(For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and show unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;)
All Commentaries on 1 John 1:2 Go To 1 John 1
Cornelius a Lapide
AD 1637
But the word signifies not only His eternity, but His eternal generation, and (3.) His Godhead, for "Being" or existence, as Elias Cretensis says, is peculiar (proprium) to God. For He is the fulness and boundlessness of being, a very boundless ocean of being. Whence Didymus (in loc.), S. Cyril (in John i.), and S. Ambrose (de.Fide i5) acutely observe that the several creatures are said to be this or that, but that God alone is said absolutely to be. (4.) The word "was" signifies that the "Word" still exists and abides. Thus St. Thomas says on John i, "Was" signifies past, present, and future time. The Word then ever was, ever Isaiah , and ever will be. As St. Basil says (de Sp. Sancto, cap. vi.) When John said "In the beginning was the Word" he confines our thoughts within fixed limits. For the word "was" allows our thoughts no outlet; and the word "beginning" keeps our thoughts also from soaring beyond it, for however thou mayest strive to see ought beyond the Song of Solomon , yet wilt thou never be able to pass beyond "the beginning." But if we speak correctly of God, His eternity cannot be bounded by any time whatsoever. For, as St. Gregory Nazianzen says, "God both ever was, and Isaiah , and will be." Or, to speak more correctly, He ever is. But our expressions designate only the flow and lapse of time. As St. Augustine says, "I separate in my mind every mutable thing from eternity, and in eternity itself I discern no spaces of time, for they consist in past and future motions, but in eternity there is nothing past or future, for the past has ceased to be, and future has not come into being; while eternity only is: it has not passed away as ceasing to be, nor is it future as not yet existing." Plato says the same. Why then does the Vulgate use the perfect and not the imperfect tense? 1. Because St. John in what follows uses the perfect tense2. Because "first" signifies more clearly that the Word was from the beginning3. Both these tenses are used indiscriminately, as St. Ambrose uses the imperfect tense; and lastly, Holy Scripture uses both past, present, and future tenses in speaking of God, for His eternity includes them all. As S. Augustine says (Tract xcix. in John), "Although the immutable and ineffable nature of God admits not of past or future time, but simply Is as incapable of change, yet because time is ever changing with us (in this our mortal and changeable state) we say not falsely, He hath been, He shall be, He is: hath been, because He has never ceased to be; shall be, because He will never cease to be; Isaiah , because He ever exists."
From the beginning, referring to Genesis 1:1. But here there is a distinction between "created" and "was." God created the world in the beginning of time: but He begat the Son in the beginning of eternity, which is signified by "was." Tertullian rightly says that the Gospel was the supplement of the Old Testament. For John supplements Moses, by putting the beginning of the Word before the beginning of the world, which was created ages afterwards. But what then was this "Beginning"? 1. S. Cyril and Origen, in John i, understand by it God the Father, for the Son was ever in the bosom of the Father2. S. Augustine, Bede, and S. Hilary (de Trin. lib. ii.) understand by it the beginning of the world, or of time. For even before this the Word "was" from all eternity. See Psalm 119:3 (Vulg.); Proverbs 8:25. As S. Hilary says: "Conceive any beginning you please, you cannot bound Him by time, for He then was;" and again, "He is out-limited by any time, as to make that to begin which existed, rather than was made, in the beginning3. S. Augustine, Chrysostom, Theophylact explain it that the Word was before all created beings. See. Proverbs 8:22. Nonnus in his Paraphrase says that it means, He was before all time, coeval with the Father, of the same nature as the Father, incomprehensible, ineffable. "In the beginning" then, is from all eternity (Micah v2). For eternity is a beginning without beginning. So S. Athanasius (Contr. Ar.) and others. S. Ambrose (de Fide i5) says that the word "was" reaches indefinitely. That which was in the beginning is not included in time, is not preceded by any beginning." (Pseudo)-Augustine, Serm. vi. de temp. (ccxxxiv. in App.): "He who was in the beginning includes within Himself all beginning." And Nazianzen (Orat. de Fide): "Whatever beginning you choose to assign, will be objected to, for He was in the beginning." But S. Cyril (in John i.) speaks more expressly: "Nothing is more ancient than the beginning, if the word retains its proper meaning. In the beginning of a beginning cannot be thought of. For if it be conceived, this first beginning will be done away with, and then will be really no beginning. And besides, we should then be obliged to go through an infinite series, and not be able to rest simply in any beginning whatsoever." 4. But it may be explained thus. The Word was the beginning of the breathing forth of the Holy Spirit, and thus of the creation of all things ( Proverbs 8:22). The Word being regarded as the pattern or idea according to which God created all things. By this expression John approves the Divinity of the Son of God against Cerinthus and the heretics of the day, who said that Christ was a mere man; as Paul of Samosata, and Photinus afterwards. The Arians partly held this opinion, for though they allowed that He existed before His birth in the flesh, yet they denied His eternal generation, and regarded Him as the first of all God"s creatures. This one expression "which was from the beginning," implicitly includes the threefold statement in the gospel: (1) In the beginning was the Word.—(2) The Word was with God. (3.) The Word was God. And without quoting this passage S. John refers here to it, for that which was from all eternity must necessarily be God: for nothing is eternal but God.
The first member of the sentence properly and explicitly sets forth when the Word, was: then where He was, and then what was His essence, and its identity with that of the Father. These three blessings did the Word confer on us in His Incarnation, wherein He betrothed His humanity (as it were) to the Eternal Word, and thus joined and betrothed to Itself the whole human race, that we who are temporal might become eternal, from being earthly might become heavenly, that we men might become Gods, in order that our being in time or place, our very essence, might be firmly fixed in the Divine and eternal Word. S. Gregory Nazianzen (Orat. xxxvii. on the Nativity) beautifully says, "The Son of God, who was before all worlds, invisible, incomprehensible, incorporeal, that Beginning, coming from the Beginning, that Light of Light, that Fount of Light and immortality, that stamp of the Archetype, that firmly impressed Seal, betakes Himself to His own image, takes upon Him flesh for the sake of flesh, and is united to an intellectual soul for my soul"s sake, in order that He might cleanse like by like." And again, "God united with manhood made one Person of two contrary natures, body and spirit, one of them being deified by the other."
"0 strange union, 0 wondrous interblending! He who exists is made, the uncreated is created; He who is unconfined is (by the medium of an intellectual soul) contained within the compass of a gross body of flesh; He who enriches others suffers poverty, for He takes my poor and humble flesh that I might attain to the riches of His Divinity. He who is full is made empty, emptied of His glory for a short time, that I might be made partaker of His fulness. What riches of His goodness! What a mystery encircles me: He becomes partaker of my flesh, in order to save man who is His image, and to confer immortality on our flesh."
That which we have heard, which we have seen. Lyra refers this to the preaching of John the Baptist, and what he pronounced Christ to be. Didymus and others to the prophecies respecting Christ, and to the several appearances of God to Adam, and the Patriarchs in the Old Testament. For though the whole three Persons were manifested, yet it was specially a manifestation of the Word of God, signifying and anticipating His real appearance, at His own due time, in the flesh. (See Clement, Constit. v22; Justin, contr. Trypho; Origen, Hom. i. in Isa. vi, &c.) For though in all these appearances, and especially in that noblest of all, at the giving of the Law, there appeared, properly speaking, only the person of an Angel (see Galatians 3:19), yet this Angel specially represented the Word or Son of God.
But these instances are not to the point, for the Patriarchs and Prophets heard and saw the Word only darkly and in type, and not as the Apostles and disciples of Christ did, which is what S. John here means (see Hebrews 1:1; Matthew 17:5).
S. John puts hearing first, sight afterwards, ascending from that which is less certain to that which is more certain, for he adds lastly, and our hands have handled. As S. Augustine says (de Diversis lxi. [al. ccclxxi.]), "A man who could be seen was not to be followed, but God was to be followed Who could be seen. In order then that He might be made manifest, and be seen of men, and followed by men, He was made man." And on Psalm 33, "That man might not disdain to follow a humble Prayer of Manasseh , God humbled Himself, that the pride of man might not disdain to follow the footsteps of God." See also S. Gregory, Mor. xxix1; and Hugh of S. Victor (lib. Sent.) gives as one reason for the Incarnation, "that the inward eye might feast on His Godhead, the outward eye on His manhood." This is what S. Paul speaks of (Tit. iii.) when he says that the love of God towards man appeared.
Which we have seen, and admired, as a most wonderful sight. It was with the mind only that the Apostles beheld Christ"s Godhead, gathering it from His doctrine, miracles, holiness, &c. The Word was both seen and heard through the flesh, as a king is seen by His people, as we look on anything through a cloud, as fire is seen through the heated metal, &c. And though the union of the Word with flesh resembled all these, yet it was more perfect than any of them, for all of them, save that of body and soul, are accidental, but the union of the Word with the manhood is substantial. It is not, however, essential, for the Divine Essence is clearly separate and distinct from the manhood. But yet the union is hypostatical or personal, the manhood and the Godhead existing in the same Person. As in the Eucharist, the Godhead and manhood are hid under the species of the Bread and Wine. As S. Chrysostom says, "Behold, thou seest Christ, thou touchest, thou eatest Him." (Hom. lx. ad pop.)
And our hands have handled, just as blind men do, touching everything by the hand, as S. Thomas did ( John 20:27), and also the other Apostles ( Luke 24:39). So S. Leontius (Epist. xcvii.), S. Athanasius (Orat. contr. Arian), and many others; though Euthymius thinks that Thomas alone touched His wounds. And in their daily intercourse with Christ the Apostles must have touched Him, with love and veneration when they acknowledged Him as God. For as Oecum says, "He was both seen and not seen, tangible and intangible,—speaking as Prayer of Manasseh , working miracles as God." But we may fully believe that S. John did this with peculiar devotion and affection, when he rested on His breast. S. Clement Alex. seems to say that Christ"s wounds miraculously yielded to the touch of the disciples, so as to make them feel as though they were open. S. Augustine, Ambrose, and others believe that the wounds remained open. (See Suarez, par. iii. Disput. xlvii. sect2.)
S. John inculcates and enlarges upon the doctrine of the Incarnation, first against Basilides, who maintained that Christ assumed flesh in appearance only, and therefore did not really suffer and redeem us. So Epiphanius, Hr. xxiv.
Secondly, to confirm the faithful in their belief of the doctrine, and to convert unbelievers by an argument derived from the evidence of our senses. He maintains then that he himself had seen, heard, and touched Christ. So also S. Peter ( Acts 10:40). For, as Tertullian (de Anim. ch. xvii) says, "It would indeed be false testimony, if our very senses proved false."
Thirdly, to show the condescension of the Word, and the dignity of the Apostles. For the Word deigned to come down from heaven, and to join together God and man in the closest personal union, so that all the attributes of God belong to Prayer of Manasseh , and vice versa, and He accordingly, through the attributes of a Prayer of Manasseh , manifests the attributes of God to the Apostles.
In this way the intangible became tangible (says Nazianzen, Orat. xxxviii.), for we cannot form in our minds any likeness of God, Who is a Spirit. In order then that we might conceive of Him, invoke Him, behold, address, and touch Him, He was made man. Whence Paulinus says (in his Epistle to Florentinus), " Hebrews , our Lord and God, Who appeared on earth, and held converse with men, is our Sheep and our Shepherd. He is our Emmanuel, God with us, the Lord of Majesty, and the Son of the Handmaiden, being one of these by nature, and being made the other. The same Person being the Creator and the Redeemer of Prayer of Manasseh , God of God, Man for man"s sake, the Son of God before all worlds, the Son of man for the sake of the world," &c. He then, Who in His Godhead was our Father, became, as it were, a mother to mankind by the manhood He assumed (see notes on Acts xvii24,29), but also because God as Bridegroom took to Himself our mother—humanity—as His spouse, and joined it to Himself in everlasting wedlock. (This was prefigured by the marriage of Adam and Eve.) By His humanity then He wedded ourselves and our nature, to become our Mother, as He was before that our Father, in order that we might approach Him with boldness, as children who are afraid of their father approach their mother first of all, and obtain their request. (2.) We therefore invoke Christ"s manhood, when we end all our prayers "through Jesus Christ our Lord." And as a mother bears a child in her womb, and then trains and fashions it, so did Christ by His continual labours for us, especially on the cross, conceive us, bring us to the birth, nourish and fashion us. Thirdly, because the Incarnation was the work of the highest intelligence and Wisdom of Solomon , as well as of the highest goodness. This latter is ascribed to the Holy Spirit, as the former to the Word. But all of them are subordinate to the omnipotence of the Father. He conceived all things by His Word, as if in the womb, and by His goodness He pours forth His bowels of mercy on us, and especially through the Incarnation He addresses His children ( Isaiah 49:15) as a mother. "The Gentiles," says S. Clement (Strom. lib. v.), "used to call God μητζοπάτοζα."(See S. Augustine, de Civ. vii9.)
In order that we may understand the boundless benefits of the Incarnation, S. John suggests four points for our consideration—Who? What? For Whom? and Why?
1. Who then assumed our flesh? The eternal Word, the King of kings and Lord of lords, Emmanuel, Wonderful, Counsellor, &c. See Isa. ix6. This is what the Church says in the Preface for Christmas Day, "By the mystery of the Incarnate Word Thy new and bright light has shone in the eyes of our mind, so that by visibly beholding our God we may thereby be enraptured with the love of invisible things." The Divine Nature did not suffer change or loss by the Incarnation, but remained unaltered in Its own nature and impassible. S. Leontius (Serm. x. de Nativ.) says, "The same who took on Him the form of a servant, is in the form of God. The same is incorporeal, and yet assumed a body. The same Being is inviolate in His own might, and subject to suffering in our weakness. He was ever the same Being, never separated from His Father"s throne, and yet was by wicked men crucified on the tree." S. Cyril (in John i1) compares the Word made man to a heated coal or iron. As the fire consumes not the iron, but both substances remain uninjured, in like manner the Godhead changed not the manhood, nor the manhood the Godhead: both remain unchanged. This was signified by the burning bush. See too the three Dialogues of Theodoret, where he maintains this against Eutyches. As Damascene says (Orat. i. de Nativ.), "Thy love, 0 Lord, towards me was so great, that Thou didst not carry out the work of my redemption by an angel or any created being, but as Thou didst create me at first, so didst Thou Thyself effect my redemption. And S. Augustine, Serm. lix. Verb. Dom. (al. lxii.), says, "The all-powerful Physician came down to heal the sufferer. He humbled Himself so far as to take mortal flesh, just as the physician comes down to the bedside of his patient."
2. What did God become in the Incarnation? He became flesh, or man: "The flesh," says S. Augustine, "had blinded, the Flesh healeth thee. For the soul became carnal by yielding to carnal affections, and the eyes of its heart were thus blinded. But the Word was made flesh. Thy Physician made thee an eye-salve, that by His Flesh He might extinguish the sins of the flesh." The flesh of man is wretched, above that of other animals, subject to countless sufferings and diseases, and corrupted by concupiscence. But yet the Word assumed it, and passing by all the orders of angels, came down into this vale of misery, and united this very flesh to Himself by the closest bond of a personal union. Supposing a sheep were led to the slaughter, and a man from love and compassion wished to die in its stead, as S. Francis used to buy and set them free for love of Christ, would not this be termed an insane and extravagant love? But the love of Christ was as much greater than this, as God surpasses man infinitely more than a man surpasses a sheep. This therefore is the great mystery of godliness ( 1 Timothy 3:18). We ought then to wonder and be astounded at this when we see the Infant lying in the manger, and say, "Can this child be my God, the King of heaven, the Creator of the universe?" S. Thomas says (0pusc. lx.), God communicates Himself to all by His presence, to the just by His grace, and above all to our flesh by His substance; naturally, supernaturally, and personally, says Cajetan. And in fact, by His manhood He has raised all men, and through them the whole universe, and united it to Himself, that God might be all in all. And again, He united Himself to Prayer of Manasseh , the first to the last, for man was the last created of all things, God coming round to that point from which He started.
3. But for whom did He become flesh? For Prayer of Manasseh , a sinner, and like to the vilest worm. "The child was born, the Son was given for us." Christ did not assume our nature for Himself, as though He needed or delighted in that humanity which He assumed. It was for us. We were the ultimate end of His Incarnation. For He was born in the flesh, that we might be born spiritually in our souls. "For us men," &c, in the Nicene Creed. What, says S. Anselm, "can we imagine more compassionate, than God saying to a sinner, destined to eternal punishment, and unable to redeem himself, Take My Only Begotten Song of Solomon , and offer Him for thyself; or for the Son to say, "Take me, and redeem thyself." Codrus sacrificed himself for his country; but what comparison can this bear to Christ, who, clothing Himself with our flesh, freed us from eternal death and hell, and made us heirs of His heavenly kingdom and eternal glory?"
4. But why was the Word made man? To deliver man from hell, death, sin, and utter misery of body and soul. For the Word gained nothing for Himself but the "emptying" of Himself, insults, poverty, death, and the cross. For our redemption "He was born in time, that we might be born for eternity, He was born in a stable, that we might be born in heaven." (S. Gregory Nazianzen). Hear S. Augustine (Serm. ix. de Nativ.): Our Lord Jesus Christ, who is from eternity, the Creator of all things, became our Saviour by being born on this day. He was born for us in this ever-changing state, in order to bring us to the eternal Father. God became Prayer of Manasseh , that man might become God, and, that man might eat angels" food, the Lord of angels became man." And also S. Gregory Nazianzen (in. Distiches). S. Clemens Alex. says that by His Incarnation He changed earth into heaven, and made angels, and even gods, of men. (And so too [Pseudo]-Origen, Hom. ix. in diversis; S. Leontius, Serm. vi. de Nat.; and S. Anselm, Cur. Deus Homo.)
See then the immensity of this blessing. God not only rains down manna, but rends the heavens as it were, and showers all the treasures and compassions of the Godhead upon us. (See Isa. xlv8.) And S. Augustine, Serm. xxvii. (nunc clxxxvii.): "My mouth shall speak the praise of the Lord, the Lord by whom all things were made, the Revealer of His Father, the Maker of His Mother, the Son of God—of His Father without a mother; the Son of Man—of His mother without a father; the Word of God before all times, made man at the fitting time. . . . Great in the form of God, little in the form of a servant. . . . And yet not so as to detract ought from His greatness, or that His littleness should be overwhelmed by His greatness," &c. And S. Gregory Nazianzen thus rejoices (Orat. xxx7): "Christ is born: glorify Him; Christ has come down from heaven: go forth to meet Him. . . . Clap your hands together, all ye people, for unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given. . . . He who is without flesh is incarnate, the Word increases in stature, the invisible is seen, the intangible is touched, He who is without time begins to be the Son of God—is made the Son of man. Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever." See S. Bernard (Serm. i. de Epiphany): "What could declare His mercy so much as His taking on Him our misery? . . . for the more He humbled Himself in His humanity, the more did He exhibit His goodness; and the viler He became for me, the dearer did He become to me." And (Serm. lxiv. in Cant.), "0 the sweetness, the grace! 0 the power of love! The highest of all has become the lowest of all. And who effected this? Love ignoring dignity, great in condescension, mighty in its affections, powerful in persuasion. And what mighty violence! love triumphs over God, to teach us that it was of His love that His fulness was poured forth, His height brought down, and His one nature associated with another."
Let us then open our heart wide to receive this manna pouring down from heaven, that so by our boundless desires we may embrace and taste all its sweetness. Let us imitate the Patriarchs, who waited four thousand years, and longed and thirsted for it, saying, "0 that thou wouldest rend the heavens and come down!"
Let us imitate the Blessed Virgin, who after His conception longed for His birth, was torn away from the world, and wholly united to Christ. Let every one make known to Christ his necessities, and that temptation which specially weighs him down, and say confidently with S. Catherine of Sienna, "0 Lord, I have Thee present: Thou art mine, I will not let Thee go till Thou removest this temptation; grant me this virtue or grace, till Thou entirely possessest my heart, and imbuest it with Thy love." For He came on earth for this very purpose. S. Jerome and S. Paula went to Bethlehem, that they might continually behold in their minds the birth of Christ. So S. Francis just before his death celebrated Christmas with an ox and ass, ever repeating, "Let us love the Babe of Bethlehem." And S. Bernard on this mystery surpasses himself, as he preached, saying, "Christ gave Himself wholly for thee: do thou give thyself wholly to Him; as He became man for thee, do thou in return be born to Christ—engraft thyself with the Word, betroth and give thyself wholly to God." See also Serm. in CÅ“na Dom. at the end of his works.
And our hands have handled of the word of life. That Isaiah , that Very Word which we have handled, seen, and heard. That which we could handle and touch, His humanity, e.g, and thus have found that He truly assumed human flesh, and was not a phantom or spectre. Happy they who were permitted thus to see, hear, and touch the Incarnate Word. See Luke 10:23.
Didymus refers all this to the Resurrection, a mystery which the Apostles constantly confirm and enforce. The Gloss confines it to the Transfiguration. But it is far better to refer it to the whole economy of the Incarnation of the Word of life, that Isaiah , the eternal, uncreated, Divine Word. S. Basil thinks that the Holy Spirit may be called the Word. But, as S. Thomas says, in an improper sense. See notes on John i1.
But it may be asked, (1.) why does S. John call the Song of Solomon , the Word? 1st, Because both in his Gospel and Epistle he refers to that beginning which Moses speaks of2d, Because the Word Who is in the bosom of the Father has all wisdom. And this wisdom S. John sets forth, dwelling more on Christ"s teaching and doctrine, while the other evangelists dwell more on what He did. He therefore calls Christ the Word, because he purposes to recount the sayings of this "Word." 3d, If he had called Him the Song of Solomon , they might have imagined Him to be of a bodily and passible nature. But the "Word" signifies that His generation was not human but spiritual and divine, and consequently pure, perfect, and incorruptible, generated by the Divine mind as a word is generated in our mind4th, Because the "Word" signifies the mental conception of God the Father, and this is the generation of the Song of Solomon , who represents and sets forth the wisdom and will of the Father, as a word would do. And this too is the very reason why the Song of Solomon , and not the Father or the Holy Spirit, was incarnate, because the Incarnation took place in order to manifest God to man. But it is by a word that anything is manifested. And as the Word was begotten of the Father in the Spirit, so did it become Him to be born of His mother in the flesh. S. John therefore leads us to the Word, and through Him to God, in order to teach us ever to hold sweet converse with Him. As Seneca says, "As the rays of the sun reach the earth, but dwell in their own source, so does a noble soul, which is sent among us to bring a closer knowledge of divine things, hold converse indeed with us, but is not separated from its own source." It is wedded to the eternal word, as S. Ambrose says and S. Augustine (Serm. xxxviii. nunc Serm. cxvii.), "A man becomes happy by attaining to that which ever continues happy, and is itself perpetual happiness, and that by which man lives is perpetual life, that by which he becomes wise is perpetual Wisdom of Solomon , and that by which he is enlightened is perpetual light."
2d. But why is the Son called λόγος? (1.) That word can be translated "wisdom." And just as wisdom is intimately connected with ourselves, so is the Son with the Father. And (2.) as reason or knowledge proceeds from the mind, so does the Word or the Son proceed from the Father. So Origen, S. Chrysostom, Theophylact, Euthymius in John i, Nazianzen, Orat. iv, S. Basil, &c. And (3.) because He makes us subject to reason. See Rupertus on John i, and Eusebius, Demetrius, Evang. v5. "The Word has in Himself the reasons of all created things, and is accordingly termed the Wisdom and the Word of God." But this word "reason" does not express so clearly His procession from the Father. (See S. Augustine, Quæst. lxiii. inter lxxxvii.) Besides which the word "reason" speaks of the Essence of God and is common to the Whole Trinity, and is not merely personal as [Pseudo]-Dionysius says (De Divinis Nominibus). But lastly, "reason" can exist in one who at the time does not understand (as when sleeping), but the "Word" only in one who actually understands.
2d. The word λόγος may mean "work." For the Word is the coequal work of the Father as God. See Wisd.
3d. It may mean "power." For the, Word is the arm of the Father, by which He created all things (as God), and by whom He redeemed all things. (See 1 Corinthians 1:23.)
4th. It may mean "the form." For the Word is the brightness of the Eternal Light. Wisd; Hebrews 1:23. [Pseudo]-Dionysius speaks of the Father as the primordial Fount of Godhead, and the Son and the Holy Ghost as shoots (so to speak) of Godhead. And accordingly S. Augustine (de Trin. vi10) says, "A certain person (S. Hilary, de Synod) says that when he wished to express in the clearest manner the properties of the several Persons in the Trinity, he used to say that "Eternity was in the Father, His Image in the Song of Solomon , His use in the gift, i.e, the Holy Spirit the gift of the Father and the son."" And (as above) "The Word increases not as we know Him, but ever remains one and the same, whether we adhere to or withdraw from Him, ever abiding in Himself, and renewing all things. The Form (or pattern) of all things, unfashioned Himself, independent of time and space."
5th. It can mean "definition," because He definitely and fully sets forth the nature of the Father, and of all things besides. As S. Gregory Nazianzen says, "The Son has the same relation to the Father as the definition to the thing defined. For he who sees the Song of Solomon , sees the Father: for the Son is a brief and simple setting forth of the Father"s nature." See Euthymius on John i. Again, it may mean "a computation;" for the Word is the standard by which all things are computed.
6th. Again, it may mean the "cause," for the Word was both the efficient cause of all creatures, and also the idea which conceived them.
7th. Beza and others suppose it to be the promised Word, foretold by the Prophets. But Salmeron states in reply, that He was before all Prophets, and was with God. In fact, Beza denies the λόγος quite as much as do the Alogians (see Epiph. Hær. li.), as do also the Magdeburg Centuriators, and thus are semi-atheists.
8th. But the best meaning is that He is the "Word," not of the mouth and voice, but of the heart and mind. For as we conceive anything in our mind, so did the Eternal Father, knowing what was His own Essence and all its capacities, form and produce this Word from eternity in every respect equal and like to Himself, and consequently God, the Son of God, begotten of the Father. (See Suarez, lib. ix. de Deo Trin. cap4 , 6 , and others.)
Here note that the Word of God has a twofold sense, first, essential, because He is the very essence, mind, and will of the Father which He communicates to the Son and the Holy Spirit. The Arians believed this, but added that God began to be the Father only in time. (2.) There is the personal sense of the word, viz. the Word begotten of the Father, and a Person subsisting by Himself. Of Him S. John speaks both here and in his Gospel. S. Cyril (Thesaur. vii1) says, "S. John chose the name of the "Word" as most appropriate, and significative of the Godhead, and the procession of the second Person of the Trinity." But S. Augustine (de Trin. xv14), "the Father knoweth all things in Himself—in Himself essentially, but in the Son as His Word."
The word λόγος is the same as discourse, or speech. Accordingly, Tertullian, S. Cyprian, S. Ambrose, Jerome, use the word "Sermo." Erasmus adopted this in the passage before us. For this innovation he was sharply handled by theologians, but defended by Calvin.
The term "word" (verbum) is more appropriate—(1.) as the simplest; (2.) the most general term; (3.) because it is the proper word for any mental conception, and the Son is the conception of the Father"s mind; (4.) a word is uttered by the mouth, and so did the Father make known His will through the Word, as S. Epiphanius expressly says (Hær. lxxi.), and S. Augustine (de Fide et Symb. cap iii.), "He is called the Word of the Father, because the Father is made known through Him. For just as we by our words make our mind known to a hearer, so is that Wisdom of Solomon , whom the Father begat, most fittingly called the Word, because it is through Him that the very secrets of the Father are made known." S. John here and elsewhere calls Christ the Word by reason of His Godhead and not His manhood.
S. Basil, describing the dignity and attributes of the Word (lib. ii. contr. Eunom.), says, "In order to have a worthy understanding of His generation from God, we should consider it to be impassible, indivisible, before all time, like a ray shooting forth from a light, not carefully wrought out at some subsequent time, but as existing together with its prototype, which gave it its being, and coexisting with it, like the impression of a seal, or as when teachers impart knowledge, without losing anything themselves, and yet instructing their hearers." And Tertullian (adv. Praxeam, ch. ix.) uses the same comparisons. "God brought forth His Word, as a root produces a plant, a fountain the river, and the sun its rays. But yet we cannot separate them from each other, as the Word cannot be separated from God." This doctrine is fully set forth in the Creed which S. Gregory Thaumaturgus is said to have received from S. John himself, at the bidding of the Blessed Virgin. The Gentiles knew this truth in a shadowy way, having learned it either from the Old Testament or from the Sibylline Books, or even from the light of nature, or Divine Inspiration. Plato accordingly was called the Attic Moses, (Eusebius, de Prep. Evan. xiii.; and Theodoret, de Curando Græc. Affect. lib. ii.), Lactantius (de Sap. iv9) says, "Philosophers were not ignorant of this divine Word. For Zeno calls the Orderer of Nature and the Maker of the Universe the λόγος."
But it will be asked, was this Divine Word like our Word, or unlike? Partly like, and partly unlike. It was like in these respects . 1. As being immaterial2. As being in either case the vehicle of our thoughts; and3 , of our conceptions4. As being within5. As being the idea according to which nations are moulded. Hence Tinneus calls the Word of God his pattern world, the model of all created things6. As the thoughts of our mind are uttered outwardly in word, so was it when the Word of God spake in the Flesh He assumed7. As our word is the image of our understanding, so is the Word the image of God the Father8. As our word or conception lasts as long as we understand any matter, so is it with the Divine Word. The Divine mind ever abides, so does His Word. And as the mind of the Father is ever active, so is it with the generation of the Word. It is ever going on. As the Ephesian fathers say, "Let the splendour of light set forth that the Son of God has ever been co-eternal with the Father, let the "Word" declare that His generation was without suffering, and let the Name of Son reveal His consubstantiality." See, too, S. Basil (Hom. i. on S. John). 9. As the conceptions of our mind precede our action. As S. Augustine says (de Trinit. lib. xv11), "There are no acts of ours which are not previously suggested in the mind. There may be words of ours which are not followed by action, but the contrary cannot be: and in like manner the Word of God could be when as yet no creature existed, but no creature could exist except by Him by Whom all things were made."
II. It is unlike: (1.) Because our word is merely an accident of our mind: but the Word of God exists as a Substance and a Person. See S. Athanasius, Serm. i. Contr. Arianos; and S. Chrysostom, Hom. i. on John ix2. (2.) Our word is a thing of time, subsequent to its conception in the mind, whereas the Word of God is from all eternity, and coeval with the Father. And again our "word" results from our being unable otherwise to understand others. But the Word of God arises from the infinite perfection and productiveness of the Father"s mind. (3.) Our speech is imperfect, ever changing, and complex. Whereas the Word of God is perfect, ever constant, unchangeable, one and the same, as S. Augustine says (on Ps. xliv.), "All things exist in One," and S. Athanasius, Serm. iii. contr. Arian. (4.) Our word or speech is distinct from our mind, whereas the Word of God is consubstantial with the Father. (5.) Our speech (or word) is part of our nature, but the Word of God is a Person distinct from the Father. (6.) Our word is not our son whereas the Word of God is the Son of God, as S. Augustine says (de Trinit. vi. i): "The Father is Very Wisdom of Solomon , but the Son is Wisdom and Power from the Wisdom and Power of the Father. The Father is not wise by engendered Wisdom of Solomon , but is in Himself unbegotten Wisdom." (7.) Our words are feeble and ineffectual; the Word of God is all-powerful. (8.) Our words soon pass away and come to naught. The Word of God is eternal, for eternal is the understanding and the generation of the Father. S. Hilary says (de Trinit. ii.), "The sound of the voice ceases, and the expression of our thought. But this Word is a reality, not a mere sound." (See Suarez ut supra.)
And therefore, though we may in some measure ascend from the word of our mind to (the knowledge of) the Word of God, yet this ascent by the light of nature is only to (the knowledge of) His essential Word. For this God conceives, understands, and bringeth forth all things. But that He brought forth and begat His Personal Word, that is as Song of Solomon , surpasses the understanding both of angels and men. It must therefore be wondered at and adored in mute and holy silence, rather than be pried into and set forth by our too curious and yet feeble understanding, so that we may wonder and cry aloud with the Seraphim, "Holy, Holy, Holy," &c. This was not known to Plato, or to Demosthenes with all his eloquence. "I will bring to nought the understanding of the prudent," says S. Jerome to Paulinus. "My heart hath uttered a good word. I will speak of thy works to the King," says the Psalmist (Ps. xly. i.) "Thou seest that this Word is the Son of God, and we believe that He came forth from the Father"s breast; from the womb of His heart, so to speak." (Nazianzen, Orat. de Fide.) See Ps. cx, on which S. Jerome says, "He brought Him forth from His own Nature, from His own substance, from the very inmost being (medullis) of His Godhead. Whatever the Father is Himself in His Godhead He gave wholly to His Son."
Tropologically. S. Augustine (Confess. xi9) explains how the Word preaches to the heart of Prayer of Manasseh , and S. Bernard says (Serm. xlv. in Cant.): "His beauty is His love, and it is the greater because it takes the lead. But then it Isaiah , that from the very depths of His heart, and from His inmost affections, He cries more ardently for our love in return, in proportion as He feels that He was more ready to love us than we were to be loved by Him. And hence arose His speaking to us, His pouring forth His gift, and the response of the soul, its wonder and its thankfulness. And it therefore loves the more, because it sees that it is mastered in love, and wonders the more, and feels that it was not the first to love." And S. Ambrose, (de Virg. iii.) says, "the Word of God wounds, but leaves not a sore (ulcerat)." There is a wound of gracious love, there are wounds of charity, as the Spouse says (Song ii.), "She who is perfect is wounded with charity. Good then are the wounds of the Word—the wounds of Him who loveth us."
The word of life. "For as the Father hath life in Himself, &c." ( John 5:26.) Being is here attributed to the Father, life to the Word, love to the Holy Spirit.
Life is threefold, divine, angelic, human. Of these the Divine is most perfect, boundless, eternal, uncreated, the origin and source of angelic and human life. Angelic life is created, but spiritual. Human life is partly spiritual, partly corporeal. It is also natural and supernatural. The natural consists in life, sense, and reason. The supernatural also is two-fold, begun by grace and consummated in glory. Further than this the Divine Life is formal and causal. Formal is that life with which God Himself exists, causal that by which He gives life (whether natural or spiritual) to others. The Word then is called the Word of Life, as having life in Himself and as being the cause of life to others. As S. John says, "in Him was life," being in Himself essential life. See S. Thomas, par. i. Qust28 , where he alludes to the words ( Psalm 36), "With Thee is the Fount of Life;" as Theodoret says, "With Thee is the Eternal Word, the Fount of Life, and in the Light of the Holy Spirit we shall see the light of the only Begotten One."
But secondly, it may mean, that in the Word there exist, as in archetype, the eternal reasons of all things. "The Wisdom of God, (says S. Augustine in John i1) in art (or theory) contains all things. Thou beholdest the heaven, sun, moon, they exist in the theory; outwardly they are bodies, in theory they are life." And again, "All things which are made, and have not life, have life in the Word of God, though they are not life, in themselves." The same statement occurs in the Homilies ascribed to Origen. As Philo says, "When He resolved to create this world, He formed a conception of it, and from that fashioned the world we now see." See note in translation of S. Augustine (on John 1:3) in Library of the Fathers.
But again, in Him is that which sustains and supports everything in life. See S. Chrysostom, Cyril, Theophylact, Euthymius in John i4 , and Clement Alex. Adhort. ad gentes.
Thirdly, But it is best to understand it to mean that in the Word is our true life, both of grace and glory. He became man in order to communicate this life and light to men: that, just as the world at large was created by Him, so might man (this existence of the world) be Revelation -created, and brought back from sin to the life of grace and glory. See below, verse2 , and chapter v. ii. See S. Chrysostom, Augustine, S. Ambrose, de Fide, cap. iii. and others. See too the many passages in this Gospel where life is spoken of as coming from the Word. See also Lactantius i11 , on the meaning of Ζευ̃ς.
And the Life was manifested: By the Incarnation, by which He was beheld and even touched by men. This was prophesied by Isaiah; and see Luke 3:5. And S. Ambrose in Ps. xxxvi. ( Psalm 37:19) says, "Christ is in all things our life. His Godhead is our life, His eternity is our life, His flesh is our life, His Passion is our life." Whence Jeremy says, "We shall live in His shadow, the shadow of His wings. The shadow of the cross is the shadow of His Passion, His death is life, His wounds are life, His blood is life, His burial is life, His Resurrection is the life of all men. Wishest thou to know how His death is life? We are baptized into His death, that we may walk with Him in newness of life [Rom. vi4]. And He says Himself, "Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone, but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit (John xii24). Hebrews , that grain of wheat, was separated from the body for us, and died that He might bring forth much fruit in us. His death therefore is the fruit of life."
And bear witness. In our words, our life, our suffering death and martyrdom. As S. John says of himself (Rev. v1.). Again, it means, "We protest and denounce, by threatening unbelievers with the terrible judgment of God." As Cassian says (de Incarn. v6), "In faithfully discharging His Office, He leaves those who refuse to listen, to bear the peril of their own disobedience."
And shew unto you that Eternal Life: Christ, who as the Word of God is eternal life: which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us—being made visible by His Incarnation, miracles, especially (says Cajetan) by His Transfiguration, Resurrection, and Ascension. By which latter He shows that not only as the Word, but as man also, He will live a glorious and eternal life.
With the Father. As the Gospel says, "The Word was with God." Being, as Nonnus says, "never parted from the Father: ever seated on His Throne."
S. John here answers the objection, "How could He be ever with the Father, when there was no place where He could be? S. John replies that there was no need of space for Him. He was in the bosom of the Father. But the word "with" signifies three things: (1) That He was a person distinct from the Father, (2) that He was closely connected with Him, (3) was equal to the Father. This overthrows the Eunomian heresy that the Son was not the Word, for S. John says that it was the same Word which was with the Father, and was manifested in the flesh. And to keep them from inferring that the Word was not God, S. John expressly adds, "And the Word was God." For the Divine Persons, though distinct the one from the other, have yet one and the same Essence. And that the Word was not, as Arian suggested, separable from the Father, as some article of dress (see S. Fulgent, contr. Monimum, lib. iii. cap2 , 3), He is one with the Father as heat and brightness co-exist in the fire, or as memory and understanding co-exist in the same mind, or perhaps intellect, memory, and will are identical with the mind itself.
And was manifested unto us. This was at the Incarnation (as S. Dionysius Alex. says), where the invisible became visible, and when He who far surpasses every being came from the hidden shrine of Godhead, became Prayer of Manasseh , and stood forth to our view. But God in truth is hidden even after this manifestation of Himself, or indeed (to announce a higher truth) even in this very manifestation. For the Godhead of Jesus was hidden, and the mystery which then was wrought respecting Him is not revealed or brought into light by anything which can be said or thought about Him, but even when it is spoken of cannot be explained, and when it is understood is still kept secret.
