The disciple whom Jesus loved, John, observed that Matthew, Mark, and Luke in their Gospels had treated of Christ’s humanity. They had recounted not all the wondrous deeds performed by him in time—for according to Chrysostom his miracles are an immeasurable sea—but those which the Holy Spirit taught them were fitting to narrate to human beings; and they related his teaching in parables as more suitable for the people.
John himself, like a great eagle with great wings, flew happily to the highest cedar of Lebanon, the most holy Trinity, the splendor of glory. What he had heard, what he had seen, and what his hands had handled concerning the Word of life he contemplated more clearly. From the middle of the cedar, as though standing between the Father and the Spirit—not spatially but numerically, if I may speak thus—he brought to us the unique food of angels and human beings.
He also related certain wondrous things omitted by the others, such as the illumination of the man born blind and the revival of Lazarus. He supplied the disputes with the Jews, added many exhortations, and also recounted the honey-flowing discourse at the Last Supper, full of brotherly love and the sacred mysteries of divine things.
He therefore began his Gospel at such a height, saying: “In the beginning was the Word,” so that, as Origen says, if he had begun any higher, the whole world would not have been able to contain him. Then, after his sublime flight as far as the sun of justice, he bent himself like an eagle toward the carcass of our mortality assumed by Christ, saying: “The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us.”
John wrote his Gospel when he was already ninety years old or thereabouts, after his return to Ephesus from the island of Patmos, where he had written the Apocalypse. He did so at the prayers of the faithful, especially because many heresies had already risen against Christ, denying or blaspheming his divinity.
In those words one may note Christ’s threefold nativity, which is represented in the three Masses celebrated on the day of the Nativity. The first is his eternal and divine nativity: “the Word.” The second is his human and temporal nativity: “was made flesh.” The third is his interior and spiritual nativity: “dwelt among us.”
The first is treated at the beginning of the Gospel; the second in the middle, at “the light in the darkness”; and the third at the end, at “he came unto his own.”
Hence the introit of the first Mass speaks of the eternal nativity. The words of the Psalm are spoken: “The Lord said to me: You are my Son.” The Son speaks of the Father, whose speaking to him is the generation of the Word; and this nativity is eternal. Therefore he says, “Today,” that is, eternally, for all things are present and complete to eternity. He consequently adds “I have begotten you” in the perfect tense.
The introit of the second Mass appears sufficiently to treat of the interior and spiritual nativity by which Christ dwells in us. For this reason he was born temporally, so that he might lead us to spiritual things. Hence it is said: “A light shall shine today upon us,” and so forth. This is sung or read at dawn, when darkness is departing and signs of light begin to appear, but not yet the bright light. In the same way, one can apprehend from certain signs and conjectures, in oneself and in others, that the nativity which occurs through the light of spiritual grace is present within us, but it cannot be known with certainty.
The introit of the third Mass speaks of the temporal nativity, namely the words of Isaiah: “A child is born to us.” It is sung in the brightest light of day because that nativity was manifest. For all could look upon his flesh with bodily eyes. Thus the words “All flesh shall see the salvation of God” are understood.
The first Mass, however, is said in the darkest part of the night because that eternal nativity is wholly unknown to us wayfarers.
This Gospel, or the portion of the beginning of John’s Gospel as far as “full of grace and truth,” is said daily at the end of Mass. A certain Platonic philosopher, hearing it read in church, said that it should be written in golden letters upon the doors of churches. Plato also noted its beginning in his books, although he did not understand the divine Word as personally distinct from the Father. For Jerome says: Learned Plato did not know this; eloquent Demosthenes was ignorant of this. Therefore the author explains it extensively.
In the first part, four things can be noted concerning the born Word. First is his most sublime majesty, from “In the beginning” through “all things through him.” Second is his most universal power, from “all things through him” through “what was made.” Third is his most illustrious wisdom: “What was made in him was life.” Fourth is his most ardent charity toward us, at “and the life was the light of men.”
The first part contains four clauses which indicate his majesty in four ways. The first is the spirituality of his essence: “In the beginning,” and so forth. The second is the distinction of his person: “And the Word.” The third is the identity of his substance: “And God.” The fourth is the eternity of his permanence: “He was.”
The spirituality of the Son’s essence is noted in the name “Word.” The word of which we speak is not something bodily or vocal, but mental, and hence spiritual, according to the words of the Psalm: “My heart,” God says—that is, my mind—“has uttered a good word.”
These three expressions must be considered diligently: “the Word,” “was,” and “in the beginning.” To clarify the first, blessed Thomas says in his commentary on John: It should be known that, according to the Philosopher, things which are in the voice are signs of the passions which are in the soul.
It is customary in Sacred Scripture for the things signified to take the names of their signs, and conversely, as in the words “The rock was Christ.” It is therefore necessary that the intrinsic reality in our soul which is signified by our exterior word be called a word.
It is plain that what exists inwardly in the soul and is signified by the voice precedes the word uttered by the exterior voice, since it is its cause. Therefore, if we wish to know what the interior word in our soul is, we should see what the word uttered by the exterior voice signifies.
There are three things in our intellect: the power of intellect itself; the species of the thing understood, which is its form and is related to the intellect as the species of color is to the eye’s pupil; and third, the operation itself, which is understanding.
None of these is signified by a word uttered by the exterior voice. The name “stone” does not signify the substance of the intellect, because the one naming does not intend to say this. Nor does it signify the species by which the intellect understands, since this also is not the intention of the one naming. Nor does it signify the act of understanding itself, since understanding is not an exterior act but one which remains within.
Therefore, properly speaking, the interior word is understood to be that which the one understanding forms by understanding. The intellect forms two things according to its two operations. According to the operation called the understanding of invisibles [read: the understanding of indivisibles], it forms a definition. According to its other operation, by which it combines and divides, it forms a proposition or something of that kind.
What is thus formed inwardly and expressed through the operation of the intellect in one who defines or states is signified by the exterior voice. Hence the Philosopher says that the concept signifies a name and a definition [read: the concept signified by a name is a definition]. What is thus expressed and formed in the soul is called the interior word.
It is compared to the intellect not as that by which the intellect understands, but as that in which the intellect understands, because in what is thus expressed and formed it sees the nature of the thing understood. It is therefore clear what is signified by “word” and that it is something spiritual in the soul.
From what has been said, we can understand two things concerning a word. First, a word is always some true thing proceeding from an intellect existing in act. Second, a word is the concept and likeness of the thing understood.
If the same thing is both the one understanding and the thing understood, then the word is the concept and likeness of the intellect from which it proceeds. But if the one understanding and the thing understood are different, the word is not the concept and likeness of the one understanding, but of the thing understood. Thus the conception which someone has in the mind concerning a stone is a likeness only of the stone. But when the intellect understands itself, a word of this kind is the concept and likeness of the intellect. Augustine therefore locates the likeness of the Trinity in the soul insofar as the mind understands itself, not insofar as it understands other things.
It is consequently clear that a word must be posited in every intellectual nature to which understanding belongs. For it belongs to the nature of understanding that, in understanding, the intellect form something. This formation is called a word, and therefore a word must be posited in every being that understands.
According to Thomas in the same place, the Word of whom John speaks here—and of whom Ecclesiasticus 1 says, “The fountain of wisdom, the Word of God on high”—differs from our word in three ways.
The first difference, according to Augustine, is that our word is formable before it is formed. When I wish to conceive the concept of a stone, I must reach that concept by reasoning; and it is so with all other things understood by us, except perhaps first principles, which, because they are naturally known to us, are understood immediately without a discursive process of reason.
Therefore, as long as the intellect runs through its reasoning, it is cast this way and that, and the formation is not yet perfect until it has perfectly conceived the concept of the thing. Only then does it first possess the character of a word. Thus in our soul there is both thought, by which the discursive process of inquiry is signified, and a word, which has already been formed by the perfect contemplation of truth.
Our word is therefore first in potency before it is in act. But the Word of God is always in act. Hence the name “thought” does not properly belong to the Word of God. Augustine therefore says in Book 15 of On the Trinity that it is called the Word of God in such a way that it is not called thought, lest anything as though changeable be believed to be in God.
The second difference between the divine Word and ours is that our word is imperfect, whereas the Word of God is most perfect. Because we can express in one word all the things which are in our soul [read: because we cannot express in one word all the things which are in our soul], there must be many imperfect words through which we express separately everything contained in our knowledge.
It is not so in God, since by one act through his essence he understands both himself and everything else. Therefore the one divine Word expresses everything which is in God—not only the Father, but also creatures. Otherwise it would be imperfect. Augustine therefore says: If anything were less in the Word than in the knowledge of the one speaking, the word would be imperfect. But it is most perfect; therefore there is only one. Job 33 says: “God speaks once.”
The third difference is that our word is not of the same nature as we are, but the divine Word is of the same nature as God and is something subsisting in the divine nature.
For the concept understood concerning some thing, which our intellect forms, has only intelligible being in our soul. The soul’s act of understanding is not the same as the soul’s natural being, because the soul is not its own operation. Therefore, the word which our intellect forms does not belong to its essence but is an accident in it.
In God, however, understanding and being are the same. Consequently, the Word of the divine intellect is not an accident, but belongs to his nature. It must therefore subsist, because everything which is in the nature of God is God.
From the preceding points it must be held that, properly speaking, “Word” is always taken personally in divine matters, since it signifies nothing other than something expressed by one who understands. Again, because the Word in divine matters is the likeness of the one from whom it proceeds, it must be coeternal with the one from whom it proceeds, since it was not formable before being formed but is always in act.
It must also be coequal with the Father, since it is perfect and expresses the Father’s entire being; and it must be coessential and consubstantial with him, since it subsists in his nature.
It is also clear that, because in natural things whatever proceeds while possessing the nature and likeness of that from which it proceeds is called a son, and this Word proceeds in the likeness of the nature of the one from whom it proceeds, this Word is called Son and its production is called generation.
The first point is thus clear: what that which is called “Word” is, and that it is something spiritual.
According to Chrysostom, this is the reason why John, speaking of the Son of God, did not say, “In the beginning was the Son.” If we heard “generation” under the name “Son” in divine matters, we might suppose that it was like generation among human beings, namely material and passible. He therefore did not say “Son,” but “Word,” which signifies an intelligible procession, so that you might understand that generation to be not material and passible, but spiritual. John 4 says: “God is spirit”; and John 3: “That which is born of spirit is spirit.”
Or John says “Word” rather than “Son” because “Son” indicates only a relation to the Father, whereas “Word” indicates a relation to the speaker, to that which is spoken through the word, to the voice which it puts on, and to the teaching which it pours forth through the word. Therefore no name could have been used so fittingly as “Word.”
It indicates a relation to the Father from whom it proceeds, just as does the name Father; to the creatures which the Word made; to the flesh which it assumed; and to the teaching which it supplied. For John was about to speak of him insofar as he had come to manifest the Father. That manifestation occurs chiefly through a word, and therefore John most fittingly describes him under the name of the Word.
Chrysostom raises another question: Why did John pass over the Father and immediately begin with the Son, saying, “In the beginning was the Word”? He answers that the Father was had become known to everyone [read: the Father had become known to everyone] in the Old Testament, although not under the aspect of Father but as God. The Son of God, however, was unknown. Therefore, in the New Testament, which treats of knowledge of the Word, John began with the Son.
This was also because human beings are brought through the Son to knowledge of the Father, according to John 17: “Father, I have manifested your name to human beings.” John therefore fittingly begins the Gospel with the Son, saying: “In the beginning,” and so forth.
Augustine raises a third question. Since the Greek has Logos where we say “Word,” and Logos in Latin signifies both reason and word, why was it translated as “Word” rather than “Reason”? He answers that “reason” properly signifies a concept of the mind insofar as it exists in the mind, even if something is produced outwardly through it, whereas “word” is compared to exterior things.
By saying Logos, the Evangelist intended to signify not only the Son’s relation to and existence in the Father, but also the Son’s operative power in the Father, since all things were made through him. Therefore, our ancient teachers translated Logos as “Word” rather than “Reason,” because “word” signifies a relation to exterior things, whereas “reason” signifies only a concept of the mind.
Origen raises a fourth question. In many places of Scripture where the Word is mentioned, “of God” is added, that is, “the Word of God,” as in Apocalypse 19, “His name is the Word of God,” and Isaiah, “The Word of the Lord remains forever.” Why does John here use “Word” absolutely, without any addition?
Origen answers that, although there are many participated truths, there is nevertheless one absolute truth which by its own essence is absolute wisdom raised above all things, namely divine wisdom, by participation in which all things are wise. Likewise, there is one absolute Word by participation in which all who possess a word are said to be speakers. It is the divine Word, which through itself is Word, raised above all words. Therefore, to indicate this preeminence of the Word, the Evangelist presents the Word to us absolutely, without any addition.
Since the imperfect past tense appears to be incompatible with eternity, in which there is no passing away, it seems that the Word of God is not fittingly described by “was.” The answer is that the Word’s being is noted here as permanent, immutable, and preceding all things. Because “was” signifies these three things, John fittingly said “was.”
Since it is a middle between the present and the past, a middle partakes of the nature of the extremes. From the present “was” has permanence, from the past immutability, and from itself priority and order, namely the order of eternity to time. Therefore he most fittingly said “was.”
Thomas accordingly says in his commentary that, if we attend to the manner of temporal things, a verb of the imperfect past tense appears most suited to signify eternal things. The future is not posited as existing in act. The present is posited as existing in act, but is not designated as having existed. The perfect past signifies that something existed but is now ended and has ceased. The imperfect past, however, signifies that something existed but was not yet ended and had not ceased, but still remained.
For this reason, whenever John posits something eternal, he significantly uses the imperfect “was”; where he posits something temporal, he uses the perfect “was.” Yet, according to its proper meaning, the present tense is most suitable for designating eternity, because it signifies something as existing in act, which always belongs to eternal realities.
Hence Exodus 3 says: “I am who am.” Augustine says that he alone truly is whose essence knows neither past nor future.
According to the gloss, one must also consider that the verb “was” is not taken here as signifying temporal motions in the manner of other verbs, but as signifying the existence of a thing; hence it is called a substantive verb.
[Running head: Chapter Eight. Folio 160.]
But someone may ask: Since this Word is begotten by the Father, how can it be coeternal with him, when among human beings a son begotten by his father is later than he is? According to Thomas in the place cited above, a principle of origin is found to be prior in duration to that which proceeds from the principle for three reasons.
First, the principle of origin of a thing precedes in time the action by which it produces the thing of which it is the principle. A human being, for example, does not begin to write as soon as he exists, and therefore the human being precedes the writing in time.
Second, an action has succession. Therefore, even if it begins together with the agent, the action’s terminus comes after the agent. Thus, as soon as fire is generated among these lower things it begins to tend upward, but the fire exists before its tending upward, because the motion by which it tends upward is measured by a certain time.
Third, it happens because the beginning of duration is determined by the will of the one who is the principle, just as the beginning of the creature’s duration is determined by God’s will. Hence God existed before the creature.
None of these three is found in the generation of the divine Word. God did not exist before he began to generate the Word. Since the generation of the Word is nothing other than his intellectual conception, it would follow that God’s intellect was first in potency before it was in act, which is impossible.
Likewise, the generation of the Word cannot be successive. If it were, the divine Word would first be unformed before being formed, as happens in us, who first form words by thinking. This is false.
Nor can it be said that the Father by his will furnished the Son with a beginning of duration, because God the Father does not generate his Son by will, as the Arian heretics said, but naturally. God the Father naturally conceived him by understanding himself, and therefore God the Father did not exist before the Son.
As soon as fire exists, it possesses light, from which radiance proceeds not successively but immediately, not by will but naturally; therefore, as soon as fire exists, its radiance exists. If fire were eternal, its radiance would be coeternal. For this reason the Son is called the radiance of the Father, according to Hebrews 1: “Who, since he is the radiance of glory.”
But connaturality is lacking in this likeness, and therefore we call him Son; yet among the sons who are known to us, coeternity is lacking. We must arrive at knowledge of divine things from many sensible likenesses, because one does not suffice.
We therefore name the Son of God with various names in order to express in various ways his perfection, which cannot be expressed by one name. To show that he is connatural with the Father, he is called Son; to show that he is altogether like him, Image; to show that he is coeternal, Radiance; and to show that he is immaterially begotten and something spiritual, Word.
Thomas says in the place cited above: It should be known that “principle” is said in many ways. A principle signifies a certain order toward other things, and therefore wherever order is found, the character of a principle is also found.
Order is found in quantities. Thus, in numbers unity is the principle; the principle of length is a line, and the principle of a line is a point. Order is found in time, and thus one speaks of a principle of time or duration.
Order is also found in disciplines, and a principle in them is twofold, either according to nature or in relation to us. In this way, in Christian teaching Christ is the beginning and principle of our wisdom insofar as he is the Wisdom and Word of God, that is, according to dignity. In relation to us, however, Christ himself is the principle insofar as the Word was made flesh, that is, according to the Incarnation.
Order is also found in the production of a thing. According to this, a principle is spoken of either on the part of what is generated, namely the first part of the thing generated or made, as the foundation is called the principle of a house; or on the part of the maker. On the maker’s part there are three principles: the principle of intention, which is the end moving the agent; the principle of reason, which is the form itself in the artisan’s mind; and the principle of execution, which is the power of operating.
Since “principle” is said in these ways, one must see how it is taken here when “In the beginning” is said. It can be taken in three ways.
In the first way, it stands for the person of the Son, who is the principle of creatures, both as the principle of active power and as the Word of wisdom, which is the reason of the things that are made. Hence First Corinthians 1 says: “Christ, the power of God and the wisdom of God”; and the Lord says of himself in John 8: “I am the beginning, who also speak to you.”
When “principle” is understood in this way, the words “In the beginning was the Word” are expounded as though John said: “In the Son was the Word,” so that the meaning is that the Word itself was the principle. This follows the manner of speaking by which life is also said to be in God, although that life is nothing other than God himself. Origen expounds it this way.
Chrysostom says: To show Christ’s dignity immediately at the beginning, the Evangelist said, “In the beginning was,” and so forth, because in everyone’s estimation the principle is most honorable.
In the second way, “principle” can be taken as standing for the person of the Father, who is the principle not only of creatures but also of the Son. It is taken in this sense in the Psalm: “With you is the principle in the day of your power,” and so forth. In this sense the words “In the beginning was the Word” mean, “In the Father was the Son.” Origen and Augustine expound it this way.
The Son is said to be in the Father because he has the same essence as the Father. Since the Son is his own essence, wherever the Son’s essence is, there is the Son. Because the Son’s essence is in the Father through consubstantiality, it follows that the Son is in the Father. Hence John 14 says: “I am in the Father, and the Father is in me.”
In the third way, “principle” can be taken as the principle of duration, so that “In the beginning was the Word” means that the Word existed before all things, as Augustine explains. According to Basil and Hilary, the eternity of the Word is designated by this.
For this shows that whatever beginning of duration anyone may take—whether of the time of bodily things, of the age of eternal things, of the age of the whole world, or any imagined beginning of duration—the Word already existed before it in that beginning. This is what Proverbs 8 says: “The Lord possessed me at the beginning of his ways, before he made anything from the beginning.” What exists before the beginning of duration is eternal.
Thus, by the first exposition the Word’s causality is asserted; by the second, his consubstantiality with the Father; and by the third, his eternity.
Thomas says in the place cited above: The meanings of the divine expressions which were not used in the first clause must be considered. They are two: “God” and “with.”
It should therefore be known, as regards the first expression, namely “God,” that the name “God” signifies deity in a supposit and in a concrete manner.
[Running head: Fifth Title.]
The name “deity,” however, signifies deity abstractly and absolutely. Therefore, by natural force and not by its mode of signifying, the name “deity” can stand for a divine person, but only for the nature [read: by its natural force and mode of signifying, the name “deity” cannot stand for a divine person, but only for the nature]. The name “God,” however, naturally and by its mode of signifying must stand for any person, just as the name “human being” stands for a person possessing humanity.
Whenever the truth of the predicate in a statement requires the name “God” to stand for a person, it then stands for a person, as when it is said: “God begets God.” So too when it is said here, “with God”: because “with” is a preposition signifying a distinction of the Word himself—not a distinction from the nature of the Father with whom he is, but only from the first person through a relation of origin—“God” must stand here for the person of the Father. Thus, when the Evangelist says “with God,” he signifies the person of the Father.
Concerning the second expression, namely “with,” it should be known that this preposition signifies a certain conjunction directly and implies a relation to the thing signified by the oblique case, as does the preposition “in,” but in a different way. “In” implies an intrinsic conjunction, whereas “with” speaks of an extrinsic conjunction in a certain manner.
Therefore we use both in divine matters, saying both that the Son is in the Father and that he is with the Father. What is intrinsic in divine matters pertains to consubstantiality. What is extrinsic—if it is permissible to speak of “extrinsic” in divine matters, where the word is not used properly—refers to the distinction of persons, since the Son is distinguished from the Father only personally.
Accordingly, by each of these two prepositions both consubstantiality in nature and distinction in persons are designated: consubstantiality insofar as it implies conjunction, and distinction of persons insofar as it signifies a certain distinction.
Because “in” principally designates consubstantiality, insofar as it implies an intrinsic conjunction, and consequently the distinction of persons, insofar as every preposition is transitive; whereas “with” indeed designates conjunction but principally the distinction of persons, insofar as it implies a certain extrinsic conjunction; the Evangelist used the preposition “with” more particularly in this place to indicate the Son’s personal distinction from the Father, saying: “And the Word was with God,” that is, the Son was with the Father as a person other than the Father.
It should be known that four things are designated by the preposition “with,” through which four objections are excluded.
First, “with” signifies subsistence in the direct case. For one does not properly say, “Whiteness is with the body,” since whiteness is not subsistent. But since a human being is something subsistent, one properly says that one human being is with another.
Second, it signifies authority in the oblique case. One does not say that a lord is with his servant or a king with his soldier; rather, conversely, one says that the servant is with the lord and the soldier with the king.
Third, it signifies distinction. One does not say that one human being is with himself, but that he is with another human being.
Fourth, it signifies conjunction and a certain fellowship. When I say, “Such a person is with such another,” I indicate a certain social conjunction.
According to these four conditions implied in the preposition “with,” the Evangelist fittingly joined this clause, “And the Word was with God,” to the first clause, namely “In the beginning was the Word.” Whether “principle” is taken as what is before all things or as the Father, four objections raised by heretics arise, but they can be excluded through the four conditions of “with” stated above.
The first objection is this: You say that the Word was in the beginning, that is, before all things, according to the exposition stated above. Where, then, was the Word, if he was before all things? This objection proceeds according to the imagination of those who hold that all things which are anywhere are in a place.
John excludes the objection when he says “with God,” so that “with” designates conjunction according to the final condition stated above. According to Basil, the meaning is as if someone asked John: Where, then, was the Word, if he was before all things? He answers: With God. It is as though he said: Not in a place, since he is uncircumscribable, but with the Father, who is contained neither by place nor by any circumscription.
The second question is this: You say that the Word was in the beginning, that is, before all things. But things which are before all things appear not to proceed from anything. Therefore this Word does not proceed from anything.
This objection is excluded when John says, “And the Word was with God,” taking “with” according to the second sense, in which it implies authority. According to Hilary, the meaning is: When you ask, “From whom is the Word, if he is before all things?” John answers: He is with God. It is as though he said: Although he lacks a beginning of duration, he does not lack an authority of origin, for he was with the Father as with his author.
The third question concerns the other exposition of “principle,” in which it signifies the Father, and is this: You say, “In the beginning was the Word,” that is, the Son was in the Father. But what is in something does not appear to be subsistent, just as whiteness, which we say is in a body, certainly does not subsist. Therefore, the Word is not a subsistent hypostasis.
This objection is removed by John’s words, “And the Word was with God,” taking “with” according to the first sense, in which it signifies subsistence in the direct case. Chrysostom explains: “The Word was with God,” not as an accident, but with God as something subsistent and a hypostasis.
The fourth objection is: You say that the Word is in the Father, because he is “in the beginning.” But what is in something is not distinct from it. Therefore, if the Son is in the Father, he is not distinct from him.
This objection is removed by the words “The Word was with God,” taking “with” as implying a certain distinction. According to Alcuin and Bede, the meaning is: The Word was in the principle, that is, in the Father, through consubstantiality of nature, but he is nevertheless with God the Father through distinction of person.
From this clause, therefore, you have the Word’s conjunction with the Father in nature according to Basil; distinction in person according to Alcuin and Bede; the Word’s subsistence in the divine nature according to Chrysostom; and the Father’s authority of origin in relation to the Word according to Hilary.
According to Thomas in the place cited above, this follows most fittingly in the order of teaching. Since John had stated when the Word was and in whom he was, it remained to ask what he was. John answers: “The Word was God,” that is, the Word was God, with “Word” placed as the subject and “God” as the predicate.
[Running head: Chapter Eight. Folio 161.]
But since one must first ask what a thing is before asking where or when it is, why did John arrange matters in the opposite order, placing last what the Word is? Origen answers that the Word of God is said to be with God in one way and with human beings in another.
Among human beings he is present as perfecting them, because through the Word of God a human being is made wise and prophetic. Hence Wisdom 7 says of wisdom: “She makes friends of God and prophets,” illuminating them with the light of wisdom.
The Word is not said to be with God in this way, as though the Father were perfected and illuminated by him. Rather, the Word is with God in such a way that the Word receives and obtains from God that he is God. Because the Word has the property of being God through being with God and in God, it was necessary first to show that the Word was in the Father and with the Father before showing that the Word was God.
It should also be known that through the clause “The Word was God,” two questions arising from the preceding statements can be answered.
The first arises from the name “Word” and is this: You say that the Word was in the beginning and with God. But it is evident that, in common usage, “word” signifies a sound, a statement of matters, or a manifestation. These pass away and do not subsist. How, then, can one believe this of the Word of whom John speaks?
According to Augustine on John, this question is resolved when John says, “In the beginning was the Word,” for he sufficiently shows that “Word” is not taken for speech. Since speech is in motion and passes away, it cannot be said to have been in the beginning.
The same is sufficiently understood when he adds, “And the Word was with God.” It is plain that inhering is one thing and being present another. Since our word does not subsist, it is not present but inheres. Since the Word of God is subsistent, however, it is present. The Evangelist significantly shows this by saying, “And the Word was with God.” But to remove the cause of the objection completely, he expressed the Word’s name and being, saying: “And the Word was God.”
The other question arises because John said “the Word was with God.” Since “with” signifies distinction, one might believe that the Word was with God the Father in such a way that he was distinguished from him in nature. To exclude this, John immediately added, “And the Word was God,” as though to say: The Word is not separated from the divine nature; rather, the Word is God himself.
One should also note this manner of speaking: “The Word was God.” He uses “God” absolutely, to show that the Word is not God in the manner in which creatures are called gods in Sacred Scripture, but that he calls the Word God simply and absolutely.
When some creature is said to be a god, this is always made clear by some addition, as in Exodus: “I have appointed you the god of Pharaoh,” signifying that Moses is not simply God as is the Word of God, but that he was given as a god to Pharaoh to punish him and free the children of Israel. Likewise the Psalm says: “I said, you are gods,” as though to say: according to my estimation, not according to the truth of the thing. It is one thing to be called a god, another to be God.
The Word of God is therefore called God absolutely because he is God according to his essence, not by participation as human beings and angels are.
It should also be known that it is necessary to posit a word in every intellectual nature. For it belongs to the nature of understanding that, by understanding, the intellect forms something, and that formation is called a word. Therefore, just as intellectual nature is threefold, so a word is threefold.
There is a human, angelic, and divine intellectual nature. Thus there is a human word, as in the Psalm: “The fool said in his heart,” and so forth; an angelic word, as in Zechariah 1: “The angel who spoke said,” and so forth; and a divine Word, as in Genesis 1: “God said: Let there be light,” and so forth.
Since the Evangelist speaks of the Word, it is evident that he does not mean a human or angelic word, because each is made and does not precede the one speaking. Human beings and angels have their own beginning and cause.
Again, a human word is threefold. There is a mental word, as in the Psalm, “My heart uttered a good word,” insofar as David speaks of himself. There is a vocal word, as in Matthew 8, where the centurion said to Christ: “Only say the word, and my servant shall be healed.” There is a manual word of deed or writing, as when David asked: “What is the word which has been done?”
Yet the discourse and writing of God is called “word” especially by excellence, as though a sounding or thundering word. Augustine says: The word of God which is preached is no less than the body of Christ. This is in Cause 1, Question 1, canon I Ask.
Here one must also note that Origen erred shamefully by saying that the Word was not God by essence, even though he was Word essentially, but was God by participation, and that the Father alone was God by essence. Thus he posited the Son as less than the Father.
But since the Apostle says in Romans 9, “From whom is Christ, who is God above all,” and the final chapter of First John says of Christ, “This is the true God and eternal life,” what Origen imagines is false and heretical. Since the Word spoken of here is God, the Father is God, and there is only one divinity, it is clear that the Word is consubstantial with the Father and one God with him.
This is introduced because of the preceding clause. From the Evangelist’s statement that the Word was God, those who do not think rightly could draw two false understandings.
One is from the Gentiles and Manichees. The Gentiles posit a multitude and diversity of gods, contrary to whom the Lord said in Exodus 20 [read: Deuteronomy 6:4]: “Hear, Israel, the Lord your God is one.” They also posit contrary wills among the gods, like those who tell the fable that Jupiter fought with Saturn. The Manichees invent two contrary first principles.
Because the Evangelist had said, “The Word was with God, and the Word was God,” these people could adduce it in support of their error, understanding that he was another or contrary God, which is against the law of the Gospel. To exclude this he says: “This was in the beginning with God.” According to Hilary, it is as though he said: The Word is God in such a way that he nevertheless does not possess a divided divinity, but is with God, that is, in the one nature in which God himself exists.
Again, lest the statement “The Word was God” be understood to mean that he possessed a contrary will, John added, “This Word was in the beginning with God,” namely the Father—not divided from him or contrary to him, but possessing with him unity of nature and concord of will.
This union comes through the conjunction of the divine nature in the three persons and through the bond of love between the Father and the Son. That bond of love is called, and is, the Holy Spirit. According to Jerome, the Holy Spirit is neither the Father nor the Son, but the love of the Father for the Son and of the Son for the Father—not accidental love, as our love or an angel’s love is, and as their word is, but subsistent love, the third person in the Trinity and one God, just as the Word is one God with him and the Father.
[Running head: Fifth Title.]
According to the statement in First John 5: “There are three who bear witness in heaven,” namely to the Trinity, “the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one,” namely in essence. For just as the sun immediately produces its radiance, and through that radiance, by reflecting upon the earth, produces heat, so the Father produces the Son, and the Father and the Son produce the Holy Spirit.
In this Gospel, however, John says nothing expressly about the Holy Spirit, because his purpose at this point was to treat only of the Word. Later, however, in chapters 14 and 16, he says many things expressly about him.
The Arians say that the Son is less than the Father because Christ said in John 14: “The Father is greater than I.” Yet, according to Augustine, Christ was speaking there of himself according to his humanity, in which he is certainly less than the Father because he is a creature; according to his divinity, however, he is equal to the Father.
Those Arians say that the Son is less than the Father both with regard to eternity and with regard to the divinity of his nature. But these claims are excluded by what follows. For they say that two things—eternity and omnipotence—are proper to the great God whom they call the Father, and they say that the one in whom those two things are found is that great God.
The Evangelist, however, shows that these two things are in the Word: eternity when he says, “This was in the beginning with God,” that is, this Word existed from eternity, not from the beginning of creatures as the Arians explain it; and omnipotence in what he adds, “All things were made through him.” Therefore the Word himself is the great God and is not less than the Father.
If anyone rightly considers the four clauses just discussed, he will plainly find the errors of heretics and philosophers destroyed by them.
Certain erring heretics, such as Ebion and Cerinthus, said that Christ had not existed before the Virgin Mary but had taken the beginning of his duration from her. They called him a mere man and said that afterward he possessed divinity through good merits. Photinus and Paul of Samosata also followed this error. Their error is excluded when John says here, “In the beginning was the Word,” that is, from eternity in the Father and before all things. Therefore he did not take his beginning from the Virgin.
Sabellius indeed confessed that Christ had not taken his beginning from the Virgin but had existed from eternity. He said, however, that the person of the Father who existed from eternity was not different from that of the Son who took flesh from the Virgin, but that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were the same person. Thus he posited confusion in the Trinity. Against this the Gospel says, “And the Word was with God,” that is, the Son was with the Father as one person with another.
Eunomius held that the Son was altogether unlike the Father. The Evangelist excludes this by saying, “And the Word was God.” For if we call the Word God and the Father God, and the Son is God, then the Son is like the Father.
Arius said that the Son was less than the Father. But this is excluded when it is said, “This was,” and so forth, as has been explained.
False opinions of philosophers are also excluded by these words. Certain natural philosophers held that the world came to be not from any intellect or through any rational principle, but by chance. Therefore they placed no intellect or rational principle as the cause of things in the beginning, but only flowing matter, such as the atoms which Democritus posited, and other material principles which others posited. Against them, therefore, stands John’s statement, “In the beginning was the Word,” from whom things took their beginning and not from chance.
Plato, however, posited subsistent ideas of all things that are made, separated from their proper matters. Through participation in them material things would exist: for example, through the separated idea of a human being, which he called the human being in itself, individual human beings would possess their humanity. Lest, therefore, you understand the idea through which all things were made to be separated from God, as Plato held, the Evangelist added, “And the Word was with God.” It is therefore not an Idea, but the Word.
Other Platonists also, as Chrysostom reports, posited God the Father as supreme and first, and beneath him they posited a certain mind in which they said the likenesses and ideas of all things existed. Lest, therefore, you understand that the Word was with the Father as beneath and less than him, the Evangelist adds, “And the Word was God.”
Aristotle did not place the ideas of all things in God, and he held that the intellect, the one understanding, and the thing understood are the same; but he held the world to be coeternal with God. Against this the Evangelist says that this Word alone “was in the beginning with God,” so that “this” does not exclude another person, but another nature coeternal with him. The coeternity of the Word with the Father is therefore indicated here.
After describing the majesty of the Word, John here sets forth his most universal efficacy.
Augustine says on John: Through him by whom the angel was made, the worm also was made; through him by whom the human being was made, the stone also was made; and through him by whom heaven was made, the earth also was made, because all things were made through him.
Three things concerning the Word of God are shown through this clause.
First, according to Chrysostom, his equality with the Father is shown. For just as John, by having said, “This was in the beginning with God,” excluded Arius’s error by showing the coeternity of the Son, which Arius denied, so here he excludes another error of Arius by showing the omnipotence of the Son, which Arius also denied. Therefore he says, “All things were made through him.” To be the principle of all things made is proper to the great and omnipotent God, according to the Psalm: “All things whatsoever the Lord willed, he made,” and so forth. The Word, therefore, through whom all things were made, is the great God and equal to the Father.
Second, according to Hilary, the Son’s coeternity with the Father is shown. Because John had said, “In the beginning was the Word,” someone might say that he existed at the beginning of creatures, yet that there was some time before creatures in which the Word did not exist. Excluding this, John therefore says, “All things were made through him.” If all things were made through him, then time itself was also made through him.
From this he argues as follows: If all time was made by him, then no time existed before him, nor did he begin to exist in any time or age. Time began when the creature began. Therefore he is coeternal with the Father from eternity.
Third, according to Augustine on John, the consubstantiality of the Word with the Father is implied. For if all things were made through the Word, it cannot be said that the Word himself was made. Augustine says: How could it be that the Word of God was made, when God made all things through the Word? If the Word himself was also made, through what other word was he made? If you say that this is the Word of God through whom that very Word was made, I then call him the only-begotten Son of God; I acknowledge the unmade Word through whom all things were made.
Augustine likewise says in On the Trinity: If he was not made, he is not a creature; but if he is not a creature, then he is of the same substance as the Father. For every substance which is not God is a creature, and that which is not a creature is God.
[Running head as printed: Chapter Five. Folio 138.]
Concerning the words “All things were made through him,” three errors held by certain people must likewise be guarded against. The first error is that the Word gave the Creator a cause for creating the world. The second is that the Holy Spirit was made through the Word as a creature. The third is that the Father worked in creating the world through the Word as his instrument or as a minister inferior to him.
Beginning with the second error, which was Origen’s: Origen said that, because John says “all things” without qualification, and whoever says “all things” excludes nothing, it follows that the Holy Spirit, who is something, was made through the Word. But if this were a sufficient argument, it would follow that the Father also, since he is something, was made through the Word; nothing more absurd could be said.
For if the Holy Spirit had been made, it would follow that he was a creature, less than the Father and the Son, and not God, although John 4 says, “The Spirit is God,” and he is of the same substance and dignity as the Father and the Son. First John 5 says: “The Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, these three are one.” What Origen says is therefore heretical, because the Holy Spirit was neither made nor created through the Word.
Hence, when the Evangelist says, “All things were made through him,” the expression “all things” is not posited simply and absolutely. Rather, it is an accommodated distribution including all things that are in the class of things made, that is, of creatures. He explains it thus: All things among those which were made were made through the Word.
Every tribulation and affliction of a human being, insofar as it is a penalty, was made and inflicted by the Word, because insofar as a penalty of this sort is just, God is the author of every just thing. Hence the prophet Amos says: “There is no evil in the city,” namely penal evil, “which God has not done.”
But insofar as penalty and affliction are inflicted unjustly, that comes from a creature, from its malice. Although God is the cause of the action insofar as it is an action, just as he is the cause of every motion, he is not the cause of the defect of reason in the one who acts badly. Hence Augustine says: “The creature whom God made does not persecute you”—namely a human being or his soul—“but the malice which a human being made.” Therefore all adversities must be borne patiently, because they never occur except by God’s just judgment, even if it is hidden from us.
Chrysostom says to note that Moses enumerates over many chapters all the things which he describes as made, saying, “God said: Let there be light,” and “Let there be a firmament,” and so forth. John passes beyond all these things and expresses them in one word, saying, “All things were made through him.” The reason is that Moses intended to transmit the emanation of creatures from God and therefore enumerates them, whereas John intends in this book to lead us to a higher subject, namely to knowledge of their Creator.
For the refutation of the first and third errors mentioned above, it should be noted that the preposition “through” implies causality and operation in the oblique case in a certain manner, but in different ways. Since operation is intermediate between the one operating and the thing operated upon, the operation itself can be considered in two ways: in one way, insofar as it proceeds from the one operating; in another way, insofar as it terminates in the thing operated upon.
Therefore, the preposition “through” sometimes signifies the cause of the operation insofar as it proceeds from the one operating, and sometimes insofar as it terminates in the thing operated upon.
It signifies the cause of the operation insofar as it proceeds from the one operating when that which is signified by the oblique case becomes the cause—either efficient or formal—of the agent’s operating. It is formal, as when fire is said to heat through heat: heat is the formal cause by which fire heats. The moving or efficient cause is illustrated when a bailiff is said to act through the king: the king is the cause of the bailiff’s acting.
The preposition “through” signifies the causality of the operation insofar as it terminates in the product when we say that a carpenter makes a bench through an axe. The axe is not the cause of the carpenter’s operating, but rather a cause of the bench’s being made by the worker.
Now to the matter at hand. When it is said, “All things were made through him,” if “through” denotes a moving or efficient cause moving the Father to operate, then the Father operates nothing through the Son, but operates all things through himself. Valentinus the heretic therefore thought falsely that all things were made through the Word because the Word was the cause of the Creator’s making the world.
What others have said in explaining “All things were made through him” is also false: namely, that the Word was the cause of the Creator’s acting by supplying him with the matter for making the world. If this were so, John would have said, “All things were made by the Word through the Creator.” He does not say this, however, but rather, “All things were made through him.”
But if the preposition “through” denotes a formal cause, then all things were made through the Word because all things were made through God’s wisdom, just as they were made through his essence. For wisdom and the Father’s power are attributed to the Son, in accordance with First Corinthians 1: “Christ, the power of God and the wisdom of God.” Therefore, by this mode of appropriation, we say that the Father operates all things through the Son, because he operates them through his wisdom.
If, however, the preposition “through” denotes causality on the side of the product, then our statement that the Father makes all things through the Son is not appropriated but proper to the Word, because the Word’s being the cause of creatures is received from another, namely from the Father, from whom he has his being.
Nevertheless, it does not follow from this that the Word is the Father’s instrument, although everything which is moved by another toward operating something has, universally speaking, the character of an instrument. That statement is true when what is signified through that causality is not the cause of the agent’s operating, but is a cause of the operation insofar as it terminates in the product.
When something is said to act through a power received from another, this can happen in two ways. In one way, the giver and the receiver have numerically one and the same power. In this way, the one acting through the same power received from another is not less than the one from whom he receives it, but equal to him.
Therefore, because the Father gives the Son the same power which he possesses and through which the Son operates, when the Father is said to operate through the Son, the Son must not for this reason be called less than the Father or his instrument, as certain heretics have said. This consequence follows in those who receive from another not the same power but another and caused power.
This is the other way, in which the one receiving power from another is less than the one from whom he receives it. Thus a bailiff is said to act through the king, namely by a power given to him by the king, which is less than the king’s power; and so the bailiff is less than the king.
To conclude what has been said, “through” can designate the formal and efficient cause and also, though improperly, the final cause. It is therefore explained in different ways.
According to the formal cause, “All things were made through him” means “through his wisdom,” which is attributed to the Son. For whoever makes something must first conceive it in his wisdom. Otherwise, no one would ever make anything unless there existed beforehand an actual conception in his wisdom which was the form and rational principle of the thing made, just as the form of an ark pre-conceived in the artisan’s mind is the rational principle of the ark to be made.
Thus God operates nothing except through the concept of his intellect, which is the wisdom conceived from eternity, namely the Word of God and Son of God. Therefore it is impossible that anything should be made except through the Word. Hence Augustine says: “The Word of God is the art full of all living ideas.”
According to the efficient cause, however, all things were made through him, namely through an active power equal to the Father and the same power which he received from the Father, and not as through an instrument and an inferior power.
[Running head: Fifth Title.]
According to the final cause, although this is an improper use, all things were made through the Word because God worked for this end: to manifest his wisdom and beauty, according to Proverbs 16: “The Lord has made all things for himself,” namely in order to manifest himself.
This can be explained so that it expresses more emphatically what John had said, “All things were made through him.” It is as though he said: “All things” so universally that, among created things, there is nothing which was not made through him.
It can also be explained otherwise, in three ways.
In one way, it signifies that the cause and power of our operation are from him, so that, just as we have our being from him because all things were made through him, so also we have the power to operate from him. For without him—that is, unless he moves it—everything that has been made is nothing, that is, it possesses no power to do anything, according to John 15: “Without me you can do nothing.”
In another way, it signifies that the cause and influx of our preservation are from him. Thus, without him—that is, without his continually flowing into and sustaining it—everything that has been made is nothing, that is, it would come to nothing. For just as the creature is from nothing, so of itself it has a tendency toward nothing. Hence Gregory says in the Moralia: “All things would be reduced to nothing unless the hand of the Almighty,” that is, the power of God, “sustained them.”
In a third way, it intimates that the cause of our defilement is from us alone and not from him. Thus it is explained: Without him—that is, while he did not act—nothing, that is, sin, was made, that is, worked by the creature. Augustine explains it this way on John.
Sin is called “nothing” because it is not a nature but a defect of reason, just as darkness implies the privation of light and not a nature. Human beings become nothing when they commit sin, that is, they deserve to be annihilated by it and are nothing in spiritual being. Therefore, that someone commits sin is from himself and not from God, in accordance with the statement in Hosea: “Your destruction is from yourself, O Israel.”
Here it should also be noted, according to Thomas in the place cited above, that certain people understood “nothing” affirmatively. It is as though the Evangelist said: “I have said that all things were made through the Word in such a way that nothing was made through him,” as though “nothing” signified some existing thing. From this false interpretation arose three errors.
The first is that of Valentinus, who said that certain principles preceded this Word, together with thirty ages produced from those principles. He calls those principles and ages, which he says existed before the Word, “nothing,” because they are above our reason and cannot be comprehended by our intellect.
As Augustine says in On the Trinity, this Valentinus posited many principles and thirty ages proceeding from them. First he posited two principles which he named Depth and Silence, calling Depth the Father. He said that ten ages proceeded from these two. He likewise said that two other principles, namely Intellect and Truth, proceeded from Depth and Silence, and that eight ages proceeded from them. From Intellect and Truth, he said, came two other principles, namely Life and Word, from whom twelve other ages proceeded. Thus there are thirty ages. From Word and Life, however, he said that the man Christ and the Church proceeded. Valentinus thus placed these things before the Word and therefore says that such things were made without him, that is, before him. But these claims are foolish and heretical.
The second error concerning this clause was that of the Manichees, who posited two principles, one of incorruptible things and another of corruptible things. This heretic therefore says that, when John says of the Word that all things were made through him, lest anyone understand that not only incorruptible but also corruptible things were made through the Word—since, according to him, corruptible things are from the contrary principle, namely the devil—the Evangelist added, “Without him nothing was made,” that is, corruptible things. It is as though he said: Everything that is converted into nothing was made without him.
The third error was that of those who said that “nothing” is understood to mean the devil, according to Job 18: “Let him dwell in the tent who is not,” that is, the devil. They explain it thus: All things were made through the Word in such a way that “nothing,” that is, the devil, was not made through him.
All these heresies have arisen because they understand affirmatively what is understood negatively, as was explained above.
Chrysostom says that, although John had said, “All things were made through him,” he did not add, “Without him nothing was made,” superfluously. Because Moses, in enumerating the creatures made in the beginning, sets down only visible creatures, lest someone believe that John too, when he says “all things,” understands only visible things, he adds, “Without him nothing was made,” to show that nothing was created, whether visible or invisible, which was not made through the Word.
Or again, according to Chrysostom, not only the deeds performed by Christ which the Evangelists narrate were done through the Word, but also all other things which exist. Thus this clause, “Without him,” and so forth, is placed as a completion of the first part, “All things,” and so forth, in order to show that total causality and omnipotence are in him.
Or, according to Hilary, John shows by this that the Father is not excluded from the operation of all things. Hence, “without him,” namely without his cooperating, means that there is nothing made by the Father which was not also made by the Son together with the Father, according to Proverbs: “I was with him composing all things,” namely, I Wisdom was with the Father.
Here the Word’s supreme wisdom and goodness are indicated, because whatever was made has its rational principle in his wisdom, which he himself is, just as the rational principle of artifacts is in the artisan’s wisdom.
Many good things are found among these lower things—beautiful, pleasant, luminous, precious, and productive of knowledge—which draw human beings to love them. All these are in the divine Word as effects in their cause, and are in him more perfectly than they are in themselves. Therefore his immense goodness and wisdom ought to seize our affection and draw it to him. Hence the Commentator also says that the perfections of all things are in God, but without the admixture of defect which exists in creatures. Hence it was said to Moses in Exodus: “Come to me and I shall show you every good,” namely myself. Because good things are unfailing in him, it is therefore said, “In him was life.”
The words “What was made,” and so forth, are explained and punctuated in many ways.
Origen, in a homily, explains them thus: “What was made in him,” that is, through him, for in Scripture “in” is sometimes used for “through,” as in Colossians 1: “In him all things were created,” and so forth. “This was life,” not in itself but in its cause.
This is common to all creatures: effects, whether produced by nature or by intellect, exist in their causes not according to their proper being but according to the power of their proper cause. Thus lower effects are in the sun as in their cause, not according to their own being but according to the sun’s power. Since God, who is a certain life and the art full of all living ideas, is the efficient cause of everything produced, everything that was made “in him,” that is, through him, was life in its cause, namely in God himself.
[Running head: Chapter Eight. Folio 163.]
Augustine, however, reads and punctuates it thus: distinguish after “What was made”; then read, “In the Word himself was life.” Things can be considered in two ways: in one way, insofar as they are in themselves; in another way, insofar as they are in the Word.
If they are considered insofar as they are in themselves, not all things are life or living. Some things are living, while others lack life. Earth, metals, and things of this sort were made, yet they are neither life nor living. Animals and human beings were also made; although they live, they are nevertheless not life, but only live insofar as they exist in themselves.
The Manichee, however, understood badly when he explained and punctuated it thus: “What was made in him,” that is, through the Word, “was life,” that is, living. He said that all things—the stone, wood, and other things also, considered in themselves—possess life. Experience teaches that this is false.
If, however, things are considered insofar as they are in the Word, then whatever was made in the Word is not only living but also life. For the rational principles which exist spiritually in the wisdom of God, through which things were made, are life from the Word himself.
Thus an ark made by an artisan neither lives in itself nor is life. But the rational principle of the art which preceded it in the artisan’s mind lives in a certain manner insofar as it has intelligible being in the artisan’s mind. It is not, however, life, because the artisan’s intellect is neither his essence nor his being. In God, however, his act of understanding is his essence and his life, and therefore whatever is in God is his essence. Hence the creature in God is the creative essence. If, therefore, things are considered insofar as they are in the Word, they are life.
Origen, however, reads it differently, punctuating it thus: “What was made was in him”; and afterward, “He was life.” Here it should be noted, according to Thomas in the place cited above, that something is said of the Son of God in three ways.
In one way, something is said of him according to himself, and thus he is called the Son of God, God, omnipotent, and things of this sort. In another way, something is said of him by comparison to us, such as Savior and Redeemer. In a third way, something is said of him in both ways, namely according to himself and with respect to us.
In all things which are said absolutely of the Son of God according to himself, it is not said that he was made: thus the Son of God is not said to have been made God or to have been made omnipotent. But in things which are said by comparison to us, or even in both ways, the qualification “made” can be added so that he is said to have been made something. Thus in First Corinthians 1 the Apostle says of Christ that “he was made for us by God wisdom and justice,” and so forth. Although in himself he had always been justice and wisdom, it can nevertheless be said that he was newly made justice and wisdom for us.
Thus, according to Origen, although the Son of God is life according to himself, he was made life for us insofar as he gave us life, according to Romans 5 [read: First Corinthians 15:22]: “In Christ all will be given life.” Therefore it is said that the Word who was made for us was life in himself, so that at a certain time he might become life for us. Hence John also adds, “And the life,” and so forth.
Hilary punctuates it differently and explains it subtly. He joins “what was made in him” with the preceding clause, “Without him nothing was made,” and says: Without him—that is, without the Word operating together with the Father—nothing was made; what was made was made “in him,” that is, through God himself. Then, as though assigning the reason, he adds, “He was life,” namely the Word himself. Since the Son was perfect life from eternity, which he possessed from the Father according to John 5—“As the Father has life in himself, so he also gave the Son to have life”—nothing was therefore made without him.
Chrysostom offers another manner of explaining and punctuating the text, joining it with the preceding clause thus: “Without the Word himself nothing was made that was made.” By this the Holy Spirit is excluded from the class of things made, for he was not made by the Word but proceeds from him. He then says, “In him was life.” This is introduced for two reasons.
First, it shows, after the production of all things, the unfailing character of his influence and causality not only toward things already produced but also toward things yet to be produced. It is as though he said: In him was life through which he not only was able to produce all things, but which also possesses an unfailing outflow and causality, without the loss caused by change, for the continual production of things—like a living fountain which is not diminished by its continual flow. The Psalm says: “With you is the fountain of life.”
Second, it shows that the governance of things is through the Word. For because life is in him, this shows that he does not produce things by a necessity of nature, but by will and intellect, and by that intellect he governs the things produced.
Chrysostom possesses such authority among the Greeks in the exposition of Scripture that, where he gives an exposition, they admit no exposition but his. Hence in all the Greek books no punctuation is found other than the punctuation he gives.
Augustine explains the text more elegantly than all the others, saying that when it is said, “What was made in him was life,” it means that in him it had the exemplar and living rational principle of all things made. This rational principle is called living because it is spiritual, not material; immutable, not variable; and eternal, not temporal. This is the rational principle of life, for life is a continuous spiritual act flowing from a being that is at rest and everlasting.
Here the Word of God’s most efficacious charity toward human beings can be noted. Every creature possesses as much good as God loves it. For God’s love gives creatures being and every good, and by giving more things to a creature he shows that he loves it more.
Thus to some creatures, such as the elements, heavens, and planets, he gave being; to others, such as plants, he gave being and life, which is greater; to others, such as brute animals, he gave being, life, and sensation. To the human being, however, he gave, together with the angels, the power to understand God. Through this the human being is said to exist in the image of God in Genesis 1.
This understanding is indicated when it is said, “And the life was the light of men.” That is, the Word himself, who is life, is the light of human beings, supplying them with the light of reason by which they can know God, which other irrational creatures do not possess.
Although he is also the light of angels, because they know God through the light of intellect, John nevertheless says “the light of men” because reason is implied in the name “human being,” since a human being is a rational animal, and reason is called light. Through natural reason, by investigation, the philosophers knew and proved God, according to Romans 1: “What is known of God is manifest in them,” and so forth. Thus his intense love for us is shown, since he gave us more than he gave other creatures.
Here it should be noted, according to Augustine and many others, that the name “light” is said more properly of spiritual things than of sensible things. Ambrose, however, holds that “radiance” is said metaphorically of God. According to Thomas, no great force should be given to this difference, for of whatever the name “light” is said, it refers to manifestation, whether that manifestation is among intelligible things or sensible things.
[Running head: Fifth Title.]
If manifestation in intelligible and sensible things is compared, the name “light,” according to its nature, is found first in intelligible things rather than in visible things. But if we attend to the imposition of the name, the reverse is true.
For clarity concerning the statement, “The life was the light of men,” it should be known that there are many degrees of life.
Some things live but are without light, because they possess no manifestation of knowledge, as is the case with plants. Hence their life is not light.
Some things live and know, but because their knowledge is only sensible, it concerns only particular and immaterial things [read: particular and material things], as in brute animals. These have both life and light, but they do not have the light of human beings.
Others both live and know not only true things themselves, but also the rational principle of truth, as rational creatures do. To them not only this or that is manifested, but also truth itself, which can be manifested and which manifests all things. Therefore, when the Evangelist speaks of the Word, he asserts that he is not only life but also knowledge; and lest you suspect knowledge of the kind found in brute animals, he adds “of men.”
Although he is also the light of angels, because John intended to hand down to us knowledge of the Word insofar as he is ordained to the salvation of human beings, he therefore said “the light of men,” that is, of every rational creature.
The perfection and dignity of this life are also implied, because it is intellectual or rational. Those things are said to live which move themselves in some manner. Among lower creatures, however, properly to move oneself belongs only to the human being. Those things are said to possess perfect life which move themselves perfectly. Therefore, since the human being is master of his own acts, he freely moves himself toward what he wills, but brute animals do not. The life of the Word, therefore, which is the light of the rational creature, is perfect.
The Word is called “the light of men” in two ways. In one way, by way of an object, as though visible only to human beings, because the rational creature alone can behold him, since it alone is capable of the divine vision. In another way, he is called the light of human beings as a participated light. For we could never behold the Word of God and that very light except through the participation in him which exists in the human being, namely the higher part of the soul, that is, the intellectual light.
From the foregoing, take a brief summary of the eternal nativity of the Word.
First, the sublimity of his majesty is set forth. Hence the Word himself is spiritual because he was “in the beginning,” that is, in the Father, who is called the principle because he is the principle not only of creatures but also of the Word himself and the Holy Spirit. “The Word was,” that is, the Son was begotten not materially, as among human beings, but spiritually, as a word is generated in the mind. This divine Word, however, differs from our mental word in three ways, as is evident in the first clause.
Second, the Word born from the Father is shown to be subsistent and personally distinct from the Father, because the Word himself “was with God.” An accident is not said to be with a subject; rather, one subsistent thing is said to be with another. Nor is one person said to be with itself, but with another person distinct from it.
Third, that Word is shown to be not a human or angelic word, but the divine Word, because “the Word was God.” Hence, since there is only one God essentially, and the Father is God and the Word, the Son, is God, it follows that he is one substance and essence with the Father.
Fourth, that Word is eternal because “this was in the beginning with God,” from the beginning, that is, before all ages and times. The Psalm says: “Your Word, O Lord, remains forever.”
Second, the efficacy of the Word himself in operating is noted, because “all things were made through him,” namely within the class of things that were made, that is, created. Hence the Holy Spirit was not made, just as neither was the Father. The Word preserves and governs all these things, because without his influence and governance, “what was made” is nothing, that is, it does not exist.
Third, his infinite wisdom and goodness are signified, since the rational principles and goodness of all things made are in him, because “what was made in him,” as in its wisdom and cause, “was life,” that is, living and most perfect.
Fourth, the Word’s greatest charity toward us is signified in that he gave human beings not only life, but also the light of reason through which they can know God.
Proceeding to this inward nativity, namely through the light of grace, John says: “The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it,” and so forth.
Of this spiritual nativity in the mind Malachi 3 says: “For those who fear the name of the Lord, the sun of justice shall arise,” who is Christ. And Christ says: “Whoever does the will of my Father is my mother,” by conceiving me in the mind through living faith, according to the Apostle’s words, “that Christ may dwell through faith in your hearts,” and by bringing forth meritorious works.
Here it should be noted, according to the Master of the Sentences in Book One and Thomas in his commentary upon him, that just as the Holy Spirit is sent to a rational creature in two ways, so also is the Son, namely visibly and invisibly.
In a visible mission the Holy Spirit was sent by appearing in fire, a dove, or a cloud. This does not mean, however, that the person of the Holy Spirit was united to the dove or cloud in unity of person; rather, that newly formed appearance of fire or another appearance was shortly afterward resolved into the matter lying beneath it.
The Son, however, was sent visibly when he assumed flesh, or our humanity, in unity of person, and he never abandoned it, as Damascene says.
The Son and the Holy Spirit are sent invisibly together when grace is infused into a creature to sanctify it and make it pleasing to God. Hence this mission was made from the beginning to the angels and our first parents, and it occurs to anyone in the Old and New Testaments when that person is justified.
Because a sanctification of this sort is a work in a creature and the works of the Trinity are inseparable, the Father also operates and comes to sanctify the creature through grace, according to Christ’s statement in John 14: “We will come to him,” namely I and the Father. The Father, however, is not said to be sent as the Son is. This is because mission implies a certain procession of the one sent from the one sending to some place, and because the Father proceeds from no one, it is therefore not fittingly said that the Father is sent.
In the justification of a creature, or the conferral of grace which makes one pleasing, the Son is therefore said to be sent because he is Wisdom, insofar as the justified mind is illuminated by the light of truth to know God as the best Lord, to be preferred above all things. At the same time, the Holy Spirit, who is Love, is also invisibly sent to inflame the affection to love God and operate well.
David sought this mission when he said: “Send forth your light,” namely your Word through his grace, “and your truth,” namely the truth of living faith proceeding from him. Through these a human being is led from one good work to another and at last is brought to the mountain of glory.
[Running head as printed: Chapter Five. Folio 140.]
Concerning this spiritual nativity in our mind of the Word of God from God the Father and mother Church, John therefore says: “The light shines in the darkness.” Four things are noted concerning it.
First, it possesses uncertainty and incomprehensibility in all: “The light,” and so forth, “and the darkness,” and so forth.
Second, it possesses aptitude and preparation in many: “There was a man sent by God,” and so forth.
Third, it possesses breadth and diffusion in itself and in the elect: “He was the true light which enlightens,” and so forth.
Fourth, it encounters ingratitude and rejection in the evil: “He was in the world, and the world,” and so forth.
As to the first point, it should be known that darkness implies a defect, because it is said to be the privation of light. Since there is some defect, at least that of mutability, in every creature, every creature, especially in relation to God, can therefore be called darkness. Hence Gregory says in the Moralia that every creature, however beautiful, just, and enduring it may be, when compared with God is neither beautiful nor just. Therefore John says in his First Canonical Epistle: “God is light, and in him there is no darkness,” that is, no defect.
The light, therefore—the Word of God—shines by being born through grace or glory “in the darkness,” that is, in creatures who are wayfarers or comprehensors, even angels. But the darkness, that is, those creatures themselves, even the blessed, “did not comprehend it,” that is, they were unable to enclose it.
According to Thomas, that is properly said to be comprehended whose boundaries are enclosed and beheld. This cannot be done to God by any creature, even a blessed one. Jeremiah 3 [read: Jeremiah 32:19] says: “God is great in counsel and incomprehensible in thought.” Augustine says: “To attain God with the mind is great beatitude; to comprehend him is impossible.”
When the Apostle says in First Corinthians 10 [read: First Corinthians 9:24], “So run that you may comprehend,” he takes “comprehend” broadly for attaining and apprehending God through his blessed vision. The blessed nevertheless possess a clear, certain, and perfect knowledge of God and of their glory.
But on the way we are enveloped in darkness, Job says, because we are unable to know with certainty that we possess the light of grace. Consequently Job 3 says: “To the man from whom the light is hidden, and God has surrounded him with darkness.” The light, therefore, the Word of God, shines in the darkness, that is, in good people existing amid the darkness of the present life; and darkness of this kind does not comprehend it, because they do not know with certainty whether the light of grace is in them, according to Ecclesiastes 9: “The just and the wise are in the sight of God, and yet a human being does not know whether he is worthy of hatred or love.”
Sinners are also called darkness, and more fully dark, because of the darkness of their sins. Romans 13 says: “Let us cast off the works of darkness,” that is, sins which obscure the mind.
Although sinners are dark, namely deprived of the savory wisdom of God, no mind is nevertheless so dark that it does not participate in something of this light through knowledge of some truth. For whatever truth is known by anyone is a certain participation in this light. Therefore Ambrose says: “Every truth, by whomsoever it is spoken with mouth or mind, is from the Holy Spirit.”
The light of the Word therefore “shines in the darkness,” that is, in sinners, according to a natural influx, at least in knowing some truth. But the darkness, that is, sinners of this sort, “did not comprehend it” through participation in the light of grace. Hence Job says: “In his hands,” that is, among the proud, “he hides the light.”
According to Thomas, this can also be explained of the incarnate Word, so that the light is the Word and the darkness is the flesh assumed by reason of the penal conditions which he assumed. For the defects of these penalties are called darkness. The Psalm says: “As his darkness,” that is, adversities, “so also his light,” that is, prosperities.
Thus “the light shines in the darkness” when the Word was made flesh. For the light, the Word, wrapped around with the darkness of the flesh, shone in the darkness of the world, according to the statement in Ezekiel: “I shall cover the sun with a cloud.” But the darkness, namely that of some ignorance or sin, did not comprehend him, because he was a spotless mirror, as the Book of Wisdom says. For the Lord Jesus was impeccable, Damascene says.
Or it may be explained thus: The light, the Word, shone in the darkness of the flesh through teaching, miracles, and holy works. The darkness, that is, the demons who are called the rulers of this darkness, did not comprehend it so as to know with certainty that he was the Son of God. Hence Paul says to the Corinthians: “If they had known, they would never have crucified the Lord of glory,” that is, they would never have incited the Jews to crucify him.
Or it may be explained thus: The darkness is the ignorance and errors to which the whole world was devoted, according to Isaiah 60: “Behold, darkness shall cover the earth,” and Wisdom: “One chain of darkness held them all.” The light therefore shone in the darkness by living among dark sinners, and the darkness did not comprehend it, that is, did not overcome it.
For however much dark human beings—blinded by envy, hardened by pride, and weighed down by malice—tried to extinguish this light and destroy his reputation and faith through insults, reproaches, and martyrdoms, they could not obscure it in him and his followers so as to prevent his brightness from being diffused throughout the whole world.
The text continues: “There was a man sent by God,” and so forth.
“He who made you without you,” Augustine says, “will not justify you without you,” that is, without your preparation, through which the light, the Word, arises for us by justification. The Psalm says: “Light has arisen for the just.” Therefore Hosea says: “Prepare yourself to meet your God.”
For this purpose John the Baptist was sent, that he might prepare a way for this light. Hence in Matthew 11 the Light himself says: “This is John, of whom it is written in Malachi 3: Behold, I send my angel, who shall prepare the way before my face.” John himself, when asked who he was, said: “The voice of one crying in the desert: Prepare the way of the Lord.”
John prepared the way for this light so that it might be received by human beings: by word and example he caused them to abstain from vices, to restrain themselves from pleasures, to devote themselves to almsgiving, and to receive baptism. Although his baptism did not purge faults, it nevertheless disposed people toward the good and prefigured ours, which is the door of the sacraments.
Through these things, therefore, a human being disposes himself for the light of grace to arise in him: when he does not continue in sins but restrains himself, maintains a life of penance and austerity, gives alms, devoutly disposes himself for the sacraments, and speaks and hears about God. Hence “John” is interpreted “in whom there is grace.” Speaking of John, therefore, the Evangelist says: “There was a man sent by God,” and so forth.
Here it should be noted that, above, when the Evangelist spoke about eternal things, he used the imperfect past verb, saying “was”; here, when speaking about temporal things, he uses the perfect past, saying “there was,” to intimate that temporal things pass away in such a way that they are brought to an end.
He says “man” to exclude the error of certain people who said that John was an angel because Christ called him an angel, as has been stated.
[Running head: Fifth Title.]
Therefore he says, “There was a man,” not an angel. Fittingly, moreover, a human being is sent to human beings, through whom they may be more strongly drawn, as through one like themselves, to prepare themselves.
Although John was not an angel by nature, he was nevertheless an angel by office, and therefore he is said to have been “sent by God.” For it is proper to the office of angels that they are sent by God and are friends of God. Moreover, for someone to bear witness about God, he must be sent by God. Romans 10 says: “How shall they preach unless they are sent?” Therefore he is said to have been “sent by God,” so that you may understand that he announces only divine things, not human things and not himself.
Here note that someone is sent by the Lord in three ways. One is through inward inspiration: “The Lord and his Spirit sent me,” Isaiah 48 says, and John was sent in this way. Another is through an open and express bodily or imaginary vision, and Isaiah was sent in this way. In Isaiah 6 the Lord says: “Whom shall I send?” and so forth. The third is through the command of a prelate, who in this matter holds the place of God, and in this way Barnabas and Timothy were sent by Paul.
John was sent to preach and baptize. “Whose name was John.” The Evangelist says “was” because that name had been imposed upon him by God’s eternal preordination. Its interpretation also designates his suitability for his office, for “John” is interpreted “in whom there is grace,” and grace makes a human being a suitable minister of God.
The Evangelist next states the office for which John was sent: “This man came for a witness,” and so forth.
Here it should be noted, according to Thomas in the place cited above, that God makes human beings and all things for himself, not so that anything may accrue to him from the things made, since he does not need our goods, but so that his goodness may be manifested in all things made by him.
A creature thus offers testimony to God in three ways.
In one way, it does so naturally, insofar as “through those things which were made and understood, his everlasting power and divinity are beheld,” as Romans 1 says. Every creature therefore becomes a witness to God: from its goodness it is a witness to divine goodness; from its magnitude and power, a witness to divine power and omnipotence; and from its beauty, a witness to his wisdom.
In a second way, a creature bears witness to God insofar as God is shown to be glorious among human beings through its good works, since good works proceed from God. Thus the Psalm says, “God is glorious in his saints,” and Matthew 5: “So let your light shine before human beings, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father,” and so forth. In this way all good people are called witnesses of God.
In a third way, a creature bears witness through a special grace which certain people receive from God so that they may diffuse it to others by teaching, admonishing, and communicating God’s other gifts to them. John came as a witness in this way.
Christ also is said to have come as a witness. John 19 [read: John 18:37] says: “For this I came into this world, that I might bear witness to the truth.” Isaiah 55 likewise says: “Behold, I have given him as a witness to the peoples.”
But John came as a witness in one way, and Christ in another. For Christ bore witness as one comprehending the light itself and himself existing as the light, whereas John did so as one participating in the light. John’s office was therefore great both from his participation in the light itself and from his likeness to Christ: “that he might bear witness concerning the light.”
But if this light is sufficient of itself to manifest all things, not only itself, then it did not need anyone to bear witness to it. Therefore the testimony of John and of the prophets concerning Christ was not necessary. Indeed, Christ says in John 5: “I do not receive testimony from human beings.”
Thomas answers in the place cited above that this was an objection of the Manichees, who wished to destroy the foregoing testimony. The saints assign several reasons why Christ wished to have the testimony of the prophets.
Origen assigns three. The first is that God wishes to have certain witnesses not because he needs their testimony, but so that he may ennoble those whom he appoints as witnesses.
We likewise see in the order of the universe that God produces certain effects through intermediate causes, not because he is unable to produce them immediately, but because, to ennoble those intermediate causes, he deigns to communicate the dignity of causality to them. So it is in the present matter. Although God could have illuminated all human beings by himself and led them into knowledge of himself, nevertheless, so that the due order might be preserved among things and so that he might ennoble certain human beings, he wished divine knowledge to reach human beings through other human beings. Isaiah says: “You are my witnesses.”
The second reason is that Christ shone upon the world through miracles. Because these were performed in time, however, they passed away temporally and did not reach everyone. The words of the prophets, however, once entrusted to writing, could reach not only those present but also those in the future. God therefore willed that knowledge of him should reach human beings through the testimony of the prophets so that not only those present but also those in the future might be illuminated by it. Hence John adds, “that all might believe in him,” not only those present but also those in the future.
The third reason is that human beings are of diverse conditions and are led to knowledge of the truth in diverse ways. Some are drawn more by signs, and others more by wisdom. First Corinthians 1 says: “The Jews ask for signs, and the Greeks seek wisdom.” Therefore, so that the Lord might open the way of salvation to everyone, he gave both miracles and the testimonies of Scripture, so that one who is not led to the way of salvation by miracles performed in the Old and New Testaments may be led by the testimonies of Scripture and the prophets.
The fourth reason is Chrysostom’s: Since human beings were unable to know the truth and the knowledge of God in itself, God wished to condescend to them by illuminating certain human beings concerning divine things above others, so that from them, in a human manner, they might receive knowledge of those divine things whose knowledge they were unable to receive in themselves.
Thus “all might believe through him,” namely through John, “in Christ.” It is as though John said: He did not come as a witness concerning a doubtful and uncertain matter, since Christ himself is the light which manifests all things, but because of their hardness and slowness in believing, namely, so that all might believe.
But the objection is raised: Not all believe in him. Therefore John came in vain, since he did not attain his end. Thomas answers: As far as God who sent him and John who came are concerned, a sufficient means was supplied for everyone to arrive at faith. The failure that not all believed lay in those who determined to turn their eyes down toward the earth and refused to see the light itself.
[Running head: Chapter Eight. Folio 165.]
Although John was sent by God and was great, his coming was nevertheless not sufficient for salvation, because a human being’s salvation consists in receiving the light itself. But John was not the light. Hence the Evangelist adds: “He was not the light.”
Against this, Ephesians 5 says: “But now you are light in the Lord”; and Matthew 5: “You are the light of the world.” Therefore John too was light. I answer: The Word is light absolutely, because he is light through his essence. But John and the other saints of whom the Apostle speaks are light not absolutely, but through participation.
From these words it is shown that the Word, the light, by radiating through spiritual nativity and grace, possesses diffusion everywhere, because he “enlightens every man,” and so forth. In the penultimate chapter of Job [read: Job 38:24] it is said: “If you know by what way the light is spread”—as though to say that it is diffused not successively but suddenly, far and wide. Ecclesiasticus says: “The sun, illuminating, looked upon all things.” Thus the sun of justice, as the true light, enlightens every human being.
According to Thomas, three things must be considered here: first, how he is the true light; second, how he enlightens every human being; and third, what “coming into this world” means.
As to the first, he says that in Scripture “true” is opposed to three things: the false, the figurative, and the participating.
Sometimes the true is distinguished from the false, as in Ephesians 4: “Putting away falsehood, speak the truth.” Sometimes it is distinguished from the figurative, according to John 1: “The law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ,” because the truth of the figures of the Law was brought about and fulfilled through Christ. Sometimes it is distinguished from those who participate, according to the final chapter of First John: “That we may be in his true Son,” and so forth, who is not the Son through participation as we are.
Indeed, before the Word came into the world, there was a certain light of knowledge which the philosophers boasted of possessing. But this light was false. Romans 1 says: “Although they had known God,” and so forth.
There was another light which the Jews gloried in possessing through the teaching of the Law. But this was figurative. Hebrews 10 says: “The law, having a shadow of good things to come,” and so forth.
There was also a certain light in the angels and saints, insofar as they knew God in a more spiritual manner through grace. Job 35 [read: Job 25:3] says: “Upon whom does his light not shine?” It is as though to say: Luminous beings shine only insofar as they participate in the light of God.
But this Word of God was neither false light, nor figurative light, nor participated light. He was the true light, namely through his essence. The Evangelist says “was,” that is, from eternity—not only before the Virgin, but also before all things. For Photinus said, heretically in this also, that Christ took his beginning from the Virgin Mary.
He is the true light through his essence as true God, not through participation as Arius and Origen said heretically. For “the Word was God,” and “God is light,” as First John 1 says.
The efficacy of this Word for enlightening is shown in that “he enlightens every human being.” For everything derived through participation is such through that which is such by essence, just as everything ignited is such through participation in fire, which is fire by its nature. Because the Word is the true light, that is, through his essence, everything that shines must therefore shine through him, and thus he enlightens every human being.
This can be explained in three ways.
In one way it is understood of the light of natural knowledge, namely through reason. Thus every human being is enlightened, because every human being has a natural cognition of the intellect’s apprehension of some word, and this is through participation in the light of the Word. The Psalm says: “The light of your countenance is signed upon us.”
In a second way it is understood of enlightenment through grace or glory. According to Augustine, “every” is then not a distribution without qualification, but an accommodated distribution applying to those who are enlightened and not to others. Not all human beings are enlightened by grace, but those who are enlightened are enlightened from no other source than the Word, the light. In the same way is explained the statement in First Timothy 1 [read: First Timothy 2:4]: “He wills all human beings to be saved.”
In a third way it is understood that the Word enlightens everyone as far as depends upon him, because he withdraws himself from no one through his own acts, but offers to everyone teachings and sacraments of salvation capable of enlightening all. Or it is a distribution not for every individual of the kinds, but for all kinds of individuals: some are enlightened from every kind—males and females, small and great, free and enslaved, and from every tribe, tongue, people, and nation.
“Coming into this world.” “World” is said in three ways.
In one way it stands for the world of creation, that is, the sensible world, according to John 17: “These,” namely my disciples, “are in the world.” Someone is said to come into this world when that person is born. This does not mean that the person comes from another world into this one, or that the soul of every human being was created in the beginning and comes into this world when the person’s body has been conceived and formed. That was Origen’s error. Rather, at that time the soul is newly created, infused into the formed body, and comes into the world. It is enlightened in the way stated above through nature, grace, or glory.
In a second way, the Church is called the world, according to the statement: “God was in him,” namely Christ, “reconciling the world to himself.” Someone comes into this world spiritually through faith and is enlightened through grace.
In a third way, every evil lover of the world is called the world, according to First John 2 [read: First John 5:19]: “The whole world is set in wickedness.” Because such a world is full of the darkness of errors and vices, one coming into this world, that is, living in it, needs to be enlightened lest that person be darkened by others; and, as far as depends upon the Word, that person is enlightened by him.
Because the Evangelist had immediately shown the efficacy of the divine Word, since as the true light he is sufficient to enlighten everyone, he now shows that the fact that many are not enlightened by his grace is not caused by his withdrawal, absence, or concealment, but proceeds from the human being’s defect.
Therefore he says, “He was in the world,” and so forth. It is as though the Evangelist said: The divine Word is efficacious and present to everyone for enlightenment, because “he was in the world.” Acts 17 says: “He is not far from each one of us. In him we live and move and are.”
According to Thomas in the place cited above, it should be noted that something is said to be in the world in three ways.
In one way, it is in the world through containment, as a thing situated is in a place. Hence Paul says to the Corinthians: “While we are in the world, we are pilgrims from the Lord.”
In a second way, it is in the world as a part in the whole. Thus every part of the world is said to be in the world, even if such parts are not local, as in the case of intellectual substances. For although they are not locally in the world, they are nevertheless in the world as its parts. The Psalm says: “He who made heaven and earth,” and so forth.
By neither of these two ways was the Word in the world.
[Running head: Fifth Title.]
For he was neither in the world locally nor as a part of the universe. Indeed, in a certain manner—if it is permissible to speak this way—the whole universe is a part of him, since it participates in his goodness in a particular way. Therefore he was in the world in the third way, namely as its cause and preserver, according to Jeremiah 23: “I fill heaven and earth.”
Nevertheless, the Word of God acts and causes all things in one way, while other agents do so in another. Other agents operate as existing outside their effects, since they act only by moving and altering in some manner; insofar as they concern things external to a thing, they operate externally. God, however, operates in all things as an inward agent, because he acts by creating. To create is to give being to a created thing. Since being is the innermost principle of every thing, God, who by operating gives being, operates within things as an inward agent. Therefore the Word was in the world as giving being to the world.
It is customarily said, as the Master also states in Book One of the Sentences, that God is in all things through power, presence, and essence. To explain this, one should know that someone is said to be in all things through power when they are subject to his power. Thus a king is said to be throughout the kingdom subject to him, although he is not there through presence or essence. Someone is said to be in all things through presence when they lie within his sight, and in this way a king is said to be present in his house. He is said to be in things through essence when his substance is in them, as a king is in one determinate place.
Therefore the Word was in the world through power, because all things are subject to his power. The Psalm says: “If I ascend into heaven, you are there,” and so forth. He was in it through presence, because all things are naked and open to his eyes, as Hebrews 4 says. He was in it through essence, because his essence is innermost to all things.
Every agent, precisely insofar as it acts, must be joined immediately to its effect, since mover and moved must be together. God is the creator and preserver of all things according to the being of each thing. Since the being of a thing is innermost in everything, it is manifest that God, through his essence by which he creates all things, is in all things.
The Evangelist pointedly says, “The Word was in the world,” showing that from the beginning of creation he was always in the world, creating and preserving all things. For if God were for a moment to withdraw his power and influx from created things, they would all fail and be reduced to nothing.
To explain this, Origen uses a very fitting example. He says that sensible speech stands in relation to our inward word as the whole creation stands in relation to the divine Word. Just as the voice is the effect of the word conceived in our heart, so the whole creation is the effect of the Word conceived in the divine mind. “He spoke, and they were made,” says the Psalm. We see that as soon as the word conceived in our mind ceases, the sensible voice ceases. So too, if the power of the divine Word were withdrawn from things, all things would immediately fail in a moment.
Therefore the failure of our knowledge of God does not arise from the Word’s absence, because he was in the world. Nor does it arise from invisibility or concealment, because he made a work in which his likeness clearly shines forth, namely the world. Wisdom 13 says: “From the greatness and beauty of the creature, their maker can be seen and known.” Romans 1 says: “The invisible things of God are beheld through the things that have been made.” Hence the Evangelist adds, “And the world was made through him,” namely so that in the world the light itself might be manifested, as the art of the artisan is manifested in the artifact. Just as the artifact’s form is nothing other than a likeness of the artisan’s art, so the whole world is nothing other than a representation of the divine Wisdom conceived in the Father’s mind.
The Evangelist next shows that this failure comes from the human being. Hence he adds, “And the world knew him not.” Here “world” stands for the human being. The angels knew him by understanding, and the elements knew him in their own manner by obeying. But the world—that is, the human being who inhabits the world—did not know him.
This failure to know God can be referred to the human being either as regards nature or as regards guilt. As regards nature, although those helps for being led to knowledge of God were given to the human being, human reason is nevertheless deficient in itself for such knowledge. Hence Job says: “Each one beholds him from afar.” And if some knew him, this was insofar as they were not of the world or in the world. Hence Augustine says: “When we conceive something eternal in the mind, we are no longer in this world.”
If, however, “world” is referred to guilt, then the world means a disordered lover of the world, according to the saying: “Everything that is in the world is either the concupiscence of the flesh, the concupiscence of the eyes, or the pride of life.” Such a world—that is, a sinner—certainly did not know him. Those ungrateful people, therefore, who are designated by “world” because of their disordered love of it, did not know the Word and do not receive the light of grace because of their vices.
Gather from what has been said that the Word’s spiritual nativity—namely through grace or glory—has obscurity as regards grace and incomprehensibility as regards glory, where it says, “The light shines in darkness,” and so forth. It has a suitable preparation where it says, “There was a man,” and so forth. It has a broad diffusion where it says, “The true light errs [read: He was the true light].” It has rejection among the evil where it says, “He was in the world,” and so forth.
Christ’s third nativity is in time, from a virgin mother without a father. Concerning it the text continues: “He came unto his own,” namely the divine Word. He came not by abandoning heaven or changing place, but by uniting to himself what he assumed—that is, by assuming our humanity, in which he visibly appeared to the world.
This temporal nativity of the Word occurred either in the womb of Mary—that is, his conception, according to Matthew 1, “That which was born in her is of the Holy Spirit”—or from the womb of the Virgin Mary, concerning which the angel says in Luke 2, “Today a Savior has been born to us.” His coming unto his own had been greatly foretold and desired by the fathers.
Hence Jacob says in the penultimate chapter of Genesis: “The scepter shall not be taken away from Judah,” and so forth, “until he who is to be sent shall come.” David says in the Psalms: “Stir up your power and come, that you may save us.” Isaiah says: “The Lord himself will come and will save us.” Haggai says: “The Desired of all nations shall come.” Malachi says: “The ruler whom you seek shall suddenly come to his holy temple.” All these prophecies and desires were fulfilled when he came unto his own. In John 17 [read: John 16:28] Christ says: “I came forth from the Father and came into the world.”
This advent, that is, the Incarnation, was prefigured in many ways: in Aaron’s rod and its flower; in Gideon’s fleece on the threshing floor and its dew; in the Lord’s incorruptible, gilded ark, containing the Law, the manna, and the rod; in the gate of the Lord’s house which, according to Ezekiel, was closed, with the Lord alone entering and departing through it; in the stone which, according to Daniel, was cut from the mountain without hands; and in the virgin openly foretold by Isaiah as conceiving and giving birth to Emmanuel.
[Running head: Chapter Eight. Folio 166.]
Four things are signified by this temporal nativity. The first is the truth of our humanity in him: “Unto his own,” and so forth. The second is the fruitfulness of his nativity: “As many as,” and so forth. The third is his dwelling and association with us: “The Word,” and so forth, “dwelt among us.” The fourth is the perfect happiness consequently attained in us: “We saw his glory.”
As regards the first, “He came unto his own” can be explained in three ways.
In one way, he came unto his own—that is, into things that were his, because he made all things and was in them; or, he came into the world. Although he had previously been in it through governance, he had not previously been there through the assumption of flesh. Jerome says: “Within the narrowness of that hidden womb, the hand of almighty God always works. The same creator of body and soul, the very power and wisdom of God, built a house for himself in the Virgin’s womb,” in Distinction 56, Nasci. “And his own did not receive him.” All human beings are his own because they were formed by him, but the greater part of humanity did not receive him by believing in him and adhering to him.
In a second way, he came unto his own—that is, he was incarnate from the Jewish people, who were God’s own people, chosen by him as peculiar to himself before the others. Deuteronomy 26 says: “The Lord chose you to be a peculiar people to him.” The Jews are also called his own because they were joined to him according to the flesh, for his mother Mary arose from that people, and also because they were exalted above others by many benefits. Isaiah 1 says: “I have nourished and exalted children.” Yet his own did not receive him by believing in him as their Messiah and Savior. In John he himself says to the Jews: “I came in my Father’s name, and you did not receive me.”
In a third way, he came unto his own by assuming all the properties of human nature: mortality, penalties, passions, and all the other properties common to human beings, except ignorance and sin. Hebrews says: “It behooved him in all things to be made like his brethren.” Yet his own did not receive him—that is, heretics, who were his own through baptism, did not receive him as possessing true humanity. One said that the Word was converted into flesh; another that he did not have a soul; and others asserted other foolish or false things, as will be said below.
Here the fruit of Christ’s temporal nativity is shown: the greatest dignity, namely divine filiation. “He gave them power to become children of God.” Galatians 4 says: “God sent his Son, made of a woman,” and so forth, “that we might receive adoption as children of God.” Hence Christ himself says to Magdalene: “Go to my brethren and say to them: I ascend to my Father and your Father,” John 20.
Thus Pope Leo also says in a sermon: “Acknowledge, O Christian, your dignity, and, having been made a sharer in the divine nature, do not return by degenerate conduct to your former life.” This is entirely fitting: we, who are children of God through being made like the Son, are reformed through the Son. Hence the Word himself “gave them”—namely those receiving him through faith—power to become children of God. Romans 8 says that God predestined the elect “to be made conformable to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.” He gave this to everyone who receives him: Jew or gentile, male or female, enslaved or free.
Here it should be noted that human beings are called children of God through likeness to God. This likeness can be threefold, and therefore a human being can be a child of God in three ways.
First, we are children of God through grace. Galatians 4 says: “Because you are children of God,” namely through possessing grace. Second, we are made like God through the perfection of works. Matthew 5 says: “Love your enemies, that you may be children of your Father, who makes his sun rise upon the good and the evil.” Third, we are made like God through attaining glory: as regards the soul, through the light of glory, according to First John 3, “When he appears, we shall be like him”; and as regards the body, according to Philippians 3, “He will reform our body, conformed to the body of his glory.” First John 3 also says: “See what manner of charity God the Father has bestowed upon us, that we should be called and should be the children of God.”
This filiation comprehends the virtues toward which we are advanced through Christ’s nativity. Concerning faith Augustine says in The City of God: “That the human being might walk more confidently toward the truth of faith, the Truth himself, the Son of God, coming with humanity assumed but divinity not consumed, established faith.” Concerning hope the same Augustine says: “What so greatly lifts our minds and rescues them from despair of immortality as that the only-begotten Son of God deigned to enter into fellowship with us and endure our evils?” Concerning charity the same author says: “What greater cause was there for his coming to us than that he might show his love for us, so that, if we are slow to love, we may not be slow to love in return?” He calls the sinner back from evil. Luke 19 says: “The Son of Man came to save that which had perished.”
If, therefore, “he gave them power to become children of God” is understood as regards the perfection of works or the adoption of glory, the statement presents no difficulty. It is then understood of the power of grace which makes one pleasing; when a human being possesses this grace, he can perform works of perfection and attain glory. Romans 6 says: “The grace of God is eternal life.”
But if this power is understood of the infusion of grace, then the statement “he gave them power to become children” presents a difficulty, because in this sense it is not in our power to become children of God, since it is not in our power to possess grace. If it is understood of a power of nature, it is not true, because the infusion of grace is above our nature. If it is understood of a power of grace, then possessing grace is itself the possession of the power to become children of God; and he did not give them power to become children, but gave them the very being of children.
According to Thomas in the place cited above, the answer is that, in the giving of grace, an adult’s consent through a movement of free choice is required for that person’s justification. Because it is in a human being’s power to consent or not to consent, the text therefore says, “He gave them this power,” namely the power to receive grace.
He gives this power to human beings in two ways. First, he prepares grace and proposes it to them. Just as one who makes a book and offers it to someone to read is said to give that person the power to read, so Christ, through whom grace was made—John 1—and who “worked salvation in the midst of the earth”—in the Psalm—gave the power to become children of God through the reception of grace.
Second, this does not suffice, since free choice needs the help of divine grace so that it may be moved toward receiving grace—not habitual grace, but moving grace. He therefore gives this power by moving the human being’s free choice so that it may consent to the reception of grace, according to the final chapter of Lamentations: “Convert us, O Lord, to you”—that is, by moving our free choice to love you—“and we shall be converted,” and so forth. This motion is called an inward calling. Romans 8 says: “Those whom he called,” namely inwardly by stirring the will to consent to grace, “those he also justified,” by infusing grace.
[Running head: Fifth Title.]
Because through this grace a human being has the power to preserve himself in divine filiation, the text can also be explained in another way: “He gave them power to become children of God,” that is, grace through which they are able to preserve themselves in divine filiation. The final chapter of First John says: “Everyone who is born of God does not sin, but the generation of God preserves him.” Thus he gave them power to become children of God through grace which makes one pleasing, through the perfection of works, and through the attainment of glory; and he did this by preparing, moving, and preserving grace.
The Evangelist adds to whom the fruit of such a light when it arose was conferred: “To those who believe in his name.” It is as though he said: To receive him is to believe in him.
Or, according to Origen, “He gave them power to become children of God” means that he gave it to those who receive him through faith and “believe in his name,” that is, to those who preserve the name of Christ whole, diminishing nothing of his divinity or humanity through false belief as the heretics do.
Or, “to those who believe in his name” means those who possess faith formed by charity and perform the works of salvation, for his name signifies salvation.
Lest anyone, on hearing of this fruit—namely filiation—suppose this generation to be carnal, the Evangelist therefore adds: “Who were born not of bloods.” Two things concur in carnal generation: a material cause and a moving cause. The material cause is blood. Thus “of bloods” is understood as whatever is generated from blood and concurs as matter in carnal generation. According to the Philosopher, semen is the superfluity of the final, blood-like nourishment. Hence both the man’s seed and the woman’s menstrual blood are understood by “bloods.”
The moving cause of generation is the carnal will of those who join together, namely the male and the female. Although the act of the generative power as such is not subject to the will, the acts preliminary to it are nevertheless subject to the will. Therefore the text says, “nor of the will of the flesh,” that is, of the woman, “nor of the will of man,” as an efficient cause, “but they were born of God”; that is, such people are children of God not carnally but spiritually.
Or it can also be said that there are two moving causes of carnal generation. One comes from the intellectual appetite, which is the will, and this is called the man. The other comes from the sensitive appetite, which is concupiscence, and this is called the flesh.
This can be connected with the preceding in three ways.
In one way it is connected to the statement, “He came unto his own.” It is as though he said: Do not believe that he came by changing place; I said that he came because “the Word was made flesh.”
According to Chrysostom, it is connected to the statement, “He gave them power to become children of God.” Someone might ask: From where did the Word have this power? The Evangelist answers by adding, “And the Word was made flesh.” It is as though he said: By the very fact that the Word was made flesh, he gave us power to become children of God.
Augustine connects it to what was said immediately before, “They were born of God.” Because it seemed a hard thing for human beings to be born of God, the Evangelist adds, as an argument so that this statement might be believed true, something that seems even more marvelous: “And the Word was made flesh.” It is as though he said: Do not marvel that human beings are born of God, because the Word was made flesh—that is, God was made man. Hence Augustine says: “God was made man so that man might be made god.”
Bernard says: “God made three minglings, or three works, so marvelously singular and so singularly marvelous that they had never been made before and will never be made afterward. Three things are indeed joined together: God and man, mother and virgin, and faith and the human heart,” namely when the heart believes these things.
The statement “the Word was made flesh” means that he was conceived of the Virgin Mary and of the Holy Spirit. He was conceived of the Virgin Mary because his flesh was formed from her substance and from her purest blood. That he is said to have been conceived of the Holy Spirit must not be understood as though he were made from the substance of the Holy Spirit, as a knife is made from iron, but because that conception was accomplished by the work of the Holy Spirit and not by human work.
Nor did the Holy Spirit alone work there to form that flesh, create that soul, and effect that union. Rather the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit worked together: the Trinity, one God. Yet the work is attributed especially to the Holy Spirit because the Word was made flesh solely from God’s love and grace, without any merits of ours, and love in divine matters is attributed to the Holy Spirit. Nevertheless, it was not the person of the Father or of the Holy Spirit, but the person of the Word, who assumed flesh.
“And he dwelt among us,” that is, he associated with human beings. Baruch 4 [read: Baruch 3:38] says: “Afterward he was seen upon earth and conversed with human beings,” giving us a pattern of living through teaching and example. Hence Augustine says in a sermon: “A human being, who could be seen, was not to be followed, since that human being was a sinner. God, who could not be seen, was to be followed. Therefore, so that one whom a human being could see and imitate might be presented to humanity, God was made man,” because “the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us.” Matthew 2 says: “Coming, he dwelt in Nazareth.”
Bernard says: “O good Jesus, how sweetly you associated with human beings; how many good things you bestowed upon them; how much you suffered for them: harsh words, harsher blows, and the harshest torments of the cross.”
Gregory says in the Moralia: “Proud human beings, begotten from the stock of Adam, were striving to seek the prosperous things of this world, avoid adversities, flee reproaches, and pursue glory. The incarnate Lord came among them, seeking adversities, spurning prosperity, embracing reproaches, and fleeing glory.” From the beginning of his nativity he showed the life of the virtues that must be maintained, namely humility, charity, and austerity, because a little child was born for us in great poverty and charity. Jeremiah 31 says: “I have loved you with an everlasting charity.” Dionysius says: “In these days God suffered ecstasy,” that is, an excess of love, when “the Word was made flesh,” and so forth.
Some who understood these words badly drew from them an occasion for error, and in diverse ways. Eutyches and his followers said that the Word was made flesh as though something of the Word had been converted into flesh, just as flour becomes bread and air becomes fire. Hence he posited one nature of God and man. This is heretical, as stated in Distinction 15, chapter 1, and impossible. For it was said above that “the Word was God,” and God is immutable. Malachi 3 says: “I am God and do not change.” Therefore it cannot be that he is converted into another nature. “The Word was made flesh” is consequently understood to mean that he assumed flesh, not that he was converted into flesh.
Other heretics said that the Word was not converted into flesh, but that he assumed flesh without a soul, and that for this reason John said, “The Word was made flesh.” For if he had assumed a soul, they said, John would have said that he was made flesh with a soul.
[Running head: Chapter Eight. Folio 167.]
This was the error of Arius, who said that Christ did not have a soul, but that the Word of God was in place of a soul in that flesh. The falsity of this error is evident from the Gospel, for in Matthew 26 Christ himself says: “My soul is sorrowful.” Passions of this kind cannot be in the Word or in bare flesh. Moreover, God cannot be the form of a body. Furthermore, flesh does not have the species of flesh except through a soul; when the soul departs, the flesh of a human being or an ox is called flesh only equivocally.
Other heretics, such as Apollinaris, said that the Word did indeed assume flesh and also a soul, but a sensitive soul and not an intellective one. They said that the Word was in place of the intellective soul. This, however, is shown to be false from Sacred Scripture, for certain things are said of Christ that can be found neither in the divinity, nor in the flesh, nor in the sensitive soul alone—for example wonder. In Matthew 8 Jesus is said to have marveled at the centurion’s faith.
Moreover, according to Damascene, what was assumed was healed or repaired. Therefore, if he had not assumed the intellective soul, he would not have healed it. Thus “the Word was made flesh” must be understood to mean that the Word assumed flesh animated by an intellective soul.
Hence Pope Leo says in a sermon: “The Word of God, God the Son of God, was made man in order to redeem the human being from eternal death. He preserves each nature in so great a covenant that the glorification neither consumes the lower nor the assumption diminishes the higher. Therefore, the property of each nature being preserved and both coming together in one person, humility is received by majesty, weakness by power, and mortality by eternity.”
This authority also disproves the heretical opinion of Nestorius, who said that there are two persons and two sons in Christ, as noted in Distinction 15, chapter 1: one the Son of God and the other the son of the Virgin. According to them it could not be said that God was made man, although this is the true explanation of “the Word was made flesh.” It is impossible for one of two individuals that are diverse according to supposit to be predicated of the other. Thus, if the supposit or person of the Word were one thing and the person or supposit of the man another, the statement “the Word was made flesh” would not be true.
The Evangelist therefore pointedly says “was made” and did not say “assumed,” so as to show that the union of the Word with flesh is not like the assumption of the prophets. The prophets were not assumed into union of supposit but only for the prophetic act. This union, however, is such that it made man God and God man—that is, such that God is man.
There were also others who did not understand the manner of the Incarnation. They held that the aforesaid assumption terminated in unity of person and confessed one person of God and man in Christ, but nevertheless said that in Christ there were two hypostases or supposits: one created supposit of the human nature and another uncreated supposit of the divine nature. This opinion is set forth in Book Three of the Sentences, Distinction 6. But it is heretical, because in this way the statement that God was made man could not be preserved. Hence the council says: “If anyone has directed [read: shall assert] one person and two hypostases in the Lord Jesus, let him be anathema.” Therefore, to exclude every assumption that does not terminate in unity of person, the Evangelist uses the expression “was made.”
Why does the Evangelist make no mention of the soul but only of the flesh, saying, “was made flesh”? Thomas in the place cited above assigns four reasons.
The first is to establish the truth of the Incarnation against the Manichees, who said that Christ did not assume true flesh but only apparent flesh. They said that it was unfitting for the Word of the good God to assume flesh, which they claimed had been made by the devil. To exclude this, John expressly named flesh, saying, “was made flesh.”
The second reason is to demonstrate God’s kindness toward us. It is clear that the rational soul is more conformed to God than flesh is. It would indeed have been a great mystery of loving kindness if God had assumed a human soul, since it is more conformed to him. But for him also to assume flesh, so far removed from the simplicity of the divine nature, was a much greater—indeed, an inestimable—sign of loving kindness. First Timothy 3 says: “Great is the mystery of loving kindness which was manifested in the flesh.” The Evangelist therefore made mention of flesh.
The third reason is to demonstrate the truth and singularity of the union in Christ. God is united to holy human beings in another way, namely as regards the soul. Wisdom 7 says: “He transfers himself into holy souls and makes friends of God.” But to be united to flesh is singular in Christ, according to the Psalm: “I am singularly alone,” and Job 28: “Gold shall not be compared with it,” and so forth. Wishing to show this singular union, John therefore said, “was made flesh.”
The fourth reason is to indicate the fittingness of human restoration. The human being had been weakened through the flesh. Therefore, when announcing Christ’s coming, the Evangelist fittingly employed a word suited to our restoration: by mentioning flesh he showed that weakened flesh was repaired through the flesh of the Word. The Apostle touches upon this reason in Romans 8, saying: “For what was impossible to the law, in that it was weakened through the flesh,” and so forth.
If it is asked how the Word is man, according to Thomas in the place cited above it must be said that he is man in the way Socrates is man, as possessing human nature—not because the Word is human nature itself. Nor does his being made man posit a change in Christ on the part of the Word, but on the part of the flesh newly assumed into unity of person.
The Word is called flesh because of the union, and a union is a kind of relation. Relations newly predicated of God with respect to creatures do not imply change on God’s part, but on the creature’s part, since it stands in a new way toward God.
The words that follow, “he dwelt among us,” mean that, while remaining in his own nature distinct from ours, he dwelt in our nature. According to Chrysostom and Hilary, the Evangelist said this to exclude the error of those who might believe, from the statement “the Word was made flesh,” that one composite nature was made from Word and flesh. He therefore adds, “he dwelt among us.” That which is converted into another thing does not remain distinct, and what is not distinguished from something does not inhabit it. But the Word inhabited our nature; therefore, as regards his own nature, he is distinct from it.
“He dwelt among us” should be understood to mean that the nature of the Word inhabited our nature, not our hypostasis or person, since in Christ the hypostasis or person is the same for each nature.
Or, “he dwelt among us” means that he associated among us as one of us. Thus we saw and heard many things said and done by him for our instruction and direction.
This can be connected with the preceding in three ways.
[Running head: Fifth Title.]
In the first way, according to Augustine, this is referred to the benefit of grace. Human eyes failed in the knowledge of the divine light, not only naturally but also because of sin, according to the saying: “Fire”—namely the fire of concupiscence—“fell upon them, and they did not see the sun,” namely the sun of justice.
Therefore, so that the divine light itself might be seen by us, God made an eye-salve from his flesh and healed our eyes, so that the Word might heal with his own flesh the eyes of our flesh, corrupted by concupiscence. Thus, immediately after saying, “The Word was made flesh,” the Evangelist adds, “And we saw.” This was signified in John 9, when Jesus made clay from dust and spittle, smeared the eyes of the man born blind, and, when the man washed them, he saw clearly.
Spittle descending from the head is the Word proceeding from the Father. It was united with the dust of our mortality when the Word was made flesh. When this mystery of the Incarnation is received through faith, with the water of baptism added either actually or in intention, each person is illuminated in the eyes of the mind through grace.
The incarnate Word himself was full of this grace: insofar as he is the Word, conferring grace itself; insofar as he is flesh—that is, man—receiving from the beginning of his conception, without measure, all grace both freely given and making one pleasing, so that he could not increase in it; and insofar as he is the head of the Church, pouring it forth by example into all others. John 1 says: “Of his fullness we have received grace.” This grace is applied to us through baptism and the other sacraments instituted by him, as containing his grace and having their power from the incarnate Word himself.
Hence, to represent him, the sacraments themselves consist of words as form and a visible thing as matter. The Psalm says: “He sent his word and healed them,” and so forth, namely through the sacraments, as is said at the beginning of Book Four of the Sentences. The incarnate Word was also full of truth, that is, of all wisdom, which he communicated through his teaching.
In a second way, “we saw,” and so forth, can be connected so as to constitute a kind of argument for what the Evangelist had said: “The Word was made flesh.” It is as though he said: I have and know from this that the Word of God was incarnate, because I and the other apostles saw his glory, that is, his splendor. For glory implies a certain manifestation of someone’s excellence.
Moses, desiring this glory, said to the Lord in Exodus 33: “Lord, show me your glory.” But he did not merit to see it, because he was told, “You shall see my back,” that is, its shadows and figures, not the thing itself. The apostles, however, saw it clearly, namely the incarnate Word. Hence in Second Corinthians 3 the Apostle says: “But we, beholding the glory of the Lord with unveiled face,” that is, without figures. Thus Christ also said to them in Luke 10: “Blessed are the eyes that see what you see, for many prophets and kings,” and so forth. For it was a kind of blessedness and fruition to see and know the incarnate Word by faith.
“Glory as of the only-begotten of the Father.” According to Gregory, “as” here is not an expression of likeness but of truth: that is, the glory of him who is the Father’s only-begotten.
The singularity of this glory seen by the apostles is considered from four things.
First, it is considered from the Father’s testimony which he bore to the Son at the Transfiguration, at which John the Evangelist himself was present. Concerning this glory Second Peter 1 says: “Jesus received honor and glory from God the Father, when a voice descended from heaven,” namely, “This is my Son,” and so forth.
Second, it is considered with respect to the ministry of angels. Before the Incarnation, human beings were subject to the angels, and therefore the angels permitted themselves to be adored, though only with the veneration of dulia. Afterward, however, they were subject to Christ and ministered to him. Matthew 4 says: “The angels came and ministered to him.” Nor did the angel who showed John the mysteries of the Apocalypse permit John to adore him, as the penultimate chapter of the Apocalypse [read: Revelation 22:8–9, the final chapter] says.
Third, it is considered with respect to nature’s obedience. The whole of nature, obeying Christ, complied at his command, since it was established by him insofar as he is the Word. This was conceded neither to a human being nor to an angelic nature. Hence in Matthew 8 the apostles said: “What manner of man is this, for the winds and sea obey him?”
Fourth, it is considered with respect to his manner of teaching and working. Moses and the other prophets did not give precepts by their own authority, but by God’s authority, saying, “Thus says the Lord.” Christ, however, spoke as Lord and as one possessing power, by his own authority. Hence in Matthew 5 he said, “But I say to you.” Likewise, other saints worked miracles not by their own power but by God’s, whereas Christ worked by his own power.
Thus they saw the glory of the Word, not because they saw the divine essence which was in Christ, but because from the aforesaid things they understood that the one whom they saw so glorious was God incarnate.
In a third way, according to Chrysostom, “we saw,” and so forth, is connected with the preceding as an expression of a multiplied benefit. It is as though the Evangelist said: We not only received divine filiation through this Incarnation, as was said, but also saw his glory. Therefore he adds, “We saw,” and so forth.
This last exposition pertains to the fourth and final matter noted concerning Christ’s temporal nativity. Hence the angels themselves sang in Luke 2: “Glory to God in the highest,” namely, he will be manifested who until now was hidden from them, “and on earth peace of reconciliation to human beings of good will.” Isaiah says: “The glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see the salvation of God,” that is, will be able to see God the Savior. Hence that hymn is sung on feast days to represent heavenly glory.
Gregory says in a homily: “What does it mean that the world is enrolled when the Lord is born, except that he appeared in the flesh so that he might enroll his own in eternity,” namely by giving them heavenly glory?
Weak and infirm eyes cannot look upon the light of the sun in itself, but can see it in some opaque body when it shines upon that body. Before the Incarnation, therefore, the eyes of human minds were incapable of beholding the light that enlightens every human being. Consequently, so that we might not be deprived of the joy of seeing it, that light, the Word, willed to be clothed in flesh so that it might be seen by us, according to the figure in Exodus 16: “They saw the glory of the Lord in the cloud,” that is, the Word of God in the flesh. Finally, in our heavenly homeland, we shall see the glory of God openly.
But against this it is said below: “No one has ever seen God,” and Exodus 33 says: “A human being shall not see me and live.” Concerning this, note that God can be seen in three ways, corresponding to three kinds of vision. The first is the natural vision of philosophers; the second, the supernatural vision of wayfarers; and the third, the final vision of those who comprehend.
The glory of God—that is, his majesty and the fact that he is glorious—is seen naturally insofar as it is seen through an intelligible species abstracted from the senses. From this species, through consideration of the greatness of creatures, human beings behold as in a picture the greatness of the Creator, according to Wisdom 13: “From the greatness and beauty of the creature,” and so forth, and according to the saying, “The invisible things of God from the creation of the world,” and so forth.
We see the glory of God—that is, that he is God and glorious above all things—through the causation of effects, the motion of things, and their comparison.
As regards causation, every effect has its cause. Hence Job says: “Nothing is done without a cause.” But we see many effects, one of which is the cause of another. Since there can be no progress to infinity, one must arrive at a first cause which is the cause producing all things and is not itself caused by another; this is the glorious God.
As regards motion, everything that is moved is moved by another. The lower bodies are moved corporally by the motion of heaven; heaven is moved by an angel; and the angel is moved virtually by God.
[Running head: Chapter Eight. Folio 168.]
Therefore, after a long course through movers, one must arrive at a first mover who is not moved by another; and this is the glorious God, “remaining steadfast and giving motion to all things,” as Boethius says.
As regards comparison, “good” and “better” are spoken only with reference to what is best. Diverse grades of goodness are found in things, by which one is better than another. A plant is more perfect than a stone, and a brute animal is more perfect than a plant because it lives and senses. Among animals, one species is better than another, as a horse is better than an ass, and so with others. But the human being, who understands, is nobler than all brute animals. Among human beings, one is better, wiser, and more beautiful than another. An angel is more perfect in nature than a human being, because angels are pure spirits. Among angels, one is more perfect in nature and grace than another.
Proceeding in this way, one must arrive at one supreme and best good, by reason of which one thing is called better than another insofar as it participates more in the goodness of that which is best. This is the glorious God. Hence the Philosopher says: “There is therefore one prince who is eternal and of infinite nobility.”
The second vision is more perfect because it is a supernatural knowledge conferred by God. Of it the Apostle says in First Corinthians 13: “Now we see,” namely God and divine things, “through a mirror,” that is, through creatures, “and in an enigma,” that is, under a figure. Although this vision is not clearer than our knowledge, it is nevertheless more certain, above opinion and doubt, and below knowledge through demonstration. It is threefold: through the common knowledge of faith, through the various knowledge of prophecy, and through the excellence of rapture.
Of the first vision the Psalm says: “All the ends of the earth have seen the salvation of our God,” that is, our Savior God, because from every nation as far as the end of the world some have believed through the preaching of the apostles. Concerning them the Psalm says: “The heavens declare the glory of God,” and “their sound has gone forth into all the earth,” and so forth.
If faith is formed through charity, it is seen perfectly, because it is also known through taste, according to the Psalm: “Taste and see that the Lord is sweet.” Those who, while believing in Christ, also saw him incarnate saw still more deeply. Hence Simeon said: “My eyes have seen your salvation, a light for revelation,” and so forth, “and the glory of your people.” Faith was not excluded from the apostles, or even from the Virgin Mary, by the fact that they saw the incarnate Word, for they saw the flesh and not the Word. Therefore Christ said to Thomas in the penultimate chapter of John: “Because you have seen me”—namely the flesh—“you have believed” the divinity.
Of the second vision, namely the prophetic, the Lord says in Hosea 12: “I multiplied visions, and in the hands of the prophets I was represented.” Hence prophets were anciently called seers, because they saw what the peoples did not see, namely the mysteries of God.
There are three kinds of prophetic vision: one corporeal, another imaginary, and the third intellectual.
Corporeal vision occurs when God is presented to bodily sight through an underlying creature. Thus Abraham saw the day of Christ: “He saw it and rejoiced,” John 8 says. This occurred when he saw three approaching him and adored one, Genesis 18, because in those whom he first considered human beings he afterward believed to be angels. In them he recognized the mystery of the Trinity in one essence, or of three substances in Christ—that is, Word, soul, and flesh—in one person. Moses likewise saw the bush burn and not be consumed, understanding this to signify God, the fire, united to the thornbush of our mortality.
Imaginary vision occurs when God reveals himself through an underlying creature represented to the imagination although not perceived by an external sense. Thus Isaiah saw the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and elevated, “and the whole earth was full of his majesty,” and so forth, Isaiah 6. Isaiah said this when he saw the glory of God, namely imaginatively. Jacob likewise saw in dreams the Lord leaning upon a ladder touching heaven, and so forth, Genesis 27 [read: Genesis 28:12–13].
Intellectual vision occurs when God or something divine is revealed through some light or intelligible species infused by God into the minds of the saints and not abstracted from phantasms. Such is the prophecy in David’s Psalms, which is full of mysteries of the Incarnation.
If we speak of vision through rapture, Augustine says concerning Paul’s rapture: “He saw Jesus when he did not see the other things.” It is commonly held that at that time he saw God through his essence, but only for an hour and not perpetually; therefore he was not blessed without qualification. The same is said of Moses. Whether Paul was then in the body or outside the body, he says that he does not know. Nevertheless, his soul could have been in the body and seen God with the intellect as the blessed do, provided that he was wholly alienated from the senses.
We place such vision through rapture among the visions of God granted to wayfarers because, although it is through the essence, it does not remain, and because it occurs to a living person while he is a wayfarer, although at that time alienated from sense and imagination. Nicholas of Lyra explains Paul’s words, “I heard the secrets of God,” as meaning, “I saw the secrets,” and so forth.
What Stephen saw when, looking into heaven, he beheld the glory of God, as stated in Acts 6 [read: Acts 7:55], pertains more to imaginary or sensible vision than to beatific vision.
By none of the aforesaid visions is the divine essence attained, except in the rapture of Paul and Moses, which nevertheless did not remain. No created species—whether one informing the external sense, one informing the imagination, or one informing the intellect—is representative of the divine essence as it is. A human being knows through essence that which the species possessed in the intellect or sense represents as it is. But the divine essence as it is cannot be represented through any created species. This is evident because no finite thing can represent the infinite as it is. Every created species is finite; but what God is is infinite, and therefore he cannot be represented through a created species.
Hence Job 36 says: “All human beings see him,” namely God, in some one of the ways stated, “but each one beholds him from afar,” because through every cognition other than cognition through the essence, what God is is not known, but rather what he is not. Thus, as Dionysius says in the book Mystical Theology, the highest point that a human being can attain in the knowledge of God through created species is by removal: by removing from God those things that are in creatures as regards the mode in which they are in creatures. Goodness, wisdom, and other things of this kind are in creatures, but they are not in God in the same mode, for they are not accidents; rather, they are all his essence.
The third vision is face-to-face vision, of which the Apostle says in First Corinthians 13: “Then,” namely in our heavenly homeland, “we shall see face to face,” because, as Isaiah says, “They shall see the king in his beauty.”
There were some who said that the divine essence could never be seen by any created intellect, but that angels and blessed souls see only God’s splendor, not his essence. That this is erroneous is proved in three ways.
First, it is contrary to the authority of Scripture, for First John 1 [read: First John 3:2] says: “We shall see him as he is.” Second, God’s splendor is nothing other than his essence, for he is luminous not by participation in light but through himself. Third, it is impossible for anyone to attain blessedness except in the vision of the divine essence itself. No one can be perfectly blessed unless that person’s natural desire is wholly at rest.
It naturally belongs to a natural creature that, if someone sees an effect but does not know its cause, that person marvels and desires to know of the cause not only whether it exists, but also what it is. Hence, according to the Philosopher, this moved human beings to philosophize. Therefore, if a created intellect were to see all created things, it is clear that, unless it knew their cause, it would marvel and naturally desire to know it.
[Running head: Sixth Title.]
But the cause of all things is God himself. Therefore, whatever a created intellect might understand concerning creatures, its natural desire would not rest unless it saw and knew the divine essence itself. Thus to take away the vision of the divine essence from human beings is to take blessedness away from them. It is therefore necessary for the blessedness of a created intellect that the divine essence be seen. Hence the Lord says in Matthew 5: “Blessed are the clean of heart, for they shall see God.”
This clear vision is the entire reward, according to Augustine. In John 17 the Lord Jesus says: “This is eternal life: that they may know you, the only God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.” This vision is of such beauty and so worthy of love that Plotinus the Philosopher, as Augustine reports in The City of God, judged the aforesaid soul most unhappy without it, with whatever and however great goods it might possess.
Therefore the saints and angels see the divine essence not through any created intelligible species but through the light of glory radiated into their intellect, according to the Psalm: “With you is the fountain of life, and in your light we shall see light”—that is, in the light of glory we shall see the light of the divine essence. Augustine says: “The Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are one light.”
This light of glory is something created, not indeed as the object of vision, but as strengthening and elevating the intellect so that it may see the divine essence itself. Although that essence, which is infinite in itself, is seen wholly, it is nevertheless not seen infinitely by a creature whose power is finite—that is, it is not seen so as to be comprehended wholly, but as though finitely. God alone sees himself infinitely, because he comprehends himself.
No saint or other creature sees God in such a way as to comprehend him. Thus, according to the letter, it is true that “no one has seen God,” namely by comprehending him. Since every created intellect is of finite power and God is infinite, it cannot know him wholly according to the extent to which he is knowable; God alone sees himself comprehensively. In this sense it is said: “No one knows the Son except the Father, nor the Father except the Son,” namely comprehensively. The Holy Spirit is not thereby excluded, because he is one God with them. This is also what the Apostle says: “Who dwells in inaccessible light, whom no one can see.”
Nevertheless, as was said, the saints see God through his essence. Hence their desire is satisfied without weariness, according to the Psalm: “I shall be satisfied when your glory appears.” Although one saint contemplates the divine essence more clearly than another—just as, both bodily and intellectually, one sees a thing more keenly than another because of a better disposition of body or intellect, which in this case proceeds from the greater charity possessed here—nevertheless no one can see the divine essence with a bodily eye, even a glorified one, or with material imagination. God is spirit and therefore cannot be perceived by a material eye, because of the lack of proportion between the power and the object.
Thus the saying “A human being shall not see me and live” can also be understood in this way, as can “No one has ever seen God”: namely, with bodily eye or imagination, which concerns only material things. The bodily eye of a glorified body can, however, see Christ’s glorious humanity, just as it can see the bodies of the other saints.
The soul of Christ possessed from the beginning of his conception, and continuously possesses, the vision of the divine essence, far more eminently than all the angels and saints. Hence the Wise Man says: “The eyes of the Lord are brighter than the sun,” and nothing under the sun is new, namely to Jesus Christ. For he possessed and possesses the vision or knowledge of all things that ever were, are, and will be in actuality. Hebrews 4 says: “All things are naked and open to his eyes.”
God nevertheless sees many things which he is able to do although he will never do them, and the soul of Christ does not see such things. Hence the soul of Christ itself does not wholly comprehend the divine essence. The Psalm notes this in the person of Christ, saying: “Your knowledge, O God, has been made wonderful from me; it has been strengthened, and I shall not be able to attain it” by comprehending it.
Therefore the soul of Christ, from the beginning of its creation, sees in the Word all things which were, are, or will be in actuality. This is called the knowledge of vision, which belongs to God alone. But it does not see all things that God is able to do but will not do; this is called the knowledge of simple intelligence.
No one, however, attains that vision of God and lives as a human being, that is, sensually. Therefore “we saw his glory” insofar as, through the incarnate Word, provision was made for us to see the glory of the divine essence if we will.