Bonaventure

In his own words on John

• John 1:1

  It is manifest that a beginning should be made from the One from whom the two greatest Wise Men began: Moses, the originator of wisdom, and John, its consummator. The former said: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth," and, in Augustine's opinion, this means the Son. And John said: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God; and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him." If, therefore, it is impossible to understand a creature except through that by which it was made, it is necessary that the true Word go before thee.

  Collations on the Hexaemeron, Collation 1

• John 1:1

  The place of writing he says was in Asia; the time indeed was, because it was last, after the Apocalypse: and thus the Gospel of John was the last written among the books of Sacred Scripture. And it was fitting that, just as in the first book written, which is the beginning of the canon, an incorruptible beginning is prefixed, so also in the last book written: "In the beginning was the Word," just as there: "In the beginning He created," and this, with the Lord saying in the Apocalypse: "I am the Alpha and the Omega."

  Commentary on John, Prooemium

• John 1:1

  In the mystery of the redemption of man, Christ is pointed to as a meek man in Matthew; as a triumphant lion in Mark; as a sacrificed calf in Luke; as a flying eagle indicating His divinity, in John: "In the beginning was the Word," etc.

  Collations on the Hexaemeron, Collation 14

• John 1:1

  Now the intellect is said to truly comprehend the meaning of propositions when it knows with certitude that they are true; and this knowing is knowing that it cannot be deceived in that comprehension. For it knows that that truth cannot be otherwise; it knows therefore that that truth is unchangeable. But since our mind itself is changeable, it cannot see that truth shining so unchangeably except through some light radiating altogether unchangeably, which it is impossible to be a changeable creature. It knows therefore in that light which illumines every man coming into this world, which is the true light and the Word in the beginning with God.

  Itinerarium Mentis in Deum, Chapter 3

• John 1:1

  This book, which concerns the incarnate Word, in whom a twofold nature is considered, namely divine and human, is first divided into two parts. In the first he treats of the Word in himself; in the second, insofar as he is united to flesh, and that part begins there: "There was a man sent from God." And because "word" denotes operative power, as Augustine says, and has relation both to the one speaking and to that which is said through the word: therefore the first part has two sections. In the first, the Word is treated in comparison to the one speaking; in the second, in comparison to those things which are spoken through the Word: "All things were made through him." In the first part four clauses are set forth, in which the incarnate Word is described with respect to four conditions, which are: unity in essence, otherness in person, equality in majesty, coeternity in duration. And through these conditions four errors are refuted. The first condition, therefore, is unity in essence, and it is noted in the first clause, when it is said: "In the beginning was the Word": as Augustine says: "There is a principle not from a principle, and this is the Father; and there is a principle from a principle, and this is the Son." Here "principle" is taken by antonomasia for the Father: whence the sense is: "In the beginning," that is, in the Father, is the Son, not separated from the Father in essence, below in the fourteenth chapter: "I am in the Father, and the Father is in me," as undivided: because as is said below in the tenth chapter: "I and the Father are one." And in this the unbelief of the pagans is refuted, who are indignant with us because we say three persons and not three gods: as Augustine says in On the Christian Combat; and this, because they do not understand how the Word was in the beginning. The second condition is otherness in person, and this is touched upon in the second clause, when it is said: "The Word was with God": because, as the Grammarian says, and also Victor, prepositions are transitive; therefore this preposition "with" implies distinction insofar as it is a preposition, but by reason of its special signification it denotes authority in the Father and subauthority in the Son, because the lesser is said to be with the greater and not conversely, according to the common manner of speaking. But there, although there is no lesser and greater, nevertheless there is authority in the Father and subauthority in the Son. By the name "word," however, is understood the emanation of generation. And these three are touched upon in Ecclesiasticus twenty-four: "I came forth from the mouth of the Most High, the firstborn before every creature": "of the Most High," behold authority; from "the mouth," behold generation; "I came forth," behold distinction. And in this the heresy of the Sabellians is refuted, who hold that the Father and the Son are one and the same: because they did not understand how the Word was with God. The third condition is equality in majesty, and this is touched upon in the third clause, where it says: "And the Word was God." For if, as Anselm says, "God is that than which nothing greater can be thought"; if the Word was God, then he was that than which nothing greater could be thought, and thus he was equal to the Father in majesty; below in the fourteenth chapter he said to the disciples: "You believe in God, believe also in me." If one must believe in God alone as in the highest truth, and one must believe in the Word, it follows that the Word was God. And in this the heresy of the Arians is refuted, who held the Son to be a creature and lesser than the Father, as Augustine says. For they did not understand how the Word was God. Since "Son" conveys the most distinctive property, why does he describe the Son of God under the name "Word" rather than under the name "Son"? For it seems that he ought to have done the contrary. It must be said that "son" expresses a relation only to the father, but "word" expresses a relation to the one speaking, expresses a relation to that which is said through the word, expresses a relation to the voice which it assumes, and also expresses a relation to the teaching which is effected in another through the word. And since the Son of God ought to be described here not only in relation to the Father, from whom he proceeds, but also in relation to the creatures which he made, and to the flesh which he assumed, and to the teachings which he provided, he ought most nobly and most fittingly to be described under the name Word, because that name regards all these things, nor could a more fitting name be found in the world. Likewise it is asked about the fact that he is described by the verb "was." For if "was" is of the imperfect past tense, it is entirely repugnant to eternity, because there is no passing away there. If you say, as Augustine says in the Gloss, that the verb "is" sometimes implies time according to the analogy of other verbs, but here it does not denote time, but designates essence without any temporal motion: this does not solve the difficulty, because when it is said: "the Son is begotten" or "has been begotten," time is not implied there; yet it is better said "always begotten" than "always being begotten." Likewise the Lord says thus: "Before Abraham was made, I am," below in the eighth chapter; He does not say "I was" or "I used to be": therefore even now He ought to speak through the present tense. It must be said that because the being of the Word is described here as permanent, it is described as immutable, as preceding all other things, because this word "was," according as such, imports these three things: therefore he most elegantly said "was." For since it is a mean between the present and the past, and "a mean partakes of the nature of the extremes," from the present it has permanence, from the past immutability, from itself precedence and order, namely of eternity in relation to time. Therefore "was" is rightly said. But the heretic objects: if the Word proceeds from the speaker as a son from a father, and the son is posterior to the father, therefore the Word was not in the beginning with God. If it is compared as splendor to light, another heretic objects: if light is much more luminous and nobler than the splendor which proceeds from it, therefore also the Father is greater than the Word. It must be said that the taking of a likeness, namely in creatures, is nowhere fully found with respect to God, because every creature is more dissimilar than similar; and therefore the heretics erred who wished to assimilate entirely, but the likeness must be taken from many sources. For the Word is compared to the speaker as a son to a father on account of likeness in nature and equal perfection; it is compared as splendor to light on account of coeternity. And therefore in all such arguments there is a fallacy of the consequent.

  Commentary on John, Chapter 1

• John 1:2

  It is manifest that a beginning should be made from the One from whom the two greatest Wise Men began: Moses, the originator of wisdom, and John, its consummator. The former said: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth," and, in Augustine's opinion, this means the Son. And John said: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God; and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him." If, therefore, it is impossible to understand a creature except through that by which it was made, it is necessary that the true Word go before thee.

  Collations on the Hexaemeron, Collation 1

• John 1:2

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

  Commentary on John, Chapter 1

• John 1:3

  "All things were made through Him." Here the Word is described by comparison to that which is spoken through the Word, and this with respect to four conditions: for it describes Him as a sufficient principle of creation, as unfailing, as foreknowing, as providing knowledge to others. And through these four conditions many heresies are refuted. First, therefore, He is called a sufficient principle, because He suffices for producing all things. Therefore he says: "All things were made through Him," namely by God the Father through the Word, because Sirach 18: "He who lives forever created all things together"; and this through the Word, whence in the Psalm: "He spoke, and they were made." Augustine in the book of the Confessions: "By the Word coeternal with You, You speak whatever You speak, and whatever You say is made, nor do You make otherwise than by speaking." "And without him was made nothing." Here the second condition is noted, namely that he is an unfailing principle, because he is absent from no operation. For the Father does nothing without the Word: below in chapter five: "All things that the Father does, these the Son likewise does." Similarly, a creature does nothing without the cooperating Word: below in chapter fifteen: "Without me you can do nothing." And by this the heresy of the Manichaeans is perfectly refuted, who posited two principles, and that some things were produced by the God of light, and some by the God of darkness. For they did not understand how all things were made through the Word. It is asked concerning what he says: "Without him was made nothing." Against this it is objected that he who steals has done something; therefore theft is something; therefore it is from God; therefore sins and evils are from God and are not made without God. If you say that sin is nothing, whence the sense is: "Without him was made nothing," that is, sin, so that the matter rests there; against this it is further objected: because sin corrupts, and what corrupts acts, and what acts is a being, and what is a being is something; therefore etc. It must be said that sin sometimes names an action deprived of some due circumstance; sometimes it names a debt with the privation of the good to which it is ordered; sometimes it names the privation of good itself. In the first way it is something; in the second way it is something in a qualified sense; in the third way it is altogether nothing. Therefore insofar as it involves a good substrate, by reason of that it is from God, but by reason of its deformity, it is not. As to the objection that sin acts: this is through the nature of the underlying good, as Dionysius says.

  Commentary on John, Chapter 1

• John 1:3

  The subject of Scripture with respect to substance is God; with respect to power, Christ; with respect to operation, the work of restoration. Now God is triune and one: one in essence and triune in persons. Therefore Scripture, which is about Him, has in the unity of the letter a triformity of understanding. Christ also, since He is one Word, all things are said to have been made through Him and shine forth in Him, so that His wisdom is manifold and one.

  Breviloquium, Prologue

• John 1:3

  Who hath measured the waters in the hollow of his hand and weighed the heavens with his palm? Who hath poised with three fingers the bulk of the earth? This the Word did, through whom all things were made. His hand, by which all things are created, that is, formed or made distinct and adorned, with three fingers lifts and suspends the earth, that is, the ecclesiastic hierarchy which He creates, distinguishes and adorns. This hand measures the waters, this hand holds all things as an object is held in the fist. This is the hand of the eternal Word.

  Collations on the Hexaemeron, Collation 9

• John 1:3

  It is manifest that a beginning should be made from the One from whom the two greatest Wise Men began: Moses, the originator of wisdom, and John, its consummator. And John said: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God; and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him." If, therefore, it is impossible to understand a creature except through that by which it was made, it is necessary that the true Word go before thee.

  Collations on the Hexaemeron, Collation 1

• John 1:4

  "What was made, in him was life." Here the third condition is noted, namely that he is a foreknowing principle, because all things are in him before they are made, and in him they live, just as a chest in the mind of the craftsman. Whence Augustine says that the Son is "the art full of all living reasons"; Ecclesiasticus chapter twenty-three: "To the Lord God, before they were created, all things are known: so also after their completion he beholds all things." Therefore the reasons flourish in him, because they are not changed: James chapter one: "With him there is no change nor shadow of alteration"; and every change is a kind of death. "And the life was the light of men." Here the fourth condition is touched upon, which is that he provides knowledge to others; therefore he is called the light of men, because he illuminates men and makes them see: whence in the Psalm: "The light of your countenance is signed upon us, O Lord." Without which light there is no seeing, as Augustine says, because just as the eye does not see unless it is illuminated by corporeal light, so the intellect does not see unless it is illuminated by the most spiritual light. And although he provides knowledge to all, he does not however provide knowledge of himself to all, because sinners know through him and yet do not comprehend him. It is asked: "What was made, in him was life." Against this: All things were made in him; therefore all things are life; in the Psalm: "You have made all things in wisdom"; therefore a stone lives. It must be said that Chrysostom explains that passage thus: "What was made," connecting it to the prior clause, so that the period falls thus: "without him was made nothing that was made," and the word "that" is taken implicatively. And then follows: "In him was life"; and the objection ceases. Hilary however reads it thus: "What was made in him" — here is the period — namely with respect to his humanity, such as the incarnation, passion, and resurrection, "was life," speaking causally, that is, the cause of our life and salvation. Ambrose reads it thus: "What was made in him who is life," that is, in him who is life — the construction is appositive — "was," namely in God's foreknowledge, before it came to be; and it is a similar manner of speaking to: "You have made all things in wisdom." Augustine explains it more elegantly than all of them: "What was made, in him was life"; because it had in him an exemplar and a living reason; which reason is called living because it is spiritual, not material; because it is unchangeable, not variable; because it is eternal, not corruptible. And this is the meaning of life; for life is a spiritual and continuous act, flowing from a being that is at rest and everlasting.

  Commentary on John, Chapter 1

• John 1:4

  By the authority of Scripture, John 1: "What was made, in Him was life": therefore all things that were made previously existed in God who knows them; therefore either through likeness or through truth; but not through truth, since nothing yet existed; therefore through likeness. For God knows things through the eternal reasons, which are the exemplary likenesses of things, most perfectly representative and expressive, and essentially identical with God himself. Now these eternal reasons are not the true essences and quiddities of things, since they are not other than the Creator; but creature and Creator necessarily have different essences: and therefore it is necessary that they be exemplar forms, and thereby representative likenesses of the things themselves; and therefore they are reasons of knowing, because knowledge, by the very fact that it is knowledge, implies an assimilation and expression between the knower and the knowable.

  Disputed Questions on the Knowledge of Christ, Question 2

• John 1:4

  Scripture speaks of Him who is the Exemplar, by whom every creature lives in the eternal forms, "What was made in Him was life." For it lives through knowing and loving; and anyone who denies this denies eternal predestination. For God knew the creature from all eternity and loves it, since He made it for glory and grace.

  Collations on the Hexaemeron, Collation 12

• John 1:4

  Because not all obey the Gospel, and that truth is above reason; therefore divine wisdom has provided an eternal testimony, which indeed is the book of life. Now this book of life, of itself and in itself, explicitly and expressly gives irrefragable testimony to the eternal Trinity to those who with unveiled face see God in the homeland, but on the way it gives testimony according to the influence of light, of which the soul is capable in the state of the way — for as it is said in John 1: The life was the light of men, because this book of life is the true light, which enlightens every man coming into this world. Now it illuminates in a twofold manner, namely through the implanted light and through the infused light, from the concurrence of which lights the habit of faith is elicited as an argument for believing that God is triune, and consequently every truth that pertains to the worship of the Christian religion.

  Disputed Questions on the Mystery of the Trinity, Question 1

• John 1:5

  "And the light shines in the darkness," when he makes sinners know true things: "and the darkness did not comprehend it": because those blinded by the darkness of unbelief do not know it: Genesis chapter one: "Darkness was upon the face of the abyss," that is, unbelief upon the face of the human heart. Whence Ephesians chapter five: "You were once darkness, but now light in the Lord"; First John chapter one: "God is light, and in him there is no darkness at all. If we say that we have fellowship with him and walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth." And by this is refuted that error which held that all things come from fortune, and that there is no providence, nor does God know our deeds. It is asked: "The darkness did not comprehend it." Against this: Corporeal light, while it shines and is present, cannot not be seen; therefore by equal reasoning the same appears to hold of spiritual light and of the intellect. Likewise, why does he speak of darkness? For no one, not even a good person, comprehends it, since it is incomprehensible. It must be said that the case is not the same for corporeal and spiritual light, for a threefold reason: first, on the part of the motive, because corporeal light manifests itself naturally, but spiritual light voluntarily; second, on the part of the eye, because the eye of the intellect is blind with respect to one thing, and yet sees with respect to another, just as we observe that one has ignorance of one thing and knowledge of another; so the eye of the unbeliever is blind with respect to God. The third reason is on the part of the comparison, because there is some proportion between our eye and corporeal light, but spiritual light exceeds it beyond all proportion, and therefore "dwells in unapproachable light." As to what is asked concerning comprehension, it must be said that there is comprehension by inclusion, by open vision, and by the adherence of faith and charity. In the first way it is comprehended by no one, in the second way by the Blessed, in the third way by the Saints, and in none of the said ways by the wicked: therefore he says: "And the darkness did not comprehend it," that is, they adhered neither by faith nor by love.

  Commentary on John, Chapter 1

• John 1:6

  "There was a man sent from God, whose name was John." He treated above of the Word according to the excellence of the Divinity; in this part he treats according to the assumption of humanity. And because this assumption was made for our salvation, which was accomplished through the passion and consummated through the resurrection, therefore this part has three parts. In the first he treats of the incarnation; in the second of the passion; in the third of the resurrection. The arriving forerunner is therefore described by four conditions, namely by nature, by authority, by name, by office. By nature, when it says: "There was a man": the Gloss: "A man, not an Angel, as the heretics would have it." The heretics said this on account of that passage in Malachi 3: "Behold, I send my Angel before your face, who will prepare the way before you." But "Angel is there a name of office, not of nature." By authority he is described, when it adds: "Sent from God," not from man, not from himself: Romans 10: "How shall they preach unless they are sent?" Against which it is said of the false prophets in Jeremiah 23: "They were running, and I did not send them." By name he is described, when it says: "Whose name was John." This name was authoritative, because it was not imposed by man but by God; in Luke 1 it was said to Zechariah: "Elizabeth, your wife, will bear you a son, and you shall call his name John."

  Commentary on John, Chapter 1

• John 1:7

  "He came for a testimony." For his office was to testify concerning the light, not on account of a deficiency of the light, but of the believers; therefore it says: "He came for a testimony, to bear testimony concerning the light, that all might believe through him"; Acts 19: "John baptized with the baptism of penance the people, saying, in him who was to come after him, that they might believe"; "might believe," I say, "through him," not "in him." But here a question is raised: Below in chapter 5: "I do not receive testimony from man"; therefore neither ought he to have been sent by God for this purpose. Likewise, light does not need illumination: therefore neither does the highest truth need attestation: therefore he came in vain. It must be said that testimony is borne to someone and on account of someone. Sometimes, therefore, there is occasion for testimony by reason of the one to whom it is borne, because the truth is weak, and thus a man needs the testimony of another; sometimes by reason of the one on account of whom it is borne, because he is doubtful or weak in faith. John, however, did not come in testimony on account of a deficiency of light in Christ, but by reason of the unfitness in our eye. Likewise it is asked: "That all might believe through him": because, since not all believed, if God sent him for this purpose, then both are frustrated of their due end. It must be said that there is a twofold end: in itself and in another. I say therefore that to be frustrated in the end in another, so long as the end in itself is possessed, introduces no imperfection, as is clear in the case of the rhetorician who persuades well, the Angel who guards, Christ who redeems, and John who testifies, because he bore sufficient testimony, even though not all believed him; yet of the things contingent upon him, he omitted nothing.

  Commentary on John, Chapter 1

• John 1:8

  "He was not that light," in which one must believe; "but that he might bear testimony concerning the light": which indeed he did; below in chapter 5: "You sent to John, and he bore testimony to the truth." It is asked concerning what he says: "He was not the light." On the contrary: Ephesians 5: "You were once darkness, but now you are light in the Lord": therefore all the good are light. The Gloss responds that there is a light that illuminates and a light that is illuminated. John and the other Saints are not the illuminating light, but light illuminated by the first light. But against this is Matthew 5: "So let your light shine before men"; and Philippians 2: "Among whom you shine as luminaries in the world." There is a light that illuminates effectively and dispositively. The light that illuminates effectively is light by essence, and thus God alone is the illuminating light; dispositively, it is light by participation, and thus are the Saints, who illuminate by word and example.

  Commentary on John, Chapter 1

• John 1:9

  "He is the true light, which illumines every man coming into this world." No one is illumined with certitude except through him. And Augustine in the fourteenth book of On the Trinity asks whence it comes that the impious sometimes judges well; whence he asks: "Where are those laws of justice written, according to which the impious judges well?" And he responds that "they are written in the book of eternal light, and they descend into the soul not by migrating but by impressing themselves, just as the image of a ring, which is impressed upon wax, does not leave the ring." The Gloss says that the intellect by nature has the power of understanding, according to which man is distinguished from beasts; but God alone illumines perfectly. "For he alone holds the chair in heaven who teaches man on earth." He alone holds the power to illumine every man: for he illumines every man.

  Collationes de Septem Donis, Collation 8

• John 1:9

  Having determined the coming of the precursor, the coming of the King is determined, and it is determined with its properties and circumstances. He therefore describes this coming of Christ in the following order. First is noted the reason for coming; second, the rejection of the one coming; third, the usefulness or fruit of the coming itself; fourth, the manner of coming. The reason therefore for coming in the flesh is first touched upon, which was this: because God himself before the Incarnation, although he was the highest light present to all, was not known by the world; therefore he was made visible, so that he might be known. For this reason he says: "There was the true light," namely by essence; "which enlightens every man coming into this world"; below in chapter eight: "I am the light of the world; he who follows me does not walk in darkness." This light was present to the world: whence he was in the world by presence; Wisdom 7: "It reaches everywhere because of its purity." But it is asked concerning what he says: "He was the true light, which enlightens every man coming into this world"; because it was said above that some men are darkness: therefore he does not enlighten all. If you say: as far as it is in itself: then if no one can resist his will, it is necessary that all be enlightened. To this Augustine responds thus: "He enlightens every one, namely every one who is enlightened, because no one is enlightened except through him." The example of a teacher teaching boys. Bede responds that this is understood of the light of nature, not of grace; and everyone has the light of God's countenance sealed upon him. Chrysostom however explains it thus: because he is prepared to enlighten; but not all are enlightened, because they close the way of light to themselves. The example of a blind man standing in the sun. As to the objection that if he wills, he does it: it must be said that absolutely he does not will to enlighten except those who are willing; but by a conditional will he wills all to be enlightened, just as he wills all men to be saved.

  Commentary on John, Chapter 1

• John 1:9

  Now the intellect is said to truly comprehend the meaning of propositions when it knows with certitude that they are true; and this knowing is knowing that it cannot be deceived in that comprehension. For it knows that that truth cannot be otherwise; it knows therefore that that truth is unchangeable. But since our mind itself is changeable, it cannot see that truth shining so unchangeably except through some light radiating altogether unchangeably, which it is impossible to be a changeable creature. It knows therefore in that light which illumines every man coming into this world, which is the true light and the Word in the beginning with God.

  Itinerarium Mentis in Deum, Chapter 3

• John 1:9

  To that which is objected from Gregory and Dionysius, it must be said that neither denies that that true light, which *enlightens every man coming into this world,* is attained by our minds, but that in this life it is not yet fully seen.

  Disputed Questions on the Knowledge of Christ, Question 4

• John 1:9

  Because not all obey the Gospel, and that truth is above reason; therefore divine wisdom has provided an eternal testimony, which indeed is the book of life. Now this book of life, of itself and in itself, explicitly and expressly gives irrefragable testimony to the eternal Trinity to those who with unveiled face see God in the homeland, but on the way it gives testimony according to the influence of light, of which the soul is capable in the state of the way — for as it is said in John 1: The life was the light of men, because this book of life is the true light, which enlightens every man coming into this world. Now it illuminates in a twofold manner, namely through the implanted light and through the infused light, from the concurrence of which lights the habit of faith is elicited as an argument for believing that God is triune, and consequently every truth that pertains to the worship of the Christian religion.

  Disputed Questions on the Mystery of the Trinity, Question 1

• John 1:10

  "He was in the world," by effect: whence "the world was made through him," through whom he could be known; Wisdom 13: "From the greatness of the beauty and of the creature, the Creator of these could be knowably seen." And yet "the world knew him not": "the world," that is, worldly people — this is a metonymy: below in chapter seventeen: "Just Father, the world has not known you." This is the reason why he came: whence Chrysostom says: "Because being in the world, he was not thought to be present, since he was not yet known: he deigned to put on flesh." It is asked concerning what he says: "He came unto his own." For if coming belongs to him to whom being absent belongs: and God is nowhere absent: therefore he did not come. Likewise, if God can do all things everywhere, then he does not need to come for any reason: therefore if he had not come, he could have done the same. To this Bede responds: "He was in the world through his Divinity, he came into the world through the incarnation. To come or to go away indeed belongs to humanity: but to remain belongs to Divinity"; whence the meaning is: "He came," that is, he appeared visibly. As to what you ask: what was the necessity of coming? Not for his own sake, but for ours; and this the Evangelist well suggests: because the world did not know his sublimity, he appeared in humility and humanity.

  Commentary on John, Chapter 1

• John 1:11

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

  Commentary on John, Chapter 1

• John 1:12

  "But as many as received him." Here is touched upon the fruit of his coming, or its benefit, which is the attainment of divine filiation. Because this benefit does not extend except to those who received him and believed in him, therefore he says: "But as many as received him." Thus "his own" did not receive him, but "as many as received him, he gave them power to become sons of God." And this is a great benefit; 1 John 3: "Behold what manner of charity the Father has given us, that we should be called and should be sons of God"; and in this is great benefit: whence Romans 8: "If sons, also heirs, heirs indeed of God, and co-heirs with Christ." Thus therefore he gave this power of divine filiation to those who received him. But because this reception is through faith, therefore he explains: "To those who believe in his name": thus he gave to those who received him, to those who believe in his name, that is, in the reality of his name. His name is Emmanuel, that is, God with us. He therefore believes in the name who believes him to be God and man; and this one is a son of God; 1 John 5: "Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Son of God is born of God." It is asked concerning what he says: "He gave them power to become sons of God, to those who believe." Against this: Augustine, On the Predestination of the Saints: "The ability to believe belongs to nature": therefore they have this power from nature, not therefore given by Christ. Likewise, why does he speak of those who believe rather than of those who love, or of others? It must be said that there is a perfect and active power, and this is called the power of authority; and there is an imperfect and passive power, and this is called possibility. The first power exists only through grace, and he speaks of that one here; therefore he says: "He gave them power." Augustine speaks of the other. As to what he asks: why especially to faith? The response is: because faith is the first of the virtues and their foundation, therefore he attributes it to faith as to a door.

  Commentary on John, Chapter 1

• John 1:13

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

  Commentary on John, Chapter 1

• John 1:14

  "And the Word was made flesh." Here the fourth point is touched upon, namely the mode of coming, which was through the assumption of flesh, in which there was the highest union: therefore he says: "The Word was made flesh": that is, united to flesh; Philippians 2: "He humbled himself, taking the form of a servant." And because this union was unconfused, it was also undivided: therefore he says: "And dwelt among us," that is, in our nature: "he dwelt," therefore he was not changed: "he dwelt," therefore he was not separated. Concerning this dwelling, Leviticus 26: "I will set my tabernacle in the midst of you, and my soul shall not cast you off"; and in the Psalm: "In peace is his place made, and his dwelling in Sion." "And we saw his glory." We knew; "glory," namely with respect to the Divinity. Therefore he says: "Glory as of the Only-begotten from the Father"; concerning which glory, Second Peter chapter one: "He received from God the Father honor and glory, when a voice came down to him from the magnificent glory: This is my beloved Son." With respect to the humanity, however, he is said to be "full of grace and truth," that is, we saw him, full of grace and truth, truly full, because in him, as is said in Colossians chapter two, "all the fullness of the Divinity dwells bodily"; full of grace, for draining away sins; full of truth, for fulfilling promises; Sirach chapter twenty-four: "In me is all grace of life and truth." And it should be noted that what he says, "as of the Only-begotten," is not a mark of comparison or similitude, but of expression. It is asked: "The Word was made flesh." Here three words are spoken, and the question is: why did he say "Word" rather than "Light," since the Word has been described both under the notion of word and under the notion of light? If you say that "Light" is common to the three persons, while "Word" belongs to the Son alone, who alone became incarnate, then the question arises: why did he not say "Son"? And why was the Son alone incarnate, since the divine goodness is supremely communicative in each of the hypostases? The reason why the Son alone became incarnate is taken from the standpoint of nativity, of work, and of effect. By reason of nativity: because he is the son of the Virgin, and "son" ought not to be attributed to another person. By reason of work: because it is re-creation, and re-creation is through him through whom creation came. From the standpoint of effect: because he made us sons and co-heirs, through the natural Son we ought to be brought into the inheritance and into sonship. Moreover, he said "Word" rather than "Son" in order to exclude a carnal understanding and to manifest a spiritual one. For "Son" is generated carnally among creatures, but "Word" has a spiritual generation. He manifests the spiritual sense, because, as Augustine says, a word clothes itself in sound and does not pass into sound; so the eternal Word clothed himself in flesh. It is asked: "Was made flesh"; for either the meaning is: was made flesh, that is, changed into flesh; or made flesh, that is, made so as to be flesh. Neither understanding is sound. If you say that the construction is synecdochic, and "flesh" there has the same force as "man"; whence "made flesh," that is, man; then the question arises: why did he prefer humanity to be understood through "flesh" rather than through "soul," since the soul is the nobler part? And why did he use this figurative expression, when he could have used the proper one? It must be said that that union was for our instruction and our salvation: and it was instruction, because visible; and liberation, because passible; and "flesh" denotes the visible and most passible part; therefore, etc. It is asked: "Full of grace and truth": according to which nature is this said? Not according to the divine, because grace is not in him in that way, but whatever he has is by nature. Nor does it seem to be according to his humanity, because he adds: "Of his fullness we have received grace for grace": but grace is given by God alone, not by a man. It must be said that in Christ there was a most great singular grace, the greatest that could exist in a man; just as also the grace of union, than which no greater can be conceived. By reason of both he is said to have been full of grace, and by reason of this twofold grace he was the head of the Church. And because the head overflows into all the members, therefore "of his fullness we have all received." Christ is called head according to the human nature united to the divine. Thus the fullness of overflowing is to be understood.

  Commentary on John, Chapter 1

• John 1:14

  The second key is the understanding of the Incarnate Word, through whom all things are restored. Who is speaking? The Word of God, of whom John writes in his first chapter: "The Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us," where He displayed two natures within a single Person. The book of Scriptures is understood precisely through that key, the Incarnate Word, the one eminently concerned with the works of restoration. For unless you understand the order and origin of restoration, you cannot understand Scriptures.

  Collations on the Hexaemeron, Collation 3

• John 1:14

  Since the restorative principle is not only the Word insofar as it is the Word, but also insofar as it is incarnate, which, by the very fact that it is incarnate, offers itself to all for the knowledge of truth and presents itself to all who worthily approach for the grace of healing: hence it is that, as one full of grace and truth, for the greater evidence of signifying and efficacy of sanctifying, he instituted the Sacraments in elements together with words, so that, while the elements presented themselves to the eyes and the words to the ears, which are the two senses most conducive to knowledge, they would give evidence of the signification expressed; and then also the words would sanctify the elements, so that the efficacy of human healing would become more complete.

  Breviloquium, Part 6

• John 1:14

  In this manner it is possible to find in the illumination of mechanical art, whose entire intention is directed toward the production of artifacts. In which we can perceive these three things, namely the generation and incarnation of the Word, the order of living, and the covenant of God and the soul. And this, if we consider the origin, the effect, and the fruit; or thus: the art of working, the quality of the artifact produced, and the usefulness of the fruit derived. If we consider the origin, we shall see that the artificial product proceeds from the artisan by means of a likeness existing in his mind, through which the artisan conceives before he produces, and then produces as he has planned. Moreover, the artisan produces an exterior work conformed to the interior exemplar as closely as he can; and if he could produce such a product that would love and know him, he would certainly do so; and if that product were to know its maker, this would be by means of the likeness according to which it proceeded from the artisan; and if it had darkened eyes of knowledge, so that it could not raise itself above itself, it would be necessary, in order that it might be led to knowledge of its maker, that the likeness through which the product had been produced should condescend to that nature which could be grasped and known by it. By this manner understand that from the supreme Artisan no creature proceeded except through the eternal Word, "in whom He disposed all things," and through whom He produced not only creatures having the nature of a vestige, but also of an image, so that they might be assimilated to Him through knowledge and love. And since through sin the rational creature had the eye of contemplation clouded over, it was most fitting that the eternal and invisible should become visible and assume flesh, in order to lead us back to the Father. And this is what is said in John fourteen: No one comes to the Father except through me; and Matthew eleven: No one knows the Father except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him. And therefore it is said the Word was made flesh. Considering therefore the illumination of mechanical art with respect to the production of the work, we shall behold therein the Word begotten and incarnate, that is, the Divinity and the humanity and the integrity of the whole faith.

  On the Reduction of the Arts to Theology

• John 1:14

  According to this same manner one may also find in the illumination of rational philosophy, whose principal concern turns upon discourse. In which there are three things to consider according to the threefold consideration of discourse itself, namely with respect to the speaker, by reason of the utterance, and with respect to the hearer or by reason of the end. If we consider speech in relation to the speaker, we see that every speech signifies a concept of the mind, and that interior concept is the word of the mind and its offspring, which is known even to the one conceiving it. But in order that it may become known to the hearer, it puts on the form of voice, and the intelligible word by means of that garment becomes sensible and is heard outwardly and is received in the ear of the hearer's heart, and yet does not depart from the mind of the one uttering it. According to this mode we see in the eternal Word that the Father eternally conceived it by generating, according to that passage of Proverbs eight: The depths did not yet exist, and I was already conceived. But in order that it might become knowable to sense-bound man, it put on the form of flesh, and the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us, and yet remained in the bosom of the Father.

  On the Reduction of the Arts to Theology

• John 1:14

  Since the restorative principle restores through grace, and every thing is more fully and more perfectly in its font and origin than elsewhere, it is necessary that in our restorative principle, namely Christ the Lord, there was the fullness of all grace. And since the restorative principle in restoring holds the character not only of a principle, but also of a mean and of an extreme—of an extreme indeed in making satisfaction, of a mean in reconciling, and of a principle in pouring forth from above—therefore it is necessary that in Christ there was the fullness of grace by reason of the extreme that makes satisfaction, of the mean that reconciles, and of the principle that pours forth from above. It is necessary to posit in Christ a grace above every grace, to be venerated with every manner of reverence, which we call the grace of union, by reason of which Christ as man is God blessed above all things, and therefore to be venerated with the worship of latria. It is necessary that the incarnate Word be full of grace and truth, so that from his fullness all the just may receive, just as all the members receive from the head the influx of motion and sense.

  Breviloquium

• John 1:14

  Since the effective principle of things could not have been, nor was it fitting to be, anything other than God; and since it is no less a thing to restore created things than to bring them into being, just as well-being is no less than simple being: it was most fitting that the restorative principle of things be the most high God, so that, just as God had created all things through the uncreated Word, so He might heal all things through the incarnate Word. Since, therefore, God made all things powerfully, wisely, and most excellently or benevolently, it was fitting that He should restore them in such a way as to display His power, wisdom, and benevolence. For what is more powerful than to unite extremes supremely distant into one person? What is more wise and more fitting than that, for the perfection of the whole universe, there should be a union of the first and the last—namely, of the Word of God, which is the principle of all things, and of human nature, which was the last of all creatures? What is more benevolent than that the Lord should take on the form of a servant for the salvation of the servant? And because carnal, animal, and sensual man did not know, nor love, nor follow anything except what was proportionate and similar to himself, therefore, in order to rescue man from this state, the Word was made flesh, so that by man, who was flesh, it could both be known and loved and imitated, and through this, man, knowing and loving and imitating God, might be healed from the disease of sin.

  Breviloquium

• John 1:14

  This Hierarch is acceptable to God, for we need a most sacred Reconciler. And so John writes: "We saw His glory—glory as of the only-begotten of the Father—full of grace and of truth," because of the great number of graces. He enjoyed, indeed, the grace of an individual Person, the grace of the Head by which He influenced the members, and the grace of union which is infinite and flowing from a single source. For this reason He was acceptable to God, not only because in the form of God, but as God. Because He is God, He cannot be unacceptable. Hence He is called God, and the holiest examples come from Him. Hence, wherever in the Scriptures there is a reference to emanations, to the rivers of paradise, to gushing fountains, they apply to Him.

  Collations on the Hexaemeron, Collation 3

• John 1:15

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

  Commentary on John, Chapter 1

• John 1:16

  Since a principle for influencing is not efficacious unless it has in itself a fontal and original fullness, which is not only a fullness of sufficiency but also of superabundance; therefore it is necessary that the incarnate Word be full of grace and truth, so that from his fullness all the just may receive, just as all the members receive from the head the influx of motion and sense. And on this account this grace is called the grace of the Head, because, just as the head has in itself the fullness of the senses and is conformed to the other members and presides over the others and bestows upon the others the benefit of its influx, which are connected to the head itself: so Christ, having in himself a superabundance of grace and being like us in nature, holy and just above all others, bestows upon the others who approach him the benefit of grace and spirit, through which sense and motion in spiritual things come about. And since to approach him is through faith, or through the Sacrament of faith; and the faith of Christ is the same in past, present, and future: therefore the ground of influencing is posited in Christ with respect to all, past as well as present as well as future, who believe in Christ and are reborn in Christ, who through faith are joined to Christ and through inflowing grace become members of Christ and temples of the Holy Spirit, and thereby children of God the Father, connected to one another through the indivisible bond of charity. Which just as it is not divided by distance of places, so neither is it separated by length of times; and thereby all the just, wherever they may be and whenever they may have been, constitute one mystical body of Christ, receiving sense and motion from the one influencing head, according to the fontal, radical, and original fullness of all grace dwelling in Christ as in a fountain.

  Breviloquium

• John 1:16

  Through the Word incarnate there descends to us an abundance of graces: whence in John: "Of his fullness we have all received, and grace for grace." It is certain that the original principle, which is God, when he created man in his image and likeness in the state of innocence, created him so near to himself that through the Word uncreated man was formable unto grace. But after man fell through sin, divine wisdom provided a mode of condescension through the Word incarnate, through which man might be adapted unto grace.

  Collationes de Septem Donis, Collation 1

• John 1:16

  "And of his fullness we have all received grace for grace." Here the second reason for knowing that Christ was the Son of God is touched upon, namely on account of a singular effect, and this was the bestowal of grace. Therefore he says: "And of his fullness," as if to say: truly we knew him to be full; because "of his fullness we have all received grace for grace," namely the grace of recompense for the grace of justification, or conversely we have received the grace of justification for the sake of obtaining the grace of recompense, which is rightly called grace, because, as Augustine says, "God crowns nothing in us except his own gifts"; Romans 6: "The wages of sin is death: but the grace of God is life everlasting"; and Zechariah 4: "He shall bring forth the grace of grace." It is asked: "Of his fullness we have all received." Against this is the fact that many preceded Christ: therefore many existed before the fullness of Christ: therefore not all received. It must be said that all received, because Christ was the head of all the just from Abel to the last just person. To this head the members are united by the bond of faith and love. Because therefore no one was saved without faith in Christ, as blessed Augustine says, no one was saved who did not receive from the fullness of Christ. As to the objection that he came after: it must be said that by faith he was always present to all, although bodily he came after.

  Commentary on John, Chapter 1

• John 1:17

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

  Commentary on John, Chapter 1

• John 1:17

  It is true what is written in John: "The Law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came through Christ." For salvation two things are necessary, namely the knowledge of truth and the exercise of virtue. The knowledge of truth is had through the Law, but the exercise of virtue is had through grace. The Law relates to grace as the apprehensive power relates to the motive power, and as an instrument relates to operative power. Suppose that a bird had sight for seeing heaven but did not have power in its wings; it could not fly nor reach there. So, however much the Jew glories in the Law, since he is without grace, it is nothing. A craftsman, when he has an instrument by which he works, unless he has operative power in his hands, can do nothing good. O faithless Jew, you have the Law in hand, but unless you have operative power, you think in vain that you possess the Law. Therefore through the Law no one is saved unless grace is present. And thus it is clear that the grace of God is far more excellent than the Law itself.

  Collationes de Septem Donis, Collation 1

• John 1:18

  According to this same manner one may also find in the illumination of rational philosophy, whose principal concern turns upon discourse. In which there are three things to consider according to the threefold consideration of discourse itself, namely with respect to the speaker, by reason of the utterance, and with respect to the hearer or by reason of the end. If we consider speech in relation to the speaker, we see that every speech signifies a concept of the mind, and that interior concept is the word of the mind and its offspring, which is known even to the one conceiving it. But in order that it may become known to the hearer, it puts on the form of voice, and the intelligible word by means of that garment becomes sensible and is heard outwardly and is received in the ear of the hearer's heart, and yet does not depart from the mind of the one uttering it. According to this mode we see in the eternal Word that the Father eternally conceived it by generating, according to that passage of Proverbs eight: The depths did not yet exist, and I was already conceived. But in order that it might become knowable to sense-bound man, it put on the form of flesh, and the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us, and yet remained in the bosom of the Father.

  On the Reduction of the Arts to Theology

• John 1:18

  "No one has ever seen God." Here the third reason for knowing is touched upon, which is namely a singular teaching; because Christ alone was able to teach about God and did teach with certainty and openly, because he alone saw; therefore he says: "No one has ever seen God"; 1 Timothy last chapter: "He dwells in unapproachable light"; and Exodus 33: "No man shall see me and live." "Except the Only-Begotten." Some manuscripts have: "but the Only-Begotten": both readings are good. "No one has seen except the Only-Begotten" should be construed with the preceding verb: if "but" is there, it should be construed with what follows: "But the Only-Begotten, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has declared him. In the bosom of the Father," because, begotten from him, he does not depart from him; below, chapter 3: "No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of man, who is in heaven." "He has declared him," because he saw; below, chapter 3: "What we know we speak, and what we have seen we testify"; Hebrews 1: "In these last days he has spoken to us in the Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, through whom he also made the ages." It is asked: "No one has ever seen God." Against: Numbers twelve: "I speak to him mouth to mouth, and openly and not through figures and enigmas he sees the Lord"; this is said of Moses: therefore he saw the Lord. Likewise, Isaiah six: "I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne high and lifted up." The response is that there is knowing God in himself and in his effect. And to know God in his effect, this is to see through a mirror, and this in two ways: either through a bright mirror and eye, and thus the first man saw before the fall; or through a darkened mirror, and thus we see now, because on account of sin both our eyes have grown dim and all creatures have been obscured; whence we now see through a mirror in an enigma, First Corinthians thirteen. In another way God is known in himself: and this in two ways: either clearly, and in this way by the Son alone and by the Blessed; in another way in darkness, as blessed Dionysius says concerning Mystical Theology; and thus Moses saw, and those contemplating sublimely, in whose vision no image of a creature is fixed. And then truly they experience more than they know. Whence Bernard says that he sometimes experienced something within himself, of which, when he wished to see it, he immediately lost it.

  Commentary on John, Chapter 1

• John 1:19

  "And this is the testimony of John." Here he treats the manifestation of the incarnate Word in particular. And this part is divided, because he is self-manifesting and is manifested through a voice: therefore this part has two parts. In the first he treats the manifestation made through John, who was the voice running before the Word. The first part has three parts according to the three testimonies of John, which are distinguished as follows. The first concerns the truth of the two natures: the second concerns the power of baptizing; the third, holiness. Or they are also distinguished in another way: because the first was made to the Pharisees; the second, to the crowds: the third, to John's disciples. In a third way thus: because the first testimony was given with Christ absent; the second, with Christ coming to him: the third, walking before him. The first testimony is noted here: "And this is the testimony": the second there: "The next day": the third there: "Again the next day." The first part, in which he sets forth the testimony with Christ absent, has two sections, because first he responds to the questioners with the truth about himself: second, about Christ, there: "And those who had been sent were from the Pharisees." The truth, then, with which he responded to the questioners about himself, the Evangelist describes in this order: first, in the questioners he indicates authority: second, in John, steadfastness; third, in the questioners, insistence; fourth, in John, humble truth. He therefore indicates the authority of the questioners: because they were persons of authority and sent with authorization, to whom John bears testimony; therefore he says: "And this is the testimony of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem": behold the authority of the persons, because they were sent and they were honorable; below in chapter five: "You sent to John, and he bore testimony to the truth"; they sent, I say, "to ask him: Who are you?" namely in the person of all. But it is asked: since they knew John's origin and life, why do they ask: "Who are you?" It must be said that "who" sometimes asks about substance, as when it is said: who did this or that? Sometimes about the proper designation, as Priscian says: "Who, father, is that man who thus accompanies him as he goes?" Sometimes it specifically asks, among other conditions, about dignity: for worthy and eminent persons are called ecclesiastical persons. Therefore it must be said here that although they knew his origin, life, and name, nevertheless they were in doubt about his dignity.

  Commentary on John, Chapter 1

• John 1:20

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

  Commentary on John, Chapter 1

• John 1:21

  "And they asked him: What then?" that is, what are you, if you are not the Christ? "Are you Elijah? And he said: I am not." And still they press on: "Are you the Prophet?" that is, some lesser one. "And he answered: No." Therefore they ask generally about other Prophets, but about Elijah specifically, because they believed Elijah would precede Christ; Matthew 17: "Why do the Scribes say that Elijah must come first?" Concerning John's response it is asked, because he responds to the second interrogation that he is not Elijah. Against: Matthew 11: "If you wish to know, he himself is Elijah." Therefore either the Lord speaks falsely, or John does. Likewise, he responds that he is not a prophet: against: Luke 1: "You, child, shall be called a prophet of the Most High." It must be said that John was answering more according to the intention of the questioners than according to the question. It must be understood, therefore, that the Jews asking about Elijah were asking about him corporally, about that very same one who existed in the Old Testament; but John responds that he is not Elijah in the proper sense, while the Lord calls him Elijah figuratively, because what John was to the first coming, Elijah will be to the second. Similarly it must be said that they were asking about the prophet and the office of prophesying precisely, insofar as a prophet foretells future things; but John was a prophet and more than a prophet, because he pointed out the one who was present. Therefore, according to their intention, he responds that he is not a prophet.

  Commentary on John, Chapter 1

• John 1:22

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

  Commentary on John, Chapter 1

• John 1:23

  "He said: I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness." Here in the response is humble truth: humble, because he did not attribute to himself dignity but office. Therefore he says: "I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness: crying," I say, this: "Make straight the way of the Lord." Literally, John was crying in the wilderness: Matthew 3: "John came preaching in the wilderness of Judea and was crying: Make straight the way of the Lord"; because he was preaching repentance, through which the way of the sinner to the Lord is made straight, which way is crooked as long as he sins, but is made straight through the observance of the commandments: whence below, chapter 14: "If anyone loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him." Thus the way of the Lord is made straight to the heart: and this office he confirms by the testimony of Isaiah: "As Isaiah the prophet says": Isaiah 40: "The voice of one crying in the wilderness: Prepare the way of the Lord." It is asked: Why is John called a voice, and why did he say that he was a voice? It must be said that just as the Son of God is most rightly called the Word, so his precursor is most rightly called the voice. The voice has a fourfold property with respect to the word, by reason of which he is rightly so called. The voice precedes the word; so John preceded Christ; Luke 1: "He shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elijah." It manifests the word: so John manifested Christ: above in the same chapter: "He came for testimony, that he might bear witness concerning the light." It passes away and leaves the word remaining: so John with respect to Christ: below in chapter 3: "I must decrease, but he must increase." It is useless without the word: so too John's preaching without Christ: below in the same chapter: "I baptize you in water, but there has stood in your midst one whom you do not know." It is also asked: "Make straight the way of the Lord," since Jeremiah 10 says: "I know, O Lord, that the way of man is not his own, nor is it for a man to direct his steps." Therefore he exhorts to the impossible. To this it must be said that the direction of the way is through grace and charity, which is from God alone: but the preparation for direction is to be made, according to what is in us. And this is commanded here: whence Gregory: "The way of the Lord is directed to the heart, when life is prepared according to the commandment."

  Commentary on John, Chapter 1

• John 1:24

  "And those who had been sent were from the Pharisees." John has already spoken the truth about himself: but here he gives testimony concerning Christ. First is set forth the wickedness of the questioners: second, the truth of the testimony: third, the renown of the testimony. First, then, is touched upon the wickedness of the questioners: because, when they had heard the truth, they seek to calumniate the teacher of truth. And the reason for this was that they were malicious: therefore he says: "Those who had been sent were from the Pharisees," therefore malicious and scrutinizers: Chrysostom: "Those were sent who knew not how to seek the truth, but to envy it."

  Commentary on John, Chapter 1

• John 1:25

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

  Commentary on John, Chapter 1

• John 1:26

  "John answered them." Here the truth of the testimony is touched upon. For John expresses the truth of his office and from this the dignity of Christ. Therefore he says: "I baptize you in water": that is, I wash exteriorly, not as Christ does interiorly: but I prepare for Christ; whence Acts nineteen: "John baptized with the baptism of penance, saying: That they should believe in him who was to come." Therefore he adds: "But there has stood in the midst of you one whom you do not know": that is, among you; "whom you do not know," according to what the Lord says below in chapter eight: "You know neither me nor my Father." For him I prepare. It is asked: "I baptize in water." For if the baptism of John only washed the flesh outwardly, it seems that it was done in vain and uselessly. Likewise, John is more perfect than the Law, therefore the baptism of John is more perfect than the Sacraments of the Law; if therefore circumcision confers grace, much more so the baptism of John. It must be said that the baptism of John was not for a remedy, but for a preparation for the remedy; therefore it does not follow from this that it was superfluous, nor does it follow that it ought to confer grace. Now that baptism prepared for the remedy in three ways: on account of the amendment of life, whence it is said in Matthew three: "They were baptized by him, confessing their sins." On account of habituation, so that they would be disposed and would not reject the baptism of Christ; whence Gregory says: "It was fitting that he who by being born had preceded the one who was to be born, should also by baptizing precede the Lord who was to baptize." The third reason, on account of the manifestation of Christ; below in the same chapter: "That he might be made manifest in Israel, for this reason I came baptizing in water." It is also asked: "In the midst of you." Whence is it that the Lord always chooses the middle place, since he is the head? It must be said that according to the flesh he was in their midst, that is, in the middle as an ordinary man. Now Christ is said to stand in the midst, or even to choose the middle place especially, because the middle is the place of humility; Luke twenty-two: "But I am in your midst as one who serves." The locus of commonality, because it relates uniformly to all: Acts 10: "In truth I have found that God is no respecter of persons." The locus of unity, because extremes are united in the middle: Ephesians 2: "He himself is our peace, who has made both one." The locus of stability, because the center of the world is fixed: 1 Corinthians 3: "No one can lay another foundation besides that which is Christ Jesus." The locus of proximity, because it draws near to all parts: Acts 17: "If perhaps they might grope after him or find him, although he is not far from each one of us; for in him we live and move and have our being."

  Commentary on John, Chapter 1

• John 1:26

  Christ was such a Center in His incarnation. Hence, it is written in John: "In the midst of you there has stood One whom you do not know." The Scriptures call Christ sometimes the Center, sometimes the Head. He is called the Head because all the senses and spiritual motions and charismatic graces flow from Him. This He pours in as being united to the members.

  Collations on the Hexaemeron, Collation 1

• John 1:27

  "He it is who is to come after me," because I precede him as a forerunner. "Who was made before me," that is, more worthy than I: below in chapter three: "I must decrease, but he must increase." And how much more worthy he is, he shows: "The strap of whose sandal I am not worthy to unfasten." In the literal sense this is true, because no one, however good, ought to consider himself worthy even to remove Christ's sandals; whence that centurion said in Matthew eight: "Lord, I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof." Allegorically, the sandal is the humanity of Christ; the shod foot, the Divinity made human; the strap of the sandal, the union of natures. To loosen the strap of the sandal, therefore, is to explain the mystery of the union, for which John declares himself unworthy, because Isaiah fifty-three says: "His generation, who shall declare it?" As if to say: no one is worthy. It is also asked concerning that word which he himself says: "Who is to come after me." Against this: In Matthew 11 it is said that he sent two of his disciples, saying to him: "Are you he who is to come, or do we look for another?" There he doubted; how does he assert it here? To this the heretics say that John first believed but afterwards doubted. But they lie, because the Lord then commended John. For this reason it must be said that John knew with certainty that he was the Christ; nor did he then inquire through his disciples as one doubting, but so that he might remedy the doubt of his own disciples, who did not believe in him.

  Commentary on John, Chapter 1

• John 1:28

  "These things were done in Bethany." Here the renown of the testimony is touched upon, which is noted in this, that he gave this testimony in a public place, where many were gathering. Therefore he says: "These things were done in Bethany beyond the Jordan, where John was baptizing"; and thus a great crowd was gathering; below in chapter three: "And John was also baptizing in Aennon near Salim, because there was much water there."

  Commentary on John, Chapter 1

• John 1:29

  "The next day John saw Jesus coming to him." Blessed John bore testimony above concerning Christ absent; here he bears testimony concerning Christ coming to him. The bearing of testimony is described in this order: first, the occasion for testifying is touched upon; second, the testification; third, the comparison with the preceding testimony. The occasion for testifying is first touched upon: and this was because Jesus came to John to be baptized by him; therefore he says: "The next day John saw Jesus coming to him," namely to be baptized: Matthew 3: "Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to John, to be baptized by him." "And he said," namely John. Here the testification itself is touched upon, in which he bears testimony concerning the innocence of his humanity and concerning the power of his Divinity. On account of his innocence he says: "Behold the Lamb of God," that is, innocent and undefiled; Isaiah 16: "Send forth the Lamb, O Lord, the ruler of the earth, from the rock of the desert to the mount of the daughter of Zion." As for the power of the Divinity, he says: "Behold, he who takes away the sins of the world," which belongs to the divine power alone: Isaiah 43: "I am, I am he who blots out your iniquities for my own sake"; and he says "Behold," because he whom others foretold, he points out with his finger; therefore concerning him it is said in Matthew 11: "He is a prophet and more than a prophet." But there is a doubt here: Since it belongs to the lesser to go to the greater, not conversely, it seems that John ought to have gone to Christ. Likewise, since in Christ there was no stain, and baptism signifies cleansing from filth, therefore it signified something false in him. It must be said that something is done in a due or fitting manner either because of necessity, or because of supererogation. That the lesser should go to the greater, this is a debt of necessity; whence John said to the Lord: "I ought to be baptized by you." But that the greater should go to the lesser, this is a matter of perfection and supererogation. Thus the Lord came to John; whence he himself said to John: "So it becomes us to fulfill all justice," Matthew three. That he came, therefore, was an act of condescension and a commendation of humility. As to why he willed to be baptized: it must be said that just as by a significative word something is said of the head by reason of the members, so by an enacted act something is signified in the head on behalf of the members. Whence that baptism signified no interior cleansing in Christ, but only in the members. The reason, moreover, why Christ willed to be baptized was threefold: that he might give an example of humility; that he might confer regenerative power upon the waters; that through the baptism of John he might manifest himself to all.

  Commentary on John, Chapter 1

• John 1:30

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

  Commentary on John, Chapter 1

• John 1:31

  "And I knew him not." The testification having been set forth, here is placed its corroboration or certitude, which is described in this order. First is touched upon the mode of arriving at certitude; second, the certifying sign; third, the certain testimony. First, therefore, is touched upon the mode of arriving at certitude, which was through the act of baptizing; therefore he says: "I knew him not," that is, I was not certain concerning him; "but that he might be made manifest in Israel, for this reason I came baptizing in water." He said this very thing in Mark one: "I have baptized you with water, but he shall baptize you with the Holy Spirit." It is also asked concerning what he says: "I did not know him." To the contrary: John bore witness concerning Christ before he baptized Him; therefore either he knew Him beforehand, or he bore witness concerning what he did not know. The response according to Chrysostom is that he knew Him in general: for he well knew that Christ had come, and that he himself was His precursor; but nevertheless he did not recognize Him personally and individually, because he had been in the desert from infancy and had not seen Him. But this response cannot stand, because John recognized the Lord in the womb of his mother; how did he not recognize Him when he had already grown so much? Likewise, in Matthew chapter three it is said: "I ought to be baptized by you." The response is that he knew that He was the Christ, but he did not know that He had reserved to Himself the power of baptizing. It must be said that if one speaks of Christ with respect to His substance, that he did not know Him is to be understood as: he did not know Him so certainly as he knew Him after the sign. If with respect to the power of baptizing, it is to be understood that the power of baptizing is fivefold, namely of authority, cooperation, invocation, excellence, and ministry. The first He gave to no one, nor could He give it; the last He gave; the three intermediate ones He did not give; but the power of excellence and of invocation He could have given, but He was unwilling, lest the unity of the Church be broken.

  Commentary on John, Chapter 1

• John 1:32

  To appear denotes a sensible effect with express signification, as the Holy Spirit appeared in a dove. And since, just as the divine persons are distinct, so they can be distinctly signified both by signs and by names, therefore any person can appear by itself, and apparition can belong to all, whether together or to any one by itself. Whence that the Holy Spirit is said to have appeared in tongues of fire and in a dove, this is not on account of a new bond or a special effect, but on account of the union which exists between the thing signified and the sign specially and by manner and origin assigned to it.

  Breviloquium

• John 1:32

  "And John bore witness," as one who was certain, "saying: Because I saw the Spirit descending as a dove from heaven"; Luke 3: "The Holy Spirit descended in bodily form as a dove upon him." "And remaining upon him," because he rested in him; Isaiah 11: "The Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him." And this was the sign certifying him. But here it is asked concerning the descent of the Holy Spirit. For if the Holy Spirit is God, and God is everywhere, then he does not descend. If you say that he did not descend by essence but by effect: No new effect was conferred upon Christ, because he had no gift of grace then that he did not have from the conception: therefore he did not descend by effect. It must be said that God is said to be in creatures in four ways: in the first way, purely by reason of being: and thus he is in all things and equally, and neither descends nor moves nor withdraws. In the second way, by reason of signifying or showing; thus God was said to be in those creatures which signified him, as on Mount Sinai and in the cloud. In the third way, by reason of bestowing grace: thus he is said to be in those whom he loves and who love him. Fourth, by reason of uniting or assuming; thus in Christ. In the first mode of existing, therefore, because it is universal and common, neither descent nor ascent corresponds to it; but in the other modes they do. Since, therefore, that dove was instituted for this purpose and specially manifested the Spirit, He is said to have descended in it, not in another, not by reason of effect or union, but of manifestation. To the question: why did He manifest Himself through a dove rather than something else? The response is: on account of the properties of the dove, because the dove is a simple animal, gentle and fruitful. The Holy Spirit, however, is benign and fruitful and without guile: "For the Holy Spirit will flee from the feigned."

  Commentary on John, Chapter 1