Vangelo Di Giovanni

1
Lectio 1 LECTURE 1
1 ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ 1 In the
λόγος, beginning was
καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν the Word;
πρὸς τὸν θεόν, and the Word
καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ was with God;
λόγος. and the Word
2 οὗτος ἦν ἐν was God.
ἀρχῇ πρὸς τὸν
θεόν.
Evangelista Ioannes, sicut 23 John the Evangelist, as

dictum est, intendit already indicated, makes it
principaliter ostendere his principal object to show
divinitatem verbi incarnati; the divinity of the
et ideo dividitur istud Incarnate Word.
Evangelium in partes duas. Accordingly, his Gospel is
Primo enim insinuat Christi divided into two parts. In
divinitatem; secundo the first he states the
manifestat eam per ea divinity of Christ; in the
quae Christus in carne second he shows it by the
fecit, et hoc II cap. et die things Christ did in the
tertia. Circa primum duo flesh (2:1). In regard to the
facit. Primo proponit first, he does two things.
Christi divinitatem; First he shows the divinity
secundo ponit modum, quo of Christ; secondly he sets
Christi divinitas nobis forth the manner in which
innotuit, ibi et vidimus Christ’s divinity is made
gloriam eius et cetera. known to us (1:14).
Circa primum duo facit. Concerning the first he
Primo agit de divinitate does two things. First he
Christi; secundo de verbi treats of the divinity of
Dei incarnatione, ibi fuit Christ; secondly of the
homo missus a Deo. incarnation of the Word of
God (1:6).
Quia vero in unaquaque re Because there are two

sunt consideranda duo, items to be considered in
scilicet esse et operatio, each thing, namely, its
sive virtus ipsius, ideo existence and its operation
primo agit de esse verbi or power, first he treats the
quantum ad naturam existence of the Word as to
divinam; secundo de his divine nature; secondly
virtute, seu operatione of his power or operation
ipsius, ibi omnia per ipsum (1:3). In regard to the first
facta sunt. Circa primum he does four things. First
quatuor facit. Primo he shows when the Word
ostendit quando erat was: In the beginning was
verbum, quia in principio the Word; secondly where
erat verbum; secundo ubi he was: and the Word was
erat, quia apud Deum; with God; thirdly what fie
unde dicit et verbum erat was: and the Word was
apud Deum; tertio quid God; fourthly, in what way
erat, quia Deus; unde he was: He was in the
subiungit et Deus erat beginning with God. The
verbum; quarto quomodo first two pertain to the
erat, quia hoc erat in inquiry “whether
principio apud Deum. something exists”; the
Prima duo pertinent ad second two pertain to the
quaestionem, an est: inquiry “what something
secunda vero duo is.”
pertinent ad quaestionem
quid est.
Circa primum autem 24 With respect to the first

videndum est quid sit hoc of these four we must
quod dicitur in principio examine the meaning of
erat verbum. Ubi tria the statement, In the
diligenter inquirenda beginning was the Word.
concurrunt, secundum tres And here three things
dictiones huius orationis. present themselves for
Et primo quid sit hoc quod careful study according to
dicitur verbum; secundo the three parts of this
quid sit hoc quod dicitur in statement. First it is
principio; tertio quid sit necessary to investigate
hoc quod dicitur verbum the name Word; secondly
erat in principio. the phrase in the
beginning; thirdly the
meaning of the Word was
in the beginning.
Ad intellectum autem huius 25 To understand the name

nominis verbum, sciendum Word we should note that
est quod, secundum according to the
philosophum ea quae sunt Philosopher [On
in voce, sunt signa earum, Interpretation 16a3] vocal
quae sunt in anima, sounds are signs of the
passionum. Consuetum est affections that exist in our
autem in Scriptura quod soul. It is customary in
significata nominantur Scripture for the things
nominibus signorum, sicut signified to be themselves
illud I Cor. X, 4: petra called by the names of
autem erat Christus. De their signs, as in the
necessitate autem oportet statement, “And the rock
quod illud intrinsecum was Christ” ( 1 Cor 10:4).
animae nostrae, quod It is fitting that what is
significatur exteriori verbo within our soul, and which
nostro, verbum vocetur. is signified by our external
Utrum autem per prius word, be called a “word.”
conveniat nomen verbi rei But whether the name
exteriori voce prolatae, vel “word” belongs first to the
ipsi conceptioni mentis, exterior vocal sound or to
nihil refert ad praesens. the conception in our mind,
Planum est tamen quod is not our concern at
illud quod voce significatur, present. However, it is
interius existens in anima, obvious that what is
prius est quam ipsum signified by the vocal
verbum exteriori voce sound, as existing
prolatum, utpote causa interiorly in the soul, exists
eius existens. Si ergo prior to the vocal
volumus scire quid est expression inasmuch as it
interius verbum mentis, is its actual cause.
videamus quid significat Therefore if we wish to
quod exteriori voce grasp the meaning of the
profertur. interior word, we must first
look at the meaning of that
which is exteriorly
expressed in words.
In intellectu autem nostro Now there are three things

sunt tria: scilicet ipsa in our intellect: the
potentia intellectus; intellectual power itself,
species rei intellectae, the species of the thing
quae est forma eius, se understood (and this
habens ad ipsum species is its form, being to
intellectum, sicut species the intellect what the
coloris ad pupillam; et, species of a color is to the
tertio, ipsa operatio eye), and thirdly the very
intellectus quae est activity of the intellect,
intelligere. Nullum autem which is to understand. But
istorum significatur verbo none of these is what is
exteriori voce prolato. Nam signified by the exterior
hoc nomen lapis non vocal word: for the name
significat substantiam “stone” does not signify
intellectus, quia hoc non the substance of the
intendit dicere nominans; intellect because this is not
nec significat speciem, what the one naming
quae est qua intellectus intends; nor does it signify
intelligit, cum etiam hoc the species, which is that
non sit intentio by which the intellect
nominantis; non significat understands, since this
etiam ipsum intelligere, also is not the intention of
cum intelligere non sit the one naming; nor does it
actio exterius progrediens signify the act itself of
ab intelligente, sed in ipso understanding since to
manens. Illud ergo proprie understand is not an action
dicitur verbum interius, proceeding to the exterior
quod intelligens from the one
intelligendo format. understanding, but an
action remaining within.
Therefore, that is properly
called an interior word
which the one
understanding forms when
understanding.
Intellectus autem duo Now the intellect forms two

format, secundum duas things, according to its two
eius operationes. Nam operations. According to
secundum operationem its operation which is
suam, quae dicitur called “the understanding
indivisibilium intelligentia, of indivisibles,” it forms a
format definitionem; definition; while according
secundum vero to its operation by which it
operationem suam, qua unites and separates, it
componit et dividit, format forms an enunciation or
enunciationem, vel aliquid something of that sort.
huiusmodi. Et ideo, illud sic Hence, what is thus formed
formatum et expressum and expressed by the
per operationem operation of the intellect,
intellectus, vel definientis whether by defining or
vel enunciantis, exteriori enunciating, is what the
voce significatur. Unde exterior vocal sound
dicit philosophus quod signifies. So the
ratio, quam significat Philosopher says that the
nomen, est definitio. Istud notion (ratio) which a
ergo sic expressum, name signifies is a
scilicet formatum in anima, definition. Hence, what is
dicitur verbum interius; et thus expressed, i.e.,
ideo comparatur ad formed in the soul, is
intellectum, non sicut quo called an interior word.
intellectus intelligit, sed Consequently it is
sicut in quo intelligit; quia compared to the intellect,
in ipso expresso et formato not as that by which the
videt naturam rei intellect understands, but
intellectae. Sic ergo as that in which it
habemus significationem understands, because it is
huius nominis verbum. in what is thus expressed
and formed that it sees the
nature of the thing
understood. Thus we have
the meaning of the name
“word.”
Secundo, ex his quae dicta Secondly, from what has

sunt, concipere possumus, been said we are able to
quod verbum semper est understand that a word is
aliquid procedens ab always something that
intellectu in actu existente. proceeds from an intellect
Iterum quod verbum existing in act; and
semper est ratio et furthermore, that a word is
similitudo rei intellectae. Et always a notion (ratio) and
si quidem eadem res sit likeness of the thing
intelligens et intellecta, understood. So if the one
tunc verbum est ratio et understanding and the
similitudo intellectus, a thing understood are the
quo procedit; si autem sit same, then the word is a
aliud intelligens et notion and likeness of the
intellectum, tunc verbum intellect from which it
non est similitudo et ratio proceeds. On the other
intelligentis, sed rei hand, if the one
intellectae: sicut conceptio understanding is other
quam aliquis habet de than the thing understood,
lapide, est similitudo then the word is not a
lapidis tantum, sed quando likeness and notion of the
intellectus intelligit se, one understanding but of
tunc huiusmodi verbum est the thing understood, as
similitudo et ratio the conception which one
intellectus. Et ideo has of a stone is a likeness
Augustinus ponit of only the stone. But when
similitudinem Trinitatis in the intellect understands
anima, secundum quod itself, its word is a likeness
mens intelligit seipsam, and notion of the intellect.
non autem secundum quod And so Augustine (On the
intelligit alia. Trinity IX, 5) sees a
likeness of the Trinity in the
Soul insofar as the mind
understands itself, but not
insofar as it understands
other things.
Patet ergo quod in qualibet It is clear then that it is

natura intellectuali necessary to have a word
necesse est ponere in any intellectual nature,
verbum: quia de ratione for it is of the very nature
intelligendi est quod of understanding that the
intellectus intelligendo intellect in understanding
aliquid formet; huius should form something.
autem formatio dicitur Now what is formed is
verbum; et ideo in omni called a word, and so it
intelligente oportet ponere follows that in every being
verbum. which understands there
must be a word.
Natura autem intellectualis However, intellectual

est triplex, scilicet natures are of three kinds:
humana, angelica et human, angelic and divine;
divina: et ideo triplex est and so there are three
verbum. Scilicet humanum, kinds of words. The human
de quo in Ps. XIII, 1: dixit word, about which it is said
insipiens in corde suo: non in the Psalm (13:1): “The
est Deus. Est et angelicum, fool said in his heart,
de quo Zac. I, 9 et in multis ‘There is no God.’ “ The
locis sacrae Scripturae angelic word, about which
dicitur: dixit Angelus et it is said in Zechariah (1:9),
cetera. Tertium est verbum and in many places in
divinum, de quo Gen. I, 5: Sacred Scripture, “And the
dixit Deus: fiat lux et angel said to me.” The
cetera. Cum ergo third is the divine word, of
Evangelista dicit in which Genesis (1:3) says,
principio erat verbum, non “And God said, ‘Let there
intelligi potest de humano be light.’ “ So when the
vel angelico verbo: quia Evangelist says, In the
utrumque istorum beginning was the Word,
verborum est factum, cum we cannot understand this
homo et Angelus habeant as a human or angelic
sui esse et operationis word, because both these
principium et causam; words have been made
verbum autem hominis vel since man and angel have
Angeli non potest a cause and principle of
praeexistere eis. De quo their existence and
autem verbo intellexerit operation, and the word of
Evangelista, declarat per a man or an angel cannot
hoc quod dicit, hoc verbum exist before they do. The
non esse factum, cum word the Evangelist had in
omnia sint facta per ipsum; mind he shows by saying
hoc autem est verbum Dei, that this word was not
de quo Ioannes hic made, since all things were
loquitur. made by it. Therefore, the
word about which John
speaks here is the Word of
God.
Sciendum est autem, quod 26 We should note that this

hoc verbum differt a nostro Word differs from our own
verbo in tribus. Prima word in three ways. The
differentia est, secundum first difference, according
Augustinum, quia verbum to Augustine, is that our
nostrum prius est word is formable before
formabile, quam formatum: being formed, for when I
nam cum volo concipere wish to conceive the notion
rationem lapidis, oportet of a stone, I must arrive at
quod ad ipsam it by reasoning. And so it is
ratiocinando perveniam; et in all other things that are
sic est in omnibus aliis, understood by us, with the
quae a nobis intelliguntur, sole possible exception of
nisi forte in primis the first principles which,
principiis, quae cum sint since they are known in a
simpliciter nota, absque simple manner, are known
discursu rationis statim at once without any
sciuntur. Quamdiu ergo sic discourse of reason. So as
ratiocinando, intellectus long as the intellect, in so
iactatur hac atque illac, reasoning, casts about this
nec dum formatio perfecta way and that, the
est, nisi quando ipsam formation is not yet
rationem rei perfecte complete. It is only when it
conceperit: et tunc primo has conceived the notion
habet rationem rei of the thing perfectly that
perfecte, et tunc primo for the first time it has the
habet rationem verbi. Et notion of the complete
inde est quod in anima thing and a word. Thus in
nostra est cogitatio, per our mind there is both a
quam significatur ipse “cogitation,” meaning the
discursus inquisitionis, et discourse involved in an
verbum, quod est iam investigation, and a word,
formatum secundum which is formed according
perfectam to a perfect contemplation
contemplationem veritatis. of the truth. So our word is
Sic ergo verbum nostrum first in potency before it is
primo est in potentia quam in act. But the Word of God
in actu; sed verbum Dei is always in act. In
semper est in actu: et ideo consequence, the term
nomen cogitationis verbo “cogitation” does not
Dei proprie non convenit. properly speaking apply to
Dicit enim Augustinus, XV the Word of God. For
de Trinit., ita dicitur Augustine says (On the
verbum Dei, ut cogitatio Trinity XV): “The Word of
non dicatur, ne quid quasi God is spoken of in such a
volubile credatur in Deo. Id way that cogitation is not
autem quod Anselmus included, lest anything
dicit, scilicet dicere summo changeable be supposed in
spiritui nihil aliud est, God.” Anselm was
quam cogitando intueri, speaking improperly when
improprie dictum est. he said: “For the supreme
Spirit to speak is for him to
look at something while
cogitating.”
Secunda vero differentia 27 The second difference

verbi nostri ad verbum is that our word is
divinum est, quia verbum imperfect, but the divine
nostrum est imperfectum, Word is most perfect. For
sed verbum divinum est since we cannot express all
perfectissimum. Quia enim our conceptions in one
nos non possumus omnes word, we must form many
nostras conceptiones uno imperfect words through
verbo exprimere, ideo which we separately
oportet quod plura verba express all that is in our
imperfecta formemus, per knowledge. But it is not
quae divisim exprimamus that way with God. For
omnia, quae in scientia since he understands both
nostra sunt. In Deo autem himself and everything else
non est sic: cum enim through his essence, by
intelligat, et seipsum etiam one act, the single divine
et quicquid intelligit per Word is expressive of all
essentiam suam, uno actu, that is in God, not only of
unicum verbum divinum the Persons but also of
est expressivum totius creatures; otherwise it
quod in Deo est, non solum would be imperfect. So
personarum, sed etiam Augustine says: “If there
creaturarum: alias esset were less in the Word than
imperfectum. Unde dicit is contained in the
Augustinus: si quid minus knowledge of the One
esset in verbo, quam in speaking it, the Word
dicentis scientia would be imperfect; but it
continetur, verbum is obvious that it is most
imperfectum esset. Sed perfect; therefore, it is only
constat quod est one.” “God speaks once”
perfectissimum; ergo est (Jb 33:14).
tantum unum. Iob XXXIII,
14: semel loquitur Deus.
Tertia differentia est, quod 28 The third difference is

verbum nostrum non est that our word is not of the
eiusdem naturae same nature as we; but the
nobiscum, sed verbum divine Word is of the same
divinum est eiusdem nature as God. And
naturae cum Deo: et ideo therefore it is something
est aliquid subsistens in that subsists in the divine
natura divina. Nam ratio nature. For the understood
intellecta, quam intellectus notion which the intellect is
videtur de aliqua re seen to form about some
formare, habet esse thing has only an
intelligibile tantum in intelligible existence in our
anima nostra; intelligere soul. Now in our soul, to
autem in anima nostra non understand is not the same
est idem quod est natura as the nature of the soul,
animae, quia anima non because our soul is not its
est sua operatio. Et ideo own operation.
verbum quod format Consequently, the word
intellectus noster, non est which our intellect forms is
de essentia animae, sed not of the essence of our
est accidens ei. In Deo soul, but is an accident of
autem idem est intelligere it. But in God, to
et esse; et ideo verbum understand and to be are
intellectus divini non est the same; and so the Word
aliquid accidens, sed of the divine intellect is not
pertinens ad naturam eius: an accident but belongs to
quia quicquid est in natura its nature. Thus it must be
Dei, est Deus. Unde, dicit subsistent, because
Damascenus, quod Deus whatever is in the nature of
verbum substantiale est, et God is God. Thus
in hypostasi ens, reliqua Damascene says that God
vero, verba nostra scilicet, is a substantial Word, and
virtutes sunt animae. a hypostasis, but our
words are concepts in our
mind.
Ex praemissis etiam patet 29 From the above it is

quod verbum, proprie clear that the Word,
loquendo, semper properly speaking, is
personaliter accipitur in always understood as a
divinis, cum non importet Person in the Divinity, since
nisi quid expressum ab it implies only something
intelligente. Item quod expressed, by the one
verbum in divinis sit understanding; also, that in
similitudo eius a quo the Divinity the Word is the
procedit; et quod sit likeness of that from which
coaeternum ei a quo it issues; and that it is co-
procedit, cum non prius eternal with that from
fuerit formabile quam which it issues, since it was
formatum, sed semper in not first formable before
actu; et quod sit aequale being formed, but was
patri, cum sit perfectum, et always in act; and that it is
totius esse patris equal to the Father, since it
expressivum; et quod sit is perfect and expressive of
coessentiale et the whole being of the
consubstantiale patri, cum Father; and that it is co-
sit substantia eius. essential and
consubstantial with the
Father, since it is his
substance.
Patet etiam quod cum in It is also clear that since in

qualibet natura illud quod every nature that which
procedit, habens issues forth and has a
similitudinem naturae eius likeness to the nature from
a quo procedit, vocetur which it issues is called a
filius, et hoc verbum son, and since this Word
procedat in similitudine et issues forth in a likeness
identitate naturae eius a and identity to the nature
quo procedit, convenienter from which it issues, it is
et proprie dicitur filius, et suitably and appropriately
productio eius dicitur called a “Son,” and its
generatio. production is called a
generation.
Sic ergo patet primum, So now the first point is

scilicet quid sit hoc quod clear, the meaning of the
dicitur verbum. term Word.
Circa hoc autem quatuor 30 There are four

quaestiones occurrunt. questions on this point,
Duae sunt Chrysostomi. two of them from
Prima est cur Ioannes Chrysostom. The first is:
Evangelista patrem Why did John the
dimittens, confestim Evangelist omit the Father
incepit a filio, dicens in and begin at once with the
principio erat verbum. Son, saying, In the
beginning was the Word?
Ad hoc autem est duplex There are two answers to

responsio. Una est, quia this. One is that the Father
pater omnibus innotuerat was known to everyone in
in veteri testamento, the Old Testament,
quamvis non in ratione although not under the
patris, sed ut Deus; filius aspect of Father, but as
autem ignorabatur: et ideo God; but the Son was not
in novo testamento, in quo known. And so in the New
agitur de cognitione verbi, Testament, which is
incipit a verbo, sive filio. concerned with our
knowledge of the Word, he
begins with the Word or
Son.
Alia est, quia per filium The other answer is that

ducimur in notitiam patris; we are brought to know the
infra XVII, 6: pater, Father through the Son:
manifestavi nomen tuum “Father, I have manifested
hominibus, quos dedisti your name to the men
mihi. Volens ergo fideles in whom you have given to
notitiam patris ducere me” (below 17:6). And so
Evangelista, decenter wishing to lead the faithful
incepit a filio, statim to a knowledge of the
subiungens de patre cum Father, the Evangelist
dicit et verbum erat apud fittingly began with the
Deum. Son, at once adding
something about the
Father when he says, and
the Word was with God.
Secunda quaestio est 31 The second question is

etiam Chrysostomi. Cum also from Chrysostom. Why
enim, sicut dictum est, did he say Word and not
verbum procedat ut filius, “Son,” since, as we have
quare dixit verbum, et non said, the Word proceeds as
filius? Son?
Ad hoc etiam dupliciter There are also two answers

respondetur. Primo quia to this. First, because
filius dicit aliquid genitum, “son” means something
et cum audimus begotten, and when we
generationem filii, posset hear of the generation of
quis cogitare the Son, someone might
generationem illam talem suppose that this
esse, qualem generation is the kind he
comprehendere potest, can comprehend, that is, a
scilicet materialem et material and changeable
passibilem; ideo ergo non generation. Thus he did
dixit filius sed verbum, not say “Son,” but Word,
quod importat which signifies an
intelligibilem processum, intelligible proceeding, so
ut non intelligatur that it would not be
materialem et passibilem understood as a material
generationem illam fuisse. and changeable
Ostendens igitur filium ex generation. And so in
Deo impassibiliter nasci, showing that the Son is
destruit vitiosam born of the Father in an
suspicionem per verbi unchangeable way, he
nuncupationem. eliminates a faulty
conjecture by using the
name Word.
Aliter potest dici sic: The second answer is this.
Evangelista tractaturus The Evangelist was about
erat de verbo, inquantum to consider the Word as
venerat ad manifestandum having come to manifest
patrem. Unde cum ratio the Father. But since the
manifestationis magis idea of manifesting is
importetur in nomine verbi implied better in the name
quam in nomine filii, ideo “Word” than in the name
magis est usus nomine “Son,” he preferred to use
verbi. the name Word.
Tertia quaestio est 32 The third question is

Augustini in Lib. LXXXIII raised by Augustine in his
quaest., quae talis est: in book Eighty-three
Graeco, ubi nos habemus Questions; and it is this. In
verbum, habetur logos. Greek, where we have
Cum ergo logos significet “Word,” they have “Logos”;
in Latino rationem et now since “Logos” signifies
verbum, quare translatores in Latin both “notion” and
transtulerunt verbum, et “word” [i.e., ratio et
non rationem, cum ratio sit verbum], why did the
quid intrinsecum, translators render it as
quemadmodum etiam “word” and not “notion,”
verbum? since a notion is something
interior just as a word is?
Respondeo. Dicendum I answer that “notion”

quod ratio proprie nominat [ratio], properly speaking,
conceptum mentis, names a conception of the
secundum quod in mente mind precisely as in the
est, etsi nihil per illam mind, even if through it
exterius fiat; per verbum nothing exterior comes to
vero significatur respectus be; but “word” signifies a
ad exteriora: et ideo quia reference to something
Evangelista per hoc, quod exterior. And so because
dixit logos, non solum the Evangelist, when he
intendebat significare said “Logos,” intended to
respectum ad existentiam signify not only a reference
filii in patre, sed etiam to the Son’s existence in
operativam potentiam filii, the Father, but also the
qua per ipsum facta sunt operative power of the
omnia, magis antiqui Son, by which, through
transtulerunt verbum, him, all things were made,
quod importat respectum our predecessors preferred
ad exteriora, quam ratio, to translate it “Word,”
quae tantum conceptum which implies a reference
mentis insinuat. to something exterior,
rather than “notion “ which
implies merely a concept of
the mind.
Quarta quaestio est 33 The fourth question is

Origenis, quae talis est. from Origen, and is this. In
Scriptura in pluribus locis many passages, Scripture,
loquens de verbo Dei, when speaking of the Word
nominat ipsum non of God, does not simply
absolute verbum, sed cum call him the Word, but adds
additione, scilicet Dei, cum “of God,” saying, “the Word
dicit verbum Dei, vel of God,” or “of the Lord”:
domini: Eccli. I, 5: fons “The Word of God on high
sapientiae verbum Dei in is the foundation of
excelsis, et Apoc. XIX, 13: wisdom” (Sir 1:5); “His
et nomen eius verbum Dei. name is the Word of God”
Quare ergo Evangelista, (Rv 19:13). Why then did
cum loqueretur hic de the Evangelist, when
verbo Dei, non dixit: in speaking here of the Word
principio erat verbum Dei, of God, not say, “In the
sed dixit tantummodo beginning was the Word of
verbum? God,” but said In the
beginning was the Word?
Respondeo. Dicendum, I answer that although

quod licet sint multae there are many
veritates participatae, est participated truths, there is
tamen una veritas just one absolute Truth,
absoluta, quae per suam which is Truth by its very
essentiam est veritas, essence, that is, the divine
scilicet ipsum esse act of being (esse); and by
divinum, qua veritate, this Truth all words are
omnia verba sunt verba. words. Similarly, there is
Eodem modo est una one absolute Wisdom
sapientia absoluta supra elevated above all things,
omnia elevata, scilicet that is, the divine Wisdom,
sapientia divina, per cuius by participating in which all
participationem omnes wise persons are wise.
sapientes sunt sapientes. Further, there is one
Et etiam unum verbum absolute Word, by
absolutum, cuius participating in which all
participatione omnes persons having a word are
habentes verbum, dicuntur called speakers. Now this
dicentes. Hoc autem est is the divine Word which of
verbum divinum, quod per itself is the Word elevated
seipsum est verbum super above all words. So in
omnia verba elevatum. Ut order that the Evangelist
ergo Evangelista hanc might signify this
supereminentiam divini supereminence of the
verbi significaret, ipsum divine Word, he pointed out
verbum absque ulla this Word to us absolutely
additione nobis absolute without any addition.
proposuit;
et quia Graeci, quando And because the Greeks,

volunt significare aliquid when they wished to
segregatum et elevatum ab signify something separate
omnibus aliis, and elevated above
consueverunt apponere everything else, did this by
articulum nomini, per quod affixing the article to the
illud significatur sicut name (as the Platonists,
Platonici volentes wishing to signify the
significare substantias separated substances,
separatas, puta bonum such as the separated
separatum, vel hominem good or the separated
separatum, vocabant illud man, called them the good
ly per se bonum, vel ly per per se, or man per se), so
se hominem ideo the Evangelist, wishing to
Evangelista volens signify the separation and
significare segregationem elevation of that Word
et elevationem istius verbi above all things, affixed an
super omnia, apposuit article to the name
articulum ad hoc nomen “Logos,” so that if it were
logos, ut si dicatur in stated in Latin we would
Latino, ly verbum. say “the Word.”
Secundo considerandum 34 Secondly, we must
est, quid significet hoc consider the meaning of
quod dicitur in principio. the phrase, In the
Sciendum est autem quod beginning. We must note
principium, secundum that according to Origen,
Origenem, multis modis the word principium has
dicitur. Cum enim many meanings [such as
principium importet “principle,” “source,” or
ordinem quemdam ad alia, “beginning”]. Since the
necesse est invenire word principium implies a
principium in omnibus, in certain order of one thing
quibus est ordo. Invenitur to another, one can find a
autem ordo in principium in all those
quantitatibus; et things which have an order.
secundum hoc dicitur First of all, order is found
principium in numeris et in quantified things; and so
longitudine, puta lineae. there is a principle of
Invenitur etiam ordo in number and lengths, as for
tempore; et secundum hoc example, a line. Second,
dicitur principium order is found in time; and
temporis, vel durationis. so we speak of a
Invenitur ordo in “beginning” of time, or of
disciplinis, et hic est duration. Third, order is
duplex: secundum found in learning; and this
naturam, et quoad nos; et in two ways: as to nature,
utroque modo dicitur and as to ourselves, and in
principium. Hebr. V, v. 12: both cases we can speak of
deberetis esse magistri a “beginning”: “By this
propter tempus. Et hoc time you ought to be
modo, secundum naturam teachers” (Heb 5:12). As to
quidem, in disciplina nature, in Christian
Christiana initium et doctrine the beginning and
principium sapientiae principle of our wisdom is
nostrae est Christus, Christ, inasmuch as he is
inquantum est sapientia et the Wisdom and Word of
verbum Dei, idest God, i.e., in his divinity. But
secundum divinitatem. as to ourselves, the
Quoad nos vero principium beginning is Christ himself
est ipse Christus, inasmuch as the Word has
inquantum verbum caro become flesh, i.e., by his
factum est, idest incarnation. Fourth, in
secundum eius order is found in the
incarnationem. Invenitur production of a thing. In
etiam ordo in productione this perspective there can
rei; et secundum hoc be a principium on the part
principium dicitur ex parte of the thing generated, that
generati, scilicet ipsa is, the first part of the thing
prima pars generati seu generated or made; as we
facti: sicut fundamentum say that the foundation is
dicitur principium domus. the beginning of a house.
Vel ex parte facientis: et Another principium is on
sic est triplex principium, the part of the generator,
scilicet intentionis, quod and in this perspective
est finis, quod movet there are three
agentem; rationis, quod “principles”: of intention,
est ipsa forma in mente which is the purpose,
artificis; et executionis, which motivates the agent;
quod est potentia operans. of reason, which is the idea
His igitur modis de in the mind of the maker;
principio inquirendum est, and of execution, which is
quomodo sumatur hic the operative faculty.
principium, cum dicit in Considering these various
principio erat verbum. ways of using the term, we
now ask how principium is
used here when it says, In
the beginning was the
Word.
Dicendum est igitur quod 35 We should note that this

potest sumi tripliciter. Uno word can be taken in three
modo, secundum quod ways. In one way so that
principium supponit pro principium is understood as
persona filii, quod the Person of the Son, who
principium est creaturarum is the principle of creatures
secundum rationem by reason of his active
virtutis activae, et per power acting with wisdom,
modum sapientiae, quae which is the conception of
est ratio eorum quae fiunt; the things that are brought
unde dicitur I Cor. I, 24: into existence. Hence we
Christum Dei virtutem et read: “Christ the power of
Dei sapientiam. Unde et God and the wisdom of
dominus de se dicit infra God” (1 Cor 1:24). And so
VIII, 25: ego principium, the Lord said about
qui et loquor vobis. Sic himself: “I am the
ergo accipiendo principium who also speaks
principium, intelligendum to you” (below 8:25).
est quod dicitur in principio Taking principium in this
erat verbum, ac si diceret way, we should understand
in filio erat verbum, ut sit the statement, In the
sensus: ipsum verbum est beginning was the Word,
principium, ex modo as though he were saying,
loquendi, quo dicitur vita “The Word was in the Son,”
esse in Deo, quae tamen so that the sense would be:
non est aliud, quam ipse The Word himself is the
Deus. principium, principle, in the
sense in which life is said
to be “in” God, when this
life is not something other
than God.
Et haec est expositio And this is the explanation

Origenis. Dicit ergo hic of Origen. And so the
Evangelista in principio, ut Evangelist says In the
statim in principio beginning here in order, as
divinitatem verbi Chrysostom says, to show
ostenderet, ut at the very outset the
Chrysostomus dicit, dum divinity of the Word by
asserit ipsum esse asserting that he is a
principium; quia secundum principle because, as
determinationem omnium determining all, a principle
principium est is most honored.
honoratissimum.
Secundo modo potest 36 In a second way

accipi principium, prout principium can be
supponit pro persona understood as the Person
patris, quod est principium of the Father, who is the
non solum creaturarum, principle not only of
sed omnis divini creatures, but of every
processus; et sic accipitur divine process. It is taken
in Ps. CIX, 3: tecum this way in, “Yours is
principium in die virtutis princely power
tuae. Secundum hoc ergo (principium) in the day of
dicitur in principio erat your birth” (Ps 110:3). In
verbum, ac si diceretur: in this second way one reads
patre erat filius. Et haec In the beginning was the
est expositio Augustini, et Word as though it means,
etiam Origenis. Dicitur “The Son was in the
autem filius esse in patre, Father.” This is Augustine’s
quia eiusdem essentiae est understanding of it, as well
cum patre. Cum enim filius as Origen’s. The Son,
sit sui essentia, in however, is said to be in
quocumque est essentia the Father because both
filii, est filius. Quia ergo in have the same essence.
patre est essentia filii per Since the Son is his own
consubstantialitatem, essence, then the Son is in
conveniens est quod filius whomsoever the Son’s
sit in patre. Unde infra XIV, essence is. Since,
10 dicitur: ego in patre, et therefore, the essence of
pater in me est. the Son is in the Father by
consubstantiality, it is
fitting that the Son be in
the Father. Hence it says
below (14:10): “I am in the
Father and the Father is in
me.”
Tertio modo potest accipi 37 In a third way,

principium pro principio principium can be taken for
durationis, ut sit sensus in the beginning of duration,
principio erat verbum, idest so that the sense of In the
verbum erat ante omnia, ut beginning was the Word is
Augustinus exponit, et that the Word was before
designatur per hoc verbi all things, as Augustine
aeternitas, secundum explains it. According to
Basilium et Hilarium. Basil and Hilary, this
phrase shows the eternity
of the Word.
Per hoc enim quod dicitur The phrase In the

in principio erat verbum, beginning was the Word
ostenditur quod shows that no matter
quodcumque principium which beginning of
durationis accipiatur, sive duration is taken, whether
rerum temporalium, quod of temporal things which is
est tempus, sive time, or of aeviternal
aeviternarum, quod est things which is the aeon,
aevum, sive totius mundi, or of the whole world or
sive quodcumque any imagined span of time
imaginatum extensum per reaching back for many
multa saecula, in illo ages, at that beginning the
principio iam erat verbum. Word already was. Hence
Unde Hilarius dicit VII de Hilary says (On the Trinity
Trinitate: transeuntur VII): “Go back season by
tempora, transcenduntur season, skip over the
saecula, tolluntur aetates. centuries, take away ages.
Pone aliquid quod voles Set down whatever you
tuae opinionis principium; want as the beginning in
verbum iam erat, unde your opinion: the Word
tractatur. Et hoc est quod already was.” And this is
dicitur Prov. VIII, 22: what Proverbs (8:23) says:
dominus possedit me in “The Lord possessed me in
initio viarum suarum, the beginning of his ways,
antequam quicquam before he made anything.”
faceret a principio. Quod But what is prior to the
autem est ante durationis beginning of duration is
principium, est aeternum. eternal.
Sic igitur secundum 38 And thus the first

primam expositionem, explanation asserts the
asseritur verbi causalitas; causality of the Word; the
secundum autem second explanation affirms
secundam, verbi the consubstantiality of the
consubstantialitas ad Word with the Father, who
patrem, qui verbum utters the Word; and the
loquitur; secundum vero third explanation affirms
tertiam, verbi coaeternitas. the co-eternity of the
Word.
Considerandum est etiam 39 Now we should consider

hic, quod dicitur verbum that it says that the Word
erat, quod est temporis was (erat), which is stated
praeteriti imperfecti, et in the past imperfect tense.
hoc maxime videtur This tense is most
competere ad appropriate for designating
designandum aeterna, si eternal things if we
attendamus naturam consider the nature of time
temporis et eorum quae and of the things that exist
sunt in tempore. Quod in time. For what is future
futurum est, nondum est is not yet in act; but what
actu; praesens autem actu is at present is in act, and
est, et per hoc quod est by the fact that it is in act
actu praesens, non what is present is not
designatur fuisse: described as having been.
praeteritum autem Now the past perfect tense
perfectum designat aliquid indicates that something
extitisse, et esse iam has existed, has already
determinatum, et iam come to an end, and has
defuisse; sed praeteritum now ceased to be. The past
imperfectum significat imperfect tense, on the
aliquid fuisse, et non esse other hand, indicates that
adhuc determinatum, nec something has been, has
defuisse, sed adhuc not yet come to an end,
remanere. Ideo signanter nor has ceased to be, but
Ioannes ubicumque ponit still endures. Thus,
aliquid aeternum, dicit whenever John mentions
erat; ubi vero dicit aliquid eternal things he expressly
temporale, dicit fuit, ut says “was” (erat, past
infra patebit. imperfect tense), but when
he refers to anything
temporal he says “has
been” (fuit, past perfect
tense), as will be clear
later.
Sed quantum ad rationem But so far as concerns the

praesentis competit notion of the present, the
maxime ad designandum best way to designate
aeternitatem praesens eternity is the present
tempus, quod signat tense, which indicates that
aliquid esse in actu, quod some thing is in act, and
semper convenit aeternis: this is always the
et ideo dicitur Ex. III, 14: characteristic of eternal
ego sum qui sum; et things. And so it says in
Augustinus dicit, quod ille Exodus (3:14): “I am who
solus vere est, cuius esse am.” And Augustine says:
non novit praeteritum et “He alone truly is whose
futurum. being does not know a past
and a future.
Est etiam considerandum 40 We should also note

quod hoc verbum erat, that this verb was,
secundum Glossam, non according to the Gloss, is
sumitur hic inquantum not understood here as
significat temporales indicating temporal
motus, more aliorum changes, as other verbs
verborum, sed secundum do, but as signifying the
quod signat rei existence of a thing. Thus
existentiam: unde et it is also called a
verbum substantivum substantive verb.
dicitur.
Sed potest aliquis 41 Someone may ask how

quaerere, cum verbum sit the Word can be co-eternal
genitum a patre, quomodo with the Father since he is
possit esse patri begotten by the Father: for
coaeternum: homo enim a human son, born from a
filius a patre homine human father, is
genitus, est eo posterior. subsequent to his father.
Ad quod dicendum est I answer that there are

quod principium originis three reasons why an
invenitur esse prius originative principle is
duratione, eo quod est ex prior in duration to that
principio, propter tria. which derives from that
Primo quidem quia principle. First of all, if the
principium originis alicuius originative principle of
rei praecedit tempore anything precedes in time
actionem, qua producit the action by which it
rem cuius est principium; produces the thing of
sicut non statim quando which it is the principle;
homo est, incipit scribere, thus a man does not begin
et ideo tempore praecedit to write as soon as he
Scripturam. Secundo per exists, and so he precedes
hoc quod actio his writing in time.
successionem habet, et Secondly, if an action is
ideo etiam si simul cum successive; consequently,
agente incipiat, tamen even if the action should
terminus actionis est post happen to begin at the
agentem: sicut simul cum same time as the agent,
generatus est ignis in istis the termination of the
inferioribus, incipit sursum action is nevertheless
tendere; prius tamen est subsequent to the agent.
ignis quam sit sursum, Thus, as soon as fire has
quia motus quo sursum been generated in a lower
tendit, quodam tempore region, it begins to ascend;
mensuratur. Tertio modo but the fire exists before it
eo quod ex voluntate has ascended, because the
principii determinatur motion by which it tends
initium durationis eius upward requires some
quod est in principio, sicut time. Thirdly, by the fact
ex voluntate Dei that sometimes the
determinatur initium beginning of a thing
durationis creaturae: unde depends on the will of its
prius fuit Deus quam principle, just as the
creatura. beginning of a creature’s
coming-to-be depends on
the will of God, such that
God existed before any
creature.
Nihil autem horum trium in Yet none of these three is

generatione divini verbi found in the generation of
invenitur. Non enim Deus the divine Word. God did
primo fuit quam inceperit not first exist and then
generare verbum: cum begin to generate the
enim generatio verbi nihil Word: for since the
aliud sit quam intelligibilis generation of the Word is
conceptio, sequeretur nothing other than an
quod Deus esset prius intelligible conception, it
intelligens in potentia would follow that God
quam in actu, quod est would be understanding in
impossibile. Similiter non potency before
potest esse quod ipsa understanding in act,
verbi generatio sit which is impossible. Again,
successiva: sic enim it is impossible that the
divinum verbum prius generation of the Word
esset informe quam involve succession: for
formatum, sicut accidit in then the divine Word would
nobis, qui cogitando verba be unformed before it was
formamus; quod est formed (as happens in us
falsum, ut iam dictum est. who form words by
Similiter non potest dici “cogitating”), which is
quod pater sua voluntate false, as was said. Again,
initium durationis filio suo we cannot say that the
praestiterit; quia Deus Father pre-established a
pater non generat filium beginning of duration for
voluntate, ut Ariani his Son by his own will,
dixerunt, sed naturaliter: because God the Father
Deus enim pater seipsum does not generate the Son
intelligendo, verbum by his will, as the Arians
concepit, et ideo non ante held, but naturally: for God
fuit Deus pater quam filius. the Father, understanding
himself, conceives the
Word; and so God the
Father did not exist prior to
the Son.
Huius aliqualis similitudo An example of this, to a

apparet in igne, et in limited degree, appears in
splendore procedente ab fire and in the brightness
igne: procedit enim issuing from it: for this
splendor naturaliter et sine brightness issues naturally
successione. Item si ignis and without succession
esset aeternus, splendor from the fire. Again, if the
eius coaeternus esset: fire were eternal, its
propter quod filius dicitur brightness would be
splendor patris; ad Hebr. I, coeternal with it. This is
3: qui cum sit splendor why the Son is called the
gloriae et cetera. Sed in brightness of the Father:
hac similitudine deficit “the brightness of his
connaturalitas, et ideo glory” (Heb 1:3). But this
nominamus eum filium, example lacks an
cum tamen in humana illustration of the identity
filiatione deficiat of nature. And so we call
coaeternitas: oportet enim him Son, although in
ex multis similitudinibus human sonship we do not
sensibilium in divinam find coeternity: for we must
cognitionem pervenire, attain our knowledge of
quia una non sufficit; divine things from many
likenesses in material
things, for one likeness is
not enough.
et hoc est quod dicitur in The Council of Ephesus

libro Ephesini Concilii, says that the Son always
coexistere semper patri coexists with the Father:
filium: splendor enim for “brightness” indicates
denunciat his unchangeability, “birth”
impassibilitatem, nativitas points to the Word himself,
ostendit verbum, but the name “Son”
consubstantialitatem vero suggests his
filii nomen insinuat. consubstantiality.
Nominamus ergo filium 42 And so we give the Son

diversis nominibus, ad various names to express
exprimendum his perfection, which
perfectionem eius, quae cannot be expressed by
uno nomine non potest one name. We call him
exprimi. Ut enim “Son” to show that he is of
ostendatur connaturalis the same nature as the
patri, dicitur filius; ut Father; we call him “image”
ostendatur in nullo to show that he is not
dissimilis, dicitur imago; ut unlike the Father in any
ostendatur coaeternus, way; we call him
dicitur splendor; ut “brightness” to show that
ostendatur immaterialiter he is coeternal; and he is
genitus, dicitur verbum. called the “Word” to show
that he is begotten in an
immaterial manner.
Deinde dicit et verbum erat 43 Then the Evangelist

apud Deum. Hic ponitur says, and the Word was
secunda clausula, quam with God, which is the
Evangelista ponit in sua second clause in his
narratione. Ubi prius account. The first thing to
consideranda est consider is the meaning of
significatio duorum the two words which did
verborum quae in prima not appear in the first
clausula posita non clause, that is, God, and
fuerunt, scilicet Deum et with; for we have already
apud. Quid enim sit explained the meanings of
verbum, et quid “Word,” and “beginning.
principium, iam expositum “Let us continue carefully
est. Haec ergo quae in hac by examining these two
secunda clausula ponuntur new words, and to better
de novo, scilicet Deum et understand the explanation
apud, investigantes, of this second clause, we
diligentius prosequamur. Et must say something about
ut melius expositionem the meaning of each so far
huius secundae clausulae as it is relevant to our
intelligamus, dicendum est purpose.
aliquid de significatione
utriusque, quantum
pertinet ad propositum.
Sciendum est ergo in 44 At the outset, we

primis quod hoc nomen should note that the name
Deus significat divinitatem, “God” signifies the divinity
sed in supposito et concretely and as inherent
concrete; hoc vero nomen in a subject, while the
deitas significat deitatem name “deity” signifies the
in abstracto, et absolute: divinity in the abstract and
et inde est quod non absolutely. Thus the name
potest supponere pro “deity” cannot naturally
persona ex naturali virtute and by its mode of
et ex modo significandi; signifying stand for a
sed supponit solummodo [divine] person, but only
pro natura. Hoc vero for the [divine] nature. But
nomen Deus habet the name “God” can, by its
naturaliter ex modo natural mode of signifying,
significandi quod supponat stand for any one of the
pro aliqua personarum, [divine] persons, just as
sicut hoc nomen homo the name “man” stands for
supponit pro supposito any individual
humanitatis, et ideo (suppositum) possessing
quandocumque veritas humanity. Therefore,
locutionis, vel ipsum whenever the truth of a
praedicatum exigit ut hoc statement or its predicate
nomen Deus supponat pro requires that the name
persona, tunc supponit pro “God” stand for the
persona ut cum dicimus, person, then it stands for
Deus generat Deum. Et ita the person, as when we
cum hic dicitur apud Deum, say, “God begets God.”
necesse est quod Deus pro Thus, when it says here
persona patris supponat, that the Word was with
quia haec praepositio apud God, it is necessary that
distinctionem significat God stand for the person
verbi, quod esse dicitur of the Father, because the
apud Deum; et licet preposition with signifies
significet distinctionem in the distinction of the Word,
persona, non tamen in which is said to be with
natura, cum eadem sit God. And although this
natura patris et filii. preposition signifies a
Evangelista igitur distinction in person, it
significare voluit patris does not signify a
personam per hoc quod distinction in nature, since
dixit Deum. the nature of the Father
and of the Son is the same.
Consequently, the
Evangelist wished to
signify the person of the
Father when he said God.
Sciendum est autem circa 45 Here we should note

hoc quod haec praepositio that the preposition with
apud quamdam signifies a certain union of
coniunctionem rei the thing signified by its
significatae per rectum, ad grammatical antecedent to
rem significatam per the thing signified by its
obliquum importat, sicut grammatical object, just as
haec praepositio in. Sed the preposition “in” does.
differenter, quia haec However, there is a
praepositio in significat difference, because the
quamdam coniunctionem preposition “in” signifies a
intrinsecam; haec vero certain intrinsic union,
praepositio apud whereas the preposition
quodammodo extrinsecam with implies in a certain
coniunctionem importat. Et way an extrinsic union. And
utrumque dicimus in we state both in divine
divinis: scilicet filium esse matters, namely, that the
in patre, et esse apud Son is in the Father and
patrem; et intrinsecum with the Father. Here the
quidem ad intrinsic union pertains to
consubstantialitatem consubstantiality, but the
pertinet, extrinsecum vero extrinsic union (if we may
(ut sic loqui liceat, cum use such an expression,
improprie in divinis dicatur since “extrinsic” is
extrinsecum) non nisi ad improperly employed in
distinctionem personalem divine matters) refers only
refertur, cum filius a patre to a personal distinction,
solum per originem because the Son is
distinguatur. Et ideo per distinguished from the
utrumque istorum, et Father by origin alone. And
consubstantialitas in so these two words
natura designatur, et designate both a
distinctio in personis: consubstantiality in nature
consubstantialitas quidem, and distinction in person:
inquantum coniunctionem consubstantiality inasmuch
quamdam importat; as a certain union is
distinctio vero, inquantum implied; but distinction,
distinctionem quamdam inasmuch as a certain
significat, ut superius otherness is signified as
dictum est. was said above.
Et quia haec praepositio in, The preposition “in,” as

ut dictum est, principaliter was said, principally
consubstantialitatem signifies consubstantiality,
designat, inquantum as implying an intrinsic
importat coniunctionem union and, by way of
intrinsecam, et ex consequence, a distinction
consequenti distinctionem of persons, inasmuch as
personarum, inquantum every preposition is
omnis praepositio est transitive. The preposition
transitiva; haec autem “with” principally signifies
praepositio apud a personal distinction, but
distinctionem personalem also a consubstantiality
significat principaliter, inasmuch as it signifies a
consubstantialitatem vero, certain extrinsic, so to
inquantum quamdam speak, union. For these
coniunctionem significat reasons the Evangelist
quasi extrinsecam, ideo specifically used here the
Evangelista in hoc loco preposition “with” in order
specialiter ista to express the distinction
praepositione apud usus of the person of the Son
est, ut distinctionem from the Father, saying,
personae filii a patre and the Word was with
insinuaret, cum dixit et God, that is, the Son was
verbum erat apud Deum, with the Father as one
idest filius apud patrem, ut person with another.
alia persona apud aliam.
Sciendum est autem quod 46 We should note further

per hanc praepositionem that this preposition with
apud quatuor significantur, has four meanings, and
per quae obiectiones these eliminate four
quatuor contrariae objections. First, the
excluduntur. Significat preposition with signifies
enim haec praepositio the subsistence of its
apud primo subsistentiam antecedent, because
in recto; quia ea quae things that do not subsist
subsistentiam per se non of themselves are not
habent, non dicuntur properly said to be “with”
proprie esse apud aliquid: another; thus we do not
sicut non dicimus say that a color is with a
albedinem esse apud body, and the same applies
corpus, et similiter de aliis to other things that do not
quae per se non subsist of themselves. But
subsistunt. Ea autem quae things that do subsist of
per se subsistunt, dicuntur themselves are properly
proprie esse unum apud said to be “with” another;
aliud; sicut dicimus thus we say that a man is
hominem esse apud with a man, and a stone
hominem, et lapidem apud with a stone.
lapidem.
Secundo significat Secondly, it signifies

auctoritatem in obliquo, authority in its
non enim proprie dicitur grammatical object. For we
rex esse apud militem sed do not, properly speaking,
proprie dicitur miles apud say that a king is with a
regem. Tertio dicit soldier, but that the soldier
distinctionem: non enim is with the king. Thirdly, it
proprie dicitur aliquis esse asserts a distinction. For it
apud seipsum, sed unus is not proper to say that a
homo est apud alium. person is with himself but
Quarto significat rather that one man is with
coniunctionem et another. Fourthly, it
societatem quamdam: cum signifies a certain union
enim dicitur aliquis esse and fellowship. For when
apud alium, insinuatur some person is said to be
nobis inter eos quaedam with another, it suggests to
socialis coniunctio. us that there is some social
union between them.
Secundum autem istas Considering these four

conditiones importatas in conditions implied in the
significatione huius meaning of this preposition
praepositionis apud with, the Evangelist quite
convenienter Evangelista appropriately joins to the
hanc clausulam, scilicet first clause, In the
verbum erat apud Deum, beginning was the Word,
subiungit primae this second clause, and the
clausulae, scilicet in Word was with God. For if
principio erat verbum. we omit one of the three
Praetermissa namque una explanations of, In the
illarum trium expositionum beginning was the Word
huius quod est in principio (namely, the one in which
erat verbum, illa scilicet principium was understood
secundum quam as the Son), certain
principium ponitur pro filio, heretics make a twofold
ad quamlibet aliarum objection against each of
expositionum, scilicet ad the other explanations
illam quae principium dicit (namely, the one in which
idem quod ante omnia, et principium means the same
ad illam secundum quam as “before all things,” and
principium sumitur pro the one in which it is
patre, duplex obiectio fit understood as the Father).
ab haereticis; et sic sunt Thus there are four
quatuor obiectiones, quas objections, and we can
per quatuor conditiones answer these by the four
huius praepositionis apud conditions indicated by this
supra positas excludere preposition with.
possumus.
Quarum prima talis est: tu 47 The first of these
dicis quod verbum erat in objections is this. You say
principio, idest ante omnia; that the Word was in the
sed ante omnia nihil erat; beginning, i.e., before all
ubi ergo erat verbum, si things. But before all
ante omnia nihil erat? Haec things there was nothing.
autem obiectio procedit So if before all things there
secundum imaginationem was nothing, where then
eorum qui ponunt, omne was the Word? This
quod est, esse alicubi et in objection arises due to the
loco. Quae quidem imaginings of those who
excluditur a Ioanne, cum think that whatever exists
dicit apud Deum. Et is somewhere and in some
designat coniunctionem place. But this is rejected
secundum ultimam by John when he says, with
dictarum conditionum, ut God, which indicates the
sit sensus, secundum union mentioned in the last
Basilium: ubi ergo erat four conditions. So,
verbum? Respondet apud according to Basil, the
Deum, non in aliquo loco, meaning is this: Where was
cum incircumscriptibile sit, the Word? The answer is:
sed apud patrem, qui nullo with God; not in some
comprehenditur loco. place, since he is
unsurroundable, but he is
with the Father, who is not
enclosed by any place.
Secunda quaestio ad idem, 48 The second objection

est talis: tu dicis quod against the same
verbum erat in principio, explanation is this. You say
idest ante omnia. Sed ea that the Word was in the
quae sunt ante omnia, a beginning, i.e., before all
nullo videntur procedere; things. But whatever exists
cum illud a quo procedit before all things appears to
aliquid, prius esse videatur proceed from no one, since
eo quod procedit ab ipso; that from which something
ergo verbum non est proceeds seems to be prior
procedens ab alio. Haec to that which proceeds
autem obiectio excluditur from it. Therefore, the
cum dicit verbum erat Word does not proceed
apud Deum, ut ly apud from another. This
accipiatur secundum objection is rejected when
secundam conditionem, he says, the Word was
secundum quam importat with God, taking “with”
auctoritatem in causali, et according to its second
sit sensus secundum condition, as implying
Hilarium: a quo est verbum authority in what is
si ante omnia? Evangelista causing. So the meaning,
respondet verbum erat according to Hilary, is this:
apud Deum; quasi dicat: From whom is the Word if
licet verbum careat initio he exists before all things?
durationis, non tamen The Evangelist answers:
caret principio vel auctore: the Word was with God,
erat enim apud Deum, ut i.e., although the Word has
apud auctorem. no beginning of duration,
still he does not lack a
principium or author, for he
was with God as his author.
Tertia quaestio est ad 49 The third objection,

aliam expositionem directed to the explanation
secundum quam in which principium is
principium supponit pro understood as the Father,
patre; quae talis est: tu is this. You say that In the
dicis in principio erat beginning was the Word,
verbum, idest filius erat in i.e., the Son was in the
patre; sed illud quod est in Father. But that which is in
aliquo, non videtur esse something does not seem
subsistens, ut hypostasis: to be subsistent, as a
sicut albedo quae est in hypostasis; just as the
corpore, non subsistit. Sed whiteness in a body does
haec obiectio solvitur per not subsist. This objection
hoc quod dicit verbum erat is solved by the statement,
apud Deum; ut ly apud the Word was with God,
sumatur secundum taking “with” in its first
primam conditionem per condition, as implying the
quam importat subsistence of its
subsistentiam in recto; et grammatical antecedent.
sic, secundum So according to
Chrysostomum, est sensus Chrysostom, the meaning
verbum erat in principio, is this: In the beginning
non ut accidens: sed erat was the Word, not as an
apud Deum, ut subsistens, accident, but he was with
et hypostasis divina. God, as subsisting, and a
divine hypostasis.
Quarta quaestio ad idem 50 The fourth objection,

est talis: tu dicis quod against the same
verbum erat in principio, explanation, is this. You
idest in patre; quod autem say that the Word was in
est in aliquo, non est the beginning, i.e., in the
distinctus a patre. Sed Father. But whatever is in
haec obiectio excluditur something is not distinct
per hoc quod dicit et from it. So the Son is not
verbum erat apud Deum; ut distinct from the Father.
ly apud sumatur secundum This objection is answered
tertiam conditionem, by the statement, and the
secundum quam significat Word was with God, taking
distinctionem: ut sit “with” in its third
sensus, secundum condition, as indicating
Alcuinum et Bedam, distinction. Thus the
verbum erat apud Deum, et meaning, according to
sic erat in patre per Alcuin and Bede, is this:
consubstantialitatem The Word was with God,
naturae, quod tamen est and he was with the Father
apud ipsum per by a consubstantiality of
distinctionem personae. nature, while still being
“with” him through a
distinction in person.
Sic ergo per hanc 51 And so, and the Word

clausulam et verbum erat was with God, indicates:
apud Deum, ostenditur the union of the Word with
coniunctio verbi ad patrem the Father in nature,
in natura, secundum according to Basil; their
Basilium; distinctio autem distinction in person,
in persona, secundum according to Alcuin and
Alcuinum et Bedam; Bede; the subsistence of
substantia verbi in natura the Word in the divine
divina, secundum nature, according to
Chrysostomum; auctoritas Chrysostom; and the
patris ad verbum, authorship of the Father in
secundum Hilarium. relation to the Word,
according to Hilary.
Notandum autem, 52 We should also note,

secundum Origenem, quod according to Origen, that
per hoc quod dicit verbum the Word was with God
erat apud Deum, ostendit shows that the Son has
filium semper fuisse apud always been with the
patrem. In veteri enim Father. For in the Old
testamento dicitur factum Testament it says that the
esse verbum domini ad word of the Lord “came” to
Ieremiam, vel Jeremiah or to someone
quemcumque alium, ut else, as is plain in many
patet in multis Scripturae passages of sacred
locis, non autem dicitur: Scripture. But it does not
verbum domini erat apud say that the word of the
Ieremiam vel apud alium; Lord was “with” Jeremiah
quia ad illos fit verbum, qui or anyone else, because
incipiunt habere verbum, the word “comes” to those
postquam non habuerunt. who begin to have the
Unde Evangelista non dixit, word after not having it.
verbum factum esse apud Thus the Evangelist did not
patrem, sed erat apud say that the Word “came”
patrem: quia ex quo pater to the Father, but was
erat, verbum apud eum “with” the Father, because,
erat. given the Father, the Word
was with him.
Deinde dicit et Deus erat 53 Then he says, and the

verbum. Haec est tertia Word was God. This is the
clausula narrationis third clause in John’s
Ioannis, quae quidem account, and it follows
secundum ordinem most appropriately
doctrinae congruentissime considering the order of
sequitur. Quia enim teaching. For since John
Ioannes dixerat de verbo had said both when and
quando erat et ubi erat; where the Word was, it
restabat quaerere, quid remained to inquire what
erat verbum; idest verbum the Word was, that is, the
erat Deus, ut ly verbum Word was God, taking
ponatur ex parte subiecti, “Word” as the subject, and
et ly Deus ex parte “God” as the predicate.
praedicati.
Sed cum prius 54 But since one should

quaerendum sit de re quid first inquire what a thing is
est, quam ubi et quando before investigating where
sit, videtur quod Ioannes and when it is, it seems
hunc ordinem pervertat, that John violated this
insinuans primo de verbo order by discussing these
ubi et quando sit. latter first.
Ad hanc autem Origen answers this by

quaestionem respondet saying that the Word of
Origenes, quod aliter God is with man and with
dicitur esse verbum Dei God in different ways. The
apud hominem, et aliter Word is with man as
apud Deum. Nam apud perfecting him, because it
hominem est ut perficiens is through him that man
ipsum, quia per illud homo becomes wise and good:
efficitur sapiens et bonus, “She makes friends of God
Sap. c. VII, 27: amicos Dei and prophets” (Wis 7:27).
et prophetas constituit. But the Word is not with
Apud Deum vero non ita God as though the Father
dicitur esse verbum, quasi were perfected and
pater perficiatur per enlightened by him. Rather,
verbum et illustretur ab the Word is with God as
ipso; sed sic est apud receiving natural divinity
Deum, quod accipiat from him, who utters the
naturalem divinitatem ab Word, and from whom he
ipso, qui verbum loquitur, a has it that he is the same
quo habet ut sit idem Deus God with him. And so,
cum eo. Ex eo ergo quod since the Word was with
est per originem apud God by origin, it was
Deum, necesse fuit primum necessary to show first
ostendere quod verbum that the Word was in the
erat in patre et apud Father and with the Father
patrem, quam quod before showing that the
verbum erat Deus. Word was God.
Sciendum est autem quod 55 This clause also enables

per hanc clausulam Deus us to answer two
erat verbum, responderi objections which arise from
potest duabus the foregoing. The first is
obiectionibus, quae ex based on the name “Word,”
praecedentibus insurgunt. and is this. You say that In
Quarum una insurgit ex the beginning was the
nomine verbi, et est talis: Word, and that the Word
tu dicis quod verbum erat was with God. Now it is
in principio, et apud Deum; obvious that “word” is
constat autem quod generally understood to
verbum secundum signify a vocal sound and
communem usum loquendi the statement of
significat vocem aliquam et something necessary, a
enuntiationem manifesting of thoughts.
necessariorum, But these words pass away
manifestationem and do not subsist.
cogitationum; sed ista Accordingly, someone
transeunt et non could think that the
subsistunt; posset ergo Evangelist was speaking of
credi quod de tali verbo a word like these.
Evangelista loqueretur.
Sed ista quaestio satis per According to Hilary and

praedicta excluditur, Augustine, this question is
secundum Hilarium et sufficiently answered by
Augustinum, Hom. prima the above account.
super Io., qui dicit, Augustine says (Homily I
manifestum esse, verbum On John) that it is obvious
in hoc loco non posse pro that in this passage “Word”
locutione accipi, quia cum cannot be understood as a
locutio sit in motu et statement because, since a
transeat, non posset dici statement is in motion and
quod in principio erat passes away, it could not
verbum, si verbum esset be said that In the
quid transiens et in motu. beginning was the Word, if
Item cum dicit et verbum this Word were something
erat apud Deum, datur passing away and in
idem intelligi; satis enim motion. The same thing is
patet quod aliud est clear from and the Word
inesse, et aliud est adesse. was with God: for to be
Verbum enim nostrum, “in” another is not the
cum non subsistat, non same as to be “with”
adest, sed inest; verbum another. Our word, since it
autem Dei est subsistens, does not subsist, is not
et ideo adest. Et idcirco “with” us, but “in” us; but
Evangelista signanter dixit the Word of God is
verbum erat apud Deum. subsistent, and therefore
Sed tamen, ut obiectionis “with” God. And so the
causa tollatur totaliter, Evangelist expressly says,
naturam et esse verbi and the Word was with
subdit, dicens et verbum God. To entirely remove the
erat Deus. ground of the objection, he
adds the nature and being
of the Word, saying, and
the Word was God.
Alia quaestio insurgit ex 56 The other question

hoc quod dixerat apud comes from his saying,
Deum. Cum enim ly apud with God. For since “with”
dicat distinctionem, posset indicates a distinction, it
credi quod verbum erat could be thought that the
apud Deum, scilicet Word was with God, i.e.,
patrem, ab ipso in natura the Father, as distinct from
distinctum. Et ideo ad hoc him in nature. So to
excludendum statim subdit exclude this he adds at
consubstantialitatem verbi once the consubstantiality
ad patrem, dicens et of the Word with the
verbum erat Deus; quasi Father, saying, and the
dicat: non separatus a Word was God. As if to say:
patre per diversitatem the Word is not separated
naturae, quia ipsum from the Father by a
verbum est Deus. diversity of nature,
because the Word itself is
God.
Nota etiam specialem 57 Note also the special

modum significandi, quia way of signifying, since he
dicit verbum erat Deus, says, the Word was God,
absolute ponendo Deum; using “God” absolutely to
ut ostendat non eo modo show that he is not God in
Deum esse, quo nomen the same way in which the
deitatis attribui dicitur name of the deity is given
creaturae in sacra to a creature in Sacred
Scriptura; quia cum Scripture. For a creature
additione aliqua aliquando sometimes shares this
hoc nomen creatura name with some added
participat. Sicut illud Ex. qualification, as when it
VII, 1: ego constitui te says, “I have appointed
Deum Pharaonis, ad you the God of Pharaoh”
designandum quod non (Ex 7:1), in order to
erat Deus simpliciter, nec indicate that he was not
per naturam, quia God absolutely or by
constituebatur Deus nature, because he was
alicuius determinate; et appointed the god of
illud Ps. LXXXI, 6: ego dixi, someone in a qualified
dii estis, quasi dicat: per sense. Again, it says in the
meam reputationem, non Psalm (81:6): “I said, ‘You
secundum rei veritatem, dii are gods.’” —as if to say: in
estis: aliud enim est Deum my opinion, but not in
reputari, et aliud esse reality. Thus the Word is
Deum. Unde verbum called God absolutely
absolute dicitur Deus, quia because he is God by his
est secundum essentiam own essence, and not by
suam Deus, et non participation, as men and
participative, sicut angels are.
homines et Angeli.
Sciendum est etiam quod 58 We should note that

circa hanc clausulam Origen disgracefully
Origenes turpiter erravit, misunderstood this clause,
ex modo loquendi, qui in led astray by the Greek
Graeco habetur, sumens manner of speaking. It is
occasionem sui erroris. the custom among the
Consuetudo enim est apud Greeks to put the article
Graecos, quod cuilibet before every name in order
nomini apponunt to indicate a distinction. In
articulum, ad designandum the Greek version of John’s
discretionem quamdam. Gospel the name “Word” in
Quia ergo in Evangelio the statement, In the
Ioannis in Graeco, huic beginning was the Word,
nomini quod est verbum, and also the name “God”
cum dicitur in principio in the statement, and the
erat verbum, et similiter Word was with God, are
huic nomini quod est Deus, prefixed by the article, so
cum dicitur et verbum erat as to read “the Word” and
apud Deum, apponitur “the God,” in order to
articulus, ut dicatur ly indicate the eminence and
verbum, et ly Deus, ad distinction of the Word
designandum eminentiam from other words, and the
et discretionem verbi ad principality of the Father in
alia verba, et the divinity. But in the
principalitatem patris in statement, the Word was
divinitate; ideo, cum in hoc God, the article is not
quod dicitur verbum erat prefixed to the noun “God,”
Deus, non apponatur which stands for the
articulus huic nomini Deus, person of the Son. Because
quod supponit pro persona of this Origen blasphemed
filii, blasphemavit Origenes that the Word, although he
quod verbum non esset was Word by essence, was
Deus per essentiam, licet not God by essence, but is
sit essentialiter verbum; called God by participation;
sed dicitur per while the Father alone is
participationem Deus: God by essence. And so he
solus vero pater est Deus held that the Son is inferior
per suam essentiam. Et sic to the Father.
ponebat filium patre
minorem.
Quod autem non sit verum, 59 Chrysostom proves that

probat Chrysostomus per this is not true, because if
hoc quod si articulus the article used with the
positus huic nomini Deus, name “God” implied the
importaret maioritatem in superiority of the Father in
patre respectu filii, respect to the Son, it would
numquam apponeretur never be used with the
huic nomini Deus, cum de name “God” when it is
alio praedicatur, sed solum used as a predicate of
quando praedicatur de another, but only when it is
patre, et semper cum predicated of the Father.
dicitur de patre, Further, whenever said of
apponeretur articulus. the Father, it would be
Invenimus autem accompanied by the
contrarium per duas article. However, we find
auctoritates apostoli, qui the opposite to be the case
notat Christum Deum cum in two statements of the
appositione articuli, dicens Apostle, who calls Christ
in Epist. ad Titum, II, 13: “God,” using the article.
expectantes beatam spem, For in Titus (2:13) he says,
et adventum gloriae magni “the coming of the glory of
Dei. Ibi enim Deus supponit the great God and our
pro filio, et apponitur ei Savior Jesus Christ,” where
articulus in Graeco; ergo “God” stands for the Son,
Christus est Deus magnus. and in the Greek the article
Item idem apostolus, Rom. is used. Therefore, Christ is
IX, 5, dicit: ex quibus the great God. Again he
Christus, qui est super says (Rom 9:5): “Christ,
omnia Deus benedictus in who is God over all things,
saecula. Ibi similiter ad ly blessed forever,” and again
Deus ponitur in Graeco the article is used with
articulus. Praeterea I Io. “God” in the Greek.
ult., 20: ut simus in vero Further, in 1 John (5:20) it
filio eius Christo Iesu; hic says: “That we may be in
est verus Deus, et vita his true Son, Jesus Christ;
aeterna. Christus ergo non he is the true God and
est Deus per eternal life.” Thus, Christ is
participationem, sed verus. not God by participation,
Patet igitur esse falsum but truly God. And so the
quod Origenes finxit. theory of Origen is clearly
false.
Ratio autem quare Chrysostom gives us the

Evangelista non apposuit reason why the Evangelist
articulum huic nomini did not use the article with
Deus, assignatur a the name “God,” namely,
Chrysostomo; scilicet quia because he had already
iam bis nominaverat Deum mentioned God twice using
cum appositione articuli, et the article, and so it was
ideo non oportebat not necessary to repeat it a
reiterare tertio, sed third time, but it was
subintelligitur. Vel implied. Or, a better reason
dicendum est et melius, would be that “God” is
quod Deus ponitur hic in used here as the predicate
praedicato, et tenetur and is taken formally. And
formaliter; consuetum est it is not the custom for the
autem quod nominibus in article to accompany
praedicato positis non names used as predicates,
ponitur articulus, cum since the article indicates
discretionem importet. Si separation. But if “God”
vero Deus poneretur hic ex were used here as the
parte subiecti, pro subject, it could stand for
quacumque persona any of the persons, as the
supponeret, sive pro filio Son or the Holy Spirit;
sive pro spiritu sancto; et then, no doubt, the article
tunc non est dubium quod would be used in the
in Graeco ibi apponeretur Greek.
articulus.
Lectio 2 LECTURE 2
2 οὗτος ἦν ἐν 2 He was in the

ἀρχῇ πρὸς τὸν beginning with
θεόν. God.
3 πάντα δι' 3 All things
αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, were made
καὶ χωρὶς through him,
αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο and without him
οὐδὲ ἕν. nothing was
ὃ γέγονεν 4 ἐν made.
αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν, What was made
καὶ 4a in him was
life.
Deinde dicit hoc erat in 60 Then he says, He was in

principio apud Deum. Hic the beginning with God.
ponitur quarta clausula, This is the fourth clause
quae introducitur propter and is introduced because
clausulam praecedentem. of the preceding clause.
Ex hoc enim quod For from the Evangelist’s
Evangelista dixerat quod statement that the Word
verbum erat Deus, duplex was God, two false
falsus intellectus accipi interpretations could be
poterat a non recte held by those who
sentientibus. Unus a misunderstand. One of
gentilibus, qui ponunt these is by the pagans,
pluralitatem et who acknowledge many
diversitatem deorum, et and different gods, and say
eorum contrarias dicunt that their wills are in
esse voluntates; sicut illi opposition. For example,
qui fabulantur Iovem those who put out the fable
pugnasse cum Saturno; et of Jupiter fighting with
sicut Manichaei, qui Saturn; or as the
ponunt duo contraria Manicheans, who have two
principia naturae. Contra contrary principles of
hunc errorem dominus nature. The Lord said
dixit, Deut. VI, 4: audi against this error (Dt 6:4):
Israel, dominus Deus tuus, “Hear O Israel: The Lord
Deus unus est. our God is one Lord.”
Quia ergo Evangelista Since the Evangelist had

dixerat verbum erat apud said, the Word was with
Deum, et Deus erat God; and the Word was
verbum, possent isti in God, they could adduce
fulcimentum sui erroris this in support of their
istud adducere, error by understanding the
intelligentes alium esse God with whom the Word is
Deum, apud quem est to be one [God],and the
verbum, et alium ipsum Word to be another, having
verbum, et cum hoc another, or contrary, will to
alterius, sive contrariae the former; and this is
voluntatis; quod est contra against the law of the
legem Evangelii. Ad hoc Gospel. And so to exclude
ergo excludendum dicit this he says, He was in the
hoc erat in principio apud beginning with God, as if
Deum; quasi dicat, to say, according to Hilary:
secundum Hilarium: ita I say that the Word is God,
dico quod verbum est not as if he has a distinct
Deus, quod tamen non est divinity, but he is with God,
habens divinitatem, sed that is, in the one same
est apud Deum, scilicet in nature in which lie is.
una natura et eadem in Further, lest his statement,
qua ipse est. Item per hoc and the Word was God, be
quod dicit, verbum erat taken to mean that the
Deus ne intelligeretur quod Word has an opposed will,
haberent contrariam he added that the Word
voluntatem, addidit hoc, was in the beginning with
quod scilicet verbum erat God, namely, the Father;
in principio apud Deum not as divided from him or
scilicet patrem; non opposed, but having an
divisum ab ipso, non identity of nature with him
contrarium, sed habens and a harmony of will. This
cum eo identitatem union comes about by the
naturae et concordiam sharing of the divine nature
voluntatis: quae quidem in the three persons, and
unio fit per communionem by the bond of the natural
divinae naturae in tribus love of the Father and the
personis, et per nexum Son.
naturalis amoris patris et
filii.
Alius error poterat ex 61 The Arians were able to

praemissis verbis elici ab draw out another error
Arianis, qui ponunt filium from the above. They think
minorem esse quam pater, that the Son is less than
propter hoc quod dicitur: the Father because it says
pater maior me est. Dicunt below (14:28): “The Father
enim patrem maiorem filio, is greater than I” And they
et quantum ad say the Father is greater
aeternitatem, et quantum than the Son both as to
ad naturae divinitatem. Ut eternity and as to divinity
ergo Evangelista of nature. And so to
excluderet, addidit hoc exclude this the Evangelist
erat in principio apud added: He was in the
Deum. Arius enim primam beginning with God. For
clausulam, scilicet in Arius admits the first
principio erat verbum, clause, In the beginning
admittit: non tamen vult was the Word, but he will
quod ibi principium not admit that principium
accipiatur pro patre, sed should be taken for the
pro principio creaturarum. Father, but rather for the
Unde dicit quod verbum beginning of creatures. So
erat in principio he says that the Word was
creaturarum, et ideo in the beginning of
nequaquam patri est creatures, and
coaeternus. Sed hoc consequently is in no sense
excluditur, secundum coeternal with the Father.
Chrysostomum, per illam But this is excluded,
clausulam hoc erat in according to Chrysostom,
principio, non quidem by this clause, He was in
creaturarum, sed in the beginning, not of
principio apud Deum; idest creatures, but in the
ex quo Deus fuit. beginning with God, i.e.,
Numquam enim pater whenever God existed. For
solitarius fuit a filio, sive the Father was never alone
verbo, sed semper hoc, without the Son or Word,
scilicet verbum, apud but He, that is, the Word,
Deum erat. was always with God.
Item, Arius confitetur quod 62 Again, Arius admits that

verbum erat Deus, sed the Word was God, but
tamen minor patre. Sed nevertheless inferior to the
hoc excluditur per ea quae Father. This is excluded by
sequuntur. Duo enim sunt what follows. For there are
propria magni Dei, quae two attributes proper to
Arius Deo patri singulariter the great God which Arius
attribuebat, scilicet attributed solely to God the
aeternitas et omnipotentia. Father, that is, eternity and
In quocumque ergo ista omnipotence. So in
duo inveniuntur, ille est whomever these two
magnus Deus, quo nullus attributes are found, he is
est maior; sed haec duo the great God, than whom
Evangelista verbo attribuit; none is greater. But the
ergo verbum est magnus Evangelist attributes these
Deus, et non minor. two to the Word. Therefore,
Aeternitatem quidem dicit the Word is the great God
esse in verbo per hoc quod and not inferior. He says
dicit hoc erat in principio the Word is eternal when
apud Deum; idest verbum he states, He was in the
ab aeterno, non solum in beginning with God, i.e.,
principio creaturarum, ut the Word was with God
Arius intellexit, erat, sed from eternity, and not only
apud Deum, accipiens esse in the beginning of
et divinitatem ab eo. creatures (as Arius held) ,
Omnipotentiam vero but with God, receiving
attribuit verbo per hoc being and divinity from
quod subdit omnia per him. Further, he attributes
ipsum facta sunt. omnipotence to the Word
when he adds, Through
him all things came into
being.
Origenes vero hanc 63 Origen gives a rather

eamdem clausulam satis beautiful explanation of
pulchre exponens, dicit this clause, He was in the
ipsam non esse aliam a beginning with God, when
tribus primis; sed ipsam he says that it is not
esse quemdam epilogum separate from the first
praemissorum. Evangelista three, but is in a certain
enim postquam sense their epilogue. For
insinuaverat veritatem the Evangelist, after he had
esse filii, transiturus ad indicated that truth was
eius insinuandum virtutem, the Son’s and was about to
recolligit, quasi in summa describe his power, in a
epilogando, in quarta way gathers together in a
clausula, quod in primis summary form, in this
tribus praedixerat. Primo fourth clause, what he had
enim per hoc quod dicit said in the first three. For
hoc, intelligit tertiam in saying He, he
clausulam; per hoc vero understands the third
quod dicit erat in principio, clause; by adding was in
recolligit primam; per hoc the beginning, he recalls
vero quod subdit erat apud the first clause; and by
Deum, recolligit secundam, adding with God, he recalls
ut sic non intelligas aliud the second, so that we do
verbum, quod erat in not think that the Word
principio et quod erat which was in the beginning
Deus; sed hoc verbum, is different than the Word
quod erat Deus, erat in which was God; but this
principio apud Deum. Word which was God was
in the beginning with God.
Si quis ergo recte 64 If one considers these

consideret has quatuor four propositions well, he
propositiones, inveniet will find that they clearly
evidenter per eas destrui destroy all the errors of the
omnes haereticorum et heretics and of the
philosophorum errores. philosophers. For some
Quidam enim haeretici, heretics, as Ebion and
sicut Ebion et Cerinthus, Cerinthus, said that Christ
dixerunt, Christum non did not exist before the
praeextitisse beatae Blessed Virgin, but took
virgini, sed ab ea from her the beginning of
sumpsisse essendi et his being and duration; for
durationis principium, they held that he was a
ponentes eum fuisse mere man, who had
hominem purum, sed merited divinity by his
meruisse divinitatem per good works. Photinus and
bona merita. Quod etiam Paul of Samosata,
Photinus et Paulus following them, said the
Samosatenus eos secuti same thing. But the
dixerunt. Horum errorem Evangelist excludes their
Evangelista excludit, errors saying, In the
dicens in principio erat beginning was the Word,
verbum, idest ante omnia, i.e., before all things, and
et in patre ab aeterno; in the Father from eternity.
ergo non sumpsit initium Thus he did not derive his
ex virgine. beginning from the Virgin.
Sabellius vero, licet Sabellius, on the other

fateretur quod Deus qui hand, although he admitted
carnem suscepit, ex that the God who took
virgine non sumpsit flesh did not receive his
initium, sed fuit ab beginning from the Virgin,
aeterno, tamen dicebat but existed from eternity,
quod non erat alia persona still said that the person of
patris, qui fuit ab aeterno, the Father, who existed
et filii, qui carnem from eternity, was not
assumpsit ex virgine, sed distinct from the person of
idem erat pater et filius the Son, who took flesh
personaliter; Trinitatem from the Virgin. He
personarum in divinis maintained that the Father
confundens. Contra hunc and Son were the same
errorem dicit Evangelista person; and so he failed to
et verbum erat apud Deum, distinguish the trinity of
scilicet filius apud patrem, persons in the deity. The
ut alius apud alium. Evangelist says against this
error, and the Word was
with God, i.e., the Son was
with the Father, as one
person with another.
Eunomius vero posuit Eunomius declared that the

filium omnino dissimilem Son is entirely unlike the
esse patri: et hoc Father. The Evangelist
consequenter Evangelista rejects this when he says,
excludit, dicens et Deus and the Word was God.
erat verbum. Arius vero Finally, Arius said that the
dicebat filium patre Son was less than the
minorem; sed hoc excludit Father. The Evangelist
Evangelista cum dicit hoc excludes this by saying, He
erat in principio apud was in the beginning with
Deum, quod supra fuit God, as was explained
expositum. above.
Per hoc etiam excluduntur 65 These words also

errores philosophorum. exclude the errors of the
Quidam enim philosophers. For some of
philosophorum antiqui, the ancient philosophers,
scilicet naturales, namely, the natural
ponebant mundum non ex philosophers, maintained
aliquo intellectu, neque that the world did not
per aliquam rationem, sed come from any intellect or
a casu fuisse; et ideo a through some purpose, but
principio rationem non by chance. Consequently,
posuerunt seu intellectum they did not place at the
aliquam causam rerum, beginning as the cause of
sed solam materiam things a reason or intellect,
fluitantem, utpote but only matter in flux; for
athomos, sicut Democritus example, atoms, as
posuit, et alia huiusmodi Democritus thought, or
principia materialia, ut alii other material principles of
posuerunt. Contra hos est this kind as different
quod Evangelista dicit in philosophers maintained.
principio erat verbum, a Against these the
quo res scilicet principium Evangelist says, In the
sumpserunt et non a casu. beginning was the Word,
from whom, and not from
chance, things derive their
beginning.
Plato autem posuit Plato, however, thought
rationes omnium rerum that the Ideas of all the
factarum subsistentes, things that were made
separatas in propriis were subsistent, i.e.,
naturis, per quarum existing separately in their
participationem res own natures; and material
materiales essent: puta things exist by
per rationem hominis participating in these. For
separatam, quam dicebat example, he thought men
per se hominem, haberent existed through the
quod sint homines. Sic separated Idea of man,
ergo ne hanc rationem, per which he called Man per se.
quam omnia facta sunt, So lest you suppose, as did
intelligas rationes Plato, that this Idea
separatas a Deo, ut Plato through which all things
ponebat, addit Evangelista were made be Ideas
et verbum erat apud Deum. separated from God, the
Evangelist adds, and the
Word was with God.
Alii etiam Platonici, ut Other Platonists, as

Chrysostomus refert, Chrysostom relates,
ponebant Deum patrem maintained that God the
eminentissimum, et Father was most eminent
primum, sub quo ponebant and first, but under him
mentem quamdam, in qua they placed a certain mind
dicebant esse similitudines in which there were the
et ideas omnium rerum. Ne likenesses and ideas of all
ergo sic intelligas, quod things. So lest you think
verbum erat apud patrem, that the Word was with the
quasi sub eo et minor eo, Father in such a way as to
addit Evangelista et be under him and less than
verbum erat Deus. he, the Evangelist adds,
and the Word was God.
Aristoteles vero posuit in Aristotle, however, thought

Deo rationes omnium that the ideas of all things
rerum, et quod idem est in are in God, and that in God,
Deo intellectus et the intellect, the one
intelligens et intellectum; understanding, and what is
tamen posuit mundum understood, are the same.
coaeternum sibi fuisse. Et Nevertheless, he thought
contra hoc est quod that the world is coeternal
Evangelista dicit hoc, with him. Against this the
scilicet verbum solum, erat Evangelist says, He, the
in principio apud Deum; ita Word alone, was in the
quod ly hoc non excludit beginning with God, in
aliam personam, sed aliam such a way that He does
naturam coaeternam. not exclude another
person, but only another
coeternal nature.
Nota etiam in praedictis 66 Note the difference in

differentiam Ioannis ab what has been said
aliis Evangelistis, quomodo between John and the
scilicet dignius Evangelium other Evangelists: how he
suum incepit, quam alii. began his Gospel on a
Ipsi enim annuntiaverunt loftier plane than they.
Christum filium Dei ex They announced Christ the
tempore natum; Matth. II, Son of God born in time:
1: cum natus esset Iesus in “When Jesus was born in
Bethlehem. Ioannes vero Bethlehem” (Mt 2:1); but
dicit eum ab aeterno John presents him existing
fuisse, in principio, inquit, from eternity: In the
erat verbum. Ipsi etiam beginning was the Word.
dicunt eum subito inter They show him suddenly
homines apparuisse; Lc. II, appearing among men:
29: nunc dimittis servum “Now you dismiss your
tuum, domine, secundum servant, 0 Lord, in peace,
verbum tuum in pace; quia according to your word;
viderunt oculi mei salutare because my eyes have seen
tuum, quod parasti ante your salvation” (Lk 2:29);
faciem omnium populorum, but John says that he
lumen ad revelationem always existed with the
gentium, et gloriam plebis Father: and the Word was
tuae, Israel. Ioannes vero with God. The others show
dicit eum apud patrem him as a man: “They gave
semper fuisse. Et verbum, glory to God who had given
inquit, erat apud Deum. Alii such authority to men” (Mt
vero ipsum hominem; 9:8); but John says that he
Matth. IX, v. 8: is God: and the Word was
glorificabant Deum, qui God. The others say he
potestatem talem lives with men: “While
hominibus dedit. Ioannes living in Galilee, Jesus said
vero dicit ipsum esse to them” (Mt 17:21); but
Deum. Et verbum, inquit, John says that he has
erat Deus. Alii dixerunt always been with the
eum fuisse cum hominibus Father: He was in the
conversatum; Matth. XVII, beginning with God.
21: conversantibus autem
illis in Galilaea, dixit Iesus
etc.; sed Ioannes dicit eum
apud patrem semper
fuisse. Hoc, inquit, erat in
principio apud Deum.
Nota etiam quod 67 Note also how the

Evangelista signanter Evangelist designedly uses
recitat hoc verbum erat, ut the word was (erat) to
ostendat verbum Dei show that the Word of God
omnia tempora, scilicet transcends all times:
praesens, praeteritum et present, past and future. It
futurum, excedere. Quasi is as though he were
dicat: erat ultra tempus saying: He was beyond
praesens, praeteritum et time: present, past and
futurum, secundum quod future, as the Gloss says.
tangitur in Glossa.
Postquam Evangelista esse 68 After the Evangelist has

et naturam divini verbi, told of the existence and
quantum dici potest ab nature of the Divine Word,
homine, insinuaverat, so far as it can be told by
consequenter manifestat man, he then shows the
eius virtutem. Et primo might of his power. First, he
ostendit eius virtutem shows his power with
quantum ad omnia, quae respect to all things that
in esse procedunt; come into existence.
secundo specialiter Secondly, with respect to
quantum ad homines, ibi man. As to the first, he
erat vita lux hominum. uses three clauses; and we
Circa primum ponit tres will not distinguish these at
clausulas, quas non present because they will
distinguimus ad praesens, be distinguished in
quia secundum diversas different ways according to
expositiones sanctorum the different explanations
sunt diversimode given by the saints.
distinguendae.
Prima ergo clausula est 69 The first clause, All

omnia per ipsum facta things were made through
sunt; quae inducitur ad him, is used to show three
ostendendum tria de things concerning the
verbo. Et primo, secundum Word. First, according to
Chrysostomum, ad Chrysostom, to show the
ostendendum equality of the Word to the
aequalitatem verbi ad Father. For as stated
patrem. Sicut enim dictum earlier, the error of Arius
est supra, Evangelista was rejected by the
excluserat errorem Arii, Evangelist when he showed
ostendens coaeternitatem the coeternity of the Son
filii ad patrem per hoc with the Father by saying,
quod dixerat hoc erat in “He was in the beginning
principio apud Deum, hic with God.” Here he
vero eumdem errorem excludes the same error
excludit, ostendendo when he shows the
omnipotentiam filii, dicens, omnipotence of the Son,
omnia per ipsum facta saying, All things were
sunt. Esse enim principium made through him. For to
omnium factorum be the principle of all the
proprium est Dei magni things that are made is
omnipotentis, iuxta illud proper to the great
Ps. CXXXIV, 6: omnia omnipotent God, as the
quaecumque dominus Psalm (134:6) says,
voluit, fecit in caelo et in “Whatever the Lord wills he
terra. Verbum ergo per does, in heaven and on
quod facta sunt omnia, est earth.”Thus the Word,
Deus magnus et through whom all things
coaequalis patri. were made, is God, great
and coequal to the Father.
Secundo, ad ostendendum 70 Secondly, according to

coaeternitatem verbi ad Hilary, this clause is used
patrem, secundum to show the coeternity of
Hilarium. Quia enim per the Word with the Father.
hoc quod dixerat in For since someone might
principio erat verbum, understand the earlier
posset aliquis intelligere statement, “In the
hoc dictum fuisse de beginning was the Word,”
principio creaturarum, id as referring to the
est fuisse aliquod tempus beginning of creatures, i.e.,
ante omnem creaturam, in that before there were any
quo verbum non erat, ideo creatures there was a time
hoc excludens Evangelista in which the Word did not
dixit omnia per ipsum facta exist, the Evangelist rejects
sunt. Si enim omnia sunt this by saying, All things
facta per verbum ergo et were made through him.
ipsum tempus. Ex quo sic For if all things were made
argumentatur: si omne through the Word, then
tempus ab ipso factum est; time was also. From this we
ergo nullum tempus fuit can form the following
ante ipsum; nec cum ipso; argument: If all time was
quia ante omnia erat; ergo made through him, there
sunt ab aeterno coaeterni. was no time before him or
with him, because before
all these, he was. Therefore
they [the Son and the
Father] are eternally
coeternal.
Tertio, secundum 71 Thirdly, according to

Augustinum, ad Augustine, this clause is
ostendendam used to show the
consubstantialitatem verbi consubstantiality of the
ad patrem. Si enim facta Word with the Father. For if
omnia sunt per verbum, all things were made
ergo ipsum verbum non through the Word, the
potest dici factum: quia si Word himself cannot be
est factum, est factum per said to have been made;
aliquod verbum, quia because, if made, he was
omnia per verbum facta made through some Word,
sunt. Oportet ergo esse since all things were made
aliud verbum, per quod through the Word.
verbum, de quo hic Consequently, there would
loquitur Evangelista, sit have been another Word
factum. Et illud verbum through whom was made
dicimus unigenitum Dei, the Word of whom the
per quem facta sunt Evangelist is speaking. This
omnia, quia nec factum Word, through whom all
est, nec creatura est; et si things are made, we call
non est creatura, necesse the only begotten Son of
est dicere ipsum esse God, because he is neither
eiusdem substantiae cum made nor is he a creature.
patre, cum omnis And if he is not a creature,
substantia praeter it is necessary to say that
essentiam divinam facta he is of the same
sit. Substantia autem, substance with the Father,
quae creatura non est, since every substance
Deus est. Verbum ergo, per other than the divine
quod omnia facta sunt, essence is made. But a
consubstantiale est patri, substance that is not a
cum nec factum, nec creature is God. And so the
creatura sit. Word, through whom all
things were made, is
Father, since he is neither
made, nor is he a creature.
Sic ergo habes verbi 72 And so in saying All

aequalitatem ad patrem, things were made through
secundum Chrysostomum, him, you have, according
coaeternitatem secundum to Chrysostom, the equality
Hilarium, et of the Word with the
consubstantialitatem, Father; the coeternity of
secundum Augustinum per the Word with the Father,
hoc quod dicit omnia per according to Hilary; and
ipsum facta sunt. the consubstantiality of the
Word with the Father,
according to Augustine.
Cavendi sunt autem hic 73 Here we must guard

tres errores. Et primo error against three errors. First,
Valentini. Ipse enim the error of Valentine. He
intellexit per hoc quod understood All things were
dicitur omnia per ipsum made through him to
facta sunt, quod verbum mean that the Word
dederit causam creatori, proferred to the Creator
quod mundum crearet, ut the cause of his creating
dicantur omnia sic per the world; so that all things
verbum facta, quasi ex were made through the
verbo processerit quod Word as if the Father’s
pater mundum creavit. Et creating the world came
hoc videtur ducere in from the Word. This leads
positionem illorum, qui to the position of those
dicebant Deum mundum who said that God created
fecisse propter aliquam the world because of some
exteriorem causam; quod exterior cause; and this is
est contra illud Prov. XVI, contrary to Proverbs
4: universa propter (16:4), “The Lord made all
semetipsum operatus est things for himself.” The
dominus. Sed hoc est reason this is an error is
falsum, quia, sicut that, as Origen says, if the
Origenes dicit, si verbum Word had been a cause to
fuisset causa creatori the Creator by offering him
praestans ei materiam ad the material for making
faciendum, non dixisset things, he would not have
omnia per ipsum facta said, All things were made
sunt, sed, e converso, through him, but on the
omnia facta sunt per contrary, that all things
creatorem a verbo. were made through the
Creator by the Word.
Secundo vitandus est error 74 Secondly, we must

Origenis, qui dicit spiritum avoid the error of Origen.
sanctum, inter omnia, He said that the Holy Spirit
factum esse per verbum, was included among all the
ex quo sequitur ipsum things made through the
esse creaturam: et hoc Word; from which it follows
posuit Origenes. Hoc that he is a creature. And
autem est haereticum et this is what Origen
blasphemum, cum spiritus thought. This is heretical
sanctus eiusdem sit and blasphemous, since
gloriae et substantiae et the Holy Spirit has the
dignitatis cum patre et same glory and substance
filio, iuxta illud Matth. ult., and dignity as the Father
19: docete omnes gentes, and the Son, according to
baptizantes eos in nomine the words of Matthew
patris, et filii, et spiritus (28:19), “Make disciples of
sancti; et iuxta illud I Io. V, all the nations, baptizing
v. 7: tres sunt qui them in the name of the
testimonium dant in caelo, Father, and of the Son, and
pater, verbum et spiritus of the Holy Spirit.” And,
sanctus: et hi tres unum “There are three who give
sunt. Cum ergo dicit testimony’ in heaven, the
Evangelista omnia per Father, the Word, and the
ipsum facta sunt, non est Holy Spirit; and these three
intelligendum simpliciter are one” (l Jn 5:7). Thus
facta omnia, sed in genere when the Evangelist says,
creaturarum et rerum All things were made
factarum. Quasi dicat: through him, one should
omnia, quae facta sunt, not understand “all things”
per ipsum facta sunt. Alias, absolutely, but in the realm
si simpliciter intelligatur, of creatures and of things
sequeretur patrem et made. As if to say: All
spiritum sanctum factos things that were made,
per ipsum: quod est were made through him.
blasphemum. Igitur nec Otherwise, if “all things”
pater, nec aliquid were taken absolutely, it
substantiale patri, per would follow that the
verbum factum est. Father and the Holy Spirit
were made through him;
and this is blasphemous.
Consequently, neither the
Father nor anything
substantial with the Father
was made through the
Word.
Tertio vitandus est alius 75 Thirdly, we must avoid

error ipsius Origenis. Ipse another of Origen’s errors.
enim sic omnia facta esse For he said that all things
per verbum dixit, sicut were made through the
aliquid fit a maiori per Word as something is made
minorem, quasi minor sit by a greater through a
filius, et ut organum patris. lesser, as if the Son were
Sed quod per hanc inferior to, and an
praepositionem per non instrument of, the Father.
significetur minoritas in But it is clear from many
obliquo, scilicet filio, seu places in Scripture that the
verbo, patet ex pluribus preposition “through” (per)
Scripturae locis. Dicit enim does not signify inferiority
apostolus, I Cor. I, 9, in the thing which is its
loquens de patre: fidelis grammatical object, i.e., in
Deus, per quem vocati estis the Son or Word. For the
in societatem filii eius. Si Apostle says, “God is
ille, per quem fit aliquid, faithful, through whom you
habet superiorem, ergo et were called into the
pater superiorem habebit; fellowship of his Son” (1
hoc autem est falsum; ergo Cor 1:9). If he “through”
per praepositionem per whom something is done
non significatur minoritas has a superior, then the
in filio, cum dicuntur omnia Father has a superior. But
facta per ipsum. this is false. Therefore, the
preposition “through” does
not signify any inferiority in
the Son when all things are
said to have been made
through him.
Ad maiorem autem 76 To explain this point

evidentiam huius sciendum further, we should note
est, quod quando dicitur that when something is
aliquid per aliquem fieri, said to be made through
haec praepositio per someone, the preposition
denotat causalitatem in “through” (per) denotes
obliquo, respectu some sort of causality in its
operationis aliquo modo, object with respect to an
sed diversimode. Cum operation; but not always
enim operatio, secundum the same kind of causality.
modum significandi, For since an operation,
consideretur media inter according to our manner of
operantem et operatum, signifying, is considered to
potest considerari ipsa be medial between the one
operatio dupliciter. Uno acting and the thing
modo secundum quod exit produced, the operation
ab operante, qui est causa itself can be regarded in
ipsius actionis; alio modo two ways. In one way, as
secundum quod terminatur issuing from the one
ad operatum. Quandoque operating, who is the cause
ergo praepositio per of the action itself; in
significat causam another way, as terminated
operationis, secundum in the thing produced.
quod exit ab operante; Accordingly, the
quandoque autem, preposition “through”
secundum quod terminatur sometimes signifies the
ad operatum. Causam cause of the operation
autem operationis, insofar as it issues from
secundum quod exit ab the one operating: but
operante, significat sometimes as terminated
quando illud quod in the thing which is
significatur per obliquum, produced. It signifies the
est causa operanti quod cause of the operation as
operetur, vel efficiens, vel issuing from the one
formalis. Formalis quidem, operating when the object
sicut ignis calefacit per of the preposition is either
calorem: est enim calor the efficient or formal
causa formalis cause why the one
calefactionis ignis. Causa operating is operating. For
vero movens, seu efficiens, example, we have a formal
ut secunda agentia cause when fire is heating
operantur per prima, ut si through heat; for heat is
dicam quod balivus the formal cause of the
operatur per regem, quia fire’s heating. We have a
rex est causa efficiens movent or efficient cause
balivo quod operetur. Et in cases where secondary
hoc modo intellexit agents act through primary
Valentinus, omnia facta agents; as when I say that
esse per verbum, ac si the bailiff acts through the
verbum esset causa king, because the king is
conditori ut omnia faceret. the efficient cause of the
Causalitatem vero bailiff’s acting. This is the
operationis, secundum way Valentine understood
quod terminatur ad that all things were made
operatum, importat haec through the Word: as
praepositio per, quando though the Word were the
illud, quod significatur per cause of the maker’s
ipsam causalitatem, non production of all things.
est causa ipsa quod The preposition “through”
operetur, sed est causa implies the causality of the
operationis, secundum operation as terminated in
quod terminatur ad the thing produced when
operatum. Sicut cum dico what is signified through
carpentarius facit that causality is not the
scamnum per securim, cause which operates, but
quae non est causa the cause of the operation
carpentario quod operetur, precisely as terminated in
sed ponimus esse causam the thing produced. So
quod scamnum fiat ab when I say, “The carpenter
operante. is making a bench through
[by means of] a hatchet,”
the hatchet is not the
cause of the carpenter’s
operating; but we do say
that it is the cause of the
bench’s being made by the
one acting.
Sic ergo cum dicitur omnia And so when it says that

per ipsum facta sunt; si ly All things were made
per denotet efficientem through him, if the
causam, seu moventem “through” denotes the
patrem ad operandum, efficient or movent cause,
dicendum est quod pater causing the Father to act,
nihil operatur per filium, then in this sense the
sed per seipsum omnia Father does nothing
operatur, ut dictum est. Si through the Son, but he
vero ly per denotet causam does all things through
formalem, sic cum pater himself, as has been said.
operetur per sapientiam But if the “through”
suam, quae est sua denotes a formal cause, as
essentia, operatur per when the Father operates
suam sapientiam, sicut through his wisdom, which
operatur per suam is his essence, he operates
essentiam; et quia through his wisdom as he
sapientia et virtus patris operates through his
attribuitur filio, I Cor. I, 24, essence. And because the
dicimus: Christum Dei wisdom and power of the
virtutem, et Dei sapientiam, Father are attributed to the
ideo appropriate dicimus Son, as when we say,
quod pater omnia operatur “Christ, the power of God
per filium, idest per and the wisdom of God” (1
sapientiam suam. Et ideo Cor 1:24), then by
dicit Augustinus quod hoc appropriation we say that
quod dicitur ex quo omnia, the Father does all things
appropriatur patri; per through the Son, i.e.,
quem omnia, filio; in quo through his wisdom. And
omnia, spiritui sancto. Si so Augustine says that the
vero ly per denotet phrase “from whom all
causalitatem ex parte things,” is appropriated to
operati, tunc hoc quod the Father; “through whom
dicimus patrem omnia all things,” is appropriated
operari per filium non est to the Son; and “in whom
appropriatum verbo, sed all things,” is appropriated
proprium eius, quia hoc to the Holy Spirit. But if the
quod est causa “through” denotes
creaturarum, habet ab alio, causality from the
scilicet a patre, a quo standpoint of the thing
habet esse. produced, then the
statement, “The Father
does all things through the
Son,” is not [mere]
appropriation but proper to
the Word, because the fact
that he is a cause of
creatures is had from
someone else, namely the
Father, from whom he has
being.
Nec tamen propter hoc However, it does not follow

sequitur ipsum esse from this that the Word is
instrumentum patris, licet the instrument of the
omne quod movetur ab Father, although whatever
alio ad aliquid operandum, is moved by another to
rationem instrumenti effect something partakes
habeat. Cum autem dico of the nature of an
aliquem operari per instrument. For when I say
virtutem receptam ab alio, that someone works
potest dupliciter intelligi. through a power received
Uno modo quod eadem from another, this can be
numero sit virtus et dantis, understood in two ways. In
et accipientis: et hoc modo one way, as meaning that
qui operatur per virtutem the power of the giver and
acceptam ab alio, non est of the receiver is
minor, sed aequalis ei a numerically one and the
quo accipit. Quia ergo same power; and in this
pater eamdem virtutem, way the one operating
quam habet, dat filio, per through a power received
quam filius operatur, cum from another is not inferior
dicitur pater operari per but equal to the one from
filium, propter hoc filius whom he receives it.
non est dicendum minor Therefore, since the same
patre, neque instrumentum power which the Father has
eius. Sed hoc sequitur in he gives to the Son,
illis qui non eamdem through which the Son
virtutem accipiunt ab works, when it is said that
aliquo, sed aliam et “the Father works through
creatam. Sic ergo patet the Son,” one should not
quod nec spiritus sanctus, on that account say that
nec filius, est causa patri the Son is inferior to the
quod operetur, neque Father or is his instrument.
patris minister seu This would be the case,
instrumentum, ut deliravit rather, in those who receive
Origenes. from another not the same
power, but another and
created one. And so it is
plain that neither the Holy
Spirit nor the Son are
causes of the Father’s
working, and that neither is
the minister or instrument
of the Father, as Origen
raved.
Si autem recte 77 If we carefully consider

considerentur verba the words, All things were
praedicta omnia per ipsum made through him, we can
facta sunt, evidenter clearly see that the
apparet Evangelistam Evangelist spoke with the
propriissime fuisse utmost exactitude. For
locutum. Quicumque enim whoever makes something
aliquid facit, oportet quod must preconceive it in his
illud praeconcipiat in sua wisdom, which is the form
sapientia, quae est forma and pattern of the thing
et ratio rei factae: sicut made: as the form
forma in mente artificis preconceived in the mind
praeconcepta est ratio of an artisan is the pattern
arcae faciendae. Sic ergo of the cabinet to be made.
Deus nihil facit nisi per So, God makes nothing
conceptum sui intellectus, except through the
qui est sapientia ab conception of his intellect,
aeterno concepta, scilicet which is an eternally
Dei verbum, et Dei filius: et conceived wisdom, that is,
ideo impossibile est quod the Word of God, and the
aliquid faciat nisi per Son of God. Accordingly, it
filium. Unde Augustinus de is impossible that he
Trinitate dicit quod verbum should make anything
est ars plena omnium except through the Son.
rationum viventium. Et sic And so Augustine says, in
patet quod omnia quae The Trinity, that the Word is
pater facit, facit per ipsum. the art full of the living
patterns of all things. Thus
it is clear that all things
which the Father makes, he
makes through him.
Notandum autem, 78 It should be remarked

secundum Chrysostomum, that, according to
quod omnia quae Moyses Chrysostom, all the things
per multa enumerat in which Moses enumerates
productione rerum a Deo, individually in God’s
dicens: dixit dominus, fiat production of things,
lux, et fiat firmamentum saying, “And God said, ‘Let
etc., haec omnia there be light’” (Gn 1:3)
Evangelista excedens, uno and so forth, all these the
verbo comprehendit, Evangelist transcends and
dicens omnia per ipsum embraces in one phrase,
facta sunt. Cuius ratio est saying, All things were
quia Moyses tradere made through him. The
volebat emanationem reason is that Moses
creaturarum a Deo, et ideo wished to teach the
sigillatim enumerat; emanation of creatures
Ioannes vero ad altiorem from God; hence he
festinans materiam, in hoc enumerated them one by
libro intendit nos inducere one. But John, hastening
specialiter in cognitionem toward loftier things,
ipsius creatoris. intends in this book to lead
us specifically to a
knowledge of the Creator
himself.
Deinde dicit et sine ipso 79 Then he says, and

factum est nihil. Haec est without him nothing was
secunda clausula quam made. This is the second
quidam perverse clause which some have
intellexerunt, ut dicit distorted, as Augustine
Augustinus in Lib. de Nat. says in his work, The
boni. Nam, ex hoc modo Nature of the Good.
loquendi quo Ioannes hic Because of John’s manner
utitur, ponens hoc quod of speaking here, they
dicitur nihil in fine believed that he was using
orationis, crediderunt “nothing” in an affirmative
ipsum nihil teneri sense; as though nothing
affirmative, quasi nihil sit was something which was
aliquid, quod sine verbo made without the Word.
factum sit; unde voluerunt And so they claimed that
quod haec clausula posita this clause was added by
sit ab Evangelista ad the Evangelist in order to
excludendum aliquid quod exclude something which
a verbo non sit factum. was not made by the Word.
Unde dicunt quod They say that the
postquam Evangelista Evangelist, having said that
dixerat omnia per ipsum All things were made
facta sunt, consequenter through him, added and
adiungit et sine ipso without him nothing was
factum est nihil quasi made. It was as if to say: I
dicat: ita dico omnia per say that all things were
ipsum facta esse, quod made through him in such
tamen sine ipso factum est a way that still something
aliquid, scilicet ipsum nihil. was made without him,
that is, the “nothing”.
Ex hoc autem processit 80 Three heresies came

triplex haeresis, scilicet from this. First, that of
Valentini, qui, ut dicit Valentine. He affirmed, as
Origenes, ponit multa Origen says, a multitude of
principia, et ex illis principles, and taught that
principiis dicit procedere from them came thirty
triginta saecula. Prima eras. The first principles he
tamen principia quae postulates are two: the
ponit, sunt duo, scilicet Deep, which he calls God
profundum, quod vocat the Father, and Silence.
Deum patrem, et silentium. And from these proceed
Ex his duobus dicit ten eras. But from the Deep
processisse decem and from Silence, he says,
saecula. Ex profundo there are two other
autem, et silentio dicit principles, Mind and Truth;
esse alia duo principia, and from these issued
scilicet intellectum et eight eras. Then from Mind
veritatem, ex quibus and Truth, there are two
processerunt octo saecula. other principles, Word and
Ex intellectu autem et Life; and from these issued
veritate dicit esse alia duo twelve eras; thus making a
principia, scilicet verbum total of thirty. Finally, from
et vitam, ex quibus the Word and Life there
procedunt duodecim proceeded in time, the man
saecula, et sic sunt Christ and the Church. In
triginta. Ex verbo autem et this way Valentine affirmed
vita, secundum aevum, many eras previous to the
processit homo Christus, issuing forth of the Word.
et Ecclesia. Sic ergo And so he said that
Valentinus ponebat because the Evangelist had
prolationem verbi multa stated that all things were
saecula praecessisse. Et made through him, then,
ideo dicit quod, quia lest anyone think that
Evangelista dixerat omnia those previous eras had
per ipsum facta sunt, ne been effected through the
aliquis intelligeret illa Word, he added, and
saecula praecedentia esse without him nothing was
perfecta per verbum, made, i.e., all the
consequenter adiunxit et preceding eras and all that
sine ipso factum est nihil, had existed in them. All of
idest omnia saecula these John calls “nothing,”
praeexistentia et quae in because they transcend
eis fuerunt; quae ideo human reason and cannot
Ioannes vocat nihil, quia be grasped by the mind.
humanam rationem
excedunt, nec possunt
capi per intellectum.
Secundus error, ex hoc 81 The second error to

procedens, fuit Manichaei, arise from this was that of
qui ponebat duo contraria Manichaeus, who affirmed
principia, unum scilicet two opposing principles:
rerum incorruptibilium, et one is the source of
aliud corruptibilium. Dicit incorruptible things, and
ergo quod postquam the other of corruptible
Ioannes dixerat omnia per things. He said that after
ipsum facta sunt, ne John had stated that All
crederetur verbum esse things were made through
corruptibilium rerum him, then, lest it be
causam, statim subiunxit thought that the Word is
et sine ipso factum est the cause of corruptible
nihil, idest corruptioni things, he immediately
subiecta, quae nihil esse added, and without him
dicuntur, quia eorum esse nothing was made, i.e.,
est continue transmutari in things subject to
nihil. corruption, which are
called “nothing” because
their being consists in
being continually
transformed into nothing.
Tertius error est eorum qui 82 The third error is that of

volunt quod per nihil those who claim that by
intelligatur Diabolus, iuxta “nothing” we should
illud Iob XVIII, 15: understand the devil,
habitent in tabernaculo according to Job (18:15),
eius socii eius, qui non est. “May the companions of
Dicunt ergo omnia esse him who is not dwell in his
facta per verbum, praeter house.” And so they say
Diabolum. Et ideo that all things except the
exponunt sine ipso factum devil were made through
est nihil, idest Diabolus. the Word. In this way they
explain, without him
nothing was made, that is,
the devil.
Sed omnes isti tres errores 83 All these three errors,
ex uno fonte procedentes, arising as they do from the
scilicet ex hoc quod ipsum same source, namely,
nihil volunt affirmative taking “nothing” in a
accipi, excluduntur per hoc positive sense, are
quod nihil non ponitur hic excluded by the fact that
affirmative, sed negative “nothing” in not used here
tantum. Ut sit sensus: ita in an affirmative, but in a
facta sunt omnia per merely negative sense: the
verbum, quod nihil est sense being that all things
participans esse, quod non were made through the
sit factum per ipsum. Word in such a way that
there is nothing
participating in existence
that was not made through
him.
Sed instabit forsitan 84 Perhaps someone will

aliquis, dicens hanc object and say that it was
clausulam superflue fuisse superfluous to add this
appositam, si intelligatur clause, if it is to be
negative, eo quod understood negatively, on
Evangelista dicens, omnia the ground that the
per ipsum facta sunt, Evangelist, in stating that
sufficienter videtur dixisse All things were made
non esse aliquid quod non through him, seems to
sit factum per verbum. have already said
adequately enough that
there is not something that
was not made through the
Word.
Ad quod dicendum quod The answer to this is that,

secundum multos according to many
introducta est haec expositors, this clause was
particula multipliciter, et added in many ways for a
multis de causis. Quarum number of reasons. One of
una causa est, secundum these reasons is, according
Chrysostomum, ne aliquis to Chrysostom, so that no
legens in veteri testamento one reading the Old
et inveniens solum visibilia Testament and finding only
enumerata a Moyse in visible things listed by
creatione rerum, crederet Moses in the creation of
illa tantum facta esse per things, would think that
verbum. Ideo Evangelista, these were the only things
dum dixisset omnia per made through the Word.
ipsum facta sunt, quae And so after he had said,
scilicet enumerat Moyses, All things were made
ideo consequenter adiunxit through him, namely,
sine ipso factum est nihil; those that Moses listed, the
quasi dicat: nihil eorum Evangelist then added, and
quae sunt, sive visibile sive without him nothing was
invisibile, est factum sine made, as though he were
verbo. Et hoc modo saying: None of the things
loquitur apostolus, Col. I, which exist, whether visible
16, dicens omnia condita or invisible, was made
esse in Christo, sive without the Word. Indeed,
visibilia, sive invisibilia: ubi the Apostle also speaks in
apostolus specialiter this way (Col 1:16), saying
mentionem facit de that all things, visible and
invisibilibus, quia de eis invisible, were created in
Moyses aperte mentionem Christ; and here the
non fecerat, propter Apostle makes specific
ruditatem illius populi, qui mention of invisible things
supra sensibilia elevari non because Moses had made
poterat. no express mention of
them on account of the
lack of erudition of that
people, who could not be
raised above the things of
sense.
Introducitur etiam, Chrysostom also gives

secundum Chrysostomum, another reason why this
alio modo sic. Posset enim clause was added. For
aliquis legens Evangelium, someone reading in the
multa signa et miracula Gospels of the many signs
facta per Christum, sicut and miracles worked by
illud Matth. XI, 5: caeci Christ, such as, “The blind
vident, claudi ambulant, see, the lame walk, lepers
leprosi mundantur etc., are cleansed” (Mt 11:5),
credere per hoc quod dicit might believe that in
Ioannes omnia per ipsum saying, All things were
facta sunt, debere intelligi made through him, John
omnia illa tantum quae in meant that only the things
illis Evangeliis continentur, mentioned in those
et nihil aliud factum per Gospels, and nothing else,
ipsum. Et ideo ne hoc were made through him. So
suspicetur quis, lest anyone suspect this,
consequenter Evangelista the Evangelist adds, and
inducit et sine ipso factum without him nothing was
est nihil; quasi dicat: non made. As if to say: Not only
solum ea quae in all the things contained in
Evangeliis continentur, the Gospels were made
sunt facta per ipsum, sed through him, but none of
nihil eorum quae facta the things that were made,
sunt, est factum sine ipso. was made without him. And
Et sic, secundum so, according to
Chrysostomum, haec Chrysostom, this clause is
particula introducitur ad added to bring out his total
ostendendum totalem causality, and serves, as it
causalitatem, et est quasi were, to complete his
completiva praemissae. previous statement.
Secundum Hilarium vero 85 According to Hilary,

introducitur haec particula however, this clause is
ad ostendendum quod introduced to show that
verbum habet virtutem the Word has operative
operativam ab alio. Quia power from another. For
enim Evangelista dixerat since the Evangelist had
omnia per ipsum facta said, All things were made
sunt, posset intelligi through him, it might be
patrem excludi ab omni supposed that the Father is
causalitate; ideo excluded from all causality.
consequenter addit et sine For that reason he added,
ipso factum est nihil. Quasi and without him nothing
dicat: sic per eum facta was made. As if to say: All
sunt omnia, ut tamen pater things were made through
cum eo omnia fecerit. Nam him, but in such a way that
tantum valet sine eo, ac si the Father made all things
dicatur non solus; ut sit with him. For “without him”
sensus: non ipse solus est is equivalent to saying,
per quem facta sunt “not alone,” so that the
omnia, sed ipse est alius, meaning is: It is not he
sine quo factum est nihil. alone through whom all
Quasi dicat sine ipso, cum things were made, but he is
alio operante, scilicet the other one without
patre, factum est nihil; whom nothing was made.
iuxta illud Prov. VIII, 30: It is as if he said: Without
cum eo eram cuncta him, with another working,
componens. i.e., with the Father,
nothing was made, as it
says, “I was with him
forming all things” (Prv
8:30).
In quadam autem homilia 86 In a certain homily

quae incipit, vox spiritualis attributed to Origen, and
aquilae, et attribuitur which begins, “The
Origeni, invenitur alia spiritual voice of the
expositio satis pulchra. eagle,” we find another
Dicitur enim ibi quod in rather beautiful exposition.
Graeco est choris, ubi in It says there that the Greek
Latino habemus sine. has thoris where the Latin
Choris autem idem est has sine (without). Now
quod foris vel extra; quasi thoris is the same as
dicat ita omnia per ipsum “outside” or “outside of.” It
facta sunt quod extra is as if he had said: All
ipsum factum est nihil. Et things were made through
ideo hoc dicit ut ostendat, him in such a way that
per verbum et in verbo outside him nothing was
omnia conservari; iuxta made. And so he says this
illud Hebr. I, 3: portans to show that all things are
omnia verbo virtutis suae. conserved through the
Quaedam enim sunt quae Word and in the Word, as
non indigent operante, nisi stated in Hebrews ( 1:3),
quantum ad fieri, cum “He sustains all things by
possint subsistere his powerful word.” Now
postquam fuerunt facta, there are certain things
absque agentis influxu; that do not need their
sicut domus indiget producer except to bring
quidem artifice quantum them into existence, since
ad suum fieri, sed tamen after they have been
persistit in suo esse produced they are able to
absque artificis influentia. subsist without any further
Ne ergo credat aliquis, activity on the part of the
omnia per verbum sic facta producer. For example, a
esse quod sit causa eorum house needs a builder if it
quantum ad fieri solum, et is to come into existence,
non quantum ad but it continues to exist
conservationem in esse, without any further action
ideo consequenter on the part of the builder.
Evangelista subiunxit et So lest anyone suppose
sine ipso factum est nihil. that all things were made
Hoc est: nihil factum est through the Word in such a
extra ipsum, quia ipse way that he is merely the
ambit omnia, conservans cause of their production
ea. and not of their
continuation in existence,
the Evangelist added, and
without him nothing was
made, i.e., nothing was
made outside of him,
because he encompasses
all things, preserving them.
Exponitur autem haec 87 This clause is also

particula secundum explained by Augustine and
Augustinum et Origenem Origen and several others
et plures alios sic ut per in such a way that
nihil intelligatur peccatum. “nothing” indicates sin.
Quia ergo cum diceret Accordingly, because All
omnia per ipsum facta things were made through
sunt, posset intelligi him might be interpreted
malum et peccatum per as including evil and sin, he
ipsum fieri; ideo added, and without him
consequenter adiunxit et nothing, i.e., sin, was
nihil, idest peccatum, est made. For just as art is not
factum sine ipso. Nam the principle or cause of
sicut ars non est the defects in its products,
principium seu causa but is through itself the
alicuius defectus in cause of their perfection
artificiatis, sed per se est and form, so the Word, who
causa perfectionis ipsorum is the art of the Father, full
et formae, ita et verbum, of living archetypes, is not
quod est ars patris, plena the cause of any evil or
rationum viventium, non disarrangement in things,
est causa alicuius mali vel particularly of the evil of
inordinationis in rebus, et sin, which carries the full
praecipue mali culpae, notion of evil. The per se
quod habet perfectam cause of this evil is the will
rationem mali; sed huius of the creature, either a
mali causa per se est man or an angel, freely
voluntas creaturae, sive declining from the end to
hominis sive Angeli, libere which it is ordained by its
declinans a fine, ad quem nature. One who can act in
naturaliter ordinatur. virtue of his art but
Operans secundum artem, purposely violates it, is the
voluntarie errans, est cause of the defects
causa defectuum occurring in his works, not
incidentium in artificiatis, by reason of his art, but by
non per artem, sed per reason of his will. So in
voluntatem. Unde in such cases, his art is not
talibus ars non est the source or cause of the
principium seu causa defects, but his will is.
defectuum, sed voluntas: Consequently, evil is a
et ideo malum est defectus defect of the will and not of
voluntatis, et non artis any art. And so to the
alicuius: et ideo inquantum extent that it is such [i.e., a
tale, nihil est. defect], it is nothing.
Sic ergo ista particula 88 So then, this clause is

additur ad ostendendum added to show the
ipsius verbi universalem universal causality of the
causalitatem secundum Word, according to
Chrysostomum, Chrysostom; his
societatem ad patrem, association with the Father,
secundum Hilarium et according to Hilary; the
virtutem verbi in power of the Word in the
conservando, secundum preserving of things,
Origenem. Item puritatem according to Origen; and
causalitatis: quia sic est finally, the purity of his
causa bonorum, quod non causality, because he is so
est causa peccati, the cause of good as not to
secundum Augustinum et be the cause of sin,
Origenem et plures alios. according to Augustine,
Origen, and a number of
others.
Deinde dicit quod factum 89 Then he says, What was

est, in ipso vita erat. Hic made in him was life; and
ponitur tertia particula, ubi this is the third clause.
cavendus est falsus Here we must avoid the
intellectus Manichaei, qui false interpretation of
ex hoc verbo motus est ad Manichaeus, who was led
dicendum quod omnia by this to maintain that
quae sunt, vivunt; puta everything that exists is
lapis, lignum, et homo, et alive: for example, stones,
quicquid aliud est in wood, men, and anything
mundo. Et punctabat sic: else in the world. He
quod factum est in ipso, understood the clause this
distingue, erat vita. Sed way: What was made in
non erat vita nisi viveret; him, comma, was life. But
ergo quicquid factum est it was not life unless alive.
in ipso, vivit. Vult etiam Therefore, whatever was
quod in ipso idem sic ac si made in him is alive. He
dicatur per ipsum, cum also claimed that “in him”
communiter in Scriptura in is the same as saying
ipso, vel per ipsum “through him,” since very
accipiatur; sicut illud Col. often in Scripture “in him”
I, 16: in ipso, et per ipsum and “through him” are
condita sunt omnia. Sed interchangeable, as in “in
hunc intellectum ista him and through him all
expositio ostendit esse things were created” (Col
falsum. 1:16). However, our
present explanation shows
that this interpretation is
false.
Potest tamen sine errore 90 There are, nevertheless,

multipliciter exponi. Nam a number of ways to
in illa homilia vox explain it without error. In
spiritualis exponitur sic: that homily, “The spiritual
quod factum est in ipso, voice,” we find this
idest per ipsum, hoc vita explanation: What was
erat non in seipso sed in made in him, i.e., through
sua causa. In omnibus him, was life, not in each
enim causatis hoc thing itself, but in its cause.
commune est, quod For in the case of all things
effectus, sive per naturam that are caused, it is
sive per voluntatem always true that effects,
producti, sunt in suis whether produced by
causis non secundum nature or by will, exist in
proprium esse, sed their causes, not according
secundum virtutem to their own existence, but
propriae suae causae; according to the power of
sicut effectus inferiores their appropriate cause.
sunt in sole ut in causa, Thus, lower effects are in
non secundum eorum the sun as in their cause,
esse, sed secundum not according to their
virtutem solis. Quia ergo respective existences but
causa omnium effectuum according to the power of
productorum a Deo, est the sun. Therefore, since
vita quaedam et ars plena the cause of all effects
rationum viventium, ideo produced by God is a
omne, quod factum est in certain life and an art full
ipso, idest per ipsum, vita of living archetypes, for
erat in sua causa, scilicet this reason What was
in ipso Deo. made in him, i.e., through
him, was life, in its cause,
i.e., in God.
Augustinus autem aliter 91 Augustine reads this

legit, sic punctando: quod another way, as: What was
factum est, distingue, in made, comma, in him was
ipso vita erat. Res enim life. For things can be
dupliciter considerari considered in two ways: as
possunt, secundum scilicet they are in themselves, and
quod sunt in seipsis et as they are in the Word. If
secundum quod sunt in they are considered as they
verbo. Si considerentur are in themselves, then it is
secundum quod sunt in not true that all things are
seipsis, sic non omnes res life or even alive, but some
sunt vita nec etiam lack life and some are alive.
viventes, sed aliquae For example, the earth was
carent vita, aliquae vivunt. made and metals were
Sicut facta est terra, facta made, but none is life, none
sunt etiam et metalla, is living; animals and men
quae nec vita sunt, nec were made, and these,
vivunt; facta sunt animalia, considered in themselves,
facti sunt homines, quae are not life, but merely
secundum quod sunt in living. Yet considered as
seipsis, non sunt vita, sed they are in the Word, they
vivunt solum. Si vero are not merely living, but
considerentur secundum also life. For the
quod sunt in verbo, non archetypes which exist
solum sunt viventes, sed spiritually in the wisdom of
etiam vita. Nam rationes in God, and through which
sapientia Dei spiritualiter things were made by the
existentes, quibus res Word, are life, just as a
factae sunt ab ipso verbo, chest made by an artisan is
sunt vita: sicut arca facta in itself neither alive nor
per artificem in se quidem life, yet the exemplar of the
nec vivit nec vita est, ratio chest in the artisan’s mind
vero arcae, quae prior to the existence of
praecessit in mente the chest is in some sense
artificis, vivit living, insofar as it has an
quodammodo, inquantum intellectual existence in the
habet esse intelligibile in mind of the artisan.
mente artificis, non tamen Nevertheless it is not life,
est vita, quia per ipsum because it is neither in his
intelligere artificis non est essence nor is it his
in sua essentia, neque existence through the act
suum esse. In Deo autem of understanding of the
suum intelligere est sua artisan. But in God, his act
vita et sua essentia: et of understanding is his life
ideo quicquid est in Deo, and his essence. And so
non solum vivit sed est whatever is in God is not
ipsa vita, quia quicquid est only living, but is life itself,
in Deo, est sua essentia. because whatever is in God
Unde creatura in Deo est is his essence. Hence the
creatrix essentia. Si ergo creature in God is the
considerentur res creating essence. Thus, if
secundum quod in verbo things are considered as
sunt, vita sunt. Hanc they are in the Word, they
expositionem habes alibi. are life. This is explained in
another place.
Origenes vero super 92 Origen, commenting on

Ioannem legit hoc aliter, John, gives another
punctando sic: quod reading, thus: That which
factum est in ipso, was made in him; and
distingue, vita erat. Ubi then, was life. Here we
notandum est quod de filio should note that some
Dei dicitur aliquid, things are said of the Son
secundum se, sicut dicitur of God as such; for
Deus omnipotens, et example, that he is God,
huiusmodi; aliquid vero omnipotent, and the like.
dicitur de eo per And some things are said
comparationem ad nos, of him in relation to
sicut salvator et ourselves; for example, we
redemptor; aliquid vero say he is Savior and
utroque modo, sicut Redeemer. Some things are
sapientia et iustitia. In said in both ways, such as
omnibus autem quae wisdom and justice. Now in
absolute et secundum se all things said absolutely
de filio dicuntur, non and of the Son as such, it is
dicitur quod sit factus, not said that he was
sicut non dicitur filius “made”, for example, we do
factus Deus, neque not say that the Son was
omnipotens; sed in illis made God or omnipotent.
quae dicuntur in But in things said in
comparatione ad nos, seu reference to us, or in both
utroque modo, potest addi ways, the notion of being
adiunctio facti, ut dicatur made can be used, as in,
secundum illud I Cor. I, 30: “God made him [Jesus
qui factus est nobis a Deo Christ] our wisdom, our
sapientia, et iustificatio, et justice, our sanctification
sanctificatio, et redemptio. and redemption” (1 Cor
Et sic, licet semper fuerit 1:30). And so, although he
in seipso sapientia et was always wisdom and
iustitia, tamen potest dici justice in himself, yet it can
quod de novo factus est be said that he was newly
nobis iustitia et sapientia. made justice and wisdom
for us.
Secundum hoc ergo And so Origen, explaining it

Origenes exponens dicit along these lines, says that
quod quamvis in seipso sit although in himself the Son
vita, tamen nobis factus is life, yet he was made life
est vita per hoc quod nos for us by the fact that he
vivificavit, iuxta illud I Cor. gave us life, as is said,
XV, 22: sicut in Adam “Just as in Adam all die, so
omnes moriuntur, ita et in in Christ all will come to
ipso omnes vivificabuntur. life” (1 Cor 15:22). And so
Et ideo dicit quod verbum he says “the Word that was
quod factum est nobis vita, made” life for us in himself
in ipso vita erat, ut was life, so that after a
quandoque nobis fieret time he could become life
vita; et ideo statim subdit for us; and so he
et vita erat lux hominum. immediately adds, and that
life was the light of men.
Hilarius enim sic punctat 93 Hilary reads the clause

et sine ipso factum est differently, thus: And
nihil, quod factum est in without him was made
ipso, et postea dicatur vita nothing, which was made
erat. Quia ipse dicit in II de in him, and later it says, he
Trin. cum dicit Evangelista was life. For he says (The
et factum est nihil, posset Trinity II) that when the
esse ambiguum an Evangelist says without
quaedam alia adhuc quae him nothing was made,
per ipsum facta sunt, one might be perplexed
fuerunt facta non per and ask whether there are
ipsum, non tamen sine still other things made by
ipso; sed in eis associavit him, that were not made
facientem; et hanc through him, although not
clausulam esse additam ad without him, but with
correptionem respect to which he was
praecedentis. Ne ergo hoc associated with the maker;
intelligeretur, ideo and this clause is added to
Evangelista cum dixisset correct the aforesaid error.
omnia per ipsum facta Therefore lest this be so
sunt, subiungit et sine ipso understood, when the
factum est nihil, quod Evangelist says, All things
tamen factum est in ipso, were made through him,
idest per ipsum: et ratio he adds, and without him
huius est, quia vita erat. nothing was made, which
was made, in him, that is,
through him; and the
reason for this is that he
was life.
Manifestum est enim quod For it is plain that all things

hoc modo omnia dicuntur are said to have been made
per verbum facta, through the Word
inquantum verbum ex inasmuch as the Word, who
patre procedens est Deus. proceeds from the Father,
Ponamus autem quod is God. But let us suppose
aliquis pater filium habeat, that some father has a son
qui non sit perfecte who does not perfectly
habens operationes exercise the operations of
hominis, sed paulatim ad a man, but reaches such a
hoc perveniat, manifestum state gradually. In that
est quod multa faciet, non case the father will do
per ipsum filium, licet non many things, not through
sine eo. Quia ergo filius Dei the son, yet not without
eamdem vitam habuit ab [having] him. Since,
aeterno, quam et pater, therefore, the Son of God
secundum illud infra V, 26: has from all eternity the
sicut pater habet vitam in same life that the Father
semetipso, sic dedit et filio has—“Just as the Father
vitam habere in semetipso, possesses life in himself, so
ideo non potest dici quod has he granted it to the
Deus pater, etsi nihil fecerit Son to have life in himself”
sine filio, tamen fecit (below 5:26)—one cannot
aliqua non per ipsum, quia say that God the Father,
vita erat. In viventibus although he made nothing
enim quae vitam without the Son,
participant, potest nevertheless made some
contingere quod vita things not through him,
imperfecta praecedat because he was life. For in
vitam perfectam; sed in living things which
per se vita, quae non participate life, it can
participat vitam, sed est happen that imperfect life
absolute et simpliciter vita, precedes perfect life; but in
nullo modo potest per se life, which does not
imperfectio aliqua esse. participate life but is
Quia ergo verbum est per simply and absolutely life,
se vita, numquam fuit in eo there can be no
vita imperfecta, sed imperfection at all.
semper perfecta; et ideo Accordingly, because the
ita nihil factum est sine eo, Word is per se life, there
quod tamen non sit factum was never imperfect life in
in ipso, idest per ipsum. him, but always perfect life.
And so in such a way that
nothing was made without
him that was not also made
in him, i.e., through him.
Chrysostomus autem aliud 94 Chrysostom has a

modum legendi habet, et different reading and
punctat sic: et sine ipso punctuation, thus: And
factum est nihil quod without him was made
factum est. Et ratio huius nothing that was made.
est, quia aliquis posset The reason for this is that
credere quod spiritus someone might believe
sanctus esset factus per that the Holy Spirit was
verbum. Et ideo made through the Word. So
Evangelista hoc volens to exclude this, the
excludere dicit quod Evangelist says, that was
factum est, quia spiritus made, because the Holy
sanctus non est quid Spirit is not something that
factum; et postea sequitur is made. And afterward
in ipso vita erat; quod follows, In him was life,
introducitur propter duo. which is introduced for two
Unum est ut post reasons. First, to show that
productionem omnium after the creation of all
rerum ostendatur things his causality was
indeficientia causalitatis indefectible not only with
ad res non solum respect to the things
productas, sed etiam already produced, but also
producendas. Quasi dicat with respect to things yet
in ipso vita erat, qua to be produced. As if to
scilicet non solum omnia say: In him was life, by
producere potuit, sed which he could not only
etiam quae habet produce all things, but
indeficientem fluxum et which has an unfailing flow
causalitatem absque and a causality for
mutationis dispendio ad producing things
res continue producendas, continually without
utpote fons vivus qui non undergoing any change,
minoratur ex fluxu being a living fountain
continuo; aqua vero which is not diminished in
collecta et non viva, cum spite of its continuous
defluit, minoratur et outflow; whereas collected
deficit; unde dicitur in Ps. water, that is not living [i.e.,
XXXV, 10: apud te est fons running] water, is
vitae. Secundum est ut diminished when it flows
ostendatur gubernatio out, and is used up. So the
rerum esse per verbum. Psalm (35:10) says, “With
Quia enim in ipso vita erat, you is the fountain of life.”
ostenditur quod non The second reason is to
produxit res per show that things are
necessitatem naturae, sed governed by the: Word. For
per voluntatem et since In him was life, this
intellectum, et quod res shows that he produced
productas gubernat; Hebr. things by his intellect and
IV, 12: vivus est sermo Dei will, not by a necessity of
et cetera. his nature, and that he
governs the things he
made. “The Word of God is
living” (Heb 4:12).
Et quia apud Graecos Chrysostom is held in such

Chrysostomus est tantae esteem by the Greeks in his
auctoritatis in suis explanations that they
expositionibus, quod ubi admit no other where he
ipse aliquid exposuit in expounded anything in
sacra Scriptura, nullam Holy Scripture. For this
aliam expositionem reason, this passage in all
admittant, ideo in omnibus the Greek works is found to
libris Graecis invenitur sic be punctuated exactly as
punctatum, sicut punctat Chrysostom did, namely,
Chrysostomus, scilicet hoc And without him was
modo: sine ipso factum est made nothing that was
nihil quod factum est. made.
Lectura 3 LECTURE 3
ἡ ζωὴ ἦν τὸ φῶς 4b And that life

τῶν ἀνθρώπων: was the light of
5 καὶ τὸ φῶς ἐν men.
τῇ σκοτίᾳ 5 And the light
φαίνει, shines in the
καὶ ἡ σκοτία darkness,
αὐτὸ οὐ and the
κατέλαβεν. darkness did
not overcome
it.
Evangelista supra insinuavit 95 Above, the Evangelist

virtutem verbi, secundum described the power of
quam omnia produxit in the Word insofar as he
esse; hic vero insinuat eius brought all things into
virtutem, secundum quam existence; here he
se habet ad homines, describes his power as it
dicens, hoc verbum esse is related to men, saying
lucem hominibus. Ubi primo that this Word is a light to
introducit nobis lucem men. First, he introduces a
quamdam, cum dicit et vita certain light to us (v 4b);
erat lux hominum; secundo secondly, the light’s
lucis irradiationem, cum irradiation (v 5a); thirdly,
dicit et lux in tenebris lucet; participation in the light (v
tertio lucis participationem, 5b). This whole section
cum dicit et tenebrae eam may be explained in two
non comprehenderunt. ways: first, according to
Potest autem totum the influx of natural
dupliciter exponi. Uno knowledge; secondly,
modo secundum influxum according to participation
cognitionis naturalis; alio in grace.
modo secundum
communicationem gratiae.
Dicit ergo quantum ad As to the first point he

primum, quod vita erat lux says, And that life was the
hominum. light of men.
Ubi primo considerandum 96 Here we should note

est quod, secundum first that, according to
Augustinum et plures alios, Augustine and many
nomen lucis magis proprie others, light is more
dicitur in spiritualibus quam properly said of spiritual
in sensibilibus. Ambrosius things than of sensible
tamen vult quod splendor things. Ambrose, however,
metaphorice dicatur de thinks that brightness is
Deo. Sed in hoc non est said metaphorically of
magna vis facienda: nam de God. But this is not a
quocumque nomen lucis great issue, for in
dicatur ad manifestationem whatever way the name
refertur, sive illa “light” is used, it implies a
manifestatio sit in manifestation, whether
intelligibilibus, sive in that manifesting concerns
sensibilibus. Si ergo intelligible or sensible
comparentur manifestatio things. If we compare
intelligibilis et sensibilis, sensible and intelligible
secundum naturam prius manifestation, then,
invenitur lux in according to the nature of
spiritualibus; sed quoad things, light is found first
nos, qui nomina rebus in spiritual things. But for
imponimus ex earum us, who give names to
proprietatibus nobis notis, things on the basis of
prius invenitur in their properties as known
sensibilibus, quia prius to us, light is discovered
impositum est a nobis hoc first in sensible things,
nomen ad significandum because we first used this
lucem sensibilem, quam name to signify sensible
intelligibilem; quamvis light before intelligible
secundum virtutem prius et light; although as to
verius conveniat power, light belongs to
spiritualibus quam spiritual things in a prior
sensibilibus. and truer way than to
sensible things.
Ad evidentiam autem eius 97 To clarify the

quod dicitur et vita erat lux statement, And that life
hominum, sciendum est was the light of men, we
quod multipliciter est should remark that there
gradus vitae. Quaedam are many grades of life.
namque vivunt, sed absque For some things live, but
luce, quia nullam do so without light,
cognitionem habent, sicut because they have no
sunt plantae: unde vita knowledge; for example,
earum non est lux. plants. Hence their life is
Quaedam vero vivunt et not light. Other things
cognoscunt; sed tamen both live and know, but
eorum cognitio, cum sit their knowledge, since it is
sensus tantum, non est nisi on the sense level, is
particularium et concerned only with
materialium, sicut est in individual and material
brutis: et ideo haec et vitam things, as is the case with
habent et lucem quamdam, the brutes. So they have
sed non lucem hominum both life and a certain
qui vivunt et cognoscunt light. But they do not have
non solum ipsa vera, sed the light of men, who live,
ipsius veritatis rationem, and know, not only truths,
sicut sunt creaturae but also the very nature of
rationales, quibus non truth itself. Such are
solum manifestatur hoc vel rational creatures, to
illud, sed ipsa veritas quae whom not only this or that
manifestabilis est et are made manifest, but
manifestativa omnium. truth itself, which can be
manifested and is
manifestive to all.
Et ideo Evangelista loquens And so the Evangelist,

de verbo dicit non solum speaking of the Word, not
esse vitam, sed etiam esse only says that he is life
lucem, ne intelligas vitam but also light, lest anyone
sine agnitione; hominum suppose he means life
autem ne tantum without knowledge. And
cognitionem sensibilem he says that he is the light
suspiceris, qualis est in of men, lest anyone
brutis. suppose he meant only
sensible knowledge, such
as exists in the brutes.
Sed quare dixit hominum, 98 But since he is also the

cum etiam sit lux light of angels, why did he
Angelorum? Ad hoc est say, of men? Two answers
duplex responsio. have been given to this.
Chrysostomus enim dicit Chrysostom says that the
quod Evangelista Evangelist intended in this
intendebat in isto Evangelio Gospel to give us a
tradere nobis cognitionem knowledge of the Word
de verbo, secundum quod precisely as directed to
ad salutem hominum the salvation of men and
ordinatur; et ideo magis therefore refers, in
refert secundum suam keeping with his aim, more
intentionem ad homines to men than to angels.
quam ad Angelos. Origenes Origen, however, says that
vero dicit quod participatio participation in this light
huius lucis pertinet ad pertains to men insofar as
homines, inquantum sunt they have a rational
rationalis naturae; et ideo nature; accordingly, when
Evangelista dicens erat lux the Evangelist says, the
hominum, voluit intelligi light of men, he wants us
omnis rationalis naturae. to understand every
rational nature.
In hoc etiam ostenditur 99 We also see from this

perfectio et dignitas huius the perfection and dignity
vitae, quia est intellectualis of this life, because it is
seu rationalis. Cum enim intellectual or rational. For
illa dicuntur viventia, quae whereas all things that in
se aliquo modo movent, illa some way move
dicuntur vitam habere themselves are called
perfectam, quae perfecte living, only those that
seipsa movent; movere perfectly move themselves
autem seipsum perfecte et are said to have perfect
proprie, in inferioribus life; and among lower
creaturis soli homini creatures only man moves
convenit. Nam etsi alia ex himself, properly
seipsis ab aliquo principio speaking, and perfectly.
intrinseco moveantur, non For although other things
tamen illud principium se are moved by themselves
habet ad opposita; et ideo by some inner principle,
ex necessitate moventur, et that inner principle is
non libere. Mota igitur a tali nevertheless not open to
principio magis aguntur opposite alternatives;
quam agunt. Homo vero, hence they are not moved
cum sit dominus sui actus, freely but from necessity.
libere se movet ad omnia As a result, those things
quae vult; et ideo homo that are moved by such a
habet vitam perfectam, et principle are more truly
similiter quaelibet made to act than act
intellectualis natura. Vita themselves. But man,
ergo verbi, quae est lux since he is master of his
hominum, est vita perfecta. act, moves himself freely
to all that he wills.
Consequently, man has
perfect life, as does every
intellectual nature. And so
the life of the Word, which
is the light of men, is
perfect life.
Attenditur etiam in 100 We find a fitting order

praemissis verbis congruus in the above. For in the
ordo: nam in naturali rerum natural order of things,
ordine primo invenitur esse, existence is first; and the
et hoc primo Evangelista Evangelist implies this in
insinuavit, dicens in his first statement, In the
principio erat verbum, beginning was the Word.
secundo vivere, et hoc est Secondly, comes life; and
quod sequitur in ipso vita this is mentioned next, In
erat, tertio intelligere, et him was life. Thirdly
hoc consequenter adiunxit comes understanding; and
vita erat lux hominum. that is mentioned next;
Unde, secundum Origenem, And that life was the light
convenienter vitae attribuit of men. And, according to
lucem, quia lux nonnisi Origen, he fittingly
viventi attribui potest. attributes light to life
because light can be
attributed only to the
living.
Est tamen notandum quod 101 We should note that

lux ad viventem dupliciter light can be related in two
comparari potest, vel ut ways to what is living: as
obiectum, vel ut participata, an object and as
ut patet in visu exteriori. something in which they
Oculus enim lucem participate, as is clear in
exteriorem cognoscit external sight. For the
tamquam obiectum, sed eyes know external light
oportet ad hoc quod eam as an object, but if they
videat, quod participet are to see it, they must
aliquam lucem interiorem, participate in an inner
per quam aptetur et light by which the eyes are
disponatur oculus ad lucem adapted and disposed for
exteriorem videndam. Sic seeing the external light.
ergo, quod hic dicit et vita And so his statement, And
erat lux hominum, dupliciter that life was the light of
potest intelligi. Ut dicatur men, can be understood
lux hominum per modum in two ways. First, that the
obiecti quasi a solis light of men is taken as an
hominibus conspicabilis; object that man alone can
quia ipsam sola rationalis look upon, because the
creatura conspicere potest, rational creature alone
cum ipsa sola divinae can see it, since he alone
visionis sit capax (Iob XXXV, is capable of the vision of
v. 11: docet nos super God who “teaches us
iumenta terrae, et super more than the beasts of
volucres caeli erudit nos); the earth, and enlightens
quia licet alia animalia us more than the birds of
cognoscant aliqua quae the air” Jb 35:11); for
vera sunt, solus tamen although other animals
homo ipsam rationem may know certain things
veritatis cognoscit. that are true,
nevertheless, man alone
knows the nature itself of
truth.
Potest etiam dici lux The light of men can also

hominum participata. be taken as a light in
Numquam enim ipsum which we participate. For
verbum et ipsam lucem we would never be able to
conspicere possemus nisi look upon the Word and
per participationem eius, light itself except through
quae in ipso homine est, a participation in it; and
quae est superior pars this participation is in man
animae nostrae, scilicet lux and is the superior part of
intellectiva, de qua dicitur our soul, i.e., the
in Ps. IV, 7: signatum est intellectual light, about
super nos lumen vultus tui, which the Psalm (4:7)
idest filii tui, qui est facies says, “The light of your
tua, qua manifestaris. countenance, O Lord, is
marked upon us,” i.e., of
your Son, who is your
face, by whom you are
manifested.
Introduxit supra 102 Having introduced a

Evangelista lucem certain light, the
quamdam; nunc vero agit Evangelist now considers
de ipsius irradiatione cum its irradiation, saying, And
dicit lux in tenebris lucet. the light shines in the
Quod quidem dupliciter darkness. This can be
exponi potest, secundum explained in two ways,
duplicem acceptionem according to the two
tenebrarum. meanings of “darkness.”
Primo vero accipiamus First, we might take

tenebras naturalem “darkness” as a natural
defectum, ac creatae defect, that of the created
mentis. Nam, ita se habet mind. For the mind is to
mens ad lucem istam, de that light of which the
qua hic loquitur Evangelist speaks here as
Evangelista, sicut se habet air is to the light of the
aer ad lucem solis: quia, sun; because, although air
licet aer capax sit lucis is receptive of the light of
solis, tamen, in se the sun, considered in
consideratus, tenebra est. itself it is a darkness.
Et secundum hoc sensus According to this the
est: lux, idest vita illa, quae meaning is: the light, i.e.,
est lux hominum, in tenebris that life which is the light
lucet, scilicet in animabus of men, shines in the
et mentibus creatis, darkness, i.e., in created
irradiando semper omnes. souls and minds, by
Iob III, 23: viro cui always shedding its light
abscondita est lux. on all. “On a man from
whom the light is hidden”
(Jb 3:23).
Sed tenebrae eam non And the darkness did not

comprehenderunt, idest overcome it, i.e., enclose
includere non potuerunt. it [i.e., intellectually]. For
Illud enim dicitur to overcome something
comprehendi, cuius fines [comprehendere, to
concluduntur et overcome, to comprehend,
conspiciuntur. Quia, sicut to seize or apprehend, and
dicit Augustinus, attingere so forth], is to enclose
Deum mente, magna and understand its
beatitudo est: boundaries. As Augustine
comprehendere vero, says, to reach God with
impossibile est. Tenebrae the mind is a great
ergo eam non happiness; but to
comprehenderunt. Iob overcome [comprehend]
XXXVI, 26: ecce Deus him is impossible. And so,
magnus vincens scientiam the darkness did not
nostram; Ier. XXXII, 19: overcome it. “Behold, God
magnus consilio et is great, exceeding our
incomprehensibilis cogitatu. knowledge” (Jb 36:26);
Et haec expositio habetur in “Great in counsel,
illa homilia quae incipit vox incomprehensible in
spiritualis aquilae. thought” as Jeremiah
(32:19) says. This
explanation is found in
that homily which begins,
“The spiritual voice of the
eagle.”
Alio modo potest exponi 103 We can explain this

accipiendo tenebras, passage in another way by
secundum Augustinum, pro taking “darkness” as
naturali insipientia Augustine does, for the
hominum, quae tenebra natural lack of wisdom in
dicitur. Eccle. II, 13: vidi man, which is called a
quia tantum praecederet darkness. “And I saw that
sapientia stultitiam, wisdom excells folly as
quantum differt lux a much as light excells
tenebris. Ex eo ergo aliquis knowledge” (Ecc 2:13).
insipiens est quod privatur Someone is without
lumine sapientiae divinae. wisdom, therefore,
Sicut ergo mentes because he lacks the light
sapientum participatione of divine wisdom.
istius divinae lucis et Consequently, just as the
sapientiae lucidae sunt, ita minds of the wise are lucid
eius privatione tenebrae by reason of a
sunt. Quod ergo quidam participation in that divine
tenebrosi sint, non est ex light and wisdom, so by
defectu istius lucis; quia, the lack of it they are
inquantum est de se, in darkness. Now the fact
tenebris lucet et omnes that some are darkness is
irradiat; sed ideo not due to a defect in that
insipientes privati sunt ea light, since on its part it
luce, quia tenebrae eam shines in the darkness and
non comprehenderunt, idest radiates upon all. Rather,
non apprehenderunt, ad the foolish are ‘without
ipsius participationem that light because the
eorum insipientia darkness did not
pertingere non valentes, ut overcome it, i.e., they did
post elati non durantes. Iob not apprehend it, not
XXXVI, 32: immanibus, idest being able to attain a
superbis, abscondit lucem, participation in it due to
idest lumen sapientiae, et their foolishness; after
annuntiat de ea amico suo, having been lifted up, they
quod possessio eius sit, et did not persevere. “From
ad eam possit ascendere; the savage,” i.e., from the
Baruch III, 23: viam autem proud, “he hides his light,”
sapientiae nescierunt, i.e., the light of wisdom,
neque commemorati sunt “and shows his friend that
semitas eius. it belongs to him, and that
he may approach it” (Jb
36:32); “They did not
know the way to wisdom,
nor did they remember
her paths” (Bar 3:23).
Licet autem aliquae mentes Although some minds are

sint tenebrosae, idest darkness, i.e., they lack
sapida et lucida sapientia savory and lucid wisdom,
privatae, nulla tamen adeo nevertheless no man is in
tenebrosa est quin aliquid such darkness as to be
lucis divinae participet. completely devoid of
Quia quidquid veritatis a divine light, because
quocumque cognoscitur, whatever truth is know by
totum est ex participatione anyone is due to a
istius lucis, quae in tenebris participation in that light
lucet, quia omne verum, a which shines in the
quocumque dicatur, a darkness; for every truth,
spiritu sancto est. Et tamen no matter by whom it is
tenebrae, idest homines spoken, comes from the
tenebrosi, eam non Holy Spirit. Yet the
comprehenderunt, darkness, i.e., men in
secundum veritatem. Sic darkness, did not
ergo exponitur ista overcome it, apprehend it
clausula, secundum in truth. This is the way, [
Origenem et secundum i.e., with respect to the
Augustinum. natural influx of
knowledge] that Origen
and Augustine explain this
clause.
Alio modo ab illo loco et 104 Starting from And

vita erat lux hominum, that life was the light of
exponitur secundum fluxum men, we can explain this
gratiae, qua irradiamur per in another way, according
Christum; et continuatur sic to the influx of grace,
ad praecedentia. since we are illuminated
by Christ.
Supra egit Evangelista de After he had considered

creatione rerum per the creation of things
verbum, hic vero tractat de through the Word, the
restauratione rationalis Evangelist considers here
creaturae facta per the restoration of the
Christum dicens: et vita, rational creature through
verbi, erat lux hominum, Christ, saying, And that
communiter, et non life, of the Word, was the
Iudaeorum tantum; quia light of men, i.e., of all
filius Dei carnem assumere men in general, and not
venit in mundum, ut only of the Jews. For the
illuminaret gratia et veritate Son of God assumed flesh
omnes homines. Io. c. and came into the world
XVIII, 37: in hoc natus sum, to illumine all men with
et ad hoc veni, ut grace and truth. “I came
testimonium perhibeam into the world for this, to
veritati. Item, infra IX, 5: testify to the truth” (below
quamdiu in mundo sum, lux 18:37); “As long as I am
sum mundi. Et ideo non in the world I am the light
dicit lux Iudaeorum, quia of the world” (below 9:5).
licet olim tantum in Iudaea So he does not say, “the
notus esset, tamen postea light of the Jews,” because
toti mundo innotuit; Is. although previously he
XLIX, v. 6: dedi te in lucem had been known only in
gentibus, ut sis salus mundo Judea, he later became
usque ad extremum terrae. known to the world. “I
have given you as a light
to the nations, that you
might be my salvation to
the ends of the earth” (Is
49:6).
Congrue etiam coniungit It was fitting to join light

lucem et vitam dicens et and life by saying, And
vita erat lux hominum, ut that life was the light of
ostendat ista duo, lucem men, in order to show that
scilicet et vitam, nobis these two have come to us
provenisse per Christum. through Christ: life,
Vitam quidem per through a participation in
participationem gratiae; grace, “Grace and truth
infra: gratia et veritas per have come through Jesus
Iesum Christum facta est; Christ” (below 1:17); and
lucem vero per cognitionem light, by a knowledge of
veritatis et sapientiae. truth and wisdom.
Hoc autem quod dicit lux in 105 According to this

tenebris lucet, potest explanation, the light
secundum hanc shines in the darkness,
expositionem exponi can be expounded in three
tripliciter, secundum quod ways, in the light of the
tripliciter possumus three meanings of
accipere tenebras. “darkness.”
Uno modo pro poena: nam In one way, we can take

quaelibet tristitia et afflictio “darkness” for
cordis tenebra quaedam punishment. For any
dici potest, sicut quodlibet sadness and suffering of
gaudium lux; Mich. ult., v. 8: heart can be called a
cum sedero in tenebris et in darkness, just as any joy
afflictionibus, dominus lux can be called a light.
mea est, idest gaudium et “When I sit in darkness
consolatio. Dicit ergo and in suffering the Lord
Origenes: secundum hoc is my light,” i.e., my joy
lux in tenebris lucet, idest and consolation (Mi 7:8).
Christus in mundum And so Origen says: In
veniens, et corpus passibile this explanation, the light
et absque peccato habens shines in the darkness, is
in similitudinem carnis, Christ coming into the
secundum quod dicitur world, having a body
Rom. VIII, 3. Lux in carne, capable of suffering and
quae scilicet caro Christi, without sin, but “in the
secundum quod in se habet likeness of sinful flesh”
similitudinem carnis (Rom 8:3). The light is in
peccati, tenebra dicitur. the flesh, that is, the flesh
Quasi dicat: lux, idest of Christ, which is called a
verbum Dei circumvelatum darkness insofar as it has
tenebris carnis, luxit in a likeness to sinful flesh.
mundum, secundum illud As if to say: The light, i.e.,
Ez. XXXII, 7: solem nube the Word of God, veiled
tegam. about by the darkness of
the flesh, shines on the
world; “I will cover the
sun with a cloud” (Ez
32:7).
Secundo, accipiendo per 106 Secondly, we can take

tenebras Daemones, iuxta “darkness” to mean the
illud Eph. ult., 12: non est devils, as in Ephesians
nobis colluctatio adversus (6:12), “Our struggle is
carnem et sanguinem not against flesh and
tantum, sed adversus blood; but against
principes et potestates, principalities and powers,
adversus mundi rectores against the rulers of the
tenebrarum harum. world of this darkness.”
Secundum hoc dicit: lux, Looked at this way he
idest filius Dei, in tenebris says, the light, i.e., the
lucet, idest in mundum Son of God, shines in the
descendit, ubi tenebrae, darkness, i.e., has
idest Daemones, descended into the world
dominabantur. Infra XII, 31: where darkness, i.e., the
princeps huius mundi, devils, hold sway: “Now
eiicietur foras. Et tenebrae, the prince of this world
idest Daemones, eam non will be cast out” (below
comprehenderunt, idest 12:31). And the darkness,
eum obscurare non i.e., the devils, did not
potuerunt tentando, ut overcome it, i.e., were
patet Matth. IV. unable to obscure him by
their temptations, as is
plain in Matthew (c 4)
Tertio accipiendo tenebras 107 Thirdly, we can take

errores sive ignorantias, “darkness” for the error
quibus totus mundus ante or ignorance which filled
adventum Christi plenus the whole world before
erat, secundum quod dicit the coming of Christ, “You
apostolus: eratis aliquando were at one time
tenebrae. Dicit ergo quod darkness” (Eph 5:8). And
lux, idest verbum Dei so he says that the light,
incarnatum, in tenebris i.e., the incarnate Word of
lucet, idest hominibus God, shines in the
mundi, erroris et darkness, i.e., upon the
ignorantiae tenebris men of the world, who are
obscuratis. Lc. I, 79: blinded by the darkness or
illuminare his qui in tenebris error and ignorance. “To
et in umbra mortis sedent; enlighten those who sit in
et Is. IX, 2: populus qui darkness and in the
sedebat in tenebris, vidit shadow of death” (Lk
lucem magnam. 1:79), “The people who
were sitting in darkness
saw a great light” (Is 9:2).
Et tenebrae eum non And the darkness did not

comprehenderunt, idest overcome it, i.e., did not
non vicerunt. Quia overcome him. For in spite
quantumcumque homines of the number of men
peccatis obscurati, invidia darkened by sin, blinded
excaecati, superbia by envy, shadowed over
tenebrosi, contra Christum by pride, who have
pugnaverunt, ut patet ex struggled against Christ
Evangelio, exprobrando (as is plain from the
scilicet, iniurias et Gospel) by upbraiding
contumelias inferendo, et him, heaping insults and
tandem occidendo, non calumnies upon him, and
tamen eum finally killing him,
comprehenderunt; idest non nevertheless they did not
vicerunt eum obscurando, overcome it, i.e., gain the
quin eius claritas per totum victory of so obscuring
mundum fulgeret. Sap. VII, him that his brightness
29: luci comparata invenitur would not shine
prior: illi enim succedit nox, throughout the whole
sapientiam autem, idest world. Wisdom (7:30)
filium Dei incarnatum, non says, “Compared to light,
vincit malitia, Iudaeorum she takes precedence, for
scilicet et haereticorum; night supplants it, but
quia, ut dicitur Sap. X, 12, wisdom,” that is, the
certamen forte dedit illi, ut incarnate Son of God, “is
vinceret, et sciret quoniam not overcome by
omnium potentior est wickedness,” that is, of
sapientia. the Jews and of heretics,
because it says, “She gave
him the prize for his stern
struggle that he might
know that wisdom is
mightier than all else”
(Wis 10:12).
Lectura 4 LECTURE 4
6 ἐγένετο 6 There was

ἄνθρωπος a man sent
ἀπεσταλμένος by God,
παρὰ θεοῦ, ὄνομα whose name
αὐτῷ Ἰωάννης: was John.
7 οὗτος ἦλθεν εἰς 7 He came
μαρτυρίαν, ἵνα as a witness,
μαρτυρήσῃ περὶ that he
τοῦ φωτός, might bear
ἵνα πάντες witness to
πιστεύσωσιν δι' the light,
αὐτοῦ. 8 οὐκ ἦν so that
ἐκεῖνος τὸ φῶς, through him
ἀλλ' ἵνα all men
μαρτυρήσῃ περὶ might
τοῦ φωτός. believe. 8 He
was not the
light,
but [he
came] in
order to bear
witness to
the light.
Supra Evangelista egit de 108 Above, the

verbi divinitate; in parte vero Evangelist considered
ista incipit agere de verbi the divinity of the Word;
incarnatione: et circa hoc duo here he begins to
facit. Primo agit de teste verbi consider the
incarnati seu praecursore; incarnation of the Word.
secundo de adventu verbi, ibi And he does two things
erat lux vera. Circa primum concerning this: first, he
duo facit. Primo describit treats of the witness to
praecursorem in testimonium the incarnate Word, or
venientem; secundo ostendit the precursor; secondly,
eum ad salvandum of the coming of the
insufficientem, ibi non erat ille Word ( 1:9). As to the
lux. first, he does two
things: first, he
describes the precursor
who comes to bear
witness; secondly, he
shows that he was
incapable of the work of
our salvation (1:8).
Praecursorem autem describit He describes the

quadrupliciter. Primo a precursor in four ways.
naturae conditione, cum dicit First, according to his
fuit homo; secundo ab nature, There was a
auctoritate, cum dicit missus man. Secondly, as to
a Deo; tertio ab officii his authority, sent by
idoneitate, cum dicit cui God. I’hirdly, as to his
nomen erat Ioannes; quarto suitability for the office,
ab officii dignitate, ibi hic whose name was John.
venit. Fourthly, as to the
dignity of his office, He
came as a witness.
Considerandum autem est 109 We should note

circa primum, quod statim with respect to the first
cum Evangelista incipit de that, as soon as the
aliquo temporali, mutat Evangelist begins
modum loquendi. Cum enim speaking of something
supra loqueretur de aeternis, temporal, he changes
utebatur hoc verbo erat, quod his manner of speech.
est praeteriti imperfecti, When speaking above of
ostendens per hoc, aeterna eternal things, he used
interminata esse; nunc vero, the word “was” (erat),
cum loquitur de temporalibus, which is the past
utitur hoc verbo, fuit, ad imperfect tense; and
ostendendum quod this indicates that
temporalia sic praeterierunt eternal things are
quod tamen terminantur. without end. But now,
when he is speaking of
temporal things, he
uses “was” (fuit, i.e.,
“has been”); this
indicates temporal
things as having taken
place in the past and
coming to an end there.
Dicit ergo fuit homo; per quod 110 And so he says,

in principio excludit There was a man (Fuit
perversam opinionem homo). This excludes at
haereticorum, contra the very start the
conditionem seu naturam incorrect opinion of
Ioannis, qui, propter id quod certain heretics who
dominus, Matth. c. XI, 10, were in error on the
dicit de Ioanne: hic est de quo condition or nature of
scriptum est: ecce mitto John. They believed that
Angelum meum ante faciem John was an angel in
meam, et etiam Mc. I, 2 dicitur nature, basing
de ipso, opinati sunt quod themselves on the
Ioannes fuisset natura words of the Lord, “I
Angelus. Quod excludens send my messenger [in
Evangelista dicit fuit homo, Greek, angelos] before
natura, non Angelus. Eccle. c. you, who will prepare
VI, 10: scitur quod sit homo, your way” (Mt 11:10);
et quod non possit contra and the same thing is
fortiorem se in iudicio found in Mark (1:2). But
contendere. the Evangelist rejects
this, saying, There was
a man by nature, not an
angel. “The nature of
man is known, and that
he cannot contend in
judgment with one who
is stronger than
himself” (Ecc 6:10).
Convenienter autem homo ad Now it “ is fitting that a

homines mittitur, per quem man be sent to men, for
homines magis alliciuntur, men are more easily
utpote per sibi similem; unde drawn to a man, since
dicitur Hebr. c. VII, 28: lex he is like themselves.
enim homines constituit So in Hebrews (7:28) it
sacerdotes infirmitatem says, “The law appoints
habentes. Poterat enim Deus men, who have
homines gubernare per weakness, priests.” God
Angelos; sed maluit per could have governed
homines, ut ipsorum exemplo men through angels,
magis instruerentur. Et ideo but he preferred men so
Ioannes homo fuit, et non that we could be more
Angelus. instructed by their
example. And so John
was a man, and not an
angel.
Ex auctoritate quidem 11 1 John is described

describitur, cum dicit missus a by his authority when it
Deo. Equidem, licet Ioannes says, sent by God.
natura non fuerit Angelus, fuit Indeed, although John
tamen officio, quia missus a was not an angel in
Deo. Proprium enim nature, he was so by his
Angelorum officium est quod office, because he was
a Deo mittantur, et sint nuntii sent by God. For the
Dei; Hebr. I, 14: omnes sunt distinctive office of
administratorii spiritus in angels is that they are
ministerium missi, unde sent by God and are
Angelus nuntius interpretatur. messengers of God. “All
Possunt ergo homines, qui a are ministering spirits,
Deo ad aliquid annuntiandum sent to serve” (Heb
mittuntur, Angeli dici, iuxta 1:14). Hence it is that
illud Aggaei I, 13: dixit “angel” means
Aggaeus, nuntius domini ex “messenger.” And so
nuntiis domini. men who are sent by
God to announce
something can be called
angels. “Haggai the
messenger of the Lord”
(Hg 1:13).
Requiritur autem ad hoc quod If someone is to bear

aliquis testimonium de Deo witness to God, it is
perhibeat, quod sit a Deo necessary that he be
missus; iuxta illud Rom. X, 15: sent by God. “How can
quomodo praedicabunt nisi they preach unless they
mittantur? Et quia cum a Deo are sent?” as is said in
mittuntur, non sua quaerunt, Romans (10:15). And
sed quae Iesu Christi II Cor. since they are sent by
IV, 5: non enim praedicamus God, they seek the
nosmetipsos, sed Iesum things of Jesus Christ,
Christum: qui vero mittitur a not their own. “We do
seipso, non a Deo, sua not preach ourselves,
quaerit, vel quae sunt but Jesus Christ” (2 Cor
hominis, non autem quae 4:5). On the other hand,
Christi, ideo hic dicitur fuit one who sends himself,
homo missus a Deo: ut and is not sent by God,
intelligas quia non annuntiavit seeks his own things or
nisi divinum, non humanum. those of man, and not
the things of Christ.
And so he says here,
There was a man sent
by God, so that we
would understand that
John proclaimed
something divine, not
human.
Nota autem, quod tripliciter 112 Note that there are

invenimus aliquos missos a three ways in which we
Deo. Scilicet per internam see men sent by God.
inspirationem, sicut Is. XLVIII, First, by an inward
16: et nunc misit me dominus, inspiration. “And now
et spiritus eius; quasi dicat: the Lord God has sent
per interiorem spiritus me, and his spirit” (Is
inspirationem sum a Deo 48:16). As if to say: I
missus. Item, per expressam have been sent by God
et apertam iussionem sive through an inward
corporalem, sive imaginariam. inspiration of the spirit.
Et sic iterum missus est Secondly, by an
Isaias; unde dicit ibid. VI, 8: expressed and clear
audivi vocem domini dicentis: command, perceived by
quem mittam, et quis ibit the bodily senses or the
nobis? Et dixi: ecce ego, mitte imagination. Isaiah was
me. Item, per praelati also sent in this way;
iniunctionem, qui gerit in hoc and so he says, “And I
personam Dei; II Cor. II, 10: heard the voice of the
nam et ego, si quid donavi Lord saying, ‘Whom
propter vos in persona Christi. shall I send, and who
Et inde est quod qui mittuntur will go for us?’ Then I
a praelato, mittuntur a Deo, said, ‘Here I am! Send
sicut missi fuerunt ab me’” (Is 6:8). Thirdly, by
apostolo Barnabas et the order of a prelate,
Timotheus. who acts in the place of
God in this matter. “I
have pardoned in the
person of Christ for
your sake” as it says in
2 Corinthians (2:10).
This is why those who
are sent by a prelate are
sent by God, as
Barnabas and Timothy
were sent by the
Apostle.
Cum autem dicitur hic fuit When it is said here,
homo missus a Deo, There was a man sent
intelligendum est per by God, we should
interiorem inspirationem; vel understand that he was
etiam forte per exteriorem sent by God through an
iussionem a Deo eum missum inward inspiration, or
fuisse. Infra: qui misit me, ipse perhaps even by an
dixit: super quem videris outward command. “He
spiritum descendentem et who sent me to baptize
manentem super eum, hic est with water had said to
qui baptizat in spiritu sancto. me: ‘The man on whom
you see the Spirit come
down and rest is the
one who is to baptize
with the Holy Spirit’ “
(below 1:33).
Per hoc etiam quod dixit fuit 113 We should not

homo missus a Deo, non est understand, There was
intelligendum, sicut quidam a man sent by God, as
haeretici ponebant, credentes some heretics did, who
animas hominum ante corpus believed that from the
fuisse cum Angelis ab initio very beginning human
creatas, et mitti animam souls were created
cuiuscumque, quando without bodies along
nascitur, ad corpus; et quod with the angels, and
Ioannes sit missus ad vitam, that one’s soul is sent
idest eius anima ad corpus; into the body when he
sed quod fuit missus a Deo ad is born, and that John
officium baptizandi et was sent to life, i.e., his
praedicandi. soul was sent to a body.
Rather, we should
understand that he was
sent by God to baptize
and preach.
Ex idoneitate vero 114 John’s fitness is

commendatur, cum dicit cui given when he says,
nomen erat Ioannes. Ad whose name was John.
officium namque testimonii One must be qualified
requiritur idoneitas: nam nisi for the office of bearing
testis sit idoneus, witness, because unless
qualitercumque mittatur ab a witness is qualified,
alio, non est sufficiens then no matter in what
testimonium eius. Homo way he is sent by
autem efficitur idoneus ex another, his testimony
gratia Dei; I Cor. XV, 10: gratia is not acceptable. Now
Dei sum id quod sum; II Cor. a man becomes
III, 6: qui idoneos nos fecit qualified by the grace,
ministros novi testamenti. of God. “By the grace of
Satis ergo congrue God I am what I am” (1
Evangelista idoneitatem Cor 15:10); “who has
praecursoris insinuat ex eius made us fit ministers of
nomine, dicens cui nomen erat a new covenant” (2 Cor
Ioannes, quod interpretatur in 3:6). So, the Evangelist
quo est gratia. appropriately implies
the precursor’s fitness
from his name when he
says, whose name was
John, which is
interpreted, “in whom is
grace.”
Quod quidem nomen non fuit This name was not

frustra sibi impositum, sed ex given to him
divina praeordinatione, et meaninglessly, but by
antequam nasceretur, ut patet divine preordination
Lc. I, 13: et vocabis nomen and before he was born,
eius Ioannem, dixit Angelus as is clear from Luke
ad Zachariam. Unde potest (1:13), “You will name
dicere illud Is. XLIX, 1: him John,” as the angel
dominus ab utero vocavit me; said to Zechariah.
et Eccl. VI, 10: qui futurus est, Hence he can say what
iam vocatum est nomen eius. is said in Isaiah (49:1),
Quod etiam ostendit “The Lord called me
Evangelista ex modo loquendi, from the womb”; “He
cum dicit erat, quantum ad who will be, his name is
Dei praeordinationem. already called” (Ecc
6:10). The Evangelist
also indicates this from
his manner of speaking,
when he says was, as to
God’s preordination.
Ex officii etiam dignitate 115 Then he is

describitur, cum dicit hic venit described by the dignity
in testimonium; ubi primo of his office. First, his
ponitur officium; secundo office is mentioned.
ratio officii, ibi ut testimonium Secondly, the reason for
perhiberet de lumine. his office, to bear
witness to the light.
Officium autem huius est 116 Now his office is to

testificandi; unde dicit hic bear witness; hence he
venit in testimonium. says, He came as a
witness.
Ubi notandum est quod Deus Here it should be

et homines, et omnia quae remarked that God
facit, propter se operatur; makes men, and
Prov. XVI, 4: universa propter everything else he
semetipsum operatus est makes, for himself. “The
dominus; non quidem ut Lord made all things for
aliquid ei accrescat, quia himself” (Prv 16:4).
bonorum nostrorum non eget, Not, indeed, to add
sed ut eius bonitas anything to himself,
manifestetur in omnibus a se since he has no need of
factis, inquantum per ea quae our good, but so that
facta sunt, intellecta his goodness might be
conspiciuntur; sempiterna eius made manifest in all of
virtus, et divinitas; Rom. I, 20. the things made by him,
Fit ergo quaelibet creatura in in that “his eternal
testimonium Dei, inquantum power and divinity are
quaelibet creatura est clearly seen, being
testimonium quoddam divinae understood through the
bonitatis. Et quidem things that are
magnitudo creaturae made”(Rom 1:20).
testimonium quoddam est Thus, each creature is
divinae virtutis et made as a witness to
omnipotentiae; pulchritudo God in so far as each
vero divinae sapientiae. creature is a certain
Speciali vero modo ordinantur witness of the divine
a Deo quidam homines; et non goodness. So, the
solum naturaliter inquantum vastness of creation is a
sunt, sed etiam spiritualiter witness to God’s power
per sua bona opera Deo and omnipotence; and
testimonium ferunt. Unde its beauty is a witness
omnes sancti viri testes sunt to the divine wisdom.
Dei, inquantum propter eorum But certain men are
bona opera Deus gloriosus ordained by God in a
apud homines efficitur; Matth. special way, so that
V, 16: sic luceat lux vestra they hear witness to
coram hominibus, ut videant God not only naturally
opera vestra bona, et by their existence, but
glorificent patrem vestrum qui also spiritually by their
in caelis est. Sed tamen illi, good works. Hence all
qui participant non solum holy men are witnesses
dona Dei in seipsis per to God inasmuch as
gratiam Dei bene operando, God is glorified among
sed etiam diffundunt ad alios men by their good
dicendo, movendo et works. “Let your light
exhortando, specialius sunt so shine before men,
testes Dei. Is. XLIII, 7: omnem that they may see your
qui invocat nomen meum, in good works, and glorify
laudem meam creavi illum. your Father who is in
Ioannes ergo venit in heaven” (Mt 5:16). But
testimonium ad hoc, ut in those who not only
alios diffunderet dona Dei, et share in God’s gifts in
annuntiaret laudem. themselves by acting
well through the grace
of God, but also spread
them to others by their
teaching, influencing
and encouraging
others, are in a more
special way witnesses
to God. “Everyone who
calls upon my name, I
have created for my
glory” (Is 43:7). And so
John came as a witness
in order to spread to
others the gifts of God
and to proclaim his
praise.
Hoc autem officium Ioannis, 117 This office of John,

scilicet testificandi, est valde that of bearing witness,
magnum, quia nullus potest is very great, because
de aliquo testificari, nisi eo no one can testify about
modo quo illud participat; something except in the
infra III, 11: quod scimus manner in which he has
loquimur, et quod vidimus shared in it. “We know
testamur. Unde testimonium of what we speak, and
perhibere divinae veritati, we bear witness of what
indicium est cognitionis ipsius we see” (below 3:11).
veritatis. Et inde est quod Hence, to bear witness
etiam Christus hoc officium to divine truth indicates
habuit; infra XVIII, 37: ad hoc a knowledge of that
veni, et in hoc natus sum, ut truth. So Christ also
testimonium perhibeam had this office: “I have
veritati. Sed aliter Christus, et come into the world for
aliter Ioannes. Christus enim this, to testify to the
ut ipsum lumen truth” (below 18:37).
comprehendens, immo ipsum But Christ testifies in
lumen existens; Ioannes vero, one way and John in
ut ipsum lumen participans another. Christ bears
tantum. Et ideo Christus witness as the light who
perfecte testimonium comprehends all things,
perhibet, et perfecte indeed, as the existing
manifestat veritatem, Ioannes light itself. John bears
vero et alii sancti inquantum witness only as
ipsam veritatem divinam participating in that
participant. Est ergo magnum light. And so Christ
officium Ioannis et ex gives testimony in a
participatione divini luminis et perfect manner and
ex similitudine ad Christum, perfectly manifests the
qui hoc officio usus fuit. Is. LV, truth, while John and
4: ecce testem populis dedi other holy men give
eum, ducem ac praeceptorem testimony in so far as
gentibus. they have a share of
divine truth. John’s
office, therefore, is
great both because of
his participation in the
divine light and because
of a likeness to Christ,
who carried out this
office. “I made him a
witness to the peoples,
a leader and a
commander of the
nations” (Is 55:4).
Ratio autem huius officii 118 The purpose of this

ponitur, cum dicit ut office is given when he
testimonium perhiberet de says, that he might
lumine. Ubi sciendum est, bear witness to the
quod alicui rei testimonium light. Here we should
perhibetur duplici de causa. understand that there
Una causa potest esse ex are two reasons for
parte rei, cui testimonium bearing witness about
adhibetur, puta si est dubia, something. One reason
vel incerta; alia causa est ex can be on the part of
parte audientium, si sunt duri the thing with which the
et tardi corde ad credendum. witness is concerned;
Ioannes vero in testimonium for example, if there is
quidem venit non propter some doubt or
ipsam rem, cui testimonium uncertainty about that
perhibebat, quia lumen erat. thing. The other is on
Unde dicit ut testimonium the part of those who
perhiberet de lumine, non de hear it; if they are hard
re obscura sed de re of heart and slow to
manifesta. Venit ergo in believe. John came as a
testimonium propter ipsos witness, not because of
quibus testificabatur, ut the thing about which
omnes crederent per eum, he bore witness, for it
scilicet Ioannem. Nam sicut was light. Hence he
lumen non solum in seipso et says, bear witness to
per se visibile est, sed etiam the light, i.e., not to
omnia alia per ipsum videri something obscure, but
possunt, ita verbum Dei non to something clear. He
solum in se lumen est, sed came, therefore, to bear
etiam est omnia manifestans witness on account of
quae manifestantur. Cum enim those to whom he
unumquodque manifestetur testified, so that
per suam formam et through him (i.e., John)
cognoscatur, omnes autem all men might believe.
formae sint formae sint per For as light is not only
verbum, quod est ars plena visible in itself and of
rationum viventium: est ergo itself, but through it all
lumen, non solum in se, sed else can be seen, so the
omnia manifestans; Eph. V, Word of God is not only
13: omne quod manifestatur, light in himself, but he
lumen est. makes known all things
that are known. For
since a thing is made
known and understood
through its form, and all
forms exist through the
Word, who is the art full
of living forms, the
Word is light not only in
himself, but as making
known all things; “all
that appears is light”
(Eph 5:13).
Congrue autem Evangelista And so it was fitting for

filium dicit lumen, quia venit the Evangelist to call
lumen ad revelationem the Son “light,” because
gentium, Lc. II, 32. Supra he came as “a revealing
autem dixit filium Dei verbum, light to the Gentiles”
quo pater dicit se, et omnem (Lk 2:32). Above, he
creaturam. Unde cum proprie called the Son of God
sit lux hominum, et hic the Word, by which the
Evangelista de eo agat Father expresses
secundum quod venit ad himself and every
salutem hominum creature. Now since he
procurandam, congrue is, properly speaking,
intermittit hoc nomen verbum, the light of men, and
cum loquitur de filio, et dicit the Evangelist is
illud lumen. considering him here as
coming to accomplish
the salvation of men, he
fittingly interrupts the
use of the name “Word”
when speaking of the
Son, and says, “light.”
Sed si istud lumen sufficiens 119 But if that light is

est per se omnia manifestare, adequate of itself to
non solum seipsum, quid ergo make known all things,
indigebat ut testificaretur? and not only itself, what
Non ergo necessaria sunt need does it have of any
testimonia Ioannis et witness? This was the
prophetarum de Christo. objection of the
Respondeo dicendum, quod Manichaeans, who
haec obiectio est wanted to destroy the
Manichaeorum, qui volunt Old Testament.
destruere vetus testamentum. Consequently, the
Unde a sanctis contra hos saints gave many
multiplex ratio assignatur, reasons, against their
quare Christus testimonium opinion, why Christ
prophetarum voluit habere. wanted to have the
testimony of the
prophets.
Origenes quidem assignat tres Origen gives three

rationes ad hoc. Primo reasons. The first is that
quidem quod Deus vult God wanted to have
aliquos testes habere, non certain witnesses, not
quod ipse eorum testimonio because he needed
indigeat, sed ut eos nobilitet their testimony, but to
quos constituit testes; sicut ennoble those whom he
videmus etiam in ordine appointed witnesses.
universi, quod Deus producit Thus we see in the
aliquos effectus per causas order of the universe
medias, non quia ipse that God produces
impotens sit ad eos immediate certain effects by
producendos, sed quia ad means of intermediate
nobilitandas ipsas causas causes, not because he
medias eis causalitatis himself is unable to
dignitatem communicare produce them without
dignatur. Sic ergo, etsi Deus these intermediaries,
potuerit omnes homines but he deigns to confer
illuminare per se et in oil them the dignity of
cognitionem suam adducere, causality because he
ut tamen debitus ordo wishes to-ennoble
servaretur in rebus, et ut these intermediate
aliquos homines nobilitaret, causes. Similarly, even
voluit divinam cognitionem ad though God could have
homines per aliquos homines enlightened all men by
devenire. Is. XLIII, 10: vere himself and lead them
vos testes mei estis, dicit to a knowledge of
dominus. himself, yet to preserve
due order in things and
to ennoble certain men,
he willed that divine
knowledge reach men
through certain other
men. “‘You are my
witnesses,’ says the
Lord” (Is 43:10).
Secunda ratio est, quia A second reason is that

Christus illuxit mundo per Christ was a light to the
miracula: quae quidem, quia world through his
in tempore facta erant, miracles. Yet, because
temporaliter transierunt, they were performed in
neque pervenerunt ad omnes. time, they passed away
Verba vero prophetarum with time and did not
commendata Scripturae, reach everyone. But the
poterant non solum ad words of the prophets,
praesentes, sed etiam ad preserved in Scripture,
posteros pervenire. Voluit could reach not only
ergo dominus homines ad those present, but
cognitionem verbi venire per could also reach those
testimonia prophetarum, ut to come after. Hence
non solum praesentes, sed the Lord willed that men
etiam futuri de ipso come to a knowledge of
illuminarentur; et ideo the Word through the
signanter dicit ut omnes testimony of the
crederent per illum, non solum prophets, in order that
praesentes, sed etiam futuri. not only those present,
but also men yet lo
come, might be
enlightened about him.
So it says expressly, so
that through him all
men might believe, i.e.,
not only those present,
but also future
generations.
Tertia ratio est, quia homines The third reason is that

sunt diversae conditionis, et not all men are in the
diversimode ad veritatis same condition, and all
cognitionem perducti et are not led or disposed
dispositi. Quidam namque ad to a knowledge of the
veritatis cognitionem magis truth in the same way.
perducuntur per signa et For some are brought to
miracula; quidam vero magis a knowledge of the
per sapientiam; unde I Cor. I, truth by signs and
22: Iudaei signa petunt, et miracles; others are
Graeci sapientiam quaerunt. brought more by
Ut ergo dominus omnibus wisdom. “The Jews
ostenderet viam salutis, require signs, and the
utramque viam pandere Greeks seek wisdom” (1
voluit, scilicet signorum et Cor 1:22). And so the
sapientiae, ut qui non Lord, m order to show
perducerentur ad viam salutis the path of salvation to
per miracula in veteri et novo all, willed both ways to
testamento facta, saltem per be open. i.e., the way of
viam sapientiae, ut in signs and the way of
prophetis et aliis sacrae wisdom, so that those
Scripturae libris, ad veritatis who would not be
cognitionem perveniant. brought to the path of
salvation by the
miracles of the Old and
New Testaments, might
be brought to a
knowledge of the truth
by the path of wisdom,
as in the prophets and
other books of Sacred
Scripture.
Quarta ratio est Chrysostomi, A fourth reason, given

quia scilicet homines infirmi by Chrysostom, is that
intellectus, veritatem et certain men of weak
cognitionem Dei seipsa capere understanding are
non possunt; unde voluit Deus unable to grasp the
eis condescendere et truth and knowledge of
illuminare quosdam homines God by themselves. And
de divinis prae aliis, ut ab eis so the Lord chose to
humano modo cognitionem de come down to them and
divinis acciperent, quorum to enlighten certain
cognitionem in seipsis men before others
attingere non valebant. Et about divine matters, so
ideo dicit ut omnes crederent that these others might
per illum. Quasi dicat: venit in obtain from them in a
testimonium, non propter human way the
ipsum lumen, sed propter knowledge of divine
ipsos homines, ut scilicet things they could not
crederent per illum. Sic ergo reach by themselves.
patet idonea esse et And so he says, that
congruentia testimonia through him all men
prophetarum, et ideo might believe. As if to
recipienda utpote nobis say: he came as a
necessaria ad veritatis witness, not for the
cognitionem. sake of the light, but for
the sake of men, so that
through him all men
might believe. And so it
is plain that the
testimonies of the
prophets are fitting and
proper, and should be
received as something
needed by us for the
knowledge of the truth.
Dicit autem crederent quia est 120 He says believe,

duplex participatio divini because there are two
luminis. Una scilicet perfecta, ways of participating in
quae est in gloria, Ps. XXXV, v. the divine light. One is
10: in lumine tuo videbimus the perfect participation
lumen, alia est imperfecta, which is present in
quae scilicet habetur per glory, “In your light, we
fidem, quia venit in shall see the light” (Ps
testimonium. De istis duobus 3 5:10). The other in
modis dicitur I Cor. XIII, 12: imperfect and is
videmus nunc per speculum in acquired through faith,
aenigmate; tunc autem facie since he came as a
ad faciem; et ibidem dicitur: witness. Of these two
nunc cognosco ex parte; tunc ways it is said, “Now we
autem cognoscam sicut et see through a mirror, in
cognitus sum. Istorum autem an obscure manner, but
modorum prior est modus then we shall see face
participationis per fidem; quia to face” (1 Cor 13:12).
per ipsam pervenitur ad And in the same place
speciem. Unde Is. VII, 9, we find, “Now I know in
secundum aliam litteram: nisi part, but then I shall
credideritis, non intelligetis; know even as I am
ubi nostra habet: si non known.” Among these
credideritis, non permanebitis. two ways, the first is the
II Cor. c. III, 18: nos autem way of participation
omnes revelata facie gloriam through faith, because
domini speculantes, in through it we are
eamdem imaginem, scilicet brought to vision. So in
quam perdidimus, Isaiah (7:9) where our
transformamur a claritate in version has, “If you do
claritatem; Glossa: a claritate not believe, you will not
fidei, in claritatem speciei. persist,” another
version has, “If you do
not believe, you will not
understand.” “All of us,
gazing on the Lord’s
glory with unveiled
faces, are being
transformed from glory
to glory into his very
image,” which we have
lost (2 Cor 3:18). “From
the glory of faith to the
glory of vision,” as a
Gloss says.
Dicit ergo ut omnes crederent And so he says, that

per illum; non ut omnes through him all men
viderent illum perfecte statim, might believe, not as
sed ut primo per fidem though all would see
credendo, et postea per him perfectly at once,
speciem in patria perfruendo. but first they would
believe through faith,
and later enjoy him
through vision in
heaven.
Dicit autem per eum, ut 121 He says through

ostendat differentiam eius ad him, to show that John
Christum. Christus enim venit, is different than Christ.
ut omnes crederent in eum; For Christ came so that
infra VII, v. 38: qui credit in all might believe in him.
me, sicut dicit Scriptura, “He who believes in me,
flumina de ventre eius fluent as Scripture says, “Out
aquae vivae. Ioannes vero ut of his heart shall flow
omnes crederent, non quidem rivers of living water”
in eum, sed in Christum per (below 7:38). John, on
eum. the other hand, came
that all men might
believe, not in him, but
in Christ through him.
Sed contra. Non omnes One may object that not

crediderunt per illum. Si ergo all have believed. So if
venit ut omnes crederent per John came to that all
illum, frustra venit. might believe through
Respondeo dicendum, quod him, he failed. I answer
quantum est ex parte Dei that both on the part of
mittentis, et ex parte Ioannis God, who sent John,
venientis, sufficiens modus and of John, who came,
adhibitus est omnibus the method used is
perveniendi ad finem; sed ex adequate to bring all to
parte eorum qui oculos suos the truth. But on the
statuerunt declinare in terram, part of those “who have
et noluerunt videre ipsum fixed their eyes on the
lumen, defectus fuit, quia non ground” (Ps 16:11 ),
omnes crediderunt. and refused to see the
light, there was a
failure, because all did
not believe.
Licet autem Ioannes, de quo 122 Now although
tot dicta sunt, et quod missus John, of whom so much
a Deo, magnus sit, nihilominus has been said, even
tamen eius adventus non est including that he was
sufficiens hominibus ad sent by God, is an
salutem; quia salus hominis in eminent person, his
hoc consistit, quod participet coming is not sufficient
ipsam lucem. Unde, et si to save men, because
Ioannes lux fuisset, the salvation of man lies
suffecisset hominibus ad in participating in the
salutem eius adventus; sed light. If John had been
ipse non erat lux; unde dicit the light, his coming
non erat ille lux. Et ideo would have sufficed to
necessaria erat lux, quae save men; but he was
sufficeret hominibus ad not the light. So he
salutem. says, he was not the
light. Consequently, a
light was needed that
would suffice to save
men.
Vel aliter. Ioannes venit ut Or, we could look at it

testimonium perhiberet de another way. John came
lumine. Consuetum est autem to bear witness to the
testificantem esse maioris light. Now it is the
auctoritatis, quam ille cui custom that the one
perhibet testimonium. Ne ergo who testifies is of
credatur Ioannem esse greater authority than
maioris auctoritatis, quam the one for whom he
Christus, dicit Evangelista non bears witness. So, lest
erat ille lux, sed ut John be considered to
testimonium perhiberet de have greater authority
lumine. Testatur enim non than Christ, the
quia maior, sed quia notior, Evangelist says, he was
etiamsi sit minor. not the light, but he
came in order to bear
witness to the light. For
he bears witness not
because he is greater,
but because he is better
known, even though he
is not as great.
Sed quaeritur de hoc quod 123 There is a difficulty

dicit non erat ille lux. Contra about his saying, he
dicitur Eph. V, 8: eratis was not the light.
aliquando tenebrae, nunc Conflicting with this is,
autem lux in domino; et Matth. “You were at one time
V, 14: vos estis lux mundi. darkness, but now you
Sunt ergo Ioannes, et are light in the Lord”
apostoli, et omnes boni, lux. (Eph 5:8); and “You are
the light of the world”
(Mt 5:14). Therefore,
John and the apostles
and all good men are a
light.
Respondeo. Quidam dicunt I answer that some say

quod Ioannes non erat lux that John was not the
cum articulo, quia hoc est light, because this
solius Dei proprium; sed si lux belongs to God alone.
ponatur sine articulo, erat But if “light” is taken
Ioannes et omnes sancti facti without the article, then
lux. Quod est dictu: filius Dei John and all holy men
est lux per essentiam, were made lights. The
Ioannes vero et omnes sancti meaning is this: the Son
per participationem. Et ideo of God is light by his
quia Ioannes participabat very essence; but John
verum lumen, congruenter and all the saints are
testimonium perhibebat de light by participation.
lumine: ignis enim So, because John
convenientius manifestatur participated in the true
per aliquod ignitum quam per light, it was fitting that
aliquid aliud, et color per he bear witness to the
coloratum. light; for fire is better
exhibited by something
afire than by anything
else, and color by
something colored.
Lectura 5 LECTURE 5
9 ἦν τὸ φῶς τὸ 9 He [the Word]
ἀληθινόν, was the true
ὃ φωτίζει πάντα light,
ἄνθρωπον, which
ἐρχόμενον εἰς enlightens
τὸν κόσμον. every man
10 ἐν τῷ coming into
κόσμῳ ἦν, καὶ ὁ this world.
κόσμος δι' 10 He was in
αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, the world, and
καὶ ὁ κόσμος through him
αὐτὸν οὐκ the world was
ἔγνω. made,
and the world
did not know
him.
Superius egit Evangelista 124 Above, the Evangelist

de praecursore, et teste considered the precursor
verbi incarnati; in parte and his witness to the
vero ista agit de ipso verbo incarnate Word; in the
incarnato: et circa hoc tria present section he
facit. Primo ostendit considers the incarnate
adventus verbi Word himself. As to this he
necessitatem; secundo ex does three things. First, he
adventu verbi collatam shows why it was
nobis utilitatem, ibi in necessary for the Word to
propria venit; tertio come. Secondly, the
veniendi modum, ibi et benefit we received from
verbum caro factum est. the coming of the Word
(1:11). And thirdly, the
way he came (1:14).
Necessitas autem adventus The necessity for the

verbi videtur esse defectus Word’s coming is seen be
divinae cognitionis, quae in the lack of divine
mundo erat. Unde hanc knowledge in the world. He
necessitatem sui adventus points out this need for his
assignat, dicens, infra coming when he says, “For
XVIII, 37: in hoc natus sum, this was I born, and I
et ad hoc veni. Ad came into the world for
insinuandum ergo hunc this, to testify to the truth”
divinae cognitionis (below 18:37). To indicate
defectum, duo facit this lack of divine
Evangelista. Primo ostendit knowledge, the Evangelist
quod iste defectus non est does two things. First, he
ex parte Dei, neque ex shows that this lack does
defectu verbi; secundo not pertain to God or the
ostendit quod est ex parte Word. Secondly, that it
hominum, ibi et mundus does pertain to men (v
eum non cognovit. 10b).
Quod autem non fuerit He shows in three ways

defectus ex parte Dei et that there was no defect in
verbi, quin homines Deum God or in the Word that
cognoscerent et prevented men from
illuminarentur a verbo, knowing God and from
ostendit ex tribus. Primo ex being enlightened by the
ipsius divinae lucis Word. First, from the
efficacia, quia erat lux vera, efficacy of the divine light
quae illuminat omnem itself, because He was the
hominem venientem in hunc true light, which
mundum; secundo ex ipsius enlightens every man
divinae lucis praesentia, coming into this world.
quia in mundo erat; tertio Secondly, from the
ex eius evidentia, quia presence of the divine
mundus per ipsum factus light, because He was in
est. Non fuit ergo defectus the world. Thirdly, from
divinae cognitionis in the obviousness of the
mundo ex parte verbi, quia light, because through
efficax est. Unde primo him the world was made.
ostendit rationem huius So the lack of divine
efficaciae, quia erat lux knowledge in the world
vera; secundo ipsam eius was not due to the Word,
efficaciam, quia illuminat because it is sufficient.
omnem hominem venientem First, he shows the nature
in hunc mundum. of this efficiency, that is,
He was the true light.
Secondly, its very
efficiency, which
enlightens every man.
Est enim efficax divinum 125 The divine Word is
verbum ad illuminandum, efficacious in enlightening
quia erat lux vera. because He was the true
Quomodo autem verbum light. How the Word is
sit lux, et quomodo sit lux light, and how he is the
hominum, quia supra satis light of men need not be
explanatum est, discussed again, because
superfluum est ad it was sufficiently
praesens reiterare. Istud explained above. What we
tamen ad praesens est must discuss at present is
dicendum, quomodo sit lux how he is the true light. To
vera. Notandum est ergo explain this, we should
ad huiusmodi evidentiam, note that in Scripture the
quod verum in Scriptura “true” is contrasted with
tribus opponitur. Aliquando three things. Sometimes it
enim dividitur contra is contrasted with the
falsum, sicut illud Eph. IV, false, as in “Put an end to
25: deponentes lying, and let everyone
mendacium, loquimini speak the truth” (Eph
veritatem. Aliquando autem 4:25). Sometimes it is
dividitur contra figurale, contrasted with what is
sicut illud infra I, 17: lex figurative, as in “The law
per Moysen data est; gratia was given through Moses;
et veritas per Iesum grace and truth have come
Christum facta est, quia through Jesus Christ”
veritas figurarum legis (below 1:17), because the
facta est per Christum. truth of the figures
Aliquando vero dividitur contained in the law was
contra participans, sicut fulfilled by Christ.
illud I Ioan. ult., 20: ut Sometimes it is contrasted
simus in vero filio eius; qui with what is something by
scilicet non est filius per participation, as in “that
participationem. we may be in his true Son”
(1 Jn 5:20), who is not his
Son by participation.
Fuit autem ante adventum Before the Word came

verbi in mundo quaedam there was in the world a
lux, quam scilicet certain light which the
philosophi se habere philosophers prided
iactabant; sed haec quidem themselves on having; but
falsa fuit, quia, ut dicitur this was a false light,
Rom. I, 21: evanuerunt in because as is said, “They
cogitationibus suis, et became stultified in their
obscuratum est insipiens speculations, and their
cor eorum; dicentes enim foolish hearts were
se esse sapientes, stulti darkened; claiming to be
facti sunt; Ier. X, 14: stultus wise, they became fools”
factus est omnis homo a (Rom 1:21); “Every man is
scientia sua. Fuit etiam made foolish by his
quaedam alia lux, quam knowledge” (Jer 10:14).
gloriabantur se habere There was another light
Iudaei ex doctrina legis; from the teaching of the
sed haec quidem lux erat law which the Jews
lux figuralis; Hebr. X, 1: boasted of having; but this
umbram habens lex was a symbolic light, “The
futurorum bonorum, non law has a shadow of the
ipsam imaginem rerum. good things to come, not
Erat etiam in Angelis et in the image itself of them”
sanctis hominibus lux (Heb 10:1). There was also
quaedam, inquantum a certain light in the
specialiori modo per angels and in holy men in
gratiam Deum so far as they knew God in
cognoscebant; sed haec a more special way by
lux participata erat; Iob grace; but this was a
XXV, 3: super quem non participated light, “Upon
resplendet lumen illius? whom does his light not
Quasi dicat: quicumque shine?” (Jb 25:3), which is
lucidi sunt, intantum lucent like saying: Whoever shine,
inquantum participant shine to the extent that
lumen illius, idest Dei. they participate in his
light, i.e., God’s light.
Sed verbum Dei non erat But the Word of God was
lux falsa, non figuralis, non not a false light, nor a
participata, sed lux vera, symbolic light, nor a
idest per essentiam suam. participated light, but the
Et ideo dicit erat lux vera. true light, i.e., light by his
essence. Therefore he
says, He was the true
light.
In quo quidem excluditur 126 This excludes two
duplex error, scilicet errors. First, that of
Photini, qui Christum Photinus, who believed
opinatus est ex virgine that Christ derived his
initium sumpsisse. Et ideo beginning from the Virgin.
ne aliquis hoc suspicari So, lest anyone suppose
posset, Evangelista this, the Evangelist,
loquens de incarnatione speaking of the
verbi, dicit erat lux vera, incarnation of the Word,
scilicet ab aeterno, non says, He was the true
solum ante virginem, sed light, i.e., eternally, not
ante omnem creaturam. only before the Virgin, but
Excluditur etiam error Arii before every creature. This
et Origenis dicentium also excludes the error of
Christum non fuisse verum Arius and Origen; they said
Deum, sed per that Christ was not true
participationem tantum. God, but God by
Quod si verum esset, non participation. If this were
esset lux vera, ut so, he could not be the
Evangelista dicit. Sicut true light, as the
enim dicitur I Io. I, 5: Deus Evangelist says here, and
lux est, non per as in “God is light” (1 Jn
participationem, sed lux 1:5), i.e., not by
vera. Si ergo verbum erat participation, but the true
lux vera, manifestum est light. So if the Word was
illud esse Deum verum. the true light, it is plain
that he is true God. Now it
is clear how the divine
Word is effective in
causing divine knowledge.
Patet ergo ratio efficaciae 127 The effectiveness or

divini verbi ad divinam efficiency of the Word lies
cognitionem causandam. in the fact that he
Efficacia autem ipsius verbi enlightens every man
est, quia illuminat omnem coming into this world.
hominem venientem. Omne For everything which is
enim quod est per what it is by participation
participationem, derivatur is derived from that which
ab eo quod est per is such by its essence; just
essentiam suam tale; ut as everything afire is so by
omne ignitum est hoc per participation in fire, which
participationem ignis, qui is fire by its very essence.
est ignis per suam Then since the Word is the
naturam. Quia ergo verbum true light by his very
est lux vera per suam essence, then everything
naturam, oportet quod that shines must do so
omne lucens luceat per through him, insofar as it
ipsum, inquantum ipsum participates in him. And so
participat. Ipse ergo he enlightens every man
illuminat omnem hominem coming into this world.
venientem in hunc
mundum.
Sciendum est autem ad 128 To understand this,

horum intellectum, quod we should know that
mundus in Scriptura “world” is taken in three
accipitur tribus modis. ways in Scripture.
Aliquando enim ratione Sometimes, from the point
suae creationis, sicut hic of view of its creation, as
inferius ait Evangelista when the Evangelist says
mundus per ipsum factus here, “through him the
est. Aliquando autem world was made” (v 10).
ratione suae perfectionis, Sometimes, from the point
ad quam per Christum of view of its perfection,
pertingit, sicut illud II Cor. which it reaches through
V, 19: Deus erat in Christo Christ, as in “God was, in
mundum reconcilians sibi. Christ, reconciling the
Aliquando ratione suae world to himself” (2 Cor
perversitatis sicut illud I Io. 5:19). And sometimes it is
V, 19: totus mundus in taken from the point of
maligno positus est. view of its perversity, as in
“The whole world lies
under the power of the evil
one” (1 Jn 5:19).
Illuminatio seu illuminari On the other hand,

per verbum, intelligitur “enlightenment” or “being
dupliciter: scilicet de enlightened” by the Word
lumine naturalis is taken in two ways. First,
cognitionis, de quo dicitur in relation to the light of
in Ps. IV, 7: signatum est natural knowledge, as in
super nos lumen vultus tui, “The light of your
domine. Item de lumine countenance, O Lord, is
gratiae, de quo dicitur Is. marked upon us” (Ps 4:7).
LX, 1: illuminare, Secondly, as the light of
Ierusalem. grace, “Be enlightened, O
Jerusalem” (Is 60:1).
His duabus distinctionibus 129 With these two sets of

suppositis, facile solvitur distinctions in mind, it is
dubitatio quae ex istis easy to solve a difficulty
oritur. Cum enim dicit which arises here. For
Evangelista illuminat when the Evangelist says,
omnem hominem, videtur he enlightens every man,
subesse falsum, cum adhuc this seems to be false,
multi sint in mundo because there are still
tenebrosi. Si ergo nos, many in darkness in the
memores dictarum world. However, if we bear
distinctionum, accipiamus in mind these distinctions
mundum secundum quod and take “world” from the
ponitur ratione suae standpoint of its creation,
creationis; et illuminare, and “enlighten” as
secundum quod accipitur referring to the light of
pro lumine naturalis natural reason, the
rationis, verbum statement of the
Evangelistae nullam habet Evangelist is beyond
calumniam: quia homines reproach. For all men
omnes venientes in hunc coming into this visible
mundum sensibilem world are enlightened by
illuminantur lumine the light of natural
naturalis cognitionis ex knowledge through
participatione huius verae participating in this true
lucis, a qua derivatur light, which is the source
quicquid de lumine of all the light of natural
naturalis cognitionis knowledge participated in
participatur ab hominibus. by men.
Utitur autem Evangelista When the Evangelist

hoc modo loquendi, ut speaks of man coming
dicat venientem in hunc into this world, he does
mundum, non quod not mean that men had
homines vixissent aliquo lived for a certain time
temporis spatio extra outside the world and then
mundum, et postea came into the world, since
venirent in mundum, cum this is contrary to the
hoc sit contra sententiam teaching of the Apostle in
apostoli, Rom. IX, 11: cum Romans (9:11), “When the
enim nondum nati essent, children were not yet born
aut aliquid egissent boni, nor had they done
aut mali (ut secundum anything good or evil.”
electionem propositum Dei Therefore, since they had
maneret), non ex operibus, done nothing before they
sed ex vocante dictum est were born, it is plain that
et cetera. Unde cum non the soul does not exist
egissent aliquid antequam prior to its union with the
nati essent, manifestum est body. He refers to every
quod anima non est man coming into this
antequam corpori world, to show that men
coniungatur. Dicit ergo are enlightened by God
venientem in hunc with respect to that
mundum, ut ostendat quod according to which they
homines illuminantur a came into the world, i.e.,
Deo, secundum hoc scilicet with respect to the
quod veniunt in mundum, intellect, which is
idest secundum intellectum something external [to the
qui est ab extrinseco. world]. For man is
Homo enim ex duplici constituted of a twofold
natura constituitur, nature, bodily and
corporali scilicet et intellectual. According to
intellectuali: et secundum his bodily or sensible
corporalem quidem nature, man is enlightened
naturam, seu sensibilem, by a bodily and sensible
illuminatur homo lumine light; but according to his
corporeo et sensibili; soul and intellectual
secundum animam vero et nature, he is enlightened
intellectualem naturam, by an intellectual and
illuminatur lumine spiritual light. Now man
intellectuali et spirituali. does not come into this
Cum ergo homo, secundum world according to his
naturam corporalem non bodily nature, but under
veniat in hunc mundum, this aspect, he is from the
sed sit ex mundo, sed world. His intellectual
secundum intellectualem nature is derived from a
naturam, quae est ab source external to the
extrinseco, ut dictum est, world, as has been said,
sit a Deo per creationem, i.e., from God through
unde dicitur Eccle. XII, 7: creation; as in “Until all
donec omnis caro in suam flesh returns to its origin,
revertatur originem, et and the spirit is directed to
spiritus dirigatur ad Deum God, who made it” (Ecc
qui fecit illum: ostendit 12:7). For these reasons,
Evangelista quod haec when the Evangelist
illuminatio est secundum speaks of every man
illud quod est ab coming into this world, he
extrinseco, scilicet is showing that this
secundum intellectum, cum enlightenment refers to
dicit venientem in hunc what is from without, that
mundum. is, the intellect.
Si vero accipiatur illuminari 130 If we understand

pro lumine gratiae, sic hoc “enlightenment” with
quod dicitur, illuminat respect to the light of
omnem hominem potest grace, then he enlightens
tripliciter exponi. Uno every man may be
modo, secundum Origenem explained in three ways.
in illa Hom. aquila grandis, The first way is by Origen
exponitur hoc modo, ut in his homily, “The great
accipiamus mundum eagle,” and is this. “World”
ratione suae perfectionis, is understood from the
ad quam perducitur homo point of view of its
reconciliatus per Christum. perfection, which man
Et tunc dicitur illuminat attains by his
omnem hominem reconciliation through
venientem, per fidem, in Christ. And so we have, he
hunc mundum, spiritualem, enlightens every man
scilicet Ecclesiam coming, by faith, into this
illuminatam lumine gratiae. world, i.e., this spiritual
world, that is, the Church,
which has been
enlightened by the light of
grace.
Alio modo, secundum Chrysostom explains it

Chrysostomum, exponitur, another way. He takes
accipiendo mundum “world” under the aspect
ratione suae creationis, et of creation. Then the sense
talis est sensus: illuminat, is: He enlightens, i.e., the
scilicet verbum, quantum Word does, in so far as it
de se est, quia ex parte sua depends on him, because
nulli deest, imo vult omnes he fails no one, but rather
salvos fieri, et ad “wants all men to be
agnitionem veritatis venire, saved, and to come to the
ut dicitur I Tim. II, 4, knowledge of the truth” (1
omnem hominem Tim 2:4); every man
venientem, idest qui coming, i.e., who is born
nascitur in hunc mundum into this sensible world. If
sensibilem. Quod si aliquis anyone is not enlightened,
non illuminatur, ex parte it is due to himself,
hominis est, avertentis se a because he turns from the
lumine illuminante. light that enlightens.
Tertio modo, secundum Augustine explains it a

Augustinum, exponitur, ut third way. For him, “every”
ly omnem sit distributio has a restricted
accommoda. Ut sit sensus application, so that the
illuminat omnem hominem sense is: He enlightens
venientem in hunc every man coming into
mundum, non simpliciter, this world, not every man
sed omnem hominem, qui universally, but every man
illuminatur, scilicet quia who is enlightened, since
nullus illuminatur nisi a no one is enlightened
verbo. Dicit ergo, except by the Word.
secundum Augustinum, According to Augustine,
venientem, ut assignet the Evangelist says,
rationem quare homo coming into this world, in
indiget illuminari; order to give the reason
accipiendo tamen mundum why man needs to be
ratione suae perversitatis enlightened, and he is
et defectus. Quasi dicat: taking “world” from the
ideo indiget illuminari, quia point of view of its
venit in hunc mundum, perversity and defect. It is
perversitate et defectibus as though he were saying:
tenebrosum et ignorantia Man needs to be
plenum. De mundo enlightened because he is
spirituali primo hominis; Lc. coming into this world
I, 79: illuminare his, qui in which is darkened by
tenebris et in umbra mortis perversity and defects and
sedent. is full of ignorance. (This
followed the spiritual
world of the first man.) As
Luke says (1:79), “To
enlighten those who sit in
darkness and in the
shadow of death.”
Destruitur autem per verba 131 The above statement

praedicta error Manichaei refutes the error of the
ponentis, homines a Manichaeans, who think
principio contrario, idest than men were created in
Diabolo, in mundo creatos the world from an
fuisse: quia si homo fuisset opposing principle, i.e., the
creatura Diaboli, veniens in devil. For if man were a
mundum, non illuminaretur creature of the devil when
a Deo, sive a verbo; quia coming into this world, he
Christus venit in mundum, would not be enlightened
ut dissolvat opera Diaboli; I by God or by the Word, for
Io. III. “Christ came into the
world to destroy the works
of the devil” (1 Jn 3:8).
Sic ergo patet ex efficacia 132 So it is clear, from the

divini verbi, quod defectus efficacy of the divine Word,
cognitionis in hominibus that the lack of knowledge
non est ex parte ipsius in men is not due to the
verbi: quia ad omnes Word, because he is
illuminandos efficax est, effective in enlightening
cum sit lux vera quae all, being the true light,
illuminat omnem hominem which enlightens every
venientem in hunc man coming into this
mundum. world.
Sed ne credas defectum But so you do not suppose

ipsum esse ex remotione this lack arose from the
seu absentia verae lucis, withdrawal or absence of
hoc excludens Evangelista, the true light, the
subdit: in mundo erat. Evangelist rules this out
Simile huic habetur Act. adding, He was in the
XVII, 27: non longe est ab world. A comparable
unoquoque nostrum, statement is found in “He
scilicet Deus, in ipso enim is not far from any one of
vivimus, et movemur, et us,” that is, God, “for in
sumus. Quasi dicat him we live, and move, and
Evangelista: verbum are” (Acts 17:28). It is as
divinum efficax est et though the Evangelist were
praesens est ad saying: The divine Word is
illuminandum. effective and is at hand in
order to enlighten us.
Notandum vero quod in 133 We should remark

mundo dicitur aliquid esse that something is said to
tripliciter. Uno modo per be “in the world” in three
continentiam, sicut ways. In one way, by being
locatum in loco; infra c. contained, as a thing in
XVII, 11: hi in mundo sunt. place exists in a place:
Alio modo, sicut pars in “They are in the world”
toto; nam pars mundi (below 17:11). In another
dicitur esse in mundo, way, as a part in a whole;
etiamsi non sit locata; sicut for a part of the world is
substantiae said to be in the world
supernaturales, licet even though it is not in a
localiter non sint in mundo, place. For example,
tamen sunt ut partes Ps. supernatural substances,
CXLV, v. 6: qui fecit caelum although not in the world
et terram, mare et omnia as in a place, are
quae in eis sunt. Neutro nevertheless in it as parts:
autem istorum modorum “God ... who made heaven
lux vera in mundo erat, and earth, the sea, and all
quia nec localis est, nec things that are in them”
pars universi: immo (Ps 145:6). But the true
quodammodo (ut ita liceat light was not in the world
loqui), totum universum est in either of these ways,
pars, bonitatem eius because that light is
partialiter participans. neither localized nor is it a
part of the universe.
Indeed, if we can speak
this way, the entire
universe is in a certain
sense a part, since it
participates in a partial
way in his goodness.
Erat ergo in mundo tertio Accordingly, the true light

modo, sicut causa efficiens was in the world in a third
et conservans; Ier. XXIII, way, i.e., as an efficient
24: caelum et terram ego and preserving cause: “I
impleo. Sed tamen aliter fill heaven and earth” as
est de verbo agente et said in Jeremiah (23:24).
causante omnia, et aliter However, there is a
de aliis agentibus. Nam alia difference between the
agentia operantur ut way the Word acts and
extrinsecus existentia: cum causes all things and the
enim non agant nisi way in which other agents
movendo et alterando act. For other agents act
aliquo modo quantum ad as existing externally:
ea quae sunt extrinseca rei, since they do not act
ut extrinseca operantur. except by moving and
Deus vero operatur in altering a thing
omnibus ut interius agens, qualitatively in some way
quia agit creando. Creare with respect to its exterior,
autem est dare esse rei they work from without.
creatae. Cum ergo esse sit But God acts in all things
intimum cuilibet rei, Deus, from within, because he
qui operando dat esse, acts by creating. Now to
operatur in rebus ut create is to give existence
intimus agens. (esse) to the thing created.
So, since esse is innermost
in each thing, God, who by
acting gives esse acts in
things from within. Hence
God was in the world as
one giving esse to the
world.
In mundo ergo erat ut dans 134 It is customary to say

esse mundo. Consuetum that God is in all things by
est autem dici Deum esse his essence, presence and
in omnibus per essentiam, power. To understand what
praesentiam et potentiam. this means, we should
Ad cuius intellectum know that someone is said
sciendum est quod per to be by his power in all
potentiam dicitur esse the things that are subject
aliquis in omnibus quae to his power; as a king is
subduntur potentiae eius: said to be in the entire
sicut rex dicitur esse in kingdom subject to him, by
toto regno sibi subiecto, his power. He is not there,
per suam potentiam; non however, by presence or
tamen ibi est per essence., Someone is said
praesentiam, neque per to be by presence in all the
essentiam. Per things that are within his
praesentiam dicitur esse in range of vision; as a king is
omnibus quae sunt in said to be in his house by
conspectu eius, sicut rex presence. And someone is
dicitur esse per said to be by essence in
praesentiam in domo sua. those things in which his
Per essentiam vero dicitur substance is; as a king is
esse in illis rebus, in quibus in one determinate place.
est sua substantia: sicut
est rex in uno loco
determinato.
Dicimus enim Deum esse Now we say that God is

ubique per potentiam, quia everywhere by his power,
omnia eius potestati since all things are subject
subduntur; Ps. CXXXVIII, 8: to his power: “If I ascend
si ascendero in caelum, tu into heaven, you are
illic es (...). Si sumpsero there.... If I take my wings
pennas meas diluculo et early in the morning, and
habitavero in extremis dwell in the furthest part
maris: etenim illuc manus of the sea, even there your
tua deducet me et tenebit hand will lead me, and
me dextera tua. Per your right hand will hold
praesentiam vero, quia me” (Ps 138:8). He is also
omnia nuda et aperta sunt everywhere by his
oculis eius, quae sunt in presence, because “all
mundo, ut habetur Hebr. IV, things are bare and open
13. Per essentiam autem, to his eyes,” as is said in
quia essentia sua intima Hebrews (4:13). He is
est omnibus rebus: oportet present everywhere by his
enim de necessitate omne essence, be cause his
agens, inquantum agens, essence is innermost in all
immediate coniungi suo things. For every agent, as
effectui, cum movens et acting, has to be
motum oporteat simul immediately joined to its
esse. Deus autem actor est effect, because mover and
et conservator omnium moved must be together.
secundum esse Now God is the maker and
uniuscuiusque rei. Unde, preserver of all things with
cum esse rei sit intimum in respect to the esse of
qualibet re, manifestum est each. Hence, since the
quod Deus per essentiam esse of a thing is
suam, per quam omnia innermost in that thing, it
creat, sit in omnibus rebus. is plain that God, by his
essence, through which he
creates all things, is in all
things.
Notandum autem quod 135 It should be noted

Evangelista signanter utitur that the Evangelist
hoc verbo erat, cum dicit in significantly uses the word
mundo erat, ostendens ab “was,” when he says, He
initio creaturae semper was in the world, showing
ipsum fuisse in mundo, that from the beginning of
causans et conservans creation he was always in
omnia: quia si ad the world, causing and
momentum subtraheret preserving all things;
Deus virtutem suam a because if God for even a
rebus conditis, omnia in moment were to withhold
nihilum redigerentur, et his power from the things
esse desinerent. Unde he established, all would
Origenes satis ad hoc return to nothing and
congruo exemplo utitur, cease to be. Hence Origen
dicens quod sicut se habet uses an apt example to
vox humana ad verbum show this, when he says
humanum in mente that as a human vocal
conceptum, sic se habet sound is to a human word
creatura ad verbum conceived in the mind, so
divinum: nam sicut vox is, the creature to the
nostra est effectus verbi divine Word; for as our
concepti in mente nostra, vocal sound is the effect of
ita et creatura est effectus the word conceived in our
verbi in divina mente mind, so the creature is
concepti; dixit enim et facta the effect of the Word
sunt. Ps. CXLVIII, v. 5. conceived in the divine
Unde sicut videmus quod mind. “For he spoke, and
statim, deficiente verbo they were created” (Ps
nostro, vox sensibilis 148:5). Hence, just as we
deficit, ita si virtus verbi notice that as soon as our
divini subtraheretur a inner word vanishes, the
rebus, statim res omnes in sensible vocal sound also
ipso momento deficerent; ceases, so, if the power of
et hoc quia est portans the divine Word were
omnia verbo virtutis suae, withdrawn from things, all
Hebr. I, 3. of them would immediately
cease to be at that
moment. And this is
because he is “sustaining
all things by his powerful
word” (Heb 1:3).
Sic ergo patet quod 136 So it is plain that a

defectus divinae lack of divine knowledge in
cognitionis non est in minds is not due to the
hominibus ex verbi absence of the Word,
absentia, quia in mundo because He was in the
erat; non est etiam ex verbi world; nor is it due to the
invisibilitate seu invisibility or concealment
occultatione, quia fecit of the Word, because he
opus, in quo similitudo has produced a work in
evidenter relucet, scilicet which his likeness is
mundum. Sap. XIII, 5: a clearly reflected, that is,
magnitudine speciei et the world: “For from the
creaturae cognoscibiliter greatness and beauty of
poterit eorum creator creatures, their creator
videri; et Rom. I, 20: can be seen accordingly”
invisibilia Dei per ea quae (Wis 13:5), and “The
facta sunt intellecta invisible things of God are
conspiciuntur. Et ideo clearly seen, being
statim Evangelista understood through the
subiungit et mundus per things that are made”
ipsum factus est, ut scilicet (Rom 1:20). And so the
in ipso lux ipsa Evangelist at once adds,
manifestaretur. Sicut in and through him the
artificio manifestatur ars world was made, in order
artificis, ita totus mundus that that light might be
nihil aliud est quam manifested in it. For as a
quaedam repraesentatio work of art manifests the
divinae sapientiae in mente art of the artisan, so the
patris conceptae; Eccli. I, whole world is nothing
10: sparsit illam super else than a certain
omnia opera sua. representation of the
divine wisdom conceived
within the mind of the
Father, “He poured her
[wisdom] out upon all his
works,” as is said in Sirach
(1:10).
Sic ergo patet quod Now it is clear that the

defectus divinae lack of divine knowledge is
cognitionis non est ex not due to the Word,
parte verbi, quia efficax because he is efficacious,
est, cum sit lux vera; being the true light; and
praesens est, quia in he is at hand, since he was
mundo erat; evidens est, in the world; and he is
quia mundus per ipsum knowable, since through
factus est. him the world was made.
Unde autem sit huius 137 The Evangelist

defectus, ostendit indicates the source of this
Evangelista consequenter, lack when he says, and the
cum dicit et mundus eum world did not know him.
non cognovit; quasi dicat, As if to say: It is not due to
non est ex parte ipsius, sed him, but to the world, who
ex parte mundi, qui eum did not know him.
non cognovit.
Dicit autem eum in He says him in the

singulari, quia supra singular, because earlier
verbum dixerat non solum he had called the Word not
lucem hominum, sed Deum: only the “light of men,” but
unde cum dicit eum, also “God”; and so when
intelligit Deum. Ponitur he says him, he means
autem hic mundus pro God. Again, he uses
homine: Angeli namque “world” for man. For the
cognoverunt eum angels knew him by their
intelligendo; elementa understanding, and the
cognoverunt eum elements by their obeying
obediendo; sed mundus, him; but the world, i.e.,
idest homo habitator man, who lives in the
mundi, eum non cognovit. world, did not know him.
Et possumus hunc 138 We attribute this lack

defectum cognitionis of divine knowledge either
divinae referre vel ad to the nature of man or to
naturam hominis, vel ad his guilt. To his nature,
culpam. Ad naturam indeed, because although
quidem, quia licet omnia all the aforesaid aids were
haec praedicta auxilia data given to man to lead him
sint homini, ut ducatur in to the knowledge of God,
cognitionem Dei, tamen human reason in itself
ratio humana in se lacks this knowledge.
deficiens est ab hac “Man beholds him from
cognitione; Iob XXXVI, v. afar” (Jb 36:25), and
25: unusquisque intuetur immediately after, “God is
eum procul; et iterum ibi: great beyond our
ecce Deus magnus vincens knowledge.” But if some
scientiam nostram. Sed si have known him, this was
aliqui eum cognoverunt, not insofar as they were in
hoc fuit non inquantum the world, but above the
fuerunt in mundo, sed world; and the kind for
inquantum fuerunt supra whom the world was not
mundum, et tales quibus worthy, because the world
dignus non erat mundus, did not know him. Hence if
quia mundus eum non they mentally perceived
cognovit. Et est quasi ratio anything eternal, that was
quare ab hominibus Deus insofar as they were not of
non cognoscitur. Et sic this world.
mundus accipitur pro
inordinato mundi amore;
quasi dicat mundus eum
non cognovit. Unde si
aliquid aeternum in mente
perceperunt, hoc fuit
inquantum non erant de
hoc mundo.
Si vero referatur ad culpam But if this lack is attributed

hominis, tunc hoc quod to man’s guilt, then the
dixit mundus eum non phrase, the world did not
cognovit, est quasi ratio know him, is a kind of
quare ab hominibus Deus reason why God was not
non cognoscitur; et sic known by man; in this
accipitur mundus pro sense world is taken for
inordinato mundi amatore. inordinate lovers of the
Quasi dicat mundus eum world. It is as though it
non cognovit, quia sunt said, The world did not
mundi amatores. Amor know him, because they
enim mundi, ut dicit were lovers of the world.
Augustinus, maxime For the love of the world,
retrahit a Dei cognitione; as Augustine says, is what
quia amor mundi inimicum chiefly withdraws us from
Dei constituit, Iac. c. IV, 4. the knowledge of God,
Qui autem non diligit Deum, because “Love of the world
non potest eum makes one an enemy to
cognoscere; I Cor. II, 14: God” (Jas 4:4); “The
animalis homo non percipit sensual man does not
ea quae sunt spiritus Dei. perceive the things that
pertain to the Spirit of
God” ( 1 Cor 2:14).
Notandum autem quod ex 139 From this we answer

hoc solvitur quaestio the question of the
gentilium, qui vane Gentiles who futilely ask
quaerunt: si a paucis this: If it is only recently
temporibus filius Dei pro that the Son of God is set
salute humana mundo before the world as the
innotuit, videtur quod ante Savior of men, does it not
tempus illud naturam seem that before that time
humanam despiceret. he scorned human nature?
Quibus dicendum est quod We should say to them
non despexit, sed semper that he did not scorn the
fuit in mundo, et quantum world but was always in
in se est, cognoscibilis est the world, and on his part
ab hominibus; sed quod is knowable by men; but it
aliqui eum non was due to their own fault
cognoverunt, fuit eorum that some have not known
culpa, quia mundi amatores him, because they were
erant. lovers of the world.
Notandum etiam quod 140 We should also note

Evangelista loquitur de that the Evangelist speaks
incarnatione verbi, ut of the incarnation of the
ostendat idem esse verbum Word to show that the
incarnatum, et quod erat in incarnate Word and that
principio apud Deum et which “was in the
Deus. Resumit quae de ipso beginning with God,” and
supra dixerat. Ibi enim God, are the same. He
dixerat quod verbum erat repeats what he had said
lux hominum; hic vero dicit of him earlier. For above he
quod erat lux vera. Ibi quod had said he [the Word]
omnia per ipsum facta sunt; “was the light of men”;
hic vero et mundus per here he says he was the
ipsum factus est. Supra true light. Above, he said
vero dixit, quod sine ipso that “all things were made
factum est nihil, idest, through him”; here he says
secundum unam that through him the world
expositionem, omnia was made. Earlier he had
conservans; hic vero dicit said, “without him nothing
in mundo erat, mundum et was made,” i.e., according
omnia creans et to one explanation, he
conservans. Ibi dixit: et conserves all things; here
tenebrae eam non he says, he was in the
comprehenderunt; hic vero world, creating and
et mundus eum non conserving the world and
cognovit. Et ideo totum hoc all things. There he had
quod sequitur ab illo loco said, “the darkness did not
erat lux vera, videtur overcome it”; here he says,
quaedam explicatio the world did not know
superiorum. him. And so, all he says
after he was the true light,
is an explanation of what
he had said before.
Possumus etiam ex 141 We can gather three

praedictis accipere reasons from the above
triplicem rationem, quare why God willed to become
Deus voluit incarnari. Una incarnate. One is because
est perversitas humanae of the perversity of human
naturae, quae ex sui malitia nature which, because of
iam obtenebrata erat its own malice, had been
vitiorum et ignorantiae darkened by vices and the
obscuritate. Unde supra obscurity of its own
dixerat quod tenebrae eam ignorance. And so he said
non comprehenderunt. before, the darkness did
Venit ergo in carnem Deus, not overcome it. Therefore,
ut tenebrae possent God came in the flesh so
apprehendere lucem, idest that the darkness might
cognitionem eius apprehend the light, i.e.,
pertingere. Is. IX, 2: obtain a knowledge of it.
populus, qui ambulabat in “The people who walked in
tenebris, vidit lucem darkness saw a great
magnam. light” (Is 9:2).
Secunda propter The second reason is that

insufficientiam prophetici the testimony of the
testimonii. Venerunt enim prophets was not enough.
prophetae, venerat For the prophets came and
Ioannes; sed sufficienter John had come; but they
illuminare non poterant, were not able to give
quia non erat ille lux. Unde sufficient enlightenment,
necessarium erat ut post because he was not the
prophetarum vaticinia, post light. And so, after the
Ioannis adventum, lux ipsa prophecies of the prophets
veniret, et sui cognitionem and the coming of John, it
mundo traderet; et hoc est was necessary that the
quod apostolus dicit, Hebr. light itself come and give
I, 1: multifarie, multisque the world a knowledge of
modis olim Deus loquens itself. And this is what the
patribus in prophetis, Apostle says: “In past
novissime locutus est nobis times, God spoke in many
in filio; et II Petr. I, 19: ways and degrees to our
habetis propheticum fathers through the
sermonem, cui bene facitis prophets; in these days he
attendentes, donec dies has spoken to us in his
illucescat. Son” as we find in
Hebrews (1:1). “We have
the prophetic message, to
which you do well to give
attention, until the day
dawns” (2 Pt 1:19).
Tertia propter creaturarum The third reason is

defectum. Nam creaturae because of the
insufficientes erant ad shortcomings of creatures.
ducendum in cognitionem For creatures were not
creatoris; unde mundus per sufficient to lead to a
ipsum factus est, et ipsum knowledge of the Creator;
non cognovit. Unde hence he says, through
necessarium erat ut ipse him the world was made,
creator per carnem in and the world did not
mundum veniret, et per know him. Thus it was
seipsum cognosceretur: et necessary that the Creator
hoc est quod apostolus himself come into the
dicit, I Cor. I, 21: nam, quia world in the flesh, and be
in Dei sapientia mundus known through himself.
non cognovit per And this is what the
sapientiam Deum, placuit Apostle says: “Since in the
Deo per stultitiam wisdom of God the world
praedicationis salvos facere did not know God by its
credentes. wisdom, it pleased God to
save those who believe by
the foolishness of our
preaching” (1 Cor 1:21).
Lectio 6 LECTURE 6
11 εἰς τὰ ἴδια 11 He came

ἦλθεν, καὶ οἱ ἴδιοι unto his own,
αὐτὸν οὐ and his own
παρέλαβον. did not
12 ὅσοι δὲ receive him;
ἔλαβον αὐτόν, 12 but
ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς whoever
ἐξουσίαν τέκνα received him,
θεοῦ γενέσθαι, he gave them
τοῖς πιστεύουσιν power to
εἰς τὸ ὄνομα become the
αὐτοῦ, sons of God,
13 οἳ οὐκ ἐξ to all who
αἱμάτων οὐδὲ ἐκ believe in his
θελήματος name,
σαρκὸς 13 who are
οὐδὲ ἐκ born not from
θελήματος blood, nor
ἀνδρὸς ἀλλ' ἐκ from the
θεοῦ desires of the
ἐγεννήθησαν. flesh,
nor from
man’s willing
it, but from
God.
Assignata necessitate 142 Having given the

incarnationis verbi, necessity for the
consequenter Evangelista incarnation of the Word,
manifestat utilitatem ex ipsa the Evangelist then
incarnatione ab hominibus shows the advantage
consecutam. Et primo men gained from that
insinuat lucis adventum, quia incarnation. First, he
in propria venit; secundo shows the coming of the
hominum occursum, ibi et sui light (v 11); secondly, its
eum non receperunt; tertio reception by men (v
fructum ex adventu lucis 11b); thirdly, the fruit
allatum, ibi dedit eis brought by the coming
potestatem filios Dei fieri. of the light (v 12).
Ostendit ergo quod lux quae 143 He shows that the

erat praesens in mundo et light which was present
evidens seu manifesta per in the world and evident,
effectum, non tamen i.e., disclosed by its
cognoscebatur a mundo. Et effect, was nevertheless
ideo venit in propria, ut not known by the world.
cognosceretur. Sed ne, cum Hence, he came unto his
dicit venit, intelligeres motum own, in order to be
localem hoc modo, ut scilicet known. The Evangelist
venerit quasi desinens esse says, unto his own, i.e.,
ubi prius erat, et denuo to things that were his
incipiens esse, ubi prius non own, which he had
erat, dicit Evangelista in made. And he says this
propria; idest in ea quae so that you do not think
erant sua, quae ipse fecit; et that when he says, he
venit ipse, ubi erat. Infra XVI, came, he means a local
28: exivi a patre, et veni in motion in the sense that
mundum. he came as though
ceasing to be where he
previously was and
newly beginning to be
where he formerly had
not been. He came
where he already was. “I
came forth from the
Father, and have come
into the world,” as said
below ( 16:2 8).
Venit, inquam, in propria, He came, I say, unto his

idest in Iudaeam, secundum own, i.e., to Judea,
quosdam, quae quidem according to some,
speciali modo sua erat; Ps. because it was in a
LXXV, 2: notus in Iudaea special way his own. “In
Deus; Is. V, 7: vinea domini Judea God is known” (Ps
exercituum, domus Israel est. 75:1); “The vineyard of
Sed melius est ut dicatur, the Lord of hosts is the
propria, idest in mundum ab house of Israel” (Is 5:7).
eo creatum; Ps. XXIII, 1: But it is better to say,
domini est terra. unto his own, i.e., into
the world created by
him. “The earth is the
Lord’s” (Ps 23:1).
Sed si prius erat in mundo, 144 But if he was

quomodo venit in mundum? previously in the world,
Respondeo, dicendum quod how could he come into
venire in aliquem locum the world? I answer that
dicitur dupliciter, scilicet vel “coming to some place”
quod aliquis veniat ubi nullo is understood in two
modo prius fuerat, vel quod ways. First, that
ubi aliquo modo prius fuerat, someone comes where
incipiat esse quodam novo he absolutely had not
modo. Sicut rex, qui prius been before. Or,
erat in civitate aliqua sui secondly, that someone
regni per potentiam, ad illam begins to be in a new
postmodum veniens way where he was
personaliter, dicitur venire before. For example, a
ubi prius erat: venit enim per king, who up to a certain
suam substantiam ubi prius time was in a city of his
erat solum per suam kingdom by his power
potentiam. Sic ergo filius Dei and later visits it in
venit in mundum, et tamen in person, is said to have
mundo erat. Erat quidem per come where he
essentiam, potentiam et previously was: for he
praesentiam, sed venit per comes by his substance
carnis assumptionem; erat where previously he was
invisibilis, venit ut esset present only by his
visibilis. power. It was in this way
that the Son of God
came into the world and
yet was in the world. For
he was there, indeed, by
his essence, power and
presence, but he came
by assuming flesh. He
was there invisibly, and
he came in order to be
visible.
Deinde cum dicit et sui eum 145 Then when he says,

non receperunt, sequitur and his own did not
hominum occursus, qui receive him, we have the
differenter se habuerunt ad reception given him by
venientem. Quia quidam eum men, who reacted in
receperunt, non sui; unde different ways. For some
dicitur et sui eum non did receive him, but
receperunt. Sui sunt these were not his own;
homines, quia ab eo formati; hence he says, his own
Gen. II, 7: formavit Deus did not receive him. “His
hominem; Ps. XCIX, 3: scitote, own” are men, because
quoniam dominus ipse fecit they were formed by
nos, quia ad eius imaginem him. “The Lord God
facti: Gen. I, 26: faciamus formed man” (Gn 2:7);
hominem. “Know that the Lord is
God: he made us” (Ps
99:3). And he made
them to his own image,
“Let us make man to our
image” (Gn 1:26).
Sed melius est ut dicamus But it is better to say, his

sui, idest Iudaei, eum non own, i.e., the Jews, did
receperunt, per fidem not receive him, through
credendo et honorando; infra faith by believing, and by
V, 43: ego veni in nomine showing honor to him. “I
patris mei, et non recepistis have come in the name
me; et infra VIII, 49: ego of my Father, and you do
honorifico patrem meum, et not receive me” (below
vos inhonorastis me. Sunt 5:43), and “I honor my
quidem Iudaei, sui, quia ab Father and you have
ipso in populum peculiarem dishonored me” (below
electi; Deut. XXVI, 18: elegit 8:49). Now the Jews are
te dominus in populum his own because they
peculiarem. Sui secundum were chosen by him to
carnem coniuncti; Rom. IX, 5: be his special people.
ex quibus Christus secundum “The Lord chose you to
carnem. Item sui, ab eo be his special people”
beneficiis promoti; Is. I, 2: (Dt 26:18). They are his
filios enutrivi, et exaltavi. Sed own because related
licet sui, Iudaei eum non according to the flesh,
receperunt. “from whom is Christ,
according to the flesh,”
as said in Romans (9:3).
They are also his own
because enriched by his
kindness, “I have reared
and brought up sons” (Is
1:2). But although the
Jews were his own, they
did not receive him.
Non defuerunt tamen, qui 146 However, there were

eum receperunt; unde subdit not lacking those who
quotquot autem receperunt. did receive him. Hence
Utitur Evangelista hoc modo he adds, but whoever
loquendi, dicens quotquot, ut received him. The
ostendat ampliorem esse Evangelist uses this
factam solutionem, quam manner of speaking,
fuerit promissio, quae facta saying, but whoever, to
fuit solum suis, scilicet indicate that the
Iudaeis; Is. XXXIII, 22: deliverance would be
dominus legifer noster, more extensive than the
dominus rex noster; ipse promise, which had been
salvabit nos. Sed solutio non made only to his own,
solum fuit facta suis, sed i.e., to the Jews. “The
quotquot receperunt eum, Lord is our law giver, the
idest omnibus in eum Lord is our king; he will
credentibus; Rom. XV, 8: dico save us” (Is 33:22). But
autem Christum ministrum this deliverance was not
fuisse circumcisionis propter only for his own, but for
veritatem Dei, ad whoever received him,
confirmandas promissiones i.e., whoever believe in
patrum, idest patribus factas. him. “For I say that
Gentes autem super Christ was a minister to
misericordia, quia the circumcised, for the
misericorditer sunt recepti. sake of God’s truth, to
confirm the promises
made to the fathers”
(Rom 15:8). The
Gentiles, however, [are
delivered] by his mercy,
because they were
received through his
mercy.
Dicit quotquot, ut ostendat 147 He says, whoever, to

quod gratia Dei indifferenter show that God’s grace is
datur omnibus recipientibus given without distinction
Christum; Act. X, 45: ergo in to all who receive Christ.
nationes gratia spiritus sancti “The grace of the Holy
effusa est. Et non solum Spirit has been poured
liberis, sed etiam servis, non out upon the
solum masculis, sed etiam Gentiles”(Acts 10:45).
feminis; Gal. III, 28: in And not only to free
Christo Iesu non est men, but to slaves as
masculus, nec femina, well; not only to men,
gentilis, vel Iudaeus, but to women also. “In
circumcisio et praeputium et Christ Jesus there is
cetera. neither male nor female,
Jew or Greek, the
circumcised or
uncircumcised” (Gal
3:28).
Deinde cum dicit dedit eis 148 Then when he says,

potestatem filios Dei fieri, he gave them power to
sequitur fructus eius become the sons of God,
adventus. Ubi primo ponit we have the fruit of his
fructus magnificentiam, quia coming. First, he
dedit eis potestatem; mentions the grandeur
secundo ostendit quibus of the fruit, for he gave
datur, quia his qui credunt; them power. Secondly,
tertio insinuat modum dandi, he shows to whom it is
quia non ex sanguinibus. given, to all who believe.
Thirdly, he indicates the
way it is given, not from
blood, and so forth.
Est ergo fructus adventus filii 149 The fruit of the

Dei magnus, quia homines coming of the Son of
fiunt per hoc filii Dei; Gal. IV, God is great, because by
4: misit Deus filium suum it men are made sons of
factum ex muliere, ut God. “God sent his Son
adoptionem filiorum made from a woman ...
reciperemus. Et hoc congrue, so that we might receive
ut qui sumus filii Dei, per hoc our adoption as sons”
quod assimilamur filio, (Gal 4:5). And it was
reformemur per filium. fitting that we, who. are
sons of God by the fact
that we are made like the
Son, should be reformed
through the Son.
Dicit ergo dedit eis 150 So he says, he gave
potestatem filios Dei fieri. Ad them power to become
cuius evidentiam sciendum the sons of God. To
est, quod homines fiunt filii understand this we
Dei per assimilationem ad should remark that men
Deum; et ideo secundum become sons of God by
triplicem assimilationem being made like God.
hominum ad Deum homines Hence men are sons of
sunt filii Dei. Primo enim per God according to a
gratiae infusionem: unde threefold likeness to
quicumque habet gratiam God. First, by the
gratum facientem, efficitur infusion of grace; hence
filius Dei; Rom. VIII, 15: non anyone having
enim accepistis spiritum sanctifying grace is
servitutis etc.; Gal. IV, 6: made a son of God. “You
quoniam estis filii Dei, misit did not receive the spirit
Deus spiritum filii sui. of slavery ... but the
spirit of adoption as
sons,” as said in Romans
(8:15). “Because you are
sons of God, God sent
the Spirit of his Son into
your hearts” (Gal 4:6).
Secundo assimilamur Deo Secondly, we are like

per operum perfectionem, God by the perfection of
quia qui facit opera iustitiae, our actions, because one
est filius; Matth. V, 44: diligite who acts justly is a son:
inimicos vestros. “Love your enemies ... so
that you may be the
children of your Father”
(Mt 5:44).
Tertio assimilamur Deo per Thirdly, we are made like

gloriae adeptionem, et God by the attainment of
quantum ad animam per glory. The glory of the
lumen gloriae, I Io. III, 2: soul by the light of glory,
cum apparuerit, similes ei “When he appears we
erimus, et quantum ad shall be like him” (1 Jn
corpus, Phil. III, v. 21: 3:2); and the glory of the
reformabit corpus humilitatis body, “He will reform our
nostrae. Unde de istis lowly body” (Phil 3:21).
duobus dicitur Rom. VIII, 23: Of these two it is said in
adoptionem filiorum Dei Romans (8:23), “We are
expectantes. waiting for our adoption
as sons of God.”
Si ergo accipiamus 151 If we take the power

potestatem filios Dei fieri to become the sons of
quantum ad operum God as referring to the
perfectionem et gloriae perfection of our actions
adeptionem, nullam and the attainment of
difficultatem habebit sermo, glory, the statement
quia cum dicit dedit eis offers no difficulty. For
potestatem, intelligitur de then when he says, he
potestate gratiae, qua habita, gave them power, he is
potest homo facere opera referring to the power of
perfectionis, et adipisci grace; and when a man
gloriam; quia, ut dicitur Rom. possesses this, he can
VI, 23, gratia Dei vita perform works of
aeterna. Et secundum hunc perfection and attain
modum dicitur dedit eis, qui glory, since “The grace
eum receperunt, potestatem, of God is eternal life”
idest infusionem gratiae, (Rom 6:23). According to
filios Dei fieri, bene operando, this way we have, he
et gloriam acquirendo. gave them, to those who
received him, power, i.e.,
the infusion of grace, to
become the sons of God,
by acting well and
acquiring glory.
Si vero intelligatur de gratiae 152 But if this statement

infusione, tunc dubitationem refers to the infusion of
habet hoc quod dicitur dedit grace, then his saying,
eis potestatem, quia non est he gave them power,
in potestate nostra fieri filios gives rise to a difficulty.
Dei, cum non sit in potestate And this is because it is
nostra gratiam habere. Hoc not in our power to be
ergo quod dicit dedit eis made sons of God, since
potestatem, aut intelligitur de it is not in our power to
potestate naturae: et hoc non possess grace. We can
videtur esse verum, quia understand, he gave
infusio gratiae est supra them power, as a power
naturam nostram. Aut of nature; but this does
intelligitur de potestate not seem to be true
gratiae: et tunc hoc ipsum since the infusion of
est gratiam habere, quod grace is above our
habere potestatem filios Dei nature. Or we can
fieri; et sic non dedit understand it as the
potestatem filios fieri Dei, sed power of grace, and then
filios Dei esse. to have grace is to have
power to become the
sons of God. And in this
sense he did not give
them power to become
sons of God, but to be
sons of God.
Ad quod dicendum quod in 153 The answer to this

datione gratiae requiritur in is that when grace is
homine adulto ad given to an adult, his
iustificationem suam justification requires an
consensus per motum liberi act of consent by a
arbitrii: unde quia in movement of his free
potestate hominis est ut will. So, because it is in
consentiat et non consentiat, the power of men to
dedit eis potestatem. Dedit consent and not to
autem hanc potestatem consent, he gave them
suscipiendi gratiam power. However, he
dupliciter: praeparando, et gives this power of
hominibus proponendo. Sicut accepting grace in two
enim qui facit librum, et ways: by preparing it,
proponit homini ad and by offering it to him.
legendum, dicitur dare For just as one who
potestatem legendi; ita writes a book and offers
Christus, per quem gratia it to a man to read is
facta est, ut dicitur infra, et said to give the power to
qui operatus est salutem in read it, so Christ,
medio terrae, ut dicitur in Ps. through whom grace
LXXIII, 12, dedit nobis was produced (as will be
potestatem filios Dei fieri per said below), and who
gratiae susceptionem. “accomplished salvation
on the earth” (Ps 73:12),
gave us power to
become the sons of God
by offering grace.
Secundo, quia hoc non 154 Yet this is not

sufficit, cum etiam liberum sufficient since even free
arbitrium indigeat ad hoc will, if it is to be moved
quod moveatur ad gratiae to receive grace, needs
susceptionem, auxilio gratiae the help of divine grace,
divinae, non quidem not indeed habitual
habitualis, sed moventis, ideo grace, but movent grace.
dat potestatem movendo For this reason,
liberum arbitrium hominis, ut secondly, he gives power
consentiat ad susceptionem by moving the free will of
gratiae, iuxta illud Thren. ult., man to consent to the
v. 21: converte nos, domine, reception of grace, as in
ad te, movendo voluntatem “Convert us to yourself,
nostram ad amorem tuum, et 0 Lord,” by moving our
convertemur. Et hoc modo will to your love, “and we
vocatur interior vocatio, de will be converted” (Lam
qua dicitur Rom. VIII, 30: 5:21). And in this sense
quos vocavit, interius we speak of an interior
voluntatem instigando ad call, of which it is said,
consentiendum gratiae, hos “Those whom he called,”
iustificavit, gratiam by inwardly moving the
infundendo. will to consent to grace,
“he justified,” by infusing
grace (Rom 8:3).
Quia vero per hanc gratiam 155 Since by this grace

habet homo hanc potestatem man has the power of
conservandi se in divina maintaining himself in
filiatione, potest et aliter dici: the divine sonship, one
dedit eis, idest eum may read these words in
recipientibus, potestatem another way. He gave
filios Dei fieri, idest gratiam, them, i.e., those who
per quam potentes sunt in receive him, power to
divina filiatione conservari; I become the sons of
Io. ult., 18: omnis qui natus God, i.e., the grace by
est ex Deo, non peccat, sed which they are able to be
gratia Dei, per quam maintained in the divine
regeneramur in filios Dei, sonship. “Everyone who
conservat eum. is born from God does
not sin, but the grace of
God,” through which we
are reborn as children of
God, “preserves him” (1
Jn 5:18).
Sic ergo dedit eis potestatem 156 Thus, he gave them

filios Dei fieri, per gratiam power to become the
gratum facientem, per sons of God, through
operum perfectionem, per sanctifying grace,
gloriae adeptionem, et haec through the perfection of
praeparando, movendo et their actions, and
conservando gratiam. through the attainment
of glory; and he did this
by preparing this grace,
moving their wills, and
preserving this grace.
Deinde cum dicit his qui 157 Then when he says,

credunt in nomine eius, to all who believe in his
ostenditur quibus conferatur name, he shows those
fructus eius adventus. Et hoc on whom the fruit of his
quidem potest accipi coming is conferred. We
dupliciter, vel ut sit can understand this in
expositivum superiorum, vel two ways: either as
determinativum. Expositivum explaining what was said
quidem, quia Evangelista before, or as qualifying
dixerat quotquot autem it. We can regard it as
receperunt eum; ut ergo explaining as the
ostendat quid est recipere Evangelist had said,
eum, quasi exponendo, whoever received him,
consequenter subiungit his and now to show what it
qui credunt in nomine eius; is to receive him, he
quasi dicat: hoc est recipere adds by way of
eum, in eum credere, quia explanation, who believe
per fidem Christus habitat in in his name. It is as
cordibus nostris, iuxta illud though he were saying:
Eph. III, 17: habitare To receive him is to
Christum per fidem in believe in him, because it
cordibus vestris. Illi ergo is through faith that
receperunt eum, qui credunt Christ dwells in your
in nomine eius. hearts, as in “that Christ
may dwell in your hearts
through faith” (Eph
3:17). Therefore, they
received him, who
believe in his name.
Ut determinativum vero 158 Origen regards this

ponitur ab Origene in homilia as a qualifying
quae incipit vox spiritualis. statement, in his homily,
Hoc modo multi recipiunt “The spiritual voice.” In
Christum, dicentes se esse this sense, many receive
Christianos, qui tamen non Christ, declaring that
fiunt filii Dei, quia non vere they are Christians, but
credunt in nomine eius, falsa they are not sons of God,
dogmata de Christo because they do not
suggerendo, subtrahendo truly believe in his name;
scilicet aliquid sibi de for they propose false
divinitate, vel de humanitate, dogmas about Christ by
iuxta illud I Io. c. IV, 3: omnis taking away something
spiritus qui solvit Christum, from his divinity or
ex Deo non est. Et ideo humanity, as in “Every
Evangelista quasi spirit that denies Christ
determinando dicit dedit eis, is not from God” (1 Jn
scilicet recipientibus eum per 4:3). And so the
fidem, potestatem filios Dei Evangelist says, as
fieri, illis tamen, qui credunt though contracting his
in nomine eius, idest qui meaning, he gave them,
nomen Christi integrum i.e., those who receive
servant, ut nihil de divinitate, him by faith, power to
vel humanitate Christi become the sons of
diminuant. God, to those, however,
who believe in his name,
i.e., who keep the name
of Christ whole, in such a
way as not to lessen
anything of the divinity
or humanity of Christ.
Potest etiam hoc referri ad 159 We can also refer
formationem fidei, ut dicatur this to formed faith, in
his scilicet dedit potestatem the sense that to all, that
filios Dei fieri, qui credunt in is, he gave power to
nomine eius, idest per fidem become the sons of
charitate formatam opera God, who believe in his
salutis faciunt. Illi enim qui name, i.e., those who do
habent solum fidem the works of salvation
informem, non credunt in through a faith formed
nomine eius, quia non by charity. For those
operantur ad salutem. who have only an
unformed faith do not
believe in his name
because they do not
work unto salvation.
Sed prima expositio, quae However, the first

accipitur ut expositivum exposition, which is
praemissorum, melior est. taken as explaining what
preceded, is better.
Deinde cum dicit qui non ex 160 Then when he says,

sanguinibus etc., ostenditur who are born not from
qualiter conferatur blood, he shows the way
hominibus tam magnificus in which so great a fruit
fructus. Quia enim dixerat is conferred on men. For
quod fructus advenientis since he had said that
lucis est potestas fieri filios the fruit of the light’s
Dei hominibus data; filius coming is the power
autem dicitur aliquis ex eo given to men to become
quod nascitur: ne aestimes the sons of God, then to
eos materiali generatione forestall the supposition
nasci, dicit non ex that they are born
sanguinibus. Et licet hoc through a material
nomen sanguis in Latino non generation he says, not
habeat plurale, quia tamen in from blood. And
Graeco habet, ideo translator although the word
regulam grammaticae “blood” (sanguis) has no
servare non curavit, ut plural in Latin, but does
veritatem perfecte doceret. in Greek, the translator
Unde non dicit ex sanguine, [from Greek into Latin]
secundum Latinos, sed ex ignored a rule of
sanguinibus; per quod grammar in order to
intelligitur quicquid ex teach the truth more
sanguine generatur, perfectly. So he does not
concurrens ut materia ad say, “from blood,” in the
carnalem generationem. Latin manner, but “from
Semen autem, secundum bloods” (ex
philosophum, est ultimi sanguinibus). This
superfluitas cibi sanguinei. indicates whatever is
Unde sive semen viri, sive generated from blood,
menstruum mulieris, serving as the matter in
intelligitur per sanguinem. carnal generation.
According to the
Philosopher [On the
Generation of Animals, 1,
c 18, 726a26-8],
“semen is a residue
derived from useful
nourishment in its final
form.” So “blood”
indicates either the seed
of the male or the
menses of the female.
Causa vero motiva ad actum The cause moving to the

carnalem est voluntas se carnal act is the will of
commiscentium, scilicet those coming together,
maris et feminae, quia licet the man and the woman.
actus virtutis generativae For although the act of
secundum quod huiusmodi, the generative power as
non sit subiectus voluntati, such is not subject to
praeambula tamen ad ipsum the will, the preliminaries
voluntati subiiciuntur; et ideo to it are subject to the
dicit neque ex voluntate will. So he says, nor
carnis, pro persona mulieris, from the desires of the
neque ex voluntate viri, ut ex flesh, referring to the
causa efficiente sed ex Deo woman; nor from man’s
nati sunt; quasi dicat: non willing it, as from an
carnaliter, sed spiritualiter efficient cause; but from
filii Dei fiunt. God. It is as though he
were saying: They
became sons of God, not
carnally, but spiritually.
Accipitur autem hic caro, According to Augustine,

secundum Augustinum, pro “flesh” is taken here for
muliere, quia sicut caro the woman, because as
obedit spiritui, sic mulier the flesh obeys the
debet obedire viro; Gen. c. II, spirit, so woman should
23 dixit Adam de muliere: hoc obey man. Adam (Gn
nunc os ex ossibus meis. Et 2:23) said of the woman,
attendendum, secundum “This, at last, is bone of
Augustinum, quod sicut my bones.” And note,
dissipatur possessio domus, according to Augustine,
in qua principatur mulier et that just as the
subiicitur vir, ita dissipatur possessions of a
homo, cum caro dominatur household are wasted
spiritui; propter quod dicit away if the woman rules
apostolus, Rom. VIII, 12: and the man is subject,
debitores sumus non carni, ut so a man is wasted away
secundum carnem vivamus. when the flesh rules the
De modo autem dictae spirit. For this reason the
generationis carnalis dicitur Apostle says, “We are
Sap. VII, 1: in ventre matris not debtors to the flesh,
figuratus sum caro. so that we should live
according to the flesh”
(Rom 8:12). Concerning
the manner of this carnal
generation, we read, “In
the womb of my mother
I was molded into flesh”
(Wis 7:1).
Vel possumus dicere quod 161 Or, we might say

motivum ad carnalem that the moving force to
generationem est duplex; carnal generation is
unum scilicet ex parte twofold: the intellectual
appetitus intellectivi, quae appetite on the one
est voluntas; aliud a parte hand, that is, the will;
sensitivi, quod est and on the other hand,
concupiscentia. Ad the sense appetite,
designandum ergo which is concupiscence.
materialem causam, dixit non So, to indicate the
ex sanguinibus; sed ad material cause he says,
designandum causam not from blood. To
efficientem quantum ad indicate the efficient
concupiscentiam, dicit neque cause, in respect to
ex voluntate carnis; quamvis concupiscence, he says,
improprie voluntas dicatur nor from the desires of
concupiscentia carnis, quo the flesh [ex voluntate
tamen modo dicitur Gal. V, carnis, literally, “from
17: caro concupiscit adversus the will of the flesh”],
spiritum et cetera. Ad even though the
designandum vero appetitum concupiscence of the
intellectivum dicit non ex flesh is improperly called
voluntate viri. Sic ergo a “will” in the sense of
generatio filiorum Dei non est Galatians (5:17), “The
carnalis, sed est spiritualis, flesh lusts against the
quia ex Deo nati sunt. I Io. V, spirit.” Finally, to
4: omne quod natum est ex indicate the intellectual
Deo vincit mundum. appetite he says, nor
from man’s willing it.
So, the generation of the
sons of God is not carnal
but spiritual, because
they were born from
God. “Every one who is
born from God conquers
the world” (1 Jn 5:4).
Nota autem quod haec 162 Note, however, that

praepositio de semper this preposition de (“of,”
denotat materialem causam, or “from”), always
et efficientem, et etiam signifies a material
consubstantialem: dicimus cause as well as an
enim quod faber facit efficient and even a
cultellum de ferro, et pater consubstantial cause.
generat filium suum de Thus we say a
seipso, quia aliquid sui blacksmith makes a knife
concurrit aliquo modo ad de ferro (“from” iron),
generationem. Haec vero and a father generates
praepositio a semper denotat his son de seipso
causam moventem. Haec (“from” himself),
vero praepositio ex accipitur because something of
ut communis, quia importat his concurs somehow in
causam materialem et begetting. But the
efficientem, non tamen preposition a (“by”)
consubstantialem. always signifies a
moving cause. The
preposition ex (“from,”
or “by”)—[in the sense
of “out of” or “by reason
of”]—is taken as
something common,
since it implies an
efficient as well as a
material cause, although
not a consubstantial
cause.
Unde quia solus filius Dei, qui Consequently, since only

est verbum, est de substantia the Son of God, who is
patris, imo cum patre est una the Word, is “of” (de) the
substantia, alii vero sancti, substance of the Father
qui sunt filii adoptivi, non and indeed is one
sunt de eius substantia; ideo substance with the
Evangelista utitur hac Father, while the saints,
praepositione ex, dicens de who are adopted sons,
aliis ex Deo nati sunt; de filio are not of his substance,
vero naturali, quod de patre the Evangelist uses the
est natus. preposition ex, saying of
others that they are born
from God (ex Deo), but
of the natural Son, he
says that he is born of
the Father (de Patre).
Notandum est etiam quod 163 Note also that in the

secundum ultimam light of our last
expositionem carnalis exposition of carnal
generationis possumus generation, we can
accipere differentiam carnalis discern the difference
generationis ad spiritualem. between carnal and
Quia enim illa est ex spiritual generation. For
sanguinibus, ideo carnalis; since the former is from
ista vero, quia non est ex blood, it is carnal; but
sanguinibus, ideo spiritualis; the latter, because it is
infra III, 6: quod natum est ex not from blood, is
carne, caro est, et quod spiritual. “What is born
natum est ex spiritu, spiritus from flesh is itself flesh;
est. Item, quia materialis and what is born from
generatio est ex voluntate Spirit is itself spirit”
carnis, idest ex (below 3:6). Again,
concupiscentia, ideo est because material
immunda, et generat filios generation is from the
peccatores; Eph. II, 3: desires of the flesh, i.e.,
eramus natura filii irae. Item, from concupiscence, it is
quia illa est ex voluntate viri, unclean and begets
idest hominis, facit filios children who are sinners:
hominum; haec vero, quia est “We were by nature
ex Deo, facit filios Dei. children of wrath” as it
says in Ephesians (2:3).
Again, because the
former is from man’s
willing it, that is, from
man, it makes children of
men; but the latter,
because it is from God,
makes children of God.
Si vero hoc quod dicit dedit 164 But if he intends to

eis potestatem, voluit referre refer his statement, he
ad Baptismum, propter quod gave them power, to
in filios Dei regeneramur, baptism, in virtue of
possumus videre in hoc which we are reborn as
ordinem Baptismi, ut scilicet sons of God, we can
primo requiratur fides, quod detect in his words the
fit in catechumenis, qui order of baptism: that is,
debent primo instrui de fide, the first thing required is
ut scilicet credant in nomine faith, as shown in the
eius, et deinde regenerentur case of catechumens,
per Baptismum, non quidem who must first be
ex sanguinibus carnaliter, sed instructed about the
ex Deo spiritualiter. faith so that they may
believe in his name; then
through baptism they
are reborn, not carnally
from blood, but
spiritually from God.
Lectio 7 LECTURE 7
14 καὶ ὁ λόγος 14a And the

σὰρξ ἐγένετο καὶ Word was
ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν made flesh,
ἡμῖν, and made his
dwelling
among us.
Posita necessitate adventus 165 Having explained the

verbi in carnem et etiam necessity for the Word’s
utilitate, consequenter coming in the flesh as
Evangelista modum veniendi well as the benefits this
manifestat dicens et verbum conferred, the Evangelist
caro factum est. Et now shows the way he
secundum hoc continuatur came (v 14a). He thus
ad hoc quod dixerat: in resumes the thread with
propria venit; quasi dicat: his earlier statement, he
verbum Dei in propria venit. came unto his own. As if
Sed ne credas ipsum to say: The Word of God
venisse, locum mutando, came unto his own. But
ostendit modum quo venit, lest anyone suppose that
scilicet per incarnationem: he came by changing his
eo enim modo venit, quo location, he shows the
missus est a patre, a quo manner in which he came,
missus est, inquantum that is, by an incarnation.
factus est caro. Gal. IV, 4: For he came in the
misit Deus filium suum, manner in which he was
factum ex muliere etc., ubi sent by the Father, by
dicit Augustinus: eo whom he was sent, i.e., he
missum, quo factum. was made flesh. “God
sent his Son made from a
woman” (Gal 4:4). And
Augustine says about this
that “He was sent in the
manner in which he was
made.”
Secundum Chrysostomum According to Chrysostom,

autem continuatur ad illud however, he is here
dedit eis potestatem etc.; continuing the earlier
quasi dicat: si quaeris unde statement, he gave them
potuit dare hanc potestatem power to become the
hominibus, ut filii Dei sons of God. As if to say:
fierent, respondet If you wonder how he was
Evangelista quia verbum able to give this power to
caro factum est, dedit nobis men, i.e., that they
quod possemus filii Dei fieri. become sons of God, the
Gal. IV, 5: misit Deus filium Evangelist answers:
suum, ut adoptionem because the Word was
filiorum Dei reciperemus. made flesh, he made it
possible for us to be
made sons of God. “God
sent his Son ... so that we
might receive our
adoption as sons” (Gal
4:5).
Secundum vero Augustinum But according to

continuatur sic ad hoc quod Augustine, he is
dixerat sed ex Deo nati sunt: continuing the earlier
quasi enim dure videbatur, statement, who are born
ut homines ex Deo from God. For since it
nascerentur, ideo quasi in seemed a hard saying
argumentum huius dicti, ut that men be born from
scilicet verbum esse God, then, as though
credatur, subdit Evangelista arguing in support of this
illud de quo minus videtur, and to produce belief in
scilicet quod verbum caro the existence of the Word,
factum est. Quasi dicat: ne the Evangelist adds
mireris si homines ex Deo something which seems
sunt nati, quia verbum caro less seemly, namely, that
factum est, idest Deus the Word was made
factus est homo. flesh. As if to say: Do not
wonder if men are born
from God, because the
Word was made flesh,
i.e., God became man.
Notandum quod hoc quod 166 It should be noted

dicitur verbum caro factum that this statement, the
est, quidam male Word was made flesh,
intelligentes, sumpserunt has been misinterpreted
occasionem erroris. Quidam by some and made the
namque posuerunt verbum occasion of error. For
ita carnem factum esse ac si certain ones have
ipsum vel aliquid eius sit in presumed that the Word
carnem conversum, sicut became flesh in the sense
cum farina fit panis, et aer that he or something of
ignis. Et hic fuit Eutiches, him was turned into flesh,
qui posuit commixtionem as when flour is made into
naturarum in Christo, dicens bread, and air becomes
in eo eamdem fuisse Dei et fire. One of these was
hominis naturam. Sed huius Eutyches, who postulated
opinionis falsitas manifeste a mixture of natures in
apparet, quia, sicut est Christ, saying that in him
dictum supra, verbum erat the nature of God and of
Deus. Deus autem man was the same. We
immutabilis est, ut dicitur can clearly see that this is
Mal. III, 6: ego Deus, et non false because, as was said
mutor, unde nullo modo above, “the Word was
potest esse quod in aliam God.” Now God is
naturam convertatur. Est immutable, as is said, “I
ergo dicendum contra am the Lord, and I do not
Eutichem verbum caro change” (Mal 3:6). Hence
factum est: verbum carnem in no way can it be said
assumpsit, non quod ipsum that he was turned into
verbum sit ipsa caro; sicut si another nature.
dicamus: homo factus est Therefore, one must say
albus, non quod ipse sit ipsa in opposition to Eutyches,
albedo, sed quod albedinem the Word was made
assumpsit. flesh, i.e., the Word
assumed flesh, but not in
the sense that the Word
himself is that flesh. It is
as if we were to say: “The
man became white,” not
that he is that whiteness,
but that he assued
whiteness.
Fuerunt etiam alii qui, licet 167 There were others

crederent verbum non in who, although they
carnem mutatum sed quod believed that the Word
eam assumpsit, tamen was not changed into
dixerunt ipsum assumpsisse flesh but assumed it,
carnem sine anima; nam si nevertheless said that he
carnem animatam assumed flesh without a
assumpsisset, dixisset soul; for if he had
Evangelista: verbum caro assumed flesh with a
cum anima factum est. Et soul, the Evangelist would
sic fuit error Arii, qui dixit have said, “the Word was
quod in Christo non erat made flesh with a soul.”
anima, sed verbum Dei erat This was the error of
ibi loco animae. Arius, who said that there
was no soul in Christ, but
that the Word of God was
there in place of a soul.
Et huius positionis falsitas The falsity of this opinion

apparet, tum quia repugnat is obvious, both because
sacrae Scripturae, quae in it is in conflict with
pluribus locis mentionem Sacred Scripture, which
facit de anima Christi, sicut often mentions the soul of
illud Matth. XXVI, 38: tristis Christ, as: “My soul is
est anima mea usque ad sad, even to the point of
mortem; tum etiam quia death” (Mt 26:38), and
quaedam passiones animae because certain
recitantur de Christo, quae affections of the soul are
in verbo Dei nullo modo observed in Christ which
esse possunt, nec etiam in can not possibly exist in
carne sola, sicut illud Matth. the Word of God or in
XXVI, 37: coepit Iesus flesh alone: “He began to
taedere, et maestus esse; be sorrowful and
tum etiam quia Deus non troubled” (Mt 26:37).
potest esse forma alicuius Also, God cannot be the
corporis; nec etiam Angelus form of a body. Nor can
corpori uniri potest per an angel be united to a
modum formae, cum body as its form, since an
secundum naturam a angel, according to its
corpore sit separatus; very nature, is separated
anima autem unitur corpori from body, whereas a soul
sicut forma. Non igitur is united to a body as its
verbum Dei corporis forma form. Consequently, the
esse potest. Word of God cannot be
the form of a body.
Praeterea, constat quod Furthermore, it is plain

caro non sortitur speciem that flesh does not
carnis, nisi per animam: acquire the specific
quod patet, quia recedente nature of flesh except
anima a corpore hominis, through its soul. This is
seu bovis, caro hominis vel shown by the fact that
bovis, non dicitur caro nisi when the soul has
aequivoce. Si ergo verbum withdrawn from the body
non assumpsit carnem of a man or a cow, the
animatam, manifestum est flesh of the man or the
quod non assumpsit cow is called flesh only in
carnem. Sed verbum caro an equivocal sense. So if
factum est; ergo carnem the Word did not assume
animatam assumpsit. flesh with a soul, it is
obvious that he did not
assume flesh. But the
Word was made flesh;
therefore, he assumed
flesh with a soul.
Fuerunt autem alii, qui, ex 168 And there were

hoc moti, dixerunt verbum others who, influenced by
carnem quidem animatam this, said that the Word
assumpsisse, sed anima did indeed assume flesh
sensitiva tantum, non with a soul, but this soul
intellectiva, loco cuius in was only a sensitive soul,
corpore Christi dixerunt not an intellectual one;
verbum esse. Et hic fuit the Word took the place
error Apollinaris, qui of the intellectual soul in
quandoque Arium secutus Christ’s body. This was
est, tandem propter the error of Apollinaris.
auctoritates praedictas He followed Arius for a
coactus fuit ponere aliquam time, but later in the face
animam in Christo, quae of the [scriptural]
posset harum passionum authorities cited above,
esse subiectum, ita tamen was forced to admit a
quod ratione et intellectu soul in Christ which could
careret sed loco horum be the subject of these
verbum esset in homine emotions. But he said this
Christo. soul lacked reason and
intellect, and that in the
man Christ their place
was taken by the Word.
Sed hoc manifeste apparet This too is obviously

esse falsum, quia repugnat false, because it conflicts
auctoritati sacrae with the authority of
Scripturae, in qua quaedam Sacred Scripture in which
dicuntur de Christo, quae certain things are said of
nec in divinitate, nec in Christ that cannot be
anima sensitiva, nec in found in his divinity, nor
carne inveniri possunt: sicut in a sensitive soul, nor in
illud quod admiratus est, ut flesh alone; for example,
dicitur Matth. VIII, 10; that Christ marvelled, as
admiratio autem est passio in Matthew (8:10). For to
animae rationalis et marvel or wonder is a
intellectivae, cum sit state which arises in a
desiderium cognoscendi rational and intellectual
causam occultam effectus soul when a desire arises
visi. Sic igitur, sicut tristitia to know the hidden cause
cogit in Christo ponere of an observed effect.
partem animae sensitivam, Therefore, just as sadness
contra Arium, ita admiratio compels one to place a
cogit ponere in ipso partem sensitive element in the
animae intellectivam, contra soul of Christ, against
Apollinarem. Arius, so marvelling or
amazement forces one to
admit, against Apollinaris,
an intellectual element in
Christ.
Idem etiam apparet per The same conclusion can

rationem. Sicut enim non be reached by reason. For
est caro sine anima, ita non as there is no flesh
est vera caro humana sine without a soul, so there is
anima humana, quae est no human flesh without a
anima intellectiva. Si ergo human soul, which is an
verbum assumpsit carnem intellectual soul. So if the
animatam anima sensitiva Word assumed flesh
tantum, et non rationali, which was animated with
non assumpsit carnem a merely sensitive soul to
humanam: et ita non poterit the exclusion of a rational
dici: Deus factus est homo. soul, he did not assume
human flesh;
consequently, one could
not say: “God became
man.”
Praeterea ad hoc verbum Besides, the Word

humanam naturam assumed human nature in
assumpsit, ut eam order to repair it.
repararet. Ergo id reparavit Therefore, he repaired
quod assumpsit. Si ergo non what he assumed. But if
assumpsit animam he did not assume a
rationalem, non reparasset rational soul, he would
eam: et sic nullus fructus not have repaired it.
proveniret nobis ex verbi Consequently, no fruit
incarnatione, quod falsum would have accrued to us
est. Verbum ergo caro from the incarnation of
factum est, idest carnem the Word; and this is
animatam anima rationali false. Therefore, the
assumpsit. Word was made flesh,
i.e., assumed flesh which
was animated by a
rational soul.
Sed forte dicis: si verbum 169 But you may say: If

carnem sic animatam the Word did assume
assumpsit, quare flesh with such a soul,
Evangelista de anima why did the Evangelist not
rationali mentionem non mention “rational soul,”
fecit, sed de carne solum instead of only “flesh,”
dicens verbum caro factum saying, the Word was
est? Respondeo dicendum made flesh? I answer that
quod propter quatuor the Evangelist had four
rationes Evangelista hoc reasons for doing this.
fecit.
Primo ad ostendendum First, to show the truth of

veritatem incarnationis the incarnation against
contra Manichaeos, qui the Manichaeans, who
dicebant verbum non said that the Word did not
assumpsisse veram carnem, assume true flesh, but
sed phantasticam tantum, only imaginary flesh,
cum non esset conveniens since it would not have
ut boni Dei verbum been becoming for the
assumeret carnem, quam Word of the good God to
ipsi dicebant Diaboli assume flesh, which they
creaturam. Et ideo regarded as a creature of
Evangelista, ut hoc the devil. And so to
excluderet, fecit de carne exclude this the
specialiter mentionem; sicut Evangelist made special
et Christus, Lc. XXIV, 39, mention of the flesh, just
existimantibus discipulis as Christ showed the
eum esse phantasma, truth of the resurrection
veritatem resurrectionis to the disciples when they
ostendit, dicens: spiritus took him for a spirit,
carnem et ossa non habet, saying: “A spirit does not
sicut me videtis habere. have flesh and bones, as
you see that I have” (Lk
24:39).
Secundo ad Secondly, to show the

demonstrandam Dei erga greatness of God’s
nos magnitudinem kindness to us. For it is
benignitatis. Constat enim evident that the rational
quod anima rationalis magis soul has a greater
conformis est Deo quam conformity to God than
caro, et quidem magnum does flesh, and that it
pietatis sacramentum would have been a great
fuisset si verbum sign of compassion if the
assumpsisset animam Word had assumed a
humanam, utpote sibi human soul, as being
conformem, sed assumere conformed to himself. But
etiam carnem elongatam a to assume flesh too,
simplicitate suae naturae, which is something far
fuit multo amplioris, immo removed from the
inaestimabilis pietatis simplicity of his nature,
indicium; secundum quod was a sign of a much
apostolus dicit I ad Tim. III, greater, indeed, of an
16: et manifeste magnum incomprehensible
est pietatis sacramentum, compassion. As the
quod manifestatum est in Apostle says (1 Tim
carne. Et ideo ut hoc 3:16): “Obviously great is
ostenderet Evangelista, the mystery of godliness
solum de carne mentionem which appeared in the
fecit. flesh.” And so to indicate
this, the Evangelist
mentioned only flesh.
Tertio ad demonstrandam Thirdly, to demonstrate

veritatem et singularitatem the truth and uniqueness
unionis in Christo. Aliis enim of the union in Christ. For
hominibus sanctis unitur God is indeed united to
quidem Deus, quantum ad other holy men, but only
animam solum; unde dicitur with respect to their soul;
Sap. VII, v. 27: per nationes so it is said: “She
in animas sanctas se [wisdom] passes into holy
transfert, amicos Dei et souls, making them
prophetas constituens. Sed friends of God and
quod verbum Dei uniretur prophets” (Wis 7:27). But
carni, hoc est singulare in that the Word of God is
Christo, secundum illud in united to flesh is unique
Ps. CXL, 10: singulariter to Christ, according to the
sum ego donec transeam; Psalmist: “I am alone until
Iob XXVIII, 17: non I pass” (Ps 140:10).
adaequabitur ei aurum. “Gold cannot equal it” (Jb
Hanc ergo singularitatem 28:17). So the Evangelist,
unionis in Christo ostendere wishing to show the
volens Evangelista, de carne uniqueness of the union
solum mentionem fecit, in Christ, mentioned only
dicens verbum caro factum the flesh, saying, the
est. Word was made flesh.
Quarto ad insinuandam Fourthly, to suggest its

congruitatem humanae relevance to man’s
reparationis. Homo enim per restoration For man was
carnem infirmabatur, et ideo weak because of the
Evangelista volens insinuare flesh. And thus the
adventum verbi congruum Evangelist, wishing to
esse nostrae reparationi, suggest that the coming
mentionem de carne of’ the Word was suited to
specialiter fecit, ut the task of our
ostenderet quod caro restoration, made special
infirma per carnem verbi mention of the flesh in
reparata fuit; et hoc est order to show that the
quod apostolus dicit, Rom. weak flesh was repaired
VIII, 3: nam quod by the flesh of the Word.
impossibile erat legi, in quo And this is what the
infirmabatur per carnem, Apostle says: “The law
Deus filium suum mittens in was powerless because it
similitudinem carnis peccati, was weakened by the
et de peccato damnavit flesh. God, sending his
peccatum in carne. Son in the likeness of
sinful flesh and in
reparation for sin,
condemned sin in his
flesh” (Rom 83).
Sed quaeritur, quare 170 A question arises as

Evangelista non dixit to why the Evangelist did
verbum carnem assumpsit, not say that the Word
sed potius verbum caro assumed flesh, but rather
factum est. Respondeo that the Word was made
dicendum, quod hoc ideo flesh. I answer that he did
fecit, ut excluderet errorem this to exclude the error
Nestorii, qui dixit in Christo of Nestorius. He said that
fuisse duas personas, et in Christ there were two
duos filios, et alium esse persons and two sons,
filium virginis: unde non [one being the Son of
concedebat quod beata God] the other being the
virgo esset mater Dei. son of the Virgin. Thus he
did not admit that the
Blessed Virgin was the
mother of God.
Sed secundum hoc Deus But if this were so, it
non esset factus homo; quia would mean that God did
impossibile est quod not become man, for one
duorum singularium, quae particular suppositum
diversa sunt secundum cannot be predicated of
suppositum, unum another. Accordingly, if
praedicetur de alio. Unde si the person or suppositum
alia est persona verbi, seu of the Word is different
suppositum, et alia persona than the person or
hominis, seu suppositum in suppositum of the man, in
Christo, tunc non erit verum Christ, then what the
quod dicit Evangelista Evangelist says is not
verbum caro factum est. Ad true, namely, the Word
hoc enim fit aliquid, ut sit; si was made flesh. For a
ergo verbum non esset thing is made or becomes
homo, non posset dici quod something in order to be
verbum sit factum homo. Et it; if, then, the Word is not
ideo signanter Evangelista man, it could not be said
dixit factum est, et non dixit that the Word became
assumpsit, ut ostendat quod man. And so the
unio verbi ad carnem non Evangelist expressly said
est talis qualis est was made, and not
assumptio prophetarum, qui “assumed,” to show that
non assumebantur in the union of the Word to
unitatem suppositi, sed ad flesh is not such as was
actum propheticum: sed est the “lifting up” of the
talis quod Deum vere prophets, who were not
faceret hominem, et “taken up” into a unity of
hominem Deum, idest quod person, but for the
Deus esset homo. prophetic act. This union
is such as would truly
make God man and man
God, i.e., that God would
be man.
Fuerunt et alii, qui non 171 There were some,

intelligentes modum too, who,
incarnationis, posuerunt misunderstanding the
quidem assumptionem manner of the
praedictam esse incarnation, did indeed
terminatam ad veritatem admit that the aforesaid
personae, confitentes in Deo assumption was
unam personam Dei et terminated at a oneness
hominis; sed tamen dicunt of person, acknowledging
in ipso fuisse duas in God one person of God
hypostases, sive duo and man. But they said
supposita, unum naturae that in him there were two
humanae creatum, et hypostases, i.e., two
temporale, aliud divinae supposita; one of a
increatum, et aeternum. Et human nature, created
talis est prima opinio quae and non-eternal, ‘and the
ponitur III Sent. dist. VI. other of the divine nature,
non-created and eternal.
This is the first opinion
presented in the
Sentences (III, d6).
Sed secundum hanc According to this opinion

opinionem non habet the proposition, “God was
veritatem ista propositio: made man and man was
Deus factus est homo, et made God,” is not true.
homo factus est Deus. Et Consequently, this
ideo haec opinio damnata opinion was condemned
est tamquam haeretica in as heretical by the Fifth
quinto Concilio, ubi dicitur: Council, where it is said:
si quis in domino Iesu “If anyone shall assert
Christo unam personam, et one person and two
duas hypostases dixerit, hypostases in the Lord
anathema sit. Et ideo Jesus Christ, let him be
Evangelista, ut omnem anathema.” And so the
assumptionem excluderet, Evangelist, to exclude any
quae non terminatur ad assumption not
unitatem personae, utitur terminated at a oneness
hoc verbo factum est. of person, says, was
made.
Si vero quaeris quomodo 172 If you ask how the

verbum est homo, dicendum Word is man, it must be
quod eo modo est homo said that he is man in the
quo quicumque alius est way that anyone is, man,
homo, scilicet habens namely, as having human
humanam naturam. Non nature. Not that the Word
quod verbum sit ipsa is human nature itself, but
humana natura, sed est he is a divine suppositum
divinum suppositum unitum united to a human nature.
humanae naturae. Hoc The statement, the Word
autem quod dicitur verbum was made flesh, does not
caro factum est, non indicate any change in the
aliquam mutationem in Word, but only in the
verbo, sed solum in natura nature newly assumed
assumpta de novo in into the oneness of a
unitatem personae divinae divine person. And the
dicit. Et verbum caro factum Word was made flesh
est, per unionem ad carnem. through a union to flesh.
Unio autem relatio quaedam Now a union is a relation.
est. Relationes autem de And relations newly said
novo dictae de Deo in of God with respect to
respectu ad creaturas, non creatures do not imply a
important mutationem ex change on the side of
parte Dei, sed ex parte God, but on the side of
creaturae novo modo se the creature relating in a
habentis ad Deum. new way to God.
Sequitur et habitavit in 173 Now follows, and

nobis; quod quidem made his dwelling among
dupliciter distinguitur a us. This is distinguished
praemissis. Primo ut dicatur in two ways from what
quod supra Evangelista egit went before. The first
de verbi incarnatione, consists in stating that
dicens verbum caro factum above the Evangelist dealt
est; hic vero modum with the incarnation of
incarnationis insinuat, the Word when he said,
dicens et habitavit in nobis. the Word was made
Secundum enim flesh; but now he touches
Chrysostomum et Hilarium, on the manner of the
per hoc quod Evangelista incarnation, saying, and
dicit verbum caro factum made his dwelling among
est, posset aliquis intelligere us. For according to
quod sit conversum in Chrysostom and Hilary, by
carnem, et non sint in the Evangelist saying the
Christo duae naturae Word was made flesh,
distinctae, sed una tantum someone might think that
natura ex humana et divina he was converted into
commixta; ideo Evangelista flesh and that there are
hoc excludens, subiunxit et not two distinct natures in
habitavit in nobis, idest in Christ, but only one
nostra natura, ut tamen in nature compounded from
sua maneret distinctum. the human and divine
Illud enim quod in aliquid natures. And so the
convertitur, non manet ab Evangelist, excluding this,
eo in quod convertitur added, and made his
secundum naturam dwelling among us, i.e.,
distinctum; in our nature, yet so as to
remain distinct in his own.
For what is converted into
something does not
remain distinct in its
nature from that into
which it is converted.
quod autem ab aliquo non Furthermore, something

distinguitur, non inhabitat which is not distinct from
illud; quia habitare another does not dwell in
distinctionem inhabitantis et it, because to dwell
in quo habitat importat. Sed implies a distinction
verbum habitavit in nostra between the dweller and
natura ergo naturaliter est that in which it dwells.
ab ipsa distinctum. Et ideo But the Word dwelt in our
inquantum humana natura a nature; therefore, he is
natura verbi fuit in Christo distinct in nature from it.
distincta, dicitur And so, inasmuch as
habitaculum divinitatis et human nature was
templum, iuxta illud infra II, distinct from the nature of
21: hoc autem dicebat de the Word in Christ, the
templo corporis sui. former is called the
dwelling place and temple
of the divinity, according
to John (2:21): “But he
spoke of the temple of his
body.”
Et quidem, quamvis a 174 Now although what is

praedictis sanctis hoc sane said here by these holy
dicatur, cavenda est tamen men is orthodox, care
calumnia quam aliqui ex hoc must be taken to avoid
incurrunt. Nam antiqui the reproach which some
doctores et sancti, receive for this. For the
emergentes errores circa early doctors and saints
fidem ita persequebantur, ut were so intent upon
interdum viderentur in refuting the emerging
errores labi contrarios; sicut errors concerning the
Augustinus contra faith that they seemed
Manichaeos, qui meanwhile to fall into the
destruebant libertatem opposite ones. For
arbitrii, taliter disputat, example, Augustine,
quod videtur in haeresim speaking against the
Pelagii incidisse. Hoc igitur Manichaeans, who
modo Evangelista Ioannes, destroyed the freedom of
ne per hoc quod dixerat the will, disputed in such
verbum caro factum est, terms that he seemed to
intelligeretur in Christo have fallen into the heresy
confusio vel transmutatio of Pelagius. Along these
naturarum, subiunxit et lines, John the Evangelist
habitavit in nobis: added, and made his
dwelling among us, so
that we would not think
there was a mingling or
transformation of natures
in Christ because he had
said, the Word was made
flesh.
ex quo verbo Nestorius Nestorius misunderstood

occasionem sumens erroris, this phrase, and made his
dixit, filium Dei sic esse dwelling among us, and
unitum homini ut tamen Dei said that the Son of God
et hominis non esset una was united to man in such
persona: voluit enim quod a way that there was not
verbum per solam one person of God and of
inhabitationem per gratiam man. For he held that the
fuerit humanae naturae Word was united to
unitum. Ex hoc autem human nature only by an
sequitur quod filius Dei non indwelling through grace.
sit homo. From this, however, it
follows that the Son of
God is not man.
Ad quorum evidentiam 175 To clarify this we

sciendum est quod in should know that we can
Christo duo considerare consider two things in
possumus, scilicet naturam Christ: his nature and
et personam. Secundum person. In Christ there is
naturam autem attenditur in a distinction in nature,
Christo distinctio, non but not in person, which
secundum personam, quae is one and the same in the
una et eadem est in duabus two natures, since the
naturis; quia humana natura human nature in Christ
in Christo fuit assumpta in was assumed into a
unitatem personae. oneness of person.
Inhabitatio ergo, quam Therefore, the indwelling
ponunt sancti, referenda est which the saints speak of
ad naturam, ut dicatur quod must be referred to the
habitavit in nobis, idest nature, so as to say, he
natura verbi inhabitavit made his dwelling among
naturam nostram, non us, i.e., the nature of the
secundum hypostasim seu Word inhabited our
personam, quae est eadem nature; not according to
utriusque naturae in the hypostasis or person,
Christo. which is the same for
both natures in Christ.
Quod autem blasphemat 176 The blasphemy of

Nestorius, auctoritate Nestorius is further
sacrae Scripturae evidenter refuted by the authority of
refellitur. Apostolus enim Sacred Scripture. For the
Phil. II, 6 unionem Dei et Apostle calls the union of
hominis exinanitionem God and man an
vocat, dicens de filio Dei: qui emptying, saying of the
cum in forma Dei esset, non Son of God: “He, being in
rapinam arbitratus est se the form of God ...
esse aequalem Deo; sed emptied himself, taking
semetipsum exinanivit, the form of a servant”
formam servi accipiens. Non (Phil 2:6). Clearly, God is
autem dicitur Deus exinaniri not said to empty himself
Deus ex eo quod creaturam insofar as he dwells in the
rationalem per gratiam rational creature by
inhabitet, quia sic pater et grace, because then the
spiritus sanctus Father and the Holy Spirit
exinanirentur, cum et ipsi would be emptying
inhabitare hominem themselves, since they
dicantur per gratiam; dicit too are said to dwell in
enim Christus de se et de man through grace: for
patre loquens, infra XIV, 23: Christ, speaking of
ad eum veniemus et himself and of the Father
mansionem apud eum says, “We will come to
faciemus. De spiritu autem him and make our home
sancto dicit apostolus, I Cor. with him” (below 14:23);
III, 16: spiritus Dei habitat and of the Holy Spirit the
in nobis. Apostle says: “The Spirit
of God dwells in us” (1
Cor 3:16).
Praeterea, si Christus Furthermore, if Christ was

personaliter Deus non esset, not God as to his person,
praesumptuosissime he would have been most
dixisset: ego et pater unum presumptuous to say: “I
sumus; et antequam and the Father are one”
Abraham fieret, ego sum. (below 10:30), and
Ego autem personam “Before Abraham came to
loquentis demonstrat; homo be, I am,” as is said below
autem erat, qui loquebatur; (8:58). Now “I” refers to
unum cum patre the person of the speaker.
praeexistebat Abrahae. And the one who was
speaking was a man, who,
as one with the Father,
existed before Abraham.
Potest etiam aliter 177 However, another

continuari, ut dicatur quod connection [besides that
supra egit de verbi given in 173] with what
incarnatione, nunc autem went before is possible,
agit de verbi incarnati by saying that above he
conversatione, dicens et dealt with the incarnation
habitavit in nobis, idest inter of the Word, but that now
nos apostolos conversatus he is treating the manner
est familiariter, secundum of life of the incarnate
quod dicit Petrus, Act. I, 21: Word, saying, he made
in omni tempore quo intravit his dwelling among us,
et exivit inter nos dominus i.e., he lived on familiar
Iesus. Baruch IV, 38: post terms with us apostles.
haec in terris visus est. Peter alludes to this when
he says, “During all the
time that the Lord Jesus
came and went among
us” (Acts 1:21).
“Afterwards, he was seen
on earth” (Bar 3:38).
Hoc autem Evangelista 178 The Evangelist added

addidit propter duo. Primo this for two reasons. First,
ut ostendat mirabilem to show the marvelous
conformitatem verbi ad likeness of the Word to
homines, inter quos sic men, among whom he
conversatus est, ut lived in such a way as to
videretur quasi unus ex eis. seem one of them. For he
Non solum enim in natura not only willed to be like
voluit assimilari hominibus, men in nature, but also in
sed etiam in convictu et living with them on close
familiari conversatione terms without sin, in
absque peccato, cum eis order to draw to himself
voluit esse simul, ut sic men won over by the
homines suae charm of his way of life.
conversationis dulcedine
allectos traheret ad
seipsum.
Secundo ut ostendat sui Secondly, to show the

testimonii veritatem. truthfulness of his [the
Evangelista enim supra de Evangelist’s] statements.
verbo magna quaedam For the Evangelist had
dixerat et adhuc multa de already said many great
eo mirabilia dicturus erat, et things about the Word,
ideo ut eius testimonium and was yet to mention
credibilius fieret, accepit more wonderful things
quasi in veritatis about him; and so that his
argumentum, se cum testimony would be more
Christo conversatum fuisse, credible he took as a
dicens et habitavit in nobis. proof of his truthfulness
Quasi dicat: bene possum the fact that he had lived
testimonium perhibere de with Christ, saying, he
ipso quia cum ipso made his dwelling among
conversatus sum; I Io. c. I, us. As if to say: I can well
1: quod fuit ab initio, quod bear witness to him,
audivimus, quod vidimus because I lived on close
oculis nostris, quod terms with him. “We tell
perspeximus, et manus you ... what we have
nostrae contrectaverunt de heard, what we have seen
verbo vitae etc., et Act. X, with our eyes” (1 Jn 1:1);
40: dedit eum manifestum “God raised him up on the
fieri, non omni populo, sed third day, and granted
testibus praeordinatis a Deo that he be seen, not by all
idest nobis qui the people, but by
manducavimus et bibimus witnesses preordained by
cum illo. God,” that is, “to us who
ate and drank with him”
(Acts 10:40).
Lectio 8 LECTURE 8
καὶ ἐθεασάμεθα 14b And we

τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ, have seen his
δόξαν ὡς glory,
μονογενοῦς παρὰ the glory as of
πατρός, πλήρης the Only
χάριτος καὶ Begotten of
ἀληθείας. the Father,
full of grace
and truth.
Posita verbi incarnatione, 179 Having set forth the

hic consequenter incarnation of the Word,
Evangelista insinuat verbi the Evangelist then
incarnati evidentiam. Et begins to give the
circa hoc duo facit. Primo evidence for the
enim ostendit modum incarnate Word. He does
manifestationis verbi two things about this.
incarnati; secundo utrumque First, he shows the ways
modum exponit, ibi de in which the incarnate
plenitudine eius nos omnes Word was made known.
accepimus. Innotuit autem Secondly, he clarifies
apostolis verbum each way, below (1:16).
incarnatum dupliciter. Primo Now the incarnate Word
quidem per visum was made known to the
acceperunt de eo notitiam; apostles in two ways: first
secundo per auditum ex of all, they obtained
testimonio Ioannis knowledge of him by
Baptistae. Primo ergo what they saw; secondly,
manifestat quid de verbo by what they heard of the
viderunt; secundo quid a testimony of John the
Ioanne audierunt, ibi Baptist. So first, he states
Ioannes testimonium what they saw about the
perhibet de ipso. Word; secondly, what
they heard from John (v
15).
Dicit autem tria de verbo. He states three things

Primo eius gloriae about the Word. First, the
manifestationem; unde dicit manifestation of his
et vidimus gloriam eius; glory; hence he says, we
secundo eius gloriae have seen his glory.
singularitatem, cum subdit Secondly, the uniqueness
quasi unigeniti; tertio huius of his glory, when he
gloriae determinationem, adds, as of the Only
quia plenum gratiae et Begotten. Thirdly, the
veritatis. precise nature of this
glory, because full of
grace and truth.
Hoc autem quod dicit 180 And we have seen

vidimus gloriam eius, potest his glory, can be
continuari ad praecedentia connected in three ways
tripliciter. Primo ut sit with what went before.
argumentum eius quod First, it can be taken as
dixerat verbum caro factum an argument for his
est: quasi dicat: ex hoc having said, the Word
habeo et scio quod verbum was made flesh. As if to
Dei est incarnatum, quia ego say: I hold and know that
et alii apostoli vidimus the Word of God was
gloriam eius. Infra III, 11: incarnate because I and
quod scimus, loquimur: et the other apostles have
quod vidimus, testamur. Et I seen his glory. “We know
Io. c. I, 1: quod fuit ab initio, of what we speak, and we
quod audivimus, quod bear witness of what we
vidimus oculis nostris et see” (below 3:11). “We
cetera. tell you ... what we have
heard, what we have seen
with our eyes” (1 Jn 1:1).
Secundo continuatur, 181 Secondly, according

secundum Chrysostomum, to Chrysostom, the
ut sit expressivum connection is made by
multiplicis beneficii. Quasi taking this statement as
dicat: non solum hoc expressing many
beneficium collatum est benefits. As if to say: The
nobis per incarnationem incarnation of the Word
verbi, scilicet quod not only conferred on us
efficiamur filii Dei, sed etiam the benefit of becoming
quod videamus gloriam. sons of God, but also the
Oculi enim debiles et infirmi good of seeing his glory.
lucem solis non possunt For dull and feeble eyes
videre; sed tunc eam videre cannot see the light of
possunt, cum in nube vel in the sun; but they can see
aliquo corpore opaco it when it shines in a
resplendet. Ante cloud or on some opaque
incarnationem enim verbi body. Now before the
mentes humanae erant incarnation of the Word,
invalidae ad videndum in human minds were
seipsa lucem divinam, quae incapable of seeing the
illuminat omnem rationalem divine light in itself, the
naturam; et ideo ut a nobis light which enlightens
facilius cerni contemplarique every rational nature. And
posset nube nostrae carnis so, in order that it might
se texit, iuxta illud Ex. XVI, be more easily seen and
10: respexerunt ad contemplated by us, he
solitudinem, et viderunt covered it with the cloud
gloriam domini in nube, idest of our flesh: “They looked
verbum Dei in carne. towards the desert, and
saw the glory of the Lord
in a cloud” (Ex 16:10),
i.e., the Word of God in
the flesh.
Secundum Augustinum 182 According to

autem continuatur sic quod Augustine, however, the
referatur ad beneficium connection refers to the
gratiae. Spirituales enim gift of grace. For the
oculi hominum non solum failure of the spiritual
naturaliter deficiebant a eyes of men to
contemplatione divinae contemplate the divine
lucis, sed etiam ex defectu light is due not only to
peccati, secundum illud Ps. their natural limitations
LVII, 9: supercecidit ignis, but also to the defects
scilicet concupiscentiae, et incurred by sin: “Fire,”
non viderunt solem, scilicet that is, of concupiscence,
iustitiae. Ut ergo ipsa divina “fell on them, and they
lux posset a nobis videri, did not see the sun,” of
sanavit oculos hominum, justice (Ps 57:9). Hence
faciens de carne sua in order that the divine
salutare collirium, ut sic light might be seen by us,
oculos ex concupiscentia he healed our eyes,
carnis corruptos verbum making an eye salve of
collirio suae carnis curaret. his flesh, so that with the
Et inde est quod statim cum salve of his flesh the
verbum factum est caro, Word might heal our
dixerunt et vidimus gloriam eyes, weakened by the
eius. Ad hoc significandum concupiscence of the
fecit dominus lutum ex flesh. And this is why just
sputo, et linivit oculus caeci after saying, the Word
nati, infra IX, 6. Lutum was made flesh, he says,
quidem de terra est, sputum we have seen his glory.
autem a capite derivatur. Ita To indicate this the Lord
in persona Christi, natura made clay from his saliva
quidem humana assumpta and spread the clay upon
de terra est; verbum vero the eyes of the man born
incarnatum a capite est, blind (below 9:6). For
scilicet a Deo patre. Hoc clay is from the earth, but
ergo lutum statim cum saliva comes from the
appositum fuit oculis head. Similarly, in the
hominum, vidimus gloriam person of Christ, his
eius. human naure was
assumed from the earth;
but the incarnate Word is
from the head, i.e., from
God the Father. So, when
this clay was spread on
the eyes of men, we saw
his glory.
Hanc autem verbi gloriam 183 This is the glory of

Moyses videre optavit, the Word Moses longed
dicens ostende mihi gloriam to see, saying, “Show me
tuam (Ex. XXXIII, 18). Sed your glory” (Ex 32:18).
eam videre non meruit: But he did not deserve to
immo dictum est ei a see it; indeed, he was
domino: posteriora mea answered by the Lord:
videbis, idest umbras et “You shall see my back”
figuras. Apostoli vero ipsam (Ex 33:23), i.e., shadows
claritatem viderunt; II Cor. and figures. But the
III, 18: nos autem revelata apostles saw his
facie gloriam Dei brightness: “All of us,
speculantes in eamdem gazing on the Lord’s
imaginem transformamur de glory with unveiled faces,
claritate in claritatem. are being transformed
Moyses enim et alii from glory to glory into
prophetae verbi gloriam his very image” (2 Cor
manifestandam mundo in 3:18). For Moses and the
fine temporum other prophets saw in an
speculabantur in obscure manner and in
aenigmatibus et figuris; figures the glory of the
unde dicit apostolus, infra Word that was to be
XII: haec dixit Isaias, manifested to the world
quando vidit gloriam eius. at the end of their times;
Apostoli autem ipsam verbi hence the Apostle says:
claritatem per praesentiam “Now we see through a
corporalem viderunt. II Cor. mirror, in an obscure
III, v. 18: nos autem revelata manner, but then face to
facie etc.; et Lc. c. X, 23: face” in 1 Corinthians
beati oculi qui vident quae (13:12); and below
vos videtis. Multi enim reges (12:41), “Isaiah said this
et prophetae voluerunt when he saw his glory.”
videre quae vos videtis et But the apostles saw the
non viderunt. very brilliance of the
Word through his bodily
presence: “All of us,
gazing on the Lord’s
glory,” and so forth (2
Cor 3:18); “Blessed are
the eyes which see what
you see. For many kings
and prophets desired to
see what you see, and did
not see it” (Lk 10:23).
Consequenter cum dicit 184 Then when he says,

gloriam quasi unigeniti, the glory as of the Only
ostendit gloriae eius Begotten, he shows the
singularitatem. Cum enim de uniqueness of his glory.
quibusdam hominibus For since it is written of
inveniatur quod fuerunt certain men that they
gloriosi, sicut de Moyse were in glory, as of Moses
legitur Ex. XXXIV, 29: et it says that “his face
facies eius facta est shone” (Ex 34:29), or
splendida, vel cornuta, was “horned,” according
secundum aliam litteram, to another text, someone
posset aliquis dicere quod might say that from the
ex hoc quod viderunt eum fact that they saw him
gloriosum, non debet dici [Jesus] in glory, it should
quod verbum Dei sit factum not be said that the Word
caro. Sed hoc Evangelista of God was made flesh.
excludit, dicens gloriam But the Evangelist
quasi unigeniti a patre. excludes this when he
Quasi dicat: gloria eius non says, the glory as of the
est sicut gloria Angeli, vel Only Begotten of the
Moysis, et Eliae, vel Elisei, Father. As if to say: His
vel cuiusque alterius, sed glory is not like the glory
quasi unigeniti; quia, ut of an angel, or of Moses,
dicitur Hebr. III, 3: ampliori or Elijah, or Elisha, or
gloria iste prae Moyse anything like that. but the
dignus est habitus. Ps. glory as of the Only
LXXXVIII, 7: quis similis Deo Begotten; for as it is said,
in filiis Dei? “He [Jesus] was counted
worthy of more glory
than Moses” (Heb 3:3);
“Who among the sons of
God is like God?” (Ps
88:7).
Hoc autem quod dicit quasi 185 The word "as",

est expressivum veritatis, according to Gregory, is
secundum Gregorium, et est used to express the fact.
modus, ut Chrysostomus But according to
dicit. Sicut si aliquis vidisset Chrysostom, it expresses
regem multiplici gloria the manner of the fact: as
incedentem, et interrogatus if someone were to see a
ab aliquo, qualiter regem king approaching in great
vidisset, volens se expedire, glory and being asked by
illam multiplicem gloriam another to describe the
uno verbo exprimeret, king he saw, he could, if
dicens quod ipse incedebat he wanted to be brief,
sicut rex, idest sicut regem express the grandeur of
decebat; ita hic Evangelista, his glory in one word, and
quasi interrogaretur ab say that he approached
aliquo, qualis esset gloria “as” a king, i.e., as
verbi quam viderat, non became a king. So too,
valens eam plene exprimere, here, the Evangelist, as
dicit eam esse quasi though asked by
unigeniti a patre, idest talem someone to describe the
qualem decebat unigenitum glory of the Word which
Dei. he had seen, and being
unable to fully express it,
said that it was “as” of
the Only Begotten of the
Father, i.e., such as
became the Only
Begotten of God.
Attenditur autem 186 The uniqueness of

singularitas gloriae verbi the glory of the Word is
quantum ad quatuor. Primo brought out in four ways.
quantum ad patris First, in the testimony
testimonium, quod filio which the Father gave to
reddidit. Quia Ioannes fuit the Son. For John was
unus de tribus qui viderant one of the three who had
Christum transfiguratum in seen Christ transfigured
monte, et audierunt vocem on the mountain and
patris dicentis: hic est filius heard the , voice of the
meus dilectus, in quo mihi Father saying: “This is my
bene complacui; et de ista beloved Son, with whom I
gloria dicitur II Petr. I, 17: am well pleased” (Mt
accepit a Deo patre honorem 17:5). Of this glory it is
et gloriam, voce delapsa ad said, “He received honor
eum huiuscemodi a and glory from God the
magnifica gloria: hic est filius Father ... ‘This is my
meus dilectus. beloved Son’” (2 Pt 1:17)
Secundo quantum ad Secondly, it is brought

Angelorum ministerium. out by the service of the
Nam ante incarnationem angels. For prior to the
Christi homines erant incarnation of Christ,
Angelis subiecti; postmodum men were subject to the
vero, Christo subiecti angels. But after it,
ministraverunt, Matth. IV, angels ministered, as
11: tunc accesserunt Angeli subjects, to Christ.
et ministrabant ei. “Angels came and
ministered to him” (Mt
4:11).
Tertio vero quantum ad Thirdly, it is brought out

naturae obsequium. Tota by the submission of
enim natura Christo nature. For all nature
obediens ei obsequebatur obeyed Christ and
ad nutum, utpote ab ipso heeded his slightest
instituta, quia omnia per command, as something
ipsum facta sunt: quod established by him,
quidem nec Angelis, nec because “All things were
alicui alii creaturae made through him”
concessum est, nisi soli (above 1:3). This is
verbo incarnato. Et hoc est something granted
quod dicitur Matth. VIII, 27: neither to angels nor to
qualis est iste, quia mare et any creature, but to the
venti obediunt ei? incarnate Word alone.
And this is what we read,
“What kind of man is this,
for the winds and the sea
obey him?” (Mt 8:27).
Quarto quantum ad docendi, Fourthly, we see it in the

seu operandi modum. way he taught and acted.
Moyses enim et alii For Moses and the other
prophetae non propria prophets gave commands
auctoritate praecepta to men and taught them
dabant et homines not on their own
instruebant, sed Dei; unde authority, but on the
dicebant: haec dicit dominus authority of God. So they
etc.; et: locutus est dominus said: “The Lord says
ad Moysen et cetera. this”; and “The Lord
Christus vero loquitur spoke to Moses.” But
tamquam dominus et Christ speaks as the Lord,
potestatem habens, idest and as one having power,
propria virtute: unde i.e., by reason of his own
dicebat, Matth. V, v. 22: ego power. Hence he says, “I
dico vobis etc.; propter quod say to you” (Mt 5:22).
in fine sermonis eius in This is the reason why, at
monte dicitur, quod erat the end of the Sermon on
docens quasi potestatem the Mountain, it is said
habens et cetera. Item, alii that he taught as one
sancti operabantur miracula “having authority” (Mt
virtute non sua; Christus 7:29). Furthermore, other
vero virtute propria; unde holy men worked
dicitur Mc. I, 27: quaenam miracles, but not by their
est haec nova doctrina, quia own power. But Christ
in potestate etiam spiritibus worked them by his own
immundis imperat, et power. In these ways,
obediunt ei? Sic ergo then, the glory of the
singularis est gloria verbi. Word is unique.
Nota autem quod aliquando 187 Note that sometimes

dicimus in Scriptura in Scripture we call Christ
Christum unigenitum, sicut the Only Begotten, as
hic, et infra: unigenitus, qui here, and below (1 :18):
est in sinu patris ipse “it is the Only Begotten
enarravit. Aliquando vero Son, who is in the bosom
dicimus ipsum of the Father, who has
primogenitum; Hebr. I, 6: et made him known.” At
cum iterum introducit other times we call him
primogenitum in orbem the First-born: “When he
terrae, dicit: et adorent eum brings the Firstborn into
omnes Angeli Dei. Quod ideo the world, he says, ‘Let all
est, quod sicut totius the angels of God adore
sanctae Trinitatis proprium him’ “ (Heb 1:6). The
est esse Deum, ita verbo Dei reason for this is that just
proprium est quod sit Deus as it belongs to the whole
genitus: et quandoque Blessed Trinity to be God,
quidem nominamus Deum, so it belongs to the Word
secundum quod est in se, et of God to be God
sic ipse solus singulariter Begotten. Sometimes,
est Deus per essentiam too, he is called God
suam. Unde hoc modo according to what he is in
dicimus quod est tantum himself; and in this way
unus Deus, secundum illud he alone is uniquely God
Deut. VI, 4: audi Israel, by his own essence. It is
dominus Deus tuus, unus est. in this way that we say
Quandoque nomen deitatis there is but one God:
derivamus etiam ad alios, “Hear, O Israel: the Lord
secundum quod aliqua your God is one” (Dt 6:4).
similitudo divinitatis ad At times, we even apply
homines derivatur: et sic the name of deity to
dicimus multos deos, others, insofar as a
secundum illud I Cor. VIII, 5: certain likeness of the
siquidem sunt dii multi, et divinity is given to men;
domini multi. in this sense we speak of
many gods: “Indeed,
there are many gods and
many lords” (1 Cor 8:5).
Eodem modo ergo, si Along these lines, if we

consideremus proprietatem consider what is proper
filii qua genitus est, to the Son as Begotten,
quantum ad modum quo sibi and consider the way in
ista filiatio attribuitur, which this sonship is
scilicet per naturam, dicimus attributed to him, that is,
ipsum unigenitum Dei: quia through nature, we say
cum ipse solus sit that he is the Only
naturaliter genitus a patre, Begotten of God:
unus tantum est genitus Dei. because, since he alone
Si vero consideremus ipsum is naturally begotten by
filium, secundum quod per the Father, the Begotten
similitudinem ad ipsum of the Father is one only.
filiatio derivatur ad alios, sic But if we consider the
sunt multi filii Dei per Son, insofar as sonship is
participationem. Et quia per conferred on others
eius similitudinem dicuntur through a likeness to him,
filii Dei, ideo ipse dicitur then there are many sons
primogenitus omnium. Rom. of God through
VIII, 29: quos praescivit participation. And
conformes fieri imaginis filii because they are called
sui, ut sit ipse primogenitus sons of God by a likeness
in multis fratribus. to him, he is called the
First-born of all. “Those
whom he foreknew, he
predestined to become
conformed to the image
of his Son, so that he
might be the First-born of
many brothers” (Rom
8:29).
Sic ergo Christus dicitur So, Christ is called the

unigenitus Dei per naturam, Only Begotten of God by
primogenitus vero nature; but he is called
inquantum ab eius naturali the First-born insofar as
filiatione per quamdam from his natural sonship,
similitudinem et by means of a certain
participationem filiatio ad likeness and
multos derivatur. participation, a sonship is
granted to many.

plenum gratiae et veritatis, full of grace and truth,
ipsam gloriam verbi he determines the glory
determinat, quasi dicat: talis of the Word. As if to say:
est eius gloria quod plenus His glory is such that he
est gratia et divinitate. is full of grace and
Possunt autem haec verba divinity. Now these words
exponi de Christo tripliciter. can be applied to Christ
in three ways.
Primo secundum unionem. First, from the point of
Ad hoc enim alicui datur view of union. For grace
gratia, ut per ipsam uniatur is given to someone so
Deo. Ille ergo gratia plenus that he might be united
est qui perfectissime Deo to God through it. So he
unitur. Et alii quidem who is most perfectly
coniunguntur Deo per united to God is full of
participationem similitudinis grace. Now some are
naturalis, Gen. I, 26: joined to God by
faciamus hominem ad participating in a natural
imaginem et similitudinem likeness: “Let us make
nostram, alii per fidem, Eph. man to our image and
III, 17: habitare per fidem likeness” (Gn 1:26).
Christum etc., alii per Some are joined by faith:
caritatem, quia, qui manet in “That Christ may dwell in
caritate, in Deo manet, ut your hearts through
dicitur I Io. IV, v. 16. Sed faith” (Eph 3:17). And
omnes isti modi particulares others are united by
sunt: quia neque per charity, because “He who
participationem naturalis abides in love abides in
similitudinis perfecte aliquis God” (1 Jn 4:16). But all
Deo coniungitur, neque these ways are partial:
videtur Deus per fidem sicuti because one is not
est, neque per caritatem perfectly united to God
diligitur, quantum diligibilis by participating a natural
est: quia enim ipse est likeness; nor is God seen
infinitum bonum, ideo sua as he is by faith; nor is he
amabilitas est infinita, ad loved to the extent that
quam infinite amandam non he is lovable by charity—
potest pertingere alicuius for since he is the infinite
creaturae amor; et ideo non Good, his lovableness is
potest esse plena infinite, and the love of no
coniunctio. creature is able to love
this infinitely. And so
these unions are not full.
In Christo autem, in quo But in Christ, in whom

humana natura est unita human nature is united to
divinitati in unitate the divinity in the unity of
suppositi, est invenire a suppositum, we find a
plenam et perfectam full and perfect union
coniunctionem ad Deum, with God. The reason for
quia talis fuit illa unio, ut this is that this union was
omnes actus tam divinae such that all the acts not
quam humanae naturae only of his divine but also
essent actus suppositi. Fuit of his human nature were
ergo plenus gratia, acts of the suppositum
inquantum non accepit a [or person]. So he was
Deo aliquod donum full of grace insofar he
gratuitum speciale, sed did not receive any
quod esset ipse Deus; Phil. special gratuitous gift
II, 9: dedit illi nomen, scilicet from God, but that he
Deus pater filio, quod est should be God himself.
super omne nomen; Rom. I, “He gave him,” i.e., God
4: qui praedestinatus est the Father gave to the
filius Dei in virtute. Fuit etiam Son, “a name which is
plenus veritatis, quia above every name” (Phil
humana natura in Christo 2:9). “He was
pervenit ad ipsam veritatem foreordained to be the
divinam, scilicet quod ille Son of God in power”
homo esset ipsa divina (Rom 1:4). He was also
veritas: in aliis enim full of truth, because the
hominibus sunt multae human nature in Christ
veritates participatae, attained to the divine
secundum quod ipsa veritas truth itself, that is, that
prima per multas this man should be the
similitudines in mentibus divine Truth itself. In
eorum relucet, sed Christus other men we find many
est ipsa veritas. Unde dicitur participated truths,
Col. II, 3 quod in ipso sunt insofar as the First Truth
absconditi omnes thesauri gleams back into their
sapientiae. minds through many
likenesses; but Christ is
Truth itself. Thus it is
said: “In whom all the
treasures of wisdom are
hidden” (Col 2:3).
Secundo possunt exponi 189 Secondly, these

secundum animae words can be applied in
perfectionem, secundum relation to the perfection
quam dicitur plenus gratiae of his soul. Then he is
et veritatis, secundum quod said to be full of grace
in anima eius fuit plenitudo and truth inasmuch as in
omnium gratiarum absque his soul there was the
mensura aliqua; Io. III, 34: fulness of all graces
non enim datus est spiritus without measure: “God
ad mensuram, qui tamen does not bestow the
mensurate datus est Spirit in fractions,” as we
omnibus creaturis read below (3:34). Yet it
rationalibus, tam Angelis, was given in fractions to
quam hominibus. Nam, all rational creatures,
secundum Augustinum, both angels and men. For
sicut in singulis membris according to Augustine,
corporis est unus sensus just as there is one sense
communis, scilicet sensus common to all the parts
tactus, in capite vero sunt of the body, namely, the
sensus omnes, ita in Christo, sense of touch, while all
qui est caput omnis the senses are found in
rationalis naturae, et the head, so in Christ,
specialiter sanctorum, qui ei who is the head of every
uniuntur per fidem et rational creature (and in
caritatem, superabundanter a special way of the
omnes virtutes, et gratiae, et saints who are united to
dona inveniuntur: in aliis him by faith and charity),
vero sanctis participationes all virtues and graces and
sunt donorum et gratiarum, gifts are found
quamvis commune donum superabundantly; but in
omnium sanctorum sit others, i.e., the saints, we
caritas. De plenitudine find participations of the
gratiae Christi dicitur Is. XI, graces and gifts,
1: egredietur virga de radice although there is a gift
Iesse et flos de radice eius common to all the saints,
ascendet, et requiescet and that is charity. We
super eum spiritus domini: read about this fulness of
spiritus sapientiae et Christ’s grace: “There
intellectus, spiritus consilii et shall come forth a shoot
fortitudinis, spiritus scientiae out of the root of Jesse,
et pietatis, et replebit eum and a flower shall spring
spiritus timoris domini. up out of his root. And
the spirit of the Lord shall
rest upon him: the spirit
of wisdom and of
understanding, the spirit
of counsel and of
fortitude, the spirit of
knowledge and of piety”
(Is 11:1).
Fuit etiam Christus veritate Further, Christ was also

plenus, quia eius pretiosa et full of truth because his
beata anima omnem precious and h1essed
veritatem, tam divinam soul knew every truth,
quam humanam, ab instanti human and divine, from
conceptionis cognovit; unde the instant of his
dicit ei Petrus: tu omnia scis, conception. And so Peter
et in Ps. LXXXVIII, 25: said to him, “You know all
veritas mea, idest cognitio things” (below 21:17).
omnis veritatis et And the Psalm (88:25)
misericordia mea, idest says: “My truth,” i.e., the
omnium gratiarum plenitudo knowledge of every truth,
cum ipso. “and my mercy,” i.e., the
fulness of all graces,
“shall be with him.”
Tertio modo possunt exponi 190 In a third way these

secundum capitis words can be explained in
dignitatem, scilicet relation to his dignity as
inquantum Christus est head, i.e., inasmuch as
caput Ecclesiae. Et sic sibi Christ is the head of the
competit gratiam Church. In this way it is
communicare aliis, tam in his prerogative to
mentibus hominum communicate grace to
operando virtutem per others, both by producing
gratiae infusionem, quam virtue in the minds of
merendo per doctrinam et men through the
opera et passiones mortis inpouring of grace and by
superabundantem gratiam meriting, through his
infinitis mundis, si essent. teaching and works and
Inquantum igitur nobis the sufferings of his
largitus est perfectam death, superabundant
iustitiam, quam non grace for an infinite
poteramus habere per number of worlds, if there
legem, quae infirmabatur, were such. Therefore, he
quae nullum iustificare is full of grace insofar as
posset, neque ad perfectum he conferred perfect
adducere, intantum gratia justice upon us. We could
plenus est, ut dicitur Rom. c. not acquire this perfect
VIII, 3: quod impossibile erat justice through the law,
legi, in quo infirmabatur per which was infirm and
carnem, Deus filium suum could make no one just or
mittens in similitudinem bring anyone to
carnis peccati, de peccato perfection. As we read:
damnavit peccatum in carne. “The law was powerless
because it was weakened
by the flesh. God,
sending his Son in the
likeness of sinful flesh
and in reparation for sin,
condemned sin in his
flesh” (Rom 8:3).
Item fuit veritate plenus, Again, he was full of truth

inquantum figuras veteris insofar as he fulfilled the
legis et promissiones factas figures of the Old Law
patribus adimplevit; Rom. and the promises made
XV, 8: dico Christum Iesum to the fathers. “Christ
ministrum fuisse was a minister to the
circumcisionis ad circumcised to confirm
confirmandas promissiones the promises made to the
patrum; II Cor. I, v. 20: fathers” (Rom 15:8); “All
quotquot promissiones Dei the promises of God are
sunt in illo est. fulfilled in him” (2 Cor
1:20).
Item dicitur plenus gratia, Further, he is said to be

quia eius doctrina et full of grace because his
conversatio gratiosissima teaching and manner of
fuit; Ps. XLIV, 3: diffusa est life were most gracious.
gratia in labiis tuis. Unde “Grace is poured out
dicitur Lc. XXI, 3, quod upon your lips” (Ps 44:3).
omnes mane ibant, idest And so it is said, “All the
mane ire studebant. Sed people came to him early
plenus veritate, quia non in the morning,” i.e., in
docebat in aenigmatibus et the morning they were
figuris, nec palpabat vitia eager to come (Lk
hominum, sed veritatem 21:38). He was full of
omnibus aperte sine ulla truth, because he did not
fraude praedicabat; infra teach in enigmas and
XVI, 29: ecce palam loqueris figures, nor gloss over
et cetera. the vices of men, but
preached the truth to all,
openly and without
deception. As it says
below: “Now you are
speaking plainly”
(16:29).
Lectio 9 LECTURE 9
15 Ἰωάννης 15 John bore

μαρτυρεῖ περὶ witness to him,
αὐτοῦ καὶ and he cried
κέκραγεν λέγων, out saying:
οὗτος ἦν ὃν “This is the
εἶπον, one of whom I
ὁ ὀπίσω μου said:
ἐρχόμενος ‘He who comes
ἔμπροσθέν μου after me, ranks
γέγονεν, ahead of me,
ὅτι πρῶτός μου because he
ἦν. existed before
me.’”
Posita evidentia verbi, qua 191 Having given the

ipsis apostolis innotuit per evidence by which the
visum, consequenter Word was made known to
Evangelista ponit eius the apostles by sight, the
evidentiam, secundum quod Evangelist then presents
aliis quam apostolis innotuit the evidence by which the
per auditum, per Word was made known to
testimonium ipsius Ioannis persons other than the
et cetera. Et circa hoc tria apostles by their hearing
facit. Primo enim testis the testimony of John. He
introducitur; secundo does three things about
testificandi modus innuitur, this. First, the witness is
ibi et clamat; tertio presented. Secondly, his
testimonium ponitur, ibi hic manner of testifying is
erat quem dixi et cetera. indicated. Thirdly, his
testimony is given.
Dicit ergo: nos quidem 192 So he says: We

gloriam eius vidimus, sicut indeed have seen his
unigeniti a patre, sed hoc glory, the glory as of the
nobis non creditur, quia Only Begotten of the
forte habemur suspecti: Father. But we are not
accedat illius testis, scilicet believed, perhaps
Ioannes Baptista, qui because we are held in
testimonium Christo suspicion. So let his
perhibuit; est enim testis witness come forth, that
fidelis, qui non mentietur; is, John the Baptist, who
Prov. XIV, 5: testis fidelis bears witness to Christ.
non mentietur et cetera. He is a faithful witness
Infra V, 33: vos misistis ad who will not lie: “A faithful
Ioannem, et testimonium witness will not lie” (Prv
perhibuit veritati. Hic enim 14:5), “You sent
Ioannes testimonium [messengers] to John,
perhibet; quasi dicat, and he bore witness to
perseveranter suum the truth” (below 5:33).
officium implet, quia ipse John gives his testimony
venit in testimonium. Prov. here and fulfills his office
c. XII, 19: labium veritatis with perseverance
firmum erit in perpetuum. because he came as a
witness. As Proverbs
(12:19) says, “Truthful
lips endure forever.”
Deinde cum dicit et clamat 193 Then when he says,

dicens, ponitur modus John bore witness to him,
testificandi, qui fit cum and he cried out, he
clamore. Et ideo dicit describes the way he bore
clamat, inquantum libere witness, that is, it was
sine timore; Is. XL, 9: exalta with a cry. So he says, he
in fortitudine vocem tuam cried out, i.e., freely
(...) ecce Deus noster. without fear. “Cry out in a
Ardenter et ex magno loud voice.... Say to the
fervore; quia, ut dicitur cities of Judah: Here is
Eccli. XLVIII, 1, verbum eius your God” (Is 40:9). He
ut facula ardebat; Is. VI, 3: cried out ardently and
Seraphim clamabant alter with great fervor, because
ad alterum, per quod it is said, “His word
intimior ardor mentis burned like a torch” (Si
exprimitur. Per 48:1); “Seraphim cried
manifestationem etiam one to another” (Is 6:3),
clamoris ostenditur, quod which is expressive of a
non sub figuris, neque more interior eagerness
occulte ad paucos sermo of spirit. The use of a cry
testificantis dirigitur; sed shows that the
aperte et ostensive statements of the witness
declaratur et denuntiatur are not made to a few in
veritas iam non paucis, sed figurative language or
multis; Is. LVIII, v. 1: clama, secretly, but that a truth
ne cesses. is being declared openly
and publicly, and told not
to a few but to many. “Cry
out, and do not stop” (Is
58:1).
Deinde cum dicit hic erat 194 Then he adds his

quem dixi, quid sit testimony. And he does
testificatus subiungit. Ubi two things. First, he
duo facit. Primo enim shows that his testimony
describit continuitatem sui was continuous. Secondly,
testimonii; secundo he describes the person
describit eum, cui to whom he bore witness.
testimonium perhibet, ibi
qui post me venturus est,
ante me factus est.
Fuit ergo testimonium 195 The testimony of the

Baptistae continuum, quia Baptist was continuous
non semel tantum sed because he bore witness
multoties, et etiam to him not only once but
antequam Christus ad many times, and even
ipsum venisset, Ioannes before Christ had come to
testimonium ei perhibuit: et him. And so he says, This
ideo dixit hic erat quem dixi, is the one of whom I said,
idest antequam vidissem i.e., before I saw him in
eum corporaliter, the flesh I bore witness to
testimonium ei perhibui. Lc. him. “And you, child, shall
I, 76: tu puer propheta be called the prophet of
altissimi vocaberis. Et hoc the Most High” (Lk 1:76).
ideo quia praesentem et He pointed him out both
futurum ostendit. Est etiam as present and when
eius testimonium certum, about to come. And his
quia non solum futurum testimony is certain
esse praedixit, sed because he not only
praesentem digito predicted that he would
demonstravit, dicens ecce come, but pointed him out
agnus Dei. Ex quo insinuatur when he was present,
quod Christus corporaliter saying, Look! There is the
praesens erat Ioanni; nam Lamb of God. This implies
solitus erat saepe ad that Christ was physically
Ioannem venire, antequam present to John; for he
baptizatus fuisset. had often come to John
before being baptized.
Describit autem 196 Then he describes

consequenter eum, cui the one to whom he bore
testimonium perhibet, witness, saying, He who
dicens qui post me venturus comes after me, ranks
est, ante me factus est. Ubi ahead of me. Here we
notandum est, quod should note that John
Ioannes non statim does not at once preach
praedicat discipulis to his disciples that Christ
Christum esse filium Dei, is the Son of God, but he
sed paulatim eos ad altiora draws them little by little
provehit: primo praeferens to higher things: first, by
eum sibi, qui tamen tantae preferring Christ to
famae et auctoritatis erat ut himself, even though John
crederetur esse Christus, had such a great
vel aliquis de magnis reputation and authority
prophetis. Comparat autem as to be considered the
Christum sibi primo Christ or one of the great
quantum ad ordinem prophets. Now he
praedicationis; secundo compares Christ to
quantum ad ordinem himself: first, with regard
dignitatis; tertio quantum to the order of their
ad ordinem durationis. preaching; secondly, as to
the order of dignity; and
thirdly, as to the time of
their existence.
Quantum ad ordinem 197 With respect to the

praedicationis, Ioannes order of their preaching,
praecessit Christum sicut John preceded Christ as a
famulus dominum, et sicut servant precedes his
miles regem, et sicut Lucifer master, and as a soldier
solem; Mal. III, 1: ecce ego his king, or as the
mitto Angelum meum, et morning star the sun:
praeparabit viam ante “See, I am sending my
faciem meam. Qui igitur messenger, and he will
post me venit, scilicet in prepare the way before
notitiam hominum me” (Mal 3:1 ). So, He
praedicando. Et notandum, comes after me, in being
quod ly venit est temporis known to men, through
praesentis, quia in Graeco my preaching. Observe
ponitur participium that comes is in the
praesentis temporis. present tense, became in
Greek the present
participle is used.
Praecessit autem Ioannes Now John preceded Christ

Christum duplici ratione. for two reasons. First,
Primo, secundum according to Chrysostom,
Chrysostomum, quia because John was a blood
Ioannes erat consanguineus relation of Christ
Christi secundum carnem; according to the flesh:
Lc. I, 36: et ecce Elisabeth “your relative, Elizabeth”
cognata tua et cetera. Si (Lk 1.36). Therefore, had
ergo testimonium he borne witness to Christ
perhibuisset Christo after knowing him, his
postquam eum cognoverat, testimony might have
potuisset suum testimonium been open to question;
suspectum habere, et ideo accordingly, John came
Ioannes venit ad preaching before he was
praedicandum, nondum acquainted with Christ, in
habens familiaritatem cum order that his testimony
Christo, ut eius testimonium might have more force.
efficacius esset. Unde Hence he says, “And I did
dicebat infra: ego not know him! And yet it
nesciebam eum; sed ut was to reveal him to Israel
manifestetur in Israel that I came baptizing with
propterea veni ego, in aqua water” (below 1:31).
baptizans.
Secundo quia in his quae de Secondly, John preceded

potentia procedunt ad Christ because in things
actum, imperfectum that pass into act from
naturaliter praecedit potency, the imperfect is
perfectum: unde dicitur I naturally prior to the
Cor. XV, 46: non prius quod perfect; hence it is said in
spirituale est, sed quod 1 Corinthians (15:46):
animale. Et ideo perfectam “The spiritual is not first,
Christi doctrinam debuit but the animal.”
praecedere imperfectior Accordingly, the perfect
doctrina Ioannis, quae doctrine of Christ should
quodam modo fuit media have been preceded by
inter doctrinam legis et the less perfect teaching
prophetarum, quae of John, which was in a
annuntiabat de longinquo certain manner midway
Christum futurum, et between the doctrine of
doctrinam Christi, quae the law and the prophets
manifesta erat, et Christum (which announced the
manifeste annuntiabat. coming of Christ from
afar), and the doctrine of
Christ, which was clear
and plainly made Christ
known.
Comparat sibi quantum ad 198 He [John] compares

ordinem dignitatis, cum him to himself with
dicit ante me factus est: respect to dignity when
unde sciendum est, quod ex he says, he ranks ahead
hoc Ariani sumpserunt of me [ante me factus est,
occasionem erroris. literally, he “was made
Dicebant enim quod hoc before me”]. It should be
quod dixit post me venit, noted that it is from this
intelligitur de Christo text that the Arians took
secundum carnem occasion for their error.
assumptam, sed hoc quod For they said that “He
addit ante me factus est, who comes after me,” is
non potest intelligi nisi de to be understood of Christ
verbo Dei, quod carni as to the flesh he
praeexistebat; et propterea assumed, but what
Christum, inquantum est follows, “was made before
verbum, factum esse, et non me,” can only be
esse patri coaeternum. understood of the Word of
God, who existed before
the flesh; and for this
reason Christ as the Word
was made, and was not
coeternal with the Father.
Sed, secundum According to Chrysostom,

Chrysostomum, haec however, this exposition is
expositio stulta est, quia si stupid, because if it were
hoc esset verum, non true, the Baptist would
dixisset Baptista ante me not have said, he “was
factus est, quia prior me made before me, because
erat, cum nullus ignoret, he existed before me,”
quod si prior eo erat, ante since no one is unaware
eum factus est; sed potius e that if he was before him,
converso dixisset: prior me he was made before him.
erat, quia factus est ante He rather would have said
me. Et ideo, secundum the opposite: “He was
Chrysostomum, before me, because he
intelligendum est de was made before me.”
prioritate dignitatis, idest And so, according to
mihi praelatus est, et Chrysostom, these words
antepositus. Quasi dicat: should be taken as
quamvis Iesus post me ad referring to his [Christ’s]
praedicandum venerit, dignity, that is, he was
tamen factus est ante me, preferred to me and
idest dignior, et superior placed ahead of me. It is
auctoritate, et hominum as though he said:
reputatione; Iob XXVIII, 17: Although Jesus came to
non adaequabitur ei aurum preach after me, he was
et cetera. Vel ante me factus made more worthy than I
est, idest coram me, ut both in eminence of
habetur in Glossa, et littera authority and in the
in Graeco hoc sonat. Quasi repute of men: “Gold will
dicat coram me, idest in not be equal to it” (Jb
conspectu meo, quia mihi 28:17). Or alternatively:
apparuit, et innotuit. he is preferred ahead of
me, that is, before my
eyes, as the Gloss says
and as the Greek text
reads. As if to say: Before
my eyes, i.e., in my sight,
because he came into my
view and was recognized.
Item comparat eum sibi 199 He compares him to

quantum ad ordinem himself with respect to
durationis, dicens quia prior their duration, saying,
me erat. Quasi dicat: ipse because he existed
est ab aeterno Deus, ego ex before me. As if to say:
tempore homo fragilis; et He was God from all
ideo, licet eum praedicando eternity, I am a frail man
praecesserim, tamen of time. And therefore,
rationabiliter praelatus est even though I came to
mihi in fama et opinione preach ahead of him, yet
hominum, qui sua it was fitting that he rank
aeternitate praecedit omnia. before me in the
Hebr. ult., 8: Iesus Christus reputation and opinion of
heri et hodie, ipse et in men, because he
saecula; et infra VIII, 58: preceded all things by his
antequam Abraham fieret, eternity: “Jesus Christ is
ego sum. the same yesterday,
today, and forever” (Heb
13:8). “Before Abraham
came to be, I am,” as we
read below (8:58).
Potest etiam exponi quod If we understand this

dictum est ante me factus passage as saying that he
est ut referatur ad ordinem “was made before me,” it
temporis secundum can be explained as
carnem. Christus enim in referring to the order of
instanti suae conceptionis time according to the
fuit perfectus Deus et flesh. For in the instant of
perfectus homo, habens his conception Christ was
rationalem animam perfect God and perfect
perfectam virtutibus, et man, having a rational
corpus omnibus lineamentis soul perfected by the
distinctum, non tamen virtues, and a body
secundum quantitatem possessed of all its
perfectam; Ier. XXXI, 22: distinctive features,
mulier circumdabit virum, except that it lacked
scilicet perfectum. Constat perfect size: “A woman
autem quod Christus ante shall enclose a man,” i.e.,
fuit conceptus quam a perfect man (Jer 31:22).
Ioannes esset natus, et Now it is evident that
perfectus homo; et ideo Christ was conceived as a
dicit ante me factus est quia perfect man before John
ipse prius fuit homo was born; consequently
perfectus, quam natus he says that he “was
fuisset ex utero. made before me,”
because he was a perfect
man before I came forth
from the womb.
Lectio 10 LECTURE 10
16 Of his
16 ὅτι ἐκ τοῦ fullness we
πληρώματος have all
αὐτοῦ ἡμεῖς received
πάντες —indeed,
ἐλάβομεν, καὶ grace upon
χάριν ἀντὶ grace;
χάριτος: 17 because,
17 ὅτι ὁ νόμος while the law
διὰ μωϋσέως was given
ἐδόθη, through
ἡ χάρις καὶ ἡ Moses,
ἀλήθεια διὰ grace and
Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ truth have
ἐγένετο. come through
Jesus Christ.
18 θεὸν οὐδεὶς 18 No one has

ἑώρακεν ever seen God;
πώποτε: it is the Only
μονογενὴς θεὸς Begotten Son,
ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν who is in the
κόλπον τοῦ bosom of the
πατρὸς ἐκεῖνος Father,
ἐξηγήσατο. who has made
him known.
Supra Evangelista ostendit 208 Above, the Evangelist

quomodo gratiam apostoli showed how the apostles
acceperunt a Christo, eo received grace from
faciente; hic ostendit Christ as its author; here
quomodo acceperunt ab he shows how they
ipso eam docente. Et circa received it from him as a
hoc tria facit. Primo ostendit teacher. About this he
huius doctrinae does three things. First,
necessitatem, dicens Deum he shows the need for
nemo vidit unquam; secundo this teaching. Secondly,
doctoris ad docendum eam the competency of the
facultatem, ibi unigenitus teacher. Thirdly, the
qui est in sinu patris; tertio teaching itself.
ipsam doctrinam declarat,
ibi enarravit.
Necessitas autem huius 209 The need for this

doctrinae erat defectus teaching arose from the
sapientiae in hominibus, lack of wisdom among
quem quidem defectum men, which the Evangelist
Evangelista insinuabat per implies by alluding to the
ignorantiam Dei, quae in ignorance concerning
hominibus abundabat, God which prevailed
dicens Deum nemo vidit among men, saying: No
unquam. Et hoc facit one has ever seen God.
congrue: nam sapientia And he does this fittingly,
proprie in cognitione Dei, et for wisdom consists
divinorum consistit. Unde properly in the knowledge
Augustinus dicit, quod of God and of divine
sapientia est divinarum things. Hence Augustine
rerum cognitio, sicut et says that wisdom is the
scientia humanarum. knowledge of divine
things, as science is the
knowledge of human
things.
Quod autem hic dicit 2 10 But this statement of

Evangelista Deum nemo vidit the Evangelist, No one
unquam contrariari videtur has ever seen God,
pluribus auctoritatibus seems to contradict many
divinae Scripturae. Dicitur passages of divine
enim Is. VI, 1: vidi dominum Scripture. For it is said in
sedentem super solium Isaiah (6:1): “I saw the
excelsum et elevatum; II Lord seated on a high and
Reg. VI, 2, fere idem lofty throne.” And about
habetur: nomen domini the same is found in 2
sedentis super Cherubim Samuel (6:2). Again in
etc.; Matth. V, v. 8, dicit Matthew (5:8), the Lord
dominus: beati mundo says: “Blessed are the
corde, quoniam ipsi Deum pure in heart, for they
videbunt. Sed si aliquis shall see God.”If someone
responderet ad hoc were to answer this last
ultimum, dicens, verum esse statement by saying that
quod in praeterito nullus it is true that in the past
vidit, sed in futuro videbit, no one has seen God, but
sicut dominus promittit, will see him in the future,
apostolus hoc excludit, as the Lord promises, the
dicens I Tim. ult., 16: lucem Apostle would exclude
habitat inaccessibilem, this, saying, “He dwells in
quam nullus hominum vidit, unapproachable light,
sed nec videre potest. whom no man has seen or
can see” (1 Tim 6:16).
Sed quia apostolus dicit: Because the Apostle says,

nullus hominum vidit, posset “no man has seen,”
aliquis dicere, quod si non someone might say that if
ab hominibus videri possit, he cannot be seen by
saltem videtur ab Angelis; men, then at least he can
praesertim cum Deus dicat be seen by angels;
Matth. XVIII, 10: Angeli especially since God says,
eorum in caelis semper “Their angels in heaven
vident faciem patris. Sed always see the face of my
nec isto modo dici potest: Father” (Mt 18:10). But it
quia, ut dicitur Matth. XXII, cannot be taken in this
30: filii resurrectionis erunt way either, because it is
sicut Angeli Dei in caelo. Si said, “The sons of the
ergo Angeli vident Deum in resurrection will be like
caelo, manifestum est etiam the angels of God in
quod et filii resurrectionis heaven” (Mt 22:30). If,
eum vident; I Io. III, 2: cum therefore, the angels see
apparuerit, similes ei erimus, God in heaven, then it is
et videbimus eum sicut est. plain that the sons of the
resurrection also see him:
“When he appears we
shall be like him, and we
shall see him as he is” (1
Jn 3:2).
Quomodo ergo 211 How then are we to

intelligendum est hoc quod understand what the
dicit Evangelista Deum nemo Evangelist says: No one
vidit unquam? Ad huius ergo has ever seen God? To
intellectum sciendum est, understand it we must
quod Deus dicitur videri know that God is said to
tripliciter. Uno quidem modo be seen in three ways.
per subiectam creaturam, First, through a created
visui corporali propositam; substitute presented to
sicut creditur Abraham the bodily sight; as
vidisse Deum, quando tres Abraham is believed to
vidit, et unum adoravit, Gen. have seen God when he
XVIII; unum quidem saw three [men] and
adoravit, quia tres, quos adored one (Gn 18). He
prius homines reputaverat, adored one because he
et postmodum Angelos recognized the mystery of
credidit, recognovit the Trinity in the three,
mysterium Trinitatis. Alio whom he first thought to
modo per repraesentatam be men, and later
imaginationem; et sic Isaias believed to be angels. In a
vidit dominum sedentem second way, through a
super solium excelsum et representation in the
elevatum. Plures visiones imagination; and in this
huic similes in Scripturis way Isaiah saw the Lord
reperiuntur. Alio vero modo seated on a high and lofty
videtur per aliquam speciem throne. Many visions of
intelligibilem a sensibilibus this sort are recorded in
abstractam, ab his qui per the Scriptures. In a third
considerationem way, he is seen through
magnitudinis creaturarum, an intelligible species
intellectu intuentur abstracted from material
magnitudinem creatoris, ut things; and in this way he
dicitur Sap. XIII, 5: a is seen by those who,
magnitudine speciei et considering the greatness
creaturae cognoscibiliter of creatures, see with
poterit creator horum videri, their intellect the
et Rom. I, 20: invisibilia Dei greatness of the Creator,
a creatura mundi per ea as it is said: “From the
quae facta sunt, intellecta greatness and beauty of
conspiciuntur. Alio modo creatures, their Creator
per aliquod spirituale lumen can be seen accordingly”
a Deo infusum spiritualibus (Wis 13:5); “The invisible
mentibus in contemplatione; things of God are clearly
et hoc modo vidit Iacob seen, being understood
Deum facie ad faciem, Gen. through the things that
XXXII, 30 quae visio, are made,” as found in
secundum Gregorium, facta Romans (1:20). In
est per altam another way, God is seen
contemplationem. through a certain spiritual
light infused by God into
spiritual minds during
contemplation; and this is
the way Jacob saw God
face to face, as it says in
Genesis (32:30).
According to Gregory, this
vision came about
through his lofty
contemplation.
Sed per nullam istarum But the vision of the

visionum, ad visionem divine essence is not
divinae essentiae attained by any of the
pervenitur: nulla enim above visions: for no
species facta, sive qua created species, whether
informatur sensus exterior, it be that by which an
sive qua informatur external sense is
imaginatio, sive qua informed, or by which the
informatur intellectus, est imagination is informed,
repraesentativa divinae or by which the intellect is
essentiae sicut est. Illud informed, is
autem homo per essentiam representative of the
cognoscit quod species divine essence as it is.
quam habet in intellectu, Now man knows as to its
repraesentat ut est: per essence only what the
nullam ergo speciem ad species he has in his
visionem divinae essentiae intellect represents as it
pervenitur. is. Therefore, the vision of
the divine essence is not
attained through any
species.
Quod autem nulla creata The reason why no

species divinam essentiam created species can
repraesentet, patet: quia represent the divine
nullum finitum potest essence is plain: for
repraesentare infinitum ut nothing finite can
est; omnis autem species represent the infinite as it
creata est finita: ergo et is; but every created
cetera. Praeterea, Deus est species is finite; therefore
suum esse; et ideo eius [it cannot represent the
sapientia et bonitas, et infinite as it is]. Further,
quaecumque alia, idem God is his own esse; and
sunt; per unum autem therefore his wisdom and
creatum non possent omnia greatness and anything
ista repraesentari: ergo else are the same. But all
cognitio qua Deus per those cannot be
creaturas videtur, non est represented through one
ipsius essentia, sed created thing. Therefore,
aenigmatica et specularis, the knowledge by which
et a remotis. Iob XXXVI, 25: God is seen through
omnes homines vident eum, creatures is not a
aliquo dictorum modorum, knowledge of his essence,
sed unusquisque intuetur but a knowledge that is
procul, quia per omnes illas dark and mirrored, and
cognitiones non scitur de from afar. “Everyone sees
Deo quid est, sed quid non him,” in one of the above
est, vel an est. Unde dicit ways, “from afar” (Jb
Dionysius libro mysticae 36:25), because we do
theologiae, quod perfectus not know what God is by
modus quo Deus in vita all these acts of knowing,
praesenti cognoscitur, est but what he is not, or that
per privationem omnium he is. Hence Denis says,
creaturarum, et in his Mystical Theology,
intellectorum a nobis. that the perfect way in
which God is known in
this present life is by
taking away all creatures
and every thing
understood by us.
Fuerunt autem aliqui 212 There have been

dicentes, quod divina some who said that the
essentia numquam videbitur divine essence will never
ab aliquo intellectu creato, by seen by any created
et quod nec ab Angelis vel intellect, and that it is
beatis videtur. Sed haec seen neither by the
propositio ostenditur esse angels nor by the blessed.
falsa et haeretica tripliciter. But this statement is
Primo quidem, quia shown to be false and
contrariatur auctoritati heretical in three ways,
divinae Scripturae; I Io. III, First, because it is
2: videbimus eum sicuti est; contrary to the authority
et infra XVII, 3: haec est vita of divine Scripture: “We
aeterna ut cognoscant te shall see him as he is” (1
solum Deum verum, et quem Jn 3:2); “This is eternal
misisti Iesum Christum. life, that they know you,
Secundo quia claritas Dei the only true God, and
non est aliud quam eius Jesus Christ whom you
substantia: non enim est have sent” (below 17:3).
lucens per participationem Secondly, because the
luminis, sed per seipsam. brightness of God is the
Tertio quia impossibile est same as his substance;
quod aliquis perfectam for he does not give forth
beatitudinem consequatur, light by participating in
nisi in visione divinae light, but through himself.
essentiae: quia naturale And thirdly, because it is
desiderium intellectus est impossible for anyone to
scire et cognoscere causas attain perfect happiness
omnium effectuum except in the vision of the
cognitorum ab eo; quod non divine essence. This is
potest impleri nisi scita et because the natural
cognita prima universali desire of the intellect is to
omnium causa, quae non understand and know the
est composita ex effectu et causes of all the effects
causa, sicut causae that it knows; but this
secundae. Et ideo auferre desire cannot be fulfilled
possibilitatem visionis unless it understands and
divinae essentiae ab knows the first universal
hominibus, est auferre cause of all things, which
ipsam beatitudinem. is a cause that is not
Necesse est ergo ad composed of cause and
beatitudinem intellectus effect, as second causes
creati, ut divina essentia are. Therefore, to take
videatur, Matth. V, 8: beati away the possibility of the
mundo corde, quoniam ipsi vision of the divine
Deum videbunt. essence by man is to fake
away happiness itself.
Therefore, in order for the
created intellect to be
happy, it is necessary that
the divine essence be
seen. “Blessed are the
pure in heart, for they
shall see God” (Mt 5:8).
Quo ad visionem autem 213 Three things should

divinae essentiae, oportet be noted about the vision
tria attendere. Primo, quia of the divine essence.
numquam videbitur oculo First, it will never be seen
corporali, vel aliquo sensu, with a bodily eye, either
vel imaginatione, cum per by sense or imagination,
sensus non percipiantur nisi since only sensate bodily
sensata corporea; Deus things are perceived by
autem incorporeus est; infra the senses, and God is
IV, v. 24: Deus spiritus est. not bodily: “God is spirit”
Secundo, quia intellectus (below 4:24). Secondly,
humanus quamdiu corpori that as long as the human
est coniunctus, Deum videre intellect is in the body it
non potest, quia aggravatur cannot see God, because
a corruptibili corpore, ne it is weighed down by the
possit ad summum body so that it cannot
contemplationis pertingere. attain the summit of
Et inde est quod anima contemplation. So it is
quanto magis est a that the more a soul is
passionibus libera, et free of passions and is
purgata ab affectibus purged from affections for
terrenorum, tanto amplius earthly things, the higher
in contemplationem veritatis it rises in the
ascendit, et gustat quam contemplation of truth
suavis est dominus. and tastes how sweet the
Summus gradus autem Lord is. Now the highest
contemplationis est videre degree of contemplation
Deum per essentiam; et ideo is to see God through his
quamdiu homo in corpore essence; and so as long
subiecto ex necessitate as a man lives in a body
passionibus multis vivit, which is necessarily
Deum non potest per subject to many passions,
essentiam videre. Ex. c. he cannot see God
XXXIII, 20: non videbit me through his essence.
homo et vivet. Ad hoc ergo “Man will not see me and
quod intellectus humanus live” (Ex 33:20).
divinam essentiam videat, Therefore, if the human
necesse est ut totaliter intellect is to see the
deserat corpus; vel per divine essence it must
mortem, sicut apostolus wholly depart from the
dicit II Cor. V, 8: audemus, body: either by death, as
et bonam voluntatem the Apostle says, “We
habemus magis peregrinari would prefer to be absent
a corpore, et praesentes from the body and
esse ad dominum; vel quod present with the Lord” (2
totaliter abstrahatur per Cor 5:8); or by being
raptum a corporis sensibus, wholly abstracted by
sicut de Paulo legitur II Cor. rapture from the senses
c. XII, 3. of the body, as is
mentioned of Paul in 2
Corinthians (12:3).
Tertio modo, quod nullus Thirdly, no created

intellectus creatus intellect (however
quantumcumque abstracted, either by
abstractus, sive per death, or separated from
mortem, vel a corpore the body) which does see
separatus, videns divinam the divine essence, can
essentiam, ipsam nullo comprehend it in any way.
modo comprehendere And so it is commonly
potest. Et ideo communiter said that although the
dicitur, quod, licet divina whole divine essence is
essentia tota videatur a seen by the blessed, since
beatis, cum sit simplicissima it is most simple and has
et partibus carens, tamen no parts, yet it is not
non videtur totaliter, quia wholly seen, because this
hoc esset eam would be to comprehend
comprehendere. Hoc enim it. For “wholly” implies a
quod dico totaliter, dicit certain mode. But any
modum quemdam. Quilibet mode of God is the divine
autem modus Dei est divina essence. Hence one who
essentia; unde qui non videt does not see him wholly
eum totaliter, non does not comprehend
comprehendit eum. him. For one is properly
Comprehendere autem said to comprehend a
proprie dicitur aliquis thing through knowledge
aliquam rem cognoscendo, when he knows that thing
qui cognoscit rem illam to the extent that it is
quantum in se cognoscibilis knowable in itself;
est; alias, quamvis otherwise, although he
cognoscat eam, non tamen may know it, he does not
comprehendit. Sicut qui comprehend it. For
cognoscit hanc example, one who knows
propositionem: triangulus this proposition, “A
habet tres angulos aequales triangle has three angles
duobus rectis, syllogismo equal to two right
dialectico, non cognoscit angles,” by a dialectical
eam quantum cognoscibilis syllogism, does not know
est, et ideo non cognoscit it as well as it is knowable
totaliter; sed qui cognoscit in itself; thus he does not
eam syllogismo know it wholly. But one
demonstrativo, totaliter scit who knows this by a
eam. Unumquodque enim demonstrative syllogism
tantum cognoscibile est, does know it wholly. For
quantum habet de ente et each thing is knowable to
veritate; sed ipse the extent that it has
cognoscens tantum being and truth; while one
cognoscit quantum habet de is a knower according to
virtute cognoscitiva. Omnis his amount of cognitive
autem substantia power. Now a created
intellectualis creata est intellectual substance is
finita: ergo finite cognoscit. finite; hence it knows in a
Cum ergo Deus sit infinitae finite way. And since God
virtutis et entitatis, et per is infinite in power and
consequens infinite being, and as a
cognoscibilis, a nullo consequence is infinitely
intellectu creato cognosci knowable, he cannot be
potest quantum est known by any created
cognoscibilis; et ideo omni intellect to the degree
intellectui creato remanet that he is knowable. And
incomprehensibilis; Iob thus he remains
XXXVI, 26: ecce Deus incomprehensible to
magnus vincens scientiam every created intellect.
nostram. Solus autem ipse “Behold, God is great,
comprehendendo exceeding our
contemplatur seipsum, quia knowledge” (Jb 36:26).
tanta est eius virtus in He alone contemplates
cognoscendo quanta est himself comprehensively,
eius entitas in essendo. Ier. because his power to
XXXII, 18: fortissime, know is as great as his
magne, potens dominus entity in being. “O most
exercituum nomen tibi, mighty, great, powerful,
magnus consilio, your name is Lord of
incomprehensibilis cogitatu. hosts, great in counsel,
incomprehensible in
thought” (Jer 32:18).
Sic ergo, secundum 214 Using the above

praemissa, intelligitur Deum explanations, we can
nemo vidit unquam. Primo understand, No one has
sic: nemo, idest nullus ever seen God. First, No
hominum, vidit Deum, idest one, i.e., no man, has
essentiam divinam, oculo seen God, that is, the
corporali et imaginario. divine essence, with the
Secundo nemo, in hac eye of the body of or the
mortali vita vivens, vidit imagination. Secondly, No
divinam essentiam in one, living in this mortal
seipsa. Tertio nemo, homo life, has seen the divine
vel Angelus, vidit Deum, essence in itself. Thirdly,
visione comprehensionis. No one, man or angel, has
Quod autem de aliquibus seen God by a vision of
dicitur, quod Deum viderunt comprehension. So when
oculo, seu viventes in it is said that certain ones
corpore, intelligitur non per have seen God with their
essentiam, sed per eyes or while living in the
subiectam creaturam, ut body, he is not seen
dictum est. Sic ergo through his essence, but
necessarium erat quod through a creature acting
reciperemus sapientiam, as a substitute, as was
quia Deum nemo vidit said. And thus it was
unquam. necessary for us to
receive wisdom, because
No one has ever seen
God.
Huius autem sapientiae 215 The Evangelist

sufficiens doctor nobis mentions the competent
proponitur ab Evangelista, teacher of this wisdom
cum subdit unigenitus filius when he adds, it is the
qui est in sinu patris, in quo Only Begotten Son, who
ostendit nobis doctoris is in the bosom of the
ipsius facultatem per tria. Father. He shows the
Scilicet per naturalem competence of this
similitudinem, et per teacher in three ways: by
singularem excellentiam, et a natural likeness, by a
per perfectissimam singular excellence, and
consubstantialitatem. by a most perfect
consubstantiality.
Per naturalem 216 By natural likeness,

similitudinem, quia filius because a son is naturally
naturaliter similitudinem like his father. Wherefore
patris habet. Et inde est it also follows that one is
etiam quod intantum aliquis called a son of God
dicitur filius Dei, inquantum insofar as he shares in
similitudinem filii naturalis the likeness of his natural
participat; et intantum son; and one knows him
cognoscit, inquantum de insofar he has a likeness
similitudine eius habet: quia to him, since knowledge
cognitio fit per is attained through
assimilationem. I Io. III, 2: assimilation [or “likeness
nunc filii Dei sumus, et to”]. Hence 1 John (3:2)
sequitur: cum apparuerit, says, “Now we are sons of
similes ei erimus, et God,” and he immediately
videbimus eum sicuti est. Et adds, “when he comes,
ideo in hoc quod we will be like him, and
Evangelista dicit filius, we will see him as he is.”
importatur similitudo, et Therefore, when the
aptitudo ad cognoscendum Evangelist says Son, he
Deum. implies a likeness as well
as all aptitude for
knowing God.
Sed quia iste doctor 217 Because this teacher

specialius quam alii filii knows God in a more
Deum cognoscit, ideo special way than other
Evangelista hoc insinuat per sons do, the Evangelist
excellentiam singularem, suggests this by his
cum dicit unigenitus; quasi singular excellence,
dicat: iste cognoscit Deum saying, the Only
prae aliis filiis. Ideo dicitur Begotten. As if to say: He
unigenitus, quia est filius knows God more than
naturalis, eamdem habens other sons do. Hence,
cum patre naturam et because he is the natural
cognitionem; Ps. II, 7: Son, having the same
dominus dixit ad me: filius nature and knowledge as
meus es tu. the Father, he is called
the Only Begotten. “The
Lord said to me: ‘You are
my Son’” (Ps 2:7).
Quamvis autem singulariter 218 Although he may

cognosceret, posset tamen know in a unique way, he
sibi deesse facultas would be lacking the
docendi, si non cognosceret ability to teach if he were
totaliter; et ideo addit not to know wholly. Hence
tertium, scilicet he adds a third point,
consubstantialitatem eius namely, his
ad patrem, cum dicit in sinu consubstantiality to the
patris: ut non accipiatur Father, when he says, who
sinus prout in hominibus is in the bosom of the
veste praecinctis dici Father. “Bosom” is not to
consuevit, sed pro patris be taken here as referring
occulto. Illud enim in to men in their garments,
occulto gerimus, quod in but it indicates the secret
sinu portamus. Occultum things of the Father. For
autem patris est, quia what we carry in our
superexcedit omnem bosom we do in secret.
virtutem, et cognitionem, The secret things of the
cum divina essentia sit Father refer to his
infinita. In illo ergo sinu, unsurpassed power and
idest in occultissimo knowledge, since the
paternae naturae et divine essence is infinite.
essentiae, quae excedit Therefore, in that bosom,
omnem virtutem creaturae, i.e., in the most secret
est unigenitus filius; et ideo things of the paternal
consubstantialis est patri. nature and essence,
which transcends all the
power of the creature, is
the Only Begotten Son;
and so he is
Father.
Et quod Evangelista hic What the Evangelist

significavit per sinum hoc signifies by “bosom,”
David expressit per uterum, David expressed by
dicens Ps. CIX, 3: ex utero “womb,” saying: “From
ante Luciferum, idest ex the womb, before the
intimo et occulto meae daystar,” i.e., from the
essentiae, incomprehensibili inmost secret things of
omni intellectui creato, my essence,
genui te, et incomprehensible to
consubstantialem mihi, et every created intellect, “I
eiusdem naturae et virtutis begot you” (Ps 109:3),
et potestatis et cognitionis; consubstantial with me,
I Cor. II, v. 11: quae sunt and of the same nature
hominis, nemo novit nisi and power, and virtue and
spiritus hominis (...) et quae knowledge. “What man
sunt Dei, nemo novit nisi knows the things of a
spiritus Dei. Comprehendit man except the spirit of
ergo divinam essentiam, the man that is in him? So
quae sua est. also, no one knows the
things of God except the
Spirit of God” (1 Cor
2:11). Therefore, he
comprehends the divine
essence, which is his own.
Anima autem Christi Deum 219 But the soul of

cognoscendo non Christ, which knows God,
comprehendit, quia hoc non does not comprehend
dicitur, nisi de unigenito, qui him, because this is
est in sinu patris. Unde et attributed only to the
dominus dicit Matth. XI, 27: Only Begotten Son who is
nemo novit patrem, nisi in the bosom of the
filius, et cui voluerit filius Father. So the Lord also
revelare; ut utrumque says: “No one knows the
intelligatur de notitia Father except the Son,
comprehensionis, de qua hic and any to whom the Son
videtur loqui Evangelista. wishes to reveal him”(Mt
Nullus enim divinam 11:27); we should
comprehendit essentiam, understand this as
nisi solus Deus pater, et referring to the
filius, et spiritus sanctus. Sic knowledge of
ergo patet facultas doctoris comprehension, about
ad docendum. which the Evangelist
seems to be speaking
here. For no one
comprehends the divine
essence except the
Father, the Son, and the
Holy Spirit. And so we
have shown the
competence of the
teacher.
Notandum etiam, quod per 220 We should note that
hoc quod dicit qui est in sinu the phrase, who is in the
patris, excluditur error bosom of the Father,
quorumdam, dicentium, rejects the error of those
patrem invisibilem esse, who say that the Father is
filium vero visibilem, et non invisible, but the Son is
visum fuisse in veteri visible, though he was not
testamento. Nam, ex hoc seen in the Old
quod est in abscondito Testament. For from the
patris, manifestum est quod fact that he is among the
naturaliter invisibilis est, hidden things of the
sicut pater. Et propter hoc Father, it is plain that he
dicebat de ipso Is. XLV, 15: is naturally invisible, as is
tu es vere Deus absconditus. the Father. So it is said of
Et ideo in Scriptura divina fit him: “Truly, you are a
mentio de hidden God” (Is 45:15).
incomprehensibilitate filii; And so Scripture
Matth. XI, 27: nemo novit mentions the
filium nisi pater, neque incomprehensibility of the
patrem quis novit nisi filius; Son: “No one knows the
Prov. XXX, 4: quod nomen Son except the Father,
filii eius, si nosti? and no one knows the
Father except the Son”
(Mt 11:27), “What is the
name of his son, if you
know?” as we read in
Proverbs (30:4)
Consequenter Evangelista 221 Then the Evangelist

modum tradendi ipsam indicates the way in which
doctrinam insinuat, cum this teaching is handed
dicit ipse enarravit. Olim down, saying that it is the
enim unigenitus filius Only Begotten Son who
manifestavit Dei has made him known. For
cognitionem per prophetas, in the past, the Only
qui eum intantum Begotten Son revealed
annuntiaverunt inquantum knowledge of God
aeterni verbi fuerunt through the prophets,
participes. Unde dicebant: who made him known to
factum est verbum domini et the extent that they
cetera. Sed nunc ipse shared in the eternal
unigenitus, filius, enarravit Word. Hence they said
fidelibus. Is. LII, 6: ego ipse things like, “The Word of
qui loquebar, ecce adsum; the Lord came to me.” But
Hebr. I, 1: multifariam, now the Only Begotten
multisque modis olim Deus Son has made him known
loquens patribus in to the faithful: “It is I who
prophetis, novissime diebus spoke; here I am” (Is
istis locutus est nobis in filio. 52:6); “God, who in many
and varied ways, spoke to
the fathers in past times
through the prophets, has
spoken to us in these
days in his Son” (Heb
1:1).
Et haec doctrina ideo And this teaching

omnibus aliis doctrinis surpasses all other
supereminet dignitate, teachings in dignity,
auctoritate et utilitate, quia authority and usefulness,
ab unigenito filio, qui est because it was handed on
prima sapientia, immediate immediately by the Only
est tradita. Hebr. II, 3: quae Begotten Son, who is the
cum initium accepisset first Wisdom. “It was first
enarrari per dominum, ab announced by the Lord,
eis qui audierunt, in nos and confirmed to us by
confirmata est. those who heard him”
(Heb 2:3).
Sed quid narravit nisi unum 222 But what did he make
Deum? Hoc ipsum et Moyses known except the one
enarravit, Deut. VI, 4: audi, God? And even Moses did
Israel: dominus Deus tuus, this: “Hear, O Israel: the
dominus unus est. Quid ergo Lord your God is one” (Dt
amplius Moyse? Multum per 6:4). What did this add to
omnem modum, quia Moses? It added the
mysterium Trinitatis, et mystery of the Trinity, and
multa alia, quae nec many other things that
Moyses, nec aliquis neither Moses nor any of
prophetarum narravit. the prophets made
known.
19 καὶ αὕτη 19 This is the

ἐστὶν ἡ testimony of
μαρτυρία τοῦ John, when the
Ἰωάννου, ὅτε Jews sent
ἀπέστειλαν priests and
[πρὸς αὐτὸν] οἱ Levites from
Ἰουδαῖοι ἐξ Jeru’salem to
Ἰεροσολύμων him, to ask
ἱερεῖς καὶ him: “Who are
λευίτας ἵνα you?” 20 He
ἐρωτήσωσιν declared
αὐτόν, σὺ τίς εἶ; openly, and did
20 καὶ not deny, and
ὡμολόγησεν καὶ stated clearly,
οὐκ ἠρνήσατο, “I am not the
καὶ ὡμολόγησεν Messiah.” 21
ὅτι ἐγὼ οὐκ εἰμὶ And they
ὁ Χριστός. 21 questioned
καὶ ἠρώτησαν him, “Who
αὐτόν, τί οὖν; σύ then? Are you
ἠλίας εἶ; καὶ Elijah?” And he
λέγει, οὐκ εἰμί. said, “I am
ὁ προφήτης εἶ not.” “Are you
σύ; καὶ the Prophet?”
ἀπεκρίθη, οὔ. And he
22 εἶπαν οὖν responded,
αὐτῷ, τίς εἶ; ἵνα “No.” 22 They
ἀπόκρισιν therefore said
δῶμεν τοῖς to him, “Who
πέμψασιν ἡμᾶς: are you? We
τί λέγεις περὶ must take back
σεαυτοῦ; 23 an answer to
ἔφη, ἐγὼ φωνὴ those who sent
βοῶντος ἐν τῇ us. What have
ἐρήμῳ, you to say
εὐθύνατε τὴν about
ὁδὸν κυρίου, yourself?" 23
καθὼς εἶπεν He said,
ἠσαΐας ὁ quoting the
προφήτης. prophet Isaiah,
“I am a voice
that cries in
the wilderness:
Make a straight
way for the
Lord’” [Is
40:3].
Supra ostendit Evangelista 223 Above, the Evangelist

quomodo Christus innotuit showed how Christ was
testimonio Ioannis ipsis made known to the
apostolis; hic plenius apostles through the
explicat ipsum testimonium. testimony of John; here he
Et primo ponit testimonium develops this testimony
Ioannis ad turbas; secundo more fully. First, he
vero testimonium quod presents John’s testimony
perhibuit de Christo to the people. Secondly,
discipulis suis, ibi altera die the testimony he gave of
iterum stabat. Si autem Christ to his own disciples
bene considerentur quae (below 1:35). If we
dicta sunt, duplex carefully consider what
testimonium Ioannis ad was said, we discover a
Christum invenitur. Unum twofold testimony of John
quod tulit Christo in eius to Christ: one which he
praesentia, aliud in eius gave to Christ in his
absentia: nisi enim in eius presence, the other in his
praesentia testimonium absence. For he would not
Ioannes tulisset, non have said, “It is he”
dixisset hic erat, et nisi in (below 1:30), unless he
eius absentia, non diceret had given testimony in
quem dixi vobis. Primo ergo Christ’s presence; and he
Evangelista explicat would not have said, “of
testimonium Ioannis quod whom I said,” unless he
tulit de Christo in eius gave testimony to him in
absentia; secundo quod his absence. So first, the
tulit in eius praesentia, ibi Evangelist develops the
altera die vidit. testimony John gave to
Christ in his absence;
secondly, that he gave in
his presence (v 29).
Differunt autem haec duo Now these two

testimonia, quia primum testimonies differ, because
tulit interrogatus, alterum the first was given when
spontaneus; et ideo in he was questioned; the
primo testimonio non solum other was spontaneous.
ponitur testimonium quod So in the first instance, we
tulit, sed etiam ipsa are given not only his
interrogatio. Primo autem testimony, but also the
fuit interrogatus de questions. First, he was
persona; secundo de officio, asked about himself;
ibi et qui missi fuerant. secondly, about his office
Ostenditur ergo primo (v 24). First we are shown
quomodo Ioannes how John stated that he
confessus est se non esse was not what he really
quod non erat; secundo was not; secondly, that he
quomodo non negavit se did not deny what he was.
esse quod erat, ibi dixerunt
ergo ei: quis es?
Circa primum ponuntur tres 224 As to the first, there

interrogationes est tres are three questions and
responsiones, sicut patet in three answers, as is plain
littera. In prima autem from the text. In the first
interrogatione est magna question there is great
Iudaeorum reverentia ad respect for John shown by
Ioannem, qui mittunt ad the Jews. They had sent
eum, eius testimonium certain ones to him to ask
inquirentes. Ubi magnitudo about his testimony. The
reverentiae ex quatuor greatness of their respect
colligitur. Primo ex is gathered from four
mittentium dignitate: non facts. First, from the
enim Galilaei miserunt, sed dignity of those who sent
illi qui praecipui fuerunt in the questioners; for they
populo Israel, scilicet were not sent by
Iudaei, qui sunt de tribu Galileans, but by those
Iuda, habitantes iuxta who were first in rank
Ierusalem; I Paral. V, de among the people of
Iuda elegit dominus Israel, namely, Judeans, of
principes populi; infra IV, the tribe of Juda, who
22: salus ex Iudaeis est. lived about Jerusalem. It
was from Juda that God
chose the princes of the
people.
Secundo ex loci Secondly, from the

praeeminentia, quia ab preeminence of the place,
Ierusalem, quae est civitas that is, from Jerusalem,
sacerdotalis, et divino cultui which is the city of the
mancipata; infra IV, 20: vos priesthood, the city
dicitis, quia Ierosolymis est dedicated to divine
locus ubi adorare oportet. worship: “You people
Is. XIX, 21: et colent eum in claim that Jerusalem is
hostiis et in muneribus. the place where men must
worship God” (below
4:20); “They will worship
him with sacrifices and
offerings” (Is 19:21).
Tertio ex nuntiorum Thirdly, from the authority

auctoritate, qui solemnes of the messengers, who
erant, et sanctiores in were religious and from
populo, quia sacerdotes et among the holier of the
Levitae; Is. LXI, 6: vos people, namely, priests
sacerdotes domini and Levites; “You will be
vocabimini. called the priests of the
Lord” (Is 61:6).
Quarto ex hoc quod Fourthly, from the fact

miserunt ut Ioannes de se that they sent them so
testimonium perhiberet, that John might bear
quasi tantam fidem witness to himself,
habentes dictis suis, ut indicating that they put
crederent Ioanni de seipso such trust in his words as
etiam testimonium to believe John even when
perhibenti. Unde dicitur ut giving testimony about
interrogarent eum, tu quis himself. Hence he says
es? Quod Christo non they were sent to ask him,
faciebant; immo dicebant Who are you? They did not
ei, Io. VIII, 13: tu do this to Christ; in fact
testimonium perhibes de they said to him: “You are
teipso et cetera. bearing witness to
yourself; your testimony is
not true” (below 8:13).
Consequenter cum dicit et 225 Then when he says,

confessus est, et non He declared openly, and
negavit, ponitur Ioannis did not deny, John’s
responsio. Ideo autem answer is given. The
Evangelista ingeminat hoc Evangelist twice
quod dicit et confessus est, mentioned that John
ut ostendat humilitatem spoke forth to show his
Ioannis: quia licet esset humility; for although he
tantae auctoritatis apud was held in such high
Iudaeos ut eum crederent esteem among the Jews
Christum, non tamen that they believed he
honorem sibi non debitum might be the Messiah, he,
usurpabat; immo confessus on his part, usurped no
est, quia non sum ego honor what was not due
Christus. him; indeed, he stated
clearly, I am not the
Messiah.
Sed quid est hoc quod dicit 226 What of’ the
confessus est, et non statement, He declared
negavit? Videtur autem openly, and did not deny?
quod negavit, quia dicit se For it seems that he did
non esse Christum. Sed deny, because he said that
dicendum est, quod ideo he was not the Messiah. It
non negavit veritatem, quia must be answered that he
dixit se non esse Christum: did not deny the truth, for
alias negasset veritatem. he said he was not the
Iob XXXI, 26: si vidi solem Messiah; otherwise he
cum fulgeret, et lunam would have denied the
incedentem clare; et truth. “A very great
laetatum est cor meum in iniquity, and a denial of
abscondito et osculatus the most high God” (Jb
sum manum meam ore meo: 31:28). Thus he did not
quae est iniquitas maxima, deny the truth, because
et negatio contra Deum however great he might
altissimum. Non negavit have been considered, he
ergo veritatem quia did not become proud,
quantumcumque haberetur usurping for himself the
magnus, non est elatus in honor of another. He
superbiam, usurpans sibi stated clearly, I am not
honorem alienum. Et the Messiah; because in
confessus est, quia, non truth he was not. “He was
sum ego Christus: quia vere not the light,” as was said
non erat. Supra: non erat above (1:8).
ille lux et cetera.
Sed cum hi qui missi erant 227 Why did John answer,
non quaererent an esset I am not the Messiah,
Christus, sed quis esset; since those who had been
quare Ioannes respondit sent did not ask if he was
non sum ego Christus? Sed the Messiah, but who he
dicendum, quod magis himself was? I answer that
respondet ad mentem John directed his answer
quaerentium, quam ad more to the mind of the
quaestionem; et hoc potest questioners than to their
accipi dupliciter. Secundum question. And we can
Origenem enim understand this in two
intelligendum est, quod ways. According to Origen,
sacerdotes et Levitae bona the priests and Levites
intentione venerant ad came to John with a good
ipsum. Cognoverant enim intention. For they knew
ex Scripturis, et praecipue from the Scriptures, and
ex prophetia Danielis, quia particularly from the
iam venerat tempus prophecy of Daniel, that
adventus Christi. Unde the time for the coming of
videntes sanctitatem the Messiah had arrived.
Ioannis, suspicabantur eum So, seeing John’s holiness,
esse Christum: unde they suspected that he
miserunt ad Ioannem, quasi might be the Messiah. So
scire volentes per hoc quod they sent to John, wishing
dicunt ei tu quis es? An ipse to learn by their question,
se Christum fateretur. Et Who are you? whether
ideo eorum respondit menti John would admit that he
non sum ego Christus. was the Messiah. And so
he directs his answer to
their thoughts: I am not
the Messiah.
Chrysostomus vero dicit, Chrysostom, however,
quod isti fraudulenter says that they questioned
interrogabant. Nam him as a stratagem. For
Ioannes cognatus erat John was related to
sacerdotum, utpote priests, being the son of a
principis sacerdotum filius, chief priest, and he was
erat etiam sanctus; et holy. Yet, he bore witness
tamen testimonium to Christ, whose family
perhibebat Christo, cuius seemed lowly; for that
genus humile videbatur. reason they even said, “Is
Unde et dicebant: nonne not this the son of the
iste est fabri filius? Et carpenter?”; and they did
ignotus erat eis. Et ideo not know him. So,
cupientes magis habere preferring to have John as
magistrum Ioannem quam their master, not Christ,
Christum, mittunt ad eum they sent to him,
volentes eum per blanditias intending to entice him by
allicere, et inducere ut sibi flattery and persuade him
honorem hunc attribuens, to take this honor for
confiteatur se esse himself, and to state that
Christum. Quam quidem he was the Messiah. But
malitiam videns Ioannes, John, seeing their evil
dicit non sum ego Christus. intent, said, I am not the
Messiah.
Secunda interrogatio 228 The second question

ponitur consequenter, cum is stated when they ask
dicitur et interrogaverunt him, Who then? Are you
eum: quid ergo? Elias es tu? Elijah? Here we should
Sciendum est autem, quod note that just as the Jews
a populo Iudaeorum sicut awaited the Lord who was
expectabatur dominus to come, so to they waited
venturus, ita expectabatur for Elijah, who would
Elias Christum precede the Messiah: “I
praecessurus; Mal. ult., 5: will send you Elijah, the
mittam vobis Eliam et prophet” (Mal 4:5). And so
cetera. Et ideo videntes, qui those who were sent,
missi erant quod Ioannes seeing that John did not
non confitebatur se esse say that he was the
Christum, instant quod Messiah, pressed him that
saltem confiteatur si est at least he state if he were
Elias. Et hoc est quod Elijah. And this is what
dicunt quid ergo? Elias es they ask: Who then? Are
tu? you Elijah?
Quidam autem haeretici 229 There are certain

dicunt, quod anima de heretics who say that
corpore transmittitur in souls migrate from one
corpus. Et hoc dogma tunc body to another. And this
temporis erat in auctoritate belief was current among
apud Iudaeos, unde the Jews of that time. For
credebant quod propter this reason they believed
similitudinem operum that the soul of Elijah was
Ioannis ad Eliam, anima in John’s body, because of
Eliae esset in corpore the similarity of John’s
Ioannis. Et dicunt quod actions to those of Elijah.
quaerebant isti a Ioanne, an And they say that these
esset Elias; idest, an anima messengers asked John
Eliae esset in Ioanne; et whether he was Elijah, i.e.,
adducunt pro eis, quod dicit whether the soul of Elijah
dominus, Matth. XI, 14, de was in John. They support
Ioanne: si vultis scire, ipse this with Christ’s
est Elias. Sed tamen statement, “He is Elijah
contrariatur eis responsio who is to come,” as is
Ioannis dicentis non sum found in Matthew (11:14).
Elias. But John’s answer
conflicts with their
opinion, as he says, I am
not. i.e., Elijah.
Ad quod ipsi respondent, They counter this by

quod Ioannes ex ignorantia saying that John answered
respondit, nesciens, an in ignorance, not knowing
anima sua esset anima whether his soul was the
Eliae. Sed contra hoc dicit soul of Elijah. But Origen
Origenes, quod valde says in answer to this that
irrationabile videtur, quod it seems most
Ioannes tamquam propheta unreasonable that John, a
a spiritu illuminatus, et de prophet enlightened by
Dei unigenito tanta narrans, the Spirit, and telling such
ignoraret de seipso, an things about the Only
numquam eius anima fuerit Begotten Son of God,
in Elia. should be ignorant of
himself, and not know
whether his soul had been
in Elijah.
Non hac ergo intentione 230 So this was not the

quaerebant Elias es tu? Sed reason John was asked,
quia habentes ex Scripturis, Are you Elijah? Rather it
IV Reg. II, 11 quod Elias was because they took it
non fuit mortuus, sed vivus from Scripture (2 Kings
raptus est per turbinem in 2:11) that Elijah did not
caelum, credebant eum die, but had been carried
subito inter eos apparuisse. alive by a whirlwind into
heaven. Accordingly, they
believed that he had
suddenly appeared among
them.
Sed contra hoc est quod But against this opinion is

Ioannes ex notis parentibus the fact that John was
natus erat, et nativitas eius born from parents who
omnibus nota erat. Unde were known, and his birth
dicitur Lc. I, 63, quod mirati had been known to
sunt universi, et ponebant in everyone. So it says in
corde suo, dicentes: quis Luke (1:66) that all said,
putas puer iste erit? Ad “What do you think this
quod potest dici, quod non child will be?” One might
est incredibile quod ita say to this that it is not
aestimarent de Ioanne, incredible that they should
sicut dictum est. Quia et regard John in the manner
simile habetur Matth. XIV, 1 described. For a similar
quod Herodes credebat de situation in found in
Christo quod esset Matthew (14:1): for Herod
Ioannes, quem ipse thought that Christ was
decollaverat, et tamen diu John, whom he had
antequam Ioannes beheaded, even though
decollatus esset, Christus Christ had been preaching
praedicaverat, et notus and was known for some
fuerat. Et ideo, ex simili time before John had been
amentia et crassitudine, beheaded. And so from a
Iudaei quaerebant a Ioanne similar stupidity and
an ipse esset Elias. madness the Jews asked
John whether he was
Elijah.
Sed quid est hoc quod dicit 231 Why does John say, I
Ioannes non sum, scilicet am not Elijah, while Christ
Elias cum Christus dixerit, said, “He is Elijah” (Mt
Matth. XI, 14, ipse est 11:14). The angel gives us
Elias? Hanc autem the answer: “He will go
quaestionem solvit before him in the spirit
Angelus, Lc. I, 17: ipse and power of Elijah” (Lk
praecedet ante eum in 1:17), i.e., in his works.
spiritu et virtute Eliae, in Thus he was not Elijah in
suis scilicet operibus. Non person, but in spirit and
fuit ergo Elias in persona, power, i.e., because he
sed in spiritu, et virtute: showed a similarity to
quia scilicet similitudinem Elijah in his works.
Eliae in suis operibus
ostendebat.
Potest autem attendi 232 This likeness can be

similitudo quantum ad tria. found in three matters.
Primo quantum ad officium: First, in their office:
quia sicut Elias secundum because as Elijah will
domini adventum precede the second
praeveniet, ita iste coming of Christ, so John
praecessit primum et preceded the first. Thus
cetera. Unde et Angelus the angel said, “He will go
dixit: ipse praecedet ante before him.” Secondly, in
ipsum et cetera. Secundo their manner of living. For
quantum ad vivendi Elijah lived in desert
modum: quia Elias in places, ate little food and
desertis morabatur, parco wore coarse clothing, as
utebatur cibo et duris recorded in 1 and 2 Kings.
vestibus operiebatur, ut John, also, lived in the
dicitur III Reg. XIX, 3 ss. et desert, his food was
IV Reg. I, 8. Et Ioannes in locusts and wild honey,
desertis erat, cibus eius and he wore clothing of
locustae et mel silvestre, et camel’s hair. Thirdly, in
zona eius de pilis their zeal. For Elijah was
camelorum. Tertio quantum filled with zeal; thus it was
ad zelum: quia maximi zeli said, “I have been very
fuit; unde dicebat III Reg. zealous for the Lord” (1
XIX, 10: zelo zelatus sum Kgs 19:10). So, also, John
pro domino. Sic et Ioannes died because of his zeal
zelo veritatis mortuus est, for the truth, as is clear
ut patet Matth. XIV, v. 6 ss. from Matthew (14:6)

propheta es tu? Ponitur Are you the Prophet? the
tertia quaestio. Ubi primo third question is
quaeritur. Cum dicatur Lc. I, presented. Here there is a
v. 76: tu puer propheta difficulty, for since it is
altissimi vocaberis etc. quid said in Luke (1:76), “And
est quod Ioannes you, child, shall be called
interrogatus si esset the prophet of the Most
propheta, respondit se non High,” why does John,
esse prophetam? when asked if he is a
prophet, answer that he is
not a prophet?
Ad quod tripliciter There are three ways of

respondetur. Uno modo answering this. One is that
quod Ioannes non est John is not just a prophet,
propheta simpliciter, sed but more than a prophet.
plusquam propheta. Alii For the other prophets
namque prophetae solum only predicted future
futura praedicebant a things from afar: “if there
remotis; Hab. II, 3: si is a delay, wait for it” (Hb
moram fecerit, expecta 2:2).. But John proclaimed
illum; Ioannes vero that the Messiah was
Christum praesentem present, pointing him out
annuntiavit, quasi digito with his finger: “Look,
ostendens; infra: ecce there is the Lamb of God,”
agnus Dei. Et ideo, Matth. as it says below (1:36).
XI, 9, dominus dicit eum And so the Lord says that
esse plus quam prophetam. he is more than a prophet
(Mt 11:9).
Item alio modo, secundum Again, in another way,

Origenem, quia Iudaei ex according to Origen,
malo intellectu tres because through a
excellentes personas misunderstanding the
futuras credebant circa Jews associated three
adventum Christi, scilicet great personages with the
ipsum Christum, Eliam et coming of Christ: Christ
quemdam alium maximum himself, Elijah, and some
prophetam, de quo Deut. other person, the greatest
XVIII, 15: prophetam of the prophets, about
suscitabit nobis dominus et whom Deuteronomy
cetera. Et licet hic maximus (18:15) says: “The Lord
propheta, secundum your God will raise up a
veritatem, non sit alius prophet for you.” And
quam Christus, tamen although this greatest of
secundum Iudaeos alius est the prophets is in fact
a Christo; et ideo non none other than Christ,
quaerunt simpliciter utrum according to the Jews he
sit propheta, sed an sit ille is someone other than
propheta maximus. Quod Christ. And so they do not
quidem ex ordine ask simply whether he is a
quaestionis apparet. Nam prophet, but whether he is
primo, quaerunt an sit that “greatest of the
Christus; secundo, an sit prophets.” And this is
Elias; tertio, an sit propheta clear from the order of
ille. Et ideo in Graeco their questions. For they
ponitur hic articulus, ut first ask whether he is the
dicatur ly propheta, quasi Messiah; secondly,
anthonomastice dictum. whether he is Elijah;
thirdly, whether he is that
prophet. Accordingly, in
Greek, the article is used
here as signifying the
prophet, as it were,
antonomastically.
Tertio modo quia Pharisaei In a third way, because

movebantur contra the Pharisees were
Ioannem, quod sibi indignant at John for
baptizandi officium praeter assuming the office of
ordinem legis et baptizing outside the
traditionem eorum order of the law and their
assumpsisset. De tribus tradition. For the Old
autem habetur in veteri Testament mentions three
testamento quibus persons to whom this
competere poterat office could belong. First,
baptizare, scilicet de to the Messiah, since “I
Christo; Ez. XXXVI, 25, ex will pour clean water upon
persona Christi dicitur: you, and you will be
effundam super vos aquam cleansed” (Ez 36:25), are
mundam et cetera. Item de words considered as
Elia, de quo dicitur IV Reg. spoken by the person of
II, 8, quod divisit aquas the Messiah. Secondly, to
Iordanis, et transiens Elijah, of whom it says in 2
raptus est. Item de Eliseo, Kings that he divided the
qui Naaman Syrum lavari water of the Jordan, and
fecit septies in Iordane, ut crossing over, was taken
lavaretur a lepra: ut dicitur up. Finally, to Elisha, who
IV Reg. c. V, 9. Videntes made Naaman the Syrian
ergo Iudaei Ioannem wash seven times in the
baptizare, credebant eum Jordan so as to be cured
aliquem istorum esse, of leprosy, as mentioned
scilicet Christum, vel Eliam, in 2 Kings (c 5). And so
vel Eliseum; et ideo cum when the Jews saw that
dicunt hic propheta es tu? John was baptizing, they
Interrogant an sit Eliseus. believed that he was one
Et dicitur singulariter of those three: the
propheta, propter multa Messiah, or Elijah, or
miracula quae fecerat; unde Elisha. Accordingly, when
et ipse dicit IV Reg. V, 8: they ask here, Are you the
sciat prophetam esse in Prophet? they are asking
Israel. Et secundum hoc whether he is Elisha, who
respondet non sum, scilicet is called “prophet” in a
Eliseus. special way because of
the many miracles he had
performed; hence he
himself says, “Let him
come to me, so that he
may know that there is a
prophet in Israel” (2 Kgs
5:8). And to this John
answers, No, I am not
Elisha.
Consequenter cum dicit 234 Then he shows how

dixerunt ergo ei, quis es? he declared who he was.
Ostendit quomodo First, the question of the
confessus est se esse quod messengers is given;
erat, et primo ponitur secondly, his answer (v
interrogatio nuntiorum; 23).
secundo responsio, ibi ego
vox clamantis in deserto.
Dixerunt ergo: quis es tu ut 235 They said, Who are

responsum demus his qui you? We must take back
miserunt nos? Quasi dicant: an answer to those who
ad hoc missi sumus, ut sent us. As if to say: We
sciamus quis es; ideo dicas were sent to learn who
nobis quid dicis de te ipso? you are; so tell us, What
have you to say about
yourself?
Sed attende Ioannis Notice John’s devotion. He

devotionem: iam implevit has already fulfilled what
quod apostolus dicit, Gal. the Apostle says, “It is not
II, 20, vivo ego, iam non I who now live, but Christ
ego, vivit vero in me lives in me” (Gal 2:20).
Christus. Et ideo non And so he does not
respondet: ego sum filius answer, “I am the son of
Zachariae, vel talis, et talis; Zachary,” or this or that,
sed solum illud in quo but only the way in which
Christum sequebatur. he followed Christ.
Unde dicit: ego vox 236 So he says, I am a

clamantis in deserto. Dicit voice that cries in the
autem se vocem esse, quia wilderness. And he says
vox origine posterior est that he is a voice because
verbo, sed notitia prior. from the point of view of
Nam verbum in corde origin, a voice comes after
conceptum, per vocem the [mental, interior]
prolatam cognoscimus, word, but before the
cum sit signum eius. Deus knowledge it causes. For
autem pater praecursorem we know a [mental,
misit Ioannem in tempore interior] word conceived
factum, ut verbum suum ab in the heart by means of
aeterno conceptum the voice which speaks it,
annuntiaretur; et ideo since it is its sign. But God
congrue dicit ego vox. the Father sent the
precursor John, who came
to be in time, in order to
make known his Word,
which was conceived from
eternity. And so he
fittingly says, I am a
voice.
Quod autem addit 237 The addition, that

clamantis, potest intelligi cries, can be understood
dupliciter, ut scilicet sit vel in two ways: as referring
Ioannis in deserto to John, crying and
clamantis et praedicantis, preaching in the
vel Christi clamantis in ipso, wilderness; or to Christ
secundum illud II Cor. ult., crying in him, according
3: an experimentum eius to, “Do you want proof
quaeritis qui in me loquitur that Christ is speaking in
Christus? me” (2 Cor 13:3).
Clamat autem propter Now he cries for four

quatuor. Primo namque reasons. First of all, a cry
clamor manifestationem implies a showing; and so
importat; et ideo ut he cries in order to show
ostendat quod Christus in that Christ is clearly
Ioanne et in se manifeste speaking in John and in
loquebatur, clamat; infra himself: “Now on the last,
VII, 37: in novissimo die the great day of the feast,
magno festivitatis stabat Jesus stood and cried out,
Iesus, et clamabat dicens: si saying, ‘If any one thirsts,
quis sitit, veniat ad me et let him come to me and
bibat. In prophetis autem drink’” (below 7:37). But
non clamavit, quia he did not cry out in the
prophetiae in aenigmate et prophets because
figuris datae sunt; unde in prophecies were given in
Ps. XVII, 12 dicitur: enigmas and figures; so it
tenebrosa aqua in nubibus is said that he was
aeris. Secundo quia clamor “wrapped in dark rain-
fit ad distantes; Iudaei clouds” (Ps 17:12).
autem elongati erant a Deo, Secondly, because a cry is
ideo necesse erat quod made to those who are at
clamaret. Ps. LXXXVII, 19: a distance; and the Jews
elongasti a me amicum et were far from God. Thus it
proximum. Tertio clamat, was necessary that he cry:
quia surdi erant. Is. XLII, “You have taken my
19: quis surdus, nisi servus friends and neighbors
meus? Quarto clamat, quia away from me” (Ps
cum indignatione loquitur, 88:19). He cries, in the
quia ipsi iram Dei third place, because they
meruerunt. Ps. II, 5: were deaf: “Who is deaf,
loquetur ad eos in ira sua et but my servant?” (Is
cetera. 42:19). He cries, fourthly,
because he speaks with
indignation, for they
deserved God’s wrath: “He
will speak to them in his
anger” (Ps 2:5).
Sed attende quod clamat in 238 Note that he cries in

deserto, quia, Lc. III, 2, the wilderness, because
factum est verbum domini “The word of the Lord
super Ioannem Zachariae came to John, the son of
filium in deserto. Et potest Zechariah, in the desert,”
esse huiusmodi ratio et as we read in Luke (3:2).
litteralis et mystica. There can be both a literal
Litteralis quidem, ut in and a mystical reason for
deserto manens, immunis this. The literal reason is
esset ab omni peccato, ut that by living in the desert
sic dignior esset Christo he would be immune from
testimonium ferre, et ex all sin, and so be more
vita sua testimonium suum worthy to bear witness to
credibilius esset hominibus. Christ, and his testimony
would be more credible to
men because of his life.
Mystica autem causa The mystical reason is

duplex est. Nam per twofold. For the
desertum gentilitas wilderness or desert
designatur, iuxta illud Is. c. designates paganism,
LIV, 1: multi filii desertae, according to Isaiah
magis quam eius quae (54:1); “She who is
habet virum. Ut ergo deserted has more
ostenderet quod doctrina children than she who has
Dei de cetero non debet a husband.” Accordingly,
esse in Ierusalem tantum, in order to show that
sed in gentibus, clamavit in God’s teaching would from
deserto. Matth. XXI, 43: now on not be in
auferetur a vobis regnum Jerusalem alone, but also
Dei, et dabitur genti facienti among the pagans, he
fructus eius. Item, per cried in the wilderness.
desertum intelligitur “The kingdom of God will
Iudaea, quae iam deserta be taken away from you,
erat; Matth. c. XXIII, 38: and given to a people that
ecce relinquetur vobis will produce its fruits” (Mt
domus vestra deserta. 21:43). Again, the desert
Clamavit ergo in deserto, can indicate Judea, which
idest est in Iudaea, ut per was already deserted:
hoc daretur intelligi, quod “Your house will be left to
populus cui praedicabat, You, deserted” (Mt 23:38).
iam desertus erat a Deo; Ps. And so he cried in the
LXII, 3: in terra deserta et desert, in the wilderness,
invia et inaquosa sic in i.e., in Judea, to indicate
sancto apparui tibi. that the people to whom
he was preaching had
already been deserted by
God: “in a desert land,
where there is no way or
water, so I have come to
your sanctuary” (Ps 62:3).
Sed quid clamat? Dirigite 239 Why does he cry,

viam domini: quia ad hoc Make a straight way for
missus fuit; Lc. I, 76: tu the Lord? Because this is
puer propheta altissimi the task for which he was
vocaberis, praeibis enim sent. “And you, child, will
ante faciem domini parare be called the prophet of
vias eius. Via autem ad the Most High, for you will
recipiendum Deum parata go before the face of the
et recta, est via iustitiae, Lord to prepare his way”
secundum illud Is. c. XXVI, (Lk 1:76). The way,
7: semita iusti recta est et prepared and straight, for
cetera. Tunc enim semita receiving the Lord is the
iusti est recta quando homo way of justice, according
totus subiicitur Deo, ut to Isaiah (26:7): “The way
scilicet intellectus per of the just is straight.” For
fidem, voluntas per the way of the just is
amorem, operatio per straight when the whole
obedientiam Deo subdantur. man is subject to God, i.e.,
the intellect through faith,
the will through love, and
actions through
obedience, are all subject
to God.
Et hoc, sicut dicit Isaias And this was spoken, i.e.,

propheta; idest, sicut predicted, by the prophet
praedixit. Quasi dicat: ego Isaiah. As if to say: I am
sum ille in quo ista the one in whom these
complentur. things are fulfilled.
24 καὶ 24 Now these

ἀπεσταλμένοι men had been
ἦσαν ἐκ τῶν sent from the
φαρισαίων. 25 Pharisees, 25
καὶ ἠρώτησαν and they put
αὐτὸν καὶ this further
εἶπαν αὐτῷ, τί question to him:
οὖν βαπτίζεις “Why then do
εἰ σὺ οὐκ εἶ ὁ you baptize, if
Χριστὸς οὐδὲ you are not the
ἠλίας οὐδὲ ὁ Messiah, nor
προφήτης; 26 Elijah, nor the
ἀπεκρίθη Prophet?” 26
αὐτοῖς ὁ John replied, “I
Ἰωάννης λέγων, baptize with
ἐγὼ βαπτίζω water. But there
ἐν ὕδατι: μέσος is one standing
ὑμῶν ἕστηκεν in your midst
ὃν ὑμεῖς οὐκ whom you do
οἴδατε, 27 ὁ not
ὀπίσω μου recognize—27
ἐρχόμενος, οὗ the one who is
οὐκ εἰμὶ [ἐγὼ] to come after
ἄξιος ἵνα λύσω me, who ranks
αὐτοῦ τὸν ahead of me—
ἱμάντα τοῦ the strap of
ὑποδήματος. whose sandal I
28 ταῦτα ἐν am not worthy
βηθανίᾳ to unfasten.” 28
ἐγένετο πέραν This happened
τοῦ ἰορδάνου, at Bethany, on
ὅπου ἦν ὁ the far side of
Ἰωάννης the Jordan,
βαπτίζων. where John was
baptizing.
Supra Ioannes 240 Above, we saw John

interrogatus perhibuit bear witness to Christ as
testimonium Christo de he was being questioned
seipso quantum ad on matters concerning
personam; hic vero himself; here, on matters
quantum ad officium. Et concerning his office. Four
circa hoc ponuntur things are set forth: first,
quatuor. Primo those who question him;
interrogantes; secundo secondly, their questions;
interrogatio, ibi et thirdly, his answer, in which
interrogaverunt eum; tertio he bore witness; and
responsio, in qua fourthly, the place where
testimonium perhibuit, ibi all this happened.
respondit eis Ioannes et
cetera. Quarto locus ubi
haec facta sunt, ibi haec in
Bethania facta sunt.
Interrogantes autem sunt 241 His interrogators were

Pharisaei. Unde dicit et qui Pharisees. Hence he says,
missi fuerant, erant ex Now these men had been
Pharisaeis. Et quidem, sent from the Pharisees.
secundum Origenem, quod According to Origen, what
dicitur ex hoc loco, ad is being said from this
aliud testimonium pertinet: point on describes a
et isti qui missi sunt ex different testimony given
Pharisaeis, non sunt iidem by John; and further, those
cum sacerdotibus et who were sent from the
Levitis, qui missi sunt a Pharisees are not the same
Iudaeorum universitate, as those priests and
sed alii specialiter missi a Levites sent by the
Pharisaeis. Et secundum generality of the Jews, but
hoc dicitur: et qui missi others who were
sunt, non a Iudaeis specifically sent by the
scilicet, sicut fuerunt Pharisees. And according
sacerdotes et Levitae, sed to this it says: Now these
alii erant ex Pharisaeis. Et men had been sent, not by
ideo dicit quod, quia the Jews, as the priests
sacerdotes et Levitae and Levites had been, but
disciplinati erant et were others, from the
reverentes, humiliter et Pharisees. So he says
cum reverentia Ioannem about this that because the
interrogant de eius priests and Levites were
dignitate, utrum scilicet educated and respectful,
Christus esset, an Elias, an they ask John humbly and
propheta; isti vero, qui ex respectfully whether he is
Pharisaeis erant, the Messiah, or Elijah, or
secundum nomen suum the Prophet. But these
divisi et importuni, others, who were from the
contumeliosas voces Pharisees, according to
praetendunt Baptistae, their name “separated”
unde dixerunt ei: quid ergo and importunate, used
baptizas, si tu non es disdainful language. Thus
Christus, neque Elias, they asked him, Why then
neque propheta? do you baptize, if you are
not the Messiah, nor
Elijah, nor the Prophet?
Secundum alios vero, But according to others,

Gregorium scilicet, such as Gregory,
Chrysostomum et Chrysostom, and
Augustinum, isti qui ex Augustine, these Pharisees
Pharisaeis, sunt illi iidem are the same priests and
qui missi fuerant a Iudaeis Levites who had been sent
sacerdotes et Levitae. by the Jews. For there was
Quaedam enim secta erat among the Jews a certain
inter Iudaeos, qui propter sect which was separated
exteriorem cultum divisi from the others by reason
erant ab aliis: unde et of its external cult; and for
Pharisaei, idest divisi this reason its members
vocabantur; in qua quidem were called Pharisees, i.e.,
erant aliqui de “divided.” In this sect there
sacerdotibus et Levitis, et were some priests and
aliqui de populo. Ut ergo Levites, and some of the
nuntii maioris auctoritatis people. And so, in order
essent, miserunt that the delegates [to
sacerdotes et Levitas, qui John] might possess a
erant ex Pharisaeis, ut eis greater authority, they sent
nec sacerdotalis ordinis priests and Levites, who
dignitas, nec religionis were Pharisees, thus
deesset auctoritas. furnishing them with the
dignity of a priestly caste
and with religious
authority.
Ideo autem Evangelista 242 The Evangelist adds,

addit hoc quod dicitur et these men had been sent
qui missi fuerant, erant ex from the Pharisees, to
Pharisaeis, ut primo disclose, first, the reason
quidem rationem why they asked about
quaestionis Baptismi John’s baptizing, which
Ioannis, pro qua missi non was not why they were
fuerunt, assignet; quasi sent. It is as though he
dicat: missi fuerunt, ut were saying: They were
interrogarent a Ioanne sent to ask John who he
quis esset. Sed quod was. But they asked, Why
quaerunt quid ergo do you baptize? because
baptizas? Fecerunt, quia they were from the
erant ex Pharisaeis, quibus Pharisees, whose religion
eorum religio ausum was being challenged.
praebebat. Secundo, ut Secondly, as Gregory says,
dicit Gregorius, ut in order to show with what
ostendat qua intentione intention they asked John,
quaesierunt a Ioanne tu “Who are you?” (1:19). For
quis es? Pharisaei enim the Pharisees, more than
inter omnes alios all the others, showed
insidiose, et calumniose se themselves crafty and
habebant ad Christum. insulting to Christ. Thus
Unde ipsi dixerunt ei, they said of him: “He casts
Matth. XII, 24: in out devils by Beelzebub,
Beelzebub principe the prince of devils” (Mt
Daemoniorum Daemonia 12:24). Further, they
eiicit. Ipsi etiam inierunt consulted with the
cum Herodianis consilium, Herodians on how to trap
ut caperent Iesum in Jesus in his speech (Mt
sermone. Matth. XXII, 15. 22:15). And so in saying
Et ideo per hoc quod dicit that these men had been
qui missi fuerant, erant ex sent from the Pharisees,
Pharisaeis, ostendit, quod he shows that they were
calumniose se habebant, disrespectful and were
et ex invidia eum questioning him out of
interrogaverunt. envy.
Interrogatio autem est de 243 Their questions

officio baptizandi, unde concerned his office of
dicitur et interrogaverunt baptizing. Hence he says
eum, et dixerunt ei: quid that they asked him, Why
ergo baptizas? et cetera. then do you baptize? Here
Unde notandum est, quod we should note that they
non quaerunt ut sciant, are asking not to learn, but
sed ut impediant. Quia to obstruct. For since they
enim videbant saw many people coming
multitudinem populi ad to John because of the new
Ioannem currere, propter rite of baptism, foreign
novum ritum baptizandi, et both to the rite of the
extraneum a ritu Pharisees and of the law,
Pharisaeorum et legis, they became envious of
invidebant Ioanni, et John and tried all they
conabantur pro posse could to hinder his
impedire Baptismum eius; baptism. But being unable
et ideo, se continere non to contain themselves any
valentes, suam longer, they reveal their
manifestant invidiam, et envy and say, Why then do
dicunt quid ergo baptizas, you baptize if you are not
si tu non es Christus, the Messiah, nor Elijah,
neque Elias, neque nor the Prophet? As if to
propheta? Quasi dicant: say: You should not
non debes baptizare, ex baptize, since you deny
quo negas te esse aliquem that you are any of those
illorum trium in quibus three persons in whom
praefiguratus est baptism was prefigured, as
Baptismus, ut dictum est was said above. In other
supra. Scilicet, si tu non es words, if you are not the
Christus, qui habiturus est Messiah, who will possess
fontem in ablutionem the fountain by which sins
peccati; et si non es Elias, are washed away, nor
sive propheta, idest Elijah, nor the Prophet,
Eliseus, qui sicco vestigio i.e., Elisha, who made a dry
Iordanem transiverunt, ut passageway through the
dicitur IV Reg. II, 8, Jordan (2 Kgs 2:8), how do
quomodo audes baptizare? you dare baptize’? They are
Similes istis sunt invidi, like envious persons who
animarum profectum hinder the progress of
impedientes, qui dicunt souls, “who say to the
videntibus: nolite videre seers, ‘See no visions’” (Is
etc.: Is. XXX, 10. 30:10).
Responsio autem est vera: 244 His answer is true: and

unde dicit respondit eis so he says that John
Ioannes, dicens: ego answered, I baptize with
baptizo in aqua. Quasi water. As if to say: You
dicat: non debetis mirari, should not be disturbed, if
si ego, qui non sum I, who am not the Messiah,
Christus, nec Elias, nec nor Elijah, nor the Prophet,
propheta, baptizo: quia baptize; because my
Baptismus meus non est baptism is not completive
completivus, sed but imperfect. For the
imperfectus. Nam ad perfection of baptism
perfectionem Baptismi requires the washing of the
exigitur lotio corporis et body and of the soul; and
animae; et corpus quidem the body, by its nature, is
secundum naturam lavatur indeed washed by water,
aqua, anima vero non nisi but the soul is washed by
spiritu. Unde ego baptizo the Spirit alone. So, I
in aqua, idest, corpore lavo baptize with water, i.e., I
corpus; veniet autem alius, wash the body with
qui perfecte baptizabit, something bodily; but
scilicet in aqua et spiritu another will come who will
sancto; Deus et homo, qui baptize perfectly, namely,
et corpus aqua et spiritum with water and with the
spiritu lavabit, ita quod Holy Spirit; God and man,
sanctificatio spiritus who will wash the body
derivabitur ad corpus. Act. with water and the spirit
I, 5: Ioannes quidem with the Spirit, in such a
baptizavit aqua, vos autem way that the sanctification
baptizabimini spiritu of the spirit will be
sancto non post multos distributed throughout the
hos dies. body. “For John indeed
baptized with water but
you will be baptized with
the Holy Spirit not many
days from now” (Acts 1:5).
Testimonium autem 245 Then he bears witness

perhibet de Christo, cum to Christ. First, in relation
dicit medius autem to the Jews. Secondly, in
vestrum stetit etc., et relation to himself (v 27).
primo per comparationem
ad Iudaeos; secundo per
comparationem ad
seipsum, ibi ipse est qui
post me venturus est.
Ad Iudaeos autem 246 He relates him to the

comparat eum, dicens Jews when he says, But
medius autem vestrum there is one standing in
stetit; quasi dicat: ego your midst. As if to say: I
imperfectum opus feci; sed have done an incomplete
est alius qui perficiet opus work, but there is another
meum, qui medius vestrum who will complete my work,
stetit. and he is standing in your
midst.
Quod quidem exponitur This is explained in a

multipliciter. Uno siquidem number of ways. First,
modo, secundum according to Gregory,
Gregorium, Chrysostomum Chrysostom and Augustine,
et Augustinum, ut it refers to the ordinary
referatur ad communem way Christ lived among
Christi conversationem men, because according to
inter homines, quia, his human nature he
secundum naturam appeared to be like other
humanam, aliis hominibus men: “He, being in the form
similis apparuit; Phil. II, 6: of God ... emptied himself,
qui cum in forma Dei esset, taking the form of a
non rapinam arbitratus est servant” (Phil 2:6). And
esse se aequalem Deo; sed according to this he says,
semetipsum exinanivit there is one standing in
formam servi accipiens, in your midst, i.e., in many
similitudinem hominum ways he lived as one of
factus, et habitu inventus you: “I am in your midst”
ut homo. Et secundum hoc (Lk 22:27), whom you do
dicit medius vestrum stetit, not recognize, i.e., you
idest multoties cannot grasp the fact that
conversatus est quasi unus God was made man.
ex vobis; Lc. XXII, v. 27: Likewise, you do not
ego in medio vestrum sum. recognize how great he is
Quem vos nescitis, idest, according to the divine
hoc quod Deus factus est nature which is concealed
homo, capere non potestis. in him: “God is great, and
Item, nescitis quam exceeds our knowledge”
magnus sit secundum (Jb 36:26). And so, as
naturam divinam, quae in Augustine says, “The
eo latebat; Iob XXXVI, 26: lantern was lighted,”
ecce dominus magnus namely, John, “so that
vincens scientiam vestram. Christ might be found.” “I
Et ideo, ut Augustinus have prepared a lamp for
dicit, accensa est lucerna, my anointed” (Ps 131:17).
scilicet Ioannes, ut
inveniatur Christus. Ps.
CXXXI, 17: paravi
lucernam Christo meo.
Alio modo exponitur, It is explained differently

secundum Origenem, et by Origen; and in two ways.
hoc dupliciter. Primo ut First, as referring to the
referatur ad Christi divinity of Christ: and
divinitatem; et secundum according to this, there is
hoc medius vestrum, idest one standing, namely,
in medio omnium rerum, Christ, in your midst, that
stetit, scilicet Christus: is, in the midst of all things;
quia ipse secundum quod because he, as Word, has
verbum a principio filled all from the beginning
creaturae implevit of creation: “I fill heaven
universam creaturam. Ier. and earth” (Jer 23:24).
XXIII, 24: caelum et Whom you do not
terram ego impleo. Quem recognize, because, as was
tamen vos nescitis, quia, ut said above (1:10), “He was
dicitur supra, in mundo in the world ... and the
erat (...) et mundus eum world did not know him.”
non cognovit.
Alio modo ut referatur ad It is explained another way

causalitatem humanae as referring to his causality
sapientiae, et dicatur of human wisdom. But
medius vestrum stetit; there is one standing in
idest, in intellectu omnium your midst, i.e., he shines
relucet: quia quicquid lucis in everyone’s
et sapientiae est in understanding; because
hominibus, provenit eis ex whatever light and
participatione verbi. Et whatever wisdom exists in
dicit in medio, quia in men has come to them
medio hominis corporaliter from participating in the
est cor, cui attribuitur Word. And he says, in your
quaedam sapientia et midst, because in the
intellectus: unde, licet midst of man’s body lies
intellectus non habeat the heart, to which is
organum corporale, tamen attributed a certain wisdom
quia cor est principale and understanding; hence,
organum, consuevit accipi although the intellect has
pro intellectu; unde in no bodily organ, yet
medio stare dicitur because the heart is our
secundum hanc chief organ, it is the
similitudinem, inquantum custom to take it for the
illuminat omnem hominem intellect. So he is said to
venientem in hunc stand among men because
mundum. Quem tamen vos of this likeness, insofar as
nescitis; quia, ut dicitur he “enlightens every man
supra, lux in tenebris lucet, coming into this world”
et tenebrae eam non (1:9). Whom you do not
comprehenderunt. recognize, because, as was
said above (1:5), “The light
shines in the darkness, and
the darkness did not
overcome it.”
Quarto modo exponitur ut In a fourth way, it is

referatur ad propheticam explained as referring to
Christi praenuntiationem, the prophetic foretelling of
ut sic respondeatur the Messiah. In this sense
principaliter Pharisaeis, the answer is directed
qui continue Scripturas chiefly to the Pharisees,
veteris testamenti, in who continually searched
quibus praenuntiabatur the writings of the Old
Christus, inquirebant, et Testament in which the
tamen eum non Messiah was foretold; and
cognoscebant. Et yet they did not recognize
secundum hoc dicitur him. And according to this
medius vestrum stetit; it says, there is one
idest, in sacra Scriptura, standing in your midst,
quam vos semper i.e., in the Sacred
revolvitis; infra V, 39: Scriptures which you are
scrutamini Scripturas. always considering:
Quem tamen vos nescitis, “Search the Scriptures”
quia cor vestrum (below 5:39); whom you do
induratum est propter not recognize, because
infidelitatem et oculi vestri your heart is hardened by
excaecati sunt, ut non unbelief, and your eyes
agnoscatis praesentem, blinded, so that you do not
quem creditis futurum. recognize as present the
person you believe is to
come.
Comparat autem Christum 247 Then John compares

ad se Ioannes, cum dicit Christ to himself. First, he
ipse est qui post me states the superiority of
venturus est. Ubi primo Christ as compared to
ponit excellentiam Christi himself. Secondly, he
ad seipsum; secundo vero shows the greatness of this
excellentiae immensitatem superiority.
ostendit, ibi cuius non sum
dignus ut solvam corrigiam
calceamenti.
Excellentiam autem Christi 248 He shows the

ad seipsum ostendit et superiority of Christ in
quantum ad ordinem comparison to himself both
praedicationis, et quantum in preaching and in dignity.
ad ordinem dignitatis. Now, as to the order of
Quantum quidem ad preaching, John was the
ordinem praedicationis, first to become known.
Ioannes primo innotuit. Et Thus he says, the one who
ideo dicit ipse est qui post is to come after me, to
me venit, ad preach, to baptize and to
praedicandum, die; because as was said in
baptizandum et Luke (1:76): “You will go
moriendum; quia, ut before the face of the Lord
dicitur Lc. I, 76, praeibis to prepare his way.” John
ante faciem domini, parare preceded Christ as the
vias eius. Sed Ioannes imperfect the perfect, and
quidem praecessit as the disposition the form;
Christum, sicut for as is said, “The spiritual
imperfectum perfectum, et is not first, but the animal”
sicut dispositio formam; (1 Cor 15:46). For the
sicut dicitur I Cor. c. XV, entire life of John was a
46: non prius quod preparation for Christ; so
spirituale, sed quod he said above, that he was
animale. Nam tota vita “a voice that cries in the
Ioannis fuit quoddam wilderness.”
praeparatorium ad
Christum; unde dixit supra
ego vox clamantis in
deserto.
Sed Christus praecessit But Christ preceded John

Ioannem et nos omnes, and all of us as the perfect
sicut perfectum precedes the imperfect and
imperfectum, et sicut the exemplar precedes the
exemplar exemplatum. copy: “If any one wishes to
Matth. XVI, 24: si quis vult come after me, let him
venire post me, abneget deny himself, and take up
semetipsum, et tollat his cross, and follow me”
crucem suam, et sequatur (Mt 16:24); “Christ
me; I Pet. c. II, 21: suffered for us, leaving you
Christus passus est pro an example” (1 Pt 2:21).
nobis, vobis relinquens
exemplum.
Quantum vero ad ordinem Then he compares Christ to

dignitatis, cum dicit qui himself as to dignity,
ante me factus est, idest, saying, who ranks ahead
mihi praelatus est, et of me, i.e., he has been
dignitate praepositus; placed above me and is
quia, ut dicit infra III, 30, above me in dignity,
me oportet minui, illum because as he says (below
autem crescere. 3:30), “he must increase,
and I must decrease.”
Immensitatem autem 249 He touches on the

excellentiae assignat cum greatness of his superiority
dicit cuius ego non sum when he says, the strap of
dignus ut solvam eius whose sandal I am not
corrigiam calceamenti. worthy to unfasten. As if to
Quasi dicat: non intelligatis say: You must not suppose
ipsum mihi in dignitate that he ranks ahead of me
praepositum sicut unus in dignity in the way that
homo praefertur alteri, sed one man is placed ahead of
tam excellenter, quod nihil another, rather he is ranked
sum in comparatione ad so far above me that I am
ipsum. Et hoc patet, quia nothing in comparison to
non sum dignus ut solvam him. And this is clear from
corrigiam calceamenti the fact that it is he the
eius: quod est minimum strap of whose sandal I am
obsequium quod not worthy to unfasten,
hominibus fieri potest. Ex which is the least service
quo patet quod Ioannes that can be done for men.
multum accesserat ad Dei It is clear from this that
cognitionem, inquantum John had made great
ex consideratione infinitae progress in the knowledge
magnitudinis Dei se of God, so far that from the
totaliter vilipendebat, et consideration of God’s
nihil se esse dicebat. Sicut infinite greatness, he
Abraham, cum Deum completely lowered himself
cognovisset, dicebat, Gen. and said that he himself
XVIII, 27: loquar ad was nothing. So did
dominum meum, cum sim Abraham, when he
pulvis et cinis. Sic Iob c. recognized God, and said
XLII, 5, cum dominum (Gn 18:27), “1 will speak
vidisset, dixit: nunc oculus to my Lord, although I am
meus videt te; idcirco ipse but dust and ashes.” And
me reprehendo, et ago so also did Job, saying,
poenitentiam in favilla et “Now I see you, and so I
cinere. Sic Is. XL, 17, reprove myself, and do
postquam vidit gloriam Dei penance in dust and ashes”
dixit: omnes gentes quasi (Jb 42:5). Isaiah also said,
non sint, sic sunt coram eo. after he had seen the glory
Et haec quidem expositio of God, “Before him all the
est litteralis. nations are as if they are
not” (Is 40:17). And this is
the literal explanation.
Exponitur autem et 250 This is also explained

mystice. Uno modo mystically. Gregory
secundum Gregorium, ut explains it so that the
per calceamentum, quod sandal, made from the
fit de pellibus mortuorum hides of dead animals,
animalium, intelligatur indicates our mortal human
humana natura mortalis, nature, which Christ
quam Christus assumpsit; assumed: “I will stretch out
Ps. LIX, 10: in Idumaea my sandal to Edom” (Ps
extendam calceamentum 59:10). The strap of
meum et cetera. Corrigia Christ’s sandal is the union
autem calceamenti eius, of his divinity and
est ipsa unio divinitatis et humanity, which neither
humanitatis, quam nec John nor anyone can
Ioannes, nec aliquis, unfasten or fully
potest solvere nec potuit investigate, since it is this
plene investigare, cum which made God man and
talis esset quod hominem made man God. And so he
faceret Deum, et Deum says, the strap of whose
hominem. Et ideo dicit sandal I am not worthy to
cuius non sum dignus ut unfasten, i.e., to explain
solvam corrigiam the mystery of the
calceamenti; idest, ut incarnation perfectly and
explicem mysterium fully. For John and other
incarnationis et cetera. preachers unfasten the
Intelligendum est plene et strap of Christ’s sandal in
perfecte: nam quoquo some way, although
modo et Ioannes et alii imperfectly.
praedicatores, licet
imperfecte, solvunt
corrigiam calceamenti.
Alio modo exponitur, quia It is explained in another

in veteri lege praeceptum way by recalling that it was
erat, Deut. XXV, 5-10 quod ordered in the Old Law that
quando aliquis moriebatur when a man died without
sine liberis, frater defuncti children, his brother was
uxorem defuncti recipere obligated to marry the wife
tenebatur, et ex ea semen of the dead man and raise
fratri suo suscitare; quod up children from her as his
si nollet eam in uxorem brother’s. And if he refused
recipere, tunc aliquis to marry her, then a close
propinquus defuncti eam relative of the dead man, if
recipere volens, debebat willing to marry her, was to
eum discalceare in signum remove the sandals of the
huius cessionis, et illam in dead man as a sign of this
uxorem recipere, et domus willingness and marry her;
eius debebat vocari domus and his home was then to
discalceati. Secundum hoc be called the home of the
ergo dicit cuius non sum man whose sandals were
dignus corrigiam removed (Dt 25:5). And so
calceamenti solvere; idest, according to this he says,
non sum dignus habere the strap of whose sandal
sponsam, quae sibi I am not worthy to
debetur, Ecclesiam. Quasi unfasten, i.e., I am not
dicat: non sum dignus ut worthy to have the bride,
vocer sponsus Ecclesiae, that is, the Church, to
quae consecratur Christo which Christ has a right. As
in Baptismo spiritus; ego if to say: I am not worthy to
autem baptizo in aqua be called the bridegroom of
tantum. Infra III, 29: qui the Church, which is
habet sponsam, sponsus consecrated to Christ in
est et cetera. the baptism of the Spirit;
but I baptize only in water.
As it says below (3:29): “It
is the groom who has the
bride.”
Locus autem, ubi praedicta 251 The place where these

facta sunt, subditur events happened is
consequenter, cum dicit mentioned when he says,
haec in Bethania facta sunt This happened at Bethany,
trans Iordanem. Sed circa on the far side of the
hoc primo consurgit Jordan. A question arises
quaestio. Cum Bethania sit on this: Since Bethany is on
in monte oliveti quod est the Mount of Olives, which
iuxta Ierusalem, sicut is near Jerusalem, as is
dicitur Io. XI, 1 et Matth. said in John (11:1 ) and
XXVI, 6 quomodo dicit also in Matthew (26:6),
quod facta sunt trans how can he say that these
Iordanem, qui multum things happened beyond
distabat ab Ierusalem? the Jordan, which is quite
Sed dicendum, secundum far from Jerusalem? Origen
Origenem et and Chrysostom answer
Chrysostomum, quod non that it should be called
debet dici Bethania, sed Bethabora, not Bethany,
Bethabora, quae est which is a village on the far
quaedam villa ultra side of the Jordan; and that
Iordanem: et hoc quod the reading “Bethany” is
dicit Bethania, corruptum due to a copyist’s error.
est vitio scriptorum. Sed However, since both the
quia tam libri Graeci quam Greek and Latin versions
Latini habent Bethania, have Bethany, one should
ideo dicendum est aliter, rather say that there are
quod est duplex Bethania: two places called Bethany:
una quae est prope one is near Jerusalem on
Ierusalem in latere montis the side of the Mount of
oliveti, alia trans Olives, and the other is on
Iordanem, ubi erat the far side of the Jordan
Ioannes baptizans. where John was baptizing.
Quod autem mentionem 252 The fact that he

facit de loco, habet mentions the place has
rationem litteralem et both a literal and a
mysticam. Litteralem mystical reason. The literal
quidem secundum reason, according to
Chrysostomum, quia Chrysostom, is that John
Ioannes scribebat wrote this Gospel for
Evangelium istud certain ones, perhaps still
viventibus forte aliquibus alive, who would recall the
qui et tempus quo ista time and who saw the
facta sunt, et locum place where these things
viderunt, et ideo quasi ad happened. And so, to lead
maiorem certitudinem illos us to a greater certitude,
testes facit illorum quae he makes them witnesses
viderant. of the things they had
seen.
Mysticam vero, quia haec The mystical reason is that

loca conveniunt Baptismo. these places are
Nam, si dicatur Bethania, appropriate for baptism.
quae domus obedientiae For in saying “Bethany,”
interpretatur, significat which is interpreted as
quod necesse est per “house of obedience,” he
obedientiam fidei ad indicates that one must
Baptismum pervenire; come to be baptized
Rom. I, 5: ad obediendum through obedience to the
fidei in omnibus gentibus. faith. “To bring all the
Si vero dicatur Bethabora, nations to have obedience
quae interpretatur domus to the faith” (Rom 1:5). But
praeparationis, significat if the name of the place is
quod per Baptismum “Bethabora,” which is
praeparatur homo ad interpreted as “house of
vitam aeternam. preparation,” it signifies
that a man is prepared for
eternal life through
baptism.
Nec vacat mysterio quod There is also a mystery in

trans Iordanem sit. the fact that this happened
Iordanis enim on the far side of the
interpretatur descensus Jordan. For “Jordan” is
eorum; et, secundum interpreted as “the descent
Origenem, significat of them”; and according to
Christum, qui descendit de Origen it signifies Christ,
caelis, ut dicit ipse: who descended from
descendi de caelo, ut heaven, as he himself says
facerem voluntatem patris that he descended from
mei. Unde dicitur Eccli. heaven to do the will of his
XXIV, 41: ego quasi fluvius Father (below 6:38), [thus
Dorix. Per ipsum autem Sirach 24;41 says I, like
omnes ingredientes in the river Drix. Through him,
hunc mundum, mundari all who come into this
convenit, secundum illud world should be cleansed,
Apoc. I, 5: lavit nos a as Rev 1:5 says, He washes
peccatis nostris in us from our sins in hi blood.
sanguine suo.
Convenienter etiam Further, the river Jordan

Iordanis Baptismum aptly signifies baptism. For
significat. Ipse enim it is the border line
confinium est inter illos qui between those who
acceperunt sortes received their inheritance
hereditatis a Moyse ex una from Moses on one side of
parte Iordanis, et illos qui the Jordan, and those who
acceperunt a Iosue ex alia; received it from Josue on
et ita Baptismus quasi the other side. Thus
quoddam confinium est baptism is a kind of border
inter Iudaeos et gentiles, between Jews and Gentiles,
qui proficiscuntur illuc, ut who journey to this place
se lavent ad Christum to wash themselves by
venientes, ut opprobrium coming to Christ so that
peccati deponant. Sicut they might put off the
enim filios Israel terram debasement of sin. Forjust
promissionis intrantes as the Jews had to cross
oportuit transire the Jordan to enter the
Iordanem, ita et per promised land, so one must
Baptismum oportet pass through baptism to
patriam caelestem intrare. enter into the heavenly
Dicit autem trans land. And he says, on the
Iordanem, ut insinuet quod far side of the Jordan, to
etiam transgressoribus et show that John preached
peccatoribus Baptismum the baptism of repentance
poenitentiae praedicabat even to those who
Ioannes; unde et dominus, trangressed the law and
Matth. c. IX, 13: non veni sinners; and so the Lord
vocare iustos, sed also says, “I did not come
peccatores. to call the righteous, but
sinners” (Mt 9:13).
29 τῇ 29 The next day

ἐπαύριον John saw Jesus
βλέπει τὸν coming toward
Ἰησοῦν him and he said,
ἐρχόμενον “Look! There is
πρὸς αὐτόν, the Lamb of God
καὶ λέγει, ἴδε who takes away
ὁ ἀμνὸς τοῦ the sins of the
θεοῦ ὁ αἴρων world. 30 It is he
τὴν ἁμαρτίαν of whom I said:
τοῦ κόσμου.
30 οὗτός ‘After me
ἐστιν ὑπὲρ οὗ is to come
ἐγὼ εἶπον, a man,
who ranks
ὀπίσω μου ahead of
ἔρχεται ἀνὴρ me,
ὃς ἔμπροσθέν because
μου γέγονεν, he existed
ὅτι πρῶτός before
μου ἦν. me.’
31 κἀγὼ οὐκ 31 And I
ᾔδειν αὐτόν, did not
ἀλλ' ἵνα know him!
φανερωθῇ τῷ And yet it
Ἰσραὴλ διὰ was to
τοῦτο ἦλθον reveal him
ἐγὼ ἐν ὕδατι to Israel
βαπτίζων. that I
came
32 καὶ baptizing
ἐμαρτύρησεν with
Ἰωάννης water.”
λέγων ὅτι
32 John gave this
τεθέαμαι τὸ testimony also:
πνεῦμα
καταβαῖνον “I saw the
ὡς Spirit
περιστερὰν ἐξ coming
οὐρανοῦ, καὶ down on
ἔμεινεν ἐπ' him from
αὐτόν: 33 heaven
κἀγὼ οὐκ like a
ᾔδειν αὐτόν, dove, and
ἀλλ' ὁ πέμψας resting on
με βαπτίζειν him. 33
ἐν ὕδατι And I did
ἐκεῖνός μοι not know
εἶπεν, ἐφ' ὃν him, but
ἂν ἴδῃς τὸ he who
πνεῦμα sent me to
καταβαῖνον baptize
καὶ μένον ἐπ' with water
αὐτόν, οὗτός had said to
ἐστιν ὁ me: ‘The
βαπτίζων ἐν man on
πνεύματι whom you
ἁγίῳ. 34 see the
κἀγὼ Spirit
ἑώρακα, καὶ come
μεμαρτύρηκα down and
ὅτι οὗτός rest is the
ἐστιν ὁ υἱὸς one who is
τοῦ θεοῦ. to baptize
with the
Holy
Spirit.’ 34
Now I
have seen
for myself
and have
given
testimony
that he is
the Son of
God.”
Supra Ioannes perhibuit 253 Above, John had given
testimonium Christo testimony to Christ when he
interrogatus; hic vero was questioned. Here, he
perhibet aliud gives testimony to him on
testimonium Christo his own initiative. First, he
spontaneus. Et primo gives the testimony;
quidem fert ipsum secondly, he confirms it (v
testimonium; secundo 32). As to the first: first, the
testimonium latum circumstances of the
confirmat, ibi et testimony are given; and
testimonium perhibuit secondly, the testimony itself
Ioannes. Circa primum is given (v 29); thirdly,
autem primo quidem suspicion is removed from
describuntur the witness (v 3 1).
circumstantiae
testimonii; secundo
ponitur ipsum
testimonium, ibi ecce
agnus Dei; tertio
excluditur suspicio testis,
ibi et ego nesciebam
eum.
Describuntur autem 254 The circumstances are

circumstantiae. Una first described as to the
quidem ex parte time. Hence he says, The
temporis. Unde dicit next day. This gives credit to
altera die: in quo quidem John for his steadfastness,
commendatur Ioannis because he bore witness to
constantia, quia non uno Christ not for just one day or
die, non semel tantum, once, but on many days and
sed pluribus diebus et frequently: “Every day I will
multoties Christo bless you” (Ps 144:2). His
testimonium perhibebat. progress, too, is cited,
Ps. CXLIV, 2: per singulos because one day should not
dies benedicam tibi. be just like the day before,
Commendatur etiam eius but the succeeding day
profectus: quia non debet should be different, i.e.,
nobis succedere una dies better: “They will go from
sicut alia; sed quae strength to strength” (Ps
succedit debet esse 83:8).
altera, idest melior; iuxta
illud Ps. LXXXIII, 8: ibunt
de virtute in virtutem.
Alia circumstantia Another circumstance

ponitur ex parte modi mentioned is his manner of
testificandi, quia vidit testifying, because John saw
Ioannes Iesum: in quo Jesus. This shows his
insinuatur certitudo. Nam certitude, for testimony
testimonium de visu based on sight is most
certissimum est. Alia certain. The last
vero circumstantia circumstance he mentions is
ponitur ex parte eius cui about the one to whom he
testimonium perhibetur. bore witness. Hence he says
Unde dicit Iesum ad se that he saw Jesus coming
venientem, scilicet de toward him, i.e., from
Galilaea, ut dicitur Matth. Galilee, as it says, “Jesus
III, 13: venit Iesus a came from Galilee” (Mt
Galilaea. Nec tamen 3:13). We should not
intelligendum est de understand this as referring
adventu quo venit ad to the time when he came to
Baptismum, de quo ibi be baptized, of which
loquitur Matthaeus, sed Matthew is here speaking,
de alio adventu quo iam but of another time, i.e., a
baptizatus, et circa time when he came to John
Iordanem aliquamdiu after he had already been
commoratus, venit ad baptized and was staying
Ioannem, alias non near the Jordan. Otherwise,
dixisset: super quem he Would not have said,
videris spiritum “‘The man on whom yoti see
descendentem et the Spirit come down and
manentem super eum, hic rest is the one who is to
est qui baptizat in spiritu baptize with the I loly Spirit.’
sancto. Et ego vidi et Now I have seen” (v 33).
cetera. Iam ergo viderat Therefore, he had already
eum, et spiritum super seen him and the Spirit
eum descendentem quasi come down as a dove upon
columbam etc., ut infra him.
dicit.
Huius autem Christi ad 255 One reason why Christ

Ioannem adventus post now came to John was to
Baptismum una causa confirm the testimony of
fuit ut testimonium John. For John had spoken
Ioannis certificaretur. of Christ as “the one who is
Dixerat enim Ioannes de to come after me” (v 27).
Christo: ipse est qui post But since Christ was now
me venturus est: nam present, some might not
aliquis posset errare in understand who it was that
cognitione venturi, cum was to come. So Christ came
adesset; venit ad to John to be pointed out by
Ioannem, ab eo digito him, with John saying, Look!
ostendendus, dicente There is the Lamb of God.
Ioanne ecce agnus Dei et Another reason Christ came
cetera. Alia ratio ut was to correct an error. For
excluderet errorem. some might believe that the
Posset enim aliquis first time Christ came, i.e., to
credere quod Christus be baptized, he came to
prima vice, cum venit ad John to be cleansed from his
Baptismum, venerit ad sins. So, in order to preclude
Ioannem sicut a peccatis this, Christ came to him even
purgandus. Christus after his baptism.
ergo, ut hoc excluderet, Accordingly, John clearly
venit etiam ad eum post says, There is the Lamb of
Baptismum. Unde God who takes away the
signanter dicit Ioannes sins of the world. He
ecce qui tollit. Peccatum committed no sin, but came
nullum fecit, sed venit to take away sin. He also
peccatum tollere. Venit came to give us an example
etiam ut praeberet of humility, because as it is
humilitatis exemplum: said, “The greater you are
quia, ut dicitur Eccli. III, the more humble you should
20, quanto maior es, be in all matters” (Sir 3:20).
humilia te in omnibus.
Et advertendum, quod Note that after the

sicut Christo iam conception of Christ, when
concepto, quando virgo his mother, the Virgin, went
mater ascendit in in haste to the mountainous
montana cum country to visit John’s
festinatione, Elisabeth mother, Elizabeth, that John,
matrem Ioannis visere, still in his mother’s womb
Ioannes in utero matris and unable to speak, leaped
existens, nec loqui in her womb as though
valens, reverentiam performing a religious dance
Christo et tripudium out of reverence for Christ.
faciens, exultavit in And as then, so even now;
utero; ita et nunc, Christo for when Christ comes to
ex humilitate ad eum John out of humility, John
venienti testimonium et offers his testimony and
reverentiam praebet, et reverence and breaks out
in vocem prorumpit, saying, Look! There is the
dicens ecce agnus Dei et Lamb of God.
cetera.
Ubi testimonium Ioannis 256 With these words John

ponitur: in quo quidem gives his testimony showing
ostendit virtutem Christi, the power of Christ. Then
et dignitatem eius, ibi hic Christ’s dignity is shown (v
est de quo dixi. Virtutem 30). He shows the power of
quidem ostendit Christ in two ways: first, by
dupliciter. Primo means of a symbol;
proponendo figuram; secondly, by explaining it (v
secundo exponendo eam, 29).
ibi ecce qui tollit peccata
mundi.
Circa primum sciendum 257 As to the first, we

est, quod, sicut dicit should note, as Origen says,
Origenes, in veteri lege that it was customary in the
consueverunt quinque Old Law for five animals to
animalia offerri in templo: be offered in the temple:
tria de terrestribus, three land animals, namely,
scilicet vitulus, capra et the heifer, goat and sheep
ovis, sed ovium quidem (although the sheep might
aries, ovis et agnus; de be a ram, a sheep or a lamb)
volatilibus vero duo, and two birds, namely, the
turtur scilicet, et turtle-dove and the dove. All
columba: quae quidem of these prefigured the true
omnia praefigurativa sacrifice, which is Christ,
fuerunt veri sacrificii, who “gave himself for us as
quod est Christus, qui an offering to God,” as is
semetipsum obtulit said in Ephesians (5:2).
oblationem Deo, ut dicitur
Eph. V, 2.
Quare ergo Baptista Why then did the Baptist,

Christo testimonium when giving witness to
perhibens, agnum Christ, specifically call him a
specialiter nominavit? Lamb? The reason for this is
Huius ratio est, quia sicut that, as stated in Numbers
dicitur Num. XXVIII, v. 3 (28:3), although there were
s., licet alia fierent other sacrifices in the temple
sacrificia in templo at other times, yet each day
ceteris temporibus, unum there was a time in which a
tamen erat quotidianum, lamb was offered every
in quo iugiter unus agnus morning, and another was
mane, et alius vespere offered in the evening. This
offerebatur; nec hoc never varied, but was
mutabatur unquam, sed regarded as the principal
tamquam principale offering, and the other
observabatur, alia vero ex offerings were in the form of
adiuncto. Et ideo per additions. And so the lamb,
agnum, qui erat which was the principal
principale sacrificium, sacrifice, signified Christ,
significatur Christus, qui who is the principal sacrifice.
est principale sacrificium. For although all the saints
Nam licet omnes sancti, who suffered for the faith of
qui pro fide Christi passi Christ contribute something
sunt, prosint ad salutem to the salvation of the
fidelium, hoc tamen non faithful, they do this only
habent nisi inquantum inasmuch its they are
super oblationem agni, immolated upon the oblation
quasi oblatio adiuncta of the Lamb, they being, as it
principali sacrificio, were, in oblation added to
immolantur. Offertur the principal sacrifice. The
quidem mane et vespere, lamb is offered in the
quia per Christum patet morning and in the evening
aditus ad intelligibilia because it is through Christ
divinorum contemplanda that the way is opened to the
et fruenda, quod pertinet contemplation and
ad cognitionem enjoyment of the intelligible
matutinam; et instruimur things of God, and this
quomodo utamur terrenis pertains to “morning
absque inquinamento, knowledge”; and we are
quod pertinet ad instructed how to use
vespertinam. Et ideo earthly things without
dicit: ecce agnus Dei, staining ourselves, and this
etc., idest per agnum pertains to “evening
significatus. knowledge.” And so he says,
Look! There is the Lamb of
God, i.e., the one signified by
the lamb.
Dicit autem Dei, quia in He says, of God, because

Christo sunt duae there are two natures in
naturae, humana scilicet Christ, a human nature and a
et divina. Et quod hoc divine nature. And it is due
sacrificium esset to the power of the divinity
virtuosum ad purgandum that this sacrifice has the
et sanctificandum a power to cleanse and
peccatis, habet ex virtute sanctify us from our sins,
divinitatis, inquantum inasmuch as “God was, in
scilicet Deus erat in Christ, reconciling the world
Christo mundum to himself” (2 Cor 5:19). Or,
reconcilians sibi, II Cor. V, he is called the Lamb of
v. 19. Vel dicitur agnus God, because offered by
Dei, quasi oblatus a Deo, God, i.e., by Christ himself,
scilicet ab ipso Christo, who is God; just as we call
qui est Deus; sicut dicitur what a man offers the
oblatio hominis, quam offering of the man. Or, he is
homo offert. Vel dicitur called the Lamb of God, that
agnus Dei, scilicet patris: is, of the Father, because the
quia ipse providit homini Father provided man with an
oblationem ad oblation to offer that
offerendum pro peccatis satisfied for sins, which man
sufficientem, quam homo could not have through
per se habere non potest. himself. So when Isaac
Unde Gen. c. XXII, 7, cum asked Abraham, “Where is
Isaac quaereret ab the victim for the
Abraham: ubi est victima holocaust?” he answered,
holocausti? Respondit: “God himself will provide a
Deus providebit sibi victim for the holocaust” (Gn
victimam holocausti. 22:7); “God did not spare his
Rom. VIII, v. 32: proprio own Son, but delivered him
filio suo non pepercit up for all of us” (Rom 8:32).
Deus; sed pro nobis
omnibus tradidit illum.
Dicitur autem Christus 258 Christ is called a Lamb,

agnus primo propter first, because of his purity:
puritatem; Ex. XII, 5: erit “Your lamb will be without
agnus anniculus etc.; I blemish” (Ex 12:5); “You
Petr. I, 18: non were not redeemed by
corruptibilibus auro vel perishable gold or silver” (1
argento redempti estis. Pt 1:18). Secondly, because
Secundo propter of his gentleness: “Like a
mansuetudinem; Is. LIII, lamb before the shearer, he
7: quasi agnus coram will not open his mouth” (Is
tondente se obmutuit. 53:7). Thirdly, because of his
Tertio propter fructum, fruit; both with respect to
Prov. XXVII, 26: agni sunt what we put on: “Lambs will
tibi ad vestimentum tuum. be your clothing” (Prv
Et hoc quantum ad 27:26), “Put on the Lord
indumentum, iuxta illud Jesus Christ” (Rom 13:14);
Rom. XIII, v. 14: and with respect to food:
induimini dominum Iesum “My flesh is for the life of the
Christum. Et quantum ad world” (below 6:52). And so
cibum, infra VI, 52: caro Isaiah said (16:1 ): “Send
mea est pro mundi vita. forth, O Lord, the lamb, the
Et ideo dicebat Isaias, c. ruler of the earth.”
XVI, 1: emitte agnum,
domine, dominatorem
terrae.
Consequenter 259 Then when he says, who

propositam figuram takes away the sins of the
exponit cum dicit qui world, he explains the
tollit peccata mundi, idest symbol he used. In the law,
aufert; quod in lege nec sin could not be taken away
per agnum, nec per alia either by a lamb or by any
sacrificia auferri poterat, other sacrifice, because as is
quia, ut dicitur Hebr. X, 6: said in Hebrews (10:4), “It is
impossibile est per impossible that sins be taken
sanguinem taurorum et away by the blood of bulls
hircorum auferri peccata. and goats.” This blood takes
Sanguis iste tollit, idest away, i.e., removes, the sins
aufert, peccata mundi. of the world. “Take away all
Oseae ult., 3: omnem iniquity” (Hos 14:3). Or,
aufert iniquitatem. Vel takes away, i.e., he takes
tollit, idest in se accipit, upon himself the sins of the
peccata totius mundi; whole world, as is said, “He
quia, ut dicitur I Petr. II, bore our sins in his own
v. 24, qui peccata nostra body” (1 Pt 2:24); “It was
pertulit in corpore suo. Is. our infirmities that he bore,
LIII, 4: dolores nostros our sufferings that he
ipse tulit, et languores endured,” as we read in
nostros ipse portavit. Isaiah (53:4).
Dicit autem, secundum However, according to a

Glossam, peccatum, et Gloss, he says sin, and not
non peccata, ut ostendat “sins,” in order to show in a
in universali, quod universal way that he has
abstulit totum genus taken away every kind of sin:
peccati; I Io. II, 2: ipse “He is the offering for our
est propitiatio pro sins” (1 Jn 2:2); or because
peccatis nostris. Vel quia he died for one sin, that is,
pro uno peccato, scilicet original sin: “Sin entered
originali, mortuus; Rom. into this world through one
V, 12: per unum hominem man” (Rom 5:12).
peccatum intravit in
mundum et cetera.
Supra perhibuit Baptista 260 Above, the Baptist bore

testimonium Christo witness to the power of
quantum ad eius Christ; now he bears witness
virtutem; hic vero to his dignity, comparing
perhibet testimonium Christ to himself in three
quantum ad eius respects. First, with respect
dignitatem, comparans to their office and order of
eum sibi tripliciter. Et preaching. So he says, It is
primo quantum ad he, pointing him out, that is,
officium et ordinem the Lamb, of whom I said,
praedicationis; unde dicit i.e., in his absence, After me
hic, scilicet agnus, digito is to come a man, to preach
eum demonstrans, est ille and baptize, who in birth
de quo dixi, scilicet in came after me.
eius absentia, post me
venit vir, ad
praedicandum et
baptizandum, qui post
me venit nascendo.
Dicitur autem vir Christus Christ is called a man by

ratione perfectae aetatis: reason of his perfect age,
quia quando incepit because when he began to
docere post Baptismum, teach, after his baptism, he
iam erat in aetate had already reached a
perfecta; Lc. III, 23: perfect age: “Jesus was now
Iesus erat incipiens quasi about thirty years of age”
annorum triginta. Item, (Lk 3:23). He is also called a
ratione perfectionis man because of the
omnium virtutum quae in perfection of all the virtues
eo fuerunt; Is. IV, 1: that were in him: “Seven
apprehendent septem women,” i.e., the virtues,
mulieres, idest virtutes, “will take hold of one man,”
virum unum, scilicet the perfect Christ (Is 4:1);
Christum perfectum. “Look, a man! His name is
Zach. VI, 12: ecce vir, the Orient,” because he is
oriens nomen eius: quia the origin of all the virtues
ipse est origo omnium found in others (Zec 6:12).
virtutum in aliis. Item, He is also called a man
ratione desponsationis; because of his espousal,
quia ipse sponsus est since he is the spouse of the
Ecclesiae; Oseae II, 16: Church: “You will call me ‘my
vocabis me virum etc.; II husband’” (Hos 2:16); “I
Cor. XI, 2: despondi vos espoused you to one
uni viro. husband” (2 Cor 11:2).
Secundo quantum ad 261 Secondly, he compares

ordinem dignitatis, cum himself to Christ with
dicit qui ante me factus respect to dignity when he
est. Quasi dicat: licet post says, who ranks ahead of
me venerit ad me. As if to say: Although he
praedicandum, tamen comes to preach after me,
ante me idest praelatus yet he ranks before me in
mihi factus est dignitate. dignity. “See, he comes,
Cant. II, 8: ecce iste venit leaping upon the mountains,
saliens in montibus, skipping over the hills” (Sg
transiliens colles. Collis 2:8). One such hill was John
unus fuit Ioannes the Baptist, who was passed
Baptista, quem Christus over by Christ, because as is
transilivit: quia, ut dicitur said below (3:30), “He must
infra III, 30: me oportet increase, and I must
minui, illum autem decrease.”
crescere.
Tertio quantum ad 262 Thirdly, he compares

ordinem durationis, cum himself to Christ with
dicit quia prior me erat. respect to duration, saying,
Quasi dicat: non mirum si because he existed before
praefertur mihi dignitate, me. As if to say: It is not
quia, etsi posterior sit strange if he ranks ahead of
tempore, est tamen prior me in dignity; because
aeternitate quia prior me although he is after me in
erat. time, he is before me in
eternity, because he existed
before me.
Ex hoc autem duplex This statement refutes a

error destruitur. Error twofold error. First, that of
Arii: quia non dicit prior Arius, for John does not say
me factus est ut sit that “he was made before
creatura, sed prior me me,” as though he were a
erat, ab aeterno ante creature, but he existed
omnem creaturam; Prov. before me, from eternity,
VIII, 25: ante omnes before every creature: “The
colles generavit me Lord brought me forth before
dominus. Item error Pauli all the hills,” as is said in
Samosateni: quia dixit Proverbs (8:25). The second
prior me erat, ut error refuted is that of Paul
ostendat, quod non ex of Samosata: for John said,
Maria sumpserat he existed before me, in
exordium. Nam, si order to show that he did not
essendi principium take his beginning from
sumpsisset ex virgine, Mary. For if he had taken the
non extitisset utique beginning of his existence
prior praecursore, qui from the Virgin, he would not
Christum in sex mensibus have existed before the
secundum generationem precursor, who, in the order
praecedebat humanam. of human generation,
preceded Christ by six
months.
Consequenter cum dicit 263 Next (v 31), he

et ego nesciebam eum, precludes an erroneous
excludit falsam conjecture from his
suspicionem a suo testimony. For someone
testimonio. Posset enim might say that John bore
aliquis dicere, Ioannem witness to Christ because of
testimonium perhibuisse his affection for him, coming
Christo propter from a special friendship.
affectionem specialis And so, excluding this, John
familiaritatis quam ad says, And I did not know
ipsum habebat; et ideo him!; for John had lived in
hoc excludens Ioannes, the desert from boyhood.
dicit ego nesciebam eum: And although many miracles
nam Ioannes in deserto a happened during the birth of
pueritia sua conversatus Christ, such as the Magi and
est. Licet autem miracula the star and so on, they were
multa facta sint in not known to John: both
nativitate Christi, puta de because he was an infant at
magis et de stella, et the time, and because, after
huiusmodi, tamen non withdrawing to the desert,
erant nota Ioanni: tum he had no association with
quia infans erat Christ. In the interim
secundum aetatem, tum between his birth and
quia ad desertum baptism, Christ did not
secedens, Christi perform any miracles, but
familiaritatem non led a life similar to any other
habuit. Medio vero person, and his power
tempore a nativitate remained unknown to all.
usque ad Baptismum,
nullum miraculum
Christus operatus est;
sed conformis
conversatione aliis erat,
et sua virtus ignota
omnibus existebat.
Quod autem medio 264 It is clear that he
tempore non fuerit worked no miracles in the
miracula operatus usque interim until he was thirty
ad triginta annos, patet years old from what is said
per hoc quod dicitur infra below (2:11): “This
II, 11: hoc fecit initium beginning of signs Jesus
signorum Iesus et cetera. worked in Cana of Galilee.”
Ex quo apparet falsitas This shows the error of the
libri de infantia book, The Infancy of the
salvatoris. Ideo autem Savior. The reason he
non fecit miracula medio performed no miracles
tempore, ut non during this period was that if
putaretur mysterium his life had not been like that
circumcisionis et of other infants, the mystery
incarnationis phantasma of the circumcision and
esse, si non se habuisset incarnation might have been
aetate sicut alii infantes. regarded as pure fancy.
Et ideo demonstrationem Accordingly, he postponed
scientiae et virtutis suae showing his knowledge and
in aliud distulit tempus, power to another time,
in quo alii homines corresponding to the age
scientia et virtute vigere when other men reach the
consueverunt. Iuxta fulness of their knowledge
quod dicitur Lc. II, 52: and power. About this we
puer autem proficiebat read, “And Jesus increased
gratia et sapientia; non in grace and wisdom” (Lk
quod ipse virtutem et 2:52); not that he acquired a
sapientiam ante non power and wisdom that he
habitam susciperet, cum previously lacked, for in this
in eis fuerit ab instanti respect he was perfect from
suae conceptionis the instant of his conception,
perfectus, sed quia virtus but because his power and
eius et sapientia magis wisdom were becoming
innotescebat hominibus. known to men: “Indeed, you
Is. c. XLV, 15: vere tu es are a hidden God” (Is
Deus absconditus. 45:15).
Ideo ergo Ioannes 265 The reason why John

nesciebat eum, quia nulla did not know him was that
signa adhuc de eo he had so far seen no signs,
viderat, neque aliis per and no one else had known
signa innotuerat. Unde Christ through signs. Hence
subdit sed ut he adds: It was to reveal
manifestetur in Israel, him to Israel that I came
propterea ego veni in baptizing with water. As if to
aqua baptizans. Quasi say: My entire ministry is to
dicat: totum ministerium reveal: “He was not the light,
meum est ad but he came in order to bear
manifestationem. Supra, witness to the light,” as was
non erat ille lux, sed ut said above (1:8).
testimonium perhiberet
de lumine.
Dicit autem veni in aquam 266 He says, I came

baptizans, ad baptizing with water, to
differentiam Baptismi distinguish his baptism from
Christi. Quia Christus non that of Christ. For Christ
in aqua solum baptizavit, baptized not just in water,
sed in spiritu, conferens but in the Spirit, conferring
gratiam; unde et grace; and so the baptism of
Baptismus Ioannis fuit John was merely a sign, and
significativum tantum, not causative.
non effectivum.
Manifestavit autem John’s baptism made Christ

Baptismus Ioannis known in three ways. First,
Christum tripliciter. Primo by the preaching of John.
scilicet per Ioannis For although John could
praedicationem. Licet have prepared the way for
enim Ioannes etiam sine the Lord and led the people
Baptismo potuisset to Christ without baptizing,
praedicando parare viam yet because of the novelty of
domino, et inducere the service many more came
turbas ad Christum, to him than would have
tamen propter novitatem come if his preaching were
officii plures ad eum done without baptism.
concurrebant quam si Secondly, John’s baptism
sine Baptismo was useful because of
praedicatio facta esset. Christ’s humility, which he
Secundo profuit showed by willing to be
Baptismus Ioannis baptized by John: “Christ
propter Christi came to John, to be baptized
humilitatem, quam by him” (Mt 3:13). This
demonstravit, baptizari example of humility he gives
volens a Ioanne; Matth. us here is that no one,
III, 13: venit Christus ad however great, should
Ioannem ut baptizaretur disdain to receive the
ab eo. In quo quidem sacraments from any person
exemplum humilitatis ordained for this purpose.
praebuit, ut scilicet Thirdly, because it was
nullus, quantumcumque during Christ’s baptisin by
magnus, dedignetur a John that the power of the
quocumque ad hoc Father was present in the
ordinato, sacramenta voice, and the Holy Spirit
suscipere. Tertio, quia was present in the dove, by
Christo baptizato a which the powerand dignity
Ioanne, affuit virtus of’Christ were all the more
patris in voce, et spiritus shown: “And the voice of the
sanctus in columba, per Father was heard: ‘This is my
quam virtus Christi et beloved Son’” (Lk 3:22).
dignitas magis
manifestata fuit. Lc. III,
22: et vox patris intonuit:
hic est filius meus
dilectus.

et testimonium perhibuit John gave this testimony
Ioannes ipse magna quae also, he confirms by the
testatus est de Christo authority of God the great
quod totius orbis things he testified to about
terrarum solus peccata Christ, that Christ alone
tolleret, confirmat would take away the sins of
auctoritate Dei. Et circa the whole world. As to this
hoc tria facit. Primo he does three things. First,
proponit visionem; he presents a vision.
secundo praebet de Secondly, he tells us the
intellectu visionis meaning of the vision (v 33).
instructionem, ibi et ego Thirdly, he shows what he
nesciebam eum; tertio learned from this vision (v
suam ex ipsa visione 34).
conceptionem ostendit,
ibi et ego vidi, et
testimonium perhibui.
Visionem quidem 268 He presents the vision

proponit cum dicit vidi when he says, I saw the
spiritum descendentem Spirit coming down on him
quasi columbam de from heaven. When this
caelo. Quod quidem actually happened John the
quando factum fuerit, Evangelist does not tell us,
Ioannes Evangelista non but Matthew and Luke say
refert; sed Matthaeus et that it took place when
Lucas dicunt hoc factum Christ was being baptized by
fuisse quando Christus John. And it was indeed
baptizatus est a Ioanne. fitting for the Holy Spirit to
Et quidem congruebat be present at this baptism
quod spiritus sanctus and to the person being
adesset baptizato et baptized. It was appropriate
Baptismo. Baptizato for the one baptized, for as
namque congruebat, quia the Son, existing by the
sicut filius existens a Father, manifests the Father,
patre, manifestat patrem “Father, I have manifested
infra XVII, 6: pater, your name” (below 17:6), so
manifestavi nomen tuum the Holy Spirit, existing by
etc., ita et spiritus the Son, manifests the Son,
sanctus a filio existens, “He will glorify me, because
filium manifestat. Infra he will receive from me”
XVI, 14: ille me (below 16:14). It was
clarificabit, quia de meo appropriate for this baptism
accipiet et cetera. because the baptism of
Baptismo autem Christ begins and
congruit, quia Baptisma consecrates our baptism.
Christi est inchoativum et Now our baptism is
consecrativum nostri consecrated by invoking the
Baptismatis. Nostrum whole Trinity: “Baptizing
autem Baptisma them in the name of the
consecratur per Father, and of the Son, and
invocationem sanctae of the Holy Spirit” (Mt
Trinitatis; Matth. ult., 19: 28:19). Thus, the ones we
baptizantes eos in invoke in our baptism were
nomine patris, et filii, et present at the baptism of
spiritus sancti et cetera. Christ: the Father in the
Quod ergo nos voice, the Holy Spirit in the
invocamus in Baptismo dove, and the Son in his
nostro, affuit Baptismo human nature.
Christi, scilicet pater in
voce, spiritus sanctus in
columba, filius in humana
natura.
Dicit autem 269 He says, coming down,

descendentem, quia cum because descent, since it
descensus duos terminos has two termini, the start,
habeat, scilicet which is from above, and the
principium sursum et end, which is below, suits
terminum deorsum, baptism in both respects.
quantum ad utrumque For there is a twofold spirit:
convenit Baptismo. Est one of the world and the
enim duplex spiritus, other of God. The spirit of
unus mundi et alius Dei. the world is the love of the
Et spiritus quidem mundi world, which is not from
est amor mundi, qui non above; rather, it comes up to
est desursum, sed ab man from below and makes
inferiori ascendit in him descend. But the spirit
hominem, et eum of God, i.e., the love of God,
descendere facit; spiritus comes down to man from
autem Dei, scilicet Dei above and makes him
amor, desursum ascend: “We have not
descendit ad hominem, received the spirit of this
et eum ascendere facit. I world, but the spirit of God,”
Cor. II, 12: nos autem as is said in 1 Corinthians
non spiritum huius mundi (2:12). And so, because that
accepimus, sed spiritum spirit is from above, he says,
Dei. Quia ergo ille spiritus coming down.
de supernis est, ideo dicit
descendentem.
Similiter etiam, quia Similarly, because it is

impossibile est impossible for the creature
creaturam recipere Dei to receive God’s goodness in
bonitatem in tanta the fulness in which it is
plenitudine, secundum present in God, the
quod convenit Deo, ideo communication of this
bonitatis ipsius ad nos goodness to us is in a way a
derivatio, est quasi certain coming down: “Every
quidam descensus; Iac. I, perfect gift is from above,
17: omne datum coming down from the
optimum, et omne donum Father of lights” (Jas 1:17).
perfectum desursum est,
descendens a patre
luminum.
Sed quia spiritus sanctus 270 The Evangelist, in

in sua natura videri non describing the manner of the
potest, ut dicitur infra III, vision and of the coming
8: spiritus ubi vult spirat, down, says that the Holy
et nescis unde veniat, aut Spirit did not appear in the
quo vadat, spiritus etiam spirit, i.e., in his nature, but
non est descendere, sed in the form of a dove, saying,
ascendere. Ez. VIII, 3: that he came like a ove. The
elevavit me spiritus et reason for this is that the
cetera. Ideo Holy Spirit cannot be seen in
consequenter his nature, as is said, “The
Evangelista modum Spirit blows where it wills,
visionis et descensus and you hear its sound, but
exponit, dicens, hic non you do not know where it
fuisse in spiritu, idest comes from or where it
natura sed in specie goes” (below 3:8), and
columbae, in qua because a spirit does not
apparuit: unde dicit quasi come down but goes up,
columbam. “The spirit lifted me up” (Ez
8:3).
Et hoc quidem congrue, It was appropriate that the

ut scilicet filius Dei per Son of God, who was made
carnem visibilis factus, visible through flesh, should
manifestaretur per be made known by the Holy
spiritum sanctum visibili Spirit in the visible form of a
specie columbae. Quae dove. However, the Holy
quidem columba non est Spirit did not assume the
assumpta a spiritu dove into a unity of person,
sancto in unitatem as the Son of God assumed
personae, sicut humana human nature. The reason
natura assumpta est a for this is that the Son did
filio Dei. Cuius ratio est, not appear as a manifester
quia filius apparuit non but as a Savior. And so,
solum ut manifestator, according to Pope Leo, it
sed ut salvator. Et ideo, was appropriate that he be
secundum quod dicit Leo God and man: God, in order
Papa, oportuit quod to provide a remedy; and
esset Deus et homo: man, in order to offer an
Deus quidem, ut afferret example. But the Holy Spirit
remedium; homo vero, ut appeared only to make
praeberet exemplum. known, and for this it was
Spiritus vero sanctus sufficient merely to assume
apparuit solum ad a visible form which was
manifestandum, ad quod suitable for this purpose.
sufficiebat speciem
corporalem assumere
solum ad significationem
quamdam.
Utrum autem columba 271 As to whether this dove

illa fuerit verum animal, was a real animal and
et utrum praeexistens whether it existed prior to its
apparitioni: sciendum, appearance, it seems
quod rationabiliter dicitur reasonable to say that it was
illa fuisse vera columba. a real dove. For the Holy
Venit enim spiritus Spirit came to manifest
sanctus ad Christ, who, being the Truth,
manifestandum ought to have been
Christum, qui cum sit manifested only by the truth.
veritas, non nisi per As to the other part of the
veritatem manifestandus question, it would seem that
erat. Quantum vero ad the dove did not exist prior
secundum, dicendum, to its appearance, but was
quod non praeextitit formed at the time by the
apparitioni; sed tunc divine power, without any
virtute divina absque parental union, as the body
commixtione maris et of Christ was conceived by
feminae formata fuit, the power of the Holy Spirit,
sicut et corpus Christi and not from a man’s seed.
virtute spiritus sancti Yet it was a real dove, for as
conceptum, non ex virili Augustine says in his work,
semine. Et tamen fuit The Christian Combat: “It
vera columba, quia, ut was not difficult for the
Augustinus dicit in libro omnipotent God, who
de agone Christiano, produced the entire universe
omnipotenti Deo, qui of creatures from nothing, to
universam creaturam ex form a real body for the dove
nihilo fabricavit, non erat without the aid of other
difficile verum corpus doves, just as it was not
columbae sine aliarum difficult to form the true
columbarum ministerio body of Christ in the womb
figurare, sicut non fuit of the Blessed Virgin without
difficile verum corpus in natural semen.”
utero b. virginis sine
naturali semine fabricare.
Cyprianus in libro de Cyprian, in his The Unity of

unitate Ecclesiae: idcirco the Church, says: “It is said
et in columba dicitur that the Holy Spirit appeared
spiritus sanctus in the form of a dove
apparuisse, quia columba because the dove is a simple
simplex animal et harmless animal, not bitter
innocens est, non felle with gall, not savage with its
amarum, non morsibus bites, not fierce with rending
ferum, non unguium talons; it loves the dwellings
laceratione violentum: of men, is able to live
hospitia humana diligere, together in one nest,
unius domus consortium together it raises its young,
nosse, cum generat simul they remain together when
filios edere, cum they fly, spend their life in
conveniat volantibus mutual association, signify
invicem cohaerere, the concord of peace with
communi conversatione the kiss of their bill, and
vitam suam degere, oris fulfill the law of harmony in
osculo concordiam pacis all things.”
agnoscere, legem circa
omnia unanimitatis
implere.
Quare autem potius in 272 Many reasons are given

columba, quam in alia why the Holy Spirit appeared
specie apparuit, as a dove rather than in
multipliciter ratio some other form. First,
assignatur. Primo quidem because of its simplicity, for
propter columbae the dove is simple: “Be wise
simplicitatem. Nam as serpents, and simple as
columba simplex est; doves” (Mt 10:16). And the
Matth. X, 16: estote Holy Spirit, because he
prudentes sicut inclines souls to gaze on one
serpentes, et simplices thing, that is, God, makes
sicut columbae. Spiritus them simple; and so he
autem sanctus, quia facit appeared in the form of a
respicere unum, scilicet dove. Further, according to
Deum, simplices facit; et Augustine, the Holy Spirit
ideo in specie columbae also appeared in the form of
apparet. Et quidem, fire over the heads of the
secundum Augustinum, assembled apostles. This
apparuit etiam super was done because some are
discipulos congregatos simple, but lukewarm; while
per ignem, quia quidam others are fervent but
sunt simplices, sed guileful. And so in order that
tepidi; quidam autem those sanctified by the Spirit
ferventes, sed malitiosi. may have no guile, the Spirit
Ut ergo spiritu is shown in the form of a
sanctificati dolo careant, dove; and in order that their
spiritus in columbae simplicity may not grow
specie demonstratur; et tepid, the Spirit is shown in
ne simplicitas frigiditate fire.
tepescat, demonstratur
in igne.
Secundo, propter A dove was used, secondly,

caritatis unitatem. Nam because of the unity of
columba amore multum charity; for the dove is much
fervet; Cant. VI, 8: una aglow with love: “One is my
est columba mea. Ut ergo dove” (Sg 6:9). So, in order
ostendat Ecclesiae to show the unity of the
unitatem, in specie Church, the Holy Spirit
columbae spiritus appears in the form of a
sanctus apparet. Nec te dove. Nor should it disturb
moveat quod discipulis you that when the Holy Spirit
dispartitae linguae rested on each of the
apparuerunt, quando disciples, there appeared
sedit supra singulos separate tongues of fire; for
eorum spiritus sanctus, although the Spirit appears
qui et dispartitus to be different according to
apparet, secundum the different functions of his
diversa donorum officia, gifts, he nevertheless unites
et tamen unit per us through charity. And so,
caritatem; et sic propter because of the first he
primum apparuit in appeared in separate
dispartitis linguis, ut tongues of fire, as is said,
dicitur I Cor. XII, 4: “There are different kinds of
divisiones gratiarum sunt, gifts” (1 Cor 12:4); but he
in columbae specie appears in the form of a
propter secundum. dove because of the second.
Tertio, propter gemitum. A dove was used,

Columba enim habet thirdly,because of its
gemitum pro cantu; sic groaning, for the dove has a
spiritus sanctus postulat groaning chant; so also the
pro nobis gemitibus Holy Spirit “pleads for us
inenarrabilibus, ut dicitur with indescribable
Rom. VIII, 26, et Nahum groanings” (Rom 8:26); “Her
II, 7: ancillae eius maidens, groaning like
mirabantur. doves” (Na 2:7).
Quarto, propter Fourthly, because of the

fecunditatem. Columba doves fertility, for the dove is
enim animal a very prolific animal. And so
fecundissimum est, in order to signify the
idcirco ad designandum fecundity of spiritual grace
fecunditatem gratiae in the Church, the Holy Spirit
spiritualis in Ecclesia, in appeared in the form of a
specie columbae spiritus dove. This is why the Lord
sanctus apparuit. Hic est commanded an offering of
quod Levit. V, 7 dominus two doves (Lv 5:7).
pullos columbarum
offerre praecepit.
Quinto, propter columbae A dove was used, fifthly,

cautelam. Sedet enim because of its cautiousness.
super rivos aquarum, in For it rests upon watery
quibus respiciens, brooks, and gazing into them
falconem volitantem can see the hawk flying
conspicit, et sibi ab eo overhead and so save itself:
cavet; Cant. V, 12: oculi “His eyes are like doves
tui sicut columbae et beside brooks of water” (Sg
cetera. Unde, quia in 5:12). And so, because our
Baptismo est nostra refuge and defense is found
tutela et defensio, in baptism, the Holy Spirit
congrue in specie appropriately appeared in
columbae spiritus the form of a dove.
sanctus apparuit.
Respondet igitur figurae The dove also corresponds

veteris testamenti. Sicut to a figure in the Old
etenim columba deferens Testament. For as the dove
ramum virentis olivae, bearing the green olive
ostendit signum branch was a sign of God’s
clementiae Dei his qui mercy to those who survived
residui fuerant ex aquis the waters of the deluge, so
diluvii; ita et in Baptismo too in baptism, the Holy
veniens spiritus sanctus Spirit, coming in the form of
in columbae specie, a dove, is a sign of the divine
ostendit signum divinae mercy which takes away the
clementiae, quae sins of those baptized and
baptizatis et peccata confers grace.
remittit, et gratiam
confert.
Dicit autem manentem 273 He says that the Holy

super eum, quia in Spirit was resting on him. If
mansione quies the Holy Spirit does not rest
designatur. Et quod on someone, it is due to two
spiritus sanctus in aliquo causes. One is sin. For all
non quiescat, duplici de men except Christ are either
causa contingit. Una est suffering from the wound of
ex peccato. Omnes enim mortal sin, which banishes
alii homines, praeter the Holy Spirit, or are
Christum, vel sauciantur darkened with the stain of
vulnere peccati mortalis, venial sin, which hinders
per quod effugatur some of the works of the
spiritus sanctus, vel Holy Spirit. But in Christ
obfuscantur macula there was neither mortal nor
veniali, per quam aliqua venial sin; so, the Holy Spirit
operatio spiritus sancti in him was never disquieted,
impeditur. In Christo but was resting on him.
autem neque mortale,
nec veniale, nec originale
peccatum fuit: unde nec
in eo fuit spiritus sanctus
inquietatus; sed super
eum mansit, idest quievit.
Alia causa: quia quantum The other reason concerns

ad gratias gratis datas, charismatic graces, for the
non semper adest aliis other saints do not always
sanctis potestas possess their power. For
operandi. Sicut non example, the power to work
semper adest sanctis miracles is not always
potestas operandi present in the saints, nor is
miracula, nec prophetis the spirit of prophecy always
spiritus prophetiae. in the prophets. But Christ
Christus vero semper always possessed the power
habuit potestatem ad to accomplish any work of
omnem operationem the virtues and the graces.
virtutum et gratiarum: et So to indicate this, he says,
ideo ad hoc resting on him. Hence this
designandum, super eum was the characteristic sign
mansit. Unde hoc for recognizing Christ, as the
proprium signum fuit Gloss says. “The Spirit of the
agnoscendi Christum, ut Lord will rest on him” (Is
dicitur in Glossa Is. XI, 2: 11:2), which we should
requiescet super eum understand of Christ as man,
spiritus domini. Quod according to which he is less
intelligendum est de than the Father and the Holy
Christo, inquantum est Spirit.
homo, secundum quod
est minor patre et spiritu
sancto.
Consequenter cum dicit 274 Then when he says, I

et ego nesciebam eum, did not know him, he
instruit de intellectu teaches us how this vision
visionis praedictae. should be understood. For
Quidam enim haeretici, certain heretics, as the
scilicet Ebionitae, Ebionites, said that Christ
dicebant, Christum a was neither the Christ nor
principio nativitatis suae, the Son of God from the time
neque Christum fuisse, he was born, but only began
nec filium Dei, sed ex to be the Son of God and the
tunc filius Dei et Christus Christ when he was anointed
esse incepit quando in with the oil of the Holy Spirit
Baptismo oleo spiritus at his baptism. But this is
sancti unctus fuit. Sed false, because at the very
hoc falsum, quia in ipsa hour of his birth the angel
hora nativitatis Angelus said to the shepherds: “This
dixit pastoribus, Lc. II, day a Savior has been born
11: natus est vobis hodie for you in the city of David,
salvator, qui est Christus Christ the Lord” (Lk 2:11).
dominus in civitate David. Therefore, so that we do not
Ne ergo aliquis crederet believe that the Holy Spirit
spiritum sanctum in descended upon Christ in his
Baptismo supra Christum baptism as though Christ
descendisse, quasi de needed to receive the Spirit
novo Christus indigeret anew for his sanctification,
spiritu ad sui the Baptist gives the reason
sanctificationem, ideo for the Spirit’s coming down.
causam sui descensus He says that the Spirit
Baptista ostendit, dicens descended not for the
quod non descendit benefit of Christ, but for our
propter sui necessitatem, benefit, that is, so that the
sed propter nos, ut grace of Christ might be
scilicet gratia eius nobis made known to us. And so
manifestaretur. Et ideo he says, And I did not know
dicit ego nesciebam eum. him! And yet it was to reveal
Sed ut manifestaretur in him to Israel that I came
Israel, propterea veni ego baptizing with water.
in aqua baptizans.
Sed hic oritur quaestio. 275 There is a problem here.

Dicit enim qui misit me For he says, he who sent me
baptizare etc., si dicatur to baptize. If he is saying
quod pater misit eum, that the Father sent him, it is
verum est; similiter si true. Also, if he is saying that
dicatur quod filius, the Son sent him, it is even
manifestius, cum dicatur more clear, since it is said
quod et pater et filius that both the Father and the
misit eum, quia Ioannes Son sent him, because John
non est de illis de quibus is not one of those referred
dicit Ierem. c. XXIII, 21: to in Jeremiah (23:21), “1
non mittebam eos, et ipsi did not send the prophets,
currebant. Quomodo ergo yet they ran.” But if the Son
dicit ego nesciebam eum, did send him, how can he
si filius misit eum? Si then say, I did not know
dicatur, quod licet him? If it is said that
cognosceret eum although he knew Christ
secundum divinitatem, according to his divinity, yet
non tamen cognoscebat he did not know him
eum secundum according to his humanity
humanitatem, nisi until after he saw the Spirit
postquam vidit spiritum coming down upon him, one
descendentem super might counter that the Holy
eum, contra: spiritus Spirit descended upon Christ
enim sanctus descendit when he was being baptized,
super Christum quando and John had already known
baptizatus est. Ioannes Christ before he was
autem cognovit Christum baptized, otherwise he
antequam baptizaretur, would not have said: “I
alias non dixisset ego ought to be baptized by you,
debeo a te baptizari, et tu and you come to me?” (Mt
venis ad me? 3:14).
Est ergo dicendum, quod So we must say that this

tripliciter potest ad hanc problem can be resolved in
quaestionem responderi. three ways. In one way,
Uno modo, secundum according to Chrysostom, so
Chrysostomum, ut that the meaning is to know
referatur ad cognitionem familiarly; the sense being
familiaritatis, ut sit that I did not know him, i.e.,
sensus ego nesciebam in a familiar way. And if the
eum, scilicet familiariter. objection is raised that John
Et si obiiciatur, quod dicit says, “I ought to be baptized
Ioannes ego a te debeo by you,” it can be answered
baptizari etc., dicitur that two different times are
quod ista duo sunt ad being discussed: so that I
diversa tempora did not know him, refers to a
referenda, ut hoc quod time long before baptism,
dicit ego nesciebam eum, when he was not yet familiar
referatur ad tempus diu with Christ: but when he
ante Baptismum, in quo says, “I ought to be baptized
nondum Christo by you,” he is referring to
familiaris erat; hoc vero the time when Christ was
quod dicit ego a te debeo being baptized, when he was
baptizari, referatur ad now familiar with Christ
tempus illud in quo because of his frequent
baptizatus est Christus, visits. In another way,
quando iam propter according to Jerome, it could
frequentem visitationem be said that Christ was the
eius, Christus familiaris Son of God and the Savior of
erat. Alio modo, the world, and that John did
secundum Hieronymum, in fact know this; but it was
dicendum quod erat not through the baptism that
Christus filius Dei et he knew that he was the
salvator mundi, et hoc Savior of the world. And so
quidem sciebat Ioannes; to remedy this ignorance he
sed nesciebat eum per adds, he is the one who is to
Baptismum mundi baptize with the Holy Spirit.
salvatorem: et ideo hoc But it is better to say with
quod nescivit addidit, Augustine that John knew
scilicet quod hic est qui certain things and was
baptizat in spiritu sancto. ignorant of others.
Sed melius dicendum est, Explaining what he did not
secundum Augustinum, know, he adds that the
quod aliquid scivit et power of baptizing, which
aliquid nescivit, et hoc Christ could have shared
quod nescivit addidit, with his faithful followers,
scilicet quod potestatem would be reserved for
baptizandi, quam potuit himself alone. And this is
fidelibus suis what he says, he who sent
communicare, sibi soli me to baptize with water ...
retinuit. Et hoc est quod is the one, exclusively and
dicit qui misit me solely, who is to baptize with
baptizare in aqua (...) hic the Holy Spirit, i.e., he and
est, singulariter scilicet, no one else, because this
et solus, qui baptizat in power he reserved for
spiritu sancto, et nullus himself alone.
alius: quia hanc
potestatem sibi soli
retinuit.
Notandum autem, quod 276 We should note that a
triplex potestas Christi threefold power of Christ is
attenditur in Baptismo. found in baptism. One is the
Una est efficientiae, qua power of efficiency, by which
mundat interius animam he interiorly cleanses the
a macula peccati; quam soul from the stain of sin.
quidem potestatem habet Christ has this power as
Christus inquantum est God, but not as man, and it
Deus, non autem cannot be communicated to
inquantum homo; et haec any other. Another is the
potestas nulli alii potest power of ministry, which he
communicari. Alia does share with the faithful:
potestas est ministerii, “Baptizing them in the name
quam quidem of the Father, and of the Son,
communicavit fidelibus; and of the Holy Spirit” (Mt
Matth. ult., 19: 28:19). Therefore priests
baptizantes eos in have the power to haptize as
nomine patris, et filii, et ministers. Christ too, as
spiritus sancti. Et ideo man, is called a minister, as
sacerdotes, ut ministri, the Apostle says. But he is
potestatem habent also the head of all the
baptizandi; Christus ministers of the Church.
autem, inquantum homo,
minister dicitur, ut
apostolus dicit sed tamen
caput est omnium
ministrorum Ecclesiae.
Et quantum ad hoc habet Because of this he alone has

singulariter potestatem the power of excellence in
excellentiae in the sacraments. And this
sacramentis: quae excellence shows itself in
quidem excellentia four things. First, in the
apparet in quatuor. Primo institution of the
in sacramentorum sacraments, because no
institutione: quia nullus mere man or even the entire
homo purus, nec etiam Church could institute
tota Ecclesia, posset sacraments, or change the
sacramenta instituere, sacninients, or dispense with
vel sacramenta mutare, the sacraments. For by their
aut a sacramentis institution the sacraments
absolvere. Nam give invisible grace, which
sacramenta invisibilem only God can give.
gratiam conferunt ex Therefore, only one who is
eorum institutione; true God can institute
conferre autem gratiam sacraments. The second lies
solius Dei est: et ideo in the efficacy of Christ’s
solus qui est verus Deus merits, for the sacraments
potest sacramenta have their power from the
instituere. Secundum est merit of Christ’s passion: “All
quantum ad meriti Christi of us who have been
efficaciam: nam ex merito baptized into Christ Jesus,
passionis Christi have been baptized into his
sacramenta virtutem death” (Rom 6:3). The third
habent; Rom. VI, 3: is that Christ can confer the
quicumque baptizati effect of baptism withmit the
sumus in Christo Iesu, in sacrament; and this is
morte ipsius baptizati peculiar to Christ. Fourthly,
sumus. Tertium est quia because at one time baptism
Christus potest conferre was conferred in the name of
effectum Baptismi sine Christ, although this is no
sacramento: quod solius longer done.
Christi est. Quarto quia
aliquo tempore
Baptismus conferebatur
ad invocationem nominis
Christi; sed modo non ita
fit.
Quae quidem quatuor Now he did not communicate

nulli hominum these four things to anyone;
communicavit; licet although he could have
aliquid eorum communicated some of
communicare potuisset, them, for example, that
puta quod in nomine baptism be conferred in the
Petri, vel alicuius alterius, name of Peter or of someone
conferretur Baptismus, et else, and perhaps one of the
forte aliquid aliorum. Sed remaining three. But this
hoc ideo non fuit factum was not done lest schisins
ne fieret schisma in arise in the Church by men
Ecclesia, si baptizati putting their trust in those in
spem suam ponerent in whose name they were
illis in quorum baptized.
nominationem
baptizarentur.
Et ideo didicit Ioannes And so John, in stating that

per hoc quod spiritus the Holy Spirit came down
sanctus descendit super upon Christ, teaches that it
eum, quod Christus solus is Christ alone who baptizes
est qui sua virtute interiorly by his own power.
interius baptizat.
Et forte posset dici, quod 277 One might also say that
cum dixit ego a te debeo when John said, “I ought to
baptizari etc. cognovit be baptized by you,” he
eum per internam recognized Christ. through
revelationem; sed cum an interior revelation, but
vidit spiritum sanctum that when he saw the Holy
descendentem super Spirit coming down upon
eum, cognovit eum per him, he knew him through an
exterioris signi exterior sign. And so he
manifestationem. Et ideo mentions both of these ways
utrumque modum of knowing. The first when
cognitionis tangit. he says, he who sent me to
Primum, cum dicit qui me baptize with water had said
misit baptizare, ille mihi to me, i.e., revealed
dixit, idest interius something in an interior way.
revelavit. Secundum, The second when he adds,
quando addidit super The man on whom you see
quem videris spiritum the Spirit come down and
descendentem (...) hic est rest is the one who is to
qui baptizat. baptize with the Holy Spirit.
Consequenter ostendit 278 Then he shows what the

quid Baptista ex hac Baptist understood from this
visione intellexit, scilicet vision, that is, that Christ is
quod Christus esset filius the Son of God. And this is
Dei; et hoc est quod dicit what he says, Now I have
et ego vidi, scilicet seen for myself, that is, the
spiritum descendentem Spirit coming down on him,
super eum, et and have given testimony
testimonium perhibui, that he, that is, Christ, is the
quia hic, scilicet Christus, Son of God, that is, the true
est filius Dei, scilicet and natural Son. For there
verus et naturalis. Filii were adopted sons of the
enim adoptivi patris Father who had a likeness to
fuerunt ad similitudinem the natural Son of God:
filii Dei naturalis; Rom. “Conformed to the image of
VIII, 29: quos praescivit his Son” (Rom 8:29). So he
conformes fieri imaginis who baptizes in the Holy
filii sui. Ille ergo debet Spirit, through whom we are
filios Dei facere qui adopted as sons, ought to
baptizat in spiritu sancto, fashion sons of God. “You
per quem filii adoptantur; did not receive the spirit of
Rom. VIII, 15: non enim slavery ... but the spirit of
accepistis spiritum adoption” (Rom 8:15).
servitutis (...) sed Therefore, because Christ is
spiritum adoptionis et the one who baptizes in the
cetera. Quia ergo iste, Holy Spirit, the Baptist
scilicet Christus, est qui correctly concludes that he
baptizat in spiritu sancto, is the true and pure Son of
ideo recte concludit God: “that we may be in his
Baptista, quod est filius true Son” (1 Jn 5:20).
Dei verus et purus. I Io.
ult., 20: ut simus in vero
filio eius et cetera.
Sed si alii viderunt 279 But if there were others

spiritum sanctum who saw the Holy,Spirit
descendentem super coming down upon Christ,
eum, quare non why did they not also
crediderunt? Respondeo, believe? I answer that they
quia non erant dispositi had not been so disposed for
ad hoc, vel forte quia soli this. Or perhaps, this vision
Baptistae visio illa was seen only by the Baptist.
demonstrata est.
Lectura 15 LECTURE 15
35 τῇ ἐπαύριον 35 On the
πάλιν εἱστήκει ὁ following
Ἰωάννης καὶ ἐκ τῶν day John
μαθητῶν αὐτοῦ δύο, was
36 καὶ ἐμβλέψας τῷ standing
Ἰησοῦ περιπατοῦντι there again
λέγει, ἴδε ὁ ἀμνὸς with two of
τοῦ θεοῦ. They his
follow Jesus 37 καὶ disciples.
ἤκουσαν οἱ δύο 36 And
μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ seeing
λαλοῦντος καὶ Jesus
ἠκολούθησαν τῷ walking by,
Ἰησοῦ. 38 στραφεὶς he said,
δὲ ὁ Ἰησοῦς καὶ “Look!
θεασάμενος αὐτοὺς There is
ἀκολουθοῦντας the Lamb
λέγει αὐτοῖς, τί of God.” 37
ζητεῖτε; οἱ δὲ εἶπαν Hearing
αὐτῷ, ῥαββί ὃ this, the
λέγεται two
μεθερμηνευόμενον disciples
διδάσκαλε, ποῦ followed
μένεις; 39 λέγει Jesus. 38
αὐτοῖς, ἔρχεσθε καὶ Jesus
ὄψεσθε. ἦλθαν οὖν turned
καὶ εἶδαν ποῦ μένει, around,
καὶ παρ' αὐτῷ and seeing
ἔμειναν τὴν ἡμέραν them
ἐκείνην: ὥρα ἦν ὡς following
δεκάτη. him said,
“What are
40 ἦν Ἀνδρέας ὁ you looking
ἀδελφὸς Σίμωνος for?” They
Πέτρου εἷς ἐκ τῶν replied,
δύο τῶν “Rabbi
ἀκουσάντων παρὰ (which
Ἰωάννου καὶ means
ἀκολουθησάντων Teacher),
αὐτῷ: 41 εὑρίσκει where do
οὗτος πρῶτον τὸν you live?”
ἀδελφὸν τὸν ἴδιον 39 “Come
Σίμωνα καὶ λέγει and see,”
αὐτῷ, εὑρήκαμεν he replied.
τὸν μεσσίαν ὅ ἐστιν They went
μεθερμηνευόμενον and saw
Χριστός: 42 ἤγαγεν where he
αὐτὸν πρὸς τὸν lived, and
Ἰησοῦν. ἐμβλέψας they stayed
αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς with him
εἶπεν, σὺ εἶ Σίμων ὁ the rest of
υἱὸς Ἰωάννου: σὺ that day. It
κληθήσῃ κηφᾶς ὃ was about
ἑρμηνεύεται the tenth
Πέτρος. hour.
40 One of
the two
who had
followed
him after
hearing
John was
Simon
Peter’s
brother,
Andrew. 41
The first
thing fie
did was to
look for his
brother
Simon, and
say to him,
“We have
found the
Messiah”
(which
means the
Christ), 42
and he
brought
him to
Jesus.
Looking at
hini
intently
Jesus said,
“You are
Simon, son
of John;
you are to
be called
Cephas”
(which is
translated
Peter).
Supra Evangelista posuit 280 Above, the

testimonia Baptistae ad turbas; Evangelist presented
hic consequenter ponit eius the Baptist’s
testimonia ad discipulos testimony to the
Ioannis. Et primo ponitur people; here he
testimonium; secundo presents his testimony
ostenditur testimonii fructus, to John’s disciples.
ibi et audierunt eum duo First, his testimony is
discipuli loquentem et cetera. given; secondly, the
Circa primum tria facit. Primo fruit of this testimony
describitur testis; secundo (v 37). As to the first
assignatur modus testificandi; he does three things:
tertio ponitur eius testimonium. first, the one giving
the testimony is
described; secondly,
his way of testifying is
given (v 36); and
thirdly, his testimony
itself, Look! There is
the Lamb of God.
Sed testis describitur, cum dicit 281 The witness is

altera die iterum stabat described when he
Ioannes, et ex discipulis eius says, On the following
duo. In hoc autem quod dicit day John was
stabat, tria notantur circa standing there again
Ioannem. Scilicet doctrinae with two of his
ipsius modus, qui differens fuit disciples. In saying
a modo doctrinae Christi, et standing, three things
discipulorum eius. Christus are noted about John.
enim circumeundo docebat; First, his manner of
unde dicitur, Matth. IV, 23, quod teaching, which was
circuibat Iesus totam Galilaeam different from that of
et cetera. Similiter et apostoli Christ and his
discurrendo per mundum, disciples. For Christ
docebant; Mc. ult., 15: euntes in went about teaching;
mundum universum, praedicate hence it is said: “Jesus
Evangelium omni creaturae. traveled over all
Sed Ioannes stando docebat; Galilee” (Mt 4:23). The
unde dicitur stabat Ioannes, apostles also traveled
scilicet in uno loco trans the world teaching:
Iordanem, et instruebat de “Go to the whole
Christo omnes ad eum world, and preach the
venientes. good news to every
creature” (Mkl6:15).
But John taught in one
place; hence he says,
standing, that is, in
one place, on the far
side of the Jordan.
And John spoke of
Christ to all who came
to him.
Ratio autem quare Christus et The reason why Christ

eius discipuli discurrendo and his disciples
docebant, est quia praedicatio taught going about is
Christi facta erat credibilis per that the preaching of
miracula, et ideo circuibant Christ was made
diversa loca, ut miracula et credible by miracles,
virtutes Christi innotescerent. and so they went to
Praedicatio vero Ioannis non various places in order
est confirmata miraculis, unde that the miracles and
dicitur infra X, 41: Ioannes powers of Christ might
signum fecit nullum: sed merito be made known. But
et sanctitate vitae. Et ideo the preaching of John
stabat in loco uno, ut diversi ad was not confirmed by
eum confluerent, et per eius miracles, so that is is
sanctitatem ducerentur ad written, “John
Christum. Similiter etiam si performed no sign”
Ioannes sine miraculis (below 10:41), but by
discurrisset ad praenuntiandum the merit and sanctity
Christum, eius testimonium of his life. And so he
incredibilius redderetur, cum was standing in one
videretur importune, et quasi place so that various
ingerendo se hoc facere. people might stream
to him and be led to
Christ by his holiness.
Furthermore, if John
had gone from place
to place to announce
Christ without
performing any
miracles, his
testimony would have
been quite
unbelievable, since it
would seem to be
inopportune and he
would seem to be
forcing himself upon
the people.
Secondly, John’s
perseverance in the
truth is noted,
because John was not
a reed shaken by the
wind, but was firm in
the faith; “Let him who
thinks that he stands,
take heed so he will
not fall” (1 Cor
10:12); “1 will stand
my watch” (Hb 2:1).
Secundo notatur Ioannis Thirdly, and

constantia in veritate, quia allegorically, it is
Ioannes non fuit arundo vento noted that to stand is,
agitata, sed firmus in fide, in an allegorical sense,
secundum illud I Cor. X, 12: qui the same as to fail or
se existimat stare videat ne cease: “The oil stood,”
cadat. Hab. II, 1: super i.e., failed (2 Kgs 4:6).
custodiam meam stabo. So when Christ came
John was standing,
because when the
truth comes the figure
ceases. John stands
because the law
passes away.
Tertio allegorice notatur, quod 282 The manner of his

stare allegorice idem est quod testifying is presented
deficere; IV Reg. IV, 6: stetitque as being certain,
oleum, idest defecit. Stabat because based on
ergo Ioannes veniente Christo, sight. So he says,
quia cum venit veritas, defecit seeing Jesus walking
figura. Ioannes stat, quia lex by. Here it should be
transit. Modus autem remarked that the
testificandi ponitur certus, quia prophets bore witness
cum aspectu. Unde dicit et to Christ: “All the
respiciens Iesum ambulantem. prophets bear witness
Ubi sciendum est, quod to him” (Acts 10:43).
prophetae perhibuerunt So did the apostles as
testimonium Christo, Act. X, 43: they traveled the
huic omnes prophetae world: “You will be my
testimonium perhibent. Similiter witnesses in
et apostoli per mundum Jerusalem and in all
discurrentes, Act. I, 8: eritis of’ Judea and
mihi testes in Ierusalem, et in Samaria, and to the
omni Iudaea et cetera. Sed remotest parts of the
tamen non per visum, neque de world” (Acts 1:8).
praesente, sed de absente. However, their
Prophetae quidem ut de futuro, testimony was not
apostoli vero ut de praeterito. about a person then
Sed Ioannes, Christo sibi visible or present, but
praesente et a se viso, on one who was
testimonium perhibuit: et ideo absent. In the case of
dicit et respiciens, oculis the prophets about
corporis, et mentis, iuxta illud one who was to come;
Ps. LXXXIII, 10: respice in in the case of the
faciem Christi tui; Is. LII, 8: apostles, about one
oculo ad oculum videbunt. who was now gone.
But John bore witness
when Christ was
present and seen by
him; and so he says,
seeing Jesus, with the
eyes of his body and
of his mind: “Look on
the face of your
Christ” (Ps 83:10);
“They will see eye to
eye” (Is 5 2:8).
Sed dicit ambulantem, ut He says, walking, to

designet incarnationis point out the mystery
mysterium, per quod Dei of the incarnation, in
verbum mutabilem naturam which the Word of God
assumpsit; infra XVI, 28: exivi a assumed a changeable
patre, et veni in mundum. nature: “I came forth
from the Father, and
have come into the
world,” as it says
below (16:2 8).
Consequenter ponitur 283 Then he gives

testimonium, cum dicit ecce John’s testimony in
agnus Dei, quod non solum est saying, Look! There is
demonstrativum, sed the Lamb of God. He
admirativum virtutis ipsius; Is. says this not just to
IX, 6: vocabitur nomen eius point out the power of
admirabilis. Et vere admirabilis Christ, but also in
virtutis est iste agnus, qui admiration of it: “His
occisus, leonem interfecit: name will be called
illum, inquam, leonem de quo Wonderful” (Is 9:6).
dicitur I Petr. ult., 8: And this Lamb did
adversarius vester Diabolus, possess truly
tamquam leo rugiens, circuit wonderful power,
quaerens quem devoret. Et ideo because being slain, it
ipse agnus leo vocari meruit killed the lion—that
victor et gloriosus; Apoc. V, 5: lion, I say, of which it
ecce vicit leo de tribu Iuda. says: “Your enemy, the
devil, goes about like a
roaring lion, seeking
whom he can devour”
(1 Pt 5:8). And so this
Lamb, victorius and
glorious, deserved to
be called a lion: “Look!
The Lion of the tribe of
Judah has conquered”
(Rv 5:5).
Breviter autem testimonium The testimony he

profert, dicens ecce agnus Dei, bears is brief, Look!
tum quia discipuli quibus hoc There is the Lamb of
testimonium perhibebat, ex his God. It is brief both
quae audierant a Ioanne, iam because the disciples
satis instructi erant de Christo; before whom he
tum etiam quia per hoc satis testified had already
intelligitur tota intentio Ioannis, been sufficiently
quae ad hoc solum erat ut eos instructed about
ad Christum duceret. Nec dicit: Christ from the things
ite ad eum, ne videantur they had heard from
discipuli gratiam praestare John, and also
Christo, si eum sequerentur; because this is
sed commendat Christi sufficient for John’s
gratiam, ut quasi in beneficium intention, whose only
sibi computent, si Christum aim was to lead them
sequuntur. Et ideo dicit ecce to Christ. Yet he does
agnus Dei; idest, ecce in quo not say, “Go to him,”
est gratia, et virtus purgativa so that the disciples
peccatorum: agnus enim would not seem to be
offerebatur pro peccatis, ut doing Christ a favor by
dictum est. following him. But he
does praise the grace
of Christ so that they
would regard it as of
benefit to themselves
if they followed Christ.
And so he says, Look!
There is the Lamb of
God, i.e., here is the
One in whom is found
the grace and the
power which cleanses
from sin; for the lamb
was offered for sins,
as we have said.
Consequenter ponitur fructus 284 The fruit of his

testimonii, cum dicit et testimony is given
audierunt eum duo discipuli when he says, Hearing
loquentem, et primo ponitur this, the two disciples
fructus proveniens ex followed Jesus. First,
testimonio Ioannis et the fruit resulting from
discipulorum eius; secundo the testimony of John
vero ponitur fructus proveniens and his disciples is
ex praedicatione Christi, ibi in given. Secondly, the
crastinum autem voluit exire in fruit resulting from the
Galilaeam. Circa primum primo preaching of Christ (v
ponitur fructus proveniens ex 43). In relation to the
testimonio Ioannis; secundo first: first, the fruit
fructus proveniens ex arising from John’s
praedicatione unius testimony is given;
discipulorum eius, ibi erat secondly, the fruit
autem Andreas frater Simonis coming from the
Petri et cetera. Circa primum preaching of one of his
duo facit. Primo ponitur disciples (v 40). With
inchoatio huius fructus ex respect to the first he
testimonio Ioannis facta. does two things. First,
Secundo ponitur consummatio he shows the very
facta per Christum, ibi beginning of the fruit
conversus autem Iesus et coming from John’s
cetera. testimony. Secondly,
its consummation as
accomplished by
Christ (v 38).
Dicit ergo primo et audierunt 285 He says, Hearing

eum, scilicet Ioannem, duo this, John saying,
discipuli, qui erant cum eo, “Look! There is the
loquentem (ecce agnus Dei) et Lamb of God,” the two
secuti sunt Iesum, ad litteram: disciples, who were
euntes cum eo. Ubi quatuor, with him, followed
secundum Chrysostomum, Jesus, literally. going
considerari possunt. Primo quia with him, First, the
hoc quod Ioannes loquitur et fact that it is John who
Christus tacet, et verbo Ioannis speaks while Christ is
discipuli congregantur ad silent, and that
Christum, competit mysterio: disciples gather to
Christus enim est sponsus Christ through the
Ecclesiae, Ioannes vero amicus words of John, all this
et paranymphus sponsi. points out a mystery.
Officium autem paranymphi est For Christ is the
sponsam tradere sponso, et groom of the Church,
loquendo, pacta tradere; sponsi and John, the friend
autem est quasi prae and groomsman of the
verecundia tacere, et de sponsa groom. Now the
iam habita pro velle disponere. function of the
Sic ergo discipuli traduntur a groomsman is to
Ioanne Christo quasi present the bride to
desponsati per fidem. Ioannes the groom, and
loquitur, Christus tacet; sed verbally make known
tamen susceptos diligenter the agreements; the
instruxit. role of the groom is to
be silent, from
modesty, and to make
arrangements for his
new bride as he wills.
Thus, the disciples are
presented by John to
Christ and espoused
in faith. John speaks,
Christ is silent; yet
after Christ accepts
them, he carefully
instructs them.
Secundo vero quod cum We can note, secondly,

Ioannes dignitatem Christi that no one was
commendans dixit ante me converted when John
factus est, et quoniam non sum praised the dignity of
dignus solvere corrigiam Christ, saying, he
calceamenti eius, nullus “ranks ahead of me,”
conversus est; sed quando and “I am not worthy
humilia de Christo, et to unfasten the strap
incarnationis mysterio locutus of his sandal.” But the
est, tunc secuti sunt eum disciples followed
discipuli: quia humilia, et quae Christ when John
pro nobis passus est Christus, revealed Christ’s
magis movent nos; et ideo humility and about the
dicitur Cant. I, 2: oleum effusum mystery of the
nomen tuum, idest incarnation; and this is
misericordia, qua salutem because we are more
omnium procurasti; et ideo moved by Christ’s
statim sequitur adolescentulae humility and the
dilexerunt te nimis. sufferings he endured
for us. So it is said:
“Your name is like oil
poured out,” i.e.,
mercy, by which you
have obtained
salvation for all; and
the text immediately
follows with, “young
maidens have greatly
loved you” (Sg 1:2).
Tertio, quia verbum We can note, thirdly,

praedicationis est sicut semen that the words of a
cadens in diversas terras: in preacher are like seed
una quidem fructificat, in alia falling on different
non. Ita et Ioannes cum kinds of ground: on
praedicat, non omnes one they bear fruit,
discipulos convertit ad and on another they
Christum, sed duos tantum, do not. So too, John,
scilicet qui bene dispositi erant; when he preaches,
alii vero e contrario invidia does not convert all
moventur ad Christum: unde et his disciples to Christ,
quaestionem ei movent, ut but only two, those
dicitur Matth. IX, 14. who were well
disposed. The others
are envious of Christ,
and they even
question him, as
mentioned in Matthew
(9:14).
Quartum est quod discipuli Fourthly, we may note

Ioannis audito eius testimonio that John’s disciples,
de Christo, non statim after hearing his
ingesserunt se ad loquendum witness to Christ, did
cum eo ex abrupto, sed quasi not at once thrust
studiosi cum quadam themselves forward to
verecundia singulariter loqui speak with him hastily;
cum eo, et in secreto loco rather, seriously and
studuerunt. Eccle. VIII, 6: omni with a certain
negotio tempus est, et modesty, they tried to
opportunitas. speak to Christ alone
and in a private place:
“There is a time and
fitness for everything”
(Ecc 8:6).
Consequenter ponitur 286 The

consummatio fructus, cum dicit consummation of this
conversus autem Iesus. Quod fruit is now set forth (v
enim Ioannes inchoavit, 38), for what John
consummatur per Christum, began is completed by
quia neminem ad perfectum Christ, since “the law
adduxit lex, ut habetur Hebr. brought nothing to
VII, 19. Et circa hoc Christus perfection” (Heb
duo facit: primo enim 7:19). And Christ does
examinavit discipulos two things. First, he
sequentes; secundo eos questions the disciples
instruxit, ibi dicit eis: venite, et who were following
videte. Circa primum primo him. Secondly, he
ponitur Christi examinantis teaches them (v 39).
interrogatio; secundo As to the first we have:
discipulorum examinatorum first, the question of
responsio, ibi qui dixerunt ei: Christ is given;
Rabbi, ubi habitas? secondly, the answer
of the disciples.
Dicit ergo conversus autem 287 He says, Jesus
Iesus, et videns eos sequentes turned around, and
se, dixit eis. Et quidem per seeing them following
litteralem sensum him said. According to
intelligendum est quod Christus the literal sense we
eos praeibat, et hi duo discipuli should understand
eum sequentes, faciem eius that Christ was
minime videbant: et ideo walking in front of
Christus ut daret eis fiduciam, them, and these two
convertit se ad eos. In quo disciples, following
datur nobis intelligi, quod him, did not see his
omnibus, qui Christum sequi face at all; and so
incipiunt puro corde, dat Christ turns to them to
fiduciam vel spem holster their
misericordiae; Sap. VI, 14: confidence. This lets
praeoccupat eos qui se us know that Christ
concupiscunt. Convertit autem gives confidence and
se Iesus ad nos, ut videatur a hope to all who begin
nobis: hoc erit in illa beata to follow him with a
visione, quando ostendet nobis pure heart: “She goes
faciem suam, ut dicitur in Ps. to meet those who
LXXIX, 4: ostende nobis faciem desire her” (Wis 6:14).
tuam, et salvi erimus. Quamdiu Now Jesus turns to us
enim in mundo isto sumus, in order that we may
videmus posteriora eius, quia see him; this will
per effectus in eius happen in that blessed
cognitionem venimus; unde vision when he will
dicitur Ex. XXXIII, 23: show us his face, as is
posteriora mea videbis. Item said: “Show us your
convertit se ut opem suae face, and we will be
misericordiae nobis impendat. saved” (Ps 79:4). For
Hoc petebat Ps. LXXXIX, 13: as long as we are in
convertere, domine, this world we see his
aliquantulum et cetera. back, because it is
Quamdiu enim Christus opem through his effects
suae miserationis non impendit, that we acquire a
videtur a nobis aversus. knowledge of him; so
Conversus est ergo Iesus ad it is said, “You will see
discipulos Ioannis eum my back” (Ex 33:23).
sequentes, ut faciem suam eis Again, he turns to give
ostenderet, et gratiam eis us the riches of his
infunderet. mercy. This is
requested in Psalm 89
(13): “Turn to us, 0
Lord.” For as long as
Christ withholds the
help of his mercy he
seems to be turned
away from us. And so
Jesus turned to the
disciples of John who
were following him in
order to show them
his face and to pour
his grace upon them.
Examinat autem eos specialiter 288 Christ examines

de intentione. Sequentium them specifically
namque Christum non eadem about their intention.
intentio est: quidam enim eum For all who follow
sequuntur propter bona Christ do not have the
temporalia; alii vero propter same intention: some
bona spiritualia. Et ideo quid follow him for the sake
isti intendant, dominus quaerit, of temporal goods,
dicens quid quaeritis? Non and others for
quidem ut discat, sed ut rectam spiritual goods. And
intentionem aperientes, magis so the Lord asks their
familiares faciat, et ostendat intention, saying,
eos auditione dignos. What are you looking
for?; not in order to
learn their intention,
but so that, after they
showed a proper
intention, he might
make them more
intimate friends and
show that they are
worthy to hear him.
Notandum autem, quod hoc est 289 It may be

primum verbum quod Christus remarked that these
in isto Evangelio loquitur. Et are the first words
congrue, quia primum quod which Christ speaks in
quaerit Deus ab homine, est this Gospel. And this is
recta intentio. Et secundum appropriate, because
Origenem, post sex verba quae the first thing that God
Ioannes dixerat, Christus asks of a man is a
septimum locutus est. Primum proper intention. And,
namque Ioannes Baptista according to Origen,
locutus est, quando after the six words
testimonium perhibens de that John had spoken,
Christo, clamabat dicens hic est Christ spoke the
de quo dixi. Aliud quando dixit seventh. The first
non sum dignus solvere words spoken by John
corrigiam calceamenti eius. were when, bearing
Tertium quando dixit ego witness to Christ, he
baptizo in aqua, medius autem cried out, saying,
vestrum stetit quem vos “This is the one of
nescitis. Quartum ecce agnus whom I said.” The
Dei. Quintum vidi spiritum second is when he
descendentem quasi columbam said, “I am not worthy
et cetera. Sextum, cum hic dicit to unfasten the strap
ecce agnus Dei. Et Christus of his sandal.” The
septimum loquitur, ut intelligas third is, “I baptize with
mystice, quod quies, quae water. But there is one
designatur per septimum diem, standing in your midst
nobis est futura per Christum, whom you do not
et quod in ipso est plenitudo recognize.” The fourth
septiformis gratiae spiritus is, “Look! There is the
sancti. Lamb of God.” The
fifth, “I saw the Spirit
coming down on him
from heaven like a
dove.” The sixth, when
he says here, “Look!
There is the Lamb of
God.” But it is Christ
who speaks the
seventh words so that
we may understand, in
a mystical sense, that
rest, which is signified
by the seventh day,
will come to us
through Christ, and
that in him is found
the fulness of the
seven gifts of the Holy
Spirit.
Consequenter respondent 290 The disciples

discipuli qui dixerunt ei et answer; and although
cetera. Et quidem interrogati de there was one
uno, duo respondent. Primo question, they gave
quidem quare Christum two answers. First,
sequuntur, scilicet ut addiscant, why they are following
unde et magistrum eum vocant Christ, namely, to
Rabbi (quod dicitur learn; thus they call
interpretatum magister) quasi him Teacher, Rabbi
dicerent: quaerimus, ut nos (which means
doceas. Iam enim Teacher). As if to say:
praecognoscebant quod dicitur We ask you to teach
Matth. XXIII, 10, unus est us. For they already
magister vester Christus. knew what is stated in
Secundo vero quod sequendo Matthew (23:10): “You
quaerunt, scilicet ubi habitas? have one Teacher, the
Et quidem litteraliter dici potest Christ.” The second
quod in veritate domum Christi answer is what they
quaerebant. Propter enim mira want in following him,
et magna, quae a Ioanne de eo that is, Where do you
audierant, nolebant eum live? And literally, it
perfunctorie interrogare, nec can be said that in
semel tantum, sed frequenter truth they were
et seriose; et ideo domum eius looking for the home
scire volebant, ut frequenter ad of Christ. For because
eum accederent, iuxta of the great and
consilium sapientis, Eccli. VI, wonderful things they
36: si videris sensatum, evigila had heard about him
ad illum, et Prov. c. VIII, 34: from John, they were
beatus qui audit me, et vigilat not satisfied with
ad fores meas quotidie. questioning him only
once and in a
superficial way, but
wanted to do so
frequently and
seriously. And so they
wanted to know where
his home was so that
they might visit him
often, according to the
advice of the wise
man: “If you see a
man of understanding,
go to him early” (Sir
6:36), and “Happy is
the man who hears
me, who watches daily
at my gates” (Prv
8:34).
Allegorice autem in caelis est In the allegorical

habitaculum Dei, secundum sense, God’s home is
illud Ps. CXXII, 1: ad te levavi in heaven, according
oculos meos qui habitas in to the Psalm (122:1 ):
caelis. Quaerunt ergo ubi “I have lifted up my
Christus habitet, quia ad hoc eyes to you, who live
debemus Christum sequi ut per in heaven.” So they
eum ducamur ad caelos, idest asked where Christ
ad gloriam caelestem. was living because our
purpose in following
him should be that
Christ leads us to
heaven, i.e., to
heavenly glory.
Moraliter autem interrogant ubi Finally, in the moral

habitas? Quasi vellent scire, sense, they ask,
quales debent esse homines Where do you live? as
qui digni sunt quod Christus though desiring to
habitet in eis; de quo learn what qualities
habitaculo dicitur Eph. II, 22: men should possess in
aedificamini in habitaculum Dei, order to be worthy to
et Cant. I, v. 6: indica mihi, have Christ dwell in
quem diligit anima mea, ubi them. Concerning this
pascas, ubi cubes in meridie. dwelling Ephesians
(2:22) says: “You are
being built into a
dwelling place for
God.” And the Song
(1:6) says: “Show me,
you whom my soul
loves, where you graze
your flock, where you
rest at midday.”
Consequenter cum dicit venite, 291 Then when he

et videte, ponitur instructio says, Come and see,
discipulorum a Christo, et Christ’s instruction of
primo describitur ipsa the disciples is given.
instructio discipulorum a First we have the
Christo; secundo commendatur instruction of the
discipulorum obedientia disciples by Christ;
venerunt, et viderunt; tertio secondly, their
determinatur tempus quia hora obedience is cited;
erat quasi decima. and thirdly, the time is
given.
Dicit ergo primo venite, et 292 First he says,

videte, scilicet ubi habitem. Sed Come and see, that is,
hic est quaestio. Cum dominus where I live. There is a
dicat, Matth. VIII, 20, filius difficulty here: for
hominis non habet ubi caput since the Lord says,
suum reclinet, quare dicit “The Son of Man does
venite, et videte ubi habito? not have any place to
Respondeo dicendum, lay his head” (Mt
secundum Chrysostomum, 8:20), why does he tell
quod per hoc quod dixit them to Come and see
dominus: filius hominis non where he lives? I
habet ubi caput suum reclinet, answer, according to
demonstravit quod non habuit Chrysostom, that
proprium habitaculum, non when the Lord says,
quod in domo alicuius alterius “The Son of Man does
non maneret. Et ad hanc not have any place to
videndum istos invitabat, lay his head,” he
dicens venite, et videte. showed that he had no
home of his own, but
not that he did not
remain in someone
else’s home. And such
was the home he
invited them to see,
saying, Come and see.
Mystice autem dicit venite, et In the mystical sense,

videte quia habitatio Dei, sive he says, Come and
gloriae, sive gratiae, agnosci see, because the
non potest nisi per dwelling of God,
experientiam: nam verbis whether of glory or
explicari non potest; Apoc. II, grace, cannot be
17: in calculo nomen novum et known except by
cetera. Et ideo dicit venite, et experience: for it
videte. Venite, credendo et cannot be explained in
operando, et videte, experiendo words: “I will give him
et intelligendo. a white stone upon
which is written a new
name, which no one
knows but he who
receives it” (Rv 2:17).
And so he says, Come
and see: Come, by
believing and working;
and see, by
experiencing and
understanding.
Notandum autem, quod 293 It should be noted

quatuor modis pervenitur ad that we can attain to
hanc cognitionem. Primo per this knowledge in four
bonorum operum actionem: ways. First, by doing
unde dicit venite. Ps. XLI, 3: good works; so he
quando veniam, et apparebo says, Come: “When
ante faciem domini. Secundo shall I come and
per mentis quietem, seu appear before the face
vacationem; Ps. XLV, 11: of God” (Ps 41:3).
vacate, et videte. Tertio per Secondly, by the rest
divinae dulcedinis gustationem; or stillness of the
Ps. XXXIII, 9: gustate, et videte, mind: “Be still and
quoniam suavis est dominus. see” (Ps 45:10).
Quarto per operationem Thirdly, by tasting the
devotionis; Thren. III, v. 41: divine sweetness:
levemus corda nostra cum “Taste and see that
manibus orando et cetera. Et the I.ord is sweet” O’s
ideo dicit dominus Lc. XXIV, v. 33:9). Fourthly, by
39: palpate, et videte et cetera. acts of devotion: “Let
us lift up our hearts
and hands in prayer”
(Lam 3:41). And so
the Lord says: “it is I
myself. Feel and see”
(Lk 24:39).
Consequenter ponitur 294 Next the

discipulorum obedientia, quia obedience of the
statim sequitur venerunt, et disciples is mentioned;
viderunt, quia veniendo for immediately they
viderunt, et videntes non went and saw,
deseruerunt, unde dicitur et because by coming
manserunt ibi die illo quia, ut they saw him, and
dicitur infra c. VI, 45, omnis qui seeing they did not
audit a patre, et didicit, venit ad leave him. Thus it
me. Qui enim recedunt a says, and they stayed
Christo, non viderunt eum with him the rest of
adhuc, sicut videre oportet. Isti that day, for as stated
autem qui perfecte credendo, below (6:45): “Every
eum viderunt, manserunt ibi die one who hears the
illo; audientes et videntes Father, and has
beatum diem, beatam noctem learned, comes to
duxerunt; III Reg. X, 8: beati viri me.” For those who
tui, et beati servi tui, qui stant leave Christ have not
coram te semper. Et ideo, ut yet seen him as they
dicit Augustinus, aedificemus et should. But those who
nosmetipsi in corde nostro, et have seen him by
faciamus domum quo veniat ille, perfectly believing
et doceat nos. stayed with him the
rest of that day;
hearing and seeing
that blessed day, they
spent a blessed night:
“Happy are your men,
and happy are your
servants, who always
stand before you” (1
Kgs 8:10). And as
Augustine says: “Let
us also build a
dwelling in our heart
and fashion a home
where he may come
and teach us.”
Et dicit die illo, quia nox esse And he says, that day,
non potest ubi est lumen because there can be
Christi, ubi est sol iustitiae. no night where the
light of Christ is
present, where there is
the Sun of justice.
Tempus autem determinatur 295 The time is given

consequenter, cum dicit hora when he says, It was
autem erat quasi decima. Quod about the tenth hour.
quidem Evangelista determinat, The Evangelist
ut, secundum litteram, insinuet mentions this in order
commendationem Christi, et that, considering the
discipulorum. Hora enim literal sense, he might
decima est in occasu diei: ex give credit to Christ
quo et Christus commendatur, and the disciples. For
qui tam studiosus erat ad the tenth hour is near
docendum, quod nec propter the end of the day.
temporis tarditatem eos docere And this praises Christ
distulit, sed in hora decima who was so eager to
docuit eos; Eccle. XI, 6: mane teach that not even
semina semen tuum, et vespere the lateness of the
ne cesset manus tua. hour induced him to
postpone teaching
them; but he taught
them at the tenth
hour. “In the morning
sow your seed, and in
the evening do not let
your hands be idle”
(Ecc 11:6).
Similiter etiam commendatur et 296 The moderation of

discipulorum temperantia. Quia the disciples is also
etiam hora decima qua praised, because even
consueverunt homines at the tenth hour,
comedisse et esse minus sobrii when men usually
ad perceptionem sapientiae, have eaten and are
ipsi et sobrii et apti erant ad less self-possessed for
sapientiam audiendam, nec receiving wisdom, they
propter cibum, aut vinum were both self-
impediebantur. Nec mirum, quia possessed and
discipuli eius fuerant, scilicet prepared to hear
Ioannis, cuius potus erat aqua, wisdom and were not
esca autem locusta et mel hindered because of
silvestre. food or wine. But this
is not unexpected, for
they had been
disciples of John,
whose drink was water
and whose food was
the locust and wild
honey.
Secundum autem Augustinum, 297 According to

per horam decimam lex Augustine, however,
signatur, quae in decem the tenth hour
praeceptis data est. Erat ergo signifies the law,
hora decima quando isti which was given in ten
venerunt, et manserunt cum precepts. And so the
Christo, et ab eo erudiuntur, ut disciples came to
impleretur lex per Christum Christ at the tenth
quae a Iudaeis impleri non hour and remained
poterat. Et ideo etiam in ipsa with him to be taught
hora vocatus est Rabbi, idest so that the law might
magister. be fulfilled by Christ,
since it could not be
fulfilled by the Jews.
And so at that hour he
is called Rabbi, that is,
Teacher.
Consequenter cum dicit erat 298 Then (v 40), he

autem Andreas frater Simonis sets forth the fruit
Petri etc. ponitur fructus quem produced by the
fecit discipulus Ioannis disciple of John who
conversus ad Christum. was converted to
Christ. First, the
disciple is described;
secondly, the fruit
begun by him (v 41);
thirdly, the
consummation of this
fruit by Christ (v 42).
Et super hoc primo describitur 299 The disciple is

discipulus; secundo fructus ab described by name
ipso inchoatus, ibi invenit hic when he says,
primum fratrem suum Simonem; Andrew, i.e., “manly”.
tertio ponitur consummatio “Act manfully, and let
fructus facta per Christum, ibi Your heart be strong,”
intuitus autem eum Iesus dixit. as it says in Psalm 30
Describitur autem discipulus (v 25). he mentions
primo a nomine, cum dicit erat his name in order to
autem Andreas, idest virilis. Ps. show his privilege: he
XXX, 25: viriliter agite, et was not only the first
confortetur cor vestrum. to be perfectly
Exprimit autem nomen, ut converted to Christ,
ostendatur eius privilegium: but he also preached
tum quia prior conversus est ad Christ. So, as Stephen
fidem Christi perfecte, tum was the first martyr
etiam quia Christum after Christ, so
praedicavit: unde sicut Andrew was the first
Stephanus fuit primus martyr Christian.
post Christum, ita et Andreas
fuit primus Christianus.
Secundo describitur a He is described,

cognatione, quia frater Simonis secondly, by his
Petri: quia iunior erat. Et hoc relationship, that is, as
quidem est ad Simon Peter’s
commendationem suam, ut qui brother, for he was the
aetate posterior, fide efficiatur younger. And this is
primus. mentioned to
commend him, for
although younger in
age, he became first in
faith.
Tertio a disciplina, quia unus ex He is described,

duobus qui audierant a Ioanne. thirdly, by his
Et huius quidem nomen discipleship, because
describitur ad ostendendum he was one of the two
Andreae privilegium quod who had followed
insignis fuerit. Alterius enim him. His name is
nomen tacetur: aut quia ille mentioned in order to
alius fuit Ioannes Evangelista, show that Andrew’s
cuius consuetudo est in suo privilege was
Evangelio cum de eo agitur, remarkable. For the
nomen suum non exprimere name of the other
propter humilitatem; aut, disciple is not
secundum Chrysostomum, non mentioned: either
fuit aliquis insignis, nec fecit because it was John
aliquid magnum: unde non the Evangelist himself,
fuisset utilitas nomen eius who through humility
ponere. Sic enim et Lucas, cap. followed the practice
X, nomina septuaginta duorum in his Gospel of not
discipulorum, quos dominus mentioning his own
binos misit ante faciem suam, name when he was
non posuit, quia non erant involved in some
solemnes personae et insignes, event; or, according to
sicut apostoli fuerunt. Aut, Chrysostom, because
secundum Alcuinum, ille the other one was not
discipulus fuit Philippus: et hoc a notable person, nor
patet, quia statim postquam had he done anything
Evangelista prosecutus est de great, and so there
Andrea, prosequitur de was no need to
Philippo, dicens: in crastinum mention his name.
autem voluit exire in Galilaeam, Luke does the same in
et invenit Philippum et cetera. his Gospel (10:1),
where he does not
mention the names of
the seventy-two
disciples sent out by
the Lord, because they
were not the
outstanding and
important persons
that the apostles were.
Or, according to
Alcuin, this other
disciple was Philip: for
the Evangelist, after
discussing Andrew,
begins at once with
Philip, saying: “On the
following day Jesus
wanted to go to
Galilee, and coming
upon Philip” (below
1:43).
Quarto commendatur a He is commended,

devotionis studio: unde dicitur fourthly, for the zeal of
et secuti fuerant eum, idest his devotion; hence he
Iesum. Iob XXIII, 11: vestigia says that Andrew
eius secutus est pes meus. followed him, i.e.,
Jesus: “My foot has
followed in his steps”
(Jb 23:11).
Fructus autem inchoatus per 300 The fruit begun

Andream ponitur, cum dicit by Andrew is
invenit hic primum Simonem mentioned when he
fratrem suum. Et primo insinuat says, The first thing
apud quem fructum fecit, he did was to look for
scilicet apud fratrem suum, ut his brother Simon. He
commendet suae conversionis first mentions the one
perfectionem: sicut enim Petrus for whom he bore
dicit in itinerario Clementis, fruit, that is, his
evidens signum perfectae brother, in order to
conversionis alicuius est, cum mark the perfection of
conversus, quanto aliquis sibi his conversion. For as
est magis coniunctus, tanto Peter says, in the
magis satagit eum convertere Itinerary of Clement,
ad Christum. Et ideo Andreas the evident sign of a
perfecte conversus non detinuit perfect conversion of
apud seipsum inventum anyone is that, once
thesaurum, sed festinat et converted, the closer
currit cito ad fratrem, one is to him the more
traditurus ei bona quae he tries to convert him
suscepit. Et ideo dicit invenit to Christ. And so
hic, scilicet Andreas, primum, Andrew, being now
idest primo adverbialiter, perfectly converted,
fratrem suum Simonem, quem does not keep the
quaerebat, ut sicut erat treasure he found to
sanguine, ita faceret eum himself, but hurries
germanum fide. Prov. XVIII, 19: and quickly runs to his
frater qui adiuvatur a fratre brother to share with
quasi civitas firma; Apoc. ult., him the good things
17: qui audit, dicat, veni. he has received. And
so he says the first
thing he, that is,
Andrew, did was to
look for his brother
Simon, so that related
in blood he might
make him related in
faith: “A brother that is
helped by his brother
is like a strong city”
(Prv 18:19); “Let him
who hears say, ‘Come’
“ (Rv 22:17).
Secundo ponit verba quae dicit 301 Secondly, he

Andreas invenimus Messiam mentions the words
(quod interpretatur Christus); spoken by Andrew, We
ubi, secundum Chrysostomum, have found the
tacite respondet cuidam Messiah (which
quaestioni. Scilicet, si quis eum means the Christ).
interrogaret de quo instructi Here, according to
fuissent a Christo, in promptu Chrysostom, he is
est responsio, scilicet quod per tacitly answering a
testimonia Scripturae instruxit certain question:
eum intantum quod namely, that if
cognosceret eum esse someone were to ask
Christum. Et ideo dicit what they had been
invenimus. Per quod etiam instructed about by
innuit quod diu cum desiderio Christ, they would
eum quaesierat; Prov. III, 13: have the ready answer
beatus homo qui invenit that through the
sapientiam. testimony of the
Scriptures he
instructed him in such
a way that he knew he
was the Christ. And so
he says, We have
found the Messiah. He
implies by this that he
had previously sought
him by desire for a
long time: “Happy is
the man who finds
wisdom” (Prv 3:13).
Messia Hebraice, quod Graece “Messiah,” which is

interpretatum est Christus, Hebrew, is translated
idest unctus Latine: quia as “Christos” in Greek,
specialiter unctus est oleo and in Latin as
invisibili, idest spiritus sancti. “Unctus” (anointed),
Ideo signanter nomine isto because he was
manifestat eum: unde in Ps. anointed in a special
XLIV, 8 dicitur: unxit te Deus way with invisible oil,
tuus oleo laetitiae prae the oil of the Holy
consortibus, idest prae omnibus Spirit. So Andrew
sanctis: nam omnes sancti isto explicitly designates
oleo unguntur; sed iste him by this title: “Your
singulariter unctus est, et God has anointed you
singulariter sanctus. Ideo with the oil of
secundum Chrysostomum, non gladness above your
dicit Messiam simpliciter, sed fellows,” i.e., above all
cum adiectione articuli. the saints. For all the
saints are anointed
with that oil, but
Christ was singularly
anointed and is
singularly holy. So, as
Chrysostom says, he
does not simply call
him “Messiah,” but the
Messiah.
Tertio ponit fructum quem fecit, 302 Thirdly, he

quia adduxit eum ad Iesum, mentions the fruit he
scilicet Petrum. In quo Petri produced, because he
obedientia commendatur: brought him, that is,
confestim enim occurrit, in hoc Peter, to Jesus. This
non tardans. Et Andreae gives recognition to
devotionem considera: quia Peter’s obedience, for
duxit eum ad Iesum, non ad se he came at once,
(sciebat enim se infirmum), et without delay. And
ideo eum ad Christum adducit, consider the devotion
ut ipse eum instruat; instruens of Andrew: for he
simul per hoc, quod hic debet brought him to Jesus
esse praedicatorum conatus et and not to himself (for
studium, ut fructus he knew that he
praedicationis et studium non himself was weak);
sibi vindicent, seu ad utilitatem and so he leads him to
et honorem proprium Christ to be instructed
convertant, sed ut adducant ad by him. This shows us
Iesum, idest ad eius gloriam et that the efforts and
honorem referant. II Cor. IV, 5: the aim of preachers
non enim praedicamus should not be to win
nosmetipsos, sed Iesum for themselves the
Christum. fruits of their
preaching, i.e., to turn
them to their own
private benefit and
honor, but to bring
them to Jesus, i.e., to
refer them to his glory
and honor: “What we
preach is not
ourselves, but Jesus
Christ,” as is said in 2
Corinthians (4:5).
Consummatio autem huius 303 The

fructus ponitur cum dicit consummation of this
intuitus autem eum Iesus dixit, fruit is given when he
et cetera. Ubi Christus, ad says, Looking at him
fidem divinitatis eum elevare intently Jesus said.
volens, incipit quae divinitatis Here Christ, wishing to
sunt opera facere, occulta raise him up to faith in
praedicans. Et primo quidem His divinity, begins to
quantum ad occulta perform works of
praesentiae; unde intuitus eum, divinity, making know
idest, statim cum vidit eum things that are hidden.
virtute divinitatis, consideravit, First of all, things
et dixit ei nomen suum: unde which are hidden in
dicit tu es Simon. Nec mirum, the present: so
quia, ut dicitur I Reg. XVI, v. 7, looking at him, i.e, as
homines vident ea quae soon as Jesus saw
apparent, Deus autem intuetur him, he considered
cor. Congruit autem hoc nomen him by the power of
mysterio. Nam Simon his divinity and called
interpretatur obediens; ut him by name, saying,
insinuet quod obedientia You are Simon. This is
necessaria est ei qui conversus not surprising, for as it
est ad Christum per fidem. Act. is said: “Man sees the
V, 32: dat spiritum sanctum appearances, but the
obedientibus sibi. Lord sees the heart” (I
Sm 16:7). This name
is appropriate for the
mystery. For “Simon”
means “obedient,” to
indicate that
obedience is
necessary for one who
has been converted to
Christ through faith:
“He gives the Holy
Spirit to all who obey
him” (Acts 5:32).
Secundo vero quantum ad 304 Secondly, he

occulta praeterita. Unde dicit reveals things hidden
filius Ioanna, quia hoc nomine in the past. Hence he
vocatus est pater suus, vel, says, son of John,
secundum Matthaeum, filius because that was the
Iona, cum dicit Simon Bariona. name of Simon’s
Et utrumque congruit mysterio. father; or he says,
Ioanna enim interpretatur “son of Jonah,” as we
gratia, ut insinuet quod find in Matthew
homines per gratiam veniunt ad (16:17), “Simon Bar-
fidem Christi; Eph. II, 5: gratia Jonah.” And each
salvati estis et cetera. Iona vero name is appropriate to
interpretatur columba, ut this mystery. For
insinuet quod per spiritum “John” means “grace,”
sanctum, qui datus est nobis, to indicate that it is
firmamur in amore Dei, ut through grace that
dicitur Rom. V, 5: caritas Dei men come to the faith
diffusa est in cordibus nostris. of Christ: “You are
saved by his grace”
(Eph 2:5). And “Jonah”
means “dove,” to
indicate that it is by
the Holy Spirit, who
has been given to us,
that we are made
strong in our love for
God: “The love of God
is poured out into our
hearts by the Holy
Spirit” (Rom 5:5).
Tertio vero quantum ad occulta 305 Thirdly, he reveals

futura; unde dicit tu vocaberis things hidden in the
Cephas, quod interpretatur future. So he says, you
Petrus, et in Graeco caput. Et are to be called
congruit mysterio, ut ille qui Cephas (which is
debet esse aliorum caput et translated Peter), and
Christi vicarius, firmitati in Greek, “head.” And
inhaereret. Matth. XVI, 18: tu es this is appropriate to
Petrus, et super hanc petram this mystery, which is
aedificabo Ecclesiam meam. that he who was to be
the head of the others
and the vicar of Christ
should remain firm. As
Matthew (16:18) says:
“You are Peter, and
upon this rock I will
build my church.”
Sed hic est quaestio litteralis. 306 There is a

Et primo quare Christus question here about
imposuit ei in principio suae the literal meaning.
conversionis nomen, et non First, why did Christ
voluit quod a principio give Simon a name at
nativitatis suae hoc nomine the beginning of his
vocaretur? Ad hoc respondetur conversion, rather
dupliciter. Secundum than will that he have
Chrysostomum, primo quidem this name from the
quia nomina divinitus imposita time of his birth? Two
aliquam eminentiam gratiae different answers have
spiritualis designant. Quando been given for this.
autem Deus confert specialem The first, according to
gratiam alicui, ab ipsa Chrysostom, is that
nativitate nomen gratiam illam divinely given names
significans imponitur; sicut indicate a certain
patet de Ioanne Baptista, qui eminence in spiritual
ante a Deo est nominatus quam grace. Now when God
natus, quia fuit sanctificatus in confers a special
utero matris. Aliquando autem grace upon anyone,
aliter confertur eminentia the name indicating
gratiae specialis tempore that grace is given at
procedenti; et talia nomina one’s birth: as in the
divinitus imponuntur non a case of John the
principio nativitatis, sed in ipso Baptist, who was
processu temporis; sicut patet named before he was
de Abraham et Sara, quibus born, because he had
nomina mutata sunt quando been sanctified in his
promissionem multiplicandi mother’s womb. But
germinis acceperunt. Eodem sometimes a special
modo et Petrus nominatur grace is given during
divinitus quando ad fidem the course of one’s
Christi, et gratiam apostolatus life: then such names
vocatur, et specialiter quia are divinely given at
constitutus est princeps that time and not at
apostolorum totius Ecclesiae; birth: as in the case of
quod in aliis apostolis non est Abraham and Sarah,
factum. whose names were
changed when they
received the promise
that their posterity
would multiply.
Likewise, Peter is
named in a divine way
when he is called to
the faith of Christ and
to the grace of
apostleship, and
particularly because
he was appointed
Prince of the apostles
of the entire Church
—which was not done
with the other
apostles.
Secundum Augustinum autem, But, according to

quia si a principio fuisset Augustine, if he had
nominatus Cephas, non been called Cephas
apparuisset mysterium. Et ideo from birth, this
voluit dominus quod tunc mystery would not
nomen haberet, ut mutatione have been apparent.
nominis, Ecclesiae mysterium And so the Lord willed
appareret, quae in confessione that he should have
fidei eius fundata erat. Petrus one name at birth, so
enim a petra dicitur; petra that by changing his
autem erat Christus. In Petri name the mystery of
ergo nomine figurata est the Church, which was
Ecclesia, quae supra firmam built on his confession
petram immobilem, idest of faith, would be
Christum, aedificata est. apparent. Now “Peter”
(Petrus) is derived
from “rock” (petra).
But the rock. was
Christ. Thus, the name
“Peter” signifies the
Church, which was
built upon that solid
and immovable rock
which is Christ.
Secunda quaestio est utrum hic 307 The second

fuerit impositum hoc nomen question is whether
Simoni, an in Matthaeo cum this name was given to
dicitur tu es Petrus. Et ad hoc Peter at this time, or
respondet Augustinus dicens, at the time mentioned
quod istud nomen hoc loco fuit by Matthew (16:18).
Simoni impositum; sed quod Augustine answers
dicit ei dominus in Matth. tu es that this name was
Petrus etc. non est nominis given to Simon at this
impositio, sed impositi nominis time; and at the event
commemoratio, ut quasi utatur reported by Matthew
illo nomine tamquam iam the Lord is not giving
imposito. Alii autem dicunt, this name but
quod hoc nomen fuit impositum reminding him of the
Simoni quando dominus dixit ei name that was given,
tu es Petrus, et super hanc so that Christ is using
petram aedificabo Ecclesiam this name as already
meam. Hic vero non imponit ei given. But others think
hoc nomen, sed praesignat that this name was
quod sit ei postmodum given when the Lord
imponendum. said, “You are Peter,
and upon this rock I
will build my church”
(Mt 16:18); and in this
passage in the Gospel
of John, Christ is not
giving this name, but
foretelling what will be
given later.
Tertia quaestio est de vocatione 308 The third question

Petri et Andreae: quia hic is about the calling of
dicitur, quod fuerunt vocati Peter and Andrew: for
iuxta Iordanem, quia fuerunt here it says that they
discipuli Ioannis; et Matth. IV, were called near the
18 dicitur, quod Christus Jordan, because they
vocavit eos iuxta mare were John’s disciples;
Galilaeae. Et ad hoc dicendum, but in Matthew (4:18)
quod triplex fuit vocatio it says that Christ
apostolorum. Prima fuit ad called them by the Sea
cognitionem, seu of Galilee. The answer
familiaritatem, et fidem; et de to this is that there
hac dicitur hic. Secunda fuit in was a triple calling of
officii praesignatione, de qua the apostles. The first
habetur Lc. V, 10: ex hoc eris was a call to
homines capiens. Tertia fuit ad knowledge or
apostolatum, de qua dicitur friendship and faith;
Matth. IV, 18 s., quae fuit and this is the one
perfecta, quia postea non recorded here. The
redierunt ad propria. second consisted in
the prediction of their
office: “From now on
you will be catching
men” (Lk 5:10). The
third call was to their
apostleship, which is
mentioned by Matthew
(4:18). This was the
perfect call because
after this they were
not to return to their
own pursuits.
43 τῇ ἐπαύριον 43 On the
ἠθέλησεν following day
ἐξελθεῖν εἰς τὴν Jesus wanted
γαλιλαίαν, καὶ to go to
εὑρίσκει Galilee, and
Φίλιππον. καὶ coming upon
λέγει αὐτῷ ὁ Philip, he said,
Ἰησοῦς, “Follow me.”
ἀκολούθει μοι. 44 Now Philip
44 ἦν δὲ ὁ came from
Φίλιππος ἀπὸ Bethsaida, the
βηθσαϊδά, ἐκ τῆς same town as
πόλεως Ἀνδρέου Andrew and
καὶ Πέτρου. 45 Peter. 45
εὑρίσκει Philip sought
Φίλιππος τὸν out Nathanael,
Ναθαναὴλ καὶ and said to
λέγει αὐτῷ, ὃν him, “We have
ἔγραψεν μωϋσῆς found the one
ἐν τῷ νόμῳ καὶ Moses spoke
οἱ προφῆται of in the law -
εὑρήκαμεν, the prophets
Ἰησοῦν υἱὸν τοῦ too - Jesus,
Ἰωσὴφ τὸν ἀπὸ son of Joseph,
Ναζαρέτ. 46 καὶ from
εἶπεν αὐτῷ Nazareth.” 46
Ναθαναήλ, ἐκ “From
Ναζαρὲτ δύναταί Nazareth!”
τι ἀγαθὸν εἶναι; Nathanael
λέγει αὐτῷ [ὁ] replied, “What
Φίλιππος, ἔρχου good can
καὶ ἴδε. 47 εἶδεν come from
ὁ Ἰησοῦς τὸν th1t place?”
Ναθαναὴλ Philip said,
ἐρχόμενον πρὸς “Come and
αὐτὸν καὶ λέγει see.” 47 When
περὶ αὐτοῦ, ἴδε Jesus saw
ἀληθῶς Nathanael
Ἰσραηλίτης ἐν ᾧ coming
δόλος οὐκ ἔστιν. toward him,
48 λέγει αὐτῷ he said of him:
Ναθαναήλ, πόθεν “Here is a true
με γινώσκεις; Israelite, in
ἀπεκρίθη Ἰησοῦς whom there is
καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ, no guile.” 48
πρὸ τοῦ σε Nathanael
Φίλιππον asked him,
φωνῆσαι ὄντα “How do you
ὑπὸ τὴν συκῆν know me?”
εἶδόν σε. 49 Jesus replied
ἀπεκρίθη αὐτῷ and said,
Ναθαναήλ, “Before Philip
ῥαββί, σὺ εἶ ὁ called you, I
υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ, σὺ saw you when
βασιλεὺς εἶ τοῦ you were
Ἰσραήλ. 50 sitting under
ἀπεκρίθη Ἰησοῦς the fig tree.”
καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ, 49 “Rabbi,”
ὅτι εἶπόν σοι ὅτι said
εἶδόν σε Nathanael,
ὑποκάτω τῆς “you are the
συκῆς πιστεύεις; Son of God;
μείζω τούτων you are the
ὄψῃ. 51 καὶ λέγει King of
αὐτῷ, ἀμὴν ἀμὴν Israel.” 50
λέγω ὑμῖν, Jesus
ὄψεσθε τὸν responded
οὐρανὸν and said, “You
ἀνεῳγότα καὶ believed just
τοὺς ἀγγέλους because I said
τοῦ θεοῦ to you that I
ἀναβαίνοντας καὶ saw you
καταβαίνοντας sitting under
ἐπὶ τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ the fig tree!
ἀνθρώπου. You will see
greater things
than this.” 51
He went on to
say, “Amen,
amen, I say to
you, you will
see the
heavens
opened and
the angels of
God
ascending and
descending on
the Son of
Man.”
Posito fructu qui provenit ex 309 After having shown
praedicatione Ioannis, et the fruit produced by
eius discipuli, consequenter John’s preaching and
Evangelista manifestat that of his disciples, the
fructum qui provenit ex Evangelist now shows the
praedicatione Christi, et fruit obtained from the
primo agit de conversione preaching of Christ. First,
unius discipuli ad he deals with the
praedicationem Christi; conversion of one
secundo de conversione disciple as the result of
aliorum ad praedicationem Christ’s preaching.
discipuli ad Christum Secondly, the conversion
conversi, ibi invenit Philippus of others due to the
Nathanaelem et cetera. preaching of the disciple
Circa primum tria facit. just converted to Christ
Primo ponitur discipuli (v 45). As to the first he
vocandi occasio; secundo does three things: first,
subditur ipsius discipuli the occasion when the
vocatio; tertio describitur disciple is called is given;
vocati discipuli conditio, ibi secondly, his calling is
erat autem Philippus a described; thirdly, his
Bethsaida. situation.
Occasio quidem vocationis 310 The occasion of his

fuit exitus Iesu a Iudaea. Et calling was the departure
ideo dicitur in crastinum of Jesus from Judea. So
autem voluit exire, scilicet he says, On the following
Iesus a Iudaea, in Galilaeam, day Jesus wanted to go
et invenit Philippum. Ratio to Galilee, and coming
autem exitus Iesu in upon Philip. There are
Galilaeam assignatur triplex: three reasons why Jesus
duae videlicet litterales, left for Galilee, two of
quarum una est quia which are literal. One of
postquam baptizatus fuerat these is that after being
a Ioanne, volens honorem baptized by John and
deferre Baptistae, exivit in desiring to shed honor on
Galilaeam, a Iudaea the Baptist, he left Judea
recedens, ne sua praesentia for Galilee so that his
offuscaret, et minueret presence would not
Ioannis magisterium, dum obscure and lessen
adhuc statum haberet: John’s teaching authority
docens nos honore invicem (while he still retained
praevenire, ut dicitur Rom. that state); and this
XII, 10. teaches us to show honor
to one another, as is said
in Romans (12:10).
Secunda ratio est quia in The second reason is that

Galilaea non sunt insignes there are no
personae, infra VII, 52: a distinguished persons in
Galilaea propheta non surgit Galilee: “No prophet is to
etc. et ideo voluit exire illuc rise from Galilee” (below
Iesus, et eligere inde 7:52). And so, to show
principes orbis terrae, qui the greatness of his
sunt prophetis maiores, ut power, Christ wished to
per hoc suam virtutem go there and choose
ostendat. Ps. CVI, 35: posuit there the princes of the
desertum in stagna earth, who are greater
aquarum. than the prophets: “He
has turned the desert
into pools of water,” as
we read in Psalm 106 (v
35).
Tertia ratio est mystica: quia The third reason is

Galilaea interpretatur mystical: for “Galilee”
transmigratio. Voluit ergo means “passage.” So
exire a Iudaea in Galilaeam Christ desired to go from
ut insinuaret quod in Judea into Galilee in
crastinum, idest in die order to indicate that on
gratiae, scilicet Evangelii, “on the following day,”
exiret a Iudaea in Galilaeam, i.e., on the day of grace,
idest ad gentes salvandas; that is, the day of the
infra VII, 35: numquid hic Good News, he would
iturus est in dispersionem pass from Judea into
gentium? Galilee, i.e., to save the
Gentiles: “Is he going to
go to those who are
dispersed among the
Gentiles, and teach the
Gentiles?” (below 7:35).
Vocatio ergo discipuli est ad 311 A disciple’s vocation
sequendum; et ideo dicit is to follow: hence he
invenit Philippum, et dicit ei: says that after Christ
sequere me. Et nota, quod found Philip he said,
aliquando homo invenit Follow me. Note that
Deum, sed quasi ignotum; sometimes man finds
Prov. VIII, 35: qui invenerit God, but without knowing
me, inveniet vitam, et hauriet it, as it were: “He who
salutem a domino. Aliquando finds me will find life, and
Deus invenit hominem, sed will have salvation from
ut eum manifestet, et the Lord” (Prv 8:35). And
magnificet; Ps. LXXXVIII, 21: at other times God finds
inveni David servum meum. the man, in order to
Et sic Christus invenit bestow honor and
Philippum, ut eum ad fidem greatness upon him: “I
et gratiam vocet: et ideo have found David, my
statim dicit sequere me. servant” (Ps 88:2 1 ).
Christ found Philip in this
way, that is, to call him to
the faith and to grace.
And so he says at once,
Follow me.
Quaestio est quare Iesus a 312 There is a question

principio non vocavit here: Why did not Jesus
discipulos. Ad quod call his disciples at the
respondet Chrysostomus, very beginning?
quod noluit a principio Chrysostom answers that
aliquem vocare, antequam he did not wish to call
aliquis spontaneus ei anyone before someone
adhaereret per clung to him
praedicationem Ioannis: spontaneoulsy because
quia homines magis exemplo of John’s preaching, for
trahuntur quam verbis Ex. men are drawn by
XXVI, cortina trahit example more than by
cortinam. words.
Quaeritur etiam quare 313 One might also ask

Philippus statim ad unum why Philip followed Christ
verbum secutus est immediately after only a
Christum, cum Andreas eum word, while Andrew
secutus fuerit audiens a followed Christ after
Ioanne de Christo, Petrus hearing about him from
autem ab Andrea. John, and Peter after
hearing from Andrew.
Ad hoc est triplex responsio. Three answers can be

Una, quia Philippus iam given. One is that Philip
instructus erat a Ioanne; had already been
quia, secundum unam instructed by John: for
expositionem supra positam, according to one of the
ille alius, qui cum Andrea explanations given above,
secutus est Christum, erat Philip was that other
Philippus. Alia ratio est quia disciple who followed
vox Christi virtutem Christ along with Andrew.
quamdam habebat ut non Another is that Christ’s
solum exterius, sed etiam voice had power not only
interius cor moveret; Ier. to act on one’s hearing
XXIII, 29: verba mea sunt from without, but also on
quasi ignis. Non enim vox the heart from within:
Christi solum exterioribus “My words are like fire”
dicebatur, sed fidelium (Jer 23:29). For the voice
interiora ad eius of Christ was spoken not
inflammabat amorem. Tertio, only to the exterior, but it
quia forte Philippus iam de enkindled the interior of
Christo fuerat instructus ab the faithful to love him.
Andrea et Petro, quia ex The third answer is that
eadem villa erant; quod Philip. had perhaps
Evangelista videtur innuere already been instructed
per hoc quod subdit erat about Christ by Andrew
autem Philippus a Bethsaida and Peter, since they
civitate Andreae et Petri. were from the same town.
In fact, this is what the
Evangelist seems to imply
by adding, Now Philip
came from Bethsaida,
the same town as
Andrew and Peter.
In quo discipuli vocati 314 This gives us the

conditio exprimitur: quia situation of the disciples
erat a Bethsaida. Et sic he called: for they were
congruit mysterio. Bethsaida from Bethsaida. And this
enim domus venatorum is appropriate to this
interpretatur: ut ostendat mystery. For “Bethsaida”
quales tunc animo erant means “house of
Philippus, Petrus et Andreas, hunters,” to show the
et quod de domo venatorum, attitude of Philip, Peter
congrue venatores ad and Andrew at that time,
capiendas animas ad vitam and because it was fitting
vocaret. Ier. XVI, 16: mittam to call, from the house of
meos venatores et cetera. hunters, hunters who
were to capture souls for
life: “I will send my
hunters” (Jer 16:16).
Consequenter ponitur 315 Now the fruit

fructus discipuli ad Christum produced by the disciple
conversi, et primo ponitur who was converted to
inchoatio fructus facta a Christ is given. First, the
discipulo; secundo beginning of the fruit,
consummatio facta per coming from this disciple.
Christum, ibi vidit Iesus Secondly, its
Nathanaelem. Circa primum consummation by Christ
tria facit. Primo ponitur (v 47). As to the first, he
Annuntiatio Philippi; does three things: first,
secundo responsio the statement of Philip is
Nathanaelis, ibi et dixit given; secondly,
Nathanael; tertio Nathanael’s response;
consequens admonitio and thirdly, Philip’s
Philippi, ibi dicit ei Philippus. ensuing advice.
Circa primum attende, quod 316 As to the first, note

sicut Andreas perfecte that just as Andrew, after
conversus studuit adducere having been perfectly
fratrem suum ad Christum, converted, was eager to
ita et Philippus fratrem suum lead his brother to Christ,
Nathanaelem. Et ideo dicit so too Philip with regard
invenit Philippus to his brother, Nathanael.
Nathanaelem, quem forte And so he says that Philip
quaerebat, sicut Andreas found Nathanael, whom
Petrum quaesierat: quod fuit he probably looked for as
signum perfectae Andrew did for Peter; and
conversionis. Et dixit ei. this was a sign of a
Nathanael interpretatur perfect conversion. The
donum Dei; et quod aliquis word “Nathanael” means
ad Christum convertatur, ex “gift of God”; and it is
dono Dei est. God’s gift if anyone is
converted to Christ.
Annuntiat autem ei omnes He tells him that all the

prophetias et legem prophecies and the law
complementum habere, et have been fulfilled, and
desideria sanctorum patrum that the desires of their
non esse frustrata, sed esse holy forefathers are not
verificata, et quod eorum in vain, but have been
desideriis erat promissum a guaranteed, and that
Deo, iam adimpletum esse. what God has promised
Quem scripsit Moyses in lege was now accomplished.
et prophetis, invenimus We have found the one
Iesum; per quod datur Moses spoke of in the
intelligi quod Nathanael erat law—the prophets too—
satis peritus in lege, et quod Jesus. We understand by
etiam Philippus iam this that Nathanael was
instructus de Christo, voluit fairly learned in the law,
Nathanaelem ex sibi notis, and that Philip, now
scilicet ex lege et prophetis, having learned about
inducere ad Christum, et Christ, wished to lead
ideo dicit quem scripsit Nathanael to Christ
Moyses et cetera. Moyses through the things he
enim de Christo scripsit; himself knew, that is,
infra V, 46: si crederetis from the law and the
Moysi, crederetis forsitan et prophets. So he says, the
mihi: de me enim ille scripsit. one Moses spoke of in
Similiter prophetae de the law. For Moses wrote
Christo scripserunt; Act. c. of Christ: “If you believed
X, 43: huic omnes prophetae Moses, you would
testimonium perhibent. perhaps believe me, for
he wrote of me” (below
5:46). The prophets too
wrote of Christ: “All the
prophets bear witness to
him” (Acts 10:43).
Etiam attende, quod tria 317 Note that Philip says
dicit de Christo Philippus, three things about Christ
legi et prophetis consona. that are in agreement
Primo quidem nomen; unde with the law and the
dixit invenimus Iesum. Et hoc prophets. First, the name:
consonat prophetis: Is. XIX, for he says, We have
v. 20: mittam eis salvatorem found Jesus. And this
etc.; Hab. ult., v. 18: agrees with the prophets:
exultabo in Deo Iesu meo. “I will send them a
Savior” (Is 19:20); “1 will
rejoice in God, my Jesus”
(Hb 3:18).
Secundo vero genus, unde Secondly, the family from

duxit originem humanam which Christ took his
cum dicit filium Ioseph, human origin, when he
scilicet qui erat de domo says, son of Joseph, i.e.,
David et familia. Et quamvis who was of the house
ex eo Christus originem non and family of David. And
duxerit, tamen ex virgine although Jesus did not
duxit, quae erat de eadem derive his origin from
progenie cum Ioseph. Vocat him, yet he did derive it
autem filium Ioseph, quia from the Virgin, who was
eius filius aestimabatur esse, of the same line as
cui scilicet desponsata erat Joseph. He calls him the
mater eius. Unde dicitur Lc. son of Joseph, because
c. III, 23: ut putabatur filius Jesus was considered to
Ioseph. Nec mirum, si be the son of the one to
Philippus vocabat eum filium whom his mother was
Ioseph, cum et mater eius married. So it is said:
divinae incarnationis “the son of Joseph (as
conscia, ipsum eius filium was supposed)” (Lk
diceret; Lc. II, 48, pater 3:23). Nor is it strange
tuus, et ego dolentes that Philip called him the
quaerebamus te. Et si son of Joseph, since his
quidem aliquis filius alicuius own mother, who was
vocatur, quia nutritur ab aware of his divine
ipso, Ioseph multo amplius incarnation, called him
pater Iesu dici poterat, licet his son: “Your father and
secundum carnem pater non I have been looking for
esset: quia et eum you in sorrow” (Lk 2:48).
nutriverat, et sponsus matris Indeed, if one is called
virginis erat. Dicitur autem the son of another
hic a Philippo non tamquam because he is supported
de commixtione Ioseph et by him, this is more
virginis natus esset, sed quia reason why Joseph
sciebat Christum de should be called the
generatione David father of Jesus, even
nasciturum, de cuius domo though he was not so
et familia erat Ioseph, cui according to the flesh: for
desponsata erat Maria. Et he not only supported
hoc etiam consonat him, but was the husband
prophetis: Ierem. XXIII, 5: of his virgin mother.
suscitabo David germen However, Philip calls him
iustum et cetera. the son of Joseph (not as
though he was born from
the union of Joseph and
the Virgin) because he
knew that Christ would
be born from the line of
David; and this was the
house and family of
Joseph, to whom Mary
was married. And this
also is in agreement with
the prophets: “I will raise
up a just branch for
David” (Jer 23:5).
Tertio commemorat patriam, Thirdly, he mentions his

dicens a Nazareth: non quia native land, saying, from
in ea natus esset, immo in Nazareth; not because he
Bethlehem, sed quia in ea had been born there, but
erat nutritus. Quia enim because he was brought
nativitas eius multis erat up there; but he had been
incognita, locus autem ubi born in Bethlehem. Philip
nutritus erat, cognitus erat omits to mention
multis, ideo Philippus Bethlehem but not
Bethlehem tacuit, et posuit Nazareth because, while
Nazareth. Et hoc quidem the birth of Christ was
consonat dictis not known to many, the
prophetarum; nam, Is. XI, 1: place where he was
egredietur virga de radice brought up was. And this
Iesse, et flos, sive also agrees with the
Nazaraeus, secundum aliam prophets: “A shoot will
litteram, de radice eius arise from the root of
ascendet. Jesse, and a flower (or
Nazarene, according to
another version) will rise
up from his roots” (Is I I:
I).
Consequenter cum dicit et 318 Then when he says,

dixit ei Nathanael etc. Nathanael replied, the
ponitur responsio answer of Nathanael is
Nathanaelis: quod quidem given. His answer can be
potest legi et assertive et interpreted as an
interrogative; et utroque assertion or as a
modo eiusmodi responsio question; and in either
congruit verbis Philippi. Si way it is suitable to
enim, secundum quod Philip’s affirmation. If it is
Augustinus vult, legatur taken as an assertion, as
assertive, est sensus: a Augustine does, the
Nazareth potest aliquid boni meaning is: “Some good
esse. Idest, a civitate, tanti can come from
nominis, potest esse quod Nazareth.” In other
aliquid summae gratiae words, from a city with
nobis oriatur, seu aliquis that name it is possible
doctor eximius, qui florem that there come forth to
virtutum et munditiam us some very excellent
sanctitatis nobis praedicet. grace or some
Nazareth enim flos outstanding teacher to
interpretatur. Ex quo datur preach to us about the
intelligi quod Nathanael flower of the virtues and
doctissimus in lege, the purity of sanctity; for
scrutatus Scripturas, “Nazareth” means
praenoscebat quod de “flower.” We can
Nazareth expectandus esset understand from this that
salvator, quod non facile alii Nathanael, being quite
Scribae et Pharisaei learned in the law and a
noverant; et ideo, cum student of the Scriptures,
Philippus diceret invenimus knew that the Savior was
Iesum a Nazareth, erectus in expected to come from
spem, respondit: vere a Nazareth—something
Nazareth potest esse et that was not so clear
cetera. even to the Scribes and
Pharisees. And so when
Philip said, We have
found Jesus from
Nazareth, his hopes were
lifted and he answered:
“Indeed, some good can
come from Nazareth.”
Si vero legatur, secundum But if we take his answer

Chrysostomum, as a question, as
interrogative, tunc est Chrysostom does, then
sensus: a Nazareth potest the sense is: From
aliquid boni esse? Quasi Nazareth! What good can
dicat: omnia alia quae dicis come from that place?
credibilia videntur esse, quia As if to say: Everything
et nomen et genus prophetis else you say seems
consonat, sed hoc quod credible, because his
dicis a Nazareth, non videtur name and his lineage are
possibile. Nathanael enim consistent with the
habuerat per Scripturas, prophecies, but your
quod a Bethlehem oportet statement that he is from
Christum venire, secundum Nazareth does not seem
illud Matth. II, 6: et tu, possible. For Nathanael
Bethlehem terra Iuda, understood from the
nequaquam minima es in Scriptures that the Christ
principibus Iuda: ex te enim was to come from
exiet dux qui regat populum Bethlehem, according to:
meum Israel. Et ideo, non “And you, Bethlehem,
inveniens convenire land of Judah, are not the
enunciationem Philippi cum least among the princes
prophetica praedicatione, of Judah: for out of you a
prudenter et mansuete de ruler will come forth, who
veritate dicti interrogat a will rule my people
Nazareth potest aliquid boni Israel,” as we read in
esse? Matthew (2:6). And so,
not finding Philip’s
statement in agreement
with the prophecy, he
prudently and moderately
inquires about its truth,
What good can come
from that place?
Consequenter ponitur 319 Then Philip’s advice

admonitio Philippi: dixit ei is given, Come and see.
Philippus: veni et vide; quae And this advice suits
quidem admonitio utrique either interpretation of
responsioni Nathanaelis Nathanael’s answer. To
convenit. Assertive quidem, the assertive
ut dicatur: tu dicis quod a interpretation it is as
Nazareth potest aliquid boni though he says: You say
esse, sed ego dico, quod that something good can
illud bonum quod tibi come from Nazareth, but
annuntio, tantum et tam I say that the good I
magnificum est quod ego state to you is of such a
exprimere non valeo; et ideo nature and so marvelous
veni, et vide. Interrogative that I am unable to
autem legitur sic. Tu express it in words, so
admirando dicis: a Nazareth Come and see. To the
potest aliquid boni esse? interpretation that makes
Reputans hoc esse it a question, it as as
impossibile secundum though he says: You
Scripturas; sed si experiri wonder and say: What
volueris quae ego expertus good can come from that
sum, intelliges vera esse place?, thinking that this
quae dico; et ideo veni, et is impossible according
vide. to the Scriptures. But if
you are willing to
experience what I
experienced, you will
understand that what I
say is true, so Come and
see.
Trahit quidem Philippus Then, not discouraged by

Nathanaelem ad Christum, his questions, Philip
eius interrogationibus non brings Nathanael to
fractus, qui scit de reliquo Christ. He knew that he
eum non contradicturum, si would no longer argue
verba et doctrinam Christi with him if he tasted the
gustaverit: et in hoc words and teaching of
Philippus Christum secutus Christ. And in this, Philip
est, qui superius was imitating Christ who
interrogantibus eum de earlier answered those
habitaculo, respondit: venite, who had asked about the
et videte. Ps. XXXIII, 6: place where he lived:
accedite ad eum, et “Come and see ... “Come
illuminamini. to him, and be
enlightened” (Ps 33:6).
Consequenter cum dicit vidit 320 Then when he says,

Iesus Nathanaelem, ponitur When Jesus saw
consummatio fructus per Nathanael, the
Christum. Sciendum autem, consummation of this
quod aliqui dupliciter fruit by Christ is
convertuntur ad Christum: described. We should
quidam per miracula visa, et note that there are two
experta in se, sive in aliis; ways in which men are
quidam vero per spirationes converted to Christ: some
internas, et per prophetiam by miracles they have
et praenoscentiam seen and things
occultorum futurorum. Sed experienced in
efficacior est modus per themselves or in others;
prophetias et others are converted
praenoscentiam futurorum through internal insights,
converti, quam per miracula. through prophecy and
Ipsi enim Daemones, et the foreknowledge of
aliqui homines eorum what is hidden in the
auxilio, aliqua mira future. The second way is
praetendere possunt: sed more efficacious than the
futura praedicere solius first: for devils and
divinae virtutis opus est; Is. certain men who receive
XLI, 23: ventura quoque their help can simulate
annuntiate, et dicemus quod marvels; but to predict
dii estis; I Cor. c. XIV, 22: the future can only be
prophetiae datae sunt done by divine power.
fidelibus. Et inde est quod “Tell us what is to come,
dominus non per miracula, and we will say that you
sed per praenuntiationem are gods” (Is 41:23);
occultorum Nathanaelem ad “Prophecies are for those
fidem trahit; et ideo dicit de who believe.” And so our
eo ecce vere Israelita, in quo Lord draws Nathanael to
dolus non est. the faith not by miracles
but by making known
things which are hidden.
And so he says of him,
Here is a true Israelite,
in whom there is no
guile.
Ubi tria occulta ei insinuat, 321 Christ mentions

scilicet occulta praesentia, three hidden matters:
quae sunt in corde, things hidden in the
praeterita facta, et futura present, in the heart;
caelestia: quae quidem tria past facts; and future
scire, divinum est, non heavenly matters. To
humanum opus. know these three things
is not a human but a
divine achievement.
Occulta quidem praesentia He mentions things

insinuat ei, cum dicit ecce hidden in the present
vere Israelita, in quo dolus when he says, Here is a
non est: ubi quidem primo true Israelite, in whom
ponitur Christi there is no guile. Here we
praenuntiatio; secundo vero have, first, the prior
Nathanaelis inquisitio, ibi revelation of Christ;
unde me nosti? secondly, Nathanael’s
question, How do you
know me?
Dicit ergo circa primum vidit 322 First he says, When

Iesus Nathanaelem Jesus saw Nathanael
venientem ad se, quasi dicat: coming toward him. As if
antequam ad ipsum to say: Before Nathanael
perveniret, dixit de eo: ecce reached him, Jesus said,
vere Israelita et cetera. Dixit Here is a true Israelite.
autem hoc de eo antequam He said this about him
ad ipsum perveniret, quia si before he came to him,
dixisset hoc postquam ad because had he said it
Iesum pervenisset, potuisset after he came, Nathanael
credere Nathanael quod hoc might have believed that
Iesus audivisset a Philippo. Jesus had heard it from
Philip.
Dixit autem ecce vere Christ said, Here is a true

Israelita, in quo dolus non Israelite, in whom there
est: Israel autem duas is no guile. Now “Israel”
interpretationes habet. Uno has two meanings. One of
enim modo interpretatur these, as the Gloss says,
rectissimus; Is. XLIV, 2: noli is “most righteous”.—“Do
timere, serve meus not fear, my most
rectissime, quem elegi, ubi righteous servant, whom
dicit Glossa, quod Israel I have chosen” (Is 44:2).
interpretatur rectissimus. Its second meaning is
Alio modo Israel “the man who sees God.”
interpretatur vir videns And according to each
Deum. Et secundum meaning Nathanael is a
utrumque, Nathanael est true Israelite. For since
vere Israelita: quia enim ille one in whom there is no
dicitur rectus in quo non est guile is called righteous,
dolus, ideo dicitur vere Nathanael is said to be a
Israelita, in quo dolus non true Israelite, in whom
est; quasi dicat: vere there is no guile. As if to
repraesentas genus tuum, say: You truly represent
quia tu es rectus et sine your race because you
dolo. Quia vero per are righteous and without
munditiam et simplicitatem guile. Further, because
homo Deum videt, ideo dixit man sees God through
vere Israelita; idest, tu es vir cleanness of heart and
vere videns Deum, quia tu es simplicity, Christ said, a
simplex et sine dolo. true Israelite, i.e., you
are a man who truly sees
God because you are
simple and without guile.
Dixit autem in quo dolus non Further, he said, in whom

est, ne credatur quod there is no guile, so that
malitiose dixerit: a Nazareth we do not think that it
potest aliquid boni esse? was with malice that
Quasi interrogans. Nathanael asked: What
good can come from that
place?
Augustinus autem aliter 323 Augustine has a

exponit. Manifestum est different explanation of
enim quod omnes sub this passage. It is clear
peccato nascuntur. Illi ergo that all are born under
dicuntur dolosi qui sin. Now those who have
peccatum habentes in corde, sin in their hearts but
exterius fingunt se iustos; outwardly pretend to be
qui vero peccator est, et se just are called guileful.
peccatorem confitetur, non But a sinner who admits
est dolosus. Dixit ergo ecce that he is a sinner is not
vere Israelita, in quo dolus guileful. So Christ said,
non est, non quod peccatum Here is a true Israelite,
non haberet, non quod illi in whom there is no
medicus necessarius non guile, not because
esset, quia nemo sic natus Nathanael was without
est ut nullo medico indigeat; sin, or because he had no
sed in eo confessionem need of a physician, for
peccati laudavit. no one is born in such a
way as not to need a
physician; but he was
praised by Christ
because he admitted his
sins.

unde me nosti? Ponitur How do you know me?,
Nathanaelis inquisitio. we have Nathanael’s
Admirans enim Nathanael question. For Nathanael,
virtutem Dei in occultorum in wonder at the divine
manifestatione, quia hoc power in this revelation
solius Dei est: Ier. XVII, 9, of what is hidden,
pravum est cor hominis, et because this can only be
inscrutabile, et quis from God—“The heart is
cognoscet illud? Ego depraved and
dominus scrutans cor et inscrutable, and who is
probans renes; et I Reg. XVI, able to know it? I the
7, homines vident ea quae Lord search the heart and
parent, Deus autem intuetur probe the loins” (Jer
cor, ideo quaerit unde me 17:9); “Man sees the
nosti? In quo commendatur appearances, but the
Nathanaelis humilitas: quia Lord sees the heart” (I
licet laudaretur, non est Sin 16:7)—asks, How do
elatus; sed laudem propriam you know me? Here we
suspectam habuit: contra can recognize
quod dicitur Is. III, 12: Nathanael’s humility,
popule meus, qui beatum te because, although he had
dicunt, ipsi te decipiunt. been praised, he did not
become elated, but held
this praise of himself
suspect. “My people, who
call you blessed, they are
deceiving you” (Is 3:12).
Praeterita vero absentia 325 Then he touches on

insinuat, cum dicit matters in the past,
priusquam te Philippus saying, Before Philip
vocaret, cum esses sub ficu, called you, I saw you
vidi te, ubi primo ponitur when you were sitting
denuntiatio Christi; secundo under the fig tree. First
confessio Nathanaelis, ibi we have the statement of
respondit et Nathanael, et Christ; secondly, the
ait: Rabbi, tu es filius Dei. confession of Nathanael.
Circa primum sciendum est, 326 As to the first, we

quod Nathanael posset should note that
habere duplicem Nathanael might have
suspicionem de Christo: had two misgivings about
unam quod dixisset Christus Christ. One, that Christ
praemissa, volens ei blandiri said this in order to win
et ad amicitiam suam his friendship by flattery;
trahere; aliam quod ea quae the other, that Christ had
dixit supra, ab alio learned what he knew
cognovisset. Ut ergo from others. So, to
suspicionem auferat, et ad remove Nathanael’s
altiora erigat, illa occulta suspicions and raise him
manifestat quae nullus nisi to higher things, Christ
divinitus scire potuisset, ea reveals certain hidden
videlicet quae statim circa matters that no one could
ipsum Nathanaelem know except in a divine
contigerant: et hoc est quod way, that is, things that
dicit priusquam te Philippus related only to Nathanael.
vocaret, cum esses sub ficu, He refers to these when
vidi te. Ad litteram enim, sub he says, Before Philip
arbore fici fuerat Nathanael, called you, I saw you
cum a Philippo vocaretur: when you were sitting
quod Christus virtute under the fig tree. In the
divinitatis coniecerat, quia, literal sense, this means
ut dicitur Eccli. XXIII, v. 28, that Nathanael was under
oculi domini multo lucidiores a fig tree when he was
super solem. called by Philip—which
Christ knew by divine
power, for “The eyes of
the Lord are far brighter
than the sun” (Sir 23:28).
Mystice autem per ficum In the mystical sense, the

designatur peccatum: tum fig tree signifies sin: both
quia invenimus arborem fici because we find a fig
maledictam folia sola tree, bearing only leaves
habentem, et non fructum, but no fruit, being
Matth. XXI, 19 quod factum cursed, as a symbol of sin
est in figuram peccati; tum (Mt 11:19); and because
quia Adam et Eva cum Adam and Eve, after they
peccassent, de foliis ficus had sinned, made clothes
perizomata fecerunt. Dicit from fig leaves. So he
ergo cum esses sub ficu, says here, when you were
idest, sub umbra peccati sitting under the fig tree,
antequam ad gratiam i.e., under the shadow of
vocatus esses, ego vidi te, sin, before you were
scilicet oculo misericordiae: called to grace, I saw
nam ipsa Dei praedestinatio you, with the eye of
oculo pietatis respicit mercy; for God’s
praedestinatos sub peccatis predestination looks
viventes; Eph. I, 4: elegit nos upon the predestined,
ante mundi constitutionem who are living under sin,
et cetera. Et de isto oculo with an eye of pity, for as
loquitur hic. Vidi te, Ephesians (1:4) says, “
praedestinando scilicet ab He chose us before the
aeterno. foundation of the world.”
And he speaks of this eye
here: I saw you, by
predestining you from
eternity.
Vel, secundum Gregorium, Or, the meaning is,

cum esses sub ficu, idest sub according to Gregory: I
umbra legis, vidi te. Hebr. X, saw you when you were
v. 1: umbram habens lex sitting under the fig tree,
futurorum bonorum et i.e., under the shadow of
cetera. the law. “The law has
only a shadow of the
good things to come”
(Heb 10:1).
Statim autem Nathanael ad 327 Hearing this,

hoc conversus, et virtutem Nathanael is immediately
divinitatis in Christo converted, and, seeing
cognoscens, in vocem the power of the divinity
confessionis et laudem in Christ, breaks out in
prorumpit, dicens Rabbi, tu words of conversion and
es filius Dei. Ubi tria praise, saying, Rabbi, you
considerat de Christo, are the Son of God. Here
scilicet plenitudinem he considers three things
scientiae, cum dicit Rabbi, about Christ. First, the
quod interpretatur magister; fullness of his knowledge,
ac si dicat, perfectus es in when he says, Rabbi,
scientia. Iam praesentiebat which is translated as
quod dicitur Matth. XXIII, Teacher. As if to say: You
10: magister vester unus est, are perfect in knowledge.
Christus. Secundo For he had already
excellentiam singularis realized what is said in
gratiae, cum dicit tu es filius Matthew (23:10): “You
Dei. Nam quod homo sit have one Teacher, the
filius Dei per adoptionem, Christ.” Secondly, the
non est nisi gratiae; et etiam excellence of his singular
esse filium Dei per unionem, grace, when he says, you
quod est proprium homini are the Son of God. For it
Christo, per gratiam est: is due to grace alone that
quia non ex aliquibus one becomes a son of
praecedentibus meritis, sed God by adoption. And it is
per gratiam unionis homo also through grace that
ille est filius Dei. Tertio vero one is a son of God
immensitatem potentiae, through union; and this is
cum dicit tu es rex Israel, exclusive to the man
idest expectatus ab Israel in Christ, because that man
regem et defensorem; Dan. is the Son of God not due
VII, 14: potestas eius, to any preceding merit,
potestas aeterna et cetera. but through the grace of
union. Thirdly, he
considers the greatness
of his power when he
says, you are the King of
Israel, i.e., awaited by
Israel as its king and
defender: “His power is
everlasting” (Dn 7:14).
Sed circa hoc insurgit 328 A question comes up

quaestio, secundum at this point, according to
Chrysostomum. Cum Petrus, Chrysostom. For since
qui post multa miracula, Peter, who after many
post magnam doctrinam miracles and much
confessus fuit quod hic teaching, confessed what
confitetur Nathanael de Nathanael confesses here
Christo, tu es filius Dei, about Christ, that is, you
meruit beatificari, dicente are the Son of God,
domino: beatus es, Simon merited a blessing, as the
Bariona etc., cur et Lord said: “Blessed are
Nathanael, qui simile dixerat you, Simon Bar-Jona” (Mt
ante visa miracula et 16:17), why not the same
perceptam doctrinam, for Nathanael, who said
beatificatus non fuit? Et ad the same thing before
hoc respondet seeing any miracles or
Chrysostomus, quod huius receiving any teaching?
causa est, quia licet eadem Chrysostom answers that
verba Nathanael et Petrus the reason for this is that
protulerint, non tamen fuit even though Nathanael
eadem intentio utriusque. and Peter spoke the same
Petrus quidem confessus words, the meaning of
fuit, Christum esse filium Dei the two was not the
verum per naturam, ut same. For Peter
scilicet sic esset homo quod acknowledged that Christ
tamen esset verus Deus; hic was the true Son of God
autem confessus est esse by nature, i.e., he was
filium Dei per adoptionem, man, and yet truly God;
secundum illud Ps. LXXXI, 6: but Nathanael
ego dixi: dii estis, et filii acknowledged that Christ
excelsi omnes. Et hoc patet was the Son of God by
per verba sequentia. Si enim means of adoption, in the
intellexisset eum esse filium sense of, “I said: You are
Dei per naturam, non gods, and all of you the
dixisset, tu es rex Israel sons of the Most
solum, sed totius mundi. High”(Ps 81:6). This is
Hoc etiam patet, quia ad clear from what
fidem Petri Christus nihil Nathanael said next: for if
addidit, quasi perfectam he had understood that
existentem, sed Ecclesiam Christ was the Son of
dixit se fabricaturum esse in God by nature, he would
confessione illius. Sed not have said, you are the
Nathanaelem, quasi maiori King of Israel, but “of the
parte suae confessionis whole world.” It is also
deficiente, elevat ad maiora, clear from the fact that
scilicet ad cognitionem Christ added nothing to
divinitatis suae. the faith of Peter, since it
was perfect, but stated
that he would build the
Church on that
profession. But he raises
Nathanael to greater
things, since the greater
part of his profession was
deficient; to greater
things, i.e., to a
knowledge of his divinity.
Unde dixit maius his videbis. 329 And so he said, You

Ubi notatur tertium, scilicet will see greater things
insinuatio futurorum, quasi than this. Here we have,
dicat: quia dixi tibi thirdly, an allusion to the
praeterita, credis me esse future. As if to say:
filium Dei per adoptionem et Because I have revealed
regem Israel tantum, sed the past to you, you
ducam te ad maiorem believe that I am the Son
cognitionem, ut scilicet of God only by adoption,
credas me filium Dei and the King of Israel;
naturalem et regem omnium but I will bring you to
saeculorum. Et ideo sequitur greater knowledge, so
amen, amen dico vobis, that you may believe that
videbitis caelum apertum, et I am the natural Son of
Angelos Dei ascendentes et God, and the King of all
descendentes super filium ages. And accordingly he
hominis, ubi, secundum says, Amen, amen, I say
Chrysostomum, vult probare to you, you will see the
dominus quod sit verus Dei heavens opened and the
filius, et Deus. Angelorum angels of God ascending
enim est proprium and descending on the
ministrare, et subiici, Ps. CII: Son of Man. By this,
benedicite domino, omnes according to Chrysostom,
Angeli eius, ministri eius, qui the Lord wishes to prove
facitis voluntatem eius. Cum that he is the true Son of
ergo videbitis quod Angeli God, and God. For the
administrabunt mihi, certum peculiar task of angels is
erit vobis quod sum verus to minister and be
filius Dei. Hebr. c. I, 6: cum subject: “Bless the Lord,
introducit primogenitum in all of you, his angels, his
orbem terrae, dicit: et ministers, who do his
adorent eum omnes Angeli will” (Ps 102:20). So
Dei. when you see angels
minister to me, you will
be certain that I am the
true Son of God. “When
he leads his First-
Begotten into the world,
he says: ‘Let all the
angels of God adore
him’” (Heb 1:6).
Sed quando viderunt hoc 330 When did the

apostoli? Viderunt, inquam, apostles see this? They
in passione, quando Angelus saw it, I say, during the
affuit illi, confortans eum, passion, when an angel
Lc. XXII, 43. Item in stood by to comfort
resurrectione, quando Christ (Lk 22:13); again,
apostoli invenerunt duos at the resurrection, when
Angelos stantes supra the apostles found two
sepulcrum. Similiter in angels who were
ascensione, quando dixerunt standing over the tomb.
apostolis, Act. I, 11: viri Again, at the ascension,
Galilaei, quid admiramini when the angels said to
aspicientes in caelum? Hic the apostles: “Men of
Iesus qui assumptus est a Galilee, why are you
vobis in caelum, sic veniet standing here looking up
quemadmodum vidistis eum to heaven? This Jesus,
euntem in caelum. who has been taken from
you into heaven, will
come in the same way as
you have seen him going
into heaven” (Acts 1:11 ).
Et quia de praeteritis ei vera 331 Because Christ

iam dixerat, magis ei spoke the truth about the
credibile fuit quod past, it was easier for
praenuntiat de futuro, cum Nathanael to believe what
dicit videbitis. Evidens enim he foretells about the
argumentum est vera dicere future, saying, you will
de futuris qui de occultis see. For one who has
praeteritis manifestaverat revealed the truth about
veritatem. Dicit autem super things hidden in the past,
filium hominis Angelos has an evident argument
ascendentes et that what he is saying
descendentes, quia about the future is true.
secundum carnem mortalem He says, the angels of
paulo minoratus est ab God ascending and
Angelis: et intantum Angeli descending on the Son
ascendunt et descendunt of Man, because, in his
super eum; sed secundum mortal flesh, he was a
quod est filius Dei, ipse little less than the angels;
super Angelos est, ut dictum and from this point of
est. view, angels ascend and
descend upon him. But
insofar as he is the Son
of God, he is above the
angels, as was said.
Secundum Augustinum 332 According to

autem, pulchre in verbis Augustine, Christ is here
praedictis suam divinitatem revealing his divinity in a
manifestat. Legitur enim beautiful way. For it is
Gen. XXVIII, 12 quod Iacob recorded that Jacob
vidit scalam, et Angelos dreamed of a ladder,
ascendentes et standing on the ground,
descendentes. Et Iacob with “the angels of God
intelligens quid vidit, ascending and
surgens unxit lapidem oleo, descending on it” (Gn
et deinde dixit: vere dominus 28:16). Then Jacob arose
est in loco isto. Lapis iste and poured oil on a stone
Christus est, quem and said, “Truly, the Lord
reprobaverunt aedificantes; is in this place” (Gn
et est unctus oleo invisibili 28:16). Now that stone is
spiritus sancti; sed erigitur Christ, whom the builders
in titulum, quia futurus erat rejected; and the invisible
Ecclesiae fundamentum, ut oil of the Holy Spirit was
dicitur I ad Cor. c. III, 11: poured on him. He is set
fundamentum aliud nemo up as a pillar, because he
potest ponere praeter id was to be the foundation
quod positum est. Angeli of the Church: “No one
autem ascendunt et can lay another
descendunt, inquantum ei foundation except that
adsunt obsequendo et which has been laid” (1
ministrando. Dixit ergo: Cor 3:11). The angels are
amen, amen dico vobis, ascending and
videbitis caelum apertum descending inasmuch as
etc., quasi dicat: quia vere they are ministering and
Israelita es, attende ad id serving before him. So he
quod Israel vidit, ut scilicet said, Amen, amen, I say
credas me illum esse qui est to you, you will see the
significatus per unctum heavens opened, and so
lapidem a Iacob: nam tu forth, as if to say:
etiam videbis super ipsum Because you are truly an
Angelos ascendentes et Israelite, give heed to
descendentes. what Israel saw, so that
you many believe that I
am the one signified by
the stone anointed by
Jacob, for you also will
see angels ascending and
descending upon him
[viz. Jesus].
Vel Angeli sunt 333 Or, the angels are,

praedicatores, secundum according to Augustine,
Augustinum, praedicantes the preachers of Christ:
Christum; Is. XVIII, 2: ite “Go, swift angels, to a
veloces Angeli ad gentem nation rent and torn to
convulsam et dilaceratam; pieces,” as it says in
qui quidem ascendunt per Isaiah (18:2). They
contemplationem, sicut ascend through
Paulus ascenderat usque ad contemplation, just as
tertium caelum, ut dicitur II Paul had ascended even
Cor. c. XII, 2, et descendunt to the third heaven (2 Cor
per proximorum eruditionem 12:2); and they descend
super filium hominis, idest ad by instructing their
honorem Christi: quia, ut neighbor. On the Son of
dicitur II Cor. IV, v. 5: non Man, i.e., for the honor of
enim praedicamus nos ipsos, Christ, because “what we
sed Iesum Christum preach is not ourselves,
dominum nostrum. Sed ut but Jesus Christ” (2 Cor
ascendant et descendant, 4:5). In order that they
apertum est caelum, quia might ascend and
oportet quod gratia caelestis descend, the heavens
detur praedicatoribus, ut were opened, because
ascendant et descendant. heavenly graces must be
Ps. LXVII, 9: caeli given to preachers if they
distillaverunt etc.; Apoc. IV, are to ascend and
v. 1: postea vidi caelum descend. “The heavens
apertum et cetera. broke at the presence of
God” (Ps 67:9); “1 saw
the heavens open” (Rv
4:1 ).
Ratio autem quare 334 Now the reason why

Nathanael non eligitur in Nathanael was not
apostolum post tantam fidei chosen to be an apostle
confessionem, ista est, quia after such a profession of
Christus noluit quod mundi faith is that Christ did not
conversio ad fidem want the conversion of
ascriberetur humanae the world to the faith to
sapientiae, sed solum be attributed to human
potentiae Dei. Et ideo non wisdom, but solely to the
voluit Nathanaelem in lege power of God. And so he
peritissimum, in apostolum did not choose Nathanael
eligere; sed simplices et as an apostle, since he
indoctos elegit; ut dicitur I was very learned in the
Cor. I, 26: non multi law; he rather chose
sapientes (...) sed quae simple and uneducated
stulta sunt mundi elegit men. “Not many of you
Deus. are learned,” and “God
chose the simple of the
world” (1 Cor 1:26).

Vangelo Di Giovanni

Cargado por

Información del documento

Título original

Derechos de autor

Formatos disponibles

Compartir este documento

Compartir o incrustar documentos

Opciones para compartir

¿Le pareció útil este documento?

¿Este contenido es inapropiado?

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

Vangelo Di Giovanni

Cargado por

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

1

Evangelista Ioannes, sicut 23 John the Evangelist, as

Quia vero in unaquaque re Because there are two

Circa primum autem 24 With respect to the ﬁrst

Ad intellectum autem huius 25 To understand the name

In intellectu autem nostro Now there are three things

Intellectus autem duo Now the intellect forms two

Secundo, ex his quae dicta Secondly, from what has

Patet ergo quod in qualibet It is clear then that it is

Natura autem intellectualis However, intellectual

Sciendum est autem, quod 26 We should note that this

Secunda vero diﬀerentia 27 The second diﬀerence

Tertia diﬀerentia est, quod 28 The third diﬀerence is

Ex praemissis etiam patet 29 From the above it is

Patet etiam quod cum in It is also clear that since in

Sic ergo patet primum, So now the ﬁrst point is

Circa hoc autem quatuor 30 There are four

Ad hoc autem est duplex There are two answers to

Alia est, quia per ﬁlium The other answer is that

Secunda quaestio est 31 The second question is

Ad hoc etiam dupliciter There are also two answers

Tertia quaestio est 32 The third question is

Respondeo. Dicendum I answer that “notion”

Quarta quaestio est 33 The fourth question is

Respondeo. Dicendum, I answer that although

et quia Graeci, quando And because the Greeks,

Dicendum est igitur quod 35 We should note that this

Et haec est expositio And this is the explanation

Secundo modo potest 36 In a second way

Tertio modo potest accipi 37 In a third way,

Per hoc enim quod dicitur The phrase In the

Sic igitur secundum 38 And thus the ﬁrst

Considerandum est etiam 39 Now we should consider

Sed quantum ad rationem But so far as concerns the

Est etiam considerandum 40 We should also note

Sed potest aliquis 41 Someone may ask how

Ad quod dicendum est I answer that there are

Nihil autem horum trium in Yet none of these three is

Huius aliqualis similitudo An example of this, to a

et hoc est quod dicitur in The Council of Ephesus

Nominamus ergo ﬁlium 42 And so we give the Son

Deinde dicit et verbum erat 43 Then the Evangelist

Sciendum est ergo in 44 At the outset, we

Sciendum est autem circa 45 Here we should note

Et quia haec praepositio in, The preposition “in,” as

Sciendum est autem quod 46 We should note further

Secundo signiﬁcat Secondly, it signiﬁes

Secundum autem istas Considering these four

Secunda quaestio ad idem, 48 The second objection

Tertia quaestio est ad 49 The third objection,

Quarta quaestio ad idem 50 The fourth objection,

Sic ergo per hanc 51 And so, and the Word

Notandum autem, 52 We should also note,

Deinde dicit et Deus erat 53 Then he says, and the

Sed cum prius 54 But since one should

Ad hanc autem Origen answers this by

Sciendum est autem quod 55 This clause also enables

Sed ista quaestio satis per According to Hilary and

Alia quaestio insurgit ex 56 The other question

Nota etiam specialem 57 Note also the special

Sciendum est etiam quod 58 We should note that

Quod autem non sit verum, 59 Chrysostom proves that

Ratio autem quare Chrysostom gives us the