26. Sciendum est autem, quod hoc Verbum differt a nostro verbo in tribus. 26. We should note that this Word differs from our own word in three ways. Prima differentia est, secundum Augustinum, quia verbum nostrum prius est formabile, quam formatum: nam cum volo concipere rationem lapidis, oportet quod ad ipsam ratiocinando perveniam; et sic est in omnibus aliis, quae a nobis intelliguntur, nisi forte in primis principiis, quae cum sint simpliciter nota, absque discursu rationis statim sciuntur. The first difference, according to Augustine, is that our word is formable before being formed, for when I wish to conceive the notion of a stone, I must arrive at it by reasoning (De Trin 15.4.25). And so it is in all other things that are understood by us, with the sole possible exception of the first principles, which, since they are known in a simple manner, are known at once without any discourse of reason. Quamdiu ergo sic ratiocinando, intellectus iactatur hac atque illac, nec dum formatio perfecta est, nisi quando ipsam rationem rei perfecte conceperit: et tunc primo habet rationem rei perfectae, et tunc primo habet rationem verbi. Et inde est quod in anima nostra est cogitatio, per quam significatur ipse discursus inquisitionis, et verbum, quod est iam formatum secundum perfectam contemplationem veritatis. Sic ergo verbum nostrum primo est in potentia quam in actu; sed Verbum Dei semper est in actu: et ideo nomen cogitationis Verbo Dei proprie non convenit. Dicit enim Augustinus, XV de Trinit., ita dicitur Verbum Dei, ut cogitatio non dicatur, ne quid quasi volubile credatur in Deo. Id autem quod Anselmus dicit, scilicet dicere summo Spiritui nihil aliud est, quam cogitando intueri, improprie dictum est. So as long as the intellect, in so reasoning, casts about this way and that, the formation is not yet complete. It is only when it has conceived the notion of the thing perfectly that for the first time it has the notion of the complete thing and a word. Thus in our mind there is both a cogitation, meaning the discourse involved in an investigation, and a word, which is formed according to a perfect contemplation of the truth. So our word is first in potency before it is in act. But the Word of God is always in act. In consequence, the term cogitation does not properly speaking apply to the Word of God. For Augustine says: the Word of God is spoken of in such a way that cogitation is not included, lest anything changeable be supposed in God (De Trin. 15.4.25). Anselm was speaking improperly when he said: for the supreme Spirit to speak is for him to look at something while cogitating (Monolog. 63). 27. Secunda vero differentia verbi nostri ad Verbum divinum est, quia verbum nostrum est imperfectum, sed Verbum divinum est perfectissimum. 27. The second difference is that our word is imperfect, but the divine Word is most perfect. Quia enim nos non possumus omnes nostras conceptiones uno verbo exprimere, ideo oportet quod plura verba imperfecta formemus, per quae divisim exprimamus omnia, quae in scientia nostra sunt. In Deo autem non est sic: cum enim intelligat, et seipsum etiam et quicquid intelligit per essentiam suam, uno actu, unicum Verbum divinum est expressivum totius quod in Deo est, non solum personarum, sed etiam creaturarum: alias esset imperfectum. Unde dicit Augustinus: si quid minus esset in Verbo, quam in dicentis scientia continetur, Verbum imperfectum esset. Sed constat quod est perfectissimum; ergo est tantum unum. Iob XXXIII, 14: semel loquitur Deus. For since we cannot express all our conceptions in one word, we must form many imperfect words through which we separately express all that is in our knowledge. But it is not that way with God. For since he understands both himself and everything else through his essence, by one act, the single divine Word is expressive of all that is in God, not only of the persons but also of creatures; otherwise it would be imperfect. So Augustine says: if there were less in the Word than is contained in the knowledge of the one speaking it, the Word would be imperfect; but it is obvious that it is most perfect; therefore, it is only one. God speaks once (Job 33:14). 28. Tertia differentia est, quod verbum nostrum non est eiusdem naturae nobiscum, sed Verbum divinum est eiusdem naturae cum Deo: et ideo aliquid subsistens in natura divina. 28. The third difference is that our word is not of the same nature as we; but the divine Word is of the same nature as God. And therefore it is something that subsists in the divine nature. Nam ratio intellecta, quam intellectus videtur de aliqua re formare, habet esse intelligibile tantum in anima nostra; intelligere autem in anima nostra non est idem quod est natura animae, quia anima non est sua operatio. Et ideo verbum quod format intellectus noster, non est de essentia animae, sed est accidens ei. In Deo autem idem est intelligere et esse; et ideo Verbum intellectus divini non est aliquid accidens, sed pertinens ad naturam eius: quia quicquid est in natura Dei, est Deus. Unde, dicit Damascenus, quod Deus verbum substantiale est, et in hypostasi ens, reliqua vero, verba nostra scilicet, virtutes sunt animae. For the understood notion which the intellect is seen to form about some thing has only an intelligible existence in our soul. Now in our soul, to understand is not the same as the nature of the soul, because our soul is not its own operation. Consequently, the word which our intellect forms is not of the essence of our soul, but is an accident of it. But in God, to understand and to be are the same; and so the Word of the divine intellect is not an accident but belongs to its nature. Thus it must be subsistent, because whatever is in the nature of God is God. Thus Damascene says that God is a substantial word, and a hypostasis, but our words are concepts in our mind (De fide orth. 1.13). 29. Ex praemissis etiam patet quod Verbum, proprie loquendo, semper personaliter accipitur in divinis, cum non importet nisi quid expressum ab intelligente. 29. From the above it is clear that the Word, properly speaking, is always understood as a person in the divinity, since it implies only something expressed, by the one understanding; Item quod Verbum in divinis sit similitudo eius a quo procedit; et quod sit coaeternum ei a quo procedit, cum non prius fuerit formabile quam formatum, sed semper in actu; et quod sit aequale Patri, cum sit perfectum, et totius esse Patris expressivum; et quod sit coessentiale et consubstantiale Patri, cum sit substantia eius. also, that in the divinity the Word is the likeness of that from which it issues; and that it is co-eternal with that from which it issues, since it was not first formable before being formed, but was always in act; and that it is equal to the Father, since it is perfect and expressive of the whole being of the Father; and that it is co-essential and consubstantial with the Father, since it is his substance. Patet etiam quod cum in qualibet natura illud quod procedit, habens similitudinem naturae eius a quo procedit, vocetur filius, et hoc Verbum procedat in similitudine et identitate naturae eius a quo procedit, convenienter et proprie dicitur filius, et productio eius dicitur generatio. It is also clear that since in every nature that which issues forth and has a likeness to the nature from which it issues is called a son, and since this Word issues forth in a likeness and identity to the nature from which it issues, it is suitably and appropriately called a son, and its production is called a generation. Sic ergo patet primum, scilicet quod sit hoc quod dicitur Verbum. So now the first point is clear, the meaning of the term Word. 30. Circa hoc autem quatuor quaestiones occurrunt. Duae sunt Chrysostomi. 30. There are four questions on this point, two of them from Chrysostom. Prima est cur Ioannes Evangelista Patrem dimittens, confestim incepit a Filio, dicens in principio erat Verbum. The first is: why did John the Evangelist omit the Father and begin at once with the Son, saying, in the beginning was the Word? Ad hoc autem est duplex responsio. Una est, quia Pater omnibus innotuerat in Veteri Testamento, quamvis non in ratione Patris, sed ut Deus; Filius autem ignorabatur: et ideo in Novo Testamento, in quo agitur de cognitione Verbi, incipit a Verbo, sive Filio. There are two answers to this. One is that the Father was known to everyone in the Old Testament, although not under the aspect of Father, but as God; but the Son was not known. And so in the New Testament, which is concerned with our knowledge of the Word, he begins with the Word or Son. Alia est, quia per Filium ducimur in notitiam Patris; infra XVII, 6: Pater, manifestavi nomen tuum hominibus, quos dedisti mihi. Volens ergo fideles in notitiam Patris ducere Evangelista, decenter incepit a Filio, statim subiungens de Patre cum dicit et Verbum erat apud Deum. The other answer is that we are brought to know the Father through the Son: Father, I have manifested your name to the men whom you have given to me (John 17:6). And so wishing to lead the faithful to a knowledge of the Father, the Evangelist fittingly began with the Son, at once adding something about the Father when he says, and the Word was with God. 31. Secunda quaestio est etiam Chrysostomi. 31. The second question is also from Chrysostom. Cum enim, sicut dictum est, Verbum procedat ut Filius, quare dixit Verbum, et non Filius? Why did he say Word and not Son, since, as we have said, the Word proceeds as Son? Ad hoc etiam dupliciter respondetur. Primo quia Filius dicit aliquid genitum, et cum audimus generationem Filii, posset quis cogitare generationem illam talem esse, qualem comprehendere potest, scilicet materialem et passibilem; ideo ergo non dixit Filius sed Verbum, quod importat intelligibilem processum, ut non intelligatur materialem et passibilem generationem illam fuisse. Ostendens igitur Filium ex Deo impassibiliter nasci, destruit vitiosam suspicionem per Verbi nuncupationem. There are also two answers to this. First, because Son means something begotten, and when we hear of the generation of the Son, someone might suppose that this generation is the kind he can comprehend, that is, a material and changeable generation. Thus he did not say Son, but Word, which signifies an intelligible proceeding, so that it would not be understood as a material and changeable generation. And so in showing that the Son is born of the Father in an unchangeable way, he eliminates a faulty conjecture by using the name Word. Aliter potest dici sic: Evangelista tractaturus erat de Verbo, inquantum venerat ad manifestandum Patrem. Unde cum ratio manifestationis magis importetur in nomine Verbi quam in nomine Filii, ideo magis est usus nomine Verbi. The second answer is this. The Evangelist was about to consider the Word as having come to manifest the Father. But since the idea of manifesting is implied better in the name Word than in the name Son, he preferred to use the name Word. 32. Tertia quaestio est Augustini in Lib. LXXXIII Quaest., quae talis est: in Graeco, ubi nos habemus Verbum, habetur Logos. Cum ergo Logos significet in Latino rationem et verbum, quare translatores transtulerunt Verbum, et non rationem, cum ratio sit quid intrinsecum, quemadmodum etiam verbum? 32. The third question is raised by Augustine in his book Eighty-Three Questions; and it is this. In Greek, where we have Word, they have Logos; now since Logos signifies in Latin both notion and word, why did the translators render it as Word and not notion, since a notion is something interior just as a word is? (Q. 63) Respondeo. Dicendum quod ratio proprie nominat conceptum mentis, secundum quod in mente est, etsi nihil per illam exterius fiat; per verbum vero significatur respectus ad exteriora: et ideo quia Evangelista per hoc, quod dixit Logos, non solum intendebat significare respectum ad existentiam Filii in Patre, sed etiam operativam potentiam Filii, qua per ipsum facta sunt omnia, magis antiqui transtulerunt Verbum, quod importat respectum ad exteriora, quam ratio, quae tantum conceptum mentis insinuat. I answer that notion, properly speaking, names a conception of the mind precisely as in the mind, even if through it nothing exterior comes to be; but word signifies a reference to something exterior. And so because the Evangelist, when he said Logos, intended to signify not only a reference to the Son’s existence in the Father, but also the operative power of the Son, by which, all things were made through him: and without him was made nothing, our predecessors preferred to translate it Word, which implies a reference to something exterior, rather than notion which implies merely a concept of the mind. 33. Quarta quaestio est Origenis, quae talis est. Scriptura in pluribus locis loquens de Verbo Dei, nominat ipsum non absolute Verbum, sed cum additione, scilicet Dei, cum dicit Verbum Dei, vel Domini: Eccli. I, 5: fons sapientiae Verbum Dei in excelsis, et Apoc. XIX, 13: et nomen eius Verbum Dei. Quare ergo Evangelista, cum loqueretur hic de Verbo Dei, non dixit: in principio erat Verbum Dei, sed dixit tantummodo Verbum? 33. The fourth question is from Origen, and is this. In many passages, Scripture, when speaking of the Word of God, does not simply call him the Word, but adds of God, saying, the Word of God, or of the Lord: the Word of God on high is the foundation of wisdom (Sir 1:5); his name is the Word of God (Rev 19:13). Why then did the Evangelist, when speaking here of the Word of God, not say, in the beginning was the Word of God, but said in the beginning was the Word? Respondeo. Dicendum, quod licet sint multae veritates participatae, est tamen una veritas absoluta, quae per suam essentiam est veritas, scilicet ipsum esse divinum, qua veritate, omnia verba sunt verba. Eodem modo est una sapientia absoluta supra omnia elevata, scilicet sapientia divina, per cuius participationem omnes sapientes sunt sapientes. Et etiam unum Verbum absolutum, cuius participatione omnes habentes verbum, dicuntur dicentes. Hoc autem est Verbum divinum, quod per seipsum est Verbum super omnia verba elevatum. I answer that although there are many participated truths, there is just one absolute truth, which is truth by its very essence, that is, the divine act of being; and by this truth all words are words. Similarly, there is one absolute wisdom elevated above all things, that is, the divine wisdom, by participating in which all wise persons are wise. Further, there is one absolute Word, by participating in which all persons having a word are called speakers. Now this is the divine Word which of itself is the Word elevated above all words. Ut ergo Evangelista hanc supereminentiam divini Verbi significaret, ipsum Verbum absque ulla additione nobis absolute proposuit; et quia Graeci, quando volunt significare aliquid segregatum et elevatum ab omnibus aliis, consueverunt apponere articulum nomini, per quod illud significatur sicut Platonici volentes significare substantias separatas, puta bonum separatum, vel hominem separatum, vocabant illud ly per se bonum, vel ly per se hominem ideo Evangelista volens significare segregationem et elevationem istius Verbi super omnia, apposuit articulum ad hoc nomen Logos, ut si dicatur in Latino, ly Verbum. So in order that the Evangelist might signify this supereminence of the divine Word, he pointed out this Word to us absolutely without any addition. And because the Greeks, when they wished to signify something separate and elevated above everything else, did this by affixing the article to the name, as did the Platonists, wishing to signify the separated substances, such as the separated good or the separated man, called them the good per se, or man per se, so the Evangelist, wishing to signify the separation and elevation of that Word above all things, affixed an article to the name Logos, so that if it were stated in Latin we would say the Word. 34. Secundo considerandum est, quid significet hoc quod dicitur in principio. 34. Second, we must consider the meaning of the phrase, in the beginning. Sciendum est autem quod ‘principium,’ secundum Origenem, multis modis dicitur. Cum enim ‘principium’ importet ordinem quemdam ad alia, necesse est invenire principium in omnibus, in quibus est ordo. We must note that according to Origen, the word ‘principium’ has many meanings. Since the word ‘principium’ implies a certain order of one thing to another, one can find a principium in all those things which have an order. Invenitur autem ordo in quantitatibus; et secundum hoc dicitur principium in numeris et longitudine, puta lineae. First of all, order is found in quantified things; and so there is a principle of number and lengths, as for example, a line. Invenitur etiam ordo in tempore; et secundum hoc dicitur principium temporis, vel durationis. Second, order is found in time; and so we speak of a beginning of time, or of duration. Invenitur ordo in disciplinis, et hic est duplex: secundum naturam, et quoad nos; et utroque modo dicitur principium. Hebr. V, v. 12: deberetis esse magistri propter tempus. Et hoc modo, secundum naturam quidem, in disciplina Christiana initium et principium sapientiae nostrae est Christus, inquantum est sapientia et Verbum Dei, idest secundum divinitatem. Quoad nos vero principium est ipse Christus, inquantum Verbum caro factum est, idest secundum eius incarnationem. Third, order is found in learning; and this in two ways: as to nature, and as to ourselves, and in both cases we can speak of a beginning. By this time you ought to be teachers (Heb 5:12). As to nature, in Christian doctrine the beginning and principle of our wisdom is Christ, inasmuch as he is the wisdom and Word of God, i.e., in his divinity. But as to ourselves, the beginning is Christ himself inasmuch as the Word has become flesh (John 1:14), i.e., by his incarnation. Invenitur etiam ordo in productione rei; et secundum hoc principium dicitur ex parte generati, scilicet ipsa prima pars generati seu facti: sicut fundamentum dicitur principium domus. Vel ex parte facientis: et sic est triplex principium, scilicet intentionis, quod est finis, quod movet agentem; rationis, quod est ipsa forma in mente artificis; et executionis, quod est potentia operans. Fourth, order is found in the production of a thing. In this perspective there can be a principium on the part of the thing generated, that is, the first part of the thing generated or made; as we say that the foundation is the beginning of a house. Another is on the part of the generator, and in this perspective there are three principles: of intention, which is the purpose, which motivates the agent; of reason, which is the idea in the mind of the maker; and of execution, which is the operative faculty. His igitur modis de principio inquirendum est, quomodo sumatur hic principium, cum dicit in principio erat Verbum. Considering these various ways of using the term, we now ask how beginning is used here when it says, in the beginning was the Word. 35. Dicendum est igitur quod potest sumi tripliciter. 35. We should note that this word can be taken in three ways. Uno modo, secundum quod principium supponit pro persona Filii, quod principium est creaturarum secundum rationem virtutis activae, et per modum sapientiae, quae est ratio eorum quae fiunt; unde dicitur I Cor. I, 24: Christum Dei virtutem et Dei sapientiam. Unde et Dominus de se dicit infra VIII, 25: ego principium, qui et loquor vobis. In one way so that principium is understood as the person of the Son, who is the principle of creatures by reason of his active power acting with wisdom, which is the conception of the things that are brought into existence. Hence we read: Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God (1 Cor 1:24). And so the Lord said about himself: the source, who also speaks to you (John 8:25). Sic ergo accipiendo principium, intelligendum est quod dicitur in principio erat Verbum, ac si diceret in Filio erat Verbum, ut sit sensus: ipsum Verbum est principium, ex modo loquendi, quo dicitur vita esse in Deo, quae tamen non est aliud, quam ipse Deus. Et haec est expositio Origenis. Taking principium in this way, we should understand the statement, in the beginning was the Word, as though he were saying, the Word was in the Son, so that the sense would be: the Word himself is the principle, in the sense in which life is said to be in God, when this life is not something other than God. And this is the explanation of Origen. Dicit ergo hic Evangelista in principio, ut statim in principio divinitatem Verbi ostenderet, ut Chrysostomus dicit, dum asserit ipsum esse principium; quia secundum determinationem omnium principium est honoratissimum. And so the Evangelist says in the beginning here in order, as Chrysostom says, to show at the very outset the divinity of the Word by asserting that he is a principle because, as determining all, a principle is most honored. 36. Secundo modo potest accipi principium, prout supponit pro persona Patris, quod est principium non solum creaturarum, sed omnis divini processus; et sic accipitur in Ps. CIX, 3: tecum principium in die virtutis tuae. 36. In a second way principium can be understood as the person of the Father, who is the principle not only of creatures, but of every divine process. It is taken this way in, yours is princely power in the day of your birth (Ps 110:3).