Commentary on the Gospel of John

“The Evangelist above conveyed the power of the Word by which it produced all things in being; here he conveys its power as it stands in relation to men, saying that this Word is the light of men. Here he first introduces to us a certain light, when he says "and the life was the light of men"; second, the light's irradiation, when he says "and the light shines in the darkness"; third, the participation in the light, when he says "and the darkness did not comprehend it." Now the whole can be expounded in two ways: in one way according to the influx of natural knowledge, in another way according to the communication of grace. He says, then, as to the first, that "the life was the light of men." Here it must first be considered that, according to Augustine and many others, the name "light" is said more properly of spiritual things than of sensible things. Ambrose, however, holds that "splendor" is said of God metaphorically. But no great weight need be put on this: for of whatever thing the name "light" is said, it refers to manifestation, whether that manifestation be in intelligible things or in sensible things. If, then, intelligible and sensible manifestation are compared, by nature light is found first in spiritual things; but as regards us, who impose names on things from the properties known to us, it is found first in sensible things, because we first imposed this name to signify sensible light rather than intelligible light — although in its power it belongs first and more truly to spiritual things than to sensible ones. For the understanding of what is said, "and the life was the light of men," it must be known that there are many grades of life. For some things live, but without light, because they have no knowledge, as plants do; whence their life is not light. Others live and know; yet their knowledge, since it is only sense, is only of particular and material things, as in the brutes; and so these have both life and a certain light, but not "the light of men," who live and know not only true things themselves but the very rational ground of truth, as do rational creatures, to whom is manifested not only this or that but truth itself, which is manifestable and is that which manifests all things. And therefore the Evangelist, speaking of the Word, says it is not only life but also light, lest you understand life without knowing; and "of men," lest you suppose only sensible knowledge, such as is in the brutes. But why did he say "of men," since it is also the light of the angels? To this there is a twofold answer. For Chrysostom says that the Evangelist intended in this Gospel to hand down to us knowledge of the Word insofar as it is ordered to the salvation of men; and so, according to his intention, he refers it to men rather than to angels. But Origen says that participation in this light pertains to men insofar as they are of a rational nature; and so the Evangelist, saying "was the light of men," wished it to be understood of every rational nature. In this too is shown the perfection and dignity of this life, because it is intellectual, or rational. For since those things are called living which in some way move themselves, those are said to have perfect life which move themselves perfectly; but to move oneself perfectly and properly belongs, among the lower creatures, to man alone. For although other things are moved of themselves by some intrinsic principle, that principle nevertheless is not disposed toward opposites; and so they are moved of necessity, and not freely. Things moved by such a principle are therefore acted upon more than they act. But man, since he is master of his own act, freely moves himself to all that he wills; and so man has perfect life, and likewise every intellectual nature. The life of the Word, therefore, which is the light of men, is perfect life. A fitting order, too, is observed in the foregoing words: for in the natural order of things being is found first, and this the Evangelist first conveyed, saying "in the beginning was the Word"; second, to live, and this is what follows, "in him was life"; third, to understand, and this he added next, "the life was the light of men." Whence, according to Origen, he fittingly attributes light to life, because light can be attributed only to the living. It is to be noted, however, that light can be compared to the living in two ways: either as an object, or as participated — as is clear in exterior sight. For the eye knows exterior light as an object, but in order to see it, it must participate in some interior light by which the eye is fitted and disposed to see the exterior light. So then, what he here says, "and the life was the light of men," can be understood in two ways. It is called "the light of men" by way of object, as it were, as discernible by men alone: because the rational creature alone can behold it, since it alone is capable of the divine vision (Job 35:11: "He teaches us above the beasts of the earth, and instructs us above the birds of the air"); for although other animals know some things that are true, man alone knows the very rational ground of truth. It can also be called "the light of men" as participated. For we could never behold the Word itself and the Light itself except through a participation in it that is in man himself, namely the higher part of our soul, the intellective light, of which it is said in Psalm 4:7: "The light of your countenance is sealed upon us" — that is, of your Son, who is your face, by which you are made manifest. The Evangelist above introduced a certain light; now he treats of its irradiation when he says "the light shines in the darkness." This can be expounded in two ways, according to the twofold sense of "darkness." First, let us take "darkness" as the natural defect of the created mind. For the mind stands to that light of which the Evangelist here speaks as the air stands to the light of the sun: because, although the air is capable of the sun's light, nevertheless, considered in itself, it is darkness. And in this sense the meaning is: "the light" — that is, that life which is the light of men — "shines in the darkness," namely in created souls and minds, always irradiating all. Job 3:23: "To the man whose light is hidden." "But the darkness did not comprehend it" — that is, could not enclose it. For that is said to be comprehended whose bounds are enclosed and beheld. Because, as Augustine says, to reach God with the mind is great beatitude, but to comprehend him is impossible. "The darkness, therefore, did not comprehend it." Job 36:26: "Behold, God is great, exceeding our knowledge"; Jeremiah 32:19: "Great in counsel and incomprehensible in thought." And this exposition is found in that homily which begins, "The spiritual voice of the eagle." In another way it can be expounded by taking "darkness," according to Augustine, for the natural foolishness of men, which is called darkness. Ecclesiastes 2:13: "I saw that wisdom excels folly as much as light differs from darkness." From this, then, is anyone foolish: that he is deprived of the light of divine wisdom. As, therefore, the minds of the wise are lucid by participation in that divine light and wisdom, so by its privation they are darkness. That some, then, are full of darkness is not from any defect of that light; for, so far as it is of itself, it "shines in the darkness" and irradiates all; but the foolish are deprived of that light because "the darkness did not comprehend it" — that is, did not apprehend it, their foolishness being unable to attain participation in it. Job 36:32: "From the monstrous" — that is, the proud — "he hides the light" — that is, the light of wisdom. Baruch 3:23: "They did not know the way of wisdom, nor did they remember its paths." Yet although some minds are dark — that is, deprived of savory and lucid wisdom — none is so dark that it does not participate in something of the divine light. Because whatever of truth is known by anyone, the whole is from participation in that light which shines in the darkness; for every truth, by whomever it is spoken, is from the Holy Spirit. And yet "the darkness" — that is, dark men — "did not comprehend it" according to truth. So this clause is expounded according to Origen and according to Augustine. In another way, the passage from "and the life was the light of men" is expounded according to the inflowing of grace, by which we are irradiated through Christ; and it is connected thus to what precedes. Above, the Evangelist treated of the creation of things through the Word; here he treats of the restoration of the rational creature accomplished through Christ, saying: "and the life" — of the Word — "was the light of men," in common, and not of the Jews only; because the Son of God came into the world to assume flesh, that he might enlighten all men with grace and truth. John 18:37: "For this I was born, and for this I came, that I might bear witness to the truth." Likewise below, 9:5: "As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world." And so he does not say "the light of the Jews," because although once he was known only in Judea, afterward he became known to the whole world; Isaiah 49:6: "I have given you for a light to the nations, that you may be salvation to the world unto the end of the earth." Fittingly, too, he joins light and life, saying "and the life was the light of men," to show that these two — light and life — have come to us through Christ: life through participation in grace ("grace and truth came through Jesus Christ," below); light through the knowledge of truth and wisdom. Now what he says, "the light shines in the darkness," can in this exposition be taken in three ways, according as we can take "darkness" in three ways. In one way, for punishment: for any sadness and affliction of heart can be called a certain darkness, as any joy is called light; Micah 7:8: "When I sit in darkness and in affliction, the Lord is my light" — that is, my joy and consolation. Origen says, then: in this sense "the light shines in the darkness," that is, Christ coming into the world and having a passible body without sin, "in the likeness of flesh," according to Romans 8:3. The light in the flesh — namely, the flesh of Christ, insofar as it has in itself the likeness of sinful flesh — is called darkness. As if to say: the light, that is, the Word of God veiled about with the darkness of the flesh, shone into the world, according to Ezekiel 32:7: "I will cover the sun with a cloud." Second, taking "darkness" for the demons, according to Ephesians 6:12: "Our struggle is not against flesh and blood only, but against the princes and powers, against the rulers of this darkness of the world." In this sense he says: "the light" — the Son of God — "shines in the darkness," that is, descended into the world where the darkness, the demons, held dominion. Below, 12:31: "The prince of this world shall be cast out." "And the darkness" — the demons — "did not comprehend it," that is, could not obscure him by tempting him, as is clear in Matthew 4. Third, taking "darkness" for the errors or ignorances of which the whole world was full before the coming of Christ, according to what the Apostle says: "you were once darkness." He says, then, that "the light" — the incarnate Word of God — "shines in the darkness," that is, in the men of the world, obscured by the darkness of error and ignorance. Luke 1:79: "To enlighten those who sit in darkness and in the shadow of death"; Isaiah 9:2: "The people who sat in darkness saw a great light." "And the darkness did not comprehend it," that is, did not overcome it. For however much men — obscured by sins, blinded by envy, darkened by pride — fought against Christ, as is clear from the Gospel, by reproaching him, inflicting injuries and insults, and at last killing him, they nevertheless did not comprehend him, that is, did not overcome him by obscuring him, so as to keep his brightness from shining through the whole world. Wisdom 7:29-30: "Compared with the light, she is found before it: for night succeeds it, but malice does not overcome wisdom" — that is, the incarnate Son of God — namely the malice of the Jews and of heretics; because, as it is said in Wisdom 10:12, "she gave him a strong contest, that he might overcome, and might know that wisdom is mightier than all."”

“The Evangelist John, as has been said, principally intends to show the divinity of the incarnate Word; and therefore this Gospel is divided into two parts. For first he intimates Christ's divinity; second he makes it manifest through the things which Christ did in the flesh, and this at the second chapter: "and on the third day." Concerning the first he does two things. First he sets forth Christ's divinity; second he sets down the manner in which Christ's divinity became known to us, there: "and we saw his glory," etc. Concerning the first he does two things. First he treats of the divinity of Christ; second of the incarnation of the Word of God, there: "there was a man sent from God." But because in each thing two things are to be considered, namely being and operation, or its power, therefore first he treats of the being of the Word as to the divine nature; second of its power, or operation, there: "all things were made through him." Concerning the first he does four things. First he shows when the Word was, because "in the beginning was the Word"; second where it was, because "with God"; whence he says, "and the Word was with God"; third what it was, because God; whence he adds, "and the Word was God"; fourth how it was, because "this was in the beginning with God." The first two pertain to the question "whether it is"; but the second two pertain to the question "what it is." Now concerning the first, we must see what this is which is said, "in the beginning was the Word." Here three things concur that must be diligently inquired into, according to the three terms of this sentence. And first, what this is which is said, "Word"; second, what this is which is said, "in the beginning"; third, what this is which is said, "the Word was in the beginning." Now for the understanding of this name "Word," it must be known that, according to the Philosopher, the things which are in the voice are signs of the affections which are in the soul. But it is customary in Scripture that the things signified are named by the names of the signs, as that in 1 Corinthians 10:4: "and the rock was Christ." Now of necessity it is required that that intrinsic thing of our soul, which is signified by our exterior word, be called a word. But whether the name "word" belongs first to the thing uttered by the exterior voice, or to the conception of the mind itself, is of no importance for the present. Yet it is plain that that which is signified by the voice, existing interiorly in the soul, is prior to the word itself uttered by the exterior voice, inasmuch as it exists as its cause. If therefore we wish to know what the interior word of the mind is, let us see what that signifies which is uttered by the exterior voice. Now in our intellect there are three things: namely the very power of the intellect; the species of the thing understood, which is its form, standing to the intellect itself as the species of color stands to the pupil; and, third, the very operation of the intellect, which is to understand. But none of these is signified by the word uttered by the exterior voice. For this name "stone" does not signify the substance of the intellect, because this is not what the one naming intends to say; nor does it signify the species, which is that by which the intellect understands, since this too is not the intention of the one naming; nor does it signify the very act of understanding, since to understand is not an action proceeding outward from the one understanding, but remaining in him. That therefore is properly called the interior word, which the one understanding forms in understanding. Now the intellect forms two things, according to its two operations. For according to its operation which is called the understanding of indivisibles, it forms a definition; but according to its operation by which it composes and divides, it forms an enunciation, or something of this kind. And therefore, that which is thus formed and expressed through the operation of the intellect, whether defining or enunciating, is signified by the exterior voice. Whence the Philosopher says that the notion which a name signifies is the definition. This therefore thus expressed, namely formed in the soul, is called the interior word; and therefore it is compared to the intellect not as that by which the intellect understands, but as that in which it understands; because in this thing expressed and formed it sees the nature of the thing understood. Thus therefore we have the signification of this name "Word." Second, from the things which have been said, we can conceive that a word is always something proceeding from an intellect existing in act. Again, that a word is always the notion and likeness of the thing understood. And if indeed the one understanding and the thing understood are the same, then the word is the notion and likeness of the intellect from which it proceeds; but if the one understanding and the thing understood are different, then the word is not the likeness and notion of the one understanding, but of the thing understood: as the conception which someone has of a stone is the likeness of the stone only, but when the intellect understands itself, then such a word is the likeness and notion of the intellect. And therefore Augustine places the likeness of the Trinity in the soul according as the mind understands itself, but not according as it understands other things. It is clear therefore that in every intellectual nature it is necessary to posit a word: because it belongs to the very notion of understanding that the intellect, in understanding, forms something; and the formation of this is called a word; and therefore in every being that understands one must posit a word. But intellectual nature is threefold, namely human, angelic, and divine: and therefore the word is threefold. Namely the human, of which in Psalm 13:1: "The fool said in his heart: There is no God." There is also the angelic, of which in Zechariah 1:9 and in many places of sacred Scripture it is said: "the Angel said," etc. The third is the divine Word, of which in Genesis 1:5: "God said: Let there be light," etc. When therefore the Evangelist says "in the beginning was the Word," it cannot be understood of the human or angelic word: because each of these words is made, since man and Angel have a beginning and cause of their being and operation; but the word of a man or of an Angel cannot pre-exist them. But of which word the Evangelist understood, he declares by this, that he says this Word was not made, since all things were made through it; and this is the Word of God, of which John here speaks. But it must be known that this Word differs from our word in three respects. The first difference is, according to Augustine, that our word is first formable before it is formed: for when I wish to conceive the notion of a stone, I must arrive at it by reasoning; and so it is in all other things which are understood by us, except perhaps in first principles, which, since they are simply known, are known at once without the discourse of reason. As long therefore as the intellect is thus tossed about hither and thither by reasoning, the formation is not yet perfect, except when it has perfectly conceived the very notion of the thing: and then first it has the notion of the thing perfectly, and then first it has the character of a word. And hence it is that in our soul there is thought, by which is signified the very discourse of inquiry, and the word, which is already formed according to the perfect contemplation of truth. Thus therefore our word is first in potency before it is in act; but the Word of God is always in act: and therefore the name "thought" does not properly belong to the Word of God. For Augustine says, in the fifteenth book of On the Trinity, that the Word of God is so called that it is not called thought, lest something as it were changeable be believed in God. But that which Anselm says, namely that for the supreme Spirit to speak is nothing other than to behold by thinking, is said improperly. But the second difference of our word to the divine Word is that our word is imperfect, but the divine Word is most perfect. For because we cannot express all our conceptions by one word, therefore we must form many imperfect words, through which we separately express all the things which are in our knowledge. But in God it is not so: for since he understands both himself and whatever he understands through his essence, by one act, the single divine Word is expressive of the whole that is in God, not only of the persons, but also of creatures: otherwise it would be imperfect. Whence Augustine says: if anything less were in the word than is contained in the knowledge of the one speaking, the word would be imperfect. But it is established that it is most perfect; therefore it is only one. Job 33:14: "God speaks once." The third difference is that our word is not of the same nature with us, but the divine Word is of the same nature with God: and therefore it is something subsisting in the divine nature. For the understood notion, which the intellect is seen to form of some thing, has intelligible being only in our soul; but to understand in our soul is not the same as what the nature of the soul is, because the soul is not its own operation. And therefore the word which our intellect forms is not of the essence of the soul, but is an accident to it. But in God to understand and to be are the same; and therefore the Word of the divine intellect is not something accidental, but something pertaining to his nature: because whatever is in the nature of God is God. Whence Damascene says that the Word of God is substantial, and existing in a hypostasis, but the rest, namely our words, are powers of the soul. From the premises it is also clear that the Word, properly speaking, is always taken personally in divine matters, since it implies nothing but something expressed by one understanding. Likewise, that the Word in divine matters is the likeness of that from which it proceeds; and that it is coeternal with that from which it proceeds, since it was not formable before formed, but always in act; and that it is equal to the Father, since it is perfect, and expressive of the whole being of the Father; and that it is coessential and consubstantial with the Father, since it is his substance. It is also clear that, since in every nature that which proceeds, having a likeness of the nature of that from which it proceeds, is called a son, and this Word proceeds in the likeness and identity of the nature of that from which it proceeds, it is fittingly and properly called Son, and its production is called generation. Thus therefore the first is clear, namely what this is which is said, "Word." Now concerning this, four questions arise. Two are of Chrysostom. The first is why John the Evangelist, leaving aside the Father, began immediately from the Son, saying "in the beginning was the Word." Now to this there is a twofold response. One is that the Father had become known to all in the Old Testament, though not under the aspect of Father, but as God; but the Son was unknown: and therefore in the New Testament, in which the knowledge of the Word is treated, he begins from the Word, or Son. The other is that through the Son we are led to the knowledge of the Father; below, 17:6: "Father, I have manifested your name to the men whom you gave me." Wishing therefore to lead the faithful to the knowledge of the Father, the Evangelist fittingly began from the Son, immediately adding about the Father when he says "and the Word was with God." The second question is also of Chrysostom. For since, as has been said, the Word proceeds as a Son, why did he say "Word," and not "Son"? To this also a twofold answer is given. First, because "son" says something begotten, and when we hear of the generation of a son, one might think that that generation is such as he can comprehend, namely material and passible; therefore he did not say "Son" but "Word," which implies an intelligible procession, so that it not be understood that that generation was material and passible. Showing therefore that the Son is born from God impassibly, he destroys the vicious suspicion through the appellation "Word." Otherwise it can be said thus: the Evangelist was about to treat of the Word inasmuch as it had come to manifest the Father. Whence, since the notion of manifestation is more implied in the name "Word" than in the name "Son," therefore he rather used the name "Word." The third question is of Augustine in the Book of 83 Questions, which is this: in the Greek, where we have "word," there is "logos." Since therefore "logos" signifies in Latin both "reason" and "word," why did the translators translate it "word," and not "reason," since reason is something intrinsic, just as the word also is? I answer. It must be said that "reason" properly names the concept of the mind according as it is in the mind, even if nothing be done exteriorly through it; but by "word" is signified a relation to exterior things: and therefore, because the Evangelist by this, that he said "logos," intended to signify not only the relation to the existence of the Son in the Father, but also the operative power of the Son, by which all things were made through him, the ancients rather translated it "word," which implies a relation to exterior things, than "reason," which only suggests the concept of the mind. The fourth question is of Origen, which is this. Scripture in several places, speaking of the Word of God, names it not absolutely "Word," but with an addition, namely "of God," when it says "the Word of God," or "of the Lord": Ecclesiasticus 1:5: "the fountain of wisdom is the Word of God on high," and Revelation 19:13: "and his name, the Word of God." Why therefore did the Evangelist, when he was speaking here of the Word of God, not say: "in the beginning was the Word of God," but said only "Word"? I answer. It must be said that although there are many participated truths, yet there is one absolute truth, which by its essence is truth, namely the divine being itself, by which truth all words are words. In the same way there is one absolute wisdom elevated above all things, namely the divine wisdom, by the participation of which all the wise are wise. And also one absolute Word, by whose participation all those having a word are called speakers. But this is the divine Word, which through itself is a word elevated above all words. In order therefore that the Evangelist might signify this supereminence of the divine Word, he set it before us absolutely as "Word," without any addition; and because the Greeks, when they wish to signify something set apart and elevated from all others, are accustomed to add an article to the name by which that thing is signified — just as the Platonists, wishing to signify separate substances, for instance the separate good, or the separate man, called it "the per se good," or "the per se man" — therefore the Evangelist, wishing to signify the separateness and elevation of this Word above all things, added an article to this name "logos," so that, if it were said in Latin, it would be "the Word." Second, it must be considered what this signifies which is said, "in the beginning." But it must be known that "beginning," according to Origen, is said in many ways. For since a beginning implies a certain order to other things, it is necessary to find a beginning in all things in which there is order. Now order is found in quantities; and according to this a beginning is spoken of in numbers and in length, for instance of a line. Order is also found in time; and according to this a beginning of time, or of duration, is spoken of. Order is found in the disciplines, and here it is twofold: according to nature, and in relation to us; and in both ways a beginning is spoken of. Hebrews 5:12: "you ought to be masters by reason of the time." And in this way, according to nature indeed, in the Christian discipline the beginning and principle of our wisdom is Christ, inasmuch as he is the wisdom and Word of God, that is, according to his divinity. But in relation to us the beginning is Christ himself, inasmuch as "the Word was made flesh," that is, according to his incarnation. Order is also found in the production of a thing; and according to this a beginning is spoken of on the part of the thing generated, namely the very first part of the thing generated or made: as the foundation is called the beginning of a house. Or on the part of the maker: and thus there is a threefold beginning, namely of intention, which is the end, which moves the agent; of reason, which is the very form in the mind of the artificer; and of execution, which is the operating power. In these ways, therefore, it must be inquired concerning "beginning," how "beginning" is here taken, when he says "in the beginning was the Word." It must be said therefore that it can be taken in three ways. In one way, according as "beginning" stands for the person of the Son, who is the beginning of creatures according to the notion of active power, and by way of wisdom, which is the notion of the things that are made; whence it is said in 1 Corinthians 1:24: "Christ, the power of God and the wisdom of God." Whence also the Lord says of himself below, 8:25: "I am the beginning, who also speak to you." Thus therefore, taking "beginning" in this way, that which is said, "in the beginning was the Word," is to be understood as if he said "in the Son was the Word," so that the sense is: the Word itself is the beginning, according to the manner of speaking by which life is said to be in God, which nevertheless is nothing other than God himself. And this is Origen's exposition. The Evangelist therefore here says "in the beginning," so that at once, in the beginning, he might show the divinity of the Word, as Chrysostom says, while he asserts that it is the beginning; because according to the determination of all, the beginning is the most honored. In the second way "beginning" can be taken as it stands for the person of the Father, who is the beginning not only of creatures, but of every divine procession; and thus it is taken in Psalm 109:3: "with you is the beginning in the day of your power." According to this, therefore, it is said "in the beginning was the Word," as if it were said: "in the Father was the Son." And this is the exposition of Augustine, and also of Origen. But the Son is said to be in the Father because he is of the same essence with the Father. For since the Son is his own essence, in whatever the essence of the Son is, there is the Son. Because therefore in the Father is the essence of the Son through consubstantiality, it is fitting that the Son be in the Father. Whence below, 14:10, it is said: "I am in the Father, and the Father is in me." In the third way "beginning" can be taken for the beginning of duration, so that the sense is "in the beginning was the Word," that is, the Word was before all things, as Augustine expounds, and by this is designated the eternity of the Word, according to Basil and Hilary. For by this, that it is said "in the beginning was the Word," it is shown that whatever beginning of duration be taken — whether of temporal things, which is time, or of aeviternal things, which is aeviternity, or of the whole world, or any imagined extension through many ages — in that beginning the Word already was. Whence Hilary says in the seventh book of On the Trinity: "Times are passed through, ages are transcended, epochs are taken away. Put whatever beginning you will of your opinion; the Word already was, of which the discourse treats." And this is what is said in Proverbs 8:22: "The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his ways, before he made anything from the beginning." But that which is before the beginning of duration is eternal. Thus therefore according to the first exposition, the causality of the Word is asserted; but according to the second, the consubstantiality of the Word with the Father, who speaks the Word; but according to the third, the coeternity of the Word. It must also be considered here that it is said "the Word was," which is of the past imperfect tense, and this seems most to be suited for designating eternal things, if we attend to the nature of time and of the things that are in time. That which is future is not yet in act; but the present is in act, and by the fact that it is actually present, it is not designated to have been: but the perfect past designates that something has existed, and is now determined, and has now ceased to be; but the imperfect past signifies that something was, and is not yet determined, nor has ceased to be, but still remains. Therefore pointedly John, wherever he sets down something eternal, says "was" (erat); but where he says something temporal, he says "was" (fuit), as will be clear below. But as to the notion of the present, the present tense is most suited for designating eternity, which marks something to be in act, which always belongs to eternal things: and therefore it is said in Exodus 3:14: "I am who am"; and Augustine says that he alone truly is, whose being knows not past and future. It must also be considered that this word "was," according to the Gloss, is not taken here inasmuch as it signifies temporal motions, after the manner of other verbs, but according as it marks the existence of a thing: whence it is also called the substantive verb. But someone can ask, since the Word is begotten by the Father, how it can be coeternal with the Father: for a man, a son begotten by a father who is a man, is posterior to him. To which it must be said that the beginning of origin is found to be prior in duration to that which is from the beginning, on account of three things. First indeed, because the beginning of the origin of some thing precedes in time the action by which it produces the thing of which it is the beginning; as a man does not begin to write immediately when he exists, and therefore in time precedes the writing. Second, by the fact that the action has succession, and therefore even if it begins together with the agent, yet the term of the action is after the agent: as, at the same moment fire is generated in these lower regions, it begins to tend upward; yet the fire is prior to its being aloft, because the motion by which it tends upward is measured by a certain time. In the third way, because from the will of the beginning is determined the commencement of the duration of that which is from the beginning, as from the will of God is determined the beginning of the duration of the creature: whence God was prior to the creature. But none of these three is found in the generation of the divine Word. For God did not exist prior to his having begun to generate the Word: for since the generation of the Word is nothing other than an intelligible conception, it would follow that God were understanding in potency before in act, which is impossible. Likewise it cannot be that the very generation of the Word is successive: for thus the divine Word would be unformed before formed, as happens in us, who by thinking form words; which is false, as has already been said. Likewise it cannot be said that the Father by his will bestowed a beginning of duration on his Son; because God the Father does not generate the Son by will, as the Arians said, but naturally: for God the Father, understanding himself, conceived the Word, and therefore God the Father was not prior to the Son. Some likeness of this appears in fire, and in the brightness proceeding from fire: for the brightness proceeds naturally and without succession. Likewise, if fire were eternal, its brightness would be coeternal: on account of which the Son is called the brightness of the Father; to the Hebrews 1:3: "who, since he is the brightness of glory," etc. But in this likeness connaturality is lacking, and therefore we name him Son, although in human sonship coeternity is lacking: for it is necessary to arrive at divine knowledge from many likenesses of sensible things, because one does not suffice; and this is what is said in the book of the Council of Ephesus, that the Son always coexists with the Father: for the brightness proclaims impassibility, the nativity shows the Word, but the name "Son" suggests consubstantiality. We therefore name the Son by different names, to express his perfection, which cannot be expressed by one name. For in order that he be shown connatural to the Father, he is called Son; in order that he be shown in no way dissimilar, he is called image; in order that he be shown coeternal, he is called brightness; in order that he be shown immaterially begotten, he is called Word. Then he says "and the Word was with God." Here is set down the second clause, which the Evangelist places in his narration. Here first the signification of two words must be considered which were not placed in the first clause, namely "God" and "with." For what "Word" is, and what "beginning" is, has already been expounded. These things therefore which are newly placed in this second clause, namely "God" and "with," let us investigate and pursue more diligently. And that we may better understand the exposition of this second clause, something must be said about the signification of each, insofar as it pertains to the matter at hand. It must be known therefore, in the first place, that this name "God" signifies divinity, but in a supposit and concretely; but this name "deity" signifies deity in the abstract, and absolutely: and hence it is that it cannot stand for a person by its natural power and by its manner of signifying, but stands only for the nature. But this name "God" naturally has, from its manner of signifying, that it stand for some one of the persons, as this name "man" stands for the supposit of humanity, and therefore whenever the truth of the statement, or the predicate itself, requires that this name "God" stand for a person, then it stands for a person, as when we say, "God generates God." And so when here it is said "with God," it is necessary that "God" stand for the person of the Father, because this preposition "with" signifies a distinction of the Word, which is said to be "with God"; and although it signifies a distinction in person, yet not in nature, since the nature of the Father and the Son is the same. The Evangelist therefore wished to signify the person of the Father by this, that he said "God." But it must be known concerning this that this preposition "with" implies a certain conjunction of the thing signified by the nominative to the thing signified by the oblique case, like this preposition "in." But differently, because this preposition "in" signifies a certain intrinsic conjunction; but this preposition "with" in a certain way implies an extrinsic conjunction. And we say both in divine matters: namely that the Son is in the Father, and is with the Father; and the intrinsic indeed pertains to consubstantiality, but the extrinsic (if it be permitted so to speak, since "extrinsic" is said improperly in divine matters) is referred only to the personal distinction, since the Son is distinguished from the Father only by origin. And therefore by both of these, both consubstantiality in nature is designated, and distinction in persons: consubstantiality indeed, inasmuch as it implies a certain conjunction; but distinction, inasmuch as it signifies a certain distinction, as was said above. And because this preposition "in," as was said, principally designates consubstantiality, inasmuch as it implies an intrinsic conjunction, and consequently the distinction of persons, inasmuch as every preposition is transitive; but this preposition "with" signifies principally the personal distinction, but consubstantiality inasmuch as it signifies a certain conjunction as it were extrinsic — therefore the Evangelist in this place specially used this preposition "with," so that he might suggest the distinction of the person of the Son from the Father, when he said "and the Word was with God," that is, the Son with the Father, as one person with another. But it must be known that by this preposition "with" four things are signified, by which four contrary objections are excluded. For this preposition "with" signifies, first, subsistence in the nominative; because those things which do not have subsistence per se are not properly said to be "with" something: as we do not say whiteness to be "with" a body, and similarly of other things which do not subsist per se. But those things which subsist per se are properly said to be one "with" another; as we say a man to be with a man, and a stone with a stone. Second, it signifies authority in the oblique case, for a king is not properly said to be "with" a soldier, but a soldier is properly said to be "with" a king. Third, it says distinction: for someone is not properly said to be "with" himself, but one man is "with" another. Fourth, it signifies a certain conjunction and society: for when someone is said to be "with" another, a certain social conjunction between them is suggested to us. But according to these conditions implied in the signification of this preposition "with," the Evangelist fittingly subjoins this clause, namely "the Word was with God," to the first clause, namely "in the beginning was the Word." For, setting aside one of those three expositions of this, "in the beginning was the Word" — namely that according to which "beginning" is put for the Son — to each of the other expositions — namely to that which says "beginning" is the same as "before all things," and to that according to which "beginning" is taken for the Father — a twofold objection is made by the heretics; and thus there are four objections, which we can exclude by the four conditions of this preposition "with" set down above. Of these the first is this: you say that the Word was in the beginning, that is, before all things; but before all things there was nothing; where therefore was the Word, if before all things there was nothing? But this objection proceeds according to the imagination of those who hold that everything which is, is somewhere and in a place. Which indeed is excluded by John, when he says "with God." And he designates conjunction according to the last of the said conditions, so that the sense is, according to Basil: where therefore was the Word? He answers "with God," not in some place, since it is incircumscribable, but with the Father, who is comprehended by no place. The second question to the same point is this: you say that the Word was in the beginning, that is, before all things. But those things which are before all things seem to proceed from no source; since that from which something proceeds seems to be prior to that which proceeds from it; therefore the Word does not proceed from another. But this objection is excluded when he says "the Word was with God," so that the "with" is taken according to the second condition, according to which it implies authority in the causal sense, and the sense is, according to Hilary: from whom is the Word, if it is before all things? The Evangelist answers "the Word was with God"; as if to say: although the Word lacks a beginning of duration, yet it does not lack a beginning or an author: for it was with God, as with an author. The third question is to the other exposition according to which "beginning" stands for the Father; which is this: you say "in the beginning was the Word," that is, the Son was in the Father; but that which is in something does not seem to be subsisting, as a hypostasis: as the whiteness which is in a body does not subsist. But this objection is resolved by this, that he says "the Word was with God"; so that the "with" is taken according to the first condition, by which it implies subsistence in the nominative; and thus, according to Chrysostom, the sense is: the Word was in the beginning, not as an accident, but was with God, as subsisting, and a divine hypostasis. The fourth question to the same point is this: you say that the Word was in the beginning, that is, in the Father; but that which is in something is not distinct from the Father. But this objection is excluded by this, that he says "and the Word was with God"; so that the "with" is taken according to the third condition, according to which it signifies distinction: so that the sense is, according to Alcuin and Bede, the Word was with God, and thus it was in the Father through the consubstantiality of nature, which nevertheless is with him through the distinction of person. Thus therefore by this clause "and the Word was with God," is shown the conjunction of the Word to the Father in nature, according to Basil; but the distinction in person, according to Alcuin and Bede; the substance of the Word in the divine nature, according to Chrysostom; the authority of the Father over the Word, according to Hilary. But it must be noted, according to Origen, that by this, that he says "the Word was with God," he shows that the Son always was with the Father. For in the Old Testament the word of the Lord is said to have come to Jeremiah, or to any other, as is clear in many places of Scripture, but it is not said: "the word of the Lord was with Jeremiah" or "with another"; because the word comes to those who begin to have the word, after they did not have it. Whence the Evangelist did not say "the Word came to be with the Father," but "was with the Father": because from the time the Father was, the Word was with him. Then he says "and the Word was God." This is the third clause of John's narration, which indeed follows most fittingly according to the order of teaching. For because John had said of the Word when it was and where it was, it remained to ask what the Word was; that is, the Word was God, so that the "Word" is put on the part of the subject, and the "God" on the part of the predicate. But since one must first ask concerning a thing what it is, before where and when it is, it seems that John perverts this order, suggesting first concerning the Word where and when it is. But to this question Origen responds that the Word of God is said to be "with" man in one way, and "with" God in another way. For with man it is as perfecting him, because through it man is made wise and good, Wisdom 7:27: "she makes friends of God and prophets." But with God the Word is not said to be so, as though the Father were perfected through the Word and illuminated by it; but it is with God in such a way that it receives natural divinity from him who speaks the Word, from whom it has that it is the same God with him. From this, therefore, that it is by origin with God, it was necessary to show first that the Word was in the Father and with the Father, before showing that the Word was God. But it must be known that by this clause "the Word was God," a reply can be made to two objections which arise from the preceding. Of these one arises from the name "word," and is this: you say that the Word was in the beginning, and with God; but it is established that "word," according to the common usage of speaking, signifies some voice and the enunciation of necessary things, the manifestation of thoughts; but these pass away and do not subsist; it could therefore be believed that the Evangelist was speaking of such a word. But this question is sufficiently excluded by what has been said, according to Hilary and Augustine, in the first Homily on John, who says that it is manifest that "word" in this place cannot be taken for speech, because since speech is in motion and passes away, it could not be said that "in the beginning was the Word," if the Word were something transient and in motion. Likewise, when he says "and the Word was with God," the same is given to be understood; for it is sufficiently clear that to be in (inesse) is one thing, and to be present with (adesse) is another. For our word, since it does not subsist, is not present with, but is in; but the Word of God is subsisting, and therefore is present with. And therefore the Evangelist pointedly said "the Word was with God." But nevertheless, that the cause of the objection may be totally removed, he adds the nature and being of the Word, saying "and the Word was God." The other question arises from this, that he had said "with God." For since the "with" says distinction, it could be believed that the Word was with God, namely the Father, distinct from him in nature. And therefore, to exclude this, he immediately adds the consubstantiality of the Word with the Father, saying "and the Word was God"; as if to say: not separated from the Father by a diversity of nature, because the Word itself is God. Note also the special manner of signifying, because he says "the Word was God," putting "God" absolutely; in order that he might show that it is not God in that manner in which the name of deity is said to be attributed to a creature in sacred Scripture; because sometimes a creature participates in this name with some addition. As that in Exodus 7:1: "I have appointed you the god of Pharaoh," to designate that he was not God simply, nor by nature, because he was appointed god of someone determinately; and that in Psalm 81:6: "I have said, you are gods," as if to say: by my reputing, not according to the truth of the thing, you are gods: for it is one thing to be reputed God, and another to be God. Whence the Word is called God absolutely, because it is God according to its essence, and not by participation, like men and Angels. It must also be known that concerning this clause Origen erred shamefully, taking the occasion of his error from the manner of speaking which is had in the Greek. For it is the custom among the Greeks that they add an article to any name, to designate a certain distinction. Because therefore in the Gospel of John, in the Greek, to this name which is "Word," when it is said "in the beginning was the Word," and likewise to this name which is "God," when it is said "and the Word was with God," an article is added, so that it is said "the Word," and "the God," to designate the eminence and distinction of the Word from other words, and the primacy of the Father in the divinity; therefore, since in this which is said "the Word was God" an article is not added to this name "God," which stands for the person of the Son, Origen blasphemed that the Word was not God by essence, although it is essentially Word, but is called God by participation: but the Father alone is God by his essence. And thus he held the Son to be less than the Father. But that this is not true, Chrysostom proves by this, that if the article placed to this name "God" implied a greater status in the Father in respect of the Son, it would never be added to this name "God" when it is predicated of another, but only when it is predicated of the Father, and always when it is said of the Father the article would be added. But we find the contrary through two authorities of the Apostle, who marks Christ as God with the addition of the article, saying in the Epistle to Titus 2:13: "awaiting the blessed hope, and the coming of the glory of the great God." For there "God" stands for the Son, and the article is added to it in the Greek; therefore Christ is the great God. Likewise the same Apostle, Romans 9:5, says: "from whom is Christ, who is over all things, God blessed forever." There likewise the article is placed to the "God" in the Greek. Moreover, 1 John, final chapter, verse 20: "that we may be in his true Son Jesus Christ; this is the true God, and eternal life." Christ therefore is not God by participation, but true God. It is clear therefore that what Origen invented is false. But the reason why the Evangelist did not add the article to this name "God" is assigned by Chrysostom; namely because he had already named "God" twice with the addition of the article, and therefore it was not necessary to repeat it a third time, but it is understood. Or it must be said, and better, that "God" is here placed in the predicate, and is taken formally; but it is customary that to names placed in the predicate an article is not placed, since it would imply a distinction. But if "God" were here placed on the part of the subject, it would stand for whatever person, whether for the Son or for the Holy Spirit; and then there is no doubt that in the Greek the article would there be added.”

“Then he says, "The same was in the beginning with God." Here the fourth clause is set down, which is introduced on account of the preceding clause. For from the fact that the Evangelist had said that "the Word was God," a twofold false understanding could be taken up by those who do not think rightly. One is that of the pagans, who posit a plurality and diversity of gods, and say that their wills are contrary; as those who fable that Jupiter fought with Saturn, and as the Manichaeans, who posit two contrary principles of nature. Against this error the Lord said, Deuteronomy 6:4: "Hear, O Israel, the Lord thy God is one God." Since therefore the Evangelist had said "the Word was with God, and the Word was God," these men could bring this forward in support of their error, understanding that the God with whom the Word is, is one, and the Word himself another, and moreover of another, or contrary, will; which is against the law of the Gospel. Therefore, to exclude this, he says, "The same was in the beginning with God"; as if to say, according to Hilary: I say that the Word is God in such a way that nevertheless he is not one having divinity separately, but is with God, namely in one and the same nature in which the Father himself is. Likewise, by the fact that he says "the Word was God," lest it be understood that they had contrary wills, he added this, namely that the Word was in the beginning with God, that is, with the Father; not divided from him, not contrary, but having with him identity of nature and concord of will: which union indeed comes about through the communion of the divine nature in the three persons, and through the bond of the natural love of the Father and the Son. Another error could be drawn from the aforesaid words by the Arians, who hold that the Son is less than the Father, because of what is said: "The Father is greater than I." For they say that the Father is greater than the Son, both as to eternity and as to the divinity of nature. So that the Evangelist might exclude this, he added, "The same was in the beginning with God." For Arius admits the first clause, namely "In the beginning was the Word"; yet he does not wish that there "beginning" be taken for the Father, but for the beginning of creatures. Whence he says that the Word was in the beginning of creatures, and therefore is in no way coeternal with the Father. But this is excluded, according to Chrysostom, by that clause, "The same was in the beginning"—not indeed of creatures, but "in the beginning with God," that is, from the time God existed. For never was the Father solitary from the Son, or Word, but this, namely the Word, was always with God. Likewise, Arius confesses that the Word was God, yet less than the Father. But this is excluded by what follows. For there are two things proper to the great God, which Arius attributed singularly to God the Father, namely eternity and omnipotence. Therefore in whomever these two are found, he is the great God, than whom no one is greater; but these two the Evangelist attributes to the Word; therefore the Word is the great God, and not less. He says indeed that eternity is in the Word by the fact that he says, "The same was in the beginning with God"; that is, the Word was from eternity, not only in the beginning of creatures, as Arius understood, but with God, receiving being and divinity from him. And omnipotence he attributes to the Word by the fact that he adds, "All things were made through him." Origen, however, expounding this same clause quite beautifully, says that it is not other than the first three, but that it is a certain epilogue of the aforesaid. For the Evangelist, after he had intimated the truth of the Son, about to pass on to intimating his power, gathers up again, as if summarizing in a summary, in the fourth clause, what he had said beforehand in the first three. For first, by the fact that he says "the same," he understands the third clause; but by the fact that he says "was in the beginning," he recollects the first; and by the fact that he adds "was with God," he recollects the second, so that thus you do not understand one Word which was in the beginning and which was God, but that this Word, which was God, was in the beginning with God. If therefore one rightly considers these four propositions, one will find that through them all the errors of the heretics and of the philosophers are evidently destroyed. For certain heretics, such as Ebion and Cerinthus, said that Christ did not pre-exist the Blessed Virgin, but took from her the beginning of his being and duration, positing that he was a pure man, but merited divinity through good merits. Which also Photinus and Paul of Samosata, following them, said. The Evangelist excludes their error, saying "In the beginning was the Word," that is, before all things, and in the Father from eternity; therefore he did not take his beginning from the Virgin. Sabellius, however, although he confessed that God who took on flesh did not take his beginning from the Virgin, but was from eternity, nevertheless said that the person of the Father, who was from eternity, and of the Son, who assumed flesh from the Virgin, was not another, but that the Father and the Son were personally the same; confounding the Trinity of persons in the divine. Against this error the Evangelist says, "And the Word was with God," namely the Son with the Father, as one with another. Eunomius, however, posited that the Son was entirely unlike the Father; and this consequently the Evangelist excludes, saying "And the Word was God." Arius, however, said that the Son was less than the Father; but this the Evangelist excludes when he says, "The same was in the beginning with God," which was expounded above. By this also the errors of the philosophers are excluded. For certain of the ancient philosophers, namely the natural philosophers, posited that the world came about not from any intellect, nor through any reason, but by chance; and therefore from the beginning they did not posit reason or intellect as any cause of things, but only flowing matter, such as atoms, as Democritus posited, and other material principles of this kind, as others posited. Against these is what the Evangelist says, "In the beginning was the Word," from which, namely, things took their beginning and not from chance. Plato, however, posited the subsisting ideas of all made things, separated in their own natures, through the participation of which the material things exist: for instance, through the separated idea of man, which he called man-in-himself, they have that they are men. So therefore, lest you understand this reason, through which all things were made, to be ideas separated from God, as Plato posited, the Evangelist adds, "And the Word was with God." Other Platonists also, as Chrysostom reports, posited God the Father as most eminent and first, under whom they posited a certain mind, in which they said were the likenesses and ideas of all things. Therefore, lest you understand it thus, that the Word was with the Father as if under him and less than him, the Evangelist adds, "And the Word was God." Aristotle, however, posited in God the ideas of all things, and that in God the intellect and the one understanding and the thing understood are the same; nevertheless he posited that the world was coeternal with him. And against this is what the Evangelist says, "The same," namely the Word alone, "was in the beginning with God"; so that this "the same" does not exclude another person, but another nature coeternal. Note also in the aforesaid the difference of John from the other Evangelists, namely how he began his Gospel more worthily than the others. For they announced Christ the Son of God born in time; Matthew 2:1: "When Jesus was born in Bethlehem." But John says that he was from eternity, "In the beginning," he says, "was the Word." They also say that he suddenly appeared among men; Luke 2:29: "Now thou dost dismiss thy servant, O Lord, according to thy word in peace; because my eyes have seen thy salvation, which thou hast prepared before the face of all peoples, a light to the revelation of the Gentiles, and the glory of thy people Israel." But John says that he was always with the Father. "And the Word," he says, "was with God." Others say that he was man; Matthew 9:8: "They glorified God, who gave such power to men." But John says that he is God. "And the Word," he says, "was God." Others said that he conversed with men; Matthew 17:21: "And as they abode together in Galilee, Jesus said," etc.; but John says that he was always with the Father. "The same," he says, "was in the beginning with God." Note also that the Evangelist significantly recites this "was," to show that the Word of God exceeds all times, namely present, past, and future. As if to say: he "was" beyond the present, past, and future time, according to what is touched upon in the Gloss. After the Evangelist had intimated the being and nature of the divine Word, as far as it can be told by man, he consequently manifests its power. And first he shows its power as to all things which proceed into being; second, specially as to men, there, "The life was the light of men." Concerning the first he sets down three clauses, which we do not distinguish at present, because according to the diverse expositions of the saints they are to be distinguished in diverse ways. The first clause, then, is "All things were made through him," which is brought in to show three things about the Word. And first, according to Chrysostom, to show the equality of the Word to the Father. For as was said above, the Evangelist had excluded the error of Arius, showing the coeternity of the Son with the Father by the fact that he had said "The same was in the beginning with God"; but here he excludes the same error, showing the omnipotence of the Son, saying, "All things were made through him." For to be the beginning of all made things is proper to the great, omnipotent God, according to that of Psalm 134:6: "Whatsoever the Lord pleased he hath done, in heaven and on earth." Therefore the Word through which all things were made is the great God and coequal to the Father. Second, to show the coeternity of the Word to the Father, according to Hilary. For since by the fact that he had said "In the beginning was the Word" someone could understand this to have been said of the beginning of creatures, that is, that there was some time before every creature in which the Word was not, therefore, excluding this, the Evangelist said, "All things were made through him." For if all things were made through the Word, then also time itself. From which he argues thus: if all time was made by him, then no time was before him, nor with him, because he was before all things; therefore they are coeternal from eternity. Third, according to Augustine, to show the consubstantiality of the Word to the Father. For if all things were made through the Word, then the Word itself cannot be called made: because if it is made, it is made through some word, since all things were made through the Word. It is necessary therefore that there be another word, through which the Word, of whom the Evangelist here speaks, was made. And that Word we call the Only-begotten of God, through whom all things were made, because he is neither made nor a creature; and if he is not a creature, it is necessary to say that he is of the same substance with the Father, since every substance apart from the divine essence is made. But the substance which is not a creature is God. Therefore the Word, through which all things were made, is consubstantial with the Father, since it is neither made nor a creature. So therefore you have the equality of the Word to the Father, according to Chrysostom; the coeternity, according to Hilary; and the consubstantiality, according to Augustine, by the fact that he says, "All things were made through him." But three errors are here to be guarded against. And first the error of Valentinus. For he understood, by what is said, "All things were made through him," that the Word gave to the creator the cause that he should create the world, so that all things are said to have been made through the Word thus, as if from the Word there proceeded that the Father created the world. And this seems to lead into the position of those who said that God made the world on account of some exterior cause; which is against that of Proverbs 16:4: "The Lord hath made all things for himself." But this is false, because, as Origen says, if the Word had been a cause to the creator, furnishing him matter for making, he would not have said "All things were made through him," but, conversely, all things were made through the creator from the Word. Second, the error of Origen is to be avoided, who says that the Holy Spirit, among all things, was made through the Word, from which it follows that he is a creature: and this Origen posited. But this is heretical and blasphemous, since the Holy Spirit is of the same glory and substance and dignity with the Father and the Son, according to that of the last chapter of Matthew, 19: "Teach ye all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit"; and according to that of 1 John 5:7: "There are three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit: and these three are one." When therefore the Evangelist says, "All things were made through him," it is not to be understood absolutely all things made, but in the genus of creatures and made things. As if to say: all things which were made, were made through him. Otherwise, if it were understood absolutely, it would follow that the Father and the Holy Spirit were made through him: which is blasphemous. Therefore neither the Father, nor anything substantial to the Father, was made through the Word. Third, another error of the same Origen is to be avoided. For he said that all things were made through the Word thus, as something is made by a greater through a lesser, as if the Son were lesser, and as an instrument of the Father. But that by this preposition "through" a lesser standing is not signified in the oblique case, namely in the Son, or Word, is clear from many places of Scripture. For the Apostle says, 1 Corinthians 1:9, speaking of the Father: "God is faithful, through whom you are called into the fellowship of his Son." If he through whom something is done has a superior, then the Father also will have a superior; but this is false; therefore by the preposition "through" a lesser standing is not signified in the Son, when all things are said to be made through him. For a greater clarification of this, it must be known that when something is said to be done through someone, this preposition "through" denotes causality in the oblique case with respect to the operation in some manner, but in diverse ways. For since the operation, according to the mode of signifying, is considered as intermediate between the one operating and the thing operated, the operation itself can be considered in two ways. In one way, according as it goes forth from the one operating, who is the cause of the action itself; in another way, according as it is terminated at the thing operated. Sometimes therefore the preposition "through" signifies the cause of the operation, according as it goes forth from the one operating; but sometimes, according as it is terminated at the thing operated. It signifies the cause of the operation, according as it goes forth from the one operating, when that which is signified by the oblique case is a cause to the one operating that he operates, whether efficient or formal. Formal indeed, as fire heats through heat: for heat is the formal cause of the heating of fire. But the moving or efficient cause, as second agents operate through the first, as if I say that the bailiff operates through the king, because the king is the efficient cause to the bailiff that he operates. And in this way Valentinus understood that all things were made through the Word, as if the Word were a cause to the founder that he should make all things. But the causality of the operation, according as it is terminated at the thing operated, this preposition "through" imports, when that which is signified by it is not itself the cause that one operates, but is the cause of the operation according as it is terminated at the thing operated. As when I say, the carpenter makes a bench through an axe, which is not a cause to the carpenter that he operates, but we posit it to be the cause that the bench is made by the one operating. So therefore when it is said, "All things were made through him"; if the "through" denotes the efficient cause, or the one moving the Father to operate, it must be said that the Father operates nothing through the Son, but operates all things through himself, as was said. But if the "through" denotes the formal cause, then, since the Father operates through his wisdom, which is his essence, he operates through his wisdom, as he operates through his essence; and because the wisdom and power of the Father is attributed to the Son, 1 Corinthians 1:24, we say: "Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God," therefore we say by appropriation that the Father operates all things through the Son, that is, through his wisdom. And therefore Augustine says that this which is said, "from whom are all things," is appropriated to the Father; "through whom are all things," to the Son; "in whom are all things," to the Holy Spirit. But if the "through" denotes the causality on the part of the thing operated, then this which we say, that the Father operates all things through the Son, is not appropriated to the Word, but is proper to him, because this—that he is the cause of creatures—he has from another, namely from the Father, from whom he has being. Nor yet, on account of this, does it follow that he is the instrument of the Father, although everything that is moved by another to operating something has the notion of an instrument. But when I say that someone operates through a power received from another, it can be understood in two ways. In one way, that the power of the giver and of the receiver is numerically the same: and in this way, he who operates through a power received from another is not less, but equal, to him from whom he receives. Since therefore the Father gives to the Son the same power which he has, through which the Son operates, when the Father is said to operate through the Son, on account of this the Son is not to be said less than the Father, nor his instrument. But this follows in those who do not receive the same power from another, but a different and created one. So therefore it is clear that neither the Holy Spirit, nor the Son, is a cause to the Father that he operates, nor the Father's minister or instrument, as Origen raved. But if the aforesaid words, "All things were made through him," are rightly considered, it evidently appears that the Evangelist spoke most properly. For whoever makes something, it is necessary that he pre-conceive it in his wisdom, which is the form and idea of the thing made: as the form pre-conceived in the mind of the craftsman is the idea of the chest to be made. So therefore God makes nothing except through the concept of his intellect, which is the wisdom conceived from eternity, namely the Word of God, and the Son of God: and therefore it is impossible that he make anything except through the Son. Whence Augustine says in On the Trinity that the Word is an art full of all the living ideas. And thus it is clear that all things which the Father makes, he makes through him. But it must be noted, according to Chrysostom, that all the things which Moses enumerates through many words in the production of things from God, saying: "The Lord said, Let there be light," and "Let there be a firmament," etc., all these the Evangelist, surpassing them, comprehends in one word, saying "All things were made through him." The reason of this is that Moses wished to hand down the emanation of creatures from God, and therefore enumerates them one by one; but John, hastening to a higher matter, in this book intends to lead us specially into the knowledge of the creator himself. Then he says, "And without him was made nothing." This is the second clause, which some understood perversely, as Augustine says in the book On the Nature of the Good. For from this manner of speaking which John here uses, placing this which is said, "nothing," at the end of the sentence, they believed that this "nothing" is held affirmatively, as if "nothing" were something which was made without the Word; whence they wished that this clause was set down by the Evangelist to exclude something which was not made by the Word. Whence they say that after the Evangelist had said "All things were made through him," he consequently adds "And without him was made nothing," as if to say: I say that all things were made through him in such a way that nevertheless without him something was made, namely nothing itself. And from this there proceeded a threefold heresy, namely that of Valentinus, who, as Origen says, posits many principles, and from those principles says that thirty ages proceed. Yet the first principles which he posits are two, namely the deep, which he calls God the Father, and silence. From these two he says ten ages proceeded. And from the deep and silence he says there are two other principles, namely intellect and truth, from which eight ages proceeded. And from intellect and truth he says there are two other principles, namely word and life, from which twelve ages proceed, and thus they are thirty. And from word and life, according to the age, there proceeded the man Christ and the Church. So therefore Valentinus posited that many ages preceded the bringing forth of the Word. And therefore he says that, because the Evangelist had said "All things were made through him," lest anyone understand those preceding ages to have been perfected through the Word, he consequently added "And without him was made nothing," that is, all the pre-existing ages and those things which were in them; which John therefore calls "nothing," because they exceed human reason, nor can they be grasped by the intellect. The second error proceeding from this was that of the Manichaean, who posited two contrary principles, one namely of incorruptible things, and the other of corruptible things. He says therefore that after John had said "All things were made through him," lest it be believed that the Word is the cause of corruptible things, he immediately subjoined "And without him was made nothing," that is, the things subject to corruption, which are said to be nothing, because their being is continually to be changed into nothing. The third error is that of those who wish that by "nothing" the Devil be understood, according to that of Job 18:15: "Let the companions of him that is not dwell in his tabernacle." They say therefore that all things were made through the Word, except the Devil. And therefore they expound "Without him was made nothing," that is, the Devil. But all these three errors, proceeding from one source, namely from this—that they wish "nothing" itself to be taken affirmatively—are excluded by this: that "nothing" is not here set down affirmatively, but only negatively. So that the sense is: all things were so made through the Word, that nothing participating being is which was not made through him. But perhaps someone will object, saying that this clause was superfluously added, if it be understood negatively, because the Evangelist, in saying "All things were made through him," seems to have said sufficiently that there is not anything which was not made through the Word. To which it must be said that, according to many, this particle is introduced in manifold ways, and for many causes. Of which one cause is, according to Chrysostom, lest anyone reading in the Old Testament and finding only visible things enumerated by Moses in the creation of things, should believe that those only were made through the Word. Therefore the Evangelist, when he had said "All things were made through him," namely which Moses enumerates, therefore consequently added "Without him was made nothing"; as if to say: nothing of the things which are, whether visible or invisible, was made without the Word. And in this way speaks the Apostle, Colossians 1:16, saying that all things were created in Christ, whether visible or invisible: where the Apostle makes special mention of the invisible things, because concerning them Moses had not openly made mention, on account of the rudeness of that people, which could not be elevated above sensible things. It is also introduced, according to Chrysostom, in another way thus. For someone reading in the Gospel many signs and miracles done through Christ, such as that of Matthew 11:5: "The blind see, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed," etc., could believe, by what John says, "All things were made through him," that there ought to be understood only all those things which are contained in those Gospels, and nothing else made through him. And therefore, lest anyone suspect this, the Evangelist consequently brings in "And without him was made nothing"; as if to say: not only those things which are contained in the Gospels were made through him, but nothing of the things which were made was made without him. And thus, according to Chrysostom, this particle is introduced to show the total causality, and it is as if completive of the preceding. But according to Hilary this particle is introduced to show that the Word has its operative power from another. For since the Evangelist had said "All things were made through him," it could be understood that the Father is excluded from all causality; therefore he consequently adds "And without him was made nothing." As if to say: all things were made through him in such a way that nevertheless the Father made all things with him. For "without him" is as much as if it were said "not alone"; so that the sense is: it is not he alone through whom all things were made, but he is another, without whom nothing was made. As if to say, "without him," with another operating, namely the Father, "was made nothing"; according to that of Proverbs 8:30: "I was with him forming all things." But in a certain homily which begins "The spiritual voice of the eagle," and is attributed to Origen, another quite beautiful exposition is found. For it is said there that in the Greek there is "choris," where in the Latin we have "sine" (without). Now "choris" is the same as "foris" (outside) or "extra" (beyond); as if to say, all things were so made through him that outside him nothing was made. And therefore he says this to show that through the Word and in the Word all things are conserved; according to that of Hebrews 1:3: "Bearing all things by the word of his power." For there are certain things which do not need the one operating except as to their coming-to-be, since they can subsist after they have been made, without the influx of the agent; as a house needs indeed the craftsman as to its coming-to-be, but nevertheless persists in its being without the influence of the craftsman. Therefore, lest anyone believe that all things were so made through the Word that it is their cause only as to their coming-to-be, and not as to their conservation in being, therefore the Evangelist consequently subjoined "And without him was made nothing." That is: nothing was made outside him, because he encompasses all things, conserving them. But this particle is expounded according to Augustine and Origen and many others thus, that by "nothing" is understood sin. For since, when he said "All things were made through him," it could be understood that evil and sin were made through him; therefore he consequently added "and nothing," that is, sin, "was made without him." For as art is not the principle or cause of any defect in the things made by art, but is of itself the cause of their perfection and form, so also the Word, which is the art of the Father, full of living ideas, is not the cause of any evil or disorder in things, and especially of the evil of fault, which has the perfect notion of evil; but the cause of this evil per se is the will of the creature, whether of man or of Angel, freely turning away from the end to which it is naturally ordered. The one operating according to art, voluntarily erring, is the cause of the defects occurring in the things made by art, not through the art, but through the will. Whence in such things the art is not the principle or cause of the defects, but the will: and therefore evil is a defect of the will, and not of any art: and therefore, inasmuch as it is such, it is nothing. So therefore this particle is added to show the universal causality of the Word itself, according to Chrysostom; the fellowship with the Father, according to Hilary; and the power of the Word in conserving, according to Origen. Likewise the purity of the causality: because it is the cause of good things in such a way that it is not the cause of sin, according to Augustine and Origen and many others. Then he says, "That which was made, in him was life." Here the third particle is set down, where the false understanding of the Manichaean is to be guarded against, who was moved by this word to say that all things which are, live; for instance a stone, wood, and man, and whatever else is in the world. And he punctuated thus: "that which was made in him"—distinguish—"was life." But it would not be life unless it lived; therefore whatever was made in him, lives. He wishes also that "in him" be the same as if it were said "through him," since commonly in Scripture "in him," or "through him," is taken; as that of Colossians 1:16: "In him, and through him were all things created." But this exposition shows this understanding to be false. It can nevertheless without error be expounded in manifold ways. For in that homily "The spiritual voice" it is expounded thus: "that which was made in him," that is, through him, "this was life," not in itself but in its cause. For in all caused things this is common, that the effects, whether produced by nature or by will, are in their causes not according to their own being, but according to the power of their own cause; as the lower effects are in the sun as in a cause, not according to their being, but according to the power of the sun. Since therefore the cause of all effects produced by God is a certain life and an art full of living ideas, therefore everything which was made in him, that is, through him, was life in its cause, namely in God himself. Augustine, however, reads otherwise, punctuating thus: "that which was made"—distinguish—"in him was life." For things can be considered in two ways, namely according as they are in themselves, and according as they are in the Word. If they be considered according as they are in themselves, thus not all things are life, nor even living, but some lack life, some live. As the earth was made, metals also were made, which are neither life nor live; animals were made, men were made, which according as they are in themselves are not life, but only live. But if they be considered according as they are in the Word, they are not only living, but even life. For the ideas existing spiritually in the wisdom of God, by which things were made by the Word itself, are life: as a chest made by the craftsman in itself indeed neither lives nor is life, but the idea of the chest, which pre-existed in the mind of the craftsman, lives in a certain manner, inasmuch as it has intelligible being in the mind of the craftsman; yet it is not life, because it is not in his essence through the very understanding of the craftsman, nor is it his being. But in God his understanding is his life and his essence: and therefore whatever is in God not only lives but is life itself, because whatever is in God is his essence. Whence a creature in God is the creating essence. If therefore things be considered according as they are in the Word, they are life. This exposition you have elsewhere. Origen, however, on John reads this otherwise, punctuating thus: "that which was made in him"—distinguish—"was life." Where it must be noted that of the Son of God something is said according to himself, as he is called God omnipotent, and things of this kind; but something is said of him by comparison to us, as Savior and Redeemer; and something in both ways, as wisdom and justice. But in all things which are said of the Son absolutely and according to himself, it is not said that he is made, as the Son is not said made God, nor omnipotent; but in those which are said in comparison to us, or in both ways, the addition of "made" can be added, so that it be said according to that of 1 Corinthians 1:30: "Who of God is made unto us wisdom, and justification, and sanctification, and redemption." And thus, although he was always in himself wisdom and justice, nevertheless it can be said that he was newly made unto us justice and wisdom. According to this, therefore, Origen, expounding, says that although in himself he is life, nevertheless he was made unto us life by the fact that he vivified us, according to that of 1 Corinthians 15:22: "As in Adam all die, so also in him all shall be made alive." And therefore he says that the Word which was made unto us life, "in him was life," that at some time it might be made life to us; and therefore he immediately subjoins "And the life was the light of men." For Hilary punctuates thus: "And without him was made nothing which was made in him," and afterwards let it be said "was life." For he says in the second book On the Trinity that when the Evangelist says "And nothing was made," it could be ambiguous whether certain other things which were made through him were made not through him, yet not without him; but in them he associated the maker; and that this clause was added for the correction of the preceding. Therefore, lest this be understood, the Evangelist, when he had said "All things were made through him," subjoins "And without him was made nothing," which nevertheless was made "in him," that is, through him: and the reason of this is, because "it was life." For it is manifest that in this way all things are said to be made through the Word, inasmuch as the Word proceeding from the Father is God. But let us suppose that someone has a father who is a son not perfectly having the operations of a man, but comes to this little by little; it is manifest that he will make many things, not through that son, although not without him. Since therefore the Son of God had the same life from eternity which the Father also had, according to that below, 5:26: "As the Father hath life in himself, so he hath given to the Son also to have life in himself," therefore it cannot be said that God the Father, although he made nothing without the Son, nevertheless made some things not through him, because "it was life." For in living things which participate life, it can happen that imperfect life precede perfect life; but in that which is life per se, which does not participate life, but is absolutely and simply life, there can in no way be any imperfection. Since therefore the Word is life per se, there was never in it imperfect life, but always perfect; and therefore nothing was so made "without him," that it was nevertheless not made "in him," that is, through him. Chrysostom, however, has another manner of reading, and punctuates thus: "And without him was made nothing that was made." And the reason of this is, because someone could believe that the Holy Spirit was made through the Word. And therefore the Evangelist, wishing to exclude this, says "that was made," because the Holy Spirit is not something made; and afterwards follows "in him was life," which is introduced on account of two things. One is that, after the production of all things, there be shown the indeficiency of the causality with respect to things not only produced, but also to be produced. As if to say, "in him was life," by which namely he was able not only to produce all things, but also which has an indeficient flow and causality without loss of change for producing things continually, as a living fountain which is not diminished by continuous flowing; but water collected and not living, when it flows away, is diminished and fails; whence it is said in Psalm 35:10: "With thee is the fountain of life." The second is that there be shown that the governance of things is through the Word. For since "in him was life," it is shown that he did not produce things by necessity of nature, but by will and intellect, and that he governs the things produced; Hebrews 4:12: "The word of God is living," and so forth. And because among the Greeks Chrysostom is of such great authority in his expositions, that where he himself has expounded something in sacred Scripture, they admit no other exposition, therefore in all the Greek books it is found punctuated thus, as Chrysostom punctuates, namely in this manner: "Without him was made nothing that was made."”

“Above, the Evangelist treated of the divinity of the Word; but in this part he begins to treat of the incarnation of the Word. And concerning this he does two things. First, he treats of the witness to the incarnate Word, that is, of the precursor; second, of the coming of the Word, at that place, "That was the true light." Concerning the first he does two things. First, he describes the precursor as coming for a testimony; second, he shows that he was insufficient for saving, at that place, "He was not the light." Now he describes the precursor in four ways. First, from the condition of his nature, when he says "There was a man"; second, from his authority, when he says "sent from God"; third, from his fitness for the office, when he says "whose name was John"; fourth, from the dignity of the office, at that place, "This man came." Now concerning the first it must be considered that, as soon as the Evangelist begins to speak of something temporal, he changes his manner of speaking. For when above he was speaking of eternal things, he used this verb "was" (erat), which is of the past imperfect tense, showing thereby that eternal things are without end; but now, when he speaks of temporal things, he uses this verb "was" (fuit), to show that temporal things have so passed that nevertheless they come to an end. He says therefore "There was a man"; by which at the outset he excludes the perverse opinion of the heretics against the condition or nature of John, who, because of what the Lord says of John in Matthew 11:10, "This is he of whom it is written: Behold, I send my angel before my face," and because it is also said of him in Mark 1:2, supposed that John had been an angel by nature. Excluding this, the Evangelist says "There was a man," by nature, not an angel. Ecclesiastes 6:10: "It is known that he is a man, and that he cannot contend in judgment against one stronger than himself." Now it is fitting that a man be sent to men, by whom men are more drawn, as by one like themselves; whence it is said in Hebrews 7:28: "For the law makes men priests who have infirmity." For God could have governed men through angels; but he preferred to do so through men, that they might be more instructed by the example of these. And therefore John was a man, and not an angel. He is described from his authority, indeed, when he says "sent from God." For, although John was not an angel by nature, he was one nevertheless by office, because he was "sent from God." For it is the proper office of angels that they be sent from God, and be messengers of God; Hebrews 1:14: "They are all ministering spirits, sent to minister"; whence "angel" is interpreted as "messenger." Men, therefore, who are sent from God to announce something, can be called angels, according to that of Aggeus 1:13: "Aggeus said, the messenger of the Lord among the messengers of the Lord." Now it is required, for someone to bear testimony of God, that he be sent from God, according to that of Romans 10:15: "How shall they preach unless they be sent?" And because, when they are sent from God, they do not seek their own things, but the things that are Jesus Christ's — 2 Corinthians 4:5: "For we do not preach ourselves, but Jesus Christ" — but he who is sent by himself, and not by God, seeks his own things, or the things that are of man, and not the things that are Christ's, therefore it is here said, "There was a man sent from God," that you may understand that he announced nothing but the divine, not the human. Now note that we find some sent from God in three ways. Namely, by interior inspiration, as Isaiah 48:16: "And now the Lord has sent me, and his spirit"; as if to say: by the interior inspiration of the spirit I am sent from God. Likewise, by an express and open command, whether bodily or imaginary. And thus again Isaiah was sent; whence he says in the same place, Isaiah 6:8: "I heard the voice of the Lord saying: Whom shall I send, and who shall go for us? And I said: Behold, I am here, send me." Likewise, by the injunction of a prelate, who in this bears the person of God; 2 Corinthians 2:10: "For I also, if I have pardoned anything for your sakes, have done it in the person of Christ." And hence it is that those who are sent by a prelate are sent by God, as Barnabas and Timothy were sent by the Apostle. Now when it is here said, "There was a man sent from God," it is to be understood by interior inspiration; or also perhaps that he was sent by God by an exterior command. Below: "He who sent me, he said: Upon whom you shall see the Spirit descending and remaining upon him, this is he who baptizes in the Holy Spirit." Also, by this that he said, "There was a man sent from God," it is not to be understood, as certain heretics held — believing that the souls of men had been created before the body together with the angels from the beginning, and that the soul of each one is sent to the body when he is born, and that John is sent to life, that is, his soul to the body — but that he was sent from God to the office of baptizing and preaching. He is commended from his fitness, indeed, when he says "whose name was John." For fitness is required for the office of testimony; for unless a witness be fit, however he may be sent by another, his testimony is not sufficient. Now a man is made fit by the grace of God; 1 Corinthians 15:10: "By the grace of God I am what I am"; 2 Corinthians 3:6: "Who has made us fit ministers of the new testament." Fittingly enough, therefore, the Evangelist intimates the fitness of the precursor from his name, saying "whose name was John," which is interpreted "in whom is grace." And indeed this name was not imposed upon him in vain, but from divine preordination, and before he was born, as is clear from Luke 1:13: "And you shall call his name John," the angel said to Zachariah. Whence he can say that of Isaiah 49:1: "The Lord has called me from the womb"; and Ecclesiastes 6:10: "He who is to be, his name is already called." This also the Evangelist shows from his manner of speaking, when he says "was" (erat), as regards God's preordination. He is also described from the dignity of the office, when he says "This man came for a testimony"; where first is set down the office; second, the reason for the office, at that place, "that he might bear witness of the light." Now the office of this man is that of testifying; whence he says, "This man came for a testimony." Here it must be noted that God works both men, and all the things that he makes, for himself; Proverbs 16:4: "The Lord has wrought all things for himself"; not indeed that anything may accrue to him, since he has no need of our goods, but that his goodness may be manifested in all things made by him, inasmuch as through the things that are made, being understood they are seen; his eternal power, and divinity; Romans 1:20. Therefore every creature comes to be as a testimony of God, inasmuch as every creature is a certain testimony of the divine goodness. And indeed the magnitude of a creature is a certain testimony of the divine power and omnipotence; but its beauty, of the divine wisdom. But in a special way certain men are ordained by God; and they bear testimony to God not only naturally, inasmuch as they are, but also spiritually, through their good works. Whence all holy men are witnesses of God, inasmuch as through their good works God is rendered glorious among men; Matthew 5:16: "So let your light shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven." But nevertheless those who not only share the gifts of God in themselves by working well through the grace of God, but also pour them out to others by speaking, moving, and exhorting, are more specially witnesses of God. Isaiah 43:7: "Everyone who calls upon my name, I have created him for my praise." John therefore came for a testimony to this end, that he might pour out to others the gifts of God, and announce his praise. Now this office of John, namely of testifying, is very great, because no one can testify concerning something except in the measure in which he shares in it; below, John 3:11: "What we know we speak, and what we have seen we testify." Whence to bear testimony to the divine truth is a sign of the knowledge of that truth itself. And hence it is that Christ too had this office; below, John 18:37: "For this I came, and for this I was born, that I might bear witness to the truth." But Christ in one way, and John in another. For Christ as comprehending the light itself, indeed as being the light itself; but John, as only sharing in the light itself. And therefore Christ perfectly bears testimony, and perfectly manifests the truth, but John and the other saints inasmuch as they share in the divine truth itself. Great, therefore, is the office of John, both from his participation in the divine light and from his likeness to Christ, who made use of this office. Isaiah 55:4: "Behold, I have given him for a witness to the peoples, a leader and a master to the nations." Now the reason for this office is set down when he says "that he might bear witness of the light." Here it must be known that testimony is borne to a thing for a twofold cause. One cause can be on the part of the thing to which testimony is applied, for instance if it is doubtful or uncertain; the other cause is on the part of the hearers, if they are hard and slow of heart to believe. But John indeed came for a testimony not on account of the thing itself to which he bore testimony, because it was light. Whence he says "that he might bear witness of the light," not of an obscure thing but of a manifest one. He came therefore for a testimony on account of those very ones to whom he was testifying, "that all might believe through him," namely through John. For just as light is not only visible in itself and through itself, but also all other things can be seen through it, so the Word of God is not only light in itself, but is also that which manifests all things that are manifested. For since each thing is manifested through its own form and is known, and all forms are through the Word, which is the art full of living reasons: it is therefore light, not only in itself, but manifesting all things; Ephesians 5:13: "All that is manifested is light." Now fittingly does the Evangelist call the Son "light," because he came as a "light for the revelation of the nations," Luke 2:32. But above he called the Son of God the Word, by which the Father utters himself and every creature. Whence, since he is properly the light of men, and here the Evangelist treats of him according as he came to procure the salvation of men, he fittingly leaves off this name "Word," when he speaks of the Son, and calls him "light." But if this light is sufficient of itself to manifest all things, not only itself, why then was there need that testimony be borne to it? Therefore the testimonies of John and of the prophets concerning Christ are not necessary. I answer that it must be said that this objection is that of the Manichees, who wish to destroy the Old Testament. Whence by the saints against these a manifold reason is assigned why Christ willed to have the testimony of the prophets. Origen indeed assigns three reasons for this. First, indeed, that God wills to have certain witnesses, not that he himself has need of their testimony, but that he may ennoble those whom he appoints as witnesses; just as we see also in the order of the universe, that God produces certain effects through intermediate causes, not because he himself is powerless to produce them immediately, but because, in order to ennoble those same intermediate causes, he deigns to communicate to them the dignity of causality. So therefore, even though God could have illuminated all men by himself and led them to knowledge of himself, yet, that a due order might be preserved in things, and that he might ennoble certain men, he willed that divine knowledge should come to men through certain men. Isaiah 43:10: "Truly you are my witnesses, says the Lord." The second reason is that Christ enlightened the world through miracles: which indeed, because they were done in time, passed away in time, nor did they reach all. But the words of the prophets, committed to Scripture, could reach not only those present, but also those who came after. The Lord therefore willed that men should come to the knowledge of the Word through the testimonies of the prophets, so that not only those present, but also those to come might be illuminated concerning him; and therefore he significantly says "that all might believe through him," not only those present, but also those to come. The third reason is that men are of diverse condition, and are led and disposed to the knowledge of truth in diverse ways. For certain ones are led more to the knowledge of truth through signs and miracles; but certain ones more through wisdom; whence 1 Corinthians 1:22: "The Jews ask for signs, and the Greeks seek wisdom." Therefore, that the Lord might show to all the way of salvation, he willed to open up both ways, namely of signs and of wisdom, so that those who were not led to the way of salvation through the miracles done in the Old and New Testament might, at least through the way of wisdom, as in the prophets and other books of Sacred Scripture, arrive at the knowledge of truth. The fourth reason is that of Chrysostom, namely because men of weak intellect cannot grasp the truth and knowledge of God in itself; whence God willed to condescend to them and to illuminate certain men concerning divine things above others, so that from them they might receive in a human manner knowledge concerning divine things, the knowledge of which in themselves they were not able to attain. And therefore he says "that all might believe through him." As if to say: he came for a testimony, not on account of the light itself, but on account of the men themselves, namely that they might believe through him. So therefore it is clear that the testimonies of the prophets are fit and fitting, and therefore to be received as necessary to us for the knowledge of truth. Now he says "might believe" because there is a twofold participation in the divine light. One, namely, perfect, which is in glory, Psalm 35:10: "In your light we shall see light"; the other is imperfect, which namely is had through faith, because he came "for a testimony." Of these two modes it is said in 1 Corinthians 13:12: "We see now through a glass in a dark manner; but then face to face"; and in the same place it is said: "Now I know in part; but then I shall know even as I am known." Now of these modes the prior is the mode of participation through faith; because through it one arrives at sight. Whence Isaiah 7:9, according to another reading: "Unless you believe, you shall not understand"; where our version has: "If you will not believe, you shall not continue." 2 Corinthians 3:18: "But we all, beholding the glory of the Lord with unveiled face, are transformed into the same image" — namely which we lost — "from brightness to brightness"; the Gloss: "from the brightness of faith, to the brightness of sight." He says therefore "that all might believe through him"; not that all might see him perfectly at once, but that first, by believing through faith, and afterward, by enjoying through sight in the fatherland. Now he says "through him," to show his difference from Christ. For Christ came that all might believe in him; below, John 7:38: "He who believes in me, as the Scripture says, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water." But John came that all might believe, not indeed in him, but in Christ through him. But on the contrary. Not all believed through him. If therefore he came that all might believe through him, he came in vain. I answer that it must be said that, as far as pertains to the part of God who sends, and to the part of John who comes, a sufficient means was applied to all for arriving at the end; but on the part of those who "set their eyes to decline to the earth," and were unwilling to see the light itself, there was a defect, because not all believed. Now although John, of whom so many things are said, and that he was sent from God, is great, nevertheless his coming is not sufficient for men unto salvation; because the salvation of man consists in this, that he share in the light itself. Whence, even if John had been the light, his coming would have sufficed for men unto salvation; but he himself was not the light; whence he says "He was not the light." And therefore a light was necessary that would suffice for men unto salvation. Or in another way. John came that he might bear witness of the light. Now it is customary that the one testifying be of greater authority than the one to whom he bears testimony. Lest therefore it be believed that John is of greater authority than Christ, the Evangelist says "He was not the light, but that he might bear witness of the light." For he testifies not because greater, but because better known, even though he be lesser. But the question is raised concerning this that he says "He was not the light." Against it is said in Ephesians 5:8: "You were at one time darkness, but now light in the Lord"; and Matthew 5:14: "You are the light of the world." John, therefore, and the apostles, and all the good, are light. I answer. Some say that John was not "the light" with the article, because this is proper to God alone; but if "light" is put without the article, John and all the saints were made light. Which is to say: the Son of God is light by essence, but John and all the saints by participation. And therefore, because John shared in the true light, he fittingly bore witness of the light: for fire is more suitably manifested through something ignited than through anything else, and color through what is colored.”

“Above, the Evangelist treated of the forerunner and witness of the incarnate Word; but in this part he treats of the incarnate Word itself. And concerning this he does three things. First, he shows the necessity of the Word's coming; second, the benefit conferred on us by the coming of the Word, there, "He came unto his own"; third, the manner of his coming, there, "And the Word was made flesh." Now the necessity of the Word's coming appears to be the defect of divine knowledge which was in the world. Hence he assigns this necessity of his coming, saying, below, chapter 18:37: "For this was I born, and for this came I." Therefore, to indicate this defect of divine knowledge, the Evangelist does two things. First, he shows that this defect is not on the part of God, nor from a defect of the Word; second, he shows that it is on the part of men, there, "and the world knew him not." Now that there was no defect on the part of God and the Word, that men should not know God and be enlightened by the Word, he shows from three things. First, from the efficacy of the divine light itself, because it "was the true light, which enlighteneth every man that cometh into this world"; second, from the presence of the divine light itself, because it "was in the world"; third, from its evidence, because "the world was made by him." Therefore there was no defect of divine knowledge in the world on the part of the Word, because it is efficacious. Hence first he shows the reason for this efficacy, because it "was the true light"; second, its efficacy itself, because it "enlighteneth every man that cometh into this world." For the divine Word is efficacious to enlighten, because it "was the true light." Now how the Word is light, and how it is the light of men, since this has been sufficiently explained above, it is superfluous to repeat at present. Yet this must be said at present, namely, how it is the true light. It must therefore be noted, for the clarification of this, that in Scripture "true" is opposed to three things. For sometimes it is set against the false, as in that text of Ephesians 4:25: "Putting away lying, speak the truth." Sometimes, however, it is set against the figurative, as in that text below, 1:17: "the law was given by Moses; grace and truth came by Jesus Christ," because the truth of the figures of the law came about through Christ. Sometimes, indeed, it is set against what participates, as in that text of 1 John, last chapter, 20: "that we may be in his true Son," who namely is not Son by participation. Now before the coming of the Word there was in the world a certain light, which the philosophers boasted that they possessed; but this indeed was false, because, as is said in Romans 1:21: "they became vain in their thoughts, and their foolish heart was darkened; for professing themselves to be wise, they became fools"; Jeremiah 10:14: "Every man is become a fool by his own knowledge." There was also a certain other light, which the Jews gloried that they possessed from the teaching of the law; but this light indeed was a figurative light; Hebrews 10:1: "the law having a shadow of the good things to come, not the very image of the things." There was also in the angels and in holy men a certain light, inasmuch as in a more special way they knew God through grace; but this light was participated; Job 25:3: "upon whom doth not his light shine?" As if to say: whoever are luminous, they shine to the extent that they participate his light, that is, God's. But the Word of God was not a false light, nor figurative, nor participated, but the true light, that is, through its own essence. And therefore he says, "was the true light." In which indeed a twofold error is excluded, namely that of Photinus, who was of the opinion that Christ took his beginning from the Virgin. And therefore, lest anyone might suspect this, the Evangelist, speaking of the incarnation of the Word, says, "was the true light," namely from eternity, not only before the Virgin, but before every creature. There is also excluded the error of Arius and Origen, who said that Christ was not true God, but only through participation. But if this were true, he would not be the true light, as the Evangelist says. For as is said in 1 John 1:5: "God is light," not by participation, but the true light. If therefore the Word was the true light, it is manifest that it is true God. Therefore the reason for the efficacy of the divine Word in causing divine knowledge is plain. Now the efficacy of the Word itself is shown, because it "enlighteneth every man that cometh." For everything which is by participation is derived from that which is such through its own essence; as everything ignited is such by participation of fire, which is fire through its own nature. Because therefore the Word is the true light through its own nature, it must be that everything shining shines through it, inasmuch as it participates it. Therefore it "enlighteneth every man that cometh into this world." Now it must be known, for the understanding of these things, that "world" is taken in Scripture in three ways. For sometimes by reason of its creation, as the Evangelist here says below, "the world was made by him." Sometimes, however, by reason of its perfection, which it attains through Christ, as in that text of 2 Corinthians 5:19: "God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself." Sometimes by reason of its perversity, as in that text of 1 John 5:19: "the whole world is seated in wickedness." Enlightenment, or to be enlightened, through the Word is understood in two ways: namely, of the light of natural knowledge, of which it is said in Psalm 4:7: "the light of thy countenance, O Lord, is signed upon us." Likewise, of the light of grace, of which it is said in Isaiah 60:1: "Be enlightened, O Jerusalem." These two distinctions being supposed, the doubt which arises from these things is easily resolved. For when the Evangelist says, "enlighteneth every man," it seems to involve something false, since there are still many in the world who are in darkness. If therefore we, mindful of the said distinctions, take "world" according as it is understood by reason of its creation, and "to enlighten" according as it is taken for the light of natural reason, the word of the Evangelist has no calumny: because all men coming into this sensible world are enlightened by the light of natural knowledge from participation of this true light, from which is derived whatever of the light of natural knowledge is participated by men. Now the Evangelist uses this manner of speaking, so as to say, "coming into this world," not that men had lived for some space of time outside the world, and afterwards came into the world, since this is against the opinion of the Apostle, Romans 9:11: "For when they were not yet born, nor had done any good or evil (that the purpose of God according to election might stand), not of works, but of him that calleth, it was said," etc. Hence, since they had not done anything before they were born, it is manifest that the soul does not exist before it is joined to the body. He says therefore "coming into this world," to show that men are enlightened by God, namely according to this, that they come into the world, that is, according to the intellect which is from without. For man is constituted of a twofold nature, namely corporeal and intellectual: and according to the corporeal nature indeed, or sensible, man is enlightened by corporeal and sensible light; but according to the soul and intellectual nature, he is enlightened by intellectual and spiritual light. Since therefore man, according to his corporeal nature, does not come into this world, but is from the world, but according to his intellectual nature, which is from without, as has been said, is from God through creation—whence it is said in Ecclesiastes 12:7: "until all flesh return into its origin, and the spirit be directed to God who made it"—the Evangelist shows that this enlightenment is according to that which is from without, namely according to the intellect, when he says, "coming into this world." But if "to be enlightened" is taken for the light of grace, then this which is said, "enlighteneth every man," can be expounded in three ways. In one way, according to Origen in that homily "The great eagle," it is expounded in this manner, that we take "world" by reason of its perfection, to which the man reconciled through Christ is led. And then it is said, "enlighteneth every man coming," through faith, "into this world," the spiritual world, namely the Church enlightened by the light of grace. In another way, according to Chrysostom, it is expounded, taking "world" by reason of its creation, and such is the sense: "enlighteneth," namely the Word, as far as in itself lies, because on its part it is lacking to none, nay rather "wills all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth," as is said in 1 Timothy 2:4, "every man coming," that is, who is born into this sensible world. But if anyone is not enlightened, it is on the part of man, who turns himself away from the enlightening light. In the third way, according to Augustine, it is expounded so that "every" be an accommodated distribution. So that the sense is, "enlighteneth every man coming into this world," not simply, but every man who is enlightened, namely because no one is enlightened except by the Word. He says therefore, according to Augustine, "coming," so as to assign the reason why man needs to be enlightened; taking, however, "world" by reason of its perversity and defect. As if to say: therefore he needs to be enlightened, because he comes into this world, darkened by perversity and defects and full of ignorance—the spiritual world of the first man; Luke 1:79: "to enlighten them that sit in darkness and in the shadow of death." Now by the aforesaid words is destroyed the error of the Manichaean, who holds that men were created in the world by a contrary principle, that is, by the Devil: because if man had been a creature of the Devil, coming into the world, he would not be enlightened by God, or by the Word; because Christ came into the world to "destroy the works of the Devil"; 1 John 3. Thus therefore it is plain from the efficacy of the divine Word that the defect of knowledge in men is not on the part of the Word itself: because it is efficacious to enlighten all, since it is "the true light which enlighteneth every man that cometh into this world." But lest you should believe that the defect itself is from the removal or absence of the true light, the Evangelist, excluding this, adds: "he was in the world." Something similar to this is found in Acts 17:27: "he is not far from every one of us," namely God, "for in him we live, and move, and are." As if the Evangelist were to say: the divine Word is efficacious and is present to enlighten. But it must be noted that something is said to be in the world in three ways. In one way by containment, as a located thing in a place; below, chapter 17:11: "these are in the world." In another way, as a part in the whole; for a part of the world is said to be in the world, even if it is not located; as supernatural substances, although they are not locally in the world, nevertheless are in it as parts; Psalm 145:6: "who made heaven and earth, the sea, and all things that are in them." But in neither of these ways was the true light in the world, because it is neither local, nor a part of the universe: nay rather, in a certain manner (if it may be so spoken), the whole universe is a part, partially participating its goodness. It was therefore in the world in the third way, as an efficient and conserving cause; Jeremiah 23:24: "I fill heaven and earth." But yet it is otherwise with the Word acting and causing all things, and otherwise with other agents. For other agents operate as existing outside: for since they do not act except by moving and altering in some way as regards those things which are extrinsic to the thing, they operate as extrinsic. But God operates in all things as an interior agent, because he acts by creating. But to create is to give being to the created thing. Since therefore being is most intimate to each thing, God, who by operating gives being, operates in things as the most intimate agent. In the world therefore he was as giving being to the world. Now it is customary to say that God is in all things by essence, presence, and power. For the understanding of which it must be known that by power someone is said to be in all things which are subject to his power: as a king is said to be in his whole kingdom subject to him, by his power; yet he is not there by presence, nor by essence. By presence he is said to be in all things which are in his sight, as a king is said to be by presence in his house. But by essence he is said to be in those things in which his substance is: as a king is in one determinate place. For we say that God is everywhere by power, because all things are subject to his power; Psalm 138:8: "if I ascend into heaven, thou art there (...). If I take my wings early in the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea: even there also shall thy hand lead me, and thy right hand shall hold me." By presence, indeed, because "all things are naked and open to his eyes" which are in the world, as is had in Hebrews 4:13. But by essence, because his essence is intimate to all things: for it is necessary of necessity that every agent, inasmuch as it is an agent, be immediately joined to its effect, since the mover and the moved must be together. But God is the maker and conserver of all things according to the being of each thing. Hence, since the being of a thing is most intimate in each thing, it is manifest that God, through his own essence, by which he creates all things, is in all things. Now it must be noted that the Evangelist significantly uses this verb "was," when he says, "he was in the world," showing that from the beginning of the creature he was always in the world, causing and conserving all things: because if for a moment God should withdraw his power from created things, all things would be reduced to nothing, and would cease to be. Hence Origen uses a sufficiently fitting example for this, saying that as the human voice is related to the human word conceived in the mind, so is the creature related to the divine Word: for as our voice is the effect of the word conceived in our mind, so also the creature is the effect of the Word conceived in the divine mind; for "he spoke, and they were made," Psalm 148:5. Hence, as we see that immediately, when our word fails, the sensible voice fails, so if the power of the divine Word should be withdrawn from things, immediately all things would fail in that very moment; and this because he is "upholding all things by the word of his power," Hebrews 1:3. Thus therefore it is plain that the defect of divine knowledge is not in men from the absence of the Word, because "he was in the world"; nor is it from the invisibility or hiddenness of the Word, because he made a work in which his likeness evidently shines forth, namely the world. Wisdom 13:5: "by the greatness of the beauty and of the creature the creator of them may be seen so as to be known"; and Romans 1:20: "the invisible things of God are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made." And therefore the Evangelist immediately subjoins, "and the world was made by him," so that namely in it the light itself might be manifested. As in a work of art the art of the artificer is manifested, so the whole world is nothing other than a certain representation of the divine wisdom conceived in the mind of the Father; Ecclesiasticus 1:10: "he poured it out upon all his works." Thus therefore it is plain that the defect of divine knowledge is not on the part of the Word, because it is efficacious, since it is "the true light"; it is present, because "he was in the world"; it is evident, because "the world was made by him." But whence this defect is, the Evangelist shows consequently, when he says, "and the world knew him not"; as if to say, it is not on the part of him, but on the part of the world, which "knew him not." Now he says "him" in the singular, because above he had called the Word not only the light of men, but God: hence when he says "him," he understands God. But here "world" is put for man: for the angels knew him by understanding; the elements knew him by obeying; but the world, that is, man the dweller of the world, knew him not. And we can refer this defect of divine knowledge either to the nature of man, or to fault. To nature indeed, because although all these aforesaid aids have been given to man, that he might be led into the knowledge of God, nevertheless human reason in itself is deficient from this knowledge; Job 36:25: "every one beholdeth him afar off"; and again there: "behold, God is great, exceeding our knowledge." But if some knew him, this was not inasmuch as they were in the world, but inasmuch as they were above the world, and such as of whom the world was not worthy, because "the world knew him not." And it is, as it were, the reason why God is not known by men. And thus "world" is taken for the inordinate love of the world; as if to say, "the world knew him not." Hence if they perceived anything eternal in the mind, this was inasmuch as they were not of this world. But if it be referred to the fault of man, then this which he said, "the world knew him not," is, as it were, the reason why God is not known by men; and thus "world" is taken for the inordinate lover of the world. As if to say, "the world knew him not," because they are lovers of the world. For the love of the world, as Augustine says, most of all draws back from the knowledge of God; because "the love of the world constitutes an enemy of God," James 4:4. But he who does not love God, cannot know him; 1 Corinthians 2:14: "the sensual man perceiveth not those things that are of the Spirit of God." Now it must be noted that from this is resolved the question of the gentiles, who vainly ask: if only from recent times the Son of God became known to the world for human salvation, it seems that before that time he despised human nature. To whom it must be said that he did not despise it, but was always in the world, and, as far as in himself lies, is knowable by men; but that some did not know him, was their fault, because they were lovers of the world. It must also be noted that the Evangelist speaks of the incarnation of the Word, to show that the incarnate Word is the same as that which "was in the beginning with God" and "God." He resumes what he had said above concerning it. For there he had said that the Word "was the light of men"; but here he says that it "was the true light." There, that "all things were made by him"; but here, "and the world was made by him." Above, indeed, he said that "without him was made nothing," that is, according to one exposition, conserving all things; but here he says, "he was in the world," creating and conserving the world and all things. There he said: "and the darkness did not comprehend it"; but here, "and the world knew him not." And therefore this whole passage which follows from that place, "was the true light," seems to be a certain explanation of the foregoing. We can also gather from the aforesaid a threefold reason why God willed to become incarnate. One is the perversity of human nature, which from its own malice was already darkened by the obscurity of vices and ignorance. Hence above he had said that "the darkness did not comprehend it." God therefore came in the flesh, that the darkness might be able to apprehend the light, that is, to attain to the knowledge of him. Isaiah 9:2: "the people that walked in darkness saw a great light." The second is on account of the insufficiency of the prophetic testimony. For the prophets had come, John had come; but they could not sufficiently enlighten, because "he was not the light." Hence it was necessary that, after the prophecies of the prophets, after the coming of John, the light itself should come, and hand over the knowledge of itself to the world; and this is what the Apostle says, Hebrews 1:1: "God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spoke in times past to the fathers by the prophets, last of all hath spoken to us by his Son"; and 2 Peter 1:19: "you have the prophetic word, whereunto you do well to attend, until the day dawn." The third is on account of the defect of creatures. For creatures were insufficient to lead to the knowledge of the Creator; whence "the world was made by him, and it knew him not." Hence it was necessary that the Creator himself should come into the world through the flesh, and be known through himself: and this is what the Apostle says, 1 Corinthians 1:21: "for because, in the wisdom of God, the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe."”

“Having set forth the necessity of the incarnation of the Word, the Evangelist next makes clear the benefit obtained by men from the incarnation itself. And first he intimates the coming of the light, in "he came unto his own"; second, the meeting of men, at "and his own received him not"; third, the fruit brought about by the coming of the light, at "he gave them power to be made the sons of God." He shows, then, that the light which was present in the world and evident, that is, manifest through its effect, was nevertheless not known by the world. And therefore "he came unto his own," that he might be known. But lest, when he says "he came," you should understand a local motion in this way — namely, that he came as if ceasing to be where he was before and beginning anew to be where he was not before — the Evangelist says "unto his own"; that is, into those things that were his own, which he himself had made; and he came where he already was. Below, 16:28: "I came forth from the Father, and came into the world." "He came," I say, "unto his own," that is, into Judea, according to some, which indeed was his own in a special way; Psalm 75:2: "In Judea God is known"; Isaiah 5:7: "The vineyard of the Lord of hosts is the house of Israel." But it is better to say "his own," that is, into the world created by him; Psalm 23:1: "The earth is the Lord's." But if he was already in the world, how did he come into the world? I answer that to come into some place is said in two ways: namely, either that someone comes where he was in no way before, or that, where he was in some way before, he begins to be in a certain new way. Just as a king, who was previously in some city of his kingdom through his power, and afterward comes to it personally, is said to come where he already was: for he comes through his substance where before he was only through his power. So, then, the Son of God came into the world, and yet he was in the world. He was there indeed through essence, power, and presence, but he came through the assumption of flesh; he was invisible, he came that he might be visible. Then when he says "and his own received him not," there follows the meeting of men, who conducted themselves differently toward the one coming. For some received him, though not his own; whence it is said "and his own received him not." His own are men, because formed by him; Genesis 2:7: "God formed man"; Psalm 99:3: "Know that the Lord, he made us," because we were made to his image: Genesis 1:26: "Let us make man." But it is better to say "his own," that is, the Jews, "received him not," by believing through faith and honoring him; below, 5:43: "I came in the name of my Father, and you received me not"; and below, 8:49: "I honor my Father, and you have dishonored me." The Jews indeed are his own, because chosen by him as a peculiar people; Deuteronomy 26:18: "The Lord has chosen you to be his peculiar people." His own, joined to him according to the flesh; Romans 9:5: "of whom is Christ according to the flesh." Likewise his own, advanced by him with benefits; Isaiah 1:2: "I have brought up children, and exalted them." But although they were his own, the Jews received him not. Yet there were not lacking those who received him; whence he adds "but as many as received him." The Evangelist uses this manner of speaking, saying "as many as," to show that the fulfillment was made broader than the promise, which had been made only to his own, namely to the Jews; Isaiah 33:22: "The Lord is our lawgiver, the Lord is our king; he will save us." But the fulfillment was made not only to his own, but "as many as received him," that is, to all believing in him; Romans 15:8: "For I say that Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises of the fathers," that is, made to the fathers. But the Gentiles for mercy, because they were received mercifully. He says "as many as," to show that the grace of God is given indifferently to all who receive Christ; Acts 10:45: "Therefore upon the nations the grace of the Holy Spirit was poured out." And not only to free men, but also to slaves, not only to males, but also to females; Galatians 3:28: "In Christ Jesus there is neither male nor female, Gentile nor Jew, circumcision and uncircumcision," and so on. Then when he says "he gave them power to be made the sons of God," there follows the fruit of his coming. Where first he sets forth the magnificence of the fruit, in "he gave them power"; second, he shows to whom it is given, in "to those who believe"; third, he intimates the manner of giving, in "who not of bloods." The fruit, then, of the coming of the Son of God is great, because through it men are made sons of God; Galatians 4:4: "God sent his Son, made of a woman, that we might receive the adoption of sons." And this fittingly, so that we who are sons of God, through this that we are made like the Son, may be reformed through the Son. He says, therefore, "he gave them power to be made the sons of God." For the understanding of this, it must be known that men are made sons of God through assimilation to God; and therefore, according to a threefold assimilation of men to God, men are sons of God. For first, through the infusion of grace: whence whoever has sanctifying grace is made a son of God; Romans 8:15: "For you have not received the spirit of bondage," etc.; Galatians 4:6: "Because you are sons of God, God has sent the Spirit of his Son." Second, we are assimilated to God through the perfection of works, because he who does the works of justice is a son; Matthew 5:44: "Love your enemies." Third, we are assimilated to God through the attainment of glory, both as to the soul through the light of glory, 1 John 3:2: "When he shall appear, we shall be like to him," and as to the body, Philippians 3:21: "He will reform the body of our lowliness." Whence of these two it is said in Romans 8:23: "Awaiting the adoption of the sons of God." If, then, we take "power to be made sons of God" as to the perfection of works and the attainment of glory, the statement will have no difficulty, because when he says "he gave them power," it is understood of the power of grace, which being had, a man can do works of perfection and attain glory; for, as it is said in Romans 6:23, "the grace of God is life everlasting." And according to this manner it is said that "he gave to them" who received him "power," that is, the infusion of grace, "to be made the sons of God," by working well and acquiring glory. But if it is understood of the infusion of grace, then this that is said, "he gave them power," has a difficulty, because it is not in our power to be made sons of God, since it is not in our power to have grace. This, then, that he says, "he gave them power," is understood either of the power of nature — and this does not seem to be true, because the infusion of grace is above our nature; or it is understood of the power of grace — and then to have grace is the very same thing as to have the power to be made sons of God; and thus he did not give the power to be made sons of God, but to be sons of God. To this it must be said that in the giving of grace there is required, in an adult person, for his justification, a consent through a movement of free will: whence, because it is in a man's power to consent and not to consent, "he gave them power." And he gave this power of receiving grace in two ways: by preparing it, and by proposing it to men. For just as he who makes a book, and proposes it to a man to read, is said to give the power of reading, so Christ, through whom grace was made, as is said below, and who "wrought salvation in the midst of the earth," as is said in Psalm 73:12, gave us the power to be made sons of God through the reception of grace. Second, because this does not suffice, since free will also needs, in order that it be moved to the reception of grace, the help of divine grace — not indeed habitual, but moving grace — therefore he gives the power by moving the free will of man, that it may consent to the reception of grace, according to that of Lamentations, last chapter, verse 21: "Convert us, O Lord, to you," by moving our will to your love, "and we shall be converted." And in this way it is called an interior calling, of which it is said in Romans 8:30: "Whom he called," inwardly urging the will to consent to grace, "these he justified," by infusing grace. But because through this grace a man has this power of preserving himself in the divine sonship, it can also be said otherwise: "he gave to them," that is, to those receiving him, "power to be made sons of God," that is, grace, through which they are able to be preserved in the divine sonship; 1 John, last chapter, 18: "Everyone who is born of God sins not, but the grace of God," through which we are regenerated into sons of God, "preserves him." So, then, "he gave them power to be made sons of God," through sanctifying grace, through the perfection of works, through the attainment of glory, and this by preparing, moving, and preserving grace. Then when he says "to those who believe in his name," it is shown to whom the fruit of his coming is conferred. And this indeed can be taken in two ways: either as expository of what preceded, or as determinative. As expository, because the Evangelist had said "but as many as received him"; so that, to show what it is to receive him, as if by way of exposition, he consequently adds "to those who believe in his name"; as if to say: this is to receive him, to believe in him, because through faith Christ dwells in our hearts, according to that of Ephesians 3:17: "that Christ may dwell by faith in your hearts." Those, then, received him who believe in his name. But as determinative it is set down by Origen in the homily that begins "The spiritual voice." In this way many receive Christ, saying that they are Christians, who nevertheless do not become sons of God, because they do not truly believe in his name, suggesting false doctrines about Christ, namely by subtracting something from him either of his divinity or of his humanity, according to that of 1 John chapter 4:3: "Every spirit that dissolves Christ is not of God." And therefore the Evangelist, as if determining, says "he gave to them," namely to those receiving him through faith, "power to be made sons of God" — yet to those who "believe in his name," that is, who preserve the name of Christ whole, so that they diminish nothing of the divinity or humanity of Christ. This can also be referred to the formation of faith, so that it is said: to these, namely, he gave the power to be made sons of God, who "believe in his name," that is, who through faith formed by charity do the works of salvation. For those who have only unformed faith do not believe in his name, because they do not work toward salvation. But the first exposition, which is taken as expository of what precedes, is better. Then when he says "who not of bloods," etc., it is shown in what manner so magnificent a fruit is conferred on men. For because he had said that the fruit of the coming light is the power to be made sons of God given to men — and someone is called a son from the fact that he is born — lest you should suppose that they are born by a material generation, he says "not of bloods." And although this noun "blood" does not have a plural in Latin, yet because it has one in Greek, therefore the translator did not care to observe the rule of grammar, so that he might teach the truth perfectly. Whence he does not say "of blood," according to the Latins, but "of bloods"; by which is understood whatever is generated from blood, concurring as matter for carnal generation. Now the seed, according to the Philosopher, is the superfluity of the last blood-food. Whence whether the seed of the man or the menstruum of the woman, it is understood by "blood." But the moving cause to the carnal act is the will of those joining together, namely of male and female, because although the act of the generative power as such is not subject to the will, yet the preambles to it are subject to the will; and therefore he says "nor of the will of the flesh," for the person of the woman, "nor of the will of man," as of the efficient cause, "but they are born of God"; as if to say: they are made sons of God not carnally, but spiritually. Now here "flesh" is taken, according to Augustine, for the woman, because just as the flesh obeys the spirit, so the woman ought to obey the man; Genesis chapter 2:23, Adam said of the woman: "This now is bone of my bones." And it must be noted, according to Augustine, that just as the estate of a house in which the woman rules and the man is subject is squandered, so man is squandered when the flesh dominates the spirit; wherefore the Apostle says, Romans 8:12: "We are debtors, not to the flesh, that we should live according to the flesh." Now of the manner of this carnal generation it is said in Wisdom 7:1: "In the womb of my mother I was fashioned flesh." Or we can say that the motive to carnal generation is twofold: one, namely, on the part of the intellective appetite, which is the will; the other on the part of the sensitive, which is concupiscence. To designate, then, the material cause, he said "not of bloods"; but to designate the efficient cause as to concupiscence, he says "nor of the will of the flesh"; although it is improperly that concupiscence is called the will of the flesh, yet in the manner in which it is said in Galatians 5:17: "The flesh lusts against the spirit," and so on. But to designate the intellective appetite he says "not of the will of man." So, then, the generation of the sons of God is not carnal, but is spiritual, because "they are born of God." 1 John 5:4: "Everything that is born of God overcomes the world." Now note that this preposition "of" (de) always denotes a material cause, and an efficient one, and also a consubstantial one: for we say that a smith makes a knife "of" iron, and that a father begets his son "of" himself, because something of himself concurs in some way to the generation. But this preposition "from" (a) always denotes a moving cause. But this preposition "out of" (ex) is taken as common, because it implies a material and an efficient cause, yet not a consubstantial one. Whence, because only the Son of God, who is the Word, is "of" the substance of the Father — nay rather, is one substance with the Father — while the other saints, who are adoptive sons, are not "of" his substance; therefore the Evangelist uses this preposition "out of" (ex), saying of the others "they are born out of God" (ex Deo); but of the natural Son, that he is born "of the Father" (de patre). It must also be noted that, according to the last exposition of carnal generation, we can grasp the difference of carnal generation from spiritual. For because the former is "of bloods," therefore it is carnal; but the latter, because it is not "of bloods," therefore is spiritual; below, 3:6: "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the spirit is spirit." Likewise, because material generation is "of the will of the flesh," that is, of concupiscence, therefore it is unclean, and generates sinful sons; Ephesians 2:3: "We were by nature children of wrath." Likewise, because the former is "of the will of man," that is, of a human being, it makes sons of men; but the latter, because it is "of God," makes sons of God. But if this that he says, "he gave them power," he wished to refer to Baptism, through which we are regenerated into sons of God, we can see in this the order of Baptism: namely, that first faith is required, which occurs in catechumens, who must first be instructed concerning the faith, so that they may believe in his name, and then be regenerated through Baptism, not indeed "of bloods" carnally, but "of God" spiritually.”

“Having set down the necessity of the coming of the Word into flesh, and also its usefulness, the Evangelist consequently makes manifest the manner of the coming, saying, "And the Word was made flesh." And according to this it is connected to what he had said, "He came unto his own"; as if to say: the Word of God came unto his own. But lest you should believe that he came by changing place, he shows the manner in which he came, namely, through the incarnation: for he came in that manner in which he was sent by the Father, by whom he was sent inasmuch as he was made flesh. Galatians IV, 4: "God sent his Son, made of a woman," etc., where Augustine says: "he was sent in the same way in which he was made." But according to Chrysostom it is connected to that, "he gave them power," etc.; as if to say: if you ask whence he was able to give this power to men, that they should become sons of God, the Evangelist answers that "the Word was made flesh," and gave us that we might become sons of God. Galatians IV, 5: "God sent his Son, that we might receive the adoption of the sons of God." But according to Augustine it is connected in this way to what he had said, "but they were born of God": for since it seemed hard, as it were, that men should be born of God, therefore, as if in argument of this saying, namely that it might be believed that he is the Word, the Evangelist adds that which seems less believable, namely, that "the Word was made flesh." As if to say: do not marvel if men are born of God, because "the Word was made flesh," that is, God was made man. It must be noted that from this which is said, "the Word was made flesh," certain persons, understanding it badly, have taken occasion for error. For some have held that the Word was so made flesh that either it itself or something of it was converted into flesh, just as when flour becomes bread, and air becomes fire. And this was Eutyches, who posited a mingling of the natures in Christ, saying that in him there was one and the same nature of God and of man. But the falsity of this opinion appears manifestly, because, as was said above, "the Word was God." But God is immutable, as is said in Malachi III, 6: "I am God, and I change not," whence in no way can it be that he should be converted into another nature. It must therefore be said, against Eutyches, "the Word was made flesh": the Word assumed flesh, not that the Word itself is the flesh itself; just as if we should say: a man was made white, not that he himself is the whiteness itself, but that he assumed whiteness. There were also others who, although they believed that the Word was not changed into flesh but that it assumed it, nevertheless said that it assumed flesh without a soul; for if it had assumed ensouled flesh, the Evangelist would have said: the Word was made flesh with a soul. And such was the error of Arius, who said that in Christ there was no soul, but the Word of God was there in place of a soul. And the falsity of this position appears, both because it is repugnant to Sacred Scripture, which in many places makes mention of the soul of Christ, as that in Matthew XXVI, 38: "My soul is sorrowful even unto death"; and also because certain passions of the soul are recounted of Christ, which can in no way be in the Word of God, nor even in the flesh alone, as that in Matthew XXVI, 37: "Jesus began to grow sorrowful and to be sad"; and also because God cannot be the form of any body; nor can even an angel be united to a body in the manner of a form, since according to its nature it is separated from a body; but the soul is united to the body as a form. Therefore the Word of God cannot be the form of a body. Furthermore, it is established that flesh does not attain the species of flesh except through the soul: which is clear, because when the soul withdraws from the body of a man, or of an ox, the flesh of the man or of the ox is not called flesh except equivocally. If therefore the Word did not assume ensouled flesh, it is manifest that it did not assume flesh. But "the Word was made flesh"; therefore it assumed ensouled flesh. There were, however, others who, moved by this, said that the Word did indeed assume ensouled flesh, but with a sensitive soul only, not an intellective one, in place of which they said the Word was in the body of Christ. And this was the error of Apollinaris, who at one time followed Arius, but at length, on account of the aforesaid authorities, was compelled to posit some soul in Christ, which could be the subject of these passions, yet in such a way that it lacked reason and intellect, but in place of these the Word was in the man Christ. But this manifestly appears to be false, because it is repugnant to the authority of Sacred Scripture, in which certain things are said of Christ which can be found neither in the divinity, nor in the sensitive soul, nor in the flesh: such as that he marveled, as is said in Matthew VIII, 10; but marveling is a passion of the rational and intellective soul, since it is a desire of knowing the hidden cause of an effect that is seen. So therefore, just as sorrow compels us to posit in Christ the sensitive part of the soul, against Arius, so marveling compels us to posit in him the intellective part of the soul, against Apollinaris. The same also appears through reason. For just as there is no flesh without a soul, so there is no true human flesh without a human soul, which is the intellective soul. If therefore the Word assumed flesh ensouled with a sensitive soul only, and not a rational one, it did not assume human flesh: and so it could not be said, "God was made man." Furthermore, the Word assumed human nature for this purpose, that it might repair it. Therefore it repaired that which it assumed. If therefore it did not assume a rational soul, it would not have repaired it: and so no fruit would come to us from the incarnation of the Word, which is false. Therefore "the Word was made flesh," that is, it assumed flesh ensouled with a rational soul. But perhaps you say: if the Word assumed flesh thus ensouled, why did the Evangelist not make mention of the rational soul, but only of the flesh, saying, "the Word was made flesh"? I answer that it must be said that the Evangelist did this for four reasons. First, to show the truth of the incarnation against the Manichees, who said that the Word did not assume true flesh, but only phantasmal flesh, since it would not be fitting that the Word of the good God should assume flesh, which they said to be the creature of the Devil. And therefore the Evangelist, in order to exclude this, made mention especially of the flesh; just as Christ also, in Luke XXIV, 39, when the disciples thought him to be a phantasm, showed the truth of the resurrection, saying: "A spirit hath not flesh and bones, as you see me to have." Second, to demonstrate the greatness of God's kindness toward us. For it is established that the rational soul is more conformed to God than the flesh, and indeed it would have been a great sacrament of piety if the Word had assumed a human soul, as being conformed to itself; but to assume also flesh, so far removed from the simplicity of its own nature, was an indication of a much fuller, indeed inestimable, piety; according to which the Apostle says in 1 Timothy III, 16: "And evidently great is the sacrament of piety, which was manifested in the flesh." And therefore, in order to show this, the Evangelist made mention only of the flesh. Third, to demonstrate the truth and singularity of the union in Christ. For to other holy men God is indeed united, as regards the soul only; whence it is said in Wisdom VII, 27: "Through nations she conveyeth herself into holy souls, making them the friends of God and prophets." But that the Word of God should be united to flesh, this is singular in Christ, according to that in Psalm CXL, 10: "I am alone until I pass"; Job XXVIII, 17: "Gold shall not be equalled to it." Wishing therefore to show this singularity of the union in Christ, the Evangelist made mention only of the flesh, saying, "the Word was made flesh." Fourth, to intimate the fittingness of human reparation. For man was made weak through the flesh, and therefore the Evangelist, wishing to intimate that the coming of the Word was fitting to our reparation, made mention especially of the flesh, in order to show that the weak flesh was repaired through the flesh of the Word; and this is what the Apostle says, Romans VIII, 3: "For what was impossible to the law, in that it was weak through the flesh, God, sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and of sin, condemned sin in the flesh." But it is asked, why did the Evangelist not say, the Word assumed flesh, but rather, "the Word was made flesh"? I answer that it must be said that he did this in order to exclude the error of Nestorius, who said that in Christ there were two persons, and two sons, and that the son of the Virgin was another; whence he did not grant that the Blessed Virgin was the mother of God. But according to this God would not have been made man; because it is impossible that of two singulars, which are diverse according to supposit, one should be predicated of the other. Whence if the person, or supposit, of the Word is one, and the person, or supposit, of the man in Christ is another, then it will not be true, as the Evangelist says, that "the Word was made flesh." For something is made in order that it may be; if therefore the Word were not man, it could not be said that the Word was made man. And therefore the Evangelist significantly said "was made," and did not say "assumed," in order to show that the union of the Word to the flesh is not such as is the assumption of the prophets, who were not assumed into the unity of the supposit, but to the prophetic act: but it is such as would truly make God man, and man God, that is, that God should be man. There were also others who, not understanding the manner of the incarnation, held indeed that the aforesaid assumption terminated at the truth of the person, confessing in God one person of God and man; but nevertheless they say that in him there were two hypostases, or two supposits, one of the human nature, created and temporal, the other of the divine, uncreated and eternal. And such is the first opinion which is set down in Book III of the Sentences, distinction VI. But according to this opinion this proposition does not hold true: God was made man, and man was made God. And therefore this opinion was condemned as heretical in the Fifth Council, where it is said: if anyone should say in the Lord Jesus Christ one person and two hypostases, let him be anathema. And therefore the Evangelist, in order to exclude every assumption which does not terminate at the unity of the person, uses this word "was made." But if you ask, how is the Word man, it must be said that it is man in that manner in which any other is man, namely, having a human nature. Not that the Word is the human nature itself, but it is a divine supposit united to a human nature. But this which is said, "the Word was made flesh," does not signify any change in the Word, but only in the nature newly assumed into the unity of the divine person. And "the Word was made flesh," through the union to the flesh. But union is a certain relation. Now relations newly said of God in respect to creatures do not imply a change on the part of God, but on the part of the creature relating itself to God in a new manner. There follows, "and dwelt among us"; which indeed is distinguished from the foregoing in two ways. First, so that it is said that above the Evangelist treated of the incarnation of the Word, saying, "the Word was made flesh"; but here he intimates the manner of the incarnation, saying, "and dwelt among us." For according to Chrysostom and Hilary, through this that the Evangelist says "the Word was made flesh," someone might understand that it was converted into flesh, and that there are not two distinct natures in Christ, but only one nature commingled out of the human and the divine; therefore the Evangelist, excluding this, added "and dwelt among us," that is, in our nature, yet in such a way that it remained distinct in its own. For that which is converted into something does not remain, from that into which it is converted, distinct according to nature; but that which is not distinguished from something does not dwell in it; because to dwell implies a distinction of the one dwelling and that in which it dwells. But the Word dwelt in our nature; therefore it is naturally distinct from it. And therefore, inasmuch as the human nature was distinct in Christ from the nature of the Word, it is called the dwelling-place of the divinity and the temple, according to that below, II, 21: "But he spoke of the temple of his body." And indeed, although this is soundly said by the aforesaid saints, the calumny is nevertheless to be guarded against which some incur from this. For the ancient doctors and saints so pursued the errors arising concerning the faith that sometimes they seemed to slip into contrary errors; just as Augustine, against the Manichees, who destroyed the freedom of choice, disputes in such a way that he seems to have fallen into the heresy of Pelagius. In this manner therefore the Evangelist John, lest by this that he had said, "the Word was made flesh," there should be understood in Christ a confusion or transmutation of the natures, added "and dwelt among us": from which word Nestorius, taking occasion for error, said that the Son of God was so united to man that nevertheless there was not one person of God and man: for he wished that the Word was united to the human nature by indwelling alone through grace. But from this it follows that the Son of God is not man. For the elucidation of these things, it must be known that in Christ we can consider two things, namely, nature and person. But in Christ the distinction is regarded according to nature, not according to person, which is one and the same in the two natures; because the human nature in Christ was assumed into the unity of the person. The indwelling, therefore, which the saints posit, is to be referred to the nature, so that it is said that "he dwelt among us," that is, the nature of the Word dwelt in our nature, not according to hypostasis or person, which is the same for both natures in Christ. But that which Nestorius blasphemes is evidently refuted by the authority of Sacred Scripture. For the Apostle, in Philippians II, 6, calls the union of God and man an emptying, saying of the Son of God: "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God; but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant." But God is not said to empty himself God from the fact that he indwells a rational creature through grace, because thus the Father and the Holy Spirit would be emptied, since they too are said to indwell man through grace; for Christ says, speaking of himself and of the Father, below XIV, 23: "We will come to him, and will make our abode with him." But of the Holy Spirit the Apostle says, 1 Corinthians III, 16: "The Spirit of God dwelleth in us." Furthermore, if Christ were not personally God, he would have said most presumptuously: "I and the Father are one"; and, "before Abraham was made, I am." But "I" indicates the person of the one speaking; and it was a man who spoke; who, as one with the Father, pre-existed before Abraham. It can also be connected in another way, so that it is said that above he treated of the incarnation of the Word, but now he treats of the manner of life of the incarnate Word, saying, "and dwelt among us," that is, he conversed familiarly among us apostles, according to what Peter says, Acts I, 21: "In all the time in which the Lord Jesus came in and went out among us." Baruch IV, 38: "Afterwards he was seen upon earth." But the Evangelist added this on account of two things. First, in order to show the wonderful conformity of the Word to men, among whom he so conversed that he seemed as if one of them. For he willed not only to be made like to men in nature, but also willed to be together with them in living together and in familiar converse, without sin, so that thus he might draw to himself men allured by the sweetness of his converse. Second, in order to show the truth of his testimony. For the Evangelist had said above certain great things concerning the Word, and was still going to say many wonderful things concerning him, and therefore, in order that his testimony might be made more credible, he took, as it were in argument of the truth, that he had conversed with Christ, saying, "and dwelt among us." As if to say: I can well bear testimony concerning him, because I conversed with him; 1 John I, 1: "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the word of life," etc., and Acts X, 40: "he gave him to be made manifest, not to all the people, but to witnesses preordained by God," that is, to us who ate and drank with him.”

“Having set forth the incarnation of the Word, here the Evangelist accordingly introduces the manifest evidence of the incarnate Word. And concerning this he does two things. For first he shows the mode of the manifestation of the incarnate Word; second he sets forth both modes, there: "Of his fullness we have all received." Now the incarnate Word became known to the apostles in two ways. First indeed they received knowledge of him through sight; second through hearing, from the testimony of John the Baptist. First, therefore, he manifests what they saw of the Word; second, what they heard from John, there: "John bears testimony of him." Now he says three things about the Word. First, the manifestation of his glory; whence he says: "and we saw his glory"; second, the singularity of his glory, when he adds: "as it were of the only begotten"; third, the determination of this glory, because it is "full of grace and truth." Now this that he says, "we saw his glory," can be connected to what precedes in three ways. First, so that it is an argument for what he had said, "the Word was made flesh": as if to say: from this I have and know that the Word of God is incarnate, because I and the other apostles saw his glory. Below, John 3:11: "what we know, we speak; and what we have seen, we testify." And 1 John 1:1: "what was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes," and so on. Second, it is connected, according to Chrysostom, so that it is expressive of a manifold benefit. As if to say: not only has this benefit been conferred upon us through the incarnation of the Word, namely that we are made sons of God, but also that we should see his glory. For weak and infirm eyes cannot see the light of the sun; but they are able to see it when it shines back in a cloud or in some opaque body. For before the incarnation of the Word human minds were too feeble to see in itself the divine light, which illuminates every rational nature; and therefore, that it might be more easily discerned and contemplated by us, it veiled itself with the cloud of our flesh, according to that of Exodus 16:10: "they looked toward the wilderness, and saw the glory of the Lord in the cloud," that is, the Word of God in the flesh. According to Augustine, however, it is connected in such a way that it refers to the benefit of grace. For the spiritual eyes of men were failing not only naturally from the contemplation of the divine light, but also from the defect of sin, according to that of Psalm 57:9: "fire fell upon them," namely of concupiscence, "and they did not see the sun," namely of justice. Therefore, that the divine light itself might be seen by us, he healed the eyes of men, making of his flesh a saving eye-salve, so that the Word might cure with the eye-salve of his flesh the eyes corrupted by the concupiscence of the flesh. And hence it is that immediately when the Word was made flesh, they said "and we saw his glory." To signify this, the Lord made clay from spittle, and anointed the eyes of the man born blind, below, John 9:6. The clay indeed is from the earth, but the spittle is derived from the head. So in the person of Christ, the human nature indeed was assumed from the earth; but the incarnate Word is from the head, namely from God the Father. Therefore this clay, immediately when it was applied to the eyes of men, "we saw his glory." Now this glory of the Word Moses desired to see, saying: "show me thy glory" (Exodus 33:18). But he did not merit to see it: rather it was said to him by the Lord: "thou shalt see my back parts," that is, shadows and figures. But the apostles saw the very brightness itself; 2 Corinthians 3:18: "but we, beholding the glory of God with unveiled face, are transformed into the same image from brightness to brightness." For Moses and the other prophets beheld the glory of the Word, to be manifested to the world at the end of times, in enigmas and figures; whence the apostle says, below, chapter 12: "these things Isaiah said, when he saw his glory." But the apostles saw the very brightness of the Word through his bodily presence. 2 Corinthians 3:18: "but we, with unveiled face," etc.; and Luke 10:23: "blessed are the eyes that see what you see. For many kings and prophets wished to see what you see, and did not see it." Accordingly, when he says "the glory as it were of the only begotten," he shows the singularity of his glory. For since it is found concerning certain men that they were glorious, as it is read of Moses in Exodus 34:29: "and his face was made shining," or "horned," according to another reading, someone might say that from the fact that they saw him glorious, it ought not to be said that the Word of God was made flesh. But the Evangelist excludes this, saying: "the glory as it were of the only begotten of the Father." As if to say: his glory is not like the glory of an Angel, or of Moses, and Elijah, or of Elisha, or of any other, but "as it were of the only begotten"; because, as it is said in Hebrews 3:3: "this one has been counted worthy of greater glory than Moses." Psalm 88:7: "who is like to God among the sons of God?" Now this that he says "as it were" is expressive of truth, according to Gregory, and is a manner of speaking, as Chrysostom says. Just as if someone had seen a king proceeding in manifold glory, and, being asked by someone how he had seen the king, wishing to be brief, should express that manifold glory in one word, saying that he was proceeding "as a king," that is, as befitted a king; so here the Evangelist, as if he were asked by someone what the glory of the Word which he had seen was like, not being able to express it fully, says that it was "as it were of the only begotten of the Father," that is, such as befitted the only begotten of God. Now the singularity of the glory of the Word is regarded with respect to four things. First, with respect to the testimony of the Father, which he rendered to the Son. For John was one of the three who had seen Christ transfigured on the mountain, and heard the voice of the Father saying: "this is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased"; and of this glory it is said in 2 Peter 1:17: "he received from God the Father honor and glory, a voice coming down to him of this kind from the magnificent glory: this is my beloved Son." Second, with respect to the ministry of the Angels. For before the incarnation of Christ men were subject to the Angels; but afterwards, subject to Christ, they ministered, Matthew 4:11: "then the Angels came and ministered to him." Third, with respect to the obedience of nature. For all nature, obeying Christ, was subservient to him at his beck, as being instituted by himself, because "all things were made through him": which indeed was granted neither to the Angels, nor to any other creature, but to the incarnate Word alone. And this is what is said in Matthew 8:27: "what manner of man is this, that the sea and the winds obey him?" Fourth, with respect to the manner of teaching, or of working. For Moses and the other prophets did not give precepts and instruct men by their own authority, but by God's; whence they said: "thus says the Lord," etc.; and: "the Lord spoke to Moses," and so on. But Christ speaks as Lord and having power, that is, by his own power: whence he said, Matthew 5:22: "I say to you," etc.; on account of which, at the end of his sermon on the mountain it is said that "he was teaching as one having power," and so on. Likewise, other holy ones worked miracles by a power not their own; but Christ by his own power; whence it is said in Mark 1:27: "what is this new doctrine, that with power he commands even the unclean spirits, and they obey him?" So therefore the glory of the Word is singular. Now note that sometimes we call Christ "only begotten" in Scripture, as here, and below: "the only begotten, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has declared him." But sometimes we call him "firstborn"; Hebrews 1:6: "and when again he brings the firstborn into the world, he says: and let all the Angels of God adore him." Which is so because, just as it is proper to the whole holy Trinity to be God, so it is proper to the Word of God to be God begotten: and sometimes indeed we name God, according as he is in himself, and thus he alone singularly is God through his own essence. Whence in this way we say that there is only one God, according to that of Deuteronomy 6:4: "hear, O Israel, the Lord thy God is one." Sometimes we derive the name of deity also to others, according as some likeness of divinity is derived to men: and thus we say many gods, according to that of 1 Corinthians 8:5: "for indeed there are many gods, and many lords." In the same way therefore, if we consider the property of the Son by which he is begotten, with respect to the mode by which this sonship is attributed to him, namely by nature, we call him the only begotten of God: because since he alone is naturally begotten of the Father, there is only one begotten of God. But if we consider the Son himself, according as through likeness to him sonship is derived to others, thus there are many sons of God by participation. And because through his likeness they are called sons of God, therefore he is called the firstborn of all. Romans 8:29: "whom he foreknew to be made conformable to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren." So therefore Christ is called the only begotten of God by nature, but the firstborn inasmuch as from his natural sonship, through a certain likeness and participation, sonship is derived to many. Accordingly, when he says "full of grace and truth," he determines the glory itself of the Word, as if to say: such is his glory that he is full of grace and divinity. Now these words can be expounded of Christ in three ways. First according to the union. For grace is given to someone for this, that through it he may be united to God. He therefore is full of grace who is most perfectly united to God. And others indeed are joined to God through participation in a natural likeness, Genesis 1:26: "let us make man to our image and likeness"; others through faith, Ephesians 3:17: "that Christ may dwell through faith," etc.; others through charity, because "he who abides in charity, abides in God," as it is said in 1 John 4:16. But all these modes are partial: because neither is anyone perfectly joined to God through participation in a natural likeness, nor is God seen through faith as he is, nor is he loved through charity as much as he is lovable: for because he himself is infinite good, therefore his lovableness is infinite, to loving which infinitely the love of any creature cannot attain; and therefore there cannot be a full conjunction. But in Christ, in whom the human nature is united to the divinity in the unity of the supposit, there is to be found a full and perfect conjunction to God, because such was that union, that all the acts both of the divine and of the human nature were acts of the supposit. He was therefore full of grace, inasmuch as he did not receive from God some special gratuitous gift, but that he should be God himself; Philippians 2:9: "he gave him a name," namely God the Father to the Son, "which is above every name"; Romans 1:4: "who was predestined the Son of God in power." He was also full of truth, because the human nature in Christ attained to the very divine truth, namely that that man was the very divine truth itself: for in other men there are many participated truths, according as the first truth itself shines back through many likenesses in their minds, but Christ is the very truth itself. Whence it is said in Colossians 2:3 that "in him are hidden all the treasures of wisdom." Second, they can be expounded according to the perfection of the soul, according to which he is said to be full of grace and truth, according as in his soul there was a fullness of all graces without any measure; John 3:34: "for the Spirit is not given by measure," which nevertheless is given by measure to all rational creatures, both Angels and men. For, according to Augustine, just as in the individual members of the body there is one common sense, namely the sense of touch, but in the head are all the senses, so in Christ, who is the head of every rational nature, and especially of the saints, who are united to him through faith and charity, all the powers, and graces, and gifts are found superabundantly: but in the other saints there are participations of the gifts and graces, although the common gift of all the saints is charity. Of the fullness of the grace of Christ it is said in Isaiah 11:1: "there shall come forth a rod out of the root of Jesse, and a flower shall rise up out of his root, and the spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him: the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and fortitude, the spirit of knowledge and piety, and the spirit of the fear of the Lord shall fill him." Christ was also full of truth, because his precious and blessed soul knew all truth, both divine and human, from the instant of his conception; whence Peter says to him: "thou knowest all things," and in Psalm 88:25: "my truth," that is, the knowledge of all truth, "and my mercy," that is, the fullness of all graces, "with him." In the third way, they can be expounded according to the dignity of the head, namely inasmuch as Christ is the head of the Church. And thus it belongs to him to communicate grace to others, both by working power in the minds of men through the infusion of grace, and by meriting, through his teaching and works and the passions of his death, superabundant grace for infinite worlds, if there were such. Inasmuch therefore as he has bestowed on us perfect justice, which we could not have through the law, which was weak, which could justify no one, nor bring to perfection, to that extent he is full of grace, as it is said in Romans 8:3: "what was impossible to the law, in that it was weakened through the flesh, God, sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, of sin condemned sin in the flesh." Likewise he was full of truth, inasmuch as he fulfilled the figures of the old law and the promises made to the fathers; Romans 15:8: "I say that Christ Jesus was a minister of the circumcision to confirm the promises of the fathers"; 2 Corinthians 1:20: "as many as are the promises of God, they are in him." Likewise he is said to be full of grace, because his teaching and manner of life were most gracious; Psalm 44:3: "grace is poured out on thy lips." Whence it is said in Luke 21:38 that "all in the morning went," that is, they were eager to go in the morning. But full of truth, because he did not teach in enigmas and figures, nor did he flatter the vices of men, but preached the truth openly to all without any deceit; below, John 16:29: "behold, thou speakest plainly," and so on.”

“Having set down the manifestation of the Word by which it became known to the apostles themselves through sight, the Evangelist consequently sets down its manifestation according to which it became known to others besides the apostles through hearing, namely, through the testimony of John himself, and so forth. And concerning this he does three things. For first the witness is introduced; second, the manner of testifying is indicated, there, "and crieth"; third, the testimony is set down, there, "This was he of whom I spoke," and so forth. He says therefore: we indeed "we indeed have seen his glory, as of the only-begotten of the Father," but this is not believed by us, because perhaps we are held to be suspect: let that witness come forward, namely, John the Baptist, who bore testimony to Christ; for he is a faithful witness, who will not lie; Proverbs XIV, 5: "A faithful witness will not lie," and so forth. Below, V, 33: "You sent to John, and he gave testimony to the truth." For here John bears testimony; as if to say, he perseveringly fulfills his office, because he himself "came for a testimony." Proverbs XII, 19: "The lip of truth shall be steadfast forever." Then when he says "and crieth, saying," the manner of testifying is set down, which is done with a cry. And therefore he says "crieth," inasmuch as freely, without fear; Isaiah XL, 9: "Lift up thy voice with strength (...) behold our God." Ardently and out of great fervor; because, as is said in Ecclesiasticus XLVIII, 1, "his word burned like a torch"; Isaiah VI, 3: "The Seraphim cried one to another," by which the more inward ardor of the mind is expressed. Also, through the openness of the cry it is shown that the discourse of the one testifying is not directed under figures, nor secretly to a few; but the truth is declared and proclaimed openly and manifestly, now not to a few, but to many; Isaiah LVIII, 1: "Cry, cease not." Then when he says "This was he of whom I spoke," he adds what he testified. Here he does two things. For first he describes the continuity of his testimony; second, he describes the one to whom he bears testimony, there, "He that shall come after me is made before me." The testimony of the Baptist was therefore continuous, because not only once but many times, and even before Christ had come to him, John bore testimony to him: and therefore he said "This was he of whom I spoke," that is, before I had seen him bodily, I bore testimony to him. Luke I, 76: "Thou, child, shalt be called the prophet of the Most High." And this is so because he showed him present and future. His testimony is also certain, because he not only foretold that he was to come, but pointed him out present with his finger, saying, "Behold the Lamb of God." From which it is intimated that Christ was bodily present to John; for he was accustomed to come often to John, before he had been baptized. He then consequently describes the one to whom he bears testimony, saying, "He that shall come after me is made before me." Where it is to be noted that John does not at once preach to his disciples that Christ is the Son of God, but leads them gradually to higher things: first preferring to himself the one who nevertheless was of such fame and authority that he was believed to be the Christ, or someone of the great prophets. Now he compares Christ to himself, first as to the order of preaching; second, as to the order of dignity; third, as to the order of duration. As to the order of preaching, John preceded Christ as a servant the master, and as a soldier the king, and as the morning star the sun; Malachi III, 1: "Behold I send my angel, and he shall prepare the way before my face." "He therefore who came after me," namely, into the knowledge of men by preaching. And it is to be noted that this word "came" is of the present tense, because in the Greek there is put a participle of the present tense. Now John preceded Christ for a twofold reason. First, according to Chrysostom, because John was a kinsman of Christ according to the flesh; Luke I, 36: "And behold thy cousin Elizabeth," and so forth. If therefore he had borne testimony to Christ after he had known him, he could have had his testimony held suspect, and therefore John came to preach not yet having familiarity with Christ, so that his testimony might be more effective. Whence he said below: "I knew him not; but that he may be made manifest in Israel, therefore am I come baptizing in water." Second, because in those things which proceed from potency to act, the imperfect naturally precedes the perfect: whence it is said, 1 Corinthians XV, 46: "That which is spiritual was not first, but that which is natural." And therefore the more imperfect doctrine of John ought to precede the perfect doctrine of Christ, which was in a certain manner intermediate between the doctrine of the law and the prophets, which announced Christ as to come from afar, and the doctrine of Christ, which was manifest, and announced Christ manifestly. He compares to himself as to the order of dignity, when he says "is made before me": whence it is to be known that from this the Arians took occasion for their error. For they said that this, that he said "he came after me," is understood of Christ according to the flesh assumed, but this which he adds, "is made before me," cannot be understood except of the Word of God, which pre-existed the flesh; and therefore that Christ, inasmuch as he is the Word, was made, and is not coeternal with the Father. But, according to Chrysostom, this exposition is foolish, because, if this were true, the Baptist would not have said "is made before me, because he was before me," since no one is ignorant that if he was before him, he was made before him; but rather he would have said conversely: he was before me, because he was made before me. And therefore, according to Chrysostom, it is to be understood of priority of dignity, that is, he is preferred to me, and set before me. As if to say: although Jesus came after me to preach, nevertheless he is made before me, that is, more worthy, and superior in authority, and in the estimation of men; Job XXVIII, 17: "Gold shall not equal it," and so forth. Or "is made before me," that is, in my presence, as is held in the Gloss, and the text in the Greek sounds this. As if to say, in my presence, that is, in my sight, because he appeared to me, and became known to me. Likewise he compares him to himself as to the order of duration, saying "because he was before me." As if to say: he himself is God from eternity, I am from time a fragile man; and therefore, although I preceded him in preaching, nevertheless he is reasonably set before me in the fame and opinion of men, he who by his eternity precedes all things. Hebrews, last chapter, 8: "Jesus Christ, yesterday, and today; and the same forever"; and below, VIII, 58: "Before Abraham was made, I am." It can also be expounded that what was said, "is made before me," may be referred to the order of time according to the flesh. For Christ in the instant of his conception was perfect God and perfect man, having a rational soul perfect in powers, and a body distinct in all its lineaments, yet not according to perfect quantity; Jeremiah XXXI, 22: "A woman shall compass a man," namely, a perfect one. Now it is established that Christ was conceived before John was born, and a perfect man; and therefore he says "is made before me" because he himself was a perfect man before he had been born from the womb.”

“There follows also "And of his fullness we all have received." These words, up to that place "And this is the testimony of John," are inserted in two ways. For, according to Origen, they are words uttered by John the Baptist, and are subjoined by him as it were in proof of what has gone before; as if he were to say: truly "he was before me," because "of his fullness," namely of graces, not only I, but also all, the prophets and the fathers, "have received," because all the grace which they had, they had through faith in the incarnate Word. And according to this, from that place "John bears testimony," etc., he began to weave the beginning of his incarnation. But according to Augustine and Chrysostom, they are the words of John the Evangelist from where it is said "John bears testimony"; and then it is continued to what he had said, "full of grace and truth," so that it may be said thus: above, the Evangelist showed the evidence of the Word, which became known both through sight and through hearing; but here he explains both: and first, how it became known to the apostles by sight, as receiving from Christ; second, how John testified concerning him, there, "And this is the testimony of John." Concerning the first he does two things. First he shows Christ to be the fontal origin of all spiritual grace; second he shows the grace derived into us through him and from him, there, "and grace for grace." He says therefore first: it is clear by experience, that "we saw him full of grace and truth," because "of his fullness we all have received." Now there is a fullness of sufficiency, by which someone is sufficient for performing meritorious and excellent acts, as in Stephen. Likewise there is a fullness of redundance, by which the blessed Virgin excels all the saints, on account of the eminence and abundance of her merits. There is also a fullness of efficiency and of effluence, which belongs to the man Christ alone, as it were to the author of grace. For thus the blessed Virgin caused grace to redound into us, yet in such a way that she was in no wise the author of grace, but from her soul grace redounded into her flesh; for through the grace of the Holy Spirit, not only was the mind of the Virgin perfectly united to God through love, but her womb was supernaturally impregnated by the Holy Spirit. And therefore, as soon as Gabriel had said "Hail, full of grace," he added concerning the fullness of the womb, saying "the Lord is with thee." Therefore, in order that the Evangelist might show this singular fullness of redundance and of efficiency concerning Christ, he said "of his fullness we all have received," namely all the apostles, and the patriarchs, and the prophets, and the just, who were, are, and will be, and also all the Angels. Note that this preposition "of" (de) sometimes indeed denotes efficiency, or original cause, as when it is said, the ray is, or proceeds, "from" the sun; and in this way it denotes in Christ the efficiency of grace, or authorship, because the fullness of grace which is in Christ is the cause of all the graces which are in all intellectual creatures. Ecclesiasticus, chapter 24:26: "Come to me, all you who desire me, and be filled from my generations," which namely proceed from me, "be filled," by participation of the sufficient fullness. But sometimes this preposition "of" denotes consubstantiality, as when it is said, the Son is "of" the Father; and according to this the fullness of Christ is the Holy Spirit, who proceeds from him consubstantial to him in nature, in power, and in majesty. For although the habitual gifts in the soul of Christ are other than those which are in us, nevertheless the Holy Spirit, who is in him, one and the same, fills all who are to be sanctified. 1 Corinthians 12:11: "All these things one and the same Spirit works"; Joel 2:28: "I will pour out of my spirit upon all flesh"; Romans, chapter 8:9: "If anyone has not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his." For the unity of the Holy Spirit makes unity in the Church; Wisdom 1:7: "The Spirit of the Lord has filled the whole world." In a third way this preposition "of" denotes partiality, as when we say, take "of" this bread, or wine, that is, take a part, and not the whole; and taking it in this way, it marks that in the receivers a part is derived from the fullness. For he himself received all the gifts of the Holy Spirit without measure, according to a perfect fullness; but we participate some part of his fullness through him; and this according to the measure which God has divided to each one. Ephesians 4:7: "But to each one of us grace is given, according to the measure of the giving." Then when he says "and grace for grace" he shows the derivation of graces into us through Christ. Here he does two things. First he shows that we have received grace from Christ, with him as author; second, that we have received wisdom from him, there, "No one has ever seen God." Concerning the first he does two things. First he shows that we have received of his fullness; second he shows the necessity of receiving, there, "because the law was given through Moses," etc. Now he says first that we have received of the fullness of Christ this which I say, "and grace for grace." But by this that is set down, we are compelled to understand that of his fullness we received grace, and for that grace we received another; and therefore it must be seen what is the first grace, for which we received the second, and what that second is. Now according to Chrysostom, the first grace, which the whole human race received, was the grace of the Old Testament received in the law, which indeed was great, according to that of Proverbs 4:2: "I will give you a good gift," etc. For it was a great thing that to idolatrous men precepts were given by God, and the true knowledge of the one true God; Romans 3:1: "What advantage then has the Jew, or what is the profit of circumcision? Much in every way. First indeed because the words of God were entrusted to them." Therefore for that grace, which was the first, we received a second far better; Zechariah 4:7: "He will make equal grace." But was not the first grace sufficient? I reply that it must be said, that it was not, because through the law only the knowledge of sin is given, not its removal. For "the law brought no one to perfection," Hebrews 7:19. And therefore it was necessary that another grace should come, taking away sins, and reconciling to God. And therefore he says "because the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ." Here the Evangelist prefers Christ to the lawgiver Moses, to whom the Baptist had preferred himself. Now Moses was reckoned the greatest of the prophets; Deuteronomy, last chapter, 10: "There arose no more a prophet in Israel like Moses." But he prefers him to Moses, as to the excellence and dignity of the works, because "the law was given through Moses"; and of these two, the one excels the other as much as the thing figured excels the figure, and the truth the shadow itself. For "the law had a shadow of the good things to come," etc.; Hebrews 10:1. Likewise he excels as to the manner of working: because the law was given through Moses, as through one proposing it, not through one making it; because, "the Lord alone is our lawgiver": Isaiah 33:22. But "grace and truth came through Christ," as through the Lord and author of truth and grace, as was expounded above. But according to Augustine, the first is the justifying and prevenient grace, which is not given to us from works; Romans 11:6: "But if by grace, then it is not now from works." Therefore for that grace, namely the imperfect, we received another consummated grace, namely of eternal life. And although eternal life is in some way acquired by merits, nevertheless because the principle of meriting in all is prevenient grace, therefore eternal life is called grace; Romans 6:23: "The grace of God is eternal life." And, to conclude briefly, whatever is added to prevenient grace of grace, the whole is called "grace for grace." Now the necessity of the second grace is from the insufficiency of the law, which showed what was to be done and what was to be avoided; but for fulfilling the things which it commanded, it offered no help; nay rather, by occasion it worked death, which nevertheless seemed to have been unto life; the Apostle, Romans 7:10, and 2 Corinthians 3:9, says that the law was the minister of death: for "if the ministration of condemnation is in glory, much more does the ministry of justice abound in glory." Likewise it promised the help of grace, but did not deliver it, because "the law brings no one to perfection," as is said in Hebrews 7:19. Likewise through sacrifices and ceremonies it figured the truth of the new grace, by its very rite proclaiming it a figure; and therefore it was necessary that Christ should come, who by his own death should destroy others' deaths, and confer the help of new grace, so that we might easily and delightfully fulfill the precepts, and might die to the transgression and the old manner of life; Romans 6:6: "Our old man is crucified together," etc. Likewise, that the truth of the figures contained in the law might be made manifest, and that the promises made to the fathers might be fulfilled; 2 Corinthians 1. Or otherwise, "the truth came through Christ," as to the wisdom and truth hidden from the ages, which, coming into the world, he openly taught, below, chapter 18:37: "For this I was born, and for this I came into the world, that I might bear testimony to the truth." But if Christ himself is the truth, as is said below, chapter 14:6, how did the truth come through him, since nothing can be made by itself? I reply, it must be said, that he himself is by his essence the uncreated truth; which is eternal, and not made, but begotten by the Father; but through him were made all created truths, which are certain participations and reflections of the first truth, which shine forth in holy souls.”

“Above, the Evangelist showed how the apostles received grace from Christ, by his doing; here he shows how they received it from him by his teaching it. And concerning this he does three things. First, he shows the necessity of this teaching, saying "No man hath seen God at any time"; second, the doctor's capacity for teaching it, there "the only begotten who is in the bosom of the Father"; third, he sets forth the teaching itself, there "he hath declared." Now the necessity of this teaching was the lack of wisdom in men, which lack indeed the Evangelist implies through the ignorance of God that abounded among men, saying "No man hath seen God at any time." And this he does fittingly: for wisdom consists properly in the knowledge of God and of divine things. Whence Augustine says that wisdom is the knowledge of divine things, just as knowledge is of human things. But what the Evangelist here says, "No man hath seen God at any time," seems to be contrary to several authorities of divine Scripture. For it is said in Isaiah 6:1: "I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne high and elevated"; in 2 Kings 6:2 almost the same is found: "the name of the Lord sitting upon the Cherubim," etc.; Matthew 5:8, the Lord says: "Blessed are the clean of heart, for they shall see God." But if someone should answer to this last, saying that it is true that in the past no one saw him, but in the future he shall see, as the Lord promises, the Apostle excludes this, saying in 1 Timothy, last chapter, 16: "He dwelleth in light inaccessible, whom no man hath seen, nor indeed can see." But because the Apostle says "no man hath seen," someone could say that if he cannot be seen by men, at least he is seen by the angels, especially since God says in Matthew 18:10: "Their angels in heaven always see the face of the Father." But neither in this way can it be said, because, as is said in Matthew 22:30: "The children of the resurrection shall be as the angels of God in heaven." If therefore the angels see God in heaven, it is manifest also that the children of the resurrection see him too; 1 John 3:2: "When he shall appear, we shall be like to him, and we shall see him as he is." How then is this to be understood, that which the Evangelist says, "No man hath seen God at any time"? For the understanding of this, therefore, it must be known that God is said to be seen in three ways. In one way indeed through a subject creature, presented to bodily sight; as Abraham is believed to have seen God, when he saw three and adored one, Genesis 18; he adored one indeed, because the three, whom he had first reckoned to be men, and afterwards believed to be angels, he recognized the mystery of the Trinity. In another way through a represented imagination; and thus Isaiah saw the Lord sitting upon a throne high and elevated. Many visions similar to this are found in the Scriptures. And in yet another way he is seen through some intelligible species abstracted from sensible things, by those who through the consideration of the magnitude of creatures behold in their intellect the magnitude of the Creator, as is said in Wisdom 13:5: "For by the greatness of the beauty and of the creature the creator of them may be knowably seen," and Romans 1:20: "The invisible things of God are clearly seen, being understood by the creature of the world through the things that are made." In another way through some spiritual light infused by God into spiritual minds in contemplation; and in this way Jacob saw God face to face, Genesis 32:30, which vision, according to Gregory, was accomplished through lofty contemplation. But through none of these visions is the vision of the divine essence attained: for no created species, whether that by which the exterior sense is informed, or that by which the imagination is informed, or that by which the intellect is informed, is representative of the divine essence as it is. Now a man knows through its essence that thing which the species he has in his intellect represents as it is: therefore through no species is the vision of the divine essence attained. And that no created species represents the divine essence is clear: because nothing finite can represent the infinite as it is; but every created species is finite: therefore, and so on. Moreover, God is his own being; and therefore his wisdom and goodness, and whatever else, are the same; but through one created thing all these could not be represented: therefore the knowledge by which God is seen through creatures is not of his essence, but enigmatic and mirror-like, and from afar. Job 36:25: "All men see him," in some of the said ways, "but each one beholds afar off," because through all those knowledges it is not known concerning God what he is, but what he is not, or whether he is. Whence Dionysius says in the book on Mystical Theology, that the perfect mode by which God is known in the present life is through the removal of all creatures, and of the things understood by us. Now there were some saying that the divine essence will never be seen by any created intellect, and that it is not seen even by the angels or the blessed. But this proposition is shown to be false and heretical in three ways. First indeed, because it is contrary to the authority of divine Scripture; 1 John 3:2: "We shall see him as he is"; and below, 17:3: "This is eternal life, that they may know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent." Second, because the brightness of God is nothing other than his substance: for it is not shining by participation of light, but through itself. Third, because it is impossible that anyone attain perfect beatitude, except in the vision of the divine essence: because the natural desire of the intellect is to know and understand the causes of all effects known by it; which cannot be fulfilled unless the first universal cause of all things is known and understood, which is not composed of effect and cause, as are the secondary causes. And therefore to take away the possibility of the vision of the divine essence from men is to take away beatitude itself. It is necessary therefore for the beatitude of the created intellect that the divine essence be seen, Matthew 5:8: "Blessed are the clean of heart, for they shall see God." Now as regards the vision of the divine essence, three things must be attended to. First, because it will never be seen by the bodily eye, or by any sense, or by the imagination, since through the senses nothing is perceived except corporeal sensible things; but God is incorporeal; below, 4:24: "God is a spirit." Second, because the human intellect, so long as it is joined to the body, cannot see God, because it is weighed down by the corruptible body, so that it cannot reach to the summit of contemplation. And thence it is that the soul, the more it is free from the passions, and purged from the affections of earthly things, so much the more does it ascend into the contemplation of truth, and taste how sweet the Lord is. Now the highest degree of contemplation is to see God through his essence; and therefore, so long as man lives in the body subject of necessity to many passions, he cannot see God through his essence. Exodus, chapter 33:20: "Man shall not see me and live." For this therefore, that the human intellect may see the divine essence, it is necessary that it totally forsake the body; either through death, as the Apostle says, 2 Corinthians 5:8: "We are confident, and have a good will to be absent rather from the body, and to be present to the Lord"; or that it be totally abstracted through rapture from the bodily senses, as is read of Paul, 2 Corinthians, chapter 12:3. In the third way, that no created intellect, however much abstracted, whether through death, or separated from the body, seeing the divine essence, can in any way comprehend it. And therefore it is commonly said that, although the whole divine essence is seen by the blessed, since it is most simple and lacking parts, nevertheless it is not seen totally, because this would be to comprehend it. For this that I say, "totally," expresses a certain mode. Now any mode of God is the divine essence; whence he who does not see him totally does not comprehend him. Now someone is properly said to comprehend some thing in knowing it, who knows that thing as far as it is knowable in itself; otherwise, although he knows it, nevertheless he does not comprehend it. As he who knows this proposition, "a triangle has three angles equal to two right angles," by a dialectical syllogism, does not know it as far as it is knowable, and therefore does not know it totally; but he who knows it by a demonstrative syllogism knows it totally. For each thing is knowable to the extent that it has of being and truth; but the knower himself knows to the extent that he has of cognitive power. Now every created intellectual substance is finite: therefore it knows finitely. Since therefore God is of infinite power and entity, and consequently infinitely knowable, he cannot be known by any created intellect as far as he is knowable; and therefore to every created intellect he remains incomprehensible; Job 36:26: "Behold, God is great, exceeding our knowledge." But he alone, by comprehending, contemplates himself, because his power in knowing is as great as his entity in being. Jeremiah 32:18: "Most strong, great, powerful, the Lord of hosts is thy name, great in counsel, incomprehensible in thought." Thus therefore, according to the premises, is understood "No man hath seen God at any time." First thus: "no man," that is, no man, "hath seen God," that is, the divine essence, with the bodily and imaginary eye. Second, "no man" living in this mortal life has seen the divine essence in itself. Third, "no man," man or angel, "hath seen God," with the vision of comprehension. But what is said of certain ones, that they saw God with the eye, or while living in the body, is understood not through his essence, but through a subject creature, as has been said. Thus therefore it was necessary that we receive wisdom, because "No man hath seen God at any time." Now a sufficient doctor of this wisdom is proposed to us by the Evangelist, when he adds "the only begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father," in which he shows us the capacity of the doctor himself through three things. Namely through natural likeness, and through singular excellence, and through most perfect consubstantiality. Through natural likeness, because the Son naturally has the likeness of the Father. And thence it is also that someone is called a son of God to the extent that he participates in the likeness of the natural Son; and to the extent that he knows, to the extent that he has of his likeness: because knowledge comes about through assimilation. 1 John 3:2: "Now we are the sons of God," and there follows: "When he shall appear, we shall be like to him, and we shall see him as he is." And therefore in this that the Evangelist says "Son," there is implied likeness, and aptitude for knowing God. But because this doctor knows God more specially than the other sons, therefore the Evangelist implies this through singular excellence, when he says "only begotten"; as if to say: this one knows God before the other sons. Therefore he is called "only begotten," because he is the natural Son, having the same nature and knowledge with the Father; Psalm 2:7: "The Lord said to me: Thou art my Son." But although he might know singularly, nevertheless the capacity of teaching could still be lacking to him, if he did not know totally; and therefore he adds a third thing, namely his consubstantiality with the Father, when he says "in the bosom of the Father": so that "bosom" is not taken as it is customarily said among men girded with a garment, but for the hidden place of the Father. For that we bear in secret which we carry in the bosom. Now the secret of the Father is because he exceeds every power and knowledge, since the divine essence is infinite. In that bosom therefore, that is, in the most hidden place of the paternal nature and essence, which exceeds every power of a creature, is the only begotten Son; and therefore he is consubstantial with the Father. And what the Evangelist here signified through "bosom," this David expressed through "womb," saying in Psalm 109:3: "From the womb before the day star," that is, from the innermost and hidden place of my essence, incomprehensible to every created intellect, "I begot thee," and consubstantial to me, and of the same nature and power and might and knowledge; 1 Corinthians 2:11: "The things that are of man, no man knoweth, but the spirit of man (...) and the things that are of God, no man knoweth, but the Spirit of God." He comprehends therefore the divine essence, which is his own. But the soul of Christ, in knowing God, does not comprehend him, because this is said only of the only begotten, who is in the bosom of the Father. Whence also the Lord says in Matthew 11:27: "No one knoweth the Father, but the Son, and he to whom the Son shall be willing to reveal him"; so that both are understood of the knowledge of comprehension, of which the Evangelist here seems to speak. For no one comprehends the divine essence, except God the Father alone, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Thus therefore is clear the capacity of the doctor for teaching. It is also to be noted, that through this that he says "who is in the bosom of the Father," is excluded the error of certain ones, saying that the Father is invisible, but the Son visible, and that he was not seen in the Old Testament. For, from this that he is in the hidden place of the Father, it is manifest that he is naturally invisible, just as the Father. And on account of this Isaiah 45:15 said of him: "Thou art truly a hidden God." And therefore in divine Scripture mention is made of the incomprehensibility of the Son; Matthew 11:27: "No one knoweth the Son but the Father, neither doth any one know the Father but the Son"; Proverbs 30:4: "What is the name of his son, if thou knowest?" Consequently the Evangelist implies the manner of handing down the teaching itself, when he says "he hath declared." For of old the only begotten Son manifested the knowledge of God through the prophets, who announced him to the extent that they were partakers of the eternal Word. Whence they said: "The word of the Lord was made," and so on. But now the only begotten himself, the Son, has declared it to the faithful. Isaiah 52:6: "I myself that spoke, behold I am here"; Hebrews 1:1: "God, who at sundry times and in many ways spoke in times past to the fathers by the prophets, last of all in these days hath spoken to us by his Son." And this teaching therefore surpasses all other teachings in dignity, authority and usefulness, because it was handed down immediately by the only begotten Son, who is the first wisdom. Hebrews 2:3: "Which having begun to be declared by the Lord, was confirmed unto us by them that heard him." But what did he narrate except one God? This same thing Moses also declared, Deuteronomy 6:4: "Hear, O Israel: the Lord thy God is one Lord." What therefore more than Moses? Much in every way, because the mystery of the Trinity, and many other things, which neither Moses, nor any of the prophets narrated.”

“Above, the Evangelist showed how Christ was made known to the apostles themselves by the testimony of John; here he explains that testimony more fully. And first he sets down John's testimony to the crowds; second, the testimony which he bore concerning Christ to his own disciples, there: "The next day John again was standing." Now if the things that have been said are well considered, a twofold testimony of John to Christ is found. One that he bore to Christ in his presence, the other in his absence; for unless John had borne testimony in his presence, he would not have said "this was he," and unless in his absence, he would not say "of whom I said to you." First, therefore, the Evangelist explains John's testimony which he bore concerning Christ in his absence; second, that which he bore in his presence, there: "The next day he saw." Now these two testimonies differ, because the first he bore when questioned, the other of his own accord; and therefore in the first testimony there is set down not only the testimony which he bore, but also the questioning itself. Now first he was questioned about his person; second about his office, there: "and they who had been sent." It is shown, therefore, first how John confessed himself not to be what he was not; second how he did not deny himself to be what he was, there: "They said therefore to him: Who are you?" Concerning the first, three questions and three answers are set down, as is clear in the text. Now in the first question there is great reverence of the Jews toward John, who send to him, seeking his testimony. And here the greatness of the reverence is gathered from four things. First, from the dignity of those sending: for it was not Galileans who sent, but those who were foremost among the people of Israel, namely the Jews, who are of the tribe of Judah, dwelling near Jerusalem; 1 Chronicles 5: "of Judah the Lord chose the princes of the people"; below, 4:22: "salvation is from the Jews." Second, from the pre-eminence of the place, because from Jerusalem, which is the priestly city, and devoted to divine worship; below, 4:20: "you say that at Jerusalem is the place where one must worship." Isaiah 19:21: "and they shall worship him with sacrifices and offerings." Third, from the authority of the messengers, who were solemn, and holier among the people, because priests and Levites; Isaiah 61:6: "you shall be called the priests of the Lord." Fourth, from this, that they sent so that John might bear testimony about himself, as it were having such faith in his words, that they would believe John even when bearing testimony about himself. Whence it is said that they asked him, "Who are you?" — which they did not do to Christ; on the contrary they said to him, John 8:13: "you bear testimony about yourself," and so on. Accordingly, when he says "and he confessed, and did not deny," John's answer is set down. Now the Evangelist repeats this that he says "and he confessed," in order to show John's humility: for although he was of such great authority among the Jews that they believed him to be the Christ, nevertheless he did not usurp for himself an honor not owed to him; on the contrary he confessed, "because I am not the Christ." But what is this that he says, "he confessed, and did not deny"? Now it seems that he did deny, because he says that he is not the Christ. But it must be said that for this reason he did not deny the truth, because he said that he was not the Christ: otherwise he would have denied the truth. Job 31:26: "if I beheld the sun when it shone, and the moon walking in brightness; and my heart rejoiced in secret, and I kissed my hand with my mouth: which is the greatest iniquity, and a denial against the most high God." Therefore he did not deny the truth, because however great he was held to be, he was not lifted up in pride, usurping for himself another's honor. And he confessed, "because I am not the Christ": because truly he was not. Above: "he was not the light," and so on. But since those who had been sent were not asking whether he was the Christ, but who he was, why did John answer, "I am not the Christ"? But it must be said that he answers rather to the mind of those questioning than to the question; and this can be taken in two ways. For according to Origen it must be understood that the priests and Levites had come to him with good intention. For they had known from the Scriptures, and especially from the prophecy of Daniel, that the time of Christ's coming had already come. Whence, seeing John's holiness, they suspected him to be the Christ: whence they sent to John, as it were wanting to know, through this that they say to him, "Who are you?", whether he would profess himself to be the Christ. And therefore he answered to their mind, "I am not the Christ." But Chrysostom says that they were questioning fraudulently. For John was a kinsman of the priests, being the son of a chief priest; he was also holy; and yet he was bearing testimony to Christ, whose lineage seemed lowly. Whence also they said: "is not this the son of the carpenter?" And he was unknown to them. And therefore, desiring rather to have John as master than Christ, they send to him wanting to allure him by flatteries, and to induce him, by attributing this honor to himself, to confess himself to be the Christ. Seeing indeed this malice, John says, "I am not the Christ." The second question is set down accordingly, when it is said, "and they asked him: What then? Are you Elijah?" Now it must be known that just as the Lord to come was awaited by the people of the Jews, so Elijah was awaited as going to precede Christ; Malachi, last chapter, 5: "I will send you Elijah," and so on. And therefore those who had been sent, seeing that John was not confessing himself to be the Christ, insist that at least he confess whether he is Elijah. And this is what they say, "What then? Are you Elijah?" Now certain heretics say that the soul is transmitted from body to body. And this doctrine was at that time in authority among the Jews, whence they believed that, on account of the likeness of John's works to Elijah's, the soul of Elijah was in the body of John. And they say that these men were asking John whether he was Elijah; that is, whether the soul of Elijah was in John; and they bring forward on their behalf that the Lord says, Matthew 11:14, concerning John: "if you will to know, he is Elijah." But nevertheless John's answer is contrary to them, saying, "I am not Elijah." To which they themselves reply that John answered out of ignorance, not knowing whether his soul was the soul of Elijah. But against this Origen says that it seems highly unreasonable that John, as a prophet illuminated by the Spirit, and narrating such great things about God's Only-begotten, should be ignorant about himself, whether his soul had ever been in Elijah. Not with this intention, therefore, were they asking, "Are you Elijah?" But because, having it from the Scriptures, 2 Kings 2:11, that Elijah was not dead, but was taken up alive through a whirlwind into heaven, they believed him to have suddenly appeared among them. But against this is that John had been born of known parents, and his birth was known to all. Whence it is said, Luke 1:63, that "all wondered, and laid it up in their heart, saying: What, do you think, shall this child be?" To which it can be said that it is not incredible that they should so estimate concerning John, as has been said. Because also something similar is found, Matthew 14:1, that Herod believed concerning Christ that he was John, whom he himself had beheaded, and yet long before John was beheaded, Christ had preached, and had been known. And therefore, out of a similar madness and grossness, the Jews were asking John whether he himself was Elijah. But what is this that John says, "I am not," namely Elijah, since Christ said, Matthew 11:14, "he is Elijah"? Now the Angel resolves this question, Luke 1:17: "he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elijah," namely in his works. Therefore he was not Elijah in person, but in spirit, and power: because, namely, he showed the likeness of Elijah in his works. Now the likeness can be considered with respect to three things. First, with respect to office: because just as Elijah will come before the second coming of the Lord, so this one preceded the first, and so on. Whence also the Angel said: "he shall go before him," and so on. Second, with respect to manner of living: because Elijah dwelt in the deserts, used sparing food and was clothed with rough garments, as is said 1 Kings 19:3 ff. and 2 Kings 1:8. And John was in the deserts, his food was locusts and wild honey, and his belt was of camel's hair. Third, with respect to zeal: because he was of the greatest zeal; whence he said, 1 Kings 19:10: "with zeal I have been zealous for the Lord." So also John died out of zeal for the truth, as is clear Matthew 14:6 ff. Accordingly, when he says "Are you a prophet?" the third question is set down. Here first it is asked: Since it is said, Luke 1:76: "you, child, shall be called the prophet of the Most High," and so on, what is it that John, being asked whether he was a prophet, answered that he was not a prophet? To which the answer is given in three ways. In one way, that John is not a prophet simply, but more than a prophet. For the other prophets only foretold future things from afar; Habakkuk 2:3: "if it makes delay, wait for it"; but John announced Christ present, as it were pointing him out with the finger; below: "behold the Lamb of God." And therefore, Matthew 11:9, the Lord says that he is more than a prophet. Likewise in another way, according to Origen, because the Jews out of a bad understanding believed that three excellent persons would come about the coming of Christ, namely Christ himself, Elijah, and a certain other greatest prophet, concerning whom Deuteronomy 18:15: "the Lord will raise up for us a prophet," and so on. And although this greatest prophet, according to the truth, is none other than Christ, nevertheless according to the Jews he is another than Christ; and therefore they do not ask simply whether he is a prophet, but whether he is that greatest prophet. And this indeed appears from the order of the question. For first, they ask whether he is the Christ; second, whether he is Elijah; third, whether he is that prophet. And therefore in the Greek the article is placed here, so that it is said "the prophet," as if spoken by antonomasia. In a third way, because the Pharisees were moved against John, that he had assumed to himself the office of baptizing beyond the order of the law and their tradition. Now in the Old Testament there is mention of three to whom it could belong to baptize, namely of Christ; Ezekiel 36:25, in the person of Christ, it is said: "I will pour out upon you clean water," and so on. Likewise of Elijah, of whom it is said 2 Kings 2:8 that he divided the waters of the Jordan, and passing over was taken up. Likewise of Elisha, who made Naaman the Syrian wash himself seven times in the Jordan, that he might be cleansed of leprosy: as is said 2 Kings 5:9. Seeing therefore John baptize, the Jews believed him to be one of these, namely Christ, or Elijah, or Elisha; and therefore when they say here "Are you a prophet?" they ask whether he is Elisha. And "prophet" is said in the singular, on account of the many miracles which he had done; whence he himself says 2 Kings 5:8: "let him know that there is a prophet in Israel." And according to this he answers "I am not," namely Elisha. Accordingly, when he says "They said therefore to him: Who are you?" he shows how he confessed himself to be what he was, and first the question of the messengers is set down; second the answer, there: "I am the voice of one crying in the desert." They said therefore: "Who are you, that we may give an answer to those who sent us?" As if to say: for this we have been sent, that we may know who you are; therefore tell us, what do you say about yourself? But note John's devotion: he has already fulfilled what the Apostle says, Galatians 2:20, "I live, now not I, but Christ lives in me." And therefore he does not answer: I am the son of Zechariah, or such and such; but only that in which he was following Christ. Whence he says: "I am the voice of one crying in the desert." Now he says that he is a voice, because the voice is later in origin than the word, but prior in making known. For the word conceived in the heart, we come to know through the voice uttered, since it is the sign of it. Now God the Father sent the forerunner John, made in time, so that his Word conceived from eternity might be announced; and therefore he fittingly says "I am the voice." But what he adds, "of one crying," can be understood in two ways, namely that it is either of John crying and preaching in the desert, or of Christ crying in him, according to that of 2 Corinthians, last chapter, 3: "do you seek a proof of him who speaks in me, Christ?" Now he cries on account of four things. For first, a cry implies manifestation; and therefore, to show that Christ was speaking manifestly in John and in himself, he cries; below 7:37: "on the last and great day of the festival Jesus stood, and cried, saying: If anyone thirsts, let him come to me and drink." But in the prophets he did not cry, because the prophecies were given in enigma and figures; whence in Psalm 17:12 it is said: "dark water in the clouds of the air." Second, because a cry is made to those who are distant; but the Jews were far away from God, therefore it was necessary that he cry. Psalm 87:19: "you have put far from me friend and neighbor." Third, he cries, because they were deaf. Isaiah 42:19: "who is deaf, but my servant?" Fourth, he cries, because he speaks with indignation, because they had merited the wrath of God. Psalm 2:5: "he shall speak to them in his wrath," and so on. But note that he cries "in the desert," because, Luke 3:2, "the word of the Lord came upon John the son of Zechariah in the desert." And there can be a reason of this kind both literal and mystical. Literal indeed, so that, remaining in the desert, he might be free from all sin, so that he might thus be more worthy to bear testimony to Christ, and from his life his testimony might be more credible to men. Now the mystical cause is twofold. For by the desert the Gentiles are designated, according to that of Isaiah 54:1: "many are the children of the desolate, more than of her that has a husband." Therefore, to show that the teaching of God henceforth ought not to be in Jerusalem only, but among the Gentiles, he cried in the desert. Matthew 21:43: "the kingdom of God shall be taken away from you, and shall be given to a nation yielding its fruits." Likewise, by the desert Judea is understood, which was already deserted; Matthew 23:38: "behold your house shall be left to you desolate." He cried therefore "in the desert," that is, in Judea, so that by this it might be given to understand that the people to whom he was preaching was already deserted by God; Psalm 62:3: "in a desert land, and where there is no way, and no water, so in the sanctuary have I appeared to you." But what does he cry? "Make straight the way of the Lord": because for this he was sent; Luke 1:76: "you, child, shall be called the prophet of the Most High, for you shall go before the face of the Lord to prepare his ways." Now the way prepared and made straight for receiving God is the way of justice, according to that of Isaiah 26:7: "the path of the just is right," and so on. For then the path of the just is right when the whole man is subjected to God, namely so that the intellect through faith, the will through love, the operation through obedience are made subject to God. And this, "as says Isaiah the prophet"; that is, as he foretold. As if to say: I am that one in whom these things are fulfilled.”

“Above, John, when questioned, bore witness to Christ concerning himself as to his person; here, however, he does so as to his office. And concerning this four things are set down. First, those questioning; second, the questioning, at "and they asked him"; third, the response, in which he bore witness, at "John answered them," and so on. Fourth, the place where these things were done, at "these things were done in Bethania." Now those questioning are the Pharisees. Whence he says, "and they who had been sent were of the Pharisees." And indeed, according to Origen, what is said from this passage pertains to another testimony: and these who were sent from the Pharisees are not the same as the priests and Levites who were sent by the whole body of the Jews, but others sent specially by the Pharisees. And according to this it is said: "and they who were sent," namely not by the Jews, as were the priests and Levites, but others "were of the Pharisees." And therefore he says that, because the priests and Levites were well-schooled and reverent, they question John humbly and with reverence concerning his dignity, namely whether he were the Christ, or Elijah, or the prophet; but these, who were of the Pharisees, being according to their name divided and importunate, put forward abusive words against the Baptist, whence they said to him: "Why then do you baptize, if you are not the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the prophet?" But according to others, namely Gregory, Chrysostom, and Augustine, these who were of the Pharisees are those same ones who had been sent by the Jews as priests and Levites. For there was a certain sect among the Jews, who on account of an exterior form of worship were separated from the others: whence they were also called Pharisees, that is, "the separated"; and in it were indeed some of the priests and Levites, and some of the people. Therefore, that the messengers might be of greater authority, they sent priests and Levites who were of the Pharisees, so that these might lack neither the dignity of the priestly order nor the authority of religion. Now the Evangelist adds this which is said, "and they who had been sent were of the Pharisees," so that first he might assign the reason for the question about John's Baptism, for which they had not been sent; as if to say: they had been sent to ask of John who he was. But that they ask, "Why then do you baptize?" they did this because they were of the Pharisees, to whom their religion afforded the boldness. Second, as Gregory says, that he might show with what intention they asked of John, "Who are you?" For the Pharisees among all the others bore themselves treacherously and slanderously toward Christ. Whence they themselves said to him, Matthew 12:24: "By Beelzebub the prince of demons he casts out demons." They themselves also entered into counsel with the Herodians, that they might catch Jesus in his speech, Matthew 22:15. And therefore by saying "they who had been sent were of the Pharisees," he shows that they bore themselves slanderously, and out of envy questioned him. Now the questioning is about the office of baptizing, whence it is said, "and they asked him, and said to him: Why then do you baptize?" and so on. Whence it must be noted that they do not ask in order to know, but in order to hinder. For because they saw the multitude of the people running to John, on account of the new rite of baptizing, foreign to the rite of the Pharisees and of the law, they envied John, and endeavored so far as they could to hinder his Baptism; and therefore, being unable to contain themselves, they make manifest their envy, and say, "Why then do you baptize, if you are not the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the prophet?" As if they said: you ought not to baptize, since you deny that you are any of those three in whom Baptism was prefigured, as was said above. Namely, if you are not the Christ, who is to have a fountain for the washing away of sin; and if you are not Elijah, or the prophet, that is, Elisha, who crossed the Jordan with dry foot, as is said 4 Kings 2:8, how do you dare to baptize? Like to these are the envious, who hinder the advancement of souls, who say to those who see: "See not," etc., Isaiah 30:10. Now the response is true: whence he says, "John answered them, saying: I baptize in water." As if to say: you ought not to marvel if I, who am not the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the prophet, baptize: because my Baptism is not completive, but imperfect. For to the perfection of Baptism there is required the washing of body and soul; and the body indeed according to nature is washed with water, but the soul only by the Spirit. Whence "I baptize in water," that is, with the body I wash the body; but another will come, who will baptize perfectly, namely in water and the Holy Spirit; God and man, who will wash both the body with water and the spirit with the Spirit, in such a way that the sanctification of the Spirit will be conveyed to the body. Acts 1:5: "John indeed baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days hence." Now he bears witness concerning Christ, when he says, "but there has stood one in the midst of you," etc., and first by comparison to the Jews; second by comparison to himself, at "he it is who is to come after me." Now he compares him to the Jews, saying, "but there has stood one in the midst of you"; as if to say: I have done an imperfect work; but there is another who will perfect my work, who "has stood in the midst of you." And this is indeed expounded in many ways. In one way, according to Gregory, Chrysostom, and Augustine, so that it refers to Christ's common association among men, because, according to human nature, he appeared like to other men; Philippians 2:6: "who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God; but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, made into the likeness of men, and in habit found as a man." And according to this he says, "he has stood in the midst of you," that is, he has many times associated as one of you; Luke 22:27: "I am in the midst of you." "Whom you know not," that is, this that God has been made man, you cannot grasp. Likewise, you know not how great he is according to the divine nature, which lay hidden in him; Job 36:26: "Behold, the Lord is great, surpassing your knowledge." And therefore, as Augustine says, the lamp, namely John, has been lit, that Christ may be found. Psalm 131:17: "I have prepared a lamp for my Christ." In another way it is expounded, according to Origen, and this in two ways. First, so that it refers to Christ's divinity; and according to this "in the midst of you," that is, in the midst of all things, "has stood," namely Christ: because he himself, according as he is the Word, from the beginning of creation filled the whole creation. Jeremiah 23:24: "Heaven and earth I fill." "Whom nevertheless you know not," because, as is said above, "he was in the world (...) and the world knew him not." In another way, so that it refers to the causality of human wisdom, and it is said "he has stood in the midst of you"; that is, in the understanding of all he shines forth: because whatever of light and wisdom there is in men, comes to them from participation in the Word. And he says "in the midst," because in the midst of a man is corporeally the heart, to which a certain wisdom and understanding is attributed: whence, although the understanding does not have a bodily organ, nevertheless because the heart is the principal organ, it is accustomed to be taken for the understanding; whence he is said to stand in the midst according to this likeness, inasmuch as he enlightens every man coming into this world. "Whom nevertheless you know not"; because, as is said above, "the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness comprehended it not." In a fourth way it is expounded so that it refers to the prophetic foretelling of Christ, so that in this way the answer is directed principally to the Pharisees, who continually searched the Scriptures of the Old Testament, in which Christ was foretold, and yet did not know him. And according to this it is said, "he has stood in the midst of you"; that is, in the sacred Scripture, which you always turn over; below 5:39: "Search the Scriptures." "Whom nevertheless you know not," because your heart is hardened on account of unbelief and your eyes are blinded, so that you do not recognize as present the one whom you believe to be future. Now John compares Christ to himself, when he says, "he it is who is to come after me." Where first he sets down the excellence of Christ in relation to himself; second he shows the immensity of the excellence, at "whose latchet of the shoe I am not worthy to loose." Now he shows the excellence of Christ in relation to himself both as to the order of preaching, and as to the order of dignity. As to the order of preaching indeed, John became known first. And therefore he says, "he it is who comes after me," to preach, to baptize, and to die; because, as is said Luke 1:76, "you shall go before the face of the Lord, to prepare his ways." But John indeed preceded Christ, as the imperfect the perfect, and as the disposition the form; as is said 1 Corinthians 15:46: "not first that which is spiritual, but that which is animal." For the whole life of John was a certain preparation for Christ; whence he said above, "I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness." But Christ preceded John and us all, as the perfect the imperfect, and as the exemplar the thing exemplified. Matthew 16:24: "If anyone wishes to come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me"; 1 Peter 2:21: "Christ suffered for us, leaving you an example." But as to the order of dignity, when he says "who was made before me," that is, has been set before me, and placed above me in dignity; because, as he says below 3:30, "I must be diminished, but he must increase." Now he assigns the immensity of the excellence when he says, "whose latchet of the shoe I am not worthy to loose." As if to say: do not understand him to be placed before me in dignity as one man is preferred to another, but so excellently that I am nothing in comparison to him. And this is clear, because I am not worthy to loose the latchet of his shoe: which is the least service that can be done to men. From which it is clear that John had approached much toward the knowledge of God, inasmuch as from the consideration of the infinite magnitude of God he utterly disparaged himself, and said that he was nothing. Just as Abraham, when he had come to know God, said, Genesis 18:27: "I will speak to my Lord, whereas I am dust and ashes." So Job 42:5, when he had seen the Lord, said: "Now my eye sees you; therefore I reprehend myself, and do penance in dust and ashes." So Isaiah 40:17, after he had seen the glory of God, said: "All nations are before him as if they were not." And this exposition indeed is literal. But it is also expounded mystically. In one way according to Gregory, so that by the shoe, which is made from the skins of dead animals, is understood mortal human nature, which Christ assumed; Psalm 59:10: "Into Idumea I will stretch out my shoe," and so on. But the latchet of his shoe is that very union of divinity and humanity, which neither John, nor anyone, can loose nor was able fully to investigate, since it was such that it would make man God, and God man. And therefore he says, "whose latchet of the shoe I am not worthy to loose"; that is, to unfold the mystery of the incarnation, and so on. It is to be understood fully and perfectly: for in some manner both John and the other preachers, though imperfectly, do loose the latchet of the shoe. In another way it is expounded, because in the old law it was commanded, Deuteronomy 25:5-10, that when someone died without children, the brother of the deceased was bound to take the wife of the deceased, and to raise up seed for his brother from her; but if he were unwilling to take her as wife, then some relative of the deceased wishing to take her ought to unshoe him as a sign of this yielding, and to take her as wife, and his house ought to be called the house of the unshod. According to this therefore he says, "whose latchet of the shoe I am not worthy to loose"; that is, I am not worthy to have the spouse, who is due to him, the Church. As if to say: I am not worthy to be called the spouse of the Church, which is consecrated to Christ in the Baptism of the Spirit; but I baptize in water only. Below 3:29: "He who has the bride is the bridegroom," and so on. Now the place, where the aforesaid things were done, is subjoined consequently, when he says, "these things were done in Bethania beyond the Jordan." But concerning this first a question arises. Since Bethania is on the Mount of Olives which is near Jerusalem, as is said John 11:1 and Matthew 26:6, how does he say that they were done beyond the Jordan, which was far distant from Jerusalem? But it must be said, according to Origen and Chrysostom, that it ought not to be called Bethania, but Bethabara, which is a certain village beyond the Jordan: and that he says Bethania is corrupted by the fault of the copyists. But because both the Greek and the Latin books have Bethania, therefore it must be said otherwise, that there is a twofold Bethania: one which is near Jerusalem on the side of the Mount of Olives, another beyond the Jordan, where John was baptizing. Now that he makes mention of the place, has a literal and a mystical reason. Literal indeed according to Chrysostom, because John was writing this Gospel while perhaps some were living who both saw the time in which these things were done, and the place, and therefore, as if for greater certainty, he makes them witnesses of those things which they had seen. Mystical, however, because these places befit Baptism. For, if it be called Bethania, which is interpreted "house of obedience," it signifies that it is necessary to come to Baptism through the obedience of faith; Romans 1:5: "unto obedience of faith in all nations." But if it be called Bethabara, which is interpreted "house of preparation," it signifies that through Baptism man is prepared for eternal life. Nor is it without mystery that it is beyond the Jordan. For Jordan is interpreted "their descent"; and, according to Origen, it signifies Christ, who descended from the heavens, as he himself says: "I descended from heaven, to do the will of my Father." Whence it is said Ecclesiasticus 24:41: "I, like the river Dorix." Now through him it is fitting that all who enter into this world be cleansed, according to that of Revelation 1:5: "he washed us from our sins in his blood." Fittingly also does the Jordan signify Baptism. For it is itself the boundary between those who received the lots of inheritance from Moses on one side of the Jordan, and those who received them from Joshua on the other; and thus Baptism is as it were a certain boundary between the Jews and the Gentiles, who set out thither, that they may wash themselves as they come to Christ, that they may lay aside the reproach of sin. For just as the children of Israel entering the land of promise had to cross the Jordan, so also through Baptism one must enter the heavenly homeland. Now he says "beyond the Jordan," to intimate that John preached the Baptism of penance also to transgressors and sinners; whence also the Lord, Matthew 9:13: "I came not to call the just, but sinners."”

“Above, John bore witness to Christ when questioned; here, however, he bears another witness to Christ of his own accord. And first indeed he offers the testimony itself; second, he confirms the testimony that has been given, there, "and John gave testimony." Now concerning the first, first the circumstances of the testimony are described; second, the testimony itself is set down, there, "behold the Lamb of God"; third, the suspicion regarding the witness is excluded, there, "and I knew him not." Now the circumstances are described. One indeed is on the part of the time. Whence he says, "the next day": in which indeed John's constancy is commended, because not on one day, not only once, but on many days and many times he bore witness to Christ. Psalm 144:2: "Every single day I will bless you." His progress too is commended: for one day ought not to succeed to us just like another; but the one that follows ought to be another, that is, better; according to that of Psalm 83:8: "They shall go from power to power." Another circumstance is set down on the part of the manner of testifying, because "John saw Jesus": in which certitude is intimated. For testimony from sight is most certain. And another circumstance is set down on the part of him to whom the testimony is borne. Whence he says, "Jesus coming to him," namely from Galilee, as is said in Matthew 3:13: "Jesus came from Galilee." Yet this is not to be understood of the coming by which he came to the Baptism, of which Matthew there speaks, but of another coming by which, already baptized and having tarried some while around the Jordan, he came to John—otherwise he would not have said: "he upon whom you shall see the Spirit descending and remaining upon him, this is he who baptizes in the Holy Spirit. And I saw," and so on. Therefore he had already seen him, and the Spirit descending upon him like a dove, etc., as he says below. Now one cause of this coming of Christ to John after the Baptism was that John's testimony might be made certain. For John had said of Christ: "he it is who is to come after me": for someone might err in the knowledge of the one to come, since he was present; he came to John, to be pointed out by him with his finger, John saying, "behold the Lamb of God," and so on. Another reason was that he might exclude error. For someone might believe that Christ, the first time, when he came to the Baptism, came to John as one to be cleansed from sins. Therefore Christ, in order to exclude this, came also to him after the Baptism. Whence John pointedly says, "behold he who takes away." He committed no sin, but he came to take away sin. He came also that he might furnish an example of humility: because, as is said in Ecclesiasticus 3:20, "the greater you are, humble yourself in all things." And it should be noted that, just as when Christ was already conceived, when the Virgin Mother went up into the hill country with haste to visit Elizabeth the mother of John, John existing in his mother's womb, and not able to speak, showing reverence and dancing for joy to Christ, leaped in the womb; so also now, when Christ out of humility comes to him, he offers testimony and reverence, and breaks forth into a voice, saying, "behold the Lamb of God," and so on. Here John's testimony is set down: in which indeed he shows the power of Christ, and his dignity, there, "this is he of whom I said." He shows the power in two ways. First by proposing the figure; second by expounding it, there, "behold he who takes away the sins of the world." Concerning the first it should be known that, as Origen says, in the old law they were accustomed to offer five animals in the temple: three of the land animals, namely the calf, the goat, and the sheep—but of the sheep, the ram, the ewe, and the lamb; and of the birds two, namely the turtledove and the dove: all of which indeed were prefigurative of the true sacrifice, which is Christ, who "offered himself an oblation to God," as is said in Ephesians 5:2. Why then, when the Baptist bore witness to Christ, did he name the lamb especially? The reason for this is that, as is said in Numbers 28:3ff., although other sacrifices were made in the temple at other times, yet one was daily, in which continually one lamb was offered in the morning and another in the evening; and this was never changed, but was observed as the principal one, while the others were as it were an addition. And therefore by the lamb, which was the principal sacrifice, is signified Christ, who is the principal sacrifice. For although all the saints who have suffered for the faith of Christ are of profit for the salvation of the faithful, yet they do not have this except inasmuch as they are immolated upon the oblation of the lamb, as it were an oblation added to the principal sacrifice. It is offered indeed in the morning and in the evening, because through Christ the access lies open to contemplating and enjoying the intelligible things of the divine, which pertains to morning knowledge; and we are instructed how to use earthly things without defilement, which pertains to evening knowledge. And therefore he says: "behold the Lamb of God," etc., that is, the one signified by the lamb. And he says "of God," because in Christ there are two natures, namely the human and the divine. And that this sacrifice should be powerful for cleansing and sanctifying from sins, it has from the power of the divinity, inasmuch namely as "God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself," 2 Corinthians 5:19. Or it is called "the Lamb of God," as it were offered by God, namely by Christ himself, who is God; just as it is called the oblation of a man, which a man offers. Or it is called "the Lamb of God," namely of the Father: because he himself provided for man an oblation to be offered for sins sufficient, which man cannot have of himself. Whence in Genesis 22:7, when Isaac asked of Abraham: "where is the victim of the holocaust?" he answered: "God will provide himself a victim for the holocaust." Romans 8:32: "God spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all." Now Christ is called a lamb, first on account of purity; Exodus 12:5: "it shall be a lamb of a year old," etc.; 1 Peter 1:18: "you were not redeemed with corruptible things, gold or silver." Second on account of meekness; Isaiah 53:7: "he was dumb as a lamb before its shearer." Third on account of fruit, Proverbs 27:26: "the lambs are for your clothing." And this as regards clothing, according to that of Romans 13:14: "put on the Lord Jesus Christ." And as regards food, below 6:52: "my flesh is for the life of the world." And therefore Isaiah said, 16:1: "send forth, O Lord, the lamb, the ruler of the earth." Consequently he expounds the proposed figure when he says, "who takes away the sins of the world," that is, removes; which in the law could not be removed either by the lamb or by other sacrifices, because, as is said in Hebrews 10:6: "it is impossible that sins should be taken away by the blood of bulls and goats." This blood "takes away," that is, removes, "the sins of the world." Hosea, last chapter, 3: "he takes away all iniquity." Or "takes away," that is, takes upon himself, "the sins of the whole world"; because, as is said in 1 Peter 2:24, "who bore our sins in his body." Isaiah 53:4: "he himself bore our sorrows, and carried our languors." Now he says, according to the Gloss, "sin," and not "sins," in order to show in a universal manner that he took away the whole genus of sin; 1 John 2:2: "he is the propitiation for our sins." Or because he died for one sin, namely original; Romans 5:12: "by one man sin entered into the world," and so on. Above, the Baptist bore witness to Christ as regards his power; here, however, he bears witness as regards his dignity, comparing him to himself in a threefold way. And first as regards the office and order of preaching; whence he says, "this," namely the lamb, pointing him out with his finger, "is he of whom I said," namely in his absence, "after me there comes a man," to preach and to baptize, "who comes after me" by being born. Now Christ is called "a man" by reason of perfect age: because when he began to teach after the Baptism, he was already of perfect age; Luke 3:23: "Jesus was beginning to be about thirty years old." Likewise, by reason of the perfection of all the virtues which were in him; Isaiah 4:1: "seven women," that is, virtues, "shall take hold of one man," namely the perfect Christ. Zechariah 6:12: "behold a man, the Orient is his name": because he himself is the origin of all the virtues in others. Likewise, by reason of espousal; because he himself is the spouse of the Church; Hosea 2:16: "you shall call me husband," etc.; 2 Corinthians 11:2: "I have espoused you to one husband." Second, as regards the order of dignity, when he says, "who is made before me." As if to say: although he came after me to preach, yet he is made before me, that is, set above me, in dignity. Canticle 2:8: "behold he comes leaping upon the mountains, leaping over the hills." One hill was John the Baptist, over whom Christ leaped: because, as is said below 3:30: "I must decrease, but he must increase." Third, as regards the order of duration, when he says, "because he was before me." As if to say: it is no wonder if he is preferred to me in dignity, because, even if he is later in time, yet he is prior in eternity, "because he was before me." Now from this a twofold error is destroyed. The error of Arius: because he does not say "he was made before me" as though he were a creature, but "he was before me," from eternity before every creature; Proverbs 8:25: "before all the hills the Lord begot me." Likewise the error of Paul of Samosata: because he said "he was before me," in order to show that he had not taken his beginning from Mary. For if he had taken the principle of his being from the Virgin, he would surely not have existed before his precursor, who preceded Christ by six months according to human generation. Consequently, when he says, "and I knew him not," he excludes a false suspicion from his testimony. For someone might say that John bore witness to Christ on account of an affection of special familiarity which he had toward him; and therefore, excluding this, John says, "I knew him not": for John from his childhood dwelt in the desert. Now although many miracles were wrought at the nativity of Christ, for instance concerning the Magi and the star, and things of this kind, yet they were not known to John: both because he was an infant according to age, and because, withdrawing to the desert, he did not have familiarity with Christ. But in the intervening time from the nativity until the Baptism, Christ worked no miracle; but he was conformed in his manner of living to others, and his power existed unknown to all. And that in the intervening time he did not work miracles up until thirty years is clear from what is said below 2:11: "this Jesus did as the beginning of signs," and so on. From which appears the falsity of the book on the infancy of the Savior. Now the reason he did not work miracles in the intervening time was so that the mystery of the circumcision and incarnation might not be thought to be a phantom, if he had not conducted himself in age like other infants. And therefore he deferred the demonstration of his knowledge and power to another time, in which other men are accustomed to flourish in knowledge and power. According to what is said in Luke 2:52: "and the child advanced in grace and wisdom"; not that he received a power and wisdom not previously had, since he was perfect in them from the instant of his conception, but because his power and wisdom became more known to men. Isaiah 45:15: "truly you are a hidden God." Therefore, then, John did not know him, because he had as yet seen no signs concerning him, nor had he become known to others through signs. Whence he adds, "but that he might be made manifest in Israel, therefore I came baptizing in water." As if to say: my whole ministry is for the manifestation. Above, "he was not the light, but that he might bear witness to the light." Now he says, "I came baptizing in water," to distinguish it from the Baptism of Christ. Because Christ baptized not in water only, but in the Spirit, conferring grace; whence the Baptism of John was only significative, not effective. Now the Baptism of John manifested Christ in three ways. First, namely, through John's preaching. For although John even without Baptism could have prepared the way of the Lord by preaching, and led the crowds to Christ, yet on account of the novelty of the office more flocked to him than if the preaching had been made without Baptism. Second, the Baptism of John was of profit on account of Christ's humility, which he demonstrated in willing to be baptized by John; Matthew 3:13: "Christ came to John to be baptized by him." In which indeed he furnished an example of humility, namely that no one, however great, should disdain to receive the sacraments from whomever is ordained for this. Third, because when Christ was baptized by John, the power of the Father was present in the voice, and the Holy Spirit in the dove, through which the power and dignity of Christ was more manifested. Luke 3:22: "and the voice of the Father thundered: this is my beloved Son." Consequently, when he says, "and John gave testimony," John himself confirms by the authority of God the great things which he testified concerning Christ, that he alone took away the sins of the whole world. And concerning this he does three things. First, he proposes the vision; second, he furnishes instruction concerning the understanding of the vision, there, "and I knew him not"; third, he shows his conception drawn from the vision itself, there, "and I saw, and I gave testimony." He proposes the vision indeed when he says, "I saw the Spirit descending like a dove from heaven." When indeed this was done, John the Evangelist does not report; but Matthew and Luke say this was done when Christ was baptized by John. And indeed it was fitting that the Holy Spirit should be present to the one baptized and to the Baptism. For it was fitting to the one baptized, because just as the Son, existing from the Father, manifests the Father—below 17:6: "Father, I have manifested your name," etc.—so also the Holy Spirit, existing from the Son, manifests the Son. Below 16:14: "he shall glorify me, because he shall receive of mine," and so on. And it was fitting to the Baptism, because the Baptism of Christ is the initiating and consecrating of our Baptism. Now our Baptism is consecrated by the invocation of the holy Trinity; Matthew, last chapter, 19: "baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit," and so on. What therefore we invoke in our Baptism was present at the Baptism of Christ, namely the Father in the voice, the Holy Spirit in the dove, the Son in the human nature. Now he says "descending," because since a descent has two termini, namely a beginning above and a terminus below, it is fitting to the Baptism as regards both. For there is a twofold spirit, one of the world and another of God. And the spirit of the world indeed is the love of the world, which is not from above, but ascends into man from what is lower, and makes him descend; but the Spirit of God, namely the love of God, descends from above to man, and makes him ascend. 1 Corinthians 2:12: "now we have received not the spirit of this world, but the Spirit of God." Because therefore that Spirit is from the things above, therefore he says "descending." Likewise also, because it is impossible for a creature to receive the goodness of God in such fullness as befits God, therefore the derivation of his goodness to us is as it were a certain descent; James 1:17: "every best gift, and every perfect gift is from above, descending from the Father of lights." But because the Holy Spirit cannot be seen in his own nature, as is said below 3:8: "the Spirit breathes where he wills, and you know not whence he comes, or whither he goes," and for the Spirit it is proper not to descend, but to ascend—Ezekiel 8:3: "the Spirit lifted me up," and so on—therefore consequently the Evangelist expounds the manner of the vision and of the descent, saying that this was not in the Spirit, that is, in nature, but in the appearance of a dove, in which he appeared: whence he says, "like a dove." And this indeed fittingly, so that the Son of God, made visible through flesh, might be manifested through the Holy Spirit in the visible appearance of a dove. This dove indeed was not assumed by the Holy Spirit into the unity of person, as the human nature was assumed by the Son of God. The reason for this is that the Son appeared not only as manifester, but as savior. And therefore, according to what Pope Leo says, it was necessary that he be God and man: God indeed, that he might bring the remedy; but man, that he might furnish the example. But the Holy Spirit appeared only for manifesting, for which it sufficed to assume a bodily appearance only for a certain signification. But whether that dove was a true animal, and whether pre-existing to the apparition: it should be known that it is reasonably said that it was a true dove. For the Holy Spirit came to manifest Christ, who, since he is truth, was not to be manifested except through truth. But as regards the second, it must be said that it did not pre-exist to the apparition; but then by divine power, without the intermingling of male and female, it was formed, just as the body of Christ too was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit, not from male seed. And yet it was a true dove, because, as Augustine says in the book On the Christian Combat, for almighty God, who fashioned the whole of creation out of nothing, it was not difficult to fashion a true body of a dove without the ministry of other doves, just as it was not difficult to fashion a true body in the womb of the blessed Virgin without natural seed. Cyprian in the book On the Unity of the Church: "for this reason too the Holy Spirit is said to have appeared in a dove, because the dove is a simple and innocent animal, not bitter with gall, not fierce with bites, not violent with the tearing of talons: it loves human dwellings, it knows the fellowship of one house, when they beget they bring forth their young together, when they fly they cling to one another in turn, they pass their life in common intercourse, they recognize the concord of peace with the kiss of the mouth, they fulfill the law of unanimity in regard to all things." But why he appeared rather in a dove than in some other appearance, a reason is assigned in many ways. First indeed on account of the simplicity of the dove. For the dove is simple; Matthew 10:16: "be wise as serpents, and simple as doves." Now the Holy Spirit, because he makes one look to one, namely God, makes men simple; and therefore he appears in the appearance of a dove. And indeed, according to Augustine, he also appeared over the gathered disciples by fire, because some are simple, but lukewarm; while some are fervent, but malicious. Therefore, so that those sanctified by the Spirit might lack guile, the Spirit is shown in the appearance of a dove; and lest simplicity grow lukewarm through coldness, he is shown in fire. Second, on account of the unity of charity. For the dove is much fervent with love; Canticle 6:8: "one is my dove." Therefore, in order to show the unity of the Church, the Holy Spirit appears in the appearance of a dove. Nor let it move you that to the disciples divided tongues appeared, when the Holy Spirit sat upon each one of them, who both appears divided, according to the diverse offices of gifts, and yet unites through charity; and thus on account of the first he appeared in divided tongues, as is said in 1 Corinthians 12:4: "there are divisions of graces," in the appearance of a dove on account of the second. Third, on account of the groaning. For the dove has a groaning for its song; so the Holy Spirit "asks for us with unspeakable groanings," as is said in Romans 8:26, and Nahum 2:7: "her handmaids were marveling." Fourth, on account of fecundity. For the dove is a most fecund animal, and therefore, to designate the fecundity of spiritual grace in the Church, the Holy Spirit appeared in the appearance of a dove. This is what in Leviticus 5:7 the Lord commanded, to offer young doves. Fifth, on account of the dove's wariness. For it sits upon the streams of waters, looking in which it descries the flying falcon, and guards itself against it; Canticle 5:12: "your eyes are as doves," and so on. Whence, because in Baptism is our safeguarding and defense, fittingly the Holy Spirit appeared in the appearance of a dove. It corresponds, therefore, to the figure of the old testament. For just as the dove, carrying the branch of a green olive, showed the sign of God's clemency to those who had survived from the waters of the deluge; so also the Holy Spirit, coming in Baptism in the appearance of a dove, shows the sign of divine clemency, which both remits sins to the baptized and confers grace. Now he says "remaining upon him," because in remaining rest is designated. And that the Holy Spirit does not rest upon someone happens from a twofold cause. One is from sin. For all other men, besides Christ, are either wounded by the wound of mortal sin, through which the Holy Spirit is put to flight, or are darkened by the stain of venial sin, through which some operation of the Holy Spirit is impeded. But in Christ there was neither mortal, nor venial, nor original sin: whence neither in him was the Holy Spirit disquieted; but "remained upon him," that is, rested. The other cause: because as regards the graces freely given, the power of operating is not always present to the other saints. Just as the power of working miracles is not always present to the saints, nor the spirit of prophecy to the prophets. But Christ always had the power for every operation of virtues and graces: and therefore, to designate this, "he remained upon him." Whence this was a proper sign for recognizing Christ, as is said in the Gloss on Isaiah 11:2: "the Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him." Which is to be understood of Christ, inasmuch as he is man, according to which he is less than the Father and the Holy Spirit. Consequently, when he says, "and I knew him not," he instructs concerning the understanding of the aforesaid vision. For certain heretics, namely the Ebionites, said that Christ, from the beginning of his nativity, was neither Christ nor the Son of God, but from that time he began to be the Son of God and Christ when in the Baptism he was anointed with the oil of the Holy Spirit. But this is false, because in the very hour of the nativity the Angel said to the shepherds, Luke 2:11: "this day is born to you a Savior, who is Christ the Lord, in the city of David." Therefore, lest anyone should believe that the Holy Spirit descended upon Christ in the Baptism as though Christ anew needed the Spirit for his own sanctification, therefore the Baptist shows the cause of his descent, saying that he did not descend on account of Christ's own necessity, but on account of us, namely so that his grace might be manifested to us. And therefore he says, "I knew him not. But that he might be made manifest in Israel, therefore I came baptizing in water." But here a question arises. For he says, "he who sent me to baptize," etc.—if it be said that the Father sent him, it is true; likewise if it be said that the Son, it is more manifest, since it may be said that both the Father and the Son sent him, because John is not of those of whom Jeremiah 23:21 says: "I did not send them, and they ran." How then does he say, "I knew him not," if the Son sent him? If it be said that although he knew him according to the divinity, yet he did not know him according to the humanity, except after he saw the Spirit descending upon him, on the contrary: for the Holy Spirit descended upon Christ when he was baptized. But John knew Christ before he was baptized, otherwise he would not have said, "I ought to be baptized by you, and you come to me?" It must therefore be said that this question can be answered in three ways. In one way, according to Chrysostom, so that it be referred to the knowledge of familiarity, so that the sense is "I knew him not," namely familiarly. And if it be objected that John says, "I ought to be baptized by you," etc., it is said that these two are to be referred to different times, so that this which he says, "I knew him not," be referred to the time long before the Baptism, in which he was not yet familiar with Christ; while this which he says, "I ought to be baptized by you," be referred to that time in which Christ was baptized, when, now on account of his frequent visitation, Christ was familiar. In another way, according to Jerome, it must be said that Christ was the Son of God and the Savior of the world, and this indeed John knew; but he did not know him as the Savior of the world through Baptism: and therefore he added this which he did not know, namely that "this is he who baptizes in the Holy Spirit." But it is better to say, according to Augustine, that he knew something and did not know something, and he added this which he did not know, namely that the power of baptizing, which he was able to communicate to his faithful ones, he retained to himself alone. And this is what he says, "he who sent me to baptize in water (...) this is he," namely singularly and alone, "who baptizes in the Holy Spirit," and no other: because he retained this power to himself alone. Now it should be noted that a threefold power of Christ is regarded in Baptism. One is of efficiency, by which he cleanses interiorly the soul from the stain of sin; which power indeed Christ has inasmuch as he is God, but not inasmuch as he is man; and this power cannot be communicated to any other. Another power is of ministry, which indeed he communicated to the faithful; Matthew, last chapter, 19: "baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." And therefore priests, as ministers, have the power of baptizing; but Christ, inasmuch as he is man, is called a minister, as the Apostle says—but nevertheless he is the head of all the ministers of the Church. And as regards this he singularly has the power of excellence in the sacraments: which excellence indeed appears in four things. First in the institution of the sacraments: because no mere man, nor even the whole Church, could institute the sacraments, or change the sacraments, or dispense from the sacraments. For the sacraments confer invisible grace from their institution; but to confer grace belongs to God alone: and therefore only he who is true God can institute the sacraments. The second is as regards the efficacy of Christ's merit: for from the merit of Christ's passion the sacraments have their power; Romans 6:3: "whoever of us are baptized in Christ Jesus, are baptized in his death." The third is because Christ can confer the effect of Baptism without the sacrament: which belongs to Christ alone. Fourth, because at one time Baptism was conferred by the invocation of the name of Christ; but now it is not so done. Which four things indeed he communicated to none of men; although he could have communicated some of them, for instance that Baptism should be conferred in the name of Peter, or of some other, and perhaps some of the others. But this was not done, lest a schism should be made in the Church, if the baptized should place their hope in those into whose naming they were baptized. And therefore John learned, through the fact that the Holy Spirit descended upon him, that Christ alone is he who baptizes interiorly by his own power. And perhaps it could be said that when he said, "I ought to be baptized by you," etc., he knew him through internal revelation; but when he saw the Holy Spirit descending upon him, he knew him through the manifestation of an exterior sign. And therefore he touches upon both modes of knowledge. The first, when he says, "he who sent me to baptize, he said to me," that is, revealed interiorly. The second, when he added, "he upon whom you shall see the Spirit descending (...) this is he who baptizes." Consequently he shows what the Baptist understood from this vision, namely that Christ was the Son of God; and this is what he says, "and I saw," namely the Spirit descending upon him, "and I gave testimony, that this," namely Christ, "is the Son of God," namely true and natural. For the adoptive sons of the Father were made to the likeness of the natural Son of God; Romans 8:29: "whom he foreknew to be made conformable to the image of his Son." Therefore he ought to make sons of God who baptizes in the Holy Spirit, through whom sons are adopted; Romans 8:15: "for you have not received the spirit of servitude (...) but the spirit of adoption," and so on. Because therefore this one, namely Christ, is he who baptizes in the Holy Spirit, therefore the Baptist rightly concludes that he is the true and pure Son of God. 1 John, last chapter, 20: "that we may be in his true Son," and so on. But if others saw the Holy Spirit descending upon him, why did they not believe? I answer, because they were not disposed for this, or perhaps because that vision was demonstrated to the Baptist alone.”

“Above, the Evangelist set forth the Baptist's testimonies to the crowds; here, consequently, he sets forth his testimonies to the disciples of John. And first the testimony is set forth; second, the fruit of the testimony is shown, at "And the two disciples heard him speaking," etc. Concerning the first he does three things. First, the witness is described; second, the manner of testifying is assigned; third, his testimony is set forth. But the witness is described when he says, "The next day again John was standing, and two of his disciples." Now in that he says "was standing," three things are noted concerning John. Namely, the manner of his own teaching, which was different from the manner of the teaching of Christ and of his disciples. For Christ taught by going about; whence it is said, Matthew 4:23, that "Jesus went about all Galilee," etc. Likewise the apostles also taught by traveling throughout the world; Mark, last chapter, 15: "Going into the whole world, preach the Gospel to every creature." But John taught by standing; whence it is said "John was standing," namely in one place beyond the Jordan, and he instructed all who came to him about Christ. Now the reason why Christ and his disciples taught by traveling about is that the preaching of Christ had been made credible through miracles, and therefore they went about to various places, so that the miracles and powers of Christ might become known. But the preaching of John was not confirmed by miracles, whence it is said below 10:41: "John did no sign"; but rather by the merit and holiness of his life. And therefore he stood in one place, so that various people might flow together to him, and through his holiness be led to Christ. Likewise also, if John had traveled about without miracles to announce Christ beforehand, his testimony would be rendered more unbelievable, since he would seem to do this importunately, and as if by thrusting himself forward. Second, John's constancy in the truth is noted, because John was not a reed shaken by the wind, but firm in faith, according to that saying of 1 Corinthians 10:12: "Let him who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall." Habakkuk 2:1: "I will stand upon my watch." Third, it is noted allegorically that "to stand," allegorically, is the same as "to fail"; 4 Kings 4:6: "and the oil stood," that is, it failed. Therefore John was standing when Christ was coming, because when the truth came, the figure failed. John stands, because the law passes away. Now the manner of testifying is set forth as certain, because it was done with sight. Whence he says, "And looking upon Jesus walking." Where it must be known that the prophets bore testimony to Christ, Acts 10:43: "To him all the prophets bear witness." Likewise the apostles too, traveling throughout the world, Acts 1:8: "You shall be witnesses to me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea," etc. But yet not through sight, nor concerning him as present, but concerning him as absent. The prophets indeed as concerning something future, but the apostles as concerning something past. But John bore testimony with Christ present to him and seen by him: and therefore he says "and looking," with the eyes of the body and of the mind, according to that saying of Psalm 83:10: "Look upon the face of your Christ"; Isaiah 52:8: "They shall see eye to eye." But he says "walking," to designate the mystery of the incarnation, through which the Word of God assumed a changeable nature; below 16:28: "I went out from the Father, and came into the world." Consequently the testimony is set forth, when he says "Behold the Lamb of God," which is not only demonstrative, but expressive of wonder at his power; Isaiah 9:6: "His name shall be called Wonderful." And truly of wonderful power is this Lamb, who, having been slain, slew the lion: that lion, I say, of whom it is said in 1 Peter, last chapter, 8: "Your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, goes about seeking whom he may devour." And therefore the Lamb himself deserved to be called a lion, victorious and glorious; Revelation 5:5: "Behold, the lion of the tribe of Judah has conquered." Now he offers the testimony briefly, saying "Behold the Lamb of God," both because the disciples to whom he bore this testimony were already sufficiently instructed about Christ from those things which they had heard from John; and also because through this the whole intention of John is sufficiently understood, which was for this alone: that he might lead them to Christ. Nor does he say, "Go to him," lest the disciples should seem to bestow a favor on Christ, if they were to follow him; but he commends the grace of Christ, so that they might reckon it as a benefit to themselves, if they follow Christ. And therefore he says "Behold the Lamb of God"; that is, behold the one in whom is grace, and the power that purges sins: for the lamb was offered for sins, as has been said. Consequently the fruit of the testimony is set forth, when he says "And the two disciples heard him speaking," and first the fruit coming forth from the testimony of John and of his disciples is set forth; but second, the fruit coming forth from the preaching of Christ is set forth, at "And on the next day he wished to go out into Galilee." Concerning the first, first the fruit coming forth from the testimony of John is set forth; second, the fruit coming forth from the preaching of one of his disciples, at "Now Andrew, the brother of Simon Peter," etc. Concerning the first he does two things. First, the beginning of this fruit, made from the testimony of John, is set forth. Second, the consummation made through Christ is set forth, at "But Jesus turning," etc. He says therefore first, "And the two disciples heard him," namely John, "who were with him, speaking" (Behold the Lamb of God), "and they followed Jesus," literally: going with him. Where four things, according to Chrysostom, can be considered. First, that this—that John speaks and Christ is silent, and by the word of John the disciples are gathered to Christ—befits the mystery: for Christ is the bridegroom of the Church, but John is the friend and best man of the bridegroom. Now the office of the best man is to hand over the bride to the bridegroom, and by speaking, to deliver the marriage covenants; but it belongs to the bridegroom to be silent, as if out of modesty, and to dispose of the bride, now possessed, according to his will. So therefore the disciples are handed over by John to Christ, as if betrothed through faith. John speaks, Christ is silent; but yet he diligently instructed those he had received. But second, that when John, commending the dignity of Christ, said "He was made before me," and "because I am not worthy to loose the strap of his sandal," no one was converted; but when he spoke of humble things concerning Christ and the mystery of the incarnation, then the disciples followed him: because the humble things, and those which Christ suffered for us, move us more; and therefore it is said in Song of Songs 1:2: "Your name is oil poured out," that is, mercy, by which you procured the salvation of all; and therefore it immediately follows, "the maidens have loved you exceedingly." Third, because the word of preaching is like seed falling into various soils: in one indeed it bears fruit, in another not. So also John, when he preaches, does not convert all the disciples to Christ, but only two, namely those who were well disposed; but others, on the contrary, are moved by envy against Christ: whence they even raise a question with him, as is said in Matthew 9:14. The fourth is that the disciples of John, having heard his testimony about Christ, did not immediately thrust themselves forward to speak with him abruptly, but, as earnest men, they were eager, with a certain modesty, to speak with him privately and in a secret place. Ecclesiastes 8:6: "For every business there is a time, and opportunity." Consequently the consummation of the fruit is set forth, when he says "But Jesus turning." For what John began is consummated through Christ, because "the law brought no one to perfection," as is held in Hebrews 7:19. And concerning this Christ does two things: for first he examined the following disciples; second, he instructed them, at "he says to them: Come, and see." Concerning the first, first the question of Christ examining is set forth; second, the response of the examined disciples, at "who said to him: Rabbi, where do you dwell?" He says therefore, "But Jesus turning, and seeing them following him, said to them." And indeed by the literal sense it is to be understood that Christ was going ahead of them, and these two disciples, following him, did not at all see his face: and therefore Christ, in order to give them confidence, turned himself to them. In which it is given us to understand that to all who begin to follow Christ with a pure heart, he gives confidence, or hope of mercy; Wisdom 6:14: "She anticipates those who desire her." Now Jesus turns himself to us, that he may be seen by us: this will be in that blessed vision, when he will show us his face, as is said in Psalm 79:4: "Show us your face, and we shall be saved." For as long as we are in this world, we see his back parts, because we come into knowledge of him through his effects; whence it is said, Exodus 33:23: "You shall see my back parts." Likewise he turns himself to bestow on us the help of his mercy. This the Psalm 89:13 asked for: "Turn, O Lord, a little while," etc. For as long as Christ does not bestow the help of his compassion, he seems turned away from us. Therefore Jesus turned to John's disciples following him, in order to show them his face, and to pour grace into them. Now he examines them especially concerning their intention. For the intention of those following Christ is not the same: for some follow him for the sake of temporal goods; but others for the sake of spiritual goods. And therefore the Lord asks what these intend, saying, "What are you seeking?" Not indeed that he might learn, but so that, by their disclosing their right intention, he might make them more intimate, and show them worthy of a hearing. Now it should be noted that this is the first word that Christ speaks in this Gospel. And fittingly, because the first thing God seeks from man is right intention. And according to Origen, after the six words which John had spoken, Christ spoke the seventh. For John the Baptist spoke the first, when, bearing testimony about Christ, he cried out, saying, "This is he of whom I said." Another when he said, "I am not worthy to loose the strap of his sandal." The third when he said, "I baptize in water, but there has stood in your midst one whom you do not know." The fourth, "Behold the Lamb of God." The fifth, "I saw the Spirit descending like a dove," etc. The sixth, when here he says, "Behold the Lamb of God." And Christ speaks the seventh, so that you may understand mystically that the rest, which is designated by the seventh day, is to come for us through Christ, and that in him is the fullness of the sevenfold grace of the Holy Spirit. Consequently the disciples respond, "who said to him," etc. And indeed, questioned about one thing, they answer two. First indeed why they follow Christ, namely that they may learn, whence they even call him teacher, "Rabbi" (which is said to be interpreted "teacher"), as if they were to say: "We seek that you may teach us." For now they already foreknew what is said in Matthew 23:10, "One is your teacher, Christ." But second, what they seek by following, namely, "Where do you dwell?" And indeed it can be said literally that in truth they were seeking the house of Christ. For on account of the wonderful and great things which they had heard from John about him, they did not wish to question him perfunctorily, nor only once, but frequently and seriously; and therefore they wished to know his house, so that they might frequently come to him, according to the counsel of the wise man, Ecclesiasticus 6:36: "If you see a man of understanding, rise early to go to him," and Proverbs 8:34: "Blessed is he who hears me, and watches daily at my gates." But allegorically the dwelling-place of God is in the heavens, according to that saying of Psalm 122:1: "To you I have lifted up my eyes, who dwell in the heavens." They ask therefore where Christ dwells, because for this we ought to follow Christ: that through him we may be led to the heavens, that is, to heavenly glory. But morally they ask "Where do you dwell?" as if they wished to know what sort of men they ought to be who are worthy that Christ should dwell in them; concerning which dwelling-place it is said in Ephesians 2:22: "You are being built up into a dwelling-place of God," and Song of Songs 1:6: "Show me, you whom my soul loves, where you feed, where you lie down at midday." Consequently, when he says "Come, and see," the instruction of the disciples by Christ is set forth, and first the very instruction of the disciples by Christ is described; second, the obedience of the disciples is commended, "they came, and saw"; third, the time is determined, because "it was about the tenth hour." He says therefore first, "Come, and see," namely, where I dwell. But here there is a question. Since the Lord says, Matthew 8:20, "The Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head," why does he say, "Come, and see where I dwell"? I answer that it must be said, according to Chrysostom, that by this which the Lord said—"The Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head"—he showed that he had no dwelling of his own, not that he did not stay in the house of some other person. And to see this he was inviting them, saying, "Come, and see." But mystically he says "Come, and see," because the dwelling of God, whether of glory or of grace, cannot be known except through experience: for it cannot be explained in words; Revelation 2:17: "On the stone a new name," etc. And therefore he says, "Come, and see." "Come," by believing and working, "and see," by experiencing and understanding. Now it should be noted that this knowledge is arrived at in four ways. First, through the doing of good works: whence he says "Come." Psalm 41:3: "When shall I come, and appear before the face of the Lord." Second, through the rest, or leisure, of the mind; Psalm 45:11: "Be still, and see." Third, through the tasting of the divine sweetness; Psalm 33:9: "Taste, and see that the Lord is sweet." Fourth, through the operation of devotion; Lamentations 3:41: "Let us lift up our hearts with our hands in praying," etc. And therefore the Lord says, Luke 24:39: "Handle, and see," etc. Consequently the obedience of the disciples is set forth, because it immediately follows, "they came, and saw," because by coming they saw, and seeing they did not abandon him, whence it is said "and they remained there that day," because, as is said below chapter 6:45, "everyone who hears from the Father, and has learned, comes to me." For those who withdraw from Christ have not yet seen him, as it is fitting to see him. But these, who by perfectly believing saw him, remained there that day; hearing and seeing a blessed day, they passed a blessed night; 3 Kings 10:8: "Blessed are your men, and blessed are your servants, who stand before you always." And therefore, as Augustine says, "let us also ourselves build in our heart, and make a house where he may come, and teach us." And he says "that day," because there cannot be night where the light of Christ is, where the sun of justice is. Now the time is determined consequently, when he says, "and it was about the tenth hour." Which indeed the Evangelist specifies, so that, according to the letter, he may suggest the commendation of Christ and of the disciples. For the tenth hour is at the setting of the day: from which Christ too is commended, who was so eager to teach that he did not put off teaching them even on account of the lateness of the hour, but taught them at the tenth hour; Ecclesiastes 11:6: "In the morning sow your seed, and in the evening let not your hand cease." Likewise also the temperance of the disciples is commended. Because even at the tenth hour, at which men are accustomed to have eaten and to be less sober for the perceiving of wisdom, they themselves were both sober and fit for hearing wisdom, nor were they hindered by food or wine. Nor is it a wonder, because they had been his disciples, namely John's, whose drink was water, and food was locust and wild honey. But according to Augustine, by the tenth hour the law is signified, which was given in ten precepts. Therefore it was the tenth hour when these came, and remained with Christ, and are instructed by him, so that the law might be fulfilled through Christ, which could not be fulfilled by the Jews. And therefore also in that very hour he was called "Rabbi," that is, teacher. Consequently, when he says "Now Andrew, the brother of Simon Peter," etc., the fruit which the disciple of John, having been converted to Christ, produced is set forth. And upon this, first the disciple is described; second, the fruit begun by him, at "he first found his brother Simon"; third, the consummation of the fruit, made through Christ, is set forth, at "But Jesus, looking upon him, said." Now the disciple is described first from his name, when he says "Now Andrew," that is, "manly." Psalm 30:25: "Act manfully, and let your heart be strengthened." Now he expresses the name, so that his privilege may be shown: both because he was the first to be perfectly converted to the faith of Christ, and also because he preached Christ: whence, just as Stephen was the first martyr after Christ, so also Andrew was the first Christian. Second, he is described from his kinship, because "brother of Simon Peter": because he was younger. And this indeed is to his commendation, that he who was later in age becomes first in faith. Third, from his discipleship, because "one of the two who had heard from John." And the name of this one indeed is stated, to show Andrew's privilege, that he was distinguished. For the name of the other is passed over in silence: either because that other was John the Evangelist, whose custom it is in his Gospel, when there is dealing about him, not to express his own name on account of humility; or, according to Chrysostom, he was not anyone distinguished, nor did he do anything great: whence there would have been no usefulness in stating his name. For thus Luke also, chapter 10, did not set down the names of the seventy-two disciples, whom the Lord sent two by two before his face, because they were not distinguished and notable persons, as the apostles were. Or, according to Alcuin, that disciple was Philip: and this is clear, because immediately after the Evangelist has continued about Andrew, he continues about Philip, saying: "And on the next day he wished to go out into Galilee, and he found Philip," etc. Fourth, he is commended from his zeal of devotion: whence it is said "and they had followed him," that is, Jesus. Job 23:11: "My foot has followed his steps." Now the fruit begun through Andrew is set forth, when he says "he first found his brother Simon." And first he intimates with whom he produced fruit, namely with his brother, so that he may commend the perfection of his conversion: for, as Peter says in the Itinerary of Clement, an evident sign of anyone's perfect conversion is that, when converted, the more anyone is joined to him, the more he busies himself to convert him to Christ. And therefore Andrew, perfectly converted, did not keep the found treasure to himself, but hastens and quickly runs to his brother, about to hand over to him the goods which he had received. And therefore he says "he found," namely Andrew, "first," that is, "firstly" adverbially, "his brother Simon," whom he was seeking, that just as he was his brother by blood, so he might make him a true brother by faith. Proverbs 18:19: "A brother who is helped by his brother is like a strong city"; Revelation, last chapter, 17: "Let him who hears say, Come." Second, he sets down the words which Andrew says, "We have found the Messiah" (which is interpreted "Christ"); where, according to Chrysostom, he tacitly answers a certain question. Namely, if anyone were to ask him about what they had been instructed by Christ, the answer is ready at hand, namely that through the testimonies of Scripture he instructed him to such an extent that he would recognize him to be the Christ. And therefore he says "We have found." By which he also hints that he had long sought him with desire; Proverbs 3:13: "Blessed is the man who finds wisdom." "Messiah" in Hebrew, which in Greek is interpreted "Christ," that is, "anointed" in Latin: because he was specially anointed with an invisible oil, that is, of the Holy Spirit. Therefore he expressly manifests him by this name: whence in Psalm 44:8 it is said: "Your God has anointed you with the oil of gladness above your companions," that is, above all the saints: for all the saints are anointed with this oil; but this one was singularly anointed, and singularly holy. Therefore, according to Chrysostom, he does not say "Messiah" simply, but with the addition of the article. Third, he sets down the fruit which he produced, because "he led him to Jesus," namely Peter. In which Peter's obedience is commended: for immediately he ran to him, not delaying in this. And consider Andrew's devotion: because he led him to Jesus, not to himself (for he knew himself weak), and therefore he leads him to Christ, that he himself might instruct him; teaching at the same time by this, that this ought to be the effort and zeal of preachers: that they do not claim for themselves the fruit of preaching and its zeal, or turn it to their own advantage and honor, but that they lead to Jesus, that is, refer it to his glory and honor. 2 Corinthians 4:5: "For we do not preach ourselves, but Jesus Christ." Now the consummation of this fruit is set forth when he says, "But Jesus, looking upon him, said," etc. Where Christ, wishing to raise him up to faith in his divinity, begins to do the works which are of divinity, foretelling hidden things. And first indeed as regards the hidden things of the present; whence "looking upon him," that is, immediately when he saw him, by the power of his divinity he considered him, and told him his name: whence he says "You are Simon." Nor is it a wonder, because, as is said in 1 Kings 16:7, "men see the things that appear, but God looks upon the heart." Now this name befits the mystery. For "Simon" is interpreted "obedient"; that it may intimate that obedience is necessary for him who has been converted to Christ through faith. Acts 5:32: "He gives the Holy Spirit to those who obey him." But second, as regards the hidden things of the past. Whence he says "son of Joanna," because his father was called by this name, or, according to Matthew, "son of Jona," when he says "Simon Bar-Jona." And each befits the mystery. For "Joanna" is interpreted "grace," that it may intimate that men come to the faith of Christ through grace; Ephesians 2:5: "By grace you are saved," etc. But "Jona" is interpreted "dove," that it may intimate that through the Holy Spirit, who has been given to us, we are strengthened in the love of God, as is said in Romans 5:5: "The charity of God is poured forth in our hearts." But third, as regards the hidden things of the future; whence he says "you shall be called Cephas, which is interpreted Peter," and in Greek "head." And it befits the mystery, that he who ought to be the head of others and the vicar of Christ should cleave to firmness. Matthew 16:18: "You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church." But here there is a literal question. And first, why did Christ impose the name on him at the beginning of his conversion, and not wish that from the beginning of his birth he should be called by this name? To this it is answered in two ways. According to Chrysostom, first indeed because names divinely imposed designate some eminence of spiritual grace. Now when God confers a special grace on someone, from his very birth a name signifying that grace is imposed; as is clear concerning John the Baptist, who was named by God before he was born, because he was sanctified in his mother's womb. But sometimes the eminence of a special grace is conferred otherwise, in advancing time; and such names are divinely imposed not from the beginning of birth, but in the very course of time; as is clear concerning Abraham and Sara, whose names were changed when they received the promise of multiplying their offspring. In the same way Peter too is divinely named when he is called to the faith of Christ and the grace of the apostolate, and especially because he was constituted the prince of the apostles of the whole Church; which was not done in the case of the other apostles. But according to Augustine, because if he had been named Cephas from the beginning, the mystery would not have appeared. And therefore the Lord willed that he should have the name then, so that by the change of the name the mystery of the Church might appear, which was founded on the confession of his faith. For "Peter" is said from "petra" (rock); but the rock was Christ. In the name of Peter, therefore, the Church is figured, which is built upon the firm, immovable rock, that is, Christ. The second question is whether this name was imposed on Simon here, or in Matthew when it is said "You are Peter." And to this Augustine responds, saying that this name was imposed on Simon in this place; but that which the Lord says to him in Matthew, "You are Peter," etc., is not the imposition of the name, but the commemoration of the name already imposed, as if he uses that name as already imposed. But others say that this name was imposed on Simon when the Lord said to him, "You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church." But here he does not impose this name on him, but foresignifies that it is to be imposed on him afterward. The third question is about the calling of Peter and Andrew: because here it is said that they were called by the Jordan, since they were disciples of John; and Matthew 4:18 says that Christ called them by the Sea of Galilee. And to this it must be said that the calling of the apostles was threefold. The first was to knowledge, or familiarity, and faith; and about this it is spoken here. The second was in the foresignifying of their office, about which it is held in Luke 5:10: "From now on you shall be catching men." The third was to the apostolate, about which it is said in Matthew 4:18 ff., which was complete, because afterward they did not return to their own homes.”

“Having set down the fruit that came from the preaching of John, and of his disciple, the Evangelist consequently makes clear the fruit that came from the preaching of Christ; and first he treats of the conversion of one disciple to the preaching of Christ; second, of the conversion of others through the preaching of the disciple who had been converted to Christ, there: "Philip found Nathanael," and so on. Concerning the first he does three things. First, the occasion of the disciple to be called is set down; second, the calling of this disciple itself is subjoined; third, the condition of the disciple who was called is described, there: "Now Philip was from Bethsaida." The occasion, indeed, of the calling was the departure of Jesus from Judea. And therefore it is said "on the next day he willed to go forth," namely Jesus from Judea, into Galilee, "and he found Philip." Now a threefold reason is assigned for Jesus' going forth into Galilee: two, indeed, literal, of which one is that, after he had been baptized by John, wishing to defer honor to the Baptist, he went forth into Galilee, withdrawing from Judea, lest by his presence he should obscure and diminish John's teaching office, while it still had standing: teaching us to anticipate one another in honor, as it is said in Romans 12:10. The second reason is that in Galilee there are no distinguished persons, below in John 7:52: "a prophet does not arise from Galilee," etc.; and therefore Jesus willed to go forth thither, and to choose from there the princes of the world, who are greater than the prophets, that through this he might show forth his power. Psalm 106:35: "he set the desert into pools of waters." The third reason is mystical: because Galilee is interpreted "transmigration." He willed therefore to go forth from Judea into Galilee in order to intimate that "on the next day," that is, in the day of grace, namely of the Gospel, he would go forth from Judea into Galilee, that is, to the Gentiles to be saved; below in John 7:35: "will he go into the dispersion of the Gentiles?" The calling, therefore, of the disciple is to following; and therefore he says "he found Philip, and said to him: Follow me." And note that sometimes a man finds God, but as it were unknown; Proverbs 8:35: "he who shall find me, shall find life, and shall draw salvation from the Lord." Sometimes God finds a man, but so as to manifest him and to magnify him; Psalm 88:21: "I have found David my servant." And thus Christ found Philip, in order to call him to faith and grace: and therefore he says at once "Follow me." There is a question why Jesus did not from the beginning call disciples. To which Chrysostom responds that he did not wish from the beginning to call anyone, before someone adhered to him spontaneously through the preaching of John: because men are drawn more by example than by words. Exodus 26: "the curtain draws the curtain." It is also asked why Philip at once, at one word, followed Christ, whereas Andrew followed him after hearing about Christ from John, and Peter from Andrew. To this there is a threefold response. One, that Philip had already been instructed by John; because, according to one exposition set down above, that other one, who together with Andrew followed Christ, was Philip. Another reason is that the voice of Christ had a certain power such that it moved the heart not only exteriorly but also interiorly; Jeremiah 23:29: "my words are as fire." For the voice of Christ was not spoken only to exterior things, but it inflamed the interior parts of the faithful to his love. Third, because perhaps Philip had already been instructed about Christ by Andrew and Peter, because they were from the same town; which the Evangelist seems to hint at through this, that he adds "now Philip was from Bethsaida, the city of Andrew and Peter." In which the condition of the disciple who was called is expressed: that he was from Bethsaida. And thus it accords with the mystery. For Bethsaida is interpreted "house of hunters": so as to show what Philip, Peter, and Andrew then were in spirit, and that from the house of hunters he was fittingly calling hunters to capture souls unto life. Jeremiah 16:16: "I will send my hunters," and so on. Consequently there is set down the fruit of the disciple who was converted to Christ; and first is set down the beginning of the fruit made by the disciple; second, the consummation made through Christ, there: "Jesus saw Nathanael." Concerning the first he does three things. First is set down the announcement of Philip; second, the response of Nathanael, there: "and Nathanael said"; third, the consequent admonition of Philip, there: "Philip said to him." Concerning the first, attend that, just as Andrew, perfectly converted, was eager to bring his brother to Christ, so too Philip his brother Nathanael. And therefore he says "Philip found Nathanael," whom perhaps he was seeking, just as Andrew had sought Peter: which was a sign of perfect conversion. "And he said to him." Nathanael is interpreted "gift of God"; and that anyone be converted to Christ is from the gift of God. Now he announces to him that all the prophecies and the law have their completion, and that the desires of the holy fathers were not frustrated but were verified, and that what had been promised by God to their desires had now been fulfilled. "Him of whom Moses wrote in the law, and the prophets, we have found, Jesus"; through which it is given to be understood that Nathanael was sufficiently skilled in the law, and that Philip too, already instructed about Christ, wished to lead Nathanael to Christ from things known to him, namely from the law and the prophets, and therefore he says "him of whom Moses wrote," and so on. For Moses wrote about Christ; below in John 5:46: "if you believed Moses, you would perhaps believe me also: for he wrote about me." Likewise the prophets wrote about Christ; Acts 10:43: "to him all the prophets give testimony." Attend also that Philip says three things about Christ, consonant with the law and the prophets. First indeed the name; whence he said "we have found Jesus." And this accords with the prophets: Isaiah 19:20: "I will send them a savior," etc.; Habakkuk last chapter, 18: "I will exult in God my Jesus." Second indeed the lineage, whence he traced the human origin when he says "the son of Joseph," namely who was of the house of David and his family. And although Christ did not draw his origin from him, nevertheless he drew it from the Virgin, who was of the same lineage as Joseph. Now he calls him "the son of Joseph," because he was reckoned to be his son, to whom, namely, his mother was betrothed. Whence it is said in Luke 3:23: "as it was supposed, the son of Joseph." Nor is it a wonder if Philip called him the son of Joseph, since even his mother, conscious of the divine incarnation, called him his son; Luke 2:48: "your father and I, sorrowing, sought you." And if indeed anyone is called the son of someone because he is nourished by him, Joseph much more could be called the father of Jesus, although according to the flesh he was not the father: because he had both nourished him, and was the spouse of the Virgin mother. Now it is said here by Philip not as though he were born from the union of Joseph and the Virgin, but because he knew that Christ was to be born of the generation of David, of whose house and family Joseph was, to whom Mary was betrothed. And this too accords with the prophets: Jeremiah 23:5: "I will raise up to David a just branch," and so on. Third, he commemorates his native place, saying "from Nazareth": not because he was born in it, indeed in Bethlehem, but because in it he had been nourished. For because his nativity was unknown to many, but the place where he had been nourished was known to many, therefore Philip was silent about Bethlehem, and put down Nazareth. And this indeed accords with the sayings of the prophets; for, Isaiah 11:1: "there shall come forth a rod from the root of Jesse, and a flower," or a "Nazarene," according to another reading, "shall ascend from his root." Consequently, when he says "and Nathanael said to him," etc., the response of Nathanael is set down: which indeed can be read both assertively and interrogatively; and in either way such a response accords with the words of Philip. For if, according as Augustine wishes, it is read assertively, the sense is: "from Nazareth can there be something good." That is, from a city of such great name, it can be that something of highest grace should arise for us, or some outstanding teacher, who may preach to us the flower of virtues and the cleanness of holiness. For Nazareth is interpreted "flower." From which it is given to be understood that Nathanael, most learned in the law, having scrutinized the Scriptures, foreknew that from Nazareth a savior was to be expected, which the other Scribes and Pharisees did not easily know; and therefore, when Philip said "we have found Jesus from Nazareth," raised up in hope, he responded: "truly from Nazareth there can be," and so on. But if it is read, according to Chrysostom, interrogatively, then the sense is: "from Nazareth can there be something good?" As if to say: all the other things which you say seem to be credible, because both the name and the lineage are consonant with the prophets, but this which you say, "from Nazareth," does not seem possible. For Nathanael had held through the Scriptures that Christ must come from Bethlehem, according to that of Matthew 2:6: "and you, Bethlehem, land of Juda, are by no means least among the princes of Juda: for out of you shall come forth the leader who shall rule my people Israel." And therefore, not finding Philip's statement to agree with the prophetic proclamation, prudently and gently he inquires about the truth of the saying: "from Nazareth can there be something good?" Consequently the admonition of Philip is set down: "Philip said to him: Come and see"; which admonition indeed accords with either response of Nathanael. Assertively indeed, so that it be said: you say that from Nazareth something good can be, but I say that that good which I announce to you is so great and so magnificent that I am not able to express it; and therefore "come, and see." Interrogatively, however, it is read thus. You, wondering, say: "from Nazareth can there be something good?" reckoning this to be impossible according to the Scriptures; but if you are willing to experience what I have experienced, you will understand that the things I say are true; and therefore "come, and see." Philip indeed draws Nathanael to Christ, not broken by his questionings, he who knows that for the rest he will not contradict, if he has tasted the words and doctrine of Christ: and in this Philip followed Christ, who above, to those questioning him about his dwelling place, responded: "come, and see." Psalm 33:6: "come to him, and be enlightened." Consequently, when he says "Jesus saw Nathanael," the consummation of the fruit through Christ is set down. Now it must be known that some are converted to Christ in a twofold way: some through miracles seen and experienced in themselves or in others; some indeed through internal inspirations, and through prophecy and the foreknowledge of hidden future things. But the mode of being converted through prophecies and the foreknowledge of future things is more efficacious than through miracles. For the demons themselves, and some men by their aid, can put forward certain marvels: but to predict future things is the work of divine power alone; Isaiah 41:23: "announce also the things that are to come, and we will say that you are gods"; 1 Corinthians 14:22: "prophecies are given to the faithful." And hence it is that the Lord draws Nathanael to faith not through miracles, but through the foretelling of hidden things; and therefore he says of him "behold a true Israelite, in whom there is no guile." Where he intimates to him three hidden things, namely hidden present things, which are in the heart, past deeds, and future heavenly things: which three things indeed to know is a divine, not a human, work. He intimates to him hidden present things when he says "behold a true Israelite, in whom there is no guile": where indeed first is set down Christ's foretelling; second, Nathanael's inquiry, there: "whence do you know me?" He says therefore, concerning the first, "Jesus saw Nathanael coming to him," as if to say: before he arrived at him, he said of him: "behold a true Israelite," and so on. Now he said this of him before he arrived at him, because if he had said this after he had come to Jesus, Nathanael could have believed that Jesus had heard this from Philip. Now he said "behold a true Israelite, in whom there is no guile": now Israel has two interpretations. For in one way it is interpreted "most upright"; Isaiah 44:2: "fear not, my servant most upright, whom I have chosen," where the Gloss says that Israel is interpreted "most upright." In another way Israel is interpreted "a man seeing God." And according to either, Nathanael is truly an Israelite: for because he is called upright in whom there is no guile, therefore he is called "truly an Israelite, in whom there is no guile"; as if to say: truly you represent your lineage, because you are upright and without guile. But because through cleanness and simplicity a man sees God, therefore he said "a true Israelite"; that is, you are a man truly seeing God, because you are simple and without guile. Now he said "in whom there is no guile," lest it be believed that he had spoken maliciously: "from Nazareth can there be something good?" as if questioning. Augustine, however, expounds otherwise. For it is manifest that all are born under sin. Those therefore are called guileful who, having sin in the heart, exteriorly feign themselves just; but he who is a sinner, and confesses himself a sinner, is not guileful. He said therefore "behold a true Israelite, in whom there is no guile," not that he had no sin, not that a physician was not necessary to him, because no one is so born that he needs no physician; but in him he praised the confession of sin. Consequently, when he says "whence do you know me?" Nathanael's inquiry is set down. For Nathanael, wondering at the power of God in the manifestation of hidden things, because this is of God alone: Jeremiah 17:9: "the heart of man is depraved and inscrutable, and who shall know it? I the Lord who search the heart and prove the reins"; and 1 Kings 16:7: "men see the things that appear, but God beholds the heart," therefore he asks "whence do you know me?" In which the humility of Nathanael is commended: because although he was praised, he was not lifted up; but he held his own praise as suspect: against which is said Isaiah 3:12: "my people, those who call you blessed, they themselves deceive you." He intimates the past things that were absent when he says "before Philip called you, when you were under the fig tree, I saw you," where first is set down the declaration of Christ; second, the confession of Nathanael, there: "Nathanael answered and said: Rabbi, you are the Son of God." Concerning the first it must be known that Nathanael could have a twofold suspicion about Christ: one, that Christ had said the aforesaid things wishing to flatter him and to draw him to his friendship; another, that the things which he said above he had known from another. Therefore, in order to remove the suspicion, and to raise him to higher things, he manifests those hidden things which no one could have known except divinely, namely those which had happened just then concerning Nathanael himself: and this is what he says "before Philip called you, when you were under the fig tree, I saw you." For, according to the letter, Nathanael had been under the fig tree when he was called by Philip: which Christ had discerned by the power of divinity, because, as is said in Ecclesiasticus 23:28, "the eyes of the Lord are far brighter than the sun." Mystically, however, by the fig tree sin is designated: both because we find the fig tree cursed, having leaves only, and not fruit, Matthew 21:19, which was done as a figure of sin; and because Adam and Eve, when they had sinned, made themselves aprons from fig leaves. He says therefore "when you were under the fig tree," that is, under the shadow of sin, before you were called to grace, "I saw you," namely with the eye of mercy: for the very predestination of God, with the eye of piety, looks upon the predestined living under sins; Ephesians 1:4: "he chose us before the foundation of the world," and so on. And it is of this eye that he speaks here. "I saw you," namely by predestinating from eternity. Or, according to Gregory, "when you were under the fig tree," that is, under the shadow of the law, "I saw you." Hebrews 10:1: "the law, having a shadow of the good things to come," and so on. Now Nathanael, immediately turned to this, and knowing the power of divinity in Christ, breaks forth into a voice of confession and praise, saying "Rabbi, you are the Son of God." Where he considers three things about Christ, namely the fullness of knowledge, when he says "Rabbi," which is interpreted "master"; as if he said, you are perfect in knowledge. He already presaged what is said in Matthew 23:10: "your master is one, Christ." Second, the excellence of singular grace, when he says "you are the Son of God." For that a man be a son of God through adoption, is only of grace; and also to be a son of God through union, which is proper to the man Christ, is through grace: because not from any preceding merits, but through the grace of union, that man is the Son of God. Third indeed, the immensity of power, when he says "you are the king of Israel," that is, awaited by Israel as king and defender; Daniel 7:14: "his power, an eternal power," and so on. But concerning this a question arises, according to Chrysostom. Since Peter, who after many miracles, after great doctrine, confessed what Nathanael here confesses about Christ, "you are the Son of God," merited to be beatified, the Lord saying: "blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona," etc., why was Nathanael too, who had said the like before seeing miracles and receiving doctrine, not beatified? And to this Chrysostom responds that the cause of this is that, although Nathanael and Peter uttered the same words, nevertheless the intention of each was not the same. Peter indeed confessed that Christ is the true Son of God by nature, namely such that he was man in such a way that nevertheless he was true God; but this one confessed him to be the Son of God through adoption, according to that of Psalm 81:6: "I have said: you are gods, and all of you sons of the Most High." And this is clear through the following words. For if he had understood him to be the Son of God by nature, he would not have said "you are the king of Israel" only, but of the whole world. This too is clear, because to the faith of Peter Christ added nothing, as being perfect, but he said he would build his Church upon that confession. But Nathanael, as being deficient in the greater part of his confession, he elevates to greater things, namely to the knowledge of his divinity. Whence he said "you shall see greater things than these." Where the third thing is noted, namely the intimation of future things, as if to say: because I have told you past things, you believe me to be the Son of God through adoption and king of Israel only, but I will lead you to a greater knowledge, namely that you may believe me to be the natural Son of God and king of all ages. And therefore there follows "amen, amen I say to you, you shall see heaven opened, and the Angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man," where, according to Chrysostom, the Lord wishes to prove that he is the true Son of God, and God. For it is proper to the Angels to minister and to be subject, Psalm 102: "bless the Lord, all his Angels, his ministers, who do his will." When therefore you shall see that the Angels will administer to me, it will be certain to you that I am the true Son of God. Hebrews 1:6: "when he brings the firstborn into the world, he says: and let all the Angels of God adore him." But when did the apostles see this? They saw it, I say, in the passion, when an Angel was present to him, comforting him, Luke 22:43. Likewise in the resurrection, when the apostles found two Angels standing above the sepulcher. Similarly in the ascension, when they said to the apostles, Acts 1:11: "men of Galilee, why do you wonder, looking up into heaven? This Jesus, who has been taken up from you into heaven, shall come in the same way as you have seen him going into heaven." And because he had already told him true things about past matters, it was the more credible to him what he foretells about the future, when he says "you shall see." For it is an evident argument that he tells true things about future matters who had manifested the truth about hidden past things. Now he says "upon the Son of man the Angels ascending and descending," because according to mortal flesh he was made a little lower than the Angels: and insofar as this, the Angels ascend and descend upon him; but according as he is the Son of God, he himself is above the Angels, as has been said. According to Augustine, however, in the aforesaid words he beautifully manifests his divinity. For it is read in Genesis 28:12 that Jacob saw a ladder, and Angels ascending and descending. And Jacob, understanding what he saw, rising up anointed the stone with oil, and then said: "truly the Lord is in this place." This stone is Christ, whom the builders rejected; and he is anointed with the invisible oil of the Holy Spirit; but he is set up as a memorial pillar, because he was to be the foundation of the Church, as is said in 1 Corinthians 3:11: "no one can lay another foundation besides that which has been laid." Now the Angels ascend and descend, inasmuch as they are present to him by serving and ministering. He said therefore: "amen, amen I say to you, you shall see heaven opened," etc., as if to say: because you are a true Israelite, attend to that which Israel saw, so that you may believe me to be that one who is signified by the stone anointed by Jacob: for you too shall see upon him the Angels ascending and descending. Or the Angels are the preachers, according to Augustine, preaching Christ; Isaiah 18:2: "go, swift Angels, to a nation rent and torn to pieces"; who indeed ascend through contemplation, just as Paul had ascended even to the third heaven, as is said in 2 Corinthians 12:2, and descend through the instruction of their neighbors "upon the Son of man," that is, to the honor of Christ: because, as is said in 2 Corinthians 4:5: "for we preach not ourselves, but Jesus Christ our Lord." But that they may ascend and descend, heaven is opened, because it is necessary that heavenly grace be given to the preachers, that they may ascend and descend. Psalm 67:9: "the heavens dropped down," etc.; Revelation 4:1: "afterward I saw heaven opened," and so on. Now the reason why Nathanael is not chosen as an apostle after so great a confession of faith is this, that Christ did not wish that the conversion of the world to faith be ascribed to human wisdom, but only to the power of God. And therefore he did not wish to choose Nathanael, most skilled in the law, as an apostle; but he chose the simple and the unlearned; as is said in 1 Corinthians 1:26: "not many wise ones... but the foolish things of the world God has chosen."”

“Above, the Evangelist showed the dignity of the incarnate Word, and its evidence in many ways; here he consequently begins to treat of the effects and works by which the divinity of the incarnate Word was made manifest to the world, and first he narrates the things which Christ did in the world by living, for the manifestation of his divinity; secondly, how Christ showed his divinity by dying, and this from chapter 12 onward. Concerning the first he does two things: first he shows the divinity of Christ as to the dominion he had over nature; secondly as to the effects of grace, and this in chapter 3, where it says "there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus," and so on. Now Christ's dominion over nature is set before us through the fact that he changed nature: which change indeed was made by Christ as a sign, first to confirm the disciples; secondly to bring the crowds to believe, where it says "after this he went down to Capernaum." The change of nature to confirm the disciples was made at the wedding, in which he converted water into wine; and this is what he says: "a wedding was made in Cana of Galilee," where first the wedding is described; secondly those who were present at the wedding, where it says "and the mother of Jesus was there"; thirdly the miracle itself that was performed is described, where it says "and the wine failing," and so on. Now he describes the wedding, first indeed as to the time; hence he says "and on the third day a wedding was made," namely after he had done the aforesaid things concerning the calling of the disciples. For after he had been made manifest by the testimony of John, he wished also to manifest himself. Secondly, as to the place; hence he says "in Cana of Galilee." For Galilee is a province, and Cana a certain small town within that province. As to what pertains to the letter, it should be known that concerning the time of Christ's preaching there is a twofold opinion. For some say that from Christ's Baptism until his Passion there were two and a half years. And according to these, what is here read concerning the wedding took place in the same year in which Christ was baptized. But the judgment and custom of the Church is contrary to these: for on the feast of the Epiphany a commemoration is made of three miracles, namely the adoration of the Magi, which was in the first year of the Lord's nativity; and the Baptism of Christ, by which he was baptized on the same day, thirty years having elapsed; and the wedding, which took place on the same day, one year having elapsed. From which it follows that at least one year had passed from the Baptism to the wedding. In that year indeed nothing else is read that the Lord did except what is said in Matthew 4 concerning the fasting in the desert, and the temptation by the Devil, and those things which John here relates concerning the testimony of the Baptist and the conversion of the disciples. But from the wedding he began to preach publicly and to work miracles until the Passion, so that he preached publicly for two and a half years. Mystically, by the wedding is understood the conjunction of Christ and the Church, because, as the Apostle says in Ephesians 5:32, "this is a great sacrament, but I speak in Christ and in the Church." And that marriage indeed was begun in the virginal womb, when God the Father united human nature to the Son in unity of person, so that the bridal chamber of this conjunction was the virginal womb; Psalm 18:6: "he has set his tabernacle in the sun." Of this wedding it is said in Matthew 22:2: "the kingdom of heaven is like a king who made a wedding for his son," namely then, when God the Father joined human nature to his Word in the virginal womb. But it was made public when the Church was joined to him through faith; Hosea 2:20: "I will espouse you to myself in faith," and so on. Of this wedding it is said in Apocalypse 19:9: "blessed are they who are called to the wedding supper of the Lamb." But it will be consummated when the bride, that is the Church, is brought into the bridal chamber of the bridegroom, namely into the heavenly glory. Nor is it without mystery that the wedding took place on the third day. For the first day is the time of the law of nature; the second, the time of the written law; but the third day is the time of grace, in which the incarnate Lord celebrated the wedding; Hosea 6:3: "he will revive us after two days; on the third day he will raise us up." The place also fits the mystery: for Cana is interpreted "zeal," while Galilee is interpreted "transmigration." In the zeal of transmigration, therefore, this wedding is celebrated, so as to declare that those are most worthy of union with Christ who, fervent with the zeal of pious devotion, transmigrate from the state of sin to the grace of the Church — Ecclesiasticus 24:26: "come over to me, all you who desire me," etc. — and from death to life, that is, from the state of mortality and misery to the state of immortality and glory; Apocalypse 21:5: "behold, I make all things new." Consequently, when it says "and the mother of Jesus was there," the persons invited are described, where he treats of three, namely the mother, Jesus, and the disciples. Of the mother indeed, when it says "and the mother of Jesus was there." This indeed is put first, in order to show that Jesus was still unknown, and was not invited to the wedding as a distinguished person, but out of a certain familiarity, as one who was known, and one among others: for just as they invited the mother, so too the son. Or perhaps the mother was invited first because they were uncertain about Jesus, whether, if invited, he would come to the wedding, on account of the great religious devotion which they saw in him, and because they had not seen him mingle in feasts. And therefore I think that they first consulted the mother, whether Jesus should be invited. And therefore the Evangelist significantly said first that the mother was already present at the wedding, and that Jesus was afterward invited. And this is what follows: "Jesus was invited." Now Christ willed to be present at the wedding, first indeed in order to give us an example of humility: for he did not have regard to his own dignity, but just as he deigned to take the form of a servant, so he did not disdain to come to the wedding of servants, as Chrysostom says. And so Augustine says: let man be ashamed to be proud, since God was made humble. For among the other humble things which the son of the Virgin did, he came to a wedding — he who, when he was with the Father, instituted weddings in Paradise. And of this example it is said, Matthew 11:29: "learn from me, for I am meek and humble of heart." Secondly, in order to exclude the error of certain people who condemn weddings, because, as Bede says, if there were fault in an undefiled marriage-bed and in a wedding celebrated with due chastity, the Lord would by no means have wished to come to such things. Because therefore he came to the wedding, he suggests that the perfidy of those who disparage weddings is damnable. 1 Corinthians 7:36: "the woman does not sin if she marries." Concerning the disciples, he treats of them when he says "and his disciples." Mystically, in the spiritual wedding, the mother of Jesus, namely the Blessed Virgin, is present as counselor of the wedding, because through her intercession the soul is joined to Christ through grace; Ecclesiasticus 24:25: "in me is all hope of life and of virtue." Christ, however, is present as the true bridegroom of the soul, as is said below in John 3:29: "he who has the bride is the bridegroom." The disciples, however, are present as groomsmen, as it were joining the Church to Christ, of which one it was said in 2 Corinthians 11:2: "I have espoused you to one man, to present you as a chaste virgin to Christ." And because in this material wedding something of the miracle pertains to the mother, something to Christ, and something to the disciples, therefore consequently, when he says "and the wine failing," etc., he shows what pertains to the mother, what to Christ, and what to the disciples. To the mother indeed pertains the procuring of the miracle; to Christ, the accomplishment of the miracle, and this where it says "now there were six stone waterpots there," etc.; to the disciples, the attestation of the miracle, where it says "this beginning of signs Jesus did." As to the first, then, the mother of Christ bore the role of mediatrix; and therefore she does two things: first she makes petition to her son; secondly she instructs the servants, where it says "and his mother says to the servants," etc. Concerning the first, two things are set forth. First the mother's petition; secondly the son's response, where it says "Jesus said to her: what is it to me and to you, woman?" Now in the mother making her petition, note first indeed her piety and mercy. For it pertains to mercy that one should reckon another's lack as if it were one's own; for one is called merciful, as it were having a wretched heart over the wretchedness of another; 2 Corinthians 11:29: "who is weak, and I am not weak?" Because, then, the blessed Virgin was full of mercy, she wished to relieve the lack of others; and so it says "the wine failing, the mother of Jesus says to him." Secondly, note her reverence toward Christ: for out of the reverence which we have toward God, it suffices for us only to set forth our lacks to him, according to that saying of Psalm 37:10: "Lord, all my desire is before you." But how God may come to our aid is not for us to inquire; because, as is said in Romans 8:26, "for we know not what we should pray for as we ought." And therefore his mother simply set forth the lack of the others, saying "they have no wine." Thirdly, note the Virgin's solicitude and diligence: because she did not delay until the extreme necessity, but "the wine failing," that is, while it was in the process of failing, according to what is said in Psalm 9:10 concerning God: "a helper in due time, in tribulation." But Chrysostom asks: why did she not urge Christ to miracles earlier? For she had been instructed concerning his power by the Angel, and confirmed by the many things which she had seen happen around him, all of which she kept, pondering them in her heart, as is said in Luke 2:51. The reason for this is that beforehand he associated as one among others; hence, because she had not seen the opportune time, she deferred doing this. But now, after John's testimony and after the conversion of the disciples, she confidently urges Christ to work miracles, bearing in this the figure of the synagogue, which is the mother of Christ: for it is characteristic of the Jews to demand miracles; 1 Corinthians 1:22: "the Jews seek signs." She says to him, therefore, "they have no wine." Here it should be known that before the Incarnation of Christ, a threefold wine was lacking, namely that of justice, of wisdom, and of charity, or grace. For wine bites sharply, and as to this, justice is called wine. Luke 10:34: the Samaritan applied wine and oil to the wounds of the wounded man, that is, the severity of justice together with the sweetness of mercy; Psalm 59:5: "you have given us to drink the wine of remorse." Wine also gladdens the heart, according to that saying of Psalm 103:15: "wine gladdens the heart of man," and as to this, wisdom is called wine, meditation on which especially gladdens; Wisdom 8:16: "her company has no bitterness." Likewise wine intoxicates, Song of Songs 5:1: "drink, friends, and be inebriated, dearest ones," and according to this, charity is called wine, Song of Songs 5:1: "I have drunk my wine with my milk." And charity is also called wine by reason of fervor; Zechariah 9:17: "wine budding forth virgins." And indeed the wine of justice was lacking in the old law, in which justice was imperfect. But Christ perfected it; Matthew 5:20: "unless your justice abound more than that of the Scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven." The wine of wisdom was also lacking, which was hidden and figurative, because, as is said in 1 Corinthians 10:11, "all these things happened to them in figure." But Christ made it manifest; Matthew 7:29: "for he was teaching them as one having power." But the wine of charity was also lacking there, because they had received only the spirit of servitude, in fear. But Christ converted the water of fear into the wine of charity, when he gave the spirit of adoption of sons, in which we cry "Abba, Father," as is said in Romans 8:15, and when "the charity of God was poured out in our hearts," as is said in Romans 5:5. Consequently, when it says "Jesus said to her," etc., the response of Christ is set forth: from which response indeed an occasion for a threefold heresy has been taken. For the Manichaeans say that Christ did not have a true body, but a phantasmal one. Valentinus asserts that Christ brought a heavenly body, saying that, as to the body, Christ pertains in nothing to the Virgin. And he takes the support for this error from the fact that Jesus says to her: "what is it to me and to you, woman?" — as if to say: I have received nothing from you. But this is against the authority of sacred Scripture: for the Apostle says, Galatians 4:4: "God sent his Son, made of a woman" — for he could not be said to have been made of her unless he had taken something from her. Moreover, Augustine argues against them, saying: how do you know that the Lord said "what is it to me and to you"? You answer, because John the Evangelist relates this. But this same Evangelist also says of the Virgin that she was his mother. If, then, you believe the Evangelist in this, that he relates that Jesus said to his mother, "what is it to me and to you, woman?", you should also believe him in this, that he says, "and the mother of Jesus was there." Ebion, however, saying that Christ was conceived of male seed, and Helvidius, who says that the Virgin did not remain a virgin after childbirth, took the support for their error from the fact that it says "woman," which seems to imply loss of virginity. But this is false, because "woman" in sacred Scripture sometimes signifies only the female sex, according to that saying of Galatians 4:4: "made of a woman," etc. And this is also clear from the fact that Adam, speaking to God about Eve, said: "the woman whom you gave me as a companion gave me of the tree, and I ate," Genesis 3:12. For it is certain that Eve was then still a virgin, since she was still in Paradise, where he had not known her. Hence what is here called "woman" does not imply loss of virginity, but determines sex. The Priscillianists also took an occasion for their error from the fact that he said "my hour has not yet come," saying that all things happen by fate, and that the deeds of men are subject to fixed hours, and even those of Christ; hence for this reason he said "my hour has not yet come." But this is false concerning any man whatsoever. For since man has free choice, and free choice belongs to him from the fact that he has reason and will, which are indeed immaterial: it is manifest that man, as to choice, is subject to no body, but rather rules over it. For immaterial things are nobler than material things, and therefore the Philosopher says that the wise man rules over the stars. Moreover, this has much less place in Christ, who is the lord and founder of the stars. Hence, by what he said, "my hour has not yet come," is understood the hour of the Passion, determined for him, not by necessity, but according to divine providence. Against them also is what is said in Ecclesiasticus 33:7: "why does one day surpass another day?" He answers: "they are distinguished by the knowledge of the Lord," that is, they are distinguished from one another by divine providence, not by chance. These, then, having been excluded, let us investigate the cause of this response of the Lord: "what is it to me and to you, woman?" And indeed, according to Augustine, in him there are two natures, namely the divine and the human; and although the same Christ exists in both natures, nevertheless the things which belong to him according to human nature are distinct from those which belong to him according to the divine. Now to work miracles belongs to him according to the divine nature, which he received from the Father; but to suffer belongs to him according to the human nature, which he received from his mother. And therefore, to his mother demanding a miracle, he responded saying "what is it to me and to you, woman?" — as if to say: that which works miracles in me, I did not receive from you, but that by which I suffer — that is, according to what belongs to me to suffer, namely the human nature, I received from you; and therefore I will acknowledge you then, when that very weakness will hang upon the cross. And therefore he adds "my hour has not yet come," as if to say: when the hour of the Passion comes, then I will recognize you as mother. Hence also, hanging on the cross, he commended his mother to the disciple. According to Chrysostom, however, it is expounded otherwise. For it is said that the Blessed Virgin, fervent with zeal for the honor of her son, wished that Christ work miracles at once, before it was opportune; and therefore Christ, without doubt wiser than his mother, restrained her. For he did not wish to work the miracle before the lack was known, because thereby it would have been less known and less credible, and therefore he says "what is it to me and to you, woman?" — as if to say: why do you trouble me? "My hour has not yet come," that is, I am not yet known to those who are present. But neither do they yet perceive the lack of wine; let them first perceive this, because when they have recognized the necessity, they will reckon the greater the benefit which they receive. Although, however, the mother was rebuffed, nevertheless she does not distrust her son's mercy; therefore consequently she instructs the servants, saying "whatever he shall say to you, do" — in which indeed consists the whole perfection of justice. For it is perfect justice to obey Christ in all things; Exodus 29:35: "all that the Lord has commanded us we will do." Now this saying, "whatever he shall say to you, do," cannot fittingly be said of anyone but God alone, for man can sometimes err. Hence in such things as are against God, we are not bound to obey men; Acts 5:29: "we must obey God rather than men." But God, who does not err nor can be deceived, we ought to obey in all things. Consequently, when it says "now there were six stone waterpots there," the consummation of the miracle by Christ is set forth. Concerning this, first the vessels in which the miracle was performed are described; secondly the matter of the miracle is designated, where it says "Jesus said to them: fill the waterpots with water"; thirdly the demonstration and approval of the miracle is intimated, where it says "Jesus said to them: draw out now." Now the vessels in which the miracle was performed are set down as six; and this is what it says: "now there were six stone waterpots there." Here it should be known that, as is said in Mark 7:2ff, the Jews observed many bodily washings, and washings of cups and vessels; hence, because they were in Palestine, where there is a lack of water, they had vessels in which very pure water was kept, with which they might frequently wash themselves and their vessels. And therefore it says that there were six stone waterpots there, that is, vessels for keeping water — from "hydor," which means water — "set there according to the manner of the purifying of the Jews," that is, for the use of purification, "each containing two or three measures" — for "metron" in Greek is called "measure" in Latin. And, as Chrysostom says, these vessels are mentioned in order to remove any suspicion regarding the miracle: both on account of their purity, lest anyone should suspect that the water had taken on the taste of wine from the dregs of wine previously stored in them (for those vessels were "according to purification," and therefore had to be most pure); and also on account of the quantity of the vessels, so that it might be evidently clear that the water of so many vessels could not have been changed into wine except by divine power. Mystically, by the six waterpots are signified the six ages of the Old Testament, in which the hearts of men, prepared to receive the Scriptures of God, were set forth as an example for living, as the Gloss says. Now this word "measures," according to Augustine, refers to the Trinity of persons. And they are said to be "two or three" because sometimes in sacred Scripture the three persons are set down distinctly, according to that saying of the last chapter of Matthew, 19: "baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit"; but sometimes only two are named, namely the Father and the Son, in whom the person of the Holy Spirit is understood, who is the bond of both, according to that saying below in John 14:23: "if anyone keeps my word, my Father will love him, and we will come to him." Or "two" on account of the two conditions of men, namely Jews and Gentiles, from whom the Church was propagated. Or "three" on account of the three sons of Noah, from whom the human race was propagated after the flood. Consequently, when it says "Jesus said to them: fill the waterpots with water," the matter of the miracle is treated. But concerning this a question arises: why was this miracle made not out of nothing, but out of pre-existing matter? For which a threefold reason is assigned. One is according to Chrysostom, and literal: because to make something out of nothing is greater and more wondrous than to make something out of underlying matter; but it is not so evident and credible to many. And therefore, wishing that what was being done should be more credible, he made wine out of water, condescending to the capacity of men. Another reason is to confute perverse dogmas. For there are some (such as the Marcionites and the Manichaeans) who said that the founder of the world was other than God, and that all visible things were created by that one, that is, by the Devil. And therefore the Lord worked many miracles even out of created and visible substances, in order to show that these substances themselves are good, and created by God. The third reason is mystical. For he did not wish to make wine out of nothing, but made wine out of water, in order to show that he was not establishing an entirely new doctrine and rejecting the old, but fulfilling it; as is said in Matthew 5:17: "I have not come to destroy the law, but to fulfill it" — in that what the old law prefigured and promised, Christ exhibited and disclosed; Luke, last chapter, 45: "he opened their understanding, that they might understand the Scriptures." Now he willed the waterpots to be filled with water through the servants, so that he might have them as witnesses of what was being done; hence below it is said: "but the servants knew," etc. Consequently, when it says "and Jesus said to them," etc., the publication of the miracle is set forth. For as soon as the waterpots were filled, the water was converted into wine; and therefore the Lord immediately publishes the miracle, saying "draw out now, and carry to the chief steward," where first is set down Christ's command choosing the examiner; secondly, the judgment of the chief steward tasting it, where it says "but when the chief steward had tasted," etc. He said to them, therefore, that is, to the servants, "draw out now," namely the wine from the waterpots, "and carry it to the chief steward." Here it should be known that a "triclinium" is a place where there are three rows of tables, and it is called "triclinium" from a threefold row of couches, for "cline" in Greek signifies a couch. For the ancients were accustomed to eat reclining on couches, as Valerius Maximus relates. And therefore in the Scriptures they speak of "reclining" and "lying back." The "chief steward," therefore, is said to be the first and chief among the guests. Or otherwise, according to Chrysostom, the chief steward was the one who was the arranger and dispenser of the whole banquet. Because he, being attentive to his duties, had not yet tasted anything, the Lord willed that he himself should judge concerning what had been done, and not the guests, lest anyone might be able to disparage the miracle, saying that they were drunk, and that their senses had been corrupted through eating, so that they could not discern whether it was wine or water. But, according to Augustine, the chief steward was the greatest among those reclining, as has been said; and therefore, in order that his judgment might be more acceptable, he willed to have the judgment of the presiding officer concerning what had been done. Mystically, those who draw the water are the preachers; Isaiah 12:3: "you shall draw waters with joy from the fountains of the Savior." The chief steward, however, is some man learned in the law, such as Nicodemus, Gamaliel, and Paul. When, therefore, the word of the Gospel is entrusted to such men — which lay hidden in the letter of the law — it is as though wine made from water is offered to the chief steward to drink, who, tasting this, approves the faith of Christ. Consequently, when it says "but when the chief steward had tasted," the judgment of the examiner is set forth, where first he inquires into the truth of the deed; secondly he pronounces his verdict, saying "every man sets forth the good wine first." It says, then, that when the chief steward had tasted the water made wine, "he did not know where it was from" — because he did not know that the water had been made wine by a miracle through Christ — "but the servants knew," the reason for which is that they had drawn the water; the chief steward calls the bridegroom, in order to inquire into the truth and to pronounce his verdict concerning the wine; hence he adds, "every man sets forth the good wine first," etc. Here, according to Chrysostom, this should be considered regarding the miracles of Christ: that all of them were most perfect; hence he also restored to Peter's mother-in-law the most perfect health, so that she, rising at once, ministered, as is said in Mark 1:30 and Matthew 9:6. He likewise restored the paralytic to health so perfectly that, rising at once, and taking up his bed, he went to his own house, as is said below in John 5:9. This also appears in this miracle: because he did not make just any wine out of water, but the best that could be. And therefore the chief steward says, "every man sets forth the good wine first, and when they have become drunk, then that which is worse" — because they drink less, and because good wine taken in quantity, together with a quantity of food, weighs more heavily; as if to say: whence is such wine, which you have kept until now? — acting, that is, against custom. This, however, fits the mystery. For someone is said, mystically, to set forth the good wine first, who, intending to deceive others, does not propose first the error which he intends, but those things which allure his hearers, so that after they have become intoxicated and enticed to consent to his intention, he may then reveal his perfidy; and of this wine it is said in Proverbs 23:31: "it enters smoothly, and in the end it will bite like a serpent." But someone is also said to set forth the good wine first, who, beginning from the start of his conversion to live holily and spiritually, at length degenerates into a carnal life; Galatians 3:3: "are you so foolish, that whereas you began in the spirit, you are now made perfect by the flesh?" Christ, however, does not set forth the good wine first: because from the beginning he sets forth things bitter and hard; Matthew 7:14: "narrow is the way that leads to life." But the more a man advances in his faith and doctrine, the more he is sweetened, and the greater sweetness he perceives; Proverbs 4:11: "I will lead you by the paths of equity, which when you shall have entered, your steps shall not be straitened." Likewise, in this world, all who wish to live piously in Christ suffer bitternesses and tribulations; below, John 16:20: "amen, amen, I say to you, that you shall weep and lament," etc. But in the future they shall receive delights and joys; hence it also follows: "your sorrow shall be turned into joy." Romans 8:18: "I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory to come, that shall be revealed in us." Consequently, when it says "this beginning of signs Jesus did," the attestation of the miracle made through the disciples is set forth. From this it is held that the story about the infancy of the Savior is false, in which many miracles are recounted as done by Christ while still a boy; for if this were true, the Evangelist would certainly not say "this beginning of signs Jesus did." And the reason why he did not work miracles in his boyhood has been assigned above: namely, lest men should reckon them as phantasms. Therefore, for this reason, Jesus performed this miracle, namely making wine from water, in Cana of Galilee, which is the beginning of the signs which Jesus did afterward. "And he manifested his glory," that is, the power by which he is glorious; Psalm 23:10: "the Lord of hosts, he is the king of glory." "And his disciples believed in him." But how did they believe? For they were already disciples, and had believed before. But it should be said that something is sometimes said to be, not according to what it now is, but according to what it will be; just as it is said that the apostle Paul was born at Tarsus in Cilicia — not that the apostle was born there, but that the future apostle was born there. So it is said here, "and his disciples believed in him," namely those who were his disciples. Or it should be said that before, they believed him to be a good man, preaching just and right things; but now they believed in him as in God, and so on.”

“Above, the Evangelist set forth the sign which Christ performed pertaining to the power that changes nature, for the confirmation of the disciples; here he consequently treats of the sign of the resurrection pertaining to the same power, which Christ put forth for the conversion of the crowds. Concerning this miracle, then, the Evangelist does two things. First, he sets forth the occasion for proposing the miracle; second, the foretelling of the miracle itself, where it says, "The Jews therefore answered," etc. Concerning the first he does two things. First he describes the place; second he narrates the deed which was the occasion for proposing the miracle, where it says, "and he found in the temple those selling sheep and oxen." Now the place in which this occurred is Jerusalem; and therefore the Evangelist shows step by step in what order the Lord came to Jerusalem. First, then, he shows how he went down to Capernaum; second, how he went up to Jerusalem, where it says, "and the Passover of the Jews was near." Concerning the first he does three things. First he assigns the place to which he went down; second, he describes the company which he had; third, he indicates the length of his stay. The place indeed to which he went down is Capernaum; and therefore he says "after this" — namely, the miracle of the wine — "he went down to Capernaum." It seems, as far as the history is concerned, that this statement is contradicted by what is said in Matthew 4:12ff., namely that the Lord went down to Capernaum after the imprisonment of John. But what the Evangelist relates here all took place before the imprisonment of John. I respond that it must be said, for the understanding of this question, that, as is had from ecclesiastical history, the remaining Evangelists — namely Matthew, Mark, and Luke — began their evangelical narration from the time when John was shut up in prison. Hence immediately in Matthew 4:12, after the Baptism, the fasting, and his temptation, he began to weave his narrative before the imprisonment of John, saying: "when Jesus had heard that John had been delivered up," etc.; and Mark likewise, for he says: "but after John was delivered up, Jesus came into Galilee," etc. But John the Evangelist, who outlived the others, when the account of the three Evangelists had come to his knowledge, approved the faith and truth of what they said; nevertheless, because he saw that certain things were lacking — namely those things which the Lord had done in the first time of his preaching, before the imprisonment of John — therefore, at the prayers of the faithful, beginning his Gospel from a higher point, he wrote down those earlier deeds of the Lord that had been passed over, before the delivering-up of John, namely from the first year in which he was baptized, as appears in the sequence of his Gospel. According to this, then, the Evangelists do not disagree; rather, the Lord went down to Capernaum twice — once before the imprisonment of John, which is treated here, and once after his imprisonment, which is treated in Matthew 4:13 and Luke 4:31. Now Capernaum is interpreted "most beautiful estate," and signifies this world, which has its beauty from the order and disposition of divine wisdom; Psalm 49:11: "the beauty of the field is with me." The Lord, therefore, went down into Capernaum, that is, into this world, with his mother, and brothers, and disciples. For in heaven the Lord has a Father without a mother, on earth a mother without a father; and therefore he pointedly names only the mother. In heaven, too, he has no brothers, but is himself the only-begotten, who is in the bosom of the Father, as above, John 1:18. But on earth he is "the firstborn among many brethren," as is said in Romans 8:29. On earth he has disciples whom he might teach the mysteries of the divinity, which had before been unknown to men, because, as is said in Hebrews 1:2, "in these last days he has spoken to us in his Son," etc. Or Capernaum is interpreted "field of consolation," by which is signified every man who bears good fruit; Genesis 27:27: "behold, the smell of my son is as the smell of a plentiful field." And such a man is called a field of consolation, because the Lord is consoled and rejoices over his progress; Isaiah 62:5: "the Lord will rejoice over you," etc., because the Angels rejoice over his good; Luke 15:10: "there is joy among the Angels of God over one sinner doing penance." He himself says, "and his mother." His company was, first, that of his mother; hence he says "and his mother," for since she had come to the wedding and had been the procurer of the miracle, the Lord was bringing her back toward Nazareth, which was a village in Galilee, in which region Capernaum was the chief town. Second, it was that of his brothers; hence he says "and his brothers," etc. Here two errors are to be guarded against: namely, that of Helvidius, who says that the Blessed Virgin had other sons after Christ, and calls these the brothers of the Lord, which is heretical, because our faith holds that the mother of Christ, just as she was a virgin before birth, so too in birth, and after birth remained a virgin. Likewise the error of certain ones who say that Joseph begot sons from another wife, and that these are called the brothers of the Lord — which the Church does not hold. And therefore Jerome disproves them, for the Lord, hanging on the cross, committed his virgin mother to the keeping of the virgin disciple. Since, then, Joseph was the special guardian of the Virgin and also of the Savior in his childhood, it is credible that he was a virgin. And therefore, understanding rightly, we say that the brothers of the Lord are the blood-relations of the Virgin mother, in whatever degree, or even of Joseph, who was thought to be his father; and this indeed according to the custom of Scripture, which commonly calls blood-relations brothers. Hence Genesis 13:8: "let there be no quarrel, I beg, between me and you, for we are brothers," says Abraham to Lot, although he was actually his nephew. And note that he names the brothers and the disciples separately, because not all the blood-relations of Christ were his disciples. Hence below, John 7:5, it is said: "his brethren did not yet believe in him" Third, his companions were his disciples; hence he says "and his disciples." But from this a question arises, as to who his disciples were. For it seems, according to Matthew, that the first who were converted to Christ were Peter and Andrew, John and James; but these were called by Christ after the imprisonment of John, as is clear from Matthew 4:18ff. It does not seem, therefore, that they went down with Christ to Capernaum, as is had here, since this occurred before John's imprisonment. But to this there is a twofold response. One, according to Augustine, in On the Agreement of the Evangelists, is that Matthew does not preserve the order of history, but, recapitulating what he had passed over, narrates after John's imprisonment things which had happened before. Hence, without any indication of temporal sequence, he said: "Jesus walking by the sea of Galilee saw two brothers," etc., not adding "after this" or "in those days." The other, according to the same author, is that in the Gospel not only those twelve whom the Lord chose and named apostles, as is had in Luke 6:13, are called the disciples of the Lord, but also all who, believing in him, were being instructed by his teaching toward the kingdom of heaven. It could be, then, that although those twelve had not yet followed him, nevertheless some others who had attached themselves to him are here named his disciples. But the first response is better. He made, however, a short stay there; hence he says "and they remained there not many days." The reason for this is that the citizens of Capernaum did not show themselves devoted to receiving the teaching of Christ, because they were very corrupt; hence also in Matthew 11:23 the Lord rebukes them, because they did not do penance either for the miracles worked among them or for the teaching of Christ, saying: "and you, Capernaum, shall you be exalted unto heaven? You shall go down even unto hell; because if in Sodom had been wrought the miracles that have been wrought in you, perhaps it would have remained even to this day." And yet, although they were evil, he went down there in order to bring his mother, for whose consolation and honor he stayed there for some time. Mystically, however, it is signified by this that some cannot dwell long on the many sermons of Christ, but a few of the many suffice for their illumination, on account of the weakness of their understanding. Hence with such people Christ dwells on a few teachings, as Origen said; according to that below, John 16:12: "I have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now." Consequently, when he says "and the Passover of the Jews was near," he makes clear the place to which he went up. And concerning this he does two things. First he indicates the occasion of the ascent; second he sets down the ascent itself, where it says "and Jesus went up." Now the occasion of the ascent was the Passover of the Jews. Exodus 23:17 commands that three times a year every male should present himself before the Lord, and among those set times one was the Passover of the Jews. Since, then, the Lord came to teach all an example of humility and perfection, he willed to observe the law as long as it retained its force; for he did not come to destroy the law, but to fulfill it, as he himself says in Matthew 5:17. Hence, since the Passover of the Jews was imminent, he went up to Jerusalem. We, therefore, ought, after his example, to keep the divine precepts diligently. For if the Son of God himself fulfilled the decrees of the law given by himself, celebrating the solemnities, with how much zeal for good works ought we both to anticipate and to celebrate them? It should be noted that in the Gospel of John mention of the Passover is made in three places: namely here, and below in John 6:4, where he worked the miracle of the loaves, where it is said: "now the Passover, the festival day of the Jews, was near"; and below in chapter 13:1, where it is said: "before the festival day of the Passover." Hence, according to this Gospel, we have it that after the miracle of the wine Christ preached for two years, plus however much time there was from the days of his Baptism up to that Passover; for what he did here was near the Passover, as is said here, and afterward, a year having passed, near another Passover he worked the miracle of the loaves, and then John was beheaded. Hence John was beheaded around Passover, because, as is said in Matthew 14:13, immediately after the beheading of John, Christ withdrew into the desert, and there worked the miracle of the loaves; which miracle indeed was worked near Passover, as is said below in chapter 6. Nevertheless, the feast of this beheading is celebrated on the day on which his head was found. Afterward, at another Passover, Christ suffered. According to the opinion, then, of those who say that the miracle worked at the wedding, and the things spoken of here, took place in the same year in which Christ was baptized, from the Baptism of Christ to his Passion there were two and a half years; and therefore, according to them, the Evangelist says "the Passover of the Jews was near," in order to show that he had been baptized only a few days before. But the Church holds the contrary. For we believe that on the same day on which the Lord was baptized, a year having passed, the miracle of the wine took place; and afterward, a year having passed, near Passover, John was beheaded; and that from that Passover around which John was beheaded, there was one year up to the Passover in which Christ suffered. Hence it is necessary that there be another Passover intervening between the Baptism of Christ and the miracle of the wine, of which no Evangelist makes mention; and thus, according to what the Church holds, Christ preached for three and a half years. But he says "of the Jews," not because men of another nation celebrated a Passover, but for a twofold reason. One, because when some celebrate a feast holily and purely, that feast is said to be celebrated to the Lord; but when they celebrate it neither purely nor holily, they solemnize it not to the Lord but to themselves; Isaiah 1:14: "my soul hates your new moons and your feast days"; as if he were saying: because you celebrate them for yourselves and not for me, they do not please me; Zechariah 7:5: "when you fasted, did you fast a fast to me?" As if he were saying, no, but to yourselves. Since, then, these Jews were depraved, and were celebrating their Passover improperly, therefore the Evangelist does not say, "the Passover of the Lord was near," but "of the Jews." Or he says this to distinguish it from our Passover; for the Passover of the Jews was figurative, being celebrated by the immolation of a figurative lamb; but our Passover is true, in which we commemorate the true passion of the spotless lamb; 1 Corinthians 5:7: "Christ our Passover is sacrificed." The ascent was to Jerusalem; and therefore he says "and Jesus went up to Jerusalem." Here note, according to the order of history, that Jesus went up to Jerusalem twice around the feast of the Passover, and cast out from the temple those buying and selling. Once indeed before the imprisonment of John, which the Evangelist here records; the other time, with the Passover approaching, and at the time of the Passion, which Matthew narrates. For the Lord frequently performed similar deeds, as is clear from the double giving of sight to the blind: one in Matthew 9:28, and another in Mark 10:46ff. And likewise he twice cast the buyers and sellers out of the temple. Mystically, however, he goes up to Jerusalem, which is interpreted "vision of peace," and signifies eternal beatitude, into which he ascended and led his own across. But it is not without mystery that he went down into Capernaum, and afterward went up to Jerusalem. For unless he had first descended, it would not have been fitting for him to ascend; because, as is said in Ephesians 4:10, "he who descended is the same who also ascended." He makes no mention, however, of the disciples in the ascent to Jerusalem, because the ascent of the disciples comes from the ascent of Christ; below, John 3:13: "no one has ascended into heaven but he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man." Consequently, when he says "and he found in the temple those selling sheep and oxen," etc., the Evangelist narrates the deed that moved Christ to propose the sign of the resurrection. And concerning this he does two things. First he makes clear the vice of the Jews; second he indicates Christ's remedy, where it says "and when he had made, as it were, a scourge," etc.; third he adds the prophetic oracle, where it says "and his disciples indeed remembered," etc. Concerning the first, it should be known that the Devil lies in wait for the things that are God's, and strives to corrupt them. Now among the other things by which he corrupts holy things, the chief is the vice of avarice; hence it is said in Isaiah 56:11: "his shepherds knew no understanding; they have all turned aside into their own way, everyone to his own gain, from the first even to the last." This indeed the Devil has done from ancient times. For the priests of the Old Testament, who had been instituted to devote themselves to divine things, were zealous for gain. Now it was commanded by God in the law that at certain solemnities they should sacrifice some animals to the Lord; and to fulfill this precept, those coming to the temple from nearby brought animals with them, but those who came from far away were not able to bring animals from their homes. Since, then, offerings of this kind redounded to the profit of the priests, in order that animals might not be lacking for those coming from afar to offer them, the priests themselves arranged that animals should be sold in the temple; and therefore they had them displayed for sale in the temple, that is, in the courtyard of the temple. And this is what it says: "and the Lord found in the temple those selling sheep, and oxen, and doves," etc. Here he first makes mention of two land animals which, according to the law, could be offered to the Lord, namely the ox and the sheep. But the third land animal which was offered, namely the goat, is reckoned along with the sheep; likewise also the turtledove is reckoned along with the dove. And because it sometimes happened that some came to the temple who brought with them neither animals nor money, and so were not able to buy, the priests therefore devised another art of avarice, namely, that they would set up in the temple money-changers and exchangers, who would lend money to the aforesaid who did not have it. And although they did not receive usury from this, because this was forbidden in the law, yet in its place they received certain "collybia," that is, small and cheap little gifts. And these very things redounded to the profit of the priests; and this is what it says: "and the money-changers sitting," namely in the temple, ready to lend money. But this indeed can be understood mystically in three ways. First, for by those selling and buying are signified those who sell or buy ecclesiastical things; for spiritual ecclesiastical goods, and what is attached to them, are signified by the sheep, and the oxen, and the doves. These are indeed consecrated and confirmed from the teachings of the apostles and doctors, who are signified by the oxen; Proverbs 14:4: "where there are many crops, there the strength of the ox is manifest." Likewise from the blood of the martyrs, who are signified by the sheep. Hence in their person it is said in Psalm 43:22, and Romans 8:36: "we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter." Likewise, from the gifts of the Holy Spirit, which are signified by the doves; because, as is said above, John 1:32, the Holy Spirit appeared in the form of a dove. All these things, then — namely the teaching of the apostles, the blood of the martyrs, and the gifts of the Holy Spirit — are sold by whoever presumes to sell spiritual ecclesiastical goods and what is attached to them. Second, it happens that certain prelates, or those set over the Churches, although not manifestly through simony, nevertheless secretly through negligence sell oxen, and sheep, and doves — namely, when they gape so much after temporal gains, and are occupied in them, and neglect the spiritual salvation of their subjects; for by this they sell sheep, and oxen, and doves, that is, three kinds of men subject to them. Namely preachers and workers, who are signified by the oxen; Isaiah 32:20: "blessed are you who sow upon all waters, sending in the foot of the ox and the ass." For prelates ought to arrange oxen, that is, teachers and wise men, together with asses, that is, the untrained and simple. They also sell the active, and those devoted to ministries, who are signified by the sheep, below, John 10:27: "my sheep hear my voice," etc.; 2 Kings 24:17: "these that are sheep, what have they done?" They also sell contemplatives, who are signified by the doves; Psalm 54:7: "who will give me wings like a dove, and I will fly?" Third, by the temple of God can be understood the spiritual soul, as is said in 1 Corinthians 3:17: "the temple of God is holy, which you are." A man, then, sells sheep, and oxen, and doves in the temple when he retains in his soul beastly movements, for which a man sells himself to the Devil. For by the oxen, which serve agriculture, are signified earthly desires; by the sheep, which is a foolish animal, is signified man's stupidity; and by the doves, man's instability — which things indeed God drives out of the hearts of men. And therefore the Lord's remedy is immediately set down, when it says: "and when he had made, as it were, a scourge of little cords, he cast them all out of the temple"; wherein the Lord applied a remedy both of deed and of word, in order to teach those who have care of the Church that they ought to correct their subjects both by deed and by word. And therefore concerning this he does two things. First is set down the remedy which he applied by deed; second, the remedy which he applied by word, where it says "and to those who sold doves he said," etc. Concerning the first he does three things. First he cast out the men; second, the sheep and oxen; third, he poured out the money. He cast out the men with a scourge, and this is what it says: "and when he had made, as it were, a scourge of little cords" — which indeed could not have been done except by divine power; for Origen also says that the divine power of Jesus was able, when he willed, to stifle the kindled wrath of men, just as it could calm the storms of minds; Psalm 32:10: "the Lord scatters the thoughts of men." Now he makes the scourge out of little cords, because, as Augustine says, he takes the material from our own sins, whereby he might punish us; for the very prolongation of sins, according as sins are added to sins, are called little cords; Proverbs 5:22: "he is bound fast with the cords of his own sins"; Isaiah 5:18: "woe to you who draw iniquity with cords," etc. Just as, then, he cast the traders out of the temple, so he poured out the money of the money-changers, and overturned their tables. Note that if he cast out of the temple these things, which seemed in some way licit, as though ordered to the worship of God, how much more would he have done so had he found anything unlawful? He cast them out, however, because the priests in this did not intend the honor of God, but their own profit. Hence it is said in Ezekiel 44:8: "you have set the keepers of my charge for yourselves in my sanctuary." Now the Lord showed zeal for the things of the law, in order that by this very act he might refute the high priests and priests, who were going to bring against him a false charge concerning the law. Also, by casting such people out of the temple, he gave to understand that the time was approaching in which the sacrifices of the law should cease, and the true worship of God be transferred to the Gentiles; Matthew 21:43: "the kingdom shall be taken away from you," etc. Likewise also that he might show the damnation of those who sell spiritual things; Acts 8:20: "may your money perish with you." Consequently, when he says "and to those who sold doves he said," etc., he sets down the remedy that he applied by word. Here it should be noted that simoniacs are, first indeed, to be driven out of the Church. But because, so long as they live, they can, by free will, convert themselves, and, aided by God, return to the state of grace, they are not to be despaired of. But if they do not convert, then indeed they are not driven out, but bound by those to whom it is said, Matthew 22:13: "bind his hands and feet, and cast him into the outer darkness." And therefore the Lord, attending to this, first indeed admonishes; second he adduces the reason for the admonition, where it says "and do not make," etc. He admonishes indeed the sellers of doves by rebuking them, because by them are signified those who sell the gifts of the Holy Spirit, namely simoniacs. He adduces the reason for this when he says: "and do not make my Father's house a house of trading." Isaiah 1:16: "take away the evil of your thoughts from my eyes." Note, however, that in Matthew 21:13 he says: "do not make my house a den of thieves," but here he says: "a house of trading" — which the Lord did for this reason: that, like a good physician, beginning first from milder things, he might afterward propose harsher ones. For what is said to have been done here was done first; hence at the very beginning he calls them not thieves, but traders. But because, on account of their hardness, they still did not cease from such trading, therefore the Lord, expelling them another time — of which it is treated in Mark 9:15ff. — rebukes them more harshly, calling by the name of robbery what he had first called trading. He says, however, "my Father's house," in order to exclude the error of Mani, who said that the God of the Old Testament was not the Father of Christ, but the God of the New. But if this were true, since the temple was the house of the Old Testament, Christ certainly would not have called the temple the house of his Father. But why were the Jews not troubled at his calling God his Father here, as it is said below, John 5:18, that on account of this they persecuted him? To this it must be said that God is the father of some by adoption, namely of the just, and this was not new among the Jews; Jeremiah 3:19: "you shall call me father, and shall not cease to walk after me." But by nature it belongs to Christ alone, Psalm 2:7: "the Lord has said to me: you are my son" — namely, true and natural son — and this was unheard of among them. And therefore, because Christ said he was the true Son of God, the Jews persecuted him; below, John 5:18: "for this the Jews persecuted Christ, because he not only broke the Sabbath, but also said that God was his Father, making himself equal to God." But when here he calls God Father, they said of him that it was by adoption. That the house of God ought not to become a house of trading is had in Zechariah, last chapter, 21: "there shall be no more a merchant in the house of the Lord of hosts in that day." And in Psalm 70:16, according to another reading: "because I have not known trading, I will enter into the powers of the Lord." Consequently, when he says "and his disciples indeed remembered," etc., he sets down the prophetic oracle, which indeed is written in Psalm 68:10: "the zeal of your house has eaten me up." Here it should be known that zeal properly denotes a certain intensity of love, whereby one loving intensely tolerates nothing that is opposed to his love. And hence it is that men loving their wives intensely, and not tolerating in them the company of others, as being contrary to their love, are called jealous. He, therefore, properly has zeal for God who can patiently tolerate nothing against the honor of God, whom he loves above all; 3 Kings 19:10: "with zeal I have been zealous for the Lord of hosts," etc. We, however, ought to love the house of the Lord, according to that saying, Psalm 25:8: "Lord, I have loved the beauty of your house." And we ought to love it to such an extent that zeal for it consumes us: so that if we see anything contrary being done, we should strive to remove it — however dear to us those may be who do it — nor should we fear on this account to suffer any evils. Hence it is said in the Gloss: good zeal is a fervor of the soul, whereby someone, having cast aside the fear of death, is kindled for the defense of the truth. By it, one is consumed who is eager to correct whatever evils he sees; and if he cannot, he bears with them, and groans.”

“Having laid down the occasion for exhibiting the sign, here the Evangelist consequently makes manifest the sign to be exhibited: and first he sets down the sign which is exhibited; second he sets down the fruit of the signs done, which follows, there, "Now when he was at Jerusalem," and so on. Concerning the first he does three things. First is set down the demand for a sign; second, the exhibition of the sign, there, "Jesus answered, and said to them: Destroy this temple," etc.; third, the understanding, or conception, of the sign exhibited, there, "The Jews therefore said: Forty and six years was this temple in building," etc. Now a sign is demanded by the Jews; and this is what he says: "The Jews therefore answered, and said to him: What sign dost thou show unto us, seeing thou dost these things?" Here it must be known that in the casting out of the merchants from the temple by Jesus, two things could be considered in Christ: rectitude and zeal, which pertain to virtue; and power, or authority. But concerning the virtue and zeal of Christ, by which he had done the aforesaid things, it was not fitting that a sign be sought from Christ, since it is lawful for anyone to act according to virtue. But concerning his authority, by which he expelled them from the temple, a sign could be sought from him, since this was not lawful for just anyone to do, but only for one having authority. Passing over, therefore, the zeal and virtue of Jesus, the Jews seek a sign concerning his authority; and therefore they say, "What sign dost thou show us, seeing thou dost these things?" That is: why, with such power and authority, do you expel us? This does not seem to be your office. They say something similar, Matthew 21:23: "By what power dost thou do these things?" etc. Now they seek a sign because it was familiar to the Jews to seek a sign, inasmuch as they were called to the law through such things; Deuteronomy, last chapter, 10: "There arose not a prophet again in Israel like unto Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face, in all the signs and wonders." And, 1 Corinthians 1:22, "the Jews seek signs." Therefore David, in the person of the Jews, complains, saying, Psalm 73:9: "we have not seen our signs." But they were seeking a sign, not that they might believe, but as though despairing that he would be able to show a sign, and thus that they might repress and impede him. Since, therefore, they sought wickedly, he did not give them an open sign, but a hidden one in figure, namely the sign of the resurrection. Whence he says, "Jesus answered, and said to them," etc., in which is set down the exhibition of the sign demanded. Now he gives them the sign of the future resurrection for this reason, that in this above all the power of his divinity is shown. For it is not of a mere man to raise himself up from the dead; but Christ alone, who was free among the dead, did this by the power of his divinity. He also shows them a similar sign. Matthew 12:39: "An evil and adulterous generation seeketh a sign; but a sign shall not be given to it, except the sign of Jonah the prophet." And although in both places he gave a hidden and figural sign, yet that one was more manifest, but this one more obscure. Now it must be noted that before the incarnation God gave a sign of the future incarnation, Isaiah 7:14: "The Lord himself shall give you a sign: Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son," etc.; likewise also before the resurrection he gave a sign of the future resurrection, because by these two things above all the power of the divinity is commended in Christ. For nothing more wonderful could come to pass than that God was made man, and that the humanity in Christ, after his resurrection, was made a partaker of divine immortality; Romans 6:9: "Christ, rising again from the dead, dieth now no more... for in that he liveth, he liveth unto God," that is, in the likeness of God. But the words of the sign given must be attended to. For Christ calls his body a temple; the reason for which is that that is called a temple in which God dwells, according to Psalm 10:5: "the Lord is in his holy temple." And hence it is that a holy soul, which God inhabits, is called the temple of God; 1 Corinthians 3:17: "the temple of God is holy, which you are." Since, therefore, the divinity dwells in the body of Christ, the body of Christ is therefore the temple of God, not only according to the soul, but also according to the body; Colossians 2:9: "in whom dwelleth all the fulness of the divinity corporeally." And indeed in us God dwells according to grace, namely according to the act of intellect and will, which is not an act of the body, but of the soul alone; but in Christ he dwells according to union in person, which union indeed includes not only the soul itself, but also the body; and therefore the body itself of Christ is the temple of God. From this, however, Nestorius, taking occasion for his error, says that the Word of God was united to human nature only according to indwelling; from which it follows that there is one person of God, and another of the man, in Christ. And therefore it must be said that the indwelling of God in Christ refers to nature, because the divine nature is one thing and the human nature another in Christ, but not to the person, which is the same in Christ of God and of man, namely the person of the Word, as was said above. This, then, being supposed, concerning this sign the Lord does two things. First indeed he foretells his future death; second, his resurrection. He foretells his death indeed when he says, "Destroy this temple." For Christ died, and was killed by others, Matthew 17:22: "and they shall kill him," yet with him willing it, because, as it is said in Isaiah 53:7, "he was offered because he himself willed it." And therefore he says, "Destroy this temple," that is, my body. And he does not say "it will be destroyed," lest you understand that he killed himself; but he says "destroy," which is not the word of one commanding, but of one foretelling and permitting. Of one foretelling indeed, so that the sense is, "Destroy this temple," that is, "you will destroy it"; but of one permitting, so that the sense is, "Destroy this temple," that is, "do with my body what you will, I set it before you," as he says to Judas, below, John 13:27: "That which thou dost, do quickly" — not indeed commanding him, but leaving him to his own choice. Now he says "destroy" because the death of Christ is the dissolution of his body, yet otherwise than that of other men. For the bodies of other men are dissolved through death even to the incineration and reduction to dust of the flesh; which kind of dissolution, however, did not occur in Christ, because, as it is said in Psalm 15:10, "thou wilt not give thy holy one to see corruption." Yet there was there a dissolution through death, because the soul was separated from the body, as form from matter, and because the blood was separated from the body, and because his body was pierced with nails and a lance. Now he foretells the resurrection when he says, "and in three days I will raise it up," namely the body, that is, "I will raise it up from the dead." Now he does not say "it will be raised," nor "the Father will raise it," but "I will raise it up," so as to show that he rises from the dead by his own power. Nor, however, do we deny that the Father raised him from the dead, because, as it is said in Romans 8:11, "who raised up Jesus from the dead." And in Psalm 40:11: "But thou, O Lord, have mercy on me, and raise me up." Thus, therefore, God the Father raised Christ from the dead, and Christ rose by his own power; Psalm 3:6: "I have slept, and taken my rest, and I have risen up, because the Lord hath sustained me." Nor is there in this any contrariety, because the power of both is the same; whence, "whatsoever things the Father doth, these the Son also doth in like manner": below, John 5:19. For if the Father raised him up, the Son also did; 2 Corinthians 13:4: "for although he was crucified through weakness, yet he liveth by the power of God." Now he says "and in three days," and not "after three days," because he did not remain three full days in the tomb; but, as Augustine says, it is a synecdochical expression, in which the part is put for the whole. Origen, however, assigns a mystical reason for this expression, saying: the true body of Christ is the temple of God, and this body figures the mystical body, that is, the Church; 1 Corinthians 12:27: "you are the body of Christ, and members of member." And just as in the body of Christ the divinity dwells through the grace of union, so too in the Church through the grace of adoption. And although this body seems to be mystically dissolved by the adversities of the tribulations by which it is afflicted, yet it is raised up in three days, namely in the day of the law of nature, and in the day of the written law, and in the day of the law of grace; because, even if in these days, as regards some, the body is dissolved, yet as regards others it lives. And therefore he says "in three days," because this spiritual resurrection is accomplished in three days. But after three days we shall be perfectly raised up, not only as regards the first resurrection, but also as regards the second; Apocalypse 20:6: "Blessed is he that hath part in the second resurrection." Consequently, when he says, "The Jews therefore said," etc., is set down the understanding of the sign exhibited; and first indeed is set down the false understanding, conceived by the Jews; second, the true understanding, conceived by the apostles, there, "But he spoke of the temple of his body." Now the false understanding of the Jews was that they believed Christ was speaking of the material temple, in which he then was; and therefore, according to this understanding, they respond concerning the material temple, and say, "Forty and six years was this temple in building" — namely the material one, in which we are — "and wilt thou raise it up in three days?" But against this there is a literal objection. For the temple in Jerusalem was built by Solomon, and, as is had in 3 Kings 6:1ff., it was completed by Solomon in seven years; what, then, is this, that he here says, "forty and six years was this temple in building"? I respond. It must be said, according to some, that this is not to be understood of the first building of the temple, which was completed by Solomon in seven years; for the temple which Solomon had built was destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar, but it is to be understood of the rebuilding done under Zerubbabel, after they had returned from the captivity, as is read in the Book of Ezra, which indeed, with many enemies attacking from every side, was so hindered and delayed that the temple could not be completed until the forty-sixth year. Or it must be said, according to Origen, that it is understood of the temple of Solomon, which indeed is said to have been built in the space of forty-six years, in such a way that the time is counted from the day on which David made mention of the building of the temple, consulting the prophet Nathan about this, as is had in 2 Kings 7:2ff., up to the perfect completion by Solomon; for from that day David began to prepare the material and the necessities for the building of the temple. And if the said span of time is diligently considered, it rises to the number of forty-six years. Now although the Jews referred their intention to the material temple, yet, according to Augustine, it can be referred to the temple of the body of Christ; because, as he himself says in the Book of Eighty-Three Questions, the conception and formation of the human body is completed in forty-five days, in this manner. For in the first six days the conception of the human body has, as it were, the likeness of milk; then in the following nine days it is converted into blood; then in the twelve days after that it is solidified into flesh; but in the remaining eighteen days it is formed up to the perfect features of all its members. Therefore, with this number — six, nine, twelve, and eighteen — joined into one, there arises the number forty-five, to which, one being added on account of the sacrament of unity, there are forty-six. But from this a question arises: because this process of formation does not seem to have a place in the body of Christ, since in the very instant of conception it was formed and animated. But it must be said that, although in the formation of the body of Christ there is something singular — because in that very instant the body of Christ was perfect as to all the features of its members, though not as to the due quantity of the body — and therefore it remained in the womb of the Virgin for as long as was needed until it reached the due quantity. Let us then take the aforesaid numbers, namely six, which was the first, and forty-six, which was the last, and multiply the one by the other; from these there arise two hundred seventy-six. Dividing, then, this number of days into months, giving each month thirty days, there are nine months and six days. Rightly, therefore, is the temple said to have been built in forty-six years, which signified the body of Christ, so as to suggest that there were as many years in the building of the temple as there were days in the perfection of the body of Christ; for from the eighth of the Kalends of April, on which Christ was conceived, and (as is believed) suffered, up to the eighth of the Kalends of January, there are that many days, namely two hundred seventy-six, which number arises from six multiplied by forty-six. From this number also Augustine (as appears through the Gloss) understands another thing mystically. For he says that from the letters of the name Adam, multiplied according to the number which, in the manner of the Greeks, these letters signify, there arises the number forty-six. For "A" in Greek, according to number, signifies one, since it is the first letter in the alphabet; but "D," according to order, signifies four. Adding, then, the one which "A" signifies, and the forty which "M" signifies, we have forty-six. In which it is signified that the body of Christ was assumed from the body of Adam. Likewise, according to the Greeks, from the first letters taken from the names of the four parts of the world, this name Adam is composed: namely, "anatole," which is east; "dysis," which is west; "arctos," which is north; "mesembria," which is south — in which it is signified that Christ assumed flesh from Adam, so that he might gather together his elect from the four parts of the world; Matthew 24:31: "he shall gather together his elect from the four winds." Consequently, when he says, "But he spoke of the temple of his body," is set down the true understanding of the sign, conceived by the disciples; and first is set down their own understanding; second, whence the apostles conceived this, there, "When therefore he was risen," etc. He says, therefore: the Jews said this in ignorance, but Christ did not so understand it; rather he understood it of the temple of his body; and this is what he says, "But he spoke of the temple of his body." Now for what reason the body of Christ is called a temple has been said above. And from this Apollinaris, taking occasion for his error, said that the flesh of Christ was inanimate matter, because a temple is an inanimate thing. But in this he is deceived, because when it is said that the body of Christ is a temple, it is a metaphorical expression, in which expression indeed the likeness is not attended to as regards all things, but as regards something, namely as regards the indwelling, which indeed refers to the nature, as was said above. Moreover, this appears manifestly through the authority of Sacred Scripture, when Christ himself says: "I have power to lay down my life." Whence, however, the apostles conceived this true understanding, the Evangelist shows consequently, when he adds, "When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered," etc. For before the resurrection this was difficult to understand: first, because through this it was shown that in the body of Christ there was true divinity — otherwise it could not have been called a temple — and to understand this at that time exceeded human capacity. Second, because in this he makes mention of the passion and resurrection, when he says "I will raise it up," which none of the disciples had yet heard. Whence, when Christ expressed his resurrection and passion to the apostles, Peter, hearing this, was scandalized, saying: "Be it far from thee, Lord" (Matthew 16:22). But after the resurrection, when they now fully knew Christ to be God, through the things which he had shown concerning the passion and resurrection, and when they had learned the sacrament of his resurrection, then "his disciples remembered that he said this of his body, and they believed the Scripture," namely of the prophets; Hosea 6:3: "He will revive us after two days: on the third day he will raise us up"; Jonah 2:1: "Jonah was in the belly of the whale three days and three nights." And hence it is that on the very day of the resurrection he opened to them their understanding, that they might understand the Scriptures. "And the word that Jesus had said" — namely this: "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." Analogically, however, through this it is given us to understand, according to Origen, that in the last resurrection of nature we shall be disciples of Christ, when, in the great resurrection, the whole body of Jesus, that is, his Church, will be made certain of those things which now we know through faith in an enigma; and then we shall receive the completion of faith, seeing through vision what now we behold through a mirror. Consequently, when he says, "Now when he was at Jerusalem," he sets down the fruit that followed from the signs, namely the conversion of some who believed; and concerning this he does three things. First he sets forth those who believed, on account of the miracles; second he shows how Christ conducted himself toward them, there, "But Jesus did not trust himself to them"; third he assigns the reason for this, there, "because he himself knew all men." Now the fruit which came from the signs of Jesus is great, because many believed, and were converted to him; and this is what he says: "Now when he was at Jerusalem, at the Passover, on the festival day, many believed in his name" — that is, in him — "seeing the signs which he did." Now note that some believed in two ways: for some indeed believed on account of miracles seen, but some on account of the revelation of hidden things and prophecy. But those who believe on account of teaching are more praiseworthy, because they are more spiritual, than those who believe on account of signs, who are grosser and more given to the senses. Now these who were converted are shown to be of the sensible sort, in that they believed, not on account of teaching, as the disciples did, but "seeing the signs which he did," they "believed in his name." 1 Corinthians 14:22: "prophecies are given to believers," etc. But here it is asked what signs they saw done by Jesus, since we read of none that he did at that time in Jerusalem. To this a twofold answer can be given, according to Origen. In one way, that many signs were done by Jesus there at that time which are not contained here; for the Evangelists knowingly passed over many of the miracles of Christ, since he did so many that they could not easily be written; below, last chapter, 25: "Many other signs also did Jesus, which, if they should be written every one, I think that the world itself would not be able to contain the books that should be written." And the Evangelist shows this pointedly when he says, "seeing the signs which he did," which have already been passed over, because it was not the intention of the Evangelists to write down all the signs of Jesus, but as many as were necessary for the instruction of the Church of the faithful. In another way, because among the miracles the greatest sign can be reckoned to be this, that with a scourge made of cords, Jesus alone cast out a multitude of men from the temple. Now how he conducted himself toward those who believed, he shows, saying, "But Jesus did not trust himself to them," namely to those who had believed in him. But what is this, that men believe in God, and Jesus himself did not trust himself to them? Could they perhaps have killed him, had he been unwilling? But someone will say that he did not trust himself to them because he knew that they believed falsely. But if this were true, the Evangelist surely would not say that many had believed in his name, and yet that he did not trust himself to them. And the reason is, according to Chrysostom, that these believed in him, but imperfectly, because they could not yet attain to the perfect mysteries of Christ, and therefore "he did not trust himself to them," that is, he did not yet reveal to them his secret mysteries; for even to the apostles themselves he did not reveal many things; below, John 16:12: "I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now"; 1 Corinthians 3:1: "I could not speak to you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal." And therefore the Evangelist pointedly, so as to show that they believed imperfectly, does not say that they believed in him, because they did not yet believe in his divinity; but he says "in his name" — that which was said of him merely by name, namely that he was just, or something of this sort. Or, according to Augustine, these bear in the Church the type of catechumens, who, although they believe in the name of Christ, yet Jesus does not trust himself to them, because the Church does not give them the body of Christ; for that body, just as no priest can confect it except one consecrated a priest, so no one ought to receive it except one baptized. Now the reason why he did not trust himself to them is shown from the perfect knowledge of Christ; whence he says, "because he himself knew all men." Now although a man in ignorance ought to presume good of anyone, yet after the truth becomes known concerning certain persons, a man ought to conduct himself toward them according to their condition. And because nothing of the things that are in man was hidden from Christ, since he knew that they believed imperfectly, he did not trust himself to them. Now the knowledge of Christ is described as universal, because he knew not only those close to him, but also other strangers, and therefore he says, "because he himself knew all men," and this through the power of his divinity; Ecclesiasticus 23:28: "the eyes of the Lord are far brighter than the sun." For man, even though he may know others, yet cannot have certain knowledge of them, because he sees only what appears outwardly, and therefore he has need of the testimony of others. Christ, however, knows most certainly, because he beholds the heart; and therefore "he needed not that any should give testimony of man"; rather he himself is a witness, Job 16:20: "behold, my witness is in heaven." His knowledge is perfect, because it extends not only to exterior things, but also to interior things; and therefore he says, "for he himself knew what was in man," that is, the hidden things of the heart. Proverbs 15:11: "Hell and destruction are before the Lord."”

“Above, the Evangelist showed the power of Christ with respect to the changing of nature; but here he shows it with respect to the reformation of grace, which is his principal intention. Now the reformation of grace comes about through spiritual generation, and through the conferring of benefits upon those regenerated. Therefore he first treats of spiritual generation; second, of the divine conferring of spiritual benefits upon those regenerated, and this in chapter 5, where it says, "After this there was a feast day of the Jews," and so on. Concerning the first he does two things. First he treats of spiritual regeneration with respect to the Jews; second, of the spreading of the fruits of this regeneration also to the foreign nations. And this in chapter 4, where it says, "When therefore Jesus knew that the Pharisees had heard," and so on. Concerning the first he does two things. First he manifests spiritual regeneration in words; second he fulfills it in deeds, where it says, "After this Jesus came, and his disciples, into the land of Judea," and so on. Concerning the first he does three things. First he shows the necessity of spiritual regeneration; second its quality, where it says, "Nicodemus said to him: How can a man be born when he is old?" Third, its manner and reason, where it says, "Nicodemus answered and said to him: How can these things be done?" Concerning the first he does two things. First he shows the occasion for demonstrating the necessity; second the necessity of this regeneration, where it says, "Jesus answered and said to him: Amen, amen, I say to you," and so on. Now the occasion of this necessity is introduced from Nicodemus; and therefore he says, "Now there was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus," and so on. He describes him from his person, from the time, and from his own confession. From his person indeed he is described with respect to three things: namely, with respect to religion, because he was a Pharisee; hence it says, "there was a man of the Pharisees." For there was a twofold sect among the Jews, namely that of the Pharisees and that of the Sadducees. But the Pharisees agreed more with us in their opinions, because they believed in the resurrection and said that there were certain spiritual creatures. The Sadducees, however, disagreed more, because they believed neither in a future resurrection nor that spirit existed. And these were called Pharisees, as it were "divided" from others. And because their opinion was more probable, and closer to the truth, therefore Nicodemus was more easily converted to Christ. Acts 26:5: "according to the most certain sect of our religion," and so on. Likewise, with respect to his name, when it says, "named Nicodemus," which is interpreted "victor," or "victory of the people," by which are signified those who, converted from the Jews to Christ, conquered the world by faith. 1 John 5:4: "This is the victory that overcomes the world, our faith." Likewise third, with respect to dignity; hence it says, "a ruler of the Jews." For from the beginning, although the Lord did not choose the wise, the powerful, or the noble, lest the power of faith be attributed to human wisdom and power, as is said in 1 Corinthians 1:26, "not many wise according to the flesh, not many powerful, not many noble, but the foolish things of the world God has chosen," nevertheless he willed to convert some wise and powerful men to himself from the beginning, lest, if his teaching were received only by the ignoble and unwise, it should be held in contempt, and lest the multitude of believers be attributed rather to the rusticity and unwisdom of the converts than to the power of faith. Nevertheless he willed that these noble and powerful ones converted to him not be many, lest, as has been said, it be ascribed to human power or wisdom. And therefore it is said in John 12:42 that some of the rulers believed in him, among whom was this Nicodemus; Psalm 46:10: "the princes of the peoples are gathered together." From the time, however, he describes him when he says, "this man came to Jesus by night," and so on. Concerning which it must be known that the quality of time is accustomed in Scripture to be described concerning certain persons, in order to convey knowledge of their mind, or the condition of their action. Now this obscure time is described here; hence it says, "he came by night." For night is dark, and it fit the quality of Nicodemus's disposition, who came to Jesus not with security and free open declaration, but with fear; for he was one of those rulers of whom it is said in John 12:42 that they believed in him, "but because of the Pharisees they did not confess it, lest they be cast out of the synagogue." For they did not love perfectly; hence it is added, "for they loved the glory of men more than the glory of God." Night also fits his ignorance and imperfect knowledge, which he then had concerning Christ; Romans 13:12: "the night is passed," etc.; Psalm 81:5: "they have not known nor understood, they walk in darkness." From his confession, however, he is described when it is added, "and he said to him: Rabbi, we know that you have come a teacher from God." Here he confesses Christ's office in teaching, when he says "Rabbi," etc., and his power in acting, where it says, "for no one can do these signs which you do, unless God be with him." And indeed in both he speaks truly, although he confesses but little. For it is true that he calls him "Rabbi," that is, teacher, because, as is said below in chapter 13:13, "you call me Master and Lord, and you say well, for I am." For Nicodemus had read what is written in Joel 2:23: "Rejoice, children of Zion, and be glad in the Lord your God, for he has given you the teacher of justice." But he says too little, because he says that he came a teacher from God, but is silent that he is God. For to come a teacher from God is common to all good prelates; Jeremiah 3:15: "and I will give you pastors according to my own heart; and they shall feed you with knowledge and doctrine"; hence this is not something singular to Christ, although men teach in one way and Christ in another. For other teachers teach only outwardly, but Christ also inwardly, because, as is said above in chapter 1:9, "he was the true light, which enlightens every man"; and therefore he alone gives wisdom; Luke 21:15: "I will give you a mouth and wisdom." And this no mere man can say. His power, however, he confesses from the signs seen, as if to say: I believe that you have come a teacher from God, because "no one can do these signs" that you do. And he speaks truly, because the signs that Christ did could not be done except divinely, and because God was with him; below, chapter 8:29: "he who sent me is with me." But he says too little, because he believed that Christ did not do signs by his own power, as though needing an external power, as if God were not with him through unity of essence, but only through an infusion of grace. And this indeed is false, because he worked signs not by an external power, but by his own, for the power of God and of Christ is the same. Similar is what the woman says to Elijah, 3 Kings 17:24: "by this deed I have known that you are a man of God." Consequently, when it says, "Jesus answered and said to him," etc., he sets forth the necessity of spiritual regeneration arising from the ignorance of Nicodemus. And therefore he says, "amen, amen." Here it must be noted that this word "amen" is Hebrew, which Christ frequently used; hence out of reverence for it, no translator, whether Greek or Latin, was willing to translate it. And sometimes it signifies the same as "true," or the same as "truly"; sometimes, however, the same as "let it be done." Hence in Psalms 71, 88, and 106, where we have "let it be done" (fiat), in the Hebrew it is "amen, amen." But of the Evangelists, John alone doubles this word. The reason for this is that the other Evangelists principally hand down those things that pertain to the humanity of Christ, for which, since they are more easily credible, a lesser assertion was necessary; but John principally treats of those things that pertain to the divinity of Christ, which, since they are hidden and remote from the knowledge of men, required a greater assertion. Next it must be noted that this response of Christ seems altogether inconsistent with what was proposed by Nicodemus, unless it is diligently considered. For how does it seem to agree, what Nicodemus said, "Rabbi, we know that you have come from God," with what the Lord answered, "unless a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God"? But it must be noted, as has already been said, that Nicodemus, having an imperfect opinion of Christ, confessed him a teacher and confessed that he did these signs as a mere man. The Lord therefore wishes to show him how he might arrive at a higher knowledge of him. And indeed the Lord could have disputed about this; but because this would have turned into contention, the contrary of which is written of him in Isaiah 42:2, "he shall not contend," therefore with gentleness he willed to lead him to true knowledge, as if to say: it is no wonder if you believe me a mere man, because those secrets of divinity cannot be known by anyone unless he has attained spiritual regeneration. And this is what he says: "unless a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." Here it must be known that, since vision is an act of life, according to different lives there are different visions. For there is a certain carnal life, by which all other things commonly live, and this has carnal vision, or knowledge. And there is spiritual life, by which man is conformed to God and to the holy spirits, and this has spiritual vision. According to the carnal, indeed, spiritual things cannot be seen; 1 Corinthians 2:14: "the animal man does not perceive those things that are of the Spirit of God," but they are perceived by spiritual vision; hence it is added there, "the things that are of God, no one knows but the Spirit of God." Now it is the Spirit who regenerates; hence the Apostle, Romans 8:15: "you have not received again the spirit of bondage in fear, but you have received the spirit of adoption." And this spirit indeed we receive through spiritual regeneration; Titus 3:5: "he saved us by the washing of regeneration of the Holy Spirit." If therefore spiritual vision comes only through the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit is poured into us through the washing of spiritual regeneration, then we cannot see the kingdom of God except through the washing of regeneration; and therefore he says, "unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." As if to say: it is no wonder if you do not see the kingdom of God, because no one can see it unless he receives the Holy Spirit, through whom he is reborn as a son of God. Now to a kingdom belongs not only the royal throne, but also those things that pertain to the governance of the kingdom, namely royal dignity, the benefits of graces, and the way of justice by which the kingdom is made firm; and therefore he says, "he cannot see the kingdom of God," that is, the glory and dignity of God, that is, the mysteries of eternal salvation, which are beheld through the justice of faith; Romans 14:17: "the kingdom of God is not food and drink." Now in the old law there was a certain spiritual regeneration, but imperfect and figural; 1 Corinthians 10:2: "all were baptized in Moses, in the cloud and in the sea," that is, they received Baptism in figure. And therefore they indeed saw the mysteries of the kingdom of God, but only figuratively; Hebrews 11:13: "seeing them afar off." But in the new law there is manifest spiritual regeneration, yet it is still imperfect, because we are renewed inwardly only through grace, but not outwardly through incorruption; 2 Corinthians 4:16: "although our outward man is corrupted, yet the inward man is renewed day by day." And therefore we see the kingdom of God and the mysteries of eternal salvation, but imperfectly, because, as is said in 1 Corinthians 13:12, "we see now through a glass in a dark manner," and so on. But in our homeland it will be perfect regeneration, because we shall be renewed both inwardly and outwardly. And therefore we shall see the kingdom of God most perfectly; hence 1 Corinthians 13:12: "but then we shall see face to face"; and 1 John 3:2: "when he shall appear, we shall be like him, because we shall see him as he is." It is clear therefore that, just as no one has bodily vision unless born, so too no one can have spiritual vision unless reborn. And according to the threefold regeneration there is a threefold manner of vision. Note, moreover, that in the Greek it does not have "again" (denuo), but anothen, that is, "from above," which Jerome translated as "again," so that it should imply an addition. And thus Jerome understood it, saying "unless he be born again," as if to say: unless reborn once more through a supernatural generation. Chrysostom, however, says that to be born from above is proper to the Son of God, because he alone is born from above; below (in this chapter), "he who comes from above is above all." And Christ is said to be born from above both with respect to time (if one may so speak), because he was begotten from eternity; Psalm 109:3: "before the daystar I begot you"; and with respect to the principle of his generation, because he is from the heavenly Father; below, chapter 6:38: "I came down not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me." Because, therefore, our regeneration is unto the likeness of the Son of God, according to Romans 8:29, "whom he foreknew, he also predestined to be made conformable to the image of his Son," therefore, since that generation is from above, our generation too is from above, both with respect to time, through eternal predestination — Ephesians 1:4: "he chose us in him before the foundation of the world" — and with respect to the gift of God — below, chapter 6:44: "no one can come to me, unless the Father who sent me draws him"; Ephesians 2:5: "by the grace of God you are saved," and so on. Consequently, when it says, "Nicodemus said to him," etc., he sets forth the manner and reason of this spiritual regeneration; and concerning this, first is set forth the doubt of Nicodemus; second, the response of Christ, "Jesus answered: Amen, amen, I say to you," and so on. Concerning the first it must be known that, as is said in 1 Corinthians 2:14, "the animal man does not perceive those things that are of the Spirit of God," and therefore, since Nicodemus was still carnal and animal, he could not understand the things that were said except carnally. And therefore what the Lord had said concerning spiritual regeneration, he understood as concerning carnal regeneration. And this is what he says: "How can a man be born when he is old?" Here, according to Chrysostom, it must be known that Nicodemus wished to object against the words of the Savior. But nevertheless his objection is laughable, because Christ speaks of spiritual regeneration, whereas here he objects concerning carnal regeneration. Likewise all arguments brought forward to attack the things that are of faith are laughable, because they are not according to the intention of Sacred Scripture. Now Nicodemus objects against the words of the Lord in two ways, according as the word of the Lord seemed impossible in two respects, namely that a man be born again. In one way, on account of the irreversibility of human life: for from old age a man cannot return to childhood. Hence it is said in Job 16:23: "the path" — namely, the present life — "by which I shall not return, I walk." And according to this he says, "How can a man be born when he is old?" As if to say: shall he again become a child so as to be reborn? Job 7:10: "He shall return no more into his house, neither shall his place know him any more." Second, from the manner of carnal generation: for a man at the beginning, when he is generated, is of small size, so that the maternal womb can contain him; but afterward, when he has already been born, he is brought little by little to continual growth, so that he can no longer be contained in the maternal womb. And therefore he says, "can he enter a second time into his mother's womb, and be born again?" As if to say, no, because the womb does not contain him. But these considerations have no place in spiritual generation, because a man, however much he may have grown spiritually old through sin, according to Psalm 31:3, "because I was silent, all my bones grew old," can, through the help of divine grace, come to newness, according to Psalm 102:5, "your youth shall be renewed like the eagle's." He can, however great he may be, enter into the spiritual womb, namely of the Church, through the sacrament of Baptism. Now what the spiritual womb is, is manifest; otherwise it would never be said, "from the womb, before the daystar, I begot you." Nevertheless there is a certain similarity in what is said; for, just as a man once born carnally cannot be born again, so also one once born spiritually through Baptism cannot be born again, because he ought not to be baptized again; Ephesians 4:5: "one Lord, one faith, one Baptism." Consequently, when it says, "Jesus answered," etc., the response of Christ is set forth. And concerning this he does three things. First he resolves the arguments of Nicodemus, showing the quality of regeneration; second he manifests the solution through reason, where it says, "that which is born of the flesh, is flesh," etc.; third, through an example, where it says, "do not wonder," and so on. He resolves, therefore, the objections, showing that the regeneration of which he speaks is spiritual, and not carnal. And this is what he says: "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God," as if to say: you understand this of carnal generation, but I speak of spiritual generation. But note that above he had said, "he cannot see the kingdom of God," while here he says, "he cannot enter into the kingdom of God," which is the same thing. For the things that are of the kingdom of God no one sees, unless he enters the kingdom of God; and he sees only so much as he enters. Revelation 2:17: "in the stone a new name written, which no one knows but he who receives it." Now that spiritual regeneration should come about from the Spirit, has its reason. For it is fitting that what is generated be generated unto the likeness of the one generating; but we are regenerated as sons of God unto the likeness of the true Son; it is fitting therefore that spiritual regeneration come about through that by which we are made like unto the true Son, which indeed comes about through this, that we have his Spirit. Romans 8:9: "if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his"; 1 John 4:13: "in this we know that we abide in him, and he in us, because he has given us of his Spirit," and so on. It is fitting therefore that spiritual regeneration come about through the Holy Spirit. Romans 8:15: "you have not received the spirit of bondage again in fear, but the spirit of adoption of sons"; below, chapter 6:63: "it is the spirit that gives life," and so on. And also for this regeneration water is necessary, on account of three things. First indeed on account of the condition of human nature. For man consists of soul and body, and if in his regeneration there were spirit alone, only that which is spiritual in man would be shown to be regenerated. In order therefore that the flesh too be regenerated, it is fitting that, just as there is spirit there, through which the soul is regenerated, so there be something corporeal there, through which the body is regenerated; and this is water. Second, on account of human knowledge: for, as Dionysius says, divine wisdom so orders all things that it provides for each thing according to the manner of its own condition. Now man is naturally a knowing being; it is fitting therefore that spiritual gifts be conferred upon men in such a way that they may know them; 1 Corinthians 2:12: "that we may know the things that are given us by God." Now the natural manner of this knowledge is that he know spiritual things through sensible things, since all our knowledge begins from sense. It was fitting therefore, in order that we understand what is spiritual in this regeneration, that there be in it something sensible and material, namely water, through which we may understand that, just as water washes and cleanses corporeally on the outside, so also through Baptism a man is washed and cleansed inwardly and spiritually. Third, on account of the fittingness of the cause: for the cause of our regeneration is the incarnate Word. Above, chapter 1:12: "he gave them power to become sons of God." It is fitting therefore that in the sacraments, which have their efficacy from the power of the incarnate Word, there be something corresponding to the Word, and something corresponding to the flesh, or body. And this spiritually is the water in the sacrament of Baptism, namely so that through it we may be conformed to the death of Christ, while we are submerged in it when we are baptized, just as Christ was three days in the belly of the earth; Romans 6:4: "for we are buried together with him by Baptism." This mystery, too, was signified in the first production of things, Genesis 1, when the Spirit of the Lord was borne over the waters. But through the touch of the most pure flesh of Christ a greater power was conferred upon the waters: because in the beginning the waters brought forth the creeping thing having a living soul; but from the time that Christ was baptized in the Jordan, water renders spiritual souls. Now through the fact that here he says, "unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit," it manifestly appears that the Holy Spirit is God. For above, chapter 1:13, it says: "not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God, are born." From which the following argument is formed: He from whom men are spiritually reborn is God; but men are reborn spiritually through the Holy Spirit, as is said here; therefore the Holy Spirit is God. But here there is a twofold question. The first is this: if no one enters the kingdom of God unless reborn of water, and the ancient fathers were not reborn of water, because they were not baptized, then they did not enter the kingdom of God. The other is this: since Baptism is threefold, namely of water, of desire (flaminis), and of blood, and many were baptized by the latter two, whom we say entered the kingdom of God immediately (though they were not reborn of water), it does not seem to be true, what is said here, "unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit." The response: it must be said, as to the first, that regeneration from water and the Holy Spirit comes about in two ways, namely in truth and in figure. Now the ancient fathers, although they were not regenerated with true regeneration, were nevertheless regenerated with figural regeneration, because they always had some sensible sign, in which true regeneration was prefigured; and according to this, being reborn, they entered the kingdom of God, once the price was paid. As to the second it must be said that those who are reborn by the Baptism of blood and of desire, although they do not have regeneration in act, nevertheless have it in desire (in voto); for otherwise the Baptism of blood would be worth nothing, nor could there be a Baptism of the Spirit. Thus therefore, in order that a man enter the kingdom of God, it is fitting that there be present the Baptism of water in reality, as is the case in all who are baptized; or in desire, as is the case in martyrs and catechumens, who are overtaken by death before they fulfill their desire; or in figure, as in the ancient fathers. From this, that it is said, "unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit," the Pelagians erred, saying that children are baptized, not indeed that they be cleansed from sins which they do not yet have, but so that they may be able to enter the kingdom of God. But this is false: because, as Augustine says in the book On the Baptism of Infants, it is unfitting that the image of God, namely man, be withdrawn from the kingdom of God, except on account of some impediment, which cannot be, except sin. It is fitting therefore that in children who are withdrawn from the kingdom there be some sin, namely original sin. Consequently, when it says, "that which is born of the flesh, is flesh," etc., he proves through reason that it is fitting to be born of water and the Holy Spirit; and his reasoning is as follows. No one can arrive at the kingdom unless he be made spiritual; but someone is not made spiritual except through the Holy Spirit; therefore no one can enter the kingdom of God unless reborn of the Holy Spirit. He says therefore, "that which is born of the flesh, is flesh," that is, birth according to the flesh causes birth into carnal life; 1 Corinthians 15:47: "the first man was of the earth, earthly"; and "that which is born of the Spirit," that is, from the power of the Holy Spirit, "is spirit," that is, spiritual. Note, moreover, that this preposition "of" (ex) sometimes designates the material cause, as when I say, "a knife is of iron"; sometimes the efficient cause, as "a house is of a builder." And according to this, what is said, "that which is born of the flesh," can be understood in two ways, effectively and materially. Effectively indeed, because the power that is in the flesh is effective of generation; materially, however, because something carnal in animals is the matter of the thing generated. But from the spirit nothing is said to be born materially, since the spirit is immutable, whereas matter is the subject of transformation; but it is said effectively. According to this, therefore, we can take a threefold generation. One which is from flesh both materially and effectively, which is common to all who have a carnal state. Another is according to spirit effectively, according to which we are regenerated as sons of God through the grace of the Holy Spirit, and are made spiritual. The third is intermediate, namely that which is from flesh materially only, and from the Holy Spirit effectively. And this is singular and proper to Christ alone: because materially he was born having flesh from the flesh of his mother, and effectively he is from the Holy Spirit; Matthew 1:20: "for that which is born in her, is of the Holy Spirit." And therefore he was born holy; Luke 1:35: "the Holy Spirit shall come upon you, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow you: and therefore also that which shall be born of you holy shall be called the Son of God."”