258. Dicitur autem Christus agnus primo propter puritatem; Ex. XII, 5: erit agnus anniculus etc.; I Petr. I, 18: non corruptibilibus auro vel argento redempti estis. Secundo propter mansuetudinem; Is. LIII, 7: quasi agnus coram tondente se obmutuit. Tertio propter fructum, Prov. XXVII, 26: agni sunt tibi ad vestimentum tuum. Et hoc quantum ad indumentum, iuxta illud Rom. XIII, v. 14: induimini Dominum Iesum Christum. Et quantum ad cibum, infra VI, 52: caro mea est pro mundi vita. Et ideo dicebat Isaias, c. XVI, 1: emitte agnum, Domine, dominatorem terrae.
258. Christ is called a lamb, first, because of his purity: your lamb will be without blemish (Exod 12:5); you were not redeemed by perishable gold or silver (1 Pet 1:18). Second, because of his gentleness: like a lamb before the shearer, he will not open his mouth (Isa 53:7). Third, because of his fruit; both with respect to what we put on: lambs will be your clothing (Prov 27:26), put on the Lord Jesus Christ (Rom 13:14); and with respect to food: my flesh for the life of the world (John 6:52). And it is said: send forth, O Lord, the lamb, the ruler of the earth (Isa 16:1).
259. Consequenter propositam figuram exponit cum dicit qui tollit peccata mundi, idest aufert; quod in lege nec per agnum, nec per alia sacrificia auferri poterat, quia, ut dicitur Hebr. X, 6: impossibile est per sanguinem taurorum et hircorum auferri peccata.
259. Then when he says, who takes away the sins of the world, he explains the symbol he used. In the law, sin could not be taken away either by a lamb or by any other sacrifice, because as it is said, it is impossible that sins be taken away by the blood of bulls and goats (Heb 10:4).
Sanguis iste tollit, idest aufert, peccata mundi. Oseae ult., 3: omnem aufert iniquitatem. Vel tollit, idest in se accipit, peccata totius mundi; quia, ut dicitur I Petr. II, v. 24, qui peccata nostra pertulit in corpore suo. Is. LIII, 4: dolores nostros ipse tulit, et languores nostros ipse portavit.
This blood takes away, i.e., removes, the sins of the world; take away all iniquity (Hos 14:3); or, takes away, i.e., he takes upon himself the sins of the whole world, as is said, he bore our sins in his own body (1 Pet 2:24); it was our infirmities that he bore, our sufferings that he endured (Isa 53:4).
Dicit autem, secundum Glossam, peccatum, et non peccata, ut ostendat in universali, quod abstulit totum genus peccati; I Io. II, 2: ipse est propitiatio pro peccatis nostris. Vel quia pro uno peccato, scilicet originali, mortuus; Rom. V, 12: per unum hominem peccatum intravit in mundum etc.
However, according to a Gloss, he says sin, and not sins, in order to show in a universal way that he has taken away every kind of sin: he is the offering for our sins (1 John 2:2); or because he died for one sin, that is, original sin: sin entered into this world through one man (Rom 5:12).
260. Supra perhibuit Baptista testimonium Christo quantum ad eius virtutem; hic vero perhibet testimonium quantum ad eius dignitatem, comparans eum sibi tripliciter. Et
260. Above, the Baptist bore witness to the power of Christ; now he bears witness to his dignity, comparing Christ to himself in three respects.
primo quantum ad officium et ordinem praedicationis; unde dicit hic, scilicet Agnus, digito eum demonstrans, est ille de quo dixi, scilicet in eius absentia, post me venit vir, ad praedicandum et baptizandum, qui post me venit nascendo. Dicitur autem vir Christus ratione perfectae aetatis: quia quando incepit docere post baptismum, iam erat in aetate perfecta; Lc. III, 23: Iesus erat incipiens quasi annorum triginta. Item, ratione perfectionis omnium virtutum quae in eo fuerunt; Is. IV, 1: apprehendent septem mulieres, idest virtutes, virum unum, scilicet Christum perfectum. Zach. VI, 12: ecce vir, Oriens nomen eius: quia ipse est origo omnium virtutum in aliis. Item, ratione desponsationis; quia ipse sponsus est Ecclesiae; Oseae II, 16: vocabis me virum etc.; II Cor. XI, 2: despondi vos uni viro.
First, with respect to their office and order of preaching. So he says, this is he, that is the Lamb, pointing him out with his finger, of whom I said, i.e., in his absence, after me there comes a man, to preach and baptize, who in birth came after me. Christ is called a man by reason of his perfect age, because when he began to teach, after his baptism, he had already reached a perfect age: Jesus was now about thirty years of age (Luke 3:23). He is also called a man because of the perfection of all the virtues that were in him: seven women, i.e., the virtues, will take hold of one man, the perfect Christ (Isa 4:1); look, a man! His name is the Orient (Zech 6:12), because he is the origin of all the virtues found in others. He is also called a man because of his espousal, since he is the spouse of the Church: you will call me ‘my husband’ (Hos 2:16); I espoused you to one husband (2 Cor 11:2).
261. Secundo quantum ad ordinem dignitatis, cum dicit qui ante me factus est. Quasi dicat: licet post me venerit ad praedicandum, tamen ante me idest praelatus mihi factus est dignitate. Cant. II, 8: ecce iste venit saliens in montibus, transiliens colles. Collis unus fuit Ioannes Baptista, quem Christus transivit: quia, ut dicitur infra III, 30: me oportet minui, illum autem crescere.
261. Second, he compares himself to Christ with respect to dignity when he says, who ranks ahead of me. As if to say: Although he comes to preach after me, yet he ranks ahead of me in dignity. See, he comes, leaping upon the mountains, skipping over the hills (Song 2:8). One such hill was John the Baptist, who was passed over by Christ, as is said, he must increase, but I must decrease (John 3:30).
262. Tertio quantum ad ordinem durationis, cum dicit quia prior me erat. Quasi dicat: non mirum si praefertur mihi dignitate, quia, etsi posterior sit tempore, est tamen prior aeternitate quia prior me erat.
262. Third, he compares himself to Christ with respect to duration, saying, because he existed before me. As if to say: it is not strange if he ranks ahead of me in dignity; because although he is after me in time, he is before me in eternity, because he existed before me.
Ex hoc autem duplex error destruitur. Error Arii: quia non dicit prior me factus est ut sit creatura, sed prior me erat, ab aeterno ante omnem creaturam; Prov. VIII, 25: ante omnes colles generavit me Dominus. Item error Pauli Samosateni: quia dixit prior me erat, ut ostendat, quod non ex Maria sumpserat exordium. Nam, si essendi principium sumpsisset ex Virgine, non extitisset utique prior praecursore, qui Christum in sex mensibus secundum generationem praecedebat humanam.
This statement refutes a twofold error. First, that of Arius, for John does not say that he was made before me, as though he were a creature, but he existed before me, from eternity, before every creature: the Lord brought me forth before all the hills (Prov 8:25). The second error refuted is that of Paul of Samosata: for John said, he existed before me, in order to show that he did not take his beginning from Mary. For if he had taken the beginning of his existence from the Virgin, he would not have existed before the precursor, who, in the order of human generation, preceded Christ by six months.
263. Consequenter cum dicit et ego nesciebam eum, excludit falsam suspicionem a suo testimonio.
263. Next, he precludes an erroneous conjecture from his testimony, at and I did not know him.
Posset enim aliquis dicere, Ioannem testimonium perhibuisse Christo propter affectionem specialis familiaritatis quam ad ipsum habebat; et ideo hoc excludens Ioannes, dicit ego nesciebam eum: nam Ioannes in deserto a pueritia sua conversatus est. Licet autem miracula multa facta sint in nativitate Christi, puta de Magis et de stella, et huiusmodi, tamen non erant nota Ioanni: tum quia infans erat secundum aetatem, tum quia ad desertum secedens, Christi familiaritatem non habuit. Medio vero tempore a nativitate usque ad baptismum, nullum miraculum Christus operatus est; sed conformis conversatione aliis erat, et sua virtus ignota omnibus existebat.
For someone might say that John bore witness to Christ because of the affection of an especial friendship which he had for him. And so, excluding this, John says, and I did not know him; for John had lived in the desert from boyhood. And although many miracles happened during the birth of Christ, such as the Magi and the star and others, they were not known to John: both because he was an infant at the time, and because, after withdrawing to the desert, he had no association with Christ. In the interim between his birth and baptism, Christ did not perform any miracles, but led a life similar to any other person, and his power remained unknown to all.
264. Quod autem medio tempore non fuerit miracula operatus usque ad triginta annos, patet per hoc quod dicitur infra II, 11: hoc fecit initium signorum Iesus etc. Ex quo apparet falsitas libri de Infantia Salvatoris. Ideo autem non fecit miracula medio tempore, ut non putaretur mysterium circumcisionis et incarnationis phantasma esse, si non se habuisset aetate sicut alii infantes. Et ideo demonstrationem scientiae et virtutis suae in aliud distulit tempus, in quo alii homines scientia et virtute vigere consueverunt. Iuxta quod dicitur Lc. II, 52: puer autem proficiebat gratia et sapientia; non quod ipse virtutem et sapientiam ante non habitam susciperet, cum in eis fuerit ab instanti suae conceptionis perfectus, sed quia virtus eius et sapientia magis innotescebat hominibus. Is. c. XLV, 15: vere tu es Deus absconditus.
264. It is clear that he worked no miracles in the interim until he was thirty years old from what is said: Jesus did this beginning of miracles in Cana of Galilee (John 2:11). This shows the error of the book, The Infancy of the Savior. The reason he performed no miracles during this period was that if his life had not been like that of other infants, the mystery of the circumcision and incarnation might have been regarded as pure fancy. Accordingly, he postponed showing his knowledge and power to another time, corresponding to the age when other men reach the fullness of their knowledge and power. About this we read, and Jesus increased in grace and wisdom (Luke 2:52); not that he acquired a power and wisdom that he previously lacked, for in this respect he was perfect from the instant of his conception, but because his power and wisdom were becoming known to men: indeed, you are a hidden God (Isa 45:15).
265. Ideo ergo Ioannes nesciebat eum, quia nulla signa adhuc de eo viderat, neque aliis per signa innotuerat. Unde subdit sed ut manifestetur in Israel, propterea ego veni in aqua baptizans. Quasi dicat: totum ministerium meum est ad manifestationem. Supra, non erat ille lux, sed ut testimonium perhiberet de lumine.
265. The reason why John did not know him was that he had so far seen no signs, and no one else had known Christ through signs. Hence he adds: but that he may be made manifest in Israel, therefore I came baptizing with water. As if to say: my entire ministry is to reveal: he was not the light, but that he might bear witness to the light (John 1:8).
266. Dicit autem veni in aquam baptizans, ad differentiam baptismi Christi. Quia Christus non in aqua solum baptizavit, sed in spiritu, conferens gratiam; unde et baptismus Ioannis fuit significativum tantum, non effectivum.
266. He says, I came baptizing with water, to distinguish his baptism from that of Christ. For Christ baptized not just in water, but in the Spirit, conferring grace; and so the baptism of John was merely a sign, and not causative.
Manifestavit autem baptismus Ioannis Christum tripliciter. Primo scilicet per Ioannis praedicationem. Licet enim Ioannes etiam sine baptismo potuisset praedicando parare viam Domino, et inducere turbas ad Christum, tamen propter novitatem officii plures ad eum concurrebant quam si sine baptismo praedicatio facta esset. Secundo profuit baptismus Ioannis propter Christi humilitatem, quam demonstravit, baptizari volens a Ioanne; Matth. III, 13: venit Christus ad Ioannem ut baptizaretur ab eo. In quo quidem exemplum humilitatis praebuit, ut scilicet nullus, quantumcumque magnus, dedignetur a quocumque ad hoc ordinato, sacramenta suscipere. Tertio, quia Christo baptizato a Ioanne, affuit virtus Patris in voce, et Spiritus Sanctus in columba, per quam virtus Christi et dignitas magis manifestata fuit. Lc. III, 22: et vox Patris intonuit: hic est Filius meus dilectus.
John’s baptism made Christ known in three ways. First, by the preaching of John. For although John could have prepared the way for the Lord and led the people to Christ without baptizing, yet because of the novelty of the service many more came to him than would have come if his preaching were done without baptism. Second, John’s baptism was useful because of Christ’s humility, which he showed by willing to be baptized by John: Christ came to John, to be baptized by him (Matt 3:13). This example of humility he gives us here is that no one, however great, should disdain to receive the sacraments from any person ordained for this purpose. Third, because it was during Christ’s baptism by John that the power of the Father was present in the voice, and the Holy Spirit was present in the dove, by which the power and dignity of Christ were all the more shown: and the voice of the Father was heard: this is my beloved Son (Luke 3:22).
267. Consequenter cum dicit et testimonium perhibuit Ioannes ipse magna quae testatus est de Christo quod totius orbis terrarum solus peccata tolleret, confirmat auctoritate Dei.
267. Then when he says, and John gave testimony, he confirms by the authority of God the great things he testified to about Christ, that Christ alone would take away the sins of the whole world.
Et circa hoc tria facit.
As to this he does three things.
Primo proponit visionem;
First, he presents a vision.
secundo praebet de intellectu visionis instructionem, ibi et ego nesciebam eum;
Second, he tells us the meaning of the vision, at and I did not know him.
tertio suam ex ipsa visione conceptionem ostendit, ibi et ego vidi, et testimonium perhibui.
Third, he shows what he learned from this vision, at and I have seen, and I have given testimony.
268. Visionem quidem proponit cum dicit vidi Spiritum descendentem quasi columbam de caelo. Quod quidem quando factum fuerit, Ioannes Evangelista non refert; sed Matthaeus et Lucas dicunt hoc factum fuisse quando Christus baptizatus est a Ioanne.
268. He presents the vision when he says, I saw the Spirit coming down, as a dove from heaven. When this actually happened John the Evangelist does not tell us, but Matthew and Luke say that it took place when Christ was being baptized by John.
Et quidem congruebat quod Spiritus Sanctus adesset baptizato et baptismo. Baptizato namque congruebat, quia sicut Filius existens a Patre, manifestat Patrem infra XVII, 6: Pater, manifestavi nomen tuum etc., ita et Spiritus Sanctus a Filio existens, Filium manifestat. Infra XVI, 14: ille me clarificabit, quia de meo accipiet etc. Baptismo autem congruit, quia baptisma Christi est inchoativum et consecrativum nostri baptismatis. Nostrum autem baptisma consecratur per invocationem Sanctae Trinitatis; Matth. ult., 19: baptizantes eos in nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti etc. Quod ergo nos invocamus in baptismo nostro, affuit baptismo Christi, scilicet Pater in voce, Spiritus Sanctus in columba, Filius in humana natura.
And it was indeed fitting for the Holy Spirit to be present at this baptism and to the person being baptized. It was appropriate for the one baptized, for as the Son, existing by the Father, manifests the Father: Father, I have manifested your name (John 17:6), so the Holy Spirit, existing by the Son, manifests the Son, he will glorify me, because he will receive from of mine (John 16:14). It was appropriate for this baptism because the baptism of Christ begins and consecrates our baptism. Now our baptism is consecrated by invoking the whole Trinity: baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit (Matt 28:19). Thus, the ones we invoke in our baptism were present at the baptism of Christ: the Father in the voice, the Holy Spirit in the dove, and the Son in his human nature.
269. Dicit autem descendentem, quia cum descensus duos terminos habeat, scilicet principium sursum et terminum deorsum, quantum ad utrumque convenit baptismo.
269. He says, coming down, because descent, since it has two termini, the start, which is from above, and the end, which is below, suits baptism in both respects.
Est enim duplex spiritus, unus mundi et alius Dei. Et spiritus quidem mundi est amor mundi, qui non est desursum, sed ab inferiori ascendit in hominem, et eum descendere facit; Spiritus autem Dei, scilicet Dei amor, desursum descendit ad hominem, et eum ascendere facit. I Cor. II, 12: nos autem non spiritum huius mundi accepimus, sed Spiritum Dei. Quia ergo ille Spiritus de supernis est, ideo dicit descendentem.
For there is a twofold spirit: one of the world and the other of God. The spirit of the world is the love of the world, which is not from above; rather, it comes up to man from below and makes him descend. But the Spirit of God, i.e., the love of God, comes down to man from above and makes him ascend: we have not received the spirit of this world, but the Spirit of God (1 Cor 2:12). And so, because that Spirit is from above, he says, coming down.
Similiter etiam, quia impossibile est creaturam recipere Dei bonitatem in tanta plenitudine, secundum quod convenit Deo, ideo bonitatis ipsius ad nos derivatio, est quasi quidam descensus; Iac. I, 17: omne datum optimum, et omne donum perfectum desursum est, descendens a Patre luminum.
Similarly, because it is impossible for the creature to receive God’s goodness in the fullness in which it is present in God, the communication of this goodness to us is in a way a certain coming down: every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights (Jas 1:17).
270. Sed quia Spiritus Sanctus in sua natura videri non potest, ut dicitur infra III, 8: spiritus ubi vult spirat, et nescis unde veniat, aut quo vadat, spiritus etiam non est descendere, sed ascendere. Ez. VIII, 3: elevavit me spiritus etc. Ideo consequenter Evangelista modum visionis et descensus exponit, dicens, hic non fuisse in spiritu, idest natura sed in specie columbae, in qua apparuit: unde dicit quasi columbam.
270. Because the Holy Spirit cannot be seen in his own nature, as is said, the wind blows where it wills, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes (John 3:8), and because a spirit does not come down but goes up, the spirit lifted me up (Ezek 8:3). Therefore, the Evangelist, in describing the manner of the vision and of the coming down, says that the Holy Spirit did not appear in the spirit, i.e., in his nature, but in the form of a dove, saying, that he came as a dove.
Et hoc quidem congrue, ut scilicet Filius Dei per carnem visibilis factus, manifestaretur per Spiritum Sanctum visibili specie columbae. Quae quidem columba non est assumpta a Spiritu Sancto in unitatem personae, sicut humana natura assumpta est a Filio Dei. Cuius ratio est, quia Filius apparuit non solum ut manifestator, sed ut salvator. Et ideo, secundum quod dicit Leo Papa, oportuit quod esset Deus et homo: Deus quidem, ut afferret remedium; homo vero, ut praeberet exemplum. Spiritus vero sanctus apparuit solum ad manifestandum, ad quod sufficiebat speciem corporalem assumere solum ad significationem quamdam.
It was appropriate that the Son of God, who was made visible through flesh, should be made known by the Holy Spirit in the visible form of a dove. However, the Holy Spirit did not assume the dove into a unity of person, as the Son of God assumed human nature. The reason for this is that the Son did not appear as a manifester but as a savior. And so, according to Pope Leo, it was appropriate that he be God and man: God, in order to provide a remedy; and man, in order to offer an example. But the Holy Spirit appeared only to make known, and for this it was sufficient merely to assume a visible form which was suitable for this purpose.
271. Utrum autem columba illa fuerit verum animal, et utrum praeexistens apparitioni: sciendum, quod rationabiliter dicitur illa fuisse vera columba. Venit enim Spiritus Sanctus ad manifestandum Christum, qui cum sit veritas, non nisi per veritatem manifestandus erat.
271. As to whether this dove was a real animal and whether it existed prior to its appearance, it seems reasonable to say that it was a real dove. For the Holy Spirit came to manifest Christ, who, being the truth, ought to have been manifested only by the truth.
Quantum vero ad secundum, dicendum, quod non praeextitit apparitioni; sed tunc virtute divina absque commixtione maris et feminae formata fuit, sicut et corpus Christi virtute Spiritus Sancti conceptum, non ex virili semine. Et tamen fuit vera columba, quia, ut Augustinus dicit in libro de Agone Christiano, omnipotenti Deo, qui universam creaturam ex nihilo fabricavit, non erat difficile verum corpus columbae sine aliarum columbarum ministerio figurare, sicut non fuit difficile verum corpus in utero B. Virginis sine naturali semine fabricare. Cyprianus in libro de Unitate Ecclesiae: idcirco et in columba dicitur Spiritus Sanctus apparuisse, quia columba simplex animal et innocens est, non felle amarum, non morsibus ferum, non unguium laceratione violentum: hospitia humana diligere, unius domus consortium nosse, cum generat simul filios edere, cum conveniat volantibus invicem cohaerere, communi conversatione vitam suam degere, oris osculo concordiam pacis agnoscere, legem circa omnia unanimitatis implere.
As to the other part of the question, it would seem that the dove did not exist prior to its appearance, but was formed at the time by the divine power, without any parental union, as the body of Christ was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit, and not from a man’s seed. Yet it was a real dove, for as Augustine says in his work, The Christian Combat: it was not difficult for the omnipotent God, who produced the entire universe of creatures from nothing, to form a real body for the dove without the aid of other doves, just as it was not difficult to form the true body of Christ in the womb of the Blessed Virgin without natural semen. Cyprian, in his The Unity of the Church, says: it is said that the Holy Spirit appeared in the form of a dove because the dove is a simple harmless animal, not bitter with gall, not savage with its bites, not fierce with rending talons; it loves the dwellings of men, is able to live together in one nest, together it raises its young, they remain together when they fly, spend their life in mutual association, signify the concord of peace with the kiss of their bill, and fulfill the law of harmony in all things.
272. Quare autem potius in columba, quam in alia specie apparuit, multipliciter ratio assignatur. Primo quidem propter columbae simplicitatem. Nam columba simplex est; Matth. X, 16: estote prudentes sicut serpentes, et simplices sicut columbae. Spiritus autem Sanctus, quia facit respicere unum, scilicet Deum, simplices facit; et ideo in specie columbae apparet. Et quidem, secundum Augustinum, apparuit etiam super discipulos congregatos per ignem, quia quidam sunt simplices, sed tepidi; quidam autem ferventes, sed malitiosi. Ut ergo Spiritu sanctificati dolo careant, Spiritus in columbae specie demonstratur; et ne simplicitas frigiditate tepescat, demonstratur in igne.
272. Many reasons are given why the Holy Spirit appeared as a dove rather than in some other form. First, because of its simplicity, for the dove is simple: be wise as serpents, and simple as doves (Matt 10:16). And the Holy Spirit, because he inclines souls to gaze on one thing, that is, God, makes them simple; and so he appeared in the form of a dove. Further, according to Augustine, the Holy Spirit also appeared in the form of fire over the heads of the assembled apostles. This was done because some are simple, but lukewarm; while others are fervent but guileful. And so in order that those sanctified by the Spirit may have no guile, the Spirit is shown in the form of a dove; and in order that their simplicity may not grow tepid, the Spirit is shown in fire.
Secundo, propter caritatis unitatem. Nam columba amore multum fervet; Cant. VI, 8: una est columba mea. Ut ergo ostendat Ecclesiae unitatem, in specie columbae Spiritus Sanctus apparet. Nec te moveat quod discipulis dispartitae linguae apparuerunt, quando sedit supra singulos eorum Spiritus Sanctus, qui et dispartitus apparet, secundum diversa donorum officia, et tamen unit per caritatem; et sic propter primum apparuit in dispartitis linguis, ut dicitur I Cor. XII, 4: divisiones gratiarum sunt, in columbae specie propter secundum.
A dove was used, second, because of the unity of charity; for the dove is much aglow with love: one is my dove (Song 6:9). So, in order to show the unity of the Church, the Holy Spirit appears in the form of a dove. Nor should it disturb you that when the Holy Spirit rested on each of the disciples, there appeared separate tongues of fire; for although the Spirit appears to be different according to the different functions of his gifts, he nevertheless unites us through charity. And so, because of the first he appeared in separate tongues of fire, as is said, there are different kinds of gifts (1 Cor 12:4); but he appears in the form of a dove because of the second.
Tertio, propter gemitum. Columba enim habet gemitum pro cantu; sic Spiritus Sanctus postulat pro nobis gemitibus inenarrabilibus, ut dicitur Rom. VIII, 26, et Nahum II, 7: ancillae eius mirabantur.
A dove was used, third, because of its groaning, for the dove has a groaning chant; so also the Holy Spirit pleads for us with indescribable groanings (Rom 8:26); her maidens, groaning like doves (Neh 2:7).
Quarto, propter fecunditatem. Columba enim animal fecundissimum est, idcirco ad designandum fecunditatem gratiae spiritualis in Ecclesia, in specie columbae Spiritus Sanctus apparuit. Hic est quod Levit. V, 7 Dominus pullos columbarum offerre praecepit.
Fourth, because of the doves fertility, for the dove is a very prolific animal. And so in order to signify the fecundity of spiritual grace in the Church, the Holy Spirit appeared in the form of a dove. This is why the Lord commanded an offering of two doves (Lev 5:7).
Quinto, propter columbae cautelam. Sedet enim super rivos aquarum, in quibus respiciens, falconem volitantem conspicit, et sibi ab eo cavet; Cant. V, 12: oculi tui sicut columbae etc. Unde, quia in baptismo est nostra tutela et defensio, congrue in specie columbae Spiritus Sanctus apparuit.
A dove was used, fifth, because of its cautiousness. For it rests upon watery brooks, and gazing into them can see the hawk flying overhead and so save itself: his eyes are like doves beside brooks of water (Song 5:12). And so, because our refuge and defense is found in baptism, the Holy Spirit appropriately appeared in the form of a dove.
Respondet igitur figurae Veteris Testamenti. Sicut etenim columba deferens ramum virentis olivae, ostendit signum clementiae Dei his qui residui fuerant ex aquis diluvii; ita et in baptismo veniens Spiritus Sanctus in columbae specie, ostendit signum divinae clementiae, quae baptizatis et peccata remittit, et gratiam confert.
The dove also corresponds to a figure in the Old Testament. For as the dove bearing the green olive branch was a sign of God’s mercy to those who survived the waters of the deluge, so too in baptism, the Holy Spirit, coming in the form of a dove, is a sign of the divine mercy which takes away the sins of those baptized and confers grace.
273. Dicit autem manentem super eum, quia in mansione quies designatur.
273. He says that the Holy Spirit was remaining upon him.