Father Jean de Lorin's (Lorinus') Commentary on Acts 10:34-38

Jean de Lorin

(1559-1634), a prominent French Jesuit theologian and biblical scholar, was renowned for his extensive commentaries, particularly on Scripture, teaching theology in Paris, Rome, and Milan, and was known for engaging with contemporary scientific ideas like Galileo's astronomical observations. Born in Avignon, he was an influential exegete who contributed significantly to Catholic biblical interpretation during the Counter-Reformation era. The following was translated using Claude.

Acts 10:34: "Then Peter opening his mouth said: 'In truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons.'"

"Peter opening his mouth" - Concerning this phrase, read chapter eight. This indicates that Peter was asked to speak freely about very serious matters.

"In truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons" - This same sentiment appears in several other places in Scripture. The acceptance of persons does not properly apply to God, as St. Thomas correctly teaches, although He takes up one person by grace and leaves another in sin. For there is a twofold giving: one pertaining to justice, when one gives to another what is owed to him; another pertaining to liberality. The conferring of gifts belongs to this latter type, by grace, and therefore the acceptance of persons has no place in it, since one can give from what is his own as much as and to whom he wishes, according to that saying: "May I not do what I wish with my own?"

Moreover, regarding different persons before God, none is worthy in itself of these gifts of grace insofar as they precede justification, nor consequently is one more worthy than another, and therefore that they are given to one and not to another is not an acceptance of persons. And yet liberality can have a place here, because—let us consider the first infusion of habitual justifying grace in an adult—God first renders the subject in some way worthy, that is, disposed, through supernatural movements which He himself excites and with which the free subject, aided by grace (which is called "helping grace"), cooperates. But absolutely, simply, and properly, one cannot merit that justifying grace. Although as regards the increase of this justifying grace, God can be considered to preserve justice according to His promise or covenant. And the same applies to the conferral of glory: the increase corresponds to merits, and even the quantity of glory to the condignity of justifying grace.

Then, however, it can also be said that God is not a respecter of persons inasmuch as, as Ambrose says, there is no distinction of persons with Him except of morals and life, so that men are distinguished by the merits of one, not by persons. From which those who distort this sentence toward equality of grace and glory are refuted in passing. Therefore Augustine rightly refutes the Pelagians who made God a respecter of persons in giving grace. For, says Augustine, He gives congruent preventing grace not to all but to some, since it is entirely unowed and wholly gratuitous, and He regards, accepts, and ordains only those who work well and dispose themselves accordingly, according to congruity, from His kindness and liberality, to confer upon them forgiveness of sins and sanctification. Whence it also follows that not all the works of those not yet justified are evil, but some are truly good, although not meritorious by condignity.

These matters are treated more fully by our schools concerning Grace and Justification, but they were not to be entirely omitted against the commentators of this passage. Moreover, Peter is not here dealing with that acceptance of persons which is a vice against the virtue of justice, but with that which pertains to gratuitous choice and election. For the Jews, under whose person and for whose sake the bystanders are addressed, always persuaded themselves that they were chosen above all nations, so that just as they and their proselytes once belonged to the Synagogue, so now they alone should belong to the Church, at least regarding external gifts and the outward profession of religion. Indeed, they were not ignorant that salvation had once come to others under the law of nature, like Job.

Paul, proceeding in the same argument in the following chapter, teaches all these things, showing that it had been quite obscure until now that the Gentiles would become co-heirs and members of the same body in the Spirit, that is, equally parts in the same body of the Church, and co-participants of the promise in Christ Jesus through the Gospel.

Concerning the vice itself of the acceptance of persons, I omit speaking, though I would note with Jerome the argument Peter now uses against those who were scandalized by the admission of Cornelius from among the Gentiles without being circumcised—the same argument Paul uses against Peter himself, that God is no respecter of persons but judges each by truth, so that although he defers to Peter as predecessor, he boldly resists him to his face in truth.

Therefore Peter says he has learned in truth that not only Jews are called to the Church, or those who profess the law as proselytes from the Gentiles, but whosoever from the Gentiles without the burden of the law, so that they are immediately transferred to the Church and to receiving the fruit of Christ's redemption.

This passage is clearly explained by what Paul writes to the Ephesians: "Therefore remember that you were once Gentiles in the flesh, who were called 'uncircumcision' by those called 'circumcision' made by hand in the flesh, because you were at that time without Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the Testaments"—namely the old one which they had and the new one which they hoped for under the Messiah—"having no hope and without God in this world. But now in Christ Jesus, you who were once far off have been made near by the Blood of Christ. For He is our peace, who made both one and broke down the middle wall of partition, dissolving the enmities in His flesh, the law of commandments in decrees, that He might create in Himself one new man from the two, making peace, that He might reconcile both in one body to God through the cross, killing the enmities in Himself, and coming He preached peace to you who were far off and to those who were near, because through Him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father. Therefore you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of God's household, built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets"—that is, on which they themselves were founded—"with Christ Jesus Himself as the chief cornerstone, in whom the whole building, being fitted together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord, in whom you also are being built together into a dwelling place of God in the Spirit."

Paul, proceeding in the same argument in the following chapter and teaching that it had been quite obscure until now that the Gentiles would become co-heirs and members of the same body in the Spirit, that is, equally parts in the same body of the Church, and co-participants of the promise in Christ Jesus through the Gospel.

Concerning the vice itself of the acceptance of persons, I omit speaking. I would note one thing with Jerome: the argument Peter now uses against those who were scandalized by the admission of Cornelius from among the Gentiles without being circumcised is the same one used against Peter himself—that God is no respecter of persons but judges by truth, so that although he defers to Peter as predecessor, he nevertheless boldly resists him to his face in truth.

"In truth I perceive" - Ἐπ' ἀληθείας καταλαμβάνομαι - in the present tense "I truly perceive, apprehend, am convinced," namely by manifest arguments both of the revelation made to me and of the admonition to Cornelius. Peter was not previously ignorant that God is no respecter of persons, nor did he lack experience of this in himself and his fellow disciples whom He had chosen by singular benefit. But something is said to be known now that is known more fully, and he had not yet learned by any experience that the door into the Church was open to the Gentiles. Job knew that God does not spare the wicked before he fell into those calamities, yet he said this when he experienced it. God knew that Abraham feared God even before he sacrificed his son, yet He expressed this. Truth is rightly said to consist in and be found in experience, for experience is the teacher of things, and all our knowledge is collected from many experiences. And as long as the mind holds universal knowledge, it lies in some way in shadow until it descends to experiment, and thus, as if the shadow were shaken off, it perceives the truth more deeply.

This has a place especially in practical and moral matters, and moreover in promises, all of which are said to be most true when they are reduced to particulars that exist in reality. This is also the reason why the New Testament is called truth in comparison with the Old, because what was shadowed and promised in it, the New Testament exhibited as present. "The Law was given through Moses," says John, "but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ"—rightly so, because truth that is not brought into practice exists only in name, not in fact.

We could further say that the phrase "in truth" contains a form of affirmation and even of oath, as is common.

Among ecclesiastical writers, Gentiles or Pagans are those who are alienated from the Christian religion and superstitiously worship idols, and not like the Jews, one God. This manner of speaking seems to come from the Hebrews, who called all nations besides their own goyim (גויס), as if this word meant the same as "barbarians" to the Greeks. However, it is found used, especially in the singular number, also of the Hebrew people. In this place, "nation" seems to be a common name for Jews and all others, for a comparison is made between Jews and others. In civil law, Gentiles are called those who are not subject to the Roman empire and who live not by civil law but by the law of nations.

Sometimes it truly is, for there is often in the text some word from the root aman (אמן), which means to be faithful, stable, truthful, constant in words and promises, whence "amen," which has the same value as genoito (γένοιτο), "so be it," or "let it be firm, fixed, immutable," and is sometimes a form of oath. Hence it can stand for an oath, as when Abraham said to Pharaoh, "Truly she is my sister," and Job, "Truly I know that it is so," and David, "As you swore to David in your truth," that is, by your truth, as if to say, by your faithfulness. And Christ: "In truth I say to you," and "I in truth say to you," and "Truly I say to you."

Maldonatus notes that Amen has a double use: either to confirm what has already been said by us or by another, or to affirm what we are about to say. And the latter is most frequent in the New Testament according to the Syriac language in which it was largely written, the former rare; on the contrary, in the Old Testament the latter is rare, the former most frequent according to the Hebrew language familiar to that Testament. Aquila sometimes renders it pepistomenōs (πεπιστομένως), that is, "faithfully." The Seventy translate it as "so be it," as St. Jerome notes. I do not doubt that the former use, if not in Scripture, certainly in the prayers and preaching of the New Testament, is very frequent. For Paul asserts that no one can respond "Amen," that is, as Jerome says, confirm what has been preached, unless he has understood the preaching.

And concerning the Psalms of David, Ausonius says: "The harmonious songs which melodious David celebrates, and the responsive voices strike the air with 'Amen.'" The same Jerome also calls Amen the seal of the Lord's prayer, as if to say, "So be it as it has been said." Rupertus and St. Antoninus observe that the other Evangelists are content to place "Amen" once in prayer, but John doubles it because he pursued more fully matters pertaining to the divinity of Christ, which require greater affirmation, as if to say "Truly, truly," which is an oath just as in the Old Testament "I live" or "My soul lives," as the oft-cited Jerome also teaches. But because John sometimes repeats "Amen" twice when narrating something about Christ that the other Evangelists equally narrate, content to have said it once, and this is not among those things that more closely touch upon the divinity of Christ, it is preferable to say that it is one of John's most characteristic idioms and one of his own speaking formulas that he more willingly frequents. He cites Remigius on this very matter, and Pope Benedict XI follows him, adding that the discourse then concerns things more remote from our understanding and more necessary for salvation, and that Christ then doubled the particle when He spoke more emphatically, which John expressed but not the others. Read what we have noted in the last chapter of the first epistle of John, at the last words of verse 35.

Acts 10:35 "But in every nation whoever fears God and works righteousness is acceptable to Him"

"But in every nation" - Ἐν παντὶ ἔθνει - whence the word "Ethnics" is given Latin form, concerning which read chapter two, where the Latin word is "natio" (nation).

"Who fears God" - Who worships God, for all worship of God is called fear, as has been noted elsewhere, and therefore who observes the first table of the Decalogue, or who abstains from evil, for fear has the power of restraining and removing. Chrysostom and Oecumenius think Paul understood mercy and humanity when he said the Saints worked righteousness.

Finally, to work righteousness signifies exercising excellent works of virtue, as in Ecclesiasticus: "Before your death, work righteousness, for there is no finding food among the dead," and "He who works his land will raise up a heap of grain," and "he who works righteousness shall be exalted," and in Ezekiel: "In his injustice which he has worked, he shall live."

"And works righteousness" - Thus in the Psalm it is said that he who will dwell in the tabernacle of God and rest on His holy mountain is he who walks without blemish, which is to fear and abstain from evil and be innocent in hands, and works righteousness, which is to be pure in heart, etc., and to observe the second table of the Decalogue.

Moreover, by the name of righteousness, Chrysostom and Oecumenius understand general virtue, concerning which is that well-worn saying of Aristotle: "Justice in itself contains all virtues." This acceptance of righteousness is also very common in the sacred letters, as well as the related meaning for that gift of grace by which we are made just and holy before God and pleasing to Him, whether this grace is distinct from charity or is charity itself. For alternately from these, the remaining virtues are necessarily affected, both the Theological virtues of faith and hope, and the moral virtues (if these are given as infused, distinct from acquired ones), and the gifts of the Holy Spirit (if they are also distinct habits).

In this place, righteousness is operative, and perhaps it refers to the alms of Cornelius. For by the name of righteousness, almsgiving is sometimes called, as when Christ says: "Take heed that you do not practice your righteousness before men," eleēmosynē (ἐλεεμοσύνη). Thus also in Hebrew the word tzedakah (צדקה), which signifies righteousness, is sometimes used for mercy and almsgiving, as in those words of the Psalm: "He has dispersed, he has given to the poor, his righteousness endures forever," which words the Apostle seems to explain paraphrastically: "He who supplies seed to the sower and bread for food will supply and multiply the increase of your fruits."

The Seventy also put the name dikaiosynē (δικαιοσύνη) for chesed (חסד), which word properly signifies mercy and almsgiving. Indeed, just as "just" is often the same in Scripture as "holy," so also is "merciful." For example, where there is a Hebrew word that signifies merciful, our translator renders it "holy." "The Lord has made wonderful," says David, "His holy one," and "With the holy you will be holy."

Man owes humanity to man; he owes it to himself to exercise it toward another man similar to himself; he owes it to God, who so commends it to man and will pass judgment on it particularly in the supreme judgment. Moreover, it is established that righteousness more properly refers to another, and therefore the divine commandments themselves are not rarely called by one particular name "justifications," as they are about various kinds of duties that ought to be observed toward others.

Read Justinian, Origen, Hilary, Basil, Abulensis, and others who distinctly discuss the multiple names of law, commandment, precept, testimony, justification, ceremony, way, word, truth, etc. Sometimes for tzedek (עוד) or dikaiosynē (δικαιοσύνη) and righteousness, we find the word almsgiving used. Thus indeed Theodotion in Daniel, in place of "in all your righteousness," translates en pasē eleēmosynē sou (ἐν πάσῃ ἐλεεμοσύνῃ σου).

Although righteousness is also sometimes said of God when He does what He owes to Himself or when He provides what He promised, even if men do not merit it. Such is that passage in Baruch: "For God will bring Israel with joy in the light of His majesty, with the mercy and righteousness that is from Him."

"Is acceptable to Him" - God calls others even though they are wicked, who neither feared Him before nor worked righteousness. But Peter said "of every nation" as if pronouncing admiringly for the instruction of the Jewish bystanders. What was said about Cornelius the just, religious man, fearing God and working righteousness, was spoken by way of exhortation, so that the Jews would not be reluctant to imitate this Gentile, and other Gentiles would be encouraged by the same example and hope they could obtain similar grace of the Evangelical law.

But remember what I have also previously reminded: those works of Cornelius, if he was just, had the condignity of merit, but justifying grace simply and first exciting grace is not given for true merits and as something owed, but from the kindness of God.

Moreover, the Fathers propose to us this saying and Cornelius so that we may take hope on both sides—whatever sort we are—of attaining knowledge of truth and obtaining grace equal to Cornelius. Especially Chrysostom makes this point. Olympiodorus, however, argues from the same that riches and such goods are not good in themselves but are intermediate and adiaphora (ἀδιάφορα, indifferent things), since they are not given by God to all, just as He pours out what are truly good things equally liberally to all, namely what is sufficient, that is, free will and disposition for exercising and performing virtues.

"Acceptable" - Dektos (Δεκτός) - seems to be an ecclesiastical term for "pleasing," although the Latin "acceptus" is also used by profane writers, as when Caesar says of someone "who was most acceptable to the people." The Greek word dechesthai (δέχεσθαι) among other things signifies to admit by approving, and "acceptable" means approved, pleasing, affected by benefit, reconciled, in the Acts of the Apostles.

Acts 10:36: "The word which God sent to the children of Israel, preaching peace through Jesus Christ—He is Lord of all"

Having made a kind of preface in the preceding words, he now approaches the narrative itself and, as it were, a catechesis of all those things that were necessary for one about to profess faith in Christ and be baptized, and which are comprehended in the Apostles' Creed, as Bede notes: namely, that Jesus is the Christ, Lord of all, sent to reconcile the world to God, preached by John, anointed with the Holy Spirit, declared through miracles, crucified, raised, manifested to His own after the Resurrection, Judge of all to come at the end, destined to spread the Church through faith throughout the whole world. The Glossa Ordinaria, authored by Rabanus, collects the same summary of the discourse. Tertullian says that Peter catechized this Centurion.

"The word which God sent" - The Greek text, which reads ton logon hon apesteilen tois hyiois Israēl euangelizomenos eirēnēn dia Iēsou Christou—houtos estin pantōn Kyrios (τὸν λόγον ὃν ἀπέστειλε τοῖς υἱοῖς Ἰσραήλ εὐαγγελιζόμενος εἰρήνην διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ—οὗτός ἐστι πάντων Κύριος), renders the sense more clearly in this way: "The word which God sent to the children of Israel, proclaiming peace through Jesus Christ—He is Lord of all," namely Jesus Christ, and joining with the following verse: "You know the word/matter which was done," etc. But let us examine it.

Scripture uses the expression "to send a word" elsewhere in the same sense, so that a messenger is latent in the word though not expressed, as in: "He sent from on high and took me," that is, He sent an Angel or another minister; and "He sent from heaven and delivered me"; and "He sent His mercy and rescued me," that is, men of mercy; and "He will send forth His word and melt them," that is, He will send forth the heat of the Sun or rain. Hence is derived the word "sent ones" (missi) for the Apostles, signifying the same thing in Greek, as we taught in chapter 1. Indeed, they even say missum substantively for a sending or dispatch, either of beasts or gladiators or courses of food.

"Word" - The Gloss, the interlinear, Hugh, and the Carthusian understand this both of the incarnate Word and of the word of preaching. The former exposition is favored by the word "sending" and the term logos (λόγος). For although it signifies speech and discourse, and although elsewhere it is said that the word is sent or sent forth, that is, the divine precept or truth, nevertheless it seems here to stand for the divine person, since immediately in the following verse, where again there is "word," in Greek it is rhēma (ῥῆμα), which word suggests a distinct signification from the former logos (λόγος).

Nevertheless, I prefer the latter sense, which pleases the others, so that ton (τὸν) is redundant in the Greek text and to rhēma (τὸ ῥῆμα) is to be taken from the usage of the Hebrew phrase for "matter," just as in the Gospel of the author: "Let us go over to Bethlehem and see this thing/word which has happened," where there is rhēma, and elsewhere often in Scripture where I also find the same use of to (τὸ). And the same reasoning applies to the Latin words verbum (word) and sermo (discourse), and indeed the translator used this word in Mark in the same signification for "thing/matter." However, logos (λόγος) is used for the divine person, not rhēma (ῥῆμα).

Furthermore, since the discourse does not connect so suitably if you say "God sent the Word," that is, the second person, "preaching peace through Jesus Christ," this is tautologia (tautology), since the second person of the Trinity is Christ. Maldonatus writes that he has observed that Jesus is called Logos (Λόγος), "the Word," by no one except John the Evangelist. Read our Commentary on the first epistle.

However, I confess that the former sense pleased Polycarp the Martyr and Athanasius, who also notes that such tautology is not unwelcome in Scripture. It can be from the first epistle to the Corinthians: "the revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ," etc. Therefore it does not follow that the Word is distinguished from Christ.

"To the children of Israel" - First and before all, as has been said in chapter one. And he rightly makes mention of them by name to the Gentiles, because some Jews were also present, and he was thus conciliating their whole nation to himself, intending to have afterwards witnesses and patrons in the complaint of the Jews about the Gentiles being admitted in this way.

Hence Irenaeus refutes the Heretics who asserted that there was one God of the Old Testament and another of the New, and he concluded them by reasoning, twisting this argument into a sense truly apt for confounding all Heretics: "Did Peter not then have perfect knowledge which these men later discovered? Therefore Peter was imperfect, and imperfect also were the other Apostles, whom he said had maintained moderation in teaching the Gentiles, and it will be necessary for them, when revived, to become disciples of these men, so that they themselves might become perfect. But this indeed is ridiculous." Thus he says.

Athanasius responds to those objecting that Christ is not God nor the Word because in this place it is said that "God sent the word to the children of Israel, proclaiming peace through Jesus Christ," in this manner: "We can," he says, "find something similar against this objection from the epistle to the Corinthians: 'Awaiting,' says the Apostle, 'the revelation of Jesus Christ, who will also confirm us blameless until the day of our Lord Jesus Christ'—not awaiting the day of another Christ. Thus the Father sent the Word made flesh, so that when He was already man, He Himself might preach the Gospel through Himself. And thus He immediately added: 'He is Lord of all.' But the Lord of all is the Word." Thus far Athanasius's response.

"Preaching peace through Jesus Christ" - Peace with God, in one's own conscience, among ourselves, internal, external, supernal. Nothing is sweeter than peace, nothing more useful, nothing more honorable, nothing almost more inculcated both by the Prophets promising it would come and by the Evangelists, Apostles, Angels, and Christ Himself proclaiming it now present. Christ is the Prince of Peace and our peace. For when He was born, peace was sung by the Angels, who previously, the angels of peace, wept bitterly. He wished this peace to be preached by His own; departing from this world, He gave and left it; and having risen, He restored it, so that our feet might be directed in the way of peace and we might arrive at that peace which, because the world cannot give it while we fight and are mingled with the senses, we will obtain in heaven, where we will sit in the beauty of peace, in the tabernacles of righteousness, and in abundant rest, with the peaceful king Solomon and with Melchizedek the high priest, who is king of Salem, that is, of peace.

But how peace was announced and proclaimed through Jesus and made, read Paul. He who rests in God has peace, and through this the best fruits; and to those who love God there is much peace and without scandal or stumbling block, but the friendship of this world is enmity with God.

What need is there to pursue the praises and advantages of external and temporal peace? "So great is the good of peace," says Augustine, "that even in earthly matters nothing is customarily heard more gratefully, nothing desired more eagerly, nothing finally can be found better."

Likewise, an Italian poet, a Spaniard, sang thus about peace:

"Peace, best of things
Which it is given to man to know; peace, alone
More powerful than countless triumphs."

Hear also another Spanish poet, but a Christian:

"Peace, work full of virtue; peace, summit of labors;
Peace is the reward of completed war and the prize of danger.
The stars flourish in peace, earthly things stand firm in peace.
Nothing is pleasing to God without peace; no gift at the altar
When you wish to offer will He approve, if a turbulent mind
Hates a brother in the cave of an unpeaceful heart.
He who wishes to sacrifice to God with sacrificed holocausts
Should offer peace first; no victim to Christ
Is sweeter."

That best utility is that, delivered from the hand of enemies without fear, we may serve God in holiness and righteousness. Divine Providence willed that Christ should come when the world enjoyed peace, for the reason I have stated and so that the Evangelical doctrine might be propagated more easily, which has been observed by Jerome and Procopius. And lest the Jews should think the Messiah would conduct Himself and advance His empire by arms and power, or that anyone should be compelled to the Faith by force. Very appropriately Peter adapts his speech to his hearers, speaking with the Centurion and soldiers about peace, and making mention to the Jews who were also present about the Messiah promised to them.

"He is Lord of all" - I conjecture these words were added so that they might understand that God is also for the Gentiles, so that He whom Christians worship is the true God, and that those who were worshipped by the Gentiles should not be deemed worthy of this honor and name. Indeed, they would be convinced by the very multitude that He is Lord of all things. Also for the Jews, they should marvel if He who is not Lord of their one nation only but of all others wishes to be as generous to these as to that one. The interlinear Gloss indicates this latter member. Although the dominion over other things is not to be excluded, which God has no less than over the universality of men.

Moreover, the demonstrative pronoun "this" (hic) seems to denote Christ, for it immediately preceded, and Peter's purpose was to speak of Him, as is clear from the context of the whole discourse, and Cornelius was already a worshipper of the true God but not yet instructed in Christ. The Interpreters agree, among whom Chrysostom observes that Peter now expressed Christ's lordship so clearly and sublimely because he was speaking to Cornelius, already made excellent and eagerly receiving all things that were brought forward by him. From this is proved the divinity of Christ, as John Maxentius and Athanasius conclude.

Moreover, concerning the name "Lord" I have already treated at length, though I have said it is more properly of God. Concerning Him, even the Supreme Pontiff is called Lord meiōsin (μείωσιν), that is, diminutively. Nevertheless, just as I see the full term used by the French and Germans for the Saints, so I read long ago this title prefixed to the name of St. Martin, so that he was called "Lord." The Council of Autisiodorum [Auxerre], Turonense [Tours] I and II speak in this manner.

Acts 10:37: "You know what happened throughout all Judea, beginning from Galilee after the baptism which John preached"

"You know" - He cites the Jews themselves as witnesses of those things that happened concerning the person of Christ, both in preaching and in performing miracles.

"What happened" - I said in the preceding verse that "word" here stands for "thing/matter," for it comprehends the summary of the sayings and deeds of Christ which is woven beneath in this same place. Thus Lyranus, Cajetan, and Gagneius think, and Chrysostom favors this, although the interlinear Gloss, Peter Comestor, Hugh, and the Carthusian interpret it of preaching, as does also the Syriac edition.

What prevents every thing from being called "word," since every thing was made by the word? For this reason it seemed to some that the name "Word" was attributed to the second person of the Trinity because God made all things through it, and without it nothing was made. Augustine indeed said this, and Isidore. Nevertheless, the Word existed before things were, for it was always apt that through it God might speak whatever He wished and command things to be made.

The reasoning of others leads to the same conclusion, that the Son of God is called the Word, that is, reality and truth, because in Hebrew dabar (דבר), that is, "word," signifies "thing." Another reason can be assigned why a thing is called "word," because it is in the usage of the Hebrews to put the abstract for its concrete, taken either actively or passively, that is, "word" for the thing spoken and signified by the word.

There are moreover those who, taking the former verse for the second person of the Trinity, wish it to be signified there as it is internal and in itself, and here through rhēma (ῥῆμα) the same insofar as it manifested itself through the Incarnation and works. And the shepherds had this in mind when they said: "Let us see this word/thing which is, which the Lord has done and shown to us," where there is rhēma. But the shepherds were speaking in Greek, and rhēma, as I warned before, does not seem ever to have been used for the Son of God, since in its notion it involves flux and the sound of material voice.

"Beginning indeed" - The particle "indeed" (enim) is absent in the Greek text, and Cajetan believes it is redundant, as does Emmanuel. However, it does not hinder but rather makes for greater clarity. But then "beginning" in the nominative case will pertain to Christ who began, or to the work of the Gospel or preaching; in the accusative case, however, it pertains to the word, that is, Peter said they know this matter which was begun in Galilee.

"From Galilee" - This is distinguished here from Judea, as has been noted elsewhere. I have also said why Christ began from here and why He chose the Apostles and Disciples for the greater part as Galileans.

"After the baptism which John preached" - The Glossa Ordinaria notes two different readings from Rabanus and from Bede. The former is: "You know that John preached Jesus from Nazareth," etc., or "John preached this, that He anointed Him," etc. The latter: "John preached Jesus as God anointed Him," etc.

Gagneius thus explains: "You know that the word made and published throughout all Judea after John's baptism is nothing other than Jesus from Nazareth, how God anointed Him."

I judge that all the recited words should be connected together so that the sense is: "You know what was done after the baptism which John preached and in which, as the interlinear Gloss expresses, Christ was baptized." Whence quod (which/that) does not signify the mystery of the future Christ which John preached, as Lyra wished, but is a relative pronoun pertaining to baptism, which word in this place is of neuter gender, no less than in the Greek text to baptisma (τὸ βάπτισμα), after which is ho ekēryxen (ὁ ἐκήρυξεν).

Jerome, Augustine, and other Latin Fathers pronounce "baptism" only as baptisma in the neuter gender, and in the masculine baptismus is merely a verbal form, not a true essential and operative word.

"Preached" - Thus Mark and Luke write that John preached a baptism of repentance. Hence the Heretics of our time reason perversely that the word which is applied is not necessarily and as a form according to theological form a sacred or consecratory word, but only a preaching or instructional word which nevertheless vivifies the external ceremony, so that the words which we call the form are a magical whisper muttered by an exorcist, as Calvin blasphemes.

John was said to preach baptism, that is, preparatory to repentance. He not only baptized but also, with preaching preceding baptism, exhorted many, and indeed to baptism for the remission of sins, which remission they would obtain not through it [John's baptism] nor through that preaching, but through Christ whom John chiefly preached as the Lamb of God and who would baptize in the Holy Spirit and fire. For John, as is said, baptized with a baptism of repentance, saying to the people concerning Him who was to come after him that they should believe. And the father sang of the son: "You will go before the face of the Lord to prepare His ways, to give knowledge of salvation to His people in the remission of their sins."

Concerning the difference between both baptisms, of Christ and of John, I have also said something in chapter one.

That moreover the word which comes to the element in the Sacrament is sacred and consecratory, as Dionysius speaks, not preaching, it is superfluous to prove—so certain and established is this, and in particular concerning the word containing the invocation of the Trinity as it pertains to baptism. Augustine alone, whom they esteem so highly—and not as highly as they should—clearly and frequently teaches this (for I will allow others to be passed over as in matters not at all doubtful).

"God," says Augustine, "is present in His evangelical words, without which the baptism of Christ cannot be consecrated. Who does not know that it is the baptism of Christ if the evangelical words by which the symbol stands are lacking there?" He declares what these words are in another place: "If Marcion consecrated baptism with the words 'In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,' the Sacrament was complete, although the faith under the same words was different from how the preaching teaches." Not only is preaching not essential but not necessary, since error is said not to impede the Sacrament when one thinks otherwise than what truth teaches; it would not be complete but polluted with fabulous falsities.

He adds that with those same words spoken, not only Marcion or Valentinus or Arius or Eunomius baptized, but they conferred upon the very carnal children of the Church nevertheless a complete and not-to-be-repeated Sacrament, even if there were as many diversities of opinions in them as there were men. Finally, Augustine asserts that it would have been easier to find Heretics who did not baptize at all than who did not baptize with those words.

Although indeed Calvinists also use the same words in baptism, nevertheless they do not pronounce them so that the water may be consecrated, but so that the people may also be instructed from it, as Calvin's associate Beza clearly declares, in which certain Lutherans consent, and therefore they use the vernacular language, namely wishing to teach the people who do not understand the Latin language.

Read the same Augustine in the book against Heresies, and Ambrose, Chrysostom, Didymus, Athanasius, Theodoret, Cyril of Jerusalem, Nyssen, Basil, Cyprian, and Innocent the First.

What more? If the preaching word and of doctrine is essential or necessary for baptism, therefore profane and impious—not only vain and null—is the baptism of children who are not equal to receiving doctrine. Our own baptized will also have to be rebaptized, since we use no sermon concerning them unless they are adults, for whom also catechesis is impeded long before baptism. And therefore it will be necessary to remit them to the Anabaptists, and Calvin died without true baptism since he was not rebaptized.

But also a little later we will see that after Peter's sermon was finished, baptism was given to Cornelius and his household, and not by Peter himself but by his command through inferior ministers. Nor do the Heretics produce any testimony of Scripture (without which they do not want us to argue) in which that preaching word is prescribed for the sacrament as plainly required.

For what the Apostle says about the Church, that it is washed "by the washing of water in the word of life"—Jerome alone, and indeed professing that he speaks tropologically, takes this of doctrine; all others take it of those words "In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit," just as these understand "the washing of water" of baptism, while he understands any washing. Read Stapleton in the Antidotes and Bellarmine in the Controversies.

 

Acts 10:38: "Jesus of Nazareth, how God anointed Him with the Holy Spirit and with power, who went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, because God was with Him"

"Of Nazareth" - He first spoke of His work, says Chrysostom, and now he speaks of His homeland, saying "Jesus of Nazareth," for he knew that the homeland gave offense. Read chapter 22 concerning the epithet "Nazarene" or "Nazarene," to which is similar this cognomen "of Nazareth," which also appears in Matthew and John. Some receive a cognomen from their homeland, as the friends of Job, the father of David the Ephrathite and Bethlehemite, and others. I have also taught above that cognomens are derived from various things.

The distinguished grammarian John Despauterius discusses this and illustrates it with various examples from Livy, Cicero, and Tacitus. Henry of Ghent teaches moreover that it is not quite congruent to express a cognomen from homeland or town in the ablative case, as "Aristotle from Stagira," "Democritus from Abdera," "Thomas from Aquino." The same person warns Andreas Alamannus in an epistle by Francis, lest either he seem unlearned and retain the force of the preposition "de" (from), or arrogant, wishing to allow himself what is foreign to all antiquity. Moreover, as I have said elsewhere with Gregory, the diction of Sacred Scripture is not to be demanded to conform to the rules of Donatus.

"How God anointed Him" - Hōs (ὡς) - Bede says that according to another edition it should be read "as": "John preached Jesus as God anointed Him," etc. Rabanus: "which," that is, "John preached this, that He anointed Him," etc. Cajetan follows the sense and wishes the pronoun "him" (eum) to be added in the Hebrew manner, otherwise not necessary.

John preached this when he said: "He will baptize you in the Holy Spirit and fire," and when he testified that he saw the Spirit descending upon Him like a dove and remaining upon Him.

The anointing with invisible oil was when the human nature was joined to the Word of God in the womb of the Virgin and was made one person with Him, says Bede, not however when the dove descended upon Christ. Irenaeus is witness that Cerinthus separated Jesus from Christ, so that Jesus was a pure man born from Mary and Joseph, but Christ the Son of God who descended upon Jesus at the time of baptism in the form of a dove.

Certain Pelagians, as Cassian relates, taught that a pure man was born from Mary, but in the thirtieth year of his age this man became Christ through his own merits, and finally after the passion also became God through his own merits, and that it is no less lawful for other men to live well by their own powers and arrive at beatitude just as Christ arrived.

The same error, that Jesus was born a pure man, was handed down by Nestorius with Anastasius the presbyter and Theodore of Mopsuestia and others. They added that the Son of God was later united to this son of man only accidentally and through a relationship, as in a temple through union of wills and love, through conjunction as with His instrument, through communication of name and dignity, so that He might be called God and be adored by creatures not for Himself but because of Him by whom He was assumed.

The Arians, as John Maxentius notes, argued from the anointing that Christ was lesser than the Father and a creature. Christ Himself in the Synagogue explained the passage of Isaiah about Himself: "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because He has anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor," etc.

Euthymius, Cyprian (when speaking about the Holy Spirit), Damascene, Gregory, Augustine, Cyril of Jerusalem, and Cyril of Alexandria, Nazianzen, Irenaeus, Athanasius, Rufinus, Augustine, Jerome, Prosper, Ambrose, and Hilary understand this passage about His very divinity when the Holy Spirit descended upon the baptized one like a dove. The same reasoning applies to the passage of Psalm 45: "God has anointed you," etc.

Indeed, all grace and virtue was communicated to the Humanity because of the union of the Word with it, nor was any subsequent addition made of infused grace or knowledge. And so in baptism the anointing must be understood because then it was declared and began to be exercised, and there came the visible sign of the dove and the external voice of the Father, by which He designated the Son, as it were, for the office of teacher, etc.

"And He deigned to prefigure His Church in this place," says Bede, and Augustine, in which those baptized are anointed with visible ointment, and especially these receive the Holy Spirit. Athanasius observes the same thing according to that passage in the first Epistle of John: "You have an anointing from the Holy One," where consult our commentary, and Paul to the Corinthians: "God has anointed us, who also sealed us and gave the pledge of the Spirit in our hearts." Read Bellarmine and Suarez and Gregory of Valencia.

I have taught elsewhere that the name "Christ" comes from anointing, and that it belongs to the same one person who is at once king, priest, and prophet, which roles were formerly anointed separately in individual persons, and yet God is Himself the oil and ointment of the Humanity. For as Eusebius teaches, in divine Scripture the virtue of the divine nature which prevails over all things, provides every good, supplies beauty, is called oil because oil increases light, removes weariness from the tired, makes joyful those anointed with it, radiates splendors of light from itself, and renders their countenance shining and gleaming. They use oil itself. Everything penetrates and permeates. Ointment pertains to the same virtue, as it is in itself simple; when it is consecrated with oil, it is considered as manifold.

He adds that by the name of Christ, by which Aaron was first called with visible ointment, the internal and spiritual anointing is chiefly designated, since the same Patriarch name is given to David, and Isaiah is judged to have called Christ, the Son of God, sufficiently by saying "anointed."

John the Apostle illustrates the teaching of Eusebius when by the word "anointing" he means grace, charity, and other gifts of the Holy Spirit by which we are made living members of Christ and true and perfect Christians, and indeed certain Christs and kingly priests. "And the anointing," he says, "which remains in you, and His anointing teaches you," and "You have an anointing from the Holy One"—the name absolutely placed is for the Holy Spirit—"and you know all things." Therefore Jerome rightly warns that when dealing with the anointing of Christ, it must be understood spiritually and by no means of the human body as it was in the Jewish Priests.

But it is the Humanity that was anointed, because He is said to be anointed by God above His fellows, that is, above other Saints. But God does not have fellows of His substance. Eligius explains "anointed" as Jesus predestined so that He might become the Son of God as man. The oil of gladness signifies His resurrection, ascension, and dominion.

The Holy Spirit—in the preceding words God is considered as the Father, the first person of the Trinity; "anointed," the second or the Son; the Holy Spirit, the third—and I have said in another place that in the very name of Christ the whole Trinity is implied. The anointing is attributed to the Holy Spirit either so that the Humanity of Christ is considered to be anointed by Him, either through the incarnation or through the grace infused with it, or through those visible signs shown around Christ in baptism, since sanctifications are assigned to the Holy Spirit. But since Christ the only-begotten is equal to the Father, it is by nature, not by grace, says Augustine. But that man was assumed into the unity of the person of the only-begotten is not of nature but of grace.

"And with power" - Dynamei (Δυνάμει), concerning which word I have spoken elsewhere. It signifies power and strength for speaking and working, and as it were in the manner of a boxer for fighting, who was previously anointed with oil. Thus Luke writes in the Gospel that after the battle with the Demon, Jesus returned to begin preaching and miracles "in the power of the Spirit," as Titus of Bostra, Euthymius, and Beda explain that passage. Luke seems accustomed to note studiously beyond the other Evangelists that Christ did all things by the guidance of the Holy Spirit, just as when he said that He was led by the Spirit into the desert.

"Who went about doing good" - Hos diēlthen euergetōn (ὃς διῆλθεν εὐεργετῶν) - "Who passed through doing good." The Syriac: "and he who traversed the region and healed," etc. To pass through and simply to pass, and the Hebrew ʿabar (עבר), sometimes means the same as to experience and be engaged in some work or exercise, as in the Psalm: "His hands served Joseph in the basket." In Hebrew: "they passed through" or "were engaged and occupied." The Seventy read edouleusan (ἐδούλευσαν), I think, not taʿabornah (תעברנה) "with" (per) bet (ב) but with taʿabodnah (תעבדנה) "with" dalet (ד).

The sense also can be, as pleases Jerome, "they departed from the basket," that is, they ceased to serve. And thus in our proposition: "Christ passed through doing good," that is, He completed mortal life, which while He lived He spent doing good and consumed entirely in benefits. Moreover, the word "passing through" indicates the efficacious Economy of Christ and the victory which He brought back from the world and the devil. For this reason, when about to strike Egypt, He predicted that He would pass through, and also His Angel. Less aptly the Interlinear Gloss explains "doing good," that is, "instructing morals," or "forming," as Lyranus speaks, and Hugh. For it conflicts with euergetōn (εὐεργετῶν).

"And healing all who were oppressed by the devil" - He healed those who were harmed by evil. Iōmenos pantas tous katadynasteuomenous hypo tou diabolou (ἰώμενος πάντας τοὺς καταδυναστευομένους ὑπὸ τοῦ διαβόλου). There is a certain allusion to paronomasia in the participle katadynasteuomenous (καταδυναστευομένους) and in the noun dynamei (δυνάμει) which was said earlier about Christ. Katadynasteuein (καταδυναστεύειν) signifies to oppress by power and through tyranny, and katadynasteuomenos (καταδυναστευόμενος) means to be reduced under power.

The word "healing" has a transferred signification for that which is to apply a remedy, whether to the body or also to the soul, which metaphor Isaiah and Christ also use in the word "physician," and these forms of speech are also usual among profane writers.

How those who are justly destined or liable to eternal punishments for sins (of which the inflictor and executioner is the Devil) are considered to be oppressed and under the tyranny of the Devil, since Christ also says that he who commits sin is a slave of sin, and Paul and Peter confirm this—which Peter also renders this reason truly apt: "For by whom anyone is overcome, of him also he is deservedly made a slave"—can be called into question.

Add to this that Christ Himself calls the devil "the prince of this world," and Job calls him "king over all the children of pride." Christ wished something more when He attributed principality to the devil than that he should be considered a prince merely by the opinion of men who worship him as prince. Nazianzen and Cyril of Alexandria have handed down this teaching.

For not only idolaters belong to the devil's principality. Better, Augustine and Basil understood by "world" universally evil men who are born in sin and remain in it without the grace of the Redeemer and perpetrate other sins, nor can they escape the snares of the Devil by which he tempts, leads, and induces them to sin, as the same Augustine says, and he slays them, caught by sin, with punishments. These belong by right to his dominion by reason of their own will and law.

But Christ despoiled him of dominion, because whoever reaches out his hand to the grace of Christ shakes off the yoke, and if he guards that same grace, he is no longer sent under that yoke, although there remains combat against this prince and ruler of darkness and against the roaring lion seeking whom he may devour. The dragon is bound; he bites the willing and those who thrust themselves into his jaws. If anyone allows himself to be conquered by him, says Augustine justly, he is handed over to his power and subjected to his command and dominion, and he has just power, although an unjust will, as Gregory says.

God, the true and absolute lord of man, was able to snatch man from the power of the devil as from the hands of a torturer by His own virtue and power; He willed and justly so, that he who had most unjustly exercised dominion over His Son, free from all sin, should be deprived of dominion over those whom he justly held, having been handed over by the just Judge.

This is what Christ says: "Now is the judgment of this world; now the prince of this world will be cast out." And under the similitude of a citadel or some house which the devil had occupied through tyranny: "When the strong man armed," He says, "guards his courtyard, all his possessions are in peace. But if a stronger one comes upon him and conquers him, he will take away all his armor in which he trusted and will distribute his spoils."

Therefore he has been conquered, the oppressor has been judged, we have been healed, and, to speak like Tertullian, we have been remedied. Let him press as much as he wishes; if we wish it, he will not oppress. He abused and always abuses his power and possession over the guilty, not acting toward them with love and justice, but with their destruction and hatred of the Lord, punishing, vexing, raging, oppressing. "For this purpose the Son of God appeared, that He might destroy the works of the devil."

Read what we have said there and in chapter 5 of this history about the diminished power of demons over souls and also over bodies. There the word "DEVIL" (diabolus), derived from the Greek, is explained.

"Because God was with Him" - This phrase has almost the same force as that which we explained briefly in chapter 4, for the assisting Virtue and power of God for teaching and working divine and plainly excellent things. For God to be "with" someone is as it were to preside and adorn with gifts, and whoever congratulates or prays for prosperous things for another is accustomed to use those words: "The Lord be with you" or "may be with you."

God cannot not be in all things; therefore it is in some singular manner when it is expressed that He is in some man. The Angel saluting Gideon said: "The Lord is with you, most valiant of men," that is, protector and helper. For thus, commanded to put away fear, it was said to Isaiah and Jeremiah: "Fear not, for I am with you."

He who was seeking the help of uncreated Wisdom said: "Send forth Wisdom from Your holy heavens and may she be with me, to labor with me." He who greeted the king with the same words hoped perhaps at once and chiefly indeed the presence of indwelling grace.

But truly when Gabriel greeted Mary, "The Lord is with you," he indicated the incarnation of the Son of God destined and soon to be accomplished in her womb, who is Emmanuel, that is, "God with us." The Church delights wonderfully in this salutation and willingly sends it before every solemn prayer: "The Lord be with you," perhaps imitating Boaz who, humanely greeting the reapers, said: "The Lord be with you," and also the Prophet to Asa and his army.

Whence Dionysius seems to call this salutation most divine and the mystical and supramundane recitation of the hagiographic tablets. Writers on rites and divine and ecclesiastical offices have remembered it, and others in John Stephanus, and Peter Damian composed a proper book about it, and moreover the Canonists and Navarre in "On Prayer" and others on the Canonical Hours.

But to return to our subject: He was with Christ in the most perfect way, with His humanity, not only through the gift of grace but through the intimate union of the hypostasis of the Word. He alone could heal those oppressed by the devil because of Him alone is it true that in that way God was with Him.

It could be affirmed of another what Nicodemus affirmed of Him: "Rabbi, we know that you have come from God as a teacher, for no one can do these signs which you do unless God is with him," just as when it is said of Joseph the patriarch that God was with him. But not that which Paul says: "God was in Christ, reconciling the world to Himself."

These expressions do not favor the Arians, as John Maxentius shows, as if Christ should therefore be called a pure creature because God was with Him, for He was God with Him, as has been said, by reason of the Humanity. Nor is there reason why Bede should fear Nestorius, that the pronoun "Him" seems to signify the person, so that it should be explained: "God was with Him," that is, "the Father with the Son," lest, as he says, we seem to double the person of Christ and fall into the dogma of Nestorius.

CONTINUE.