videmus quod perfectius oportet esse discipulum dispositum ad hoc quod altiorem doctrinam capiat a doctore." Ibid., Iallae 68.1 corpus.

151

initial inspiration, then, we are disposed to follow further inspirations or promptings from

God.29 In the context of the gift of wisdom and understanding, this inspiration is one that

disposes the believer to judge rightly and understand properly divine teachings.

Nevertheless, this sort of inspiration should not be understood at the exclusion of

the gratuitous grace of inspiration associated with the gift of prophecy.31 In fact, in the

Commentary, after he describes the Spirit's role in aiding our ability to know spiritual

things, Thomas mentions how the Spirit aided John in remembering the sayings of Christ

for the purposes of writing his Gospel.32 Enjoying the gratuitous grace of the gift of

inspiration, John was disposed to follow it by the gift of wisdom.

In addition to revealing the sources of John's vision in the gift of grace,

specifically that of faith, baptism, and wisdom, we also learn something of its character.

In particular, we learn that it is broad in scope. Expanding on Jesus' image of a kingdom,

Thomas tells us that this spiritual vision not only affords knowledge of the "royal

throne," but of all that is needed for governing the kingdom, including "the royal dignity,

royal favors, and the way of justice by which the kingdom is consolidated." This vision

is a penetrating and searching vision, one that seeks to know its object in its breadth. This

is reminiscent of the fullness of John's contemplation as described in the prologue, where

we saw that his contemplation of the nature of the Word extended to the contemplation of

the Word's power, that is, the Word in his effects.34 Thomas' choice of vocabulary also

"dona sunt quaedam hominis perfections, quibus homo disponitur ad hoc quod bene sequatur instinctum divinum." Ibid., Iallae 68.2 corpus 3 "Dicendum quod sapientia dicitur intelletualis virtus, secundum quod procedit ex iudicio rationis; dicitur autem donum, secundum quod operator ex instinctu divino." Ibid., Iallae 68.1 ad 4. 31 See Ibid.,, Ilallae 174.2.

Super Ioannem, chap. 14, lect. 6, 1960. 33 "et ideo dicit Non potest videre regnum Dei, idest gloriam et dignitatem Dei, idest mysteria salutis aeternae, quae per fidei iustitiam inspiciuntur." Super Ioannem, chap. 3, lect. 1, 433. 4 Super Ioannem, prol., 7.

152

suggests the searching and penetrating character of this vision. Thomas says that the

mysteries of eternal salvation are "inspiciuntur" by the justice of faith. The word

"inspicio," translated here as "seeing," denotes an investigative seeing, a seeing for the

purpose of an examination.35 To see the mysteries of eternal salvation, then, is to look

into them searchingly.

But even the grace of faith, baptism and wisdom cannot afford a perfect

enlightenment. In Chapter 3, Thomas explains that in this life one is renewed only

inwardly, but not outwardly. Perfect renewal will come only in heaven, where our

regeneration will be complete. Only with this perfect regeneration will we be able to see

the kingdom of God in a most perfect way.36 Until then, our spiritual vision will remain

-in

imperfect, seeing the kingdom of God and the mysteries of salvation imperfectly. The

spiritual vision of baptism, by which one sees the secrets of the divinity, is a stage in a

movement toward a perfect vision of God to be had in heaven. The spiritual vision begun

in baptism, then, looks beyond what can be believed by faith to the vision of heavenly

glory. Therefore, not only is this vision a penetrating and searching vision, but one that

has a far reaching gaze, resting finally in the perfect knowledge of God in the life of

glory.

The gaze of the spiritual vision, however, not only sees into the future, but into

the past as well. Again in Chapter 3, Thomas explains how the symbolic spiritual

regeneration of the Old Law was made manifest by the New.38 The New Law perfects the

"" A Latin Dictionary. Founded on Andrews' edition ofFreund's Latin dictionary, revised, enlarged, and in great part rewritten by Charlton T. Lewis, Ph.D and Charles Short, LL.D (Oxford. Clarendon Press. 1879). 36 "In patria vero est perfecta regeneratio, quia renovabuntur interius et exterius." Super loannem, chap. 3, lect. 1,433.

Super loannem, chap. 3, lect. 1, 433. 3 "Et ideo mysteria regni Dei videbant quidem, sed figuraliter tantum; Hebr. c. XI, 13: A longe aspicientes. In nova vero lege est manifesta regeneratio spiritualis." Super loannem, chap. 3, lect. 1, 433.

153

spiritual regeneration of the Old, while the life of glory perfects that of the New. The

shortcoming of the Old Law was that it could not see its perfection in the subsequent

New Law. The New Law, however, is not only aware of its future perfection in heaven,

but also of its perfection of the Old. This affords the spiritual vision of the New Law with

hindsight as well as foresight. Therefore, the searching and penetrating gaze of this vision

will be threefold, namely, with respect to how the Old Law is fulfilled in the New, how

the life of the New Law is to be lived out, and how fulfillment is to be found in the future

life of glory.39

To summarize what we have seen so far, the spiritual vision of John is one that

has its source in the graces of faith, baptism, and wisdom, all of which prepare him for

seeing the divine mysteries of Christ. It provides him a searching and investigative gaze

that extends beyond the present life, and looks into the past as well as the future. The

mysteries it searches out are of a transcendent nature, extending beyond created reality in

both time and space. Nevertheless, the focal point of this vision is the clear but imperfect

knowledge of the New Law as grasped in this life. The knowledge of Christ's mysteries

and of the past and future ages depends on the extent to which grace works in one's

present life.

1.2. John's virtue

After treating the name of John, Thomas proceeds to discuss next his virtue. Here,

Thomas continues to speak of John's spiritual vision, but shifts his focus concerning its

source. In the preceding discussion, his seeing the secrets of the divinity was attributed to

9 "Patet ergo quod sicut visionem corporalem non habet quis nisi natus, ita nee spiritualem habere potest nisi renatus. Et secundum triplicem regenerationem est triplex modus visionis." Super loannem, chap. 3, lect. 1,434.

154

grace, while here it is the effect of his own virtue, namely, his virginity. This is the only

part of John's portrait that has a direct reference to Is 6:1. Thomas uses the words, "saw

the Lord seated," to indicate John's virginity, since, as he explains, "it is fitting that such

persons see the Lord." He supports this with Matthew 5:8, "Blessed are the pure in

heart."40

This is the shortest section of John's portrait, probably because Thomas devoted

much time to it in his comments on Jerome's prologue to the Gospel. ' There Thomas

explains that it was his virginity that made him the most loved by Jesus, and made him fit

for writing the Gospel. John's virginity suited his contemplative life, freeing him from

the obstacles that might prevent him from seeking to please God, so that he, the

incorruptible virgin, could write about the incorruptible Word.42 Similarly, Thomas

makes the link between virginity and contemplation in the Summa theologiae, where he

explains that the virtue of virginity gives one freedom to have leisure in divine

contemplation.43 Little is said in the body of the Commentary on the virtue of virginity as

such, but by looking at the places where Thomas uses Mt 5:8, we can discern its

fittingness for John's spiritual vision.

In Chapter 1, Lecture 11, this same passage from Matthew sets up Thomas'

discussion on the need to be free "from affections for earthly things" in the vision of God.

In this discussion, Thomas outlines the various ways in which one can be said to "see"

God, all of which in this life fail to reach knowledge of the divine essence. Thomas

Super loannem, pro!., 11. 1 Super loannem, in prologum Hieronymi, 12-22.

4 Super loannem, in prologum Hieronymi, 16. Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologaie, Ilallae 152.2 corpus.

155

explains, that while in the body the intellect only knows things through created species.44

And because God is less like created things than he is unlike them, in this life we know

what God is not. Therefore, following Pseudo-Dionysius, "the perfect way in which God

is known in this present life is by taking away all creatures and everything understood by

us."4 But when the intellect is free of the body, either by death or rapture, it will no

longer rely exclusively on created species for its knowledge.46 Thomas states a principle,

then, that he will allude to throughout the Commentary, namely, "the more a soul is free

of passions and is purged from affections for earthly things, the higher it rises in the

contemplation of truth and tastes how sweet the Lord is."47 Human persons, then, lack the

ability to see the divine in this life, and so, left to their own abilities, tend toward the love

of worldly things. But as long as our will is directed towards the worldly as its end, it is

not directed to God.

Thomas uses Mt 5:8 again in Chapter 14 to make a similar point, namely, "the

more one has a heart which is raised above earthly matters, the more he will see God, and

the more perfectly." Later in this same Chapter, Thomas states that the love of worldly

things actively works against the knowledge of divine things.49 Thomas uses a

comparison with the sense of taste to make his point: "Just as one whose sense of taste is

tainted does not have a true knowledge of flavors, so one who is tainted by love of the

Super loannem, chap. 1, lect. 11,211. 45 Super loannem, chap. 1, lect. 11, 211.

6 Super loannem, chap. 1, lect. 11,213. 47 "Et inde est quod anima quanto magis est a passionibus libera, et purgata ab affectibus terrenorum, tanto amplius in contemplationem veritatis ascendit, et gustat quam suavis est Dominus." Super loannem, chap. 1, lect. 11,213. See alsoThomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, la 12.11 corpus, on the impossibility of seeing the divine essence in this life. 4 Super loannem, chap. 14, lect. 1, 1854. 49 Super loannem, chap. 14, lect. 6, 1959.

156

world cannot taste divine things."50 Earlier in this chapter, Thomas uses this same

analogy to explain how worldly love is insufficient for receiving the gift of wisdom,

Thomas says, "[j]ust as a tainted tongue does not taste sweet flavors, so a soul tainted by

the corruption of the world does not taste the sweetness of heavenly things."51 As we

have already mentioned, this is the same analogy Thomas uses in the Summa in his

Questions on the gift of Wisdom. Weighed down by worldly affections, the human

person needs divine assistance to see spiritual things: "The Spirit makes us know all

things by inspiring us from within, by directing us and lifting us up to spiritual things."52

This is consistent with what Thomas says in the Summa theologiae about the role

of the moral virtues in contemplation. Thomas explains that moral virtues pertain to the

contemplative life by disposing one for it by preventing the passions from turning the

soul's intention away from intelligible to sensible things/ And since this is done above

all by the virtue of temperance, "the virtue of chastity most of all makes man apt for

contemplation, since sexual pleasures most of all weigh the mind down to sensible

objects."54

John's virtue of virginity, then, is the moral disposition effected in him by grace

which allows him to see with the spiritual vision. This virtue is indispensable for the

mystical and far reaching gaze of this vision, since, without a love of spiritual things,

John's gaze would not be fixed on what lies beyond this world. Through the virtue of

virginity, then, John is disposed to see divine mysteries.

Super loannem, chap. 14, lect. 6, 1959. 51 Super loannem, chap. 14, lect. 4, 1919.

Super loannem, chap. 14, lect. 6, 1959. Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologiae, Ilallae 180.2 corpus. Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologiae, Ilallae 180.2 ad3.

157

1.3. His symbol

Thomas next discusses John according to his symbol, the eagle. Here Thomas

differentiates John's vision into two types: with the eyes of the heart, and with the eye of

the mind. Thomas tells us that "John flies like an eagle above the cloud of human

weakness and looks upon the light of unchanging truth with the most lofty and firm eyes

of the heart," and how he saw the Word in the bosom of the Father with the "eye of the

mind."55 From later discussions in the Commentary, we see that the terms "eyes of the

heart" and "eye of the mind" represent two distinct modes of knowing God in this life,

namely, by the will and intellect.

The expression, "eyes of the heart," is linked to the moral disposition described

above. The more one moves away from earthly things and toward the spiritual, the more

one will see with the "eyes of the heart." We have already seen how in Chapter 14,

Thomas explains that purity disposes one for "the vision of God," since "the more one

has a heart which is raised above earthly matters, the more he will see God, and the more

perfectly."5 In the body of the Commentary, however, the expression, "oculis cordis," is

found in discussions on people who lack such sight. In Chapter 8, Lecture 3, Thomas

attributes the slowness of the Jews in understanding the words of Christ to their not

having yet opened the "eyes of their hearts."57 Thomas attributes their "blindness" to their

being carnal, once again relying on 1 Cor 2:14. Earlier in the Lecture, Thomas set up the

"Ioannes vero, supra nebulam infirmitatis humanae sicut aquila volans, lucem incommutabilis veritatis altissimis atque firmissimis oculis cordis intuetur," and "Oculi eius de longe prospiciunt, quia scilicet ipsum Verbum Dei in sinu Patris oculo mentis intuetur." Super loannem, prol., 11. 56"et ideo quanto quis habet cor magis elevatum a terrenis, tanto magis et perfectius Deum videbit." Super loannem, chap. 14, lect. 1, 1854. 57 "nondum enim oculos cordis apertos habebant, quibus Patri et Filii aequalitatem intelligerent, et hoc quia carnales erant; I Cor, II, 14: Animalis homo non percepit ea quae sunt spiritus Dei." Super loannem, chap. 8, lect. 3, 1189.

carnality of Jesus' Jewish listeners as an obstacle to understanding his divinity." Once

again, Thomas explains that because the Word is "of the intelligible world," they, whose

"affections are turned to earthly things," cannot see him.59 Thomas uses the expression in

Chapter 12, Lecture 7, again in relation to the Jews, who are said to be blind in the eyes

of their hearts. As in Chapter 8, the obstacle lies in their will, not in their understanding.

Thomas explains that "they had a will clouded over by their wickedness."60

It appears that seeing with "the eyes of the heart" is related to a kind of affective

knowledge of God not unlike that afforded by spiritual regeneration and the gift of

wisdom. Both affect within the person a love for spiritual realities, the same love that is

counteracted by those whose eyes of the heart are blind. In Chapter 9, Lecture 1, in fact,

Thomas associates the eyes of the heart with the grace of baptism. In explaining

Augustine's mystical interpretation of the episode where Jesus restores sight to the man

blind from birth, he tells us that the fact that the man did not see immediately upon

application of Jesus' saliva to his eyes, but had to wait until he washed at the pool of

Siloam for his sight to return, symbolizes how the "eyes of the heart" are fully

enlightened only with the grace of baptism. The expression "eyes of the heart," then,

indicates the affective knowledge of divine things by way of the grace of spiritual

regeneration.

In contrast, the expression, "eye of the mind," seems to refer more to the act of

the intellect than to that of the will. It can refer to the act of faith, as in Chapter 14,

58 Super loannem, chap. 8, lect. 3, 1173 & 1176. 59 "Et similiter non est de hoc mundo sensibili, scilicet, qui consistit in rebus sensibilibus, sed de mundo intelligibili, qui est in mente Dei, quia est ipsum Verbum Dei, prout est summa sapientia," and "Et e converse isti qui deorsum sunt, originem infimam habent, et de hoc mundo, quia habent affectum circa terrene." Super loannem, chap. 8, lect. 3, 1176. 60 "potest enim voluntatem malam disponere." Super loannem, chap. 12, lect. 7, 1698. 61 "Linivit autem oculos caeci, idest humani generis, oculos scilicet cordis, per fidem incarnationis Christi...et in baptismo plenam illuminationem recipiat." Super loannem, chap. 9, lect. 1, 1311.

Lecture 1, where the apostles are said to see the spiritual presence of Christ with the

"eyes of their mind," which Thomas says is to possess him by faith.62 It can also refer to

the act of consideration, as in Chapter 4, Lecture 4, where Thomas uses it in relation to

what he calls a "spiritual harvest."63 The spiritual harvest to be made in this life involves

two types of gathering, that of assembling the faithful into the Church, and "the knowing

of the truth, by which a person gathers the fruit of truth into his soul."64 Thomas uses the

expression "eye of the mind" in relation to the latter harvest, explaining that when Jesus

says, "Lift up your eyes," he means the "eye of the mind, by thinking

(considerationem)." 5 Thomas uses the expression in a similar manner in Chapter 11,

Lecture 6, where it is used to indicate the act of understanding, and possibly that of

memory, thinking, and intention. For in commenting on "Jesus lifted up his eyes,"

Thomas explains that Jesus lifted up his eyes in understanding (intelligentiam), and that

we should imitate him, raising our eyes of the mind (oculos mentis) to him by turning

them from the memories (memoria), thoughts (cogitationibus) and desires (intentionibus)

of present things.66 Finally, in Chapter 20, Lecture 2, the expression is used to indicate a

searching and inquisitive knowing. Mary Magdalene's "looking" into the empty tomb is

an "example to look continually on the death of Christ with the eyes of our mind (oculis

"Subtraxit ergo se eis, ut quem habebant praesentia corporali, et videbant oculis corporis, haberent praesentia spirituali, et cernerent oculo mentis: quod est habere per fidem." Super loannem, chap. 14, lect. 1, 1859. On faith residing in the intellect, see Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologiae, Ilallae 4.2&5. 63 Super loannem, chap. 4, lect. 4, 646. 64 Super loannem, chap. 4, lect. 4, 646. 65 "Levate oculos vestros, scilicet mentis per considerationem," Super loannem, chap. 4, lect. 4, 647.1 understand "considerationem" here as the searching investigation into intelligible things, resting ultimately in contemplation. Cf. Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologiae, Ilallae 180.4 ad3. 66 Super loannem, chap. 11, lect. 6, 1551.

160

mentis)?' Thomas goes on to explain that "one look is not enough for one who loves, for

the force of love increases the desire to explore (inquisitionis)." 7

This last example illustrates the significance of Thomas mentioning the eyes of

the heart before the eye of the mind. A right desire is needed to motivate the act of

knowledge, especially if it is a searching knowledge. Elsewhere in the Commentary,

Thomas discusses the role of love in bringing forth knowledge. In Chapter 14, Thomas

explains the need of the Spirit to lead us to the truth, and so in this way love leads us to

the knowledge of the truth.68 A little later in the same chapter, Thomas mentions how it is

charity that allows someone to see God, namely, through uniting the soul with God, by

raising our eyes to God, and by freeing us from worldly loves. Thomas also mentions

how the Spirit, by virtue of being Love, incites us to recall things.70 Indeed, earlier in the

prologue, Thomas describes the perfection of John's contemplation in terms of his

"adhering and assenting by affection and understanding" to the truth contemplated.71

Once again, affection is placed before understanding. This is an understanding that occurs

after the Spirit, the principle of divine love, unites us to God. Therefore, it is a love-

inspired understanding that Thomas is concerned with here, and which lies behind John's

contemplation. Once John received the Spirit through baptism, he was inspired to know

his faith deeper by the love of the Spirit, a love that motivated him to know things beyond

his natural capacity.

Thomas presents a similar teaching in the opening article to the Question on the

contemplative life in the Summa theologiae. Thomas begins Question 180 of the

67 Super loannem, chap. 20, lect. 2, 2494. 68 Super loannem, chap. 14, lect. 4, 1916. 6 Super loannem, chap. 14, lect. 6, 1941. 70 Super loannem, chap. 14, lect. 6, 1960. 71 Super loannem, prol., 8.

161

Secunda-Secundae with the topic of "Whether the contemplative life has nothing to do

with the affections, and pertains wholly to the intellect." Although the essence of the act

of contemplation pertains to the intellect, contemplation pertains to the affections in so

far as the intellect is moved by the will's love of what is contemplated.72 Furthermore, the

contemplative life terminates in delight, which is seated in the affective power, since in

contemplation one obtains what is loved. ~ In describing John's vision in terms of seeing

with the "eyes of the heart" and with the "eye of the mind," then, we see how it is perfect

in both will and intellect.

1.4. His privilege

Thomas concludes his portrait of the spiritual vision with a discussion of the

Evangelist according to his "privilege." John's privilege, Thomas explains, was to be the

most loved of Jesus' disciples. John himself indicates this privilege in the Gospel by

referring to himself as "the disciple whom Jesus loved" (Jn 21:20). We are also told by

John that Jesus loved all of the disciples as his friends. A sign of friendship, Thomas

explains, "is that a friend reveals the secrets of his heart to his friend."74 Jesus confided

his secrets to all of his disciples on account of his love for them as friends. But of all the

disciples, Jesus loved John in a special way, and so confided his secrets to him in a

special way as well.75 John's privilege in being loved most of all by Jesus leads to a

72 "Et ideo vita contemplativa quantum ad ipsam essentiam actionis, pertinet ad intellectum; quantum autem ad id quod movet ad exercendam talem operationem, pertinet ad voluntatem, quae movet omnes alias potentias, et etiam intellectum ad suum actum." Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologiae, Ilallae 180.1 corpus. 73 "Et quia unusquisque delectatur cum adeptus fuerit id quod amat, ideo vita contemplativa terminatur ad delectationem, quae est in affectu, ex qua etiam amor intenditur." Ibid., Ilallae 180.1 corpus. 74 "Verum enim amicitiae signum est quod amicus amico suo cordis secreta revelet." Super loannem, chap. 15, lect. 3, 2016. 75 "secreta sua huic discipulo specialiter dilecto specialiter commendavit." Super loannem, prol., 11.

162

privileged knowledge of the divine secrets. For this reason, then, John saw the divinity of

the Incarnate Word in a way superior to that of the other disciples.

In his discussion of John's privilege, Thomas demonstrates the role played by

Christ's humanity in the spiritual vision. So far in Thomas' portrait of the Evangelist, the

emphasis has been on the role of Christ's divinity. The opening discussion, for example,

directs our attention to the role of divine grace in John's seeing the divine secrets. This

grace is understood as Christological; for it is only through conformity to the Son, the

Second Person of the Trinity, that one can be made a son of God. Furthermore, in the

discussion on John's symbol, the eagle, John is distinguished from the other Evangelists

on account of his concern for the divinity of Jesus. The other Evangelists, we are told,

were concerned more with what Christ did in the flesh.77 Both the source and goal of

John's spiritual vision are to be found in Christ's divinity, for it is through conformity to

the Son that John was able to contemplate the Son in the person of Jesus.

Christ's humanity is also indispensable to John's spiritual vision. For it is the love

of Jesus Christ, the Word Incarnate, that allows John to see the "truth of his divinity."

John's familiarity with Jesus is presented then as a necessary condition of his

contemplation. Without the aid of Jesus himself, John would not have known the Word,

and consequently would not have written about him in his Gospel. In this way, John's

contemplation of the Word was dependent on Christ's humanity. For all of its loftiness,

"quia ipse est, qui lucem Verbi incarnate excellentius videns, ipsam nobis insinuat, dicens [infra I, 9]: Erat lux vera etc." Super loannem, prol., 11. 77 Super loannem, prol., 11.

163

then, John's contemplation of the Word was never divorced from the person of Jesus

Christ, whom he knew and loved.78

Having looked at Thomas' portrait of John on the prologue in light of discussions

from the body of the Commentary, let us summarize the spiritual disposition that lies at

the source of this Gospel. John possesses the spiritual vision afforded by the grace of

faith, spiritual regeneration, and wisdom which allows him to see the secrets of the

divinity. This grace elevates his will, turning him away from earthly things and towards

heavenly things. John's own life reflects this elevation in his acquiring the virtue of

virginity, whereby he is free from the earthly loves that might draw him away from his

contemplation of God. With the gifts of grace and the virtue of purity, John is enabled to

engage both his will and intellect in his contemplation of God, therefore, finding in it the

object of his desire and understanding. Finally, this vision is rooted in John's friendship

with Christ, by virtue of which he is accorded the privilege of knowing the secrets of the

Word from the Word Incarnate himself.

2. The Spiritual Vision and Mystical Meaning

John's spiritual vision suits the mystical meaning of the Gospel, especially as it is

manifested by the ratio mystica. It is fitting that the author of such a mystical text would

be disposed to seeing mysteries, especially those of the divinity of Christ, which, Thomas

tells us, is the chief concern of John in his Gospel. But perhaps most significantly for our

study is that the spiritual vision described in Chapter 3 appears to be well suited to

78 Let us remember Thomas' earlier insistence that John did not neglect the mysteries of Christ's humanity in emphasizing his divinity. (Super Ioannem, prol., 10)

164

discerning the end of the ratio mystica, that is, the threefold end of the Gospel. For the

spiritual vision in its hindsight can see the perfection of the Old Law in the New, and

thereby discern in the entirety of sacred Scripture the divinity of Christ, the subject of

faith, the first fruit of the Gospel. Furthermore, by the gift of faith, the spiritual vision

enables one to live the life of righteousness and anticipate the life of glory to come, the

other benefits of the Gospel. In fact, Thomas says as much in Chapter 16, Lecture 3,

where he shows us that the Spirit will illumine the disciples concerning their faith in this

life, will lead them to perfect knowledge in the next, and will bring them to an

7Q

understanding of the figures of the Old Law.

The mystical meaning also shares the far reaching character of the spiritual

vision. As we have already demonstrated, the mystical reason serves a context well

beyond that of the divisio textus. Like the spiritual vision, it looks with a threefold vision

beyond its present context to allegorical, moral, and anagogical meanings. The mystical

meaning, then, appears to affect the same kind of knowledge as the spiritual vision, but

within the context of Scripture.

We saw also that Thomas' discussion of the spiritual vision entailed the gift of

wisdom, by which one is disposed to understand and judge rightly about divine things.

Given the similarities between Thomas' discussions on wisdom in Chapter 14 of the

Commentary and in the Summa theologiae, it is likely that John possessed a connatural

knowledge of divine things. In the Questions on wisdom in the Summa theologiae,

Thomas distinguishes wisdom as a gift from God from wisdom as an intellectual virtue.

7 "Item spiritualis intellectus omnium Scripturarum, quern tunc non habebant, sed quando aperuit els sensum ut intelligerent Scripturas: Lc. Ult., 45," and "Et dicit Omnem veritatem, scilicet fidei, quam docebit per quamdam elevatam intelligentiam in vita ista, et eamdem plenarie in vita aeterna." Super loannem, chap. 16, lect. 3, 2101-2102.

165

Both denote a certain rectitude of judgment, but it belongs to wisdom as a gift from God

to judge rightly about divine things by way of "a certain connaturality with them."80

Connatural knowledge, Thomas explains, does not come by way of rational investigation,

but by experience. The experience of divine matters comes by way of the soul's union

with God, as Paul says in 1 Cor 6:17, "He who is joined to the Lord, is one spirit."81

Therefore, through the soul's union with God by the grace of baptism, the believer is

brought into intimate experience with divine realities. The believer's experience of these

realities becomes his guide in judging about them rightly.

In the Super Ioannem, the term 'connatural' or 'connaturality' cannot be found,

but instead Thomas prefers to describe the experiential knowledge of God in terms of the

action of the Spirit. In doing so, he comes very close to the description of connaturality in

the Summa theologiae.82 In Chapter 14, Lecture 6, for instance, Thomas, as we have

already seen, attributes the source of the Spirit's teaching to the soul's union with God

through charity. By virtue of this unity, the believer is given a taste for divine things:

"Just as one whose sense of taste is tainted does not have a true knowledge of flavors, so

one who is tainted by love of the world cannot taste divine things." In the Summa

theologiae, Thomas uses a similar analogy to describe the connatural knowledge afforded

"Sic ergo circa res divinas ex rationis inquisitione rectum iudicium habere pertinet ad sapientiam quae est virtus intellectuals; sed rectum iudicium habere de eis secundum quandam connaturalitatem ad ipsas pertinet ad sapientiam secundum quod donum est Spiritus Sancti." Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologiae, IIaIIae45.2 corpus. 81 Ibid., Ilallae 45.2 corpus. 82 The concept of knowing divine things by way of experience is found in the Commentary. See Thomas' discussion on how one can judge whether a teaching is from God by way of an "experience in divine matters:" "Illius iudicio standum est, an doctrina mea sit a Deo, qui est expertus in rebus divinis, talis enim recte potest de his iudicare; I Cor. II, 14: Animalis homo non percipit ea quae sunt spiritus Dei, spiritualis autem iudicat omnia." Super Ioannem, chap. 7, lect. 2, 1039. 83 Super Ioannem, chap. 14, lect. 6, 1941 & 1958. 84 "Sicut enim qui habet gustum infectum non habet veram cognitionem de saporibus, ita et qui infectus est amore mundi, non potest gustare divina." Super Ioannem, chap. 14, lect. 6, 1959.

166

by the gift of wisdom.85 In this way, then, the affective knowledge denoted by the

expression, "eyes of the heart," can be understood as a form of connatural knowledge.

If we allow that the connatural knowledge of the gift of wisdom is to be afforded

by the spiritual vision, then we can assume John possessed such knowledge as an element

of his contemplation. Describing John's knowledge as connatural is helpful for showing

the appropriateness of the gift of wisdom for the writing of the Gospel. According to the

Summa theologiae, the connatural knowledge offered by the gift of wisdom allows the

believer to order with an acute and penetrating sense86 all things according to the highest

end, namely, God.87 The mystical reasons, as we saw in the last chapter, are passages

ordered to the highest end of the Gospel, namely, the threefold end of faith, life of

O Q

righteousness, and the life of vision. These passages are mystical because their true end

is not seen by way of rational investigation of the argument of the text, but by the Spirit,

who inspires John to order his text according to his taste for divine things. In this way,

then, the mystical meaning of the Gospel can be seen as the result of John's connatural

knowledge of the gift of wisdom.

Within the Gospel's mystical meaning, we can discern both the speculative and

practical sides of the gift of wisdom, as explained in the Summa theologiae. Jacques

Maritain describes the speculative form of wisdom in his discussion of the connatural

"Ex qua etiam sumitur nomen sapientiae, secundum quod saporem quendam importat." Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologiae, Ilallae 45.2 adl; 46.1 corpus, & 2 corpus. 86 "Nam fatuus caret sensu iudicandi; stultus autem habet sensum, sed hebetatum; sapiens autem subtilem et perspicacem." Ibid., Ilallae 46.1 corpus.

7 "Hie autem qui cognoscit causam altissimam simpliciter, quae est Deus, dicitur sapiens simpliciter, inquantum per regulas divinas omnia potest iudicare et ordinare." Ibid., Ilallae 45.1 corpus & adl.

Super loannem, chap. 20, lect. 6, 2568. The concept of divine wisdom also functions in Thomas' discussion of mystical reasons in Question 102

of the Summa. The reason the ceremonial precepts of the Old Law have an end is because they proceed from the divine wisdom, (see, Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologiae, Ilallae 102.1 corpus) 90 Ibid., Ilallae 45.3.

167

knowledge proper to mystical experience. In a mystical experience knowledge depends

"both on faith and charity, and on a special inspiration from God who inhabits the

soul."91 Maritain, following John of St. Thomas, explains that the love of God

grows into an objective means of knowing, transit in conditionem objecti, and replaces the concept as intentional instrument obscurely uniting the intellect with the thing known, in such a way that man not only experiences his love, but through his love, that precisely which is still hidden in faith, the still more to be loved, and to be tasted in love, which is the hidden substance of faith.92

The same can be said of the knowledge proper to the mystical meaning in so far as the

soul is unified to the divine realities by which it orders scriptural passages. And so, it is

by the "eyes of the heart" that John orders the mysteries expressed in his Gospel.

But, the knowledge of the mystical meaning is directed towards writing a text,

which, as Thomas explains in the prologue, serves a spiritual end, namely, manifesting

the divinity of Christ. In crafting the Gospel to this end, then, John demonstrates a

practical wisdom also. In the Question on wisdom in the Secundae-Secundae of the

Summa theologiae, Thomas explains how the gift of wisdom can be practical, in so far as

divine things are consulted for the purposes of directing human acts. ' In the mystical

meaning, John consults divine realities by way of experience with them for the purposes

of bringing about the intended effects of his Gospel, namely, the declaration of Christ's

divinity, and the defense of the faithful against certain Christological heresies.

Finally, it was also appropriate for the mystical meaning of the Gospel that John

knew and loved Jesus in his humanity. Thomas understands the humanity of Christ as the

only means by which the rest of humanity could come to a proper knowledge of God. He

91 Jacques Maritain, Natural Law: Reflections on Theory and Practice, (South Bend, Indiana: St. Augustine's Press, 2001), 16. 92 Jacques Maritain, Natural Law, 16-17. ' Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologiae, Ilallae 45.3 corpus & ad3.

168

assigns three reasons for this in the Commentary.94 According to Thomas, human nature

had become corrupt by its own malice, and "had been darkened by vices and the

obscurity of its own ignorance."95 And even without its corruption, as a created reality,

human nature would not have been sufficient in itself to know God the Creator.

Furthermore, even the help that was accorded humanity through the prophecies of the

prophets and John the Baptist were not able to give sufficient enlightenment.96 Only with

the coming of God himself, Incarnate in Jesus Christ, was sufficient enlightenment

afforded.97

John's familiarity with Christ is also appropriate if we recall the Christological

content of divine mysteries. In Chapter One of this thesis, we showed how the concept of

mystery in Thomas is more than a modal term. Instead, when applied to divine realities, it

connotes a particular content, namely, God's loving plan of salvation carried out in

Christ. According to Torrell, this understanding of mystery is found in Thomas' treatment

of the mysteries of the life of Jesus: "If the entire life of Christ is itself the mystery of the

love of God that reveals itself and acts in history, each one of His acts is also a 'mystery'

in the sense that it signifies and realizes this total 'mystery.'" How fitting then for the

author of such a mystical Gospel, such as John, to have witnessed firsthand not only the

Passion and death of Jesus, but also the many other mysteries of his life.

3. Spiritual Vision and the Mystical Interpretation

Super loannem, chap. 1, lect. 5, 141. Super Ioannem, chap. 1, lect. 5, 141. Super loannem, chap. 1, lect. 5, 141. Super Ioannem, chap. 1, lect. 5, 141 and chap. 1, lect. 11, 221. Torrell, Spiritual Master, 264.

169

The presence of the mystical interpretation in Thomas' Commentary suggests that

the spiritual vision outlined in the prologue is necessary not only for John's writing of the

Gospel, but for its interpretation as well. This is evident from the fact that John's vision is

not exclusive to him as Evangelist, but necessary for anyone who desires to see the secret

"mysteries of Christ,"99 the very mysteries, in fact, John seeks to communicate to the

readers of his Gospel.1 In fact, the spiritual vision and the mystical interpretation point

out the same mysteries, namely, the threefold mystery of the Old Law, New Law and life

of glory.101

There is also evidence that the spiritual vision reveals mysteries as found in

Scripture. In a few cases, we see how this vision influences one's interpretation of

Scripture. As we have already seen, it is by the interior illumination afforded by the

Spirit's gift of wisdom that we grasp the teaching of the Son, and are raised to spiritual

realities.102 That this has an effect on the interpretation of Scripture can be seen from the

fact that it is by way of the same spiritual illumination that the disciples are said to

understand the figures of the Old Law. This is specifically mentioned in Chapter 3,

Lecture 1, as an effect of baptism. The spiritual regeneration of the New Law provides a

clear understanding of the figurative meaning of the Old Law. In Chapter 16, Lecture

3, Thomas explains that, along with elevating the disciples' faith in this life and leading

them to the fullness of understanding in the next, the Spirit also gives them a "spiritual

understanding" of the Scriptures, specifically, an understanding of the figures of the Old

99 Super Ioannem, chapt. 2, lect. 3, 420. 100 Super Ioannem, pro]., 10. 101 In Super Ioannem, chap. 16, lect. 3, 2101-2102, we find a good example of this, where Thomas explains that the Spirit will illumine the disciples concerning their faith in this life, will lead them to perfect knowledge in the next, and will bring them to an understanding of the figures of the Old Law. 102 Super Ioannem, chap. 14, lect. 6, 1958-1960. 103 Super Ioannem, chap. 3, lect. 1, 433.

Law.1 These figures are understood in light of what they are the figures of, namely,

Christ and his members. The spiritual vision grants the believer the ability to read the

Scriptures in light of what fulfills them.

Furthermore, Thomas uses the expression "eye of the mind," one of the ways

John sees the secrets of the divinity by spiritual vision, in relation to seeing mysteries in

Scripture. Thomas tells us that when Scripture uses the expression, "Lift up your eyes," it

directs our intention to subtle and profound things, namely spiritual and divine realities,

which cannot be seen by the carnal.1 os And for these truths we are directed especially to

the Scriptures, in which, thanks to the grace of Christ, we can find spiritual fruit.1 In this

context, the "eye of the mind" appears to indicate the act of thinking about God's

revelation made to us through Christ, and prefigured in the Old Testament, by which we

gather these truths into our own soul.

The spiritual vision is also necessary for understanding the New Law. A little later

in Chapter 16, Thomas explains how Jesus' own words should be read in light of spiritual

realities. Thomas borrows Augustine's interpretation of Jn 16:25: "I have said this to you

in figures; the hour is coming when I will no longer speak to you in figures but tell you

plainly of the Father." According to Augustine, Jesus is promising to make his disciples

spiritual, and thus able to understand the hidden meaning behind his proverbs. In fact,

according to Augustine, it is not the proverbial form of Jesus' words that puzzle the

disciples, but their own sensual disposition. As in the discussion on spiritual regeneration

104 Super loannem, chap. 16, lect. 3, 2101-2102. 105 "Nam oculi quando non sunt elevate a terrenis, vel a concupiscentia carnali, non sunt idonei ad cognitionem spiritualis fructus." Super loannem, chap. 4, lect. 4, 648. 106 "Dicit ergo Levate oculos vestros, et videte regiones, quoniam albae sunt iam ad messem, idest, ita dispositae, quod ex eis Veritas sciri potest: nam per regiones specialiter intelliguntur omnia ex quibus Veritas accipi potest. Et hae specialiter sunt Scripturae. Infr V, 39: Scrutamini Scripturas...quia ipsae testimonium perhibent de me." Super loannem, chap. 4, lect. 4, 649. 107 Super loannem, chap. 16, lect. 7, 2152.

171

in Chapter 3, Thomas mentions the need to be raised above the material to know spiritual

1OR

things, once again referencing 1 Cor 2:14. Eventually, the disciples would be made

spiritual by the risen Jesus and taught by the Holy Spirit, enabling them to "clearly

understood spiritual words as spiritual."109

If it is true that the interpreter needs the same spiritual vision as John in order to

interpret the mystical meaning of the Gospel, it would appear then that the source of this

spiritual vision would be the same as it was for John, namely, the grace of faith, baptism,

and wisdom. Through these graces, the interpreter would benefit from the indwelling of

the Spirit, and so be raised above material things to gaze upon the lofty things of God

with the eyes of the heart and with the eye of the mind.

But if the interpreter is to share in John's spiritual vision, he must also share in his

friendship with Christ. Torrell's work on Thomas' Christology is especially helpful for

understanding how this can be so. Torrell understands Thomas as teaching that "every act

that Christ performed in his humanity has been and continues to be the bearer of salvific

efficacy."110 Not just the Passion, death, and Resurrection, but every act of Christ's

humanity signifies and realizes the total mystery of God's love.111 These mysteries

continue to act today by way of the divinity united to Christ's humanity. According to

Torrell, "The actual efficacy of past mysteries of Christ's life comes to them from the

divine power which reaches all times and places."112 Christ in his humanity remains at

Super loannem, chap. 16, lect. 7, 2152. 109 "sed postmodum a Christo spirituales effecti et per Spiritum sanctum edocti, spiritualia aperte capiebant." Super loannem, chap. 16, lect. 7, 2152. 110 Torrell, Spiritual Master, 132. In Thomas' own words: "omens actiones et passiones Christi instrumentaliter operantur in virtute divinitatis ad salutem humanam." Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologiae, Ilia 48.6, as cited in Torrell, Spiritual Master, 135n34. ' ' ' Torrell, Spiritual Master, 132. ' l2 Torrell, Spiritual Master, 137.

the heart of the Christian life, then, "as a wholly efficacious presence of grace."1' It is by

way of the ongoing efficacy of the mysteries of Christ's humanity, then, that the

interpreter of John's Gospel benefits from Christ's humanity as did John himself.

Torrell explains, however, that what is different is the concrete means by which

the mysteries reach the interpreter."4 The privilege to know Jesus in his earthly life is no

longer available to believers after the Ascension. Instead, they come into contact with

Christ's humanity through faith and the sacraments. Thomas understands these two

means as corresponding to Christ's humanity as both spirit and body. 5 Christ is met

spiritually in faith and bodily in the sacraments. Through faith and receiving the

sacraments, then, the interpreter can establish a familiarity and friendship with Christ in

his humanity as did John through his encounter with Jesus in his earthly life. In this way,

the interpreter can satisfy the final condition of John's spiritual vision, friendship with

Christ in his humanity.

There is also evidence to suggest that Scripture itself plays a role in fostering

friendship with Christ. Torrell does not think we should restrict the point of contact with

Christ's humanity to the sacraments. There are, he reminds us, many mysteries of

Christ's hidden life which are not explicitly reproduced in the sacraments.116 He suggests

that prayer, both public and private, and even acts of charity can be seen as ways of

interiorizing Christ's mysteries.1171 think we can add to this list the reading and studying

of sacred Scripture. The Scriptures, according to Thomas, lead us to faith in Christ and

113 Torrell, Spiritual Master, 139. 114 Torrell, Spiritual Master, 139. 115 Torrell, Spiritual Master, 139. 116 Torrell, Spiritual Master, 140. 117 Torrell, Spiritual Master, 140.

173

serve as its rule."8 But the Scriptures also make use of the bodily. In fact, in his Question

on the Sacraments in the Tertia Pars of the Summa theologiae, Thomas compares the

sacraments to the sacred Scriptures to illustrate how they signify spiritual and intelligible

goods by way of sensible things: "sacramental signs consist in sensible things, just as in

the Divine Scriptures spiritual things are set before us under the likeness of things

sensible."119 Analogous to the sacraments, then, the Scriptures lead us to spiritual realities

through the use of the sensible.

In John's Gospel, the sensible include all of the persons, places and things

narrated in his attempt to pass on his contemplation of Jesus. In reading the Gospel on the

literal level, one comes to a familiarity with Jesus through knowledge of his deeds and

words. In this way, John effectively imparts to his readers a share in his own intimate

knowledge of Christ in his humanity.

But intimacy with Christ's humanity may also be found on the mystical level. As

Joseph Goering has shown, medieval preaching employed the moral meaning found in

the spiritual or mystical level to teach lessons concerning the interior life of the person.

This was in contrast to the moral lessons of the literal sense which were concerned

primarily "with practical conduct and politics."120 The spiritual moral sense, on the other

hand, laid "bare the interior life of the human person, heart and soul."121 On only five

occasions in the Commentary, does Thomas refer explicitly to the moral meaning of a

On Scriptures leading one to faith, see Super loannem, chap. 4, lect. 7, 685 and chap. 20, lect. 6, 2568. On how the Old Testament leads to faith in Christ by means of figures, see Super loannem, chap. 5, lect. 6, 823. On Scriptures as the rule of faith, see Super loannem, chapt. 21, lect. 5, 2656. 119 "sicut etiam per similitudinem sensibilium rerum in divina Scriptura, res spirituales nobis describuntur." Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologiae, Ilia 60.4 corpus. 120 Goering, "Literal and Spiritual Morality," 121. 121 Goering, "Literal and Spiritual Morality," 121.

passage. In each case, however, the moral is primarily concerned with the interior life.

On one occasion in the Commentary, Thomas links the interior life with the mystical

interpretation. In his comments on Jn 13:4-11, Thomas explains that Christ's washing the

feet of his disciples is a mystery because it is hidden and signifies an interior cleansing.

In the mystical moral meaning, then, the reader is meant to interiorize mysteries, and in

doing so, interiorize God's loving plan of salvation worked out through the mysteries of

Christ's humanity. In fact, three of the five abovementioned cases of moral meanings

describe the interior life as a place of encounter with Jesus: Jesus dwells in us for our

good qualities;124 he visits those who confess their sins;125 and he increases in those who

grasp him in knowledge and in love.126

It appears then that the basic conditions of John's spiritual vision, such as the

graces of faith, baptism, and wisdom, and even friendship with Christ in his humanity,

can be shared by the interpreter of the Gospel. By setting out for the reader the conditions

needed to grasp the mystical meaning of the Gospel text, then, Thomas' portrait of John

serves as a hermeneutic for the reading of the Gospel.127

To whom precisely this vision is given, however, is not clear from the

Commentary. Although the spiritual vision comes from the grace of faith, baptism, and

In each case the meaning is indicated by the use of the word moralis/moraliter. See Super Ioannem, chap. 1, lect. 15, 290; chap. 3, lect. 4, 499; chap. 3, lect. 5, 524; chap. 4, lect. 7, 678; chap. 21, lect. 2, 2602. 123 Super Ioannem, chap. 13, lect. 2, 1756. 124 "Moraliter autem interrogant Ut habitas? quasi vellent scire, quales debent esse homines qui digni sunt quod Christus habitet in eis." Super Ioannem, chap. 1, lect. 15, 290. 125 "Moraliter autem Iudaea interpretatur confessio, ad quam venit Iesus, quia Christus confitentes sua peccata." Super Ioannem, chap. 3, lect. 4, 499. 126 "quia inquantum magis eum potes cognoscendo et amando percipere, tanto magis Christus crescit in te." Super Ioannem, chap. 3, lect. 5, 524. 127 Carlo Leget understands Thomas as displaying "some of the specific conditions for grasping the kind of knowledge communicated in the Gospel: God's grace, purity of heart, and an intimate relationship of friendship with Christ." Carlo Leget, "The Concept of 'Life' in Commentary on John," in Reading John with St. Thomas Aquinas: theological exegesis and speculative theology, edited by Michael Dauphinais and Matthew Levering (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2005), 158.

175

wisdom, we cannot say for certain that this is a universal effect of this grace. In fact, there

is a debate among Thomists on whether the gifts of the Spirit are given to all the baptized

or only to the religious. It is not our intention to settle this debate, nor is it necessary

for our argument to do so. For, since we know that Thomas presented his lectures to

Dominican student-friars, whichever side of the debate one falls on, the intended reader

of the Commentary would possess the requisite grace needed for grasping the mystical

meanings. And so, bracketing the question of the identity, let us say that, whoever the

interpreter, the grace of faith, baptism, and wisdom will be needed to grasp the mystical

meanings of John's Gospel, and by consequence, to appreciate fully what Thomas is

doing in his mystical interpretation.

4. The Mystical Interpretation as a Spiritual Exercise

The mystical interpretation, however, not only presupposes a spiritual disposition,

but fosters one as well. In this final section, I hope to demonstrate that the mystical

reason functions as a spiritual exercise, by which the reader advances in charity.

Thomas' definition of a spiritual exercise can be found article 1 of Question 189

of the Secunda-Secundae of the Summa theologiae, where Thomas asks whether those

who are not practiced (exercitati) in the keeping of the commandments should enter

religious life. In his response to this question, Thomas describes the religious state as a

"spiritual exercise" {spirituale exercitium). Spiritual exercise is described here in terms of

its goal and means. Its goal, according to Thomas, is "the attainment of the perfection of

' For a summary of this debate, see the dissertation by Andrew T. Seeley, "St. Thomas Aquinas on the Necessity of the Gifts of the Holy Spirit for Salvation" (Ph.D. diss., University of Toronto, 1995). 129 In the article on whether baptism should take away the penalties of sin that belong to this life, Thomas argues that the person's battle with concupiscence and other defects is fitting for the "spirituale exercitium" needed to win the "crown of victory" in the afterlife. Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologia, Ilia 69.3 corpus.

176

charity," which is achieved by removing the obstacles to perfect charity in this life.

These obstacles are "those things which attach man's affections to earthly things." ~

Anything that removes such obstacles and facilitates the attainment of the perfection of

charity can be called a spiritual exercise. And so, the religious state as a whole, and the

particular observances that it employs, are worthy of the name. Observances that

function as spiritual exercises include, reading (lectio), prayer, visiting the sick, '"

teaching, preaching, " and study (studium).* 5 Considering that the Commentary is the

result of lectures given by Thomas as part of his teaching duties at the University of

Paris, we will focus our attention on how the mystical reason serves as a spiritual exercise

under the form of study.

In Article 5 of Question 188 of the Secunda-Secundae, Thomas explains how the

study of letters as a whole serves both states of the religious life, namely, the

contemplative and active.136 Study directly benefits contemplation by directing the mind

to the consideration of divine things, while indirectly benefiting it by removing the

obstacles to contemplation. By obstacles, Thomas means errors, specifically those that

130 "Dicendum quod, sicut ex supra dictis patet, status religionis est quoddam spirituale exercitium ad consequendam caritatis perfectionem; quod quidem fit inquantum per religionis observantias auferuntur impedimenta perfectae caritatis." Ibid., Ilallae 189.1 corpus. On the religious state as an exercise toward perfect charity, see also Ilallae 186.1 ad4; 2 & 7; and 188.1 corpus. 131 "Haec autem sunt quae implicant affectum hominis ad terrene." Ibid., Ilallae 189.1 corpus. 132 See Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologiae, Ilallae 188.1 corpus; Thomas Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles, vol. 3:2, Providence Part 2, trans, by Vernon J. Bourke (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1975), bk. 3, chap. 132 no. 14; Thomas Aquinas, Super Eph., chap. 3, lect. 4; and Thomas Aquinas, Contra impugnantes, Opera Omnia Iussu Leonis XIII P.M Edita (ad Sanctae Sabinae, Romae, 1970), pars 2 chap. 4 ad8. 133 Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologiae, Ilallae 186.7 ad2. 134 Ibid., Ilallae 187.1 corpus. 135 Ibid., Ilallae 188.5. 136 Ibid., Ilallae 188.5 corpus.

177

arise from an ignorance of the scriptures.137 Thomas illustrates this with the example of

the Anthropomorphites, who erroneously attributed a human shape to God. Following

Gregory, Thomas understands their error as the result of their attempt to contemplate

more than they were able to grasp, which itself was caused by a lack of humility on their

part.138

By examining the role of humility here, we can see how study functions as a

spiritual exercise. Earlier in the Summa, Thomas explains that humility is necessary for

i o n

the knowledge of higher things. Humility is the virtue by which one has a true

estimation of himself before higher things,140 thereby recognizing his deficiency before

them.141 In this way, humility prevents one's self-love from impeding the love of the

truth. Pride, on the other hand, delights in one's own excellence over that of the truth,

thereby preventing the person from submitting his intellect to God, or to any capable

teacher.142 Pride leads not to wisdom, but to folly,143 because it subordinates spiritual

things to earthly. Study conducted out of humility, however, serves the order of wisdom

by subordinating self-love to the love of the truth, and in this way it serves as a spiritual

137 "Alio modo, studium litterarum iuvat ad contemplativam vitam indirecte removendo contemplationis pericula, scilicet errores, qui in contemplatione divinorum frequenter accident his qui Scripturas ignorant." Ibid., Hallae 188.5 corpus. 138 "Unde dicit Gregorius, in VI Moral., quod 'nonnulli, dum plus exquirunt contemplando quam capiunt, usque ad perversa dogmata erumpunt; et dum veritatis esse discipuli humiliter negligunt, magistri errorum fiunt."' Ibid., Hallae 188.5 corpus. 139 Ibid., Hallae 161.2. 14 "humilitas attendit ad regulam rationis rectae, secundum qum quis veram aestimationem de se habet." Ibid., Hallae 162.3 ad2. 141 "Et ideo cognitio proprii defectus pertinet ad humilitatem sicut regula quaedam directiva appetitus." Ibid, Hallae 161.2 corpus. 142 "Superbus enim neque Deo intellectum suum subiicit, ut ab eo veritatis cognitionem precipiat,...Neque etiam ab hominibus addiscere dignatur." Ibid, Hallae 162.3 adl. 143 Thomas ends his discussion of study's benefit to contemplation with a quotation from Ecclesiastes 2:3: "I thought in my heart to withdraw my flesh from wine, that I might turn my mind to wisdom and might avoid folly." Ibid.,, Hallae 188.5 corpus. On folly, see Ibid., Hallae 46.3, where Thomas defines it as an inordinate desire for earthly things.

exercise by challenging the reader to remove an obstacle to charity, namely, the

inordinate love of self.

The second benefit of study for religious life mentioned in Article 5 concerns the

active life. Thomas explains that study prepares religious for preaching and other like

tasks. Thomas appeals to the authority of Paul as found in his letter to Titus (1:9):

"Embracing that faithful word which is according to doctrine, that he may be able to

exhort in sound doctrine (doctrina sand) and to convince the gainsayers."144 Thomas,

perhaps anticipating an objection, ends this discussion with an explanation for how the

Apostles could have taught without the aid of study. As Jerome explains in his letter to

Paulinus, "whatever others acquire by exercise and daily meditation in God's law, was

taught them by the Holy Ghost."145

Thomas mentions preaching and, by implication, teaching here to remind us that

study is not merely for the purpose of personal gain, but, if received with charity,

compels the person to share what is learned with others. This is made clear in the Super

loannem, where Thomas explains how one receives Christ's doctrine for the benefit of

others, as well as one's own. According to Thomas, the "instinct and fervour" of the

indwelling Spirit moves the person to bear the abundant fruits of the spiritual gifts. By

preparing for preaching and teaching, then, study advances the person in charity by

allowing him to produce its proper fruit: the communication of that doctrine to others.147

144 Ibid., Ilallae 188.5 corpus. 145 "quidquid aliis exercitatio et quotidiana in lege Dei meditatio tribuere solet, hoc illis Spiritus Sanctus suggerebat." Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologiae, Ilallae 188.5 corpus. 146 "Unde, quia ex instinctu et fervore Spiritus sancti movebatur Apostolus." Super loannem, chap. 7, lect. 5, 1090. 147 This is what John the Evangelist does in his Gospel (prol. 10). See also Summa theologiae, Ilallae, 188.6, where Thomas explains that "it is better to give to others the fruits of one's contemplation than merely to contemplate."

179

Finally, in the same Article, Thomas enumerates three ways in which study

benefits religious life, each of which pertains to both the contemplative and active states.

The first two clearly can be understood as spiritual exercises for they directly relate to the

removal of what attaches our affections to earthly things. According to Thomas, study

helps turn the mind from lustful thoughts, as Jerome says, "Love the science of the

Scriptures and thou shalt have no love for carnal vice."148 The reason for this is the "toil"

(labor) that study entails. Toil turns the mind away from lustful thoughts and tames the

flesh.149 Earlier in Question 187, Thomas discusses the benefit of toil in connection to the

benefit of manual labour for the religious life. One of its benefits is to curb

concupiscence, which it does through afflicting the body.150 Thomas explains that manual

labour is not the only form of labour that has this effect. There are other activities which

labour not out of necessity, like manual labour, but for the welfare of the soul. Among

these exercises Thomas has chiefly in mind the meditation and study of sacred

Scripture. ' In his polemical work, Contra impugnantes Dei cultum et religionem, a

defense of the mendicant religious life, Thomas calls such practices "spiritual

exercises."152 Study, then, is a spiritual exercise in its employment of that labour which

keeps the mind from idleness and curbs concupiscence for the benefit of the soul.

,4B Ibid., Halle 188.5 corpus. 149 "Avertit enim animum a cogitatione lasciviae; et carnem macerat propter studii laborem." Ibid., Ilallae 188.5 corpus. 150 "Tertio, ordinatur ad concupiscentiae refrenationem, inquantum per hoc macerator corpus." Ibid., Ilallae 187.3 corpus. 151 "Secundum autem quod opus manuale ordinatur ad otium tollendum, vel ad corporis macerationem, non cadit sub necessitate praecepti secundum se consideratum; quia multis aliis modis potest vel caro macerari, vel etiam otiumtolli, quam per opus manuale. Maceratur enim caro per ieiunia et vigilias. Et otium tollitur per meditations Sacrarum Scripturarum et laudes divinas; unde super illud Psalmi CXVIII, 'Defecerunt oculi mei in eloquium tuum,' dicit Glossa: 'Non est otiosus qui verbo Dei tantum studet; nee pluris est qui extra operator quam qui studium cognoscendae veritatis exercet.'" Ibid., Ilallae 187.3 corpus. 152 Thomas Aquinas, Contra impugnantes Dei cultum et religionem, pars 2, chap. 4 ad8: "Otium autem efficaciter removetur non solum per opera manualia, sed etiam per exercitia spiritualia, quibus etiam carnis concupiscentia frenatur: unde dicit Hieronymus in eadem epistola: ama scientiam Scripturarum, et carnis

180

The spiritual effect of the second benefit is also clearly evident. Thomas says that

the study of letters helps remove the desire for riches.153 Earlier in his discussion on the

religious life, Thomas discusses how riches most of all can tie one to worldly affections,

which is why voluntary poverty is an exercise in the perfection of charity.154 Study, then,

helps one break the bonds to riches by focusing the mind on the true source of happiness,

the contemplation of the divine. "

The third, and final, benefit of study is that it teaches obedience, for as Augustine

says, "What sort of perverseness is this, to wish to read, but not to obey what one

reads?"156 We can understand this as a spiritual exercise of the charity that motivates

obedience. In obedience, one is motivated by charity to contemn for the sake of God one

of the highest goods of the soul, namely, the will.I57 God is obeyed through obeying his

commandments, which are found in sacred Scripture. The study of sacred Scripture, then,

is a spiritual exercise in its elaboration of God's commandments, obedience to which

demonstrates our love of God.

vitia non amabis. Unde quantum pertinet ad corpus domandum et otium tollendum, labor manualis non est in praecepto, dummodo homo per alia spiritualia exercitia otium evitet, et corpus castiget aliis poenitentiae operibus; sicut ieiuniis, vigiliis et huiusmodi, inter quae connumerat apostolus laborem manuum; II Cor. VI, 5: in laboribus, in vigiliis, in ieiuniis; Glossa: in laboribus operum, quia manibus suis operabatur." [Idleness, however, is not only effectively removed by manual work, but also by spiritual exercises, which also restrain concupiscence of the flesh: as Jerome says in the same epistle: 'Love the science of the Scriptures, and you will not love carnal vice.' In so far as it is directed to the taming of the body and removal of idleness, manual labour is not a matter of precept, since man by other spiritual exercises avoids idleness and chastises the body with other works of penance; such as fasting, vigils, and like works, among which the Apostle includes the work of the hands; II Cor. VI, 5: 'in labors, vigils, fasting;' As the Gloss says: 'in the labour of works, since he worked with his hands.' (My translation)] " "Valet etiam ad auferendam cupiditatem divitiarum." Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologiae, Ilallae 188.5

corpus. 154 Ibid., Ilallae 186.3 corpus. 155 On contemplation of the divine as the source of true happiness, see Thomas Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles, III, chap. 27 no. 10, and Compendium of Theology, chap. 108. 156 Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologiae, Ilallae 188.5 corpus. 157 Ibid., Ilallae 104.3 sed contra. 158 See Super loannem, chap. 14, lect. 4, 1907, on how obedience to God's commandments is a sign of charity.

181

In his discussion on study, Thomas makes no distinction between the literal and

mystical ways of studying texts. Since both have the salvific message of the Gospel as

their subject, they both direct the mind toward spiritual things, prepare for preaching and

teaching, involve labour, help remove the desire for riches, and contribute to lessons of

obedience. Our study of the mystical reason as a spiritual exercise, then, will be a study

of an exercise within a larger exercise, namely, that of the Commentary as a whole.

Having acknowledged this larger context, we will now examine how the mystical reason

serves as a spiritual exercise of study.

It is clear from what has already been said how the mystical reasons serve to

direct the mind to the consideration of divine things, and how this would prepare a

religious for the tasks of preaching and teaching. Here, then, I would like to focus on the

third category of exercises which pertains to the active and contemplative states in

common. For it is here we can observe the special function afforded the mystical

interpretation.

Both levels of interpretation involve labor or toil for the student. In the literal, the

student must labour to relate each division to the greater division, and ultimately to the

Gospel as a whole. In the mystical, one works to understand the symbolic meaning of

passages and then, understood as such, to relate them to the threefold end of the Gospel.

But, as demonstrated in an earlier chapter, the mystical reason is unique in

introducing a tension into the study of Scripture by introducing rationes whose ends are

hidden. In encountering the mystical reasons, the question of order is raised in the mind

of the reader. The challenge to find order posed to the reader is analogous to that posed to

anyone confronted with a divine mystery, as explained in the Commentary, namely, how

182

to relate to something that cannot be known. As we have already seen, for Thomas, a

mystery is something that is not fully known. And because of the incomprehensibility of

the divine, divine mysteries will always remain more unknown than known. In the face of

divine mysteries, then, the person is challenged with the question of how to relate to the

unknown. In the Commentary, Thomas offers two ways to meet this challenge. One can

relate to it as either a sign of God's greatness, or a sign of something meaningless. This, it

appears, was the challenge posed to all those who witnessed Christ's crucifixion.

Following 1 Cor 1:18, Thomas explains how for believers the crucifixion was a great

mystery, "grande mysterium," which signified the power of God. For the wicked, on the

other hand, it was nothing but a meaningless event, a "ludibrium," with no

significance.159 Furthermore, in his comments on why Jesus spoke in parables, Thomas

explains that the good do not confine God to what can be known of him, but instead

recognize their ignorance before Christ's teaching as a sign of God's greatness; while, on

the contrary, the wicked hold God to the limits of human knowing, and so reject the

parables on account of their limited intellects.160 The reason for the difference in

response, according to Thomas, lies in whether the person has a proper desire for God.

Those who accept God's mysteries do so because they desire God; while those who do

"Sed hoc quod Christus crucem sibi portavit, et si impiis et infidelibus sit grande ludibrium, fidelibus tamen et piis est grande mysterium." Super loannem, chap. 19, lect. 3, 2414. 160 "Sed utilis bonis et iustis ad exercitium in Dei laudem quaerentibus: nam dum ea non intelligunt, credunt, glorificant Dominum, et eius sapientiam supra se existentem; Prov. XXV, 2: Gloria Dei est celare verbum. Damnosa autem malis, quia non intelligentes, blasphemant, secundum illud in Canon. Iudae V. 10: Quaecumquae ignorant, blasphemant. Nam, ut Augustinus dicit, cum verba Evangelii audiunt pius et impius, et ambo non intelligunt, pius dicit: Verum est et bonum est quod dicit sed non nos intelligimus. Et hie quidem iam pulsat, cui dignum est aperiri, sed si persistat. Impius dicit: Nihil dixit, malum est quod ait." Super loannem, chap. 10, lect. 2, 1380.

183

not, have desires for earthly things.161 What determines one's ability to accept divine

mysteries in the face of ignorance is one's love of God. Coming back to the mystical

reason, the tension caused by the interruption to the divisio textus tests the reader's love

of God by testing the reader's willingness to accept something he cannot understand,

thereby, providing the reader with an occasion to exercise this love.

I do not mean to suggest that the challenge posed by the mystical reason is equal

to that posed by the cross itself, or that a student-friar would be likely to dismiss out of

hand a meaning he did not understand upon first reading. Instead, I mean simply that the

mystical reasons test how one is disposed to difficulties encountered in the course of the

study of sacred Scripture, thereby testing the reader's love of God's word. In this way it

serves as a test of our solicitude concerning right interpretation. In the Commentary,

Thomas explains that the first thing needed for a disciple of the word of God is a concern

for hearing it, "solicitudo ad audiendum.,,m Solicitude, for Thomas, means the earnest

endeavour to obtain something out of love of the thing.163 The more one loves a thing the

more solicitous he will be about it, and the more willing he will be to suffer for its

sake.164 Every mystical reason then tests the reader's solicitude for understanding God's

word by testing how much effort he is willing to expel for the sake of understanding it.

And, as Thomas tells us, any labour taken for the sake of God is a sign of charity.165

161 "Verbum autem Dei Patris est spirans amorem: qui ergo capit illud cum fervore amoris," Super loannem, chap. 6, lect. 5, 946; and "Amor enim mundi, ut dicit Augustinus, maxime retrahit a Deo cognitione," Super loannem, chap. 1, lect. 5, 138. 162 Super loannem, chap. 8, lect. 4, 1195. 163 "diligentia videtur esse idem sollicitudini, quia in his quae diligimus maiorem sollicitudinem adhibemus." Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologiae, Ilallae 54.1 adl. See also Ilallae Q55.6 corpus. 164 "Ex hoc enim quod quaerit utilitatem suam, et non afficitur ad gregem per amorem et sollicitudinem, sequitur quod non velit pro eo incommodum sustinere." Super loannem, chap. 10, lect. 3, 1408. 165 See Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologiae, Ilallae 182.2 adl, on how any external labour borne for

Christ's sake is a sign of charity. On how this principle functions in martyrdom, see Ilallae 124.3 corpus.

184

The mystical reason is also apt for the reader's exercise of removing the desire of

riches. As we saw earlier, in the Summa Thomas explains how study helps us remove the

desire for riches by bringing us into contact with the true riches of sacred doctrine, in

which one finds true happiness. Because of their connection to the threefold benefit

(utilitas) of the Gospel, the mystical reasons serve as constant reminders of the riches of

the Scriptures: the knowledge of the true faith, the source of righteousness in this life and

of glory in the next. With the constant reminder of the spiritual benefit of reading

Scripture, the student is emboldened to continue his struggles with the many labours

involved in the task of interpretation.

Thirdly, the mystical reasons offer the reader the occasion to exercise obedience.

This follows from what has already been said about the challenge posed to the reader by

the presence of mysteries in the text. The willingness to accept what cannot be

understood out of love of God is to exercise one's obedience to God. As Thomas explains

in the Summa, obedience is the submission of one's will to God out of love of God.1

And so, as with every divine mystery, the reader exercises his obedience to God every

time he suffers what is unknown for God's sake.

Ironically, however, recognizing one's ignorance before divine mysteries is the

first step toward any kind of knowledge of them. As we have seen with obedience and

proper solicitude, the willingness to suffer the incomprehensibility of divine mysteries is

a sign of charity. This charity is what merits entrance into the very same mysteries.

Thomas explains that God's word must be received with love in order to learn from it,

Ibid., Ilallae 104.3 corpus.

185

since it was given in love.167 To do so, is to grasp it according to the meaning (rationem)

of the one who sent it.168 God's intention in sending his word is to establish with us a

loving friendship.169 And so, God conceals his mysteries from the wicked on account of

their desires for earthly things, while the good, he rewards by drawing them further into

his mysteries. Thomas explains that Jesus concealed his mysteries in parables not only to

conceal them from the wicked, but to stir up the good so as to make further inquiry. A

more literal rendering of the Latin would read, "so that they might be exercised

(exercerentur) by them."170 And because Nicodemus asked Jesus his questions out of a

desire to learn, he merited instruction.171 So, although divine mysteries can never be fully

known, we are still called to ponder them, and thereby nurture a loving friendship with

Christ.172 And like John the Evangelist, the more we know of the mysteries of Christ, the

more we establish a loving friendship with him.173

The effect of charity on study is mentioned by Thomas in the Article on study,

which we have been looking at. In the response to the second objection, Thomas

mentions that study, motivated by charity, is directed to knowledge (scientia) which

"Verbum autem Dei Patris est spirans amorem: qui ergo capit illud cum fervore amoris." Super loannem, chap. 6. lect. 5, 946. I68"ll!e enim discit verbum qui capit illud secundum rationem dicentis." Super loannem, chap. 6, lect. 5, 946. 169 "Sap. VII, 27: In animas sanctas se transfert, Prophetas et amicos Dei constituit." Super loannem, chap. 6, lect. 5, 946. 170 "propter bonos, ut ex proverbis exercerentur ad inquirendum." Super loannem, chap. 10, lect. 2, 1379. See also Michael Sherwin's comments on how Thomas understands Jesus on a number of occasions as deliberately stirring up his disciples so as to draw out their love of him. Michael Sherwin, "Christ the Teacher in St. Thomas's Commentary on the Gospel of John" in Reading John with St. Thomas Aquinas: theological exegesis and speculative theology, edited by Michael Dauphinais and Matthew Levering (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2005), 181. 171 "Quia ergo [Nicodemus] quaesivit ex studio addiscendi, ideo meruit instrui." Super loannem, chap. 3, lect. 2, 458. 172 "Facta quidem vidistis, sed tamen quare hoc fecerim, non intelligitis: et ideo sic quaerit ut ostendat facti magnitudinem, et ad considerandum inducat. Opera enim Dei consideranda sunt, quia profunda: Ps. XCI, 6: Quam magnificata sunt opera tua, Domine! Nimis profundae factae sunt cogitations tuae. Vix enim sufficienter opera Dei scire possumus." Super loannem, chap. 13, lect. 3, 1773. 173 See Super loannem, prol., 11. On the good seeing the "mysteries of God's kingdom," see Super loannem, chap. 10, lect. 2, 1379.

186

edifies and begets concord.17 As with the benefits of study for the religious life, the

effects of edification and concord are attributed to study as a whole, whether according to

the literal or mystical mode of interpretation. Thomas gives us no indication in the

Summa that one mode is privileged over the other. Nevertheless, we can observe in the

Super Ioannem the particular advantage of the mystical over the literal. The mystical

reason is a more direct exercise of charity, by highlighting the fact that edification and

concord are ultimately brought about by God's grace, and not by human efforts.

The Latin verb 'aedificare' literally means 'to build,' as in 'to build a house'.

Applied to the human person, it means the life of virtue built up by good works on the

foundation of charity.175 Charity is the "connecting bond" (connexio) that holds together,

so to speak, the "assembly of virtues," keeping them fixed on their proper end, God.

Charity serves the same role for the edifice which is the Church. As each member of the

Church grows in charity the Church itself is built up, held together by the purely

gratuitous love of God.176 Like edification, concord is also a fruit of charity, both within

the Church and individual member. Within the individual, charity establishes a union of

appetites; while in the Church, it affects a union of wills.177

The mystical reason highlights the role of charity in a special way. When dealing

with the mystical reasons, edification is found in immediately directing the reader to the

threefold end of the Gospel: faith, life of righteousness, and life of glory. The reader is

not brought to this end by way of demonstrations, but instead intuits it from

174 "Dicendum quod studium ad scientiam ordinatur; quae sine caritate inflate, et per consequens dissensiones facit...sed cum caritate aedificat, et concordiam parit." Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologiae, Ilallae 188.5 ad2. 175 Ibid., Iallae 89.2 ad2 & Ilallae 161.5 ad2. 176 <iyej j n c h a r j t a t e facit Deus haec omnia, id est ex mera di lect ione." Thomas Aquinas , Super Eph., chap . 4, lect. 5. 177 Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologiae, Ilallae 37.1 corpus.

187

significations. Because this is a supernatural end, it can be intuited only with the

assistance of grace. And, since it is God's gift of charity that directs the will to divine

things, this intuition is an act of charity. Edification, then, is achieved in the interpretation

of the mystical reason through the exercise of the reader's love of God, which is itself the

gift of God's charity. By definition, then, the task of relating the mystical reason to its

end is a spiritual exercise.

Implicit in the reliance on the gift of charity is the recognition that edification is

ultimately the work of God and not the human person.178 In this way, the mystical reason

is an exercise in humility, by which one is submissive and open to the influx of grace,

and thus a necessary foundation for the spiritual edifice.17

Charity is also highlighted in how the mystical reasons bring about concord. The

significations employed by the mystical reasons are not demonstrated, but supported by

authorities, whether biblical or Patristic. To grasp the end, then, entails assenting to

authoritative opinions. In this way, the mystical reason entails the unity of wills between

the reader and the saints. This unity is established by way of charity, the love poured

forth into our hearts by the Holy Spirit. The Spirit links our reading of the Scriptures to

the saints by virtue of it being the same Spirit who inspired the sacred writers as it was

who sanctified the saints. Only by way of charity can we establish a connection

(connexio) with the saints and learn from their example on how to understand and benefit

On how God is the chief builder of the spiritual edifice, see Thomas Aquinas, Super Eph., chap. 2, Iect. 6. 179 "Unde dicitur lac. IV, quod 'Deus superbis resistit, humilibus autem dat gratiam.' Et secundum hoc humilitas dicitur spiritualis aedificii fundamentum." Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologiae, Ilallae 161.5 ad2. 180 "Dicendum, secundum Augustinum, quod dicta et praecepta sacrae Scripturae ex factis sanctorum interpretari possunt et intelliguntur, cum idem Spiritus sanctus qui inspiravit Prophetis et aliis sacrae Scripturae auctoribus, moverit sanctos ad opus." Super loannem, chap. 18, lect. 4, 2321.

188

from reading the Scriptures. And so, as with edification, the concord begotten by the

mystical reasons is an exercise of charity, and therefore a spiritual exercise.

The mystical reason, therefore, can be considered a spiritual exercise as a form of

study that challenges the reader to exercise charity in the interpretation of Scripture. It

does so by testing the reader's attitude towards the difficulties encountered in interpreting

a text containing divine mysteries. The degree to which one has allowed charity to take

root in one's heart will determine one's success in meeting the challenges posed by

mystical meanings, as well as the extent to which one benefits from the Gospel. The

mystical reason, then, not only presupposes a spiritual disposition like that of John the

Evangelist, but helps to exercise it as well.

CONCLUSION

From our study of the role of the ratio mystica in Thomas' Super Ioannem, we

can say that it serves both an exegetical and a spiritual function. As we saw in Chapter 3,

the ratio mystica puts the reader in immediate contact with the hidden spiritual meaning

of the Gospel by directly relating passages to their spiritual end, namely, the threefold

end of faith, the life of righteousness, and the life of glory. In doing so, it appears as the

exegetical congruent of the doctrine of the spiritual senses as outlined by Thomas in the

opening Question of the Summa. For the threefold end corresponds to the threefold

spiritual sense: the allegorical, moral or tropological, and anagogical sense. It appears

then that a consequence of positing a spiritual meaning as the goal of biblical

interpretation is a mode of interpretation that understands the text from a perspective

beyond the text itself, namely, that of the mystery of Christ. Following O'Connor's

understanding of the concept of mystery in Thomas' biblical commentaries, this mode is

mystical because it is concerned with an end that is 'hidden,' namely, not found in the

literal meaning of the text, but in the mystery of Christ.

This relationship to its end helps explain how the ratio mystica functions

alongside the literal interpretation in the Commentary. As discussed in Chapter 3, the

behaviour of the two modes of interpretation is quite different. The literal proceeds in an

orderly fashion according to the extensive divisions of the divisio textus, while the

mystical appears as random and arbitrary moments of interruption within what is

otherwise an orderly interpretation. But, as foreshadowed by the prologue to the

Commentary, there is not only a tension, but a harmony between these two modes of

189

190

interpretation. For both are expressions of John's contemplation, and so serve the end of

the Gospel, namely, to make the faithful into the temple of God. The literal serves this

end through the appreciation of the relations within the divisio textus, while the mystical

does so through an appreciation of the relation of significations to the spiritual end of the

Gospel. The mystical in its particular manifestations serves the same end as does the

divisio textus in its entirety, and so as random and arbitrary as it may appear, it is neither

irrelevant to the literal meaning, nor a violent intrusion of it.

After having established their unity in a common end, our analysis in Chapter 3

went on to demonstrate other ways in which the literal and mystical could be said to be

unified. First we looked at what we called their pedagogical unity, whereby we observed

a mutually illuminating effect of the two modes of interpretation. Here we discovered

five ways in which understanding one mode was to the benefit of understanding the

other. Because of the relative autonomy of the mystical interpretation from the divisio

textus, it is free to treat topics in a way abstract from how they are found in the Gospel

text. In a single mystical reason, then, we can find the gathering of topics which are

treated in several discussions throughout the literal interpretation. This compression of

topics can aid our understanding of the literal sense in at least three ways. First, by

treating topics in an order different from the divisio textus, the mystical can anticipate and

foreshadow discussions raised on the literal level. We saw this in Chapter 1, Lecture 13,

where the mystical reason's linking of baptism with faith and eternal life anticipates the

later discussion in Chapter 3 on spiritual regeneration. Secondly, by bringing together

topics that are dispersed throughout the literal interpretation, the mystical reason can also

have the effect of collating topics, bringing together topics mentioned earlier with topics

191

found later in the text. Not only then does the mystical reason of Lecture 11 foreshadow

the discussion on spiritual regeneration in Chapter 3, but also reminds us of the link

between baptism and faith made earlier in Chapter 1. By bringing together topics, the

mystical can serve as links for discussions on the literal level. Thirdly, the mystical often

structures its treatment of topics around images, thereby serving a mnemonic effect for

the reader. As the reader forges ahead through the literal interpretations, the mystical

affords him powerful images with which he can use to better grasp the topics raised

throughout the Commentary. These three effects, the foreshadowing, collating, and

mnemonic, are valuable aids for preventing the student from losing himself in the many

divisions of the literal sense.

In addition to aiding the reader's understanding of the literal sense, the mystical

reasons also serve to direct the reader's attention to the ultimate purpose of the text he's

reading. By bringing to light allegorical, moral, and anagogical meanings, the mystical

reasons continually remind the reader of the threefold goal of the Gospel text, namely,

faith, the life of righteousness, and the life of glory. And furthermore by referring the

reader to meanings beyond the text itself the mystical reasons remind him of the greater

context in which the reader and the Gospel text itself are found, namely, God's plan of

salvation.

We ended our analysis of the mystical reasons with a discussion of the thematic

unity between the literal and the mystical. Here we discovered that the mystical reasons

not only foreshadow and collate topics, but also contribute to our understanding of the

themes raised in the literal sense. They can do so as moments of illumination where

themes discussed on the literal level are clarified on the mystical. For example, it is the

192

mystical reason that explains why John the Baptist's interrogators fail to accept his

message. Secondly, they also further our understanding by treating themes within the

mystical level alone, as is the case with the mystical meanings in Chapter 2, Lectures 1 to

3, which develop the theme of the Old and New Laws. It appears then from our

observations of the pedagogical and thematic unity that Thomas was not writing two

separate Commentaries, one literal the other mystical, but one Commentary, with both a

literal and a mystical aspect.

After having addressed the exegetical function of the mystical reason, the thesis

turned to the question of its role as a spiritual exercise. Following the principle used

throughout this thesis, that the prologue is instructive for our understanding of the

Commentary, we found in Thomas' description of John as author of the Gospel the

outline of the spiritual disposition called for by the mystical reasons. Through reference

to the body of the Commentary, we were able to fill in this outline and reveal its

connection with the mystical reasons. By this approach, first of all, we were able to

demonstrate that through the grace of faith and baptism the spiritual vision of John

afforded knowledge of divine mysteries, which, we discovered, corresponded to the

allegorical, moral, and anagogical mysteries found in the mystical reasons. This spiritual

vision also proved appropriate for perceiving mysteries as found in sacred Scripture.

Secondly, we were able to demonstrate that John's disposition was meant as a model for

those who seek to know the mysteries of his Gospel. Through linking the prologue to

discussions found in the body of the Commentary, we were able to show that this

disposition was required for anyone seeking to know the mysteries of Scripture, and that

it was available to anyone provided they were given the grace to do so. This grace, we

193

discovered, was the gift of wisdom, prepared for by the grace of faith and baptism, which

afforded a connatural knowledge of the divine mysteries. This grace has a Christological

source in Jesus' desire to make us his friends. The Gospel emerges as a means of

fostering this friendship with Christ, by way of sharing in John's intimate knowledge of

him. And so, the mystical meaning of the Gospel is grasped by the encounter of one's

knowledge of Christ in the Gospel with the connatural knowledge possessed in one's soul

by the gift of wisdom. In this way then exegesis and spirituality are mutually beneficial:

the better you know God in the Scriptures, the better you know him in your heart, and

vice versa.

The mystical reasons not only presuppose a spiritual disposition, but also have a

spiritual effect on the reader in the form of a spiritual exercise. We saw that they

conformed to the definition of a spiritual exercise, as defined by Thomas in his Questions

in the Summa on the religious life, in being a form of study that works to lessen the

attachment of one's affections to earthly things, and, in so doing, serve to remove the

obstacles to charity in one's life. Study is conducive to such an exercise, according to

Thomas, because it entails toil, toil which edifies and begets concord when motivated by

charity. When one is confronted with the mystical reason one must toil to bring it into

harmony with the divisio textus. In addition to understanding its place and role in the

Commentary is the work of understanding its meaning. This involves seeing the concord

among the various significations and authorities mentioned. This toil also brings about

edification by immediately relating the reader to the threefold benefit of the Gospel.

As we saw, the literal interpretation may also serve the function of a spiritual

exercise in its finding concord among the various divisions of the Gospel text, by which it

194

brings forth an edifying understanding. But what makes the exercise of the mystical

reason unique is that it seeks an edification and concord that highlights the need for the

indwelling of God's charity. By pulling together things according to an order we cannot

discern by our natural gifts alone, the mystical highlights the reader's dependence on the

supernatural gift of wisdom. The reader exercises the gift of wisdom by relating things

according to God's order, known only through a connatural knowledge, conferred

through the indwelling grace of charity. The very exercise of the mystical reasons teaches

us that ultimately it is through God's wisdom and not our own that we find edification

and concord.

Our study of the mystical reason is in no way complete. There are still many

unanswered questions, such as, what determines the occasion for the mystical reasons,

and why are some names which would appear to be ripe for mystical interpretation, like

Jerusalem, for example, passed over without comment. Is a mystical reason necessarily

made explicit, or may they be found implicitly throughout the Commentary? These are

just some of the questions I hope this study has put us in a better position to answer.

There is also the much larger task of studying the other manifestations of the

mystical interpretation both within the Super loannem and within Thomas' other biblical

commentaries. Whatever form these studies take, I hope this thesis has demonstrated a

number of important lessons for reading Thomas' biblical commentaries, such as, the

importance of Thomas' prologues in understanding the body of his commentaries, and

the interconnection between the literal and mystical levels of meaning. But, above all,

perhaps is the recognition of the spiritual exercise of reading Scripture for Thomas, in

which both the literal and spiritual interpretations play a role. Any study of Thomas'

195

biblical exegesis, then, should be conscious of the fact that, for Thomas at least, it is a

study of the spiritual life.

Despite its introductory nature, this study may also have some ramifications for

those who seek a synthesis between modern and premodern methods of exegesis. As we

saw in the introduction to this study, there has been much criticism from Church

authorities and some theologians of modern biblical criticism for excluding other

approaches to biblical interpretation, like the premodern approaches of the Church

Fathers and Doctors of the Church. In denying a place to premodern approaches, modern

criticism runs the risk of cutting itself off from the tradition of the Church and of

forgetting its main objective, namely, to deepen the faith. In order to remind exegetes of

the ultimate goal and context of biblical interpretation, these critics have called for a

synthesis between modern and premodern methods of biblical exegesis.

Our study of the ratio mystica in Thomas' Super loannem serves as a helpful

guide in achieving this synthesis by demonstrating that different methods or approaches

need not exclude each other. As we have seen in the course of this study, Thomas

interprets the Gospel according to two distinct modes of interpretation. The literal mode

is discursive, relying on the many divisions made in the divisio textus, while the mystical

uses significations, the meaning of which extend beyond the Gospel text itself. Despite

these differences, however, these two modes are unified in their serving the same end,

namely, the threefold benefit of the Gospel. In its own special way, then, each of these

modes of interpretation brings the reader to a greater participation in the faith, the life of

righteousness, and the life of glory to come.

In light of their common end, the differences between the literal and mystical

modes of interpretation can be seen as complementary. In Chapter Three of our study, we

observed several ways in which the mystical aids the literal interpretation. For example,

in some cases, the mystical reasons foreshadow and collate themes addressed on the

literal level. And by directly relating passages to the threefold end of the Gospel, the

mystical reasons can also serve as a reminder of the ultimate benefit of biblical

interpretation, thus providing spiritual sustenance for the reader during the intellectually

demanding task of interpretation. In this way, Thomas appears to employ the integration

of the spiritual with the historical called for by Ignace de la Potterie.1 The mutually

benefiting work of the literal and mystical modes emphasize that for Thomas the

historical and spiritual dimensions of Scripture are not to be separated out from each

other, but brought together for the purposes of mutual illumination. The literal and the

mystical, then, are two modes that work together in pursuit of a common end.

The unity between the literal and mystical in the Super loannem mirrors that

proposed by the Pontifical Biblical Commission in its document, "The Interpretation of

the Bible in the Church." The Commission understands the Bible as a text with many

dimensions, and so cannot be adequately studied with a single method. The Bible itself,

then, calls for many different methods and approaches in its interpretation. These

methods and approaches, however, are unified in their common goal, namely, "the

deepening of faith."2 Like Thomas, then, the Commission finds the unity among different

methods in their sharing a common end.

' de la Potterie, "The spiritual Sense of Scripture," 740. 2 PBC, Interpretation of the Bible, Conclusion.

197

This study also demonstrates the spiritual dimension of the synthesis of modern

and premodern methods of exegesis. For Thomas, biblical interpretation is not simply an

academic exercise, but a spiritual one as well. Thomas wrote his Commentary, with

concern for both the intellectual and spiritual benefit of his fellow Dominican friars.

While the reader progresses in understanding of the text, he progresses also in conformity

to the mysteries of Christ. Biblical interpretation for Thomas, then, is a component part of

generating the religious life. The encounter with Thomas' biblical interpretation is an

encounter with a spiritual life. It must be asked what place this life has in a synthesis with

modern methods of interpretation. It would appear then that the encounter between

modern and premodern methods is to some extent also an encounter between ways of

living the Christian life. If this is true, than the synthesis called for by Pius XII is not

achievable by exegetes alone, but will involve the efforts of all the various disciplines of

theology.

Bibliography

Aillet, Marc. Lire La Bible Avec S. Thomas: Le passage de la littera a la res dans la Somme theologique. Fribourg Suisse: Editions Universitaires, 1993.

Aquinas, Saint Thomas. Catena aurea in quatuor evangelia. Edited by P. Angelici Guarienti. Romae: Marietti, 1953.

. Commentary on the Gospel of St. John, Pt 1. Translated by James A. Weisheipl, O.P. Edited by James A. Weisheipl, O.P. and Fabian R. Larcher, O.P. Albany, New York: Magi Books, 1980.

. Commentary on the Gospel of St. John, Pt 2. Translated by Fabian R. Larcher, O.P. Edited by James A. Weisheipl, O.P. and Fabian R. Larcher, O.P. Petersham, Massachusetts: St. Bede's Publications, 1998.

. Compendium of Theology. Translated by Cyril Vollert. St. Louis, MO: B. Herder Book Co., 1955.

. Contra impugnantes. Opera Omnia Iussu Leonis XIII P.M Edita. Ad Sanctae Sabinae, Romae, 1970.

. On Memory and Recollection. In St. Thomas Aquinas: Commentaries on Aristotle's On Sense and What Is Sensed and On Memory and Recollection. Translated with introductions and notes by Kevin White and Edward M. Macierowski. Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 2005.

. Summa Contra Gentiles. Vol. 1, God. Translated by Anton C. Pegis. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1975.

. Summa Contra Gentiles. Vol. 2, Creation. Translated by James F. Anderson. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1975.

. Summa Contra Gentiles. Vol. 3:2, Providence Part 2. Translated by Vernon J.

Bourke. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1975.

. Summa theologiae. Ottawa: Istituti Studiorum Medievalium Ottaviensis, 1943.

. Super Primam Epistolam ad Corinthios Lectura. Edited by P.R. Cai. Romae: Marietti, 1953.

. Super Epistolam ad Ephesos Lectura, vol. 2. Edited by P.R. Cai. Romae: Marietti, 1953.

. Super Epistolam ad Galatas Lectura, vol. 1. Edited by P.R. Cai. Romae: Marietti,

198

199

1953.

. Super Epistolam ad Romanos Lectura. Edited by P.R. Cai. Romae: Marietti, 1953.

. Super Epistolam ad II Thessalonicenses Lectura, vol. 2. Edited by P.R. Cai.

Romae: Marietti, 1953.

. Super Epistolam ad Titum Lectura. Edited by P.R. Cai. Romae: Marietti, 1953.

. Super Evangelium S. Ioannis Lectura. Edited by P.R. Cai. Romae: Marietti, 1952. Ayers, Lewis and Stephen E. Fowl. "(Mis)Reading the Face of God: The

Interpretation of the Bible in the Church." Theological Studies 60 (1999): 513-528.

Baglow, Christopher T. "Modus et forma:" a new approach to the exegesis of Saint Thomas Aquinas with an application to the Lectura super epistolam ad Ephesios. Roma: Pontificio Instituto biblico, 2002.

Barrett, R. "St. Thomas the Exegete." Mill Stud, AA (1999): 6-33.

Black, Clifton C. III. "St. Thomas' Commentary on the Johannine Prologue: Some Reflections on Its Character and Implications." The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 48 (1986): 681-698.

Blanco, A. "Word and Truth in Divine Revelation. A Study of the Commentary of St. Thomas Aquinas on John 14, 6." In La doctrine de la revelation divine de saint Thomas d'Aquin. Actes du Symposium sur la pensee de saint Thomas d'Aquin tenu a Rolduc, les 4 et 5 Novembre 1989. Edited by Leo Elders, 27-48. Vatican City: Libreria Editricie Vaticana, 1990.

Boyle, John F. "St. Thomas Aquinas and Sacred Scripture." Pro Ecclesia 4 (1996): 92-104.

"The Theological Character of the Scholastic 'Division of the Text' with Particular Reference to the Commentaries of Saint Thomas Aquinas." In With Reverence for the Word: Medieval Scriptural Exegesis in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Edited by Jane Dammen McAuliffe, Barry D. Walfish, and Joseph W. Goering, 276-283. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003.

Brown, Raymond E. "The Contribution of Historical Biblical Criticism to Ecumenical Church Discussion." In Biblical Interpretation in Crisis: The Ratzinger conference on Bible and Church. Edited by Richard John Neuhaus, Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1989.

Brown, Raymond E., Joseph A. Fitzmyer, and Roland E. Murphy, ed. The New

Jerome Bible Handbook. Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1992.

Brown, Raymond E., and Thomas Aquinas Collins. "Church Pronouncements." In The New Jerome Biblical Commentary. Edited by Raymond E. Brown, Joseph A. Fitzmyer, and Roland E. Murphy, 1166-1174. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1990.

Busa, Roberto. Corpus Thomisticum Index Thomisticus. Web edition by Eduardo Bernot and Enrique Alarcon. Pampilonae ad Universitatis Studiorum Navarrensis: Fundacion Tomas de Aquino, 2006. Available from http://www.corpusthomisticum.org/it/index.age; Internet.

. Thomae Aquinatis Opera Omnia [electronic resource]: [cum hypertextibus in CS-ROM], 2nd edition. [Milano]: Trend: Thomistica, 1996.

Cahill, Michael. "The History of Exegesis and Our Theological Future." Theological Studies 61 (2000): 332-47.

Callan, C. J. "The Bible in the Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas," Catholic Biblical Quarterly 9 (1947): 33-47.

Chenu, M.-D. Faith and Theology. New York: Macmillan, 1968.

. Aquinas and His Role in Theology. Translated by Paul Philibert. Collegeville, Minn: Liturgical Press, 2002.

Cirillo, A. Cristo Rivelatore del Padre nel Vangelo di S. Giovanni secondo il Commento di San Tommaso d'Aquino. Published Dissertation. Rome: Thomas de Urbe, 1988.

Corbin, Michel. "Le Pain de Vie. La Lecture de Jn 6 par S. Thomas d'Aquin." Recherches de Science Religieuse 65 (1977): 107-138.

Courtenay, W. J. "Programs of Study and Genres of Scholastic Theological Production in the Fourteenth Century." In Manuels Programmes de cours et techniques d'enseignement dans les universites medievals. Turnhout: Brepols, 1994.

Cunningham, Lawrence S., and Keith J. Egan. Christian Spirituality: Themes from the Tradition. New York: Paulist Press, 1996.

Denifle, Heinrich. "Quel livre servait de base a l'enseignement des Maitres en Theologie dans l'Universite de Paris?" Revue Thomiste 2 (1894): 129-161.

Dubois, Marcel. "Mystical and realistic elements in the exegesis and hermeneutics of Thomas Aquinas." In: Creative biblical exegesis: Christian and Jewish Hermeneutics through the Centuries, edited by Benjamin Uffenheimer and Henning Graf Reventhow, 39-54. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1988.

201

Elders, Leo J., S.V.D. "Aquinas on holy Scripture as the medium of divine revelation." In la doctrine de la revelation divine de saint Thomas d'Aquin. Actes du Symposium sur la pensee de saint Thomas d'Aquin tenu a Rolduc, les 4 et 5 Novembre 1989, edited by Leo Elders, 132-152. Vatican City: Libreria Editricie Vaticana, 1990.

Evans, G. R. The Language and Logic of the Bible: The Earlier Middle Ages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984.

Farkasfalvy, Denis. "A Heritage in Search of Heirs: The Future of Ancient Christian Exegesis." Communio 25 (1998): 505-519.

. "The Case for Spiritual Exegesis." Communio 10 (1983): 332-350.

Fatula, Mary Ann. "Contemplata Aliis Tradere: Spirituality and Thomas Aquinas, The Preacher." Spirituality Today 43 (1991): 19-35.

Fortin, Ernest L. "Augustine, Spinoza, and the Hermeneutical Problem." In Classical Christianity and the Political Order: Reflections on the Theologico-Political Problem, edited by Brian Benestad, 107-116. Lanham, Md: Rowman and Littlefield Inc., 1996.

Fowl, Stephen E. "Introduction." In The Theological Interpretation of Scripture. Edited by Stephen E. Fowl, xii-xxx. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, Ltd., 1997.

. Engaging Scripture: A Model for Theological Interpretation. Maiden, Mass.: Blackwell Publishers, 1998.

Garrigou-Lagrange, Reginald. Christian Perfection and Contemplation. Translated by Sr. Timothea Doyle. St. Louis: Herder, 1939.

. The Three Ages of the Interior Life, 2 vols. Translated by Sr. Timothea Doyle. St. Louis: Herder, 1948.

Goering, Joseph. "Literal and Spiritual Morality in the Scholastic Sermon: An Old Distinction Recovered." In Predicazione e societd nel Medioevo : riflessione etica, valori e modelli di comportamento : atti = Preaching and society in the Middle Ages : ethics, values and social behaviour : proceedings of the XII Medieval Sermon Studies Symposium, Atti/Proceedings of the XII Medieval Sermon Studies Symposium Padova, 14-18 luglio 2000. A cura di/Edited by Laura Gaffuri, Riccardo Quinto, 119-128. Padova: Centro Studi Antoniani, 2002.

Hadot, Pierre. Philosophy as a Way of Life: Spiritual Exercises from Socrates to Foucault. Oxford: Blackwell, 1995.

202

John Paul II (Pope). "Address on the Interpretation of the Bible in the Church." In The Scripture Documents: an anthology of official Catholic teachings. Edited and translated by Dean P. Bechard, 170-180. Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 2002.

. "Fides et Ratio." Origins Vol.28 (October 22, 1998): 317-347.

Jordan, Mark D. "Theology and Philosophy." In The Cambridge Companion to Aquinas. Edited by Norman Kretzmann and Eleonore Stump, 232-251. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993.

Keaty, A.W. "Thomas's Authority for Identifying Charity as Friendship: Aristotle or John 15?" Thomist, 62 (1998): 581-601.

Kennedy, R. G. "Thomas Aquinas and the Literal Sense of Sacred Scripture." Ph.D. diss., University of Notre Dame, 1985.

Kerr, Fergus. "Thomas Aquinas: Conflicting Interpretations in Recent Anglophone Literature." In Aquinas as Authority. Edited by Paul van Geest, Harm Goris, and Carlo Leget, 165-186. Peeters, Leuven: Thomas Instituut Utrecht, 2002.

Leget, Carlo. "The Concept of 'Life' in Commentary on John." In Reading John with St. Thomas Aquinas: theological exegesis and speculative theology. Edited by Michael Dauphinais and Matthew Levering, 153-172. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2005.

Leo XIII (Pope). "Providentissimus Deus" (Nov. 18, 1893), In The Papal Encyclicals 1878-1903. Edited by Claudia Carlen, 326-339. Raleigh: McGrath Publish Co., 1981.

Levering, Matthew. Scripture and Metaphysics: Aquinas and the Renewal of Trinitarian Theology. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2004.

Lottin, O. "Les dons du Saint-Esprit chez les theologiens depuis Pierre Lombard jusque'a S. Thomas d'Aquin." Recherches de theologie ancienne et medievale 1 (1929): 41-61.

Lubac, Henri de. "Sens spirituel." Recherches de Science Religieuse 36 (1949): 542-576.

. Histoire et Esprit. L'intelligence de I'Ecriture d'apres Origene. Paris: Aubier, 1950.

"A propos de l'allegorie chretienne." Recherches de Science Religieuse 47 (1959): 41ss.

. Exegese Medievale. Les qautre sens de I'Ecriture. Paris: Aubier, 1964.

203

"Spiritual Understanding." Translated by Luke O'Neill. In The Theological Interpretation of Scripture. Edited by Stephen E. Fowl, 3-25. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, Ltd., 1997.

. Medieval Exegesis. Vol 1: The Four Senses of Scripture. Translated by Mark Sebanc. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1998.

. Medieval Exegesis. Vol 2: The Four Senses of Scripture. Translated by E. M. Macierowski. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2000.

Lyonnet, S. "L'actualite de S. Thomas exegete." Problemi di Teologia, Vol 4, 9-28. Naples: Editiones Dominicane Italiane, 1976.

Maritain, Jacques. Natural Law: Reflections on Theory and Practice. South Bend, Indiana: St. Augustine's Press, 2001.

Maurer, Armand. Introduction to The Division and Methods of the Sciences. Translated by Armand Maurer. Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1963.

McGinn, Bernard. The Presence of God: A History of Western Christian Mysticism. New York: Crossroad, 1994.

McGuckin, Terence. "St. Thomas Aquinas and Theological Exegesis of Sacred Scripture." New Blackfriars 74 (April 1993): 197-213.

McKim, Donald K., ed. Historical Handbook of Major Biblical Interpreters. Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1998.

Mulchahey, M. Michele. "First the Bow is Bent in Study... ": Dominican Education before 1350. Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1996.

Narcisse, Gilbert. Les raisons de Dieu: arguments de convenance et esthetique theologique selon saint Thomas d'Aquin et Hans Urs von Balthasar. Fribourg, Suisse: Presses Universitaires de Fribourg, 1997.

Neuhaus, Richard John, ed. Biblical Interpretation in Crisis. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publ. Co., 1989.

Nichols, Aidan. Discovering Aquinas: Introduction to His Life, Work, and Influence. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002.

O'Connor, Donal J. "The Concept of Mystery in Aquinas' Exegesis." The Irish Theological Quarterly 36 (July 1969): 183-210.

204

"Part II - Exegesis of Particular Texts," The Irish Theological Quarterly 36 (October 1969): 259-282.

Paretsky, A. "The Influence of Thomas the Exegete on Thomas the Theologian: the Tract on Law (Ia-IIae qq. 98-108) as a Test Case." Angelicum 71 (1994): 549-577.

Pesch, Otto Hermann. "Thomas Aquinas and Contemporary Theology." In Aquinas as Authority. Edited by Paul van Geest, Harm Goris, and Carlo Leget, 123-163. Peeters, Leuven: Thomas Instituut Utrecht, 2002.

Philippe, Marie-Dominic, O.P. Preface to Commentaire sur L'Evanglie de Saint Jean par St. Thomas d'Aquin. Translation and notes under the direction of M.-D. Philippe, O.P., 7-49. Versailles: Les Amis des Freres de Saint Jean, 1981.

Pius XII (Pope). "Divino Afflante Spiritu" (Sept. 30, 1943). In The Papal Encyclicals 1939-1958. Edited by Claudia Carlen, 65-79. Raleigh: McGrath Publish Co., 1981.

Pontifical Biblical Commission. Interpretation of the Bible in the Church. Translated from the French by John Kilgallen and Brendan Byrne, with preface by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger. Boston: Pauline Books and Media, 1993.

Potterie, Ignace de la. Preface to An Introduction to the History of Exegesis, by Bertrand de Margerie. Petersham, Mass.: Saint Bede's Publications, 1994.

. "The Spiritual Sense of Scripture." Communio 23 (1996): 738-756.

Principe, Walter H. "Affectivity and the Heart in Thomas Aquinas' Spirituality." In Spiritualities of the Heart: Approaches to Personal Wholeness in Christian Tradition, edited by Annice Callahan, 45-63. New York: Paulist Press, 1990.

. "Aquinas' Spirituality for Christ's Faithful Living in the World." Spirituality Today 44 (\992): 110-31.

. Thomas Aquinas' Spirituality. Etienne Gilson Series 7, Toronto, 1984.

"Toward Defining Spirituality." Studies in Religion/Sciences religieuses 12 (1983): 127-41.

Ratzinger, Joseph Cardinal. "Biblical Interpretation in Crisis: On the Question of the Foundations and Approaches of Exegesis Today." In Biblical Interpretation in Crisis, 1-23. Edited by Richard John Neuhaus. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publ. Co., 1989.

Reyero, M. Arias. Thomas von Aquin als Exeget. Einsiedeln: Johannes-Verlag, 1971.

Rogers, E.F., Jr. "How the Virtues of an Interpreter Presuppose and Perfect Hermeneutics: The Case of Thomas Aquinas." Journal of Religion, 76 (1996): 64-81.

Ryan, Thomas F. Thomas Aquinas as Reader of the Psalms. Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press, 2000.

Salguero, J. "Santo Tomas de Aquino y la Hermeneutica Biblica." Problemi di Teologia, Vol 4, 29-40. Naples: Editione Dominicane Italiane, 1976.

Schenk, Richard, OP, "OMNIS CHR1STI ACTIO NOSTRA ESTINSTRUCTIO The Deeds and Sayings of Jesus as Revelation in the View of Thomas Aquinas," In La doctrine de la revelation divine de saint Thomas d'Aquin. Actes du Symposium sur la pensee de saint Thomas d'Aquin tenu a Rolduc, les 4 et 5 Novembre 1989, edited by Leo Elders, 104-131. Vatican City: Libreria Editricie Vaticana, 1990.

Second Vatican Council. "Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation" (18 Nov. 1965). In Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, vol. 2. Edited by Norman P. Tanner, 971-981. London/Washington, DC: Sheed & Ward/Georgetown University Press, 1990.

Seeley, Andrew T. "St. Thomas Aquinas on the Necessity of the Gifts of the Holy Spirit for Salvation." Ph.D. diss., University of Toronto, 1995.

Sherwin, Michael. "Christ the Teacher in St. Thomas's Commentary on the Gospel of John." In Reading John with St. Thomas Aquinas: theological exegesis and speculative theology. Edited by Michael Dauphinais and Matthew Levering, 173-193. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2005.

Stallsworth, Paul T. "The Story of an Encounter." In Biblical Interpretation in Crisis: The Ratzinger conference on Bible and Church. Edited by Richard John Neuhaus, Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1989.

Steinmetz, David C. "The Superiority of Pre-Critical Exegesis." In The Theological Interpretation of Scripture. Edited by Stephen E. Fowl, 26-38. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, Ltd., 1997.

Stump, Eleonore. "(Aquinas) Biblical Commentary and Philosophy." In The Cambridge Companion to Aquinas. Edited by Norman Kretzmann and Eleonore Stump, 252-268. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993.

Sweetman, Robert. "Beryl Smalley, Thomas of Cantimpre, and the Performative Reading of Scripture." In With Reverence for the Word: Medieval Scriptural Exegesis in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Edited by Jane Dammen McAuliffe, Barry D.

Walfish, and Joseph W. Goering, 256-275. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003.

Synan, Edward. "The Four 'Senses' and Four Exegetes." In With Reverence for the Word: Medieval Scriptural Exegesis in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Edited by Jane Dammen McAuliffe, Barry D. Walfish, and Joseph W. Goering, 225-236. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003.

Torrance, T. F. "Scientific Hermeneutics According to St. Thomas Aquinas." Journal of Theological Studies 13 (1962): 259-89.

Torrell, Jean Pierre. "Spiritualitas chez S. Thomas d'Aquin. Contribution a l'histoire d'un mot," Revue des sciences philosophiques et theologiques 73 (1989): 575-84

. Saint Thomas Aquinas. Vol. I, The Person and His Work. Translated by Robert Royal. Washington, D. C : Catholic University of America Press, 1996.

. Saint Thomas Aquinas. Vol. 2, Spiritual Master. Translated by Robert Royal. Washington, D. C : Catholic University of America Press, 2003.

Valkenberg, Wilhelmus G. B. M. "The functions of Holy Scripture in Aquinas' theology on the Resurrection of Christ." In Atti de IX Congresso tomistico internationale, 6, 13-22. Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1991.

. Did Not Our Heart Burn! Place and Function of Holy Scripture in the Theology of Aquinas. Utrecht: Thomas Institute of Utrecht, 1990.

Words of the Living God: Place and Function of Holy Scripture in the Theology of St. Thomas Aquinas. Peeters, Leuven: Thomas Instituut Utrecht, 2000.

Van Engen, John. "Studying Scripture in the Early University." In Neue Richtungen in der hoch- und spdtmittelalterlichen Bibelexegese. Edited by Robert E. Lerner and Elisabeth Muller-Luckner, 17-38, Schriften des Historischen Kollegs, 32. Munich: Oldenbourg, 1996.

Van der Ploeg, J. "The Place of Holy Scripture in the Theology of St. Thomas." The Thomist 10 (October 1947): 398-422.

Verger, Jacques, "L'Exegese a l'Universite," In Le Moyen Age et la Bible, edited by P. Riche and Guy Lobrichon, 199-230. Paris: Beauchesne, 1984.

Weijers, Olga. Terminologie des universitaires au XHIe siecle. Rome: Edizioni dell'Ateneo, 1987.

Weisheipl, James A., O.P. "An Introduction to the Commentary on the Gospel of Saint

207

John." In St. Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on the Gospel of St. John, Part I. Edited by J. A. Weisheipl and F. R. Larcher, 3-19. Albany, New York: Magi Books, 1980.

. "Brief Note on the Text of Isaiah (6:1) Used for the Prologue," Commentary on the Gospel of St. John, Part I. Edited by J. A. Weisheipl and F. R. Larcher, 447-449. Albany, New York: Magi Books, 1980.

. "The Johannine Commentary of Friar Thomas." Church History 45 (June 1976): 185-195.

White, Kevin. Translator's Introduction to Commentaries on Aristotle's On Sense and What Is Sensed and On Memory and Recollection. Translated with introductions and notes by Kevin White and Edward M. Macierowski. Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 2005.

Williamson, Peter S. Catholic Principles for Interpreting Scripture: A Study of the Pontifical Biblical Commission's The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church. Subsidia Biblica, ed. James Swetnam, Vol. 22. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 2001.

Woods, Richard. Mysticism and Prophecy: The Dominican Tradition. Maryknoll: Orbis, 1998.

Yaffe, Martin D. "Interpretative essay." In The Literal Exposition on Job: Scriptural Commentary Concerning Providence. Translated by Anthony Damico with an interpretative essay and notes by Martin D. Yaffe, 1-65. Atlanta, Georgia: Scholars Press, 1989.