Institute for Colossians Studies

Prologue (Colossians 1:1)

[581] > “Paul, an apostle, etc.” (Col 1:1)

The Apostle writes this letter to the Colossians, who are Asians. The Apostle himself did not preach to them, but rather his disciples did, namely Archippus and Epaphras. Archippus had received a ministry among them; Epaphras, however, was originally from them, and after being instructed by the Apostle, he confirmed the teaching of Archippus. Later on, however, when false apostles arrived and preached fleshly observances, the Colossians began to doubt who should be believed. Consequently, the Apostle, whose authority was widely recognized, stepped in as a sort of mediator to judge which side should be held, writing to them from Ephesus. Thus, the Apostle’s intention in this letter is to strengthen the Colossians in that faith and teaching which they received from his disciples, and he teaches them that they must not place their hope in anything except Christ.

His method of treatment is as follows: he first offers a greeting in his usual manner; then he gives thanks for their good qualities, commending their faith and love. He prays that they may be perfected in Christ, whose benefits and supremacy according to both natures he commends. Afterward, he calls to mind the dignity of his own ministry, and he warns them not to be led astray from Christ through philosophy or the ceremonies of the law. Finally, he provides moral instruction to all of them together, and then separately according to sex, age, and social condition. At the end, he warns Archippus to be diligent in his ministry.

Question I (Colossians 1:3)

“Giving thanks, etc.”

The expositor says that here the Apostle begins to show that the law is not beneficial, but harmful. But is the law not good and given by God, and did it not only do no harm, but actually proved beneficial in its own time? How, then, is it true that it is not beneficial, but harmful?

Solution. It is true that the law was beneficial before grace; but after grace, it became useless.

This solution is objected to as follows: Does the law not currently bear witness to the truth, and are we not illuminated by it in our knowledge of the Godhead? Therefore, the law is beneficial to us even now in the time of grace. How, then, is it true that the law is not beneficial, but harmful?

Solution. The law, when read and understood spiritually, is beneficial and not harmful; but when observed according to the letter, it is not beneficial, but harmful.

Question II (Colossians 1:12)

“Who has made us worthy to share in the lot of the saints.”

The question is raised what he calls a “lot” [or inheritance], in which we have been made sharers.

Solution. Here the Apostle calls the future inheritance a “lot” because it is given by lot—that is, by divine grace and will, without any merits.

Question III

The question is also raised how the future inheritance can be given to the saints without merits, since they merit it through faith, love, and good works.

So-[582]lution. It must be understood as being given without any merits that precede faith, not without those that follow it. These subsequent merits come from grace, and therefore they are not excluded when it is said that future glory is given by grace alone. We have already discussed these matters above.

Question IV (Colossians 1:13)

“He transferred us into the kingdom of his Son.”

The question is raised what he means by the kingdom of the Son of God.

Solution. The kingdom of heaven, or the kingdom of the Son, is understood in several ways. It can refer to future glory, as in the verse: “May your kingdom come” (Matt 6:10). Or it can refer to the present Church, as in the verse: “When he hands over the kingdom to God the Father” (1 Cor 15:24). Or it can refer to the Christian faith, as in the verse: “The kingdom of God is within you” (Luke 17:21 [Editorial note: The text historically attributes this quotation to Matthew 12]). Or it can refer to Sacred Scripture, as in the verse: “The kingdom of heaven will be taken away from you and given to a people that produces its fruit” (Matt 21:43).

Question V (Colossians 1:13)

“The Son of his love.”

Is the Holy Spirit not the love by which the Father loves the Son, and the Son loves the Father, and is Christ not the Son of love? Therefore, it seems that he is the Son of the Holy Spirit—a conclusion the faith does not accept.

Solution. The term “love” is generally taken to refer to the divine nature, substance, or essence when he is proclaimed to be the Son of love. For the Son is consubstantial and coessential with the Father in nature, substance, and essence. As for what the term “love” means when it is said, “The Holy Spirit is the love by which the Father loves the Son,” and vice versa, that has been explained elsewhere. We have also already spoken about redemption, about the image, and about the fact that Christ is called the head of the Church, so there is no need for us to repeat what has already been done.

Question VI

The question is also raised whether Christ, according to his humanity, was the head of the saints who preceded his incarnation. It seems that he was; but if he did not yet exist according to his humanity, how could he be their head? Or, even if he could, how could they have something that was not yet a head?

Solution. Christ can be called the head of those who existed from the time of Abel even according to his humanity, because all who have been saved were saved through faith in his future coming. Note that Christ is proclaimed to be of the same nature as the Father when he is shown to be the “Son of his love.” But when he is called the “image,” it implies not only the identity of their substance but also his personal property. When he is called the “firstborn of all creation,” he is asserted to be coeternal with the Father. When we read that “all things were created through him,” his omnipotence is declared. When it says that “in him all things hold together” (Col 1:17), it makes his immensity manifest. His eternity is suggested in John, where it is written: “In the beginning was the Word” (John 1:1); his personal property is indicated when it adds: “And the Word was with God” (John 1:1); and the identity of his sub-[583]stance is shown when it says: “And the Word was God” (John 1:1). Therefore, the Son is coeternal, consubstantial, and co-omnipotent with the Father; he is distinct in person, yet he is, together with the Father, the one principle of all creatures.

Question VII (Colossians 1:18)

“And he,” namely Christ, “is the head of the Church.”

It is said that the Church first began with Abel, who was the first righteous man. But was Adam not righteous? For it is believed that after his fall he was justified through repentance and faith. Why, then, is the Church not said to have begun with Adam?

Solution. The Church contracted the stain of original sin from Adam, but contracted none from Abel, and therefore it is more fittingly said to have begun with Abel than with Adam. This is because Scripture mentions Adam’s sin and not his righteousness, whereas it mentions Abel’s righteousness and not his sin. Therefore, Christ is always the head of everyone who existed from the beginning, just as he is the head of those who have followed him; for it is through him alone that we have access to the Father.

Question VIII (Colossians 2:8)

“See to it that no one deceives you through philosophy and empty deceit” (Col 2:8), etc.

Was the knowledge of natural things passed down by the philosophers not useful for coming to know the invisible things of God? For through the visible forms of visible things—the teaching of which is covered in mathematics—we arrive at the invisible causes of visible things, which are taught by physics. Through these causes, in turn, we arrive at the knowledge of invisible substances and the invisible natures of those invisible substances. How, then, can the Apostle call such knowledge “empty deceit”?

Solution. The Apostle does not rebuke the philosophers for investigating the natures of things. Instead, he rebukes them for attempting to confine the power of God, even though it is infinite, strictly to natural causes, claiming that God does nothing contrary to nature. Consequently, they said it was impossible for God to become a creature, for a virgin to give birth, or for a dead man to return to life. The Apostle, therefore, rightly rebukes this error of theirs, but he does not rebuke the true knowledge they possessed regarding the natures of things.

Question IX (Colossians 2:9)

“In him dwells all the fullness of deity.”

Since the fullness of deity is one and simple, how can he say “all the fullness of deity,” since the word “all” usually gathers together a multiplicity?

Solution. He says “all the fullness of deity” to indicate that the deity is present there in every possible mode of indwelling, even personally. Alternatively: He says “all the fullness” to suggest that in him resides the fullness not only of knowledge, but also of power and goodness. This destroys the error of those who say that the assumed human nature possesses all the knowledge through grace that the Word possesses by nature, but does not possess all the power.

Question X (Colossians 2:9)

“The fullness of deity bodily.”

Since the deity is incorporeal, the question is raised how it could dwell bodily in Christ.

Solution. He says “bodily” to mean completely, solidly, and truly. This looks back to the legal figures, which were a shadow of things to come, but whose body—that is, their fulfillment and truth—is Christ. Alternatively: “Bodily” does not signify the nature of the thing that exists, but rather its [584] mode of existing. For just as a body naturally has its existence in one place in such a way that it cannot simultaneously be in another place, so too the fullness of deity has its existence in the assumed human nature in a way that it does not have in any other creature. The deity is present in every creature by its essence, and it is present in the righteous by grace, but it is present in Christ alone according to a personal property. This, therefore, is what it means for the Deity to dwell in Christ bodily: it means he dwells there personally.

Just as a body is simultaneously in multiple places, but it is there spiritually, not bodily. In saying this, I do not deny the truth and essence of the Lord’s body being simultaneously present on multiple altars, but by this I am implying that it does not share this mode of existing with other bodies, nor does it have it from the nature of a body, but rather it shares this mode with a spirit—not a created spirit, but the uncreated one. Both are marvelous and true: that a created spirit is present somewhere bodily, and that the sacramental body of Christ is present in multiple places spiritually.

Question XI (Colossians 2:14)

“Erasing the record of the decree that was against you, etc.”

The question is raised what he calls the “decree” and what he calls the “record.”

Solution. By “decree” he names either the law of Moses itself or the command of God that he gave to the first man in paradise, saying, “You shall not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil” (Gen 2:17). By “record,” he means the memory of the violation of both decrees. Moreover, the records of all our faults were erased without any fault when his blood was poured out.

Question XII (Colossians 2:17)

“These are a shadow of things to come, but the body belongs to Christ.”

The question is raised how to distinguish between a shadow, a body, and a spirit.

Solution. A shadow is one thing, a body is another, and a spirit is yet another. These three are also referred to by other names: figure, reality, and truth, so that a shadow and a figure are the same thing; a body and a reality are the same thing; and a spirit and the truth are the same thing. The ceremonies of the law were called a shadow and a figure of things to come. The sacraments of grace are the body or reality of those shadows or figures. The term “spirit” or “truth” refers to the spiritual grace that the sacraments of the New Testament confer and signify. The sacraments of the Old Testament, on the other hand, merely signify spiritual grace, but they do not confer it. This is the difference between these sacraments and those. Furthermore, it must be known that the things commanded during the time of the law are not commanded now during the time of grace; rather, they are merely testimonies to the truth. Thus, at that time it was a sin not to observe even one of them, but now it is not a sin to fail to keep them; on the contrary, whoever does keep them commits an offense.

Question XIII (Colossians 3:5)

“Put your members to death” (Col 3:5), etc.

The question is raised what he calls the “members” that must be put to death. Does he mean that the eye, the hand, and the foot are to be put to death?

Solution. Here the Apostle calls the desires of our members “members,” just as he himself adds and explains by listing “fornication,” etc.

Question XIV (Colossians 3:5)

“Greed, which is the service of idols, etc.”

Is greed not one thing, and idolatry another? How, then, can he call greed the service of idols?

Solution. He compares greed to idolatry because its malice is no different. For just as the idolater worships a block of wood, the greedy person worships a coin. And just as the idolater strives to rob God of his honor, so the greedy person [585] usurps exclusively for himself the things that God created for all in common.

Question XV (Colossians 3:9)

“Stripping off the old man, etc.”

The question is raised what he here calls the “old man.”

Solution. Sometimes the “old man” refers to Adam, the first man, who by sinning clothed himself and all his descendants in the tunic of oldness. Sometimes the “old man” refers to any human being who bears the image of the earthly man. Sometimes, however, the “old man” means the oldness itself, which consists in guilt and punishment. And sometimes the “old man” is the name given to a state of vices, which is the meaning here, according to the expositor.

Question XVI (Colossians 3:10)

“And put on the new man.”

Similarly, the question is raised what he here calls the “new man.” For sometimes the “new man” refers to Christ, from whom all newness comes. Sometimes the “new man” refers to anyone renewed in Christ. Sometimes it even means a state of virtues, and sometimes it specifically means the rational mind. But it was stated above that the “inner man” is called the mind. Here, however, it is said that the inner mind is called the “new man.” This seems to be a contradiction, since the “new man” is one thing and the “inner man” is another, as has just been shown.

Solution. The expositor says that he calls the rational mind the “new man,” and this does not contradict the earlier statement that the mind is called the “inner man.” For the same thing receives different names based on its different properties.

Question XVII (Colossians 3:10)

“Who is being renewed in the knowledge of God according to his image, etc.”

The question is also raised how the mind can be said to be renewed according to the image of God. Since the mind itself is the image of God, can it be renewed according to itself?

Solution. The image that is renewed is the same as the image according to which it is renewed, just as we say that someone is “dead according to the body”—that is, dead in body, but not in spirit. And so the mind is renewed according to itself, which is to say, within itself. In the Epistle to the Ephesians, however, it says that this renewal takes place “according to God.” It says “according to God” so that it is not said to be according to a creature. For through such a renewal, the mind is made like God and conformed to him, and so it is said to be according to God. Note that this image, which is renewed in the knowledge of God, is found equally in a man and in a woman. [586] This is different from the image mentioned above: “A man is the image of God, but a woman is the image of man” (1 Cor 11:7).

Question XVIII (Colossians 3:13)

“Forgiving one another, if anyone has a complaint against someone else.”

The Lord commanded this same thing, saying: “Forgive your debtors” (Matt 6:12). But what is it that we are able to forgive? What is the debt that we could demand from someone who has caused us an injury?

Solution. To do this is to forgive the injury that has been caused, and by no means to demand satisfaction for the injury on our own behalf. We have said certain other things about this matter elsewhere.

Question XIX

The expositor says that the one who abstains from illicit things receives praise, whereas the one who restrains himself from licit things receives both praise and a reward, as if to say: the former avoids punishment, while the latter also merits a crown. But does the one who abstains from illicit things not also receive a reward, and not merely praise?

Solution. The one who abstains from illicit things always avoids punishment, but does not always merit a crown. He only merits a crown when he is tempted and attacked.

Question XX (Colossians 3:17)

“Do all things in the name of the Lord.”

By “all things,” he only means the good things that we ought to do. Consequently, the question is raised whether he commands that everything we ought to do must be done for the sake of God. Am I bound by this command to give my cloak to a poor man whom I see to be in need, knowing that this pleases God? For if I fail to do it, I seem to despise what I know he wants to be done.

Solution. It should be understood like this: “Do all things in the name of the Lord,” meaning, do nothing against God, and in your good deeds, seek God’s glory rather than your own. We do not, however, acquire merit in everything we do, because some things are indifferent, such as sitting, standing, breathing, closing a hand, opening our eyes, and things of this sort. But certain other things are such that they possess merit if they are done, yet they are not a sin if they are not done. Examples include giving a cloak to a poor person, or selling everything and giving it to the poor, which is a practice for the perfect who follow Christ naked.

Question XXI (Colossians 4:17)

“Tell Archippus: See to the ministry that you received in the Lord, that you fulfill it.” (Col 4:17)

The question is raised whether subjects can admonish their prelates.

Solution. Here is the authority showing that subjects may admonish their prelates, lest they be lazy in overseeing the things that pertain to salvation.

Quaestiones in Epistolas Pauli

• Traditional attribution: Hugh of Saint Victor; presented here as Pseudo-Hugh of Saint-Victor.

• English title: Questions on the Epistles of Paul
• Source: PL 175 (Migne, Patrologia Latina)

---

VII. In Epistolam ad Colossenses

Prologue (Colossians 1:1)

[581] > “Paulus apostolus, etc.” (Col. 1:1)

Hanc epistolam scribit Apostolus ad Colossenses, qui sunt Asiani: quibus non ipse Apostolus praedicavit, sed ejus discipuli, scilicet Archippus et Epaphras. Sed Archippus ministerium in eos acceperat; Epaphras vero ex eis oriundus fuit, et ab Apostolo instructus doctrinam Archippi confirmavit. Postea vero pseudoapostolis supervenientibus, et carnales observantias praedicantibus, in dubium illis venerat quibus esset credendum. Unde Apostolus, cujus auctoritas celebris erat, quasi medius judicat, quae pars potius sit tenenda, scribens eis ab Epheso. Intentio itaque Apostoli est in hac epistola confirmare Colossenses in ea fide et doctrina, quam a discipulis ejus acceperunt, et non in aliquo praeter Christum spem ponendam esse docet. Modus tractandi talis est: more solito salutem praemittit; deinde gratias agit de bonis eorum, fidem et dilectionem eorum commendans. Orat ut perficiantur in Christo, cujus beneficia, et secundum utramque naturam primatum commendat, et post ministerii sui dignitatem commemorat, et monet ne per philosophiam, vel legis caeremonias seducti a Christo recedant. Tandem omnes simul, et separatim, scilicet sexus, et aetates, et conditiones moraliter instituit. In fine monet Archippum sollicitum esse ministerii sui.

Quaestio I (Colossians 1:3)

“Gratias agentes, etc.”

Dicit expositor quod hic incipit Apostolus ostendere quod lex non prodest, sed nocet. Nonne lex bona, et a Deo data, et non solum non nocuit, sed profuit in statu suo? quomodo ergo verum est quod non prodest, sed nocet? Solutio. Verum est quod lex ante gratiam profuit; sed post gratiam inutilis fuit. Cui solutioni sic objicitur: Nonne lex modo perhibet testimonium veritati, et per illam illuminamur in cognitione Deitatis? ergo etiam nunc tempore gratiae nobis prodest lex. Quomodo ergo verum est: Lex non prodest, sed nocet? Solutio. Lex lecta, et spiritualiter intellecta prodest, et non nocet: secundum vero litteram observata non prodest, sed nocet.

Quaestio II (Colossians 1:12)

“Qui dignos nos fecit in partem sortis sanctorum.”

Quaeritur quid vocet sortem, cujus participes facti sumus. Solutio. Futuram haereditatem, quae sorte, id est divina gratia et voluntate, sine meritis, datur, hic vocat Apostolus sortem.

Quaestio III

Item quaeritur quomodo sine meritis futura haereditas detur sanctis, cum per fidem, et dilectionem, et bona opera eam mereantur. So-[582]lutio. Sine meritis praecedentibus fidem intelligendum est, non sine subsequentibus: quae sunt ex gratia, et ideo non excluduntur, cum dicitur quod sola gratia datur futura gloria. De his jam diximus superius.

Quaestio IV (Colossians 1:13)

“Transtulit nos in regnum Filii.”

Quaeritur quid dicat regnum Filii Dei. Solutio. Regnum coelorum, vel Filii, pluribus modis accipitur, scilicet pro futura gloria, ut ibi: "Adveniat regnum tuum" (Matt. 6:10); vel pro praesenti Ecclesia, ut ibi: "Cum tradet regnum Deo et Patri" (1 Cor. 15:24); vel pro fide Christi, ut ibi: "Regnum Dei intra vos est" (Matt. 12 [Editorial note: The quotation matches Luke 17:21, though the text attributes it to Matthew 12]); vel pro sacra Scriptura, ut ibi: "Auferetur a vobis regnum coelorum, et dabitur genti facienti fructum" (Matt. 21:43).

Quaestio V (Colossians 1:13)

“Filii dilectionis suae.”

Nonne Spiritus sanctus est dilectio, qua Pater diligit Filium, et Filius Patrem, et Christus est filius dilectionis? Videtur ergo, quod sit filius Spiritus sancti: quod fides non recipit. Solutio. Dilectio communiter accipitur pro divina natura, sive substantia, sive essentia, cum dilectionis filius esse praedicatur. Est enim Filius naturae, substantiae, et essentiae Patri consubstantialis, et coessentialis. Quid autem dilectio significet, cum dicitur: Spiritus sanctus est dilectio, qua Pater diligit Filium, et e diverso alibi expositum est. De redemptione item, et imagine, et de eo quod Christus dicitur caput Ecclesiae, jam dictum: nec oportet, ut acta agamus.

Quaestio VI

Quaeritur autem an Christus secundum humanitatem fuerit caput sanctorum incarnationem praecedentium. Videtur quod sic: sed qui nondum secundum humanitatem erat, quomodo potuit esse caput eorum? Vel si, quomodo potuerunt habere, quod nondum caput erat? Solutio. Christus etiam secundum humanitatem potest dici caput eorum qui fuerunt ab Abel, quia per fidem futuri omnes salvati quotquot salvati sunt. Nota quod Christus ejusdem naturae esse cum Patre praedicatur, ubi filius dilectionis esse ostenditur. Ubi vero imago, non solum ejusdem substantiae identitas, sed etiam personalis proprietas insinuatur. Ubi primogenitus omnis creaturae esse dicitur, ibi Patri coaeternus asseritur. Ubi quod omnia per ipsum condita sunt legitur, omnipotentia ipsius declaratur. Ubi dicitur quod "omnia in ipso constant" (Col. 1:17), immensitas ejus manifestatur, cujus aeternitas in Joanne insinuatur, ubi scriptum est: "In principio erat Verbum" (John 1:1); et personalis proprietas cum subjungitur: "Et Verbum erat apud Deum" (John 1:1); et substantiae identi-[583]tas, cum dicitur: "Et Deus erat Verbum" (John 1:1). Est itaque Filius Patri coaeternus, consubstantialis, coomnipotens; alius in persona, idem cum Patre omnium creaturarum principium.

Quaestio VII (Colossians 1:18)

“Et ipse,” Christus scilicet, “est caput Ecclesiae.”

Dicitur quod Ecclesia coepit primo ab Abel, qui primus fuit justus, sed nonne Adam fuit justus? Creditur enim quod post lapsum per poenitentiam, et fidem sit justificatus: quare ergo non dicitur Ecclesia incoepisse ab Adam? Solutio. Ab Adam maculam originalis peccati contraxit Ecclesia, ab Abel nullam, et ideo ab Abel melius incoepisse dicitur quam ab Adam; quia Scriptura de peccato Adam, et non de justitia facit mentionem, et de justitia Abel, et non de peccato. Christus ergo semper caput omnium, qui fuerunt ab initio, sicut eorum, qui secuti sunt eum: per quem solum accessum habemus ad Patrem.

Quaestio VIII (Colossians 2:8)

“Videte, ne quis vos decipiat per philosophiam, et inanem fallaciam” (Col. 2:8), etc.

Nonne cognitio rerum naturalium, quam tradiderunt philosophi, utilis fuit ad Dei invisibilia cognoscenda? Per visibiles enim rerum visibilium formas, quarum doctrina docetur in mathematica, venitur ad invisibiles rerum visibilium causas, quas docet physica: per quas venitur ad cognoscendas invisibiles substantias, et invisibilium substantiarum invisibiles naturas. Quomodo ergo Apostolus talem cognitionem vocat inanem fallaciam? Solutio. Apostolus non reprehendit philosophos de hoc, quod naturas rerum inquirebant; sed de hoc, quod potentiam Dei cum sit infinita, sub causis naturalibus coarctare conabantur, dicentes Deum nihil facere contra naturam. Unde Deum creaturam fieri, virginem parere, mortuum revivere, dicebant esse impossibile. Hunc ergo errorem eorum jure reprehendit Apostolus: non veram, quam habebant, de naturis cognitionem.

Quaestio IX (Colossians 2:9)

“In quo habitat omnis plenitudo divinitatis.”

Cum una et simplex plenitudo divinitatis sit, quomodo dicat omnis plenitudo divinitatis, cum omnis soleat colligere multitudinem? Solutio. Omnis plenitudo divinitatis dicitur, ut notetur: quod omni modo inhabitandi ibi est, etiam personaliter. Vel aliter: Omnis plenitudo dicitur ut insinuetur quod in ipso est plenitudo non solum scientiae, sed etiam potentiae et bonitatis. In quo destruitur error eorum qui dicunt quod homo assumptus habet omnem scientiam per gratiam, quam habet Verbum per naturam, sed non omnem potentiam.

Quaestio X (Colossians 2:9)

“Plenitudo divinitatis corporaliter.”

Cum divinitas sit incorporea, quaeritur quomodo possit habitare corporaliter in Christo. Solutio. Corporaliter dicit, id est, completive, solide et veraciter, respiciens ad legales figuras, quae fuerunt umbra futurorum, quarum corpus, id est, impletio et veritas est Christus. Vel aliter: Corporaliter non significat naturam rei existentis, sed potius [584] modum existendi. Sicut enim corpus sic habet esse naturaliter in uno loco, quod simul non potest esse in alio: sic plenitudo divinitatis habet esse in homine assumpto: quo modo in nulla alia est creatura. In omni creatura est per essentiam, in justis per gratiam, in solo Christo secundum personalem proprietatem. Hoc est ergo Deitatem habitare in Christo corporaliter, id est personaliter. Sicut corpus est in pluribus locis, simul non corporaliter sed spiritualiter. Hoc dicens non nego veritatem, et essentiam corporis Dominici esse simul in pluribus altaribus, sed per hoc insinuo quod modum illum existendi non habet communem corporibus aliis, vel ex natura corporis, sed potius communem cum spiritu, non creato, sed increato. Utrumque mirum, et verum; quod spiritus creatus alicubi est corporaliter, et corpus Christi sacramentale in pluribus locis spiritualiter.

Quaestio XI (Colossians 2:14)

“Delens chirographum decreti, quod erat contrarium vobis, etc.”

Quaeritur quid vocet decretum, quid chirographum. Solutio. Decretum nominat vel ipsam legem Moysi, vel Dei praeceptum, quod primo homini dedit in paradiso, dicens: "De ligno scientiae boni et mali ne comedas" (Gen. 2:17); chirographum utriusque decreti violati memoriam: omnium autem culparum chirographa deleta sunt fuso sanguine sine culpa.

Quaestio XII (Colossians 2:17)

“Quae sunt umbra futurorum, corpus autem Christi.”

Quaeritur quomodo distinguatur umbra, corpus, spiritus. Solutio. Aliud est umbra, aliud corpus, aliud spiritus: quae tria aliis nominibus dicuntur figura, res, veritas, ut idem sit umbra et figura; idem corpus et res; idem spiritus et veritas. Legales caeremoniae umbra, et figura futurorum dicebantur. Sacramenta gratiae corpus, sive res illarum umbrarum vel figurarum sunt: spiritus vel veritas dicitur gratia spiritalis scilicet quam conferunt sacramenta Novi Testamenti, et significant: sacramenta vero Veteris Testamenti, tantum gratiam spiritualem significant, et non conferunt: et haec differentia inter haec et illa sacramenta. Item sciendum est quod illa, quae tempore legis fuerunt praecepta, nunc tempore gratiae non sunt praecepta; sed tantum veritatis testimonia, unde tunc peccatum erat non observare etiam unum. Nunc autem non est peccatum ea non custodire; imo qui custodit, offendit.

Quaestio XIII (Colossians 3:5)

“Mortificate membra vestra” (Col. 3:5), etc.

Quaeritur quid, vel quae vocet membra, quae sunt mortificanda. Nunquid oculus, manus, pes sunt mortificandi? Solutio. Membra hic vocat Apostolus concupiscentiam membrorum, sicut ipse subjungit, et exponit fornicationem, etc.

Quaestio XIV (Colossians 3:5)

“Avaritiam, quae est idolorum servitus, etc.”

Nonne aliud est avaritia, aliud idololatria? quomodo ergo avaritiam vocat idolorum servitutem? Solutio. Ideo avaritiam comparat idololatriae, quia non est dispar malitia. Sicut enim idololatra colit truncum, sic avarus nummum. Et sicut idololatra nititur auferre Deo honorem suum, sic avarus res [585] quas Deus communiter pro omnibus creavit sibi, usurpat soli.

Quaestio XV (Colossians 3:9)

“Expoliantes veterem hominem, etc.”

Quaeritur quid hic vocet veterem hominem. Solutio. Dicitur quandoque vetus homo Adam primus homo, qui peccando se, et totam posteritatem suam induit tunica vetustatis. Dicitur quandoque vetus homo, quilibet homo, qui portat imaginem terreni; quandoque vero dicitur vetus homo ipsa vetustas, quae consistit in culpa et in poena; quandoque vetus homo habitus vitiorum nuncupatur, ut hic, secundum expositorem.

Quaestio XVI (Colossians 3:10)

“Et induite novum hominem.”

Quaeritur similiter quid hic vocet novum hominem? Nam novus homo quandoque dicitur Christus, a quo est omnis novitas; quandoque novus homo dicitur quilibet in Christo renovatus; quandoque etiam habitus virtutum; quandoque specialiter mens rationis. Sed superius, quod homo interior vocatur, mens, dictum est; hic autem dicitur quod mens interior dicitur novus homo: quod videtur esse contrarium, cum aliud sit novus homo: aliud interior, ut jam ostensum est. Solutio. Dicit expositor quod novum hominem vocat rationalem mentem, nec est contrarium ad id quod superius dictum est, quod mens interior homo dicitur: idem enim propter diversas proprietates diversa sortitur vocabula.

Quaestio XVII (Colossians 3:10)

“Qui renovatur in agnitionem Dei secundum imaginem ejus, etc.”

Item quaeritur quomodo mens dicatur renovari secundum imaginem Dei, cum ipsa sit imago Dei, nunquid renovari potest secundum seipsam? Solutio. Eadem est imago, quae renovatur, et illa secundum quam renovatur, sicut dicimus aliquem mortuum esse secundum corpus, id est corpore non secundum spiritum. Mens itaque secundum semetipsam, id est in semetipsa renovatur. In Epistola tamen ad Ephesios dicitur, quod ipsa renovatio fit secundum Deum: ideo secundum Deum, ne secundum creaturam esse dicatur. Per talem enim renovationem Deo consimilis et conformis efficitur: ideo secundum ipsam esse dicitur. Nota quod haec imago, quae in cognitione Dei renovatur, aeque in viro et in femina [586] invenitur: quae alia est ab illa, de qua superius dictum est: "Vir est imago Dei, et mulier viri." (1 Cor. 11:7)

Quaestio XVIII (Colossians 3:13)

“Donantes vobismetipsis, si quis adversus aliquem habet querelam.”

Hoc idem praecepit Dominus, dicens: "Debitoribus vestris dimittite" (Matt. 6:12), sed quid est quod a nobis dimitti possit? quod est debitum, quod a nobis possit exigi ab illo, qui nobis injuriam intulit? Solutio. Hoc est dimittere injuriam illatam, pro nobis nullo modo satisfactionem propter injuriam postulare: quaedam alia super hoc alibi a nobis dicta sunt.

Quaestio XIX

Dicit expositor quod qui ab illicitis abstinet laudem habet; qui vero a licitis temperat, laudem et praemium quasi diceret: Ille vitat poenam, hic etiam meretur coronam. Sed nonne etiam ille, qui abstinet ab illicitis, non solum laudem, sed etiam mercedem habet? Solutio. Qui abstinet ab illicitis semper vitat poenam, sed non semper meretur coronam, nisi tunc tantum, quando tentatur et impugnatur.

Quaestio XX (Colossians 3:17)

“Omnia in nomine Domini facite.”

Per omnia, non intelligit nisi bona, quae sunt a nobis facienda. Unde quaeritur an omnia facienda praecipiat propter Deum fieri. Nunquid ex praeceptis constringor dare pallium meum pauperi, quem indigere video, et sciam hoc Deo placere. Nam si dimitto, videor contemnere: quod scio illum velle fieri. Solutio. Sic debet intelligi: Omnia facite in nomine Domini, id est nihil contra Deum faciatis, et in bonis non gloriam vestram, sed Dei quaeratis. Non tamen in omnibus quae agimus meremur; quia quaedam sunt indifferentia, ut sedere, stare, spiritum ducere, manum claudere, oculos aperire, et hujusmodi. Quaedam vero talia sunt, quae sic habent meritum, si fiant; et non sint peccatum, si non fiant, ut pallium dare pauperi, et omnia vendere, et dare pauperibus: quod perfectorum est, qui nudi Christum sequuntur.

Quaestio XXI (Colossians 4:17)

“Dicite Archippo: Vide ministerium quod accipisti in Domino, ut illud impleas.” (Col. 4:17)

Quaeritur an subditi praelatos monere possint. Solutio. Ecce auctoritas, ut subditi praelatos moneant, ne pigri sint in praevidendis his, quae ad salutem spectant.