Chapter 1

Chapter I.

1. In the beginning was the Word etc. This book, which concerns the incarnate Word, in whom a twofold nature is considered, namely divine and human, is first divided into two parts. In the first he treats of the Word in himself; in the second, insofar as he is united to flesh, and that part begins there: There was a man sent from God. And because word denotes operative power, as Augustine says, and has relation both to the one speaking and to that which is said through the word: therefore the first part has two sections. In the first, the Word is treated in comparison to the one speaking; in the second, in comparison to those things which are spoken through the Word: All things were made through him.

Part I. On the Word in himself, and first in comparison

TO THE ONE SPEAKING.

In the first part four clauses are set forth, in which the incarnate Word is described with respect to four conditions, which are: unity in essence, otherness in person, equality in majesty, coeternity in duration. And through these conditions four errors are refuted.

2. (Verse 1.). The first condition, therefore, is unity in essence, and it is noted in the first clause, when it is said: In the beginning was the Word: as Augustine says: "There is a principle not from a principle, and this is the Father; and there is a principle from a principle, and this is the Son." Here principle is taken by antonomasia for the Father: whence the sense is: In the beginning, that is, in the Father, is the Son, not separated from the Father in essence, below in the fourteenth chapter: "I am in the Father, and the Father is in me," as undivided: because as is said below in the tenth chapter: "I and the Father are one." And in this the unbelief of the pagans is refuted, who are indignant with us because we say three persons and not three gods: as Augustine says in On the Christian Combat; and this, because they do not understand how the Word was in the beginning.

3. The second condition is otherness in person, and this is touched upon in the second clause, when it is said: The Word was with God: because, as the Grammarian says, and also Victor, prepositions are transitive; therefore this preposition with implies distinction insofar as it is a preposition, but by reason of its special signification it denotes authority in the Father and subauthority in the Son, because the lesser is said to be with the greater and not conversely, according to the common manner of speaking. But there, although there is no lesser and greater, nevertheless there is authority in the Father and subauthority in the Son. By the name word, however, is understood the emanation of generation. And these three are touched upon in Ecclesiasticus twenty-four: "I came forth from the mouth of the Most High, the firstborn before every creature": of the Most High, behold authority; from the mouth, behold generation; I came forth, behold distinction. And in this the heresy of the Sabellians is refuted, who hold that the Father and the Son are one and the same: because they did not understand how the Word was with God.

4. The third condition is equality in majesty, and this is touched upon in the third clause, where it says: And the Word was God. For if, as Anselm says, "God is that than which nothing greater can be thought"; if the Word was God, then he was that than which nothing greater could be thought, and thus he was equal to the Father in majesty; below in the fourteenth chapter he said to the disciples: "You believe in God, believe also in me." If one must believe in God alone as in the highest truth, and one must believe in the Word, it follows that the Word was God. And in this the heresy of the Arians is refuted, who held the Son to be a creature and lesser than the Father, as Augustine says. For they did not understand how the Word was God.

5. (Verse 2). The fourth condition is coeternity in duration, and this is touched upon when it is said: He was in the beginning with God, in which coeternity is noted. For God the Father was from eternity; but if the Son were not coeternal, the Father existed before the Son; therefore the Word was not in the beginning with God. But he was in the beginning, and therefore coeternal. Whence Proverbs 8: "The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his ways, before he made anything from the beginning. From eternity I was ordained." And in this the heresy of the Photinians and the Ebionites is refuted, who said that Christ took his beginning entirely from Mary, as Augustine says in On the Christian Combat. For they did not understand how the Word was in the beginning with God.

Questions.

6. For the understanding of the foregoing, the following may be asked here:

Question I. Since "Son" conveys the most distinctive property, why does he describe the Son of God under the name Word rather than under the name Son? For it seems that he ought to have done the contrary.

I respond: It must be said that son expresses a relation only to the father, but word expresses a relation to the one speaking, expresses a relation to that which is said through the word, expresses a relation to the voice which it assumes, and also expresses a relation to the teaching which is effected in another through the word. And since the Son of God ought to be described here not only in relation to the Father, from whom he proceeds, but also in relation to the creatures which he made, and to the flesh which he assumed, and to the teachings which he provided, he ought most nobly and most fittingly to be described under the name Word, because that name regards all these things, nor could a more fitting name be found in the world.

7. Question II. Likewise it is asked about the fact that he is described by the verb was. For if was is of the imperfect past tense, it is entirely repugnant to eternity, because there is no passing away there. If you say, as Augustine says in the Gloss, that the verb is sometimes implies time according to the analogy of other verbs, but here it does not denote time, but designates essence without any temporal motion: this does not solve the difficulty, because when it is said: the Son is begotten or has been begotten, time is not implied there; yet it is better said always begotten than always being begotten.

Likewise the Lord says thus: Before Abraham was made, I am, below in the eighth chapter; He does not say I was or I used to be: therefore even now He ought to speak through the present tense.

I respond: It must be said that because the being of the Word is described here as permanent, it is described as immutable, as preceding all other things, because this word was, according as such, imports these three things: therefore he most elegantly said was. For since it is a mean between the present and the past, and "a mean partakes of the nature of the extremes," from the present it has permanence, from the past immutability, from itself precedence and order, namely of eternity in relation to time. Therefore was is rightly said.

8. But the heretic objects: if the Word proceeds from the speaker as a son from a father, and the son is posterior to the father, therefore the Word was not in the beginning with God. If you say that it is compared as splendor to light, another heretic objects: if light is much more luminous and nobler than the splendor which proceeds from it, therefore also the Father is greater than the Word.

I respond: It must be said that the taking of a likeness, namely in creatures, is nowhere fully found with respect to God, because every creature is more dissimilar than similar; and therefore the heretics erred who wished to assimilate entirely, but the likeness must be taken from many sources. For the Word is compared to the speaker as a son to a father on account of likeness in nature and equal perfection; it is compared as splendor to light on account of coeternity. And therefore in all such arguments there is a fallacy of the consequent.

Second, concerning the Word in comparison to those things which are spoken through Him.

9. (Verse 3). All things were made through Him, etc. Here the Word is described by comparison to that which is spoken through the Word, and this with respect to four conditions: for it describes Him as a sufficient principle of creation, as unfailing, as foreknowing, as providing knowledge to others. And through these four conditions many heresies are refuted.

First, therefore, He is called a sufficient principle, because He suffices for producing all things. Therefore he says: All things were made through Him, namely by God the Father through the Word, because Sirach 18: "He who lives forever created all things together"; and this through the Word, whence in the Psalm: "He spoke, and they were made." Augustine in the book of the Confessions: "By the Word coeternal with You, You speak whatever You speak, and whatever You say is made, nor do You make otherwise than by speaking."

10. And without him was made nothing. Here the second condition is noted, namely that he is an unfailing principle, because he is absent from no operation. For the Father does nothing without the Word: below in chapter five: "All things that the Father does, these the Son likewise does." Similarly, a creature does nothing without the cooperating Word: below in chapter fifteen: "Without me you can do nothing." And by this the heresy of the Manichaeans is perfectly refuted, who posited two principles, and that some things were produced by the God of light, and some by the God of darkness. For they did not understand how all things were made through the Word:

11. (Vers. 4.). What was made, in him was life. Here the third condition is noted, namely that he is a foreknowing principle, because all things are in him before they are made, and in him they live, just as a chest in the mind of the craftsman. Whence Augustine says that the Son is "the art full of all living reasons"; Ecclesiasticus chapter twenty-three: "To the Lord God, before they were created, all things are known: so also after their completion he beholds all things." Therefore the reasons flourish in him, because they are not changed: James chapter one: "With him there is no change nor shadow of alteration"; and every change is a kind of death.

12. And the life was the light of men. Here the fourth condition is touched upon, which is that he provides knowledge to others; therefore he is called the light of men, because he illuminates men and makes them see: whence in the Psalm: "The light of your countenance is signed upon us, O Lord." Without which light there is no seeing, as Augustine says, because just as the eye does not see unless it is illuminated by corporeal light, so the intellect does not see unless it is illuminated by the most spiritual light. And although he provides knowledge to all, he does not however provide knowledge of himself to all, because sinners know through him and yet do not comprehend him. Therefore he says:

13. (Vers. 5.). And the light shines in the darkness, when he makes sinners know true things: and the darkness did not comprehend it: because those blinded by the darkness of unbelief do not know it: Genesis chapter one: "Darkness was upon the face of the abyss," that is, unbelief upon the face of the human heart. Whence Ephesians chapter five: "You were once darkness, but now light in the Lord"; First John chapter one: "God is light, and in him there is no darkness at all. If we say that we have fellowship with him and walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth." And by this is refuted that error which held that all things come from fortune, and that there is no providence, nor does God know our deeds.

Questions.

14. Question I. It is asked concerning what he says: Without him was made nothing.

Against this it is objected that he who steals has done something; therefore theft is something; therefore it is from God; therefore sins and evils are from God and are not made without God. If you say that sin is nothing, whence the sense is: Without him was made nothing, that is, sin, so that the matter rests there; against this it is further objected: because sin corrupts, and what corrupts acts, and what acts is a being, and what is a being is something; therefore etc.

I respond: It must be said that sin sometimes names an action deprived of some due circumstance; sometimes it names a debt with the privation of the good to which it is ordered; sometimes it names the privation of good itself. In the first way it is something; in the second way it is something in a qualified sense; in the third way it is altogether nothing. Therefore insofar as it involves a good substrate, by reason of that it is from God, but by reason of its deformity, it is not.

As to the objection that sin acts: this is through the nature of the underlying good, as Dionysius says.

15. Question II. Likewise there is a question about what he says: What was made, in him was life.

Against this: All things were made in him; therefore all things are life; in the Psalm: You have made all things in wisdom; therefore a stone lives.

I respond: It must be said that Chrysostom explains that passage thus: What was made, connecting it to the prior clause, so that the period falls thus: without him was made nothing that was made, and the word that is taken implicatively. And then follows: In him was life; and the objection ceases. Hilary however reads it thus: What was made in him — here is the period — namely with respect to his humanity, such as the incarnation, passion, and resurrection, was life, speaking causally, that is, the cause of our life and salvation. Ambrose reads it thus: What was made in him who is life, that is, in him who is life — the construction is appositive — was, namely in God's foreknowledge, before it came to be; and it is a similar manner of speaking to: You have made all things in wisdom. Augustine explains it more elegantly than all of them: What was made, in him was life; because it had in him an exemplar and a living reason; which reason is called living because it is spiritual, not material; because it is unchangeable, not variable; because it is eternal, not corruptible. And this is the meaning of life; for life is a spiritual and continuous act, flowing from a being that is at rest and everlasting.

16. Question III. Likewise there is a question about what he says: The darkness did not comprehend it.

Against this: 1. Corporeal light, while it shines and is present, cannot not be seen; therefore by equal reasoning the same appears to hold of spiritual light and of the intellect.

2. Likewise, why does he speak of darkness ? For no one, not even a good person, comprehends it, since it is incomprehensible.

I respond: It must be said that the case is not the same for corporeal and spiritual light, for a threefold reason: first, on the part of the motive, because corporeal light manifests itself naturally, but spiritual light voluntarily; second, on the part of the eye, because the eye of the intellect is blind with respect to one thing, and yet sees with respect to another, just as we observe that one has ignorance of one thing and knowledge of another; so the eye of the unbeliever is blind with respect to God. The third reason is on the part of the comparison, because there is some proportion between our eye and corporeal light, but spiritual light exceeds it beyond all proportion, and therefore dwells in unapproachable light.

2. As to what is asked concerning comprehension, it must be said that there is comprehension by inclusion, by open vision, and by the adherence of faith and charity. In the first way it is comprehended by no one, in the second way by the Blessed, in the third way by the Saints, and in none of the said ways by the wicked: therefore he says: And the darkness did not comprehend it, that is, they adhered neither by faith nor by love.

Part II. On the Word, insofar as it is united to flesh

THREE THINGS ARE SET FORTH.

17. There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. He treated above of the Word according to the excellence of the Divinity; in this part he treats according to the assumption of humanity. And because this assumption was made for our salvation, which was accomplished through the passion and consummated through the resurrection, therefore this part has three parts. In the first he treats of the incarnation; in the second of the passion, below at the end of the eleventh chapter: The chief priests therefore gathered; in the third of the resurrection, at the beginning of the twentieth chapter: And on the first day of the week etc.

First the incarnation itself is treated in two ways: first, as considered in itself.

And because the incarnation is of no benefit to us unless it is manifested, therefore first he treats of the incarnation; second, of the manifestation of the incarnation, below in the same chapter: And we saw his glory. But because the coming of Christ in the flesh was the coming of the King, therefore he sent a forerunner before him; thus first there is treatment of the coming of the forerunner, second, of the coming of Christ, at that place: It was the true light etc.

On the coming of the forerunner.

18. (Vers. 6.). The arriving forerunner is therefore described by four conditions, namely by nature, by authority, by name, by office. By nature, when it says: There was a man: the Gloss: "A man, not an Angel, as the heretics would have it." The heretics said this on account of that passage in Malachi 3: "Behold, I send my Angel before your face, who will prepare the way before you." But "Angel is there a name of office, not of nature." By authority he is described, when it adds: Sent from God, not from man, not from himself: Romans 10: "How shall they preach unless they are sent?" Against which it is said of the false prophets in Jeremiah 23: "They were running, and I did not send them." By name he is described, when it says: Whose name was John. This name was authoritative, because it was not imposed by man but by God; in Luke 1 it was said to Zechariah: "Elizabeth, your wife, will bear you a son, and you shall call his name John." By office he is described, when it further adds:

19. (Vers. 7.). He came for a testimony. For his office was to testify concerning the light, not on account of a deficiency of the light, but of the believers; therefore it says: He came for a testimony, to bear testimony concerning the light, that all might believe through him; Acts 19: "John baptized with the baptism of penance the people, saying, in him who was to come after him, that they might believe"; might believe, I say, through him, not in him; because:

20. (Vers. 8.). He was not that light, in which one must believe; but that he might bear testimony concerning the light: which indeed he did; below in chapter 5: "You sent to John, and he bore testimony to the truth."

Questions.

21. Question I. But here a question is raised about this statement: He came for a testimony.

Against: 1. Below in chapter 5: "I do not receive testimony from man"; therefore neither ought he to have been sent by God for this purpose.

2. Likewise, light does not need illumination: therefore neither does the highest truth need attestation: therefore he came in vain.

I respond: It must be said that testimony is borne to someone and on account of someone. Sometimes, therefore, there is occasion for testimony by reason of the one to whom it is borne, because the truth is weak, and thus a man needs the testimony of another; sometimes by reason of the one on account of whom it is borne, because he is doubtful or weak in faith. John, however, did not come in testimony on account of a deficiency of light in Christ, but by reason of the unfitness in our eye.

22. Question II. But a question is raised about this statement: That all might believe through him: because, since not all believed, if God sent him for this purpose, then both are frustrated of their due end.

I respond: It must be said that there is a twofold end: in itself and in another. I say therefore that to be frustrated in the end in another, so long as the end in itself is possessed, introduces no imperfection, as is clear in the case of the rhetorician who persuades well, the Angel who guards, Christ who redeems, and John who testifies, because he bore sufficient testimony, even though not all believed him; yet of the things contingent upon him, he omitted nothing.

23. Question III. Likewise, it is asked concerning what he says: He was not the light.

On the contrary: Ephesians 5: "You were once darkness, but now you are light in the Lord": therefore all the good are light.

The Gloss responds that there is a light that illuminates and a light that is illuminated. John and the other Saints are not the illuminating light, but light illuminated by the first light.

But against this is Matthew 5: "So let your light shine before men"; and Philippians 2: "Among whom you shine as luminaries in the world."

I respond: There is a light that illuminates effectively and dispositively. The light that illuminates effectively is light by essence, and thus God alone is the illuminating light; dispositively, it is light by participation, and thus are the Saints, who illuminate by word and example.

On the Coming of Christ.

24. There was the true light, etc. Having determined the coming of the precursor, the coming of the King is determined, and it is determined with its properties and circumstances. He therefore describes this coming of Christ in the following order. First is noted the reason for coming; second, the rejection of the one coming; third, the usefulness or fruit of the coming itself; fourth, the manner of coming.

(Verse 9). The reason therefore for coming in the flesh is first touched upon, which was this: because God himself before the Incarnation, although he was the highest light present to all, was not known by the world; therefore he was made visible,

so that he might be known. For this reason he says: There was the true light, namely by essence; which enlightens every man coming into this world; below in chapter eight: "I am the light of the world; he who follows me does not walk in darkness." This light was present to the world: whence he was in the world by presence; Wisdom 7: "It reaches everywhere because of its purity."

25. (Verse 10). He was in the world, by effect: whence the world was made through him, through whom he could be known; Wisdom 13: "From the greatness of the beauty and of the creature, the Creator of these could be knowably seen." And yet the world knew him not: the world, that is, worldly people — this is a metonymy: below in chapter seventeen: "Just Father, the world has not known you." This is the reason why he came: whence Chrysostom says: "Because being in the world, he was not thought to be present, since he was not yet known: he deigned to put on flesh."

26. (Verse 11.). He came unto his own. Here is touched upon the contempt for the one coming, and this especially from those who ought to have honored him, and from whose race he assumed flesh. On account of which he says: He came unto his own, that is, from the race of the Jews, whom he had chosen before all others, he assumed flesh. And his own —that is, the Jews— did not receive him, not because none did, but because few did; Isaiah 1: "I have nourished and brought up children, and they have despised me." The Jews are called his own because according to the flesh he was of their race, because he was of the seed of David, who was king in Israel forever.

Or: his own by special election, according to that passage of Deuteronomy 26: "The Lord has chosen you to be a peculiar people."

27. (Verse 12.). But as many as. Here is touched upon the third point, namely the fruit of his coming, or its benefit, which is the attainment of divine filiation. Because this benefit does not extend except to those who received him and believed in him, therefore he says: But as many as received. Thus his own did not receive him, but as many as received him, he gave them power to become sons of God. And this is a great benefit; 1 John 3: "Behold what manner of charity the Father has given us, that we should be called and should be sons of God"; and in this is great benefit: whence Romans 8: "If sons, also heirs, heirs indeed of God, and co-heirs with Christ." Thus therefore he gave this power of divine filiation to those who received him. But because this reception is through faith, therefore he explains: To those who believe in his name: thus he gave to those who received him, to those who believe in his name, that is, in the reality of his name. His name is Emmanuel, that is, God with us. He therefore believes in the name who believes him to be God and man; and this one is a son of God; 1 John 5: "Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Son of God is born of God." But because they do not become sons of God except through spiritual generation, not carnal, therefore he says:

28. (Verse 13.). Who not of bloods, that is, of the commingling of seeds; nor of the will of the flesh, that is, of a woman; nor of the will of man, that is, of pleasure and desire; but are born of God; because below in chapter 3: "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the spirit is spirit"; and 1 Peter 1: "Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, through the word of the living God, abiding forever," that is, always.

29. (Vers. 14.). And the Word was made flesh. Here the fourth point is touched upon, namely the mode of coming, which was through the assumption of flesh, in which there was the highest union: therefore he says: The Word was made flesh: that is, united to flesh; Philippians 2: "He humbled himself, taking the form of a servant." And because this union was unconfused, it was also undivided: therefore he says: And dwelt among us, that is, in our nature: he dwelt, therefore he was not changed: he dwelt, therefore he was not separated. Concerning this dwelling, Leviticus 26: "I will set my tabernacle in the midst of you, and my soul shall not cast you off"; and in the Psalm: "In peace is his place made, and his dwelling in Sion."

Questions.

30. Question I. But it is first asked concerning what he says: He was the true light, which enlightens every man coming etc.; because it was said above that some men are darkness: therefore he does not enlighten all.

If you say: as far as it is in itself: then if no one can resist his will, it is necessary that all be enlightened.

To this Augustine responds thus: "He enlightens every one, namely every one who is enlightened, because no one is enlightened except through him." The example of a teacher teaching boys.

Bede responds that this is understood of the light of nature, not of grace; and everyone has the light of God's countenance sealed upon him.

Chrysostom however explains it thus: because he is prepared to enlighten; but not all are enlightened, because they close the way of light to themselves. The example of a blind man standing in the sun.

As to your objection: if he wills, he does it: it must be said that absolutely he does not will to enlighten except those who are willing; but by a conditional will he wills all to be enlightened, just as he wills all men to be saved.

31. Question II. It is asked concerning what he says: He came unto his own.

1. For if coming belongs to him to whom being absent belongs: and God is nowhere absent: therefore he did not come.

2. Likewise, if God can do all things everywhere, then he does not need to come for any reason: therefore if he had not come, he could have done the same.

To this Bede responds: "He was in the world through his Divinity, he came into the world through the incarnation. To come or to go away indeed belongs to humanity: but to remain belongs to Divinity"; whence the meaning is: He came, that is, he appeared visibly.

As to what you ask: what was the necessity of coming? I respond: Not for his own sake, but for ours; and this the Evangelist well suggests: because the world did not know his sublimity, he appeared in humility and humanity.

32. Question III. Likewise it is asked concerning what he says: He gave them power to become sons of God, to those who believe etc.

Against this: 1. Augustine, On the Predestination of the Saints: "The ability to believe belongs to nature": therefore they have this power from nature, not therefore given by Christ.

2. Likewise, why does he speak of those who believe rather than of those who love, or of others?

I respond: It must be said that there is a perfect and active power, and this is called the power of authority; and there is an imperfect and passive power, and this is called possibility. The first power exists only through grace, and he speaks of that one here; therefore he says: He gave them power. Augustine speaks of the other.

2. As to what he asks: why especially to faith? The response is: because faith is the first of the virtues and their foundation, therefore he attributes it to faith as to a door.

33. Question IV. Likewise, there is a question about what he says: The Word was made flesh. Here three words are spoken, and the question is: why did he say Word rather than Light, since the Word has been described both under the notion of word and under the notion of light?

If you say that Light is common to the three persons, while Word belongs to the Son alone, who alone became incarnate, then the question arises: why did he not say Son? And why was the Son alone incarnate, since the divine goodness is supremely communicative in each of the hypostases?

I respond to this: the reason why the Son alone became incarnate is taken from the standpoint of nativity, of work, and of effect. By reason of nativity: because he is the son of the Virgin, and "son" ought not to be attributed to another person. By reason of work: because it is re-creation, and re-creation is through him through whom creation came. From the standpoint of effect: because he made us sons and co-heirs, through the natural Son we ought to be brought into the inheritance and into sonship.

Moreover, he said Word rather than Son in order to exclude a carnal understanding and to manifest a spiritual one. For Son is generated carnally among creatures, but Word has a spiritual generation. He manifests the spiritual sense, because, as Augustine says, a word clothes itself in sound and does not pass into sound; so the eternal Word clothed himself in flesh.

34. Question V. Likewise, there is a question about what he says: Was made flesh; for either the meaning is: was made flesh, that is, changed into flesh; or made flesh, that is, made so as to be flesh. Neither understanding is sound. If you say that the construction is synecdochic, and flesh there has the same force as man; whence made flesh, that is, man; then the question arises: why did he prefer humanity to be understood through flesh rather than through soul, since the soul is the nobler part? And why did he use this figurative expression, when he could have used the proper one?

I respond: It must be said that that union was for our instruction and our salvation: and it was instruction, because visible; and liberation, because passible; and "flesh" denotes the visible and most passible part; therefore, etc.

Second, concerning the incarnation itself with respect to its manifestation in two ways.

35. And we saw his glory. Above, the incarnation of the Word was treated; in this part, the knowledge or manifestation of the incarnate Word is treated. This part has two sections, because first it treats of his manifestation in general; second, in particular, at: And this is the testimony of John, etc.

First, concerning the manifestation of the incarnate Word in general.

The first part has two sections, because first the knowledge of the incarnate Word itself is touched upon; second, the reason for the knowledge, at: John bears witness, etc.

Now the knowledge of the incarnate Word, which the Apostles and believers possessed, pertained to both natures; in whose person the Evangelist says: And we saw his glory, that is, we knew; glory, namely with respect to the Divinity. Therefore he says: Glory as of the Only-begotten from the Father; concerning which glory, Second Peter chapter one: "He received from God the Father honor and glory, when a voice came down to him from the magnificent glory: This is my beloved Son." With respect to the humanity, however, he is said to be full of grace and truth, that is, we saw, supply: him, full of grace and truth, truly full, because in him, as is said in Colossians chapter two, "all the fullness of the Divinity dwells bodily"; full of grace, for draining away sins; full of truth, for fulfilling promises; Sirach chapter twenty-four: "In me is all grace of life and truth." And it should be noted that what he says, as of the Only-begotten, is not a mark of comparison or similitude, but of expression.

36. John bears witness. After the knowledge has been set forth, here the reason for knowing is set forth. For there was in them a threefold reason for knowing: the first, through testimony; the second, through a singular effect; the third, through a singular teaching.

(Verse 15). The first reason for knowing, therefore, was through authoritative testimony, namely of an authoritative person, that is, of John, who was holy from his mother's womb. Therefore he says: John bears witness concerning him; Proverbs chapter fourteen: "A faithful witness does not lie." And he cries out, John openly and boldly, according to that passage of Isaiah chapter fifty-eight: "Cry out, do not cease, lift up your voice like a trumpet"; saying: He who comes after me was made before me; therefore made more worthy than I according to his human nature; Ephesians chapter one: "He subjected all things under his feet and gave him as head over the whole Church." And the reason for this is: because he was before me, namely according to his Divinity; below in chapter eight: "Amen, amen, I say to you, before Abraham was made, I am"; and thus before John.

37. (Vers. 16.). And of his fullness. Here the second reason for knowing that Christ was the Son of God is touched upon, namely on account of a singular effect, and this was the bestowal of grace. Therefore he says: And of his fullness, as if to say: truly we knew him to be full; because of his fullness we have all received grace for grace, namely the grace of recompense for the grace of justification, or conversely we have received the grace of justification for the sake of obtaining the grace of recompense, which is rightly called grace, because, as Augustine says, "God crowns nothing in us except his own gifts"; Romans 6: "The wages of sin is death: but the grace of God is life everlasting"; and Zechariah 4: "He shall bring forth the grace of grace." And that this effect is singularly Christ's, he shows:

38. (Vers. 17.). Because the Law was given through Moses, which only promised grace and truth and did not give them: because, Hebrews 7, "The Law brought no one to perfection." But what the Law promised, Christ furnished: therefore he says: Grace and truth came through Jesus Christ, that is, were bestowed. Therefore the Apostle cries out at Romans 7: "Unhappy man that I am! Who shall deliver me from the body of this death? The grace of God through Jesus Christ," not the Mosaic law.

39. (Vers. 18.). No one has ever seen God. Here the third reason for knowing is touched upon, which is namely a singular teaching; because Christ alone was able to teach about God and did teach with certainty and openly, because he alone saw; therefore he says: No one has ever seen God; 1 Timothy last chapter: "He dwells in unapproachable light"; and Exodus 33: "No man shall see me and live."

40. Except the Only-Begotten. Some manuscripts have: but the Only-Begotten: both readings are good. No one has seen except the Only-Begotten should be construed with the preceding verb: if but is there, it should be construed with what follows: But the Only-Begotten, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has declared him. In the bosom of the Father, because, begotten from him, he does not depart from him; below, chapter 3: "No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of man, who is in heaven." He has declared him, because he saw; below, chapter 3: "What we know we speak, and what we have seen we testify"; Hebrews 1: "In these last days he has spoken to us in the Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, through whom he also made the ages."

Questions.

41. Question I. But there is a question about what he says: Full of grace and truth: according to which nature is this said? Either according to the divine or according to the human. Not according to the divine, because grace is not in him in that way, but whatever he has is by nature. Nor does it seem to be according to his humanity, because he adds: Of his fullness we have received grace for grace: but grace is given by God alone, not by a man: therefore etc.

I respond: It must be said that in Christ there was a most great singular grace, the greatest that could exist in a man; just as also the grace of union, than which no greater can be conceived. By reason of both he is said to have been full of grace, and by reason of this twofold grace he was the head of the Church. And because the head overflows into all the members, therefore of his fullness we have all received.

As to what is therefore asked, whether according to the divine nature or the human, I say that Christ is called head according to the human nature united to the divine. Thus the fullness of overflowing is to be understood.

42. Question II. Likewise, it is asked concerning what he says: Of his fullness we have all received.

Against this is the fact that many preceded Christ: therefore many existed before the fullness of Christ: therefore not all received.

I respond: It must be said that all received, because Christ was the head of all the just from Abel to the last just person. To this head the members are united by the bond of faith and love. Because therefore no one was saved without faith in Christ, as blessed Augustine says, no one was saved who did not receive from the fullness of Christ.

As to the objection that he came after: it must be said that by faith he was always present to all, although bodily he came after.

43. Question III. Likewise, it is asked concerning what he says: No one has ever seen God.

Against: 1. Numbers twelve: "I speak to him mouth to mouth, and openly and not through figures and enigmas he sees the Lord"; this is said of Moses: therefore he saw the Lord.

2. Likewise, Isaiah six: "I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne high and lifted up."

The response to this is that there is knowing God in himself and in his effect. And to know God in his effect, this is to see through a mirror, and this in two ways: either through a bright mirror and eye, and thus the first man saw before the fall; or through a darkened mirror, and thus we see now, because on account of sin both our eyes have grown dim and all creatures have been obscured; whence we now see through a mirror in an enigma, First Corinthians thirteen.

In another way God is known in himself: and this in two ways: either clearly, and in this way by the Son alone and by the Blessed; in another way in darkness, as blessed Dionysius says concerning Mystical Theology; and thus Moses saw, and those contemplating sublimely, in whose vision no image of a creature is fixed. And then truly they experience more than they know. Whence Bernard says that he sometimes experienced something within himself, of which, when he wished to see it, he immediately lost it.

Second, concerning the manifestation of the incarnate Word in particular, in two ways.

44. And this is the testimony of John. He treated above the manifestation of the incarnate Word in general; here he treats in particular, and this part is divided, because he [the Word] is self-manifesting and is manifested through a voice: therefore this part has two parts. In the first he treats the manifestation made through John, who was the voice running before the Word. In the second, the manifestation made through the Word himself, below in the same chapter: On the next day he wished to go forth.

First, concerning the manifestation through John.

The first part has three parts according to the three testimonies of John, which are distinguished as follows. The first concerns the truth of the two natures: the second concerns the power of baptizing; the third, holiness.

Or they are also distinguished in another way: because the first was made to the Pharisees; the second, to the crowds: the third, to John's disciples.

In a third way thus: because the first testimony was given with Christ absent; the second, with Christ coming to him: the third, walking before him. The first testimony is noted here: And this is the testimony: the second there: The next day: the third there: Again the next day.

The first part, in which he sets forth the testimony with Christ absent, has two sections, because first he responds to the questioners with the truth about himself: second, about Christ, there: And those who had been sent were from the Pharisees.

The truth, then, with which he responded to the questioners about himself, the Evangelist describes in this order: first, in the questioners he indicates authority: second, in John, steadfastness; third, in the questioners, insistence; fourth, in John, humble truth.

45. (Verse 19). He therefore indicates the authority of the questioners: because they were persons of authority and sent with authorization, to whom John bears testimony; therefore he says: And this is the testimony of John. Thus it was said above that "John bears testimony"; now he specifies: And this is the testimony of John, and he shows the testimony with its circumstances. This, the pronoun this, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem: behold the authority of the persons, because they were sent and they were honorable; below in chapter five: "You sent to John, and he bore testimony to the truth"; they sent, I say, to ask him: Who are you? namely in the person of all. In a similar way John sent his disciples to inquire in his person to Christ; Matthew 11: "John, sending two of his disciples, said to him: Are you he who is to come, or do we look for another?" This is what the Jews wished to inquire through the Levites.

46. (Vers. 20.). And he confessed. Here the second point is touched upon, namely John's steadfastness, who was not terrified by their authority so as to turn aside from a true confession. Therefore he says: And he confessed and did not deny, that is, he made a true confession and persevered in it; Second Corinthians 1: "God is faithful, for our word which was among you was not in him 'yes' and 'no': but in him was 'yes'." And he confessed, the truth, namely, that I am not the Christ. He responded more to the intention than to the question. Concerning this faithful confession, Matthew 10: "Everyone who shall confess me before men, I also will confess him before my Father." John confessed most greatly, because when he could have been regarded as Christ, he was unwilling. Gregory: "While he did not wish to claim the name of Christ, he became a member of Christ."

47. (Vers. 21.). And they asked him. Here the third point is touched upon, namely the importunity of the questioners, because they did not desist with a single response, but pressed on insistently; therefore he says: And they asked him: What then? that is, what are you, if you are not the Christ? Are you Elijah? And he said: I am not. And still they press on: Are you the Prophet? that is, some lesser one. And he answered: No.

Therefore they ask generally about other Prophets, but about Elijah specifically, because they believed Elijah would precede Christ; Matthew 17: "Why do the Scribes say that Elijah must come first?" But still they press on:

48. (Vers. 22.). They therefore said to him: Who are you? Still they press on and state the reason for their insistence: That we may give an answer to those who sent us. What do you say about yourself ? It seemed foolish to them to return to those who sent them without a definite answer. For it is the mark of a wise messenger to bring back definite answers; Proverbs 22: "Behold, I have written down wisdom for you, so that you might answer with words of truth to those who sent you."

49. (Vers. 23.). He said: I am the voice of one crying. Here the fourth point is touched upon, namely in the response humble truth: humble, because he did not attribute to himself dignity but office. Therefore he says: I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness: crying, I say, this: Make straight the way of the Lord. Literally, John was crying in the wilderness: Matthew 3: "John came preaching in the wilderness of Judea and was crying: Make straight the way of the Lord"; because he was preaching repentance, through which the way of the sinner to the Lord is made straight, which way is crooked as long as he sins, but is made straight through the observance of the commandments: whence below, chapter 14: "If anyone loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him." Thus the way of the Lord is made straight to the heart: and this office he confirms by the testimony of Isaiah: As Isaiah the prophet says: Isaiah 40: "The voice of one crying in the wilderness: Prepare the way of the Lord."

Questions.

50. Question I. But it is asked here first concerning the interrogation of the Jews. Since they knew John's origin and life, why do they ask: Who are you?

And it must be answered to this that who sometimes asks about substance, as when it is said: who did this or that? Sometimes about the proper designation, as Priscian says.

Who, father, is that man who thus accompanies him as he goes?

Sometimes it specifically asks, among other conditions, about dignity: for worthy and eminent persons are called ecclesiastical persons. Therefore it must be said here that although they knew his origin, life, and name, nevertheless they were in doubt about his dignity.

51. Question II. Likewise, concerning John's response it is asked, because he responds to the second interrogation that he is not Elijah.

AGAINST: 1. Matthew 11: "If you wish to know, he himself is Elijah." Therefore either the Lord speaks falsely, or John does.

2. Likewise, he responds that he is not a prophet: against: Luke 1: "You, child, shall be called a prophet of the Most High."

I respond that John was answering more according to the intention of the questioners than according to the question. It must be understood, therefore, that the Jews asking about Elijah were asking about him corporally, about that very same one who existed in the Old Testament; but John responds that he is not Elijah in the proper sense, while the Lord calls him Elijah figuratively, because what John was to the first coming, Elijah will be to the second. Similarly it must be said that they were asking about the prophet and the office of prophesying precisely, insofar as a prophet foretells future things; but John was a prophet and more than a prophet, because he pointed out the one who was present. Therefore, according to their intention, he responds that he is not a prophet.

52. Question III. Likewise, it is asked concerning the third response: 1. Why John is called a voice, and why he said that he was a voice.

2. Likewise, what does he mean when he says: Make straight the way of the Lord, since Jeremiah 10 says: "I know, O Lord, that the way of man is not his own, nor is it for a man to direct his steps." Therefore he exhorts to the impossible.

I respond: It must be said that just as the Son of God is most rightly called the Word, so his precursor is most rightly called the voice. The voice has a fourfold property with respect to the word, by reason of which he is rightly so called. The voice precedes the word; so John preceded Christ; Luke 1: "He shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elijah." It manifests the word: so John manifested Christ: above in the same chapter: "He came for testimony, that he might bear witness concerning the light." It passes away and leaves the word remaining: so John with respect to Christ: below in chapter 3: "I must decrease, but he must increase." It is useless without the word: so too John's preaching without Christ: below in the same chapter: "I baptize you in water, but there has stood in your midst one whom you do not know."

2. To the objection concerning direction, it must be said that the direction of the way is through grace and charity, which is from God alone: but the preparation for direction is to be made, according to what is in us. And this is commanded here: whence Gregory: "The way of the Lord is directed to the heart, when life is prepared according to the commandment."

53. And those who had been sent. John has already spoken the truth about himself: but here he gives testimony concerning Christ, and he describes it in this order. First is set forth the wickedness of the questioners: second, the truth of the testimony: third, the renown of the testimony.

(Verse 24.). First, then, is touched upon the wickedness of the questioners: because, when they had heard the truth, they seek to calumniate the teacher of truth. And the reason for this was that they were malicious: therefore he says: Those who had been sent were from the Pharisees, therefore malicious and scrutinizers: Chrysostom: "Those were sent who knew not how to seek the truth, but to envy it"; therefore they inquire maliciously and wickedly. Therefore he says:

54. (Verse 25.). And they asked him and said to him, as if reproving him: Why then do you baptize, if you are not Christ, nor Elijah, nor the prophet? You act without authority and foolishly. Whence Chrysostom: "Because they were unable to supplant him by flatteries, they attempt to cast accusations upon him." Whence Chrysostom exclaims: "O what madness! O what arrogance! O what intemperate investigation! You were sent to be instructed by him: Who are you? And you wish to impose a charge of law?" In this, therefore, the wickedness of the questioners is intimated.

55. (Verse 26.). John answered them. Here the second point is touched upon, namely the truth of the testimony. For John expresses the truth of his office and from this the dignity of Christ. Therefore he says: I baptize you in water: that is, I wash exteriorly, not as Christ does interiorly: but I prepare for Christ; whence Acts nineteen: "John baptized with the baptism of penance, saying: That they should believe in him who was to come." Therefore he adds: But there has stood in the midst of you one whom you do not know: that is, among you; whom you do not know, according to what the Lord says below in chapter eight: "You know neither me nor my Father." For him I prepare. Therefore he says:

56. (Verse 27.). He it is who is to come after me, because I precede him as a forerunner. Who was made before me, that is, more worthy than I: below in chapter three: "I must decrease, but he must increase." And how much more worthy he is, he shows: The strap of whose sandal I am not worthy to unfasten. In the literal sense this is true, because no one, however good, ought to consider himself worthy even to remove Christ's sandals; whence that centurion said in Matthew eight: "Lord, I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof."

Allegorically, the sandal is the humanity of Christ; the shod foot, the Divinity made human; the strap of the sandal, the union of natures. To loosen the strap of the sandal, therefore, is to explain the mystery of the union, for which John declares himself unworthy, because Isaiah fifty-three says: "His generation, who shall declare it?" As if to say: no one is worthy.

57. (Verse 28.). These things were done in Bethany. Here the third point is touched upon, namely the renown of the testimony, which is noted in this, that he gave this testimony in a public place, where many were gathering. Therefore he says: These things were done in Bethany beyond the Jordan, where

John was baptizing; and thus a great crowd was gathering; below in chapter three: "And John was also baptizing in Aennon near Salim, because there was much water there."

Questions.

58. Question I. A small question arises here concerning what he says: I baptize in water.

1. For if the baptism of John only washed the flesh outwardly, it seems that it was done in vain and uselessly.

2. Likewise, John is more perfect than the Law, therefore the baptism of John is more perfect than the Sacraments of the Law; if therefore circumcision confers grace, much more so the baptism of John.

I respond: It must be said that the baptism of John was not for a remedy, but for a preparation for the remedy; therefore it does not follow from this that it was superfluous, nor does it follow that it ought to confer grace.

Now that baptism prepared for the remedy in three ways: on account of the amendment of life, whence it is said in Matthew three: "They were baptized by him, confessing their sins." On account of habituation, so that they would be disposed and would not reject the baptism of Christ; whence Gregory says: "It was fitting that he who by being born had preceded the one who was to be born, should also by baptizing precede the Lord who was to baptize." The third reason, on account of the manifestation of Christ; below in the same chapter: That he might be made manifest in Israel, for this reason I came baptizing in water.

59. Question II. Likewise, a question is raised concerning what he says: In the midst of you. Whence is it that the Lord always chooses the middle place, since he is the head?

And it seems that he would not be in their midst; for he is only in the midst of the good.

It must be said that according to the flesh he was in their midst, that is, in the middle as an ordinary man. Now Christ is said to stand in the midst, or even to choose the middle place especially, because the middle is the place of humility; Luke twenty-two: "But I am in your midst as one who serves," and Matthew eighteen.

The locus of commonality, because it relates uniformly to all: Acts 10: "In truth I have found that God is no respecter of persons," etc. The locus of unity, because extremes are united in the middle: Ephesians 2: "He himself is our peace, who has made both one." The locus of stability, because the center of the world is fixed: 1 Corinthians 3: "No one can lay another foundation besides that which is Christ Jesus." The locus of proximity, because it draws near to all parts: Acts 17: "If perhaps they might grope after him or find him, although he is not far from each one of us; for in him we live and move and have our being."

60. Question III. Likewise, inquiry is made concerning that word which he himself says: Who is to come after me.

Against this: In Matthew 11 it is said that he sent two of his disciples, saying to him: "Are you he who is to come, or do we look for another?" There he doubted; how does he assert it here?

To this the heretics say that John first believed but afterwards doubted. But they lie, because the Lord then commended John.

For this reason it must be said that John knew with certainty that he was the Christ; nor did he then inquire through his disciples as one doubting, but so that he might remedy the doubt of his own disciples, who did not believe in him.

61. The next day John saw, etc. Blessed John bore testimony above concerning Christ absent; here he bears testimony concerning Christ coming to him. And this part is divided into two: because first the bearing of testimony is described; second, the certainty or corroboration of the testimony, at: and I did not know him, etc.

The bearing of testimony is described in this order: first, the occasion for testifying is touched upon; second, the testification; third, the comparison with the preceding testimony.

(Verse 29). The occasion for testifying is first touched upon: and this was because Jesus came to John to be baptized by him; therefore he says: The next day John saw Jesus coming to him, namely to be baptized: Matthew 3: "Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to John, to be baptized by him."

62. And he said, namely John. Here the second point is touched upon, namely the testification itself, in which he bears testimony concerning the innocence of his humanity and concerning the power of his Divinity. On account of his innocence he says: Behold the Lamb of God, that is, innocent and undefiled; Isaiah 16: "Send forth the Lamb, O Lord, the ruler of the earth, from the rock of the desert to the mount of the daughter of Zion." As for the power of the Divinity, he says: Behold, he who takes away the sins of the world, which belongs to the divine power alone: Isaiah 43: "I am, I am he who blots out your iniquities for my own sake"; and he says Behold, because he whom others foretold, he points out with his finger; therefore concerning him it is said in Matthew 11: "He is a prophet and more than a prophet."

63. (Vers. 30.). This is he of whom I said to you. Here the third point is touched upon, namely the comparison to the preceding testimony. Whence he repeats the testimony which he had given in his absence; therefore he says: This is he of whom I said, namely in the preceding testimony: after me comes a man, namely by temporal birth, because he was born six months after him. Concerning this man, Jeremiah thirty-one: "The Lord will create a new thing upon the earth: a woman shall encompass a man." Who was made before me, namely in dignity, because he was before me, in Divinity: above in the same: "In the beginning was the Word."

Question.

64. But there is a doubt here: 1. Since it belongs to the lesser to go to the greater, not conversely, it seems that John ought to have gone to Christ.

2. Likewise, since in Christ there was no stain, and baptism signifies cleansing from filth, therefore it signified something false in him; therefore if the truth of Christ does not admit falsehood, he ought not to have been baptized by John.

I respond: It must be said that something is done in a due or fitting manner either because of necessity, or because of supererogation. That the lesser should go to the greater, this is a debt of necessity; whence John said to the Lord: "I ought to be baptized by you." But that the greater should go to the lesser, this is a matter of perfection and supererogation. Thus the Lord came to John; whence he himself said to John: "So it becomes us to fulfill all justice," Matthew three. That he came, therefore, was an act of condescension and a commendation of humility.

2. As to what is asked: why did he will to be baptized? I respond: It must be said that just as by a significative word something is said of the head by reason of the members, so by an enacted act something is signified in the head on behalf of the members. Whence that baptism signified no interior cleansing in Christ, but only in the members. The reason, moreover, why Christ willed to be baptized was threefold: that he might give an example of humility; that he might confer regenerative power upon the waters; that through the baptism of John he might manifest himself to all. And this principal reason is touched upon in the text.

65. And I knew him not. The testification having been set forth, here is placed its corroboration or certitude, which is described in this order. First is touched upon the mode of arriving at certitude; second, the certifying sign; third, the certain testimony.

(Vers. 31.). First, therefore, is touched upon the mode of arriving at certitude, which was through the act of baptizing; therefore he says: I knew him not, that is, I was not certain concerning him; but that he might be made manifest in Israel, for this reason I came baptizing in water. He said this very thing in Mark one: "I have baptized you with water, but he shall baptize you with the Holy Spirit."

66. (Vers. 32.). And John bore witness. Here the second point is touched upon, namely the certifying sign, which indeed was the descent of the Holy Spirit; therefore he says: And John bore witness, as one who was certain, saying: Because I saw the Spirit descending as a dove from heaven; Luke 3: "The Holy Spirit descended in bodily form as a dove upon him." And remaining upon him, because he rested in him; Isaiah 11: "The Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him." And this was the sign certifying him; therefore he says:

67. (Vers. 33.). And I knew him not before, but by this sign I knew him, because it was given to me by God; therefore he adds: But he who sent me to baptize in water, namely God; above, in the same chapter: "There was a man sent from God." He, I say, said to me: Upon whom you shall see the Spirit descending and remaining upon him, he it is who baptizes in the Holy Spirit, because baptism is given in his name alone and by his power: Acts 2: "Let each one of you be baptized in the name of Christ." The sign of this was the descent and abiding of the Holy Spirit; whence Bede: "In the Mediator alone the Spirit remained perpetually; because from that time when he began to become man, he was conceived by his ministry and operation." Therefore by this sign he was certified.

68. (Vers. 34.). And I saw etc. Here the third point is touched upon, namely the certain testimony. For the testimony is certain when a man testifies concerning what he has seen. Therefore he says: And I saw and bore witness that this is the Son of God: below, chapter 19: "And he who saw bore witness, and his testimony is true."

Questions.

69. Question I. But here it is first asked concerning the descent of the Holy Spirit.

For if the Holy Spirit is God, and God is everywhere, then he does not descend. If you say that he did not descend by essence but by effect: against: No new effect was conferred upon Christ, because he had no gift of grace then that he did not have from the conception: therefore he did not descend by effect.

Question II. Likewise I ask: why is he said to have descended in that dove rather than in another? For either he was united to that dove or not; if so, then he assumed that creature; if not, then he was equally in it as in any other: therefore he descended in any dove whatsoever.

Question III. Likewise, why did he descend in a dove rather than in some other thing?

I respond: It must be said that God is said to be in creatures in four ways: in the first way, purely by reason of being: and thus he is in all things and equally, and neither descends nor moves nor withdraws.

In the second way, by reason of signifying or showing; thus God was said to be in those creatures which signified him, as on Mount Sinai and in the cloud.

In the third way, by reason of bestowing grace: thus he is said to be in those whom he loves and who love him.

Fourth, by reason of uniting or assuming; thus in Christ.

In the first mode of existing, therefore, because it is universal and common, neither descent nor ascent corresponds to it; but in the other modes they do. Hence God is said sometimes to descend when a creature that signifies Him descends; sometimes when He confers grace; sometimes when the assumed nature descends.

Since, therefore, that dove was instituted for this purpose and specially manifested the Spirit, He is said to have descended in it, not in another, not by reason of effect or union, but of manifestation.

70. To the question: why did He manifest Himself through a dove rather than something else? The response is: on account of the properties of the dove, because the dove is a simple animal, gentle and fruitful. The Holy Spirit, however, is benign and fruitful and without guile: "For the Holy Spirit will flee from the feigned."

71. Question IV. It is also asked here concerning what he says: I did not know him. To the contrary: John bore witness concerning Christ before he baptized Him, as was set forth above; therefore either he knew Him beforehand, or he bore witness concerning what he did not know.

The response according to Chrysostom is that he knew Him in general: for he well knew that Christ had come, and that he himself was His precursor; but nevertheless he did not recognize Him personally and individually, because he had been in the desert from infancy and had not seen Him.

But this response cannot stand, because John recognized the Lord in the womb of his mother; how did he not recognize Him when he had already grown so much?

Likewise, in Matthew chapter three it is said: "I ought to be baptized by you."

The response is that he knew that He was the Christ, but he did not know that He had reserved to Himself the power of baptizing.

But then it is objected: either concerning the power of baptizing exteriorly, or concerning the power of baptizing interiorly; in either way it is false, because he ought to have known both.

I respond: It must be said that if one speaks of Christ with respect to His substance, that he did not know Him is to be understood as: supply: so certainly as he knew Him after the sign. If with respect to the power of baptizing, it is to be understood that the power of baptizing is fivefold, namely of authority, cooperation, invocation, excellence, and ministry.

The first He gave to no one, nor could He give it; the last He gave; the three intermediate ones He did not give; but the power of excellence and of invocation He could have given, but He was unwilling, lest the unity of the Church be broken. Concerning the power of cooperation, the Master of the Sentences says that he was in doubt, but nevertheless it is commonly held that He could not give it; and concerning that he did not doubt, but concerning the third and fourth he could have doubted.

72. The next day again he was standing, etc. Above he set forth two testimonies; here follows the third, which he bore while Christ was walking before him; and the testimony is described along with its fruit. First, therefore, the testification itself is noted; second, the conversion of the disciples:

third, the reception of the converted; fourth, the bearing of fruit by those received; fifth, the acceptance of the fruit-bearing or the preaching.

(Vers. 35.). Therefore first is noted the testification itself, which was made in the presence of the Lord and of John's disciples: therefore he says: The next day John stood again, and two of his disciples, who were namely suited to hear testimony concerning Christ, because they were disciples, humble, because adhering to their master, and because loving one another: whence they were disciples, they were with their master, they were two: as Gregory says: "Charity cannot exist between fewer than two"; whence in Luke 10 it is said: "He sent them two by two before his face."

73. (Vers. 36.). And looking upon Jesus walking, he says: Behold, the Lamb of God: in distinction from the typical and paschal lamb. Therefore he calls him Lamb so that he might draw the disciples to himself through meekness; Matthew 11: "Learn from me, for I am meek and humble of heart."

It should be noted that Christ was a man in the incarnation, on account of the perfection of wisdom; Zechariah 6: "Behold a man, the Orient is his name." A Lamb in the passion, on account of the meekness of patience; Isaiah 53: "He was led as a sheep to the slaughter, and as a lamb before its shearer he shall be silent and shall not open his mouth." A Lion in the resurrection, on account of the strength of power; Apocalypse 5: "Behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah has conquered"; and there it is said that "the Lamb was slain."

74. (Vers. 37.). And they heard him. Here the second point is touched upon, namely the conversion of the disciples for the increase of the testimony; therefore he says: And the two disciples heard him speaking, that is, testifying, and they followed Jesus, making use of the sound counsel of their master. They followed the light, because they had good works: whence below in chapter 3: "He who does the truth comes to the light, that his works may be made manifest."

75. (Vers. 38.). But turning. Here the third point is touched upon, namely the reception of the converted disciples: whence the Lord turns toward them and addresses them. Therefore he says: But Jesus, turning and seeing them following him. He turned toward those who turned, according to that passage in Zechariah 1: "Turn to me and I will turn to you." Thus having turned, he says to them: What do you seek? He does not say this out of doubt, but to manifest their right intention through their response.

76. They said to him: Rabbi, which is to say, being interpreted, Master, where do you dwell? There is a parenthetical insertion there, and the sequence of the text continues: Rabbi, where do you dwell? as if they were saying: we seek you, your teaching, your dwelling. This question is asked by the soul that directly seeks God; Song of Songs 1: "Show me, O you whom my soul loves, where you feed, where you lie down at midday." And because they follow with right intention, therefore they are admitted.

77. (Vers. 39.). He says to them: Come and see. They came and saw where he was staying. Conversely, the one who sought with an improper intention was rebuffed: in Matthew chapter eight, a scribe said to him: "Master, I will follow you wherever you go. Jesus said to him: Foxes have dens, and the birds of the sky have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head." And because one who does not persevere converts in vain, therefore he says: And they stayed there that day. And the reason is given: It was about the tenth hour. In this is signified the day of grace, which is the last, in which one must persevere: 1 John chapter two: "Now we know, beloved, that it is the last hour." In this last hour one must remain with the Lord Jesus; Luke chapter twenty-two: "You are those who have persevered with me."

78. (Vers. 40.). Now one of the disciples, etc. Here the fourth point is touched upon, namely the fruitfulness of the disciples, because immediately after they were converted, they call others, as Andrew called Peter. Therefore he says: Now Andrew, the brother of Simon Peter, was one of the two who had heard from John and had followed Jesus; therefore he names this one specifically, to show the fruit of his preaching. Therefore he adds the fruit.

79. (Vers. 41.). He first found his brother Simon: because he sought him diligently, to lead him to the discovered treasure. Therefore he says: And he said to him: We have found the Messiah, which is interpreted Christ. We have found, like good merchants, the pearl, like good cultivators, the hidden treasure; Matthew chapter thirteen: "The kingdom of heaven is like a treasure hidden in a field," etc.

80. (Vers. 42.). And he brought him to Jesus; Revelation, last chapter: "Let him who hears say: Come; and let him who thirsts come." But Jesus, looking upon him. Here the fifth point is touched upon, namely the acceptance of the disciples' preaching, because the Lord accepts both the calling and the preaching of Andrew, by receiving Peter: on account of which he imposes a name upon him as his own disciple. Therefore he says: But looking upon him, namely Peter, Jesus, with eyes of benevolence: concerning which gaze, Genesis chapter forty-four: "Bring your brother to me, and I will set my eyes upon him"; he said: You are Simon, son of Joannas. He speaks his name in order to impose another: You shall be called Cephas, which is interpreted Peter; Bede: "It should be known that in the Syriac language Cephas, in Greek and Latin Peter, and in both languages it is derived from rock." Therefore the Lord says to him in Matthew chapter sixteen: "You are Peter, and upon this rock," from which, namely, you received your name, that is, upon me, "I will build my Church"; 1 Corinthians chapter ten: "And the rock was Christ." You shall be called Peter, that is, from the firm rock Christ, whom you will ardently love, you will receive your name.

Questions.

81. Question I. But here it is first asked concerning this last testimony: Behold, the Lamb of God:

1. Since he added nothing more, the testimony seems to have been insufficient, because this can be said of any saint, especially of the Apostles: Luke 10: "Behold, I send you as lambs among wolves."

2. Likewise, why does he describe him by the name of lamb rather than of another animal?

I respond: It must be said that he was called Lamb by John because in the lamb he was prefigured, Exodus 12, and foretold by the Prophets, Isaiah 16. And because the Gospel ought to be consonant with the Law, therefore he was pointed out by John under the name of lamb.

82. But the question still remains: why was he prefigured by the name of lamb or in a lamb?

The response to this is: by reason of innocence; whence Exodus 12: "It shall be without blemish, a male, one year old." By reason of patience; Isaiah 53: "As a lamb before its shearer, he was silent." By reason of great usefulness, because he is wholly useful: for a sheep provides milk for drink, flesh for food, wool for clothing, skin for adornment.

As to the objection that others are lambs: it must be said that the innocence of Christ differs from others, because he himself was without blemish, since his blemish was none; but other saints are without blemish because their blemishes have been wiped away by grace.

83. Question II. There is a question about the giving of this testimony. For it is said that John was standing and bore witness before two disciples.

Against: 1. John was sent to announce Christ beforehand; therefore it seems that he ought not to stand but to go about, so that he might proclaim the name of Christ.

2. Likewise, he seems envious, because he spoke only to two, when he ought to tell everyone, so that all might believe through him.

It must be answered that the testimony of John, in order to be believed, had to be authoritative, agreeable or accepted, and not suspect: because it was authoritative, therefore he stood, he did not go about; because it was accepted, therefore he offered testimony not to just anyone, but to those seeking and wishing to know; because it was not suspect, he did not thrust himself forward to announce; whence Chrysostom says: "The testimony would have been suspect if he had thrust himself forward to preach in this way, and the Jews would have been provoked to contradict."

84. Question III. There is a question about what they say: Rabbi, where do you dwell? And the Lord showed them his lodging. Against : Matthew 8: Foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head. There it is said that he had no lodging.

I respond: It must be said that to have a dwelling place is in two ways: either by right of possession, as wealthy men have; or by the rest of inhabitation, as all have who turn aside to some house to stay. In the first way he did not have one, as a poor man; in the second way he did have one, as one at rest: for he was not a wanderer.

85. Question IV. Likewise it is asked concerning what he says: Andrew was one of those disciples.

Why did he name Andrew and not the other disciple? And if he was silent about one, why not about Andrew?

I respond: It must be said that the reason for expressing the name of Andrew rather than the other was twofold, namely because he was more distinguished, as Chrysostom says, and to show that Peter was called through Andrew. And in this a wonderful dispensation is evident: because he willed to call the greater and the elder through the lesser, and the wise through the simple. Whence he calls Peter through Andrew, and Nathanael the wise through Philip the unlearned.

86. Question V. It is asked concerning what is said: You shall be called Cephas, whether he imposed this name upon him at that time? That he did not, it seems:

1. Through the Interlinear Gloss: "He does not yet impose the name upon him, but prefigures it."

2. Likewise in Mark 3 it is said that the Lord called the twelve; and then "he imposed upon Simon the name Peter."

3. Likewise in Matthew 16 it is said that he imposed it then, when he made his confession.

It is commonly answered that this name Peter was here prefigured, in Mark 3 imposed, and in Matthew 16 confirmed.

But Augustine contradicts this solution, saying that this name was imposed upon Peter when he was led by Andrew to Christ; and Bede likewise says on Mark 3 that it was not then imposed, but before.

On this account it must be said that it was at this time imposed upon him, but nevertheless was not made public; because he was not yet from that time called Peter by others, but by his other, former name; but afterward, in Mark 3, he willed that he be called by this name; and in Matthew 16 this naming is rendered celebrated through the dignity befitting the name.

87. Question VI. Likewise it is asked: why did the Lord impose a name upon Peter at his calling rather than upon the others?

It seems that he was a respecter of persons, because he conferred the dignity of a name without merit.

To this Pelagius responds that he did this on account of the greater natural vigor which he saw in Peter: whence it is said: Jesus, looking upon him; and Pelagius says that through natural endowments it is possible to merit.

To this it must be responded that God sees not only exterior things, but also interior things: not only those things which are, but also those things which are to come: therefore as a sign that he was to be the future pastor of the Church, a name is imposed upon him. But as for what Pelagius says: "He looked upon his natural vigor"; Victor rejects this: whence he says: "He does not add a greater edifice of virtue on account of the foundation of natural endowments, as Pelagius falsely claimed, drawing from this the kindling of error: but he looked upon him with the eye of mercy and benignity."

88. Question VII. There is also a question: why are names not now changed for those who enter religious life, or even for those who are converted to Christ?

To this Chrysostom responds that the change of name was made as an incitement to virtues. Since therefore we now have one name which is most inciting to virtue, we ought to be content with that name: and this name is that of Christianity, because we are all called Christians.

Nevertheless the Roman Church still preserves the change of name in the Supreme Pontiff.

On the manifestation of the Word through Himself.

89. On the next day etc. This part, which begins at that place: This is the testimony of John etc., in which the manifestation of the Word is treated, was divided into two parts. In the first, the manifestation of the Word made through the voice of John is treated, up to this place. Then from here to the end of the eleventh chapter, the manifestation made through the Word Himself is treated. And because manifestation has regard both to those to whom it is made and to Him about whom it is made, therefore this part has two parts. In the first, manifestation is treated insofar as it regards the conditions on the part of those to whom it is made. In the second, manifestation is treated insofar as it regards the conditions on the part of the Word manifested: and that part begins at the beginning of the fifth chapter: After these things there was a feast day.

First, concerning this manifestation with respect to the conditions on the part of those to whom it is made.

The first part has four parts according to the four kinds of persons to whom He manifests Himself. In the first He manifests Himself to His disciples. In the second part He manifests Himself to the Jews, in the middle of the second chapter: After this He went down etc. In the third He manifests Himself to the Samaritans, at the beginning of the fourth chapter: When therefore Jesus knew etc. In the fourth part He manifests Himself to the Galileans, near the end of the fourth chapter, at that place: After two days He departed.

The first manifestation, which was made to the disciples.

The first part, in which He manifests Himself to His disciples, has two: in the first, the calling of the disciples is treated: in the second, the manifestation made to the called disciples, at that place: And the third day there was a marriage.

The calling therefore of the disciples made by the Lord is described in this order. First is noted the calling of the simple: second, the calling of the wise: third, the drawing of the one called; fourth, the confirmation of the one drawn.

The calling therefore of the simple, namely of Philip, is described as first made by the Lord, because he was called by the Lord Himself from Galilee. For this reason he says:

90. (Vers. 43.). On the next day, namely after the conversion of Andrew and Peter, he wanted to go out into Galilee and found Philip, not by chance, but by design is that which was lost found. Thus the Lord found his disciples who were previously lost, because he snatched them from perdition: Luke 15: "The woman who lost one drachma searches diligently until she finds it." And he says to him: Follow me, as a servant follows his lord, as a disciple follows his master, so that you may attain; Philippians 3: "But I follow on, if by any means I may apprehend, wherein I also am apprehended." And the Evangelist indicates the place from which Philip originated, for greater manifestation. Therefore he says:

91. (Vers. 44.). Now Philip was from Bethsaida, the city of Andrew and Peter. And therefore it should be understood that he was moved to follow because he saw those ones following. For one curtain draws another curtain, according to what is signified in Exodus 26 in the construction of the tabernacle. Morally, indeed, Philip is interpreted as "mouth of the lamp," Bethsaida as "house of hunters." By mouth is denoted the wisdom of eloquence, concerning which Luke 21: "I will give you a mouth and wisdom, which all your adversaries shall not be able to resist and contradict." By lamp, the uprightness of conduct, Matthew 5: "Let your light shine before men, that they may see" etc. By hunters, preachers; Jeremiah 16: "I will send them many hunters, and they shall hunt them." In the calling therefore of Philip from Bethsaida it is signified that he who assumes the office of preaching must have wisdom of eloquence and uprightness of life, "because when one's life is despised, it follows that his preaching is held in contempt."

92. (Vers. 45.). Philip found etc. Here the second is touched upon, namely the calling of the wise man, which was made through the mediation of the simple. Therefore he says: Philip found Nathanael. Just as he himself had been found by Christ, so also he found Nathanael; Bede: "See this hunter, how intent he was on capturing souls." Whence it also follows: And he says to him: Him of whom Moses wrote in the Law, and the Prophets; supply: wrote; some books have and in the Prophets, and the text should be supplied as: Him of whom Moses wrote in the Law, and in the Prophets: it is written. We have found Jesus, the son of Joseph, from Nazareth. This was Christ, who was foretold by the Law and the Prophets; Deuteronomy 18: "The Lord will raise up for you a prophet from your nation" etc.; Isaiah 7: "Behold, a Virgin shall conceive and bear a son" etc. He called him the son of Joseph, by repute; Luke 3: "Jesus himself was beginning to be about thirty years of age, being as was supposed the son of Joseph." And indeed he said this to Nathanael, as to one who was skilled in the Law and the Prophets. And this is evident from his response.

93. (Vers. 46.). And Nathanael said to him: From Nazareth can anything good be. Philip said to him: Come and see. This text is read affirmatively, so that the sense is that something good can be from Nazareth, on account of what is written in Matthew 2: "What was written through the Prophet, that he shall be called a Nazarene," and this is taken from Isaiah 11, according to the Hebrew truth; where we have: "A flower shall ascend from his root," they have: "Nazarene." Therefore Nathanael, understanding this as one skilled in Scripture, affirmed it. Otherwise it is read interrogatively, as though doubting he asks: From Nazareth can anything good be? namely so great a good, because

as is written in Micah 5: "And you, Bethlehem Ephrata, little one" etc.

Christ was to be born from Bethlehem. Therefore the Jews said below in chapter 7: "Does Christ come from Galilee?" Whether it is read affirmatively or interrogatively, Philip here asserts and exhorts that he should come. On account of which there follows: Philip said to him: Come and see: Chrysostom: "Philip, unable to demonstrate through words the riches which he found, leads his brother to the discovered treasure." And it should be understood that he followed Philip.

94. (Vers. 47.). Jesus saw Nathanael etc. Here the third point is touched upon, namely the attraction of the one called. He attracts through commendation and through revelation of secrets. Through commendation: whence he says: Jesus saw Nathanael coming to him, namely through the admonition of the simple Philip: and he says of him: Behold, truly an Israelite, in whom there is no guile. Therefore there is no guile, because, although he is wise, he was not ashamed to follow a simple man; because what he believed in his heart, this he brought forth with his mouth; because he came not with the will of testing, but with the zeal of making progress; against which Proverbs 12: "Guile is in the heart of those who devise evil." But Nathanael does not believe his commendation unless he hears certainty about this, because a man ought not be inclined to believe good things about himself. Therefore

95. (Vers. 48.). Nathanael said to him: Whence do you know me? Why do you commend me thus? And the Lord attracts through revelation of secrets: therefore there follows: Jesus answered and said to him: Before Philip called you, when you were under the fig tree, I saw you. Literally: he was in a secret place, as in a garden, whence Philip called him. Or: the fig tree is said to be the habit of sinning, as the first parents covered themselves under fig leaves, Genesis 3; where he was first seen by the Lord and sought before he himself would seek the Lord. By this revelation Nathanael was attracted: whence there follows his faithful confession.

96. (Vers. 49.). Nathanael answered and said to him: Rabbi, you are the Son of God, with respect to the Divinity, because you know the secrets of the heart; Jeremiah 17: "I am the Lord, searching hearts and reins." You are the King of Israel, with respect to the humanity. Likewise the crowd confessed, below in chapter 12: "Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord, the King of Israel."

97. (Vers. 50.). Jesus answered etc. The fourth point is touched upon here, namely the confirmation of one already attracted: for he confirms him through the promise of a greater manifestation; on account of which he says: Jesus answered and said to him: Because I said to you: I saw you under the fig tree, you believe: and thus for a small thing you have been drawn to faith. You will see greater things than these: below in chapter five: "He will show him greater works, that you may marvel." And he specifies that greater thing.

98. (Vers. 51.). And he says to him: Amen, amen I say to you, that you will see heaven opened, according to what is said in Matthew chapter three, that John saw that the heavens were opened over him. And the Angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man. Literally, Angels descended to him, according to what is said in Matthew chapter four: "Angels came and ministered to him"; spiritually however, as Augustine says, what was said to Nathanael is now fulfilled in Christians, because after God-made-man ascended, the entrance to heaven is opened to those believing in him, and they see Angels, that is, preachers, ascending, while they contemplate the secrets of the Divinity; and descending, while they preach human things about him. This vision was prefigured in Genesis chapter twenty-eight, where it is said that Jacob saw the Lord leaning upon the ladder and Angels ascending and descending.

Questions.

99. Question I. But it is asked here concerning the coming of the Lord into Galilee: why is it said here that on the next day, after the testimony of John, he came into Galilee?

Against: 1. The other Evangelists say that immediately he was led into the desert by the Spirit, Matthew chapter four and Mark chapter one.

2. Likewise it is said there that Jesus came into Galilee after John was handed over: but it is established that he had not yet been handed over, as is said below in chapter three, that John baptized for a long time afterward.

To this Augustine responds in book two of On the Harmony of the Evangelists, that there was a twofold coming of the Lord into Galilee. The first was after the testimony of John, before he was sent into prison: and about this all the other Evangelists are silent. The second, however, was after John was sent into prison, and about this is spoken below in chapter four. In the first coming he performed the miracle of the changing of water into wine at the wedding; in the second coming, the miracle concerning the official's son.

1. Therefore, what is said, that he was led into the desert: it should be understood that that testimony was given after the return of the Lord from the desert.

100. Question II. Likewise it is asked concerning the calling of the disciples, because there is a similar doubt.

1. For it is said here that they were called before John was handed over. But Matthew says that they were called after the handing over of John.

2. Likewise Matthew says that he called Peter and Andrew from the boat, as is said in Matthew chapter four; here it was said that at the testimony of John they came to him, first Andrew, then Peter.

I respond: It must be said, as Augustine says, that John preserves the historical order regarding the time of the calling, but Matthew states that by way of recapitulation.

2. As to what is objected regarding the manner of the calling, it must be said to this that the disciples of the Lord were called in two ways: in one way to faith, in another way to perfection. In the first way, Peter and Andrew were called so that they might know the Lord and believe in him through the testimony of John. In the second way, they were called from their boats, so that they might leave all things and follow Christ. John speaks here of the first, while Matthew speaks of the second.

101. Question III. Likewise, regarding the place of the calling: because the Lord called his disciples from Galilee, Chrysostom asks, since the Jews were more skilled in the Law: why is it that he did not choose from Jerusalem?

And in connection with this it is asked: why did he call Nathanael through Philip as intermediary?

And again, since Nathanael was a person so holy, as the Lord says, and also most skilled in the Law: it seems that the Lord ought to have appointed such a one as an Apostle.

If you say that he wished to choose simple men: then if "every action of Christ is our instruction," it seems that we ought to choose simple and unlearned prelates.

To this the Apostle teaches us to respond in 1 Corinthians 1: Not many wise according to the flesh, not many powerful, not many noble, but God chose the foolish things of the world, and the things that are not. And the reason for this is so that he might confound the lofty things of the world, and that no flesh might glory in his sight, and so that it might be shown that everything accomplished through the Apostles is of divine power, not of human prudence. Hence it is that he chose Galileans as Apostles, and fishermen and simple rustics; because, as Chrysostom says, Galilee has rustic inhabitants. Hence also it is that he called Philip, the simple one, by himself, and through him the wise brother. Hence also it is that he did not make Nathanael, a great doctor of the Law, an Apostle. Hence it is that he did not call Paul among the first Apostles; but last of all he appeared also to him, as to one born out of due time, so that he might be humbled.

Therefore, as to what you object, that we ought to choose simple men: it must be answered that the Lord chose simple men in order to make them wise; but because it is not in our power to make men wise, therefore we ought to set over ourselves those who have been made wise.

102. Question IV. Likewise, it is asked about the obedience of the Apostles, because they followed immediately, having seen no signs. It seems that they were foolishly moved, as is said here of Philip and of the others: whence heretics reproach Matthew.

It can be answered that they were illuminated interiorly; or also it must be said that they were led exteriorly, some by testimony, as Andrew and his companion; some by miracle, as is said of Peter in Luke 5; some by example, and thus Philip, because he saw Peter and Andrew, his fellow countrymen, following, whom he knew to be good men.

103. Quest. V. Likewise Bede asks: since Nathanael calls Christ the Son of God, whence is it that he himself calls himself the Son of Man?

Bede responds that "by a just governance of dispensation this was done, so that, when both natures are commemorated, he himself would confess his own lowliness, while the other would confess his exaltedness"; so that through this both natures in Christ might become known, and an example of humility might be given, whence man might always recognize and declare lowly things in himself. This is especially against those who, having certain noble relatives, when asked about their origin, do not answer with the name of their father, but of an uncle or some famous kinsman. Our Lord Jesus Christ, although he is noble on the part of the Father but lowliest on the part of the Mother, calls himself the Son of Man often, rarely the Son of God, unless compelled by necessity. And note, as distinct from others, that others are called sons of men, who are begotten from the mingling of seeds; but Christ had only a single parent, and therefore rightly calls himself the Son of Man.