313. Et sciendum quod hic numerus praefiguratur in Veteri Testamento in Moyse et Elia, Ex. XXIV, 18, et III Reg. XIX, 8. Et latet in hoc mysterium, quia numerus huiusmodi consurgit ex denario ducto per quaternarium. Denarius significat legem, quia in decem praeceptis tota lex continetur. Quaternarius significat compositionem carnis, quia caro composita est ex quatuor elementis. Quia igitur nos per suggestionem carnis transgredimur legem divinam, iustum est ut carnem nostram affligamus diebus quadraginta. 313. And one should know that this number is prefigured in the Old Testament in Moses and Elias (Exod 24:18: 1 Kgs 19:8). And a mystery is hidden in this, because such a number arises from ten multiplied by four. The ten signifies the law, because the whole law is contained in ten precepts. The four signifies the composition of the body, because the body is composed out of four elements. Since therefore we transgress the divine law at the suggestion of the body, it is just that we afflict our body for forty days. Secundum autem Gregorium hic numerus est ad ieiunandum ab Ecclesia institutus, quod per hoc decimas solvimus totius anni: a prima enim dominica usque ad Pascha sunt triginta sex dies ieiunabiles, qui sunt decima pars ipsius anni, sex diebus exceptis. Et ideo ab antiquo a quibusdam addita fuit dies media, qui ieiunabant usque ad mediam noctem Sabbati sancti. Further, according to Gregory, this number is set up by the Church for fasting, because this way we spend a tenth part of the whole year: for from the first Sunday to Easter there are thirty-six fasting days, which are a tenth part of the year, six days being excluded. And for this reason the middle days were added by certain men in ancient times, who fasted until the midnight of the holy Sabbath. 314. Tertium additur, quia postea esuriit. Non legitur hoc de Moyse et Elia, qui homines erant; sed Christus esurire voluit, ut suam humanitatem demonstraret; quia aliter diabolus ausus non fuisset accedere ad tentandum eum; Phil. II, 7: in similitudinem hominum factus, et habitu inventus ut homo. 314. Third, it adds that afterwards he was hungry. This is not written about Moses and Elias, who were men; but Christ desired to hunger, to demonstrate his humanity, because otherwise the devil would not have dared to approach to tempt him. Being made in the likeness of men, and in habit found as a man (Phil 2:7). 315. Consequenter insultus tentationis ponitur; et est triplex. 315. Next, the attack of temptation is set down; and it is threefold. Primus de gula; First, concerning gluttony; secundus de inani gloria; second, concerning vainglory; tertius de ambitione. third, concerning ambition; Secundum ibi tunc assumpsit eum diabolus in sanctam civitatem. Tertium ibi iterum assumpsit eum diabolus in montem excelsum valde. He treats the second at, then the devil took him up into the holy city. And the third at, again the devil took him up onto a very high mountain. Circa primum duo facit. Concerning the first, he does two things: Primo ponit insultum diaboli; first, he shows the attack of the devil; secundo quomodo Christus respondit, ibi qui respondens et cetera. second, how Christ responded, at who answered. 316. Et accedens tentator dixit. Hoc enim poterat effici, ut ipse ad Iesum accederet in aliqua forma corporea. 316. And the tempter coming said. For he was able to bring it about that he should approach Jesus in some bodily form. Et est triplex tentatio, quia Deus tentat ut instruat; Gen. XXII, 1: tentavit Deus Abraham. Quandoque homo ut addiscat, sicut regina Saba tentavit Salomonem, III Reg. X, 1, ubi de ea dicitur, sed et regina Saba, audita fama Salomonis, venit tentare eum in aenigmatibus. Diabolus tentat ut decipiat; I Thess. c. III, 5: ne forte tentaverit vos is qui tentat. Quicumque vult tentare de scientia, primo de communibus tentat. Communia autem totius generis humani vitia sunt vitia carnis; et praecipue gula. Item qui vult obsidere castrum, incipit a debiliori parte; homo autem habet duas partes, carnalem et spiritualem. Diabolus ex parte debiliori semper tentat: unde primo de vitiis carnalibus tentat, sicut patet in primo parente, quem primo tentavit de gula. And there are three temptations, for God tempts in order to instruct; God tempted Abraham (Gen 22:1). Sometimes a man tempts in order to learn, as the queen of Saba tested Solomon, where it says of her, and the queen of Saba, having heard of the fame of Solomon in the name of the Lord, came to try him with hard questions (1 Kgs 10:1). The devil tempts in order to deceive; lest perhaps he that tempts should have tempted you, and our labor should be made vain (1 Thess 3:5). Whoever wants to test something concerning science, first tests about the most general things. Now, the most common vices of the whole human race are the vices of the body, and principally gluttony. Again, he who wishes to besiege a castle begins at the weakest part; now a man has two parts, the bodily and the spiritual. The devil always tempts from the weaker part, and hence he tempts first concerning the bodily vices, as is evident in the first parent, whom he first tempted concerning gluttony. 317. Sed notanda est mira astutia in tentando: si Filius Dei es: ita enim directe de uno tentavit, quod ex obliquo de altero. Unde in primo homine suadebat quod comederet de ligno, quod ad peccatum carnale, scilicet gulae, directe pertinebat; sed latenter inducebat ad superbiam et avaritiam, quae sunt peccata spiritualia; unde dixit, et eritis sicut dii Gen. III, 5. Ita in Christo: audierat enim quod Christus venturus esset in mundum, et hic videbatur esse Filius Dei; sed in dubitationem venerat, utrum hic esset ille de quo erat prophetatum, quia nihil inveniebat in eo; Io. XIV, 30: venit princeps mundi huius, et in me non habet quicquam. 317. But one should note his marvelous cunning in tempting: if you are the Son of God; for he tempted so directly concerning one thing, because he was tempting indirectly concerning another. Hence in the case of the first man he suggested that he eat of the tree, which pertained to a bodily sin directly; but he secretly led him on to arrogance and greed, which are spiritual sins. Hence he said, you will be as gods (Gen 3:5). Thus in the case of Christ, he had heard that the Christ was to come into the world, and this man seemed to be the Son of God; but he had come in a state of uncertainty, wondering whether this man was he of whom it had been prophesied, because he found nothing in him; for the prince of this world comes, and in me he has not any thing (John 14:30). Unde suggerebat quod homini esurienti delectabile est. Item induxit ad appetendum ea quae sunt Dei; et hoc est si Filius Dei es, dic ut lapides isti panes fiant. Eccle. VIII, 4: sermo illius potestate plenus est; et Ps. XXXII, 6: verbo Domini caeli firmati sunt, et spiritu oris eius omnis virtus eorum. Ergo potest eius verbo lapis mutari. Ergo volebat inclinare ad hoc, quod si faceret, sciret esse Filium Dei, si non, inducebat ad arrogantiam. Hence he suggested that which is delightful to a hungry man, and likewise he led him on to desire the things of God; and this is if you are the Son of God, command that these stones become bread. His word is full of power (Eccl 8:4); and: by the word of the Lord the heavens were established; and all the power of them by the spirit of his mouth (Ps 32:6). So he was able to change a stone by his word. Therefore he wished to incline him toward this deed, which if he had done, he would have known him to be the Son of God; if not, he was leading him toward arrogance. 318. Et notandum quod multi homines sunt qui consentiunt peccatis carnalibus, aestimantes, quod non debeant amittere statum spiritualem. Sed si in hoc quod tentatur consentiens homo, non amitteret spiritualitatem, levis esset tentatio. Ita persuadere voluit mulieri diabolus, et Christo, promittens spiritualia. 318. And one should note that there are many men who consent to bodily sins, reckoning that they should not lose the spiritual state. But if a man were not to lose spirituality by the fact that he is tempted and consents, the temptation would be a trivial one. Thus the devil wished to persuade the woman, and Christ, promising spiritual things. 319. Qui respondens dixit: scriptum est: ‘non in solo pane vivit homo’. In ista responsione dat tria documenta, quae facienda sunt tentato. 319. Who answered and said: it is written, ‘not in bread alone does man live’. Three lessons are given in this reply, which the one tempted should follow. Primum ut recurrat ad Scripturae medicinam; Ps. CXVIII, 11: in corde meo abscondi eloquia tua, ut non peccem tibi et cetera. Unde dixit, scriptum est. First, that one should turn back to the medicine of Scripture; your words have I hidden in my heart, that I may not sin against you (Ps 118:11). Hence he said, it is written. Secundum documentum ut homo nihil faciat ad arbitrium diaboli. Vegetius: nihil umquam sapiens dux debet facere ad arbitrium sui hostis, etiam si bonum videatur. Et ideo Dominus cum posset sine peccato lapides in panem commutare, noluit, quia ille suggerebat. The second lesson is that a man should do nothing according to the judgment of the devil. Vegetius: the wise king should never do anything according to the judgment of his enemy, even if it seems good. And therefore the Lord, while he was able to change the stones into bread without sin, did not want to, because the devil suggested it. Tertium est, quod non debet facere sine utilitate, ad ostentationem suae virtutis, quia hoc est vanitas. The third is that one should not perform useless work just to show his own strength, because this is vanity. 320. Qui respondens dixit: scriptum est: ‘non in solo pane vivit homo.’ 320. Who answered and said: it is written, ‘not in bread alone does man live.’ Notandum, quod diabolus ad duo nitebatur: primo ducere in affectum carnalium, item praesumptionis. Christus autem contra utrumque primo vitat iactantiam; quasi dicat, tu vocas Filium Dei, ego nomino hominem; unde ‘non in solo pane vivit homo.’ Item trahit diabolus in affectum carnalium: dic ut lapides isti panes fiant; hic trahit se in affectum spiritualium: ‘sed in omni verbo quod procedit de ore Dei.’ Quasi dicat, non tantum vita corporalis affectanda est, quantum vita spiritualis, quae conservatur per cibum spiritualem, ‘sed in omni verbo quod procedit de ore Dei.’ Io. VI, 69: Domine, ad quem ibimus? Verba vitae aeternae habes; Ps. CXVIII, 93: in aeternum non obliviscar iustificationes tuas, quia in ipsis vivificasti me. One should notice that the devil presses for two things: first, to lead him into a desire for fleshly things, and likewise into presumption. Against both, however, Christ first avoids boasting: as though to say, you call me the Son of God; I call myself a man; hence, ‘not in bread alone does man live.’ Likewise, the devil drew him toward a desire for fleshly things: command that these stones become bread. Here he draws himself to a desire for spiritual things: ‘but in every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.’ As though to say: the bodily life is not so much to be desired as the spiritual life, which is preserved by spiritual food, ‘but in every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.’ Lord, to whom will we go? You have the words of eternal life (John 6:69); your justifications I will never forget: for by them you have given me life (Ps 118:93). Et dicit ‘in omni verbo’, quia tota spiritualis doctrina est a Deo, sive ab homine, sive a Deo dicatur. Et iterum ‘de ore’: quia praedicator os Dei; Ier. XV, 19: si separaveris pretiosum a vili, quasi os meum eris. And he says, ‘in every word’, because all spiritual teaching is from God, whether it is spoken by man or by God. And again, ‘from the mouth’, because the preacher is the mouth of God; and if you will separate the precious from the vile, you will be as my mouth (Jer 15:19). Vel aliter. ‘Non in solo’, idest, non vivit solum homo per panem, sed etiam verbo, idest imperio Dei potest conservari sine aliquo cibo. Or in another way: ‘not in bread alone’, i.e., man does not live only by bread, but also by the word, i.e., the command of God can preserve one without any food. 321. Tunc assumpsit eum diabolus in sanctam civitatem. Posita prima tentatione, de qua diabolus victus fuit, nunc ponitur secunda, scilicet de inani gloria. Et ordo congruus est, quod postquam diabolus se vinctum videret vitio carnali, tentaret de inani gloria, vel superbia: quia superbia bonis operibus insidiatur, ut pereant, Augustinus in Regula. 321. Then the devil took him up into the holy city. The first temptation having been set down, now the second is set down, namely concerning vainglory. And the order is fitting, because after the devil saw himself defeated in bodily vice, he tempted concerning vainglory, or pride, because pride lies in ambush for good works, that they may be destroyed, as Augustine says in his Regula. Circa istam ergo tentationem tria facit. Concerning this temptation, then, he does three things: Primo ponitur locus tentationis; first, the place of the temptation is set down; secundo insultus, sive conatus tentationis, ibi si Filius Dei es, mitte te deorsum: second, the attack or attempt of temptation, at if you are the Son of God, cast yourself down; tertio resistentia Christi, ibi ait ei Iesus. third, the Christ’s resistance, at Jesus said to him. 322. Sed sciendum, quod Lucas posuit tertiam tentationem, hic e converso; sed non est vis, secundum Augustinum: quia omnia quae narrantur hic, et in Luca narrantur; nec ponitur in Luca, vel hic quae fuit prima, vel secunda. Rabanus vero dicit quod Lucas attendit ad ordinem historiae; et ideo sic ordinavit, secundum quod factum est. Matthaeus vero naturam tentationis secutus est, quia post tentationem de gula, et de inani gloria, sequitur tentatio de ambitione: ita enim fuit tentatus Adam, quia primo de gula; unde Gen. II, 17: in quacumque die comederis ex eo, morte morieris; secundo de gloria: eritis sicut dii; tertio de avaritia, sive ambitione, scientes bonum et malum. 322. But one should know that Luke sets down the third temptation here the other way around; but there is no force to this objection, according to Augustine, because everything told here is also told in Luke, nor is it set down here or in Luke which one happened first or second. Rabanus indeed says that Luke attends to the order of history, and so he set this down in order in which it happened. Matthew however followed the nature of the temptation, because after the temptation concerning gluttony, and concerning vainglory, there follows the temptation concerning ambition. For Adam was tempted in this way: first, concerning gluttony, hence: for in whatever day you will eat of it, thou will die the death (Gen 2:17); second, concerning glory, you will be as Gods (Gen 3:5); third, concerning greed, or ambition, knowing good and evil. 323. Sed quare dicit tunc assumpsit? Hoc enim nomen assumptio vim importat. 323. But why does it say, then the devil took him up? For this word took implies force. Et respondet Hieronymus, quod hoc dicit Evangelista secundum opinionem diaboli, quia quod Christus sustinuit ex virtute, diabolus accepit quasi faceret sua potentia. And Jerome responds that the Evangelist says this according to the devil’s opinion, because what Christ put up with out of virtue, the devil took as though he had done by his own power. 324. Dicit sanctam, vel quia ibi agebantur sancta, temporalia scilicet sacrificia, et huiusmodi. Vel dicit propter sanctitatem patrum eorum qui ibi fuerunt. Unde ex antiqua consuetudine vocat sanctam, licet cessaverit; Is. I, 21: quomodo facta est meretrix civitas fidelis, plena iudicii? Sed post dicit, vocaberis civitas iusti, urbs fidelis et cetera. 324. He says, the holy city, either because holy things were done there, namely the temporal sacrifices, and suchlike, or he says it because of the holiness of the fathers of those who were there. Hence he calls it holy by an ancient custom, although it ceased to be so; how is the faithful city, that was full of judgment, become a harlot? (Isa 1:21). But later it says, after this you will be called the city of the just, a faithful city (Isa 1:26). 325. Sed sciendum quod Mc. I, 13 dicitur, quod erat in deserto quadraginta diebus et quadraginta noctibus, et tentabatur a satana. Ex quo videtur quod omnes tentationes fuerint in deserto. Ergo non videtur verum esse quod dicitur tunc assumpsit eum diabolus. 325. But one should know that it is said: he was in the desert forty days and forty nights, and was being tempted by satan (Mark 1:13), on the basis of which it seems that all the temptations happened in the desert. Therefore what is said here does not seem to be true, then the devil took him up. Et est hic duplex responsio. Quidam dicunt, quod omnes tentationes fuerunt in deserto, et quod fuerunt secundum imaginariam visionem, scilicet quod Christus ita imaginabatur, ipso etiam permittente. Alii dicunt, quod fuerunt secundum visionem corporalem: et quod diabolus apparuit ei in specie corporali. Hoc videtur innui, quia dicit, quod assumpsit eum in sanctam civitatem. Quidam dicunt quod hoc ideo ad desertum pertinet, quia Ierusalem deserta erat a Deo. And there are two responses to this. Some say that all the temptations happened in the desert, and that they happened according to a vision of the imagination, namely that Christ was imagining it to be so, he himself permitting it. Others say that they happened according to a bodily vision, and that the devil appeared to him in a bodily form. This seems to be implied, because it says that the devil took him up into the holy city. Some say that this related to the desert, because Jerusalem was deserted by God. Sed dicendum melius, quod illud, quod dicitur Mc. I, 13 non est intelligendum, quod omnes tentationes fuerint in deserto, nec etiam ipse hoc dicit; sed quod tentabatur a satana. Et ideo sciendum, quod prima tentatio fuit in deserto; aliae duae extra desertum. But one should say better that what is said in Mark is not to be understood such that all the temptations happened in the desert, nor does he even say that, but that he was tempted by satan (Mark 1:13). And so one should know that the first temptation was in the desert, the other two outside the desert.