It must be said that the imagination of death was in the interior sensible power, not proceeding from sense, but descending from the cognition of reason. For when we foreknow certain things, we can imagine them, and through what we hold as certain, be troubled.
And if you object that this is a reversed order, some say that nothing hindered this in Christ, in whom the lower powers were subject to the higher.
But nevertheless it is not necessary to say this, because then there would be a reversed order if the intelligible species were to descend into the sense and become sensible. But when the species are in the imagination, and reason thinks something and causes the sensitive power to imagine and be terrified by that same thing, there is no reversal of order.
40. Question III. But then it is asked: since Christ knew of His death from the beginning, just as He did then, why was He not always troubled, as He was then?
To this it must be said that the knowledge of death was not the whole cause, but the knowledge of imminent death: whence nature shrinks more from an imminent danger than from a distant one. Nor yet was that the whole cause, but the knowledge of imminent death together with the will to trouble Himself: and this He willed at that time, in order to show that He was a true man.
41. Question IV. Likewise, there is a question about the inquiry of the disciples:
1. Whence is it that the disciples dared to inquire about a hidden crime? It seems to have been curiosity.
2. And it is also asked: since Peter was the boldest among all, why did he not inquire by himself, but "through an intermediary person," namely John? For Peter almost always answered on behalf of all the disciples.
To this it must be said that they were not asking out of curiosity to know the fault of their neighbor, but because each one, as Chrysostom says, feared for himself, and they were tormented by that fear: they wanted to be assured. And because they knew that the Lord would not say it openly, nor did they wish to put him to shame so openly, they asked secretly, and they were answered secretly.
2. And therefore Peter did not speak, but nodded to the one who was near and could ask secretly; for he was reclining upon the breast of Jesus privately and was able to ask, which Peter could not do.
42. Question V. Likewise, there is a question about the Lord's response, because He says: He to whom I shall give the dipped bread. It seems that the Lord exposed Judas.
To this Chrysostom says that He gave dipped bread to all.
But then 1. it is asked what sign it would have been for John that he was the one to whom I shall give the dipped bread.
2. Likewise, it is said in Matthew twenty-six that they began each to say: Is it I, Lord? and afterward concerning Judas: Is it I, Rabbi? And it is said there that the Lord answered: You have said it. Therefore it seems that the Lord revealed him openly, and not only by a sign, but by word.
I respond: It must be said that the Lord revealed the traitor, but not to all; rather to some, but secretly. He revealed it to John for a twofold reason: both because He had compassion on his distress, and also so that he himself might be a witness that Christ had foreknown with certainty, not by conjectures, that this disciple was the traitor.
But as to what is said, that a sinner should not be exposed: this is to be understood as meaning that he should not be made public, but nevertheless it can be told to those who are able to help and do not wish to harm.
2. But as to what is said concerning Matthew, it must be said that that word of the Lord, as Augustine says in On the Harmony of the Evangelists, determined nothing certain: You have said it, as if to say: not I, but you.
Or it can be that the Lord said it to him in such a way that no one else understood.
And indeed, what Matthew narrates was said earlier: and because Peter and John had not been made certain, John still asked secretly.
43. Question VI. Likewise, inquiry is made concerning what he says, that after the morsel Satan entered into him.
It seems that the Lord did not act well in giving the morsel to Judas, through which he was made worse.
2. Likewise, for what reason after the morsel?
3. And it seems to say something false, because, as Augustine says, God alone enters the soul, therefore not Satan.
4. Likewise, he had said earlier that the devil put it into the heart of Judas; how then after the morsel?
I respond: On these matters there are diverse opinions. Some wished to say that the dipped bread was the body of Christ: and the Master in the Histories says this, and therefore dipped bread is not given to us communicants. And Augustine seems to say this in the original: "Why do you marvel," he says, "if the bread of Christ was given to Judas, through which he was handed over to the devil, when you see that an angel of the devil was given to the Apostle, through which he might advance in Christ?" And therefore they say that Satan entered then, because receiving the body of Christ unworthily, he ate and drank judgment upon himself.