Chapter X.

Observations on the words of John the Baptist (John i. 30), which may be referred to divine fore-ordinance, but at any rate, as explained by the foregoing considerations, must be understood of the Incarnation. The precedence of Christ is mystically expounded, with reference to the history of Ruth.

63. But [say they] it is written: “After me cometh a Man, Who is made before me, because He was before me;”567    S. John i. 30. and so they argue: “See, He Who was aforetime is ‘made.’” Let us take the words by themselves. “After me cometh a Man.” He, then, Who came is a Man, and this is the Man Who “was made.” But the word “man” connotes sex, and sex is attributed to human nature, but never to the Godhead.

64. I might argue: The Man [Christ Jesus] was in pre-existence so far as His body was foreknown, though His power is from everlasting—for both the Church and the Saints were foreordained before the worlds began. But here I lay aside this argument, and urge that the being made concerns not the Godhead, but the nature of the Incarnation, even as John himself said: “This is He of Whom I said: After me cometh a Man, Who was made before me.”

65. The Scripture, then, having, as I showed above, discovered the twofold nature in Christ, that you might understand the presence of both Godhead and Manhood, here begins with the flesh; for it is the custom of Holy Writ to begin without fixed rule sometimes with the Godhead of Christ, and descend to the visible tokens of Incarnation; sometimes, on the other hand, to start from its humility, and rise to the glory of the Godhead, as oftentimes in the Prophets and Evangelists, and in St. Paul. Here, then, after this use, the writer begins with the Incarnation of our Lord, and then proclaims His Divinity, not to confound, but to distinguish, the human and the divine. But Arians, like Jew vintners,568    Cf. Athanasius, Third Oration Against the Arians, § 35—“But should any man, noticing the divinity revealed in the action of the Word, deny the reality of the body, or marking the things peculiar to the body, deny the presence of the Word in flesh or judging from His human experiences and behaviour, conceive a low esteem of the Word, such a person, like the Jew vintner, mixing water with his wine, will hold the Cross a scandal, and, like a heathen philosopher, regard the preaching as folly—which is just the state of the ungodly followers of Arius.” Horace, Sat. I. v. 3, 4—“inde Forum Appî, Differtum nautis, cauponibus atque malignis.” mix water with the wine, confounding the divine generation with the human, and ascribing to the majesty of God what is properly said only of the lowliness of the flesh.

66. I have no fears of a certain objection they are likely to put forward, namely, that in the words cited we have “a man”—for some have, “Who cometh after me.” But here, too, let them observe what precedes. “The Word,” it is said, “was made flesh.”569    S. John i. 14. Having said that the Word was made flesh, the Evangelist added no mention of man. We understand “man” there in the mention of “flesh,” and “flesh” by the mention of “man.” After the statement made, then, that “the Word was made flesh,” there was no need here to particularly mention “man,” whom he already intended by using the name “flesh.”

67. Later on, St. John uses the lamb, that “taketh away the sins of the world,” as an example; and to teach you plainly the Incarnation of Him, of Whom he had spoken before, he says: “This is He of Whom I said before: After me cometh a Man, Who is made before me,” to wit, of Whom I said that He was “made” as being man, not as being God. However, to show that it was He Who was before the worlds, and none other, that became flesh, lest we should suppose two Sons of God, he adds: “because He was before me.” If the words “was made” had referred to the divine generation, what need was there that the writer should add this, and repeat himself? But, having first said, with regard to the Incarnation only, “After me cometh a Man, Who is made before me,” he added: “because He was before me,” because it was needful to teach the eternity of [Christ’s] Godhead; and this is the reason why St. John acknowledged Christ’s priority, that He, Who is His own Father’s eternal Power, may be presented as on that account duly preferred.570    The explanation of St. John Baptist’s words in the Fourth Gospel is to be found, indeed, in the same Gospel (i. 27) and in the other three Gospels. See Matt. iii. 11; S. Mark i. 7; S. Luke iii. 16. In S. John i. 30, the Baptist says of Jesus Christ not merely “πρότερός μου ἦν” but “πρῶτός μου ἦν”—i.e. “first in relation to me” (and every other human being), “the principle of my very being.” The Arians understood the phrase as if the ordinary comparative, suitable for expressing the ordinary priority of human beings to each other, had been used.

68. But the abounding activity of the spiritual understanding makes it a pleasing exercise to sally forth and drive into a corner the Arians, who will understand the term “made” in this passage, not of the manhood, but of the Godhead [of Christ]. What ground, indeed, is left for them to take their stand upon, when the Baptist has declared that “after me cometh One Who is made before me,” that is, Who, though in the course of earthly life He comes after me, yet is placed above the degree of my worth and grace, and Who has title to be worshipped as God. For the words “cometh after me” belong to an event in time, but “was before me” signify Christ’s eternity; and “is made before me” refer to His pre-eminence, forasmuch as, indeed, the mystery of the Incarnation is above human deserving.571    Or the meaning may be understood by reference to the fact that in the Man Christ Jesus there was seen, and felt, grace, authority, and power such as was more than earthly, more than human. “Full of grace are Thy lips, because God hath blessed thee for ever.” So it was that He spake as never man spake, teaching with authority, and not as the scribes.

69. Again, St. John Baptist also taught in less weighty language what ideas they were he had combined, saying: “After me cometh a Man, Whose shoes I am not worthy to bear,” setting forth at least the more excellent dignity [of Christ], though not the eternity of His Divine Generation. Now these words are so fully intended of the Incarnation, that Scripture hath given us, in an earlier book, a human counterpart of the mystic sandal. For, by the Law, when a man died, the marriage bond with his wife was passed on to his brother, or other man next of kin, in order that the seed of the brother or next of kin might renew the life of the house, and thus it was that Ruth, though she was foreign-born, but yet had possessed a husband of the Jewish people, who had left a kinsman of near relation, being seen and loved of Boaz whilst gleaning and maintaining herself and her mother-in-law with that she gleaned, was yet not taken of Boaz to wife, until she had first loosed the shoe from [the foot of] him whose wife she ought, by the Law, to have become.572    Deut. xxv. 5–10; Ruth iv. 5–7.

70. The story is a simple one, but deep are its hidden meanings, for that which was done was the outward betokening of somewhat further. If indeed we should rack the sense so as to fit the letter exactly, we should almost find the words an occasion of a certain shame and horror, that we should regard them as intending and conveying the thought of common bodily intercourse; but it was the foreshadowing of One Who was to arise from Jewry—whence Christ was, after the flesh—Who should, with the seed of heavenly teaching, revive the seed of his dead kinsman, that is to say, the people, and to Whom the precepts of the Law, in their spiritual significance, assigned the sandal of marriage, for the espousals of the Church.

71. Moses was not the Bridegroom, for to him cometh the word, “Loose thy shoe from off thy foot,”573    Ex. iii. 5. that he might give place to his Lord. Nor was Joshua, the son of Nun, the Bridegroom, for to him also it was told, saying, “Loose thy shoe from off thy foot,”574    Josh. v. 16. lest, by reason of the likeness of his name, he should be thought the spouse of the Church. None other is the Bridegroom but Christ alone, of Whom St. John said: “He Who hath the bride is the Bridegroom.”575    S. John iii. 29. They, therefore, loose their shoes, but His shoe cannot be loosed, even as St. John said: “I am not worthy to loose the latchet of His shoe.”576    S. John i. 27.

72. Christ alone, then, is the Bridegroom to Whom the Church, His bride, comes from the nations, and gives herself in wedlock; aforetime poor and starving, but now rich with Christ’s harvest; gathering in the hidden bosom of her mind handfuls of the rich crop and gleanings of the Word, that so she may nourish with fresh food her who is worn out, bereaved by the death of her son, and starving, even the mother of the dead people,—leaving not the widow and destitute, whilst she seeks new children.

73. Christ, then, alone is the Bridegroom, grudging not even to the synagogue the sheaves of His harvest. Would that the synagogue had not of her own will shut herself out! She had sheaves that she might herself have gathered, but, her people being dead, she, like one bereaved by the death of her son, began to gather sheaves, whereby she might live, by the hand of the Church—the which sheaves they who come in joyfulness shall carry, even as it is written: “Yet surely shall they come with joy, bringing their sheaves with them.”577    Ps. cxxvi. 7.

74. Who, indeed, but Christ could dare to claim the Church as His bride, whom He alone, and none other, hath called from Libanus, saying: “Come hither from Libanus, my bride; come hither from Libanus”?578    Song of Solomon iv. 8. Or of Whom else could the Church have said: “His throat is sweetness, and He is altogether desirable”?579    Song of Solomon v. 26. And seeing that we entered upon this discussion from speaking of the shoes of His feet,—to Whom else but the Word of God incarnate can those words apply? “His legs are pillars of marble, set upon bases of gold.”580    Song of Solomon v. 15. For Christ alone walks in the souls and makes His path in the minds of His saints, in which, as upon bases of gold and foundations of precious stone the heavenly Word has left His footprints ineffaceably impressed.

75. Clearly we see, then, that both the man and the type point to the mystery of the Incarnation.

CAPUT X.

Baptistae verba ex quibus Christum etiam ante incarnationem factum disputabant, soluturus, ubi praemisit ea referri posse ad praedestinationem; intelligenda 0602D tamen de incarnatione ab antecedentibus probat. Hinc progrediens ad mystica, ipsum dignitate ac merito ante Joannem fuisse declarat: maxime cum Ecclesiae, cujus typus in historia Ruth expressus fuerat, sponsus, etiam excluso Moyse, solus exstiterit: quam licet Synagoga non omnino neglecta, solus vocavit.

63. [Alias. cap. V.] Sed scriptum est: Post me venit vir, qui ante me factus est; quia prior me erat. Unde dicunt: Ecce qui erat, factus est. Ipsa verba perpendamus. Post me, inquit, venit vir (Joan. I, 30). Vir ergo est qui venit, ipse qui factus est. Vir 509 autem 0603A nomen est sexus: sexus autem non utique divinitati, sed naturae deputatur humanae.

64. Possem ergo dicere: Erat in praecognitione quidem corporis, sed aeternitate virtutis; nam et Ecclesia erat, et sancti erant praedestinati ante saecula: sed non id hoc loco dico, at illud assero, factum esse non ad divinitatem, sed ad incarnationis pertinere naturam, sicut ipse Joannes dixit: Hic est de quo dixi: Post me venit vir, qui ante me factus est.

65. Itaque cum geminam, sicut supra dixi, in Christo substantiam proposuisset, ut utramque intelligas et divinitatis et carnis, hoc loco coepit a carne. Est enim Scripturis promiscua consuetudo divinis, ut interdum a divinitate Christi incipiant, et ad incarnationis sacramenta descendant; interdum 0603B ab humilitate incarnationis exordium sumant, et ad gloriam divinitatis assurgant, ut in prophetis, et in evangelistis frequenter, et in Paulo. Ergo et hic juxta memoratam consuetudinem ab incarnatione Domini coepit de ejus divinitate dicturus; non ut confunderet humana atque divina, sed ut distingueret. Verum Ariani, velut Judaici caupones, miscent aquam cum vino; quia divinam generationem humanamque confundunt, ad deitatem referentes, quod de carne sit dictum.

66. Nec metuo quod objecturi videntur quia in superioribus non habet, Virum; sic enim habet: Qui post me venit. Sed videant et ibi quid praemiserit: Verbum, inquit, caro factum est (Joan. I, 14). Et ideo non addidit, Virum; quia carnem dixerat: per 0603C carnem autem istic virum intelligimus, et per virum carnem. Ergo quia dixerat: Verbum caro factum est, virum hoc loco nominare superfluum fuit, quem jam carnis expressione signaverat.

67. Quo exemplo in posterioribus quoque et agnum praemisit, qui tolleret peccata mundi; et ut incarnatum intelligeres, quem ante memoraverat, ait: Hic est de quo ante dixi: Post me venit vir, qui ante me factus est (Ibid., 29), hoc est, virum dixi, non Deum factum. Sed ut ipsum incarnatum declararet esse, quia ante saecula erat; ne duos filios crederemus, ait: Quia prior me erat. Nam si, Factus est, ad divinam generationem retulisset, quid opus erat ut adhuc adderet tertium, atque iteraret quod supra dixerat? Sed quia ante de incarnatione tantum dixerat: 0603D Post me venit vir, qui ante me factus est; ideo addidit: Quia prior me erat, quoniam divinitatis aeternitas fuerat exprimenda. Et haec est causa praelationis, ut merito antelatus videatur, qui proprii Patris sempiterna virtus est.

68. Dat tamen intellectus spiritalis ubertas, ut excurrere et evagari ad concludendos libeat Arianos, qui volunt factum hoc loco non ad virum, sed ad divinitatem referre. Quid est enim tenere quod possint; cum dixerit Baptista: Post me venit, qui ante me factus est; hoc est, supra meritum meum 0604A factus, supra meam gratiam, tempore carnis posterior, divinitatis honore venerabilis? Post me enim venit, temporis 510 est: prior me erat, aeternitatis: ante me factus est, honoris; quia etiam Incarnationis mysterium supra humanam est gratiam.

69. Denique in inferioribus quid supra contexuisset expressit dicens: Post me venit vir, cujus non sum dignus calciamenta portare (Joan. I, 27); praestantiam utique dignitatis, non aeternitatem divinae generationis exponens. Quod eousque ad incarnationem pertinet, ut typum in hominibus mystici calciamenti ante praemiserit. Lege enim proximo defuncti vel fratri copula deferebatur ejus uxoris; ut semen fratris vel proximi resuscitaret (Num. XXXVI, 6). Unde quod Ruth, licet ipsa alienigena; tamen 0604B quia maritum habuerat ex Judaeis, qui reliquerat superstitem proximum, eamque colligentem manipulos suae messis, quibus alebat et se et socrum, Booz vidit et amavit: non aliter eam accipit uxorem, nisi calciamentum ejus ante solvisset, cui uxor debebatur ex Lege (Ruth. IV, 5-7).

70. Historia simplex, sed alta mysteria; aliud enim gerebatur, aliud figurabatur. Nam si secundum litteram sensum torqueamus, prope quidam pudor et horror in verbo est, si ad commixtionis corporeae consuetudinem sententiam intellectumque referamus. Designabatur autem futurus ex Judaeis, ex quibus Christus secundum carnem, qui proximi sui, hoc est, populi mortui semen doctrinae coelestis semine suscitaret, cui calciamentum nuptiale Ecclesiae 0604C copulandae praescripta Legis spiritalia deferebant.

71. Non Moyses sponsus; illi enim dicitur: Solve calciamentum pedum tuorum (Exod. III, 5); ut Domino suo cedat. Non Jesus Nave filius sponsus; nam et ipsi dicitur: Solve calciamentum pedum tuorum (Josue V, 16); ne ex similitudine nominis sponsus Ecclesiae crederetur. Non alius sponsus, sed solus Christus est sponsus, de quo dixit Joannes: Qui habet sponsam sponsus est (Joan. III, 29). Illis igitur calciamentum solvitur, huic solvi non potest, sicut dixit Joannes: Non sum dignus solvere corrigiam calciamenti ejus (Joan. I, 27).

72. Solus ergo Christus est sponsus, cui illa veniens ex gentibus sponsa, ante inops atque jejuna, sed jam Christi messe dives, innubat: quae manipulos 0604D fecundae segetis, Verbique reliquias gremio legat mentis interno; ut exhaustam illam viduam morte filii, atque inopem defuncti populi matrem novis pascat alimentis, non relinquens destitutam viduam, et novos quaerens.

73. Solus ergo Christus est sponsus, qui nec Synagogae ipsi manipulos suae messis invideat. Utinam se non ipsa excluderet! Habuit quos per se colligeret: sed quia populus ejus est mortuus, quasi filio egena defuncto, per Ecclesiam manipulos, quibus viveret, colligebat; quos venientes in exsultatione 0605A portabunt, sicut scriptum est: Venientes autem venient in exsultatione, tollentes manipulos suos (Psal. CXXV, 6).

74. Quis enim sibi alius sponsam audeat Ecclesiam vindicare, quam a Libano unus et solus vocavit dicens: Ades huc a Libano, sponsa; 511 ades huc a Libano (Cant. IV, 8). Aut de quo alio potuit Ecclesia dicere: Fauces ejus dulcedines, et totus desiderium (Cant. V, 16)? Et quia de calciamento pedum tractatum sumpsimus, cui alii nisi Verbo Dei incarnato convenit dictum: Crura ejus columnae marmoreae, fundatae super bases aureas (Ibid., 13)? Solus enim Christus inambulat animis, et graditur in mente sanctorum, in quibus velut aureis basibus, fundamentisque pretiosis solidata vestigia Verbi coelestis 0605B haeserunt.

75. Claret igitur et virum et typum ad incarnationis spectare mysterium.