(John 1:1-3) AMBROSIASTER 1ST CATEGORY NT QUESTION 122. THE PRINCIPLE OR THE BEGINNING. — In the beginning was the Word. (Jn. 1:1) What is at the beginning? We read in the Old Testament: "In the beginning God created heaven and earth (Gen. 1:1)." And in the Epistle of the same Apostle (John), author of this Gospel, of which we try to explain the exordium, this expression is taken in the same sense. This is how it is expressed in this Epistle: "What was in the beginning (I Jn. 1:1).” The Epistle and the Gospel thus present the same thought, the same signification. On the contrary, there is a discrepancy between these words of the Old Testament: "In the beginning God created heaven and earth," and those of the New Testament: "In the beginning was the Word." And again: "That which was from the beginning." Being in the beginning, and being from the beginning signifies one and the same thing, for what was from the beginning did not begin to be. What begins to exist was not from the beginning, and therefore is subject to a beginning to be first in the order of creatures, because in fact the one that was made in the beginning was followed by all those which were made after him. Here is why we read: ‘In the beginning were heaven and earth’, for while they did not yet extirpate and God had resolved to create the world; in principle, that is to say, among the elements which were to serve the creation of the world, God created heaven and earth first, because the principle is the beginning of a thing which begins to be the first of those to follow. But when the Evangelist says: "In the beginning was the Word," he wants to teach us that he existed before all the creatures of heaven and earth, and that he is not only the first of created beings, for it was in the beginning when God had resolved to create the world, and if it were in principle, that is, before all things, it existed from all eternity, he was the Word, and where was he? "In God," said the Evangelist, "that there should be no temptation to give him a beginning worthy of him who was in God from all eternity that the one who was in God before all things was not subject to any beginning, so the Evangelist adds, "And the Word was God." He clearly shows that everything he said before applies perfectly to the Word, for the Word is God, and there can be no other thought worthy of God than that of his eternalness, if it began to be, it is a creature, and if it is created it is not God. All that exists is either God or creature, and by the same name the name of God does not fit the creature. But as his being has no beginning (for he was), it is rightly that we call him God. Now, we say that the Word has always been in God, because his being does not come from himself, but from God. This is why He is called the Word of God, as the testimony of the same Evangelist teaches in his revelation: "And his name is the Word of God (Rev. 19:13).” He is called the Word of God, to teach us that he is not that of whom, but by whom are all things; that is to say, he is not the Father, but the Son. By the same that God cannot be without his Word, we must believe that he who is called his Word has always been in God, and as the Word cannot be apart from the one of whom he is the Word, we must understand that Word who was in God had no other principle of his being than God himself, and that being of God he is not opposed to the reason of saying that he is God. Thus, from the fact that God was in God, it does not follow that there are two gods. If they were two, they would have a different nature and will. If we, who have one and the same nature, we do not consent to have different wills, how much more if God and the Word did not have the same nature, and if the Word was not God in God? The God who was and who is in God, does not have the divine being himself, otherwise we would not say that he is God in God, and the Word of God would not be called the Word God; but since what is of God can only be God, the Word of God is called God, so that this name of God's Word prevents us from thinking of another God. Now the Word is given the name of God, because it would be offensive to God that what is of God should not be called God. The unity of God has thus safeguarded, and at the same time the honor rendered to those of the law, for it is not in his own glory that he who is God from God is but in the glory of him who is the principle of his divine being. This is why the Gospel begins to speak about the Word before speaking of God the Father, because what raises difficulties is not God the Father, but the Word of God. No one raises doubts about God, but about the one who is God from God, every language on earth as in the underworld confesses the existence of one God, but he is troubled by the mystery of one God. He is astonished to hear that the Word of God is God, for he is besieged by the corporal images that tell him that the name of man cannot be given to the Word of Man. A simple nature is not a compound of different members, there is not in and out of it, the front and the back, the high and the low, no variety, no dissemblance, it is a splendor which is one and immense, if the fire itself has neither front, nor behind nor inside, nor outside, how much less its Creator. Since therefore all that is God is a unique whole, there is no contradiction in calling God all that is God. So a reason borrowed in part from that occurs among men, and partly to a higher order of things, makes us understand that the Son of God who is the Word of God, is God; just as the children of men are men, so the Son of God is God. But the children of men are men because of the union of the two sexes, and it is not so that the Son of God is God, because he is not simply of a God who is a simple nature. Our word, which is from us, helps us to understand that the Word of God is from him, but our word is not what we are, and it is not in this way that the Word of God is God, because the Word of God is a real thing and not a sound that goes out. From the fact that we use the same expressions for God and for us, it does not follow that the reason for being is the same for us and for him in reality. Thus we read, "In the beginning God made heaven and earth.” (Gen. 1:1) How did they do it? Is it with the hand, as when we do some action? Further down we read again: "And God said, Let there be light, and there was light.” To whom do we hear that God has spoken here? This is certainly not a man, but one who had the power to create, and who was to create the man himself as he created it indeed. But how did he speak? Is it beginning with a material organ? Far from us this thought. You see, then, that if we use the same expressions for God and for us, these expressions indicate a very different way of acting, for God acts quite differently from us, and his language has nothing to do with ours. Thus the Word of God is not a Word like ours, which scarcely formed ceases to exist; it is a Word that remains, because it is a Word that hears, speaks, acts. He is not only the Word of God, he is the power, the wisdom of God, he is the Son of God. As to the effect produced, he is the Son of God; if we consider the manner in which God speaks to us through him, he is called the Word of God; if we look at the wisdom by which God teaches us through his mysteries, he is the wisdom of God; if finally we contemplate this omnipotent operation by virtue of which God has made and continues to do all things, it is called the power of God. None of these titles can be acceptable to the Son of God. By the same thing that he is God from God, we attribute to him all the perfections of the divine nature. These divine attributes are a necessary continuation of his birth. It would not have been fitting for the Word of God, the wisdom, the power of God, to be anything inferior to God, for that is the God the Word, the power and wisdom of God. It is because Christ is the whole God from God himself, that he is called wisdom, power, the Word of God, because that is how he is God from God and God abiding in God. That's why the Evangelist says, "He was in God from the beginning." (Jn. 1:2) The Scripture is forced to make this statement to convince the spirits of unbelievers; it wants to show that Christ is God; as everywhere to consecrate the unity of God, it wants us to understand that Christ is God. Here Scripture openly proclaims that he is God and that he has always been good, that is to say, that he reveals to us the mystery that is in God, to teach us that he is not alone. Scripture therefore declares that if God is one, he is not however alone, but that even if there are two or three persons in him, they come out of the same nature and do not detract in any way from unity, because what comes from a single principle relates to it, because this principle is a good that all things come from God. But there is a great difference between what derives its being from God in a proper sense, and what he has created out of his will, that is to say, there is an immense distance between what is out of its substance, and what does not exist has been drawn from nothingness by its will. What came out of the substance of God did not exist after this substance; on the contrary, what was created began to be a substance only at the moment of its creation. There is only the Trinity alone, which has no beginning. The manifestation of this mystery has diminished the merit of faith, for the more the object of faith is hidden, the greater is the reward of him who believes, and for the same reason the greater the punishment of the unbeliever. Just as the manifestation of the mystery diminishes the merit of believers, it increases the punishment reserved for those who refuse to believe. The more a law is clear, the more one is guilty of transgressing it. No doubt it was enough of the testimony of the Savior who declared that he had God for his Father. Who among the faithful could have the slightest doubt that the nature of the Son was in any way different from that of the Father? But the perversity of heretics having sought to undermine the rights of faith by their impious and untrue fictions, hearing the Son of God in a different sense from what the Christian faith taught, the Evangelist thought it necessary to add for more great clarity that he had been before all things in God and God himself. This is how he explained what the notion of the true Son contains. Divine goodness seems to have had regard to human weakness by manifesting what had previously remained hidden, and which it reserved as a reward for a more perfect faith. St. John adds: "All things were done by him.” (Jn. 1:3) If the foregoing could leave some doubt in the human mind too narrow to understand the divine things, it grows, it seems, hearing these words: “All things were made by him.” He cannot regard him as a creature, since he is told that God has done all things through him. Now, if he were himself a creature, the Evangelist would not say that God did all things, for it was not done by himself. To put this truth into a greater way, he adds; "And nothing was done without him," words that put an end to any discussion and exclude all human reasoning. There are some who may have doubts, yet the Evangelist, declaring that nothing has been done without him, does not even allow him to suspect that he himself is a creature. How to say that he is a creature made and designed from nothing, when you are taught that God did nothing without him? Do you say that Scripture says that God did nothing without him? Far from us this thought. Scripture is the very truth, and to cut error into its root, it spreads the brightest light to redeem men and save them. St. John adds, "What has been done is life in him," that is, what has been done is life in the Word. This is what the Lord himself teaches us: Just as the Father has life in him, so he gave the Son to have life in him. (Jn. 5:26) It is not that the Word was ever lifeless, and that it was given to him or made in him, the Evangelist wants us to understand that the Word was itself life. If one can say of the Father that he is something else or that he has something else in him, one can say it also of the Son, for just as the Father has life in him, he has given to the Son to have life in him. Human language is powerless to properly express divine things. Thus it seems improper to say that the Son of God having not been made, we say that what has been done in him. If the Evangelist had said: What was engendered in him, the property of the terms would leave something to be desired. But to express his substantial generation, he used the terms he could find to make known the work of this generation that gave it to be, because this generation has life in it. For us, we have life, it is true, but we cannot communicate it to others, because this very life is not in our power. But for the Word, the Evangelist says that he has life in him, because he has the power to give life, and to draw from the void the creatures he wants to give them existence and life. The end of his divine birth is that he can do all the things the Father does, because he has life in him like the Father. In fact, to have done all things through him and in him, is to have begotten him to have in him the life by which he could do all things. It is not that he is himself anything but life, but since the essence of his life is to live, and to be able to communicate this life to the beings that he draws from nothingness, they say he has life in himself. We live, I repeat, but we do not have in us the life itself to be able to communicate it to others. It is this truth which the Apostle St. Paul recalls in these terms: "Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creatures? It is through him that everything was created in heaven and on earth, things visible as invisible, thrones, dominions, principalities, powers, everything was created by him and in him. (Col. 1:15) The two testimonies of the Apostles St. John and St. Paul are perfectly in agreement, they teach the same truth, that is, the Son of God was begotten before all creatures, for to create the spiritual powers, the world and all the visible beings that it contains. St. John says: "What was done is life in him," (Jn. 1:3) and St. Paul expresses the same truth in these words: "It is through him that everything was created in heaven and on the earth.” (Col. 1:16) And further: “Everything was created by him and in him.” God created through him, because he is the same God by nature, that is, the Father is in the Son. "Everything was created in him," because he begot the Son to have the power to create all things visible and invisible. This is how he made life in him, so that he might exist and give to all other animated beings life, intelligence, action, according to his will as the image of God. He is called the image of God for these two reasons, first, because by virtue of his birth he reproduces in himself the perfect likeness of the Father, and secondly because his power is equal to that of the Father, so that it is true to say that we see the Father in the Son who is the image of the invisible God. From what he declares the invisible Father, does it follow that the Son is visible? No, since the Son is by nature what the Father is. Since the celestial creature is invisible, let alone the one who created it. The Evangelist therefore wishes to speak here of what is being accomplished not on earth, but in heaven, for although the Son is invisible, yet he manifests himself in heaven and to the saints of whom he has said himself: "My Father, I want them wherever I am, to be with me, and to contemplate my glory." (Jn. 17:24) And elsewhere: "Blessed are those who have a pure heart, because they will see God," (Matt. 5:8), that is, the Father in the Son, God in his image, that is, God in God. The image of a corporeal object is itself bodily; thus God is the image of God, because the Father is the model, and the Son the reproduction of the copy, which he communicates to the Holy Spirit, "because he will receive from me," (Jn. 16:14), he says to his Apostles, just as no one has been found worthy to open the book and lift the seals, except the Word of God (Rev. 5:4), so no one is worthy to see God the Father either by his nature or by his merits, except the true Son of God. There is no intermediary between the Father and the Son, it is Himself who declares it to us: "No one has ever seen the Father, except he who is of God, he has seen the Father." (Jn. 6:46) But if we see the Father in the Son, why is no one worthy to see God, since we see him in the Son who is no different from the Father? There is no difference in nature, we agree, because he is the real Son of God, but it differs in the relation of causality, because all power comes to the Son from the Father. The Son does not have a nature inferior to the Father, but the Father has greater authority in the testimony of the Lord himself: "If you love me," he said to his disciples, "If you love me," he said to his disciples, "you will rejoice at my going to my Father, because my Father is greater than me." (Jn. 14:28) Saint Paul observes the same nuance in his language when he says: "There is for us but one God, the Father from whom all things proceed and who has made us for him, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom all things were made, and we exist through him." (1 Cor. 8:6) In the first degree is that of whom are all things, by whom all things exist, and since there is no inferiority in the divine persons, the Apostle brings them all back to the unity of God when he says, "It is of him, and through him, and in him are all things, to him be glory in all ages." (Rom. 11:36)
(John 1:17) AMBROSIASTER 1ST CATEGORY NT QUESTION 76. ST. JOHN SAYS IN HIS GOSPEL: "THE LAW WAS GIVEN BY MOSES; GRACE AND TRUTH CAME FROM JESUS CHRIST.” SO GRACE AND TRUTH DID NOT EXIST BEFOREHAND. HOW, THEN, DID GOD GIVE A LAW THAT DID NOT CONTAIN THE TRUTH? — Let us not pass lightly on these words, but consider attentively what these words mean: "The law was given by Moses.” The law given by Moses has clear precepts; but he has also written a story to which we have also given the name of law. Let us see then what in the precepts would not be true. Would it be these commandments: "You will not kill, you will not commit adultery, you will not steal?” (Exod. 20:13) The others are alike. As for the historical part, it is evident that it was not true before the advent of Jesus Christ; for one could not know the true meaning of those things which were covered like a veil. But when Jesus Christ came to make known to whom God speaks, saying, "Let us make man in our image and likeness," (Gen. 1:26) who created him, whoever created him, appeared to the patriarchs in a bush (Exod. 3:2), the one who made the stone fertile (Exod. 17:6) and poured out streams in the desert, for the stone, says the Apostle, was Jesus Christ (1 Cor. 10:4); it can be said that the truth shone most brightly by Jesus Christ when he revealed the true meaning of things that had hitherto remained hidden or doubtful. Is it not he who says to us, "Is it from me that Moses wrote?” (Jn. 5:46) This is what before him was hidden and was wrong. The Son was considered to be God the Father, and it was recognized that it was the Son of God himself who appeared in the form of an angel. The promise that God made to Abraham remained doubtful until it was fulfilled; but when the coming of Jesus Christ came to fulfill the law, it became a truth, for it had all its faith and it was clear what its object was. Indeed one recognizes the truth of the one who makes a promise when he puts it into execution. Let us examine what these words mean: "The law was given by Moses.” The law given by Moses has clear precepts, which of these precepts is not an exact truth? “You will not kill, you will not commit adultery”; The others are similar. But Moses also wrote in which, until the advent of the Savior, the truth remained covered like a veil. When Jesus Christ came to make known to whom God was speaking, saying, "Let us make man”, who is the one who created the man, who showed himself in the bush or the patriarchs, who poured torrents of water from the rock; for "the stone was Christ," says St. Paul; the truth was made by Jesus Christ, who made known to us the true meaning of things that remained uncertain to us. The law given by Moses thus convinced sinners to be guilty; the grace promised by the law has given them their sins and delivered them from death. The order that God wished to follow was to first give the law, and then mercy, which becomes grace when it remits sins; for the promise changes into grace by its fulfillment. "There will come," says Isaiah, "a redeemer for Zion, who will deliver Jacob from his ungodliness.” (Isa. 59:20 LXX) This promise became grace through Jesus Christ, who remits sin free of charge. Now, how would he forgive sins if he did not first give the law which, rendering men guilty, gives him an opportunity to forgive their sins? Because he could only put back what was due to him. However, this debt could not exist if the law had not preceded.
(John 1:31-33; Matthew 3:14) AMBROSIASTER 1ST CATEGORY NT QUESTION 58. FOR WHAT REASON CAN JOHN THE BAPTIST DENY THAT HE KNEW CHRIST BEFORE HIS BAPTISM, WHEN HE TOLD HIM WHEN HE APPROACHED HIM TO BE BAPTIZED: "IT IS I WHO MUST BE BAPTIZED BY YOU, AND YOU COME TO ME?" HOW DID HE NOT KNOW WHO HE FORBADE BAPTIZING BY HUMBLING HIMSELF DEEPLY BEFORE HIM? — John the Baptist was raised from his cradle to such eminent sanctity that one cannot admit either that he could have been deceived or misled others, nor that he did not know his Lord, who in the bosom of his mother had filled him with the brightest lights by the Holy Spirit. It is certain that he knew him when the Holy Spirit descended on him and he was not without knowing him before he came to him to be baptized. Yes, he knew him, but he did not know if he was the one who was to bring to the earth the gift that God had previously promised to the patriarchs. This is what he says he knew when he saw the Holy Spirit coming down on him. This is, indeed, the sign that God had given him: "He on whom you will see the Holy Spirit come down and rest, it is he who baptizes in the Holy Spirit." (Jn. 1:33) The apostle testifies to the same truth when he says, "I say that Jesus Christ was the minister of the gospel to the circumcised Jews, to verify the word of God, and to confirm the promises made to our fathers." (Rom. 15:8) This is what John the Baptist did not know in the Lord; for although his greatness was not unknown to him, he did not know, however, that it was through him that the promises made to Abraham were to be fulfilled.
(John 1:32-34; Matthew 3:13-17, Mark 1:9-11, Luke 3:21-22) AMBROSIASTER 1ST CATEGORY NT QUESTION 50. IF THE SAVIOR WANTED TO BE BAPTIZED TO SERVE AS AN EXAMPLE, WHY, ALTHOUGH HE HAD BEEN CIRCUMCISED, DID HE FORBID OTHERS TO DO SO? — Circumcision is a commandment belonging to ancient times. It had to keep its authority until Jesus Christ, and remain in force until the birth of Christ promised to Abraham; Once the promise was fulfilled, circumcision was no longer necessary. It was like Christ's image that Isaac was promised to Abraham. God indeed says to him, "All nations shall be blessed in him that comes out of you," (Gen. 22:18), that is, in Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ came to renew the faith that Abraham had received, so that all nations would be blessed in him who came out of Abraham, that is, in Jesus Christ, according to the promise made to Abraham. Circumcision was therefore the sign of the Son of God promised to Abraham, that is, Christ. This sign of the promise must have ceased at the birth of Christ; but he who was the object of the promise must have received at birth the sign of his father, to be recognized as the one who, according to the promise, was to justify all the nations by faith joined to the circumcision of the heart. The circumcision of the body was the outward sign that distinguished the children of Abraham according to the flesh; the circumcision of the heart is the invisible sign that distinguishes its spiritual children, and that is why carnal circumcision had to cease after the coming of Jesus Christ.
(John 1:32-34; Matthew 3:13-17, Mark 1:9-11, Luke 3:21-22) AMBROSIASTER 2ND CATEGORY NT QUESTION 22. IF THE SAVIOR WAS BAPTIZED TO GIVE US AN EXAMPLE, WHY DOES HE FORBID OTHERS TO BE CIRCUMCISED AS HE WAS? — The use of circumcision has been authorized until Jesus Christ; Abraham had received the precept of circumcision as a sign of the promise of Christ, and the precept of circumcision was to be in effect until the birth of the Christ promised to Abraham, and which was to justify all nations by faith, as Abraham himself had been justified. Christ himself must have been subject to the precept of circumcision to make it well established that he was the one who was promised to Abraham; but once the promise was fulfilled, circumcision was no longer necessary. Baptism, on the contrary, has never ceased to be obligatory, because it is to Jesus Christ that this mode of regeneration begins. It was not in use before him, and did not receive its consummation after his advent; but it begins with Jesus Christ and must continue until the end of the world.
(John 3:2) AMBROSIASTER 1ST CATEGORY NT QUESTION 59. IF BAPTISM IS A HEAVENLY MYSTERY, WHY DOES OUR LORD SAY TO NICODEMUS, WHO DOUBTED THE VIRTUE OF THE BAPTISM OF WHICH HE SPOKE TO HIM: IF I HAVE TOLD YOU EARTHLY THINGS AND YOU DO NOT BELIEVE THEM, HOW SHALL I BELIEVE? WHAT IF I TELL YOU HEAVENLY THINGS? — He who makes the efficacy of baptism depend on this material sign is not a spiritual man, and the heavenly gift can be obtained only on the condition that it is believed by faith, not by water only that our souls are renewed. Water strikes the eyes of the body, but the Holy Spirit, whom we do not see, operates in the soul and inspires faith in it. As the water cleanses the defilements of the body, the Holy Spirit purifies the soul of his sins; the material element produces a material effect, the Holy Spirit produces all things spiritual, and these are the effects which are chiefly to be considered in baptism. What we hear there is a virtue superior to what we see. Now, as Nicodemus was under the influence of all material ideas, the Savior has recourse to a very just comparison to attract him to the faith, and to confirm the truth of an invisible thing, he gives him the example of a visible fact, which is perceived only by hearing and not by sight, though it is not disputed, and yet it is an earthly fact because it is one of the phenomena of this world. Our Lord therefore tells Nicodemus to persuade him: "The wind blows where it wills, you hear its voice, but you do not know where it comes from or where it is going, so is every man who is born of the Spirit "(Jn. 3:8), that is, as you hear, but without perceiving, as has been said, the voice of the blowing wind, words that express the effects of baptism, but we do not see how the Holy Spirit produces these effects: we hear the words that announce what will be done by the one who pronounces them, and whose purpose is to inspire faith, but not to give reason for the action itself, and as this comparison was not yet sufficient to bring Nicodemus to faith, the Savior said to him: "If you do not believe when I speak to you of the things of the earth, how will you believe when will I speak to you about things that are in heaven? These earthly things he has said is the comparison he has just made; that is to say, if the earthly comparison of the blowing wind cannot lead you to believe this fact, because you do not see how it occurs, how could you believe if I brought you celestial reasons that you do not know? One can persuade a man what he does not know by means of what he knows; so when God says of Jesus Christ that he is his true son, or cannot understand as it is done; but as we know the manner of birth of children according to the flesh, we believe that by saying Christ is my true Son, God meant that he had begotten him of his own substance. This is how he wants us to understand in the Savior what the word and the spirit of man cannot explain by what is sensible and can be understood, that is to say that he wanted to render credible the action of the Holy Spirit, which cannot be understood by the example of the will, which the senses perceive and the ear hears. So again, we read in the Acts of the Apostles: "Suddenly a noise came from heaven, like a violent wind coming near, and filled the whole house where they sat, and so on.” (Acts 2:2) The sacred author shows us that the Holy Spirit came from heaven as the wind, and with a noise like that of a violent wind blowing on the earth. Jeremiah also compares the Spirit to the wind in these words: "The wind is blowing in all countries.” Now, just as he is in this world and circulates everywhere, we do not know where he comes from or where he is going. The Holy Spirit, on the contrary, descends from heaven, as we have read, to enlighten all who believe in him. How then to explain what the Savior said about the Holy Spirit. "The wind blows where he wills, and you hear his voice, but you do not know where he comes from, or where he is going," since he wanted to rely on a comparison here? He adds, "This is so with every man born of the Spirit.” (Jn. 3:8) Is it not evident that he wanted to compare the Spirit with the wind? But they think that it is not wind that is in question, because he says: "It blows where He wills," as if every creature, though subject to the laws that govern it, was not left to his freedom. We ourselves go and do what we want, while being subject to a law, which is why we will report on our actions. It may still be admitted, and this opinion is not contrary to reason, that to express the effect produced by the Holy Spirit, he chose it himself as an example. The question seems to me to be solved in all its aspects.
(John 3:2) AMBROSIASTER 2ND CATEGORY NT QUESTION 16. THE SAVIOR SAYS THAT JOHN'S BAPTISM CAME FROM HEAVEN, SO WHY DO YOU SAY NICODEMUS'S BAPTISM TO HIM? — If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe them, and so on. These words of the Lord: "If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe them,” do not relate to baptism, for we know that our baptism, though having water for matter, is all spiritual; but there is a celestial mystery here. It is not water that purifies, but God, who acts in an invisible and incomprehensible manner. He wants to give an example of this truth by saying: "The wind blows where it wills, and you hear its voice, but you do not know where it comes from or where it is going.” By this comparison, he wished to lead Nicodemus into believing that man received a new birth from the water and the Holy Spirit, without being able to understand how it was done. is a very spiritual operation. This is how you hear the voice of the spirit, that is, the wind, but you do not know where it comes from or where it is going; so you do not know how the change takes place in the one who receives a new birth, however you realize that it is done, because this change is sensible for you. In fact, if the wind blows where it wants, how much more can the Spirit, who is of God, sanctify all those he wants? Our Lord says: "He breathes where He wills," because every creature, though subject to laws, is, however, left to His freedom, and if anyone claims that this spirit which is blowing is the Holy Spirit, he is in error, since the Savior takes this spirit as a term of comparison to persuade Nicodemus of the regeneration of man by water and the Spirit, a regeneration which he could not bring himself to believe. The object which it serves to demonstrate if, therefore, our Lord makes use of comparison here, this sensible spirit, which is called the wind, is not the Holy Spirit, He wished to persuade Nicodemus of a spiritual reason, and triumph over his doubts, he brings him the example of the wind to make it easier for him to believe the existence and action of the Holy Spirit, but we know that the Holy Spirit came from heaven to spread in the world the soul of believers, as we see he came upon the Apostles in the beginning of the Church, and the voice of the Holy Spirit is compared to a big noise. "And suddenly a noise came from heaven like a violent wind." (Acts. 2:2) In what follows, the sacred writer calls this sound a voice the works of the Holy Spirit to confirm the word of the Savior. Is this not what these words mean: "And suddenly a noise came from heaven like a violent wind." He wants us to understand that the Holy Spirit came down with a noise like a violent wind, so he took the wind for the sake of comparison, adding, "This is so with every man born of the spirit." We do not know where the wind comes from, but the Holy Spirit descends from heaven.
(John 5:18) AMBROSIASTER 2ND CATEGORY NT QUESTION 31. THE SABBATH IS CERTAINLY THE LAW OR PART OF THE LAW; HOW THEN IS THE LAW NOT DESTROYED BY THESE WORDS OF THE EVANGELIST: "NOT ONLY BECAUSE HE HAD BROKEN THE SABBATH, BUT ALSO BECAUSE HE SAID THAT GOD WAS HIS OWN FATHER?"— The Savior violated the Sabbath, but without breaking the Sabbath law. This Sabbath law ceased to oblige, but the Jews claimed that it was still in all its strength; In their thought, therefore, the Savior, in acting on the Sabbath, and commanding this paralytic to carry his bed on the Sabbath, violated the Sabbath law. In fact, as this law had ceased to be mandatory, it is as if it were said of an ex-governor who would have received whatever outrage, that it is to the very dignity of governor that this contempt. The Sabbath law was not violated; but men who wanted to brazenly support the authority of the Sabbath were thwarted, since a new law had succeeded the Sabbath law.
(John 5:46) AMBROSIASTER 2ND CATEGORY OT&NT QUESTION 2. THE GOSPEL DECLARES THAT NO ONE HAS SEEN GOD (JN. 5:46, 1 TIM. 6:16, JN. 1:18); WHILE JACOB, MOSES, AND ISAIAH CLAIM TO HAVE SEEN HIM. IT MAY BE SAID: NO ONE HAS. SEEN THE FATHER; WHAT CAN THIS DO? IF WE HAVE SEEN THE SON, WE HAVE SEEN THE FATHER, SINCE THE FATHER AND THE SON ARE ONE GOD IN THEIR NATURE, IN THEIR IMAGE, FOR BOTH HAVE ONLY ONE IMAGE, AND AS THE SAVIOR SAYS: THE ONE WHO SEES ME ALSO SEES MY FATHER. (JN. 14:9) HOW IS IT THEN THAT NO ONE HAS SEEN GOD THE FATHER, SINCE THE SON TESTIFIES THAT WE SEE THE FATHER WHEN WE SEE HIM, BECAUSE THERE IS NO OTHER GOD. IF, THEN, THERE IS NONE ELSE, IT IS HIMSELF WHOM WE HAVE SEEN AS GOD, SINCE THERE IS ONLY ONE. — It is from God the Father that the Evangelist wants to speak when he says that no one has seen God, except the only Son who is in the bosom of the Father and who has made it known to us. (Jn. 1:18) Let us then mark to the Son, He taught us that no one except He saw God. Now, he speaks in this way to teach us that it is he who has constantly appeared to the patriarchs and the prophets. These words, therefore, do not apply to the only God, but to the Person of the Father whom we cannot call otherwise than God the Father. As for the Son, he declares that he has been seen, but in an invisible way for those who thought he saw him. The vision here is the intellect, because it is not in the eyes of the body but in the eyes of the intellect that he was manifested, and to have seen him, it is to have understood that God revealed himself in this appearance. Now, when the Savior says, "He who sees me, see also my Father," (Jn. 14:9) he wants to speak not of the vision of the eyes, but of the mind, and to make us understand that there is no difference between the Father and the Son. Neither were seen in their nature. In apparitions, the Son has been seen only by the intellect and not by the eyes of the body, because he is invisible as the Father.
(John 6:44; Romans 9:16-18) AMBROSIASTER 1ST CATEGORY NT QUESTION 79. IF WE ARE THE MASTERS OF OUR WILL, WHY DOES THE SAVIOR SAY, "NO ONE COMES TO ME UNLESS MY FATHER, WHO SENT ME, DRAWS HIM?” THE APOSTLE EXPRESSES HIMSELF IN SIMILAR TERMS: "IT IS NOT ENOUGH TO WANT OR TO RUN, GOD MUST HAVE MERCY”; AND AGAIN: “HE HAS MERCY ON WHOM HE PLEASES, AND HE LETS HIM HARDEN WHOM HE PLEASES.” HOW DOES THE WILL REMAIN FREE IF IT IS TRAINED FOR GOOD OR EVIL, ACCORDING TO A FOREIGN WILL? — Things are quite different from what you claim, and the meaning of these words is by no means the one you give them. Free will has nothing to fear here, and if you want to deepen the meaning of these words, you will see that they are still one of the strongest supports of free will. Jesus speaks here to the Jews, whose hostile dispositions he knew. By a shameful dissimulation which arose from a feeling of envy, they affirmed that Joseph was his father, and his children were the brothers of the Savior, in order not to believe that he was the Son of God. It was then that he said to them, "No one can come to me unless my Father, who sent me, draws him." Now, how did the Father draw on the Son, if not by the works he was doing by the Son? This is what the Son himself says: "The Father who dwells in me does the works that I do," (Jn. 14:10) so that these works would attract. The miracles of the Savior were proof that God was his Father, so that he who maintained that he had another father was not attracted to God the Father. God did these works by Jesus Christ so that men could believe in the words by which He affirmed that He was the Son of God. This is not a violent attraction, it is the testimony that God gives back to Jesus Christ, and he who believes in this testimony, the Father draws him to Jesus Christ, for no one can believe in the Savior except the one who knows that he has God for his Father. It is not to undermine free will that the Apostle has expressed the truth of which you are asking a question here, but it is to defend the man from putting into discussion the judgments from God that he proclaims his righteousness here, for God knows to whom he must have mercy. He scrutinizes the depths of hearts and sees whether the inner dispositions of the one who prays make him worthy to receive the effect of his prayer. In fact, God tells us through his prophet, "This people honors me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me.” (Isa. 19:13) It is therefore his justice to harden the soul of the hypocrite; for he who gives to the truth the name of falsehood not by error, but by a guilty intention, and who, while understanding what is good, pretends to ignore what good is to transform it into evil, deserves to be condemned to lose with the intelligence of the good his rights to salvation, to which he renounces. It is not right, in fact, to save in spite of himself a man who scorns salvation not out of ignorance, but out of mischief and envy. These words confirm free will rather than destroy it, since each is treated here according to his will.
(John 6:44; Romans 9:16-18) AMBROSIASTER 2ND CATEGORY NT QUESTION 32. IF WE LIVE WITH THE DISPOSITION OF OUR FREE WILL, WHY DID THE SAVIOR SAY, "NO ONE COMES TO ME UNLESS MY FATHER DRAWS HIM?" WHY DOES THE APOSTLE SPEAKING IN THE SAME SENSE EXPRESS HIMSELF IN THESE TERMS: "IT DOES NOT DEPEND ON THE ONE WHO WANTS, NOR ON THE ONE WHO RUNS, BUT ON GOD WHO HAS MERCY?" THESE WORDS SEEM TO CONSIDERABLY INFLUENCE THE FREE WILL OF THE WILL. IF NO ONE COMES WITHOUT BEING ATTRACTED, THERE IS NO MORE FAULT FOR HIM WHO DOES NOT COME, SINCE HE IS NOT DRAWN. AND IF IT IS NOT THE ONE WHO ASKS AND RUNS WHO RECEIVES, BUT GOD GIVES HIS GRACE TO WHOMEVER HE WANTS, MUST BE DISCHARGED FROM ALL SIN ONE WHO WANTS AND DOES NOT GET TO DROP THE WHOLE BLAME ON THE ONE WHO DESPISES THE PRAYERS ADDRESSED TO HIM. — The cause of free will cannot be compromised by these words. If you apply them to the truth on which they were said, you will see that they serve rather as the defense of free will. Indeed, the Jews, by a malicious inspiration, said of the Savior: "Is not he the son of Joseph? Do not we know his father? How can he say: I came down from heaven?” (Jn. 6:42) Then Jesus answered them, "No one can come to me unless my Father who sent me draws him.” Let us now see how the Father draws to his Son. Let us take these words of the Savior Himself: "The works that I do is my Father who does them. Believe that I am in my Father and my Father in me.” (Jn. 14:10) If, then, the Father works in the Son and the works he makes invite to faith, Our Lord is right to say; "No one comes to me unless my Father draws him.” The Father draws when he acts through the Son. How can one who asks for faith in him destroy the will of free will? How can one who convinces a man of unbelief draw him in spite of himself? It is to the Jews who gave him
(John 7:8-14) AMBROSIASTER 1ST CATEGORY NT QUESTION 78. WE READ IN THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. JOHN THAT THE SAVIOR, AFTER SAYING THAT HE WOULD NOT GO TO JERUSALEM FOR THE FEAST DAY, WENT THERE SECRETLY, HOWEVER. IS NOT THIS AN ACT OF INCONSTANCY? —You always present your questions in an abbreviated form that hides their meaning. The fact of which you speak here took place when Jesus was in Galilee, because of the agitation of the Jews against him; his parents, who did not yet believe in him, urged him, as he approached a feast of the Jews, to go to Judea to expose him after a sedition. The Savior answered them, "Go to this feast, because the world does not hate you; but he hates me because I condemn their works. I'm not going to this festivity because my time has not come yet. His brethren then went to this feast, and Jesus remained in Galilee.” Where is the contradiction here? He does not go to this festivity when he declares that he is not going, he does not go there until later, and he does not go for the festivity itself, but as if he were going to a discussion, to a judgment. All the others had gone to this festivity to enjoy the pleasure it promised them. For the Savior, his feast day was when he redeemed the world with his passion. It is then that he says, "Now the son of man is glorified, and God is glorified in him.” (Jn. 13:31) His feast day is when he triumphed over death.
(John 7:39; 14:15-17; 20:22; Acts 2:1) AMBROSIASTER 1ST CATEGORY NT QUESTION 93. WE MUST CONSIDER WHETHER THE APOSTLES HAD THE HOLY SPIRIT IN THE TIME THEY WERE ON THE EARTH WITH THE LORD, FOR THE EVANGELIST SAYS: "THE HOLY SPIRIT HAD NOT YET BEEN GIVEN, BECAUSE JESUS CHRIST WAS NOT YET GLORIFIED.” AND IN ANOTHER PLACE: "IF YOU LOVE ME," SAID JESUS TO HIS DISCIPLES, "KEEP MY COMMANDMENTS. AND I WILL PRAY THE FATHER, AND HE WILL GIVE YOU ANOTHER COUNSELOR, TO BE WITH YOU FOREVER, EVEN THE SPIRIT OF TRUTH, WHOM THE WORLD CANNOT RECEIVE, BECAUSE IT NEITHER SEES HIM NOR KNOWS HIM; YOU KNOW HIM, FOR HE DWELLS WITH YOU, AND WILL BE IN YOU.” WHAT DO THESE WORDS MEAN? THE EVANGELIST DENIES THAT THE HOLY SPIRIT WAS GIVEN BEFORE PASSION, AND JESUS PROMISES TO PRAY TO HIS FATHER TO SEND HIM; AND ON THE OTHER HE ADDS THAT THIS SPIRIT WAS WITH THEM AND DWELT IN THEM. WE READ THAT AFTER HIS RESURRECTION HE BLEW ON THE APOSTLES AND SAID TO THEM, "RECEIVE THE HOLY SPIRIT.” THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES TELL US AGAIN THAT HE CAME DOWN ON THE APOSTLES ON THE DAY OF PENTECOST. I SEE SO MANY CONTRADICTIONS IN THESE DIFFERENT ASSERTIONS THAT I DO NOT KNOW WHAT TO DO WITH THEM. — These different propositions have a different object, which is characterized in a summary but precise manner. There is one and the same Spirit, but his gifts are multiplied. When, therefore, they speak to you of the Holy Spirit, they must not be separated from their office in which they are as personified. That he was with the apostles and that he had to come, is an indisputable truth, but in hearing it from the person and not from nature. Jesus Christ promised, in fact, to send from his Father another comforter, but in the sense that their divine nature being the same, the presence of Jesus Christ does not carry away the absence of the Holy Spirit, just as the coming and manifestation of the Holy Spirit does not exclude the presence of Jesus Christ. So when he promises his disciples the coming of the Holy Spirit, he says to them, "You will see him, because he will remain with you and he will be in you. (Jn. 14:17) He gives them the assurance that after the ascension of the Lord they will have a pastor to protect them and a king whose power is neither inferior nor less excellent. For it is certain that the Holy Spirit was given only to those who believed that in the time marked by the Evangelist, when the Lord had triumphed over death and was gloriously resurrected from the grave. This is what the Savior expressly says to his disciples after his triumphant resurrection: “and John baptized you in water, but you will be baptized in the Holy Spirit that you will receive in a few days.” He spoke to them thus in the time when he was preparing to go up to his Father. When the Lord, a few days after his resurrection, breathes on his apostles and says to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit," (Jn. 20:22) He communicates to them the ecclesiastical power. As in the exercise of the powers conferred by the Lord, everything is done by the Holy Spirit, when he gives them the rule and the form of this divine institution, he says to them: "Receive the Holy Spirit.” And to show that it is in fact the power conferred on the Church, he adds: "He whose sins you have retained will be withheld from him, and to whom you have forgiven them, they will be forgiven.” This insufflation is therefore a grace which is communicated by tradition to those who are ordained, and which impresses them with a more impressive and more sacred character, which is why the Apostle says to Timothy: "Do not neglect the grace which is in you, and given to you with the laying on of the hands of the priests." (1 Tim. 4:14) This is what the Savior had to do once, so that it was well established in the Church that the transmission of this power could not take place without the Holy Spirit. Just as the Savior wanted to give in his person a visible example that the Holy Spirit was given after baptism to all who believed in him; so he wanted to give us here a definite proof that the transmission of ecclesiastical power was inseparable from the infusion of the Holy Spirit. The apostles, like the prophets, have the power to perform miracles in the very presence of the Lord. We therefore see in the person of the apostles three different forms of ministry conferred upon them by the Holy Spirit. The first is ecclesiastical power to regenerate the faithful and to fulfill the other duties of the sacred ministry. The second, which was given at Pentecost, is general, for it is not only on the apostles, but on all the faithful, that the Holy Spirit descended. The third was given to the apostles alone, to perform miracles and wonders until the seeds of faith which they shed in hearts were sufficiently developed. These seeds of faith were the wonders performed by the apostles. God established them as the pontiffs of truth, to testify by the miracles and wonders they performed that our faith was according to reason. Indeed, what stronger proof of the truth than a miracle? This is what falsifies all the philosophical systems of the earth, is that they are but a tissue of vain words, without the support of the testimony of the miracle which would testify the immutable truth of their doctrine. The Holy Spirit is therefore generally given to all the faithful, in whose soul it remains as a proof that they are the sons of God. On the contrary, are they miracles and wonders to be done? The Holy Spirit does not abide in man; he comes into him when he is called, he inspires what is necessary, and withdraws. It is the same in the transmission of sacred powers or in ordination; grace is external, and interior help is given only to souls full of faith.
(John 7:39; 14:15-17; 20:22; Acts 2:1) AMBROSIASTER 2ND CATEGORY NT QUESTION 42. DID THE APOSTLES HAVE THE HOLY SPIRIT IN THE TIME THEY WERE WITH THE LORD, FOR THE EVANGELIST SAYS: "THE HOLY SPIRIT HAD NOT YET BEEN GIVEN, BECAUSE JESUS CHRIST WAS NOT YET GLORIFIED.” AND IN ANOTHER PLACE: "IF YOU LOVE ME," SAID JESUS TO HIS DISCIPLES, "KEEP MY COMMANDMENTS. AND I WILL PRAY THE FATHER, AND HE WILL GIVE YOU ANOTHER COUNSELOR, TO BE WITH YOU FOREVER, EVEN THE SPIRIT OF TRUTH, WHOM THE WORLD CANNOT RECEIVE, BECAUSE IT NEITHER SEES HIM NOR KNOWS HIM; YOU KNOW HIM, FOR HE DWELLS WITH YOU, AND WILL BE IN YOU.” WHAT DO THESE WORDS MEAN? THE EVANGELIST DENIES THAT THE HOLY SPIRIT WAS GIVEN BEFORE PASSION, AND JESUS PROMISES TO PRAY TO HIS FATHER TO SEND HIM; AND ON THE OTHER HE ADDS THAT THIS SPIRIT WAS WITH THEM AND DWELT IN THEM. WE READ THAT AFTER HIS RESURRECTION HE BLEW ON THE APOSTLES AND SAID TO THEM, "RECEIVE THE HOLY SPIRIT.” THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES TELL US AGAIN THAT HE CAME DOWN ON THE APOSTLES ON THE DAY OF PENTECOST. I SEE SO MANY CONTRADICTIONS IN THESE DIFFERENT ASSERTIONS THAT I DO NOT KNOW WHAT TO DO WITH THEM. — These different propositions have a different object, which is characterized in a summary manner, etc. It is certain that the Holy Spirit was given to the faithful only after the Lord's victory over death and his glorious resurrection. Before his ascension, the Savior gave his Apostles the form in which the faithful should receive the Holy Spirit after their baptism, a form still faithfully observed by the bishops. We therefore see in the person of the apostles three different forms of ministry which are conferred by the Holy Spirit. The first form is general; it was given on the day of Pentecost, when the Holy Spirit descended not only upon the apostles, but upon all the faithful, who then issued in various languages the greatness of God as the children of the same people. The second form is special. It is not given to all the faithful, it is exclusively reserved for the bishops; it communicates the power of giving, by the laying on of hands, the Holy Spirit to the baptized faithful. It may, however, be called general for the bishops. The third form has been granted only to the apostles, to perform the miracles and wonders necessary for the growth of faith, for the seeds of faith are the wonders wrought by the apostles. The Holy Spirit was therefore given to the apostles according to the order of these different ministries. He descended first on them as on the other faithful on the day of Pentecost. They then received him as first priests and to give as bishops the Holy Spirit to the faithful by laying hands on them. The gift of miracles received by the apostles was a special grace to time rather than to people; they received this gift because it was the time when the Lord spread His graces on the earth, and the power to work miracles by the Holy Spirit was communicated to them for the edification of the faithful. So they received, at the time Our Lord sent them, the power to cast out demons and to perform other wonders, to command demons or various diseases without invoking his name, and to see their commandment followed by the healing. They acted under the same power that the prophets Elijah and Elisha had received to perform their wonders. Now the Savior said to his disciples, "Truly, truly, I say to you, if you ask anything from my Father in my name, he will give it to you. Ask, and you will receive." (Jn. 16:23) So if the apostles did their miracles without invoking the name of the Savior, it is not, however, under the power of that divine name; for by the same that they were sent by him who was the terror of demons and sufferings, the mere fear of his name put the demons to flight, and healed the infirmities. So it was the name of the Lord who secretly operated all these wonders. In fact, listen to what the Apostle St. Peter said to the Jews: "It is in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth that you have denied and crucified that this man is here before you, standing and healthy, for no other name under heaven has been given to men by which we shall be saved. "(Acts 4:16).
AMBROSIASTER 1ST CATEGORY NT QUESTION 98. ON THE GOSPEL OF SAINT JOHN. — You have heard the testimony of the holy Gospel in these words of Our Lord to the Jews: "You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies.” (John 8:44) None of the faithful must doubt that the devil was the only author of his apostasy. He is the principle and the leader of all error, seeing that God had given him an extraordinary power by creating an extraordinary power, dared to carry his ambitious plans even to the Divinity, in order to place himself as God above those whom he had saw below him. Now the names of devil and Satan given to him come from his works and not from his nature. Every evil is recognized by works, and it is not nature that is guilty of it, but the will which is determined by certain motives. He saw that he was superior to others, and pride made him aspire to domination. But why does the Scriptures seem to give a father to the one who was the author of his crime? or how to prove that he was homicide from the beginning? (1) Here the Scripture gives its name to the one who has been his imitator; for as his works have earned him the name of devil, every man guilty of a bad action deserves that name. It is therefore Cain whom the Savior here calls the devil, because he has made himself his imitator by becoming envious of his brother, by putting him to death, and leaving such an awful example of fratricidal cruelty. The devil, envious of the man whom God had created in his image, put the height of his wickedness by giving the example of error and falsehood. Cain follows this path of lying when God asks him, "Where is your brother Abel?” (Gen. 4:9) Full of his father's mischief, he does not hesitate to immediately make this lying answer: "I do not know.” He pretends to not know where he is of whom he had just taken the life of; cruelty blinded him to make him answer to God as to a man to whom he hoped to hide his crime. Now the Jews became his imitators, and put to death the Lord himself; they preferred to have Cain's fratricide father as God, thus rendering themselves guilty of all the blood that had been shed. In putting to death the source of life, they became the perpetrators of the crime in all its extent, and made the responsibility fall upon their children, when they shouted, "May his blood be upon us and our children.” (Matt. 27:25) To persuade Pilate that they did not ask him for anything wrong, they consented that this action, if it was unfair, would fall upon their children; With this burning desire to satisfy their fury, they do not even think of sparing their children. Now, a proof that the devil is not evil of his nature, is that God would not threaten punishment who did not do what he did not know, for it would be wrong to punish the one who acts in accordance with the requirements of its nature. And this injustice is greater still, if you ask a man what you know him to be impossible. On the contrary, justice demands that one punish who knows and can do good, does not fail to do evil. This is what can be concluded from the words of the Savior, for he says to the Jews, as we have said above, "Your father was murderous from the beginning, and he did not remain in the truth.” Now, if he was a liar by his nature, why say he did not remain in the truth? Not to dwell in truth is not to persevere in truth. Finally, we read in the Prophet these words of the Lord: "Had they remained in my substance," (Jer. 23:22) to say in my law. The Apostle also said to the Galatians, "Stay firm, and do not put yourself under the yoke of bondage.” (Gal 5:1) What is clearer? St. Paul recommends that the faithful continue to persevere in the commandments of God. If the demon had observed them, he would have remained in the substance and in the law of God, for the law is an unshakable foundation for those who observe it. How, then, have some of them been able to say that God created the devil to be evil, or that he had an origin of his own, that is to say, that he owed it to no one else, double supposition also offensive to God? He who maintains that God created the devil to be evil, attributes to him a very imperfect kindness, for a perfectly good being cannot do evil. As for the one who does not believe that the devil draws from God his origin, he denies the sovereign domain of God, because he believes he can remove from this domain that extends to everything a thing that would be independent. Those who make such mistakes will be severely punished when they see that God will judge all things through Jesus Christ. (1) It is not found in the manuscripts of the second category, this repetition of the same subject has already been treated in question 90.
(John 8:44) AMBROSIASTER 1ST CATEGORY NT QUESTION 90. IF THE DEVIL IS SATAN HIMSELF, WHY DOES OUR LORD SAY TO THE JEWS, "THE FATHER OF WHOM YOU ARE BORN IS THE DEVIL, AND YOU WANT TO FULFILL THE DESIRES OF YOUR FATHER. HE WAS MURDERER FROM THE BEGINNING, AND HE DID NOT REMAIN IN THE TRUTH, FOR THE TRUTH IS NOT IN HIM. WHEN HE UTTERS A LIE, HE SAYS IT IS HIS OWN, FOR HE IS A LIAR LIKE HIS FATHER*.” — The devil's name is not a particular name, but a common name. No matter where we find the works of the devil we are allowed to give him that name. This is the name that suits his works rather than his nature. This father of the Jews whom Our Lord wants to speak in this place is Cain, whom they wanted to be the imitators by putting the Savior to death. This is why he declares that he has not remained in the truth, because he is defiled by a murderer and has made himself worthy of death; it was he who gave men the first example of fratricide. Our Lord says that when he utters lies, he says what is proper to him to make sure that no one sin only by his own will, but as he himself was a devil's imitator, he adds, "Because he is a liar like his father.” This spirit of falsehood pretended, in fact, to ignore the commandment which God had given to the first man, to condemn him to death. This is how Cain, when God questions him, pretends to ignore where his brother Abel was, whom he had put to death. The devil here in the Savior's thought is therefore Cain, and his father is the devil whose works he imitated. The son of the devil is himself a devil. But the devil who is called Satan has no father, author of his wickedness. He is himself the author of his own malice. He was the first to set an example of sin, and all who imitate him will be called his children, as he is called their father. This is how our father is Abraham, because he has the first faith in God, and as such we are his children, because we bear the name of faithful, as he has deserved himself. * The author of this question gives to these last words of the Savior a meaning required by the explanation he makes of it, but opposed to the generally accepted interpretation which translates: "He is a liar and the father of lies."
(John 8:44) AMBROSIASTER 1ST CATEGORY NT QUESTION 80. EVERYONE IS NECESSARILY THE SON OF GOD OR THE SON OF THE DEVIL, HE IS THEREFORE ALWAYS SONS, SOMETIMES OF GOD, SOMETIMES OF THE DEVIL; WHY THEN IS IT COMMANDED US TO TAKE A SECOND BIRTH? — The children of Israel, whom God had rescued from Egypt, having not ceased to hear him, the angry Lord pronounced against them the sentence that none of them would enter the promised land, with the exception of Caleb and Joshua, son of Nave, who was previously called Auses. As for those born in the desert, he promised them that they would enter because they knew neither good nor evil. Now ignorance of good and evil is a certain natural simplicity which has not been learned in the science of evil. It is an ignorance without malice. We are born, indeed, without any feeling, but our nature is so good that it is able to learn the truth. But the son of the devil, who from his birth is plunged into evil, makes profession of errors contrary to the Creator, he asserts that there are several gods, and that they must be sacrificed as the masters of the world. If, however, he regains feelings that are better and more in keeping with his nature by returning to his Creator, he will become God's son. Thus men are not sons of God, nor sons of the devil by birth. What does the Savior say to the Jews? "You have the devil for father, and you want to fulfill your father's desires.” (Jn. 8:44) As you can see, it is through works and by their way of life that men become children of the devil; the children of God are those who confess that God is the true father of Christ, and whose life is in accordance with that belief. God's purpose in creating our nature has been that we are born without any preconceived feeling, but that we have the power to learn either good or evil, that we are capable of merit or demerit, so that we may find in ourselves the joy that follows the reward due to good works, or that we only blame ourselves if our bad actions bring us a sentence of condemnation.
(John 8:44) AMBROSIASTER 2ND CATEGORY NT QUESTION 41. HE WHO IS NOT A SON OF GOD IS CERTAINLY OF THE DEVIL; HE IS THEREFORE ALWAYS THE SON SOMETIMES OF GOD, SOMETIMES OF THE DEVIL. WE MUST, THEREFORE, SERIOUSLY CONSIDER WHETHER WE ARE BORN OF GOD, OR OF THE DEVIL, OR WHETHER A THIRD SUPPOSITION CAN BE ADMITTED. — The children of Israel, whom God had drawn from Egypt, having not ceased to offer him, the angry Lord did not permit any of them to enter the promised land with the exception of Caleb and Joshua, son of Nave. As for their children who were born in the desert, he promised them that they would enter, because they knew neither good nor evil. Now, the ignorance of good and evil is a certain natural simplicity which has been instructed neither of good nor of evil, it is an ignorance without malice. We are born in indeed, without any feeling, but our nature is able to learn the truth. But the son of the devil, who from his birth is plunged into evil and professing errors contrary to the Creator, asserts that there are many gods and that they must be sacrificed to the masters of the world. If this man returns to better feelings and returns to the path of natural justice, by receiving faith in Jesus Christ, he will become God's son. Thus men are neither sons of God nor sons of the devil by birth. What does the Savior say to the Jews? "You have the devil for father, and you want to fulfill your father's desires." (Jn. 8:44) It is therefore through their works and their way of life that men become children of the devil. God's purpose in creating our nature has been that we are born without any preconceived feelings, but that we may be instructed in our choice in the science of good or evil, so that we find in ourselves the joy that follows the reward due to good works, or that we are only responsible for ourselves, if our bad deeds bring us a sentence of condemnation. God has left us to our own will to take away any pretense of complaining of the evils we might deserve, and to give us the right to rejoice in the crown that we could obtain after becoming the children of God by faith. God, the creator and author of our nature, wanted us to have something that was our own, so that we could justly glorify the faith we have in God. For he who is not master of himself has nothing of himself from what he seems to have; he can neither glorify his good works nor be condemned for bad ones.
(John 9:6) AMBROSIASTER 2ND CATEGORY NT QUESTION 33. WHY DID THE LORD, WHO HAD HEALED ALMOST ALL THE SICK OF A SINGLE WORD, GIVE SIGHT TO THE BLIND MAN BY APPLYING MUD TO HIS EYES? — The Lord acts in this way to confound those who accuse the Creator. In healing an unplanned vice of the body, in the same way that God has used to create it, he raises the authority of the Creator. In fact, he heals this infirmity of the body by the means which God has used to form him. Now, one must necessarily approve of an action which, in order to bring a thing back to the perfection from which it was fallen, employs the means which served to establish it there. If, indeed, the Savior proves that he is God by reforming the imperfections and vices of the body, how much more must we recognize the divinity of the one to whom the body owes its existence?
(John 10:9) AMBROSIASTER 2ND CATEGORY NT QUESTION 34. WHY DOES THE SAVIOR SAY, "I AM THE DOOR," THOSE WHO CAME BEFORE ME ARE ROBBERS AND THIEVES, WORDS THAT SEEM TO ATTACK THE AUTHORITY OF THE PROPHETS? — As no one can go to God the Father except through faith in Jesus Christ, the Savior declares that He is the door of the kingdom of heaven. But in comparing himself to the door, what need was it to say of those who had preceded him: "All those who came before me, etc.," since there was no question of the past, but that was it to establish that he was now the door? The Savior therefore has in view the Jews who claimed to enter the kingdom of heaven not by faith, but by the justice of the law. They came before the Savior, that is to say, they stood before him to distort and contradict his words, and thus to distract others from believing in him. That's why he calls them robbers and thieves. In fact, he held this language to them, while the Pharisees were arguing with the blind man whom he had healed by giving him the use of the eyes, that nature had refused him, and that they were diverting him from the faith of the Savior, telling him that one could not enter into the kingdom of heaven through one who violated the Sabbath, but through the justice of the law. It is then that Jesus says to them: "I am the door, if someone enters by me, he will find pasture, but if someone wants to enter elsewhere, he is a robber and a thief.” Now, how can these words be applied to the prophets? Did the prophets teach against the doctrine of Jesus Christ, that they could make themselves acceptable to God without the faith and the only righteousness of the law, they who were charged to announce the enthralling of the Son of God? The Savior therefore wanted to speak of those who lived in his time, and to make us understand that all who were before him, sitting or standing, were robbers and thieves. By calling in particular the one who had been blind, they wanted to prevent him from believing in the Savior. "Give glory to God," said they to him, "we know that this man is a sinner," a charge which he destroys by replying to them: "We have never heard that no one opened the eyes of a blind man.” If he was not of God, he could do nothing. It is therefore of this man who persevered in faith, and of those who said: These words are not the words of a man who is possessed of the devil whom the Savior wishes to speak when he says, "But the sheep have not listened to them,” that is to say, those whom he calls robbers and thieves. For how could it be admitted that the sheep did not listen to the prophets, while we know without doubt that the good have always been compliant to the teachings of the prophets, as the bad to the false prophets?
(John 11:35) AMBROSIASTER 2ND CATEGORY NT QUESTION 35. WHY DOES OUR LORD ON THE VERGE OF EXPLODING AN ASTONISHING AND UNKNOWN POWER UNTIL THEN, IN THE RESURRECTION OF LAZARUS, SHED TEARS AND ASK WHERE HE IS AS IF HE WAS IGNORANT? — The Savior is at once God and man, he always presents himself to us under these two characters, because he has the affections of man, he shed tears, and because he is God, he resurrects the one he's crying over. It rises, so always lower to higher equity and fighting the prejudice that saw in him the man, proving by his works that he was God.
(John 12:41; Acts 7:55; Isaiah 6:1) AMBROSIASTER 1ST CATEGORY NT QUESTION 88. IF GRACE WAS MORE ABUNDANT AND INTELLIGENCE CLEARER UNDER THE NEW TESTAMENT THAN IN THE OLD, WHY DID THE PROPHET ISAIAH SEE ON THE THRONE OF HIS MAJESTY THE GOD OF ARMIES WHICH IS THE CHRIST, ACCORDING TO THE EXPLANATION OF THE EVANGELIST ST. JOHN WHO SAID: "ISAIAH PROPHESIED THUS WHEN HE SAW HIS GLORY AND SPOKE OF HIM; WHILE UNDER THE NEW TESTAMENT, STEPHEN, THE FIRST OF THE MARTYRS, CLAIMS TO HAVE SEEN JESUS SITTING AT THE RIGHT HAND OF GOD? (ACTS 7:55) HOW IS IT THAT ON ONE SIDE CHRIST APPEARS IN A SECONDARY RANK AFTER HIS TRIUMPHS, AND ON THE OTHER AS THE SOVEREIGN GOD, BEFORE HE HAS WON? — The Lord manifested himself in the manner that circumstances demanded. He appears to the prophet as a king who takes back his people, and he shows himself as he sat on his throne, for the cause of his divinity was not in question. But he appears standing up to Saint Stephen because of the accusations of the Jews, because in the person of Stephen it was the cause of the Savior whom they attacked. He therefore appears standing before God, the sovereign judge sitting on his throne, as if to defend his cause; and he is on the judge's right hand because his cause is right. Indeed, every man who pleads his case must stand up.
(John 14:9) AMBROSIASTER 1ST CATEGORY NT QUESTION 97. WHAT REASONABLE ANSWER CAN ONE MAKE FROM THE LAW TO THE IMPIETY OF ARIUS? — If one must believe in reason, the very reason of the names of Father and Son is a proof of their unity. If you ask how, I will answer you that there is no true Son of God unless he has come out of the very substance of the Father. Indeed, he cannot be true Son of God, if he does not come from God. Now Scripture says he is the true Son of God, so he comes from God. He who denies that Christ is born God contradicts Scripture, which declares that He is true Son of God, to teach us that He is born of God. For if he is not of God, and yet is called the true Son of God, Scripture misleads us. If, on the contrary, Scripture cannot deceive us, he who does not acknowledge that Christ is of God destroys the testimony of Scripture, and denies that Jesus Christ is the true Son of God. It is not the will, but the birth that makes the true Son of God. But the power of God, they say, is great enough to give the lie the characters of truth. I answer that the power of God, and that is why he is worthy of all our praises, makes truth the truth for him always, and lies always lie. It belongs only to the liar to substitute the lie for the truth, and God is incapable of it. God can do everything, it is true, but he does only what is in conformity with his truth and justice. It is certain, then, that Jesus Christ is called the true Son of God, in the proper sense, that is, born of the very substance of God. What made the Apostle say: "He did not spare his own Son.” (Rom. 8:32) And in another Epistle: "who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped.” (Phil. 2:6) If, therefore, he did not regard himself to be equal to God, he affirmed himself by the same true Son of God, for he could not be equal to God except so much that he was born of God. Equality is only possible between two things that are or equally true, or equally false. One cannot establish equality or unity between that which has a beginning and that which is eternal. But Jesus Christ declaring that he is one with his Father is equal to God. "The Jews," says the Evangelist, "reproached him not only for violating the Sabbath, but for affirming that his Father was God, making himself equal, that is to say, like God.” (Jn. 5:18) Is it not obvious that this equality can only come from a birth properly so called? For it is by affirming that he was the proper Son, that is, the true Son of God, that he made himself equal to God. This is why he said to his disciples, "He who sees me, see my Father." (Jn. 14: 9) By the same that they are consubstantial, he who sees one sees both. Just as the Father has life in him, he has given his Son to have life in him, (Jn. 5:26) that is to say, the Father begot a son who is equal to him, and all that is to the Father is to the Son, as all that is to the Son is to the Father (Jn. 17:10), and no one can take away anything from the Father's hand or from the Son's hand. (Jn. 10:29) And he adds, "I and my Father are one. I say to you, I tell you not of myself, but my Father who dwells in me, do the works that I do. Do you not believe that I am in my Father, and that my Father is in me? Believe it, at least because of the works I do.” (Jn. 14:10) As the generation does not come from itself, but from the one who has begotten it, it attributes all that it does to the Father, to establish by all these testimonies that if he is called the true Son of God, it is because he was born of him, and so that it was not supposed that his nature was entirely outside the nature of God. The humility that appears in his words, is here all his greatness. For while he seems to humble himself by saying to his disciples, "What I say to you, I do not say it of myself, but it is my Father who dwells in me who speaks and does the works that I do," (Jn. 14:10) proves his divine origin and power, affirming that what he is, he is not of himself, but of his Father, far from Christ This is his finest title of glory, for he who speaks of himself is not the true Son of God. As you can see, the error of the Arians over the person of Jesus Christ comes precisely from what should give them a just idea. They take occasion to condemn him and to accuse him of false words which prove to the evidence that he is the true Son of God. He asks his Father to glorify him, and at the same time promises to glorify his Father to whom he addresses his prayer, and his greatness comes here from his apparent humiliation. When the Father bears witness to his Son, proclaiming his own glory, and when the Son issues the greatness of the Father, he also manifests his own glory. The greatness and nobility of the Father is the greatness and nobility of the true Son. So all that we attribute to the Father belongs to the Son, and all that we attribute to the Son belongs to the Father. Thus the Spirit whom we call the Spirit of the Father, is also called the Spirit of Jesus Christ; the Church of God is also the Church of Jesus Christ. We worship God, as we worship Jesus Christ; we serve God, we serve Jesus Christ too. The saints are called the priests of God, they are also called the priests of Jesus Christ. The holy city is enlightened by the light of God, it is also illuminated by the light of Jesus Christ. The throne of God is the same as that of Jesus Christ. God is the sovereign ruler, Jesus Christ too, for the prophet Isaiah saw Christ seated on a throne of majesty as the God of armies (Isa. 6:1); the Arians cannot deny it. It is written of God the Father that he is the King of kings and the Lord of lords. (1 Tim. 6:15) The Scripture recognizes the same titles to Jesus Christ the true Son of God. (Rev. 17:14, 19:16) Everywhere, therefore, we see perfect equality between the divinity of the Father and the divinity of the Son, and the distinction of persons in no way contradicts the unity of one God. The only difference that exists between the Father and the Son is that the Father was not begotten, and the Son was born, that is, the Father comes from no other and that the Son comes from the Father, which is the greatness of the Son; for that is what makes us know his eternal nobility, and that he is the true Son of the true Father, a truth that these words of God express in Genesis: "Let us make man in our image and likeness.” (Gen. 1:26) If they have the same image, the same resemblance, how could they not have the same nature? In fact, in spiritual things where there are no sensible forms, one thing can be similar to another only by its nature, and if two things have the same image, they must not have same substance. The Scripture tells us that they have the same image, the same resemblance to teach us that one is no different from the other, that is to say, that Jesus Christ is the true Son of God because his birth is not distinct here from him who begets. So the Jews, who understood very well that he called God his Father in the proper sense, say to Pilate: "We have a law, and according to this law he must die, because he has made himself the Son of God.” (Jn. 19:7) What! the Jews have understood this truth, and the Christians say that they do not understand it; those who did not believe had the intelligence of these words, and those who claim to have faith do everything not to understand! They will admit at the same time that the prophet Isaiah, wishing to teach us that Christ God does not come from himself but from God, expresses himself in these terms: "They will walk behind you with their hands bound, we will see them worship you, pray. A good is in you, they will say, and there is no God but you. You are truly God, and we do not know it, God of Israel, O Savior!" (Isa. 45:14) These words are clear to a spirit of good faith, they clearly show that the Father is in the Son, and the Son God is of the same nature as the Father, In whom, he, in whom is God, without whom there is no other God, and who is God himself, what can be that which is God the Father, without him Is there any difference? This is really two to be one. God is in him, because although he is God, he is not of himself, but of the Father, because he is a Son, and apart from him there is no other God, because he is the only begotten Son of the Father. He is God himself, because God and Christ have only one and the same nature, so there remains no doubt here about this truth which is the object of our faith, that the Father and the Son do not have the same nature. Christ is the true Son of the true Father. This is what the prophet Jeremiah himself predicts: "He is our God," he said, "and no one else will be before him. He found all the ways of wisdom, who exposed them to Jacob his servant, to Israel his beloved. After that he was seen on the earth, and conversed with men." (Baruch, 3:36) Can we say of him who is of a lower nature that no one else will be before him, or that he is a God different from the Father, so that this title of God turns to the prejudice of the Father? If no other God can be before him, and be outside the Father, see if you can admit the consequence, for it is full of danger. It would follow, indeed, that he would be greater than the Father. They imagine themselves to uphold the glory of the Father by separating his Son from him, and they attack him, that is to say, in their impious blindness they place the Son whose glory they wish to diminish above the Father. to whose authority they want to subjugate it. Now, Scripture to teach us that the Son does not differ from the Father (and he would be different if he were not the true Son), says that no one else will be before him, because one cannot find no other nature similar to the nature of God which is the proper nature of Christ. In fact, he could not teach us more clearly that Christ came from God than by declaring that no one else was before him. He knew that the Son was in no way inferior to the Father, and to show his perfect equality he said: "No other God will be before him," because he is like God, equal to God his Father; for he is his true Son. The Prophet again says: "He is our God," that is, the God of Israel.” If it is he, he is the only God, for the Scripture says of him, "Hear, O Israel, the Lord your God is the one and only God;” (Deut. 6:4) and yet he is not the Father, but the Son of the Father. You see, then, that the personality of the Son in no way prejudices the unity of God when we say of the Son that he is the only God, since Scripture attests it in express terms. Where does that come from? it is that the Father and the Son are but one; it is that unity is the result of nature and not of the distinction of persons; it is that they are not two, but only one. Nature is that they are not two Gods, but one God, whether it be the Father who speaks, whether the Son, is always one God who speaks. For if the Lord Himself said of man and woman. "They will not be two, but one flesh," (Matt. 19:5) how much more the Father and the Son are not two Gods, but one and the same nature? It is the birth of the Son that makes us distinguish the Father and the Son and the unity of the divinity which opposes us admitting two Gods. By what abnormality, however, do they maintain that Christ was created, that is, done, while Scripture teaches us that God did nothing without Christ? (Jn. 1:3) If nothing has been done without him, he cannot have been made himself; for if he himself is one of the things that have been done, something has been done without him. But far from us this thought, because absolutely nothing exists without him. By his birth of God, he did not begin to exist, his existence is eternal. His birth is nothing more than an outing, and this outing is a manifestation. He was not made, he was born. To express clearly that Christ had gone out from the substance of God, this exit was given the name of birth; for as the birth is not distinct from the Father, who is its author, it was well established that Christ was consubstantial with God, and the error which said: He was when He was not found to be condemned; for how to admit the nonexistence for a single instant of the one that Scripture represents to us as proceeding from God, to teach us that he has always been in God? No one can proceed from God unless he is in God. The Arians, I know, explain this divine filiation: Christ is called the true Son of God, because God did it to be true; as if God could do something wrong. And what will become of all the proofs so strong, so incontestable, that we have previously given of the unity of the Father and the Son? If we are to adopt another sentiment here, a great number of truths which have the support of divine oracles for them will be shaken by a single discordant testimony. But let them come to this last resource so that iniquity ceases to be pleasing to them. God has therefore done it, they say, to be a true Son, his will here being the agency of birth, and the creation replaces the generation. We must give to the power of God, they add, all that is necessary for him to do things that are not like those that exist. Since they have recourse to these cunning discretions to attack the Son of God, we turn against them the same reasons they trust so that their defeat is general in all respects. This proposition, to take it only in its meaning, is of no importance, but if it is considered in its terms, it is covered with a certain cloud which hides its meaning. It is like an Egyptian placed in darkness, for a bad cause cannot be defended by a good interpretation. They therefore resort, to defend their impiety, to sacrilegious words. If, then, the power of God could have made Christ the true Son of God without being born of him, he did it as he is, that is to say, that the creation has produced here what the generation should give. If you say that there is no difference between God and Christ, we may be able to think, given the good faith of your assertion, that the affirmation is here in conformity with reality, that Christ is truly the Son of God by that it is said that he is, and that he is of the same nature as his Father, not by generation, but by creation, because God can do everything, you say, and in particular that the created be here as the uncreated. But if, by following the path traced to you by reason, you declare that what has a beginning cannot be equal and consubstantial with what is eternal, you reveal all the deceit of your bad faith, because to evade the meaning terms, falsely claim that Christ is the true Son of God, while denying that he is equal to God the Father; for he is not his true Son if he is not equal to him. Can we call him the true Son of God if God the Father is not truly his Father? If he is the true Son of God, the Father is also truly Father, and equality is the proof of this truth. If equality does not exist between them, one is not truer Father than the other is true Son. But as the testimony of the Scriptures, which states that Jesus Christ is the true Son of God, cannot be annulled, we must believe that he was born of God the Father, because this truth is a consequence of his equality with God that Scripture teaches us. But you, who recognize in God an incomprehensible power, you say: God cannot engender, because it is a simple nature, a language that is an insult to God the Father, for you accuse him of lying by denying that he who claims to be his true Son is in indeed, and you expose your hypocrisy, because you proclaim without believing in the power of God; for if you recognize this power by asserting that it has brought out the truth from lying, which is a mockery of the truth, how much more, if you were in good faith, should you believe that what is called true indeed, and that the testimony that God the Father has given to his Son is indisputable. Indeed, the Lord said, "All things are possible to God," (Matt. 19:26) to persuade us that what is impossible for men is not for God. If you consider things only from the point of view of the flesh, you cannot admit that a virgin has borne, nor that Jonah may have lived in the belly of the whale (Jon. 2:2), nor that the dead can resurrect, nor God begot his Son, because a simple nature cannot engender, because there is no generation in this world without union. We must believe all these things or reject them all. If it is necessary to keep to the natural reason of the world, its authority must have no bounds. If, on the contrary, spiritual things have different rules, or ought to regard as carnal the one who, imbued with the principles of the world, dares to deny that something could have been done differently than he conceives it. They still resort to other tricks and ask us this question: Is it by or against his will that the Father has begot his Son? If we answer it by his will, they hasten, like the enemies of the Son of God, to draw this conclusion: So the will of God preceded the existence of the Son, and it is not eternal, then but the Son of God did not begin to be, but simply exists by birth. If their reasoning were well founded, the will would have preceded not only the Son, but the Father, because the cause of the generation is at once in the Father and in the Son. Unbelief follows in all things the inspirations of the flesh. God, to hear him, did not act other than a man, he deliberated, he reflected carefully before engendering, as if he were subject to the weakness of the human mind, while in God the general is inseparable from the will, as the will is inseparable from the generation; because the will is none other than the generation. We use, it is true, the same terms to say: God did, man did, but the action of God is quite different from the action of man; it is the same in all other circumstances. We always have to talk about God in a way worthy of him. They ask us another question about God the Father: The generation, they ask, has it been for God the Father an accident, or is it of his nature to always beget? They make this question to accuse God, who testifies that He begot Christ, and make Christ not a true son, but a son of adoption. If he has begotten, they say, he must always beget; and as he does not always beget, one must not believe that he has begotten Christ. There would be so much reason to deny that God created the world, because he does not create others. What irreverence, what forgetfulness of all the rules, to lay down laws to God and to say to him: If you have really begotten a Son, you must have spawned many, you have not begotten a single one; that is, they do not believe in the Lord who has declared that he is the only begotten Son of God. After having brought the proofs that show the equality of the Father and the Son, let us see whether the testimonies that Scripture gives to the Holy Spirit agree with these proofs, in order to establish well that the Trinity, of which we profess the belief to be saved, does not admit in the divine persons of distinction of nature, just as it does not admit of difference in the faith which it demands; for although we cannot be saved without one of the three divine persons, it is in all three the same power that saves those who believe in them. We have quoted the words of the Father who bore witness to the Son, let us now produce the words of the Son who bear witness to the Holy Spirit, and who prove that the Holy Spirit is not of a nature different from his. This testimony which the Father gives to the Son and which the Son gives to the Holy Spirit is a demonstrative proof of the unity of nature in the Trinity. Here is what the Lord says: “I will pray to my Father, and He will give you another Comforter, that He may be with you eternally the Spirit of truth.” (Jn. 14:16) In promising another Paraclete, he proves that he himself is a Paraclete or advocate. We read in the Epistle of St. John: "We have an advocate with the Father Jesus Christ, who prays for our sins." (1 Jn. 2:1) The Savior says in another place: "I am the truth.” This, then, is the clear unity of the Holy Spirit and the Son. The Son attributes to the Holy Spirit the properties he attributes to himself. Let us now see what the Scriptures provide us with in support of this truth. We read in the prophet Isaiah "that he saw the God of armies seated on a throne of majesty.” (Isa. 6:1) and St. John the Evangelist heard these words of Jesus Christ saying, "This is what Isaiah prophesied when he saw his glory and spoke of him.” (Jn. 13:41) The Apostle, on his side, declares that it is the Holy Spirit. Here is what he says towards the end of the Acts of the Apostles: "The Holy Spirit speaking to our fathers has said, You shall hear with your ears, and you shall not understand.” (Acts 28:26) These words are those of the Lord of hosts. He is the only God; whether one hears either the Father, the Son, or the Holy Spirit, there is no contradiction, because they have only one deity and one power. For if the edict of a single prefect of the courtroom is considered as an order emanating from the other prefects because of the authority and the power which are one, it is much more rightly than under the empire of only one God, if one of the three comes to speak, we say in all truth that the three spoke, for their nature is one as their will. They still seek to diminish the authority of the Holy Spirit by presenting as a sign of inferiority the third place which he occupies, while the divine Scriptures express itself with such simplicity that often the third person is named the first. They are placed according to the circumstances, and in this respect none of them suffers any prejudice, because they have only one and the same divinity. Thus, indeed, the Lord speaks through the mouth of the Lord: "I am the first and I am eternally, it is my hand which founded the earth, it is my right hand which has the heavens." (Isa. 48:12) And a little lower: "I spoke, it was I who called him, who brought him, and I flattened every paths before him. Come near to me and listen to this: From the beginning I did not speak in secret, I was present when these things were resolved, and now I was sent by the Lord God and by his Spirit.” (Isa. 48:15-16) Which one do you think the earth has been with? He declares that he was sent. Is it the Father? No. It is therefore the Son who declares himself sent by the Father and by the Holy Spirit. Just as the Holy Spirit was sent by the Father and the Son, so Christ was sent by the Father and by the Holy Spirit. The exclusive privilege of the Father is to be sent by no one. Listen to what the Apostle says and how he enumerates in a different order the people of the Holy Trinity. Here is how he expresses himself in his second Epistle to the Thessalonians: "May the Lord direct your hearts in the love of God and the patience of Jesus Christ.” (2 Thess. 3:5) What does he mean here by the Lord, if not the Holy Spirit? And what is astonishing that he gives to the Holy Spirit the name of Lord of armies that Isaiah gives to him whom he saw sitting on a throne of majesty, as we have said above? The apostle Saint John himself hears of the Holy Spirit when he says of God: "In this we know that God dwells in us because he has made us participate in his Spirit.” (1 Jn. 4:13) If it is through his Spirit that he abide in us, there is no doubt that the Holy Spirit is from God, and it is no less certain that what is of God is God. This is what made the Apostle says: "No one knows what is in God except the Spirit of God.” (1 Cor. 2:11) But how can he know what is in God unless he has the same divine nature? An inferior nature cannot know what is contained in a superior nature, how much less can a mere creature know what is in its creator? The Apostle, in his first Epistle to the Corinthians, reverses the order which the tradition of faith has consecrated and begins with the Holy Spirit the enumeration of the graces and the science of mysteries; He places our Lord Jesus Christ second, and places God the third, God the Father who works, says he, in the Holy Spirit and in the Lord (1 Cor. 12:1) according to this word of the Savior: "My Father, who dwells in me, does the works that I do.” (Jn. 14:10) By the same thing that the Holy Spirit and Jesus Christ proceed from God the Father, their operation is the work of God. Besides, the same Apostle gives the Holy Spirit the name of Lord and the Lord the name of God because of their unity of nature. Now, having said in such a place that this God, who is the Lord, works all things in all, Saint Paul concludes: "Now it is one and the same spirit that works all these things, distributing to each one his gifts, according to what it pleases." (1 Cor. 12:11) Is it possible to establish more clearly that the three persons have only one operation, because as soon as one acts, the three act with it, as having only the same divinity. It is a certain truth that the gift of graces is the proper work of the Holy Spirit, but to teach us that God, our Lord, and the Holy Spirit are only one because of the identity of nature, the Apostle shows us the work of the Holy Spirit as being common to the three persons. In the same way, to teach us that it is the proper work of the Holy Spirit as a divine person, he adds: and it is one and the same Spirit who operates all these things, distributing his gifts according to what he chooses. He says according to what he pleases, because his will is the very will of God, for he does not say as God wants, but as the Holy Spirit wants. Indeed, the creature strives to do the will of God, while the Holy Spirit naturally wants what God wants. Now, to put this truth in all its glory, that the Holy Spirit works all these things, Our Lord said to the Jews, "If I cast out demons by the finger of God, etc.," (Luke 9:20) Here he calls the Holy Spirit the finger of God to prove that he is from God. And he does not hesitate to accuse them of blaspheme against the Holy Spirit, the Jews who said he was driving out demons by Beelzebub, prince of demons. When Moses himself performed his prodigies by the Holy Spirit, the magicians are obliged to exclaim: "The finger of God is here." (Exod. 8:19) We still read in the Acts of the Apostles: "During that they sacrificed to the Lord and that they loved, the Holy Ghost said to them, Separate Paul and Barnabas for the work to which I have called them." (Acts 13:2) It is to the Lord that they are sacrificed, and the Holy Spirit attributes to himself this act of religion, a clear proof that he is the Lord God, like God the Father, it is Jesus Christ who, from heaven, called Paul and sent him to preach, and the Holy Spirit still attributes to himself this mission in disarray: "For the work to which I have called them," and yet no one is ignorant that it is the Savior who instituted bishops at the head of the churches. It was he who, before ascending to heaven, gave the Apostles pontifical consecration by laying hands on them. However, the Apostle does not fail to attribute this institution to the Holy Spirit when he says: "Be attentive to yourselves and to the flock with which the Holy Spirit has established you bishops to rule the Church of the Lord Jesus." (Acts 20:28) Peter also said to Ananias, " Ananias, why did Satan fill your heart to make you lie to the Holy Spirit?” (Acts 5:3) And he adds, "You have not lied to men, but to God.” It is evident that he calls God the Holy Spirit to whom Ananias lied. Had he not wanted to make it known that the Holy Spirit is God, he would have said: You have not lied to men, but to the Holy Spirit, so as not to make the Holy Spirit look like God, not like a man. And what is there in this amazing? The Apostle calls man sometimes the temple of God, sometimes the temple of the Holy Spirit, because they are one by their nature (2 Cor. 6:16; 1 Cor. 6:19); if he would not make us understand that the Holy Spirit is God, how could he say below: "The temple of God is holy, and you are the temple? (1 Cor. 3:17) All the Scriptures teach us the existence of one God, but we worship in the Trinity the mystery of one God. The Scripture thus expresses itself so that in this belief in one God we understand that what proceeds from Him, that is, the Son and the Holy Spirit, deserves the same honors we give to God; for the mystery of God has been revealed to us to make his glory appear in the Trinity. Scripture does not always formally give the name of God to what proceeds from God so as not to suggest that there is another God apart from the one who is the only God. But it gives us intelligence to lead us to believe that the salvation of men depends on faith in the Trinity, because the three divine persons have the same divinity; for one could not join together and place on the same rank the Creator and the creatures, the Lord and the servants, the eternity and the beings who have a beginning, especially since there is no salvation for any man without faith to one of these three persons. It would be an offense to give the name of God to all that we call God, the Son, or the Holy Spirit, if we give them an honor, a glory other than the honor and glory which are due to an only God. The holy Scriptures thus show that Christ is God, that the Holy Spirit is God, so that those who see him know and understand the nature of what is shown to them. Here is a man who shows a pearl without saying that it is a pearl; will it be a pearl because this man does not say so expressly? Thus the Scriptures show by all the testimonies that we have brought what we must believe, by enclosing our spirits in faith to one God considered in the mystery of the Trinity.
(John 14:9) AMBROSIASTER 2ND CATEGORY NT QUESTION 43. WHAT REASONABLE ANSWER CAN ONE MAKE FROM THE LAW TO THE IMPIETY OF THE ARIANS? — If one must believe in reason, etc. It is therefore evident that Christ is called the true Son of God, as his own Son, that is, born of his substance. This is what makes the Apostle say: "He did not spare his own Son." The very reason for the names of Father and Son teaches us that the Father and the Son share the same nature. Human reason is too weak to reach the knowledge of this mystery. That is why these grand truths have received names which help to conceive the truth of the existence of the Father and the Son. Well, indeed, does not show better that Our Lord Jesus Christ proceeds from God than the name of Son of God given to Him. And as malignity has found a way to misuse these names to give them a meaning different from that which they naturally have, Scripture adds, "He is the true Son," to silence these impious mouths and to those evil spirits. We will even say that no one falls into heresy except by departing from the reason of names; simple and upright minds, which do not deviate from the meaning of names, remain inviolately attached to the Catholic faith. Simplicity calmly considers what has been taught to it by tradition. When doubts arise, questions arise over truths clearly and simply formulated, and that not satisfied with believing what the words express, men consider it unworthy of them not to add or not to take away something, they fall from the heights of the divine tradition. For the righteous spirits, all their solicitude is that their faith in God is according to tradition. Now, the only meaning of the names of Father and Son leads to the truth of the perfect unity that exists between them. It cannot be supposed that there is a difference between those whom Scripture represents under the same image, and whom the Son himself confirms when he says: "He who sees me, sees my Father." (Jn. 14:9) If, then, he who sees one of them sees them both, the Father and the Son certainly have one and the same form, which can only be so long as the Father and the Son are one and the same substance. And this does not cast doubt on what happens among men, how can one ascertain the existence of the true Son? when the identity of nature is supported by the property of the names of the begotten and the created; for who can generate anything other than himself? If Christ was simply called the Son of God, and the Scripture did not add for greater clarity that He is the true Son of God, to the testimony of the Apostle St. John, "We are in his true Son Jesus Christ, who is the true God and eternal life;” (Jn. 5:20) and St. Paul: "He did not spare his own Son," there might be some doubt as to the meaning of the only name of the Son. But Scripture clearly says that He is the true Son of God; therefore those who go against the natural signification of this expression become their own enemies. They imagine, and under the influence of a false and perverse opinion, they affirm that one must believe something other than what is contained in the reason of faith, as if they wanted to give to God more than him. Even those who believe in him do not want it. If Scripture had not added to the word Son the qualification of truth, we might perhaps doubt. One could say that these words of the Savior: "He who sees me, see my father," signifies that he is like his Father, as milk is like plaster, similar in color, but very different from nature. But, no, as these words are the words of the true Son of God, we must admit that they signify in his mind that the Father and the Son have one and the same nature, and that they do not differ in any way. If indeed the Savior said of the man and the woman, because they have the same nature: "They are no longer two but one flesh," (Matt. 19:6) how much more must one be careful not to say that the Father and the Son are two, so as not to give rise to the error that their nature is separate, divided, or at least different and dissimilar? Finally, the apostle Saint Paul confirms this unity of nature of the Father and the Son when he says: "He did not look as a usurpation to be equal to God. "(Philip. 2:6) Now, where does this equality come from, if not from the unity of nature, both have one and the same image. The Apostle said, "He did not count equality with God," the Savior Himself called himself the true Son of God, for He could not be equal to God except so much as He proceeded from God: there is no equality possible except between two subjects who are both true or both false. This equality, this unity cannot exist between what had a beginning and what is eternal. So, when Jesus Christ declares that he is one with his Father, he proclaims himself equal to God. "Not only did the Jews reproach him,” says the Evangelist, for breaking the Sabbath, but for saying that “God was his Father and to make himself equal to God," that is, to the Father. Is it not obvious that this equality comes from birth? For it is by asserting himself the proper Son, the true Son of God, that he made himself equal to God, and that is why he said: "He who sees me, see my Father," that is, to say that both are of the same nature, the one who sees one sees them both. "For as the Father has life in himself, so has he given to his Son to have life in himself," that is to say, an equal life, etc.
(John 14:27) AMBROSIASTER 1ST CATEGORY NT QUESTION 92. HOW SHOULD WE UNDERSTAND THESE WORDS OF THE SAVIOR: "I GIVE YOU MY PEACE, I LEAVE YOU MY PEACE, I DO NOT GIVE IT TO YOU AS THE WORLD GIVES IT?” — He who receives the peace of the Savior becomes the enemy of the world. If he is not at war with the devil, he will not have peace with Jesus Christ. No one can serve two masters. (Matt. 6:24) He therefore who is at war with the world is one who faithfully observes the law of God, and who, strong in the peace of Jesus Christ, repels all the features of his enemies. Who would dare to undertake against him whom he knows to be the friend of the king? However, the world gives peace otherwise than the Savior promises to give it. The world gives peace out of fear or because it is asked of it. But the Savior, whose strength has no equal, fears no one, and gives no peace only because he is prayed to. It is the peace of the Savior that he gives us as a bulwark against our enemies. One name serves to express the peace of God and of the world; but what an immense distance separates them! One is fragile, the other is firm; one is carnal, the other is spiritual; this one is terrestrial, that one is celestial; the first is the effect of necessity, the second is all voluntary. Jesus Christ who needs no one offers peace to those who are weak, disarmed; he offers it as the Lord has his subjects, as a good master to bad servants, as God to men. He is therefore right in saying: "I do not give it to you as the world gives it”; By this he brings to light the whole extent of goodness and his mercy. Every man grants peace to be profitable to him; the Savior gives it not in his interest, but in the interest of those who receive it. The world therefore gives peace differently than the Savior gave. And this peace of the world does not teach the holy and pure life, it does not persuade patience, it does not excite the works of justice, it does not exhort to mercy, it does not promise eternal life. He, on the contrary, who has received the peace of Jesus Christ, is far from all the vices of the world which give violent battles to the soul.
(John 16:8) AMBROSIASTER 1ST CATEGORY NT QUESTION 89. THE SAVIOR SAYS OF THE HOLY SPIRIT, THAT WHEN HE COMES HE WILL CONVICT THE WORLD CONCERNING SIN, AND RIGHTEOUSNESS, AND JUDGMENT; SIN, BECAUSE THEY HAVE NOT BELIEVED IN ME; JUSTICE, BECAUSE I GO TO MY FATHER, AND YOU WILL SEE ME NO MORE; AND JUDGMENT, BECAUSE THE PRINCE OF THIS WORLD IS ALREADY JUDGED. OUR LORD MAKES AN ACCUSATION AGAINST THE WORLD HERE, BUT NEEDS EXPLANATION. — As the Jews did not believe in the Savior, nor the mighty of the world; For it was not only to men that he wanted to manifest himself, but to princes and heavenly powers, as the Apostle teaches in his Epistle to the Ephesians; (Eph 3:10) He predicts that after his passion, the Holy Spirit will show that he has spoken the truth. To convince the world is, therefore, to show him the truth of things he did not wish to believe. So he refused to believe that he was the Savior sent from God. Now the Savior, after having fulfilled all righteousness, did not hesitate to return to the one who had sent him, and by the very fact that he was returning to heaven, he proved that he had come. "For no one," he says, "goes back to God except the one who descended from God.” When the powers saw him ascending into the heavens, they were confounded by seeing the truth of what they had despised as a lie. He therefore gives them the conviction of that righteousness by which he ascends into the heavens from which he descended. He then convinces them of sin, because not only did they not believe in him, but put him to death. He finally convinces them with regard to judgment, by revealing the iniquity of the prince of the world, and his condemnation by him whom they did not believe. Seeing the souls come out of limbo to go to heaven, they knew that the prince of this world was judged, and that, being found guilty of the death of the Savior, he lost all his rights over those whom he held captive. This is what we saw when the Savior ascended to heaven, but what appeared with more brilliance when the Holy Spirit descended on the Apostles. What a more genuine judgment than that pronounced against the world, when after the passion and resurrection of Our Lord, this deceitful world saw the public testimonies which the risen dead, the lame who walked, the healed lepers, delivered to the Savior, the paralyzed, the blind, who saw, the deaf who heard, the mute who spoke, the possessed delivered, the sick who thanked him for having healed them of their infirmities? This is how the Holy Spirit convinced the world by performing these miracles of healing in the name of the Savior who had been reproved by the world.
(John 17:9) AMBROSIASTER 2ND CATEGORY NT QUESTION 36. THE SAVIOR SAYS ON ONE SIDE: I PRAY FOR THOSE WHOM YOU HAVE GIVEN ME, I DO NOT PRAY FOR THE WORLD; THE EVANGELIST, ON THE CONTRARY, SAYS: WE HAVE AN ADVOCATE NEAR THE FATHER WHO INTERCEDES FOR OUR SINS, AND NOT ONLY FOR OUR SINS, BUT FOR THE SINS OF THE WHOLE WORLD. (1 JN. 2) THESE TWO TEXTS SEEM CONTRADICTORY. — Although there is not much difference between these two texts, yet what the Savior says is not what the Apostle St. John asserts. The Savior prays that his disciples be preserved from the attacks of evil. "I ask," he said to his Father, "not that you take them from the world, but that you preserve them from evil." (Jn. 17) The Apostle St. John offers us another kind of prayer: “We have," he says, "an advocate who prays for us sinners, and for the sins of the whole world.” Two kinds of prayers are thus formulated for Christians: one asks that their sins be forgiven, and that they be protected from the pursuits of the devil. As for those who have no faith, the only thing that can be asked for them is that instead of inflicting on them the just punishment of their sins, of their unbelief, the goodness and patience of God are waiting for them, their repentance and their conversion. We cannot pray to God, in fact, to forgive sins for those who do not believe; what one can ask for is to give them a long delay, so that their repentance can bring them to remission of their sins. The object of the Savior's prayer is therefore the one we have indicated.
John 19:14; (Matthew 27:45; Luke 23:44; Mark 15:25) AMBROSIASTER 1ST CATEGORY NT QUESTION 65. IF THE EVANGELISTS HAD THE SAME THOUGHT, THE SAME LANGUAGE, HOW IS IT THAT WHEN THREE OF THEM, ST. MATTHEW, ST. LUKE AND ST. JOHN, SAY THAT THE SAVIOR WAS CRUCIFIED IN THE SIXTH HOUR, ST. MARK, ON THE CONTRARY, REPORTS THAT HE WAS AT THE THIRD HOUR? — It is not good to wrap the truth in obscure language. The three evangelists had only one thought, but Saint Mark wanted to mention a circumstance they had omitted and thought necessary. Indeed, it can not be supposed that this evangelist who, following the example of the other sacred writers, was educated with a deep sense of religion and a scrupulous care of what he wrote, and who was inspired by the Holy Spirit, could have made a mistake. It is therefore necessary to examine what his purpose was in expressing himself in this way. Let us first consider that it was not by Pilate but by the Jews that the Savior was crucified, for, according to the Roman laws, he declared that Jesus was innocent. Is not he the one who says to the Jews, "I find no crime in him?” (Jn. 19:4) They cry to him, "Crucify him,” and he answers them, What crime hath he done? Finally, as he insisted and wished to draw it from their hands, they had recourse to this slanderous accusation: "If you deliver this man you are not Caesar's friend, for whoever makes himself king, is decreed against Caesar. It is then that He gives them the Savior to be judged by them. Pilate did not pronounce the sentence, but the Jews. It was at the instigation of the leaders of the priests, says the evangelist, that they shouted to him: "Let him be crucified.” St. Mark therefore wished to make us understand that the sentence was pronounced at the third hour, when they repeated with their repeated cries that Jesus was crucified within the interval of nearly three hours, during which Jesus was taken to Herod's house and brought back to Pilate. In fact, every man condemned to death is regarded as dead from the moment the death sentence has been sentenced to him. St. Mark thus clearly establishes that it is not by virtue of the judge's sentence that Jesus was crucified; for it is difficult to prove the innocence of one who is condemned by a judicial sentence. He spoke in a different way to tell us that what was done in the sixth hour, not by law, but by the persevering malice of the Jews, began at the third hour.
John 19:14; Matthew 27:45; Luke 23:44; Mark 15:25) AMBROSIASTER 2ND CATEGORY NT QUESTION 21. SENTENCE IS PRONOUNCED. BUT IT SEEMS CERTAIN THAT IT WAS BETWEEN THE FIFTH AND SIXTH HOURS THAT PILATE SAT DOWN ON HIS TRIBUNAL, AND PRONOUNCED SENTENCE, AS ST. JOHN TELLS IT. — It is not good to wrap the truth in obscure language. The agreement of the three evangelists is proof that they have spoken the truth. As to St. Mark, his account indicates that he wished to make known to us a circumstance which remained hidden. For it cannot be supposed that this evangelist, who, like the other sacred authors, had learned with as much religion as care what he should write, has fallen into error. We must therefore carefully examine what he wanted to teach us by expressing himself in this way. For it is not without reason that he departs here from the three other evangelists. Let us consider whether those who claim that the sentence was pronounced at the third hour, and that therefore the Savior was crucified at this time, are not right, although they cannot prove the truth of their feeling. They see this truth, but they do not know how to establish it. Let us, then, leave Pilate's person for a moment and see how far the sentence pronounced against the Savior can be traced, and we shall see then whether we can admit as true the sentiment of which we have just spoken. It is certain that it was at the instigation of the priests of the priests that the Jews demanded that Barabbas be delivered to them on the day of the feast, and that Jesus was crucified. Pilate resisted them long because he wanted to deliver the Savior; He returned and went out several times to speak to the Jews and tell them that he found no crime in him that was worthy of death. But the Jews insisted with greater force by shouting, "Let him be crucified. There was therefore a certain space of time during which Jesus was exposed to the mockery of the soldiers, who presented him to the people, clothed him with a rag of purple, and crowned with thorns, worshipped him in mockery, they spat in his face, flogged him, and suffered him, which led him to the sixth hour when Jesus was crucified. He was brought to Pilate, Pilate went out to come to the Jews, because they did not enter the courtroom themselves. He spoke to them, heard their false accusations, and sent Jesus to Herod. Then he came back, questioned again Jesus who answered him; then he went out again to the Jews and declared to them that he found no cause of death in the Savior. We had arrived at the third hour. Then the Jews told Pilate who wanted to deliver Jesus, "Let him be crucified.” Pilate resisted them for a long time, but being unable to obtain anything, he left Jesus at their will about the sixth hour, as the Evangelist expressly said: "He gave him to them to do what they wanted.” It is therefore true to say that the sentence of death was pronounced at the third hour, because it was not pronounced by Pilate, but by the Jews. Pilate consented to it only with regret and in spite of himself because of the perilous intimation that they sounded in his ears: "If you deliver him, you are not Caesar's friend." Let us see what St. Mark wanted to show that it was not by the sentence of the judge that the Savior had been condemned, because it is difficult for him who is sentenced by a truly judicial sentence, not to appear put to death with justice.
(John 19:42; Matthew 27:62; Mark 15:42; Luke 23:54) AMBROSIASTER 1ST CATEGORY NT QUESTION 55. WHY DID THE LORD WANT TO BE CRUCIFIED ON THE EIGHTH DAY OF THE CALENDS OF APRIL, THE TIME OF THE PASSOVER CELEBRATION FOR THE JEWS? — The Savior did all things in their place and in their time. To show that he created the world and all that it contains by the will of the Father, he wanted to redeem the world and renew it with his passion at the time he created it, that is to say in the equinox where the world began and the day becomes longer than the night. As he lived in the middle of the Roman Empire, he had to suffer the eighth day of the calends of April, time of the equinox of the Romans. It was then, in fact, that the reader spread over this part of the world and the day began to grow. The passion of the Savior led him from darkness to light. The conduct of the Creator is therefore safe from blame, since he repaired his fallen creature at the very time he created it. One can find nothing wrong with the time of the creation of a fallen thing when its repair takes place at the same time, and God wanted the joy of the renewal of the creature to take place on the very day of its inauguration.
(John 20:1-13; Matthew 28:1-8; Mark 16:1-8; Luke 24:1-12) AMBROSIASTER 1ST CATEGORY NT QUESTION 64. HOW CAN ONE PROVE THAT THE SAVIOR ROSE FROM THE DEAD AFTER THREE DAYS AND THREE NIGHTS? — If you seek here the number followed by days and nights, you will not be able to understand these words: Moses has hunted forty days and forty nights (Exod. 24:18); However, this number is not entirely present, for the day on which he ascended, and the day on which he descended, are not strictly part of it. But the custom is not to count the night without counting the day, not to count either the day without the night, taking the part for the whole. It is in this sense that the Savior said, "As Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the whale, so the son of man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.” (Matt. 12:40) As there were three nights, there are also three days. Night is mentioned not to appear to express something new and contrary to reason, since night is a consequence of the day. There is no doubt that the evening which is followed by the night was established before the light that gave birth to the day, and nothing absurd is advanced in asserting that the passion of the Lord began with the night. Just as light, that is, day, is the image of life, so night, that is, darkness, is the symbol of death; it is thus that Scripture itself establishes a striking contrast between the children of light and the children of darkness. Now, it is not surprising that although, always and everywhere, the day is placed before night, the light before darkness; here, however, the things which follow are placed before those which preceded them, or that in the present case the order is reversed, as we have already remarked. Indeed, the night seems much cleaner to be the image of death than the day. Death thus begins with the night, because it was impossible to find another way than by night in the empire of the prince of darkness and to triumph over him. It was necessary for the Lord of light, that is, of eternal life, to be for a moment subject to the prince of darkness or death, in order to become the liberator of all those upon whom death had reigned in the past, or would like to expand his empire in the future. Neither death would have been entirely destroyed, nor the clouds of darkness would have been dispelled, had it not been for the Lord to enter his empire. Before this bright light, the secret of death, in which all his strength was, vanishes, and one can only triumph entirely over him who is caught by his own arms or in his own domains. It is therefore by a design full of wisdom that in this great drama the night gets the pre-eminence to lose all its power. So that the unbelieving Jews would remain wrapped up in an eternal night, and that the day would not appear the author of so great a crime, of so enormous sacrilege, but of the night; the day against the natural order of things is submitted to the preceding night, just as the God and Lord of all things is subject to the prince of death, in order to deliver all men from the chains of death. If anyone were tempted to see here again some contradiction, which he considers to moderate his appreciation, that God in putting on the form, I will not say of the man, but of the servant, has voluntarily surrendered to the death. Why, then, demand that order be followed, the place where you see in all things this reversed order? For what is this light that has him in the darkness, and that the darkness have not understood? (Jn. 1:5) It is the Lord of light who allowed us to seize his person. Now, whoever knows that he is seized by him to put him to death, counts from this moment the time of his death. That night follows the day he was judged and crucified. Then comes the night that ends on the Sabbath and the Sabbath itself. There is still the evening following the Sabbath. This is why Moses had given the Jews the figurative precept to begin the Sabbath day in the evening, in which the Lord is risen and who embraces the whole day of Sunday, for there is no night without day or day without night. With this explanation we understand that the resurrection of Our Lord took place after three days and three nights.
(John 20:1-13; Matthew 28:1-8; Mark 16:1-8; Luke 24:1-12) AMBROSIASTER 2ND CATEGORY NT QUESTION 18. HOW CAN ONE PROVE THE TRUTH OF THESE WORDS OF THE SAVIOR, THAT HE WOULD RISE FROM THE DEAD AFTER THREE DAYS AND THREE NIGHTS, SINCE AFTER SUFFERING THE TORMENTS OF HIS PASSION ON THE DAY OF THE LORD'S SUPPER, HE RESURRECTED FIRST LIGHT OF SUNDAY WHEN DARKNESS STILL COVERED THE EARTH? THE NUMBER OF DAYS AND NIGHTS DOES NOT SEEM TO FIT. — The Savior, who foresaw all that was to happen to him, made this statement loudly, he knew with no doubt that the Jews would seize him to put him to death, and that he would oppose no resistance. to their sacrilegious effects, while it was so easy for them to thwart them. Was not he already their captive when he healed the ear of the high priest's servant whom Peter had cut off with a sword? He showed them that his humiliations were not the result of his weakness, but that by a providential disposition he yielded for a time to their criminal will to destroy thus the kingdom of hell. Indeed, the demon, in his improvidence, slipped into the soul of the Jews to push them to put the Savior to death, as if he had to win by being the life to him who taught the way of truth; and he did not know that death must turn against himself. It was then that he triumphed at the sight of the servitude in which the man had fallen as a result of his sin, that he was convinced of the crime of having put to death the innocent Christ, held captive among the sinners he who did not know sin, and thus lost the very ones on whom his power was stretched in the underworld. It is in the divine prescience that the Savior had of all these things that he counts for his death the night he was taken by his enemies. In fact, every prisoner who has no hope of escaping the hands of his judge sees himself as dead even before the blow that must hit him. Add to this night the day of his passion and the next night. Add the Sabbath by joining the night that ends with the dawn of Sunday and Sunday itself, and you have the full number of days predicted by the Lord. For it was the last night, when the darkness still covered the earth and the day was just beginning to dawn, that the Savior rose between light and darkness, so that the night was counted as the day and so the prediction that he had done was done in his integrity.
(John 20:17) AMBROSIASTER 2ND CATEGORY NT QUESTION 37. WHY DID THE SAVIOR SAY TO MARY WHEN SHE WANTED TO TOUCH HIM IN THE EXCESSES OF HIS JOY: “DO NOT TOUCH ME, FOR I HAVE NOT YET ASCENDED TO MY FATHER,” WHILE WE READ THAT THE OTHER HOLY WOMEN TOUCHED HIM AND WORSHIPED HIM? — These words, "Do not touch me," are an expression of discontent, and although Mary Magdalene desired to see the Savior, yet while others believed in his resurrection, she continued to stand near the sepulcher shedding tears, whereas she should have rejoiced at the news that the Apostles John and Peter had taught her that the Lord had risen. And indeed we read in the Gospel: "She saw the linen and the shroud placed in one place, and she believed, for she did not yet know the oracles of Scripture which predicted that the Savior should rise again." But Mary did not believe, because she had not seen with her eyes the resurrection of her divine Master. The excess of her love was the cause of her doubt. Are those we love in trials, we can not believe that they can come out of them; for those, on the contrary, whom we hate, would they be two steps from death, we cannot add to it. Our Lord, therefore, presents himself to Mary, whom her love cast into desolation and sorrow, whereas she should have imitated the faith of the disciples, to console her, but it is not without a certain expression of discontent; that is why he says to her, "Do not touch me," that is to say, you seek a too sensible satisfaction, abstain and rise to the spiritual things that are not seen, because he adds, “I have not yet gone back to my Father." These words have a certain analogy with those of St. John the Baptist sending his disciples to Jesus and saying to them: “Go and say, John the Baptist has sent us to you to ask, Are you the one to come or do we to wait for another?” (Matt. 11; Luke 7) He pleads the cause of his disciples while appearing to speak only in his name. In fact, John could not have the slightest doubt about the person of the Savior, who had said of him: "Here is the Lamb of God, who is the one who takes away the sins of the world.” (Jn. 1:29) It is therefore in the interest of his disciples that he sends them to make this request in his name, so that the Savior may confirm with his own mouth what he has taught them of his divine person, and that after his death his disciples follow in the footsteps of Jesus Christ without any hesitation. This is how the Savior in his person reproaches Mary by saying to her: “I have not yet ascended to my Father,” that is to say, your heart is still too much attached to the earth, and if you do not see point, you cannot bring yourself to believe. In her, if she had raised her heart to God, she would have believed with the disciples in the resurrection of the Savior. |
Home > Gospel of John Commentary >