John8.htm

<!DOCTYPE html>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<title></title>
<body style="text-align:justify;font-family:Arial">
  <blockquote>
    <p style="text-align: center;font-size: 60pt">8
    <table cellpadding="12">
      <tbody>
        <tr style="align:center">
          <td><b>Lectio 1</b>
          <td><b>LECTURE I</b>
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td style="font-family:" palatino="">
            <blockquote>
              1 Ἰησοῦς δὲ ἐπορεύθη εἰς τὸ ὄρος τῶν ἐλαιῶν. 2 ὄρθρου δὲ πάλιν παρεγένετο εἰς τὸ ἱερόν, καὶ πᾶς ὁ λαὸς ἤρχετο πρὸς αὐτόν, καὶ καθίσας ἐδίδασκεν αὐτούς. 3 ἄγουσιν δὲ οἱ γραμματεῖς καὶ οἱ φαρισαῖοι γυναῖκα ἐπὶ μοιχείᾳ κατειλημμένην, καὶ στήσαντες αὐτὴν ἐν μέσῳ 4 λέγουσιν αὐτῷ, διδάσκαλε, αὕτη ἡ γυνὴ κατείληπται ἐπ' αὐτοφώρῳ μοιχευομένη: 5 ἐν δὲ τῷ νόμῳ ἡμῖν Μωϋσῆς ἐνετείλατο τὰς τοιαύτας λιθάζειν: σὺ οὖν τί λέγεις; 6 τοῦτο δὲ ἔλεγον πειράζοντες αὐτόν, ἵνα ἔχωσιν κατηγορεῖν αὐτοῦ. ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς κάτω κύψας τῷ δακτύλῳ κατέγραφεν εἰς τὴν γῆν. 7 ὡς δὲ ἐπέμενον ἐρωτῶντες αὐτόν, ἀνέκυψεν καὶ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς, ὁ ἀναμάρτητος ὑμῶν πρῶτος ἐπ' αὐτὴν βαλέτω λίθον: 8 καὶ πάλιν κατακύψας ἔγραφεν εἰς τὴν γῆν. 9 οἱ δὲ ἀκούσαντες ἐξήρχοντο εἷς καθ' εἷς ἀρξάμενοι ἀπὸ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων, καὶ κατελείφθη μόνος, καὶ ἡ γυνὴ ἐν μέσῳ οὖσα. 10 ἀνακύψας δὲ ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν αὐτῇ, γύναι, ποῦ εἰσιν; οὐδείς σε κατέκρινεν; 11 ἡ δὲ εἶπεν, οὐδείς, κύριε. εἶπεν δὲ ὁ Ἰησοῦς, οὐδὲ ἐγώ σε κατακρίνω: πορεύου, [καὶ] ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν μηκέτι ἁμάρτανε.
            </blockquote>
          <td>
            <blockquote>
              1 Jesus however proceeded to the Mount of Olives, 2 and early in the morning he came again to the temple. All the people came to him, and sitting down, he taught them. 3 Then the scribes and Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery and placed her in their midst. 4 They said to him, "Master, this woman has just now been caught in adultery. 5 In the Law, Moses commanded us to stone such a woman. But what do you say?" 6 (They said this to test him so that they could accuse him.) But Jesus bending down wrote on the ground with his finger. 7 As they persisted in the question, he stood up and said to them: "Whoever among you is without sin, let him be the first to cast a stone at her." 8 And again bending down, he wrote on the ground. 9 On hearing this, one after the other departed, beginning with the oldest, and there remained only Jesus and the woman standing there in the center. 10 Rising up, Jesus asked the woman: "Woman, where are those who accuse you? Has no one condemned you?" 11 To which she replied, "No one, Lord." Then Jesus said: "Nor will I condemn you. Go and do not sin again."
            </blockquote>
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Postquam egit Evangelista de origine doctrinae Christi, hic consequenter agit de eius virtute. Habet autem doctrina Christi virtutem illuminativam et vivificativam, quia verba eius spiritus et vita sunt. Primo ergo agit de virtute doctrinae Christi illuminativa; secundo de virtute vivificativa, infra X, <i>amen, amen dico vobis, qui non intrat per ostium in ovile ovium, sed ascendit aliunde, ille fur est et latro</i>. Ostendit autem illuminativam virtutem doctrinae Christi, primo verbo; secundo miraculo, ibi <i>et praeteriens Iesus, vidit hominem caecum a nativitate</i>. Circa primum duo facit. Primo introducit Christum docentem; secundo ponit doctrinae Christi virtutem, ibi <i>iterum ergo locutus est eis Iesus</i>.
          <td>1118 After having treated of the origin of the doctrine of Christ, the Evangelist here considers its power. Now the doctrine of Christ has the power both to enlighten and to give life, because his words are spirit and life. So first, he treats of the power of Christ's doctrine to enlighten; secondly, of its power to give life (10:1). He shows the power of Christ's doctrine to enlighten, first by words; and secondly, by a miracle (9:1). As to the first, he does two things: first, he presents the teaching of Christ; secondly, he shows the power of his teaching (8:12).
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Ad officium autem doctoris duo pertinent. Primo ut devotos instruat; secundo ut adversarios repellat. Primo ergo Christus instruit populum devotum; secundo repellit adversarios, ibi <i>adducunt autem Scribae</i> et cetera. Circa primum tria facit. Primo describitur locus doctrinae; secundo auditor; tertio doctor. Locus autem doctrinae est templum. Unde primo ponit recessum ab eo; secundo reditum.
          <td>There are two things that pertain to the office of a teacher: to instruct the devout or sincere, and to repel opponents. So first, Christ instructs those who are sincere; and secondly, he repels his opponents (v 3). The Evangelist does three things with respect to the first: first, he mentions the place where this teaching takes place; secondly, he mentions those who listened to it; and thirdly, the teacher. This teaching took place in the temple; so he first mentions that Jesus left the temple, and then that he returned.
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Recessus quidem, cum dicit <i>Iesus autem perrexit in montem oliveti</i>. Nam dominus hanc sibi consuetudinem fecerat ut per diem quando erat Ierosolymis in diebus festis, praedicaret in templo, signa et miracula faceret, et in sero revertebatur in Bethaniam, et apud sorores Lazari Mariam et Martham hospitabatur, quae erat in monte oliveti. Secundum igitur hunc morem dicit, quod cum in novissimo magnae festivitatis die Iesus stetisset in templo, et praedicasset, de sero <i>perrexit in montem oliveti</i>, ubi erat Bethania.
          <td>1119 He mentions that Jesus left the temple when he says, <b>Jesus however proceeded to the Mount of Olives</b>. For our Lord made it his practice, when he was at Jerusalem on the festival days, to preach in the temple and to work miracles and signs during the day, and when evening came, he would return to Bethany (which was on the Mount of Olives) as the guest of Lazarus' sisters, Martha and Mary. With this in mind, the Evangelist says that since Jesus had remained in the temple and preached on the last day of the great feast, in the evening, Jesus proceeded to the Mount of Olives, where Bethany was located.
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Et hoc convenit mysterio: nam, ut dicit Augustinus, ubi decebat Christum docere et suam misericordiam manifestare nisi in monte oliveti, in monte unctionis et chrismatis? Oliva autem misericordiam signat: unde et in Graeco oleos idem est quod misericordia. Lc. X, 34, dicitur de Samaritano, quod infudit oleum et vinum, secundum misericordiam et severitatem iudicii. Item oleum sanativum est; Is. I, 6: <i>vulnus et livor et plaga tumens non est circumligata medicamine, neque fota oleo</i>. Signatur etiam medicina spiritualis gratiae, quae ad nos derivata est. Ps. XLIV, 8: <i>unxit te Deus, Deus tuus, oleo laetitiae prae consortibus tuis</i>. Et alibi: <i>sicut unguentum in capite quod descendit in barbam</i>.
          <td>And this is appropriate to a mystery: for as Augustine says, where was it appropriate for Christ to teach and show his mercy, if not on the Mount of Olives, the mount of anointing and of grace. The olive (<i>oliva</i>) signifies mercy; so also in Greek, <i>oleos</i> is the same as mercy. And Luke (10:24) tells us that the Samaritan applied oil and wine, which correspond to mercy and the stringency of judgment. Again, oil is healing: "Wounds and bruises and swelling sores are not bandaged or dressed, or soothed with oil" (Is 1:6). It also signifies the medicine of spiritual grace which has been transmitted to us by Christ: "God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness above your fellows" (Ps 44:8); and again, "like the precious ointment on the head which ran down upon the beard (Ps 132:2); and in Job we read that "The rock poured out rivers of oil" (Jb 29:6).
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Reditus autem ad locum ponitur tempestivus; unde dicit <i>et iterum diluculo venit in templum</i>. Per quod signatur quod cognitionem et manifestationem gratiae suae in templo suo, scilicet fidelibus suis, manifestaturus erat, Ps. XLVII, 10: <i>suscepimus, Deus, misericordiam tuam in medio templi tui</i>. Quod autem diluculo rediit, exortum lumen novae gratiae designat; Os. VI, 3: <i>quasi diluculum praeparatus est egressus eius</i>.
          <td>1120 Christ's return to the temple is described as being early; thus he says, <b>and early in the morning he came again to the temple</b>. This signifies that he was about to impart knowledge and manifest his grace in his temple, that is, in his believers: "We have received your mercy, O God, in the middle of your temple" (Ps 47:10). The fact that he returned early in the morning signifies the rising light of new grace: "His going forth is as sure as the dawn" (Hos 6:3).
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Auditor autem doctrinae est populus devotus; et ideo dicit <i>et omnis populus venit ad eum</i>; Ps. VII, 8: <i>synagoga populorum circumdabit te</i>.
          <td>1121 Those who listened to his teaching were the sincere among the people; thus he says, <b>all the people came to him</b>: "The assembly of the people will surround you" (Ps 7:8).
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Doctor autem introducitur sedens, unde dicit <i>et sedens</i>, idest condescendens, ut eius doctrina facilius caperetur. Sessio enim humilitatem incarnationis significat; Ps. CXXXVIII, 1: <i>tu cognovisti sessionem meam et resurrectionem meam</i>. Quia per susceptam humanitatem visibilis apparens, coeperunt de divinis facilius edoceri; et ideo dicit, quod <i>sedens docebat eos</i>, idest simplices, et sermonem eius admirantes; Ps. XXIV, 9: <i>docebit mites vias suas, et diriget mansuetos in iudicio</i>; Is. II, 3: <i>docebit nos vias suas</i>.
          <td>1122 Their teacher is presented as seated, and sitting down, that is, going down to their level, so that his teaching would be more easily understood. His sitting down signifies the humility of his incarnation: "You knew when I sat down, and when I rose" (Ps 138:1). Because it was through the human nature that our Lord assumed that he became visible, we began to be instructed in the divine matters more easily. So he says, sitting down, he taught them, that is, the simple, and those who respected his teaching: "He will teach his ways to the gentle, and will guide the mild in judgment" (Ps 24:9); "He will teach us his ways (Is 2:3).
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Consequenter cum dicit <i>adducunt autem Scribae et Pharisaei mulierem in adulterio deprehensam</i>, repellit adversarios, et primo ponitur calumniae tentatio; secundo calumniantium repulsio, ibi <i>Iesus autem inclinans se deorsum, digito scribebat in terra</i>. Circa primum tria facit.
          <td>1123 Then (v 3), our Lord wards off his opponents. First, we see him tested, so that he can then be accused; and secondly, he checks his accusers (v 6b). As to the first, the Evangelist does three things: first, he mentions the occasion for the test; secondly, he describes the test itself (v 4); and thirdly, the purpose of those who were testing our Lord.
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Primo ponitur tentationis occasio; secundo describitur ipsa tentatio, ibi <i>dixerunt ei: magister, haec mulier modo deprehensa est in adulterio</i>; tertio tentatorum intentio, ibi <i>haec autem dicebant tentantes eum</i>. Occasio autem tentationis ponitur adulterium a muliere perpetratum: et ideo primo aggravant culpam; secundo praesentant personam peccantem. Dicit ergo quantum ad primum <i>adducunt autem Scribae et Pharisaei mulierem in adulterio deprehensam</i>. Ut enim Augustinus dicit, tria in Christo praeeminebant: scilicet veritas, mansuetudo et iustitia. De ipso quippe fuerat praedictum: <i>procede, et regna, propter veritatem et mansuetudinem et iustitiam</i>. Nam veritatem attulit ut doctor, et hanc perceperant Pharisaei et Scribae dum doceret. Infra eodem: <i>si veritatem dico vobis, quare non creditis mihi?</i> Nullum enim falsum in verbis et doctrina eius deprehendere poterant; et ideo calumniari de hoc cessaverant. Mansuetudinem vero attulit ut liberator; et hanc cognoverunt dum adversus inimicos et persecutores non commoveretur; I Petr. II, v. 23: <i>cum malediceretur, non maledicebat</i>. Unde dicebat, Mt. XI, 29: <i>discite a me, quia mitis sum, et humilis corde</i>. Et ideo de hoc etiam non calumniabantur. Iustitiam autem attulit ut cognitor, et hoc quia nondum nota erat Iudaeis, maxime in iudiciis: ideo in ea scandalum posuerunt, volentes scire utrum a iustitia propter misericordiam recederet. Et ideo proponunt ei crimen notum et confusione dignum, scilicet adulterium; Eccli. IX, 10: <i>omnis mulier fornicaria quasi stercus in via conculcabitur</i>.
          <td>1124 The occasion for the test is a woman's adultery. And so first, her accusers detail the crime; and also exhibit the sinner. As to the first, the Evangelist says, <b>Then the scribes and Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery.</b> As Augustine says, three things were noteworthy about Christ: his truth, his gentleness, and his justice. Indeed, it was predicted about him: "Go forth and reign, because of truth, gentleness, and justice" (Ps 44:5). For he set forth the truth as a teacher; and the Pharisees and scribes noticed this while he was teaching: "If I speak the truth, why do you not believe me?" (8:46). Since they could find nothing false in his words or his teachings, they had ceased their accusations on that score. He showed his gentleness as a liberator or savior; and they saw this when he could not be provoked against his enemies and persecutors: "When he was reviled, he did not revile" (1 Pet 2:23). Thus Matthew has: "Learn from me, for I am gentle and humble of heart" (11:29). Thus they did not accuse him on this point. And he exercised justice as its advocate; he did this because it was not yet known among the Jews, especially in legal proceedings. It was on this point that they wanted to test him, to see if he would abandon justice for the sake of mercy. So they present him with a known crime, deserving denunciation, adultery: "Every woman who is a harlot will be walked on like dung on the road" (Sir 9:10). Then they present the sinner in person to further influence him: and placed her in their midst. "This woman will be brought into the assembly, and among the sons of God" (Sir 23:24).
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Consequenter personam peccantem repraesentant, ut magis commoveant. Unde <i>et statuerunt eam in medio</i>; Eccli. XXIII, 34: <i>hic in medio adducetur, et inter filios Dei</i> et cetera.
          <td>1125 The Evangelist shows them proceeding with their test. First, they point out the woman's fault; secondly, they state the justice of the case according to the Law; thirdly, they ask him for his verdict.
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Consequenter cum dicit <i>et dixerunt ei: magister, haec mulier modo deprehensa est in adulterio</i>, prosequuntur ipsam tentationem, et primo manifestant culpam; secundo allegant legis iustitiam; tertio exquirunt sententiam. Culpam quidem manifestant cum dicunt <i>haec mulier modo deprehensa est in adulterio</i>: quam quidem culpam exaggerant ex tribus, quae Christum commovere deberent a sua mansuetudine. Et primo ex culpae novitate; unde dicunt <i>modo</i>: nam quando est antiqua, non tantum movet, quia forte praecessit correctio. Secundo ex eius evidentia; unde dicunt <i>deprehensa est</i>, ita quod non possit se excusare, quod est consuetudinis mulierum, secundum illud Prov. XXX, 20: <i>tergit os suum, dicens: non sum operata malum</i>. Tertio ex culpae enormitate; unde dicunt <i>in adulterio</i>, quod est grave facinus et malorum multorum causa; Eccli. IX: <i>omnis mulier quae adulteratur peccabit</i>, primo quidem in lege Dei sui.
          <td>1126 They point out the woman's fault when they say this woman has just now been caught in adultery. They detail her fault in three ways, calculated to deflect Christ from his gentle manner. First, they mention the freshness of her fault, saying <b>just now</b>; for an old fault does not affect us so much, because the person might have made amends. Secondly, they note its certainty, saying, caught, so that she could not excuse herself. This is characteristic of women, as we see from Proverbs (33:20): "She wipes her mouth and says: 'I have done no evil." "Thirdly, they point out that her fault is great, in adultery, which is a serious crime and the cause of many evils. "Every woman who is an adulterous will sin" (Sir 9), and first of all against the law of her God.
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Legis iustitiam allegant cum dicunt: <i>in lege autem</i>, scilicet Lev. et Deut. XXII, <i>Moyses mandavit huiusmodi lapidare</i>.
          <td>1127 They appeal to the justice contained in the Law when they remark, <b>in the Law</b>, that is, in Leviticus (20:10) and in Deuteronomy (22:21), Moses commanded us to stone such a woman.
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Sententiam autem exquirunt cum subdunt: <i>tu ergo quid dicis?</i> Calumniosa est interrogatio; quasi dicant: si eam dimitti censuerit iustitiam non tenebit. Sed, absit ut qui venerat quaerere et salvum facere quod perierat, eam condemnaret; supra III, 17: <i>non enim misit Deus filium suum in mundum ut iudicet mundum, sed ut salvetur mundus per ipsum</i>. Lex etiam quod iniustum erat iubere non poterat. Et ideo non dicit absolvatur ne contra legem facere videretur.
          <td>1128 They ask Jesus for his verdict when they say, <b>But what do you say?</b> Their question is a trap, for they are saying in effect: If he decides that she should be let go, he will not be acting according to justice, yet he cannot condemn her because he came to seek and to save those who are lost: "God did not send his Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through him" (3:17). Now the Law could not command anything unjust. Thus, Jesus does not say, "Let her go," lest he seem to be acting in violation of the Law.
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Et ideo consequenter subditur perversa tentantium intentio, cum dicit <i>haec autem dicebant tentantes eum</i>. Credebant enim, quod Christus ne mansuetudinem perderet, eam dimitti debere dicturus esset; et sic accusarent eum tamquam legis praevaricatorem. I Cor. X, 9: <i>neque tentaveritis Christum, sicut illi tentaverunt</i>.
          <td>1129 The Evangelist reveals the malicious intention behind those who were questioning Jesus when he says, <b>They said this to test him so that they could accuse him.</b> For they thought that Christ would say that she should be let go, so as not to be acting contrary to his gentle manner; and then they would accuse him of acting in violation of the Law: "Let us not test Christ as they did" as we read in 1 Corinthians (10:9).
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Consequenter cum dicit <i>Iesus autem inclinans se deorsum, digito scribebat in terra</i>, repellit adversarios sua sapientia. Nam Pharisaei de duobus eum tentabant: scilicet de iustitia et de misericordia. Et utrumque in respondendo servavit, et ideo primo ostendit quomodo servavit; secundo quod non recessit a misericordia, ibi <i>erigens autem se Iesus dixit ei</i> et cetera. Circa primum duo facit. Primo proponit sententiam iustitiae; secundo subditur effectus sententiae, ibi <i>audientes autem haec, unus post unum exibant</i>. Circa primum tria facit. Primo describit sententiam; secundo pronuntiat eam; tertio perseverat iterum in scribendo sententiam.
          <td>1130 Then, Jesus checks his enemies by his wisdom. The Pharisees were testing him on two points: his justice and his mercy. But Jesus preserved both in his answer. First, the Evangelist shows how Jesus kept to what was just; and secondly, that he did not abandon mercy (v 7). As to the first, he does two things: first, he mentions the sentence in accordance with justice; secondly the effect of this sentence (v 9). About the first he does three things: first, we see Jesus writing his sentence; then pronouncing it; and thirdly, continuing again to write it down.
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Sententiam autem describit in terra digito; unde dicit Iesus <i>autem inclinans se deorsum, digito scribebat in terra</i>. Scribebat autem secundum quosdam illud quod dicitur Ier. XXII, 29: <i>terra terra, audi (...) scribe iustum virum sterilem</i>. Secundum alios vero, et melius, dicitur quod scripsit eadem quae protulit, scilicet: <i>qui sine peccato est vestrum, primus in illam lapidem mittat</i>. Neutrum tamen certum est.
          <td>1131 Jesus wrote his sentence on the earth with his finger: <b>But Jesus bending down wrote on the ground with his finger.</b> Some say that he wrote the words Jeremiah: "O earth, earth, listenwrite down this man as sterile" (Jer 22:29). According to others, and this is the better opinion, Jesus wrote down the very words he spoke, that is, Whoever among you is without sin, let him be the first to cast a stone at her. However, neither of these opinions is certain.
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Sed in terra quidem scribebat triplici ratione. Una quidem, secundum Augustinum, ut ostendat eos qui eum tentabant in terra describendos esse; Ier. XVII, 13: <i>domine, recedentes a te in terra scribuntur</i>. Iusti autem, et discipuli qui eum sequuntur, in caelo scribuntur; Lc. X, 20: <i>gaudete et exultate, quia nomina vestra scripta sunt in caelo</i>. Item ut ostendat se quod signa faceret in terra: qui enim scribit, signa facit. Scribere ergo in terra, est signa facere: et ideo dicit quod <i>inclinavit se</i>, scilicet per incarnationis mysterium, ex quo in carne assumpta miracula fecit. Tertio, quia lex vetus in tabulis lapideis scripta erat, ut habetur Ex. XXXI, et II Cor. III. Per quod signatur eius duritia: quia <i>irritam quis faciens legem Moysi, absque ulla miseratione occidebatur</i>, ut dicitur Hebr. c. X, 28. Terra autem mollis est. Ut ergo signaret dulcedinem et mollitiem novae legis per eum traditae, in terra scribebat.
          <td>Jesus wrote on the earth for three reasons. First, according to Augustine, to show that those who were testing him would be written on the earth: "O Lord, all who leave you will be written on the earth" (Jer 17:13). But those who are just and the disciples who follow him are written in heaven: "Rejoice, because your names are written in heaven" (Lk 10:20). Secondly, he wrote on earth to show that he would perform signs on earth, for he who writes make signs. Thus, to write on the earth is to make signs. And so he says that Jesus was bending down, by the mystery of the Incarnation, by means of which he performed miracles in the flesh he had assumed. Thirdly, he wrote on the earth because the Old Law was written on tablets of stone (Ex 31; 2 Cor 3), which signify its harshness: "A man who violates the law of Moses dies without mercy" (Heb 10:28). But the earth is soft. And so Jesus wrote on the earth to show the sweetness and the softness of the New Law that he gave to us.
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Ex quo tria in sententiis debemus attendere. Primo benignitatem in condescendendo puniendis: unde dicit <i>inclinans se</i>; Iac. II, 13: <i>iudicium sine misericordia ei qui non fecit misericordiam</i>; Gal. ult., 1: <i>si praeoccupatus fuerit aliquis in aliquo delicto, vos, qui spirituales estis, huiusmodi instruite in spiritu lenitatis</i>. Secundo discretionem in discernendo; unde dicit <i>digito scribebat</i>, qui propter flexibilitatem discretionem significat; Dan. c. V, 5: <i>apparuerunt digiti quasi manus hominis scribentis contra candelabrum</i>. Tertio certitudinem in pronuntiando: unde dicit <i>scribebat</i>.
          <td>We can see from this that there are three things to be considered in giving sentences. First, there should be kindness in condescending to those to be punished; and so he says, Jesus was bending down: "There is judgment without mercy to him who does not have mercy" (Jas 2:13); "If a man is overtaken in any fault, you who are spiritual instruct him in a spirit of mildness" (Gal 6:1). Secondly, there should be discretion in determining the judgment and so he says that Jesus wrote with his finger, which because of its flexibility signifies discretion: "The fingers of a man's hand appeared, writing" (Dan 5:5). Thirdly, there should be certitude about the sentence given; and so he says, Jesus wrote.
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Sententiam autem profert ad eorum instantiam; unde dicit <i>cum autem perseverarent interrogantes eum, erexit se, et dixit eis: qui sine peccato est vestrum, primus in illam lapidem mittat</i>. Pharisaei enim transgressores legis erant, tamen nitebantur Christum de transgressione legis accusare, et mulierem condemnare: et ideo Christus sententiam proponit iustitiae, dicens <i>qui sine peccato est vestrum</i>, quasi dicat: puniatur peccatrix, sed non a peccatoribus: impleatur lex, sed non a praevaricatoribus legis, quia, ut dicitur Rom. II, 1: <i>in quo enim alium iudicas, teipsum condemnas</i>. Aut ergo istam dimittite, aut cum illa poenam legis excipite.
          <td>1132 It was at their insistence that Jesus gave his sentence; and so the Evangelist says, As they persisted in the question, he stood up and said to them: <b>Whoever among you is without sin, let him be the first to cast a stone at her.</b> The Pharisees were violators of the Law; and yet they tried to accuse Christ of violating the Law and were attempting to make him condemn the woman. So Christ proposes a sentence in accord with justice, saying, Whoever among you is without sin. He is saying in effect: Let the sinner be punished, but not by sinners; let the Law be accomplished, but not by those who break it, because "When you judge another you condemn yourself" (Rom 2:1). Therefore, either let this woman go, or suffer the penalty of the Law with her.
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Hic incidit quaestio utrum iudex in peccato existens, peccet ferendo contra alium sententiam qui in eodem peccato existit. Et licet manifestum sit, quod iudex si publice in peccato existens sententiam ferat, peccat scandalizando; nihilominus tamen hoc idem videtur, si sit in peccato occulto. Nam Rom. II, 1: <i>in quo alium iudicas, teipsum condemnas</i>. Constat autem, quod nullus condemnat se nisi peccando: ergo videtur quod iudicando alium peccet.
          <td>1133 Here the question arises as to whether a sinful judge sins by passing sentence against another person who has committed the same sin. It is obvious that if the judge who passes sentence is a public sinner, he sins by giving scandal. Yet, this seems to be true also if his sin is hidden, for we read in Romans (2:1): "When you judge another you condemn yourself." However, it is clear that no one condemns himself except by sinning. And thus it seems that he sins by judging another.
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Respondeo dicendum, quod in hoc uti oportet duplici distinctione. Aut enim iudex perseverat in proposito peccandi, aut poenitet se peccasse. Item aut punit ut legis minister, aut motu proprio. Et si quidem poenitet se peccasse, iam peccatum non est in eo; et sic absque peccato sententiam posset ferre. Si autem est in proposito peccandi: aut profert sententiam ut legis minister, et sic non peccat ex hoc quod sententiam profert, quamvis peccet ex hoc quod talia facit, quibus dignus est contra se similem sententiam recipere; si autem proprio motu, dico, quod proferendo sententiam peccat, cum non moveatur ad hoc amore iustitiae, sed ex aliqua mala radice; alias primo in se puniret quod animadvertit in alio; quia hoc dicitur in Prov. c. XVIII, 17: <i>iustus prior accusator est sui</i>.
          <td>My answer to this is that two distinctions have to be made. For the judge is either continuing in his determination to sin, or he has repented of his sins; and again, he is either punishing as a minister of the law or on his own initiative. Now if he has repented of his sin, he is no longer a sinner, and so he can pass sentence without sinning. But if he continues in his determination to sin, he does not sin in passing sentence if he does this as a minister of the law; although he would be sinning by doing the very things for which he deserves a similar sentence. But if he passes sentence on his own authority, then I say that he sins in justice, but from some evil root; otherwise he would first punish in himself what he notices in someone else, because "A just person is the first to accuse himself" (Prv 18:17).
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Perseverat autem in scribendo, quia <i>iterum se inclinans scribebat</i>: primo quidem ut ostendat suae scientiae firmitatem; Num. XXIII, 19: <i>non est Deus ut homo, ut mentiatur, et ut filius hominis, ut mutetur</i>. Secundo ut ostendat eos sua visione indignos. Unde cum eos zelo iustitiae percussisset, non dignatus est eos attendere, sed avertit ab eis obtutum. Tertio ut eorum verecundiae consulens, daret eis exeundi liberam facultatem.
          <td>1134 Jesus continued to write, <b>and again bending down, he wrote.</b> He did this, first, to show the firmness of his sentence, "God is not like a man, who may lie, or like a son of man, so that he may change" (Num 23:19). Secondly, he did it to show that they were not worthy to look at him. Because he had disturbed them with his zeal for justice, he did not think it fit to look at them, but turned from their sight. Thirdly, he did this out of consideration for their embarrassment, to give them complete freedom to leave.
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Effectus autem iustitiae est eorum confusio; unde dicit <i>audientes autem haec, unus post unum exibant</i>: tum quia gravioribus peccatis erant impliciti, et magis eos conscientia remordebat; Dan. XIII, 5: <i>egressa est iniquitas a senioribus iudicibus, qui videbantur regere populum</i>; tum etiam quia melius cognoscebant aequitatem prolatae sententiae; Ier. V, 5: <i>ibo ergo ad optimates, et loquar eis: ipsi enim cognoverunt viam domini, et iudicium Dei sui.</i>
          <td>1135 The effect of his justice is their embarrassment, <b>for on hearing this, one after the other departed</b>, both because they had been involved in more serious sins and their conscience gnawed them more: "Iniquity came out from the elder judges who were seen to rule the people" (Dn 13:5), and because they better realized the fairness of the sentence he gave: "I will go therefore to the great men and speak to them: for they have known the way of the Lord and the judgment of their God" (Jer 5:5).
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Et remansit solus Iesus, et mulier stans, scilicet misericordia et miseria. Ideo autem solus remansit, quia ipse solus sine peccato erat. Nam, ut dicitur in Ps. XIII, 1: <i>non est qui faciat bonum, non est usque ad unum</i>, scilicet Christum. Et ideo forte mulier territa est, et ab illo se puniendam credebat.
          <td><b>And there remained only Jesus and the woman standing there</b>, that is, mercy and misery. Jesus alone remained because he alone was without sin; as the Psalm says (Ps 13:1): "There is no one who does what is good not even one," except Christ. So perhaps this woman was afraid, and thought she would be punished by him.
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Sed si remansit solus, quomodo dicit <i>in medio stans?</i> Et dicendum, quod mulier stabat in medio discipulorum, et sic ly <i>solus</i> excludit extraneos, non discipulos. Vel <i>in medio</i>, idest in dubio, utrum absolvenda esset, vel condemnanda. Sic ergo patet quod dominus in respondendo iustitiam servavit.
          <td>If only Jesus remained, why does it say that the woman was standing there <b>in the center</b> ? I answer that the woman was standing in the center of the disciples, and so the word only excludes outsiders, not the disciples. Or, we could say, in the center, that is, in doubt whether she would be forgiven or condemned. And so it is clear that our Lord's answer preserved justice.
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Consequenter cum dicit <i>erigens autem se Iesus, dixit ei</i> etc. ostendit quod a misericordia non recessit, dando sententiam misericordiae, et primo examinat; secundo absolvit; tertio admonet;
          <td>1136 Then (v 10), he shows that Jesus did not abandon mercy, but gave a merciful sentence. First, Jesus questions the woman; then forgives her; and finally, cautions her.
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>examinat autem eam de accusatoribus; unde dicit, quod <i>erigens se Iesus</i>, scilicet faciem suam a terra, in qua scribebat, ad mulierem convertens, <i>dixit ei: mulier, ubi sunt qui te accusabant?</i> Item de condemnatione; unde quaerit <i>nemo te condemnavit?</i> Et illa respondit: <i>nemo, domine</i>.
          <td>1137 Jesus questioned her about her accusers; thus he says that Jesus rising up, that is, turning from the ground on which he was writing and looking at the woman, asked her, <b>Woman, where are those who accuse you?</b> He asks about her condemnation saying, <b>Has no one condemned you?</b> And she answers, <b>No one, Lord.</b>
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Absolvit autem eam; unde dicit <i>dixit ei Iesus: nec ego te condemnabo</i>, a quo te forte damnari timuisti, quia in me peccatum non invenisti. Nec mirum, <i>quia non misit Deus filium suum in mundum, ut iudicet mundum, sed ut salvetur mundus per ipsum</i>; supra III, 17; Ez. XVIII, 32: <i>nolo mortem peccatoris</i>. Absolvit autem eam a culpa, non imponendo ei aliquam poenam: quia cum absolvendo exterius iustificaret interius, bene potuit eam adeo immutare interius per sufficientem contritionem de peccatis, ut ab omni poena immunis efficeretur. Nec tamen trahendum est in consuetudinem ut aliquis exemplo domini absque confessione et poenae inflictione quemquam absolvat; quia Christus excellentiam habuit in sacramentis, et potuit conferre effectum sine sacramento, quod nullus purus homo potest.
          <td>1138 Jesus forgives her; and so it says, <b>Then Jesus said: Nor will I condemn you</b>, I who perhaps you feared would condemn you, because you saw that I was without sin. This should not surprise us for "God did not send his Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through him" (3:17); "I do not desire the death of the sinner" (Ez 18:23). And he forgave her sin without imposing any penance on her because since he made her inwardly just by outwardly forgiving her, he was well able to change her so much within by sufficient sorrow for her sins that she would be made free from any penance. This should not be taken as a precedent for anyone to forgive another without confession and the assigning of a penance on the ground of Christ's example, for Christ has power over the sacraments, and could confer the effect without the sacrament. No mere man can do this.
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Admonet vero eam cum dicit <i>vade, et iam noli peccare</i>. Duo enim erant in muliere ista: scilicet natura et culpa. Et utrumque poterat dominus condemnare. Puta naturam, si iussisset eam lapidare; et culpam, si non absolvisset. Poterat etiam utrumque absolvere, puta si dedisset licentiam peccandi, dicens vade, vive ut vis, esto de mea liberatione secura; ego, quantumcumque peccaveris, etiam a Gehenna et ab Inferni tortoribus liberabo. Sed dominus culpam non amans, peccatis non favens, ipsam damnavit culpam, non naturam, dicens <i>amplius noli peccare</i>: ut sic appareat quam dulcis est dominus per mansuetudinem, et rectus per veritatem.
          <td>1139 Finally, Jesus cautions her when he says, <b>Go, and do not sin again.</b> There were two things in that woman: her nature and her sin. Our Lord could have condemned both. For example, he could have condemned her nature if he had ordered them to stone her, and he could have condemned her sin if he had not forgiven her. He was also able to absolve each. For example, if he had given her license to sin, saying: "Go, live as you wish, and put your hope in my freeing you. No matter how much you sin, I will free you even from Gehenna and from the tortures of hell." But our Lord does not love sin, and does not favor wrongdoing, and so he condemned her sin but not her nature, saying, Go, and do not sin again. We see here how kind our Lord is because of his gentleness, and how just he is because of his truth.
    </table>
    <hr>
    <table cellpadding="12">
      <tbody>
        <tr style="align:center">
          <td><b>Lectio 2</b>
          <td><b>LECTURE 2</b>
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td style="font-family:" palatino="">
            <blockquote>
              12 πάλιν οὖν αὐτοῖς ἐλάλησεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς λέγων, ἐγώ εἰμι τὸ φῶς τοῦ κόσμου: ὁ ἀκολουθῶν ἐμοὶ οὐ μὴ περιπατήσῃ ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ, ἀλλ' ἕξει τὸ φῶς τῆς ζωῆς. 13 εἶπον οὖν αὐτῷ οἱ φαρισαῖοι, σὺ περὶ σεαυτοῦ μαρτυρεῖς: ἡ μαρτυρία σου οὐκ ἔστιν ἀληθής. 14 ἀπεκρίθη Ἰησοῦς καὶ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς, κἂν ἐγὼ μαρτυρῶ περὶ ἐμαυτοῦ, ἀληθής ἐστιν ἡ μαρτυρία μου, ὅτι οἶδα πόθεν ἦλθον καὶ ποῦ ὑπάγω: ὑμεῖς δὲ οὐκ οἴδατε πόθεν ἔρχομαι ἢ ποῦ ὑπάγω. 15 ὑμεῖς κατὰ τὴν σάρκα κρίνετε, ἐγὼ οὐ κρίνω οὐδένα. 16 καὶ ἐὰν κρίνω δὲ ἐγώ, ἡ κρίσις ἡ ἐμὴ ἀληθινή ἐστιν, ὅτι μόνος οὐκ εἰμί, ἀλλ' ἐγὼ καὶ ὁ πέμψας με πατήρ. 17 καὶ ἐν τῷ νόμῳ δὲ τῷ ὑμετέρῳ γέγραπται ὅτι δύο ἀνθρώπων ἡ μαρτυρία ἀληθής ἐστιν. 18 ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ μαρτυρῶν περὶ ἐμαυτοῦ καὶ μαρτυρεῖ περὶ ἐμοῦ ὁ πέμψας με πατήρ. 19 ἔλεγον οὖν αὐτῷ, ποῦ ἐστιν ὁ πατήρ σου; ἀπεκρίθη Ἰησοῦς, οὔτε ἐμὲ οἴδατε οὔτε τὸν πατέρα μου: εἰ ἐμὲ ᾔδειτε, καὶ τὸν πατέρα μου ἂν ᾔδειτε. 20 ταῦτα τὰ ῥήματα ἐλάλησεν ἐν τῷ γαζοφυλακίῳ διδάσκων ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ: καὶ οὐδεὶς ἐπίασεν αὐτόν, ὅτι οὔπω ἐληλύθει ἡ ὥρα αὐτοῦ.
            </blockquote>
          <td>
            <blockquote>
              12 Again Jesus spoke to them saying: "I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will not walk in darkness, but he will have the light of life." 13 The Pharisees then said to him, "You are bearing witness to yourself; your testimony is not true. 14 Jesus replied: "Even though I bear witness concerning myself, my testimony is true, because I know where I come from and where I am going. But you do not know where I come from, or where I am going. 15 You judge according to the flesh. I do not judge anyone. 16 And if I do judge, my judgment is true because I am not alone; but there is me and the Father who sent me. 17 And it is written in your Law that the testimony of two men is true. 18 It is I who bear witness to myself, and the Father who sent me who bears witness concerning me." 19 They therefore said to him, "Where is your Father?" Jesus replied, "You know neither me nor my Father. If you did know me, you might also know my Father." 20 Jesus spoke these words in the treasury where he was teaching in the temple; and no one arrested him because his hour had not yet come.
            </blockquote>
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Postquam Evangelista introduxit Christum docentem, hic consequenter primo ostendit doctrinae ipsius illuminativam virtutem; secundo manifestat quae de ea dicit, ibi <i>dixerunt ergo ei Pharisaei: tu de te ipso testimonium perhibes</i>. Circa primum tria facit. Primo ponit spiritualis lucis privilegium; secundo eius effectum, ibi <i>qui sequitur me, non ambulat in tenebris</i>; tertio eius fructum, ibi <i>sed habebit lumen vitae</i>.
          <td>1140 The Evangelist has presented Christ as teaching; now he shows, first, the power which this teaching has to give light, and secondly, what Christ himself said about it (v 13). With respect to the first he does three things: first, he states Christ's prerogative concerning spiritual light; secondly, the effect of this prerogative, Whoever follows me will not walk in darkness; and thirdly, its fruit, but he will have the light of life.
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Privilegium autem spiritualis lucis ponitur quantum ad Christum, qui est lux; et quantum ad hoc dicit <i>iterum locutus est eis Iesus dicens: ego sum lux mundi</i>. Quod potest uno modo continuari ad immediate dictum. Quia enim dixit: <i>nec ego condemnabo te</i> etc., absolvens eam a crimine, ideo ne aliqui dubitarent utrum ipse absolvere posset, et peccata dimittere, dignatur apertius divinitatis suae potentiam demonstrare, dicens se esse lucem, qui peccati tenebras pellit. Alio modo potest continuari ad illud quod supra VII, 52 dixit: <i>scrutare Scripturas, et vide quia propheta a Galilaea non surgit</i>. Quia enim eum aestimabant Galilaeum, et quasi ex loco determinato dependentem, doctrinam eius repudiabant; ideo dominus ostendit se totius mundi esse lucem universalem, dicens <i>ego sum lux mundi</i>, non Galilaeae, neque Palaestinae, neque Iudaeae.
          <td>1141 He says, concerning the prerogative of Christ, who is the light, to the spiritual light, <b>Again Jesus spoke to them saying: I am the light of the world.</b> We can relate this statement with what went before in this way. Christ had said, when forgiving the woman's sin, "Nor will I condemn you." And so they would have no doubt that he could forgive and pardon sins, he saw fit to show the power of his divinity more openly by saying that he is the light which drives away the darkness of sin. Or, we could connect this statement with what the Pharisees said before (7:52): "Look at the Scriptures and see that the Prophet will not come from Galilee." For they thought of him as a Galilean and linked to a definite place, and so they rejected his teaching. So our Lord shows them that he is in the universal light of the entire world, saying, I am the light of the world, not just of Galilee, or of Palestine, or of Judea.
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Manichaei autem, ut Augustinus dicit, hoc falso intelligebant. Quia enim imaginatio eorum erat solum de sensibilibus, ideo non valebant se ad intellectualia et spiritualia extendere, credebant enim supra corporalia nihil esse in rerum natura, unde dicebant Deum esse corpus et lucem quamdam infinitam, et solem istum oculis carnis visibilem, Christum dominum esse putaverunt: et propter hoc ipsum dixisse <i>ego sum lux mundi</i>. Sed hoc stare non potest et Ecclesia Catholica improbat tale figmentum. Sol enim iste corporalis est lux quam sensus attingere potest: et ideo non est suprema lux, quam intellectus solus attingit, quae est lux intelligibilis propria rationalis creaturae. Hic de ea dicit Christus <i>ego sum lux mundi</i>. De ista dicitur supra I, 9: <i>erat lux vera quae illuminat omnem hominem venientem in hunc mundum</i>. Lux autem ista sensibilis, imago quaedam est illius lucis intelligibilis: nam omne sensibile est quasi quoddam particulare, intellectualia autem sunt quasi totalia quaedam. Sicut autem lux ista particularis habet effectum in re visa, inquantum colores facit actu visibiles, et etiam in vidente, quia per eam oculus confortatur ad videndum, sic lux illa intelligibilis intellectum facit cognoscentem. Quia quidquid luminis est in rationali creatura, totum derivatur ab ipsa suprema luce; supra I, 9: <i>illuminat omnem hominem venientem in hunc mundum</i>. Item facit res omnes actu intelligibiles, inquantum ab ipsa derivantur omnes formae, per quas res habent quod cognoscantur, sicut omnes formae artificiatorum derivantur ab arte et ratione artificis; Ps. CIII, 24: <i>quam magnificata sunt opera tua, domine. Omnia in sapientia fecisti</i>. Et ideo recte dicit <i>ego sum lux mundi</i>: non sol factus, sed per quem sol factus est. Tamen, ut Augustinus dicit, lumen quod solem fecit, sub sole factum est, et carnis nube tegitur, non ut obscuretur, sed ut temperetur.
          <td>1142 The Manicheans, as Augustine relates, misunderstood this: for since they judged by their imagination, which does not rise to intellectual and spiritual realities, they believed that nothing but bodies existed. Thus they said that God was a body; and a certain infinite light. Further, they thought that the sun that we see with our physical eyes was Christ the Lord. And that is why, according to them, Christ said, I am the light of the world. But this cannot hold up, and the Catholic Church rejects such a fiction. For this physical sun is a light which can be perceived by sense. Consequently, it is not the highest light, which intellect alone grasps, and which is the intelligible light characteristic of the rational creature. Christ says about this light here: I am the light of the world. And above we read: "He was the true light, which enlightens every man coming into this world" (1:9). Sense perceptible light, however, is a certain image of spiritual light, for every sensible thing is something particular, whereas intellectual things are a kind of whole. Just as particular light has an effect on the thing seen, inasmuch as it makes colors actually visible, as well as on the one seeing, because through it the eye is conditioned for seeing, so intellectual light makes the intellect to know because whatever light is in the rational creature is all derived from that supreme light "which enlightens every man coming into the world." Furthermore, it makes all things to be actually intelligible inasmuch as all forms are derived from it, forms which give things the capability of being known, just as all the forms of artifacts are derived from the art and reason on the artisan: "How magnificent are your works, O Lord! You have made all things in wisdom" (Ps 103:24). Thus Christ truly says here: I am the light of the world; not the sun which was made, but the one who made the sun. Yet as Augustine says, the Light which made the sun was himself made under the sun and covered with a cloud of flesh, not in order to hide but to be moderated [to our weakness].
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Excluditur etiam per hoc haeresis Nestorii dicentis, quod filius Dei erat unitus homini per inhabitationem tantum. Constat enim quod qui haec verba proferebat, scilicet <i>ego sum lux mundi</i>, homo erat. Nisi ergo ipse qui loquebatur et videbatur homo, personaliter esset filius Dei, non dixisset <i>ego sum lux mundi</i>, sed in me habitat lux mundi.
          <td>1143 This also eliminates the heresy of Nestorius, who said that the Son of God was united to human nature by a mere indwelling. For it is obvious that the one who said, I am the light of the world, was a human being. Therefore, unless the one who spoke and appeared as a human being was also the person of the Son of God, he could not have said, I am the light of the world, but "The light of the world dwells in me."
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Effectus autem huius lucis est expellere tenebras; unde dicit <i>qui sequitur me, non ambulat in tenebris</i>. Et quia lux ista est universalis, ideo universaliter tenebras omnes expellit. Sunt autem triplices tenebrae, scilicet ignorantiae; Ps. LXXXI, 5: <i>nescierunt neque intellexerunt: in tenebris ambulant</i>. Et hae sunt rationis secundum seipsam, inquantum per seipsam obnubilatur. Item culpae; Eph. V, 8: <i>eratis aliquando tenebrae, nunc autem lux in domino</i>. Et istae sunt rationis humanae non ex se, sed ex appetitu, inquantum male dispositus per passiones vel habitum, appetit aliquid ut bonum, quod tamen non est vere bonum. Item tenebrae damnationis aeternae; Matth. c. XXV, 30: <i>inutilem servum eiicite in tenebras exteriores</i>. Sed duae primae sunt in vita ista; tertiae vero sunt in termino viae. <i>Qui</i> ergo <i>sequitur me, non ambulat in tenebris</i>, ignorantiae, quia <i>ego sum veritas</i>, nec culpae, quia <i>ego sum via</i>, neque damnationis aeternae, quia <i>ego sum vita</i>.
          <td>1144 The effect of this light is to expel darkness; and so he says, <b>Whoever follows me will not walk in darkness.</b> Because this light is universal, it universally expels all darkness. Now there are three kinds of darkness. There is the darkness of ignorance: "The have neither known nor understood; they walk in darkness" (Ps 81:5); and this is the darkness reason has of itself, insofar as it is darkened of itself. There is the darkness of sin: "You were at one time darkness, but now you are light in the Lord" (Eph 5:8). This darkness belongs to human reason not of itself, but from the affections which, by being badly disposed by passion or habit, seek something as good that is not really good. Further, there is the darkness of eternal damnation: "Cast the unprofitable servant into the exterior darkness" (Mt 25:30). The first two kinds of darkness are found in this life; but the third is at the end of life. Thus, Whoever follows me will not walk in darkness: the darkness of ignorance, because I am the truth; nor the darkness of sin, because I am the way; nor the darkness of eternal damnation, because I am the life.
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Et ideo consequenter subdit fructum doctrinae, scilicet <i>sed habebit lumen vitae</i>: nam qui hoc lumen habet, est extra tenebras damnationis. Dicit autem <i>qui sequitur</i>, quia sicut quicumque non vult errare in tenebris, oportet ut sequatur eum qui lumen portat; ita quicumque vult salvari, oportet quod sequatur Christum, qui est lux, credendo et amando; et sic apostoli secuti sunt eum, Matth. IV, 20. Quia vero lux corporalis deficere potest per occasum, contingit quia qui sequitur eam, tenebras incurrit. Lux vero ista, quae nescit occasum, numquam deficit: et ideo qui sequitur eam, habet lumen indeficiens, scilicet vitae. Lumen enim visibile non dat vitam, sed coadiuvat exterius operationes vitae corporalis; lumen vero istud vitam dat, quia vivimus inquantum intellectum habemus, qui est quaedam participatio illius lucis. Quando autem lux illa perfecte irradiabit, tunc habebimus vitam perfectam; Ps. XXXV, 10: <i>apud te est fons vitae, et in lumine tuo videbimus lumen</i>; quasi dicat: tunc ipsam vitam perfecte habebimus quando ipsum lumen per speciem videbimus. Unde dicitur Io. XVII, 3: <i>haec est vita aeterna, ut cognoscant te solum verum Deum, et quem misisti Iesum Christum</i>.
          <td>1145 He next adds the fruit of his teaching, <b>but he will have the light of life</b>, for one who has the light is outside the darkness of damnation. He says, Whoever follows me, because just as one who does not want to stumble in the dark has to follow the one who is carrying the light, so one who wants to be saved must, by believing and loving, follow Christ, who is the light. This is the way the apostles followed him (Mt 4). Because physical light can fail because it sets, it happens that one who follows it meets with darkness. But the light we are talking about here does not set and never fails; consequently, one who follows it has an unfailing light, that is, an unfailing light of life. For the light that is visible does not give life, but gives us an external aid because we live insofar as we have understanding, and this is a certain participation in this light. And when this light completely shines upon us we will then have perfect life: "With you is the fountain of life, and in your light we will see the light" (Ps 35:10). This is the same as saying: We will have perfectly or completely when we see this light as it is. Thus we read further on: "This is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent" (17:3).
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Sed attendendum, quod hoc quod dicit <i>qui sequitur me</i>, pertinet ad meritum; quod vero dicit <i>habebit lumen vitae</i>, ad praemium.
          <td>Note that the phrase, <b>whoever follows me</b>, pertains to our merits; while the statement, <b>he will have the light of life</b>, pertains to our reward.
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Consequenter cum dicit <i>dixerunt ergo ei Pharisaei</i> etc., manifestat haec tria quae de se dicit, et primo primum; secundo secundum, ibi <i>dicit ergo iterum, eis Iesus</i>; tertio tertium, ibi <i>amen, amen dico vobis, si quis sermonem meum servaverit, mortem non videbit in aeternum</i>.
          <td>1146 The Evangelist mentions three things that Jesus says about himself. First, I am the light of the world; secondly, I am going away (v 21); and thirdly, if any one keeps my word, he will not see death forever (v 51).
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>rimum autem quod dixit, est <i>ego sum lux mundi</i>, quod Iudaeos turbabat, et ideo primo ponit Iudaeorum contradictionem; secundo eorum confutationem, manifestando veritatem sui dicti, ibi <i>respondit Iesus, et dixit eis</i> et cetera.
          <td>The first thing he said was, <b>I am the light of the world</b>; and this troubled the Jews. So first, he shows their opposition; secondly, how Jesus proved that they were wrong by showing what he said was true (v 14).
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>PManifestum est autem circa primum, quod illa quae dixit in templo, dixit in conspectu turbarum, hic autem coram Pharisaeis. Et ideo dixerunt ei ipsi Pharisaei: <i>tu de teipso testimonium perhibes, testimonium tuum non est verum</i>; quasi dicant: ex hoc ipso quod tu de teipso testificaris, testimonium tuum non est verum.
          <td>1147 With respect to the first, it is obvious that what Jesus said in the temple, he said in the presence of the people. But now he is speaking before the Pharisees, and so they said to him: <b>You are bearing witness to yourself; your testimony is not true.</b> They were saying in effect: Because you are bearing witness to yourself, your testimony is not true.
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>In hominibus enim nec acceptum nec congruum est quod homo se laudet; Prov. XXVII, v. 2: <i>laudet te alienus, et non os tuum</i>: quia non ex hoc commendabilis redditur, sed si a Deo commendatur; II Cor. X, 18: <i>non enim qui seipsum commendat, ille probatus est, sed quem Deus commendat</i>: quia solus Deus perfecte eum cognoscit. Deum autem nullus potest sufficienter commendare, nisi ipse seipsum, et ideo oportet quod ipse de seipso testificetur, et etiam de hominibus; Iob XVI, 20: <i>ecce in caelo testis meus</i>. Et ideo Iudaei decipiebantur.
          <td>Now in human affairs it is neither acceptable nor fitting that a person praise himself: "Let another praise you, and not your own mouth" (Prv 27:2), because self-praise does not make a person commendable, but being commended by God does: "It is not he who commends himself who is approved, but he whom God commends" (2 Cor 10:18), because only God perfectly knows a person. But no one can really sufficiently commend God except God himself; and so it is fitting that he bear witness to himself, and also to men: "My witness is in heaven" (Jb 16:20). Thus the opinion of the Jews was mistaken.
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Consequenter cum dicit <i>respondit Iesus, et dixit eis</i> etc., dominus repellit eorum contradictionem, et primo auctoritate patris; secundo removet contradictionem exortam de patre, ibi <i>dicebant ergo ei: ubi est pater tuus?</i> Contradictio autem Iudaeorum erat per quamdam consequentiam, et ideo primo ostendit eorum consequentiam non tenere; secundo probat suum testimonium verum esse, ibi <i>ego non iudico quemquam</i> et cetera. Circa primum duo facit. Primo ostendit consequentiae falsitatem; secundo subdit deceptionis ipsorum causam, ibi <i>vos autem nescitis unde venio, aut quo vado</i>.
          <td>1148 Next (v 14), our Lord rejects their opposition: first, by the authority of his Father; secondly, by answering their rejection, which arose concerning his Father (v 19). The opposition of the Jews arose from a certain conclusion which they drew: and so the first he shows that their conclusion is not true; secondly, he proves that his own testimony is true (v 1b). He does two things concerning the first: first, he shows that their conclusion is false; secondly, he adds the reason for their error (v 14b).
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Consequentia autem istorum erat quod ex hoc ipso quod Christus de se testimonium perhibebat, testimonium eius non erat verum. Sed dominus dicit contrarium, scilicet quod ex hoc verum est. Unde <i>respondit, et dixit eis: si ego testimonium perhibeo de meipso, testimonium meum verum est</i>: et hoc ideo, quia <i>ego scio unde veni, et quo vado</i>; quasi dicat, secundum Chrysostomum, quia ex Deo sum, et Deus, et Dei filius. <i>Est autem Deus verax</i>: Rom. III, 4.
          <td>1149 Their conclusion was that the testimony of Christ was not true, because he bore witness to himself. But our Lord says the opposite, namely, that because of this it is true. Jesus replied: <b>Even though I bear witness concerning myself, my testimony is true; and it is true because I know where I come from and where I am going.</b> It is like saying, according to Chrysostom, my testimony is true because I am from God, and because I am God, and because I am the Son of God: "God is truthful" (Rom 3:4).
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Dicit autem <i>scio unde veni</i>, idest cognosco meum principium, <i>et quo vado</i>, scilicet ad patrem, quem nullus perfecte scire potest nisi filius Dei; Matth. XI, 27: <i>nec patrem quis novit nisi filius, et cui voluerit filius revelare</i>. Non autem quicumque scit affectu et intellectu, unde veniat et quo vadat, non potest nisi verum dicere, nam a Deo venit, et ad Deum vadit; Deus autem veritas est: quanto ergo magis filius Dei, qui perfecte scit unde venit et quo vadit, verum dicit?
          <td>He says, <b>I know where I come from</b>, that is, my origin, <b>and where I am going</b>, that is to the Father, whom no one but the Son can know perfectly: "No one knows the Father except the Son, and he to whom Son wishes to reveal him" (Mt 11:27). This does not imply that anyone who knows, by love and understanding, where he comes from and where he is going can speak only the truth, for we all come from God and are going to God. But God is truth: how much more, then, does the Son of God speak the truth, he who knows perfectly where he comes from and where he is going!
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Consequenter cum dicit <i>vos autem nescitis unde venio aut quo vado</i>, ostendit causam erroris, quae est ignorantia divinitatis Christi; quia enim ipsam ignorabant, iudicabant de eo secundum humanitatem. Sic ergo duplex causa erroris erat in eis. Una, quia eius divinitatem ignorabant; alia, quia de eo secundum humanitatem tantum iudicabant. Et ideo quantum ad primum dicit <i>vos nescitis unde venio</i>, idest aeternum meum processum a patre, <i>aut quo vado</i>. Supra: <i>est verax qui misit me, et ego quae audivi ab eo, haec loquor in mundo</i>; Iob XXVIII, 20: <i>unde ergo venit sapientia?</i> Is. LIII, 8: <i>generationem eius quis enarrabit?</i>
          <td>1150 Then when he says, <b>But you do not know where I come from or where I am going</b>, he shows the reason for their error, which was their ignorance of the divinity of Christ. For it was because they did not know this that they judged him according to his human nature. Thus, there were two reasons for their error. One, because they did not know his divinity; the other, because they judged him only by his human nature. And so he says, with respect to the first, you do no know where I come from, that is, my eternal procession from the Father, or where I am going, "The one who sent me is truthful. Whatever I have heard from him, this I declare to the world" (8:26); "From where, then, does wisdom come?" (Jb 28:20); "Who will state his origin?" (Is 53:8).
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Quantum ad secundum dicit <i>vos secundum carnem iudicatis</i>, scilicet de me, solum carnem esse putantes, non autem Deum. Vel <i>secundum carnem</i>, idest male et iniuste. Sicut enim secundum carnem vivere est male vivere, ita et secundum carnem iudicare, est male iudicare.
          <td>As for the second reason for their error, he says, <b>you judge according to the flesh</b>, that is, you judge me thinking that I am merely flesh and not God. Or, we could say, according to the flesh, that is, wickedly and unjustly. For just as to live according to the flesh is to live wickedly, so to judge according to the flesh is to judge unjustly.
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Consequenter cum dicit <i>ego non iudico quemquam</i>, ostendit testimonium suum esse verum, et falsum esse quod ipse solus de se testimonium perhibeat. Et quia de iudicio mentio facta est, ostendit primo se non esse solum in iudicando; secundo se non esse solum in testificando, ibi <i>et in lege vestra scriptum est</i> et cetera. Circa primum tria facit. Primo ponit iudicii dilationem; secundo iudicii veritatem; et tertio veritatis rationem.
          <td>1151 Then (v 15b), he shows that his testimony is true, and that it is false to say that he alone is bearing witness to himself. Because mention was now made about judging, he shows, first, that he is not alone in judging; and secondly, that he is not alone in bearing witness (v 17). He does three things about the first: first, he says that his judgment is deferred; secondly, that his judgment is true; and thirdly, he gives the reason why his judgment is true.
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Dilationem quidem iudicii ponit cum dicit <i>ego non iudico quemquam</i>; quasi dicat: vos iudicatis male, sed <i>ego non iudico quemquam</i>; supra III, 17: <i>non enim misit Deus filium suum in mundum ut iudicet mundum, sed ut salvetur mundus per ipsum</i>. Vel <i>non iudico quemquam</i>, scilicet secundum carnem, sicut vos iudicatis; Is. XI, 3: <i>non secundum visionem oculorum iudicabit, neque secundum auditum aurium arguet</i>.
          <td>1152 He mentions that his judgment is deferred when he says, <b>I do not judge anyone.</b> He is saying in effect: You judge wickedly, but I do not judge anyone: "God did not send his Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through him" (3:17). Or, we could say, I do not judge anyone, according to the flesh, as you judge: "He will not judge by the sight of his eyes, or reprove by what his ears hear" (Is 11:3).
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Sed tamen quandoque iudicabo; quia <i>pater omne iudicium dedit filio</i>; supra c. V, 22. Et tunc <i>iudicium meum verum est</i>, idest iustum; Ps. XCV: <i>iudicabit orbem terrae in aequitate</i>; Rom. II, 2: <i>scimus quia iudicium Dei est secundum veritatem in eos qui talia agunt</i>. In quo ostenditur iudicii veritas.
          <td>1153 Yet, I will judge at some time, because "The Father has given all judgment to the Son" (5:22). And then, my judgment is true, that is, just: "He will judge the people with justice" (Ps 95:10); "We know that the judgment of God is according to the truth" (Rom 2:2). This shows that his judgment is true.
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Rationem veritatis ostendit, cum dicit <i>quia non sum solus</i>. Quod autem dicit supra V, 22, <i>pater non iudicat quemquam</i>, intelligendum est seorsum a filio, vel quia non visibiliter pater apparebit omnibus in iudicio; et ideo dicit <i>non sum solus</i>, quia non derelictus ab ipso, sed simul cum ipso; infra XIV, v. 10: <i>ego in patre, et pater in me est</i>.
          <td>1154 He gives the reason for its truth when he says, <b>because I am not alone</b>. What Christ said before, "The Father himself judges no one" (5:22), should be understood to refer to the Father in isolation from the Son. Or, again, he said this because the Father will not appear visibly to all at the judgment. Thus he says, I am not alone, because he is not left alone by the Father, but is with him: "I am in the Father, and the Father is in me" (14:10).
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Hoc autem verbum excludit errorem Sabellii dicentis unam esse personam patris et filii, nec differre nisi secundum nomina. Si enim hoc esset, non dixisset <i>non sum solus, sed ego, et qui misit me</i>, sed dixisset: ego sum pater, et ego ipse sum filius. Distingue ergo personas, et cognosce filium esse alium a patre.
          <td>This statement rejects the error of Sabellius, who said that the Father and the Son were the same person, the only difference between them being in their names. But if this were true, Christ would not have said: I am not alone; but there is me and the Father who sent me. He would rather have said: "I am the Father, and I am the Son." We should, therefore, distinguish between the persons, and realize that the Son is not the Father.
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Consequenter cum dicit <i>et in lege vestra scriptum est</i> etc., ostendit quod non est solus in testificando; nec tamen differt testimonium, sicut iudicium: unde non dicit, testimonium non perhibeo. Primo ergo introducit legem; secundo concludit propositum, ibi <i>ego sum qui testimonium perhibeo de meipso</i>.
          <td>1155 Then (v 17), He shows that he is not alone in bearing witness. He does not defer bearing witness, as he does his judging. Thus he does not say, "I do not bear witness." First, he mentions the Law; secondly, he gives his conclusion (v 18).
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Dicit ergo <i>in lege vestra</i>, et vobis data, Eccli. XXIV, 23: <i>legem mandavit Moyses: scriptum est</i>, Deut. XIX, <i>quia duorum hominum testimonium verum est</i>: sic enim est ibi: <i>in ore duorum aut trium stabit omne verbum</i>.
          <td>1156 He says, <b>And it is written in your Law</b>, the Law which was given to you - "Moses imposed a law"- (Sir 24:33), <b>that the testimony of two men is true</b>; for it is written in Deuteronomy (19:15): "By the mouth of the two or three witnesses the issue will be settled."
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Sed, secundum Augustinum, habet magnam quaestionem quod dicit <i>duorum hominum testimonium verum est</i>. Fieri enim potest quod duo mentiantur. Nam Susanna casta duobus falsis testibus urgebatur, ut habetur Dan. XIII, 5 ss. Universus etiam populus mentitus est contra Christum. Responsio. Hoc quod dicit <i>duorum hominum testimonium verum est</i>, intelligendum est quod pro vero in iudicio est habendum. Cuius ratio est, quia in actibus humanis vera certitudo haberi non potest; et ideo accipitur inde id quod certius haberi potest, quod est per multitudinem testium: magis enim est probabile quod unus mentiatur, quam quod multi; Eccle. IV, 12: <i>funiculus triplex difficile solvitur</i>.
          <td>According to Augustine the statement that the testimony of two men is true, involves a great difficulty. For it could happen that both of them would be lying. Indeed, the chaste Susanna was harassed by two false witnesses (Dn 13), and all the people lied about Christ. I answer that statement, the testimony of two men is true, means that such testimony should be regarded as true when giving a verdict. The reason for this is that true certitude cannot be obtained when human acts are in question, and so in its place one takes what can be considered the more certain, that is, what is said by a number of witnesses: for it is more probable that one person might lie than many: "A threefold cord is not easily broken" (Eccl 4:12).
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Nihilominus tamen per hoc quod dicit: <i>in ore duorum aut trium testium stabit omne verbum</i>, reducit nos, secundum Augustinum, in considerationem Trinitatis, in qua est perpetua stabilitas veritatis, a qua omnes veritates derivantur. Dicit autem <i>duorum vel trium</i>, quia in Scriptura sacra quandoque nominantur tres, quandoque duae personae, cum quibus etiam intelligitur spiritus sanctus, qui est nexus duorum.
          <td>When we read, "By the mouth of two or three witnesses the issue will be settled" (Dt 19:15), we are lead, as Augustine says, to a consideration of the Trinity, in which truth is permanently established, from which all truths are derived. It says, "of two or three," because in Sacred Scripture sometimes three Persons are enumerated and at other times two persons, in which is implied the Holy Spirit, who is the bond of the other two.
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Si ergo duorum hominum testimonium verum est vel trium, testimonium meum verum est, quia et <i>ego testimonium perhibeo de meipso, et testimonium perhibet de me qui misit me pater</i>; supra V, 36: <i>ego testimonium habeo maius Ioanne</i>.
          <td>1157 If, therefore, the testimony of two or three is true, my testimony is true, because It is I who bear witness to myself and the Father who sent me who bears witness concerning me: "I have testimony that is greater than that of John" (5:36).
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Sed hoc non videtur ad propositum pertinere. Primo quidem, quia pater filii Dei non est homo; cum ipse dicat <i>duorum hominum testimonium verum est</i>. Secundo vero, quia tunc sunt duo testes alicuius quando testificantur de aliquo tertio; sed si unus testificatur de uno, non sunt duo testes. Cum ergo Christus testificetur de se, et similiter pater de Christo, videtur quod non sunt duo testes. Sed dicendum, quod Christus hic arguit per locum a minori. Manifestum est enim quod veritas Dei maior est quam veritas hominis. Si ergo credunt testimonio hominum, multo magis credendum est testimonio Dei. I Io. V, 9: <i>si testimonium hominum accipitis, testimonium Dei maius est</i>. Item hoc dicit, ut ostendat se consubstantialem patri, et non indigentem alieno testimonio, ut dicit Chrysostomus. Consequenter cum dicit <i>dicebant ergo ei: ubi est pater tuus?</i>
          <td>But this does not seem to be to the point. First, because the Father of the Son of God is not a man, while Christ says, the testimony of two men is true. Secondly, because there are two witnesses to someone when they are testifying about a third person; but if one testifies to one of the two, there are not two witnesses. Thus, since Christ is testifying about himself, and the Father is also testifying about Christ, it does not seem that there are two witnesses. To answer this we must say that Christ is here arguing from the lesser to the greater. For it is clear that the truth of God is greater than the truth of a man. So, therefore, if they believe in the testimony of men, then they should believe the testimony of God much more. "If you receive the testimony of men, the testimony of God is greater" (1 Jn 5:9). In addition, he says this to show that he is consubstantial with the Father, and does not need outside testimony, as Chrysostom says.
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Removet exortam quaestionem de patre, et primo ponit quaestionem Iudaeorum; secundo ponit responsionem Christi; tertio innuit securitatem respondentis.
          <td>1158 Next (v 19), we see the question arising about Christ's Father. First, the Evangelist mentions the question asked by the Jews; then Christ's answer; and thirdly, he intimates the security of Christ.
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Quaestio autem Iudaeorum proposita Christo est de patre, ubi esset: unde dicebant ei <i>ubi est pater tuus?</i> Intelligebant enim Christum habere patrem hominem sicut ipsi habent; et ideo, quia audierunt eum dicere: <i>solus non sum, sed ego et qui misit me pater</i>, et hic viderant eum solum, dicunt <i>ubi est pater tuus?</i>
          <td>1159 The question which the Jews had for Christ was about his Father, where his Father was. <b>They said to him: Where is your Father?</b> for they thought that the Father of Christ was a man, just like their own fathers. Because they heard him say, "I am not alone; but there is me and the Father who sent me," and since they saw that he was now alone, they asked him, Where is your Father?
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Vel dicendum, quod loquuntur hic cum quadam ironia et contumelia; quasi dicant: quid frequenter patrem tuum nobis inducis? Numquid est tantae virtutis, ut eius testimonio credatur? Ignotus enim est, et ignobilis. Intelligebant hoc de Ioseph; nihilominus tamen patrem ignorabant. Ps. CXIII, 2: <i>ne quando dicant gentes: ubi est Deus eorum?</i>
          <td>Or, we could say that they were here speaking with a certain irony and contempt, saying in effect: "Why do you speak to us so often about your Father? Is he so great that his testimony should be believed?" For they were thinking of Joseph, who was an unknown, and a person of low status; and they were ignorant of the Father: "So the Gentiles will not say: 'Where is their God'" (Ps 113:2).
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Responsio autem Christi est occulta, ibi: <i>respondit Iesus: neque me scitis, neque patrem meum</i>. Quia enim non studio addiscendi, sed malignandi quaerebant, ideo Christus non aperit eis veritatem; sed ostendit primo quidem ipsorum ignorantiam; secundo quomodo possint ad veritatis cognitionem pervenire. Ignorantiam quidem ipsorum ostendit cum dicit <i>neque me scitis</i>; quasi dicat: non quaeratis de patre, quia me nescitis. Quia enim me hominem putatis, ideo patrem meum hominem quaeritis; sed quia me non noscitis, neque patrem cognoscere potestis.
          <td>1160 Christ's answer is mysterious: <b>You know neither me nor my Father.</b> Christ does not reveal the truth to them because they were questioning him not because they desired to learn, but in order to belittle him. Rather, he first shows them knowledge of the truth. He shows them their ignorance when he says, you know neither me. He is saying: You should not be asking about my Father, because you do not know me. For since you regard me as a man, you are asking about my Father as though he were a man. But because you do not know me, neither can you know my Father.
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Sed contra. Supra VII, 28, dixit: <i>et me scitis, et unde sim scitis</i>. Est dicendum quod sciebant eum secundum humanitatem, sed non secundum divinitatem.
          <td>1161 This seems to conflict with what he said above: "You do indeed know me, and you know where I come from" (7:27). The answer to this is that they did know him according to his humanity, but not according to his divinity.
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Sciendum autem, secundum Origenem, quod ex hoc verbo aliqui sumentes occasionem erroris, dixerunt patrem Christi non fuisse Deum veteris testamenti; nam ipsum Iudaei cognoscebant, secundum illud Ps. LXXV, 1: <i>notus in Iudaea Deus</i>. Sed ad hoc est quadruplex responsio. Prima, quia ideo dicit dominus Iudaeos patrem ignorare, quia ad modum ignorantium se habent, inquantum mandatum eius non servant. Et haec responsio pertinet ad actum. Secundo dicuntur Deum ignorare, quia non adhaerent ei spiritualiter per amorem: qui enim aliquid cognoscit, ei adhaeret. Tertio, quia etsi cognoscerent eum per fidem, non tamen habebant de eo plenam scientiam. Supra I, v. 18: <i>Deum nemo vidit unquam. Unigenitus filius, qui est in sinu patris, ipse enarravit</i>. Quarto, quia in veteri testamento innotuit pater sub ratione Dei omnipotentis, Ex. VI, 3: <i>ego apparui eis in Deo omnipotente, et nomen meum Adonai non indicavi eis</i>, non autem sub ratione patris; unde licet scirent eum ut Deum, non tamen ut patrem filii consubstantialis.
          <td>We should note, according to Origen, that some have misunderstood this, and they said that the Father of Christ was not the God of the Old Testament: for the Jews knew the God of the Old Testament, according to "God is known in Judea" (Ps 75:1). There are four answers to this. First, our Lord says that the Jews did not know his Father because insofar as they do not keep his commandments they are acting like those who do not know him. This answer refers to their conduct. Secondly, they are said not to know God because they did not cling to him spiritually by love: for one who knows something adheres to it. Thirdly, because although they did know him through faith, they did not have a full knowledge of him: "No one has ever seen God; it is the Only Begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, who has made him known" (1:18). Fourthly, because in the Old Testament the Father was known under the aspect of God Almighty: "I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac and to Jacob as God Almighty, but my name, Lord, I did not show them" (Ex 6:3), that is, under the aspect of Father. Thus, although they knew him as God Almighty, they did not know him as the Father of a consubstantial Son.
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Viam autem perveniendi ad cognitionem patris dicit se esse: unde dicit <i>si me sciretis</i>, quasi dicat: quia patrem meum loquor occultum, opus prius est ut me noveritis, et tunc patrem meum forsitan scietis. Nam filius est via cognitionis paternae. Infra XIV, 7: <i>si cognovissetis me, et patrem meum utique cognovissetis</i>. Nam, secundum Augustinum, quid est <i>si me sciretis</i>, nisi <i>ego et pater unum sumus?</i> Quotidiana locutio est, quando vides aliquem alicuius similem, ut dicas: si hunc vidisti, illum vidisti, non tamen quod pater sit filius, sed quia sit patri similis.
          <td>1162 Christ says that he is the way to arrive at a knowledge of the Father, <b>If you did know me</b>. He is saying in effect: Because I speak of my Father, who is hidden, it is first necessary that you know me, <b>and then you might also know my Father.</b> For the Son is the way to the knowledge of the Father: "If you had known me, you would have also known my Father" (14:7). As Augustine says, what does If you did know me mean, except, "I and the Father are one" (10:30). It is customary when you see someone who is like someone else to say: "If you have seen one, you have seen the other"; not that the Son is the Father, but he is like the Father.
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Dicit autem <i>forsitan</i>, non dubitative, sed increpative, velut si indigneris servo tuo, et dicas: contemnis me? Considera quod forsitan dominus tuus sum.
          <td>He says, <b>you might</b>, not to indicate a doubt, but as a rebuke. It would be like being irritated with your servant and saying to him: "Have you no respect for me? Just remember that I might be your master."
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Securitatem autem Christi respondentis ostendit Evangelista, cum dicit <i>haec verba locutus est Iesus in gazophylacio</i>. Et primo quidem ex loco ubi docebat, quia in gazophylacio et in templo. Gaza enim, Persica lingua, dicuntur divitiae, phylaxe vero servare: unde gazophylacium ponitur in Scriptura pro arca, ubi divitiae conservantur; et hoc modo accipitur IV Reg. XII, 9, quod <i>tulit Ioiada sacerdos gazophylacium unum, aperuitque foramen desuper, et posuit illud iuxta altare ad dexteram ingredientium domum domini, mittebantque in eo sacerdotes qui custodiebant ostia, omnem pecuniam quae deferebatur ad templum domini</i>. Aliquando autem pro domo ubi divitiae conservantur; et hoc modo accipitur hic.
          <td>1163 The Evangelist shows the security with which Christ answered when he says, <b>Jesus spoke these words in the treasury.</b> We see the first from the place where he taught, that is, in the treasury (<i>gazophylacium</i>) and in the temple. For <i>gaza</i> is the Persian word for "riches," and <i>philaxe</i> for "keep." Thus gazophylacium is the word used in Sacred Scripture for the chest in which riches are kept. It is used in this sense in 2 Kings (12:9): "And Jehoiada the priest took a chest (<i>gazophylacium</i>) and bored a hole in its top, and put it by the altar, to the right of those coming into the house of the Lord. And the priests who kept the doors put into it all the money that was brought to the temple of the Lord." Sometimes, however, it was used to indicate the building where riches were kept; and this is the way it was used here.
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Secundo, ex hoc quod illi qui missi fuerant ad eum apprehendendum, hoc facere non potuerunt, quia ipse nolebat: unde dicit <i>et nemo apprehendit eum, quia nondum venit hora eius</i>, in qua pateretur; non fatalis, sed sua voluntate ab aeterno praedestinata. Unde dicit Augustinus <i>nondum venerat hora eius</i>, non qua cogeretur mori, sed qua dignaretur occidi.
          <td>We can also see Christ's security from the fact that those who had been sent to arrest him could not do so, because he was not willing. Thus the Evangelist says, and no one arrested him because his hour had not yet come, that is, the time for him to suffer, an hour not fixed by fate, but predetermined from all eternity by his own will. Thus Augustine says: "His hour had not yet come, not in which he would be forced to die, but in which he would not refuse being killed."
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Sed nota, secundum Origenem, quod quandocumque designatur locus in quo dominus aliquid fecit, hoc fit propter mysterium. In gazophylacio ergo, qui est locus divitiarum, Christus docuit, ut daret intelligi, quod numismata, id est verba suae doctrinae, imaginem regis magni impressam habent.
          <td>1164 We may note, according to Origen, that whenever the place where our Lord did something is mentioned, this is done because of some mystery. Thus Christ taught in the treasury, the place where riches were kept, to signify that the coins, that is, the words of his teaching, are impressed with the image of the great King.
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Nota etiam, quod quando docebat, <i>nemo apprehendit eum</i>, quia sermones eius fortiores erant his qui eum capere volebant: quando vero voluit crucifigi, tacuit.
          <td>Note also that when Christ was teaching, no one arrested him, because his words were stronger than those who wanted to seize him; but when he willed to be crucified, then he became silent.
    </table>
    <hr>
    <table cellpadding="12">
      <tbody>
        <tr style="align:center">
          <td><b>Lectio 3</b>
          <td><b>LECTURE 3</b>
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td style="font-family:" palatino="">
            <blockquote>
              21 εἶπεν οὖν πάλιν αὐτοῖς, ἐγὼ ὑπάγω καὶ ζητήσετέ με, καὶ ἐν τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ ὑμῶν ἀποθανεῖσθε: ὅπου ἐγὼ ὑπάγω ὑμεῖς οὐ δύνασθε ἐλθεῖν. 22 ἔλεγον οὖν οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι, μήτι ἀποκτενεῖ ἑαυτόν, ὅτι λέγει, ὅπου ἐγὼ ὑπάγω ὑμεῖς οὐ δύνασθε ἐλθεῖν; 23 καὶ ἔλεγεν αὐτοῖς, ὑμεῖς ἐκ τῶν κάτω ἐστέ, ἐγὼ ἐκ τῶν ἄνω εἰμί: ὑμεῖς ἐκ τούτου τοῦ κόσμου ἐστέ, ἐγὼ οὐκ εἰμὶ ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου τούτου. 24 εἶπον οὖν ὑμῖν ὅτι ἀποθανεῖσθε ἐν ταῖς ἁμαρτίαις ὑμῶν: ἐὰν γὰρ μὴ πιστεύσητε ὅτι ἐγώ εἰμι, ἀποθανεῖσθε ἐν ταῖς ἁμαρτίαις ὑμῶν. 25 ἔλεγον οὖν αὐτῷ, σὺ τίς εἶ; εἶπεν αὐτοῖς ὁ Ἰησοῦς, τὴν ἀρχὴν ὅ τι καὶ λαλῶ ὑμῖν; 26 πολλὰ ἔχω περὶ ὑμῶν λαλεῖν καὶ κρίνειν: ἀλλ' ὁ πέμψας με ἀληθής ἐστιν, κἀγὼ ἃ ἤκουσα παρ' αὐτοῦ ταῦτα λαλῶ εἰς τὸν κόσμον. 27 οὐκ ἔγνωσαν ὅτι τὸν πατέρα αὐτοῖς ἔλεγεν. 28 εἶπεν οὖν [αὐτοῖς] ὁ Ἰησοῦς, ὅταν ὑψώσητε τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, τότε γνώσεσθε ὅτι ἐγώ εἰμι, καὶ ἀπ' ἐμαυτοῦ ποιῶ οὐδέν, ἀλλὰ καθὼς ἐδίδαξέν με ὁ πατὴρ ταῦτα λαλῶ. 29 καὶ ὁ πέμψας με μετ' ἐμοῦ ἐστιν: οὐκ ἀφῆκέν με μόνον, ὅτι ἐγὼ τὰ ἀρεστὰ αὐτῷ ποιῶ πάντοτε. 30 ταῦτα αὐτοῦ λαλοῦντος πολλοὶ ἐπίστευσαν εἰς αὐτόν.
            </blockquote>
          <td>
            <blockquote>
              21 Again he said to them: "I am going away; and you will seek me, and you will die in your sin. Where I am going, you cannot come." 22 (So the Jews wondered, "Will he kill himself, since he says, 'Where I am going, you cannot come'?" 23 To them he said: "You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world. 24 Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins. For if you do not believe that I AM, you will die in your sin." 25 Then they ask him, "Who are you?" Jesus replied: "The source (beginning) who is also speaking to you. 26 I have much to say about you and much to judge. But the one who sent me is truthful. Whatever I have heard from him, this I declare to the world." 27 (And they did not realize that he was calling God his Father.) 28 So Jesus said to them: "When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will understand that I AM, and that I do nothing of myself; but as the Father taught me, so I speak. 29 He who sent me is with me; he has not deserted me, because I always do what is pleasing to him." 30 Because he spoke in this way, many came to believe in him.
            </blockquote>
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Postquam dominus manifestavit de se privilegium lucis, hic consequenter manifestat lucis effectum, scilicet quod liberat a tenebris, et primo ostendit quod ipsi in tenebris detinentur; secundo docet remedium quo ab eis liberentur, ibi <i>dicebant ergo Iudaei: numquid interficiet semetipsum</i> et cetera. Circa primum tria facit. Primo denuntiat dominus suum recessum; secundo ostendit Iudaeorum studium perversum; tertio ipsorum defectum.
          <td>1165 After our Lord showed his special position with respect to light, he here reveals the effect of this light, that is, that it frees us from darkness. First, he shows that the Jews are imprisoned in darkness; secondly he teaches the remedy which can free them (v 22). He does three things concerning the first: first, our Lord tells them he is going to leave; secondly, he reveals the perverse plans of the Jews, and thirdly, he mentions what they will be deprived of.
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Recessum autem suum dicit dominus esse per mortem; et ideo dicit <i>ego vado</i>: in quo duo dat intelligere. Primo, quod voluntarie moritur, scilicet vadens, et non ab alio ductus. Infra XVI, 5: <i>vado ad eum qui me misit</i>; infra X, 18: <i>nemo tollit a me animam meam: sed ego pono eam a meipso</i>. Et secundum hoc recte continuatur ad praecedentia. Dixit enim: <i>nemo apprehendit eum</i> et cetera. Et quare? Quia per se vadit sponte.
          <td>1166 Our Lord says that he is going to leave them by his death, <b>I am going away.</b> We can see two things from this. First, that he is going to die voluntarily, that is, as going, and not as one led by someone else: "I am going to him who sent me" (16:5); "No one takes my life from me, but I lay it down of myself" (10:18). And so this appropriately follows what went before: for he had said, "and no one arrested him" (8:20). Why? Because he is going willingly, on his own.
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Secundo ostendit quod mors Christi erat quaedam profectio illuc unde venerat et unde non discesserat: sicut enim qui vadit in anteriora proficit, ita Christus per mortem pervenit ad gloriam exaltationis. Phil. II, 8: <i>factus est obediens usque ad mortem, mortem autem crucis; propter quod et Deus exaltavit illum</i>; infra XIII, 3: <i>sciens quia a Deo exivit, et ad Deum vadit</i>.
          <td>Secondly, we can see that the death of Christ was a journey to that place from which he had come, and which he had not left, for just as one who walks heads toward what is ahead, so Christ, by his death, reached the glory of exaltation: "He became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Because of this God exalted him" (Phil 2:8); "Jesusknowing that he came from God, and is going to God" (13:3).
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Perversum eorum studium ostendit in dolosa inquisitione Christi: et quantum ad hoc dicit <i>quaeretis me</i>. Quidam autem quaerunt Christum pie ex caritate; et hanc inquisitionem sequitur vita; Ps. LXVIII, v. 33: <i>quaerite dominum, et vivet anima vestra</i>. Sed isti impie quaerunt, et odio ad persequendum; Ps. XXXVII, 13: <i>vim faciebant qui quaerebant animam meam</i>. Et sic dicit <i>quaeretis me</i>, scilicet persequentes post mortem quidem infamia; Matth. XXVII, 63: <i>recordati sumus quod seductor ille dixit adhuc vivens: post tres dies resurgam</i>. Item in membris meis; Act. IX, 4: <i>Saule, Saule, quid me persequeris?</i>
          <td>1167 We see their sinful plans by their deceitful search for Christ; he says, <b>you will seek me</b>. Some look for Christ in a devout way through charity, and such a search results in life: "Seek the Lord, and your soul will live" (Ps 68:7). But they wickedly searched for him out of hatred, to persecute him: "The who sought my soul used violence" (Ps 37:13). He says, you will seek me, by attacking me after my death with your accusations: "We remembered that while still living the seducer said: 'After three days I will rise'" (Mt. 27:63). And they will also seek out my members: "Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me" (Acts 9:4).
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Et hanc sequelam sequitur mors; et ideo subdit ipsorum defectum, quem eis praenuntiat dicens <i>et in peccato vestro moriemini</i>, et primo praenuntiat defectum qui consistit in mortis damnatione; secundo defectum qui consistit in eorum a gloria exclusione, ibi <i>quo ego vado, vos non potestis venire</i>.
          <td>1168 This will be followed by their death, and so he adds what they will be deprived of, foretelling to them, <b>and you will die in your sin.</b> First, he foretells that deprivation which consists in the condemnation of death; secondly, that deprivation which consists in their exclusion from glory, Where I am going, you cannot come.
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Dicit ergo: quia inique me quaeritis, ideo <i>in peccato vestro</i>, scilicet permanentes, <i>moriemini</i>. Quod potest intelligi uno modo de morte corporali: et sic in peccatis suis moritur qui usque ad mortem perseverat in eis. Et sic per hoc quod dicit <i>in peccato vestro moriemini</i>, exaggerat eorum obstinatam pertinaciam. Ier. VIII, 6: <i>non est qui poenitentiam agat de peccato suo dicens, quid feci?</i> Ez. XXXII, 27: <i>descenderunt cum armis ad Inferna</i>.
          <td>1169 He is saying: Because you will wickedly search for me, you will die while continuing in your sin. We can understand this in one way as applying to physical death: and then one dies in his sins who keeps on sinning up to the time of his death. And so in saying, you will die in your sin, he emphasizes their obstinacy: "There is no one who does penance for his sin, saying: 'What have I done?'" (Jer 8:6); "They went down to the lower regions with their weapons" as we read in Ezekiel (32:2).
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Alio modo de morte peccati, de qua dicitur in Ps. XXXIII, 21: <i>mors peccatorum pessima</i>. Et sicut mortem corporalem praecedit infirmitas corporis, ita et hanc mortem infirmitas quaedam praecedit. Quamdiu enim peccatum remediabile est, tunc est quasi quaedam infirmitas quae praecedit Ps. VI, 3: <i>miserere mei, domine, quoniam infirmus sum</i>. Sed quando est irremediabile, vel simpliciter, sicut post hanc vitam, vel quod ad ipsum, sicut est peccatum in spiritum sanctum; tunc causat mortem; I Io. V, 16: <i>est peccatum ad mortem, non pro illo dico, ut roget quis</i>. Et secundum hoc praenuntiat eis dominus infirmitatem peccatorum esse ad mortem.
          <td>In another way, we can understand this as applying to the death of sin, about which the Psalm says, "The death of sinners is the worst" (Ps 33:22). And just as a physical weakness precedes physical death, so a certain weakness precedes this kind of death. For as long as sin can be remedied, it is a kind of weakness which precedes death: "Have mercy on me, O Lord, for I am weak" (Ps 6:3). But when sin can no longer be remedied, either absolutely, as after this life, or because of the very nature of the sin, as a sin against the Holy Spirit, it then causes death: "There is a sin that leads to death; I do not say that one should pray for that" (1 Jn 5:16). And according to this, our Lord is foretelling them that the weakness of their sins results in death.
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Defectum qui consistit in eorum exclusione a gloria ostendit cum dicit <i>quo ego vado, vos non potestis venire</i>. Quo vadit dominus, vadunt et isti per mortem; sed dominus sine peccato, isti vero cum peccatis, quia in peccato suo moriuntur, et ideo non perveniunt ad gloriam paternae visionis. Et ideo dicit <i>quo ego vado</i>, scilicet sponte per passionem meam, scilicet ad patrem et ad suam gloriam, <i>vos non potestis venire</i>, quia non vultis. Si enim voluissent, et non potuissent, non rationabiliter diceretur eis <i>in peccato vestro moriemini</i>.
          <td>1170 He shows the deprivation which consists in their exclusion from glory when he says, <b>Where I am going, you cannot come.</b> Our Lord goes by death, and so also do they. But our Lord goes without sin, while they go with their sins, because they are dying in their sin, and so do not come to the glory of the vision of the Father. So he says, Where I am going, willingly, by my passion, to the Father and to his glory, you cannot come, because you do not want to. For if they had wanted to and had not been able to do so, it could not have reasonably been said to them, "You will die in your sin."
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Sed notandum quod aliqui impediuntur ne possint ire quo Christus vadit, dupliciter. Uno modo ratione contrarietatis, et sic impediuntur peccatores: et de hoc loquitur hic; et ideo simpliciter perseverantibus in peccato dicit <i>quo ego vado, vos non potestis venire</i>. Ps. c, 7: <i>non habitabit in medio domus meae qui facit superbiam</i>; Is. XXXV, 8: <i>via sancta vocabitur, et pollutus non transibit per eam</i>; Ps. XIV, 1: <i>quis habitabit in tabernaculo tuo? Innocens manibus et mundo corde</i>.
          <td>1171 Note that one can be hindered from going where Christ goes in two ways. One way is by reason of some contrary factor, and this is the way that sinners are hindered. This is what he is speaking of here; and so to those who are absolutely continuing in their sin he says, Where I am going, you cannot come. "He who is proud will not live in my house" (Ps 100:7); "It will be called a holy way, and the unclean will not pass over it" (Is 35:8); "Who will dwell in your tent? He who walks without blame" (Ps 14:1).
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Alio modo ratione imperfectionis, seu indispositionis: et hoc modo impediuntur iusti quamdiu sunt in corpore; II Cor. V, 6: <i>quamdiu sumus in corpore, peregrinamur a domino</i>. Et talibus non dicit dominus simpliciter <i>quo ego vado, non potestis venire</i>, sed addit determinationem temporis: infra XIII, 37: <i>quo ego vado, non potes me modo sequi</i>.
          <td>One is hindered another way by reason of some imperfection or indisposition. This is the way the just are hindered as long as they live in the body: "While we are in the body, we are absent from the Lord" (2 Cor 5:6). To persons such as these our Lord does not say absolutely, Where I am going, you cannot come, but he adds a qualification as to the time: "Where I am going, you cannot follow me now" (13:36).
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Consequenter cum dicit <i>dicebant ergo Iudaei</i> etc., agit de remedio per quod a tenebris liberentur, et primo proponit remedium tenebras evadendi; secundo inducit rationes ad hoc remedium impetrandum, ibi <i>dicebant ergo eis: tu quis es?</i> Tertio praenuntiat modum ad hoc perveniendi, ibi <i>dixit ergo eis Iesus: cum exaltaveritis filium hominis, tunc cognoscetis</i>. Circa primum duo facit. Primo ponitur verborum Christi occasio; secundo ponuntur ea quibus causatur remedii insinuatio, ibi <i>vos de deorsum estis</i>.
          <td>1172 Then (v 22), he treats of the remedy which can set them free from the darkness. First, he gives the remedy for escaping the darkness; secondly, he shows the efficacy of the remedy (v 31). Concerning the first, he does three things: first, he indicates what is the unique remedy for escaping the darkness; secondly, he states the reasons why they should ask for this remedy (v 25); and thirdly, we see Christ foretelling the means of obtaining it (v 28). As for the first, he does two things: first, he gives the circumstances for Christ's words; and secondly, the reason why Christ can propose the remedy (v 23).
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Occasio autem verborum Christi sumitur ex persona, vel intellectu Iudaeorum. Cum enim carnales essent, verba domini quae dixerat <i>quo ego vado, vos non potestis venire</i>, carnaliter intelligebant; I Cor. II, 14: <i>animalis homo non percipit ea quae sunt spiritus Dei</i>. Unde dicunt Iudaei <i>numquid interficiet semetipsum?</i> Quae quidem, secundum Augustinum, stulta opinio est. Numquid enim non poterant venire quo Christus perrexit, si interficeret semetipsum? Poterant quidem et ipsi seipsos interficere. Sic ergo mors non erat terminus quo iturus erat Christus, sed via qua ibat ad patrem. Unde non dixit quod non possent ire ad mortem, sed quod per mortem non poterant ire ad locum quo per eam Christus exaltabatur, ad dexteram scilicet Dei. Secundum Origenem autem, forte non sine causa Iudaei hoc dicunt. Habebant enim ex traditionibus quod Christus voluntarie esset moriturus, sicut ipse dixit, infra X, 18: <i>nemo tollit animam meam, sed ego pono eam a meipso</i>. Quod specialiter videntur habuisse ex Is. LIII, 12: <i>pro eo quod tradidit animam suam in mortem, ideo dispertiam ei plurimos, et fortium dividet spolia</i>. Quia ergo aliqualem suspicionem habebant de Iesu quod esset Christus, ideo, cum dixit <i>ego vado</i> etc., introduxerunt hanc opinionem, quod ipse semetipsum voluntarie morti traderet. Sed contumeliose hoc proferunt, dicentes <i>numquid interficiet se?</i> Alias dixissent: numquid anima eius, cum ipsi placuerit, egredietur relicto corpore? Quod nos non possumus facere. Et propter hoc ait <i>quo ego vado, vos non potestis venire</i>.
          <td>1173 The circumstances surrounding Christ's words was the perverse understanding of the Jews. For since they were carnal, they understood what Christ said, "Where I am going, you cannot come," in a carnal way: "The sensual man does not perceive those things that pertain to the Spirit of God" (1 Cor 2:14). Thus the Jews said, Will he kill himself? As Augustine says, this is indeed a foolish notion. For if Christ was going to kill himself, couldn't they go where he was going? For they could kill themselves also. Thus, death was not the term of Christ's going: it was the way he was going to the Father. Accordingly, he did not say that they could not go to death but that they could not go through death to the place where Christ, through his death, would be exalted, that is, at the right hand of God. According to Origen, however, perhaps the Jews did have a reason why they said this. For they had learned from their traditions that Christ would die willingly, as he himself said: "No one takes my life from me, but I lay it down of myself'" (10:18). They seem to have especially gathered this from Isaiah (53:12): "I will give him many things, and he will divide the spoils of the strong, because he delivered himself to death." And so because they suspected that Jesus was the Christ, when he said, "Where I am going you cannot come," they understood it according to this opinion that he would willingly deliver himself to death. But they interpreted this in an insulting way, saying, Will he kill himself? Otherwise [if they were not speaking contemptuously] they would have said: "Is his soul going to depart, leaving his body when he wishes? We are unable to do this, and this is the reason for his saying, 'Where I am going, you cannot come'."
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Consequenter cum dicit <i>vos de deorsum estis</i> etc., proponit remedium tenebras evadendi, et primo praemittit suam et illorum originem; secundo ex hoc concludit propositum, ibi <i>dixi ergo vobis</i> et cetera.
          <td>1174 Then (v 23), he proposes the remedy for escaping from the darkness. First, he mentions his own origin, and then theirs; secondly, he concludes to his point (v 24).
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Circa primum autem diversificat originem suam ab illorum origine dupliciter. Primo, quia ipse est de supernis, et isti deorsum. Secundo, quia isti sunt de hoc mundo, de quo non est Christus. Sed, sicut Origenes dicit, aliud est esse deorsum, et aliud de hoc mundo; nam sursum et deorsum sunt differentiae situs. Ne ergo per hoc quod dixit se esse de supernis intelligant eum esse de superiori parte mundi huius, ideo hoc excludens, dicit se non esse de hoc mundo. Quasi dicat: ita de supernis sum, quod tamen totaliter sum supra totum mundum istum.
          <td>1175 With respect to the first, he distinguishes his own origin from theirs in two ways. First, because he is from above, and they are from below. Secondly, because they are of this world, and Christ is not. As Origen says, to be from below is not the same as to be of this world, for "above" and "below" refer to differences in place. Thus, so that they do not understand the statement that he is from above as meaning that he is from a part of the world which is above, he excludes this by saying that he is not of this world. He is saying in effect: I am from above, but in such a way that I am entirely above the entire world.
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Et quidem eos esse de hoc mundo et de deorsum manifestum est; sed Christum esse de supernis, et non de hoc mundo, sane indiget intellectu. Nam quidam ponentes omnia visibilia creata esse a Diabolo, sicut Manichaei, dixerunt Christum etiam quantum ad corpus non esse de hoc mundo visibili, sed de mundo alterius creationis, scilicet invisibili. Valentinus etiam hoc male suscipiens, dixit, Christum attulisse corpus caeleste. Quod autem hic non sit verus intellectus apparet, quia ipsis apostolis dominus dicit, infra XV, 19: <i>vos non estis de hoc mundo</i>.
          <td>1176 It is clear that they are of this world and from below. But we have to understand correctly how Christ is from above and not of this world. For some who thought that all visible created realities were from the devil, as the Manicheans taught, said that Christ was not of this world even with respect to his body, but from some other created world, an invisible world. Valentine also incorrectly interpreted this statement, and said that Christ assumed a heavenly body. But it is obvious that this is not the true interpretation, since our Lord said to his apostles: "You are not of this world" (15:19).
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Dicendum est ergo, quod potest intelligi de Christo filio Dei, et de Christo homine. Nam Christus secundum quod filius Dei, est de supernis; infra XVI, 28: <i>exivi a patre, et veni in mundum</i>. Et similiter non est de hoc mundo sensibili, scilicet, qui consistit in rebus sensibilibus, sed de mundo intelligibili, qui est in mente Dei, quia est ipsum verbum Dei, prout est summa sapientia. Omnia enim in sapientia facta sunt. Unde de eo dicitur supra, I, 10: <i>mundus per ipsum factus est</i>.
          <td>We must say, therefore, that this passage can be understood of Christ as the Son of God, and of Christ as human. Christ, as Son of God, is from above: "I came forth from the Father, and have come into the world" (16:28). Likewise, he is not of this sensible world, that is, this world which is made up of sense perceptible things, but he is of the intelligible world, because he is the very Word of God, being the supreme Wisdom. For all things were made in wisdom. Thus we read of him: "Through him the world was made" (1:10).
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Secundum autem quod homo, Christus est de supernis, quia non habuit affectum ad mundana et infima, sed ad superiora, in quibus anima Christi conversabatur, secundum illud Phil. III, 20: <i>nostra conversatio in caelis</i>; Matth. VI, 21: <i>ubi est thesaurus tuus, ibi est et cor tuum</i>. Et e converso isti qui deorsum sunt, originem infimam habent, et de hoc mundo, quia habent affectum circa terrena; I ad Cor. XV, 47: <i>primus homo de terra terrenus</i>.
          <td>Christ, as human, is from above, because he did not have any affection for worldly and weak things, but rather for higher realities, in which the soul of Christ was at home, as in "Our home is in heaven" (Phil 3:20); "Where your treasure is, there is your heart also" (Mt 6:21). On the other hand, those who are from below have their origin from below, and are of this world because their affections are turned to earthy things: "The first man was of the earth, earthly" (1 Cor 15:47).
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Consequenter cum dicit <i>dixi ergo vobis, quia moriemini in peccatis vestris</i>, concludit propositum, et primo manifestat ea quae dixit de eorum defectu; secundo ostendit eis remedium, ibi <i>si enim non credideritis</i> et cetera.
          <td>1177 Then (v 24), he concludes his point. First, he explains what he said about their deprivation; secondly, he points out its remedy (v 24b).
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>ciendum autem circa primum, quod unumquodque in suo progressu sequitur conditionem suae originis; unde ea quae habent originem infimam, si sibi relinquantur, naturaliter deorsum tendunt. Et nihil naturaliter tendit sursum nisi quod superiorem originem habet; Sup. III, 13: <i>nemo ascendit in caelum nisi de caelo descendit</i>. Dicit ergo dominus: haec est causa quare non potestis venire quo ego vado, quia cum sitis de deorsum, quantum in vobis est, non potestis nisi cadere; et ideo quod dixi, quia <i>moriemini in peccatis vestris</i>, verum est, nisi mihi adhaereatis.
          <td>1178 We should note with respect to the first, that everything in its development follows the condition of its origin. Thus, a thing whose origin is from below naturally tends below if left to itself. And nothing tends above unless its origin is from above: "No one has gone up to heaven except the One who has come down from heaven" (3:13). Thus our Lord is saying: This is the reason why you cannot come where I am going, because since you are from below, then so far as you yourself are concerned, you can only go down. And so what I said is true, that you will die in your sins, unless you adhere to me.
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>SEt ideo ut non totaliter excludat spem salutis, ponit remedium, dicens <i>si enim non credideritis quia ego sum, moriemini in peccato vestro</i>; quasi dicat: nati estis in originali peccato, a quo non potestis absolvi nisi per fidem meam, quia <i>si non credideritis quia ego sum, moriemini in peccato vestro</i>.
          <td>1179 Then, in order not to entirely exclude all hope for their salvation, he proposes the remedy, saying, <b>For if you do not believe that I am, you will die in your sin.</b> He is saying in effect: You were born in original sin, from which you cannot be absolved except by my faith: because, if you do not believe that I am, you will die in your sin.
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Et dicit <i>ego sum</i>, non autem quid sim, ut rememoret quod dictum est Moysi, Ex. III, v. 14: <i>ego sum qui sum</i>: nam ipsum esse est proprium Dei. In qualibet enim alia natura a divina differt esse et quod est, cum quaelibet natura creata participet suum esse ab eo quod est ens per essentiam, scilicet ipso Deo, qui est ipsum suum esse, ita quod suum esse sit sua essentia. Unde ipse solus denominatur ab eo. Et ideo dicit <i>nisi credideritis quia ego sum</i>, idest quia sum vere Deus, qui habet esse per essentiam, <i>moriemini in peccato vestro</i>.
          <td>He says, <b>I am</b>, and not "what I am," to recall to them what was said to Moses: "I am who am" (Ex 3:14), for existence itself (ipsum esse) is proper to God. For in any other nature but the divine nature, existence (esse) and what exists are not the same: because any created nature participates its existence (<i>esse</i>) from that which is being by its essence (<i>ens per essentiam</i>), that is, from God, who is his own existence (<i>ipsum suum esse</i>), so that his existence (<i>suum esse</i>) is his essence (<i>qua essentia</i>). Thus, this designates only God. And so he says, For if you do not believe that I am, that is, that I am truly God, who has existence by his essence, you will die in your sin.
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Dicit enim <i>quia ego sum</i>, ut ostendat suam aeternitatem. In omnibus enim quae incipiunt est mutabilitas quaedam, et aliqua potentia ad non esse, unde est invenire in eis quoddam praeteritum et futurum: et ideo non est ibi verum esse per se. Sed in Deo nulla est potentia ad non esse, nec esse incepit; et ideo est ipsum esse, quod proprie per tempus praesens designatur.
          <td>He says, <i>that I am</i>, to show his eternity. For in all things that begin, there is a certain mutability, and a potency to nonexistence; thus we can discern in them a past and a future, and so they do not have true existence of themselves. But in God there is no potency to non-existence, nor has he begun to be. And thus he is existence itself (<i>ipsum esse</i>), which is appropriately indicated by the present tense.
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Consequenter cum dicit <i>dicebant ergo ei: tu quis es?</i> Ponit rationes inducentes ad fidem, et primo ponitur Iudaeorum interrogatio; secundo Christi responsio, ibi <i>dixit eis Iesus: principium, qui et loquor vobis</i>; tertio intellectus eorum excaecatio, ibi <i>et non cognoverunt</i> et cetera.
          <td>1180 Next we are given the reasons that can lead them to believe. First, we see the question asked by the Jews; secondly, the answer of Christ (v 25b); and thirdly, the blindness of their understanding (v 27).
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Quia enim dominus dixerat <i>nisi credideritis quia ego sum</i>, restabat adhuc quaerere quis esset; et ideo dicebant ei <i>tu quis es?</i> Quasi dicant: unde es, ut tibi credere debeamus?
          <td>1181 Since our Lord had said, "If you do not believe that I am" it was left to them to ask who he was. And so they said to him, Who are you? So that we may believe: "The poor man spoke" (Sir 13:29).
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Et ideo consequenter cum dicit <i>principium, qui et loquor vobis</i>, respondet, inducens eos ad credendum, et primo ex suae naturae sublimitate; secundo ex iudiciaria sua potestate, ibi <i>multa habeo de vobis loqui et iudicare</i>; tertio ex paterna veritate, ibi <i>sed qui misit me, verax est</i>.
          <td>1182 When he says, <i>the source, who is also speaking to you</i>, he gives an answer which can lead them to believe: first, because of the sublimity of his nature; secondly, because of the power he has to judge (v 26); and thirdly, because of the truthfulness of his Father (v 26b).
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Inducit quidem eos ad credendum Christo, naturae eius sublimitas, quia ipse est principium. Unde dixit eis Iesus: <i>principium, qui et loquor vobis</i>. Principium in Latino est neutri generis: unde dubium est, utrum sit hic nominativi, vel accusativi casus. In Graeco autem est feminini generis, et in hoc loco est accusativi casus. Unde, secundum Augustinum, non est legendum: <i>ego sum principium</i>, sed, principium me credite, ne moriamini in peccatis vestris.
          <td>1183 Indeed, the sublimity of Christ's nature can lead them to believe in him, because he is the source (<i>principium</i>: source, beginning, origin). In Latin the word for source, <i>principium</i>, is neuter in gender, and so there is a question whether it is used here in the nominative or accusative case. (In Greek, it is feminine in gender and is used here in the accusative case.) Thus, according to Augustine, we should not read this as "I am the source," but rather as "Believe that I am the source," lest you die in your sins.
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Dicitur etiam pater principium. Et uno quidem modo nomen principii commune est patri et filio, inquantum scilicet sunt unum principium spiritus sancti per communem spirationem; et tres personae simul sunt principium creaturae per creationem. Alio modo est proprium patris, inquantum scilicet pater est principium filii per aeternam generationem. Non tamen plura dicimus principia, sicut nec plures deos; Ps. CIX, 3: <i>tecum principium in die virtutis tuae</i> et cetera. Hic autem dicit dominus se principium respectu totius creaturae: nam quod est per essentiam tale, est principium et causa eorum quae sunt per participationem. Esse autem per essentiam, ut dictum est, est esse suum.
          <td>The Father is also called the source or beginning. In one sense the word "source" is common to the Father and the Son, insofar as they are the one source of the Holy Spirit through a common spiration. Again, the three Persons together are the source of creatures through creation. In another way, the word "source" is proper to the Father, insofar as the Father is the source of the Son through an eternal generation. Yet, we do not speak of many sources, just as we do not speak of many gods: "The source is with you in the day of your power" (Ps 109:3). Here, however, our Lord is saying that he is the source or beginning with regard to all creatures: for whatever is such by essence is the source and the cause of those things which are by participation. But, as was said, his existence is an existence by his very essence.
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Sed quia Christus non solum habet in se divinam naturam, sed etiam humanam, ideo subdit <i>qui et loquor vobis</i>: nam vocem Dei immediate homo ferre non potest, quia, secundum Augustinum, infirma corda intelligibile verbum sine voce sensibili audire non possunt. Ex. c. XX: <i>quid est homo, ut audiat vocem domini Dei sui?</i> Ad hoc ergo quod immediate ipsum divinum verbum audiremus, carnem assumpsit, cuius organo locutus est nobis: unde dicit <i>qui et loquor vobis</i>; idest, humilis propter vos factus, ad ista verba descendi. Ad Hebr. I, 1: <i>multifarie multisque modis olim Deus loquens patribus in prophetis, novissime locutus est nobis in filio</i>; supra I, 18: <i>unigenitus, qui est in sinu patris, ipse enarrabit vobis</i>.
          <td>Yet because Christ possesses not only the divine nature but a human nature as well, he adds, <b>who is also speaking to you</b>. Man cannot hear the voice of God directly, because as Augustine says: "Weak hearts cannot hear the intelligible word without a sensible voice." "What is man that he may hear the voice of the Lord his God" (Ex c 20). So, in order for us to hear the divine Word directly, the Word assumed flesh, and spoke to us with a mouth of flesh. Thus he says, who is also speaking to you, that is, I, who was humbled for your sakes, have come down to speak these words: "In many and various ways God spoke to our fathers through the prophets; in these days he has spoken to us in his Son" (Heb 1:1); "It is the Only Begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, who has made him known" (1:18).
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Vel aliter, secundum Chrysostomum, ut per hoc quod dicit <i>principium, qui et loquor vobis</i>, reprehendat tarditatem intellectus Iudaeorum. Nam post multa signa quae ab eo viderant fieri, adhuc indurati, quaerunt a domino <i>tu quis es?</i> et cetera. Et ideo Iesus respondit <i>ego sum principium</i>, idest qui locutus sum vobis a principio; quasi dicat: non habetis opus adhuc quaerere quis ego sum, cum iam deberet esse manifestum. Hebr. V, 12: <i>cum deberetis esse magistri propter tempus, rursum indigetis ut vos doceamini, quae sint elementa exordii sermonum Dei</i>.
          <td>1184 Chrysostom explains this a little differently, so that in saying, the beginning, who is also speaking to you, our Lord is reproving the Jews for their slowness to understand. For in spite of the many signs which they had seen our Lord perform, they were still impenetrable, and asked our Lord, "Who are you?" Our Lord then answers: I am the beginning, that is, the one who has spoken to you from the beginning. It is the same as saying: You should not have to ask who I am, because it should be clear to you by now: "For although you should be masters by this time, you have to be taught again the first rudiments of the world of God" (Heb 5:12).
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Secundo inducit eos ad credendum Christo iudiciaria eius auctoritas; et ideo subdit <i>multa habeo de vobis loqui et iudicare</i>; quasi dicat: habeo auctoritatem vos iudicandi. Sed sciendum, quod aliud est loqui nobis, et aliud loqui de nobis. Nobis enim loquitur Christus ad nostram utilitatem, scilicet ut ad se trahat; et sic loquitur nobis, dum vivimus, praedicando, inspirando et huiusmodi faciendo. Loquitur autem de nobis non ad nostram utilitatem, sed ad suam iustitiam ostendendam; et hoc modo loquetur de nobis in iudicio futuro.
          <td>1185 Secondly, they can be led to believe in Christ by his judicial authority; and so he says, <b>I have much to say about you and much to judge</b>, which means in effect: I have authority to judge you. Let us note that it is one thing to speak to us, and another to speak about us. Christ speaks to us for our benefit, that is, to draw us to himself; and he speaks to us this way while we are living, by means of preaching, by inspiring us, and by things like that. But Christ speaks about us, not for our benefit, but for showing his justice, and he will speak about us this way at the future judgment. And this is what is meant by, I have much to say about you.
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Sed contra. Supra III, 17: <i>non enim misit Deus filium suum in mundum ut iudicet mundum, sed ut salvetur mundus per ipsum</i>. Responsio. Dicendum, quod aliud est iudicare, et aliud habere iudicare. Iudicare dicit actum iudicii; et hoc non pertinet ad primum adventum domini, ut supra dixit: <i>ego non iudico quemquam</i>, scilicet ad praesens. Sed habere iudicare dicit iudicii potestatem; et hanc habet Christus; supra V, 22: <i>pater omne iudicium dedit filio</i>; Act. X, 42: <i>ipse est qui constitutus est a Deo iudex vivorum et mortuorum</i>. Et ideo signanter dicit <i>multa habeo de vobis loqui et iudicare</i>, sed in futuro iudicio.
          <td>1186 This seems to conflict with what was said above: "God did not send his Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through him" (3:17). I answer by saying that it is one thing to judge, and another to have judgment. For to judge implies the act of judging, and this does not belong to the first coming of our Lord, as he said above: "I do not judge anyone" (8:15), that is, at present. But to have judgment implies the power to judge; and Christ does have this: "The Father has given all judgment to the Son" (5:22); "It is he who was appointed by God to be the judge of the living and of the dead" (Acts 10:42). And so he says, explicitly, I have much to say about you and much to judge, but at a future judgment.
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Inducit etiam ad credendum Christo veritas paterna; et quantum ad hoc dicit <i>sed qui misit me, verax est</i>; quasi dicat: pater est verus; ego autem loquor consona ei: ergo loquor vera, ergo debetis mihi credere. Dicit ergo <i>qui misit me</i>, scilicet pater, <i>verax est</i>, non participative, sed ipsa essentia veritatis; alias, cum filius sit ipsa veritas, esset maior patre; Rom. III, 4: <i>est autem Deus verax. Et ego quae audivi ab eo</i>: non auditu humano, sed per generationem aeternam accepi, <i>haec loquor</i>. Is. XXI, 10: <i>quae audivi a domino exercituum Deo Israel, annuntiavi vobis</i>; supra V, 19: <i>non potest filius a se facere quidquam</i>.
          <td>1187 The truthfulness of the Father can also lead them to believe in Christ, and as to this he says, <b>but the one who sent me is truthful.</b> He is saying in effect: The Father is truthful; but what I say is in agreement with him; therefore, you should believe me. Thus he says, the one who sent me, that is, the Father, is truthful, not by participation, but he is the very essence of truth; otherwise, since the Son is truth itself, he would be greater than the Father: "God is truthful" (Rom 3:4). Whatever I have heard from him, what I have received, not by my human sense of hearing, but by my eternal generation, this I declare: "What I have heard from the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel, I have announced to you" (Is 21:10); "The Son cannot do anything of himself" (5:19).
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Hoc autem quod dixit <i>qui misit me, verax est</i>, dupliciter continuatur ad praecedentia. Uno modo sic. Dico quod <i>habeo de vobis iudicare</i>. Sed iudicium meum verum erit, quia <i>qui misit me, verax est</i>. Rom. c. II, 2: <i>iudicium Dei est secundum veritatem</i>. Alio modo, secundum Chrysostomum, dico quod <i>habeo de vobis iudicare</i>; sed hoc differo, non ex impotentia, sed ut obediam voluntati paternae: nam <i>qui misit me, verax est</i>. Unde cum promiserit salvatorem et propugnatorem, misit me nunc ad salvandum; et ego quia non loquor nisi quae audivi ab eo, ideo loquor vobis salutaria.
          <td>1188 The statement, <b>the one who sent me is truthful</b>, can be connected in two ways with what went before. One way is this: I say that I have much to judge about you; but my judgment will be true, because the one who sent me is truthful: "The judgment of God is according to the truth" (Rom 2:2). The other way of relating this to what went before is from Chrysostom, and is this: I say that I have much to judge about you; but I am not doing so now, not because I lack the power, but out of obedience to the will of the Father. For the one who sent me is truthful: thus, since he promised a Savior and a Defender, he sent me this time as Savior. And since I only say what I have heard from him, I speak to you about life-giving things.
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Consequenter cum dicit <i>et non cognoverunt quia patrem eius dicebat Deum</i>, reprehendit tarditatem intellectus ipsorum: nondum enim oculos cordis apertos habebant, quibus patri et filii aequalitatem intelligerent, et hoc quia carnales erant; I Cor. II, 14: <i>animalis homo non percepit ea quae sunt spiritus Dei</i>.
          <td>1189 When he says, <b>And they did not realize that he was calling God his Father</b>, he reproves their slowness to understand: for they had not yet opened the eyes of their hearts by which they could understand the equality of the Father and the Son. The reason for this was because they were carnal: "The sensual man does not perceive those things that pertain to the Spirit of God" (1 Cor 2:14).
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Hic primo praenuntiat Christus per quod pervenire debeant ad fidem, quod est remedium contra mortem; et circa hoc duo facit. Primo ostendit per quid venturi sunt ad fidem; secundo docet quid sit de se ipso credendum, ibi <i>quia ego sum</i>.
          <td>1190 Here, for the first time, Christ foretells how they are to come to the faith, which is the remedy for death. He does two things: first: he shows what will lead them to the faith; and secondly, he teaches what must be believed about himself (v 28).
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Dicit ergo primo quod ad fidem pervenire debebant per passionem eius. Unde <i>dixit eis Iesus: cum exaltaveritis filium hominis, tunc cognoscetis</i>; quasi dicat: modo non cognoscitis patrem meum esse Deum; sed <i>cum exaltaveritis filium hominis</i>, idest cum me ligno crucis affixeritis, <i>tunc cognoscetis</i>, scilicet aliqui ex vobis per fidem; infra c. XII, 32: <i>ego, si exaltatus fuero a terra, omnia traham ad me ipsum</i>. Ideo autem, secundum Augustinum, crucis commemorat passionem, ut det spem peccatoribus, ut scilicet nullus desperet a quocumque scelere, et male sibi conscius, quando ipsi crucifigentes Christum per sanguinem Christi liberantur a peccatis. Nullus est enim adeo peccator qui per sanguinem Christi liberari non possit.
          <td>1191 He says, first, that they ought to come to the faith by means of his passion: <b>So Jesus said to them: When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will understand</b>. He is saying in effect: You do not know now that God is my Father, but when you have lifted up the Son of Man, that is, when you have nailed me to the wood of the cross, then you will understand, that is, some of you will understand by faith. "And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all things to myself" (12:32). And so, as Augustine says, he recalls the sufferings of his cross to give hope to sinners, so that no one will despair, no matter what his crime, or think that he is too evil, since the very people who crucified Christ are freed from their sins by Christ's blood. For there is no sinner so great that he cannot be freed by the blood of Christ.
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Vel, secundum Chrysostomum, <i>cum exaltaveritis filium hominis</i>, scilicet in cruce, <i>tunc cognoscetis</i>, idest cognoscere poteritis, qualis sim, non solum per gloriam resurrectionis meae, sed etiam per poenam captivitatis et destructionis vestrae.
          <td>Chrysostom's explanation is this: When you have lifted up the Son of Man, on the cross, then you will understand, that is, you will be able to understand what I am, not only by the glory of my resurrection, but also by the punishment of your captivity and destruction.
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Quantum autem ad secundum, tria docet de se credenda. Primo divinitatis maiestatem; secundo suam originem a patre; tertio sui a patre inseparabilitatem.
          <td>1192 With respect to the second, he teaches three things that must be believed about himself: first, the greatness or grandeur of his divinity; secondly, his origin from the Father; thirdly, his inseparability from the Father.
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Maiestatem quidem divinitatis, cum dicit <i>quia ego sum</i>; idest, habeo in me naturam Dei, et sum ille qui locutus est Moysi, dicens: <i>ego sum qui sum</i>. Sed quia ad ipsum esse pertinet tota Trinitas, ideo ne excludatur personarum distinctio, consequenter docet credere originem a patre, cum dicit <i>et a me ipso facio nihil: sed sicut docuit me pater, haec loquor</i>. Sed quia coepit Iesus facere et docere, ideo in duobus originem suam a patre designat: scilicet in his quae facit, unde dicit <i>et a me ipso facio nihil</i>, supra V, 19: <i>non potest filius a se facere quidquam</i>, et in his quae docet: unde dicit <i>sed sicut docuit me pater</i>; idest, tradidit scientiam generando me scientem. Quia cum sit simplex natura veritatis, hoc est filio esse, quod nosse; et sic quemadmodum pater dedit filio gignendo ut esset, sic gignendo dedit ei ut nosset; supra VII, 16: <i>mea doctrina non est mea</i>.
          <td>He mentions the greatness of his divinity when he says, <b>that I am</b>, that is, that I have in me the nature of God, and that it is I who spoke to Moses, saying: "I am who am" (Ex 3:14). But because the entire Trinity pertains to existence itself, and so that we do not overlook the distinction between the Persons, he teaches that his origin from the Father must be believed, saying, <b>I do nothing of myself; but as the Father taught me, so I speak</b>. Because Jesus began both to do and to teach, he indicates his origin from the Father in these two respects. As regards those things he does, he says, I do nothing of myself: "The Son cannot do anything of himself" (5:19). And as regards what he teaches, he says, as the Father taught me, that is to say, he gave me knowledge by generating me as one who knows. Since he is the simple nature of truth, for the Son to exist is for him to know. And so, just as the Father, by generating, gave existence to the Son, so he also, by generating, gave him knowledge: "My doctrine is not mine" (7:16).
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Et ne intelligatur quod sit missus a patre quasi ab eo distinctus, ideo tertio docet credere eius a patre inseparabilitatem, cum dicit <i>et qui misit me</i>, scilicet pater, <i>mecum est</i>, per essentiae unitatem; infra XIV, 10: <i>ego in patre, et pater in me est</i>. Item per amoris coniunctionem; supra V, 20: <i>pater diligit filium, et omnia demonstrat ei quae ipse facit</i>. Et sic ita pater misit filium quod non recessit ab eo. Unde sequitur <i>et non reliquit me solum</i>, quia affectus eius est circa me. Sed cum ambo simul sint, unus tamen est missus, et alter misit: quia missio incarnatio est, quae quidem filii tantum est, et non patris. Quod autem non reliquit me, patet ex signo, <i>quia quae placita sunt ei, facio semper</i>: quod quidem non ponitur pro causa meritoria, sed pro signo; quasi dicat: hoc ipsum quod ego facio semper, sine initio, sine fine, <i>quae placita sunt ei</i>, est signum quod semper mecum est, et non reliquit me; Prov. VIII, v. 30: <i>cum eo eram cuncta componens</i>.
          <td>So that we do not think that the Son was sent by the Father in such a way as to be separated from the Father, he teaches, thirdly, that they must believe that he is inseparable from the Father when he says, <b>he who sent me, the Father, is with me</b>, by a unity of essence: "I am in the Father, and the Father is in me" (14:10). And the Father is also with me by a union of love, "The Father loves the Son, and shows him everything that he does" (5:20). And so the Father sent the Son in such a way that the Father did not separate himself from the Son; and so the text continues, <b>he has not deserted me</b>, because I am the object of his love. For although both are together, one sends and the other is sent: for the sending is the incarnation, and this pertains only to the Son, and not to the Father. That he has not deserted me is clear from this sign: because I always do what is pleasing to him. We should not understand this to indicate a meritorious cause, but a sign; it is the same as saying: The fact that I always do, without beginning and without end, what is pleasing to him, is a sign that he is always with me and has not deserted me, "I was with him forming all things" (Prv 8:30).
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Vel aliter: <i>non reliquit me</i>, scilicet hominem, protegendo, <i>quia quae placita sunt ei facio semper</i>. Et secundum hoc dicit causam meritoriam.
          <td>Another interpretation would be this: he has not deserted me, that is, as man, protecting me, because I always do what is pleasing to him. In this interpretation it does indicate a meritorious cause.
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Consequenter cum dicit <i>haec illo loquente, multi crediderunt in eum</i>, ponitur effectus doctrinae, qui est conversio multorum ad fidem ex auditu doctrinae Christi; Rom. X, 17: <i>fides ex auditu; auditus autem per verbum Christi</i>.
          <td>1193 Then when he says, <b>Because he spoke in this way, many came to believe in him</b>, he shows the effect of his teaching, which is the conversion of many of them to the faith because they had heard Christ's teaching: "Faith comes by hearing, and what is heard by the word of Christ" (Rom 10:17).
    </table>
    <hr>
    <table cellpadding="12">
      <tbody>
        <tr style="align:center">
          <td><b>Lectio 4</b>
          <td><b>LECTURE 4</b>
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td style="font-family:" palatino="">
            <blockquote>
              31 ἔλεγεν οὖν ὁ Ἰησοῦς πρὸς τοὺς πεπιστευκότας αὐτῷ Ἰουδαίους, ἐὰν ὑμεῖς μείνητε ἐν τῷ λόγῳ τῷ ἐμῷ, ἀληθῶς μαθηταί μού ἐστε, 32 καὶ γνώσεσθε τὴν ἀλήθειαν, καὶ ἡ ἀλήθεια ἐλευθερώσει ὑμᾶς. 33 ἀπεκρίθησαν πρὸς αὐτόν, σπέρμα ἀβραάμ ἐσμεν καὶ οὐδενὶ δεδουλεύκαμεν πώποτε: πῶς σὺ λέγεις ὅτι ἐλεύθεροι γενήσεσθε; 34 ἀπεκρίθη αὐτοῖς ὁ Ἰησοῦς, ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι πᾶς ὁ ποιῶν τὴν ἁμαρτίαν δοῦλός ἐστιν τῆς ἁμαρτίας. 35 ὁ δὲ δοῦλος οὐ μένει ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα: ὁ υἱὸς μένει εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα. 36 ἐὰν οὖν ὁ υἱὸς ὑμᾶς ἐλευθερώσῃ, ὄντως ἐλεύθεροι ἔσεσθε. 37 οἶδα ὅτι σπέρμα ἀβραάμ ἐστε: ἀλλὰ ζητεῖτέ με ἀποκτεῖναι, ὅτι ὁ λόγος ὁ ἐμὸς οὐ χωρεῖ ἐν ὑμῖν. 38 ἃ ἐγὼ ἑώρακα παρὰ τῷ πατρὶ λαλῶ: καὶ ὑμεῖς οὖν ἃ ἠκούσατε παρὰ τοῦ πατρὸς ποιεῖτε.
            </blockquote>
          <td>
            <blockquote>
              31 Jesus then said to those Jews who believe in him: "If you remain in my word, you will truly be my disciples. 32 You will know the truth, and the truth will make you free." 33 They replied, "We are of the seed of Abraham, and we have never been the slaves of anyone. How is it that you say, 'You will be free'?" 34 Jesus replied: "Amen, amen, I say to you: everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin. 35 A slave does not remain in the household forever; but the Son remains forever. 36 If therefore the Son frees you, you will be truly free. 37 I know that you are sons of Abraham. Yet you want to kill me, because my message is not grasped by you. 38 I speak of what I have seen with my Father. And what you have seen with your father, that you do."
            </blockquote>
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Posito remedio evadendi tenebras, hic consequenter ostendit ipsius remedii efficaciam, et primo ponitur remedii efficacia; secundo introducitur remedii indigentia, ibi <i>responderunt ei Iudaei</i>. Circa primum duo facit: primo ostendit quid exigitur ab eis quibus remedium confertur, quod pertinet ad meritum; secundo quid eis pro eo redditur, quod pertinet ad praemium, ibi <i>vere discipuli mei eritis</i>.
          <td>1194 After he had shown the remedy for escaping from the darkness, he now shows the effectiveness of this remedy. First, he shows the effectiveness of this remedy; then their need for remedy (v 33). He does two things about the first. First, he shows what is required from those to whom the remedy is granted, and this concerns merit; secondly, he shows what is given for this, and this concerns their reward (v 31).
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Dicit ergo primo: dictum est quod multi crediderunt in eum; et ideo dicit eis, scilicet qui crediderunt in eum, Iudaeis, quid ab eis requiratur, hoc scilicet quod maneant in sermone eius: unde dicit <i>si vos manseritis in sermone meo, vere discipuli mei eritis</i>. Quasi dicat: non propter hoc quod creditis superficie tenus, eritis discipuli mei, sed <i>si manseritis in sermone meo</i>.
          <td>1195 He says first: It was said that many believe in him, and so he told them, <b>the Jews who believed in him</b>, what they had to do, which was to remain in his word. So he says, If you remain in my word, you will truly be my disciples. He is saying in effect: You will not be my disciples if you just believe superficially, but you must remain in my word.
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Exiguntur autem a nobis tria circa verbum Dei: scilicet sollicitudo ad audiendum, Iac. I, v. 19: <i>sit autem omnis homo velox ad audiendum</i> etc., fides ad credendum, Rom. X, v. 17: <i>fides ex auditu</i>, constantia ad permanendum, Eccli. VI, 21: <i>quam aspera est nimium indoctis hominibus sapientia. Et non permanebit in illa excors</i>. Et ideo dicit <i>si manseritis</i>, scilicet per fidei stabilitatem, per continuam meditationem, Ps. I, 2: <i>in lege eius meditabitur die ac nocte</i>; et ferventem affectionem: <i>in lege domini fuit voluntas eius</i>. Unde dicit Augustinus quod illi in verbis domini permanent qui nullis tentationibus cedunt.
          <td>We need three things with respect to the word of God. A concern to hear it: "Let every man be quick to hear" (Jas 1:19). Then we need faith to believe it: "Faith comes by hearing" (Rom 10:17). And also perseverance in continuing with it: "How exceedingly bitter is wisdom to the unlearned. The foolish will not continue with her" (Sir 6:21). And so he says, If you remain, that is, by a firm faith, through continual meditation: "He will meditate on his law day and night" (Ps 1:2); and by your ardent love: "His will is the law of the Lord" (Ps 1:2). Thus Augustine says that those who remain in the word of our Lord are those who do not give in to temptations.
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Primum autem quod persistentibus redditur, ostendit cum dicit <i>vere discipuli mei eritis</i>, et hoc quantum ad tria: scilicet quantum ad discipulatus Christi sublimationem, quantum ad veritatis cognitionem, et quantum ad libertatis adeptionem.
          <td>1196 He mentions what will be given to those who do remain when he says, <b>you will truly be my disciples</b>, and with three characteristics. First, they will have the excellence of being disciples of Christ; secondly, they will have a knowledge of the truth; and then, they will be free.
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Et quidem magnae dignitatis est privilegium, esse discipulum Christi; Ioel. II, v. 23: <i>filii Sion, exultate, et laetamini in domino Deo vestro, quia dedit vobis doctorem iustitiae</i>. Et quantum ad hoc dicit <i>vere discipuli mei eritis</i>: quanto enim magister est maior, tanto discipuli eius sublimiores sunt; Christus autem excellentissimus et summus magister est: discipuli ergo eius excellentissimi sunt.
          <td>1197 Indeed, it is a great privilege to be a disciple of Christ: "Children of Sion, rejoice and delight in the Lord your God, because he has given you a teacher of justice" (Jl 2:23). Concerning this he says, <b>you will truly be my disciples</b>; for the greater the master, the more honorable or excellent it is to be his disciple. But Christ is the greatest and most excellent of teachers; therefore, his disciples will be of the highest dignity.
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Tria autem requiruntur ex parte discipulorum. Primum est intellectus ad capiendum verba magistri; Matth. XV, 16: <i>adhuc et vos sine intellectu estis?</i> Solus autem Christus potest aperire aurem intelligentiae; Lc. ult., 45: <i>aperuit illis sensum, ut intelligerent Scripturas</i>. Et ideo dicebat Is. l, 5: <i>dominus aperuit mihi aurem</i>.
          <td>Three things are required to be a disciple. The first is understanding, to grasp the words of the teacher: "Are you also still without understanding?" (Mt 15:16). But it is only Christ who can open the ears of the understanding: Then he opened their minds so that they could understand the Scriptures" (Lk 24:45); "The Lord opened my ears" (Is 50:5).
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Secundum est assensus ad credendum sententiae magistri: nam, ut dicitur Lc. VI, 40, <i>non est discipulus super magistrum</i>, et ideo non debet ei contradicere. Unde dicitur Eccli. IV, 30: <i>non contradicas verbo veritatis ullo modo</i>. Et ideo subdit Isaias: <i>ego autem non contradico</i>.
          <td>Secondly, a disciple needs to assent, so as to believe the doctrine of his teacher, for "The disciple is not above his teacher" (Lk 6:40), and thus he should not contradict him: "Do not speak against the truth in any way" (Sir 4:30). And Isaiah continues in the same verse, "I do not resist."
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Tertio stabilitas ad permanendum; supra VI, 67, dicitur, quod <i>multi discipuli abierunt retro, et iam non cum illo ambulabant</i>. Et ideo subdit Isaias: <i>retrorsum non abii</i>.
          <td>Thirdly, a disciple needs to be stable, in order to persevere. As we read above: "From this time on, many of his disciples turned back, and no longer walked with him" (6:67); and Isaiah adds: "I did not turn back" (Is 50:5).
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Sed maius est veritatem cognoscere, cum sit finis discipuli. Et hoc etiam dominus credentibus reddit; unde dicit <i>cognoscetis veritatem</i>, scilicet doctrinae, quam ego doceo; infra XVIII, 37: <i>in hoc natus sum, et ad hoc veni, ut testimonium perhibeam veritati</i>. Item gratiae quam facio; supra, VIII, v. 17: <i>gratia et veritas per Iesum Christum facta est</i>. Et dicitur gratia veritatis per comparationem ad figuras veteris legis. Item aeternitatis in qua permaneo; Ps. CXVIII, 89: <i>in aeternum, domine, permanet verbum tuum, in generatione et generatione veritas sua</i>.
          <td>1198 But it is a greater thing to know the truth, since this is the end of a disciple. And our Lord also gives this to those who believe; thus he says, <b>you will know the truth</b>, the truth, that is of the doctrine that I am teaching: "I was born for this, and I came for this, to give testimony to the truth" (18:37); and they will know the truth of the grace that I produce: "Grace and truth came through Jesus Christ" (1:17) - in contrast to the figures of the Old Law - and they will know the truth of the eternity in which I remain: "O Lord, your word remains forever, your truth endures from generation to generation" (Ps 118:89).
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Sed maximum est libertatis adeptio, quam efficit cognitio veritatis in credentibus; unde dicit <i>et veritas liberabit vos</i>. Liberare autem, in hoc loco, non importat exceptionem a quacumque angustia, prout in Latino sonat, sed proprie dicit liberum facere. Et hoc a tribus: quia veritas doctrinae liberabit ab errore falsitatis; Prov. VIII, 7: <i>veritatem meditabitur guttur meum, et labia mea detestabuntur impium</i>; veritas gratiae, liberabit a servitute peccati; Rom. VIII, 2: <i>lex autem spiritus vitae in Christo Iesu, liberabit me a lege peccati et mortis</i>; sed veritas aeternitatis, in Christo Iesu, liberabit nos a corruptione; Rom. VIII, 21: <i>ipsa creatura liberabitur a servitute corruptionis</i>.
          <td>1199 Yet the greatest things is the acquisition of freedom, which the knowledge of the truth produces in those who believe. Thus he says, <b>and the truth will make you free.</b> In this context, to free does not mean a release from some confinement, as the Latin language suggests, but rather a being made free; and this is from three things. The truth of this doctrine will free us from the error of falsity: "My mouth will speak the truth; my lips will hate wickedness" (Prv 8:7). The truth of grace will free us from the slavery to sin: "The law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has freed me from the law of sin and of death" (Rom 8:2). And the truth of eternity, in Christ Jesus, will free us from corruption: "The creature will be freed from its slavery to corruption" (Rom 8:21).
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Consequenter cum dicit <i>responderunt ei: semen Abrahae</i> etc., ostendit remedii necessitatem Iudaeis inesse, et primo exaggeratur Iudaeorum praesumptio, se tali remedio indigere negantium; secundo ostenditur quomodo remedio indigent, ibi <i>respondit eis Iesus: amen, amen dico vobis</i>.
          <td>1200 Next (v 33), he shows that the Jews need this remedy. First, he amplifies on their presumption in denying that they need any such remedy; secondly, he shows in what respect they need this remedy (v 34).
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Praesumptio autem Iudaeorum ostenditur in quadam praesumptuosa interrogatione; unde <i>responderunt ei Iudaei: semen Abrahae sumus, et nemini servivimus unquam. Quomodo tu dicis, liberi eritis?</i> In qua quidem primo aliquid affirmant; secundo aliquid negant; et tertio interrogant.
          <td>1201 The presumption of the Jews is shown by their disdainful question: <b>They replied: We are of the seed of Abraham, and we have never been the slaves of anyone. How is it that you say, You will be free?</b> First, they affirm one thing; then deny another; and thirdly, pose their question.
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Affirmant quidem se esse semen Abrahae, unde dicunt <i>semen Abrahae sumus</i>: in quo ostenditur eorum inanis gloria, quia de sola carnis origine gloriantur; Matth. III, 9: <i>ne coeperitis dicere: patrem habemus Abraham</i>. Simile faciunt qui de carnali nobilitate extolli quaerunt; Oseae IX, 11: <i>omnis gloria eorum a partu, ab utero et conceptu</i>.
          <td>They assert that they are the descendants of Abraham: <b>We are of the seed of Abraham.</b> This shows their vainglory, because they glory only in the origin of their flesh: "Do not think of saying: 'We have Abraham as our Father'" (Mt 2:9). Those who seek to be praised for their noble birth act in the same way: "Their glory is from their birth, from the womb and from their conception" (Hos 9:11).
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Negant autem servitutem, unde dicunt <i>nemini servivimus unquam</i>: in quo se hebetes ostendunt, et mendaces. Hebetes quidem, quia quod dominus de spirituali libertate loquitur, ipsi intelligunt de corporali; I Cor. II, 14: <i>animalis homo non percipit ea quae sunt spiritus Dei</i>. Mendaces autem, quia si hoc quod dicunt <i>nemini servivimus unquam</i>, intelligunt de servitute carnali, aut loquuntur universaliter quantum ad totum genus Iudaeorum, aut specialiter quantum ad seipsos. Si quidem universaliter, manifeste mentiuntur: nam Ioseph venumdatus est, et patres eorum servierunt in Aegypto, ut patet Gen. XL et Ex. I. Unde Augustinus dicit: o ingrati, quid est quod assidue vobis imputat Deus quod vos de domo servitutis liberavit, si nemini servistis? Dicitur enim Deut. VI, 13: <i>eduxi vos de Aegypto, de domo servitutis</i> et cetera. Si autem de seipsis loquuntur, non possunt etiam a mendacio excusari: nam et ipsi tunc temporis Romanis tributa solvebant; unde dicebant, Matth. c. XXII, 17: <i>si licet tributum dari Caesari, an non?</i>
          <td>Further, they deny their slavery; thus they say, <b>and we have never been the slaves of anyone.</b> This reveals them as dull in mind and as liars. It shows them as dull because while our Lord is speaking of spiritual freedom, they are thinking of physical freedom: "The sensual person does not perceive what pertains to the Spirit of God" (1 Cor 2:14). It shows them as liars because if they mean their statement as, we have never been the slaves of anyone, to apply to physical slavery, then they are either speaking generally of the entire Jewish people, or in particular of themselves. If they are speaking generally, they are obviously lying: for Joseph was sold into slavery and their ancestors were slaves in Egypt, as is clear from Genesis (c 40) and from Exodus (c 3). Thus Augustine says: "Ungrateful! Why does the Lord so often remind you that he freed you from the house of bondage, if you have never been slaves to anyone?" For we read in Deuteronomy (13:10): "I have called you out of Egypt, from the house of your slavery." But even if they are speaking of themselves, they are still guilty of lying, because they were at that time paying taxes to the Romans. Thus they asked: "Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar or not?" (Mt 22:17).
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Interrogant autem libertatis modum; unde dicunt <i>quomodo tu dicis, liberi eritis?</i> Dominus eis duo promiserat: scilicet libertatem et veritatis cognitionem, cum dixit: <i>cognoscetis veritatem, et veritas liberabit vos</i>. Per quod Iudaei intelligebant, se servos et ignaros a domino reputari. Et licet magis iniuriosum sit deficere a cognitione quam a libertate; quia tamen carnales erant, neglecta veritate, modum libertatis inquirunt; Ps. XVI, 12: <i>oculos suos statuerunt declinare in terram</i>.
          <td>They ask him about the kind of freedom he is talking about when they say, <b>How is it that you say, You will be free?</b> Our Lord had promised them two things: freedom and knowledge of the truth, when he said, "you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free." The Jews took this to mean that our Lord regarded them as ignorant slaves. And although it is more harmful to lack knowledge than freedom, yet because they were carnal they pass over the truth part and ask about the kind of freedom: "They have set their eyes, lowering themselves to the earth" (Ps 16:11).
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Hic dominus eorum praesumptionem excludens, eos remedio praedicto indigere convincit, et primo agit de eorum servitute; secundo de eorum liberatione, ibi <i>servus autem non manet in domo in aeternum</i>; tertio de eorum origine, ibi <i>scio quia filii Abrahae estis</i>.
          <td>1202 Our Lord ignores their presumption and shows them that they do need the remedy he mentioned. First, he mentions their slavery; secondly, he treats of their freedom (v 35); and thirdly, of their origin (v 37).
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Convincit autem eos de servitute, non carnali, qualem illi intelligebant, sed spirituali, scilicet peccati, ad quam exaggerandam duo praemittit: scilicet ingeminatum iuramentum; unde dicit <i>amen, amen dico vobis</i>. Amen est nomen Hebraeum, quod interpretatur vere, vel fiat. Quod, secundum Augustinum, nec Graecus interpres, nec Latinus ausus est interpretari, ut honorem haberet velamento secreti, non ut esset ligatum, sed ne vilesceret nudatum; et specialiter propter reverentiam domini, qui frequenter ipso usus est. Ponit ergo hic dominus quasi quoddam iuramentum: quod ideo geminatur, ut suam sententiam magis firmam ostendat; ad Hebr. c. VI, 17: <i>interposuit iusiurandum, ut per duas res immobiles, quibus impossibile est mentiri Deum, fortissimum solatium habeamus</i>.
          <td>1203 He shows that they are slaves, not in the physical sense they thought he meant, but spiritually, that is, slaves of sin. And in order to make this clear he starts with two things. The first is a solemn affirmation that he repeats, saying, <b>Amen, amen, I say to you.</b> <i>Amen</i> is a Hebrew word which means "truly," or "May it be this way." According to Augustine, neither the Greeks nor the Latins translated it so that it might be honored and veiled as something sacred. This was not done to hide it, but to prevent it from becoming commonplace if its meaning were stated. It was done especially out of reverence from our Lord who frequently used it. Our Lord makes use of it here as a kind of oath, and he repeats it to reinforce his statement: "He interposed an oath, so that by two immutable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie, we might have the strongest comfort" (Heb 6:17).
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Secundo universalem locutionem, cum dicit <i>omnis</i>, sive Iudaeus sive Graecus, dives aut pauper, imperator vel mendicus; Rom. III, 23: <i>non est distinctio Iudaei et Graeci; omnes enim peccaverunt, et egent gloria Dei</i>.
          <td>Secondly, he makes a general statement when he says, <b>everyone</b>, whether Jew or Greek, rich or poor, emperor or beggar: "There is no difference between Jews and Greeks: all have sinned" (Rom 3:22). He mentions slavery when he says, who commits sin is a slave to sin.
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Servitutem etiam proponit dicens <i>qui facit peccatum, servus est peccati</i>. Sed contra. Servus non movetur proprio arbitrio suo, sed domini; qui autem facit peccatum, movetur proprio arbitrio suo: ergo non est servus. Responsio. Dicendum, quod unumquodque est illud quod convenit ei secundum suam naturam: quando ergo movetur ab aliquo extraneo, non operatur secundum se, sed ab impressione alterius; quod est servile. Homo autem secundum suam naturam est rationalis. Quando ergo movetur secundum rationem, proprio motu movetur, et secundum se operatur, quod est libertatis; quando vero peccat, operatur praeter rationem, et tunc movetur quasi ab alio, retentis terminis alienis: et ideo <i>qui facit peccatum, servus est peccati</i>; II Petr. II, 19: <i>a quo quis superatus est, eius servus addictus est</i>. Sed quanto quis movetur ab extraneo, tanto magis in servitutem redigitur; et tanto magis vincitur a peccato, quanto minus habet de proprio motu, scilicet rationis, et magis efficitur servus. Unde quanto aliqui liberius peragunt perversa quae volunt, et minori difficultate, tanto peccati servitio obnoxius obligantur, ut Gregorius dicit.
          <td>1204 But one might argue against this in the following way: A slave does not act by his own judgment, but by that of his master; but one who commits sin is acting by his own judgment; therefore, he is not a slave. I answer by saying that a thing is whatever is appropriate to it according to its nature, it acts of itself; but when it is moved by something exterior, it does not act of itself, but by the influence of that other: and this is a kind of slavery. Now according to his nature, man is rational. And thus when he acts according to reason, he is acting by his own proper motion and is acting of himself; and this is a characteristic of freedom. But when he sins, he is acting outside reason; and then he is moved by another, being held back by the limitations imposed by that other. Therefore, everyone who commits sin is a slave of sin: "Whatever overcomes a person, is that to which he is a slave" (2 Pet 2:19). And to the extent that someone is moved by something exterior, to that extent he is brought into slavery; and the more one is overcome by sin, the less he acts by his own proper motion, that is, by reason, and the more he is made a slave. Thus, the more freely one does the perverse things he wills, and the less the difficulty he has in doing them, the more he is subjected to the slavery of sin, as Gregory says.
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Quae quidem servitus gravissima est, quia vitari non potest: nam quocumque homo vadat, peccatum intra se habet, licet actus et delectatio eius transeat; Is. XIV, 3: <i>cum requiem dederit tibi Deus (...) a servitute tua dura</i>, scilicet peccati, <i>qua antea servisti</i>. Servitus autem corporalis, saltem fugiendo, evadi potest; unde dicit Augustinus: o miserabilis servitus (scilicet peccati). Servus hominum, aliquando sui domini duris imperiis fatigatus, fugiendo requiescit; servus peccati secum trahit peccatum, quocumque fugerit: peccatum enim quod fecit, intus est, voluptas transit; peccatum (idest actus) transit: praeteriit quod delectabat, remansit quod pungat.
          <td>This kind of slavery is the worst, because it cannot be escaped from: for wherever a person goes, he carries his sin with him, even though its act and pleasure may pass: "God will give you rest from your harsh slavery (that is, to sin) to which you were subjected before" (Is 14:3). Physical slavery, on the other hand, can be escaped, at least by running away. Thus Augustine says: "What a wretched slavery (that is, slavery to sin)! A slave of man, when worn out by the harsh commands of his master, can find relief in flight; but a slave of sin drags his sin with him, wherever he flees: for the sin he did is within him. The pleasure passes, the sin (the act of sin) passes; what gave pleasure has gone, what wounds has remained."
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Consequenter cum dicit <i>servus autem non manet in domo in aeternum</i>, agit de liberatione a servitute: quia enim omnes peccaverunt, omnes erant servi peccati. Sed imminet vobis liberationis spes ab eo qui liber est a peccato; et hic est filius. Unde circa hoc tria facit. Primo praemittit servi conditionem, ut distinguatur liber a servo; secundo ostendit conditionem filii a servo diversam; tertio concludit potestatem filii in liberando.
          <td>1205 Then (v 35) he considers their liberation from slavery; for since all have sinned, all were slaves to sin. Now the hope of liberation is held out by the one who is free of sin, and this is the Son. Thus he does three things with respect to this. First, he mentions the status of a slave as distinguished from that one who is free; secondly, he shows that the status of the Son is different from that of a slave; and thirdly, he concludes that the Son has the power to set us free.
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Est ergo conditio servi transitoria et instabilis; unde dicit <i>servus non manet in domo in aeternum</i>. Domus ista est Ecclesia; I Tim. III, 15: <i>ut scias quomodo oporteat te conversari in domo Dei, quae est Ecclesia Dei vivi</i>. In qua quidem domo aliqui spiritualiter servi ad horam tantum permanent, sicut in domo patrisfamilias corporaliter servi manent ad tempus; non tamen in aeternum: quia licet modo mali non sint separati numero a fidelibus, sed merito tantum, in futuro tamen separabuntur utroque modo; Gal. IV, 30: <i>eiice ancillam et filium eius: non enim erit heres filius ancillae cum filio liberae</i>.
          <td>1206 The status of a slave is transient and unstable; so he says, <b>A slave does not remain in the household forever.</b> This house is the Church: "So you may know how to act in the house of God, which is the Church of the living God" (1 Tim 3:15). In this house some who are spiritually slaves remain only for a time, just as in a household those who are physically slaves remain only for a while. But the former will not remain forever, for although those who are evil are not now separated from the faithful in a separate group, but only by merit, in the future they will be separated in both ways: "Cast out the slave and her son: for the son of the slave woman will not inherit with the son of the free woman" (Gal 4:30).
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Conditio vero filii est aeterna et stabilis; unde dicit <i>filius autem</i>, idest Christus, <i>permanet in aeternum</i>, scilicet in Ecclesia, tamquam in domo sua; Heb. III, 6, dicitur quod Christus, tamquam filius in domo sua et cetera. Et quidem ipse per seipsum in domo manet in aeternum, quia ipse immunis est a peccato; nos autem sicut per ipsum a peccato liberamur, ita et per ipsum in domo manemus.
          <td>1207 On the other hand, the status of the Son is everlasting and stable; so he says, <b>but the Son</b>, that is, Christ, <b>remains forever</b>, namely, in the Church, as in his own house. In Hebrews (3:6) Christ is described as a son in his own house. And indeed, it is of himself that Christ remains in his house forever, because he is immune from sin. As for us, just as we are freed from sin through him, so it is through him that we remain in his house.
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Liberationis autem potestatem habet filius; unde subdit <i>si igitur filius vos liberaverit, vere liberi eritis</i>; Gal. IV, 31: <i>non sumus ancillae filii, sed liberae, qua libertate Christus nos liberavit</i>. Nam, ut apostolus dicit, ipse pretium dedit non argentum, sed sanguinem suum: venit enim in similitudinem carnis peccati, nullum omnino habens peccatum; et ideo factum est verum sacrificium pro peccato: unde per eum liberamur non a barbaris, sed a Diabolo.
          <td>1208 The Son has the power to free us; so he adds, <b>If therefore the Son frees you, you will be truly free</b>: "We are not the children of the slave woman, but of the free, by whose freedom Christ has freed us" (Gal 4:31). For as the Apostle says, he paid a price not in gold, but of his own blood, for he came in the likeness of sinful flesh although he had no sin; and so he became a true sacrifice for sin. Thus, through him, we are freed, not from barbarians, but from the devil.
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Et nota, quod est multiplex libertas. Scilicet perversa, quando quis abutitur ea ad peccandum; et haec est libertas a iustitia, quam nullus cogitur servare; I Petr. c. II, 16: <i>quasi liberi, et non quasi velamen habentes malitiae libertatem</i>. Vana, quae est temporalis, seu carnalis, Iob III, 19: <i>servus liber a domino suo</i>. Vera et spiritualis, quae est libertas gratiae, quae est scilicet carere criminibus; quae est imperfecta, quia caro concupiscit adversus spiritum, ut non ea quae volumus faciamus, Gal. V, 17. Gloriae, et perfecta atque plena, quae erit in patria; Rom. VIII, 21: <i>ipsa creatura liberabitur a servitute</i>: et hoc erit, quia nihil erit ibi inclinans ad malum, nihil opprimens, quia ibi erit libertas a culpa et a poena.
          <td>1209 Note that there are several kinds of freedom. There is a perverted freedom, when one abuses his freedom in order to sin; there is a freedom from justice, a freedom that no one is compelled to keep: "Be free, and do not make your freedom a cloak for evil," as we read in 1 Peter (2:16). Then there is a vain freedom, which is temporal or bodily: "A slave, free from his master" (Job 3:19). Then we have true and spiritual freedom, which is the freedom of grace, and consists in the absence of sin. This freedom is imperfect because the flesh lusts against the spirit, and we do what we do not want to do (Gal 5:17). Then there is the freedom of glory; this is a perfect and full freedom, which we will have in our homeland: "The creature will be delivered from its slavery" (Rom 8:21), and this will be so because there will be nothing there to incline us to evil, nothing to oppress us, for then there will be freedom from sin and punishment.
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Chrysostomus autem hoc aliter introducit. Quia enim dixerat: <i>qui facit peccatum, servus est peccati</i>, ne praecurrant Iudaei, et dicant: licet simus servi peccati, tamen possumus liberari per sacrificia et caeremonias legis, propterea dominus ostendit, quod per ea liberari non possunt, sed solum per filium. Unde dicit <i>servus</i>, idest Moyses et pontifices veteris testamenti, <i>non manet in domo in aeternum</i>; Hebr. III, 5: <i>Moyses sicut famulus in omni domo sua</i>. Et caeremoniae etiam aeternae non sunt; et ideo non possunt conferre libertatem aeternam.
          <td>1210 Chrysostom explains this in another way: since he had said, everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin, then lest the Jews anticipate him and say, "Even though we are slaves to sin, we can be freed by the sacrifices and ceremonies of the Law," our Lord shows that they cannot be freed by these, but only by the Son. Hence he says, a slave, i.e., Moses and the priests of the Old Testament, does not remain in the household forever: "Moses was faithful in all God's house as a servant" (Heb 3:5). Furthermore, the ceremonies are not eternal; therefore they cannot confer a freedom which will continue forever.
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Consequenter cum dicit <i>scio quia filii Abrahae estis</i>, agit de eorum origine: et primo confitetur eorum originem carnis; secundo inquirit originem spiritus, ibi <i>sed quaeritis me interficere</i> et cetera.
          <td>1211 Then he considers their origin (v 37). First, he gives their origin according to the flesh; secondly, he inquires into their origin according to the spirit (v 37b).
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Originem autem carnis ipsorum dicit esse Abraham. <i>Scio</i> inquit <i>quia filii Abrahae estis</i>, origine carnis tantum, non similitudine fidei; Is. LI, 2: <i>attendite ad Abraham patrem vestrum, et ad Saram, quae peperit vos</i>.
          <td>1212 He traces their origin in the flesh to Abraham. <b>I know that you are sons of Abraham</b>, by carnal origin only, and not by resembling him in faith: "Look to Abraham your father and to Sarah who bore you" (Is 51:2).
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Spiritualem originem inquirit dicens <i>sed quaeritis me interficere</i>, et primo ostendit eos originem spiritualem habere; secundo excludit originem praesumptam, ibi <i>responderunt, et dixerunt ei: pater noster Abraham est</i>; tertio ostendit originem eorum veram, ibi <i>vos ex patre Diabolo estis</i>. Circa primum duo facit. Primo ponit eorum culpam; secundo concludit eorum spiritualem originem, ibi <i>vos quae vidistis apud patrem vestrum, facitis</i>. Circa primum tria facit. Primo imponit eis culpam homicidii; secundo crimen infidelitatis; tertio aufert eis excusationis viam.
          <td>1213 He inquires into their spiritual origin when he says, <b>yet you want to kill me.</b> First he shows that they have a spiritual origin; secondly, he rejects what they presume to be their origin (v 34); thirdly, he shows them their true origin (v 44). As to the first he does two things: first, he points out their guilt; secondly, he infers their spiritual origin (v 38). As to the first he does three things: first, he lays on them the guilt of murder; secondly, the sin of unbelief; and thirdly, he anticipates an excuse they might give.
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Ostendit ergo eos dominus spiritualiter ex mala radice procedere, et ideo signanter arguit eos de peccato; et dimissis omnibus aliis, quibus Iudaei multipliciter irretiti erant, hoc illis tantum commemorat quod iugiter in mente habebant, scilicet peccatum homicidii, quia, ut dictum est supra, volebant eum occidere. Et ideo dicit <i>sed quaeritis me interficere</i>; quod est contra legem vestram; Ex. XX, 13: <i>non occides</i>; infra XI, 53: <i>ab illo ergo die cogitabant interficere eum</i>.
          <td>1214 Our Lord shows that they have their spiritual origins from an evil root. Hence he expressly accuses them of sin and passing over all the other crimes in which the Jews were implicated, he mentions only the one which they continued to nurture in their minds, the sin of murder, because, as was said, they wished to kill him. This is why he says, <b>you want to kill me</b>, which is against your Law: "You shall not kill" (Ex 20:13); "So from that day on they took counsel how to put him to death" (11:53).
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Sed possent dicere quia occidere aliquem ex culpa non est peccatum, et ideo dominus dicit causam homicidii esse non quidem culpam Christi, nec eorum iustitiam, sed ipsorum infidelitatem; quasi dicat: quaeritis me interficere, non propter iustitiam, sed propter vestram infidelitatem, <i>quia sermo meus non capit in vobis</i>; Matth. XIX, 11: <i>non omnes capiunt verbum istud, sed quibus datum est</i>. Utitur autem dominus hoc modo loquendi primo quidem ad ostendendum sui sermonis excellentiam; quasi dicat: sermo meus superexcedit capacitatem vestram, nam ipse de spiritualibus est, vos autem intellectum carnalem habetis; et ideo ipsum non capitis; I Cor. II, 14: <i>animalis homo non percipit ea quae sunt spiritus Dei</i>. Secundo vero propter similitudinem quamdam. Nam, ut Augustinus dicit, sic est sermo Dei infidelibus, tamquam piscibus hamus, qui non capit nisi capiatur. Et ideo dicit <i>sermo meus non capit in vobis</i>, idest in cor vestrum, quia non recipitur in vobis eo modo quo Petrus captus erat; supra VI, 69: <i>domine, ad quem ibimus? Verba vitae aeternae habes</i>. Nec tamen fit iniuria eis qui capiuntur: ad salutem quippe, non ad perniciem capit.
          <td>1215 Because they might say that to kill someone for his crime is not a sin, our Lord says that the cause of this murder is not any crime committed by Christ or their own righteousness, but rather their unbelief. As if to say: you seek to kill me not because of your own righteousness but because of your unbelief: because my message is no grasped by you: "Not all men can receive this message, but only those to whom it is given" (Mt 19:11). Our Lord uses this way of speaking, first of all, to show the excellence of his message. As if to say: my message transcends your ability, for it is concerned with spiritual things, whereas you have a sensual understanding, that is why you do not grasp it: "The sensual man does not perceive the things that are of the Spirit of God" (1 Cor 2:14). He speaks this way also to recall a certain similarity: for as Augustine says, the Lord's message to unbelievers is what a hook is to a fish, it does not grasp unless it is grasped. And so he says his message does not grasp them in their hearts, because it is not grasped by them, as Peter was grasped: "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life" (6:68). Yet it does not harm those who are grasped, for they are grasped to salvation, and left uninjured.
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Nam dicitur Deut. XVIII, 20 quod propheta qui loquitur ex ore domini ea quae dominus non dixit, debet interfici. Unde, ne Iudaei dicerent eum interficiendum fore, eo quod a seipso et non ex ore domini loquebatur, inducit subdens <i>ego quae vidi apud patrem meum, loquor</i>; quasi dicat: non potest imponi mihi quod loquor quae non audivi, quia non solum audita, sed, quod plus est, visa loquor. Alii enim prophetae locuti sunt ea quae audierunt, sed ego quae vidi haec loquor; supra c. I, 18: <i>Deum nemo vidit unquam unigenitus filius qui est in sinu patris, ipse enarravit</i>; I Io. I: <i>quod vidimus et audivimus, annuntiamus vobis</i>. Est autem hoc intelligendum de visione certissimae cognitionis, quia filius patrem cognoscit sicut ipse seipsum novit: de quo dicitur Matth. II, 27: <i>nemo novit patrem nisi filius</i>.
          <td>1216 In Deuteronomy (c 18) we read that a prophet who speaks, as coming from the mouth of the Lord, things that the Lord did not say, should be killed. So, lest the Jews say that he should be killed for speaking from himself, and not from the mouth of the Lord, he adds, I speak of what I have seen with my Father. As if to say: I cannot be accused of speaking things that I have not heard, for I speak not only what I have heard, but what is more, I speak of what I have seen. Other prophets spoke the things they heard, whereas I speak the things I have seen: "No one has ever seen God; the only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made him known" (1:18); "That which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you" (1 Jn 1:3). This must be understood of a vision which gives the most certain knowledge, because the Son knows the Father as he knows himself: "No one knows the Father except the Son" (Mt 11:27).
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Spiritualem autem eorum originem concludit, dicens <i>et vos quae vidistis apud patrem vestrum, facitis</i>; quasi dicat: ego ea loquor quae meae origini conveniunt; vos autem illa facitis quae sunt apud patrem vestrum, scilicet Diabolum, cuius filii erant, secundum Augustinum, non inquantum homines, sed inquantum mali erant. Ea, inquam, quae vidistis, Diabolo suggerente; Sap. c. II, 24: <i>invidia Diaboli mors introivit in orbem terrarum</i>.
          <td>1217 He then infers their spiritual origin when he says, <b>and what you have seen with your father, that you do.</b> As if to say: I speak things that are in accord with my origin; but you do the things that are done by your father, namely, the devil, whose children they were, according to Augustine, not insofar as they were men, but insofar as they were evil. You do those things, I say, which you see, at the devil's suggestion: "Through the devil's envy death entered the world" (Wis 2:24).
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Secundum Chrysostomum, est alia littera <i>vos quae vidistis apud patrem vestrum, facite</i>; quasi dicat: sicut ego verbis in veritate patrem meum ostendo, ita vos ostendite operibus patrem vestrum origine, scilicet Abraham; unde dicit: facite quae apud patrem vestrum vidistis, docti per legem et prophetas.
          <td>Chrysostom uses another text: What you see with your father, do it. As if to say: just as I reveal my Father in truth by my words, so you, reveal the father of our origin, namely, Abraham, by your deeds. Thus he says: Do what you see your father doing, you who are taught by the law and the prophets.
    </table>
    <hr>
    <table cellpadding="12">
      <tbody>
        <tr style="align:center">
          <td><b>Lectio 5</b>
          <td><b>LECTURE 5</b>
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td style="font-family:" palatino="">
            <blockquote>
              39 ἀπεκρίθησαν καὶ εἶπαν αὐτῷ, ὁ πατὴρ ἡμῶν ἀβραάμ ἐστιν. λέγει αὐτοῖς ὁ Ἰησοῦς, εἰ τέκνα τοῦ ἀβραάμ ἐστε, τὰ ἔργα τοῦ Ἀβραὰμ ἐποιεῖτε: 40 νῦν δὲ ζητεῖτέ με ἀποκτεῖναι, ἄνθρωπον ὃς τὴν ἀλήθειαν ὑμῖν λελάληκα ἣν ἤκουσα παρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ: τοῦτο Ἀβραὰμ οὐκ ἐποίησεν. 41 ὑμεῖς ποιεῖτε τὰ ἔργα τοῦ πατρὸς ὑμῶν. εἶπαν [οὖν] αὐτῷ, ἡμεῖς ἐκ πορνείας οὐ γεγεννήμεθα: ἕνα πατέρα ἔχομεν τὸν θεόν. 42 εἶπεν αὐτοῖς ὁ Ἰησοῦς, εἰ ὁ θεὸς πατὴρ ὑμῶν ἦν, ἠγαπᾶτε ἂν ἐμέ, ἐγὼ γὰρ ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ ἐξῆλθον καὶ ἥκω: οὐδὲ γὰρ ἀπ' ἐμαυτοῦ ἐλήλυθα, ἀλλ' ἐκεῖνός με ἀπέστειλεν. 43 διὰ τί τὴν λαλιὰν τὴν ἐμὴν οὐ γινώσκετε; ὅτι οὐ δύνασθε ἀκούειν τὸν λόγον τὸν ἐμόν.
            </blockquote>
          <td>
            <blockquote>
              39 They answered him, "Abraham is our father." Jesus said to them, "If you were Abraham's children, you would do what Abraham did [If you are Abraham's children, do what Abraham did], 40 but now you seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth which I heard from God; this is not what Abraham did. 41 You do what your father did. "They said to him, "We were not born of fornication, we have one Father, even God." 42 Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love me, for I proceeded and came forth from God; I came not of my own accord, but he sent me. 43 Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear my word."
            </blockquote>
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Postquam dominus ostendit Iudaeos aliquam spiritualem originem habere, hic excludit ab eis origines quas sibi praesumptuose attribuebant, et primo excludit originem, quam se traxisse dicebant ab Abraham; secundo originem, quam se putabant habere a Deo, ibi <i>dixerunt itaque ei: nos ex fornicatione non sumus nati</i>. Circa primum duo facit. Primo ponit opinionem Iudaeorum de eorum origine; secundo excludit eam, ibi <i>si filii Abrahae estis opera Abrahae facite</i>.
          <td>1218 After showing that the Jews had a certain spiritual origin, our Lord here rejects certain origins which they had presumptuously attributed to themselves. First, he rejects the origin they claimed to have from Abraham; secondly, the origin they thought they had from God (v 41). As to the first he does two things: first, he gives the opinion of the Jews about their origin; secondly, he rejects it (v 39b).
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Sciendum est autem circa primum, quia dominus dixerat eis <i>quae vidistis apud patrem vestrum, facitis</i>, ideo gloriantes se de carnali generatione, transferunt se ad Abraham. Unde dicunt <i>pater noster Abraham est</i>, quasi dicant: si spiritualem originem habemus, boni sumus, quia Abraham pater noster bonus est; Ps. CIV, 6: <i>semen Abraham servi eius</i>. Et, ut dicit Augustinus, nitebantur eum provocare, ut aliquid male diceret de Abraham, et esset eis occasio facere quod cogitabant, scilicet occidendi Christum.
          <td>1219 It should be noted with respect to the first, that our Lord had said to them, what you have seen with your father, that you do, and so, glorying in their carnal descent, they aligned themselves with Abraham. Thus they said, <b>Abraham is our father.</b> This is like saying: If we have a spiritual origin we are good, because our father Abraham is good: "O offspring of Abraham his servant" (Ps 105:6). And as Augustine says, they tried to provoke him to say something against Abraham and so give them an excuse for doing what they had planned, namely, to kill Christ.
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Sed dominus, consequenter cum dicit <i>si filii Abrahae estis, opera Abrahae facite</i>, excludit hanc ipsorum opinionem tamquam falso prolatam, et proponit primo signum debitum filiationis Abrahae; secundo ostendit, hoc signum in Iudaeis non esse, ibi <i>nunc autem quaeritis me interficere</i>; tertio concludit propositum, ibi <i>vos facitis opera patris vestri</i>.
          <td>1220 Our Lord rejects this opinion of theirs as false (v 39). First, he gives the true sign of being a child of Abraham; secondly, he shows that this sign is not verified in the Jews (v 40); thirdly, he draws his conclusion, you do what your father did.
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Signum quidem filiationis alicuius est quod assimiletur ei cuius filius est: sicut enim filii carnales ut plurimum parentibus carnalibus assimilantur, ita et filii spirituales (si sint vere filii) debent spirituales parentes imitari; Eph. V, 1: <i>estote imitatores Dei, sicut filii carissimi</i>. Et quantum ad hoc dicit <i>si filii Abrahae estis, opera Abrahae facite</i>; quasi dicat: hoc signum esset quod essetis filii Abrahae, si eum imitaremini; Is. LI, 2: <i>attendite ad Abraham patrem vestrum, et ad Saram quae peperit vos</i>.
          <td>1221 The sign of anyone being a child is that he is like the one whose child he is; for just as children according to the flesh resemble their parents according to the flesh, so spiritual children (if they are truly children) should imitate their spiritual parents: "Be imitators of God, as beloved children" (Eph 5:1). And as to this he says, <b>If you are Abraham's children, do what Abraham did.</b> This is like saying: if you imitated Abraham, that would be a sign that you are his children: "Look to Abraham your father and to Sarah who bore you" (Is 51:2).
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Sed dubitatur hic, quod videtur quidem eos negare esse filios Abrahae, dubitative loquens <i>si filii Abrahae estis</i>, quod tamen affirmavit superius, dicens: <i>scio quod filii Abrahae estis</i>. Ad quod dupliciter respondetur. Uno modo, secundum Augustinum, quod supra affirmavit eos esse filios Abrahae secundum carnem; hic autem negat eos filios secundum imitationem operum, et praecipue fidei. Caro ergo illorum ex ipso erat, sed vita non erat; Gal. III: <i>qui ex fide sunt, hi reputantur in semine</i>.
          <td>1222 Here a question arises, for when he says, if you are Abraham's children, he seems to be denying that they are the children of Abraham, whereas just previously he had said, "I know that you are children of Abraham" (v 37). There are two ways of answering this. The first, according to Augustine, is that before he said that they were children of Abraham according to the flesh, but here he is denying that they are children in the sense of imitating his works, especially his faith. Therefore, they took their flesh from him, but not their life: "It is men of faith who are the sons of Abraham" (Gal 3:7).
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Alio modo, secundum Origenem, quod utrumque referatur ad spiritualem originem. Sed ubi nos habemus: <i>scio quod filii Abrahae estis</i>, in Graeco habetur: <i>scio quod semen Abrahae estis</i>; hic vero dicit <i>si filii Abrahae estis, opera Abrahae facite</i>; quia Iudaei quidem, spiritualiter loquendo, semen Abrahae erant, sed non eius filii. Differentia est inter semen et filium: nam semen est quid informe, et tamen habet in seipso rationes eius cuius est semen; filius autem, transmutato semine per virtutem informativam ab agente in appositam sibi materiam a muliere, superinducto nutrimento, similitudinem generantis habet. Eodem modo et Iudaei semen quidem Abrahae erant inquantum in eis aliqua ratio eorum quae Deus in Abraham infuderat apparebat; sed quia non ad perfectionem Abrahae pervenerant, ideo filii eius non erant: et propter hoc dicit eis <i>si filii Abrahae estis, opera Abrahae facite</i>; idest, ad perfectam imitationem operum eius satagite.
          <td>For Origin, who has another explanation, both statements refer to their spiritual origin. Where our text reads, "I know that you are children of Abraham," the Greek has, "I know that you are the seed of Abraham." But Christ says here, if you are Abraham's children, do what Abraham did, because the Jews, spiritually speaking, were the seed of Abraham, but were not his children. There is a difference between a seed and a child: for a seed is unformed, although it has in it the characteristics of that of which it is a seed. A child, however, has a likeness to the parent after the seen has been modified by the informing power infused by the agent acting upon the matter which has been furnished by the female. In the same way, the Jews were indeed the seed of Abraham, insofar as they had some of the characteristics which God had infused into Abraham; but because they had not reached the perfection of Abraham, they were not his children. This is why he said to them, if you are Abraham's children, do what Abraham did, i.e., strive for a perfect imitation of his works.
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Ex hoc autem quod dicit <i>opera Abrahae facite</i>, videtur quod quaecumque ipse fecit, et nos facere debemus. Ergo debemus plures uxores accipere, et ad ancillam accedere, sicut Abraham fecit. Respondeo. Dicendum quod praecipuum opus Abrahae est fides, per quam iustificatus est apud Deum; Gen. XV, 6: <i>credidit Abraham Deo, et reputatum est illi ad iustitiam</i>. Et ideo intelligendum est <i>opera Abrahae facite</i>, idest, ad similitudinem Abrahae credite.
          <td>1223 Again, because he said, <b>do what Abraham did</b>, it would seem that whatever he did, we should do. Consequently, we should have a number of wives and approach a maidservant, as Abraham did. I answer that the chief work of Abraham was faith, by which he was justified before God: "He believed the Lord; and he reckoned it to him as righteousness" (Gen 15:6). Thus, the meaning is, do what Abraham did, i.e., believe according to the example of Abraham.
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Sed contra hoc est, quia fides non videtur posse dici opus, cum contra opera distinguatur; Iac. II, 26: <i>fides sine operibus mortua est</i>. Respondeo. Dicendum, quod fides opus dici potest, secundum illud supra VI, 29: <i>hoc est opus Dei, ut credatis in eum quem misit ille</i>. Verum opus interius non est manifestum hominibus, sed soli Deo, secundum illud I Reg. c. XVI, 7: <i>homines vident ea quae apparent; Deus autem intuetur cor</i>. Inde est quod communius ea quae exterius sunt, consuevimus opera nominare. Fides ergo distinguitur non ab omnibus operibus, sed ab exterioribus tantum.
          <td>1224 One might say against this interpretation that faith should not be called a work, since it is distinguished from works: "Faith apart from works is dead" (Jas 2:26) ["Do what Abraham did" if translated literally gives "Do the works of Abraham."] I answer that faith can be called a work according to what was said above: "This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent" (6:29). An interior work is not obvious to man, but only to God, according to, "The Lord sees not as man sees; man looks on the outward appearance, but the Lord looks on the heart" (1 Sam 16:7). This is the reason we are more accustomed to call exterior action works. Thus, faith is not distinguished from all works, but only from external works.
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Sed numquid omnia opera Abrahae debemus facere? Ad hoc dicendum, quod opus potest considerari dupliciter: vel secundum speciem operis eius, et sic omnia opera eius non sunt imitanda; vel secundum radicem eorum, et sic opera Abrahae imitanda sunt: quia quidquid fecit, ex caritate fecit. Unde dicit Augustinus, quod caelibatus Ioannis non praefertur coniugio Abrahae, cum eadem fuerit radix utriusque. Vel dicendum, quod omnia opera Abrahae imitanda sunt quantum ad signationem, quia <i>omnia in figura contingebant illis</i>, ut dicitur I Cor. X, 11.
          <td>1225 But should we do all the works of Abraham? I answer that works can be considered in two ways. Either according to the kind of works they are, in which sense we should not imitate all his works; or, according to their root, and in this sense we should imitate the works of Abraham, because whatever he did, he did out of charity. Thus Augustine says that the celibacy of John was not esteemed above the marriage of Abraham, since the root of each was the same. Or, it might be said that all of Abraham's works should be imitated as to their symbolism, because "all these things happen to them in figure" [1 Cor 10:11].
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Consequenter cum dicit <i>nunc autem quaeritis me interficere</i>, ostendit, praedictum filiationis signum in eis non esse, et primo ponuntur Iudaeorum opera; secundo ostendit ea esse Abrahae operibus dissimilia, ibi <i>hoc Abraham non fecit</i>.
          <td>1226 Then (v 40) he shows that they do not have the above mentioned sign of being children. First, the conduct of the Jews is given; secondly, he shows that it does not resemble the conduct of Abraham (v 40b).
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Ostenduntur autem Iudaeorum prava opera esse et perversa, quia homicidae erant; unde dicit <i>nunc autem quaeritis me interficere</i>; Is. I, 21: <i>quomodo facta est meretrix civitas fidelis, plena iudicii? Iustitia habitavit in ea, nunc autem homicidae</i>. Sed hoc homicidium inaestimabile peccatum erat contra personam filii Dei. Unde quia, ut dicitur I Cor. II, 8, <i>si cognovissent, numquam dominum gloriae crucifixissent</i>, ideo dominus non dicit eos filium Dei quaerere interficere, sed hominem: quia etsi filius Dei dicatur passus et mortuus propter unitatem suppositi, hoc non est inquantum filius Dei, sed propter infirmitatem humanam, quia, ut dicitur II Cor. ult., 4, <i>si crucifixus est ex infirmitate nostra, sed vivit ex virtute Dei</i>.
          <td>1227 The conduct of the Jews is shown to be wicked and perverse, because they were murderers; so he says, <b>now you seek to kill me</b>: "How the faithful city has become a harlot, she that was full of justice! Righteousness lodged in her, but now murderers" (Is 1:21). This murder was an unfathomable sin against the person of the Son of God. But because it is said, "If they had understood, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory" (1 Cor 2:8), our Lord does not say that they sought to kill the Son of God, but a man. For although the Son of God is said to have suffered and died by reason of the oneness of his person, this suffering and death was not insofar as he was the Son of God, but because of his human weakness, as it says: "For he was crucified in weakness, but lives by the power of God" (2 Cor 13:4).
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Et ut magis eorum homicidium exaggeret, ostendit, eos nullam mortis causam adversus eum habere; unde subdit <i>qui veritatem locutus sum vobis, quam audivi a Deo</i>. Ista veritas est quod dicebat se aequalem Deo; supra V, 18: <i>quaerebant eum Iudaei interficere, quia non solum sabbatum solvebat, sed patrem suum dicebat Deum, aequalem se faciens Deo</i>. Hanc veritatem audivit a Deo inquantum ab aeterno per generationem aeternam accepit a patre eamdem naturam quam ipse habet; supra V, 26: <i>sicut pater habet vitam in semetipso, sic dedit et filio habere vitam in semetipso</i>.
          <td>1228 In order to further elucidate this murder, he shows that they have no reason to put him to death; thus he adds, <b>a man who has told you the truth which I heard from God</b>. This truth is that he said that he is equal to God: "This is why the Jews sought all the more to kill him, because he not only broke the Sabbath, but also called God his Father, making himself equal with God" (5:18). He heard this truth from God inasmuch as from eternity he received from the Father, through an eternal generation, the same nature that the Father has: "For as the Father has life in himself, so has he granted the Son also to have life in himself" (5:26).
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Excludit autem duas causas propter quas prophetae mandabantur occidi in lege. Primo quidem propter mendacium, Deut. XIII, 5 ubi praecipitur, quod si aliquis propheta surrexerit loquens mendacium, aut fictor somniorum, interficiatur: et hoc a se dominus excludit, dicens <i>qui veritatem locutus sum vobis</i>; Prov. c. VIII, 7: <i>veritatem meditabitur guttur meum</i>. Secundo vero si aliquis propheta locutus fuerit ex nomine falsorum deorum, vel ex nomine Dei quod ipse non praecepit, occidi debebat, ut habetur Deut. XIII, 5. Et hoc dominus excludit a se, cum dicit <i>quam audivi a Deo</i>.
          <td>Furthermore, he excludes the two reasons for which the Law commanded that prophets were to be killed. First of all, for lying, for Deuteronomy (c 13) commands that a prophet should be killed for speaking a lie or feigning dreams. Our Lord excludes this from himself, saying, <b>a man who has told you the truth</b>: "My mouth will utter truth" (Prov 8:7). Secondly, a prophet ought to be killed if he speaks in the name of false gods, or says in the name of God things that God did not command (Deut 13). Our Lord excludes this from himself when he says, which I heard from God.
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Consequenter cum dicit <i>hoc Abraham non fecit</i>, ostendit eorum opera dissimilia esse operibus Abrahae, quasi dicat: in hoc probatis vos non esse filios Abrahae, quia facitis opera contraria operibus eius: nam de eo legitur Eccli. XLIV, 20, <i>quod servavit legem altissimi, et fuit in testimonio cum illo</i>.
          <td>1229 Then when he says, <b>this is not what Abraham did</b>, he shows that their works are not like those of Abraham. He is saying in effect: Because you act contrary to Abraham, you show that you are not his children, for it is written about him: "He kept the law of the Most High, and was taken into covenant with him" (Si 44:20).
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Sed aliqui superflue obiiciunt, quod Christus ante Abraham nondum erat, et ideo Abraham hoc non fecit: non enim occidi potuisset qui non erat. Sed dicendum, quod Abraham non commendatur ex hoc quod non fecit in Christo, sed ex eo quod non fecit in simili persona, idest in his qui tunc veritatem dicebant. Vel dicendum, quod si Christus non venerat tempore Abraham in carnem, venerat tamen in mentem, secundum illud Sap. VII, 27: <i>in animas sanctas per nationem se transfert</i>, quem tamen Abraham non interfecit mortaliter peccando: de quo dicitur ad Hebr. VI, 6: <i>rursum crucifigentes filium Dei, et ostentui habentes</i>.
          <td>Some frivolously object that Christ did not exist before Abraham and therefore that Abraham did not do this [kill Christ], since one who did not exist could not be killed. I answer that Abraham is not commended for something he did not do to Christ, but for what he did not do to anyone in like circumstances, i.e., to those who spoke the truth in his day. Or, it might be answered that although Christ had not come in the flesh during the time of Abraham, he nevertheless had come into his mind, according to Wisdom (7:27): "in every generation she [Wisdom] passes into souls." And Abraham did not kill Wisdom by sinning mortally. Concerning this we read: "They crucify the Son of God" (Heb 6:6).
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Consequenter cum dicit <i>vos facitis opera patris vestri</i>, concludit propositum; quasi dicat: ex quo non facitis opera Abrahae, ergo habetis aliquem alium patrem, cuius opera facitis. Simile habetur Matth. XXIII, v. 32: <i>vos implete mensuram patrum vestrorum</i>.
          <td>1230 Then when he says, <b>you do what your father did</b>, he draws his conclusion. It was like saying: from the fact that you do not do the works of Abraham, it follows that you have some other father whose works you are doing. A similar statement is made in Matthew (23:32): "Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers."
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Consequenter cum dicit <i>dixerunt itaque ei: nos ex fornicatione non sumus nati</i>, ostendit eos non habere originem a Deo: quia enim iam ex verbis domini cognoscebant eum non de carnali generatione loqui, ideo ad spiritualem generationem se transferunt, dicentes <i>nos ex fornicatione non sumus nati</i> et cetera. Ubi primo eorum opinionem proponunt; secundo eam dominus excludit, ibi <i>dixit ergo eis Iesus</i> et cetera.
          <td>1231 Then when he says, <b>they said to him, we were not born of fornication</b>, he shows that they do not take their origin from God, for since they knew from our Lord's words that he was not speaking of carnal descent, they turn to spiritual descent, saying, we were not born of fornication. First, they give their own opinion; secondly, our Lord rejects it (v 42).
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>In eorum autem opinione Iudaei unum negant et aliud asserunt. Negant se ex fornicatione natos: quod quidem, secundum Origenem, quasi improperando, Christo proponunt, latenter designantes, ipsum ex adulterio productum fore; quasi dicant <i>nos ex fornicatione non sumus nati</i>, sicut tu.
          <td>1232 According to some, the Jews are denying one thing and affirming another. They are denying that they were born of fornication. According to Origin, they said this tauntingly to Christ, with the unspoken suggestion that he was the product of adultery. It was like saying: we were not born of fornication as you were.
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Sed melius potest dici, quod sponsus animae spiritualiter Deus est, Oseae II, 19: <i>sponsabo te mihi</i>. Sicut autem fornicatur sponsa cum praeter sponsum suum carnalem, alium virum admittit; ita, in Scripturis, Iudaea fornicari dicebatur quando Deum verum deserens, idolis adhaerebat; Oseae I, 2: <i>fornicans fornicabitur terra a domino</i>. Dicunt ergo Iudaei <i>nos ex fornicatione non sumus nati</i>; quasi dicant: si aliquando mater nostra synagoga a Deo recedens fornicata est cum idolis, nos tamen non recessimus, nec cum idolis fornicati sumus; Ps. XLIII, 18: <i>nec obliti sumus te, et inique non egimus in testamento tuo, et non recessit retro cor nostrum</i>; Is. LVII, 3: <i>ascendite huc, filii fornicatricis, semen adulteri et fornicariae</i>. Affirmant autem se esse filios Dei: quod videbatur sequi ex quo non credebant se natos ex fornicatione; unde dicunt <i>unum patrem habemus Deum</i>; Mal. II, 10: <i>nonne unus est pater omnium nostrum?</i> Ier. III: <i>patrem vocabis me</i>.
          <td>But it is better to say that the spiritual spouse of the soul is God: "I will betroth you to me forever" (Hos 2:19), and just as a bride is guilty of fornication when she admits a man other than her husband, so in Scripture Judea was said to be fornicating when she abandoned the true God and turned to idols: "For the land commits great harlotry by forsaking the Lord" (Hos 1:2). And so the Jews said: we were not born of fornication. It was like saying: although our mother, the synagogue, may now and then have departed from God and fornicated with idols, yet we have not departed or fornicated with idols: "We have not forgotten thee, or been false to thy covenant. Our heart has not turned back" (Ps 44:17); "But you, draw near hither, sons of the sorceress, offspring of the adulterer and the harlot" (Is 57:3). Further, they affirm that they are children of God; and this seems to follow from the fact that they did not believe that they were born of fornication. Thus they say, we have one Father, even God: "Have we not all on father?" (Mal 2:10); "And I thought you would call me, My Father" (Jer 3:19).
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Consequenter cum dicit <i>dixit ergo eis Iesus</i> etc., confutatur eorum opinio a domino, et primo proponit divinae filiationis signum; secundo assignat rationem signi, ibi <i>ego enim a Deo veni</i> etc.; tertio ostendit eos a praedicto signo deficere, ibi <i>quare loquelam meam non cognoscitis?</i>
          <td>1233 Next (v 42), our Lord refutes their opinion: first we see the sign of being a child of God; secondly, the reason for this sign is given (v 42); and thirdly, we see that the Jews lack this sign (v 43).
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Sciendum est autem circa primum, quod supra signum carnalis filiationis dixit esse opera exteriora, quae homines exterius operantur; hic autem signum filiationis divinae ponit interiorem affectionem. Nam filii Dei efficimur per communicationem spiritus sancti; Rom. VIII, 15: <i>non accepistis spiritum servitutis iterum in timore, sed spiritum adoptionis</i>. Spiritus autem sanctus causa est amoris Dei, quia <i>caritas Dei diffusa est in cordibus nostris per spiritum sanctum, qui datus est nobis</i>: Rom. V, 5. Signum ergo speciale divinae filiationis est dilectio; Eph. V, 1: <i>estote imitatores Dei sicut filii carissimi, et ambulate in dilectione</i>. Et ideo dicit <i>si Deus pater vester esset, diligeretis utique me</i>; Ps. c. XXIV, 21: <i>innocentes et recti</i>, qui sunt filii Dei, <i>adhaeserunt mihi</i>.
          <td>1234 With respect to the first it should be noted that above he had said that the sign of being a child according to the flesh was in the exterior actions that a person performs; but here he places the sign of being a child of God in one's interior affections. For we become children of God by sharing in the Holy Spirit: "you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the spirit of sonship" (8:15). Now the Holy Spirit is the cause of our loving God, because "God's love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit which has been given to us" (Rom 5:5). Therefore, the special sign of being a child of God is love: "Be imitators of God, as beloved children. And walk in love" (Eph 5:1). Therefore he says, <b>If God were your Father, you would love me</b>: "The innocent and the right in heart," who are the children of God, "have clung to me" [Ps 21:4].
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Rationem autem signi assignat, dicens <i>ego enim ex Deo processi et veni</i>, et primo ponit veritatem; secundo excludit errorem, ibi <i>neque enim a meipso veni</i>.
          <td>1235 Then (v 42) he gives the reason for this sign. First, he states the truth; secondly, he rejects an error (v 42b).
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Veritas autem, quam proponit, est quod a Deo processit et venit. Sed sciendum est, quod omnis amicitia in coniunctione fundatur; unde et fratres se diligunt inquantum ex eisdem parentibus principium sumunt. Dicit ergo dominus: vos dicitis quod filii Dei estis; sed si hoc esset, <i>diligeretis me, quia a Deo processi et veni</i>. Qui ergo non me diligit, non est filius Dei.
          <td>1236 The truth he asserts is that he proceeded and came forth from God. It should be noted that all friendship is based on union, and so brothers love one another inasmuch as they take their origin from the same parents. Thus our Lord says: <b>you say that you are the children of God; but if this were so, you would love me</b>, for I proceeded and came forth from God. Therefore, any one who does not love me is not a child of God.
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td><i>Processi</i>, inquam, <i>a Deo</i>, ut unigenitus ab aeterno, de substantia patris; Ps. CIX, 3: <i>ante Luciferum genui te</i>; supra I: <i>in principio erat verbum. Veni</i> autem, ut verbum caro factum et missus a Deo per incarnationem; infra XVI, 28: <i>exivi a patre</i>, ut verbum ab aeterno, <i>et veni in mundum</i>, ut caro, factum in tempore.
          <td>I say I proceeded from God from eternity as the Only Begotten, of the substance of the Father: "From the womb before the daystar I begot you" (Ps 109:4); "In the beginning was the Word" (1:1). And I came forth as the Word made flesh, sent by God [into the world] through incarnation. "I came [proceeded] from the Father," from eternity, as the Word, "and have come into the world" when I was made flesh in time (16:28).
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Errorem autem excludit cum dicit <i>neque enim a meipso veni</i>: et primo excludit errorem Sabellii, qui Christum non ab alio originem habuisse dicit, sed idem esse patrem et filium in persona finxit. Et quantum ad hoc dicit <i>neque enim a meipso veni</i>; idest, secundum Hilarium, ego veni non a meipso existens, sed quasi ab alio missus, scilicet a patre, unde subdit <i>sed ille me misit</i>; Gal. IV, 4: <i>misit Deus filium suum natum ex muliere, factum sub lege</i>. Secundo vero errorem Iudaeorum, qui dicebant Christum non esse missum a Deo, sed falsum prophetam: de quibus dicitur: <i>non mittebam eos, sed ipsi currebant</i>. Et quantum ad hoc dicit, secundum Origenem, <i>neque enim a meipso veni, sed ille me misit</i>. Hunc petebat Moyses: <i>obsecro, domine, mitte quem missurus es</i>.
          <td>1237 He rejects an error when he says, <b>I came not of my own accord</b> [ <i>a meipso</i> ]. And first, he rejects the error of Sabellius, who said that Christ did not have his origin from another, for he said that the Father and the Son were the same in person. In regard to this he says, I came not of my own accord, i.e., according to Hilary, I came, not existing of myself, but in a way as sent by another, that is, the Father. Thus he adds, <b>but he sent me</b>: "God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law" (Gal 4:4). Secondly, he rejects an error of the Jews who said that Christ was not sent by God, but was a false prophet, of whom we read in Jeremiah (23:21): "I did not send the prophets, yet they ran." And in regard to this he says, according to Origen, I came not of my own accord, but he sent me. Indeed, this is what Moses prayed for: "O, my Lord, send, I pray, whom you will send" [Ex 4:13].
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Ostendit autem eos ab hoc signo deficere, cum dicit <i>quare loquelam meam non cognoscitis?</i> Nam, sicut dictum est supra dilectio Christi est signum filiationis divinae: isti autem Christum non diligebant: unde manifestum est eos ab hoc signo deficere. Quod autem non diligunt, manifestant per effectum: nam effectus dilectionis alicuius est quod diligens libenter audit verba dilecti. Unde Cant. II, 14: <i>sonet vox tua in auribus meis; vox enim tua dulcis</i>. Et Cant. ult., 13: <i>fac me audire vocem tuam: amici auscultant te</i>. Quia ergo isti Christum non diligebant, durum videbatur eis etiam vocem eius audire; supra VI, 61: <i>durus est hic sermo: quis potest eum audire?</i> Sap. II, 15: <i>gravis est nobis etiam ad videndum</i>.
          <td>1238 He shows that they lack this sign when he says, <b>Why do you not understand what I say?</b> For as was stated above, to love Christ is the sign of being a child of God; but they did not love Christ; therefore it is obvious that they did not have this sign. That they do not love Christ is shown by the effect of love: for the effect of loving someone is that the lover joyfully hears the words of the beloved; thus we read: "Let me hear your voice, for your voice is sweet" (Song 2:14). And again, "My companions are listening for your voice; let me hear it" (8:13). Therefore, because they did not love Christ, it seemed tedious to them even to hear his voice: "This is a hard saying, who can listen to it?" (6:60); "The very sight of him is a burden to us" (Wis 2:15).
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Contingit autem quod aliquis non libenter audit verba alicuius, quia ea examinare non potest nec per consequens cognoscere, et ideo eis contradicunt; Iob VI, 29: <i>respondete, obsecro, absque contentione (...) et non invenietis in lingua mea iniquitatem</i>. Et ideo dicit <i>quare loquelam meam non cognoscitis?</i> Dicentes et interrogantes: <i>quid est hoc quod dixit: quo ego vado vos non potestis venire?</i> Et hoc ideo, inquam, non cognoscitis, quia non potestis audire sermonem meum; idest, ita durum cor habetis ad me, quod nec sermonem meum audire vultis.
          <td>It sometimes happens that a person is not glad to hear the words of another because he cannot weigh them and for that reason does not understand them, and so he contradicts them: "Answer, I beseech you, without contentionand you shall not find iniquity on my tongue" [Job 6:29]. Therefore he says, <b>Why do you not understand what I say?</b> You question what I mean, as "Where I am going, you cannot come" (8:21). I say that you do not understand because you cannot bear to hear my word, i.e., your heart is so hardened against me that you do not even want to hear me.
    </table>
    <hr>
    <table cellpadding="12">
      <tbody>
        <tr style="align:center">
          <td><b>Lectio 6</b>
          <td><b>LECTURE 6</b>
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td style="font-family:" palatino="">
            <blockquote>
              44 ὑμεῖς ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς τοῦ διαβόλου ἐστὲ καὶ τὰς ἐπιθυμίας τοῦ πατρὸς ὑμῶν θέλετε ποιεῖν. ἐκεῖνος ἀνθρωποκτόνος ἦν ἀπ' ἀρχῆς, καὶ ἐν τῇ ἀληθείᾳ οὐκ ἔστηκεν, ὅτι οὐκ ἔστιν ἀλήθεια ἐν αὐτῷ. ὅταν λαλῇ τὸ ψεῦδος, ἐκ τῶν ἰδίων λαλεῖ, ὅτι ψεύστης ἐστὶν καὶ ὁ πατὴρ αὐτοῦ.
            </blockquote>
          <td>
            <blockquote>
              44 "You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth [and did not stand in the truth] because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies."
            </blockquote>
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Postquam dominus Iudaeos ostendit originem aliquam spiritualem habere et exclusit ab eis originem praesumptam, hic astruit veram, ascribens eis paternitatem Diaboli, et primo proponit intentum; secundo rationem eis assignat, ibi <i>et desideria patris vestri vultis facere</i>; tertio positam rationem manifestat, ibi <i>ille homicida erat ab initio</i>.
          <td>1239 After showing that the Jews had a certain spiritual origin, and after rejecting the origin they presumed they had, our Lord here gives their true origin, ascribing their fatherhood to the devil. First, he makes his statement; secondly, he gives its reason; and thirdly, he explains this reason.
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Dicit ergo <i>vos facitis opera Diaboli, ergo vos ex patre Diabolo estis</i>, scilicet per imitationem; Ez. XVI, 3: <i>pater tuus Amorrhaeus, et mater tua Cethaea</i>.
          <td>1240 He says: <b>You do the works of the devil; therefore, you are of your father the devil</b>, that is, by imitating him: "Your father was an Amorite, and your mother a Hittite" (Ez 16:3).
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Cavenda est hic haeresis Manichaeorum, qui dicunt esse quamdam naturam mali, et gentem quamdam tenebrarum cum principibus suis, a qua corruptibilia omnia originem trahunt; et secundum hoc omnes homines secundum carnem ex Diabolo processisse. Ponebant autem quasdam animas ad bonam creationem pertinere, et quasdam ad malam; unde dicebant hoc dictum a domino <i>vos ex patre Diabolo estis</i>, quia ab eo secundum carnem processistis, et animae vestrae sunt de mala creatione. Sed, ut Origenes dicit, introducere duas naturas propter differentiam boni et mali, simile videtur ei qui diceret alteram esse oculi videntis substantiam, alteram caligantis vel se avertentis. Quemadmodum enim oculi sani et lippi non differunt substantia, sed quaedam contingit causa deficiens, scilicet quae facit eum caligare; ita eadem est substantia et natura rei, sive sit bona, seu habeat in se defectum, quod est peccatum voluntatis. Non ergo Iudaei ut mali, dicuntur filii Diaboli natura, sed imitatione.
          <td>Here one must guard against the heresy of the Manicheans who claim that there is a definite nature called "evil," and a certain race of darkness with its own princes, from which all corruptible things derive their origin. According to this opinion, all men, as to their flesh, have come from the devil. Further, they say that certain souls belong to that creation which is good, and others to that which is evil. Thus they said that our Lord said, you are of your father, the devil, because they came from the devil according to the flesh, and their souls were part of that creation which was evil. But as Origen says, to suppose that there are two natures because of the difference between good and evil seems to be like saying that the substance of an eye which sees is different from that of an eye that is clouded or crossed. For just as a healthy and bleary eye do not differ in substance, but the bleariness is from some deficient cause, so the substance and nature of a thing is the same whether it is good or has a defect in itself, which is a sin of the will. And so the Jews, as evil, are not called the children of the devil by nature, but by reason of their imitating him.
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Consequenter cum dicit <i>et desideria patris vestri vultis facere</i>, rationem assignatam exponit; quasi dicat: non estis filii Diaboli tamquam ab eo creati, et in esse producti sed quia eum imitantes, <i>desideria patris vestri vultis facere</i>, quae quidem mala sunt: nam sicut ille invidit homini, et occidit, Sap. II, 24: <i>invidia Diaboli mors intravit in orbem terrarum</i>, ita et vos mihi invidentes, <i>quaeritis me interficere hominem, qui veritatem locutus sum vobis</i>.
          <td>1241 Then when he says, <b>and your will is to do your father's desires</b>, he gives the reason for this, for their being of the devil. It is like saying: you are not the children of the devil as though created and brought into existence by him, but because by imitating him your will is to do your father's desires. And these desires are evil, for as he envied and killed man - "through the devil's envy death entered the world" (Wis 2:24) - so you too envy me and "you seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth" (8:40).
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Consequenter cum dicit <i>ille homicida erat ab initio</i>, positam rationem manifestat, et primo ponit Diaboli quam imitantur conditionem; secundo ostendit eos esse imitatores conditionis illius, ibi <i>ego autem si veritatem dico, non creditis mihi</i>.
          <td>1242 Then when he says, <b>he was a murderer from the beginning</b>, he explains the reason he gave. First, he mentions the characteristic of the devil that they imitate; secondly, he shows that they are truly imitators of that (8:45).
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Sciendum est circa primum, quod in Diabolo duplex peccatum maxime pollet: scilicet peccatum superbiae ad Deum, et invidiae ad hominem, quem occidit. Sed ex peccato invidiae ad hominem quo infert nocumenta hominibus, cognoscitur a nobis peccatum superbiae et ideo primo ponit peccatum Daemonis contra hominem; secundo peccatum eius contra Deum, ibi <i>et in veritate non stetit</i>.
          <td>With respect to the first it should be noted that two sins stand out in the devil: the sin of pride towards God, and of envy towards man, whom he destroys. And from the sin of envy towards man, because of which he injures him, we can know his sin of pride. And so first, he mentions the devil's sin against man; secondly, his sin against God, he did not stand in the truth.
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Peccatum autem invidiae contra hominem est quod occidit eum; unde dicit: <i>ille</i>, scilicet Diabolus, <i>homicida erat ab initio</i>. Ubi sciendum est quod non ferro accinctus Diabolus occidit hominem, sed mala persuasione; Sap. II, 24: <i>invidia Diaboli mors introivit in orbem terrarum</i>. Et primo quidem introivit mors peccati, Ps. XXXIII, 22: <i>mors peccatorum pessima</i>, deinde vero mors corporalis, Rom. V, 12: <i>per unum hominem peccatum intravit, et per peccatum mors</i>. Et, ut dicit Augustinus, noli putare te non esse homicidam, quando fratri tuo mala persuades. Attendendum est autem, secundum Origenem, quod ille homicida dicitur non propter aliquem singulariter tantum, sed pro toto genere, quod peremit in Adam, in quo cuncti moriuntur, ut dicitur I ad Cor. XV, 22. Unde antonomastice homicida dicitur; et hoc <i>ab initio</i>, ex quo scilicet fuit homo, qui occidi poterat, ex quo potuit fieri homicidium: non enim posset occidi homo, nisi prius homo fieret.
          <td>1243 His sin of envy against man lies in the fact that he kills him. So he says, <b>he</b>, that is, the devil, <b>was a murderer from the beginning.</b> Here it should be noted that the devil kills man not with the sword, but by persuading him to do evil. "Through the devil's envy death entered the world" (Wis 2:24). First, the death of sin entered: "The death of the wicked is very evil" [Ps 33:22]; then came bodily death: "Sin came into the world through one man and death through sin" (Rom 5:12). As Augustine says: "Do not think that you are not a murderer when you lead your brother into evil." However, it should be noted with Origen, that the devil is not called a murderer with respect to only some particular person, but with respect to the whole race, which he destroyed in Adam, in whom all die, as we read in 1 Corinthians (c 15). Thus he is called a murderer because that is a chief characteristic, and he is so indeed from the beginning, that is, from the time that a man existed who could be killed, who could be murdered; for one cannot be murdered unless he first exists.
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Consequenter cum dicit <i>et in veritate non stetit</i>, ponit peccatum Daemonis contra Deum, quod consistit in hoc quod avertit se a veritate, quae Deus est, et primo ostendit eum a veritate aversum; secundo ostendit eum veritati contrarium, ibi <i>dum loquitur mendacium, ex propriis loquitur</i>. Circa primum duo facit. Primo ostendit eum a veritate aversum; secundo manifestat quod dixit, ibi <i>quia veritas in eo non est</i>.
          <td>1244 Then when he says, <b>he did not stand in the truth</b>, he mentions the devil's sin against God, which consists in the fact that he turned away from the truth, which is God. First, he shows that he is turned from the truth; secondly, he shows that he is contrary to the truth: when he lies, he speaks according to his own nature. As to the first he does two things: first, he shows that the devil is turned from the truth; secondly, he explains what he has said, because there is no truth in him.
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Dicit ergo <i>et in veritate non stetit</i>. Unde sciendum est, quod duplex est veritas: scilicet vocis et operis. Veritas quidem vocis est qua quis profert ore quod gerit corde, et est in rerum natura; Eph. IV, 25: <i>deponentes mendacium, loquimini veritatem unusquisque cum proximo suo</i>; Ps. XIV, 3: <i>qui loquitur veritatem cum proximo suo, qui non egit dolum in lingua sua</i>. Veritas iustitiae, quando scilicet quis agit quod convenit sibi secundum ordinem suae naturae: de qua supra III, 21, dicit: <i>qui fecerit veritatem, veniet ad lucem, ut manifestentur opera eius, quia in Deo sunt facta</i>. De hac ergo veritate dominus loquens dicit <i>et in veritate</i>, scilicet iustitiae, <i>non stetit</i>, quia deseruit ordinem suae naturae, qui erat ut Deo subiiceretur, et per eumdem beatitudinem suam et naturalis desiderii complementum consequeretur. Unde dum hoc per se consequi voluit, a veritate cecidit.
          <td>1245 He says, <b>he did not stand in the truth</b>. Here it should be noted that truth is of two kinds, namely, the truth of word and the truth of deed. The truth of word consists in a person saying what he feels in his heart and what is in reality: "Therefore, putting away falsehood, let every one speak the truth with his neighbor" (Eph 4:25); "He who speaks truth from his heart, who does not slander with his tongue" (Ps 15:3). The truth of deed, on the other hand, is the truth of righteousness, i.e., when a person does what befits him according to the order of his nature. Concerning this it says above: "He who does what is true comes to the light, that it may be clearly seen that his deeds have been wrought in God" (3:21). Speaking of this truth our Lord says, in the truth, namely, the truth of righteousness, he did not stand, because he abandoned the order of his nature, which was that he be subject to God, and through him acquire his happiness and the fulfillment of his natural desire. And so, because he wanted to obtain this through himself, he fell from the truth.
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Hoc autem quod dicit <i>in veritate non stetit</i>, potest dupliciter intelligi: vel quod numquam in veritate steterit; vel quod aliquando steterit, sed in ea non permansit. Sed hoc quod numquam fuerit in veritate iustitiae, potest habere duplicem sensum. Unum quidem secundum Manichaeos, qui dicunt Diabolum naturaliter malum esse: ex quo sequitur quod semper malus fuerit. Nam quod inest naturaliter, semper inest. Sed hoc est haereticum, quia in Ps. CXLV, 6, dicitur, quod <i>Deus fecit caelum et terram, mare et omnia quae in eis sunt</i>. Ergo omne ens est a Deo; omne autem quod est a Deo, inquantum est, bonum est.
          <td>1246 The statement, <b>he did not stand in the truth</b>, can be understood in two ways. Either he never had anything to do with the truth, or that he once did, but did not continue in it. Now never to have anything to do with the truth of righteousness has two meanings. One is according to the Manicheans, who say that the devil is evil by nature. From this it follows that he was always evil, because whatever is present by nature is always present. But this is heretical, for we read: "God made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them" (Ps 146:6). Therefore, every being is from God; but everything which is from God, insofar as it is, is good.
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Et ideo alii dixerunt, quod Daemon ex sui natura bonus est a Deo creatus, sed in primo instanti factus est malus per liberum arbitrium. Et differunt isti a Manichaeis: quia illi dicunt Daemones semper fuisse malos, et naturaliter; isti vero semper malos, sed per liberum arbitrium.
          <td>Consequently, others have said that the devil was created good in his nature by God, but became evil in the first instant by his own free choice. And this opinion differs from that of the Manicheans who say that the devils were always and by nature evil, whereas this opinion claims that they were always evil by free choice.
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Sed posset alicui videri quod quia Angelus non est malus per naturam, sed per peccatum propriae voluntatis, peccatum autem est actus quidam, potuit fieri ut Angelus in principio actus fuerit bonus, sed in termino actus mali fuerit malus effectus. Manifestum est autem quod actus peccati in Daemone est creatione posterior, terminus autem creationis est ipsum esse Angeli: terminus vero operationis peccati est quod sint mali. Et sic ex hac ratione volunt quod impossibile sit quod in primo instanti quo Angelus esse coepit, fuerit malus.
          <td>Someone might suppose that since an angel is not evil by nature but by a sin of his own will - and sin is an act - it is possible that at the beginning of the act the angel was good, and at the end of the evil act he became evil. For it is plain that the act of sin in the devil is subsequent to his creation, and that the terminus of creation is the existence of an angel; but the terminus of the act of sin is that he is evil. Consequently, according to this explanation, they conclude that it is impossible that an angel be evil in the first instant in which the angel came to exist.
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Sed haec ratio non videtur sufficiens, habet enim locum in motibus temporalibus tantum, qui successive aguntur, non autem in motibus instantaneis. Nam in motibus successivis aliud est instans in quo incipit actio, et aliud in quo terminatur: sicut si motus localis sequitur ad alterationem, non potest in eodem instanti terminari motus localis et alteratio. Sed in mutationibus instantaneis, simul et in eodem instanti potest esse terminus primae et secundae mutationis; sicut in eodem instanti quo illuminatur luna a sole, illuminatur aer a luna. Manifestum est autem quod creatio est instantanea, et similiter motus liberi arbitrii in Angelis, cum non indigerent collatione et discursu rationis; unde nihil prohibet simul et in eodem instanti esse terminum creationis, in quo fuit bonus, et iterum terminum liberi arbitrii, in quo fuit malus. Et hoc aliqui concedunt; sed dicunt hoc non fuisse, licet esse potuerit: et hoc propter auctoritatem Scripturae. Dicitur enim sub figura regis Babylonis de Diabolo, Is. XIV, 12: <i>quomodo cecidisti, Lucifer, qui mane oriebaris?</i> Ez. XXVIII, 13, dicitur sub persona regis Tyri: <i>in deliciis Paradisi Dei fuisti</i>. Et ideo dicunt, quod non fuit in principio suae creationis malus, sed quandoque bonus fuit, et per liberum arbitrium cecidit.
          <td>But this explanation does not seem to be sufficient, because it is true only in motions that occur in time and that are accomplished in a successive manner, not in instantaneous motions. For in every successive motion the instant in which an act begins is not the one in which the action is terminated; thus, if a local motion follows upon an alteration, the local motion cannot be terminated in the same instant as the alteration. But in changes that are instantaneous, the terminus of a first and of a second change can occur together and in the same instant. Thus, in the same instant that the moon is illumined by the sun, the air is illumined by the moon. Now it is clear that creation is instantaneous, and likewise the act of free choice in the angels, since they do not go through the weighings and discoursings of reason. Thus, in the case of an angel there is nothing to prevent the same instant from being the terminus of creation (in which he was good), and the terminus of a free decision (in which he was evil). Some admit this, although they do not say that it so happened, but that it could have so happened. And they base themselves on the authority of Scripture, for under the figure of the king of Babylon it is said of the devil: "How have you fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, who did rise in the morning?" [Is 14:12]; and under the person of the king of Tyre it says: "You were in the pleasures of the paradise of God" [Ez 28:13]. Accordingly, they say that he was not evil at the first instant of his creation, but that he was once good, and fell through his free choice.
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Sed dicendum est, quod in primo instanti suae creationis non potuit esse malus. Cuius ratio est, quia nullus actus habet rationem peccati, nisi inquantum est praeter rationem naturae agentis voluntarii. In quolibet autem ordine actuum prius est actus naturalis; sicut in intelligendo, primo intelliguntur prima principia, et per ipsa intelliguntur alia, et, in volendo similiter, primo volumus ultimam perfectionem et ultimum finem, cuius appetitus naturaliter nobis inest, et propter ipsum appetimus alia. Quod autem secundum naturam fit, non est peccatum. Impossibile est ergo quod primus actus Diaboli fuerit malus. Fuit ergo Diabolus in aliquo instanti bonus, <i>sed in veritate non stetit</i>, idest, non permansit. Ad illud autem quod dicitur I Io. III, 8: <i>Diabolus ab initio peccavit</i>, dicendum, quod ab initio quidem peccavit; quia ex quo incepit peccare, numquam desiit.
          <td>But it must be said that he could not be evil at the first instant of his creation. The reason for this is that no act is sinful except insofar as it is outside the nature of the voluntary agent. But in order of acts, the natural act is first: thus in understanding, first principles are understood first, and through them other things are understood; and in willing, we likewise first will the ultimate perfection and ultimate end, the desire for which is naturally in us, and on account of this we seek other things. Now that which is done according to nature is not sin. Therefore, it is impossible that the first act of the devil was evil; consequently, at some instant the devil was good. But he did not stand in the truth, i.e., he did not remain in it. Concerning the statement from 1 John (3:8): "The devil has sinned from the beginning," one may say that he did indeed sin from the beginning in the sense that once he began to sin he never stopped.
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Consequenter cum dicit <i>quia non est veritas in eo</i>, manifestat quod dixit. Quae quidem manifestatio intelligitur dupliciter. Uno quidem modo, secundum Origenem, ut sit manifestatio communis per specialem, sicut si vellem manifestare quod Socrates est animal per hoc quod est homo. Quasi dicat <i>in veritate non stetit</i>, sed cecidit; et hoc quia <i>non est veritas in eo</i>. Est autem duplex gradus non stantium in veritate. Aliqui enim in veritate non stant, quia non firmantur in ea, sed dubitant Ps. LXXII, 2: <i>mei autem pene moti sunt pedes, pene effusi gressus mei</i>. Aliqui autem quia totaliter a veritate resiliunt. Et sic Diabolus in veritate non stetit, sed ab ea recessit per aversionem.
          <td>1247 Then when he says, <b>because there is no truth in him</b>, he explains what he has said. And this explanation can be understood in two ways. In one way, according to Origen, so that it is an explanation of the general by the particular, as when I explain that Socrates is an animal by the fact that he is a man. It is then like saying: he did not stand in the truth, but fell from it, and this because there is not truth in him. Now there are two classes of those that do not stand in the truth: some do not stand in the truth because they are not convinced, but waiver: "My feet had almost stumbled, my steps had well nigh slipped" (Ps 73:2); others, on the other hand, because they have entirely recoiled from the truth. And this was the way the devil did not stand in the truth, but turned away from it in aversion.
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Sed numquid nulla veritas est in eo? Et quidem si nulla veritas sit, neque semetipsum intelliget, neque aliquid, cum intellectus non sit nisi verorum: quod est inconveniens. Dicendum est ergo, in Daemonibus esse aliquam veritatem, sicut aliquod verum. Nullum enim malum totaliter corrumpit bonum, cum ad minus, subiectum in quo malum est, sit bonum. Ideo Dyonisius dicit, quod in Daemonibus manent integra naturalia bona. Sic igitur aliqua veritas est in eis, sed non completiva, a qua aversi sunt, scilicet a Deo, qui est veritas et sapientia completiva.
          <td>But is there no truth at all in him? For if there is no truth in him, we would not understand himself or anything else, since understanding is concerned only with things that are true. I answer that there is some truth in the evil spirits, just as there is something true [a nature]. For no evil utterly destroys a good thing, since at least the subject in which evil is found is good. Thus Dionysius says that the natural goods remain intact in evil spirits. Thus there is some truth in them, but not the fulfilling truth from which they have turned, namely, God, who is fulfilling truth and wisdom.
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Secundo vero modo manifestatio ista est per signum, ut Augustinus dicit. Quia videtur quod potius debuisset contrarium dici. Ideo scilicet <i>veritas non est in eo</i>, quia <i>in veritate non stetit</i>. Sed sicut causa aliquando manifestatur per effectum, ita dominus voluit ostendere quod in veritate non stetit per hoc quod <i>veritas non est in eo</i>: esset enim in eo, si in veritate stetisset. Similis modus loquendi habetur in Ps. XVI, 6: <i>ego clamavi quoniam exaudisti</i>; quasi, ex hoc apparet quod clamavit, quia fuit exauditus.
          <td>1248 In a second way, this explanation is understood as a sign, as Augustine says. For it seems that he should rather have said the converse, namely, "there is not truth in him, because he did not stand in the truth." But just as a cause is sometimes shown by its effect, so our Lord wished to show that the truth was not in him because he did not stand in the truth; for truth would have been in him had he stood in the truth. A similar pattern of speech is found in "I cried because you heard" [Ps 16:6]: as if to say that it is evident that I cried because you heard me.
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Consequenter cum dicit <i>cum loquitur mendacium, ex propriis loquitur</i>, ostendit quod Diabolus est contrarius veritati, et primo ponit intentum; secundo manifestat propositum, ibi <i>quia mendax est, et pater eius</i>.
          <td>1249 Then he shows that the devil is contrary to the truth, when he lies, he speaks according to his own nature (on his own). First, he makes this point; secondly, he explains it.
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Veritati autem contrarium est falsum et mendacium; Diabolus autem est veritati contrarius, quia loquitur mendacium: et ideo dicit <i>dum loquitur, mendacium loquitur</i>. Ubi sciendum est, quod quicumque praeter Deum loquitur ex propriis, mendacium loquitur quamvis non quicumque mendacium loquitur, ex propriis loquatur. Solus autem Deus loquendo ex propriis, loquitur veritatem. Veritas enim est illuminatio intellectus; Deus autem est ipsum lumen, et ab ipso omnes illuminantur, supra I, 9: <i>erat lux vera, quae illuminat omnem hominem venientem in hunc mundum</i>: unde et est ipsa veritas, et alii non loquuntur veritatem nisi inquantum ab ipso illuminantur. Unde, sicut Ambrosius dicit, omne verum a quocumque dicatur, a spiritu sancto est. Sic ergo Diabolus cum loquitur ex propriis, loquitur mendacium; homo etiam, cum ex propriis loquitur, mendacium loquitur; sed cum a Deo loquitur, tunc loquitur veritatem; Rom. III, 4: <i>est autem Deus verax, omnis autem homo mendax</i>, quantum est in se. Sed non omnis homo qui loquitur mendacium, loquitur ex propriis, quia quandoque hoc ab alio accipit: non quidem a Deo, qui est verax, sed ab eo qui in veritate non stetit et primo mendacium adinvenit. Et ideo ipse singulariter cum loquitur mendacium, ex propriis loquitur; III Reg. ult., 22: <i>egrediar, et ero spiritus mendax in ore omnium prophetarum eius</i>; Is. XIX, 14: <i>dominus immiscuit</i>, idest miscere permisit <i>in medio eius spiritum erroris</i>.
          <td>1250 The contrary of truth is falsity and a lie. The devil is contrary to the truth because he speaks a lie. Thus he says, <b>he lies</b>. Here we should note that, God excepted, whoever speaks on his own speaks a lie; although not everyone who speaks a lie speaks on his own. God alone, when speaking on his own, speaks the truth, for truth is an enlightenment of the intellect, and God is light itself and all are enlightened by him: "the true light that enlightens every man" (1:9). Thus he is truth itself, and no one speaks the truth except insofar as he is enlightened by him. So Ambrose says: "Every truth, by whomsoever spoken, is from the Holy Spirit." Thus the devil, when he speaks on his own, speaks a lie; man, too, when he speaks on his own, speaks a lie; but when he speaks from God, he speaks the truth: "Let God be true though every man be false" (Rom 3:4). But not every man who tells a lie speaks on his own, for sometimes he gets this from someone else, not indeed from God, who is truthful, but from him who did not stand in the truth and who first invented lying. So in a unique way when the devil tells a lie, he is speaking on his own: "I will go forth and will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all prophets" (1 Kgs 22:22); "The Lord mingled" (that is, allowed to mingle) "a spirit of error in their midst" [Is 19:14].
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Propositum autem manifestat cum dicit <i>quia mendax est, et pater eius</i>. Quod quidem Manichaei male intelligentes, ponebant Daemonum generationes, putantes Diabolum patrem habere. Unde dicebant, quod Diabolus <i>mendax est, et pater eius</i>, idest Diabolus. Quod quidem non sic est intelligendum. Nam dominus dixit, quod Diabolus est mendax, et pater eius, idest mendacii: non enim omnis qui mentitur, pater est sui mendacii. Nam, ut Augustinus dicit, si ab alio mendacium accepisti, et dixisti; tu quidem mentitus es, sed pater mendacii non es. Diabolus vero, quia aliunde non accepit mendacium, quo tamquam veneno hominem occideret, pater mendacii est, sicut Deus pater est veritatis. Diabolus enim primo mendacium invenit, cum scilicet mulieri mentitus est: <i>nequaquam moriemini</i>, Gen. III, 4. Quod qualiter verum fuerit, rei eventus postmodum comprobavit.
          <td>1251 He explains this statement when he says, <b>for he is a liar and the father of lies</b>. The Manicheans did not understand this, and placed some kind of procreation in the evil spirits, with the devil as their father. They said that the devil "is a liar and his father." It should not be understood this way, as our Lord said that the devil is a liar and its father, the father of lies. Not everyone who lies is the father of his lie. As Augustine says, "If you have learned a lie from someone else and you repeat it, you have indeed lied, but you are not the father of that lie." But the devil, because he did not learn from someone else the lie by which he destroyed humankind as with poison, is the father of the lie, just as God is the father of truth. The devil was the first to invent the lie, namely, when he lied to the woman: "You will not die" (Gen 3:4). Just how true this statement was, was proved by the outcome.
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Sciendum est autem, quod haec verba ab illo loco <i>vos ex patre Diabolo estis</i>, in libro de quaestionibus novi et veteris testamenti exponuntur de Cain, hoc modo: secundum quod ille dicitur Diabolus qui facit opera Diaboli, et vos eum imitamini. Cain <i>homicida erat ab initio</i>, ex quo scilicet Abel fratrem suum occidit, <i>et in veritate non stetit, quia veritas non est in eo</i>. Et hoc apparet, quia cum dominus quaereret ab eo (Gen. IV, 9): <i>ubi est Abel frater tuus?</i> Respondit dicens: <i>nescio, domine; numquid custos fratris mei sum ego?</i> Unde ipse <i>mendax est et pater eius</i>, scilicet Diabolus, qui est pater eius impressione. Prima tamen expositio melior est.
          <td>1252 Here we should note that the book Questions of the New and Old Testament takes the words you are of your father the devil, and applies them to Cain, in the sense that one is called a devil who performs the works of the devil, and you are imitating him; hence you are of your father the devil, that is, of Cain, who did the work of the devil, and you are imitating him. Cain "Was a murderer from the beginning," because he killed his brother Abel. And he "did not stand in the truth, because there is not truth in him." This is obvious because when the Lord asked him, "Where is Abel your brother?" he said, "I do not know; am I my brother's keeper?" (Gen 4:9). Thus he is a liar. But the first explanation is better.
    </table>
    <hr>
    <table cellpadding="12">
      <tbody>
        <tr style="align:center">
          <td><b>Lectio 7</b>
          <td><b>LECTURE 7</b>
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td style="font-family:" palatino="">
            <blockquote>
              45 ἐγὼ δὲ ὅτι τὴν ἀλήθειαν λέγω, οὐ πιστεύετέ μοι. 46 τίς ἐξ ὑμῶν ἐλέγχει με περὶ ἁμαρτίας; εἰ ἀλήθειαν λέγω, διὰ τί ὑμεῖς οὐ πιστεύετέ μοι; 47 ὁ ὢν ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ τὰ ῥήματα τοῦ θεοῦ ἀκούει: διὰ τοῦτο ὑμεῖς οὐκ ἀκούετε, ὅτι ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ οὐκ ἐστέ. 48 ἀπεκρίθησαν οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι καὶ εἶπαν αὐτῷ, οὐ καλῶς λέγομεν ἡμεῖς ὅτι Σαμαρίτης εἶ σὺ καὶ δαιμόνιον ἔχεις; 49 ἀπεκρίθη Ἰησοῦς, ἐγὼ δαιμόνιον οὐκ ἔχω, ἀλλὰ τιμῶ τὸν πατέρα μου, καὶ ὑμεῖς ἀτιμάζετέ με. 50 ἐγὼ δὲ οὐ ζητῶ τὴν δόξαν μου: ἔστιν ὁ ζητῶν καὶ κρίνων.
            </blockquote>
          <td>
            <blockquote>
              45 "But because [If] I tell the truth, you do not believe me. 46 Which of you convicts me of sin? If I tell the truth, why do you not believe me? 47 He who is of God hears the words of God; the reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God." 48 The Jews answered him, "Are we not right in saying that you are a Samaritan and have a demon?" 49 Jesus answered, "I have not a demon; but I honor my Father, and you dishonor me. 50 Yet I do not seek my own glory; there is One who seeks it and he will be the judge."
            </blockquote>
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Postquam posuit diabolicam conditionem, hic consequenter ostendit Iudaeos esse diabolicae conditionis imitatores. Duas autem malitiae conditiones dominus Diabolo ascripsit, homicidium scilicet et mendacium. Sed de homicidio quidem, in quo isti Diabolum imitabantur, reprehendit eos; supra eodem: <i>nunc autem quaeritis me interficere, hominem, qui veritatem vobis locutus sum, quam audivi a Deo</i>. Et ideo, hoc praetermisso, redarguit eos de aversione eorum a veritate, et primo ostendit eos esse aversos a veritate; secundo causam quam allegare poterant, excludit, ibi <i>quis ex vobis arguet me de peccato?</i> Tertio veram causam aversionis concludit, ibi <i>si veritatem dico, quare non creditis mihi?</i>
          <td>1253 After mentioning some characteristics of the devil, he then shows that the Jews are imitating these. Our Lord ascribed two kinds of evil to the devil, murder and lying. He reproved them before for their imitation of one of these, namely, murder: "Now you seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth" (8:40). Then passing from this, he reproves them for turning away from the truth: first, he shows that they are turned away from the truth; secondly, he rejects a certain reason they might give for this (v 46); thirdly, he concludes to the true reason for their being turned away from the truth (v 46b).
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Dicit ergo primo: dictum est, quod Diabolus <i>mendax est, et pater eius</i>, quem quidem vos imitamini, quia veritati non vultis adhaerere. Unde dicit <i>ego autem si veritatem dico vobis, non creditis mihi</i>. Lc. XXII, 67: <i>si autem dixero, non credetis mihi</i>; supra III, 12: <i>quomodo si dixero vobis caelestia, credetis?</i> Unde et Is. LIII, 1, conqueritur dicens: <i>domine, quis credidit auditui nostro?</i>
          <td>1254 He says first: It was said that the devil is a liar and the father of lies, and you are imitating him because you do not wish to adhere to the truth. Thus he says, <b>If I tell the truth to you you do not believe me</b>; "If I tell you, you will not believe" (Lk 22:67); "If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe me, etc." (3:12). And Isaiah complains: "Who has believed what we have heard?" (Is 53:1).
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Causa autem suae infidelitatis, quam poterant Iudaei allegare est peccatum in Christo; nam peccatori etiam in veritate non de facili creditur. Unde Ps. XLIX, 16: <i>peccatori autem dixit Deus: quare tu enarras iustitias meas?</i> Poterant ergo dicere: non credimus, quia peccator es.
          <td>1255 The reason which the Jews might allege for their unbelief is that Christ is a sinner, for it is not easy to believe a sinner even when he is telling the truth. Thus we read: "But to the wicked God says: 'What right have you to recite my statutes?'" (Ps 50:16). So they might have said: We do not believe you since you are a sinner.
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Et ideo hanc causam excludit, dicens <i>quis ex vobis arguit me de peccato?</i> Quasi dicat: non habetis iustam causam quare mihi veritatem dicenti non creditis, cum in me nullum peccatum inveniri possit; I Petr. II, 22: <i>qui peccatum non fecit, nec inventus est dolus in ore eius</i>.
          <td>Accordingly, he excludes this reason when he says, <b>Which of you convicts me of sin?</b> As if to say: You have no good reason for not believing me when I speak the truth, since you can find no sin in me: "He committed not sin; no guile was found on his lips" (1 Pt 2:22).
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Secundum Gregorium, pensanda est Dei mansuetudo, qui non dedignatur ex ratione ostendere se peccatorem non esse, qui ex virtute divinitatis poterat peccatores iustificare; Iob XXXI, 13: <i>si contempsi subire iudicium meum cum servo meo et ancilla mea, cum disceptarent adversum me</i>. Admiranda est etiam Christi singularis puritatis excellentia, quia, ut Chrysostomus dicit, hoc nullus hominum fiducialiter potuit dicere <i>quis ex vobis arguet me de peccato?</i> Nisi solus Deus noster, qui peccatum non fecit; Prov. XX, 9: <i>quis potest dicere: mundum est cor meum, purus sum a peccato?</i> Quasi dicat, nullus nisi solus Deus. Et in Ps. XIII, v. 3: <i>omnes declinaverunt, simul inutiles facti sunt: non est qui faciat bonum, non est usque ad unum</i>, idest Christum.
          <td>According to Gregory, we are invited to consider the mildness of God, who did not consider it beneath himself to show by rational grounds that he who can justify sinners by the power of his divinity is not a sinner: "If I have rejected the cause of my manservant or my maidservant, when they brought a complaint against me; what then shall I do when God rises up?" (Jb 31:13). We should also honor the unique greatness of Christ's purity, for as Chrysostom says, no mere man could have confidently said, Which of you convicts me of sin? Only God, who had no sin, could say this: "Who can say, 'I have made my heart clean; I am pure from my sin?'" (Prv 20:9) - this is like saying: No one but God alone. "They have all gone astray, they are all alike corrupt; there is none that does good, no, not one," except Christ (Ps 14:3).
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Veram autem causam aversionis concludit, dicens <i>si veritatem dico, quare non creditis mihi?</i> Et primo ponit eam; secundo Iudaeorum contradictionem excludit, ibi <i>responderunt ergo Iudaei</i> et cetera. Circa primum tria facit. Primo ponit quaestionem; secundo assumit rationabilem propositionem; tertio infert intentam conclusionem.
          <td>1256 Next, he concludes to the real reason they have turned away from the truth. First, he mentions the reason; secondly, he rejects their rejoinder (v 48). As to the first he does three things: first, he asks a question; secondly, he begins with a reasonable starting point; thirdly, he draws from his conclusion.
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Dicit ergo primo: ex quo ergo non potestis dicere, quod ideo non creditis mihi quia peccator sum, nunc restat quaerere quare <i>si veritatem dico, non creditis mihi</i>, ex quo non sum peccator; quasi dicat: si me, quem exosum habetis, non potestis arguere de peccato, manifestum est quoniam propter veritatem me odio habetis, quoniam dico me filium Dei; Prov. XVIII, 2: <i>non recipit stultus verba prudentiae, nisi ea dixerit quae versantur in corde eius</i>.
          <td>1257 First, he says: Since you cannot say that you do not believe me because I am a sinner, one can ask why if I tell the truth, you do not believe me, since I am not a sinner? This is like saying: If you cannot convict me, whom you hate, of sin, it is obvious that you hate me because of the truth, that is, because I say that I am the Son of God: "A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion" (Prv 18:2).
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Rationabilem autem propositionem et veram assumit, dicens <i>qui ex Deo est, verba Dei audit</i>. Ut enim dicitur Eccli. c. XIII, 19, <i>omne animal diligit sibi simile</i>, quicumque ergo est ex Deo, inquantum huiusmodi, similitudinem habet horum quae sunt Dei, et eis inhaeret. Unde <i>qui ex Deo est, verba Dei</i> libenter <i>audit</i>; infra XVIII, 37: <i>omnis qui est ex veritate, audit meam vocem</i>. Praecipue autem verbum Dei libenter audiri debet ab his qui ex Deo sunt, cum ipsum sit semen per quod in filios Dei generamur; infra X, 35: <i>illos dixit deos ad quos sermo Dei factus est</i>.
          <td>1258 He then begins with a reasonable and true starting point, saying, <b>he who is of God hears the words of God</b>. For we read in Sirach (13:15): "Every creature loves its like." Therefore, whoever is of God, to that extent possesses a likeness to the things of God and clings to them. Thus, he who is of God gladly hears the words of God: "Every one who is of the truth hears my voice" (18:37). The word of God ought to be heard gladly by those, above all, who are of God, since it is the seed by which we are made the children of God: "He called them gods to whom the word of God came" (10:35).
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Et ideo ex hoc intentam conclusionem infert, dicens <i>propterea vos non auditis, quia ex Deo non estis</i>; quasi dicat: non ergo peccatum meum est causa incredulitatis vestrae, sed malitia vestra; Eccli. VI, v. 21: <i>quam aspera est nimium indoctis hominibus sapientia</i>.
          <td>1259 He draws his conclusion from this saying, <b>the reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God</b>. This is like saying: The reason for your unbelief is not my sin, but your own wickedness; as Sirach (6:20) says: "She [Wisdom] seems very harsh to the uninstructed."
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Et, ut dicit Augustinus, ex Deo quidem sunt secundum naturam, sed ex Deo non sunt vitio et prava affectione: nam eis hoc verbum dictum est qui non solum peccato vitiosi erant, hoc enim commune omnibus erat, sed etiam praecogniti quod non fuerant credituri ea fide qua possent a peccatorum obligatione liberari.
          <td>Augustine says about them that as to their nature, they are of God, indeed; but by reason of their vice and evil affection they are not of God. For this statement was made to those who were not just sinful, for this was common to all; it was made to those of whom it was foreknown that they would not believe with that faith by which they could have been set free from the chains of their sins.
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Notandum est autem, quod triplex est gradus male affectorum, ut dicit Gregorius. Nam quidam sunt qui praecepta Dei nec aure corporis, idest exteriori auditu, dignantur audire: de quibus dicitur in Ps. LVII, 5: <i>sicut aspidis surdae, obturantis aures suas</i>. Quidam vero sunt qui haec quidem corporis aure percipiunt, sed nullo ea mentis desiderio complectuntur, non habentes voluntatem implendi: Ez. XXXIII, 31: <i>audiunt sermones, et non faciunt eos</i>. Quidam autem sunt qui libenter verba Dei suscipiunt, ita ut etiam in fletibus compungantur; sed post lacrymarum tempus, vel tribulationibus oppressi, aut allecti deliciis, ad iniquitatem redeunt; cuius exemplum habetur Matth. XIII, 18 ss., et Lc. VIII, 11 ss., de verbo a sollicitudinibus suffocato. Ez. III, 7: <i>domus Israel nolunt audire te, quia nolunt audire me</i>. Est ergo signum quod homo sit a Deo, si libenter audit verba Dei, sed qui recusant audire affectu vel effectu, ex Deo non sunt.
          <td>1260 It should be noted, as Gregory says, that there are three degrees of being badly disposed in one's affections. Some refuse to physically hear God's precepts. Of these we read: "Like the deaf adder that stops its ear" (Ps 58:4). Others hear them physically, but they do not embrace them with the desire of their heart, since they do not have he will to obey them: "They hear what you say, but they will not do it" (Ez 33:32). Finally, there are those who joyfully receive the words of God and even weep with tears of sorrow; but after the time of crying is past and they are oppressed with troubles or allured by pleasures, they return to their sins. An example of this is given in Matthew (c 13) and Luke (c 8), where we read of the word being choked by cares and anxieties. "But the house of Israel will not listen to you; for they are not willing to listen to me" (Ez 3:7). Consequently, a sign that a person is of God is that he is glad to hear the words of God, while those who refuse to hear, either in affection or physically, are not of God.
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Hic excludit Iudaicam contradictionem, et primo ponit Evangelista Iudaeorum contradictionem; secundo domini exclusionem, ibi <i>respondit Iesus: ego Daemonium non habeo</i>.
          <td>1261 Next he rejects the rejoinder made by the Jews. First, the Evangelist mentions this rejoinder; and secondly, our Lord's rejection of it (v 49).
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Duo autem imponunt Iudaei Christo in eorum contradictione. Primo quidem quod sit Samaritanus, cum dicunt <i>nonne bene dicimus nos, quia Samaritanus es?</i> Secundo vero quod Daemonium habeat; unde subdunt <i>et Daemonium habes</i>.
          <td>1262 In their response the Jews charge Christ with two things: first, that he is a Samaritan, when they say, <b>Are we not right in saying that you are a Samaritan?</b> Secondly, that he has a demon, when they add, <b>and have a demon?</b>
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>In hoc autem quod dicunt <i>nonne bene dicimus nos?</i> Datur intelligi quod hoc verbum frequenter domino improperabant. Et quidem de secundo quod sit daemoniacus, legimus Matth. IX, 34; et XII, 24, cum dicebant: <i>in Beelzebub principe Daemoniorum eiicit Daemones</i>. Sed quod dixerunt eum Samaritanum, nusquam nisi hic in Evangelio invenitur, licet forte hoc multoties dixerunt: multa enim dicta et facta sunt erga Iesum et a Iesu quae non sunt scripta in Evangeliis, ut dicitur infra XX, 25.
          <td>In saying, <b>Are we not right?</b> we can infer that they often reproached Christ this way. In fact, concerning the second, that he has a demon, we read in Matthew, "It is only by Beelzebul, the prince of demons, that he casts out demons" (12:24). But this is the only place where it is recorded that they called him a Samaritan, although they probably said it often: for many of the things that were said and done about Christ and by Christ were not written in the Gospels, as it says below (21:25).
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Duplex autem causa assignari potest quare Iudaei hoc Christo dicebant. Una quidem, quia Samaritani gens odiosa erat pro populo Israelitico, eo quod decem tribubus in captivitatem ductis, terram eorum possidebant; supra IV, 9: <i>non enim coutuntur Iudaei Samaritanis</i>. Quia ergo Christus Iudaeos arguens, credebatur a Iudaeis quod hoc ex odio faceret, ideo eum Samaritanum et quasi adversarium reputabant et cetera. Alia ratio, quia Samaritani partim quidem servabant ritus Iudaicos, partim vero non. Videntes ergo Iudaei Christum in aliquo legem servantem, et in aliquo dissolventem, utpote sabbatum, vocabant eum Samaritanum.
          <td>Two reasons can be given why the Jews said this about Christ. First, because the Samaritans were hateful to the people of Israel, for when the ten tribes were led into captivity, they took their land: "For Jews have no dealings with Samaritans" (4:9). Thus, because Christ reproved the Jews, they believed that he did it out of hatred, so that they regarded him as a Samaritan, an adversary, as it were. Another reason was that the Samaritans observed the Jewish rites in some things and not in others. Therefore, the Jews, seeing that Christ observed the law in some matters and broke it in others, for example, the law of the Sabbath, called him a Samaritan.
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Similiter autem duplici de causa dicebant eum Daemonium habere. Una quidem, quia miracula quae faciebat, et cogitationes eorum quas revelabat, non attribuebant virtuti divinae in Christo; sed arte Daemonum ipsum ea facere suspicabantur. Unde dicebant: <i>in Beelzebub principe Daemoniorum eiicit Daemones</i>. Alia vero ratio est propter eius sermones transcendentes capacitatem humanam, dicens, Deum patrem suum esse, et descendisse de caelo et cetera. Consuetudo autem rudium est, quod cum talia audiunt, diabolica reputant: et sic isti credebant quod Christus quasi Daemonio plenus loqueretur; infra X, 20: <i>alii dicebant: Daemonium habet, et insanit; quid eum auditis?</i> Dicunt autem haec verba, ut arguant de peccato, contra illud quod dixerat: <i>quis ex vobis arguet me de peccato?</i>
          <td>Again, there are two reasons why they said he had a demon. First, because they did not attribute the miracles he worked, and the thoughts he revealed, to a divine power in Christ; rather, they suspected that he did these things by some demonic art. Thus they said: "It is only by Beelzebul, the prince of demons, that he casts out demons" (Mt 12:24). The other reason was based on the fact that his words exceeded human understanding, such as his statements that God was his Father, and that he had come down from heaven. And when uneducated people hear such things they usually regard them as diabolical. Accordingly, they believed that Christ spoke as one possessed by a demon: "Many of them said, 'he has a demon, and he is mad; why listen to him?'" (10:20). Furthermore, they said these things in an attempt to accuse him of sin, to dispute what he had said: "Which of you convicts me of sin?"
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Consequenter cum dicit <i>respondit Iesus: ego Daemonium non habeo</i>, repellit dominus Iudaeorum contradictionem. Duo autem imposuerant Christo: scilicet quod Samaritanus esset, et quod Daemonium haberet. Et de primo quidem dominus non se excusat; et hoc duplici de causa. Una quidem, secundum Origenem, quia Iudaei semper volebant se a gentilibus separare. Iam autem venerat tempus quo removenda erat distinctio gentilium et Iudaeorum, et omnes ad viam salutis revocandi: et ideo dominus, ut ostendat se venisse pro salute omnium ut, magis quam Paulus, omnia factus, omnes nanciscatur, I Cor. IX, ideo non negavit se esse Samaritanum. Alia ratio est, quia Samaritanus interpretatur custos: et quia ipse praecipue custos noster est, secundum illud Ps. CXX, 4: <i>ecce non dormitabit neque dormiet qui custodit Israel</i>: ideo se Samaritanum esse non negavit.
          <td>1263 Then when he says, Jesus answered: <b>I have not a demon</b>, our Lord rejects the response of the Jews. Now they had taxed Christ with two things, that he was a Samaritan and that he had a demon. Concerning the first, our Lord makes no apology, and this for two reasons. First, according to Origen, because the Jews always wanted to keep themselves apart from the Gentiles. But the time had now come when the distinction between Jews and Gentiles was to be removed, and everyone was to be called to the way of salvation. Accordingly, our Lord, in order to show that he had come for the salvation of all, made himself all things to all men, more so than Paul, so that he might win all (cf. 1 Cor 9:22); and so he did not deny that he was a Samaritan. The other reason was that "Samaritan" means "keeper," and because he especially is our keeper, as we read, "He who keeps Israel will neither slumber nor sleep" (Ps 121:4), so he did not deny that he was a Samaritan.
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Negat autem se Daemonium habere, dicens <i>ego Daemonium non habeo</i>, et primo quidem repellit illatam iniuriam; secundo arguit iniuriantium pertinaciam, ibi <i>et vos inhonorastis me</i>. Circa primum duo facit. Primo repellit illatam iniuriam; secundo manifestat hoc per oppositum, ibi <i>sed honorifico patrem meum</i>.
          <td>But he did deny that he had a demon, saying, <b>I have not a demon</b>. First, he rejects the insult; secondly, he reproves the insulters for the obstinacy (v 49b). As to the first he does two things: first, he rejects the insult; secondly, he shows that the opposite is true, I honor my Father.
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Notandum est autem circa primum, quod dominus Iudaeos corrigendo, frequenter eis dure locutus est: <i>vae vobis, Scribae et Pharisaei hypocritae</i>: et multa quae leguntur in Evangeliis. Sed non invenitur, quod dominus Iudaeis sibi dura verba vel facta inferentibus, iniuriose vel dure locutus fuerit; sed, ut dicit Gregorius, iniuriam suscipiens Deus, non contumeliosa verba respondet, sed simpliciter dicit <i>ego Daemonium non habeo</i>. Ex qua re quid nobis innuitur, nisi ut eo tempore quo a proximis ex falsitate contumelias accipimus, etiam eorum verba mala taceamus, ne ministerium iustae correctionis in arma vertatur furoris? Et quod quae ad Deum pertinent, vindicare debemus; quae vero ad nos, despicere. Hoc autem verbum, scilicet <i>ego Daemonium non habeo</i>, solus Christus dicere potest, ut Origenes dicit: nam ille nihil quod Daemonis est, leve videlicet, aut grave, in se habet; unde infra XIV, 30: <i>venit princeps huius mundi, et in me non habet quidquam</i>; II Cor. VI, 15: <i>quae conventio Christi ad Belial?</i>
          <td>1264 It should be noted with respect to the first that when correcting the Jews our Lord often spoke harshly to them: "Woe to you, Scribes and Pharisees" (Mt 23:14), and many other instances are recorded in Matthew. But there is no record that our Lord spoke harsh or injurious words in answer to their harsh words or deeds against himself. Rather, as Gregory said, God accepted their insults, and did not answer with insulting words, but simply said, I have not a demon. And what does this suggests to us if not that when we are falsely attacked by our neighbor with railing words, we should keep silence, even about his abusive words, so as not to pervert our ministry of correcting in a just manner into a weapon of our anger. However, while we should not value our own goods, we should vindicate the things that are of God. As Origen says, Christ alone is capable of claiming, I have not a demon, for he has nothing, either slight or serious, of the devil in him; thus he says: "The ruler of this world is coming. He has no power over me" (14:30). "What accord has Christ with Belial?" (2 Cor 6:15).
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Manifestat autem hoc quod dixit, per oppositum dicens <i>sed honorifico patrem meum</i>. Diabolus enim honori Dei resistit: qui ergo quaerit Dei honorem, alienus est a Diabolo. Christus ergo qui honorificat patrem suum, scilicet Deum, Daemonium non habet. Est autem proprium Christo et singulare quod honorificet patrem suum, ut dicitur Mal. I, 6: <i>filius honorificat patrem</i>. Christus autem singulariter est Dei filius.
          <td>1265 He supports his stand by saying the opposite: <b>but I honor my Father.</b> Now the devil hinders honor being given to God; therefore, any person who seeks God's honor is a stranger to the devil. Thus, Christ, who honors his Father, that is, God, has not a demon. Furthermore, it is a proper and singular mark of Christ that he honor his Father, as we read: "A son honors his father" (Mal 1:6). And Christ is most singularly the Son of God.
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Consequenter cum dicit <i>et vos inhonorastis me</i>, arguit iniuriantium pertinaciam, et primo arguit iniuriantes; secundo excludit causam inopinatam arguitionis; tertio praedicit eis debitam damnationem.
          <td>1266 Next he reproves the impudence of those insulting him. First, he reproves them; secondly, he rejects the supposed reason for their reproof; and thirdly, he foretells their deserved condemnation.
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Dicit ergo primo: <i>ego honorifico patrem meum, et vos inhonorastis me</i>; quasi dicat: ego facio quod debeo; vos facitis quod non debetis; immo in hoc quod inhonorastis me, inhonoratis patrem meum; supra V, 23: <i>qui non honorificat filium, non honorificat patrem, qui misit illum</i>.
          <td>1267 He says first, <b>I honor my Father, and you dishonor me.</b> This is like saying: I do what I ought, but you do not do what you ought. Indeed, by dishonoring me you dishonor my Father: "He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him" (5:23).
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Sed quia possent dicere: nimis durus es, nimis de gloria tua curas, sic nos arguens; ideo hoc excludens, subdit loquens inquantum est homo, <i>ego gloriam meam non quaero</i>. Solus enim Deus est qui potest gloriam suam absque culpa quaerere; alii autem non nisi in Deo; II Cor. X, 17: <i>qui gloriatur, in domino glorietur</i>; infra (hoc cap.): <i>si ego glorifico meipsum, gloria mea nihil est</i>.
          <td>1268 But they could say: You are too severe, you are too concerned for your own glory, and so you reprove us. He rejects this, and speaking as man, says, <b>I do not seek my own glory</b>. For it is God alone who can seek his own glory without fault; others must seek it in God: "Let him who glories, glory in the Lord" [2 Cor 10:17]; "If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing."
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Sed numquid Christus inquantum homo non habet gloriam? Immo magnam per omnem modum: quia licet ipse eam non quaerat, <i>est tamen qui quaerat</i>, scilicet pater. Nam dicitur in Ps. VIII, 7: <i>gloria et honore coronasti eum</i>, scilicet Christum hominem. Et alibi, XX, 6: <i>gloriam et magnum decorem imposuisti super eum</i>.
          <td>But does not Christ as man have glory? He does indeed, and it is great in every respect, because, although he does not seek it, nevertheless, there is One who seeks it, that is, the Father; for we read: "Thou dost crown him with glory and honor" (Ps 8:5), referring to Christ in his human nature.
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Et non solum gloriam meam quaeret in operantibus vivas veritatis causas, sed et puniet et condemnabit contradicentes gloriae meae; unde subdit <i>et iudicet</i>. Sed contra; supra V, 22, dicitur: <i>pater non iudicat quemquam; sed omne iudicium dedit filio</i>. Respondeo. Pater non iudicat quemquam seorsum a filio: quia etiam hoc iudicium quod faciet de eo quod iniuriamini mihi per filium faciet. Vel dicendum, quod iudicium quandoque pro condemnatione accipitur; et hoc iudicium pater dedit filio, quia ipse solus apparebit in forma visibili in iudicium, ut dictum est supra. Quandoque accipitur pro discretione; et de hoc loquitur hic. Unde dicit in Ps. XLII, 1: <i>iudica me, Deus, et discerne causam meam</i>; quasi dicat: est pater qui gloriam meam a vestra discernet. Vos enim, pro saeculo gloriari, discernit, et gloriam filii sui, quem unxit prae participibus suis, et qui sine peccato est; vos vero homines cum peccato.
          <td>1269 Not only will he seek my glory in those who accomplish works of great virtue, but he will punish and condemn those who speak against my glory thus he adds: and he will be the judge. This, however, seems to conflict with the statement above (5:22): "The Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son." I answer that the Father does not judge anyone apart from the Son, because even that judgment which he will make concerning the fact that you insult me, he will make through the Son. Or, one might say that judgment is sometimes taken for condemnation, and this judgment the Father has given to the Son, who alone will appear in visible form in judgment, as has been said. Sometimes, however, it is understood as meaning to distinguish one from another; and this is the way it is used here. Thus we read: "Judge me, O God, and distinguish my cause" [Ps 42:1]. It is like saying: It is the Father who will distinguish my glory from yours, for he discerns that you glory in the world; and he sees the glory of his Son, whom he has anointed above his fellows and who is without sin. But you are men with sin.
    </table>
    <hr>
    <table cellpadding="12">
      <tbody>
        <tr style="align:center">
          <td><b>Lectio 8</b>
          <td><b>LECTURE 8</b>
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td style="font-family:" palatino="">
            <blockquote>
              51 ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, ἐάν τις τὸν ἐμὸν λόγον τηρήσῃ, θάνατον οὐ μὴ θεωρήσῃ εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα. 52 εἶπον [οὖν] αὐτῷ οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι, νῦν ἐγνώκαμεν ὅτι δαιμόνιον ἔχεις. Ἀβραὰμ ἀπέθανεν καὶ οἱ προφῆται, καὶ σὺ λέγεις, ἐάν τις τὸν λόγον μου τηρήσῃ, οὐ μὴ γεύσηται θανάτου εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα. 53 μὴ σὺ μείζων εἶ τοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν ἀβραάμ, ὅστις ἀπέθανεν; καὶ οἱ προφῆται ἀπέθανον: τίνα σεαυτὸν ποιεῖς; 54 ἀπεκρίθη Ἰησοῦς, ἐὰν ἐγὼ δοξάσω ἐμαυτόν, ἡ δόξα μου οὐδέν ἐστιν: ἔστιν ὁ πατήρ μου ὁ δοξάζων με, ὃν ὑμεῖς λέγετε ὅτι θεὸς ἡμῶν ἐστιν: 55 καὶ οὐκ ἐγνώκατε αὐτόν, ἐγὼ δὲ οἶδα αὐτόν. κἂν εἴπω ὅτι οὐκ οἶδα αὐτόν, ἔσομαι ὅμοιος ὑμῖν ψεύστης: ἀλλὰ οἶδα αὐτὸν καὶ τὸν λόγον αὐτοῦ τηρῶ. 56 Ἀβραὰμ ὁ πατὴρ ὑμῶν ἠγαλλιάσατο ἵνα ἴδῃ τὴν ἡμέραν τὴν ἐμήν, καὶ εἶδεν καὶ ἐχάρη. 57 εἶπον οὖν οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι πρὸς αὐτόν, πεντήκοντα ἔτη οὔπω ἔχεις καὶ Ἀβραὰμ ἑώρακας; 58 εἶπεν αὐτοῖς Ἰησοῦς, ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, πρὶν Ἀβραὰμ γενέσθαι ἐγὼ εἰμί. 59 ἦραν οὖν λίθους ἵνα βάλωσιν ἐπ' αὐτόν: Ἰησοῦς δὲ ἐκρύβη καὶ ἐξῆλθεν ἐκ τοῦ ἱεροῦ.
            </blockquote>
          <td>
            <blockquote>
              51 "Truly, truly, I say to you, if any one keeps my word, he will never see death." 52 The Jews said to him, "Now we know that you have a demon. Abraham died, as did the prophets; and you say, 'If any one keeps my word, he will never taste death.' 53 Are you greater than our father Abraham, who died? And the prophets died! Who do you claim to be?" 54 Jesus answered, "If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing; it is my Father who glorifies me, of whom you say that he is your God. 55 But you have not known him; I know him. If I said, I do not know him, I should be a liar like you; but I do know him and I keep his word. 56 Your father Abraham rejoiced that he was to see my day; he saw it and was glad." 57 The Jews then said to him, "You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?" 58 Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was [came to be], I am." 59 So they took up stones to throw at him; but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple.
            </blockquote>
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Supra dominus duo promiserat eum sequentibus: scilicet liberationem a tenebris, et adeptionem vitae, dicens: <i>qui sequitur me, non ambulat in tenebris, sed habebit lumen vitae</i>. Et de primo quidem dictum est supra; nunc autem agitur de secundo, scilicet de adeptione vitae per Christum, et primo proponit veritatem; secundo repellit Iudaeorum contradictionem, ibi <i>dixerunt ergo Iudaei: nunc cognovimus</i> et cetera.
          <td>1270 Above, our Lord had promised two things to his followers: liberation from darkness and the attainment of life, saying, "He who follows me does not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life" (8:12). The first of these has been treated above; so we are now concerned with the second, the obtaining of life through Christ. First, he states the truth; secondly he counters its denial by the Jews (v 52).
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Sciendum est autem, quod quamvis Christus lacessitus esset iniuriis et opprobriis, non tamen destitit a doctrina; sed postquam habere Daemonium dictus est, praedicationis suae beneficia largius impendit, dicens <i>amen, amen dico vobis</i> et cetera. In quo datur nobis exemplum, quod cum malorum perversitas crescit, et per opprobria hominum conculcantur qui convertuntur, non solum praedicatio frangi non debet, sed etiam augeri; Ez. II, 6: <i>tu ergo, fili hominis, ne timeas eos, neque sermones eorum metuas</i>; II Tim. IX: <i>laboro usque ad vincula quasi male operans; sed verbum Dei non est alligatum</i>.
          <td>1271 It should be noted that although Christ had been loaded down with insults and criticisms, he did not stop his teaching; indeed, after being accused of having a demon, he offers the benefits of his teachings more generously, saying: <b>Truly, truly, I say to you, if any one keeps my word, he will never see death.</b> He is here giving us an example that when the malice of wicked men increases, and those that are converted are abused with insults, preaching, so far from being curtailed, should be increased: "And you, son of man, be not afraid of them, nor be afraid of their words" (Ez 2:6); "the gospel for which I am suffering and wearing fetters like a criminal. But the word of God is not fettered" (2 Tim 2:9).
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Duo autem facit dominus in his verbis. Unum quidem est quod requirit, aliud quod promittit. Requirit quidem sermonis sui observationem; unde dicit <i>si quis sermonem meum servaverit</i>. Nam sermo Christi veritas est; ideo debemus ipsum servare, primo quidem per fidem, et iugem meditationem; Prov. IV, 6: <i>serva eam et servabit te</i>; secundo vero per operis impletionem; infra XIV, 21: <i>qui habet mandata mea, et servat ea, ille est qui diligit me</i>.
          <td>In this statement our Lord does two things: he requires something, and he promises something. What he requires is that his words be kept, if any one keeps my word - for the word of Christ is the truth. Therefore, we should keep it, first of all, by faith and continual meditation: "Do not forsake her, and she will keep you" (Prv 4:6); secondly, by fulfilling it in action: "He who has my commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves me" (14:21).
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Promittit autem mortis liberationem; unde dicit <i>mortem non videbit in aeternum</i>, idest non experietur; Eccli. XXIV, 30: <i>qui operantur in me</i>, scilicet in divina sapientia, <i>non peccabunt; et qui elucidant me, vitam aeternam habebunt</i>. Et congrue tali merito debetur tale praemium. Nam vita aeterna praecipue in divina visione consistit; infra XVII, 3: <i>haec est vita aeterna ut cognoscant te solum verum Deum, et quem misisti Iesum Christum</i>. Huius autem visionis quoddam seminarium et principium in nobis fit per verbum Christi; Lc. VIII, 11: <i>semen est verbum Dei</i>. Sicut ergo ille qui servat semen alicuius plantae vel arboris ne corrumpatur, pervenit ad perceptionem fructus; ita qui servat verbum Dei; pervenit ad vitam aeternam; Lev. XVIII, v. 5: <i>quae fecerit homo, vivet in eis</i>.
          <td>What he promises is freedom from death; thus he says, <b>he will never see death</b>, that is, experience it: "They who act by me (i.e., by divine wisdom) shall not sin; they who explain me shall have life everlasting" [Sir 24:30]. Such a reward suits such merit, for life everlasting consists especially in the divine vision: "This is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou has sent" (17:3). Now the seedbed and source of this vision comes into us by the word of Christ; "The seed is the word of God" (Lk 8:11). Therefore, just as a person who keeps the seed of some plant or tree from being destroyed succeeds in obtaining its fruit, so the person who keeps the word of God attains to life everlasting: "Keep my statutes and my ordinances by doing which a man shall live" (Lev 18:5).
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Consequenter cum dicit <i>dixerunt ergo Iudaei</i> etc., ponitur contradictionis Iudaeorum confutatio. Contradicunt autem Christo tripliciter. Primo quidem falsitatis arguendo; secundo irridendo, ibi <i>dixerunt ergo Iudaei ad eum: quinquaginta annos nondum habes, et Abraham vidisti?</i> Tertio persequendo, ibi <i>tulerunt ergo lapides, ut iacerent in eum</i>. Circa primum duo faciunt. Primo conantur eum redarguere praesumptionis; secundo ad quaedam eorum quae dicta sunt Christus respondet, ibi <i>si ego glorifico meipsum, gloria mea nihil est</i>. Circa primum tria faciunt. Primo irrogant improperium; secundo proponunt factum, ibi <i>Abraham mortuus est</i> etc.; tertio interrogant, ibi <i>numquid tu maior es patre nostro Abraham?</i>
          <td>1272 Next we see the opposition of the Jews being repelled. They oppose Christ in three ways: first, by accusing him of making a false statement; secondly, by their derision (v 57); and thirdly by assaulting him (v 59). As to the first, there are two things: first, they try to accuse him of presumption; secondly, Christ answers some of their retorts (v 54). As to the first they do three things: first, they insult Christ; secondly, they state a certain fact (v 52); and thirdly, they ask a question (v 53).
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Irrogaverunt autem improperium mendacii, cum dicunt <i>nunc cognovimus quia Daemonium habes</i>. Et hoc ideo dixerunt, quia notum est apud Iudaeos quod adinventor peccatorum est Diabolus, et praecipue mendacii, secundum illud Reg. ult., 22, <i>egrediar, et ero spiritus mendax in ore omnium prophetarum eius</i>. Quia autem videbatur eis hoc quod dominus dixit, scilicet <i>si quis sermonem meum servaverit, mortem non videbit in aeternum</i>, apertum mendacium esse, nam ipsi tamquam carnales intelligebant de morte corporali, quod de spirituali et aeterna morte dixerat, et praecipue, quia contrariatur auctoritati sacrae Scripturae, Ps. LXXXVIII, 49: <i>quis est homo qui vivit, et non videbit mortem, eruet animam suam de manu Inferi?</i> Ideo dicunt ei <i>Daemonium habes</i>, quasi dicant: ex instinctu Daemonis mendacium loqueris.
          <td>1273 They reproached him for lying when they said, <b>now we know that you have a demon.</b> They said this because the Jews knew that the inventor of sin, and especially of lying, was the devil: "I will go forth and will be a lying spirit in the mouth of his prophets" (1 Kg 22:22). It seemed to them that our Lord's statement, "If any one keeps my word, he will never see death," was an obvious lie - for since they were carnal minded, they understood of physical death what he said about spiritual and eternal death; and especially also because it was contrary to the authority of Sacred Scripture, which says, "What man can live and never see death? Who can deliver his soul from the power of Sheol?" (Ps 89:48). For these reasons they said to him: you have a demon. It was like saying: You are lying because prompted by the devil.
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Et ut convincant eum de mendacio, duo faciunt. Primo quidem proponunt mortem antiquorum; secundo vero repetunt verba Christi, ibi <i>et tu dicis</i> et cetera. Dicunt ergo: vere falsum est quod loqueris: <i>si quis sermonem tuum</i> etc., nam <i>Abraham</i>, homo, <i>mortuus est</i>, ut patet Gen. c. XXV. Similiter <i>et prophetae</i> mortui sunt; II Reg. XIV, 14: <i>omnes morimur, et quasi aquae dilabimur in terram, quae non revertuntur</i>. Et quidem licet mortui sint corporaliter, non tamen mortui sunt spiritualiter; Matth. XXII, 32, dicit dominus: <i>ego sum Deus Abraham, et Deus Isaac, et Deus Iacob</i>. Postea sequitur: <i>non est Deus mortuorum, sed vivorum</i>. Mortui ergo sunt corpore, sed vivunt spiritu, quia sermonem Dei servaverunt, et vixerunt ex fide. Et de ea morte dominus intelligebat, non de corporali. Verbum autem Christi repetunt cum subdunt <i>et tu dicis: si quis sermonem meum servaverit, non gustabit mortem in aeternum</i>. Velut incauti et maligni auditores, dominicum sermonem confundentes, non repetunt eadem verba. Nam dominus dixit <i>mortem non videbit</i> ipsi vero protulerunt <i>mortem non gustabit</i>. Sed quantum ad eorum intentionem idem est: quia per utrumque ipsi intelligunt, quod mortem, scilicet corporalem, non experietur in aeternum. Sed quantum ad verum intellectum differt, ut Origenes dicit, inter mortem gustare et videre: nam videre mortem est eam perfecte experiri; gustare autem est aliquem mortis gustum seu participationem habere.
          <td>1274 Further, they do two things to convict him of lying: first, they mention the death of the ancients; secondly, they quote Christ's own words (v 52b). So they say: What you say, if any one keeps my word, he will never see death, is obviously false, for Abraham died, as is clear from Genesis (c 25); and the prophets died: "We must all die, we are like water split on the ground, which cannot be gathered up again" (2 Sam 14:14). But although they are dead in the bodily sense, they are not dead spiritually, for in Matthew (22:32) our Lord says: "I am the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob," and then he adds, "He is not God of the dead, but of the living." Thus, they were dead as to the body, but they were living in the spirit, because the Lord was speaking of, and not bodily death. Then, when they continue they wrote Christ's own words: And you say, If any one keeps my word, he will never taste death. But they were careless and evil listeners and so garbled our Lord's words and did not repeat them exactly. For our Lord had said, "he will never see death," but they quote it as "he will never taste death." However, as far as their understanding was concerned, it was all the same, because in both cases they understood that they would never experience a bodily death. But as Origen tells us, there is a real difference between seeing death and tasting death: for to see death is to experience it completely; while to taste it is to have some taste or share in death.
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Sicut autem est plus ad poenam videre mortem quam gustare, ita plus est ad gloriam non gustare mortem quam non videre. Illi enim non gustant qui in alto sunt cum Christo, scilicet in intellectuali loco statum observant: de quibus dicitur Matth. XVI, 28: <i>sunt de hic stantibus, qui non gustabunt mortem, donec videant filium hominis venientem in regno suo</i>. Aliqui tamen sunt qui si non videant mortem mortaliter peccando, tamen aliquid gustant per aliquam levem terrenorum affectionem. Et ideo dominus, ut habetur in Graeco, et Origenes etiam exponit, dixit, <i>mortem non videbit in aeternum</i>: quia qui sermonem Christi acceperit et custodierit, etsi gustet aliquid, non tamen videbit mortem.
          <td>Now, just as it is a greater punishment to see death than to taste it, so not to taste death is more of a glory than not to see death. For the ones who do not taste death are those who are on high with Christ, i.e., who remain in an intellectual order: "There are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom" (Mt 16:28). And there are others who, if they do not see death by sinning mortally, nevertheless taste it, because they have a slight affection for earthly things. Consequently, our Lord, as it is written in the Greek, and as Origen explains it, said, he will never see death, because the person who has accepted and kept the words of Christ will not see death, even though he might taste something of it.
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Interrogant autem cum dicunt <i>numquid tu maior es patre nostro Abraham, qui mortuus est?</i> Et primo quidem quaerunt de comparatione ipsius ad antiquos patres: <i>numquid</i> inquiunt <i>tu maior es patre nostro Abraham?</i> Poterant, ut Chrysostomus dicit, secundum carnalem eorum intellectum, altius quaerere: numquid scilicet tu maior es Deo? Nam Abraham et prophetae mandata Dei servaverunt, et tamen corporaliter mortui sunt. Sic ergo si quis sermonem tuum servaverit non morietur, videtur quod sis maior Deo. Sed contenti sunt hac redargutione, quia putabant eum minorem quam Abraham; cum tamen sit scriptum in Ps. LXXXV, 8: <i>non est similis tui in diis, domine</i>; et Ex. XV, 11: <i>quis similis tui in fortibus, domine?</i> Quasi dicat nullus.
          <td>1275 Then they ask their question, saying, <b>Are you greater than our father Abraham, who died?</b> They are asking, first of all, about a comparison between him and their fathers of old. But as Chrysostom says, in their carnal understanding they could have asked something higher, that is, "Are you greater than God?" For Abraham and the prophets kept God's commands, yet they died in the bodily sense. Therefore, if any one who keeps your word will never die, it seems that you are greater than God. Yet they were satisfied with their retort, because they considered him less than Abraham, in spite of the fact that we read: "There is none like thee among the gods, O Lord" (Ps 86:8); and "Who is like thee, O Lord, among the gods?" (Ex 15:11); as if to say: No one.
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Secundo quaerunt de sua aestimatione, quem scilicet seipsum facit; quasi dicant: si tu es maior istis, scilicet Abraham et prophetis, videtur per hoc intelligi quod sis altioris naturae, puta Angelus, vel Deus. Sed hoc non aestimamus de te. Et ideo non dicunt, tu quis es; sed <i>quem te ipsum facis?</i> Quia quidquid dicitur supra istis, non recognoscentes de te, reputabimus, quod tu illud fingas. Similiter dicebant infra X, 33: <i>de bono opere non lapidamus te, sed de blasphemia: quia tu homo cum sis, facis teipsum Deum</i>.
          <td>Secondly, they ask about his estimate of himself, i.e., who does he take himself to be? As if to say: If you are greater than them, namely, Abraham and the prophets, it seems to imply that you are of a higher nature, say an angel or God. But we do not think you are. So they do not ask, "Who are you?" but Who do you claim to be? For whatever you say in this matter, we who know will regard it as a fiction. They spoke in a similar fashion below (10:33): "We stone you for no good work but for blasphemy; because you being a man, make yourself God."
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Consequenter cum dicit <i>respondit Iesus</i> etc., ponitur responsio domini, et primo respondet secundae quaestioni; secundo vero primae, ibi <i>Abraham pater vester exultavit ut videret diem meum</i>. Circa primum tria facit dominus. Primo excludit falsitatem quam intendebant; secundo docet veritatem, quam ignorabant, ibi <i>est pater meus qui glorificat me</i>; tertio manifestat utrumque quod proponebant, ibi <i>et non cognovistis eum</i>.
          <td>1276 Then (v 54), our Lord's answer is given. First, he answers the second question; secondly, the first question (v 56). As to the first, he Lord does three things: first, he rejects their error; secondly, he teaches them a truth which they did not know (v 54); and thirdly, he clarifies both of these things (v 55).
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Dicit ergo: quaeritis me dicentes: <i>quem teipsum facis?</i> Ac si gloriam quam non habeo, mihi usurpem. Sed supervacua fuit haec prolatio, quoniam non me facio id quod sum, sed ex patre recepi: nam <i>si ego glorifico meipsum, gloria mea nihil est</i>. Quod secundum hunc modum posset intelligi de Christo secundum quod est filius Dei, ut dicatur cum praecisione <i>si ego</i>, scilicet solus, <i>glorifico meipsum</i>, idest attribuam mihi gloriam, quam pater mihi non attribuat, <i>gloria mea nihil est</i>: nam gloria Christi secundum quod est Deus, est gloria verbi et filii Dei; filius autem nihil habet nisi natus, idest quod nascendo ab aliquo recepit: si ergo detur per impossibile quod gloria sua non esset ab alio, non esset gloria filii.
          <td>1277 He says: <b>You ask me, Who do you claim to be?</b> As if I am usurping a glory that I do not have. But this is a false assumption on your part, because I do not make myself what I am, but I have received it from the Father: for if I glorify myself, my glory is nothing. Now this could be understood of Christ according as he is the Son of God, as though saying in precise language; if I, namely, myself, glorify myself, that is, ascribe to myself a glory which the Father does not give me, my glory is nothing. For the glory of Christ according as he is God is the glory of the Word and the Son of God. But the Son has nothing except being begotten, i.e., what he has received from another [the Father] by being begotten. Therefore, assuming the impossible, if his glory were not from another, it would not be the glory of the Son.
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Melius tamen videtur quod dicatur de Christo secundum quod homo. Nam quicumque attribuit sibi gloriam quam non habet a Deo, gloria illa est falsa: nam quidquid veritatis est, a Deo est; quod autem est veritati contrarium, falsum est, et per consequens, nihil. Gloria ergo quae a Deo non est, nihil est; Hebr. V, 5, dicitur de Christo, quod <i>non seipsum clarificavit ut pontifex fieret</i>; II Cor. X, 18: <i>non enim qui seipsum commendat, ille probatus est, sed quem Deus commendat</i>. Sic ergo patet Iudaeorum falsitas.
          <td>However, it seems better to suppose that this is said of Christ according as he is man, because anyone who ascribes to himself a glory he does not have from God, has a false glory. For whatever is true is from God, and whatever is contrary to the truth is false, and consequently, nothing. Therefore, a glory which is not from God is nothing. We read of Christ: "Christ did not exalt himself to be made a high priest" (Heb 5:5); and "It is not the man who commends himself that is accepted, but the man whom the Lord commends" (2 Cor 10:18). Thus the error of the Jews is obvious.
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Veritatem autem, quam intendit docere, ponit dicens <i>est pater meus qui glorificat me</i>, quasi dicat: non ego meipsum glorifico, sicut vos fingitis; sed alius est qui me glorificat, scilicet <i>pater meus</i>: quem quidem describit ex proprietate, et ex natura. Ex proprietate quidem paternitatis; unde dicit <i>est pater meus</i>, et non ego. Ex quo quidem verbo, ut Augustinus dicit, calumniantur Ariani fidei nostrae, dicentes maiorem esse patrem filio: nam maior est, qui glorificat, eo qui glorificatur ab ipso. Si ergo pater glorificat filium, pater maior est filio. Sed dicendum quod apparentiam quidem haberet argumentum, nisi inveniretur e converso quod filius glorificet patrem: dicit enim filius, infra XVII, 1: <i>pater, venit hora, clarifica filium tuum, ut filius tuus clarificet te</i>. Et in eodem <i>ego te clarificavi super terram</i>. In Graeco autem idem est glorifica et clarifica; et, secundum Ambrosium, <i>gloria est clara cum laude notitia</i>.
          <td>1278 He sets down the truth he intends to teach and says: <b>it is my Father who glorifies me</b>. It is like saying: I do not glorify myself, as you think; but it is another who glorifies me, namely, my Father, whom he describes by his proper characteristic and by his nature. He describes him by his proper characteristic of fatherhood; thus he says that it is my Father and not I. As Augustine says, the Arians use this statement to injure our faith, and they claim the Father is greater than the Son, for one who glorifies is greater than the one glorified by him. If, therefore, the Father glorifies the Son, the Father is greater than the Son. Now this argument would be valid unless it were found that, conversely, the Son glorifies the Father. But the Son says: "Father, the hour has come: glorify thy Son that thy Son may glorify thee" (17:1); and "I glorified thee on earth" (17:4).
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Hoc autem quod dicit <i>est pater meus qui glorificat me</i>, potest referri ad Christum, et secundum quod est filius Dei, et secundum quod est filius hominis. Secundum quidem quod est filius Dei, pater glorificat eum gloria divinitatis, ab aeterno eum sibi aequalem generando; Hebr. I, 3: <i>qui cum sit splendor gloriae et figura substantiae eius (...) sedet ad dexteram maiestatis in excelsis</i>; Phil. II, 11: <i>omnis lingua confiteatur quia dominus Iesus Christus in gloria est Dei patris</i>. Secundum vero quod homo, habuit gloriam per redundantiam divinitatis in ipsum, et gratiae et gloriae singularis; supra I, 14: <i>videbimus gloriam eius, gloriam quasi unigeniti a patre, plenum gratiae et veritatis</i>.
          <td><b>It is my Father who glorifies me</b>, can be applied to Christ both according as he is the Son of God, and also as the Son of man. As the Son of God, the Father glorifies him with the glory of the divinity, generating him from eternity as equal to himself: as we read, "He reflects the glory of God and bears the very stamp of his nature he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high" (Heb 1:3); "And every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father" (Phil 2:11). But as man, he had glory through an overflowing into him of the divinity, and overflowing of unique grace and glory: "We have seen his glory, the glory as of the only Begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth" [1:14].
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Ex natura vero divinitatis describit eum, cum dicit <i>quem vos dicitis quia Deus vester est</i>. Ne autem alium patrem putes quam Deum, dicit se glorificari a Deo; infra XIII, 31: <i>nunc clarificatus est filius hominis, et Deus clarificatus est in eo. Si Deus clarificatus est in eo, et Deus clarificabit eum in semetipso</i>. Sed, secundum Augustinum, hoc verbum est contra Manichaeos, qui dicunt annuntiatum non esse in veteri testamento patrem Christi, sed esse aliquem ex principibus malorum Angelorum. Constat autem quod Iudaei non dicunt alium Deum suum esse quam Deum veteris testamenti. Ergo Deus veteris testamenti est pater Christi glorificans eum.
          <td>1279 He describes the Father by his nature, that is, by his divinity, when he says, <b>of whom you say that he is your God.</b> But lest anyone suppose that his Father is other than God, he says that he is glorified by God: "Now is the Son of man glorified, and in him God is glorified; if God is glorified in him, God will also glorify him in himself" (13:31). According to Augustine, these words are against the Manicheans, who say that the Father of Christ was not proclaimed in the Old Testament, but rather it was one of the princes of the evil angels. However, it is plain that the Jews do not say that their God is any other than the God of the Old Testament. Therefore, the God of the Old Testament is the Father of Christ and the One who glorifies him.
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Manifestat autem utrumque, scilicet Iudaeorum falsitatem, et suam veritatem, cum dicit <i>et non cognovistis eum</i>. Manifestat autem dupliciter. Primo quidem ostendendo Iudaeorum ignorantiam; secundo suam notitiam, ibi <i>ego autem cognovi eum</i>.
          <td>1280 Then he shows both these things, that is, the error of the Jews, and his own truth, when he says, but you have not known him. He shows these in two ways: first, by pointing out the ignorance of the Jews; secondly, his own knowledge (v 55).
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Circa primum sciendum, quod possent Iudaei dicere: tu dicis quod glorificaris a Deo; sed nobis nota sunt iudicia eius, secundum illud Ps. CXLVII, 20: <i>non fecit taliter omni nationi, et iudicia sua non manifestavit eis</i>. Ergo si verum est quod dicis, nos utique sciremus hoc: cum ergo nos lateat, constat quod non est verum. Et ideo concludens, dicit <i>et non cognovistis eum</i>; quasi dicat: non mirum est si non cognoscitis gloriam qua me glorificat pater meus, quem dicitis Deum vestrum, quia nec ipsum Deum cognoscitis.
          <td>1281 With respect to the first it should be noted that the Jews could say: You say that you are glorified by God; but his judgments are known by us, according to "He has not dealt thus with any other nation; they do not know his ordinances" (Ps 147:20). Therefore, if what you say is true, we would certainly know it; but since we do not know of it, it is obviously not true. Christ concludes saying, but you have not known him. This is like saying: It is not strange if you do not know about the glory with which my Father, who you say is your God, glorifies me, for you do not know God.
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Sed contra Ps. LXXV: <i>notus in Iudaea Deus</i>. Respondeo: ut Deus, sed non ut pater, notus est ab eis; unde supra dixit: <i>est pater meus qui glorificat me</i>. Vel dicendum, quod non cognovistis eum affectu: quia carnaliter colitis qui spiritualiter colendus est; supra IV, 24: <i>spiritus est Deus, et eos qui adorant eum, in spiritu et veritate oportet adorare</i>. Item effectu, quia mandata eius adimplere contempsistis; ad Tit. I, 16: <i>confitentur se nosse Deum; factis autem negant</i>.
          <td>1282 This seems to conflict with the Psalm (76:1): "In Judah God is known." I answer that he was known by them as God, but not as the Father; thus he said above: "It is my Father who glorifies me" (v 54). Or, one might answer that you have not known him with affection, because you adore him in a bodily way, whereas he should be adored spiritually: "God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth" (4:24). And there is no affection because you are reluctant to keep his commandments: "They profess to know God; but they deny him by their deeds" (Tit 1:16).
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Sed quia possent dicere: esto quod nos non cognoscamus gloriam tuam, quomodo cognoscis tu gloriam te a Deo patre habere? Ideo subiungit notitiam suam, dicens <i>ego autem novi eum</i>, et primo ponit suam notitiam; secundo ostendit necessitatem huius notitiae proferendae, ibi <i>et si dixero quia non scio eum, ero similis vobis mendax</i>; tertio exponit quod dicit, ibi <i>sed scio eum</i>.
          <td>1283 But they might say: "Granted that we do not know about your glory, how do you know that you have glory from God the Father?" For this reason Christ speaks of his own knowledge, saying, I know him. First, he mentions his own knowledge; secondly, he shows the need for mentioning it; and thirdly, he explains what he said (v 55b).
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Dicit ergo: ideo scio me habere gloriam a Deo patre, quia ego novi eum, ea scilicet notitia qua ipse novit seipsum, et nullus alius nisi filius; Matth. XI, 27: <i>nemo novit filium nisi pater, nec patrem quis novit nisi filius</i>, scilicet cognitione perfecta comprehensionis. Et quia omne imperfectum a perfecto initium sumit, inde est quod omnis nostra cognitio a verbo derivatur: unde sequitur: <i>et cui voluerit filius revelare</i>.
          <td>1284 He says: <b>I know that I have glory from God the Father, because I know him</b>, namely, with that knowledge with which he knows himself; and no one else except the Son knows him: "No one knows the Father except the Son" (Mt 11:27), i.e., with a perfect and comprehensive knowledge. And because every imperfect thing derives from the perfect, all our knowledge is derived from the Word; thus Christ continues, "and any one to whom the Son chooses to reveal him."
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Sed quia, secundum carnem iudicantibus, posset Christo ad arrogantiam ascribi dicenti se nosse Deum, ideo subdit necessitatem dicti sui, cum subiungit <i>et si dixero quia non scio eum, ero similis vobis mendax</i>. Nam, secundum Augustinum, non est sic arrogantia vitanda ut relinquatur veritas et incurratur mendacium. Ideo dicit <i>si dixero</i>; quasi diceret: sicut vos dicentes scire eum, mentimini; ita ego <i>si dixero</i> me nescire, cum sciam eum, <i>ero similis</i> vobis <i>mendax</i>. Unde haec similitudo sequitur a contrario, ut sit similitudo in mendacio; quia sicut isti mentiuntur dicentes se scire eum quem nesciunt; ita Christus esset mendax, si diceret se nescire quem novit. Sed dissimilitudo est in cognitione: quia isti non cognoscunt, Christus vero scit eum.
          <td>1285 Now because some who judge in a carnal manner might attribute arrogance to Christ for saying that he knows God, he mentions why his statement is necessary. For, according to Augustine, arrogance should not be so guarded against that the truth is neglected and a lie committed. Thus Christ says: <b>If I said, I do not know him, I should be a liar like you.</b> This is like saying: Just as you are lying when you say that you know him, so if I said I do not know him, whereas I do, I should be a liar like you. There is a similarity here in the fact of lying: as they lie in saying that they know him whom they do not know, so Christ would be a liar were he to say that he does not know him whom he knows. But there is a lack of similarity because they do not know him, whereas Christ does.
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Sed numquid potuisset Christus hoc dicere? Potuisset quidem verba proferre materialiter, sed non intendere exprimere falsitatem: quia hoc non potuisset fieri nisi per inclinationem voluntatis Christi ad falsum, quod erat impossibile, sicut impossibile erat eum peccare.
          <td>But could Christ say these things ["I do not know him" and "I should be a liar"]? He could, indeed, have spoken the words materially, but not so as to intend expressing a falsehood, because this could be done only by Christ's will inclining to falsehood, which was impossible, just as it was impossible for him to sin.
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Nihilominus tamen conditionalis est vera, licet antecedens et consequens sit impossibile.
          <td>However, the conditional statement is true, although both antecedent and consequent are impossible.
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Quod autem patrem cognoscat, manifestat subdens <i>sed scio eum</i>: et cognitione speculativa, cum dicit <i>scio</i>, intellectualiter per dictam cognitionem, <i>eum</i>, scilicet patrem; item cognitione affectiva, scilicet per consensum voluntatis ad ipsum: unde dicit <i>et sermonem eius servo</i>; supra VI, 38: <i>descendi de caelo, non ut faciam voluntatem meam, sed voluntatem eius qui misit me</i>.
          <td>1286 When he continues he shows that he knows the Father, <b>But I do know him</b>, i.e., I know the Father intellectually, with speculative knowledge. And I also know him with affective knowledge, by consenting to him with my will: thus he says, <b>and I keep his word</b>: "For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me" (6:3).
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Consequenter cum dicit <i>Abraham pater vester exultavit ut videret diem meum</i>, respondet primae quaestioni quam fecerunt ei Iudaei, dicentes <i>numquid tu maior es patre nostro Abraham?</i> Ostendens se maiorem, tali ratione. Quicumque enim expectat bonum ab aliquo, et perfectionem suam, est minor eo a quo expectat, sed Abraham totam spem suae perfectionis et sui boni habuit in me: ergo est me minor. Et quantum ad hoc dicit <i>Abraham pater vester</i>, de quo scilicet gloriamini, <i>exultavit ut videret diem meum</i>. Ubi ponit duplicem visionem et duplex gaudium, sed alio et alio ordine. Nam primo praemittit gaudium exultationis, dicens <i>exultavit</i>, et subdit visionem, dicens <i>ut videret</i>. Deinde praemittit visionem, dicens <i>vidit</i>, et subdit gaudium, dicens <i>et gavisus est</i>. Et sic gaudium consistit inter duas visiones, procedens ab una, et tendens in aliam: quasi dicat <i>vidit, et gavisus est ut videret diem meum</i>.
          <td>1287 Then when he says, <b>your father Abraham rejoiced that he was to see my day</b>, he gives his answer to the first question asked by the Jews: "Are you greater than our father Abraham?" He shows that he is greater for the following reason: Whoever awaits for someone as for his good and perfection is less than the one he waits for; but Abraham placed the entire hope of his perfection and good in me; therefore, he is less than I. In regard to this he says, your father Abraham, in whom you glory, rejoiced that the was to see my day; he saw it and was glad. He is stating two visions and two joys, but the second vision and its joy is mentioned first. In the first part of the statement, he first mentions the joy of exultation when he says, Abraham rejoiced, and then adds the vision, saying that he was to see my day. Then in the second part he first mentions the vision, saying, he saw, my day, and adds the joy, and was glad. Thus [taking the statement in reverse order] a joy lies between two visions, proceeding from the one and tending to the other. He is saying in effect: "He saw my day, and rejoiced that he was to see my day."
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Primo ergo videndum quid sit iste dies quem vidit, et exultavit ut videret. Est autem duplex dies Christi: scilicet aeternitatis, de quo in Ps. II, 7: <i>ego hodie genui te</i>. Item dies incarnationis et humanitatis, de quo infra IX, 4: <i>me oportet operari (...) donec dies est</i>; Rom. XIII, 12: <i>nox praecessit, dies autem appropinquavit</i>. Utroque ergo modo dicimus, quod Abraham vidit primo diem Christi, scilicet aeternitatis, et incarnationis per fidem; Gen. XV, 6: <i>credidit Abraham Deo, et reputatum est illi ad iustitiam</i>. Et quod vidit diem aeternitatis, manifestum est: alias enim non fuisset iustificatus a Deo, quia, ut dicitur Hebr. II, 6, <i>accedentem ad Deum oportet credere quia est, et inquirentibus se remunerator sit</i>. Quod autem viderit diem incarnationis, manifestatur ex tribus: scilicet ex iuramento quod exegit a servo, nam Gen. XXIV, 2, ait servo suo quem mittebat: <i>pone manum subter femore meo, et iura mihi per Deum caeli</i>. Ex quo, ut dicit Augustinus, signabatur, quod de femore eius processurus esset Deus caeli. Secundo, ut Gregorius dicit, cum in figura summae Trinitatis tres Angelos hospitio suscepit. Tertio quando cognovit praefiguratam passionem Christi in oblatione arietis et Isaac; Gen. XXII. Sic ergo ex hac visione gavisus est; sed non quievit in ea, immo ex hac exultavit in aliam visionem, scilicet apertam et per speciem, quasi totum gaudium suum in ea ponens. Unde dicit <i>exultavit ut videret</i> aperta visione, <i>diem meum</i>, scilicet divinitatis et humanitatis meae; Lc. X, 24: <i>multi reges et prophetae voluerunt videre quae vos videtis, et non viderunt</i>.
          <td>First of all, let us examine what that day is which he saw, and also what that day is which he rejoiced that he was to see. Now the day of Christ is twofold: the day of eternity, "Today I have begotten you" (Ps 2:7); and the day of his incarnation and humanity, "I must work the works of him who sent me, while it is day" (9:4). We say that Abraham saw, by faith, each day of Christ: the day of eternity and the day of the incarnation: "He believed the Lord; and he reckoned it to him as righteousness" (Gen 15:6). It is clear that he saw the day of eternity, for otherwise he would not have been justified by God, because as it says in Hebrews (11:6): "Whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who see him." That he saw the day of the incarnation is clear from three things. First, from the oath he exacted from his servant. For he said to his servant: "Put your hand under my thigh, and I will make you swear by the Lord" (Gen 24:2). This signified, as Augustine says, that the God of heaven was to come out of his thigh. Secondly, as Gregory says, when he showed hospitality to the three angels, a symbol of the Most High Trinity. Thirdly, when he knew the passion of Christ as prefigured in the offering of the ram and of Isaac (Gen c 22). So he was glad over this vision [of faith], but he did not rest in it. Indeed, from it he rejoiced in another vision, namely, the direct face-to-face vision [of God], as though placing all his joy in this. Thus he says, Abraham rejoiced that he was to see my day, - the day of my divinity and of my human nature - that is, that he was to see it by direct face-to-face vision.
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Consequenter cum dicit <i>dixerunt ergo Iudaei ad eum</i> etc., ostendit quomodo Iudaei irrident verba Christi, et primo ponitur irrisio verborum Christi a Iudaeis ad confutandum; secundo subditur manifestatio ipsorum verborum a Christo, ad irrisionem vitandam, ibi <i>dixit ergo Iesus: amen, amen dico vobis</i> et cetera.
          <td>1288 Then (v 57), he shows how the Jews ridiculed Christ's words: first, we have their ridicule, in an attempt to belittle what Christ said; secondly, Christ clarifies what he said in order to counteract this ridicule (v 58).
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Quia ergo Christus dixerat quod Abraham exultavit ut videret diem suum, Iudaei carnalem mentem habentes, et in eo solum carnis aetatem pensantes, irrident dictum, et dicunt <i>quinquaginta annos nondum habes</i>. Vere quinquaginta annos non habebat, nec etiam quadraginta, sed circa trigesimum annum erat; Lc. III, 23: <i>erat Iesus incipiens quasi annorum triginta</i>. Quod autem dicunt <i>quinquaginta annos nondum habes</i>, ideo forte est, quia apud Iudaeos annus iubilaeus in maxima reverentia habebatur, quasi per eum omnia computantes, in quo et captivos manumittebant, et emptitiis cedebant possessionibus. Quasi dicant: tu nondum excessisti spatium unius iubilaei, et <i>Abraham vidisti?</i> Quamvis dominus non dixerit quod viderit Abraham, sed quod Abraham diem eius vidit.
          <td>1289 Because Christ had said that Abraham rejoiced that he was to see his day, the Jews, having a carnal mind and considering only his physical age, ridiculed him and said, <b>you are not yet fifty years old</b>. Indeed, he was not yet fifty years old, or even forty, but closer to thirty: "And Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age" (Lk 3:23). The Jews said, you are not yet fifty years old, probably because they held the year of Jubilee in the greatest reverence and computed everything in terms of it - it was a time for freeing captives and giving up certain possessions. They were saying in effect: You have not yet lived beyond the span of a Jubilee, and have you seen Abraham? However, our Lord did not say that he saw Abraham, but that Abraham saw his day.
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Et ideo dominus ut irrisionem vitet, respondens Iudaeis, verba sua exponit, dicens <i>amen, amen dico vobis, antequam Abraham fieret, ego sum</i>: in quibus verbis dominus duo de se notabilia et efficacia contra Arianos dicit. Unum est, quia, ut dicit Gregorius, coniungit simul verbum praesentis temporis et praeteriti. Ante enim significat praeteritum; sum temporis praesentis est. Ut ergo ostenderet se esse aeternum, et esse suum esse aeternitatis insinuet, non ait ante Abraham ego fui sed ante Abraham ego sum nam esse aeternum non novit tempus praeteritum et futurum, sed in uno indivisibili includit omne tempus. Unde dici potest illud Ex. III, 14: <i>qui est misit me ad vos</i>; et <i>ego sum qui sum</i>. Ante ergo vel post Abraham habuit esse, qui et accedere potuit per exhibitionem praesentis, et recedere per cursum vitae.
          <td>1290 To counteract their ridicule, our Lord answers the Jews by explaining his words, saying, <b>Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham came to be, I am.</b> These words of our Lord mention two things about himself that are noteworthy and efficacious against the Arians. One is that, as Gregory says, he combines words of present and past time, because before signifies the past, and am signifies the present. Therefore, in order to show that he is eternal, and to indicate that his existence is an eternal existence, he does not say, "before Abraham, I was," but before Abraham, I am. For eternal existence knows neither past nor future time, but embraces all time in one indivisible [instant]. Thus it could be said: "He who is, sent me to you," and "I am who am" [Ex 3:14]. Jesus had being both before Abraham and after him, and he could approach him by showing himself in the present and be after him in the course of time.
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Aliud est, secundum Augustinum, quia cum loqueretur de Abraham, qui creatura est, non dixit antequam Abraham esset sed <i>antequam fieret</i>. Sed loquens de se, ut ostendat quod non est factus ut creatura, sed ab aeterno de essentia patris genitus, non dicit, ego fio, sed <i>ego sum</i>, qui <i>in principio erat verbum</i>; supra I Prov. VIII, 25: <i>ante omnes colles generavit me dominus</i>.
          <td>The other point, according to Augustine, is that when speaking of Abraham, a creature, he did not say, "before Abraham was," but before Abraham came to be. Yet when speaking of himself, in order to show that he was not made as a creature is, but was eternally begotten from the essence of the Father, he does not say, "I came to be," but I am he who "in the beginning was the Word" (1:1); "Before the hills, I was brought forth" (Prv 8:25).
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Consequenter cum dicit <i>tulerunt ergo lapides ut iacerent in eum</i>, ponitur intentio Iudaeorum contra Christum: et primo ponitur Iudaeorum persecutio; secundo Christi evasio. Sed persecutio Iudaeorum procedit ex infidelitate. Nam mentes infidelium aeternitatis verba sustinere non valentes, nec intelligere ea, reputabant blasphemiam; et ideo, secundum legis mandatum, eum tamquam blasphemum lapidare volentes, <i>tulerunt lapides, ut iacerent in eum</i> et cetera. Et, ut dicit Augustinus, tanta duritia lapidum, quo curreret nisi ad lapides? Inf. X, 33: <i>de bono opere non lapidamus te</i>. Simile faciunt qui ex duritia cordis non intelligentes veritatem aperte prolatam, blasphemant proferentem, unde dicitur in canonica Iudae: <i>quaecumque non noverunt, blasphemant</i>.
          <td>1291 Then (v 59), we see the attitude of the Jews towards Christ: first, their harassment of him; secondly, Christ's escape. The harassment of the Jews came from their unbelief: for the minds of unbelievers, being unable to tolerate words of eternity, or understand them, regard them as blasphemy. <b>Therefore,</b> according to the command of the Law, they decided to stone Christ as a blasphemer: <b>they took up stones to throw at him.</b> As Augustine remarks: What hardness of heart! To what could it resort except the hardness of stones? And they act in the same way who from the hardness of their own hearts, failing to understand the clearly stated truth, blaspheme the one who speaks it; for we read: "These men revile whatever they do not understand" (Jude 10).
        <tr style="text-align:justify" valign="top">
          <td>Evasio autem Christi est ex eius potestate: unde sequitur <i>Iesus autem abscondit se</i>, qui scilicet si divinitatis suae potentiam exercere voluisset in suis actibus, eos ligaret, aut in poenas subitae mortis obrueret. <i>Abscondit autem se</i>, specialiter propter duo. Primo ut daret fidelibus suis exemplum declinandi persecutores suos; Matth. X, 23: <i>si vos persecuti fuerint in una civitate, fugite in aliam</i>. Secundo, quia non elegerat hoc genus mortis, sed potius in ara crucis voluit immolari; et quia nondum impletum erat tempus, adhuc fugit. Sic ergo tamquam homo a lapidibus fugit. Non autem abscondit se sub lapide vel in angulo, sed potestate suae divinitatis, invisibilem se eis exhibens, exivit, et recessit de templo. Simile fecit, Lc. IV, 29, quando voluerunt eum praecipitare de supercilio montis. Per quod, ut Gregorius dicit, datur intelligi quod illis ipsa veritas absconditur, qui eius verba sequi contemnunt. Eam quippe quam non invenit humile veritas fugit mentem; Is. VIII, 17: <i>qui abscondit faciem suam a domo Iacob</i>. Et similiter etiam quia debebat eos, correctionem et veritatem non suscipientes, relinquere, et ire ad gentes; Matth. XXIII, 38: <i>ecce relinquetur vobis domus vestra deserta</i>.
          <td>1292 Jesus escapes from them by his own power; he continues, <b>but Jesus hid himself</b> - he, who, if he had wished to exercise his divine power, could have bound and delivered them to the punishment of a sudden death. Jesus hid himself for two main reasons. First, as an example to his followers to avoid those who persecute them: "When they persecute you in one town, flee to the next" (Mt 10:23). Secondly, because he had not chosen this form of death, but rather wanted to be sacrificed on the altar of the cross. He also fled because his time had not yet come. Thus, as man, he avoids their stoning. But he did not conceal himself under a rock or in a corner, but made himself invisible by his divine power and left the temple. He acted in a similar way when they wanted to throw him from the top of a hill (Lk 4:29). As Gregory says, this leads us to understand that the truth is hidden from those who disdain to follow his words. Indeed, the truth shuns a mind that it does not find to be humble: "The Lord is hiding his face from the house of Jacob" (Is 8:17). Finally, he hid himself because it was fitting that he leave them because they refused to accept correction and the truth, and that he go to the Gentiles: "Behold your house is forsaken and desolate" (Mt 23:38).
    </table>
    <hr>
    <hr>
  </blockquote>
  <script type="text/javascript" src="/navbar.js"></script>