On the day of the birth of Christ.**)
John 1:1-14.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and God was the Word. The same was in the beginning with God. All things are made through the same, and without the same nothing is made that is made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not understood. There was a man sent by God, whose name was John. He came to testify that he was the light, so that they might all believe through him. He was not the light, but that he testified of the light. This was the true light that enlightens all people who come into this world. It was in the world, and the world was made by it, and the world knew it not. He came into his own, and his own received him not. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the children of God, who believe on his name. Who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, a glory as of the only begotten Son of the Father, full of grace and truth.
(1) Because this gospel is read on this feast day, it seems unreasonable to say and speak nothing of it. For though it be high and heavy, yet let us do as much as we can to understand it. Therefore let us look at the beginning itself, according to the letter. Since it is to be noted first of all that John understands the Son of God in this place through the word, but how and why he does this, we will see later. It is therefore just as much when we hear "the Word" as when we hear the Son of God or Christ, in whom we must hear God.
**Held in 1515 in the Augustinian Chapel at Wittenberg. -Löscher 1, 231 ff; Erl. A. opp. var. arZ. 1, 418M.
D. Red.
2 Having thus established this, the evangelist goes on to show the eternity of the Son, his difference from the Father, and his equality with the Father, saying, "In the beginning was the Word," that is, Christ himself was already when all things began, he did not then begin; for he was already before when things began, since he is eternal. And this expression of eternity is admirable and special, and is not to be doubted that he speaks of the beginning of all things. Nevertheless, he does not say, He was before the beginning, but "in the beginning." For before the beginning one cannot say, "to be," "to have been," "to be," because such things are all spoken relatively, that is, that they refer to something, saying of the past with reference to what is to come: It was, or, it has been. Therefore, he does not say that the word has been, until he adds that by which it could be understood with respect to which it has been, namely:
"In the beginning was". As if he wanted to say that the beginning of the whole world and of all time behaves towards God as something future, as in which neither past nor future is to be found. So the beginning of all things was not in the word, but began in itself at that time: but the word was already at that time, when the beginning took place. Therefore it did not have its beginning, nor was it made or created, but it was already in the beginning.
3. After that, so was the word "with God". Here the Son is distinguished from the Father, because when all things came into being and were not yet, he was with God. Here it is evident that he is distinguished from the one with whom he was; and because nothing was then besides God, it necessarily follows that he himself was also God; as it is further said: "and God was the Word"; as if he wanted to add: I have made the statement that he was with God; but since at that time there was nothing except God alone, you will clearly and obviously recognize that this word was necessarily. For since nothing else can be said to have existed apart from God, and the Word to have existed with God, it necessarily follows that this Word is nothing distinct from God, but God Himself. Therefore it is not necessary, as many would have it, that the words here be transposed and thus placed: "and the Word was God"; indeed, it is far better placed thus, as John has placed it; that thus the understanding is: God was the Word, that is, even the Word was the Godhead, and not such a one as would be with God and yet not itself God.
(4) Now the greatest heretics, the Arians, like the sorcerers of Pharaoh, have violated this sign violently, for they have stated two principia, according to which the one who is with God and different from God is eternal. In the meantime, however, they denied that he was God; indeed, they also admitted this, but in such a way that it was to be understood only by name. Therefore, it is evident that this speech, if left in the order in which John placed it, closes far more strongly against the Arians than if it is placed differently. Yes, it
the same is insurmountable, just as John placed it, and on the contrary, it is incapable of being closed if it is changed. For the Arians admitted that, as I have said: The Word was God; but this they deny to the highest: "God was the Word." Yes, I hold that it is actually thus set against the Arians, that, since he had said, "The Word was with God," he soon adds, "and God was the Word."
5 We will therefore repeat everything: "In the beginning was the Word", because it did not begin to be with others; for another is, already to be, yes, already to have been, and another is, first to become. Now all things were in the beginning; but when they were, he had already been. "And the Word was with God," that is, he was not alone, nor yet nowhere, but with God. And by this he is now distinguished from God, but much more from the created things, in the beginning of which he already was; since by the word "was" his beginning is annulled; by the word "with" his difference from the Father is established. Is he therefore both, eternally, and also, distinct. It does not suffer, therefore, to understand it as if he had been alone, since he had been with God; for the word "with" does not indicate one who is alone; just as it does not suffer to understand it as if he had taken a beginning, because he already was when everything took its beginning. But lest someone should say: Good! he has been eternal and is the Son of God, then they have divided the Godhead among themselves; or, for that very reason he is not eternal God, just as the sun's ray is enduring with the sun, but for that reason is not itself the sun: so he meets this Arian mischievousness by saying: "and God was the Word"; that is, although He is different, He is not different or another God, but the same God, that is, what belongs to the essence of God, or the fullness of the Godhead and the whole Godhead was itself the Word, because there is only One God; yes, the whole God is in the Word, the whole God is in the Father. It is therefore true that the Father is God, that the Son is God; and not only this, but also: God is the Father, God is the Son,
that is, that which is God is the Father, and that which is God is also the Son. Hence the supposition of the logicians of today, which they call completam, is not to be respected here; for I do not say, That which is God is the Father or the Son; that I should therefore confound the persons: but that which is, the whole nature of God, is the Father and the Son; so that I assert the unity of essence. For the word, quicquid, that, signifies not what is personal, but what is essential; but the word, quisquis, that, indicates that which is personal, and this is the masculine and that the neuter. From which it is evident that they (namely, the logicians) do not sufficiently understand their own logic either, when they say that this proposition is false: That which is God is the Father; for they conclude and subsume: The Son is God; ergo, the Son is the Father. But this is a fallacia figurae dictionis, since in the first proposition the term is taken essentialiter (essential), but in the other it is taken personalster (personal). Therefore, a much better modus can be given than was done by the Cameracensian, thereby saving the truth of this article and of the syllogistic rules, namely this: Every syllogism that consists of such terminis that deal with God and divine things, in which the conclusion is false, certainly violates the fallacia aequivocationis, or figura dictionis. And hence it is that not all propositions dealing with God and divine things can be put into syllogistic form; and if they are made so, they make this fallacia. As: Every father begets; God's essence is the father; ergo the essence begets; is obviously false, because here it is not rightly inferred and subsumed. So also: No deity begets; but now every person is the deity; ergo no person begets. But it should be subsumed here: The deity A. is a deity; ergo, this deity does not beget. But this belongs to logic, and is only added here to explain the speech: "God was the word. Follows further: "The same was in the beginning with God." Because he had said: "God was the Word",
He repeats what he said before, so that he does not seem to mix the persons, and so that it does not seem as if he changes the two pieces that he said before, namely: "In the beginning was the Word", and: "The Word was with God"; and does not want to understand a difference, or that the Word was not from eternity. Yes, he confirms the predicted difference by the repeated sentence; that therefore the Son is truly distinguished from the Father, who is the same God with the Father. This is enough of these sentences.
Now we must also see that John understands the Son through the Word and why he does this. First of all, that he understands the Son through the Word, of which he expressly says below, when he says in v. 14: "And the Word was made flesh"; and lest you doubt further, he adds: "We beheld His glory" (whose glory is meant here other than that of the Word, of which he spoke before. *), "a glory as of the only begotten of the Father." Therefore the "word" and the "only begotten" are one and the same. Therefore he also describes him afterwards as the Son of God; and in his canonical epistle (1. Ep. 1, 1.) variously by "the word which we have heard and which we have seen". This is clear enough from other canonical letters.
7) Secondly: Why does he call it the word? There are many reasons, and some of them are very beautiful and deep. The first is: He seems to have taken this from the 1st Book of Moses Cap. 1, 3. where it is said: "God said: Let there be; and there was." From which place it is clear enough that the word is with God, because when God spoke, this speaking was undoubtedly not a created nor human word, since at that time nothing was yet created, but things began to be through the speaking or word of God: but the word itself did not begin. And therefore what he said is true: "In the beginning was the Word"; for it was when God commanded by the same that all things should come into being: and so the same is apart from all that God caused to come into being, and yet is not made with all, but all is made by the same. It declares
Therefore, the beginning of the Gospel of John illuminates the beginning of the first book of Moses with a very special light. If therefore God has spoken, His word is distinct from Him, and yet the same word could not be except with God who spoke. Therefore, the word is eternal, and yet different, and for that very reason also true God. And that which is, by which all things were made, is true God, because apart from that which creates and that which is created, nothing is and nothing can be. From this it is clear that John took his beginning from the beginning of the first book of Moses, because these following sentences: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God" etc. necessarily follow, as additions, from the words of Moses: "God said, Let there be; and there was." That therefore Moses rather called it the word, than John. For also the prophet had already taken this through the spirit from the very words of Moses, when he said Ps. 33, 6: "The heavens were made by the word of the Lord"; and again: "Thou hast made all things wise." In the same way, Solomon also took from this that which he praises of wisdom, Prov. 8.
8. the other cause is: that by this he made us a more convenient and perfect way to understand and get out into the Godhead of the Son and majority of the persons in One Nature.
(9) In order to understand this, it should be noted that there is a twofold "Word". The first is inward, which in the most proper sense is called the "Word," which is the most perfect, and an image and sign of the Son of God, since it is found in the most perfect nature alone, namely, in the understanding and rational one; as is taken from the common saying, since one is wont to say of thoughts: He talks with himself; or: My heart tells me this. If your heart tells you, then it is a word, yes, such a perfect word, that you realize from your own experience that the word of the mouth is far worse, lower and weaker. For you cannot move anyone's heart by the word of the mouth as much as your heart is moved inwardly by your word; just as we
We are accustomed to say when others do not want to take our advice, complaints or memories to heart: It does not go to his heart; that is, this does not move his heart as it moves our heart. (But it would move their heart if we ourselves could send the inner word into their heart, but so we send only the outer word into their heart). From this follows, first, that the word, sst, "it is," is the most perfect of all words. Secondly, that this word [namely the inner one, of which is said before] remains within, and cannot be brought forward from outside. Thirdly, that no one knows it except he who has it with him. Fourth, that this word is man's own counsel, thought, wisdom, judgment, truth, and understanding. Fifth, that this word is not omitted or revealed better than by the word of the mouth or by any other action of the body.
(10) Therefore think of God as speaking to Himself and speaking in His heart, which is 1) the most perfect word of all, of which John speaks here; 2) which abides in God, and cannot be left out apart from God, but abides with God and is God. For if it were not God, it could be left out and separated, and mixed with others. But this cannot be; just as this also cannot be in regard to the word [namely, the inner word] of men. 3) That no man knoweth the same, but the Father: as it is said in the gospel, Matt. 11:27, "No man knoweth the Son, but the Father." 4) That this Word is the counsel, wisdom, truth, judgment, and thought of God; hence Christ is also called the wisdom and truth of God. 5) That this word is not omitted other than united with the flesh or humanity, which is, as it were, the visible word or work of God, in which God shows what Christ's mind and thoughts are; therefore also the incarnation of Christ is especially called a work of God, Hab. 3. But we hope to see this word in the future, when God will open His heart, yes, when He will not open His word.
but bring us into his heart, that we may see the good of the Lord in the land of the living, where we shall see the pure truth and wisdom. For in the meantime he will show his hands and feet, eyes, ears and side; but then we also will see into his heart with all the blessed. And this word shall not be so small as the word of our heart; but it shall be infinite and everlasting, and shall give unto all a glorious vision and joy.
The First Amendment.
(11) The devil, or any other angel, can leave out his inner word and set it in the most violent motion; or at least he can give a stronger one than our inner word, because he moves us far more than we move a man by the oral word. For we experience how violently we are moved to envy, indulgence, despair; indeed, if it were granted to him, he would put everyone out of his place and destroy him. This is his strongest thought, or a figure he stirs up by such his strongest thought; as the Psalmist laments, "The strong have sought my soul." Just as a man by a strong violent voice presses his inner word far more strongly than it otherwise does: so the devil directs the attack on our heart by that figure which he has excited with vehemence; as we also often feel this when he tempts us with violence; but when he tempts us with cunning, we see that so far he is superior to us in power, so far he is also superior to us in craftiness, since he can deceive us with such a semblance that nothing seems holier to us. You can learn this from the deceitful, deceptive people, how they deceive even the clever today with wonderful mischievousness; how should not their rulers do this much more? Ah! that we are so sure, and neither fear nor recognize this great trick of the devil! Behold how he deceives the heretics and the proud under a special guise and appearance of goodness, so that there seems to be no evil behind it, or even if it has the appearance that they are such.
consider them to be small. In this way he can blind our eyes, so that where there is only evil, we see no evil at all, and where there is only good, we see no good at all. He may do this through his inner word, or through a breath and spiritual form, which has been stirred up and brought to our hearts by his word: yet we feel, if we will, what he speaks to us and imparts to us. If the devil can do this, what will it be when God stirs the heart of the damned through his word? This will be the voice of power, and the thunder of his glory, and the cry in the middle of the night; he who fears God must not be afraid of this. But now he does not cry out in this way, but speaks gently; as it is said in the Psalm, "I will hear the Lord speak in me."
The Second Amendment.
It seems that the inner word is nothing different from the same except like a movement. For it seems to be such a movement. But this is dealt with more extensively elsewhere and below.
(13) The other word is external, but this is for the sake of another, the internal is for our own sake; for by the internal we speak to ourselves, by the external we speak to others. But let us also see here in what way the divine word is made known to us. First, it happens in that this word is called wisdom, truth, judgment. Second, because it proceeds from the mouth in an incomprehensible way; for who can say how such things are formed from the mouth? Third, it is enveloped in the voice. Fourth, being thus wrapped up in the voice, it is scattered among many, and fills many ears, though it be but one word. Fifth, most of it does not enter the ears, but goes up into the air, since it is not grasped by anyone, because the air has no ears. Sixth, when it comes to the ears, and yet is not heard nor moved; among other admirable circumstances, which I leave for others to consider. Because now the Son of God, who became man, has all these things in himself,
He is called the best word. For 1) it has already been said that he is wisdom and truth; 2) he comes forth from the most high mouth, as Sir. 24. 3) He is veiled in voice, that is, in visible flesh; 4) Being thus veiled, he is scattered among many, because he is known by many, and fills their ears by the hearing of the preaching of faith; 5) the greater part of it goes into the air, because there are many unbelievers and few believers; 6) yet it comes to be heard and lets itself be heard alone, that is, it alone holds forth faith, but not yet the form; but nevertheless it works inwardly in this hearing the teaching and the blessedness; as is said Ps. 72, 6: "He will descend like the rain on the fur, like the drops that wet the land"; which is a
This is the quality of the word, because it falls on men; and Christ has indeed descended on all nations through preaching. Just as the rain descends without any work on our part, so also the grace of Christ descends without any merit on our part.
14. but the word is not found in another creature, although in every creature something is found, which is instead of the word, that performs in it, what the thought performs in the soul and the oral word in the body. Yes, we want to see a little after our meditation that, since we do not find in each thing the word, so there could be called the word of God, we nevertheless find something like the word, which in its measure, although imperfect, represents just that. For this reason, let it be said:
/ the understanding
/ the sensible the creature < the sensible
/ the animate
/ the lifeless, /
There we find this act as a consequence, namely
that, so actually word is called thoughts and rath sensual
Life, namely, as a result movement,
By which it grows and increases so that it becomes perfect.
For to the word of understanding all the following names come to some extent, because the word is a thought, a sensible sensibility, a sensible life, a sensible motion: therefore also all and every pieces can be attached to some extent to each one among the same. For as the sensible thought of the creature is a sensible word, a sensible sensibility, a sensible life, a sensible motion: so also the sensible sensibility of a thing is of the same intention, or a sensible sensible word, a sensible sensible thought, a sensible sensible life and motion. For sensuality and sensation give to it in its kind and measure what understanding gives to the sensible creature; thought, to the sensible; motion, to the inanimate; and life, to the animate. And though the lower are more conveniently said of the higher; yet not altogether awkwardly are the higher said of the lower: that though I speak more conveniently when I say that the word is an intelligible life, motion, or sensation, than when I say that the motion is an inanimate one, I speak more conveniently when I say that the word is an intelligible life, motion, or sensation.
living word, sensation and life. So the life of the animate thing is, as it were, its word, its sensation, its movement etc., and the movement of the lifeless thing is, as it were, its word, its sensuality and sensation, its life. And the life gives it that in its measure which gives the rest theirs.
15. But I distinguish the understanding nature from the rational nature, which seems inconsistent to many worldly wise men, but is nevertheless in accordance with Scripture, because the understanding, according to the judgment of Scripture, goes to the invisible and eternal things that make blessed; which St. Augustine, according to my judgment, calls the upper part of reason and man, just as he calls reason the lower part and woman, which deals with the temporal, and to which belong all those works that are done on earth with special skill and diligence, not caring whether they please God and serve future blessedness. Therefore, to call her work more a thought than a word; as the 94th Psalm v. 11 says: "God knows the thoughts of men, that they are vain.
are." But to the understanding alone belongs the word; for it is a constant, true, and eternal, not a vain thought; for it lasts forever, so far as its nature is concerned, however much it decreases, but the thought of reason will at last cease from all its works. Accordingly, just as the understanding and reason, when it acts with itself, moves with itself, talks with itself, brings forth the word from within, and thus, as it were, feels and lives, and brings forth an animated action and intelligible sensation from itself, when it indicates that God the Father brings forth His word with Himself: so also the sensual nature, when it creates sensation, shows and awakens itself, makes itself to some extent alive, that it is thus in the sense and sensation where it was not before. So also the living, when it grows, blossoms, bears fruit, then it emerges as it were from itself and gives something of itself, and nevertheless it does not leave itself; and so it goes also in God. Yes, it is also like this with the lifeless: by being moved, it grows to some extent and becomes what it was not before. For just as through its cognition the understanding, reason and senses arrive where they were not before, so the animate through its growth and the inanimate through its movement arrives where it was not before; it multiplies and multiplies itself in itself, but does not depart from itself, indeed, it remains the same: Thus God remains in an inexpressible way just the same, and multiplies himself by recognizing himself, by speaking, understanding, feeling, omitting and acting, and by moving with a comprehensible, yes, with a supercomprehensible movement. Yes, if it did not remain the same, it could not thus multiply; just as a thing, by being moved, could not multiply if it did not remain the same; and the sense by its sensation, the understanding by its thoughts, the living by its growth, would not be multiplied if they did not remain the same. For if something else were to become of it, the very same thing would not be moved; the very same thing would not feel, grow, think, and understand, but the other thing, to which it would be called, would not be moved.
would have become real. It does not follow, therefore, that the thing multiplies and leaves itself out; ergo, it leaves itself. Yes, the opposite follows: while it multiplies, it remains and becomes the same.
(16) Therefore we see how the origin of the word from the Father shines forth in every thing and creature in many ways, although not in a uniform way. For the movement of the inanimate thing shows this in the most imperfect way, because the multiplication is small, according to which it is multiplied when it is moved into many; but it is still a multiplication. But just as movement is itself the essence of God, according to the opinion of Aristotle, who says that he is an actus mobilis, insofar as he is such: so it is to be said in the same way that the nascentia of the living is itself the living, insofar as it is such, because it is an action of the living, insofar as it is a living. But I take the word nascentia, for lack of words, here for every actus of an animate thing, just as movement is every actus of the inanimate, the sense of the sensible, the thought of reason and the word of understanding. Just as motion means not only a locality, but also all other ways in which the thing multiplies itself; as, the whiteness, the size etc.: so the word nascentia means here the maintenance, multiplication, procreation, so there is an actus of the living itself or even the living; not in so far as it is a tree, wood, herb, but in so far as it is such, namely, a living thing, according to the philosophy of Aristotle. Thus, sensation is nothing other than the essence of the thing that senses, that is, the actus of the thing that senses, insofar as it is such. So also the word itself is the understanding, in so far as it is such a thing; which is all easily understood from the likeness of the movement to the moving thing. So also the son of God is himself the essence of God, and the divine essence is itself the word, inasmuch as it comes from him through the only inexpressible and over-comprehensible movement.
(17) Further, consider also this, that every thing by its movement, and not by its
I was not aware of this, but I was not aware of this, because I was not aware of this, but I was not aware of this, because I was not aware of this. So also the sensual nature reaches the sensual or sensation, not by being, but by the power to feel. So the reason, thus the understanding, thus also God, multiply not by being, but by bringing forth. And just this is that the being neither begets nor is begotten. It follows, then, as St. Augustine very finely says, that the mind, memory and will, or the mind, knowledge and love, are one life and yet three lives. Thus, if one said in the case of an inanimate thing: The thing, the movement, the rest are one and yet three, since in being the thing, it is also capable of movement, then the movement flows from being, not in so far as it is, but because it is movable, from which movability the movement flows; but from both, namely from the movement and movability, comes the rest and the end of the movement. For in all motion it thus happens that the attained part ceases to be attained, and there is the moving rest: that thus the thing is moved in view of the terminus which it seeks, and rests in view of the terminus which it has attained: for this reason it is always moved for itself and also rests; it always begins for itself and also ceases; it is always for itself in the beginning and in the end. This is how it is in divine things, since God is always moved and rests (the reader should take some credit for the words, which are clumsy for the expression of such a high thing), the Son goes out in moving and the Holy Spirit in resting: because the Holy Spirit is the end of the outflow of God. Yes, as the movement always flows out from the Father, that is the Son, so the rest always comes from both, in which both, the moving as well as the movement, reach their final state. But the movement is eternal there, therefore also the rest is eternal. See, therefore, how beautifully Aristotle serves theology in his philosophy, if he is understood and applied not according to his will, but in a better way. For he has the things right before
and I believe that what he brings forward with such great pomp and boasts about it, he has stolen from elsewhere. But I ask forgiveness, O God, for speaking so unworthily of your nature, which is the most hidden, even though I ascend the steps that you yourself have ordered.
18 Now we must proceed to the application, and learn first of all that just as the Word of God became flesh, so also the flesh must certainly become God. For therefore the Word becomes flesh, that the flesh may become the Word. Therefore God becomes man, so that man may become God. Therefore strength becomes weak, so that weakness may become strong. He draws on our form, likeness, image, and likeness, that he may clothe us with his image, likeness, and form; therefore wisdom becomes foolish, that foolishness may become wisdom; and so it is in all other things found in God and us, in all of which he has assumed ours, that he may give us his. But we become the Word, or like the Word, that is, true, just as he became a man, or like man, that is, like the sinner and liar, but not a sinner and liar; just as we do not become God nor truth, but divine and true, or partakers of the divine nature, when we receive the Word and through faith adhere to it. For even the Word did not become flesh in such a way that he left himself and was changed into flesh, but that he took on flesh and united himself with it; by which union he is not only said to have flesh, but also to be flesh. So also we who are flesh do not become the Word in such a way that we are essentially changed into the Word, but that we accept it and unite with it through faith; by which union we arrive at it being said of us, not only that we have the Word, but also that we are the Word. For thus says the apostle (1 Cor. 6:17), "The Lord is the Spirit, and he that believeth in the Lord is the Lord.
One Spirit with him"; and Joh. 3, 8.: "So is every one that is born of the Spirit"; item v. 6.: "That which is born of the Spirit is spirit." And the apostle says, "That in Him we might be the righteousness that is before God." Accordingly, as we are called one Spirit, righteousness, truth, sanctification, and kingdom: so also we are called the Word, wisdom, power; [as it is said,] "For Judah hath become his sanctification, and Israel his power." And since Christ's garment is righteousness, holiness, honor, and glory, and we are his garment, we also are the righteousness, glory, and honor.
(19) But if we accept the word, we must forsake and humble ourselves, keep nothing of our mind, but deny it altogether, and in this way we undoubtedly become what we accept (and so the Lord bears all things in this life with the word of his power), though in fact not yet ourselves. For no believer is given here what he believes, but only the word, as the faith of things to come; and if we cling to this word and are caught by it, we are the whole word. Yes, also in the things to come he will carry us with the word: but this will be the indivisible word, or that which has been clothed in the flesh, without voice, sound, or writing. But that which is within is clothed in sound, voice, and writing, as honey in the honeycomb, the kernel in the husk, the marrow in the bark, the life in the flesh, and the word in the
Flesh. Nor is it to be wondered at that I said we must become the word, since the philosophers also say that the understanding becomes intelligible through real comprehension, and that the sense becomes sensual through real sensation; how much more is this true in spirit and word! For thus Aristotle says: It is impossible for the understanding to take place except in respect of the things which it understands; but according to power and capacity it is all such things: so also desire, and that which is desired, love, and that which is loved, are one, all of which, if understood substantialiter, is most false; but thus it is to be understood: The intellect and affect, when they are directed toward their objects and bear a desire for them, insofar as they thus bear a desire, behave like matter, which strives for form and desires such; And in so far as they thus bear a desire, but not in so far as they subsist, they are a mere faculty, nay, a nothing, and become something only when they extinguish their objects; thus the objects are their being and their lotus, without which they would be nothing, just as matter without form would be nothing. This beautiful philosophy, which is understood by few, is useful to the highest theology. For example: God is the objectum of blessedness, yes, even the essence of the blessed, without whom the blessed would be nothing at all; but by attaining this object they become something, since before they were only a faculty. Therefore God is an actus. But more about this elsewhere.