diff john/english/SSJohn.html @ 31:25a799388159

originals from http://www.josephkenny.joyeurs.com/CDtexts/SSJohn.htm
author ht
date Tue, 24 Nov 2009 20:16:17 +0000
parents
children 178aed5d2c3c
line wrap: on
line diff
--- /dev/null	Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 +0000
+++ b/john/english/SSJohn.html	Tue Nov 24 20:16:17 2009 +0000
@@ -0,0 +1,1030 @@
+<html>
+<head>
+<title>Thomas Aquinas: Commentary on the Gospel of John</title>
+<script type="text/javascript" language="javascript">
+var gAgent = navigator.userAgent.toLowerCase()
+var gWindows = ( (gAgent.indexOf( "win" ) != -1 ) || ( gAgent.indexOf( "16bit" ) != -1 ) )
+var gIE = ( gAgent.indexOf( "msie" ) != -1 )
+var bInlineFloats = ( gWindows && gIE && ( parseInt( navigator.appVersion ) >= 4 ) )
+var floatwnd = 0
+
+var WPFootnote1 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p>&#160;For a fuller documentation of these facts, see James A. Weisheipl, <i>Friar Thomas d&#8217;Aquino: His Life, Thought and\
+Works </i>(Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1974), pp. 246-47, 372, and so forth. See also J. A. Weisheipl. &#8220;The\
+Johannine Commentary of Friar Thomas,&#8221; <i>Church History, </i>45 (1976), 185-195.</p>\
+</span>'
+
+var WPFootnote2 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p><i>Ibid., </i>pp. 145-46.</p>\
+</span>'
+
+var WPFootnote3 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p>The full text of this allocution is given in <i>AAS</i> 50 (1958), 150-53.</p>\
+</span>'
+
+var WPFootnote4 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p>St. Thomas, <i>Summa theologiae</i>, I, q.1, a.8, ad 2.</p>\
+</span>'
+
+var WPFootnote5 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p><i>AAS</i> 35 (1943), 297-325; trans. in <i>The Catholic Mind </i>42<i> </i>(1944), 257-83.</p>\
+</span>'
+
+var WPFootnote6 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p>St. Thomas, <i>Super epistolam ad Hebraeos lectura</i>, cap.1, lect. 4, n. 64. <i>Super Epistolas S. Pauli Lectura</i>, ed. R.\
+Cai (Turin: Marietti, 1953), I, 350a.</p>\
+</span>'
+
+var WPFootnote7 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p><i>Divino afflante Spiritu, </i>n.63; trans. loc. <i>cit., </i>p. 280.</p>\
+</span>'
+
+var WPFootnote8 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p>St. Thomas, <i>Sum. theol., </i>I, q. 1, a. 10.</p>\
+</span>'
+
+var WPFootnote9 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p><i>Ibid.</i></p>\
+</span>'
+
+var WPFootnote10 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p>See J. A. Weisheipl, &#8220;The Meaning of <i>Sacra Doctrina </i>in <i>Summa theologiae </i>I, q. 1,&#8221; <i>The Thomist, </i>38 (1974), 49-80.</p>\
+</span>'
+
+var WPFootnote11 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p>Aristotle, <i>Metaphysics </i>I, 2, 982a, l8-19.</p>\
+</span>'
+
+var WPFootnote12 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p>See <i>Friar Thomas dAquino</i>, pp, 392-93.</p>\
+</span>'
+
+var WPFootnote13 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p>Only the second part of this work has been translated into English&#8212;J. B. Collins, <i>Catechetical Instructions of St.\
+Thomas </i>(New York: Wagner 1939; repr. 1953).</p>\
+</span>'
+
+var WPFootnote14 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p>St. Thomas, <i>Catena Aurea,</i>Epistola dedicatoria (Turin:<i> </i>Marietti, 1925) I, 468.</p>\
+</span>'
+
+var WPFootnote15 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p>St. Thomas, <i>Sum. theol., </i>I, q.1, a.3; see note 10 above.</p>\
+</span>'
+
+var WPFootnote16 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p>See Leo XIII, <i>Providentissimu</i> <i>s Deus </i>(18 Nov 1893) in <i>Acta Leonis XIII</i>, vol. 13, p. 345-46.</p>\
+</span>'
+
+var WPFootnote17 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p>See <i>Friar Thomas d&#8217;Aquino</i>, pp. 164-68.</p>\
+</span>'
+
+var WPFootnote18 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p>St. Thomas, <i>Super Evangelium S. Joannis Lectura</i>,<i> </i>cap.21, lect.6, n.2656, ed. R. Cai (Turin: Marietti 1952), p. 488.</p>\
+</span>'
+
+var WPFootnote19 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p>Trent. sess. 4, in Denziger-Schbnmetzer, <i>Enchiridion</i> <i>Symbolorum </i>(1967), n.1501. See the important study of this\
+question in J. R. Geiselmann, <i>Die Heilige Schrift und die Tradition </i>(Freiburg i. Br.: Herder 1962), pp. 108-160.</p>\
+</span>'
+
+var WPFootnote20 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p>Sess. VIII, <i>Constitutio Dogmatica de divina Revelatione, Dei verbum </i>(18 Nov . 1965), in <i>Constitutiones, Decreta,\
+Declarationes </i>(Vatican 1966), p. 429; see whole of cap. 2.</p>\
+</span>'
+
+var WPFootnote21 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p>This was the invocation, for example, in the old Dominican rite of the Mass.</p>\
+</span>'
+
+function WPShow( WPid, WPtext )
+{
+  if( bInlineFloats )
+    eval( "document.all." + WPid + ".style.visibility = 'visible'" );
+  else
+  {
+    if( floatwnd == 0 || floatwnd.closed )
+      floatwnd = window.open( "", "comment", "toolbars=0,width=600,height=200,resizable=1,scrollbars=1,dependent=1" );
+    floatwnd.document.open( "text/html", "replace" );
+    floatwnd.document.write( "<html><head>\r\n" );
+    floatwnd.document.write( "<style> p { margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:1px; } </style>\r\n" );
+    floatwnd.document.write( "</head><body>\r\n" );
+    floatwnd.document.write( WPtext );
+    floatwnd.document.write( '<br><a href="javascript: self.close()">Close</a>');
+    floatwnd.document.write( "</body></html>" );
+    floatwnd.document.close();
+    floatwnd.focus();
+  }
+}
+
+function WPHide( WPid )
+{
+  if( bInlineFloats )
+    eval( "document.all." + WPid + ".style.visibility = 'hidden'" );
+}
+</script>
+
+<style>
+p
+{
+	margin-bottom: 1px
+}
+
+span.WPFloatStyle
+{
+	visibility: hidden;
+	position: absolute;
+	left: 10px;
+	right: 10px;
+	background-color: rgb(255, 255, 225);
+	border-width: 1px;
+	border-style: solid;
+	border-color: black;
+	margin-top: 25px;
+	padding: 6px;
+	line-height: normal
+}
+</style>
+</head>
+<body><blockquote>
+<CENTER><h2>COMMENTARY ON<BR>THE GOSPEL OF ST. JOHN</span></h2>
+<p>St. Thomas Aquinas</p>
+<p><span style="font-weight: bold">Part I: Chapters 1-7</span>
+<br>translated by<BR>James A. Weisheipl, O.P.
+<br>Magi Books, Inc., Albany, N.Y.
+<table cellpadding=10 border=4><tr><td><A HREF="#01">INTRODUCTION</A>
+<td align=center><A HREF="#02"><b>PROLOGUE</A><td><a href="JohnApp.htm">APPENDICES</A></table>Chapters:
+<table cellpadding=10 border=4><tr><td><A HREF="John1.htm">*1*</A><td><A HREF="John2.htm">*2*</A><td><A HREF="John3.htm">*3*</A><td><A HREF="John4.htm">*4*</A><td><A HREF="John5.htm">*5*</A><td><A HREF="John6.htm">*6*</A><td><A HREF="John7.htm">*7*</A>
+</table>
+<p><b>Part II: Chapters 8-21</b>
+<br>translated by<BR>Fabian R. Larcher, O.P.
+<br>Magi Books, Inc., Albany, N.Y., 1998
+<br>(notes to these chapters provisional)
+<table cellpadding=10 border=4><tr><td><A HREF="John8.htm">*8*</A><td><A HREF="John9.htm">*9*</A><td><A HREF="John10.htm">*10*</A><td><A HREF="John11.htm">*11*</A><td><A HREF="John12.htm">*12*</A><td><A HREF="John13.htm">*13*</A><td><A HREF="John14.htm">*14*</A>
+<tr><td><A HREF="John15.htm">*15*</A><td><A HREF="John16.htm">*16*</A><td><A HREF="John17.htm">*17*</A><td><A HREF="John18.htm">*18*</A><td><A HREF="John19.htm">*19*</A><td><A HREF="John20.htm">*20*</A><td><A HREF="John21.htm">*21*</A>
+</table>
+<BR>
+<hr width=50%>
+<A NAME="01"><p><b>INTRODUCTION</b></CENTER>
+<br>
+<div style=text-align:justify>
+<p>St. Thomas&#8217; commentary on the Gospel of St. John is unique among his many writings on Sacred
+Scripture. It is the work of a master theologian, delivered at the University of Paris, then the
+intellectual center in Christendom, when Thomas was at the height of his fame and apostolic zeal
+for souls. A fourteenth-century list of Thomas&#8217; writings notes that this commentary is a
+<i>reportatio</i> by Reginald of Piperno and adds &#8220;better than which none can be found.&#8221;
+<a href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote1', WPFootnote1 )"><img src="footnoteicon.gif" alt="Footnote" width="16" height="14" border="0"></a>
+<script type="text/javascript" language="javascript">
+  if( bInlineFloats )
+  {
+    document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote1" class="WPFloatStyle">' );
+    document.write( WPFootnote1 );
+    document.write( '<br><a href="javascript:WPHide(\'WPFootnote1\')">Close</a>' );
+    document.write( '</span>' );
+  }
+</script>
+ A <i>reportatio</i>
+is a verbal report of an actual lecture taken down by a scribe or student in the course of actual
+delivery. In this case the scribe was the faithful Friar Reginald of Piperno, who had been the
+&#8220;constant companion,&#8221; or socius, for the last fifteen years of Thomas&#8217; short but busy life. The
+Italian Province of Dominicans wisely provided Thomas with this kind of personal secretary and
+general factotum after he returned from Paris as a Master in Sacred Theology in 1260.
+<a href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote2', WPFootnote2 )"><img src="footnoteicon.gif" alt="Footnote" width="16" height="14" border="0"></a>
+<script type="text/javascript" language="javascript">
+  if( bInlineFloats )
+  {
+    document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote2" class="WPFloatStyle">' );
+    document.write( WPFootnote2 );
+    document.write( '<br><a href="javascript:WPHide(\'WPFootnote2\')">Close</a>' );
+    document.write( '</span>' );
+  }
+</script>
+</p>
+<p>A <i>reportatio</i> is not exactly a dictation in our sense of the term; it is more like a student&#8217;s
+notebook in shorthand containing basically the gist of what is being said, but usually with varying
+numbers of verbal omissions and inaccuracies. But this commentary is more than a mere scribal
+report. It was in fact &#8220;corrected&#8221; by Thomas himself&#8212;if we are to believe Tolomeo of Lucca, one
+of Thomas&#8217; early biographers and confreres&#8212;before the commentary went into circulation
+through copies made by hand, the customary mode of publication before the era of the printing
+press. More than that: according to Bernard Gui, another confrere and early biographer, Thomas
+himself wrote out in full the commentary on the first five chapters of John (and hence this section
+ought to be considered an authentic <i>expositio</i>, or authoritative version), while the rest of it
+survived in the hand of Reginald, corrected by Thomas.</p>
+<p>This commentary was very popular in the Middle Ages, and it ranks among the best of Thomas&#8217;
+work as a master theologian and saintly man of faith. It was read not only by theologians
+searching for the truth, but also by preachers and pious men and women desiring solid food for
+meditation and fervent prayer. Scattered throughout the world there still exist thirty-three
+complete and thirteen incomplete manuscript copies of this work, attesting to its considerable
+popularity before the age of printing.  Innumerable copies of this work have no doubt been lost
+or destroyed in the tumult of centuries following the Middle Ages.</p>
+<p>This detailed commentary is St. Thomas&#8217; personal response to the Word of God Incarnate as
+described in the sublime words of John &#8220;the Divine.&#8221; For St. Thomas, the God of Abraham,
+Isaac, and Jacob spoke to his chosen people through the mouth of prophets in the long course of
+salvation history, &#8220;But when the appointed time came, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born
+a subject of the Law, to redeem the subjects of the Law and to enable us to be adopted as sons&#8221;
+(Gal 4:4-5). This Incarnate Son, Jesus Christ, is the total manifestation of the Father, the Eternal
+Word made flesh. There is nothing left unsaid in the Word; the Father&#8217;s love is complete in the
+love the Son bears for the Father and for us. Christ&#8217;s whole life, his passion, death, and
+resurrection, are the praise and glory of the Father &#8220;through the working of the Holy Spirit.&#8221;
+&#8220;You must believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me&#8221; (Jn 14:11).
+&#8220;Whatever you ask for in my name I will do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son&#8221; (Jn
+14:13). Christ&#8217;s &#8220;food&#8221; was to do the will of his Father in all things, thus glorifying the Father
+in Jesus.</p>
+<p>One of St. Thomas&#8217; basic theological principles is that everything Jesus Christ did and said was
+for our instruction and imitation. Thus the sanctity of our lives is the on-going praise and glory
+of the Father, through the Son, by the working of the Holy Spirit. The very being of the Father
+is the unqualified affirmation of love for the Son and <i>for </i>us, in the Son. &#8220;God is love&#8221; (1 Jn 4:8).
+This love elicits from us an unreserved affirmation of love for God and neighbor, by which God
+is glorified and resplendent in us. The whole of our happiness is this eternal &#8220;glory&#8221; in tasting
+and seeing that the Lord is good (see Ps 34:8). This commentary is St. Thomas&#8217; tasting and
+seeing the goodness of Jesus, the Word Incarnate, embodied in the tender words of St. John, the
+&#8220;beloved disciple,&#8221; who leaned on the breast of the Savior at the Last Supper.</p>
+<p>Thomas brought to his writing of this commentary on John all the resources at his
+disposal&#8212;which were considerable&#8212;especially the riches of the whole Patristic teaching of the
+&#8220;Saints&#8221; (the <i>sancti Doctores</i>), the wealth of a living tradition in the Roman Church contained
+in its teaching, laws, liturgy, and the living Spirit, as well as fidelity to the infallible norms of the
+Holy See.</p>
+<p>In an address to students and professors of the &#8220;Angelicum&#8221; (now the Pontifical University of
+St. Thomas in Rome) given on January 14, 1958, Pope Pius XII extolled the virtues of its patron,
+the Angelic Doctor, who serves as a divinely inspired guide in both philosophy and theology.
+<a href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote3', WPFootnote3 )"><img src="footnoteicon.gif" alt="Footnote" width="16" height="14" border="0"></a>
+<script type="text/javascript" language="javascript">
+  if( bInlineFloats )
+  {
+    document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote3" class="WPFloatStyle">' );
+    document.write( WPFootnote3 );
+    document.write( '<br><a href="javascript:WPHide(\'WPFootnote3\')">Close</a>' );
+    document.write( '</span>' );
+  }
+</script>
+
+Pope Pius spoke especially of St. Thomas&#8217; own studies as a norm for every student of the
+religious disciplines. Just as St. Thomas diligently explored and studied the Bible as the font and
+life-spring of all theological studies, so too should the modern student find in biblical studies the
+source of his theological development. As St. Thomas himself assures us, &#8220;[sacred doctrine] uses
+the authority of the canonical Scriptures properly and of necessity in its investigations ... for our
+faith is founded on the Revelation made to the Apostles and Prophets, who wrote the canonical
+books, but not on revelation (if such there be) made to other teachers.&#8221;
+<a href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote4', WPFootnote4 )"><img src="footnoteicon.gif" alt="Footnote" width="16" height="14" border="0"></a>
+<script type="text/javascript" language="javascript">
+  if( bInlineFloats )
+  {
+    document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote4" class="WPFloatStyle">' );
+    document.write( WPFootnote4 );
+    document.write( '<br><a href="javascript:WPHide(\'WPFootnote4\')">Close</a>' );
+    document.write( '</span>' );
+  }
+</script>
+ In this conviction
+Thomas developed all his own theology. That is to say, the &#8220;complement&#8221; to Thomas&#8217;
+speculations and synthesis are to be found in his commentaries on the books of the Old and New
+Testaments, especially those on the Epistles of St. Paul.</p>
+<p>In the opinion of those most expert to judge, Thomas&#8217; commentaries on Scripture &#8220;shine with
+such solidity, subtlety, and precision that they can be numbered among his greatest theological
+works,&#8221; and are to be esteemed as such. &#8220;Wherefore, if anyone should neglect them, he is
+scarcely to be said to clearly and fully enjoy a familiarity and knowledge of the holy Angelic
+Doctor.&#8221; The significant fact is not that Pius XII emphasized the importance of studying Thomas&#8217;
+biblical commentaries to Dominicans, who had made their special prerogative the teaching of
+&#8220;speculative Thomistic theology&#8221; and the pursuit of contemplative prayer. The significant fact
+is that Pius XII expressed these sentiments shortly before his death and fifteen years after one of
+his most important encyclicals, <i>Divino afflante spiritu </i>(30 Sept. 1943), the basic charter of all
+Catholic biblical studies in our day, leading to the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation,
+<i>Dei verbum, </i>of the Second Vatican Council (18 Nov. 1965). In other words, the enormous
+advances of modern biblical studies do not automatically nullify the importance of St. Thomas&#8217;
+commentaries on the Sacred Text.</p>
+<p>St. Thomas&#8217; commentaries on the Sacred Text are typically <i>medieval, </i>that is, they lack the
+unction, colloquialism, and engaging informality of Patristic commentaries (which were largely
+homilies), and the technical and sometimes journalistic resources of modern commentaries,
+explanations, and paraphrases. In other words, it is easier to read St. Augustine&#8217;s commentary
+on John than it is to read St. Thomas&#8217; or that of any other medieval writer addressing students
+in the &#8220;schools&#8221; of Paris and elsewhere. The big difference is between Patristic and Monastic
+commentaries, which were largely homiletic, pastoral, personal, and mystical, on the one hand,
+and Scholastic commentaries aimed at teaching students in the university or <i>studium </i>the literal
+meaning of the text. The style of medieval Scholastic commentaries is rather formal, literal,
+student-orientated and bookish. This style often makes such commentaries difficult for a modem
+reader to follow, and to some extent hinders him from deriving the greatest benefit for his mind
+and heart. At first glance such a &#8220;commentary&#8221;&#8212;with its definitions, divisions, arguments
+footnotes and concern for the orthodox meaning of the sacred message&#8212;may seem like searching
+for a needle in a haystack. But in the case of Thomas&#8217; commentaries the reader may be confident
+that his efforts at discovering that needle will prove to be both intellectually and spiritually
+rewarding; once discovered, it will be valued as &#8220;the pearl of great price&#8221; (Mt 13:46).</p>
+<p>In this introduction I hope to show the historical context of this particular commentary and to
+indicate some aids to a fruitful study of it.</p>
+<p>First of all, this work is a biblical commentary by a master in a medieval university. In the Middle
+Ages, the Bible and the Bible alone was the official basis for the teaching of theology by fully
+qualified masters in the major universities of Europe. In fact, one could say with some
+justification that the ultimate goal of all medieval education was an understanding of the Bible
+for those who pursued the full course in the Faculty of Theology. Such an understanding was the
+nature of sacred theology <i>(fides quaerens intellectum, </i>&#8220;faith seeking understanding&#8221;). It was the
+source of all preaching of the Word of God, and it was the inexhaustible font of living water for
+the spiritual life. In order to reach such a lofty goal, much preparation was required. First, tools
+had to be acquired as a means of such study. This was the role of a good liberal arts education
+and the acquisition of philosophy, &#8220;the handmaid of theology.&#8221; The study of the liberal arts and
+the acquisition of philosophy were functions of the Arts Faculty in the university or <i>studium.
+</i>Approximately eight years were devoted by medieval students to acquiring these tools&#8212;roughly
+equivalent to our four years of high school and four years of college. After the full course had
+been completed in &#8220;the humanities,&#8221; the young man, generally in his mid-twenties, would begin
+his study of the Sacred Text, having already heard many sermons in Church and having received
+much instruction at home. His study of the Sacred Text began with <i>listening </i>and <i>reading.</i></p>
+<p>In the Middle Ages, a personal copy of the Bible was relatively rare, certainly outside university
+circles. Every copy of the Bible was written out by hand on parchment, a writing surface made
+from carefully treated skins of sheep. Such a copy was extremely expensive and hard to come by.
+Although every student of theology tried desperately to obtain a personal copy, most people had
+to rely on hearing the Word read to them and recollecting from memory the actual words of the
+Bible. For that reason the beginner in theology would <i>listen </i>to older students and the master
+(professor). One of the older students, the bachelor of theology, read aloud and paraphrased a
+particular book of the Bible. This bachelor was called a &#8220;Cursor Biblicus,&#8221; a &#8220;runner through&#8221;
+the actual words of the Bible, who did this to acquaint himself and his hearers with the inspired
+words.</p>
+<p>A splendid example of the work of such a &#8220;runner&#8221; is St. Thomas&#8217; commentary on Isaiah; it is
+the work of a <i>cursor </i>and not that of a master. Only a master could expound the text with
+authority and confidence; the bachelor merely skimmed through it as a runner would skim over
+the course in a race. A higher ranking bachelor devoted his energies mainly to explaining the
+official theological handbook, the <i>Sentences </i>of Peter Lombard (d. 1160). These <i>Sentences </i>were
+a systematic collection of Patristic teachings, arranged in four books following the order of the
+Apostles&#8217; Creed. This bachelor was called the <i>bachalarius Sententiarum, </i>a &#8220;Bachelor of the
+<i>Sentences. </i>&#8220;After listening to others for about four years, the young student of theology would
+himself become a bachelor and perform certain duties under a particular master, his main
+professor of theology.</p>
+<p>Every university in the Middle Ages had a limited number of chairs, or professorships, for the
+masters to occupy. At the time of St. Thomas, there were twelve chairs of theology at the
+University of Paris, the Dominicans having two of them. Before occupying one of these chairs,
+the student had to have devoted many long years to study and actual discussions, or
+&#8220;disputations,&#8221; in the university, He had to be at least thirty-five years old before meriting the
+title of &#8220;Master of the Sacred Page&#8221; and the right to expound the Bible in an authoritative manner
+as a true theologian, professionally qualified.</p>
+<p>St. Thomas was twice professor of theology at Paris&#8212;a fact most unusual in itself. There were
+very few such cases where a fully fledged master would return to his old chair, thus preventing
+a new master from occupying it. But the intellectual, social, and religious climate in Paris at that
+time demanded the return of Thomas to the center of all theological learning in Europe. The new
+mendicant Orders (mainly Dominicans and Franciscans) were again being attacked by secular
+(i.e., diocesan) masters of theology, and their right to teach, preach, and beg was challenged by
+some of the most powerful voices in Europe. The center of this controversy Was the University
+of Paris, where the very existence of Dominicans and Franciscans was under fire. At the climax
+of this renewed attack, the second in the history of the Dominican Order, St. Thomas was
+recalled to Paris by the Master General of the Dominican Order, Blessed John of Vercelli.
+Thomas arrived in Paris with his companion Reginald in the cold winter of 1269 after the
+academic term had begun. Immediately Thomas took upon himself the duties of a master in
+theology, namely, lecturing on a carefully chosen book of the Bible, presiding at academic
+&#8220;disputations&#8221; and resolving the question under discussion, and preaching to the university
+crowd. At the same time, he was composing the Second Part of his <i>Summa theologiae, </i>which he
+had begun in Rome two years earlier, and dictating a number of literal commentaries on various
+works of Aristotle for young masters in arts, that is, teachers in the Faculty of Arts, whose duty
+it was to expound the text of Aristotle. During the two and a half years Thomas spent at Paris the
+second time, he successfully defended the rights of mendicants to teach, preach, and flourish.
+During this same Parisian regency he lectured on the Gospel of St. John.</p>
+<p>These lectures on John would have been lost to posterity had not the faithful Reginald taken
+notes, which were later &#8220;corrected&#8221; by Thomas himself. The reason Thomas &#8220;corrected&#8221;
+Reginald&#8217;s transcription was that a wealthy secular (i.e., diocesan) student wanted a copy for
+himself. This student was Adenulf of Anagni, an Italian cleric, provost of Saint-Omer (since
+1264), later master in theology (1282-85), and canon of Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris. Adenulf,
+a student of Thomas during the years 1269-72, offered a considerable amount of money to have
+a professional scribe make a copy of this remarkable commentary for himself. Without Adenulf&#8217;s
+enthusiasm and money, the &#8220;lectures&#8221; (<i>lecturae</i>)<i> </i>on John would have remained a simple report,
+or <i>reportatio. </i>If it had not been for Reginald, apparently, these lectures would have gone
+completely from history. But the fact is that we do have at hand the acute mind of Thomas
+Aquinas, a master theologian and saint, on the Gospel of St. John. This commentary reflects the
+mind of Thomas at its peak, but before he composed the Third Part of the <i>Summa </i>dealing with
+Christ, the Sacraments, and the Church. It is a scholastic analysis of St. John&#8217;s remarkable
+testimony of the Good News of Salvation, namely, that the Word became flesh, died for our
+salvation, and is now risen from the dead to come again as our merciful judge.</p>
+<p>Earlier, at the request of his intimate friend Pope Urban IV, Thomas had compiled a continuous
+gloss on all four Gospels, which he had collated from the Latin and Greek Fathers of the Church.
+Frequently he even instigated new translations of Greek sources, as he himself confessed in the
+prologue. This continuous gloss, popularly called the <i>Catena Aurea, </i>or &#8220;Golden Chain,&#8221; was not
+finished when Urban died in 1264. But Thomas continued his labors on the gloss, which he
+completed in 1267 and dedicated to Cardinal Annibaldo d&#8217;Annibaldi, Thomas&#8217; close friend and
+former pupil at Paris. The intense labor on the Gospel of John for the <i>Catena </i>molded the mind
+of Thomas in his personal understanding of the Sacred Text of John. St. John&#8217;s Gospel is very
+difficult to understand. Unlike the Synoptic writers, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, St. John&#8217;s Gospel
+is a carefully devised presentation of his personal understanding of the sacred doctrine taught by
+Jesus, on whose breast he reclined at the Last Supper. John was always known as &#8220;the disciple
+whom Jesus loved.&#8221; For St. Thomas, John, the Son of Zebedee, the author of this Gospel, was
+a virgin, whose appropriate symbol is the eagle soaring in the heights of contemplation. Thomas&#8217;
+detailed study of the Latin and Greek Fathers, needed to complete his Gloss on John, prepared
+him to shed his own light on the text when the opportune moment arrived. That moment arrived
+when Thomas returned to Paris for the second time (1269-72) at the age of about forty-four, full
+of strength and vigor.</p>
+<p>But his is a typical medieval commentary because, unlike Patristic, monastic, and modern
+commentaries on John, it utilizes certain techniques familiar to all in the Middle Ages, but
+strange to us today. First of all, it is a theological commentary concerned with penetrating the
+literal sense of the words recorded, and seeing through the literal sense to the spiritual. The
+medieval university theologian was primarily concerned with the literal sense of scripture, that
+is, with the sacred message intended by the human and divine author. It is therefore primarily
+concerned with &#8220;the theological teaching&#8221; of the Bible. St. Thomas did not have at his disposal
+the infinitely varied techniques of modern biblical scholarship. He knew almost nothing about
+biblical and near-eastern languages, archeology, philology, comparative religion, and the
+historical method. If he had, he would most certainly have used them. In the Encyclical <i>Divino
+afflante Spiritu </i>(30 Sept. 1943), Pope Pius XII urged the importance of textual criticism, biblical
+and oriental languages, archeology, profane and sacred history, as well as form criticism and the
+demands of a sound historical method.
+<a href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote5', WPFootnote5 )"><img src="footnoteicon.gif" alt="Footnote" width="16" height="14" border="0"></a>
+<script type="text/javascript" language="javascript">
+  if( bInlineFloats )
+  {
+    document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote5" class="WPFloatStyle">' );
+    document.write( WPFootnote5 );
+    document.write( '<br><a href="javascript:WPHide(\'WPFootnote5\')">Close</a>' );
+    document.write( '</span>' );
+  }
+</script>
+ He noted with the Angelic Doctor that &#8220;in Scripture
+divine things are presented to us in the manner which is in common use amongst men.&#8221;
+<a href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote6', WPFootnote6 )"><img src="footnoteicon.gif" alt="Footnote" width="16" height="14" border="0"></a>
+<script type="text/javascript" language="javascript">
+  if( bInlineFloats )
+  {
+    document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote6" class="WPFloatStyle">' );
+    document.write( WPFootnote6 );
+    document.write( '<br><a href="javascript:WPHide(\'WPFootnote6\')">Close</a>' );
+    document.write( '</span>' );
+  }
+</script>
+ The
+Bible is the Word of God in the words of men, and this manner of speaking in various ages to
+various people must be carefully studied with all the auxiliary sciences. But even after all this has
+been tended to, there is still &#8220;the theological doctrine&#8221; contained in the Sacred Books. The
+modem exegete should use every means available to discover and explain &#8220;the literal sense and
+especially the theological. &#8220;
+<a href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote7', WPFootnote7 )"><img src="footnoteicon.gif" alt="Footnote" width="16" height="14" border="0"></a>
+<script type="text/javascript" language="javascript">
+  if( bInlineFloats )
+  {
+    document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote7" class="WPFloatStyle">' );
+    document.write( WPFootnote7 );
+    document.write( '<br><a href="javascript:WPHide(\'WPFootnote7\')">Close</a>' );
+    document.write( '</span>' );
+  }
+</script>
+ It is this &#8220;theological sense&#8221; <i>(sensus theologicus), </i>expounded by St.
+Thomas in his commentary, that is most fruitful for our meditation, prayer, and preaching the
+Word of God today.</p>
+<p>The literal sense, as St. Thomas teaches, is the objective, formal, and direct meaning intended
+by the words in the sacred and inspired text.
+<a href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote8', WPFootnote8 )"><img src="footnoteicon.gif" alt="Footnote" width="16" height="14" border="0"></a>
+<script type="text/javascript" language="javascript">
+  if( bInlineFloats )
+  {
+    document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote8" class="WPFloatStyle">' );
+    document.write( WPFootnote8 );
+    document.write( '<br><a href="javascript:WPHide(\'WPFootnote8\')">Close</a>' );
+    document.write( '</span>' );
+  }
+</script>
+ The author of these words is both God and man,
+since the Bible is &#8220;the inspired Word of God.&#8221; Modem biblical techniques, of course, were
+unknown to Thomas. All he had was his personal copy of the Latin Vulgate (which was not a
+critical edition), the familiar teaching of all the Latin and Greek Fathers known to him, his own
+prayerful reflection on the text, and his native genius attentive to the Spirit of God and to the text.
+Among the human means Thomas had at his disposal were grammar, logic, and Aristotelian
+philosophy. The literal (or historical) sense was in principle the only basis of theological thought
+and discussion. The spiritual sense only enlarged, or extended, the basic literal sense. By
+&#8220;spiritual sense&#8221; we do not mean the pious, personal, private, and subjective sense a reader might
+derive from a prayerful reading of the text. Rather, the &#8220;spiritual sense&#8221; is the enlarged reality
+&#8220;intended&#8221; by person, place, or thing signified in the literal, as when the brazen serpent raised
+by Moses in the desert is taken to signify Christ&#8217;s crucifixion as the divine means of healing
+mankind, or when the paschal lamb is taken to signify Christ who was sacrificed for our sins. The
+&#8220;spiritual sense&#8221; is the enlarged sense &#8220;intended&#8221; by a given symbol in the plan of divine
+providence.</p>
+<p>Since only God as the author of all things can make one symbol significative of another reality,
+the Bible is the only book that can contain a &#8220;spiritual sense&#8221; as it was understood by medieval
+theologians. Consequently only the sacred author himself can inform us of the existence of such
+a sense. We could never know that one reality is to be taken as a symbol of another reality unless
+the Sacred Author so informs us in the literal sense. For example, the author of the Book of
+Numbers (21:19) explains how Moses was directed to make a brazen &#8220;serpent&#8221; and set it up as
+a sign; whoever was bitten by one of the fiery serpents and &#8220;looked at the sign&#8221; that Moses had
+set up was saved from death. But it is John (3:14 15) who explains that &#8220;as Moses lifted up the
+serpent in the desert, so must the Son of man be lifted up that whoever believes in him may not
+perish, but may have life everlasting.&#8221; The significance of Old Testament texts is declared by the
+sacred writer when he explains Christ&#8217;s actions as being &#8220;in fulfillment of the Scriptures.&#8221;
+Similarly St. Paul frequently reveals the &#8220;spiritual sense&#8221; of the Law and Prophets by declaring
+the Christian fulfillment in Jesus.</p>
+<p>There were three kinds of spiritual sense recognized by medieval theologians: the allegorical, the
+moral, and the anagogical.
+<a href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote9', WPFootnote9 )"><img src="footnoteicon.gif" alt="Footnote" width="16" height="14" border="0"></a>
+<script type="text/javascript" language="javascript">
+  if( bInlineFloats )
+  {
+    document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote9" class="WPFloatStyle">' );
+    document.write( WPFootnote9 );
+    document.write( '<br><a href="javascript:WPHide(\'WPFootnote9\')">Close</a>' );
+    document.write( '</span>' );
+  }
+</script>
+ When anything in the Old Testament was taken to signify something
+in the New Testament, this sense was called allegorical. Under this sense would be included all
+those figures, persons, and events as symbolic of Jesus and his life and death on earth. When
+anything in the life of Jesus is taken as a model for our life, we call this the moral sense. Under
+this sense would be included all those virtues presented to us for our imitation of Christ. When
+anything in the Scriptures is taken to signify something in the eternal kingdom hereafter, for
+example, &#8220;the new Jerusalem,&#8221; we call this the anagogical sense. Thus the &#8220;spiritual sense&#8221; of
+a passage was taken to be an objective meaning intended by the sacred author, the Holy Spirit.
+This, of course, presupposes that the authors of the New Testament were inspired by the Holy
+Spirit.</p>
+<p>Whatever personal message one may derive from reading the Bible prayerfully and thoughtfully
+is purely personal and beyond the science of theology as the study of God&#8217;s message to mankind.
+The personal message is most significant for the reader, but this personal significance must be
+carefully controlled by objective theological norms such as the Christian faith, sacred doctrine,
+the constant teaching of the Church, and a prayerful listening to the Holy Spirit.</p>
+<p>The most difficult technique of medieval commentators for us to comprehend is the use of logic
+and the &#8220;scholastic method.&#8221; Aristotelian logic is the most significant technique contained in the
+scholastic method. The purpose of the scholastic method was to instill &#8220;scientific&#8221; knowledge
+through (1) definition, (2) division, and (3) demonstration, or demonstrative proof. These
+techniques (or <i>modi sciendi) </i>were taken for granted by every medieval theologian as the best
+means of learning the truth about anything. It was a method of teaching, the via <i>docendi, </i>which
+was an imitation of the &#8220;way of discovery&#8221; <i>(via inveniendi </i>or <i>inventionis). </i>The goal of all
+education is truth. The goal of theological education is an understanding of the doctrines of
+revelation, the <i>sacra doctrina</i>.
+<a href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote10', WPFootnote10 )"><img src="footnoteicon.gif" alt="Footnote" width="16" height="14" border="0"></a>
+<script type="text/javascript" language="javascript">
+  if( bInlineFloats )
+  {
+    document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote10" class="WPFloatStyle">' );
+    document.write( WPFootnote10 );
+    document.write( '<br><a href="javascript:WPHide(\'WPFootnote10\')">Close</a>' );
+    document.write( '</span>' );
+  }
+</script>
+ It is faith seeking understanding (<i>fides quaerens intellectum</i>),<i> </i>as
+St. Anselm puts it, The scholastic method, in a sense, is artificial and humanly contrived by
+ineans of logic. In the Middle Ages the scholastic method was thought to be the best way of
+learning everything from A to Z. An example of this method of learning is embedded in Thomas&#8217;
+commentary on John&#8217;s Gospel. It cannot be eliminated. Therefore it depends on us moderns to
+bend a little by trying to see through it, and not be put off by it. Always one will find definitions,
+divisions, and proofs in all medieval commentaries, whether they be on Aristotle, Boethius, or
+the Bible.</p>
+<p>The Scholastics had a penchant for <i>order; </i>where none existed, one was imposed. Heeding the
+words of Aristotle that &#8220;it belongs to the wise man to order,&#8221; they thought the prerogative of a
+good teacher was to order all things well, setting out the message, or truth to be conveyed, in an
+orderly and fitting way.
+<a href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote11', WPFootnote11 )"><img src="footnoteicon.gif" alt="Footnote" width="16" height="14" border="0"></a>
+<script type="text/javascript" language="javascript">
+  if( bInlineFloats )
+  {
+    document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote11" class="WPFloatStyle">' );
+    document.write( WPFootnote11 );
+    document.write( '<br><a href="javascript:WPHide(\'WPFootnote11\')">Close</a>' );
+    document.write( '</span>' );
+  }
+</script>
+ This is why the first thing one notices when reading a medieval
+commentary is the <i>division, </i>or the ordering of the whole into parts. The least one can perceive
+is a beginning, a middle, and an end. But more than not, one can usually perceive some orderly
+procedure in the middle.</p>
+<p>Modern biblical scholars usually see in, St. John&#8217;s Gospel a prologue (1:1-14), a middle (cc. 1-20), and an epilogue (c. 21). They then proceed to divide the middle into the Book of Signs (cc.
+1-12) and the Book of Glory (cc. 13-20). St. Thomas also divides the Gospel into roughly these
+two parts, but he considers chapter 12 as belonging to the Book of Glory, because the chapter
+opens &#8220;six days before Passover&#8221; with the anointing of the feet of Jesus for his burial (12:1 -11),
+continues on to the triumphal entry into Jerusalem (12:12-19), builds to the coming of the Greeks
+(12:20-22), and the long discourse of Jesus in which he cries out, &#8220;Father, glorify your name&#8221;
+(12:28). In any case, it is particularly in this second part that Thomas had to use his ingenuity to
+resolve the discrepancies between John and the Synoptics. The Synoptics compress the public
+life of Jesus into one year with the one tragic journey of Jesus up to Jerusalem, where he is
+crucified and dies, to be raised up on the third day. John extends the public life of Jesus into three
+years with the final year ending in his passion, death, and resurrection. St. Thomas is very much
+concerned with the literal, or historical, sense of the narrative, especially as concerns the passion,
+death, and resurrection of the Lord. Throughout the whole exposition of the narrative, Thomas
+relied heavily on the interpretation of the Fathers of the Church, both Latin and Greek. He quotes
+the authority of St. Augustine 373 times, St. John Chrysostom 217 times, and Origen 95 times.
+It is an exposition that relies heavily on the tradition of the Church and on his own prayerful
+theological reflections.</p>
+<p>In the commentary on St. John&#8217;s Gospel, Thomas is concerned not only with the literal sense,
+which for him is of Prime importance and concern, but also with the spiritual sense, as explained
+above. More than the other Evangelists, John reveals the &#8220;fulfillment of the Scriptures,&#8221; that is,
+concern with the prophecies and symbols of the Old Law. Christ&#8217;s own prophetic words and
+actions are seen by John to be a foreshadowing of the passion, death, and resurrection of the Lord
+by which we are all saved. Above all, for St. Thomas, John is the Evangelist of the divinity of
+Jesus, &#8220;the Word made flesh.&#8221; He says, &#8220;While the other Evangelists treat principally of the
+mysteries of the humanity of Christ, John, especially and above all, makes known the divinity
+of Christ in his Gospel&#8221; (Prologue). Thomas, following the lead of St. Jerome, thought that John
+wrote his Gospel after the other three Gospels had been written, in order to refute new heresies
+that had arisen concerning the divinity of Christ. Following Jerome, Thomas singled out the
+Ebionites (whose founder Thomas erroneously thought to have been &#8220;Ebion&#8221;)&#8212;and Cerinthus,
+a Gnostic heretic who flourished around 100 A.D., as among those who denied the divinity of
+Christ. Even St. Irenaeus <i>(Adv. haer.</i>, III,<i> </i>11) asserts that St. John wrote his Gospel to refute
+Cerinthus. Thus, St. Thomas observes in his Prologue, while John did not pass over the mysteries
+of Christ&#8217;s humanity, he especially conveys the divinity of Christ in his Gospel. In this
+commentary, therefore, Thomas repeatedly refutes the heresies of Apollinaris, Arius, the Arians,
+Ebionites, Eutyches, the Manichees, Nestorius, Pelagius, the Pelagians, and Sabellius - all of
+which plagued the Church in the first five centuries of its existence. For Thomas these heresies
+were not merely false doctrines irrelevant to the modem Christian, but vital guidelines to the
+purity of the Christian faith, the orthodox teaching of the living Church.</p>
+<p>Earlier in his career, Thomas had been asked by the archbishop of Palermo to write a short work
+that could be memorized, dealing with the articles of faith &#8220;from the Creed of the Fathers&#8221; (i.e.,
+the Apostles&#8217; Creed) and also the basic errors concerning them; the archbishop apparently asked
+also for the same presentation for all the sacraments of the Church.
+<a href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote12', WPFootnote12 )"><img src="footnoteicon.gif" alt="Footnote" width="16" height="14" border="0"></a>
+<script type="text/javascript" language="javascript">
+  if( bInlineFloats )
+  {
+    document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote12" class="WPFloatStyle">' );
+    document.write( WPFootnote12 );
+    document.write( '<br><a href="javascript:WPHide(\'WPFootnote12\')">Close</a>' );
+    document.write( '</span>' );
+  }
+</script>
+ Thomas complied with this
+request in a most remarkable treatise in two parts: <i>De articulis fidei </i>and <i>De ecclesiae
+sacramentis</i>.
+<a href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote13', WPFootnote13 )"><img src="footnoteicon.gif" alt="Footnote" width="16" height="14" border="0"></a>
+<script type="text/javascript" language="javascript">
+  if( bInlineFloats )
+  {
+    document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote13" class="WPFloatStyle">' );
+    document.write( WPFootnote13 );
+    document.write( '<br><a href="javascript:WPHide(\'WPFootnote13\')">Close</a>' );
+    document.write( '</span>' );
+  }
+</script>
+<i> </i>The wide popularity of this treatise is attested to by the 277 extant manuscripts
+of this work. The six articles pertaining to the divinity of Christ and the six pertaining to his
+humanity are set forth, and all the errors concerning the twelve articles of the Creed are briefly
+named and refuted. Although the sacraments of the Church are implicit in the fourth article of
+the Creed, they are discussed separately in the second part of the treatise, because the archbishop
+explicitly asked for a special discussion of the sacraments and the heresies concerning them.
+Thomas&#8217; knowledge of the various heresies in the history of the Church is most remarkable. All
+of these same heresies are again discussed in his commentary on John&#8217;s Gospel. That is why St.
+Thomas says in the Prologue, &#8220;[This Gospel] refutes all heresies.&#8221; The numerous heresies of the
+past ought to be of great concern to the modern Christian so that he may avoid all taint of them
+in his own, personal belief. A conscious affirmation of belief in the truth of revealed teaching that
+developed in the living Church guided by the Spirit of Christ can bring us into a deeper and more
+meaningful awareness of being united with the Eternal Truth. In this commentary, Thomas is
+concerned above all with bolstering the faith of the hearer or reader, or, as he put it, &#8220;to confirm
+the Catholic Truth.&#8221;</p>
+<p style="text-align: justify">In other words, there are four goals Thomas aimed to achieve in his commentary on St. John:</p>
+<ol>
+<li>determination of the literal, or historical, sense of the narrative;
+<li>explanation of the spiritual sense as found in the Old Testament (allegorical sense), the goals
+of our own life in imitating Jesus (moral sense), and life of the &#8220;kingdom&#8221; here and hereafter (anagogical sense);
+<li>refutation of all error through the testimony of the inspired Word of God;
+<li>confirmation of the true Catholic Faith given to us by God through his Church, the Body of Christ.
+</ol>
+<p>These are the same goals Thomas had set for himself in composing the <i>Catena Aurea,
+</i>particularly in the <i>Catena </i>on John&#8217;s Gospel, which was composed only four or five years
+earlier.
+<a href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote14', WPFootnote14 )"><img src="footnoteicon.gif" alt="Footnote" width="16" height="14" border="0"></a>
+<script type="text/javascript" language="javascript">
+  if( bInlineFloats )
+  {
+    document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote14" class="WPFloatStyle">' );
+    document.write( WPFootnote14 );
+    document.write( '<br><a href="javascript:WPHide(\'WPFootnote14\')">Close</a>' );
+    document.write( '</span>' );
+  }
+</script>
+</p>
+<p>There are four outstanding features that will be noticed as one studies the commentary of Thomas
+on the Gospel of John. First, Thomas had an extraordinary knowledge of the whole Bible. It has
+been said, not without likelihood, that Thomas memorized the entire Bible during the year he was
+confined to his family castle at Roccasecca, 1244-45. This is not at all difficult to believe. His
+memory was far superior to any man-made concordance of the Bible. Thomas always saw the
+<i>unity </i>of divine revelation. It was the unity of <i>sacra doctrina </i>as a single &#8220;science.&#8221;
+<a href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote15', WPFootnote15 )"><img src="footnoteicon.gif" alt="Footnote" width="16" height="14" border="0"></a>
+<script type="text/javascript" language="javascript">
+  if( bInlineFloats )
+  {
+    document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote15" class="WPFloatStyle">' );
+    document.write( WPFootnote15 );
+    document.write( '<br><a href="javascript:WPHide(\'WPFootnote15\')">Close</a>' );
+    document.write( '</span>' );
+  }
+</script>
+ The
+&#8220;orthodox&#8221; teaching of Christ, Son of the Living God, cannot be anything but <i>one. </i>Because of
+this unity, Thomas could use any one part of Sacred Scripture to explain and illumine any other
+part. Thus Thomas could use the teaching of St. Paul and the Psalms to explain the text of John.
+This use of one part of revelation to illumine another has been aptly called &#8220;the analogy of faith&#8221;
+(<i>secundum rationern fidei, </i>as St. Paul says in Romans 12:6).
+<a href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote16', WPFootnote16 )"><img src="footnoteicon.gif" alt="Footnote" width="16" height="14" border="0"></a>
+<script type="text/javascript" language="javascript">
+  if( bInlineFloats )
+  {
+    document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote16" class="WPFloatStyle">' );
+    document.write( WPFootnote16 );
+    document.write( '<br><a href="javascript:WPHide(\'WPFootnote16\')">Close</a>' );
+    document.write( '</span>' );
+  }
+</script>
+</p>
+<p>Second, Thomas had an unusual knowledge of the Latin and Greek Fathers of the Church. This
+knowledge, no doubt aided by his work on the <i>Catena Aurea, is </i>brought to bear on every difficult
+question or obscure passage in John, even when it is a question of chronology, geography, Jewish
+customs, or language. The medieval mind associated words, quotations and parallels with
+uncanny facility, always trying to find the best pertinent quotation from the proper authorities
+(<i>auctoritates</i>)<i>. </i>Great weight, sometimes of probative value, was always given to the recognized
+<i>auctoritates, </i>which, in theology were always the Bible and the <i>sancti, </i>meaning recognized or
+canonized Doctors of the Church, who were the <i>regula fidei </i>(&#8220;the rule of faith&#8221;), the &#8220;norms&#8221; of
+Christian belief. Thomas&#8217; knowledge of these Doctors was prodigious. The contemporaries of
+Thomas relied heavily on all available works of the Latin Fathers, especially those of St.
+Augustine. But, as has been pointed out earlier, Thomas not only accepted the eminent authority
+of St. Augustine, but also had a wealth of Greek sources from which to draw, including the early
+Ecumenical Councils of the Church, whose <i>Acts </i>were largely neglected or forgotten in the Latin
+Middle Ages.
+<a href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote17', WPFootnote17 )"><img src="footnoteicon.gif" alt="Footnote" width="16" height="14" border="0"></a>
+<script type="text/javascript" language="javascript">
+  if( bInlineFloats )
+  {
+    document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote17" class="WPFloatStyle">' );
+    document.write( WPFootnote17 );
+    document.write( '<br><a href="javascript:WPHide(\'WPFootnote17\')">Close</a>' );
+    document.write( '</span>' );
+  }
+</script>
+</p>
+<p>Third, Thomas was, after all, an outstanding theologian for any season. His theology was not only
+biblical and patristic, but also logical and philosophical. While he absorbed and refined the
+philosophy of Aristotle, newly translated from the Greek, he never put this philosophy ahead of
+his Catholic faith. Rather he used that philosophy <i>in obsequium fidei </i>(Phil 2:17), as a &#8220;handmaid
+of theology.&#8221; His comprehension of Aristotle and his use of the scholastic method are among the
+glories of the Middle Ages. In St. Thomas we find an exceptionally gifted mind carefully honed
+to human perfection by self-discipline, long study, and clear thinking. This was natural talent,
+ranked by many as a true genius, brought to the highest human perfection by the grace of God.</p>
+<p>Finally, Friar Thomas d&#8217;Aquino was a saint, one of the great saints in the Latin Church. A basic
+principle of Thomas&#8217; theology is that &#8220;grace perfects nature&#8221;; that is, the grace of God never
+destroys or replaces nature, but builds upon it. For St. Thomas, there is in divine providence a
+certain kind of proportion between God&#8217;s gifts of nature and his gifts of grace. Even when we
+accept this principle with all the necessary qualifications needed, we can readily see that in the
+mind and heart of St. Thomas, God&#8217;s grace abundantly perfected an already great man. Not only
+did Thomas meditate prayerfully on the Sacred Scriptures, but lie drew from them substantial
+nourishment for his soul. This process of enrichment can be seen conspicuously in the
+commentary on John, particularly the section dealing with the &#8220;Last Discourse&#8221; of Jesus to his
+disciples at the Last Supper, collected in &#8220;the sayings of Jesus&#8221; in chapters 14 to 17. Here
+Thomas&#8217; discussion of the Son&#8217;s procession from the Father while being consubstantially one
+with the Father, is precise, illuminating, and brilliant; the mission of the Holy Spirit from the
+Father <i>and </i>from the Son (<i>Filioque</i>) is clearly demonstrated against the Greek Orthodox who used
+this question as one of the many issues that separated them from Rome, initially in the ninth, and
+decisively in the eleventh century. But above all, the indwelling of the Holy Trinity in the hearts
+of the faithful is alive and vital; the extraordinary love Jesus had for his faithful disciples is
+movingly real and dynamic. In this commentary on John we have all the elements of a real
+masterpiece of its kind in medieval literature.</p>
+<p>St. Thomas was very much impressed by the force and absolute veracity of the Gospel
+proclaimed by John: &#8220;This disciple is the one who vouches for these things and has written them
+down, and we know that his testimony is true&#8221; (Jn 21:24). St. Thomas comments that the
+Evangelist makes this statement &#8220;in the person of the whole Church (<i>in persona totius Ecclesiae</i>)<i>
+</i>from whom this Gospel is received [by us].&#8221; The Evangelist himself knows the veracity of his
+narrative, and even St. Paul condemns those who would preach a gospel other than the one he
+had received (see Gal 1:9). The firmness and stability of our Christian faith is the authority of
+God speaking through Evangelists, Apostles and other authors of the canonical Books of
+Scripture. Their testimony leaves us without any doubt as to our faith, because &#8220;the Canonical
+Scriptures alone are the rule of faith.&#8221;
+<a href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote18', WPFootnote18 )"><img src="footnoteicon.gif" alt="Footnote" width="16" height="14" border="0"></a>
+<script type="text/javascript" language="javascript">
+  if( bInlineFloats )
+  {
+    document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote18" class="WPFloatStyle">' );
+    document.write( WPFootnote18 );
+    document.write( '<br><a href="javascript:WPHide(\'WPFootnote18\')">Close</a>' );
+    document.write( '</span>' );
+  }
+</script>
+ This <i>sola scriptura </i>of which St. Thomas speaks is far
+different from the <i>sola scriptura </i>(&#8220;only the Bible&#8221;) of the Reformers. This battle cry was made
+famous by Luther, who insisted that what is not contained in the Bible is not &#8220;of faith.&#8221; But
+Luther and Thomas (or any other medieval theologian) meant two different things by the word
+<i>Bible, </i>or <i>Sacred Scriptures. </i>For Luther and the Reformers the Bible was thought of as a finished,
+edited, and (by then) printed collection, while Thomas and the medieval theologians meant the
+Sacred Word <i>together with </i>the gloss of the Fathers, liturgy, and the living Church. The
+Reformers thought of &#8220;The Bible&#8221; completely devoid of a history and a historical context, devoid
+of transmission and development; in short, they thought of &#8220;The Bible&#8221; distinct from the Church.
+Thus in the face of this misunderstanding, the Council of Trent spoke as <i>though </i>there were two
+sources of our faith: &#8220;the written books and the unwritten traditions.&#8221;
+<a href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote19', WPFootnote19 )"><img src="footnoteicon.gif" alt="Footnote" width="16" height="14" border="0"></a>
+<script type="text/javascript" language="javascript">
+  if( bInlineFloats )
+  {
+    document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote19" class="WPFloatStyle">' );
+    document.write( WPFootnote19 );
+    document.write( '<br><a href="javascript:WPHide(\'WPFootnote19\')">Close</a>' );
+    document.write( '</span>' );
+  }
+</script>
+ But even this manner of
+speaking was a concession to a false dichotomy that was historically conditioned. The Second
+Vatican Council, however, described these two sources&#8221; more traditionally as a single mirror
+(<i>veluti speculum sunt</i>)<i> </i>reflecting both sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture.
+<a href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote20', WPFootnote20 )"><img src="footnoteicon.gif" alt="Footnote" width="16" height="14" border="0"></a>
+<script type="text/javascript" language="javascript">
+  if( bInlineFloats )
+  {
+    document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote20" class="WPFloatStyle">' );
+    document.write( WPFootnote20 );
+    document.write( '<br><a href="javascript:WPHide(\'WPFootnote20\')">Close</a>' );
+    document.write( '</span>' );
+  }
+</script>
+</p>
+<p>Historically speaking, the revelation given by God and received by the chosen people was prior
+to any scriptural document. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were given the message of salvation long
+before there was any question of a written Torah. Christ&#8217;s message of salvation was accepted by
+the Apostles, disciples, and early Christians for a quarter of a century before the first fraction of
+the New Testament was written&#8212;and this by St. Paul (1 Thessalonians, probably at the beginning
+of 52 A.D.). We must always remember that the Canon of the New Testament was not
+established as an inspired unit until 382 A.D., at the earliest. That is, the living Church existed
+long before the New Testament was &#8220;written,&#8221; and it existed for 350 years before the present
+books were collected into an exclusive and canonical unity. For this reason, St. Thomas could
+speak of the &#8220;whole Church from whom this Gospel is received.&#8221;</p>
+<p>Finally, a word should be said in aid of a fruitful reading of St. Thomas&#8217; commentary on John.
+Although the pericope or section commented upon in every &#8220;Lecture&#8221; is printed in full at the
+head of the commentary, it would be best to procure a second copy of the whole text and read the
+particular chapter in full before proceeding to the comment. It is of utmost importance to follow
+the <i>divisions </i>of the text made by St. Thomas and always keep the context well in view. The
+lemmata, or phrases commented upon, are clearly set off from the comment by the printer. Unless
+the particular lemma is constantly related to the context as a whole, one can easily get lost in the
+forest of words, cross references, and quotations. Since <i>order </i>and <i>division </i>are such important
+elements in the scholastic method, these must be continuously related to the <i>whole, </i>whether it
+be a collection of chapters, an individual chapter, part of a chapter, a parable, narrative, pericope,
+or sentence. Those who wish to obtain the greatest understanding of the Sacred Text might well
+augment the study of St. Thomas&#8217; &#8220;theological sense&#8221; of John with a modern commentary, such
+as the outstanding commentary by Father Raymond Brown in the Anchor Bible (2 vols.).</p>
+<p>For the fruitful reading of St. Thomas&#8217; commentary on John, we should further note that
+throughout the long history of the Church, listeners and readers of tile Sacred Text have always
+been encouraged to prepare their minds and souls for a fruitful reception of the Word. The Word
+of God, like the seed in the parable (Lk 8:15), needs to be received in &#8220;good ground&#8221; in order to
+yield fruit a hundredfold. The reception of anything, according to the ancient philosophers,
+depends on the condition of the receiver. The Word of God is Spirit (Jn 6:63), and only the Holy
+Spirit cdn prepare the soul for fruitful reception of the Word. In the solemn proclamation of the
+Gospel in the Liturgy of the Word, the Church prays for the Deacon that the Lord be in his heart
+and on his lips in order to announce the Holy Gospel of Peace.
+<a href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote21', WPFootnote21 )"><img src="footnoteicon.gif" alt="Footnote" width="16" height="14" border="0"></a>
+<script type="text/javascript" language="javascript">
+  if( bInlineFloats )
+  {
+    document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote21" class="WPFloatStyle">' );
+    document.write( WPFootnote21 );
+    document.write( '<br><a href="javascript:WPHide(\'WPFootnote21\')">Close</a>' );
+    document.write( '</span>' );
+  }
+</script>
+ Preparing one&#8217;s mind and heart
+by prayer and recollection is of greatest importance for the reception of God&#8217;s message for us.
+This message is directed primarily to us as God&#8217;s chosen people, the pilgrim Church on earth,
+and through the Church to us as individuals beloved by God and &#8220;purchased at a great price&#8221; (1
+Cor 6:20). The message of salvation is addressed to us individually and collectively, and we both
+individually and collectively must attune our minds and hearts to the Spirit. &#8220;The Advocate, the
+Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you everything and remind you
+of all I have said to you&#8221; (Jn 14:26). The Holy Spirit speaks to our hearts through the Scriptures,
+inspired and animated by him. The Scriptures as a spiritual resource cannot be dissociated from
+personal prayer and cultivation of our sacramental life in the Church. Being receptive is the
+important thing as we begin our study.</p>
+<p>Finally, the power of reading or hearing the Sacred Scriptures is so great that it actually forgives
+sins. Apart from &#8220;the Sacraments of the faith&#8221; (<i>sacramenta fidei</i>),<i> </i>it is one of the many ways by
+which our many sins are forgiven. The Fathers of the Church have always listed&#8212;along with
+almsgiving, contrition, and good works&#8212;the special efficacy of reading the Scriptures for the
+forgiveness of sins. The new liturgy of the Mass prompted by the Second Vatican Council still
+retains the ancient prayer: &#8220;May the words of the Gospel wipe away our sins.&#8221; The humble and
+contrite reading of any part of the Scriptures wipes away sin because the power of the Word is
+the power of God, who alone can forgive sins. Thus we should always approach the Scriptures
+with a &#8220;humble and contrite heart.&#8221; The Psalmist declares, &#8220;A contrite and humbled heart, 0 God,
+you will not despise&#8221; (Ps 50:19). God always answers a humble and contrite heart in order to
+glorify himself in us, just as the Father is always glorified in the Son. &#8220;Whatever you ask for in
+my name I will do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son&#8221; Qn 14:13). This &#8220;glory&#8221; of the
+Father through the Son in the Holy Spirit is sometimes called the indwelling of the Trinity within
+our souls. It is the &#8220;conformity&#8221; of our whole being to the Father through the Word animated by
+the Spirit. In this conformity of our innermost being with the splendor of God lies the whole
+perfection of the Christian life. In this perfection consists the glory and splendor of God himself.
+This union of one&#8217;s deepest self and the innermost being of God is the answer to the prayer of
+Jesus to the Father: &#8220;That they may be one, as we also are one&#8221; (Jn 17:11).</p>
+<p>From this it follows that the study of St. Thomas&#8217; commentary on St. John&#8217;s Gospel is richly
+rewarding in healing our wounds and leading us to greater union with the Father of our Lord
+Jesus Christ, whose message of salvation is here proclaimed by &#8220;the disciple whom Jesus loved&#8221;
+(Jn 20:2). For our guide we can have none better than the Angelic Doctor, whom Jesus loved.</p>
+<p style="text-align: right; margin-bottom: 0.125in">James A. Weisheipl, O.P.
+<br>Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies
+<br>Toronto, Canada</p>
+<br>
+<hr>
+<A NAME="02"><p style="text-align: center; margin-bottom: 0.125in"><span style="font-weight: bold">PROLOGUE</span></p>
+<p style="text-align: justify; margin-left: 0.5in; margin-right: 0.5in; margin-bottom: 0.125in"><i>I saw the Lord seated on a high and lofty throne, and the whole house was full
+of his majesty, and the things that were under him filled the temple.</i> (Is 6:1)</p>
+<p>1 These are the words of a contemplative, and if we regard them as spoken by John the
+Evangelist they apply quite well to showing the nature of this Gospel. For as Augustine says in
+his work, <i>On the Agreement of the Evangelists: </i>&#8220;The other Evangelists instruct us in their
+Gospels on the active life; but John in his Gospel instructs us also on the contemplative life.&#8221;</p>
+<p>The contemplation of John is described above in three ways, in keeping with the threefold
+manner in which he contemplated the Lord Jesus. It is described as high, full, and perfect. It is
+high: <span style="font-weight: bold">I saw the Lord seated on a high and lofty throne; </span>it is full: <span style="font-weight: bold">and the whole house was
+full of his majesty; </span>and it was perfect: <span style="font-weight: bold">and the things that were under him filled the temple.</span></p>
+<p>2 As to the first, we must understand that the Height and sublimity of contemplation consists
+most of all in the contemplation and knowledge of God. &#8220;Lift up your eyes on high, and see who
+has created these things&#8221; (Is 40:26). A man lifts up his eyes on high when he sees and
+contemplates the Creator of all things. Now since John rose above whatever had been
+created&#8212;mountains, heavens, angels&#8212;and reached the Creator of all, as Augustine says, it is
+clear that his contemplation was most high. Thus, <span style="font-weight: bold">I saw the Lord. </span>And because, as John himself
+says below (12:41), &#8220;Isaiah said this because he had seen his glory,&#8221; that is, the glory of Christ,
+&#8220;and spoke of him,&#8221; the Lord <span style="font-weight: bold">seated on a high and lofty throne </span>is Christ.</p>
+<p>Now a fourfold height is indicated in this contemplation of John. A height of authority; hence
+he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">I saw the Lord. </span>A height of eternity; when he says, seated. One of dignity, or nobility
+of nature; so he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">on a high throne. </span>And a height of incomprehensible truth; when he says,
+lofty. It is in these four ways that the early philosophers arrived at the knowledge of God.</p>
+<p>3 Some attained to a knowledge of God through his authority, and this is the most efficacious
+way. For we see the things in nature acting for an end, and attaining to ends which are both useful
+and certain. And since they lack intelligence, they are unable to direct themselves, but must be
+directed and moved by one directing them, and who possesses an intellect. Thus it is that the
+movement of the things of nature toward a certain end indicates the existence of something
+higher by which the things of nature are directed to an end and governed. And so, since the whole
+course of nature advances to an end in an orderly way and is directed, we have to posit something
+higher w1iich directs and governs them as Lord; and this is God. This authority in governing is
+shown to be in the Word of God when he says, Lord. Thus the Psalm (88:10) says: &#8220;You rule the
+power of the sea, and you still the swelling of its waves,&#8221; as though saying: You are the Lord and
+govern all things. John shows that he knows this about the Word when he says below (1:11), &#8220;He
+came unto his own,&#8221; i.e., to the world, since the whole universe is his own.</p>
+<p>4 Others came to a knowledge of God from his eternity. They saw that whatever was in things
+was changeable, and that the more noble something is in the grades of being, so much the less
+it has of mutability. For example, the lower bodies are mutable both as to their substance and to
+place, while the heavenly bodies, which are more noble, are immutable in substance and change
+only with respect to place. We can clearly conclude from this that the first principle of all things,
+which is supreme and more noble, is changeless and eternal. The prophet suggests this eternity
+of the Word when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">seated, </span>i.e., presiding without any change and eternally. &#8220;Your throne,
+O God, is forever and ever&#8221; (Ps 44:7); &#8220;Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever&#8221;
+(Heb 13:8). John points to this eternity when he says below (1:1), &#8220;In the beginning was the
+Word.&#8221;</p>
+<p>5 Still others came to a knowledge of God from the dignity of God; and these were the Platonists.
+They noted that everything which is something by participation is reduced to what is the same
+thing by essence, as to the first and highest. Thus, all things which are fiery by participation are
+reduced to fire, which is such by its essence. And so since all things which exist participate in
+existence (<i>esse</i>)<i> </i>and are beings by participation, there must necessarily be at the summit of all
+things something which is existence (<i>esse</i>)<i> </i>by its essence, i.e., whose essence is its existence.
+And this is God, who is the most sufficient, the most eminent, and the most perfect cause of the
+whole of existence, from, whom all things that are participate existence (<i>esse</i>)<i>. </i>This dignity is
+shown in the words, <span style="font-weight: bold">on a high throne, </span>which, according to Denis, refer to the divine nature.
+&#8220;The Lord is high above all nations&#8221; (Ps 112:4). John shows us this dignity when he says below
+(1:1), &#8220;the Word was God,&#8221; with &#8220;Word&#8221; as subject and &#8220;God&#8221; as the predicate.</p>
+<p>6 Yet others arrived at a knowledge of God from the incomprehensibility of truth. All the truth
+which our intellect is able to grasp is finite, since according to Augustine, &#8220;everything that is
+known is bounded by the comprehension of the one knowing&#8221;; and if it is bounded, it is
+determined and particularized. Therefore, the first and supreme Truth, which surpasses every
+intellect, must necessarily be incomprehensible and infinite; and this is God. [fence the Psalm
+(8:2) says, &#8220;Your greatness is above the heavens,&#8221; i.e., above every created intellect, angelic and
+human. The Apostle says this in the words, &#8220;He dwells in unapproachable light&#8221; (1 Tim 6:16).
+This incomprehensibility of Truth is shown to us in the word, <span style="font-weight: bold">lofty, </span>that is, above all the
+knowledge of the created intellect. John implies this incomprehensibility to us when he says
+below (1:18), &#8220;No one has ever seen God.&#8221;</p>
+<p>Thus, the contemplation of John was high as regards authority, eternity, dignity, and the
+incomprehensibility of the Word. And John has passed on this contemplation to us in his Gospel.</p>
+<p>7 John&#8217;s contemplation was also full. Now contemplation is full when someone is able to
+consider all the effects of a cause in the cause itself, that is, when he knows not only the essence
+of the cause, but also its power, according as it can extend out to many things. Of this flowing
+outward we read, &#8220;It overflows with wisdom, like the Pishon, and like the Tigris in the days of
+the new fruits&#8221; (Sir 25:35); &#8220;The river of God is full with water,&#8221; since the divine wisdom has
+depth in relation to its knowledge of all things (Ps 65:9). &#8220;With you from the beginning is
+wisdom, who knows your works&#8221; (Wis 9:9).</p>
+<p>Since John the Evangelist was raised up to the contemplation of the nature of the divine Word
+and of his essence when he said, &#8220;In the beginning was the Word; and the Word was with God,&#8221;
+he immediately tells us of the power of the Word as it extends to all things, saying, &#8220;Through him
+all things came into being.&#8221; Thus his contemplation was full. And so after the prophet had <span style="font-weight: bold">said,
+I saw the Lord seated, </span>he added something about his power, <span style="font-weight: bold">and the whole house was full of
+his majesty, </span>that is, the whole fullness of things and of the universe is from the majesty and
+power of God, through whom all things were made, and by whose light all the men coming into
+this world are enlightened. &#8220;The earth and its fullness are the Lord&#8217;s&#8221; (Ps 23:1).</p>
+<p>8 The contemplation of John was also perfect. For contemplation is perfect when the one
+contemplating is led and raised to the height of the thing contemplated. Should he remain at a
+lower level, then no matter how high the things which he might contemplate, the contemplation
+would not be perfect. So in order that it be perfect it is necessary that it rise and attain the end of
+the thing contemplated, adhering and assenting by affection and understanding to the truth
+contemplated. Job (37:16) says, &#8220;Do you not know the path of the clouds,&#8221; that is, the
+contemplation of those preaching, &#8220;how perfect they are?&#8221; inasmuch as they adhere firmly by
+affection and understanding to contemplating the highest truth.</p>
+<p>Since John not only taught how Christ Jesus, the Word of God, is God, raised above all things,
+and how all things were made through him, but also that we are sanctified by him and adhere to
+him by the grace which he pours into us, he says below (1:16), &#8220;Of his fullness we have all
+received - indeed, grace in return for grace.&#8221; It is therefore apparent that his contemplation is
+perfect. This perfection is shown in the addition, <span style="font-weight: bold">and the things that were under him filled the
+temple. </span>For &#8220;the head of Christ is God&#8221; (1 Cor 11:3). The things that are under Christ are the
+sacraments of his humanity, through which the faithful are filled with the fullness of grace. In this
+way, then, <span style="font-weight: bold">the things that were under him filled the temple, </span>i.e., the faithful, who are the holy
+temple of God (1 Cor 3:17) insofar as through the sacraments of his humanity all the faithful of
+Christ receive from the fullness of his grace.</p>
+<p>The contemplation of John was thus full, high, and perfect.</p>
+<p>9 We should note, however, that these three characteristics of contemplation belong to the
+different sciences in different ways. The perfection of contemplation is found in Moral Science,
+which is concerned with the ultimate end. The fullness of contemplation is possessed by Natural
+Science, which considers things as proceeding from God. Among the physical [natural] sciences,
+the height of contemplation is found in Metaphysics. But the Gospel of John contains all together
+what the above sciences have in a divided way, and so it is most perfect.</p>
+<p>10 In this way then, from what has been said, we can understand the matter of this Gospel. For
+while the other Evangelists treat principally of the mysteries of the humanity of Christ, John,
+especially and above all, makes known the divinity of Christ in his Gospel, as we saw above.
+Still, he does not ignore the mysteries of his humanity. He did this because, after the other
+Evangelists had written their Gospels, heresies had arisen concerning the divinity of Christ, to
+the effect that Christ was purely and simply a man, as Ebion and Cerinthus falsely thought. And
+so John the Evangelist, who had drawn the truth about the divinity of the Word from the very
+fountain-head of the divine breast, wrote this Gospel at the request of the faithful. And in it he
+gives us the doctrine of the divinity of Christ and refutes all heresies.</p>
+<p>The order of this Gospel is clear from the above. For John first shows us <span style="font-weight: bold">the Lord seated on a
+high and lofty throne, </span>when he says below (1:1), &#8220;In the beginning was the Word.&#8221; He shows
+secondly how <span style="font-weight: bold">the house was full of his majesty, </span>when he says, &#8220;through him all things came
+into being&#8221; (1:3). Thirdly, he shows how the <span style="font-weight: bold">things that were under him filled the temple,
+</span>when he says, &#8220;the Word was made flesh&#8221; (1:14). The end of this Gospel is also clear, and it is
+that the faithful become the temple of God, and become filled with the majesty of God; and so
+John says below (20:31), &#8220;These things are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the
+Christ, the Son of God.&#8221;</p>
+<p>The matter of this Gospel, the knowledge of the divinity of the Word, is clear, as well as its order
+and end.</p>
+<p>11 Then follows the condition of the author, who is described above in four ways: as to his name,
+his virtue, his symbol, and his privilege. He is described as to name as John, the author of this
+Gospel. &#8220;John&#8221; is interpreted as &#8220;in whom is grace,&#8221; since the secrets of the divinity cannot be
+seen except by those who have the grace of God within themselves. &#8220;No one knows the deep
+things of God but the Spirit of God&#8221; (1 Cor 2:11).</p>
+<p>As concerns his virtue, John <span style="font-weight: bold">saw the Lord seated, </span>because he was a virgin; for it is fitting that
+such persons see the Lord: &#8220;Blessed are the pure in heart&#8221; (Mt 5:8).</p>
+<p>He is described as to his symbol, for John is symbolized by an eagle. The other three Evangelists,
+concerned with those things which Christ did in his flesh, are symbolized by animals which walk
+on the earth, namely, by a man, a bull calf, and a lion. But John flies like an eagle above the
+cloud of human weakness and looks upon the light of unchanging truth with the most lofty and
+firm eyes of the heart. And gazing on the very deity of our Lord Jesus Christ, by which he is
+equal to the Father, he has striven in this Gospel to confide this above all, to the extent that he
+believed was sufficient for all. Concerning this flight of John it says in Job (39:27): &#8220;Will the
+eagle,&#8221; that is, John, &#8220;fly up at your command?&#8221; And further on it says, &#8220;His eyes look far away,&#8221;
+because the Word of God is seen in the bosom of the Father by the eye of the mind.</p>
+<p>John is described as to privilege since, among the other disciples of the Lord, John was more
+loved by Christ. Without mentioning his own name John refers to himself below (21:20) as &#8220;the
+disciple whom Jesus loved.&#8221; And because secrets are revealed to friends, &#8220;I have called you
+friends because everything I have heard from my father I have made known to you&#8221; (below
+15:15), Jesus confided his secrets in a special way to that disciple who was specially loved. Thus
+it says in Job (36:32): &#8220;From the savage,&#8221; that is, the proud, &#8220;he hides his light,&#8221; that is, Christ
+hides the truth of his divinity, &#8220;and shows his friend,&#8221; that is, John, &#8220;that it belongs to him,&#8221; since
+it is John who sees the light of the Incarnate Word more excellently and expresses it to us, saying
+&#8220;He was the true light&#8221; (below 1:19).</p>
+<p>Now the matter, order, end and author of this Gospel of the blessed John are clear.</p>
+</body>
+</html>