Hic ponitur quarta clausula, quae introducitur propter clausulam praecedentem. Ex hoc enim quod Evangelista dixerat quod Verbum erat Deus, duplex falsus intellectus accipi poterat a non recte sentientibus. Unus a gentilibus, qui ponunt pluralitatem et diversitatem deorum, et eorum contrarias dicunt esse voluntates; sicut illi qui fabulantur Iovem pugnasse cum Saturno; et sicut Manichaei, qui ponunt duo contraria principia naturae. Contra hunc errorem Dominus dixit, Deut. VI, 4: audi Israel, Dominus Deus tuus, Deus unus est. This is the fourth clause and is introduced because of the preceding clause. For from the Evangelist’s statement that the Word was God, two false interpretations could be held by those who misunderstand. One of these is by the pagans, who acknowledge many and different gods, and say that their wills are in opposition. For example, those who put out the fable of Jupiter fighting with Saturn; or as the Manicheans, who have two contrary principles of nature. The Lord said against this error: hear O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord (Deut 6:4). Quia ergo Evangelista dixerat Verbum erat apud Deum, et Deus erat Verbum, possent isti in fulcimentum sui erroris istud adducere, intelligentes alium esse Deum, apud quem est Verbum, et alium ipsum Verbum, et cum hoc alterius, sive contrariae voluntatis; quod est contra legem Evangelii. Since the Evangelist had said, the Word was with God, and the Word was God, they could adduce this in support of their error by understanding the God with whom the Word is to be one God, and the Word to be another, having another, or contrary, will to the former; and this is against the law of the Gospel. Ad hoc ergo excludendum dicit hoc erat in principio apud Deum; quasi dicat, secundum Hilarium: ita dico quod Verbum est Deus, quod tamen non est habens divinitatem, sed est apud Deum, scilicet in una natura et eadem in qua ipse est. Item per hoc quod dicit, Verbum erat Deus ne intelligeretur quod haberent contrariam voluntatem, addidit hoc, quod scilicet Verbum erat in principio apud Deum scilicet Patrem; non divisum ab ipso, non contrarium, sed habens cum eo identitatem naturae et concordiam voluntatis: quae quidem unio fit per communionem divinae naturae in tribus personis, et per nexum naturalis amoris Patris et Filii. And so to exclude this he says, he was in the beginning with God, as if to say, according to Hilary: I say that the Word is God, not as if he has a distinct divinity, but he is with God, that is, in the one same nature in which he is. Further, lest his statement, and the Word was God, be taken to mean that the Word has an opposed will, he added that the Word was in the beginning with God, namely, the Father; not as divided from him or opposed, but having an identity of nature with him and a harmony of will. This union comes about by the sharing of the divine nature in the three persons, and by the bond of the natural love of the Father and the Son. 61. Alius error poterat ex praemissis verbis elici ab Arianis, qui ponunt Filium minorem esse quam Pater, propter hoc quod dicitur: Pater maior me est. Dicunt enim Patrem maiorem Filio, et quantum ad aeternitatem, et quantum ad naturae divinitatem. Ut ergo Evangelista excluderet, addidit hoc erat in principio apud Deum. 61. The Arians were able to draw out another error from the above. They think that the Son is less than the Father because it says: the Father is greater than I (John 14:28). And they say the Father is greater than the Son both as to eternity and as to divinity of nature. And so to exclude this the Evangelist added: he was in the beginning with God. Arius enim primam clausulam, scilicet in principio erat Verbum, admittit: non tamen vult quod ibi principium accipiatur pro Patre, sed pro principio creaturarum. Unde dicit quod Verbum erat in principio creaturarum, et ideo nequaquam Patri est coaeternus. Sed hoc excluditur, secundum Chrysostomum, per illam clausulam hoc erat in principio, non quidem creaturarum, sed in principio apud Deum; idest ex quo Deus fuit. Numquam enim Pater solitarius fuit a Filio, sive Verbo, sed semper hoc, scilicet Verbum, apud Deum erat. For Arius admits the first clause, in the beginning was the Word, but he will not admit that principium should be taken for the Father, but rather for the beginning of creatures. So he says that the Word was in the beginning of creatures, and consequently is in no sense coeternal with the Father. But this is excluded, according to Chrysostom, by this clause, he was in the beginning, not of creatures, but in the beginning with God, i.e., whenever God existed. For the Father was never alone without the Son or Word, but he, that is, the Word, was always with God. 62. Item, Arius confitetur quod Verbum erat Deus, sed tamen minor Patre. Sed hoc excluditur per ea quae sequuntur. 62. Again, Arius admits that the Word was God, but nevertheless inferior to the Father. This is excluded by what follows. Duo enim sunt propria magni Dei, quae Arius Deo Patri singulariter attribuebat, scilicet aeternitas et omnipotentia. In quocumque ergo ista duo inveniuntur, ille est magnus Deus, quo nullus est maior; sed haec duo Evangelista Verbo attribuit; ergo Verbum est magnus Deus, et non minor. Aeternitatem quidem dicit esse in Verbo per hoc quod dicit hoc erat in principio apud Deum; idest Verbum ab aeterno, non solum in principio creaturarum, ut Arius intellexit, erat, sed apud Deum, accipiens esse et divinitatem ab eo. Omnipotentiam vero attribuit Verbo per hoc quod subdit omnia per ipsum facta sunt. For there are two attributes proper to the great God which Arius attributed solely to God the Father, that is, eternity and omnipotence. So in whomever these two attributes are found, he is the great God, than whom none is greater. But the Evangelist attributes these two to the Word. Therefore, the Word is the great God and not inferior. He says the Word is eternal when he states, he was in the beginning with God, i.e., the Word was with God from eternity, and not only in the beginning of creatures, as Arius held; but he was with God, receiving being and divinity from him. Further, he attributes omnipotence to the Word when he adds, all things were made through him (John 1:3). 63. Origenes vero hanc eamdem clausulam satis pulchre exponens, dicit ipsam non esse aliam a tribus primis; sed ipsam esse quemdam epilogum praemissorum. 63. Origen gives a rather beautiful explanation of this clause, he was in the beginning with God, when he says that it is not separate from the first three, but is in a certain sense their epilogue. Evangelista enim postquam insinuaverat veritatem esse Filii, transiturus ad eius insinuandum virtutem, recolligit, quasi in summa epilogando, in quarta clausula, quod in primis tribus praedixerat. Primo enim per hoc quod dicit hoc, intelligit tertiam clausulam; per hoc vero quod dicit erat in principio, recolligit primam; per hoc vero quod subdit erat apud Deum, recolligit secundam, ut sic non intelligas aliud Verbum, quod erat in principio et quod erat Deus; sed hoc Verbum, quod erat Deus, erat in principio apud Deum. For the Evangelist, after he had indicated that truth was the Son’s and was about to describe his power, in a way gathers together in a summary form, in this fourth clause, what he had said in the first three. For in saying he, he understands the third clause; by adding was in the beginning, he recalls the first clause; and by adding was with God, he recalls the second, so that we do not think that the Word which was in the beginning is different than the Word which was God; but this Word which was God was in the beginning with God. 64. Si quis ergo recte consideret has quatuor propositiones, inveniet evidenter per eas destrui omnes haereticorum et philosophorum errores. 64. If one considers these four propositions well, he will find that they clearly destroy all the errors of the heretics and of the philosophers. Quidam enim haeretici, sicut Ebion et Cerintus, dixerunt, Christum non praeextitisse Beatae Virgini, sed ab ea sumpsisse essendi et durationis principium, ponentes eum fuisse hominem purum, sed meruisse divinitatem per bona merita. Quod etiam Photinus et Paulus Samosatenus eos secuti dixerunt. Horum errorem Evangelista excludit, dicens in principio erat Verbum, idest ante omnia, et in Patre ab aeterno; ergo non sumpsit initium ex Virgine. For some heretics, as Ebion and Cerinthus, said that Christ did not exist before the Blessed Virgin, but took from her the beginning of his being and duration; for they held that he was a mere man, who had merited divinity by his good works. Photinus and Paul of Samosata, following them, said the same thing. But the Evangelist excludes their errors saying, in the beginning was the Word, i.e., before all things, and in the Father from eternity. Thus he did not derive his beginning from the Virgin. Sabellius vero, licet fateretur quod Deus qui carnem suscepit, ex Virgine non sumpsit initium, sed fuit ab aeterno, tamen dicebat quod non erat alia persona Patris, qui fuit ab aeterno, Filii, qui carnem assumpsit ex Virgine, sed idem erat Pater et Filius personaliter; Trinitatem personarum in divinis confundens. Contra hunc errorem dicit Evangelista et Verbum erat apud Deum, scilicet Filius apud Patrem, ut alius apud alium. Sabellius, on the other hand, although he admitted that the God who took flesh did not receive his beginning from the Virgin, but existed from eternity, still said that the person of the Father, who existed from eternity, was not distinct from the person of the Son, who took flesh from the Virgin. He maintained that the Father and Son were the same person; confusing the trinity of persons in the divine. The Evangelist says against this error, and the Word was with God, i.e., the Son was with the Father, as one person with another. Eunomius vero posuit Filium omnino dissimilem esse Patri: et hoc consequenter Evangelista excludit, dicens et Deus erat Verbum. Eunomius declared that the Son is entirely unlike the Father. The Evangelist rejects this when he says, and the Word was God. Arius vero dicebat Filium Patre minorem; sed hoc excludit Evangelista cum dicit hoc erat in principio apud Deum, quod supra fuit expositum. Finally, Arius said that the Son was less than the Father. The Evangelist excludes this by saying, he was in the beginning with God, as was explained above. 65. Per hoc etiam excluduntur errores philosophorum. 65. These words also exclude the errors of the philosophers. Quidam enim philosophorum antiqui, scilicet naturales, ponebant mundum non ex aliquo intellectu, neque per aliquam rationem, sed a casu fuisse; et ideo a principio rationem non posuerunt seu intellectum aliquam causam rerum, sed solam materiam fluitantem, utpote athomos, sicut Democritus posuit, et alia huiusmodi principia materialia, ut alii posuerunt. Contra hos est quod Evangelista dicit in principio erat Verbum, a quo res scilicet principium sumpserunt et non a casu. Some of the ancient philosophers, namely, the natural philosophers, maintained that the world did not come from any intellect or through some purpose, but by chance. Consequently, they did not place at the beginning as the cause of things a reason or intellect, but only matter in flux; for example, atoms, as Democritus thought, or other material principles of this kind as different philosophers maintained. Against these the Evangelist says, in the beginning was the Word, from whom, and not from chance, things derive their beginning. Plato autem posuit rationes omnium rerum factarum subsistentes, separatas in propriis naturis, per quarum participationem res materiales essent: puta per rationem hominis separatam, quam dicebat per se hominem, haberet quod sint homines. Sic ergo ne hanc rationem, per quam omnia facta sunt, intelligas rationes separatas a Deo, ut Plato ponebat, addit Evangelista et Verbum erat apud Deum. Plato, however, thought that the ideas of all the things that were made were subsistent, i.e., existing separately in their own natures; and material things exist by participating in these. For example, he thought men existed through the separated idea of man, which he called man per se. So lest you suppose, as did Plato, that this idea through which all things were made be ideas separated from God, the Evangelist adds, and the Word was with God. Alii etiam Platonici, ut Chrysostomus refert, ponebant Deum Patrem eminentissimum, et primum, sub quo ponebant mentem quamdam, in qua dicebant esse similitudines et ideas omnium rerum. Ne ergo sic intelligas, quod Verbum erat apud Patrem, quasi sub eo et minor eo, addit Evangelista et Verbum erat Deus. Other Platonists, as Chrysostom relates, maintained that God the Father was most eminent and first, but under him they placed a certain mind in which there were the likenesses and ideas of all things. So lest you think that the Word was with the Father in such a way as to be under him and less than he, the Evangelist adds, and the Word was God. Aristoteles vero posuit in Deo rationes omnium rerum, et quod idem est in Deo intellectus et intelligens et intellectum; tamen posuit mundum coaeternum sibi fuisse. Et contra hoc est quod Evangelista dicit hoc, scilicet Verbum solum, erat in principio apud Deum; ita quod ly hoc non excludit aliam personam, sed aliam naturam coaeternam. Aristotle, however, thought that the ideas of all things are in God, and that in God, the intellect, the one understanding, and what is understood, are the same. Nevertheless, he thought that the world is coeternal with him. Against this the Evangelist says, he, the Word alone, was in the beginning with God, in such a way that he does not exclude another person, but only another coeternal nature. 66. Nota etiam in praedictis differentiam Ioannis ab aliis Evangelistis, quomodo scilicet dignius Evangelium suum incepit, quam alii. Ipsi enim annuntiaverunt Christum Filium Dei ex tempore natum; Matth. II, 1: cum natus esset Iesus in Bethlehem. Ioannes vero dicit eum ab aeterno fuisse, in principio, inquit, erat Verbum. Ipsi etiam dicunt eum subito inter homines apparuisse; Lc. II, 29: nunc dimittis servum tuum, Domine, secundum verbum tuum in pace; quia viderunt oculi mei salutare tuum, quod parasti ante faciem omnium populorum, lumen ad revelationem gentium, et gloriam plebis tuae, Israel. Ioannes vero dicit eum apud Patrem semper fuisse. Et Verbum, inquit, erat apud Deum. Alii vero ipsum hominem; Matth. IX, v. 8: glorificabant Deum, qui potestatem talem hominibus dedit. Ioannes vero dicit ipsum esse Deum. Et Verbum, inquit, erat Deus. Alii dixerunt eum fuisse cum hominibus conversatum; Matth. XVII, 21: conversantibus autem illis in Galilaea, dixit Iesus etc.; sed Ioannes dicit eum apud Patrem semper fuisse. Hoc, inquit, erat in principio apud Deum. 66. Note the difference in what has been said between John and the other Evangelists: how he began his Gospel on a loftier plane than they. They announced Christ the Son of God born in time: when Jesus was born in Bethlehem (Matt 2:1); but John presents him existing from eternity: in the beginning was the Word. They show him suddenly appearing among men: now you dismiss your servant, O Lord, in peace, according to your word; because my eyes have seen your salvation,which you have prepared in the sight of all people, a light to reveal you to the nations and the glory of your people Israel (Luke 2:29); but John says that he always existed with the Father: and the Word was with God. The others show him as a man: they gave glory to God who had given such authority to men (Matt 9:8); but John only says that he is God: and the Word was God. The others say he lives with men: while living in Galilee, Jesus said to them (Matt 17:21); but John says that he has always been with the Father: he was in the beginning with God. 67. Nota etiam quod Evangelista signanter recitat hoc verbum erat, ut ostendat Verbum Dei omnia tempora, scilicet praesens, praeteritum et futurum, excedere. Quasi dicat: erat ultra tempus praesens, praeteritum et futurum, secundum quod tangitur in Glossa. 67. Note also how the Evangelist designedly uses the word was to show that the Word of God transcends all times: present, past and future. It is as though he were saying: he was beyond time: present, past and future, as the Gloss says. Lectio 2 Lecture 2 Virtus Verbi Power of the Word ^1:3 Omnia per ipsum facta sunt. Et sine ipso factum est nihil. Quod factum est [n. 69] ^1:3 All things were made through him: and without him was made nothing that was made. [n. 69] ^1:4 in ipso vita erat. Et vita erat lux hominum. [n. 89] ^1:4 In him was life, and the life was the light of men. [n. 89] 68. Postquam Evangelista esse et naturam divini Verbi, quantum dici potest ab homine, insinuaverat, consequenter manifestat eius virtutem. Et 68. After the Evangelist has told of the existence and nature of the divine Word, so far as it can be told by man, he then shows the might of his power. primo ostendit eius virtutem quantum ad omnia, quae in esse procedunt; First, he shows his power with respect to all things that come into existence. secundo specialiter quantum ad homines, ibi erat vita lux hominum. Second, with especial respect to man, at and the life was the light of men. Circa primum ponit tres clausulas, quas non distinguimus ad praesens, quia secundum diversas expositiones sanctorum sunt diversimode distinguendae. As to the first, he uses three clauses; and we will not distinguish these at present because they will be distinguished in different ways according to the different explanations given by the saints. 69. Prima ergo clausula est omnia per ipsum facta sunt; quae inducitur ad ostendendum tria de Verbo. Et primo, secundum Chrysostomum, ad ostendendum aequalitatem Verbi ad Patrem. 69. The first clause is all things were made through him; which is used to show three things concerning the Word. First, according to Chrysostom, to show the equality of the Word to the Father. Sicut enim dictum est supra, Evangelista excluserat errorem Arii, ostendens coaeternitatem Filii ad Patrem per hoc quod dixerat hoc erat in principio apud Deum, hic vero eumdem errorem excludit, ostendendo omnipotentiam Filii, dicens, omnia per ipsum facta sunt. Esse enim principium omnium factorum proprium est Dei magni omnipotentis, iuxta illud Ps. CXXXIV, 6: omnia quaecumque Dominus voluit, fecit in caelo et in terra. Verbum ergo per quod facta sunt omnia, est Deus magnus et coaequalis Patri. For as stated earlier, the error of Arius was rejected by the Evangelist when he showed the coeternity of the Son with the Father by saying, he was in the beginning with God (C. 1, L. 1). Here he excludes the same error when he shows the omnipotence of the Son, saying, all things were made through him. For to be the principle of all the things that are made is proper to the great omnipotent God, as it is said, whatever the Lord wills he does, in heaven and on earth (Ps 134:6). Thus the Word, through whom all things were made, is God, great and coequal to the Father. 70. Secundo, ad ostendendum coaeternitatem Verbi ad Patrem, secundum Hilarium. 70. Second, according to Hilary, this clause is used to show the coeternity of the Word with the Father (The Trinity, 2.17). Quia enim per hoc quod dixerat in principio erat Verbum, posset aliquis intelligere hoc dictum fuisse de principio creaturarum, id est fuisse aliquod tempus ante omnem creaturam, in quo Verbum non erat, ideo hoc excludens Evangelista dixit omnia per ipsum facta sunt. Si enim omnia sunt facta per Verbum ergo et ipsum tempus. Ex quo sic argumentatur: si omne tempus ab ipso factum est; ergo nullum tempus fuit ante ipsum; nec cum ipso; quia ante omnia erat; ergo sunt ab aeterno coaeterni. For since someone might understand the earlier statement, in the beginning was the Word, as referring to the beginning of creatures, i.e., that before there were any creatures there was a time in which the Word did not exist, the Evangelist rejects this by saying, all things were made through him. For if all things were made through the Word, then time was also. From this we can form the following argument: if all time was made through him, there was no time before him or with him, because before all these, he was. Therefore the Son and the Father are eternally coeternal. 71. Tertio, secundum Augustinum, ad ostendendam consubstantialitatem Verbi ad Patrem. 71. Third, according to Augustine, this clause is used to show the consubstantiality of the Word with the Father. Si enim facta omnia sunt per Verbum, ergo ipsum Verbum non potest dici factum: quia si est factum, est factum per aliquod Verbum, quia omnia per Verbum facta sunt. Oportet ergo esse aliud Verbum, per quod Verbum, de quo hic loquitur Evangelista, sit factum. Et illud Verbum dicimus unigenitum Dei, per quem facta sunt omnia, quia nec factum est, nec creatura est; et si non est creatura, necesse est dicere ipsum esse eiusdem substantiae cum Patre, cum omnis substantia praeter essentiam divinam facta sit. Substantia autem, quae creatura non est, Deus est. Verbum ergo, per quod omnia facta sunt, consubstantiale est Patri, cum nec factum, nec creatura sit. For if all things were made through the Word, the Word himself cannot be said to have been made; because, if made, he was made through some Word, since all things were made through the Word. Consequently, there would have been another Word through whom was made the Word of whom the Evangelist is speaking. This Word, through whom all things are made, we call the only begotten Son of God, because he is neither made nor is he a creature. And if he is not a creature, it is necessary to say that he is of the same substance with the Father, since every substance other than the divine essence is made. But a substance that is not a creature is God. And so the Word, through whom all things were made, is consubstantial with the Father, since he is neither made, nor is he a creature. 72. Sic ergo habes Verbi aequalitatem ad Patrem, secundum Chrysostomum, coaeternitatem secundum Hilarium, et consubstantialitatem, secundum Augustinum per hoc quod dicit omnia per ipsum facta sunt. 72. And so in saying all things were made through him, you have, according to Chrysostom, the equality of the Word with the Father; the coeternity of the Word with the Father, according to Hilary; and the consubstantiality of the Word with the Father, according to Augustine.