--- a/john/english/John13.html	Mon Nov 30 21:59:53 2009 +0000
+++ b/john/english/John13.html	Mon Nov 30 22:05:42 2009 +0000
@@ -1,2418 +1,2370 @@
-<html>
+<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
+    "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
+<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
 <head>
+<meta name="generator" content=
+"HTML Tidy for Cygwin (vers 25 March 2009), see www.w3.org" />
+<title></title>
 </head>
-<body style=text-align:justify><blockquote>
-<p style="text-align: center"><span style="font-size: 60pt">13</span>
-<p align=center><B>LECTURE I
-<BLOCKQUOTE><p>1 Now before the feast of the Passover, when Jesus knew
-that his hour had come to depart out of this world to the Father, having loved
-his own who were in the world, he loved them to the end. 2 And during supper,
-when the devil had already put it into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon's
-son, to betray him, Jesus, knowing that the Father had given all things into
-his hand, and that he had come from God and was going to God…<a href="#_ftn1"
-name="_ftnref1">[1]</b></a></BLOCKQUOTE>
-
+<body style="text-align:justify">
+<blockquote>
+<p style="text-align: center"><span style=
+"font-size: 60pt">13</span></p>
+<p align="center"><b>LECTURE I</b></p>
+<blockquote>
+<p><b>1 Now before the feast of the Passover, when Jesus knew that
+his hour had come to depart out of this world to the Father, having
+loved his own who were in the world, he loved them to the end. 2
+And during supper, when the devil had already put it into the heart
+of Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, to betray him, Jesus, knowing that
+the Father had given all things into his hand, and that he had come
+from God and was going to God&hellip;<a href="#_ftn1" name=
+"_ftnref1" id="_ftnref1">[1]</a></b></p>
+</blockquote>
 <p>1727 Above, the Evangelist set forth some of the events leading
-to Christ's passion and death; in this part he shows how Christ prepared his
-disciples before his passion. First, we see how he formed them by his example;
-secondly, how he comforted them with his words (c 14); thirdly, how he
-strengthened them by the help of his prayers (c 17). Concerning the first he
-does two things: first, he presents the example Christ gave for his disciples
-to imitate; and secondly we see the weakness of the disciples, who were not yet
-ready to follow him (v 21). Concerning the first he does three things: first,
-he sets forth the example; secondly, he shows that the example was useful (v
-6); thirdly, we see Jesus asking them to imitate it (v 12). Concerning the
-first he does two things: first, he describes the love of Christ, who is giving
-the example; secondly, the action in which he gave the example (v 2).
-Concerning the first he mentions three things: first, the feast about to be
-celebrated; secondly, the approaching death of Christ; thirdly, Christ's
-burning love.
-
+to Christ's passion and death; in this part he shows how Christ
+prepared his disciples before his passion. First, we see how he
+formed them by his example; secondly, how he comforted them with
+his words (c 14); thirdly, how he strengthened them by the help of
+his prayers (c 17). Concerning the first he does two things: first,
+he presents the example Christ gave for his disciples to imitate;
+and secondly we see the weakness of the disciples, who were not yet
+ready to follow him (v 21). Concerning the first he does three
+things: first, he sets forth the example; secondly, he shows that
+the example was useful (v 6); thirdly, we see Jesus asking them to
+imitate it (v 12). Concerning the first he does two things: first,
+he describes the love of Christ, who is giving the example;
+secondly, the action in which he gave the example (v 2). Concerning
+the first he mentions three things: first, the feast about to be
+celebrated; secondly, the approaching death of Christ; thirdly,
+Christ's burning love.</p>
 <p>1728 The feast at hand was the Passover; so he says, <b>Now
-before the feast of the Passover</b>. Here we should note that some say the
-[Latin] word <i>pascha</i> comes from the Greek word for "passion," and that
-this feast is called the <i>Pascha</i> because it is then that we celebrate the
-passion of our Lord. As a matter of fact, the word <i>pascha</i> in Greek does
-mean "to suffer." Yet the primary origin of this word is from the Hebrew word, <i>pesah</i>,
-which means a "passage," as in Exodus [12:11]: "It is the <i>pesah</i>,"
-passage, or a passing over, "of the Lord." This is the meaning the Evangelist
-gives it here because of two passings. The first was the passing of the angel
-striking down the first-born of the Egyptians and sparing the first-born of the
-Hebrews (Ex 12:12); and the other was the passage of the children of Israel through the Red Sea. So it was reasonable to call this feast the <i>Pascha</i>, [translated
-into English as Passover].
-
-<p>We can say that our Passover takes
-its meaning from both languages, Greek and Hebrew. For the passage of Christ
-from this world to the Father took place through his passion. "He passed about
-doing good and healing all" [Acts 10:38]. Again, all of us who follow Christ
-have our own passage: either by reform and martyrdom, according to the saying,
-"We have passed through fire and water and you have brought us to a place of
-refreshment" [Ps 66:12]; or by the desire of our mind aspiring to heavenly
-things: "Pass over to me all you who desire me and be filled with my fruits"
-[Sir 24:19].
-
+before the feast of the Passover</b>. Here we should note that some
+say the [Latin] word <i>pascha</i> comes from the Greek word for
+"passion," and that this feast is called the <i>Pascha</i> because
+it is then that we celebrate the passion of our Lord. As a matter
+of fact, the word <i>pascha</i> in Greek does mean "to suffer." Yet
+the primary origin of this word is from the Hebrew word,
+<i>pesah</i>, which means a "passage," as in Exodus [12:11]: "It is
+the <i>pesah</i>," passage, or a passing over, "of the Lord." This
+is the meaning the Evangelist gives it here because of two
+passings. The first was the passing of the angel striking down the
+first-born of the Egyptians and sparing the first-born of the
+Hebrews (Ex 12:12); and the other was the passage of the children
+of Israel through the Red Sea. So it was reasonable to call this
+feast the <i>Pascha</i>, [translated into English as Passover].</p>
+<p>We can say that our Passover takes its meaning from both
+languages, Greek and Hebrew. For the passage of Christ from this
+world to the Father took place through his passion. "He passed
+about doing good and healing all" [Acts 10:38]. Again, all of us
+who follow Christ have our own passage: either by reform and
+martyrdom, according to the saying, "We have passed through fire
+and water and you have brought us to a place of refreshment" [Ps
+66:12]; or by the desire of our mind aspiring to heavenly things:
+"Pass over to me all you who desire me and be filled with my
+fruits" [Sir 24:19].</p>
 <p>1729 As we read in Exodus (23:14), the Jews had three great
-feasts, when they gathered together in a place chosen by the Lord: The Pesah,
-when the lamb was sacrificed, Pentecost, and the Feast of Tabernacles, that is,
-the <i>Skenopegia</i>. But the greatest feast was that of the Passover.
-
-<p>A problem arises as to why he says
-here, <b>before the feast of the Passover</b>, for the feast of the Passover is
-when the lamb was sacrificed, that is, on the 14th day of the month. So since
-he says, <b>before the feast of the Passover</b>, it seems that this was taking
-place on the 13th day, the day before the 14th. And indeed, the Greeks accept
-this, and say that our Lord suffered on the 14th, when the Jews were supposed
-to celebrate the Passover, and that our Lord, knowing that his passion was
-near, anticipated the celebration of the Passover and celebrated his own
-Passover on the day before the Passover feast of the Jews. And because it is
-commanded in Exodus (12:18) that from the evening of the 14th day to the 21st
-day the Hebrews should not have any leavened bread, they further say that the
-Lord celebrated not with unleavened bread, but with leavened bread, because
-Hebrews did have leavened bread on the 13th day, that is, before the Passover.
-
-<p>But the other three Evangelists do
-not agree with this, for they say the time was the first day of Unleavened
-Bread, when the lamb was to be sacrificed (Mt 26:17; Mk 14:12; Lk 22:7). It
-follows from this that our Lord's supper took place on the very day that the
-Jews sacrificed the lamb.
-
-<p>1730 The Greeks respond to this that the other Evangelists
-did not report this truly; and so John, who wrote the last of the Gospels,
-corrected them. But it is heresy to say that there is anything false not only
-in the Gospels but anywhere in the canonical scriptures. Consequently, we have
-to say that all the Evangelists state the same thing and do not disagree.
-
-<p>To elucidate this it should be
-noted that, as is stated in Leviticus (23:5), the feasts of the Jews began on
-the evening of the preceding day. The reason for this was that they reckoned
-their days according to the moon, which first appears in the evening; so, they
-counted their days from one sunset to the next. Thus for them, the Passover
-began on the evening of the preceding day and ended on the evening of the day
-of the Passover. We celebrate feasts in the same way; so something that takes
-place with us on the vigil of Christmas is said to have happened on Christmas.
-And so the other Evangelists, using this way of speaking, said that the supper
-took place on the first day of Unleavened Bread, meaning it took place on the
-evening before the first full day of the feast of Unleavened Bread. But here,
-John the Evangelist regards the Passover as that entire daytime which was
-celebrated, but not as the evening before, which was also celebrated. Thus he says,
-<b>before the feast of the Passover</b>. Consequently, it is clear that our
-Lord's supper took place on the 14th day in the evening [the beginning of the
-14th day, the day beginning in the evening].
-
+feasts, when they gathered together in a place chosen by the Lord:
+The Pesah, when the lamb was sacrificed, Pentecost, and the Feast
+of Tabernacles, that is, the <i>Skenopegia</i>. But the greatest
+feast was that of the Passover.</p>
+<p>A problem arises as to why he says here, <b>before the feast of
+the Passover</b>, for the feast of the Passover is when the lamb
+was sacrificed, that is, on the 14th day of the month. So since he
+says, <b>before the feast of the Passover</b>, it seems that this
+was taking place on the 13th day, the day before the 14th. And
+indeed, the Greeks accept this, and say that our Lord suffered on
+the 14th, when the Jews were supposed to celebrate the Passover,
+and that our Lord, knowing that his passion was near, anticipated
+the celebration of the Passover and celebrated his own Passover on
+the day before the Passover feast of the Jews. And because it is
+commanded in Exodus (12:18) that from the evening of the 14th day
+to the 21st day the Hebrews should not have any leavened bread,
+they further say that the Lord celebrated not with unleavened
+bread, but with leavened bread, because Hebrews did have leavened
+bread on the 13th day, that is, before the Passover.</p>
+<p>But the other three Evangelists do not agree with this, for they
+say the time was the first day of Unleavened Bread, when the lamb
+was to be sacrificed (Mt 26:17; Mk 14:12; Lk 22:7). It follows from
+this that our Lord's supper took place on the very day that the
+Jews sacrificed the lamb.</p>
+<p>1730 The Greeks respond to this that the other Evangelists did
+not report this truly; and so John, who wrote the last of the
+Gospels, corrected them. But it is heresy to say that there is
+anything false not only in the Gospels but anywhere in the
+canonical scriptures. Consequently, we have to say that all the
+Evangelists state the same thing and do not disagree.</p>
+<p>To elucidate this it should be noted that, as is stated in
+Leviticus (23:5), the feasts of the Jews began on the evening of
+the preceding day. The reason for this was that they reckoned their
+days according to the moon, which first appears in the evening; so,
+they counted their days from one sunset to the next. Thus for them,
+the Passover began on the evening of the preceding day and ended on
+the evening of the day of the Passover. We celebrate feasts in the
+same way; so something that takes place with us on the vigil of
+Christmas is said to have happened on Christmas. And so the other
+Evangelists, using this way of speaking, said that the supper took
+place on the first day of Unleavened Bread, meaning it took place
+on the evening before the first full day of the feast of Unleavened
+Bread. But here, John the Evangelist regards the Passover as that
+entire daytime which was celebrated, but not as the evening before,
+which was also celebrated. Thus he says, <b>before the feast of the
+Passover</b>. Consequently, it is clear that our Lord's supper took
+place on the 14th day in the evening [the beginning of the 14th
+day, the day beginning in the evening].</p>
 <p>1731 The death of Christ, which was approaching, was his passage
-from this world by his passion. And as to this he says, <b>Jesus knew that his
-hour had come</b>: for this feast was a symbol of the passion of Christ, "All
-these things happened to them as symbols" [1 Cor 10:11]. So he at once mentions
-the reality, that is, the passion of Christ. And as a way of showing that the
-word <i>pascha</i> came from <i>pesah</i>, meaning a passage, he mentions his
-passage, <b>to depart</b>, pass, <b>out of this world to the Father</b>.
-
-<p>1732 Here the Evangelist mentions three things about the
-passion of Christ: first, that it was foreseen; secondly, that it was fitting;
-thirdly, it was a source of benefits and exaltation.
-
-<p>It was foreseen and not fortuitous;
-so he says, <b>Jesus knew</b>. He is saying in effect; Jesus suffered knowingly
-and willingly, not unexpectedly and unwillingly. "Jesus, knowing all that was
-to befall him" (18:4). The opposite is said of us: "There is great affliction
-for man because he is ignorant of things past, and things to come he cannot
-know in any way" [Eccl 8:7].
-
-<p>1733 The passion of Christ was fitting, first as to its
-time; and as to this he says, <b>that his hour had come</b>, which was the time
-of the Passover, when his passage would be by the cross: "There is a time and
-opportunity for every business" [Eccl 8:6]. This is the hour of which he said,
-"My hour has not yet come" (2:4). Yet this hour was not a matter of fate, as
-though governed by the course and arrangement of the stars; it was determined
-by the disposition and providence of God. I say, therefore, it was determined
-for the Jewish Passover because it was fitting to this Jewish feast that the
-reality follow the symbol, that is, that when the lamb, which was a symbol of
-Christ, was sacrificed, Christ, who was truly the Lamb of God, should be
-immolated. "You know that you were ransomed…not with perishable things such as
-silver or gold, but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb
-without blemish or spot" (1 Pet 1:18-19).
-
-<p>It was also fitting to the
-situation, for Christ was now glorified: "Now is the Son of man glorified, and in
-him God is glorified" (13:31). He had already revealed the Father to the world:
-"I have manifested thy name to the men whom thou gavest me out of the world"
-(17:6). What remained, therefore, was to accomplish his passion and the work of
-human redemption, about which we read: "It is finished," followed by, "and he
-bowed his head and gave up his spirit" (19:30).
-
-<p>1734 The passion of Christ was a source of benefits and
-glory, not of defeat, because it was in order that he could <b>depart out of
-this world to the Father</b>, by making his human nature a partaker in the
-glory of the Father: "I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God
-and your God" (20:17). This does not mean that he would pass from one place to
-another, since God the Father is not contained by any place: "Do I not fill
-heaven and earth? (Jer 23:24). Rather, just as Christ is said to have come from
-the Father, not by leaving him, but by assuming an inferior nature like our
-own, so he is said to have returned to the Father insofar as, even in his human
-nature, he became a sharer in the Father's glory. "The life he lives he lives
-to God" (Rom 6:10); "Every tongue should confess that the Lord Jesus Christ is
-in the glory of God the Father" [Phil 2:11].
-
-<p>1735 Then when he says, <b>having loved his own who were in
-the world, he loved them to the end</b>, he commends the intense love of
-Christ; and this on four points.
-
-<p>First, because his love was first,
-according to "Not that we have loved God, but that he has first loved us" [1 Jn
-4:10]. And as to this he says, <b>having loved his own</b>, trying to suggest
-that this was in advance of our love. I say he loved us before he created us:
-"For thou lovest all things that exist, and have loathing for none of the
-things which thou hast made" (Wis 11:24). He loved us before he called us: "I
-have loved you with an everlasting love; therefore, I have drawn you, taking
-pity on you" [Jer 31:3]. And he loved us before he redeemed us: "Greater love
-has not man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends" (15:13).
-
+from this world by his passion. And as to this he says, <b>Jesus
+knew that his hour had come</b>: for this feast was a symbol of the
+passion of Christ, "All these things happened to them as symbols"
+[1 Cor 10:11]. So he at once mentions the reality, that is, the
+passion of Christ. And as a way of showing that the word
+<i>pascha</i> came from <i>pesah</i>, meaning a passage, he
+mentions his passage, <b>to depart</b>, pass, <b>out of this world
+to the Father</b>.</p>
+<p>1732 Here the Evangelist mentions three things about the passion
+of Christ: first, that it was foreseen; secondly, that it was
+fitting; thirdly, it was a source of benefits and exaltation.</p>
+<p>It was foreseen and not fortuitous; so he says, <b>Jesus
+knew</b>. He is saying in effect; Jesus suffered knowingly and
+willingly, not unexpectedly and unwillingly. "Jesus, knowing all
+that was to befall him" (18:4). The opposite is said of us: "There
+is great affliction for man because he is ignorant of things past,
+and things to come he cannot know in any way" [Eccl 8:7].</p>
+<p>1733 The passion of Christ was fitting, first as to its time;
+and as to this he says, <b>that his hour had come</b>, which was
+the time of the Passover, when his passage would be by the cross:
+"There is a time and opportunity for every business" [Eccl 8:6].
+This is the hour of which he said, "My hour has not yet come"
+(2:4). Yet this hour was not a matter of fate, as though governed
+by the course and arrangement of the stars; it was determined by
+the disposition and providence of God. I say, therefore, it was
+determined for the Jewish Passover because it was fitting to this
+Jewish feast that the reality follow the symbol, that is, that when
+the lamb, which was a symbol of Christ, was sacrificed, Christ, who
+was truly the Lamb of God, should be immolated. "You know that you
+were ransomed&hellip;not with perishable things such as silver or
+gold, but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb
+without blemish or spot" (1 Pet 1:18-19).</p>
+<p>It was also fitting to the situation, for Christ was now
+glorified: "Now is the Son of man glorified, and in him God is
+glorified" (13:31). He had already revealed the Father to the
+world: "I have manifested thy name to the men whom thou gavest me
+out of the world" (17:6). What remained, therefore, was to
+accomplish his passion and the work of human redemption, about
+which we read: "It is finished," followed by, "and he bowed his
+head and gave up his spirit" (19:30).</p>
+<p>1734 The passion of Christ was a source of benefits and glory,
+not of defeat, because it was in order that he could <b>depart out
+of this world to the Father</b>, by making his human nature a
+partaker in the glory of the Father: "I am ascending to my Father
+and your Father, to my God and your God" (20:17). This does not
+mean that he would pass from one place to another, since God the
+Father is not contained by any place: "Do I not fill heaven and
+earth? (Jer 23:24). Rather, just as Christ is said to have come
+from the Father, not by leaving him, but by assuming an inferior
+nature like our own, so he is said to have returned to the Father
+insofar as, even in his human nature, he became a sharer in the
+Father's glory. "The life he lives he lives to God" (Rom 6:10);
+"Every tongue should confess that the Lord Jesus Christ is in the
+glory of God the Father" [Phil 2:11].</p>
+<p>1735 Then when he says, <b>having loved his own who were in the
+world, he loved them to the end</b>, he commends the intense love
+of Christ; and this on four points.</p>
+<p>First, because his love was first, according to "Not that we
+have loved God, but that he has first loved us" [1 Jn 4:10]. And as
+to this he says, <b>having loved his own</b>, trying to suggest
+that this was in advance of our love. I say he loved us before he
+created us: "For thou lovest all things that exist, and have
+loathing for none of the things which thou hast made" (Wis 11:24).
+He loved us before he called us: "I have loved you with an
+everlasting love; therefore, I have drawn you, taking pity on you"
+[Jer 31:3]. And he loved us before he redeemed us: "Greater love
+has not man than this, that a man lay down his life for his
+friends" (15:13).</p>
 <p>1736 Secondly, his love is commended as fitting, because he
-loved <b>his own</b>. Here we should note that God loves persons in various
-ways, depending on the various ways they are Christ's. Now, one can be his in
-three ways. First, by creation; and God loves these by conserving their goods
-of nature: "He came to his own home, and his own people," by creation,
-"received him not" (1:11). Others are his by donation, that is, those given to
-him by God the Father through faith: "Thine they were, and thou gave them to me,
-and they have kept thy word" (17:6); and he loves these by preserving their
-goods of grace. Finally, some are his by a special devotion: "Behold, we are
-your bone and flesh" (1 Chron 11:1); he loves these by consoling them in a
-special way.<a href="#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2">[2]</a>
-
-<p>1737 Thirdly, Christ's love is commended because it was
-needed, since he loved <b>his own who were in the world</b>. Those who were
-already in the glory of the Father are his, because even our fathers of long
-time past were his insofar as they hoped to be set free by him: "All his holy
-ones are in his hand" [Deut 33:3]. But these do not need such love as this as
-much as those who were in the world; so he says, <b>who were in the world</b>,
-that is, in body, but not in mind.
-
-<p>1738 Fourthly, his love is commended because it was perfect,
-so he says, <b>he loved them to the end</b>. Now there are two kind of ends:
-the end in the intention, and the end in execution. The end in intention is
-that to which our intention is directed; and this end ought to be eternal life,
-according to, "The return you get is sanctification and its end, eternal life"
-(Rom 6:22). Again this end should be Christ: "For Christ is the end of the law,
-that every one who has faith may be justified" (Rom 10:4). But these two are
-really one end, because eternal life is nothing other than enjoying Christ in
-his divinity: "And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God,
-and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent" (17:3). From this point of view he says, <b>he
-loved them to the end</b>, in order to lead them to himself, the end; or, to
-lead them to eternal life, which is the same thing. "I have loved you with an
-everlasting love; therefore, I have drawn you, taking pity on you" [Jer 31:3].
-
-<p>The end in execution is the
-terminus or outcome of a thing; so in this sense, death can be called an end.
-Thus he could say, <b>he loved them to the end</b>, that is, up to death. Used
-in this way, it can have three meanings. The first, mentioned by Augustine, is
-a very human way, and means that Christ loved his own until he died, but then
-no longer.<a href="#_ftn3" name="_ftnref3">[3]</a>
-This meaning is false: for Christ, who was not ended by death, by no means ends
-his love at death. Another meaning would take the word "to" as indicating a
-cause; and then it would mean, <b>he loved them to the end</b>, that is, his
-love for them led him to death: "He loved me and gave himself for me" (Gal
-2:20). A third meaning would be this: although Christ had already shown them
-many signs of his love, yet <b>to the end</b>, that is, at the time of his
-death, he showed them signs of a greater love: "I did not say these things to
-you from the beginning, because I was with you" (16:4). He would be saying in
-effect: it was not necessary then to show you how much I loved you, but now
-that I am leaving it is, so that my love and the memory of me might be
-impressed more deeply into your hearts.
-
-<p>1739 Then when he says, <b>during supper</b>, he describes
-the act by which Christ gave his example. First, he mentions the time of the
-action; secondly, the dignity of the one acting (v 3); thirdly, his humility (v
-4). He describes the time in two ways: in one way, as the time of Christ's
-love; in another way, by emphasizing the sin of Judas.
-
-<p>1740 In regard to the first, he says, literally, "when
-supper was done." Here we should note that both things that are permanent and
-things that are successive are said to be done or made. A permanent thing is
-said to be done or made when it has come to the perfection of its proper
-species and form; thus a house is said to be done or made when it has proper
-form. But in something which is successive, it is said to be made or done when
-it is over or is finished; thus the world is said to have been made when it was
-completed. But even things like this can be said to be made or done when they
-receive their appropriate species. So when he says here, literally, "when
-supper was done," he does not mean it was finished and over with: for after
-Christ washed the feet of the disciples, he returned to his place and gave the
-morsel to Judas. "When supper was done" rather means that it was prepared and
-now brought to his own species: for the group had already begun to eat, and
-then Christ got up. Thus Christ washed the feet of the disciples <b>during
-supper</b>. 
-
-<p>We read about such a supper in Luke
-[14:16], "A man once gave a great supper." A breakfast and supper are different.
-What is given at the beginning of the day is called a breakfast, while what is
-given at its end is called supper. Likewise, that spiritual nourishment
-suitable for those beginning is called breakfast, while that nourishment
-appropriate for the advanced is more like a supper.
-
+loved <b>his own</b>. Here we should note that God loves persons in
+various ways, depending on the various ways they are Christ's. Now,
+one can be his in three ways. First, by creation; and God loves
+these by conserving their goods of nature: "He came to his own
+home, and his own people," by creation, "received him not" (1:11).
+Others are his by donation, that is, those given to him by God the
+Father through faith: "Thine they were, and thou gave them to me,
+and they have kept thy word" (17:6); and he loves these by
+preserving their goods of grace. Finally, some are his by a special
+devotion: "Behold, we are your bone and flesh" (1 Chron 11:1); he
+loves these by consoling them in a special way.<a href="#_ftn2"
+name="_ftnref2" id="_ftnref2">[2]</a></p>
+<p>1737 Thirdly, Christ's love is commended because it was needed,
+since he loved <b>his own who were in the world</b>. Those who were
+already in the glory of the Father are his, because even our
+fathers of long time past were his insofar as they hoped to be set
+free by him: "All his holy ones are in his hand" [Deut 33:3]. But
+these do not need such love as this as much as those who were in
+the world; so he says, <b>who were in the world</b>, that is, in
+body, but not in mind.</p>
+<p>1738 Fourthly, his love is commended because it was perfect, so
+he says, <b>he loved them to the end</b>. Now there are two kind of
+ends: the end in the intention, and the end in execution. The end
+in intention is that to which our intention is directed; and this
+end ought to be eternal life, according to, "The return you get is
+sanctification and its end, eternal life" (Rom 6:22). Again this
+end should be Christ: "For Christ is the end of the law, that every
+one who has faith may be justified" (Rom 10:4). But these two are
+really one end, because eternal life is nothing other than enjoying
+Christ in his divinity: "And this is eternal life, that they know
+thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent"
+(17:3). From this point of view he says, <b>he loved them to the
+end</b>, in order to lead them to himself, the end; or, to lead
+them to eternal life, which is the same thing. "I have loved you
+with an everlasting love; therefore, I have drawn you, taking pity
+on you" [Jer 31:3].</p>
+<p>The end in execution is the terminus or outcome of a thing; so
+in this sense, death can be called an end. Thus he could say, <b>he
+loved them to the end</b>, that is, up to death. Used in this way,
+it can have three meanings. The first, mentioned by Augustine, is a
+very human way, and means that Christ loved his own until he died,
+but then no longer.<a href="#_ftn3" name="_ftnref3" id=
+"_ftnref3">[3]</a> This meaning is false: for Christ, who was not
+ended by death, by no means ends his love at death. Another meaning
+would take the word "to" as indicating a cause; and then it would
+mean, <b>he loved them to the end</b>, that is, his love for them
+led him to death: "He loved me and gave himself for me" (Gal 2:20).
+A third meaning would be this: although Christ had already shown
+them many signs of his love, yet <b>to the end</b>, that is, at the
+time of his death, he showed them signs of a greater love: "I did
+not say these things to you from the beginning, because I was with
+you" (16:4). He would be saying in effect: it was not necessary
+then to show you how much I loved you, but now that I am leaving it
+is, so that my love and the memory of me might be impressed more
+deeply into your hearts.</p>
+<p>1739 Then when he says, <b>during supper</b>, he describes the
+act by which Christ gave his example. First, he mentions the time
+of the action; secondly, the dignity of the one acting (v 3);
+thirdly, his humility (v 4). He describes the time in two ways: in
+one way, as the time of Christ's love; in another way, by
+emphasizing the sin of Judas.</p>
+<p>1740 In regard to the first, he says, literally, "when supper
+was done." Here we should note that both things that are permanent
+and things that are successive are said to be done or made. A
+permanent thing is said to be done or made when it has come to the
+perfection of its proper species and form; thus a house is said to
+be done or made when it has proper form. But in something which is
+successive, it is said to be made or done when it is over or is
+finished; thus the world is said to have been made when it was
+completed. But even things like this can be said to be made or done
+when they receive their appropriate species. So when he says here,
+literally, "when supper was done," he does not mean it was finished
+and over with: for after Christ washed the feet of the disciples,
+he returned to his place and gave the morsel to Judas. "When supper
+was done" rather means that it was prepared and now brought to his
+own species: for the group had already begun to eat, and then
+Christ got up. Thus Christ washed the feet of the disciples
+<b>during supper</b>.</p>
+<p>We read about such a supper in Luke [14:16], "A man once gave a
+great supper." A breakfast and supper are different. What is given
+at the beginning of the day is called a breakfast, while what is
+given at its end is called supper. Likewise, that spiritual
+nourishment suitable for those beginning is called breakfast, while
+that nourishment appropriate for the advanced is more like a
+supper.</p>
 <p>1741 Then when the Evangelist says, <b>when the devil had
-already put it into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, to betray him</b>,
-he depicts the time by emphasizing the sin of the traitor. He mentions his sin
-for two reasons. First, the better to bring out the evil of Judas, who in spite
-of so many tokens of love and humble service, considered committing such a
-great sin: the Psalm (41:9) says: "Even my bosom friend in whom I trusted, who
-ate of my bread, has lifted his heel against me." And secondly, the better to
-show the wonderful love of Christ who, although knowing this, treated him with
-love and humility by washing his feet: "With those who hated peace I was
-peaceable" [Ps 120:7].
-
-<p>1742 But can the devil put anything into our hearts? It
-seems he can, for a Psalm speaks of things "sent by evil angels" [Ps 77:49]. To
-explain this, we should note that what is in a person's thought and will is
-said to be in his heart. So the statement, <b>when the devil had already put it
-into the heart of Judas</b>, should be understood to refer to his will.
-
-<p>Understanding it the above way,
-there are two ways something can be put into our heart. First, directly; and in
-this way only one who has the power to move our will from within can put
-something into our heart. Only God can do this; consequently, he alone can
-directly move our will: "The king's heart is a stream of water in the hand," in
-the power, "of the Lord; he turns it wherever he will" (Prv 21:10). But because
-the will is also moved by an external object, something apprehended as a good,
-it follows that anyone who brings to mind, or suggests that something is good
-is said to put something into our heart indirectly, by making us apprehend
-something as good, which in turn moves our will. This happens in two ways. By
-an external suggestion, and then one person can put something into another's
-heart; or by an interior suggestion, which is the way the devil puts something
-into our heart. For our imagination, since it is a physical reality, is subject
-to the power of the devil when God allows it. So, whether we be awake or
-asleep, he forms in it certain images which, when apprehended, move our will to
-desire something. And so the devil puts something into our heart, not directly
-by moving our heart, but indirectly, by suggestion.<a href="#_ftn4"
-name="_ftnref4">[4]</a>
-
-<p>1743 Then (v 3) he considers the dignity of the one acting,
-for "The greater you are, the more you must humble yourself" (Sir 3:18). So the
-Evangelist, about to speak of Christ's humility, treats first of his very great
-dignity because of his knowledge, saying, <b>Jesus, knowing that the Father had
-given all things into his hands</b>. For spiritual gifts are such that they are
-not unrecognized when given: "Now we have received not the spirit of the world,
-but the Spirit which is from God, that we might understand the gifts bestowed
-on us by God" (1 Cor 2:12). Thus, Christ knew what had been given to him by
-God; and the Evangelist mentions this so Christ's humility would be more
-admirable. For sometimes it happens that a person is of great dignity, yet
-because of his simplicity he does not realize it. If such a person were to do
-something humble, it would not be regarded as worthy of great praise: "If you
-do not know yourself, O fairest among women…" [Song 1:8]. But if someone does know
-his own dignity, and still his affections are inclined to what is humble, his
-humility should be praised. And this is why the Evangelist says, <b>Jesus,
-knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands</b>; and he still
-did not neglect to do what was humble.
-
-<p>Secondly, we see his dignity as to
-his power, because <b>the Father had given all things into his hands</b>, that
-is, into his power. God gave, in time, to Christ as man, what was in the power
-of the Son from eternity: "All authority in heaven and earth has been given to
-me" (Mt 28:18). He says, <b>the Father had given all things into his hands</b>,
-for two reasons. First, to show that Christ did not suffer against his will.
-For if all things were in <b>his hands</b>, that is, in his power, it is clear
-that his enemies could do nothing to him against his will. Secondly, because
-when a person of little importance is honored, he easily becomes proud; nor
-does he do anything humble, lest it seem to lessen his dignity. But when one of
-great dignity is honored, he does not neglect the humble things. And so
-Christ's dignity is mentioned here.
-
-<p>Thirdly, we see his dignity because
-of his nobility, when he says, <b>that he had come from God and was going to
-God</b>: "living with God" as Wisdom (8:3) says. Fourthly, his dignity because of
-his holiness, because he <b>was going to God</b>, for our holiness lies in our
-going to God. He mentions this because since Christ is going to God, it is
-special to him to lead others to God. This is done especially by humility and
-love; and so he offers them an example of humility and love.
-<BR><BR><BR>
-<p align=center><b>LECTURE 2
-<BLOCKQUOTE><p>4 [He] rose from supper, laid aside his garments, and
-girded himself with a towel. 5 Then he poured water into a basin, and began to
-wash the disciples' feet, and to wipe them with the towel with which he was girded.
-6 He came to Simon Peter; and Peter said to him, "Lord, do you wash my feet?" 7
-Jesus answered him, "What I am doing you do not know now, but afterward you
-will understand." 8 Peter said to him, "You shall never wash my feet." Jesus
-answered him, "If I do not wash you, you have not part in me." 9 Simon Peter
-said to him, "Lord, not my feet only but also my hands and my head!" 10 Jesus
-said to him, "He who has bathed does not need to wash, except for his feet, but
-he is clean all over; and you are clean, but not all of you." 11 For he knew
-who was to betray him; that was why he said, "You are not all clean."<a
-href="#_ftn5" name="_ftnref5">[5]</b></a></BLOCKQUOTE>
-
+already put it into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, to
+betray him</b>, he depicts the time by emphasizing the sin of the
+traitor. He mentions his sin for two reasons. First, the better to
+bring out the evil of Judas, who in spite of so many tokens of love
+and humble service, considered committing such a great sin: the
+Psalm (41:9) says: "Even my bosom friend in whom I trusted, who ate
+of my bread, has lifted his heel against me." And secondly, the
+better to show the wonderful love of Christ who, although knowing
+this, treated him with love and humility by washing his feet: "With
+those who hated peace I was peaceable" [Ps 120:7].</p>
+<p>1742 But can the devil put anything into our hearts? It seems he
+can, for a Psalm speaks of things "sent by evil angels" [Ps 77:49].
+To explain this, we should note that what is in a person's thought
+and will is said to be in his heart. So the statement, <b>when the
+devil had already put it into the heart of Judas</b>, should be
+understood to refer to his will.</p>
+<p>Understanding it the above way, there are two ways something can
+be put into our heart. First, directly; and in this way only one
+who has the power to move our will from within can put something
+into our heart. Only God can do this; consequently, he alone can
+directly move our will: "The king's heart is a stream of water in
+the hand," in the power, "of the Lord; he turns it wherever he
+will" (Prv 21:10). But because the will is also moved by an
+external object, something apprehended as a good, it follows that
+anyone who brings to mind, or suggests that something is good is
+said to put something into our heart indirectly, by making us
+apprehend something as good, which in turn moves our will. This
+happens in two ways. By an external suggestion, and then one person
+can put something into another's heart; or by an interior
+suggestion, which is the way the devil puts something into our
+heart. For our imagination, since it is a physical reality, is
+subject to the power of the devil when God allows it. So, whether
+we be awake or asleep, he forms in it certain images which, when
+apprehended, move our will to desire something. And so the devil
+puts something into our heart, not directly by moving our heart,
+but indirectly, by suggestion.<a href="#_ftn4" name="_ftnref4" id=
+"_ftnref4">[4]</a></p>
+<p>1743 Then (v 3) he considers the dignity of the one acting, for
+"The greater you are, the more you must humble yourself" (Sir
+3:18). So the Evangelist, about to speak of Christ's humility,
+treats first of his very great dignity because of his knowledge,
+saying, <b>Jesus, knowing that the Father had given all things into
+his hands</b>. For spiritual gifts are such that they are not
+unrecognized when given: "Now we have received not the spirit of
+the world, but the Spirit which is from God, that we might
+understand the gifts bestowed on us by God" (1 Cor 2:12). Thus,
+Christ knew what had been given to him by God; and the Evangelist
+mentions this so Christ's humility would be more admirable. For
+sometimes it happens that a person is of great dignity, yet because
+of his simplicity he does not realize it. If such a person were to
+do something humble, it would not be regarded as worthy of great
+praise: "If you do not know yourself, O fairest among
+women&hellip;" [Song 1:8]. But if someone does know his own
+dignity, and still his affections are inclined to what is humble,
+his humility should be praised. And this is why the Evangelist
+says, <b>Jesus, knowing that the Father had given all things into
+his hands</b>; and he still did not neglect to do what was
+humble.</p>
+<p>Secondly, we see his dignity as to his power, because <b>the
+Father had given all things into his hands</b>, that is, into his
+power. God gave, in time, to Christ as man, what was in the power
+of the Son from eternity: "All authority in heaven and earth has
+been given to me" (Mt 28:18). He says, <b>the Father had given all
+things into his hands</b>, for two reasons. First, to show that
+Christ did not suffer against his will. For if all things were in
+<b>his hands</b>, that is, in his power, it is clear that his
+enemies could do nothing to him against his will. Secondly, because
+when a person of little importance is honored, he easily becomes
+proud; nor does he do anything humble, lest it seem to lessen his
+dignity. But when one of great dignity is honored, he does not
+neglect the humble things. And so Christ's dignity is mentioned
+here.</p>
+<p>Thirdly, we see his dignity because of his nobility, when he
+says, <b>that he had come from God and was going to God</b>:
+"living with God" as Wisdom (8:3) says. Fourthly, his dignity
+because of his holiness, because he <b>was going to God</b>, for
+our holiness lies in our going to God. He mentions this because
+since Christ is going to God, it is special to him to lead others
+to God. This is done especially by humility and love; and so he
+offers them an example of humility and love.<br />
+<br />
+<br /></p>
+<p align="center"><b>LECTURE 2</b></p>
+<blockquote>
+<p><b>4 [He] rose from supper, laid aside his garments, and girded
+himself with a towel. 5 Then he poured water into a basin, and
+began to wash the disciples' feet, and to wipe them with the towel
+with which he was girded. 6 He came to Simon Peter; and Peter said
+to him, "Lord, do you wash my feet?" 7 Jesus answered him, "What I
+am doing you do not know now, but afterward you will understand." 8
+Peter said to him, "You shall never wash my feet." Jesus answered
+him, "If I do not wash you, you have not part in me." 9 Simon Peter
+said to him, "Lord, not my feet only but also my hands and my
+head!" 10 Jesus said to him, "He who has bathed does not need to
+wash, except for his feet, but he is clean all over; and you are
+clean, but not all of you." 11 For he knew who was to betray him;
+that was why he said, "You are not all clean."<a href="#_ftn5"
+name="_ftnref5" id="_ftnref5">[5]</a></b></p>
+</blockquote>
 <p>1744 After showing the dignity of Christ, the Evangelist now
-commends his humility, which Christ showed by washing the feet of the
-disciples. First, the Evangelist mentions Christ's preparation for this humble
-task; secondly, the service itself (v 5).
-
-<p>1745 In regard to the first, we should note that in
-performing this humble task, Christ shows himself a servant: "The Son of man
-came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many"
-(Mt 20:28). Now three things are necessary for a good servant. First, he should
-be careful to notice anything that might be lacking in his service; and this
-would be hampered if he were sitting or lying down. Thus servants stand. So he
-says, Christ <b>rose from supper</b>: "For which is the greater, one who sits
-at table, or one who serves" (Lk 22:27). Secondly, a servant should not be
-encumbered, so he can do everything necessary to his service. And since too
-much clothing is such a hindrance, our Lord <b>laid aside his garments</b>.
-Thirdly, a good servant is prepared, having at hand everything which he needs.
-In Luke (10:40) we read that Martha "was distracted with much serving." So our
-Lord <b>girded himself with a towel</b>, so he would be ready not just to wash
-their feet, but to dry them as well. And since he who had come from God and was
-going to God is now washing the feet of others, he is treading under foot the
-universal tendency to pride.
-
-<p>1746 As to its mystical meaning, this action can be referred
-to two things: the incarnation of Christ and his passion. If it is referred to
-his incarnation, it tells us three things about Christ. First, he was willing
-to help the human race, indicated by the fact that he <b>rose from supper</b>.
-For God seems to be sitting down as long as he allows us to be troubled; but
-when he rescues us from it, he seems to rise, as the Psalm (43:26) says: "Rise
-up, come to our help." Secondly, it indicates that he emptied himself: not that
-he abandoned his great dignity, but he hid it by taking on our smallness:
-"Truly, thou art a God who hidest thyself" (Is 45:15). This is shown by the
-fact that he <b>laid aside his garments</b>: "He emptied himself, taking the
-form of a servant" (Phil 2:7). Thirdly, the fact that he <b>girded himself with
-a towel</b> indicates that he took on our mortality: "taking the form of a
-servant, being born in the likeness of men" (Phil 2:7).
-
-<p>If this event is referred to the
-passion of Christ, then he literally set aside his garments when the soldiers
-stripped him: "for my clothing they cast lots" (19:23). And he was girded with
-a towel in the tomb. And also in his passion he laid aside the garments of our
-mortality and put on a towel, that is, the splendor of immortality: "Christ being
-raised from the dead will never die again; death no longer has dominion over
-him" (Rom 6:9).
-
-<p>1747 Then when the Evangelist says, <b>Then he poured water
-into a basin…</b>, he describes Christ's service, and shows his admirable
-humility in three ways. First, as to what kind of service it was, for it was
-very lowly, since the Lord of majesty stooped down to wash the feet of his
-servants. Secondly, as to the number of things he did, for he put water into
-the basin, washed their feet, and then dried them. Thirdly, as to the way it
-was done: for Christ did not do it through others or with their help, but by
-himself. "The greater you are, the more you must humble yourself" (Sir 3:18).
-
-<p>1748 As for the mystical meaning, three things can be
-gathered from these events. First, the pouring out of Christ's blood on the
-earth is indicated by his pouring water into the basin. For the blood of Jesus
-can be called water because it has the power to cleanse: "He washed us from our
-sins in his own blood" (Rev 1:4). And so blood and water came out of his side
-at the same time to show us that his blood washes away sins. Or, water can
-indicate the passion of Christ, for in Scripture water signifies tribulations:
-"Save me O God! For the waters," that is, tribulations, "have come up to my
-soul" [Ps 69:1]. Therefore, <b>he poured water into a basin</b>, that is, he
-impressed the memory of his passion on the minds of the faithful by their faith
-and devotion: "Remember my affliction and my bitterness, the wormwood and the
-gall!" (Lam 3:19).
-
+commends his humility, which Christ showed by washing the feet of
+the disciples. First, the Evangelist mentions Christ's preparation
+for this humble task; secondly, the service itself (v 5).</p>
+<p>1745 In regard to the first, we should note that in performing
+this humble task, Christ shows himself a servant: "The Son of man
+came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a
+ransom for many" (Mt 20:28). Now three things are necessary for a
+good servant. First, he should be careful to notice anything that
+might be lacking in his service; and this would be hampered if he
+were sitting or lying down. Thus servants stand. So he says, Christ
+<b>rose from supper</b>: "For which is the greater, one who sits at
+table, or one who serves" (Lk 22:27). Secondly, a servant should
+not be encumbered, so he can do everything necessary to his
+service. And since too much clothing is such a hindrance, our Lord
+<b>laid aside his garments</b>. Thirdly, a good servant is
+prepared, having at hand everything which he needs. In Luke (10:40)
+we read that Martha "was distracted with much serving." So our Lord
+<b>girded himself with a towel</b>, so he would be ready not just
+to wash their feet, but to dry them as well. And since he who had
+come from God and was going to God is now washing the feet of
+others, he is treading under foot the universal tendency to
+pride.</p>
+<p>1746 As to its mystical meaning, this action can be referred to
+two things: the incarnation of Christ and his passion. If it is
+referred to his incarnation, it tells us three things about Christ.
+First, he was willing to help the human race, indicated by the fact
+that he <b>rose from supper</b>. For God seems to be sitting down
+as long as he allows us to be troubled; but when he rescues us from
+it, he seems to rise, as the Psalm (43:26) says: "Rise up, come to
+our help." Secondly, it indicates that he emptied himself: not that
+he abandoned his great dignity, but he hid it by taking on our
+smallness: "Truly, thou art a God who hidest thyself" (Is 45:15).
+This is shown by the fact that he <b>laid aside his garments</b>:
+"He emptied himself, taking the form of a servant" (Phil 2:7).
+Thirdly, the fact that he <b>girded himself with a towel</b>
+indicates that he took on our mortality: "taking the form of a
+servant, being born in the likeness of men" (Phil 2:7).</p>
+<p>If this event is referred to the passion of Christ, then he
+literally set aside his garments when the soldiers stripped him:
+"for my clothing they cast lots" (19:23). And he was girded with a
+towel in the tomb. And also in his passion he laid aside the
+garments of our mortality and put on a towel, that is, the splendor
+of immortality: "Christ being raised from the dead will never die
+again; death no longer has dominion over him" (Rom 6:9).</p>
+<p>1747 Then when the Evangelist says, <b>Then he poured water into
+a basin&hellip;</b>, he describes Christ's service, and shows his
+admirable humility in three ways. First, as to what kind of service
+it was, for it was very lowly, since the Lord of majesty stooped
+down to wash the feet of his servants. Secondly, as to the number
+of things he did, for he put water into the basin, washed their
+feet, and then dried them. Thirdly, as to the way it was done: for
+Christ did not do it through others or with their help, but by
+himself. "The greater you are, the more you must humble yourself"
+(Sir 3:18).</p>
+<p>1748 As for the mystical meaning, three things can be gathered
+from these events. First, the pouring out of Christ's blood on the
+earth is indicated by his pouring water into the basin. For the
+blood of Jesus can be called water because it has the power to
+cleanse: "He washed us from our sins in his own blood" (Rev 1:4).
+And so blood and water came out of his side at the same time to
+show us that his blood washes away sins. Or, water can indicate the
+passion of Christ, for in Scripture water signifies tribulations:
+"Save me O God! For the waters," that is, tribulations, "have come
+up to my soul" [Ps 69:1]. Therefore, <b>he poured water into a
+basin</b>, that is, he impressed the memory of his passion on the
+minds of the faithful by their faith and devotion: "Remember my
+affliction and my bitterness, the wormwood and the gall!" (Lam
+3:19).</p>
 <p>1749 Secondly, when he says, <b>and began to wash</b>, it
-indicates our human imperfection. For after Christ, the apostles were more
-perfect than others, and yet even they needed to be washed, since they were
-unclean to some degree. We can understand by this that no matter how perfect a
-person may be, he acquires some uncleanness, and still needs to become more
-perfect: "Who can say, 'I have made my heart clean; I am pure from my sin'?"
-(Prv 20:9). However, only the feet of such persons are unclean. But others are
-not only unclean in their feet, they are stained all over. For those who lie
-down in earthly uncleanness are defiled all over; thus, those who cling
-entirely to the love of earthly things, both in their affections and their
-senses, are entirely unclean. But those who stand, that is, tend to heavenly
-things in mind and desire, become unclean only on their feet. For just as a
-person who is standing must at least touch the earth with his feet, so we, as
-long as we live this mortal life which needs earthly things to sustain the
-body, acquire some uncleanness, at least because of our sensuality. Thus our
-Lord told the disciples to shake the dust from their feet (Lk 9:5). The
-Evangelist says that Christ <b>began to wash</b>, because the cleansing of our
-earthly affections begins here and is completed in the future. Then the words
-of Isaiah (35:8) will be fulfilled: "It shall be called the Holy Way."
-
-<p>Note that, according to Origen, our
-Lord began to wash the feet of his disciples right before his passion, for if
-he had washed them a long time before, they would have become dirty again.<a
-href="#_ftn6" name="_ftnref6">[6]</a>
-So he began to wash them a short time before he would wash the apostles with
-the water of the Holy Spirit, after his passion: "Before many days you shall be
-baptized with the Holy Spirit" (Act 1:5). In short, when our Lord put water
-into the basin, this indicated the pouring out of his blood; and when he began
-to wash the feet of his apostles, this indicated the cleansing of our sins.
-
+indicates our human imperfection. For after Christ, the apostles
+were more perfect than others, and yet even they needed to be
+washed, since they were unclean to some degree. We can understand
+by this that no matter how perfect a person may be, he acquires
+some uncleanness, and still needs to become more perfect: "Who can
+say, 'I have made my heart clean; I am pure from my sin'?" (Prv
+20:9). However, only the feet of such persons are unclean. But
+others are not only unclean in their feet, they are stained all
+over. For those who lie down in earthly uncleanness are defiled all
+over; thus, those who cling entirely to the love of earthly things,
+both in their affections and their senses, are entirely unclean.
+But those who stand, that is, tend to heavenly things in mind and
+desire, become unclean only on their feet. For just as a person who
+is standing must at least touch the earth with his feet, so we, as
+long as we live this mortal life which needs earthly things to
+sustain the body, acquire some uncleanness, at least because of our
+sensuality. Thus our Lord told the disciples to shake the dust from
+their feet (Lk 9:5). The Evangelist says that Christ <b>began to
+wash</b>, because the cleansing of our earthly affections begins
+here and is completed in the future. Then the words of Isaiah
+(35:8) will be fulfilled: "It shall be called the Holy Way."</p>
+<p>Note that, according to Origen, our Lord began to wash the feet
+of his disciples right before his passion, for if he had washed
+them a long time before, they would have become dirty
+again.<a href="#_ftn6" name="_ftnref6" id="_ftnref6">[6]</a> So he
+began to wash them a short time before he would wash the apostles
+with the water of the Holy Spirit, after his passion: "Before many
+days you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit" (Act 1:5). In
+short, when our Lord put water into the basin, this indicated the
+pouring out of his blood; and when he began to wash the feet of his
+apostles, this indicated the cleansing of our sins.</p>
 <p>1750 Thirdly, we have indicated the fact that Christ took upon
-himself our punishments; for he not only cleansed us from our stains, but took
-upon himself the punishments they deserved. For our own punishments and penance
-would not be enough unless they were founded on the merits and power of
-Christ's passion. This is shown by the fact that he wiped the feet of his
-disciples with his towel, that is, his body (1 Pet 2:21).
-
+himself our punishments; for he not only cleansed us from our
+stains, but took upon himself the punishments they deserved. For
+our own punishments and penance would not be enough unless they
+were founded on the merits and power of Christ's passion. This is
+shown by the fact that he wiped the feet of his disciples with his
+towel, that is, his body (1 Pet 2:21).</p>
 <p>1751 Then when the Evangelist says, <b>he came to Simon
-Peter</b>, he shows the example was beneficial by means of an encounter between
-the Teacher and the disciple. In this encounter our Lord shows that this
-example is both a mystery and necessary (v 8); and secondly, that it is
-appropriate (v 9). As to the first, the Evangelist does two things. First, he
-mentions the circumstances for Christ's speaking; secondly, what Christ said (v
-7).
-
-<p>1752 The occasion for Christ's words was the refusal of
-Peter to allow this example of humility; he says, <b>he came to Simon Peter,
-and Peter said to him, Lord, do you wash my feet? </b>There are three
-explanations for this.
-
-<p>According to Origen, our Lord began
-to wash their feet by beginning with the last.<a href="#_ftn7" name="_ftnref7"
-title="">[7]</a>
-The reason for this was that just as a doctor who must care for a number of
-sick begins with those who need it more, so too Christ, when he washed the
-grimy feet of his disciples, began with the dirtiest, and then came to Peter,
-who needed it less than the others: "beginning with the last, up to the first"
-(Mt 20:8). The Evangelist seems to indicate this: for Christ <b>began to wash
-the disciples' feet</b>, and then he follows this with, <b>he came to Simon
-Peter</b>. It seems from this that Jesus washed the feet of the others first.
-
+Peter</b>, he shows the example was beneficial by means of an
+encounter between the Teacher and the disciple. In this encounter
+our Lord shows that this example is both a mystery and necessary (v
+8); and secondly, that it is appropriate (v 9). As to the first,
+the Evangelist does two things. First, he mentions the
+circumstances for Christ's speaking; secondly, what Christ said (v
+7).</p>
+<p>1752 The occasion for Christ's words was the refusal of Peter to
+allow this example of humility; he says, <b>he came to Simon Peter,
+and Peter said to him, Lord, do you wash my feet?</b> There are
+three explanations for this.</p>
+<p>According to Origen, our Lord began to wash their feet by
+beginning with the last.<a href="#_ftn7" name="_ftnref7" title=""
+id="_ftnref7">[7]</a> The reason for this was that just as a doctor
+who must care for a number of sick begins with those who need it
+more, so too Christ, when he washed the grimy feet of his
+disciples, began with the dirtiest, and then came to Peter, who
+needed it less than the others: "beginning with the last, up to the
+first" (Mt 20:8). The Evangelist seems to indicate this: for Christ
+<b>began to wash the disciples' feet</b>, and then he follows this
+with, <b>he came to Simon Peter</b>. It seems from this that Jesus
+washed the feet of the others first.</p>
 <p>1753 If you ask why Peter was the first to object, Origen
-replies that this was due to the intense love Peter had for Christ.<a
-href="#_ftn8" name="_ftnref8">[8]</a>
-The other disciples had a certain respectful awe and fear of Christ, and so
-complied without question to everything he did. But Peter, more aflame with
-love - "Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?…Yes Lord; you know
-that I love you" (21:15) - and taking confidence from this love, refuses to
-comply and asks to know why: "A true friend will act as your equal and assume
-authority in your household" [Sir 6:11]. This is why in Scripture Peter often
-asks for explanations and does not hesitate to say what he thinks is best.
-
+replies that this was due to the intense love Peter had for
+Christ.<a href="#_ftn8" name="_ftnref8" id="_ftnref8">[8]</a> The
+other disciples had a certain respectful awe and fear of Christ,
+and so complied without question to everything he did. But Peter,
+more aflame with love - "Simon, son of John, do you love me more
+than these?&hellip;Yes Lord; you know that I love you" (21:15) -
+and taking confidence from this love, refuses to comply and asks to
+know why: "A true friend will act as your equal and assume
+authority in your household" [Sir 6:11]. This is why in Scripture
+Peter often asks for explanations and does not hesitate to say what
+he thinks is best.</p>
 <p>1754 The second explanation is by Chrysostom.<a href="#_ftn9"
-name="_ftnref9">[9]</a>
-He says that Christ was ready to start with the first of the apostles, but
-Judas, the betrayer, in his foolishness and pride, pushed ahead of Peter. None
-of the others would have dared to go ahead of Peter. Thus the Evangelist is
-speaking of Judas when he says, <b>he began to wash the disciples' feet</b>,
-that is, the feet of Judas, who, as proud and foolish, would make no objection
-or refuse to allow what our Lord did. But when he came to Peter, who revered
-and loved his Teacher, Peter refused with awe and asked for an explanation. And
-any of the others would have done the same.
-
+name="_ftnref9" id="_ftnref9">[9]</a> He says that Christ was ready
+to start with the first of the apostles, but Judas, the betrayer,
+in his foolishness and pride, pushed ahead of Peter. None of the
+others would have dared to go ahead of Peter. Thus the Evangelist
+is speaking of Judas when he says, <b>he began to wash the
+disciples' feet</b>, that is, the feet of Judas, who, as proud and
+foolish, would make no objection or refuse to allow what our Lord
+did. But when he came to Peter, who revered and loved his Teacher,
+Peter refused with awe and asked for an explanation. And any of the
+others would have done the same.</p>
 <p>1755 The third explanation is by Augustine.<a href="#_ftn10"
-name="_ftnref10">[10]</a>
-He says the words of the Evangelist do not show that our Lord first washed the
-feet of the other disciples and then came to Peter. Rather, according to his
-custom, the Evangelist first mentions the incident and after that gives the
-order of events within in, just as he did in Chapter 6. So he first mentions
-the entire incident, that is, Christ washed the feet of his disciples; and
-then, if we should ask how this was done, he says that he came first to Simon
-Peter. And so he was the first to refuse, saying, <b>Lord, do you wash my feet?</b>
-
-<p>These words have great depth. He
-says, <b>Lord, do you</b>, who are the Son of the living God, <b>wash my feet</b>,
-who am Simon, the son of Jonah? <b>Lord, do you</b>, the Lamb without spot, the
-mirror without stain, and the brightness of eternal light, <b>do you wash my
-feet</b>, who am a sinner? "Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord" (Lk
-5:8). <b>Lord, do you</b>, who are the Creator, <b>wash my feet</b>, I who am a
-creature and of little faith? Peter said these things struck by awe at the
-realization of the dignity of Christ, as in "I have considered your works, and
-have feared" [Hab 1:3]. 
-
+name="_ftnref10" id="_ftnref10">[10]</a> He says the words of the
+Evangelist do not show that our Lord first washed the feet of the
+other disciples and then came to Peter. Rather, according to his
+custom, the Evangelist first mentions the incident and after that
+gives the order of events within in, just as he did in Chapter 6.
+So he first mentions the entire incident, that is, Christ washed
+the feet of his disciples; and then, if we should ask how this was
+done, he says that he came first to Simon Peter. And so he was the
+first to refuse, saying, <b>Lord, do you wash my feet?</b></p>
+<p>These words have great depth. He says, <b>Lord, do you</b>, who
+are the Son of the living God, <b>wash my feet</b>, who am Simon,
+the son of Jonah? <b>Lord, do you</b>, the Lamb without spot, the
+mirror without stain, and the brightness of eternal light, <b>do
+you wash my feet</b>, who am a sinner? "Depart from me, for I am a
+sinful man, O Lord" (Lk 5:8). <b>Lord, do you</b>, who are the
+Creator, <b>wash my feet</b>, I who am a creature and of little
+faith? Peter said these things struck by awe at the realization of
+the dignity of Christ, as in "I have considered your works, and
+have feared" [Hab 1:3].</p>
 <p>1756 Then (v 7), we see the words of Christ, which show that
-this action is a mystery. Christ said to Peter: <b>What I am doing you do not
-know now, but afterward you will understand</b>. This action is both an example
-and a mystery. It is an example of humility to be practiced: "For I have given
-you an example, that you also should do as I have done to you" (v 15) And it is
-a mystery because it signifies an interior cleansing: "He who has bathed does
-not need to wash, except for his feet" (v 10).
-
-<p>So what Christ said can be understood
-in two ways. In one way, <b>What I am doing you do not know now</b>, that is,
-you do not now understand that what I am doing is an example; <b>but afterward
-you will understand</b>, when he explained it to them saying: "Do you know what
-I have done to you?" (v 12). In another way, <b>What I am doing you do not know
-now</b>; that is to say, this is a mystery and something hidden, and it
-signifies an interior cleansing which only I can accomplish, and which you do
-not understand now, <b>but afterward you will understand</b>, when you receive
-the Holy Spirit: "I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear
-them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth"
-(16:12).
-
-<p>1757 Next, he shows that this action is necessary. First,
-the Evangelist mentions what Peter said which provoked Christ's answer;
-secondly, we see what Christ said.
-
+this action is a mystery. Christ said to Peter: <b>What I am doing
+you do not know now, but afterward you will understand</b>. This
+action is both an example and a mystery. It is an example of
+humility to be practiced: "For I have given you an example, that
+you also should do as I have done to you" (v 15) And it is a
+mystery because it signifies an interior cleansing: "He who has
+bathed does not need to wash, except for his feet" (v 10).</p>
+<p>So what Christ said can be understood in two ways. In one way,
+<b>What I am doing you do not know now</b>, that is, you do not now
+understand that what I am doing is an example; <b>but afterward you
+will understand</b>, when he explained it to them saying: "Do you
+know what I have done to you?" (v 12). In another way, <b>What I am
+doing you do not know now</b>; that is to say, this is a mystery
+and something hidden, and it signifies an interior cleansing which
+only I can accomplish, and which you do not understand now, <b>but
+afterward you will understand</b>, when you receive the Holy
+Spirit: "I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear
+them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into
+all the truth" (16:12).</p>
+<p>1757 Next, he shows that this action is necessary. First, the
+Evangelist mentions what Peter said which provoked Christ's answer;
+secondly, we see what Christ said.</p>
 <p>1758 Peter says, <b>You shall never wash my feet</b>. He is
-saying in effect: By no means will I submit to this from my Teacher, my Lord
-and my God. And although Peter said this out of zeal, it was an imprudent and
-disordered zeal: "They have a zeal for God, but it is not enlightened" (Rom
-10:2). His zeal was disordered for three reasons. He refused something that was
-beneficial and necessary; for as we read: "We do not know how to pray as we
-ought" (Rom 8:26). And so it is imprudent to refuse what God gives us, even if
-it seems disadvantageous. Paul too asked to be freed from his thorn (2 Cor
-12:8), yet it was for his benefit. Again, it seemed to indicate a certain
-disrespect for Christ by wanting to go against his plans. Finally, it seemed to
-disparage his companions in that the others, according to Origen, yielded to
-Christ without an argument, while Peter refused, saying, <b>You shall never
-wash my feet</b>.<a href="#_ftn11" name="_ftnref11">[11]</a>
-
-
-<p>1759 Our Lord reproved him, saying, <b>If I do not wash you,
-you have not part in me</b>. This statement can refer to two things: to the
-action that Christ was performing, or to what the action signified. 
-
-<p>If we refer it to what the action
-signified, the meaning is clear. For no one can share in the eternal
-inheritance and be a joint heir with Christ unless he is spiritually clean, for
-we read: "But nothing unclean shall enter it" (Rev 21:27). And in the Psalm
-(15:1) it says: "O Lord, who shall sojourn in thy tent?" And the answer is
-given: "He who walks blamelessly." Therefore, it is like he was saying: <b>If I
-do not wash you</b>, you will not be clean; and if you are not clean, <b>you
-have no part in me</b>.
-
-<p>But if we refer this statement to
-the action itself, then it can be asked if this washing was necessary for
-salvation. We can say to this that just as some things are forbidden because
-they are evil, and some things are evil because they are forbidden, so some
-things are commanded because they are necessary, and some things are necessary
-because they are commanded. And so this washing, about which our Lord said, <b>If
-I do not wash you, you have no part in me</b>, if considered in itself, was not
-necessary for salvation. But on the supposition that it was commanded by
-Christ, then it was necessary: "To obey is better than sacrifice," and so
-"stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry" (1 Sam 15:22-23).
-
+saying in effect: By no means will I submit to this from my
+Teacher, my Lord and my God. And although Peter said this out of
+zeal, it was an imprudent and disordered zeal: "They have a zeal
+for God, but it is not enlightened" (Rom 10:2). His zeal was
+disordered for three reasons. He refused something that was
+beneficial and necessary; for as we read: "We do not know how to
+pray as we ought" (Rom 8:26). And so it is imprudent to refuse what
+God gives us, even if it seems disadvantageous. Paul too asked to
+be freed from his thorn (2 Cor 12:8), yet it was for his benefit.
+Again, it seemed to indicate a certain disrespect for Christ by
+wanting to go against his plans. Finally, it seemed to disparage
+his companions in that the others, according to Origen, yielded to
+Christ without an argument, while Peter refused, saying, <b>You
+shall never wash my feet</b>.<a href="#_ftn11" name="_ftnref11" id=
+"_ftnref11">[11]</a></p>
+<p>1759 Our Lord reproved him, saying, <b>If I do not wash you, you
+have not part in me</b>. This statement can refer to two things: to
+the action that Christ was performing, or to what the action
+signified.</p>
+<p>If we refer it to what the action signified, the meaning is
+clear. For no one can share in the eternal inheritance and be a
+joint heir with Christ unless he is spiritually clean, for we read:
+"But nothing unclean shall enter it" (Rev 21:27). And in the Psalm
+(15:1) it says: "O Lord, who shall sojourn in thy tent?" And the
+answer is given: "He who walks blamelessly." Therefore, it is like
+he was saying: <b>If I do not wash you</b>, you will not be clean;
+and if you are not clean, <b>you have no part in me</b>.</p>
+<p>But if we refer this statement to the action itself, then it can
+be asked if this washing was necessary for salvation. We can say to
+this that just as some things are forbidden because they are evil,
+and some things are evil because they are forbidden, so some things
+are commanded because they are necessary, and some things are
+necessary because they are commanded. And so this washing, about
+which our Lord said, <b>If I do not wash you, you have no part in
+me</b>, if considered in itself, was not necessary for salvation.
+But on the supposition that it was commanded by Christ, then it was
+necessary: "To obey is better than sacrifice," and so "stubbornness
+is as iniquity and idolatry" (1 Sam 15:22-23).</p>
 <p>1760 Then the Evangelist shows the action was appropriate.
-First, the words of Peter are given; and then Christ's answer.
-
-<p>1761 Peter's words indicate his intense love for Christ.
-Before, when our Lord said to him, <b>What I am doing you do not know now</b>,
-he had intimated that it would be useful; yet Peter paid no attention to this,
-and could not be persuaded to have his feet washed. But when our Lord warned
-him it would mean they would no longer be together, saying,<b> you have no part
-in me</b>, Peter offered more than just his feet, saying, <b>Lord, not my feet
-only, but also my hands and my head! </b>For Peter was frightened by this
-answer, and affected by love and fear, he offered all of himself for washing.
-Clement tells us in his <i>Itinerary</i> that Peter was so touched by the
-physical presence of Christ, whom he had loved so intensely, that after the
-ascension, when he recalled the sweetness of Christ's presence, and his holy
-manner, he wept so much that his cheeks appeared to be furrowed.<a
-href="#_ftn12" name="_ftnref12">[12]</a>
-
-<p>1762 We may note that there are three things in a person:
-the head at the top, the feet at the bottom, and the hands in the middle. The
-same is true for the inner person, that is, for the soul. There is the head,
-which is the higher reason, by which the soul adheres to God. "The head of a
-woman is her husband" (1 Cor 4:4), that is, the higher reason. The hands are
-the lower reason, which is concerned with the works of the active life. Finally,
-the feet are the sensuality.  Now our Lord knew that his disciples were clean
-as to their head, because they had been united to God by faith and charity; and
-their hands were clean because their works were holy. But as to their feet,
-they still retained some affection for earthly things in their sensuality. And
-so Peter, anxious because of our Lord's warning, agrees not only to have his
-feet washed, but also his hands and head, saying, <b>Lord, not my feet only but
-also my hands and my head</b>. It was like saying: I do not know if my hands
-and feet need washing - "I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am
-not thereby acquitted" (1 Cor 4:4) - and so I am ready to wash <b>not my feet
-only</b>, that is, my lower affections - "I had bathed my feet, how could I
-soil them?" (Song 5:3) - <b>but also my hands</b>, that is, my works - "I will
-wash my hands among the innocent" [26:6] - <b>and my head</b>, that is, my
-higher reason - "Wash your face" (Mt 6:17).
-
-<p>1763 Then (v 10), the Evangelist gives our Lord's answer.
-First, our Lord states a general principle; secondly, he applies it to this
-situation; and thirdly, the Evangelist explains these words of Christ.
-
+First, the words of Peter are given; and then Christ's answer.</p>
+<p>1761 Peter's words indicate his intense love for Christ. Before,
+when our Lord said to him, <b>What I am doing you do not know
+now</b>, he had intimated that it would be useful; yet Peter paid
+no attention to this, and could not be persuaded to have his feet
+washed. But when our Lord warned him it would mean they would no
+longer be together, saying, <b>you have no part in me</b>, Peter
+offered more than just his feet, saying, <b>Lord, not my feet only,
+but also my hands and my head!</b> For Peter was frightened by this
+answer, and affected by love and fear, he offered all of himself
+for washing. Clement tells us in his <i>Itinerary</i> that Peter
+was so touched by the physical presence of Christ, whom he had
+loved so intensely, that after the ascension, when he recalled the
+sweetness of Christ's presence, and his holy manner, he wept so
+much that his cheeks appeared to be furrowed.<a href="#_ftn12"
+name="_ftnref12" id="_ftnref12">[12]</a></p>
+<p>1762 We may note that there are three things in a person: the
+head at the top, the feet at the bottom, and the hands in the
+middle. The same is true for the inner person, that is, for the
+soul. There is the head, which is the higher reason, by which the
+soul adheres to God. "The head of a woman is her husband" (1 Cor
+4:4), that is, the higher reason. The hands are the lower reason,
+which is concerned with the works of the active life. Finally, the
+feet are the sensuality. Now our Lord knew that his disciples were
+clean as to their head, because they had been united to God by
+faith and charity; and their hands were clean because their works
+were holy. But as to their feet, they still retained some affection
+for earthly things in their sensuality. And so Peter, anxious
+because of our Lord's warning, agrees not only to have his feet
+washed, but also his hands and head, saying, <b>Lord, not my feet
+only but also my hands and my head</b>. It was like saying: I do
+not know if my hands and feet need washing - "I am not aware of
+anything against myself, but I am not thereby acquitted" (1 Cor
+4:4) - and so I am ready to wash <b>not my feet only</b>, that is,
+my lower affections - "I had bathed my feet, how could I soil
+them?" (Song 5:3) - <b>but also my hands</b>, that is, my works -
+"I will wash my hands among the innocent" [26:6] - <b>and my
+head</b>, that is, my higher reason - "Wash your face" (Mt
+6:17).</p>
+<p>1763 Then (v 10), the Evangelist gives our Lord's answer. First,
+our Lord states a general principle; secondly, he applies it to
+this situation; and thirdly, the Evangelist explains these words of
+Christ.</p>
 <p>1764 He says at first, <b>he who has bathed does not need to
-wash, except for his feet, but he is clean all over</b>, except for his feet,
-which touch the earth. We understand from this that the apostles had already
-been baptized. For he says, <b>he who has bathed</b>, and then adds, <b>and you
-are clean</b>, that is, because they had been baptized.
-
-<p>1765 Some say they had been baptized only with the baptism
-of John. But this does not seem to be true, because then they would not have
-bathed, because the baptism of John did not cleanse within from guilt. And so
-it should be said, according to Augustine, that they had been baptized with the
-baptism of Christ.<a href="#_ftn13" name="_ftnref13">[13]</a>
-If you object that Christ did not baptize but only his disciples, as was stated
-above (4:2), I say that he did not baptize the crowds, but only his disciples
-and those he knew well.
-
-<p>But since baptism cleanses even the
-stains from the feet, it seems that one who has bathed, that is, is baptized,
-does not need to wash his feet. I answer that if they had left this world
-immediately after their baptism, they would have had no need for this washing,
-for since they would be entirely clean, they would go to God at once. But those
-who live in this world after their baptism cannot reach such perfection that
-disordered movement of the sensuality in regard to earthly affections never
-arise. And so it is necessary that they wash their feet either by martyrdom,
-which is a baptism of blood, or by repentance, which is a baptism of fire, so
-that they can return to God.
-
-<p>1766 Then when he says, <b>you are clean, but not all of you</b>,
-our Lord applies this general principle to the situation. But if they were
-clean, why did our Lord wash them again? Augustine says their hands and heads
-were clean, but that their feet needed washing.<a href="#_ftn14"
-name="_ftnref14">[14]</a>
-Chrysostom says that they were not absolutely clean, because they had not yet
-been cleansed from original sin: for since Christ had not yet suffered, the
-price of our redemption had not yet been paid - but they were clean in a
-limited sense, that is, from the errors of the Jews.<a href="#_ftn15"
-name="_ftnref15">[15]</a>
-Origen says that they were clean, but that a further cleansing was needed, for
-reason should always aspire to better gifts, always strive for the heights of
-virtue, and glow with the brightness of righteousness: "He who is holy, let him
-be sanctified further" [Rev 22:11]. <b>But not all of you</b>, because one of
-them was dirty both in hands and head.<a href="#_ftn16" name="_ftnref16"
-title="">[16]</a>
-
-<p>1767 This is why the Evangelist says, <b>for he knew who was
-to betray him</b>. He is saying that Christ said, <b>but not all of you</b>,
-because he knew the uncleanness of Judas the betrayer. In general, there are
-two things which cleans a person: alms and compassion for the poor - "Give alms
-and then all things are clean for you" [Lk 11:41] - and love for God - "her
-sins, which are many, are forgiven, for she loved much" (Lk 7:47); "love covers
-all offenses" (Prv 10:12). But Judas lacks these two things. He lacked
-compassion because he was a thief and, holding the money, he stole the alms of
-the poor. He also lacked love for Christ, because the devil had already put it
-into this heart to betray Christ to the chief priests to be crucified.
-<BR><BR><BR>
-<p align=center><b>LECTURE 3
-<BLOCKQUOTE><p>12 When he had washed their feet, and taken his garments,
-and resumed his place [again], he said to them, "Do you know what I have done
-to you? 13 You call me Teacher and Lord; and you are right, for so I am. 14 If
-I then, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash
-one another's feet. 15 For I have given you an example, that you also should do
-as I have done to you. 16 Truly, truly, I say to you, a servant is not greater
-than his master; nor is he who is sent greater than he who sent him. 17 If you
-know these things, blessed are you if you do them. 18 I am not speaking of you
-all; I know whom I have chosen; it is that the scripture may be fulfilled, 'He
-who ate my bread has lifted his heel against me.' 19 I tell you this now,
-before it takes place, that when it does take place you may believe that I am
-he. 20 Truly, truly, I say to you, he who receives anyone whom I send receives
-me; and he who receives me receives he who sent me."<a href="#_ftn17"
-name="_ftnref17">[17]</b></a></BLOCKQUOTE>
-
+wash, except for his feet, but he is clean all over</b>, except for
+his feet, which touch the earth. We understand from this that the
+apostles had already been baptized. For he says, <b>he who has
+bathed</b>, and then adds, <b>and you are clean</b>, that is,
+because they had been baptized.</p>
+<p>1765 Some say they had been baptized only with the baptism of
+John. But this does not seem to be true, because then they would
+not have bathed, because the baptism of John did not cleanse within
+from guilt. And so it should be said, according to Augustine, that
+they had been baptized with the baptism of Christ.<a href="#_ftn13"
+name="_ftnref13" id="_ftnref13">[13]</a> If you object that Christ
+did not baptize but only his disciples, as was stated above (4:2),
+I say that he did not baptize the crowds, but only his disciples
+and those he knew well.</p>
+<p>But since baptism cleanses even the stains from the feet, it
+seems that one who has bathed, that is, is baptized, does not need
+to wash his feet. I answer that if they had left this world
+immediately after their baptism, they would have had no need for
+this washing, for since they would be entirely clean, they would go
+to God at once. But those who live in this world after their
+baptism cannot reach such perfection that disordered movement of
+the sensuality in regard to earthly affections never arise. And so
+it is necessary that they wash their feet either by martyrdom,
+which is a baptism of blood, or by repentance, which is a baptism
+of fire, so that they can return to God.</p>
+<p>1766 Then when he says, <b>you are clean, but not all of
+you</b>, our Lord applies this general principle to the situation.
+But if they were clean, why did our Lord wash them again? Augustine
+says their hands and heads were clean, but that their feet needed
+washing.<a href="#_ftn14" name="_ftnref14" id="_ftnref14">[14]</a>
+Chrysostom says that they were not absolutely clean, because they
+had not yet been cleansed from original sin: for since Christ had
+not yet suffered, the price of our redemption had not yet been paid
+- but they were clean in a limited sense, that is, from the errors
+of the Jews.<a href="#_ftn15" name="_ftnref15" id=
+"_ftnref15">[15]</a> Origen says that they were clean, but that a
+further cleansing was needed, for reason should always aspire to
+better gifts, always strive for the heights of virtue, and glow
+with the brightness of righteousness: "He who is holy, let him be
+sanctified further" [Rev 22:11]. <b>But not all of you</b>, because
+one of them was dirty both in hands and head.<a href="#_ftn16"
+name="_ftnref16" title="" id="_ftnref16">[16]</a></p>
+<p>1767 This is why the Evangelist says, <b>for he knew who was to
+betray him</b>. He is saying that Christ said, <b>but not all of
+you</b>, because he knew the uncleanness of Judas the betrayer. In
+general, there are two things which cleans a person: alms and
+compassion for the poor - "Give alms and then all things are clean
+for you" [Lk 11:41] - and love for God - "her sins, which are many,
+are forgiven, for she loved much" (Lk 7:47); "love covers all
+offenses" (Prv 10:12). But Judas lacks these two things. He lacked
+compassion because he was a thief and, holding the money, he stole
+the alms of the poor. He also lacked love for Christ, because the
+devil had already put it into this heart to betray Christ to the
+chief priests to be crucified.<br />
+<br />
+<br /></p>
+<p align="center"><b>LECTURE 3</b></p>
+<blockquote>
+<p><b>12 When he had washed their feet, and taken his garments, and
+resumed his place [again], he said to them, "Do you know what I
+have done to you? 13 You call me Teacher and Lord; and you are
+right, for so I am. 14 If I then, your Lord and Teacher, have
+washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another's feet. 15 For
+I have given you an example, that you also should do as I have done
+to you. 16 Truly, truly, I say to you, a servant is not greater
+than his master; nor is he who is sent greater than he who sent
+him. 17 If you know these things, blessed are you if you do them.
+18 I am not speaking of you all; I know whom I have chosen; it is
+that the scripture may be fulfilled, 'He who ate my bread has
+lifted his heel against me.' 19 I tell you this now, before it
+takes place, that when it does take place you may believe that I am
+he. 20 Truly, truly, I say to you, he who receives anyone whom I
+send receives me; and he who receives me receives he who sent
+me."<a href="#_ftn17" name="_ftnref17" id=
+"_ftnref17">[17]</a></b></p>
+</blockquote>
 <p>1768 After our Lord showed that his humble service was
-necessary, he then urges that it be imitated. First, the Evangelist describes
-the circumstances of this exhortation; secondly, he mentions the exhortation
-itself (v 12b). Concerning the first he does two things: first, he mentions the
-sequence in this exhortation; secondly, he describes the one giving the
-exhortation (v 12a).
-
-<p>1769 The sequence found in this exhortation is that Christ
-later taught in words what he had first done by his actions. In regard to this
-he says, <b>When he had washed their feet</b>: "Jesus began to do and teach"
-(Acts 1:1): "He who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the
-kingdom of heaven" (Mt 5:19).
-
-<p>1770 He describes the one giving the exhortation by his
-clothing and posture. As to his clothing, different clothing is suitable to
-different people depending on the different activities appropriate to each: "A
-man's attire…shows what he is" (Sir 19:30). One sort of attire is suitable for
-a servant, and another for a teacher. Now because a servant must be ready to
-serve, he does not have any superfluous clothing; and so Christ, when he wished
-to serve, "rose from supper, laid aside his garments." And a teacher, who
-should be serious and of great authority, ought also to be suitably dressed.
-Thus our Lord, when beginning to teach, had <b>taken his garments</b>.
-
-<p>As to his posture: when Christ
-began to serve he rose; he says that Christ "rose from supper." But now, about
-to teach, he reclines; he says, <b>he resumed his place again, he said to them</b>.
-The reason for this is that teaching should be done in an atmosphere or
-serenity, and it is by sitting and being quiet that the soul becomes wise and
-discerning.
-
+necessary, he then urges that it be imitated. First, the Evangelist
+describes the circumstances of this exhortation; secondly, he
+mentions the exhortation itself (v 12b). Concerning the first he
+does two things: first, he mentions the sequence in this
+exhortation; secondly, he describes the one giving the exhortation
+(v 12a).</p>
+<p>1769 The sequence found in this exhortation is that Christ later
+taught in words what he had first done by his actions. In regard to
+this he says, <b>When he had washed their feet</b>: "Jesus began to
+do and teach" (Acts 1:1): "He who does them and teaches them shall
+be called great in the kingdom of heaven" (Mt 5:19).</p>
+<p>1770 He describes the one giving the exhortation by his clothing
+and posture. As to his clothing, different clothing is suitable to
+different people depending on the different activities appropriate
+to each: "A man's attire&hellip;shows what he is" (Sir 19:30). One
+sort of attire is suitable for a servant, and another for a
+teacher. Now because a servant must be ready to serve, he does not
+have any superfluous clothing; and so Christ, when he wished to
+serve, "rose from supper, laid aside his garments." And a teacher,
+who should be serious and of great authority, ought also to be
+suitably dressed. Thus our Lord, when beginning to teach, had
+<b>taken his garments</b>.</p>
+<p>As to his posture: when Christ began to serve he rose; he says
+that Christ "rose from supper." But now, about to teach, he
+reclines; he says, <b>he resumed his place again, he said to
+them</b>. The reason for this is that teaching should be done in an
+atmosphere or serenity, and it is by sitting and being quiet that
+the soul becomes wise and discerning.</p>
 <p>1771 Three events here are able to indicate mysteries. When
-Christ sends the Holy Spirit to his disciples he will be giving them complete
-teaching: "But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my
-name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I
-have said to you" (14:26). But three things are to take place before the Spirit
-is sent. First, their sins are to be washed away by his passion: "He washed us
-from our sins in his own blood" [Rev 1:5]. In reference to this he says, <b>when
-he had washed their feet</b>, that is, completely cleansed them by his blood.
-Secondly, there is the resurrection of Christ. Christ had a mortal body before
-his passion, but he was not mortal because he was, as a person, the Son or God;
-his mortality was due to the human nature he assumed. But after he rose from
-the dead by the power of his divinity, he took on bodily immortality. And in
-reference to this he says, he had <b>taken his garments</b>, that is, he arose
-immortal. He says <b>his garments</b> because he did this by his own power:
-"The life he lives he lives to God," that is, by the power of God (Rom 6:10).
-We read of these garments: "He who conquers shall be clad thus in white
-garments, and I will not blot his name out of the book of life" (Rev 3:5).
-Also, before the Spirit is sent, Christ is to be seated [next to the Father]
-after his ascension: "If I do not go away, the Counselor will not come to you"
-(16:7). And referring to this he says, <b>and resumed his place again</b>, that
-is, remaining and sitting at the right hand of the Father: "The Lord Jesus,
-after he had spoken to them, was taken up into the heaven, and sat down at the
-right hand of God" (Mk 16:19). He says, <b>again</b>, not because as the Son of
-God he had ever ceased to sit with the Father, for he is in the bosom of the
-Father from all eternity, but because as man he was raised to the greater goods
-of the Father: "Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the
-name which is above every name" (Phil 2:9).
-
-<p>And so, before sending into them
-the Holy Spirit, who would perfectly teach them, Christ would wash them with
-the blood he shed; take up his garments by rising; and resume his place by
-ascending in glory.
-
-<p>1772 Next (v 12b), he gives his exhortation. First, he asks
-a question; secondly, he accepts their acknowledgement; thirdly, he draws a
-conclusion from this; fourthly, he confirms this conclusion.
-
-<p>1773 Christ questions them when he says, <b>Do you know what
-I have done to you? </b>This means: You have seen what I have done, but you do
-not know why I did it. And he asks them in this way in order to show the
-greatness of his action and to prompt them to reflect on it. For we should
-meditate on the works of God because they are profound: "How great are thy
-works, O Lord! Thy thoughts are very deep" (Ps 92:5). We can barely know the
-works of God: "Then I saw all the works of God, that man cannot find out the
-work that is done under the sun" (Eccl 8:17). Yet it is still a delight to
-think about them: "For thou O Lord, hast made me glad by thy work; at the work
-of thy hands I sing for joy" (Ps 92:4). Further, these works are helpful,
-because they lead us to a knowledge of their author: "For from the greatness
-and beauty of created things comes a corresponding perception of their Creator"
-(Wis 13:5); "These very works which I am doing, bear me witness" (5:36).
-
-<p>According to Origen, this statement
-can be rendered as, <b>Know what I have done to you</b>.<a href="#_ftn18"
-name="_ftnref18">[18]</a>
-In this way, it has an imperative sense, as if Christ were saying: You ought to
-understand what I have done to you. In this interpretation our Lord said this
-to rouse their understanding.
-
+Christ sends the Holy Spirit to his disciples he will be giving
+them complete teaching: "But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom
+the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and
+bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you" (14:26). But
+three things are to take place before the Spirit is sent. First,
+their sins are to be washed away by his passion: "He washed us from
+our sins in his own blood" [Rev 1:5]. In reference to this he says,
+<b>when he had washed their feet</b>, that is, completely cleansed
+them by his blood. Secondly, there is the resurrection of Christ.
+Christ had a mortal body before his passion, but he was not mortal
+because he was, as a person, the Son or God; his mortality was due
+to the human nature he assumed. But after he rose from the dead by
+the power of his divinity, he took on bodily immortality. And in
+reference to this he says, he had <b>taken his garments</b>, that
+is, he arose immortal. He says <b>his garments</b> because he did
+this by his own power: "The life he lives he lives to God," that
+is, by the power of God (Rom 6:10). We read of these garments: "He
+who conquers shall be clad thus in white garments, and I will not
+blot his name out of the book of life" (Rev 3:5). Also, before the
+Spirit is sent, Christ is to be seated [next to the Father] after
+his ascension: "If I do not go away, the Counselor will not come to
+you" (16:7). And referring to this he says, <b>and resumed his
+place again</b>, that is, remaining and sitting at the right hand
+of the Father: "The Lord Jesus, after he had spoken to them, was
+taken up into the heaven, and sat down at the right hand of God"
+(Mk 16:19). He says, <b>again</b>, not because as the Son of God he
+had ever ceased to sit with the Father, for he is in the bosom of
+the Father from all eternity, but because as man he was raised to
+the greater goods of the Father: "Therefore God has highly exalted
+him and bestowed on him the name which is above every name" (Phil
+2:9).</p>
+<p>And so, before sending into them the Holy Spirit, who would
+perfectly teach them, Christ would wash them with the blood he
+shed; take up his garments by rising; and resume his place by
+ascending in glory.</p>
+<p>1772 Next (v 12b), he gives his exhortation. First, he asks a
+question; secondly, he accepts their acknowledgement; thirdly, he
+draws a conclusion from this; fourthly, he confirms this
+conclusion.</p>
+<p>1773 Christ questions them when he says, <b>Do you know what I
+have done to you?</b> This means: You have seen what I have done,
+but you do not know why I did it. And he asks them in this way in
+order to show the greatness of his action and to prompt them to
+reflect on it. For we should meditate on the works of God because
+they are profound: "How great are thy works, O Lord! Thy thoughts
+are very deep" (Ps 92:5). We can barely know the works of God:
+"Then I saw all the works of God, that man cannot find out the work
+that is done under the sun" (Eccl 8:17). Yet it is still a delight
+to think about them: "For thou O Lord, hast made me glad by thy
+work; at the work of thy hands I sing for joy" (Ps 92:4). Further,
+these works are helpful, because they lead us to a knowledge of
+their author: "For from the greatness and beauty of created things
+comes a corresponding perception of their Creator" (Wis 13:5);
+"These very works which I am doing, bear me witness" (5:36).</p>
+<p>According to Origen, this statement can be rendered as, <b>Know
+what I have done to you</b>.<a href="#_ftn18" name="_ftnref18" id=
+"_ftnref18">[18]</a> In this way, it has an imperative sense, as if
+Christ were saying: You ought to understand what I have done to
+you. In this interpretation our Lord said this to rouse their
+understanding.</p>
 <p>1774 Our Lord accepts their acknowledgment, <b>You call me
-Teacher and Lord</b>. He mentions what they acknowledge; and than he approves
-of it.
-
+Teacher and Lord</b>. He mentions what they acknowledge; and than
+he approves of it.</p>
 <p>1775 As to the first, we should note that in 1 Corinthians
-(1:24), the Apostle says two things about Christ: he is the power of God and
-the wisdom of God. As the power of God, he rules all things, for as Ambrose
-says, the word "Lord" is a name of power.<a href="#_ftn19" name="_ftnref19"
-title="">[19]</a>
-As the wisdom of God he teaches everyone. Thus the disciples called him <b>Lord
-</b>- "Lord, to whom shall we go?" (6:68) - <b>and Teacher </b>- "Rabbi, eat"
-(4:31). And with good reason. For he is the Lord, who alone creates and
-restores: "Know that the Lord is God!" (Ps 100:3). And he is the only Teacher
-who teaches from within: "You have one master, the Christ" (Mt 23:10).
-
-<p>1776 When he says, <b>and you are right</b>, he approves
-their acknowledgement. Here we should note that something which is spoken can
-be commendable for two reasons. First, because what is said is in harmony with
-the thing about which it is said; and this happens if what is said is true, for
-if it is false, it does not harmonize with the thing. So it is well said:
-"Therefore, putting away falsehood, let every one speak the truth" (Eph 4:25).
-For lies must be avoided to such an extent that even if it seems that they lead
-to the glory of God, they should not be spoken. In reference to this point he
-says, <b>and you are right</b>; because what you say is true, for it applies to
-me, <b>for so I am</b>, Teacher and Lord. I am the Teacher because of the
-wisdom I teach by my words; I am the Lord because of the power I show in my
-miracles.
-
-<p>Secondly, what is spoken can be commendable
-because it is in harmony with the person speaking. There are some who call
-Christ Teacher and Lord, but it is not in harmony with themselves, for they do
-not defer to the teaching and commands of God; and such people do not speak
-rightly. So to those who say, "Lord, Lord, open to us," the answer is given,
-"Truly, I say to you, I do not know you" (Mt 25:11), because they are not
-speaking from their hearts, but only with their lips. But the apostles spoke
-rightly, because it was in agreement with themselves. And so Christ replied, <b>and
-you are right</b>, that is, you are speaking the truth, <b>for so I am</b>,
-that is, for you I am the Teacher and the Lord, for you listen to me as Teacher
-- "To whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life" (6:6) - and you
-follow me as Lord - "Lo, we have left everything and followed you" (Mt 19:27).
-
+(1:24), the Apostle says two things about Christ: he is the power
+of God and the wisdom of God. As the power of God, he rules all
+things, for as Ambrose says, the word "Lord" is a name of
+power.<a href="#_ftn19" name="_ftnref19" title="" id=
+"_ftnref19">[19]</a> As the wisdom of God he teaches everyone. Thus
+the disciples called him <b>Lord</b> - "Lord, to whom shall we go?"
+(6:68) - <b>and Teacher</b> - "Rabbi, eat" (4:31). And with good
+reason. For he is the Lord, who alone creates and restores: "Know
+that the Lord is God!" (Ps 100:3). And he is the only Teacher who
+teaches from within: "You have one master, the Christ" (Mt
+23:10).</p>
+<p>1776 When he says, <b>and you are right</b>, he approves their
+acknowledgement. Here we should note that something which is spoken
+can be commendable for two reasons. First, because what is said is
+in harmony with the thing about which it is said; and this happens
+if what is said is true, for if it is false, it does not harmonize
+with the thing. So it is well said: "Therefore, putting away
+falsehood, let every one speak the truth" (Eph 4:25). For lies must
+be avoided to such an extent that even if it seems that they lead
+to the glory of God, they should not be spoken. In reference to
+this point he says, <b>and you are right</b>; because what you say
+is true, for it applies to me, <b>for so I am</b>, Teacher and
+Lord. I am the Teacher because of the wisdom I teach by my words; I
+am the Lord because of the power I show in my miracles.</p>
+<p>Secondly, what is spoken can be commendable because it is in
+harmony with the person speaking. There are some who call Christ
+Teacher and Lord, but it is not in harmony with themselves, for
+they do not defer to the teaching and commands of God; and such
+people do not speak rightly. So to those who say, "Lord, Lord, open
+to us," the answer is given, "Truly, I say to you, I do not know
+you" (Mt 25:11), because they are not speaking from their hearts,
+but only with their lips. But the apostles spoke rightly, because
+it was in agreement with themselves. And so Christ replied, <b>and
+you are right</b>, that is, you are speaking the truth, <b>for so I
+am</b>, that is, for you I am the Teacher and the Lord, for you
+listen to me as Teacher - "To whom shall we go? You have the words
+of eternal life" (6:6) - and you follow me as Lord - "Lo, we have
+left everything and followed you" (Mt 19:27).</p>
 <p>1777 This seems to conflict with the statement in Proverbs
-(27:2): "Let another praise you, and not your own mouth." It seems, therefore,
-that it was not right for our Lord to praise himself. Augustine answers this in
-two ways.<a href="#_ftn20" name="_ftnref20">[20]</a>
-First, it is wrong for a person to commend himself because of the danger of
-becoming proud: because if one is inclined to pride, it is dangerous for him to
-be pleased with himself. When there is no danger of pride, self-praise is not
-wrong. This danger was not to be feared in Christ, for if one is above
-everything, then no matter how much he praises himself, he does not commend
-himself too much.
-
-<p>Augustine also says that sometimes
-it is good that a person commends himself, as when this is beneficial to
-others.<a href="#_ftn21" name="_ftnref21">[21]</a>
-The Apostle commended himself this way to the Corinthians (2 Cor 11). Now for
-us to know God is very beneficial and necessary in every way, for our entire
-perfection lies in this. Thus it was a benefit for us that he reveal his
-greatness to us, for how could we know it if it were not shown to us by the one
-who knows. Thus it was necessary that Christ commend himself to us, for as
-Augustine says, if he did not praise himself in order to avoid seeming
-arrogant, he would be depriving us of wisdom: "Wisdom will praise herself" (Sir
-24:1).
-
-<p>1778 He draws the conclusion when he says, <b>If I then,
-your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one
-another's feet</b>. He is arguing here from what is less [expected] to what is
-more [expected]. For it seems less [expected] that one who is greater humble
-himself than one who is not as great. And with this in mind he concludes, <b>If
-I then</b>, who am greater, because I am <b>your Lord and Teacher, have washed
-your feet</b>, then <b>you</b> who are not as great, because you are disciples
-and servants,<b> ought</b>, far more than I, <b>to wash one another's feet</b>:
-"Whoever would be great among you must be your servant…even as the Son of man
-came not to be served but to serve" (Mt 20:26).
-
+(27:2): "Let another praise you, and not your own mouth." It seems,
+therefore, that it was not right for our Lord to praise himself.
+Augustine answers this in two ways.<a href="#_ftn20" name=
+"_ftnref20" id="_ftnref20">[20]</a> First, it is wrong for a person
+to commend himself because of the danger of becoming proud: because
+if one is inclined to pride, it is dangerous for him to be pleased
+with himself. When there is no danger of pride, self-praise is not
+wrong. This danger was not to be feared in Christ, for if one is
+above everything, then no matter how much he praises himself, he
+does not commend himself too much.</p>
+<p>Augustine also says that sometimes it is good that a person
+commends himself, as when this is beneficial to others.<a href=
+"#_ftn21" name="_ftnref21" id="_ftnref21">[21]</a> The Apostle
+commended himself this way to the Corinthians (2 Cor 11). Now for
+us to know God is very beneficial and necessary in every way, for
+our entire perfection lies in this. Thus it was a benefit for us
+that he reveal his greatness to us, for how could we know it if it
+were not shown to us by the one who knows. Thus it was necessary
+that Christ commend himself to us, for as Augustine says, if he did
+not praise himself in order to avoid seeming arrogant, he would be
+depriving us of wisdom: "Wisdom will praise herself" (Sir
+24:1).</p>
+<p>1778 He draws the conclusion when he says, <b>If I then, your
+Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one
+another's feet</b>. He is arguing here from what is less [expected]
+to what is more [expected]. For it seems less [expected] that one
+who is greater humble himself than one who is not as great. And
+with this in mind he concludes, <b>If I then</b>, who am greater,
+because I am <b>your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet</b>,
+then <b>you</b> who are not as great, because you are disciples and
+servants, <b>ought</b>, far more than I, <b>to wash one another's
+feet</b>: "Whoever would be great among you must be your
+servant&hellip;even as the Son of man came not to be served but to
+serve" (Mt 20:26).</p>
 <p>1779 It seems that the statement, <b>you ought to wash one
-another's feet</b>, is a precept. And one who neglects a precept sins in a
-serious way. Therefore, [it is a serious sin not to wash the feet of others]. I
-reply, according to Augustine, that every one should wash the feet of others,
-either in a physical or spiritual way.<a href="#_ftn22" name="_ftnref22"
-title="">[22]</a>
-And it is much better, and true beyond argument, that one should do this in a
-physical way, so that a Christian will not consider it beneath him to do what
-Christ did. For when a person stoops down to the feet of his neighbor, humility
-is awakened in his heart, or if already there it is made stronger.
-
-<p>If one cannot do this in a physical
-way, it should at least be done in one's heart. When feet are washed, their
-stains are washed away. So we wash the feet of our neighbors in a spiritual way
-when, as far as we can, we wash away their moral stains. This is done in three
-ways. The first way is by forgiving their offenses, as in "And if one has a
-complaint against another, forgiving each other; as the Lord has forgiven you,
-so you also must forgive" (Col 3:13). Another way is by praying because of
-their sins, according to "Pray for one another, that you may be healed" (Jas
-5:16). These two kinds of washing can be done by all the faithful. The third
-way belongs to prelates, who ought to wash by forgiving sins by the power of
-the keys: "Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are
-forgiven" (20:22). 
-
-<p>We can also say that by this action
-our Lord pointed out all the works of mercy. For one who gives bread to the
-hungry washes his feet, as does one who practices hospitality, or gives food to
-one in need; and so on for the other works. "Contribute to the needs of the
-saints" (Rom 12:13).
-
+another's feet</b>, is a precept. And one who neglects a precept
+sins in a serious way. Therefore, [it is a serious sin not to wash
+the feet of others]. I reply, according to Augustine, that every
+one should wash the feet of others, either in a physical or
+spiritual way.<a href="#_ftn22" name="_ftnref22" title="" id=
+"_ftnref22">[22]</a> And it is much better, and true beyond
+argument, that one should do this in a physical way, so that a
+Christian will not consider it beneath him to do what Christ did.
+For when a person stoops down to the feet of his neighbor, humility
+is awakened in his heart, or if already there it is made
+stronger.</p>
+<p>If one cannot do this in a physical way, it should at least be
+done in one's heart. When feet are washed, their stains are washed
+away. So we wash the feet of our neighbors in a spiritual way when,
+as far as we can, we wash away their moral stains. This is done in
+three ways. The first way is by forgiving their offenses, as in
+"And if one has a complaint against another, forgiving each other;
+as the Lord has forgiven you, so you also must forgive" (Col 3:13).
+Another way is by praying because of their sins, according to "Pray
+for one another, that you may be healed" (Jas 5:16). These two
+kinds of washing can be done by all the faithful. The third way
+belongs to prelates, who ought to wash by forgiving sins by the
+power of the keys: "Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the
+sins of any, they are forgiven" (20:22).</p>
+<p>We can also say that by this action our Lord pointed out all the
+works of mercy. For one who gives bread to the hungry washes his
+feet, as does one who practices hospitality, or gives food to one
+in need; and so on for the other works. "Contribute to the needs of
+the saints" (Rom 12:13).</p>
 <p>1780 He supports his conclusion in four ways: first, by his
-intention; secondly, by his authority (v 16); thirdly, by the reward due this
-action (v 17); and fourthly, by the dignity of those whose feet he washed (v
-20).
-
-<p>1781 He said the reason I did this was to give you an
-example; so <b>you also ought to wash one another's feet</b>, because that was
-what I intended by this action. For when we are dealing with the conduct of
-people, example has more influence than words. A person chooses and does what
-seems good to him, and so what one chooses is a better indication of what is
-good than what one teaches should be chosen. This is why when someone says one
-thing and does another, what he does has more influence on others than what he
-has taught. Thus it is especially necessary to give example by one's actions.
-
-<p>Now the example of a mere human
-being would not be adequate for the entire human race to imitate, both because
-human reason cannot take everything into account, and it does err in what it
-does take into account. And so there was given to us the example of the Son of
-God, which cannot be in error and is adequate for all situations. Thus
-Augustine says: "Pride is not healed if it is not healed by the divine
-humility" <a href="#_ftn23" name="_ftnref23"
-title="">11.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman"'>[23]</a>; and the same is true of avarice and the
-other vices.
-
-<p>Note that the Son of God is a
-fitting and sufficient example for us. For he is the art of the Father, and
-just as he was the model or pattern for every thing created, so he was the
-model for our justification: "Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an
-example that you should follow in his steps" (1 Pet 2:21); "My foot has held
-fast to his steps, I have kept his way and have not turned aside," as we read
-in Job (23:11).
-
-<p>1782 Then when he says, <b>Truly, truly, I say to you, a
-servant is not greater than his master</b>, he strengthens his conclusion by
-his authority. First, he mentions the status of his disciples; secondly, the
-work they do.
-
-<p>Then the status of the disciples is
-that they are servants: "so you also, when you have done all that is commanded
-you, say, 'We are unworthy servants'" (Lk 17:10). The work they have to do is
-to be apostles - and an apostle is one who is sent: "He…chose from them twelve,
-whom he named apostles" (Lk 6:13). So he says: I say that "you also ought to
-wash one another's feet" as I have washed yours, because <b>a servant is not
-greater than his master</b>, and this refers to their status, <b>nor is he who
-is sent grater than he who sent him</b>. Although the Son of God was sent to
-us, as we see in Hebrews (3:1), and he is equal to the one who sent him, that
-is, the Father, yet it is true of all others that he who is sent is not greater
-than the one who sent him.
-
+intention; secondly, by his authority (v 16); thirdly, by the
+reward due this action (v 17); and fourthly, by the dignity of
+those whose feet he washed (v 20).</p>
+<p>1781 He said the reason I did this was to give you an example;
+so <b>you also ought to wash one another's feet</b>, because that
+was what I intended by this action. For when we are dealing with
+the conduct of people, example has more influence than words. A
+person chooses and does what seems good to him, and so what one
+chooses is a better indication of what is good than what one
+teaches should be chosen. This is why when someone says one thing
+and does another, what he does has more influence on others than
+what he has taught. Thus it is especially necessary to give example
+by one's actions.</p>
+<p>Now the example of a mere human being would not be adequate for
+the entire human race to imitate, both because human reason cannot
+take everything into account, and it does err in what it does take
+into account. And so there was given to us the example of the Son
+of God, which cannot be in error and is adequate for all
+situations. Thus Augustine says: "Pride is not healed if it is not
+healed by the divine humility" <a href="#_ftn23" name="_ftnref23"
+title="" id="_ftnref23">11.0pt;font-family:"Times New
+Roman"'&gt;[23]</a>; and the same is true of avarice and the other
+vices.</p>
+<p>Note that the Son of God is a fitting and sufficient example for
+us. For he is the art of the Father, and just as he was the model
+or pattern for every thing created, so he was the model for our
+justification: "Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an
+example that you should follow in his steps" (1 Pet 2:21); "My foot
+has held fast to his steps, I have kept his way and have not turned
+aside," as we read in Job (23:11).</p>
+<p>1782 Then when he says, <b>Truly, truly, I say to you, a servant
+is not greater than his master</b>, he strengthens his conclusion
+by his authority. First, he mentions the status of his disciples;
+secondly, the work they do.</p>
+<p>Then the status of the disciples is that they are servants: "so
+you also, when you have done all that is commanded you, say, 'We
+are unworthy servants'" (Lk 17:10). The work they have to do is to
+be apostles - and an apostle is one who is sent: "He&hellip;chose
+from them twelve, whom he named apostles" (Lk 6:13). So he says: I
+say that "you also ought to wash one another's feet" as I have
+washed yours, because <b>a servant is not greater than his
+master</b>, and this refers to their status, <b>nor is he who is
+sent grater than he who sent him</b>. Although the Son of God was
+sent to us, as we see in Hebrews (3:1), and he is equal to the one
+who sent him, that is, the Father, yet it is true of all others
+that he who is sent is not greater than the one who sent him.</p>
 <p>1783 This seems to contradict what our Lord said to his
-disciples below (15:15): "No longer do I call you servants, for the servant
-does not know what his master is doing." I answer that there are two ways of
-being a servant. One way is based on reverence and respect, "filial fear," and
-this produces a good servant: "Well done, good and faithful servant" (Mt
-25:23). This is the kind of servant our Lord is talking about here in John
-(13:16). The other way of being a servant is based on the fear of punishment,
-"servile fear." This kind of servant is mentioned in "You wicked servant! I
-forgave you all that debt because you besought me" (Mt 18:33). This is the kind
-of servant our Lord refers to when he says: "No longer do I call you servants"
-(15:15).
-
-<p>1784 When he says, <b>If you know these things, blessed are
-you if you do them</b>, he strengthens his conclusion by a reward. First, he
-mentions the reward; secondly, he excludes someone from it (v 18).
-
-<p class=MsoHeader>&nbsp;
-
-<p>1785 <b>If you know these things</b>, which many do know, <b>blessed
-are you if you do them</b>, which is true of few. He says, "know" and "do"
-because we read: "Blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it" (Lk
-11:28); and "A good understanding have all those who practice it" (Ps 111:10).
-On the other hand, "Whoever knows what is right to do and fails to do it, for
-him it is sin" (Jas 4:17).
-
-<p>1786 He excludes someone when he says, <b>I am not speaking
-of you all</b>. First, he says there is an exception; secondly, he gives the
-reason for the exception (v 18). Thirdly, he tells why he said there was an
-exception (v 19). He does two things about the first: he mentions there is an
-exception; he answers an unspoken question.
-
+disciples below (15:15): "No longer do I call you servants, for the
+servant does not know what his master is doing." I answer that
+there are two ways of being a servant. One way is based on
+reverence and respect, "filial fear," and this produces a good
+servant: "Well done, good and faithful servant" (Mt 25:23). This is
+the kind of servant our Lord is talking about here in John (13:16).
+The other way of being a servant is based on the fear of
+punishment, "servile fear." This kind of servant is mentioned in
+"You wicked servant! I forgave you all that debt because you
+besought me" (Mt 18:33). This is the kind of servant our Lord
+refers to when he says: "No longer do I call you servants"
+(15:15).</p>
+<p>1784 When he says, <b>If you know these things, blessed are you
+if you do them</b>, he strengthens his conclusion by a reward.
+First, he mentions the reward; secondly, he excludes someone from
+it (v 18).</p>
+<p class="MsoHeader">&nbsp;</p>
+<p>1785 <b>If you know these things</b>, which many do know,
+<b>blessed are you if you do them</b>, which is true of few. He
+says, "know" and "do" because we read: "Blessed are those who hear
+the word of God and keep it" (Lk 11:28); and "A good understanding
+have all those who practice it" (Ps 111:10). On the other hand,
+"Whoever knows what is right to do and fails to do it, for him it
+is sin" (Jas 4:17).</p>
+<p>1786 He excludes someone when he says, <b>I am not speaking of
+you all</b>. First, he says there is an exception; secondly, he
+gives the reason for the exception (v 18). Thirdly, he tells why he
+said there was an exception (v 19). He does two things about the
+first: he mentions there is an exception; he answers an unspoken
+question.</p>
 <p>1787 He says there is an exception when he says, <b>I am not
-speaking of you all</b>. He is saying in effect: You will be blessed, but not
-all of you, because <b>I am not speaking of you all </b>when I say you will be
-blessed: "All the runners compete, but only one receives the prize" (1 Cor
-9:24). For there is one of you, that is, Judas, who will not be blessed, and he
-will not do these things.
-
-<p>According to Origen, our Lord did
-not say <b>blessed are you</b>, without qualification; but he added a
-condition, <b>if you do them</b>.<a href="#_ftn24" name="_ftnref24">[24]</a>
-And this is true for all of them, even Judas; for if Judas had done these
-things, he would have been blessed. So for Origen, Jesus is excluding Judas
-from his servants, "a servant is not greater than his master" (v 16). It was
-like saying: I say you are servants and apostles, <b>but I am not speaking of
-you all</b>: for Judas, since he was a servant of sin, was not a servant of the
-Divine Word, nor was he an apostle once the devil had entered into his heart. 
-
-<p>1788 Someone could say: Since Christ does not say that all
-are blessed or his apostles, then some member of his group might perish
-unexpectedly. Our Lord answers this saying, <b>I know whom I have chosen</b>.
-This was like saying: Those who have been chosen will not perish; but not all
-have been chosen. So, the one who will perish will be the one who has not been
-chosen, that is, Judas: "You did not choose me, but I chose you" (15:16).
-
-<p>1789 This seems to conflict with his earlier statement: "Did
-I not choose you, the twelve?" (6:71). Therefore, since Judas was one of the
-twelve, it seems that he was chosen. I answer that one can be chosen in two
-ways. One is for a present righteousness; and Judas was chosen for this. The
-other is for final glory; and Judas was not chosen for this.
-
-<p>1790 The reason there was an exception was so <b>that the scripture
-may be fulfilled </b>- not that scripture forced the event, but it did mention
-an event that would happen: "Everything written about me in the law of Moses
-and the prophets and the psalms must be fulfilled" (Lk 24:44); "Not an iota,
-nor a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished" (Mt 5:18). This
-scripture says: <b>He who ate my bread has lifted his heel against me</b>. This
-is another translation of what we have in the Psalm [41:9] as: "The man of my
-peace, in whom I trusted, who ate my bread, has greatly deceived me." The
-intimacy Judas had with Christ is shown when we read, <b>he who ate my bread</b>:
-for Judas, along with the other disciples, ate bread with Christ, even
-consecrated bread. Further, his malicious efforts against Christ are shown when
-it says, <b>has lifted his heel against me</b>; that is, he will try to crush
-me. And we do crush our enemies under our heel: "She shall crush your head, and
-you will lie in wait for her heel" [Gen 3:15]. And so one is said to raise his
-heel against another when he tries to crush him. But Judas will not be able to
-do this, because I will be exalted by the very thing with which he wants to
-crush me: "And I, when am lifted up from the earth, will draw all things to
-myself" [12:32].
-
-<p>1791 We have an example in this for ourselves: let us not be
-set back if we happen to suffer evil from those close to us or from the
-malicious, since we can remember the conduct of Judas who, in spite of having
-received unlimited goods, returned the contrary to his benefactor. Our Lord chose
-Judas, whom he knew would become an evil person, so that we could realize that
-there would be no human society which does not have some evil members: "As a
-lily among brambles, so is my love among maidens" (Song 2:2). And in one of his
-letters Augustine says: "I don't care to assume that my household is better
-than the group of the apostles."<a href="#_ftn25" name="_ftnref25">[25]</a>
-We can also understand from this that if a prelate receives someone into the
-Church, and this person becomes bad, the prelate should not be blamed. Look at
-Judas! Even though he was chosen by Christ he turned out to be a traitor. The
-same thing happened to Philip when he received Simon the magician: "Shall they
-repay good with evil, by making a snare to take my life?" [Jer 18:20]; "A man's
-foes will be those of his own household" (Mt 10:36).
-
-<p>1792 Then when he says, <b>I tell you this now</b>, he gives
-the reason why he mentioned there was an exception. As if to say: I have been
-silent about his malice for a long time, but because the time is near when it
-will appear publicly, therefore, <b>I tell you this now, before it takes place,
-that when it does take place you may believe that I am he </b>who predicts the
-future and reveals the secrets of the heart: things which are characteristic of
-God. "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately corrupt; who can
-understand it? 'I the Lord search the mind and try the heart'" (Jer 17:9);
-"Tell us what is to come hereafter, that we may know that you are gods" (Is
-41:23). Or, "I am who am" [Ex 3:14].
-
-<p>1793 Next (v 20), he confirms his conclusion from the
-dignity of those whose feet he washed. For their dignity was so great that
-services performed for them seemed in a way to rebound to God, although
-according to a certain progression: because things done for the faithful
-through Christ rebound to God the Father.
-
-<p>First, he shows how those things
-done for the disciples of Christ flow back or rebound to Christ. Regarding this
-he says, <b>Truly, truly, I say to you</b>. He is saying in effect: Truly, you
-ought to wash their feet, because <b>he who receives any one whom I send
-receives me</b>, that is, I regard as done to me the service given to those
-whom I send: "He who receives you receives me" (Mt 10:41). Secondly, he shows
-how a service given to Christ rebounds to the Father, saying, <b>he who receives
-me receives him who sent me</b>: "That all may honor the Son, even as they
-honor the Father" (5:23).
-
-<p>However, according to Origen, this verse can be
-understood in two ways.<a href="#_ftn26" name="_ftnref26">[26]</a>
-In one way by compressing the two parts into one, and then the sense is: he who
-receives those sent by me also receives the Father. The second way keeps the
-parts distinct, and then the meaning is: he who receives, that is, in a
-physical way, those sent by me, receives me; and those who receive me, that is,
-coming into their souls in a spiritual way - as in "that Christ may dwell in
-your hearts through faith" (Eph 3:17) - receives him who sent me, the Father.
-Not only will I dwell in him, but the Father will also: "We will come to him
-and make our home with him" (14:23).
-
-<p>1794 Arius used this text in the following way to help
-support his own error: the Lord says that he who receives him receives the
-Father; and so the relationship between the Father who sends and the Son is the
-same as that of the Son who sends and the disciples. But Christ who sends is
-greater than the disciples who are sent; thus, the Father is greater than the
-Son.
-
-<p>We should answer this, according to
-Augustine, by saying that there were two natures in Christ, a human and a
-divine nature.<a href="#_ftn27" name="_ftnref27">[27]</a>
-In the first part he is speaking with reference to his human nature, saying, <b>he
-who receives any one whom I send receives me</b>, as human, for I share with
-them in one [human] nature. In the second part he speaks in reference to his
-divinity: <b>he who receives me</b>, who am God, <b>receives him who sent me</b>,
-for I have the same [divine] nature as him.
-
-<p>Or, we could understand it to mean:
-he who receives one whom I send, receives me, for my authority is in him; and
-he who receives me receives the Father, whose authority is in me. In this way,
-these words show that Christ is the bridge between God and humankind, as in
-"There is one mediator between God and the men, the man Christ Jesus" (1 Tim
-2:5).
-<BR><BR><BR>
-<p align=center><b>LECTURE 4
-
-<BLOCKQUOTE><p>21 When Jesus had thus spoken, he was troubled in spirit,
-and testified, "Truly, truly, I say to you, one of you will betray me." 22 The
-disciples looked at one another, uncertain of whom he spoke. 23 One of his
-disciples, whom Jesus loved, was lying close to the breast [lap] of Jesus; 24
-so Simon Peter beckoned to him and said, "Tell us who it is of whom he speaks."
-25 So lying thus, close to the breast of Jesus, he said to him, "Lord, who is
-it?" 26 Jesus answered, "It is he whom I shall give this morsel [bread] when I
-have dipped it." So when he had dipped the morsel [bread], he gave it to Judas,
-the son of Simon Iscariot. 27 Then after the morsel, Satan entered into him.<a
-href="#_ftn28" name="_ftnref28">[28]</b></a></BLOCKQUOTE>
-
-<p>1795 Above, the Evangelist presented the example Christ gave
-to his disciples to imitate. Here he shows the failure of the disciples who
-were not yet ready to follow him; a failure which Christ predicted. First, we
-see the failure of the disciple who betrayed him; secondly, of the disciple who
-denied him (v 36). Two things are done with the first: one of the disciples is
-said to be a betrayer; secondly, we see him leave the supper. Two things are
-done concerning the first: the betrayal is predicted; then we see it beginning
-to be executed (v 27a). Two things are done about the first: the crime of the
-traitor is foretold; secondly, the traitor is identified (v 22).
-
-<p>1796 Two things are done about the first: the emotions of
-the one foretelling the betrayal are mentioned; secondly, the event predicted
-is mentioned. 
-
-<p>The one foretelling the betrayal is
-Christ, and he is troubled. As to this the Evangelist says, <b>When Jesus had
-thus spoken</b>, inviting them once again to works of love, he visualized the
-disciple who was to betray him and <b>he was troubled in spirit</b>. Here we
-should note that to be troubled is to be disturbed. This is shown by an event
-mentioned before: "From time to time an angel of the Lord used to come down
-into the pool and the water was disturbed…the sick man said, 'Sir, I have no
-one to plunge me into the pool once the water is troubled'" (5:4). Here it is
-the same thing for water to be disturbed or troubled. We also say the sea is
-troubled when it is disturbed. And so to say that a soul is troubled is to say
-that it is disturbed. Now there are some acts of the soul which do not involve
-a disturbance in the body; these are the actions of its intellectual powers.
-But the acts of the sensory appetite do involve a disturbance in the body;
-these are the actions of its intellectual powers. But the acts of the sensory
-appetite do involve some bodily disturbance; and so the affections of the
-sensory appetite are called passions. Now among all the affections or passions
-of the sensory appetite, sadness involves the most disturbance. While pleasure,
-since it implies a rest in a good which is possessed, has more the character of
-rest than of disturbance. Even fear, since it is concerned with an evil to come
-in the future, has less disturbance than sadness, which involves an evil which
-is present. This is why one who is afflicted with sadness is especially said to
-be troubled. So Christ was troubled, that is, he was sad.
-
-<p>1797 We can recall here that there have been philosophers,
-the Stoics, who said that those who are wise are not troubled this way or by
-such passions. For although they admit that one who is wise may have fear, or
-joy or desire, such a one is never sad. It is clear that this is false because
-Jesus, who is the highest wisdom, was troubled.
-
-<p>Note that one can be troubled in
-two ways. Sometimes it comes from the flesh, which means that one is troubled
-because of some apprehension by the senses, but independently of the judgment
-of reason. Yet sometimes this can remain within the limits of reason and not
-cloud one's reason; in this case, Jerome would call it a <i>propassion</i>.<a
-href="#_ftn29" name="_ftnref29">[29]</a>
-This can happen in one who is wise. At other times, this can go beyond the
-limits of reason and trouble reason. This is not found in the wise.
-
-<p>The second way of being troubled is
-to have it come from one's reason, that is, when one is troubled in the sensory
-appetite because of a judgment of reason and from deliberation. This was the
-way Christ was troubled. And so the Evangelist is careful to say that<b> he was
-troubled in spirit</b>, that is, the sensory appetite of Christ was troubled
-because of a judgment of his reason. Thus he said above (11:33) that Jesus
-"troubled himself." For in Christ all things arose from the deliberation of
-reason, even in his sensory appetite; and so there were in him no sudden
-disturbances of his sensuality.
-
-<p>1798 Jesus willed to be troubled at this time for two
-reasons. First, in order to instruct us in the faith. For suffering and death,
-which human nature naturally shuns, were drawing near to him; and when he
-realized this, he became sad because they were harmful and evil for him. And so
-he willed, by a judgment of reason, to be troubled even in his soul, to show us
-that he had a real human nature. This excludes the error of Apollinaris who
-said that Christ did not have a soul, but the Word took its place.
-
-<p>Secondly, he did this to aid our
-own progress. According to Augustine, he saw that the traitor was about to
-leave and return with the Jews who wanted to capture him.<a href="#_ftn30"
-name="_ftnref30">[30]</a>
-By this action, Judas was severed from the society of the saints and drew down
-a sentence of death upon himself. And because Jesus loved him, this made him
-sad. This gives an example to superiors that if now and then they have to pass
-a harsh judgment on their subjects, they should do it with a sad heart,
-according to "Let a good man strike or rebuke me in kindness" (Ps 141:5). For
-when Jesus decided to reveal the treachery of Judas to the others, <b>he was
-troubled in spirit and testified</b>, to show he was not ignorant of his
-betrayal, and said, <b>Truly, truly, I say to you, one of you will betray me</b>.
-
-
-<p>1799 He is careful to say, <b>one of you</b>, i.e., one of
-those chosen for this holy society, so that we might understand that there would
-never be a society so holy that it would be without sinners and those who are
-evil: "Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves
-before the Lord, and Satan also came among them" (Job 1:6).
-
-<p>He said one of them, not two or
-several, so it would not seem that he was reproving the whole group rather than
-the traitor in the group. For we should not think a group bad because one
-member is bad; although if several are bad, the group could be considered bad.
-He said, <b>one of you</b>, that is, one of your number, not one of you in
-merit or one in spirit: "They went out from us, but they were not of us, for if
-they had been of us, they would have continued with us" (1 Jn 2:19).<b> One of
-you will betray me</b>. Me, the Teacher, the Lord, the Savior.
-
-<p>1800 Next (v 22), the traitor is privately identified.
-First, the occasions for this are mentioned; secondly, the traitor is
-identified (v 26); thirdly, we see the effect of his identification (v 27).
-There were two occasions for his identification: one was the uncertainty of the
-disciples, and the other was a question asked by one of the disciples. First,
-John mentions their uncertainty; and then the disciple's question.
-
-<p>1801 With regard to the first, note that the good disciples
-had very great love for Christ and their faith was very strong. Because of
-their love each one assumed that he would not be the one to deny Christ; yet
-because their faith was so strong they were most certain that what Christ said
-could not be false. And so, although none of them was conscious of any evil,
-they nevertheless thought the prediction of Christ was truer and more
-believable than their own opinion. Accordingly, considering that they were
-human and that their affections could change so much that they could will the
-opposite of what they willed before, they were more uncertain of themselves
-than of the truth spoken by Christ. So, <b>the disciples looked at one another,
-uncertain of whom he spoke</b>: "Therefore let any one who thinks that he
-stands take heed lest he fall" (1 Cor 10:12); "If I wash myself with snow, and
-cleanse my hands with lye, yet thou will plunge me into a pit" (Job 9:30).
-
-<p>1802 Next (v 23), the disciple's question is stated. First
-we see the intimacy he had with Christ; secondly, what led him to ask (v 24);
-thirdly, his question (v 25).
-
-<p>1803 The disciple's intimacy with Christ is shown by the
-fact that he was lying close to him. He says, <b>one of the disciples was lying
-close to the lap of Jesus</b>. This was John the Evangelist who wrote his
-Gospel. He wrote of himself in the third person to avoid boasting. In this he
-followed the custom of others who wrote Sacred Scripture. Moses wrote of
-himself this way, as though he were someone else: "and the Lord said to Moses"
-(Lev 11:1). And so did Matthew: "He saw a man called Matthew sitting at the tax
-office" as we see from Matthew (Mt 9:9). And further on Paul did the same: "I
-know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven"
-(2 Cor 12:2).
-
-<p>1804 John here mentions three things about himself. First,
-the love he had for Christ as he rested on him. John said that he <b>was lying</b>,
-that is resting: "Then you will delight yourself in the Almighty, and lift up
-your face to God" (Job 22:26); "He leads me beside the waters of rest" (Ps
-23:2). Secondly, he intimates his knowledge of mysteries, which were made known
-to him by Christ, and especially for the writing of this Gospel. He says he was
-lying <b>close to the lap of Jesus</b>, for the lap signifies things that are
-hidden: "The only Son, who is in the lap of the Father, he has made him known"
-[1:18]. Thirdly, he mentions the special love Christ had for him, saying, <b>whom
-Jesus loved</b>, not exclusively, but in a way above others. Exactly how Christ
-loved him more than others will be stated more clearly at the end of this book.
-
-
-<p>For the present, it is enough to
-say that John was more loved by Christ for three reasons. First, because of the
-cleanliness of his purity: for he was a virgin when chosen by the Lord, and
-always remained so: "He who loves purity of heart, and whose speech is
-gracious, will have the king as his friend" (Prv 22:11). Secondly, because of
-the depth of his wisdom, for he saw further into the secrets of God than
-others; and so he is compared to an eagle, "A wise servant has the king's
-favor" [Prv 14:35]. Thirdly, because of the great intensity of his love for
-Christ: "I love those who love me" (Prv 8:17).
-
+speaking of you all</b>. He is saying in effect: You will be
+blessed, but not all of you, because <b>I am not speaking of you
+all</b> when I say you will be blessed: "All the runners compete,
+but only one receives the prize" (1 Cor 9:24). For there is one of
+you, that is, Judas, who will not be blessed, and he will not do
+these things.</p>
+<p>According to Origen, our Lord did not say <b>blessed are
+you</b>, without qualification; but he added a condition, <b>if you
+do them</b>.<a href="#_ftn24" name="_ftnref24" id=
+"_ftnref24">[24]</a> And this is true for all of them, even Judas;
+for if Judas had done these things, he would have been blessed. So
+for Origen, Jesus is excluding Judas from his servants, "a servant
+is not greater than his master" (v 16). It was like saying: I say
+you are servants and apostles, <b>but I am not speaking of you
+all</b>: for Judas, since he was a servant of sin, was not a
+servant of the Divine Word, nor was he an apostle once the devil
+had entered into his heart.</p>
+<p>1788 Someone could say: Since Christ does not say that all are
+blessed or his apostles, then some member of his group might perish
+unexpectedly. Our Lord answers this saying, <b>I know whom I have
+chosen</b>. This was like saying: Those who have been chosen will
+not perish; but not all have been chosen. So, the one who will
+perish will be the one who has not been chosen, that is, Judas:
+"You did not choose me, but I chose you" (15:16).</p>
+<p>1789 This seems to conflict with his earlier statement: "Did I
+not choose you, the twelve?" (6:71). Therefore, since Judas was one
+of the twelve, it seems that he was chosen. I answer that one can
+be chosen in two ways. One is for a present righteousness; and
+Judas was chosen for this. The other is for final glory; and Judas
+was not chosen for this.</p>
+<p>1790 The reason there was an exception was so <b>that the
+scripture may be fulfilled</b> - not that scripture forced the
+event, but it did mention an event that would happen: "Everything
+written about me in the law of Moses and the prophets and the
+psalms must be fulfilled" (Lk 24:44); "Not an iota, nor a dot, will
+pass from the law until all is accomplished" (Mt 5:18). This
+scripture says: <b>He who ate my bread has lifted his heel against
+me</b>. This is another translation of what we have in the Psalm
+[41:9] as: "The man of my peace, in whom I trusted, who ate my
+bread, has greatly deceived me." The intimacy Judas had with Christ
+is shown when we read, <b>he who ate my bread</b>: for Judas, along
+with the other disciples, ate bread with Christ, even consecrated
+bread. Further, his malicious efforts against Christ are shown when
+it says, <b>has lifted his heel against me</b>; that is, he will
+try to crush me. And we do crush our enemies under our heel: "She
+shall crush your head, and you will lie in wait for her heel" [Gen
+3:15]. And so one is said to raise his heel against another when he
+tries to crush him. But Judas will not be able to do this, because
+I will be exalted by the very thing with which he wants to crush
+me: "And I, when am lifted up from the earth, will draw all things
+to myself" [12:32].</p>
+<p>1791 We have an example in this for ourselves: let us not be set
+back if we happen to suffer evil from those close to us or from the
+malicious, since we can remember the conduct of Judas who, in spite
+of having received unlimited goods, returned the contrary to his
+benefactor. Our Lord chose Judas, whom he knew would become an evil
+person, so that we could realize that there would be no human
+society which does not have some evil members: "As a lily among
+brambles, so is my love among maidens" (Song 2:2). And in one of
+his letters Augustine says: "I don't care to assume that my
+household is better than the group of the apostles."<a href=
+"#_ftn25" name="_ftnref25" id="_ftnref25">[25]</a> We can also
+understand from this that if a prelate receives someone into the
+Church, and this person becomes bad, the prelate should not be
+blamed. Look at Judas! Even though he was chosen by Christ he
+turned out to be a traitor. The same thing happened to Philip when
+he received Simon the magician: "Shall they repay good with evil,
+by making a snare to take my life?" [Jer 18:20]; "A man's foes will
+be those of his own household" (Mt 10:36).</p>
+<p>1792 Then when he says, <b>I tell you this now</b>, he gives the
+reason why he mentioned there was an exception. As if to say: I
+have been silent about his malice for a long time, but because the
+time is near when it will appear publicly, therefore, <b>I tell you
+this now, before it takes place, that when it does take place you
+may believe that I am he</b> who predicts the future and reveals
+the secrets of the heart: things which are characteristic of God.
+"The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately corrupt;
+who can understand it? 'I the Lord search the mind and try the
+heart'" (Jer 17:9); "Tell us what is to come hereafter, that we may
+know that you are gods" (Is 41:23). Or, "I am who am" [Ex
+3:14].</p>
+<p>1793 Next (v 20), he confirms his conclusion from the dignity of
+those whose feet he washed. For their dignity was so great that
+services performed for them seemed in a way to rebound to God,
+although according to a certain progression: because things done
+for the faithful through Christ rebound to God the Father.</p>
+<p>First, he shows how those things done for the disciples of
+Christ flow back or rebound to Christ. Regarding this he says,
+<b>Truly, truly, I say to you</b>. He is saying in effect: Truly,
+you ought to wash their feet, because <b>he who receives any one
+whom I send receives me</b>, that is, I regard as done to me the
+service given to those whom I send: "He who receives you receives
+me" (Mt 10:41). Secondly, he shows how a service given to Christ
+rebounds to the Father, saying, <b>he who receives me receives him
+who sent me</b>: "That all may honor the Son, even as they honor
+the Father" (5:23).</p>
+<p>However, according to Origen, this verse can be understood in
+two ways.<a href="#_ftn26" name="_ftnref26" id="_ftnref26">[26]</a>
+In one way by compressing the two parts into one, and then the
+sense is: he who receives those sent by me also receives the
+Father. The second way keeps the parts distinct, and then the
+meaning is: he who receives, that is, in a physical way, those sent
+by me, receives me; and those who receive me, that is, coming into
+their souls in a spiritual way - as in "that Christ may dwell in
+your hearts through faith" (Eph 3:17) - receives him who sent me,
+the Father. Not only will I dwell in him, but the Father will also:
+"We will come to him and make our home with him" (14:23).</p>
+<p>1794 Arius used this text in the following way to help support
+his own error: the Lord says that he who receives him receives the
+Father; and so the relationship between the Father who sends and
+the Son is the same as that of the Son who sends and the disciples.
+But Christ who sends is greater than the disciples who are sent;
+thus, the Father is greater than the Son.</p>
+<p>We should answer this, according to Augustine, by saying that
+there were two natures in Christ, a human and a divine
+nature.<a href="#_ftn27" name="_ftnref27" id="_ftnref27">[27]</a>
+In the first part he is speaking with reference to his human
+nature, saying, <b>he who receives any one whom I send receives
+me</b>, as human, for I share with them in one [human] nature. In
+the second part he speaks in reference to his divinity: <b>he who
+receives me</b>, who am God, <b>receives him who sent me</b>, for I
+have the same [divine] nature as him.</p>
+<p>Or, we could understand it to mean: he who receives one whom I
+send, receives me, for my authority is in him; and he who receives
+me receives the Father, whose authority is in me. In this way,
+these words show that Christ is the bridge between God and
+humankind, as in "There is one mediator between God and the men,
+the man Christ Jesus" (1 Tim 2:5).<br />
+<br />
+<br /></p>
+<p align="center"><b>LECTURE 4</b></p>
+<blockquote>
+<p><b>21 When Jesus had thus spoken, he was troubled in spirit, and
+testified, "Truly, truly, I say to you, one of you will betray me."
+22 The disciples looked at one another, uncertain of whom he spoke.
+23 One of his disciples, whom Jesus loved, was lying close to the
+breast [lap] of Jesus; 24 so Simon Peter beckoned to him and said,
+"Tell us who it is of whom he speaks." 25 So lying thus, close to
+the breast of Jesus, he said to him, "Lord, who is it?" 26 Jesus
+answered, "It is he whom I shall give this morsel [bread] when I
+have dipped it." So when he had dipped the morsel [bread], he gave
+it to Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot. 27 Then after the morsel,
+Satan entered into him.<a href="#_ftn28" name="_ftnref28" id=
+"_ftnref28">[28]</a></b></p>
+</blockquote>
+<p>1795 Above, the Evangelist presented the example Christ gave to
+his disciples to imitate. Here he shows the failure of the
+disciples who were not yet ready to follow him; a failure which
+Christ predicted. First, we see the failure of the disciple who
+betrayed him; secondly, of the disciple who denied him (v 36). Two
+things are done with the first: one of the disciples is said to be
+a betrayer; secondly, we see him leave the supper. Two things are
+done concerning the first: the betrayal is predicted; then we see
+it beginning to be executed (v 27a). Two things are done about the
+first: the crime of the traitor is foretold; secondly, the traitor
+is identified (v 22).</p>
+<p>1796 Two things are done about the first: the emotions of the
+one foretelling the betrayal are mentioned; secondly, the event
+predicted is mentioned.</p>
+<p>The one foretelling the betrayal is Christ, and he is troubled.
+As to this the Evangelist says, <b>When Jesus had thus spoken</b>,
+inviting them once again to works of love, he visualized the
+disciple who was to betray him and <b>he was troubled in
+spirit</b>. Here we should note that to be troubled is to be
+disturbed. This is shown by an event mentioned before: "From time
+to time an angel of the Lord used to come down into the pool and
+the water was disturbed&hellip;the sick man said, 'Sir, I have no
+one to plunge me into the pool once the water is troubled'" (5:4).
+Here it is the same thing for water to be disturbed or troubled. We
+also say the sea is troubled when it is disturbed. And so to say
+that a soul is troubled is to say that it is disturbed. Now there
+are some acts of the soul which do not involve a disturbance in the
+body; these are the actions of its intellectual powers. But the
+acts of the sensory appetite do involve a disturbance in the body;
+these are the actions of its intellectual powers. But the acts of
+the sensory appetite do involve some bodily disturbance; and so the
+affections of the sensory appetite are called passions. Now among
+all the affections or passions of the sensory appetite, sadness
+involves the most disturbance. While pleasure, since it implies a
+rest in a good which is possessed, has more the character of rest
+than of disturbance. Even fear, since it is concerned with an evil
+to come in the future, has less disturbance than sadness, which
+involves an evil which is present. This is why one who is afflicted
+with sadness is especially said to be troubled. So Christ was
+troubled, that is, he was sad.</p>
+<p>1797 We can recall here that there have been philosophers, the
+Stoics, who said that those who are wise are not troubled this way
+or by such passions. For although they admit that one who is wise
+may have fear, or joy or desire, such a one is never sad. It is
+clear that this is false because Jesus, who is the highest wisdom,
+was troubled.</p>
+<p>Note that one can be troubled in two ways. Sometimes it comes
+from the flesh, which means that one is troubled because of some
+apprehension by the senses, but independently of the judgment of
+reason. Yet sometimes this can remain within the limits of reason
+and not cloud one's reason; in this case, Jerome would call it a
+<i>propassion</i>.<a href="#_ftn29" name="_ftnref29" id=
+"_ftnref29">[29]</a> This can happen in one who is wise. At other
+times, this can go beyond the limits of reason and trouble reason.
+This is not found in the wise.</p>
+<p>The second way of being troubled is to have it come from one's
+reason, that is, when one is troubled in the sensory appetite
+because of a judgment of reason and from deliberation. This was the
+way Christ was troubled. And so the Evangelist is careful to say
+that <b>he was troubled in spirit</b>, that is, the sensory
+appetite of Christ was troubled because of a judgment of his
+reason. Thus he said above (11:33) that Jesus "troubled himself."
+For in Christ all things arose from the deliberation of reason,
+even in his sensory appetite; and so there were in him no sudden
+disturbances of his sensuality.</p>
+<p>1798 Jesus willed to be troubled at this time for two reasons.
+First, in order to instruct us in the faith. For suffering and
+death, which human nature naturally shuns, were drawing near to
+him; and when he realized this, he became sad because they were
+harmful and evil for him. And so he willed, by a judgment of
+reason, to be troubled even in his soul, to show us that he had a
+real human nature. This excludes the error of Apollinaris who said
+that Christ did not have a soul, but the Word took its place.</p>
+<p>Secondly, he did this to aid our own progress. According to
+Augustine, he saw that the traitor was about to leave and return
+with the Jews who wanted to capture him.<a href="#_ftn30" name=
+"_ftnref30" id="_ftnref30">[30]</a> By this action, Judas was
+severed from the society of the saints and drew down a sentence of
+death upon himself. And because Jesus loved him, this made him sad.
+This gives an example to superiors that if now and then they have
+to pass a harsh judgment on their subjects, they should do it with
+a sad heart, according to "Let a good man strike or rebuke me in
+kindness" (Ps 141:5). For when Jesus decided to reveal the
+treachery of Judas to the others, <b>he was troubled in spirit and
+testified</b>, to show he was not ignorant of his betrayal, and
+said, <b>Truly, truly, I say to you, one of you will betray
+me</b>.</p>
+<p>1799 He is careful to say, <b>one of you</b>, i.e., one of those
+chosen for this holy society, so that we might understand that
+there would never be a society so holy that it would be without
+sinners and those who are evil: "Now there was a day when the sons
+of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also
+came among them" (Job 1:6).</p>
+<p>He said one of them, not two or several, so it would not seem
+that he was reproving the whole group rather than the traitor in
+the group. For we should not think a group bad because one member
+is bad; although if several are bad, the group could be considered
+bad. He said, <b>one of you</b>, that is, one of your number, not
+one of you in merit or one in spirit: "They went out from us, but
+they were not of us, for if they had been of us, they would have
+continued with us" (1 Jn 2:19). <b>One of you will betray me</b>.
+Me, the Teacher, the Lord, the Savior.</p>
+<p>1800 Next (v 22), the traitor is privately identified. First,
+the occasions for this are mentioned; secondly, the traitor is
+identified (v 26); thirdly, we see the effect of his identification
+(v 27). There were two occasions for his identification: one was
+the uncertainty of the disciples, and the other was a question
+asked by one of the disciples. First, John mentions their
+uncertainty; and then the disciple's question.</p>
+<p>1801 With regard to the first, note that the good disciples had
+very great love for Christ and their faith was very strong. Because
+of their love each one assumed that he would not be the one to deny
+Christ; yet because their faith was so strong they were most
+certain that what Christ said could not be false. And so, although
+none of them was conscious of any evil, they nevertheless thought
+the prediction of Christ was truer and more believable than their
+own opinion. Accordingly, considering that they were human and that
+their affections could change so much that they could will the
+opposite of what they willed before, they were more uncertain of
+themselves than of the truth spoken by Christ. So, <b>the disciples
+looked at one another, uncertain of whom he spoke</b>: "Therefore
+let any one who thinks that he stands take heed lest he fall" (1
+Cor 10:12); "If I wash myself with snow, and cleanse my hands with
+lye, yet thou will plunge me into a pit" (Job 9:30).</p>
+<p>1802 Next (v 23), the disciple's question is stated. First we
+see the intimacy he had with Christ; secondly, what led him to ask
+(v 24); thirdly, his question (v 25).</p>
+<p>1803 The disciple's intimacy with Christ is shown by the fact
+that he was lying close to him. He says, <b>one of the disciples
+was lying close to the lap of Jesus</b>. This was John the
+Evangelist who wrote his Gospel. He wrote of himself in the third
+person to avoid boasting. In this he followed the custom of others
+who wrote Sacred Scripture. Moses wrote of himself this way, as
+though he were someone else: "and the Lord said to Moses" (Lev
+11:1). And so did Matthew: "He saw a man called Matthew sitting at
+the tax office" as we see from Matthew (Mt 9:9). And further on
+Paul did the same: "I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago
+was caught up to the third heaven" (2 Cor 12:2).</p>
+<p>1804 John here mentions three things about himself. First, the
+love he had for Christ as he rested on him. John said that he
+<b>was lying</b>, that is resting: "Then you will delight yourself
+in the Almighty, and lift up your face to God" (Job 22:26); "He
+leads me beside the waters of rest" (Ps 23:2). Secondly, he
+intimates his knowledge of mysteries, which were made known to him
+by Christ, and especially for the writing of this Gospel. He says
+he was lying <b>close to the lap of Jesus</b>, for the lap
+signifies things that are hidden: "The only Son, who is in the lap
+of the Father, he has made him known" [1:18]. Thirdly, he mentions
+the special love Christ had for him, saying, <b>whom Jesus
+loved</b>, not exclusively, but in a way above others. Exactly how
+Christ loved him more than others will be stated more clearly at
+the end of this book.</p>
+<p>For the present, it is enough to say that John was more loved by
+Christ for three reasons. First, because of the cleanliness of his
+purity: for he was a virgin when chosen by the Lord, and always
+remained so: "He who loves purity of heart, and whose speech is
+gracious, will have the king as his friend" (Prv 22:11). Secondly,
+because of the depth of his wisdom, for he saw further into the
+secrets of God than others; and so he is compared to an eagle, "A
+wise servant has the king's favor" [Prv 14:35]. Thirdly, because of
+the great intensity of his love for Christ: "I love those who love
+me" (Prv 8:17).</p>
 <p>1805 Then when he says, <b>so Simon Peter beckoned to him</b>,
-John mentions what led him to question Christ. But since to beckon is to
-suggest something without speaking any words, why does he say that Peter both <b>beckoned…and
-said? </b>I answer that the [Latin] word beckon can also mean just to think
-something within ourselves, as "The fool says in his heart…" (Ps 53:1). And,
-even more so, we can say that someone said something when he indicates by some
-external sign or gesture what he has conceived in his heart. This is the
-meaning of his saying that Peter <b>beckoned…and said</b>, that is, thinking of
-something within himself, he indicated it by some kind of gesture. Or, one
-could say that he first gave some gesture, and then said in words: <b>Who is it
-of whom he speaks? </b>that is, who will betray him.
-
-<p>1806 Since everywhere in the Gospels Peter is always
-presented as bold and as the first to speak out because of his fervent love,
-why is he now keeping silent? Chrysostom gives three reasons for this.<a
-href="#_ftn31" name="_ftnref31">[31]</a>
-One is that Peter had just been reprimanded by our Lord for not allowing him to
-wash his feet, and had heard, "If I do not wash you, you have no part in me."
-As a result, he preferred not to bother our Lord just now. Another reason is
-that Peter did not want our Lord to reveal this openly so that others could
-hear it. And so because Peter was a few feet away from Christ and would not be
-the only one to hear his answer, he urged John, who was next to Jesus, to ask
-him.
-
-<p>The third reason is mystical. John
-signifies the contemplative life, and Peter the active life. Now Peter is
-instructed by Christ by means of John because the active life learns about
-divine things by means of the contemplative life: "Mary sat at the Lord's feet
-and listened to his teaching. But Martha was distracted with much serving" (Lk
-10:39).
-
-<p>1807 Then when he says, <b>So lying thus, close to the
-breast of Jesus, he said to him, Lord, who is it?</b> he mentions the question.
-Note that when Peter was beckoning to John to get him to question our Lord,
-John was leaning near the lap of Jesus. But now when John asks he is near the
-breast of Jesus, for the breast is closer to the mouth than the lap is. And so
-John moved from the lap of Christ to his breast so he could hear his answer
-more quietly and privately.
-
-<p>As for the mystical interpretation,
-we can see from this that the more a person wants to grasp the secrets of
-divine wisdom, the more he should try to get closer to Christ, according to:
-"Come to him and be enlightened" [Ps 34:5]. For the secrets of divine wisdom
-are especially revealed to those who are joined to God by love: "He shows his
-friend that it is his possession" [Job 36:33]; "His friend comes and searches
-into him" [Prv 18:17].
-
-<p>1808 Then when he says, <b>Jesus answered</b>, he identifies
-the betrayer: first by words, then by an action. He identifies by words when he
-says, <b>It is he to whom I shall give this bread when I have dipped it</b>.
-This can signify two things, depending on how bread is understood. If it is
-understood to indicate something evil, it signifies the hypocrisy of Judas. For
-just as dipped bread is stained and has changed in appearance so also a
-pretender, for he thinks one thing in his heart while he simulates something
-else with his words. And Judas was like this, for on the outside he pretended
-to love the Teacher, but in his heart he planned to betray him: The wicked
-"speak peace with their neighbors, while mischief is in their hearts" (Ps 28:3).
-
-<p>If bread is taken to signify
-something good, then this action stresses the malice of Judas. When bread is
-dipped it tastes better. So Christ gave Judas dipped bread to show that
-although Judas had received many good things from Christ, in spite of these he
-betrayed him: "But it is you, my equal, my companion, my familiar friend. We
-used to hold sweet converse together" (Ps 55:13).
-
-<p>1809 He identifies the betrayer by an action when he says,<b>
-so when he had dipped the bread, he gave it to Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot</b>.
-Some say that this bread was the consecrated body of Christ. But, according to
-Augustine, this is not so.<a href="#_ftn32" name="_ftnref32">[32]</a>
-For it is clear from the other Evangelists that our Lord gave his body to the
-disciples while he was having supper. Thus it is evident that Judas received
-the body of Christ at the same time as the other disciples, that is, during the
-supper. During the course of this meal Jesus rose and washed the feet of the
-disciples and returned to his place. And it was only after this that he gave the
-bread to Judas. Clearly, this was not the body of Christ.
-
+John mentions what led him to question Christ. But since to beckon
+is to suggest something without speaking any words, why does he say
+that Peter both <b>beckoned&hellip;and said?</b> I answer that the
+[Latin] word beckon can also mean just to think something within
+ourselves, as "The fool says in his heart&hellip;" (Ps 53:1). And,
+even more so, we can say that someone said something when he
+indicates by some external sign or gesture what he has conceived in
+his heart. This is the meaning of his saying that Peter
+<b>beckoned&hellip;and said</b>, that is, thinking of something
+within himself, he indicated it by some kind of gesture. Or, one
+could say that he first gave some gesture, and then said in words:
+<b>Who is it of whom he speaks?</b> that is, who will betray
+him.</p>
+<p>1806 Since everywhere in the Gospels Peter is always presented
+as bold and as the first to speak out because of his fervent love,
+why is he now keeping silent? Chrysostom gives three reasons for
+this.<a href="#_ftn31" name="_ftnref31" id="_ftnref31">[31]</a> One
+is that Peter had just been reprimanded by our Lord for not
+allowing him to wash his feet, and had heard, "If I do not wash
+you, you have no part in me." As a result, he preferred not to
+bother our Lord just now. Another reason is that Peter did not want
+our Lord to reveal this openly so that others could hear it. And so
+because Peter was a few feet away from Christ and would not be the
+only one to hear his answer, he urged John, who was next to Jesus,
+to ask him.</p>
+<p>The third reason is mystical. John signifies the contemplative
+life, and Peter the active life. Now Peter is instructed by Christ
+by means of John because the active life learns about divine things
+by means of the contemplative life: "Mary sat at the Lord's feet
+and listened to his teaching. But Martha was distracted with much
+serving" (Lk 10:39).</p>
+<p>1807 Then when he says, <b>So lying thus, close to the breast of
+Jesus, he said to him, Lord, who is it?</b> he mentions the
+question. Note that when Peter was beckoning to John to get him to
+question our Lord, John was leaning near the lap of Jesus. But now
+when John asks he is near the breast of Jesus, for the breast is
+closer to the mouth than the lap is. And so John moved from the lap
+of Christ to his breast so he could hear his answer more quietly
+and privately.</p>
+<p>As for the mystical interpretation, we can see from this that
+the more a person wants to grasp the secrets of divine wisdom, the
+more he should try to get closer to Christ, according to: "Come to
+him and be enlightened" [Ps 34:5]. For the secrets of divine wisdom
+are especially revealed to those who are joined to God by love: "He
+shows his friend that it is his possession" [Job 36:33]; "His
+friend comes and searches into him" [Prv 18:17].</p>
+<p>1808 Then when he says, <b>Jesus answered</b>, he identifies the
+betrayer: first by words, then by an action. He identifies by words
+when he says, <b>It is he to whom I shall give this bread when I
+have dipped it</b>. This can signify two things, depending on how
+bread is understood. If it is understood to indicate something
+evil, it signifies the hypocrisy of Judas. For just as dipped bread
+is stained and has changed in appearance so also a pretender, for
+he thinks one thing in his heart while he simulates something else
+with his words. And Judas was like this, for on the outside he
+pretended to love the Teacher, but in his heart he planned to
+betray him: The wicked "speak peace with their neighbors, while
+mischief is in their hearts" (Ps 28:3).</p>
+<p>If bread is taken to signify something good, then this action
+stresses the malice of Judas. When bread is dipped it tastes
+better. So Christ gave Judas dipped bread to show that although
+Judas had received many good things from Christ, in spite of these
+he betrayed him: "But it is you, my equal, my companion, my
+familiar friend. We used to hold sweet converse together" (Ps
+55:13).</p>
+<p>1809 He identifies the betrayer by an action when he says,<b>so
+when he had dipped the bread, he gave it to Judas, the son of Simon
+Iscariot</b>. Some say that this bread was the consecrated body of
+Christ. But, according to Augustine, this is not so.<a href=
+"#_ftn32" name="_ftnref32" id="_ftnref32">[32]</a> For it is clear
+from the other Evangelists that our Lord gave his body to the
+disciples while he was having supper. Thus it is evident that Judas
+received the body of Christ at the same time as the other
+disciples, that is, during the supper. During the course of this
+meal Jesus rose and washed the feet of the disciples and returned
+to his place. And it was only after this that he gave the bread to
+Judas. Clearly, this was not the body of Christ.</p>
 <p>1810 He continues with the effect of this identification,
-saying, <b>then after the morsel, Satan entered into him</b>. Here we might ask
-how Satan enters into a person. I answer that there are two ways of
-understanding Satan's entering into a person. He could enter into a person's
-body, as in the case of those who are physically molested by a devil. In this
-way the devil can essentially enter into a person. Or, we might take it to mean
-that the devil enters into a person's mind, so that the devil would essentially
-penetrate the mind. However, no one but God can enter into a person in this
-way. Now the rational soul does not have quantitative dimensions so that
-something could be in it except what gives it existence, which is there by its
-own power. Now where the power of God is, there also is his essence: for in God
-essence and power are the same. So it is clear that God is in the soul
-essentially. Yet the devil can enter into the human mind in the sense that a
-person who has been seduced by him follows him in doing evil; this is an effect
-of the devil's malice, which someone has loved.<a href="#_ftn33"
-name="_ftnref33">[33]</a>
-
-<p>1811 It was said above: "And during supper, when the devil
-had already put it into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, to betray
-him…". But now he says, <b>Satan entered into him</b>. So there seems to be a
-difference between "put into" and "enter into." I say that this was not said to
-indicate a difference, but to note a growth in evil. The devil is said to put
-something evil into a person's heart when the person yields to him and assents
-to the evil, but with some fear as to whether he ought to do this or not. But
-he enters into a person's heart when one totally gives himself to following his
-suggestions and offers no resistance at all. Thus Satan first put the plan to
-deceive Christ into Judas, and then he entered into to possess him more
-completely and to lead him to accomplish the evil.
-
-<p>1812 One might ask why Luke (22:3) says that Satan entered
-into Judas even before he received the morsel. This seems to conflict with what
-John says here, that <b>after the morsel, Satan entered into him</b>. I answer
-that in the first cast Satan entered into him to plan the betrayal, but now he
-entered into him to accomplish and complete it.
-
+saying, <b>then after the morsel, Satan entered into him</b>. Here
+we might ask how Satan enters into a person. I answer that there
+are two ways of understanding Satan's entering into a person. He
+could enter into a person's body, as in the case of those who are
+physically molested by a devil. In this way the devil can
+essentially enter into a person. Or, we might take it to mean that
+the devil enters into a person's mind, so that the devil would
+essentially penetrate the mind. However, no one but God can enter
+into a person in this way. Now the rational soul does not have
+quantitative dimensions so that something could be in it except
+what gives it existence, which is there by its own power. Now where
+the power of God is, there also is his essence: for in God essence
+and power are the same. So it is clear that God is in the soul
+essentially. Yet the devil can enter into the human mind in the
+sense that a person who has been seduced by him follows him in
+doing evil; this is an effect of the devil's malice, which someone
+has loved.<a href="#_ftn33" name="_ftnref33" id=
+"_ftnref33">[33]</a></p>
+<p>1811 It was said above: "And during supper, when the devil had
+already put it into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, to
+betray him&hellip;". But now he says, <b>Satan entered into
+him</b>. So there seems to be a difference between "put into" and
+"enter into." I say that this was not said to indicate a
+difference, but to note a growth in evil. The devil is said to put
+something evil into a person's heart when the person yields to him
+and assents to the evil, but with some fear as to whether he ought
+to do this or not. But he enters into a person's heart when one
+totally gives himself to following his suggestions and offers no
+resistance at all. Thus Satan first put the plan to deceive Christ
+into Judas, and then he entered into to possess him more completely
+and to lead him to accomplish the evil.</p>
+<p>1812 One might ask why Luke (22:3) says that Satan entered into
+Judas even before he received the morsel. This seems to conflict
+with what John says here, that <b>after the morsel, Satan entered
+into him</b>. I answer that in the first cast Satan entered into
+him to plan the betrayal, but now he entered into him to accomplish
+and complete it.</p>
 <p>1813 Was it wrong to give Judas this morsel, for after that
-Satan would enter into him? I say, no. Judas himself was evil, and used a good
-thing in an evil way. In a similar way, when someone unworthily receives the
-Eucharist, which is good and even the best of things, he receives it in an evil
-way and it turns out to be evil for him, because he "eats and drinks judgment
-upon himself" (1 Cor 11:29). 
-<BR><BR><BR>
-<p align=center><b>LECTURE 5
-
-<BLOCKQUOTE><p>27b Jesus said to him, "What you are going to do, do
-quickly." 28 Now no one at the table knew why he said this to him. 29 Some
-thought that, because Judas had the money box, Jesus was telling him, "Buy what
-we need for the feast"; or, that he should give something to the poor. 30 So,
-after receiving the morsel, he immediately went out; and it was night.<a
-href="#_ftn34" name="_ftnref34">[34]</b></a></BLOCKQUOTE>
-
+Satan would enter into him? I say, no. Judas himself was evil, and
+used a good thing in an evil way. In a similar way, when someone
+unworthily receives the Eucharist, which is good and even the best
+of things, he receives it in an evil way and it turns out to be
+evil for him, because he "eats and drinks judgment upon himself" (1
+Cor 11:29).<br />
+<br />
+<br /></p>
+<p align="center"><b>LECTURE 5</b></p>
+<blockquote>
+<p><b>27b Jesus said to him, "What you are going to do, do
+quickly." 28 Now no one at the table knew why he said this to him.
+29 Some thought that, because Judas had the money box, Jesus was
+telling him, "Buy what we need for the feast"; or, that he should
+give something to the poor. 30 So, after receiving the morsel, he
+immediately went out; and it was night.<a href="#_ftn34" name=
+"_ftnref34" id="_ftnref34">[34]</a></b></p>
+</blockquote>
 <p>1814 We now see the betrayal itself, after it was predicted.
-First, we see that Judas was allowed to do what was predicted; and secondly,
-how it was done (v 30). John does three things with the first: first, he gives
-the words of our Lord, allowing Judas to act; secondly, he mentions that the
-meaning of these words was not clear; and thirdly, he states how the Apostles
-understood them.
-
+First, we see that Judas was allowed to do what was predicted; and
+secondly, how it was done (v 30). John does three things with the
+first: first, he gives the words of our Lord, allowing Judas to
+act; secondly, he mentions that the meaning of these words was not
+clear; and thirdly, he states how the Apostles understood them.</p>
 <p>1815 Our Lord's words were: <b>What you are going to do, do
-quickly</b>. This is not a command or a counsel, since sin cannot be commanded
-or counseled, because "The command of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes"
-(Ps 19:8). It is, rather, a permission. As we have seen, the devil had put it
-into the heart of Judas to betray Jesus, and he had already made arrangements
-with the chief priests. Yet he could not carry this out unless Christ himself
-gave permission, because "No one takes it [my life] from me, but I lay it down
-of my own accord" (10:18); "He was offered because it was his own will" [Is
-53:7].
-
-<p>These words also reprimand the evil
-act of betrayal, and imply that while Christ was conferring benefits on him,
-Judas was planning his death: "But now I rebuke you, and lay the charge before
-you" (Ps 50:21). As Augustine says, they are also the words of one who eagerly
-desires to carry out the work of our redemption.<a href="#_ftn35"
-name="_ftnref35">[35]</a>
-Still, Christ was not commanding the crime, but predicting it. He was not so
-much seeking the ruin of the one who betrayed him as he was hurrying to become
-the salvation of believers: "I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how I am
-constrained until it is accomplished!" (Lk 12:50).
-
+quickly</b>. This is not a command or a counsel, since sin cannot
+be commanded or counseled, because "The command of the Lord is
+pure, enlightening the eyes" (Ps 19:8). It is, rather, a
+permission. As we have seen, the devil had put it into the heart of
+Judas to betray Jesus, and he had already made arrangements with
+the chief priests. Yet he could not carry this out unless Christ
+himself gave permission, because "No one takes it [my life] from
+me, but I lay it down of my own accord" (10:18); "He was offered
+because it was his own will" [Is 53:7].</p>
+<p>These words also reprimand the evil act of betrayal, and imply
+that while Christ was conferring benefits on him, Judas was
+planning his death: "But now I rebuke you, and lay the charge
+before you" (Ps 50:21). As Augustine says, they are also the words
+of one who eagerly desires to carry out the work of our
+redemption.<a href="#_ftn35" name="_ftnref35" id=
+"_ftnref35">[35]</a> Still, Christ was not commanding the crime,
+but predicting it. He was not so much seeking the ruin of the one
+who betrayed him as he was hurrying to become the salvation of
+believers: "I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how I am
+constrained until it is accomplished!" (Lk 12:50).</p>
 <p>1816 What our Lord said was not clear to the disciples. John
-says, <b>Now no one at the table knew why he said this to him</b>. We can
-understand from this that the words of Christ are so profound and so above
-human understanding that we can understand no more of them than what he
-reveals: "It is the glory of God to conceal the word" [Prv 25:2].
-
+says, <b>Now no one at the table knew why he said this to him</b>.
+We can understand from this that the words of Christ are so
+profound and so above human understanding that we can understand no
+more of them than what he reveals: "It is the glory of God to
+conceal the word" [Prv 25:2].</p>
 <p>1817 A question arises here. Since our Lord had indicated to
-John who the traitor was, saying, <b>it is he to whom I shall give this bread
-when I have dipped it</b>, and then he gave it to Judas, the disciples seem to
-have been exceedingly dull not to have understood what he had just said. I
-answer that our Lord said this privately to John in order not to reveal the
-betrayer. The reason for this being that Peter loved Christ so fiercely that
-had he been certain that Judas was about to betray him, he would have quickly
-killed him.
-
-<p>1818 Since John himself was one of those at the dinner, why
-did he say, <b>no one at the table knew why he said this to him</b>? I answer
-that it is usual for one who is good and without evil to believe that others
-also are without evil. Now John was extremely good and would never consider
-becoming a betrayer. Thus he never suspected that another disciple would commit
-such a great crime.
-
-<p>1819 Now the Evangelist tells us what the disciples,
-ignorant of the real reason Jesus was speaking, thought he meant: some of the
-disciples <b>thought that, because Judas had the money box, Jesus was telling
-him…</b> Here we should note that the Lord God of Heaven, who feeds all living
-things, had a purse, not to own the things of earth, but to save the offerings
-of believers and so provide for his own necessities and the needs of others.
-This purse was in the care of Judas. As Augustine says, this teaches us that
-the Church can have and reserve money for its immediate needs.<a href="#_ftn36"
-name="_ftnref36">[36]</a>
-It also teaches us that the Church's money should be used for only two things.
-First, for what pertains to divine worship; for we read, <b>Buy what we need
-for the feast</b>, that is, what we can use to worship God on the festival day:
-"Bring the full tithes into the storehouse, that there may be food in my house"
-(Mal 3:10). Secondly, its money can be used to help the poor, so he adds, or <b>that
-he should give something to the poor</b>.
-
-<p>1820 One might argue against this that Matthew (6:34) says,
-"do not be anxious about tomorrow." Augustine answered this and said that or
-Lord did not command the saints not to keep the money or other goods of one day
-for the next.<a href="#_ftn37" name="_ftnref37">[37]</a>
-Rather, he said, "Do not be anxious about tomorrow." This means that we should
-not be preaching or doing other religious services in order to provide a future
-for ourselves; nor should we omit acting in a virtuous way because of fear of
-the future. Thus it is clear that when our Lord said "Do not be anxious about
-tomorrow," he was forbidding two things. First, we are not to do good to secure
-our future; secondly, we are not to omit doing good because we fear a future
-poverty.
-
-<p>Chrysostom explains this clearly
-when he says: "Do not be anxious about tomorrow, that is, do not anticipate
-today the cares of the next day; the troubles of today are enough."<a
-href="#_ftn38" name="_ftnref38">[38]</a>
-
-<p>1821 Some might also wonder why our Lord had a purse, since
-he told his disciples, "Carry no purse, no bag, no sandals" (Lk 10:4).
-According to Chrysostom, our Lord possessed a purse to provide for those in
-need and to teach us that no matter how poor and crucified to the world we may
-be, we should be concerned for the poor, according to "He has distributed
-freely, he has given to the poor" (Ps 112:9).<a href="#_ftn39" name="_ftnref39"
-title="">[39]</a>
-Or, we could say that when he told them to take nothing on their way, he was
-referring to individual preachers and Apostles, who should carry nothing when
-they went to preach. But it did not refer to the entire group which would need
-something for themselves and for the poor.
-
-<p>1822 Next (v 30), John shows that what was predicted came
-about. First, he mentions the action which was done; secondly, the time when it
-was done.
-
-<p>1823 What was done was done quickly, because <b>after
-receiving the morsel, he immediately went out</b>. Note that, as Origen says,
-the Evangelist does not say that Judas ate the morsel, but that he received it.<a
-href="#_ftn40" name="_ftnref40">[40]</a>
-This can be understood in two ways. First, it could be that Judas was so troubled
-about obeying the Teacher that when he received the morsel, he did not eat it,
-but perhaps left it on the table and without delay went out to complete his
-betrayal. The reason for this could be that the devil did not allow Judas to
-eat the bread. For the devil, who had already entered into the heart of Judas,
-feared that if Judas ate the bread, the devil would have to leave, since he
-could not be in the same place as Jesus: "What accord has Christ with Belial?"
-(2 Cor 6:15); "You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons" (1
-Cor 10:21).
-
-<p>Taken the other way, we could think
-that Judas ate the bread he received. Then the meaning is, <b>after receiving
-the morsel</b>, not only in his hand, but even eating it, <b>he immediately
-went out</b>. He thus made use of a good thing in a bad way. This is exactly
-what someone does who unworthily eats the bread of the Lord, or drinks from his
-chalice: he eats and drinks to his own damage and adds to his sin. So the bread
-Jesus gave to Judas became a source of harm: for after the bread entered into
-him so did Satan.
-
+John who the traitor was, saying, <b>it is he to whom I shall give
+this bread when I have dipped it</b>, and then he gave it to Judas,
+the disciples seem to have been exceedingly dull not to have
+understood what he had just said. I answer that our Lord said this
+privately to John in order not to reveal the betrayer. The reason
+for this being that Peter loved Christ so fiercely that had he been
+certain that Judas was about to betray him, he would have quickly
+killed him.</p>
+<p>1818 Since John himself was one of those at the dinner, why did
+he say, <b>no one at the table knew why he said this to him</b>? I
+answer that it is usual for one who is good and without evil to
+believe that others also are without evil. Now John was extremely
+good and would never consider becoming a betrayer. Thus he never
+suspected that another disciple would commit such a great
+crime.</p>
+<p>1819 Now the Evangelist tells us what the disciples, ignorant of
+the real reason Jesus was speaking, thought he meant: some of the
+disciples <b>thought that, because Judas had the money box, Jesus
+was telling him&hellip;</b> Here we should note that the Lord God
+of Heaven, who feeds all living things, had a purse, not to own the
+things of earth, but to save the offerings of believers and so
+provide for his own necessities and the needs of others. This purse
+was in the care of Judas. As Augustine says, this teaches us that
+the Church can have and reserve money for its immediate
+needs.<a href="#_ftn36" name="_ftnref36" id="_ftnref36">[36]</a> It
+also teaches us that the Church's money should be used for only two
+things. First, for what pertains to divine worship; for we read,
+<b>Buy what we need for the feast</b>, that is, what we can use to
+worship God on the festival day: "Bring the full tithes into the
+storehouse, that there may be food in my house" (Mal 3:10).
+Secondly, its money can be used to help the poor, so he adds, or
+<b>that he should give something to the poor</b>.</p>
+<p>1820 One might argue against this that Matthew (6:34) says, "do
+not be anxious about tomorrow." Augustine answered this and said
+that or Lord did not command the saints not to keep the money or
+other goods of one day for the next.<a href="#_ftn37" name=
+"_ftnref37" id="_ftnref37">[37]</a> Rather, he said, "Do not be
+anxious about tomorrow." This means that we should not be preaching
+or doing other religious services in order to provide a future for
+ourselves; nor should we omit acting in a virtuous way because of
+fear of the future. Thus it is clear that when our Lord said "Do
+not be anxious about tomorrow," he was forbidding two things.
+First, we are not to do good to secure our future; secondly, we are
+not to omit doing good because we fear a future poverty.</p>
+<p>Chrysostom explains this clearly when he says: "Do not be
+anxious about tomorrow, that is, do not anticipate today the cares
+of the next day; the troubles of today are enough."<a href=
+"#_ftn38" name="_ftnref38" id="_ftnref38">[38]</a></p>
+<p>1821 Some might also wonder why our Lord had a purse, since he
+told his disciples, "Carry no purse, no bag, no sandals" (Lk 10:4).
+According to Chrysostom, our Lord possessed a purse to provide for
+those in need and to teach us that no matter how poor and crucified
+to the world we may be, we should be concerned for the poor,
+according to "He has distributed freely, he has given to the poor"
+(Ps 112:9).<a href="#_ftn39" name="_ftnref39" title="" id=
+"_ftnref39">[39]</a> Or, we could say that when he told them to
+take nothing on their way, he was referring to individual preachers
+and Apostles, who should carry nothing when they went to preach.
+But it did not refer to the entire group which would need something
+for themselves and for the poor.</p>
+<p>1822 Next (v 30), John shows that what was predicted came about.
+First, he mentions the action which was done; secondly, the time
+when it was done.</p>
+<p>1823 What was done was done quickly, because <b>after receiving
+the morsel, he immediately went out</b>. Note that, as Origen says,
+the Evangelist does not say that Judas ate the morsel, but that he
+received it.<a href="#_ftn40" name="_ftnref40" id=
+"_ftnref40">[40]</a> This can be understood in two ways. First, it
+could be that Judas was so troubled about obeying the Teacher that
+when he received the morsel, he did not eat it, but perhaps left it
+on the table and without delay went out to complete his betrayal.
+The reason for this could be that the devil did not allow Judas to
+eat the bread. For the devil, who had already entered into the
+heart of Judas, feared that if Judas ate the bread, the devil would
+have to leave, since he could not be in the same place as Jesus:
+"What accord has Christ with Belial?" (2 Cor 6:15); "You cannot
+drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons" (1 Cor 10:21).</p>
+<p>Taken the other way, we could think that Judas ate the bread he
+received. Then the meaning is, <b>after receiving the morsel</b>,
+not only in his hand, but even eating it, <b>he immediately went
+out</b>. He thus made use of a good thing in a bad way. This is
+exactly what someone does who unworthily eats the bread of the
+Lord, or drinks from his chalice: he eats and drinks to his own
+damage and adds to his sin. So the bread Jesus gave to Judas became
+a source of harm: for after the bread entered into him so did
+Satan.</p>
 <p>1824 The time is described as one of darkness: <b>and it was
-night</b>. He mentions this for two reasons. First, to emphasize the malice of
-Judas. It had grown in his heart to such a degree that even the inconvenience
-of the hour did not cause him to wait till the morning: "The murderer rises in
-the dark…and in the night he is as a thief" (Job 24:14).
-
-<p>In the second place, he wants to
-show his state of mind. <b>It was night</b>, because the mind of Judas the
-traitor was dark, without divine light. "If any one walks in the day, he does
-not stumble, because he sees the light of this world. But if any one walks in
-the night, he stumbles, because the light is not in him" (11:9-10).
-<BR><BR><BR>
-<p align=center><b>LECTURE 6
-
-<BLOCKQUOTE><p>31 When he had gone out, Jesus said, "Now is the Son of
-man glorified and in him God is glorified; 32 if God is glorified in him, God
-will also glorify him in himself, and [will] glorify him at once.
-
-<p>1825 After Judas left to bring about our Lord's death, Jesus
-mentions that he himself will be leaving for glory. First, to console them, he
-mentions the glory to which he is going; secondly, he foretells his leaving (v
-33).</BLOCKQUOTE></b>
-
+night</b>. He mentions this for two reasons. First, to emphasize
+the malice of Judas. It had grown in his heart to such a degree
+that even the inconvenience of the hour did not cause him to wait
+till the morning: "The murderer rises in the dark&hellip;and in the
+night he is as a thief" (Job 24:14).</p>
+<p>In the second place, he wants to show his state of mind. <b>It
+was night</b>, because the mind of Judas the traitor was dark,
+without divine light. "If any one walks in the day, he does not
+stumble, because he sees the light of this world. But if any one
+walks in the night, he stumbles, because the light is not in him"
+(11:9-10).<br />
+<br />
+<br /></p>
+<p align="center"><b>LECTURE 6</b></p>
+<blockquote>
+<p><b>31 When he had gone out, Jesus said, "Now is the Son of man
+glorified and in him God is glorified; 32 if God is glorified in
+him, God will also glorify him in himself, and [will] glorify him
+at once.</b></p>
+<p><b>1825 After Judas left to bring about our Lord's death, Jesus
+mentions that he himself will be leaving for glory. First, to
+console them, he mentions the glory to which he is going; secondly,
+he foretells his leaving (v 33).</b></p>
+</blockquote>
 <p>1826 The glory to which he is going is the glorification and
-exaltation of Christ insofar as he is the Son of man. <b>When he had gone out</b>,
-that is Judas, <b>Jesus said</b>, to his disciples, <b>Now is the Son of man
-glorified, and in him God is glorified</b>. The [Latin] word used was actually
-"clarified" and not "glorified." But both words mean the same thing. To be
-clarified, (to be made bright or splendorous, to be displayed and made known)
-is the same as to be glorified, for glory is a kind of splendor. According to
-Ambrose, someone has glory when he is known with clarity and praised.<a
-href="#_ftn41" name="_ftnref41">[41]</a>
-And so exegetes translate the Greek word "clarify" as "glorify," and vice
-versa.
-
-<p>We can understand this statement in
-four ways, by referring it to the four kinds of glory which Christ had: the
-glory of the cross; the glory of his judicial power; the glory of his
-resurrection; and the glory of being known by the faith of the people.
-Scripture attributes this fourfold glory to Christ.
-
-<p>1827 First, then, Christ was glorified by being lifted up on
-the cross. Even Paul said that his own glory was in the cross: "But far be it
-from me to glory except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ" (Gal 6:14). This
-is the glory Chrysostom has in mind in his explanation of the text.<a
-href="#_ftn42" name="_ftnref42">[42]</a>
-In this explanation our Lord mentions four things about the glory of the cross:
-the glory itself; the fruit of this glory; the author of the glory; and the
-time of the glory.
-
-<p>As to the first [the very glory of
-the cross] he says, <b>Now is the Son of man glorified</b>. Note that when
-something is beginning, it seems in a way to already exist. Now when Judas went
-out to bring back the soldiers, this seems to be the beginning of Christ's
-passion, the passion by which he was to be glorified. This is why he says, <b>now
-is the Son of man glorified</b>, that is, the passion by which he will be
-glorified is now beginning. Indeed, Christ was glorified by the passion of the
-cross because by it he conquered the enemies of death and the devil: "that
-through death he might destroy him who has the power of death" (Heb 2:14).
-Again, he acquired glory because by his cross he joined heaven and earth: "to
-reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by
-the blood of his cross" (Col 1:20). Further, he was glorified by his cross
-because by it he acquired all kingship. One version of Psalm 95 (v 9) says:
-"Say to the nations that the Lord has reigned from his cross." Again, Christ
-was glorified by the cross because he accomplished many miracles on it: the
-curtain of the temple was split, an earthquake occurred, rocks were split and
-the sun was darkened, and many saints arose, as Matthew (27:51) states. So with
-his passion drawing near, these are the reasons why our Lord said, <b>now is
-the Son of man glorified</b>. It is like saying: now my passion is beginning,
-the passion which is my glory.
-
-<p>The fruit of this glory is that God
-is glorified by it. So he says, <b>and in him God is glorified</b>, that is, in
-the glorified Son of man. For the glory of the passion leads to the glory of
-God. If God was glorified by the death of Peter - "This he said to show by what
-death he was to glorify God" (21:19) - he was much more glorified by the death
-of Christ.
-
-<p>The author of this glory is not an
-angel or a human being, but God himself. He says, <b>if God is glorified in him</b>,
-that is, if his glory is so great that God is glorified by it, he does not need
-to be glorified by another. But <b>God will also glorify him in himself</b>,
-that is, through himself: "Father, glorify me"<a href="#_ftn43" name="_ftnref43"
-title="">[43]</a>
-(17:5).
-
-<p>The time for this glory is fast
-approaching, because God <b>will glorify him at once</b>, that is, he will give
-him the glory of the cross. "For the cross, although it is foolish to the
-Gentiles and to those who are lost, yet to us who believe, it is the very great
-wisdom of God and the power of God" (1 Cor 1:18).
-
+exaltation of Christ insofar as he is the Son of man. <b>When he
+had gone out</b>, that is Judas, <b>Jesus said</b>, to his
+disciples, <b>Now is the Son of man glorified, and in him God is
+glorified</b>. The [Latin] word used was actually "clarified" and
+not "glorified." But both words mean the same thing. To be
+clarified, (to be made bright or splendorous, to be displayed and
+made known) is the same as to be glorified, for glory is a kind of
+splendor. According to Ambrose, someone has glory when he is known
+with clarity and praised.<a href="#_ftn41" name="_ftnref41" id=
+"_ftnref41">[41]</a> And so exegetes translate the Greek word
+"clarify" as "glorify," and vice versa.</p>
+<p>We can understand this statement in four ways, by referring it
+to the four kinds of glory which Christ had: the glory of the
+cross; the glory of his judicial power; the glory of his
+resurrection; and the glory of being known by the faith of the
+people. Scripture attributes this fourfold glory to Christ.</p>
+<p>1827 First, then, Christ was glorified by being lifted up on the
+cross. Even Paul said that his own glory was in the cross: "But far
+be it from me to glory except in the cross of our Lord Jesus
+Christ" (Gal 6:14). This is the glory Chrysostom has in mind in his
+explanation of the text.<a href="#_ftn42" name="_ftnref42" id=
+"_ftnref42">[42]</a> In this explanation our Lord mentions four
+things about the glory of the cross: the glory itself; the fruit of
+this glory; the author of the glory; and the time of the glory.</p>
+<p>As to the first [the very glory of the cross] he says, <b>Now is
+the Son of man glorified</b>. Note that when something is
+beginning, it seems in a way to already exist. Now when Judas went
+out to bring back the soldiers, this seems to be the beginning of
+Christ's passion, the passion by which he was to be glorified. This
+is why he says, <b>now is the Son of man glorified</b>, that is,
+the passion by which he will be glorified is now beginning. Indeed,
+Christ was glorified by the passion of the cross because by it he
+conquered the enemies of death and the devil: "that through death
+he might destroy him who has the power of death" (Heb 2:14). Again,
+he acquired glory because by his cross he joined heaven and earth:
+"to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven,
+making peace by the blood of his cross" (Col 1:20). Further, he was
+glorified by his cross because by it he acquired all kingship. One
+version of Psalm 95 (v 9) says: "Say to the nations that the Lord
+has reigned from his cross." Again, Christ was glorified by the
+cross because he accomplished many miracles on it: the curtain of
+the temple was split, an earthquake occurred, rocks were split and
+the sun was darkened, and many saints arose, as Matthew (27:51)
+states. So with his passion drawing near, these are the reasons why
+our Lord said, <b>now is the Son of man glorified</b>. It is like
+saying: now my passion is beginning, the passion which is my
+glory.</p>
+<p>The fruit of this glory is that God is glorified by it. So he
+says, <b>and in him God is glorified</b>, that is, in the glorified
+Son of man. For the glory of the passion leads to the glory of God.
+If God was glorified by the death of Peter - "This he said to show
+by what death he was to glorify God" (21:19) - he was much more
+glorified by the death of Christ.</p>
+<p>The author of this glory is not an angel or a human being, but
+God himself. He says, <b>if God is glorified in him</b>, that is,
+if his glory is so great that God is glorified by it, he does not
+need to be glorified by another. But <b>God will also glorify him
+in himself</b>, that is, through himself: "Father, glorify
+me"<a href="#_ftn43" name="_ftnref43" title="" id=
+"_ftnref43">[43]</a> (17:5).</p>
+<p>The time for this glory is fast approaching, because God <b>will
+glorify him at once</b>, that is, he will give him the glory of the
+cross. "For the cross, although it is foolish to the Gentiles and
+to those who are lost, yet to us who believe, it is the very great
+wisdom of God and the power of God" (1 Cor 1:18).</p>
 <p>1828 The second glory of Christ is the glory of his judicial
-power: "And then they will see the Son of man coming in clouds with great power
-and glory" (Mk 13:26). This is the glory about which Augustine speaks, as the
-gloss says.<a href="#_ftn44" name="_ftnref44">[44]</a>
-In reference to this, he does four things here: first, he mentions the glory of
-the judicial power of Christ; secondly, he shows the merit from which he
-acquired it; thirdly, he expounds on this; fourthly, he shows the source of
-Christ's glory. As to the first, he says, <b>Now is the Son of man glorified</b>.
-We should note that in Sacred Scripture, one thing is not explicitly said to
-signify another, and the word for the signifying thing is also used for the
-thing signified. For example, we do not read that "The rock signified Christ";
-rather, it says, "And the Rock was Christ" (1 Cor 10:4). In the departure of
-Judas away from the apostles we have a kind of image of the future judgment,
-when the wicked will be separated from the good, and Christ will put the sheep
-on his right and the goats on his left (Mt 25:33). Since this departure of
-Judas signified the future judgment, right after this our Lord began to speak
-of the glory of his judicial power, saying, <b>Now is the Son of man glorified</b>;
-that is, this departure or separation represents the glory which the Son of man
-will have in the judgment, where none of the good will perish and none of the
-evil will be with them. He does not say: "Now is the glorification of the Son
-of man signified," but rather, <b>Now is the Son of man glorified</b>, in
-keeping with the above-mentioned custom of Scripture.
-
-<p>Now the merit of this glorification
-is that God would be glorified in him. For God is glorified by those who seek
-to do his will, and not their own. Christ was like this: "For I have come down
-from heaven not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me" (6:38). And
-this is why <b>in him God is glorified</b>. He amplifies on this when he says, <b>if
-God is glorified in him</b>, that is, if, by doing the will of God, he
-glorifies God, then rightly <b>God will also glorify him in himself</b>, so
-that the human nature assumed by the eternal Word will be given an eternal
-glory. Thus, <b>in himself</b>, that is, in his own glory: "Therefore God has
-highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name which is above every name"
-(Phil 2:9). Therefore the glorification by which God is glorified in Christ is
-the merit in virtue of which Christ as man is glorified <b>in himself</b>, that
-is, in the glory of God. This will occur when his human nature, its weakness
-having been laid down by the death of the cross, receives the glory of
-immortality at the resurrection. So the resurrection itself was the source from
-which this glory began. Accordingly he says, <b>and will glorify him at once</b>,
-at the resurrection, which will quickly come: "I will arise in the morning
-early" [Ps 108:2]: and also, "You will not let your Holy One see corruption"
-[Ps 16:10].
-
-<p>1829 The third glory of Christ is the glory of his
-resurrection, about which we read, "We were buried therefore with him by
-baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of
-the Father, we too might walk in newness of life" (Rom 6:4). It is in terms of
-this glory that Hilary explains this passage, and Augustine also in part.<a
-href="#_ftn45" name="_ftnref45">[45]</a>
-
-<p>From this aspect, Christ first
-foretells this glory of his, saying, <b>Now is the Son of man glorified</b>.
-Here he is speaking of the future as if it has already happened, because what
-we think will quickly happen we regard as good as done. Now the glory of the
-resurrection was very near, and so he says, <b>Now is the Son of man glorified</b>,
-as if his body, by its union with the divine nature, had in a way acquired the
-glory of the divinity.
-
-<p>Secondly, he mentions the cause of
-this glory quite subtly. As he said, in the resurrection the humanity of Christ
-was glorified because of its union with the divine nature; and there was one
-person, that of the Word. For we read: "You will not leave my soul in Sheol;
-you will not let your holy one," who is the holiest of all, "see corruption"
-[Ps 16:10]. Such glory is also due to this human being, Christ, in so far as he
-is God. We too will have the glory of the resurrection to the extent that we
-share in the divinity: "He who raised Jesus Christ from the dead will give life
-to your mortal bodies also through his Spirit which dwells in you" (Rom 8:11).
-So he says that <b>the Son of man</b>, that is, Christ considered in his human
-nature, <b>is glorified</b>, by his resurrection. And who will glorify him? He
-says, <b>God will also glorify him in himself</b>, so that this human being,
-Christ, who reigns in the glory which is from the glory of God, may himself
-pass into the glory of God, that is, might entirely abide in God, as though
-deified by the way his human nature is possessed. It is like saying: A lamp is
-bright because a fire is burning brightly within it. That which sends the rays
-of brightness into the human nature of Christ is God; and thus the human nature
-of Christ is glorified by the glory of his divinity, and the human nature of
-Christ is brought into the glory of his divinity, not by having its nature
-changed, but by a sharing of glory in so far as this human being, Christ, is
-adored as God: "Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the
-name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should
-bow" (Phil 2:9). So he says, <b>if God is glorified in him</b>, that is, if it
-is true that the glory of his divinity overflows to the glory of his humanity,
-subsequently <b>God will also glorify him in himself</b>, give him a share of
-his own glory by assuming him into that glory: "Every tongue should confess
-that the Lord Jesus is in the glory of the Father" [Phil 2:11].
-
-<p>Thus, Christ has a twofold glory.
-One is in his human nature, but is derived from his divinity. The other is the
-glory of his divinity, into which his human nature is in a way taken up. But
-each glory is different. The first-mentioned glory had a beginning in time. For
-this reason he speaks of it as past, saying, <b>and in him God is</b>, or has
-been, <b>glorified</b>, on the day of the resurrection. The other glory is
-eternal, because from eternity the Word of God is God. And the human nature of
-Christ, assumed into this glory, will be glorified forever. And so he speaks of
-this as in the future: <b>and will glorify him at once</b>, that is, he will
-always establish him in that glory forever.
-
-<p>1830 The fourth glory of Christ is the glory of being known
-by the faith of the people. Origen has this kind of glory in mind in his
-exposition.<a href="#_ftn46" name="_ftnref46">[46]</a>
-According to him, glory means one thing in ordinary speech, and another thing
-in Scripture. In ordinary speech, glory is the praise given by a number of
-people, or the clear knowledge of someone accompanied by praise, as Ambrose
-says.<a href="#_ftn47" name="_ftnref47">[47]</a>
-While in Scripture, glory indicates that a divine sign or mark is upon one. We
-read in Exodus [40:34] that "The glory of the Lord appeared over the
-tabernacle," that is, a divine sign rested over it. The same happened to the
-face of Moses, when it was glorified. Just as glory, in the physical sense,
-indicates that a divine sign rests upon one, so, in the spiritual sense, that
-intellect is said to be glorified when it is so deified and so transcends all
-material things that it is raised to a knowledge of God. It is by this that we
-are made sharers of glory: "And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory
-of the Lord, are being changed into his likeness from one degree of glory to
-another" (2 Cor 3:18). Therefore, if anyone who knows God is glorified and made
-a sharer of glory, it is clear that Christ, who knows God most perfectly, since
-he is the brightness of the entire divine glory (Heb 1:30), and able to receive
-the splendor of the entire divine glory, if, I say, this is so, then Christ is
-most perfectly glorified. And all who know God owe this to Christ.
-
-<p>But men did not yet realize that
-Christ was so glorified by this most perfect knowledge and participation in the
-divinity. And so, although he was glorified in himself, he was not yet glorified
-in the knowledge of men. He began to have his glory at his passion and
-resurrection, when men began to recognize his power and divinity. Our Lord,
-speaking here of this glory, says, <b>Now is the Son of man glorified</b>, that
-is, now, in his human nature, he is receiving glory in the knowledge of men
-because of his approaching passion. <b>And in him God</b>, the Father, <b>is
-glorified</b>. For the Son not only reveals himself, but the Father as well:
-"[Father] I have manifested thy name" (17:6). Consequently, not only is the Son
-glorified, but the Father also: "No one knows the Father except the Son and any
-one to whom the Son chooses to reveal him" (Mt 11:27). He says, <b>in him</b>,
-because one who sees the Son also sees the Father (14:9).
-
-<p>It is characteristic of one who is
-greater to return what is greater. And thus he adds, <b>if God is glorified in
-him</b>, that is, if the glory of God the Father somehow increases because of
-the glory of the Son of man, because the Father becomes better known, <b>God
-will also glorify him in himself</b>, that is, make it known that Christ Jesus
-is in his glory. This will not be delayed for he <b>will glorify him at once</b>.
-<BR><BR><BR>
-<p align=center><b>LECTURE 7
-
-<BLOCKQUOTE><p>33 "Little children, yet a little while I am with you. You
-will seek me; and as I said to the Jews so now I say to you, 'Where I am going
-you cannot come.' 34 A new commandment I give to you, that you love one
-another; even as I have loved you, that you also love one another. 35 By this
-all men will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another."</BLOCKQUOTE></b>
-
-<p> 1831 Above, our Lord spoke of the glory he would acquire by
-his leaving. Here, he is telling them that he will leave them. First, he
-foretells his leaving; secondly, he shows that his disciples were not yet fit
-to follow him (v 33b); thirdly, he shows how they can become fit, <b>A new
-commandment I give to you</b>.
-
-<p>1832 He briefly foretells his coming departure, saying, <b>Little
-children, yet a little while I am with you</b>. He uses the words of a parent
-to his children the more to inflame their love; for it is when friends are about
-to leave each other that they especially glow with love: "Having loved his own
-who were in the world, he loved them to the end" (13:1). He says, <b>little
-children</b>, to show their imperfection, for they were not yet perfectly
-children, because they did not yet perfectly love. They were not yet perfect in
-charity: "My little children, with whom I am again in travail until Christ be
-informed in you" (Gal 4:19). Still, they had grown somewhat in perfection,
-because from slaves they became little children, as he calls them here, and
-brethren, "Go to my brethren and say to them" (20:17).
-
+power: "And then they will see the Son of man coming in clouds with
+great power and glory" (Mk 13:26). This is the glory about which
+Augustine speaks, as the gloss says.<a href="#_ftn44" name=
+"_ftnref44" id="_ftnref44">[44]</a> In reference to this, he does
+four things here: first, he mentions the glory of the judicial
+power of Christ; secondly, he shows the merit from which he
+acquired it; thirdly, he expounds on this; fourthly, he shows the
+source of Christ's glory. As to the first, he says, <b>Now is the
+Son of man glorified</b>. We should note that in Sacred Scripture,
+one thing is not explicitly said to signify another, and the word
+for the signifying thing is also used for the thing signified. For
+example, we do not read that "The rock signified Christ"; rather,
+it says, "And the Rock was Christ" (1 Cor 10:4). In the departure
+of Judas away from the apostles we have a kind of image of the
+future judgment, when the wicked will be separated from the good,
+and Christ will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his
+left (Mt 25:33). Since this departure of Judas signified the future
+judgment, right after this our Lord began to speak of the glory of
+his judicial power, saying, <b>Now is the Son of man glorified</b>;
+that is, this departure or separation represents the glory which
+the Son of man will have in the judgment, where none of the good
+will perish and none of the evil will be with them. He does not
+say: "Now is the glorification of the Son of man signified," but
+rather, <b>Now is the Son of man glorified</b>, in keeping with the
+above-mentioned custom of Scripture.</p>
+<p>Now the merit of this glorification is that God would be
+glorified in him. For God is glorified by those who seek to do his
+will, and not their own. Christ was like this: "For I have come
+down from heaven not to do my own will, but the will of him who
+sent me" (6:38). And this is why <b>in him God is glorified</b>. He
+amplifies on this when he says, <b>if God is glorified in him</b>,
+that is, if, by doing the will of God, he glorifies God, then
+rightly <b>God will also glorify him in himself</b>, so that the
+human nature assumed by the eternal Word will be given an eternal
+glory. Thus, <b>in himself</b>, that is, in his own glory:
+"Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name
+which is above every name" (Phil 2:9). Therefore the glorification
+by which God is glorified in Christ is the merit in virtue of which
+Christ as man is glorified <b>in himself</b>, that is, in the glory
+of God. This will occur when his human nature, its weakness having
+been laid down by the death of the cross, receives the glory of
+immortality at the resurrection. So the resurrection itself was the
+source from which this glory began. Accordingly he says, <b>and
+will glorify him at once</b>, at the resurrection, which will
+quickly come: "I will arise in the morning early" [Ps 108:2]: and
+also, "You will not let your Holy One see corruption" [Ps
+16:10].</p>
+<p>1829 The third glory of Christ is the glory of his resurrection,
+about which we read, "We were buried therefore with him by baptism
+into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory
+of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life" (Rom 6:4). It
+is in terms of this glory that Hilary explains this passage, and
+Augustine also in part.<a href="#_ftn45" name="_ftnref45" id=
+"_ftnref45">[45]</a></p>
+<p>From this aspect, Christ first foretells this glory of his,
+saying, <b>Now is the Son of man glorified</b>. Here he is speaking
+of the future as if it has already happened, because what we think
+will quickly happen we regard as good as done. Now the glory of the
+resurrection was very near, and so he says, <b>Now is the Son of
+man glorified</b>, as if his body, by its union with the divine
+nature, had in a way acquired the glory of the divinity.</p>
+<p>Secondly, he mentions the cause of this glory quite subtly. As
+he said, in the resurrection the humanity of Christ was glorified
+because of its union with the divine nature; and there was one
+person, that of the Word. For we read: "You will not leave my soul
+in Sheol; you will not let your holy one," who is the holiest of
+all, "see corruption" [Ps 16:10]. Such glory is also due to this
+human being, Christ, in so far as he is God. We too will have the
+glory of the resurrection to the extent that we share in the
+divinity: "He who raised Jesus Christ from the dead will give life
+to your mortal bodies also through his Spirit which dwells in you"
+(Rom 8:11). So he says that <b>the Son of man</b>, that is, Christ
+considered in his human nature, <b>is glorified</b>, by his
+resurrection. And who will glorify him? He says, <b>God will also
+glorify him in himself</b>, so that this human being, Christ, who
+reigns in the glory which is from the glory of God, may himself
+pass into the glory of God, that is, might entirely abide in God,
+as though deified by the way his human nature is possessed. It is
+like saying: A lamp is bright because a fire is burning brightly
+within it. That which sends the rays of brightness into the human
+nature of Christ is God; and thus the human nature of Christ is
+glorified by the glory of his divinity, and the human nature of
+Christ is brought into the glory of his divinity, not by having its
+nature changed, but by a sharing of glory in so far as this human
+being, Christ, is adored as God: "Therefore God has highly exalted
+him and bestowed on him the name which is above every name, that at
+the name of Jesus every knee should bow" (Phil 2:9). So he says,
+<b>if God is glorified in him</b>, that is, if it is true that the
+glory of his divinity overflows to the glory of his humanity,
+subsequently <b>God will also glorify him in himself</b>, give him
+a share of his own glory by assuming him into that glory: "Every
+tongue should confess that the Lord Jesus is in the glory of the
+Father" [Phil 2:11].</p>
+<p>Thus, Christ has a twofold glory. One is in his human nature,
+but is derived from his divinity. The other is the glory of his
+divinity, into which his human nature is in a way taken up. But
+each glory is different. The first-mentioned glory had a beginning
+in time. For this reason he speaks of it as past, saying, <b>and in
+him God is</b>, or has been, <b>glorified</b>, on the day of the
+resurrection. The other glory is eternal, because from eternity the
+Word of God is God. And the human nature of Christ, assumed into
+this glory, will be glorified forever. And so he speaks of this as
+in the future: <b>and will glorify him at once</b>, that is, he
+will always establish him in that glory forever.</p>
+<p>1830 The fourth glory of Christ is the glory of being known by
+the faith of the people. Origen has this kind of glory in mind in
+his exposition.<a href="#_ftn46" name="_ftnref46" id=
+"_ftnref46">[46]</a> According to him, glory means one thing in
+ordinary speech, and another thing in Scripture. In ordinary
+speech, glory is the praise given by a number of people, or the
+clear knowledge of someone accompanied by praise, as Ambrose
+says.<a href="#_ftn47" name="_ftnref47" id="_ftnref47">[47]</a>
+While in Scripture, glory indicates that a divine sign or mark is
+upon one. We read in Exodus [40:34] that "The glory of the Lord
+appeared over the tabernacle," that is, a divine sign rested over
+it. The same happened to the face of Moses, when it was glorified.
+Just as glory, in the physical sense, indicates that a divine sign
+rests upon one, so, in the spiritual sense, that intellect is said
+to be glorified when it is so deified and so transcends all
+material things that it is raised to a knowledge of God. It is by
+this that we are made sharers of glory: "And we all, with unveiled
+face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being changed into his
+likeness from one degree of glory to another" (2 Cor 3:18).
+Therefore, if anyone who knows God is glorified and made a sharer
+of glory, it is clear that Christ, who knows God most perfectly,
+since he is the brightness of the entire divine glory (Heb 1:30),
+and able to receive the splendor of the entire divine glory, if, I
+say, this is so, then Christ is most perfectly glorified. And all
+who know God owe this to Christ.</p>
+<p>But men did not yet realize that Christ was so glorified by this
+most perfect knowledge and participation in the divinity. And so,
+although he was glorified in himself, he was not yet glorified in
+the knowledge of men. He began to have his glory at his passion and
+resurrection, when men began to recognize his power and divinity.
+Our Lord, speaking here of this glory, says, <b>Now is the Son of
+man glorified</b>, that is, now, in his human nature, he is
+receiving glory in the knowledge of men because of his approaching
+passion. <b>And in him God</b>, the Father, <b>is glorified</b>.
+For the Son not only reveals himself, but the Father as well:
+"[Father] I have manifested thy name" (17:6). Consequently, not
+only is the Son glorified, but the Father also: "No one knows the
+Father except the Son and any one to whom the Son chooses to reveal
+him" (Mt 11:27). He says, <b>in him</b>, because one who sees the
+Son also sees the Father (14:9).</p>
+<p>It is characteristic of one who is greater to return what is
+greater. And thus he adds, <b>if God is glorified in him</b>, that
+is, if the glory of God the Father somehow increases because of the
+glory of the Son of man, because the Father becomes better known,
+<b>God will also glorify him in himself</b>, that is, make it known
+that Christ Jesus is in his glory. This will not be delayed for he
+<b>will glorify him at once</b>.<br />
+<br />
+<br /></p>
+<p align="center"><b>LECTURE 7</b></p>
+<blockquote>
+<p><b>33 "Little children, yet a little while I am with you. You
+will seek me; and as I said to the Jews so now I say to you, 'Where
+I am going you cannot come.' 34 A new commandment I give to you,
+that you love one another; even as I have loved you, that you also
+love one another. 35 By this all men will know that you are my
+disciples, if you have love for one another."</b></p>
+</blockquote>
+<p>1831 Above, our Lord spoke of the glory he would acquire by his
+leaving. Here, he is telling them that he will leave them. First,
+he foretells his leaving; secondly, he shows that his disciples
+were not yet fit to follow him (v 33b); thirdly, he shows how they
+can become fit, <b>A new commandment I give to you</b>.</p>
+<p>1832 He briefly foretells his coming departure, saying,
+<b>Little children, yet a little while I am with you</b>. He uses
+the words of a parent to his children the more to inflame their
+love; for it is when friends are about to leave each other that
+they especially glow with love: "Having loved his own who were in
+the world, he loved them to the end" (13:1). He says, <b>little
+children</b>, to show their imperfection, for they were not yet
+perfectly children, because they did not yet perfectly love. They
+were not yet perfect in charity: "My little children, with whom I
+am again in travail until Christ be informed in you" (Gal 4:19).
+Still, they had grown somewhat in perfection, because from slaves
+they became little children, as he calls them here, and brethren,
+"Go to my brethren and say to them" (20:17).</p>
 <p>1833 We should note that the expression, <b>yet a little
-while</b>, can be explained in three ways, according to the three ways Christ
-is present to his disciples. Christ was present to his disciples in body. But
-his body can be considered in two ways. First, we can view it as having the
-characteristics that belong to human nature, for Christ had a mortal body, just
-as others. So, <b>a little while</b>, is understood as the time between these
-words and his death. So the sense is: <b>yet a little while I am with you</b>,
-that is, a little time remains until I am taken and die, and then I will rise
-and be immortal, even in body: "Christ being raised from the dead will never
-die again; death no longer has dominion over him" (Rom 6:9). So Luke (24:44)
-says: "These are my words which I spoke to you, while I was still with you."
-
-<p>Secondly, he was with them in body,
-but a body that was already glorified. Then, <b>a little while</b>, indicates
-the time that intervened until his ascension: "A little while, and you will see
-me no more; again a little while, and you will see me, because I go to the
-Father" [16:16]; "Once again, in a little while, I will shake the heavens and
-the earth and the sea and the dry land" (Hag 2:6).
-
-<p>Thirdly, it can be explained as
-applying to the spiritual presence of Christ, his presence in his divinity and
-in the sacraments. Then, <b>a little while</b>, is taken to mean the time which
-would intervene until the end of the world. This is a little while in
-comparison with eternity: "Children it is the last hour" (1 Jn 2:18). Then the
-meaning is: <b>yet a little while I am with you</b>, that is, although I will
-leave you in body, I am still spiritually with you for <b>a little while</b>
-which remains before the end of the world: "I am with you always, to the close
-of the age" (Mt 28:20).
-
-<p>Yet this explanation is not
-appropriate to the presence of Christ in his divinity, for he will be with them
-not only to the end of the world, but for all eternity. For this reason Origen
-explains it another way.<a href="#_ftn48" name="_ftnref48">[48]</a>
-He says that Christ is always with the perfect, who do not sin in a serious
-way. But he is not always present to the imperfect, because when they sin he
-withdraws from them. Now in a little while the disciples would leave Christ,
-fall away and abandon him: "You will all fall away because of me this night"
-(Mt 26:31). And so Christ spiritually withdrew from them. In reference to this
-he says, <b>yet a little while I am with you</b>, that is, in a little while
-you will leave and abandon me, and then I will not be with you.
-
-<p>1834 Next, he mentions their inability to follow him. First,
-he notes their effort, <b>you will seek me</b>, whom you have spiritually
-abandoned by your flight and denials. <b>You will seek me</b>, I say, by your
-repentance, as Peter did, who wept bitterly: "Seek the Lord while he may be
-found" (Is 55:6); "In their distress they seek me" (Hos 5:15). Or, <b>you will
-seek me</b>, that is, you will want me to be present in body: "The days are
-coming when you will desire to see one of the days of the Son of man, and you
-will not see it" (Lk 17:22).
-
-<p>Secondly, he shows their weakness,
-saying, <b>as I said to the Jews so now I say to you, Where I am going you
-cannot come</b>. Yet this was said differently to the two. Some of the Jews
-would never be converted. It was to these that it was said absolutely that they
-could not go where Christ was going. But now that Judas has gone, none of the
-remaining disciples would be separated from Christ. And to them he did not say
-absolutely, <b>you cannot come</b>, but added, <b>now I say to you</b>. It is
-like saying: <b>I said to the Jews</b>, that is, to the obstinate among them,
-that they could never come. But <b>I say to you</b>, that for <b>now</b>, you
-cannot follow me, because you are not perfect enough in charity to want to die
-for me. For I will leave you by dying.
-
-<p>Again, I am going to the glory of
-my Father, to which no one can come unless he is perfect in charity. Also, I
-will be glorified now, for as we read, "Now is the Son of man glorified." But
-it is not yet the time for your bodies to be glorified; so, <b>where I am going
-you cannot come</b>.
-
+while</b>, can be explained in three ways, according to the three
+ways Christ is present to his disciples. Christ was present to his
+disciples in body. But his body can be considered in two ways.
+First, we can view it as having the characteristics that belong to
+human nature, for Christ had a mortal body, just as others. So,
+<b>a little while</b>, is understood as the time between these
+words and his death. So the sense is: <b>yet a little while I am
+with you</b>, that is, a little time remains until I am taken and
+die, and then I will rise and be immortal, even in body: "Christ
+being raised from the dead will never die again; death no longer
+has dominion over him" (Rom 6:9). So Luke (24:44) says: "These are
+my words which I spoke to you, while I was still with you."</p>
+<p>Secondly, he was with them in body, but a body that was already
+glorified. Then, <b>a little while</b>, indicates the time that
+intervened until his ascension: "A little while, and you will see
+me no more; again a little while, and you will see me, because I go
+to the Father" [16:16]; "Once again, in a little while, I will
+shake the heavens and the earth and the sea and the dry land" (Hag
+2:6).</p>
+<p>Thirdly, it can be explained as applying to the spiritual
+presence of Christ, his presence in his divinity and in the
+sacraments. Then, <b>a little while</b>, is taken to mean the time
+which would intervene until the end of the world. This is a little
+while in comparison with eternity: "Children it is the last hour"
+(1 Jn 2:18). Then the meaning is: <b>yet a little while I am with
+you</b>, that is, although I will leave you in body, I am still
+spiritually with you for <b>a little while</b> which remains before
+the end of the world: "I am with you always, to the close of the
+age" (Mt 28:20).</p>
+<p>Yet this explanation is not appropriate to the presence of
+Christ in his divinity, for he will be with them not only to the
+end of the world, but for all eternity. For this reason Origen
+explains it another way.<a href="#_ftn48" name="_ftnref48" id=
+"_ftnref48">[48]</a> He says that Christ is always with the
+perfect, who do not sin in a serious way. But he is not always
+present to the imperfect, because when they sin he withdraws from
+them. Now in a little while the disciples would leave Christ, fall
+away and abandon him: "You will all fall away because of me this
+night" (Mt 26:31). And so Christ spiritually withdrew from them. In
+reference to this he says, <b>yet a little while I am with you</b>,
+that is, in a little while you will leave and abandon me, and then
+I will not be with you.</p>
+<p>1834 Next, he mentions their inability to follow him. First, he
+notes their effort, <b>you will seek me</b>, whom you have
+spiritually abandoned by your flight and denials. <b>You will seek
+me</b>, I say, by your repentance, as Peter did, who wept bitterly:
+"Seek the Lord while he may be found" (Is 55:6); "In their distress
+they seek me" (Hos 5:15). Or, <b>you will seek me</b>, that is, you
+will want me to be present in body: "The days are coming when you
+will desire to see one of the days of the Son of man, and you will
+not see it" (Lk 17:22).</p>
+<p>Secondly, he shows their weakness, saying, <b>as I said to the
+Jews so now I say to you, Where I am going you cannot come</b>. Yet
+this was said differently to the two. Some of the Jews would never
+be converted. It was to these that it was said absolutely that they
+could not go where Christ was going. But now that Judas has gone,
+none of the remaining disciples would be separated from Christ. And
+to them he did not say absolutely, <b>you cannot come</b>, but
+added, <b>now I say to you</b>. It is like saying: <b>I said to the
+Jews</b>, that is, to the obstinate among them, that they could
+never come. But <b>I say to you</b>, that for <b>now</b>, you
+cannot follow me, because you are not perfect enough in charity to
+want to die for me. For I will leave you by dying.</p>
+<p>Again, I am going to the glory of my Father, to which no one can
+come unless he is perfect in charity. Also, I will be glorified
+now, for as we read, "Now is the Son of man glorified." But it is
+not yet the time for your bodies to be glorified; so, <b>where I am
+going you cannot come</b>.</p>
 <p>1835 Then, he teaches them how they can become fit to follow
-him: <b>a new commandment I give to you</b>. First, he mentions the special
-character of this commandment; secondly, he shows why they should live up to it
-(v 35). As to the first he does three things: first, he mentions a feature of
-this commandment, secondly, its meaning; and thirdly, its standard.
-
+him: <b>a new commandment I give to you</b>. First, he mentions the
+special character of this commandment; secondly, he shows why they
+should live up to it (v 35). As to the first he does three things:
+first, he mentions a feature of this commandment, secondly, its
+meaning; and thirdly, its standard.</p>
 <p>1836 The feature of this commandment he emphasizes is its
-newness. Thus he says, <b>a new commandment</b>. But did not the Old Testament
-or Law have a commandment about the love of one's neighbor? It did, because
-when Christ was asked by a lawyer which was the greatest commandment, he
-replied: "You shall love the Lord your God," and continued, "You shall love
-your neighbor as yourself" (Mt 22:37). This is found in Leviticus: "You shall
-love your neighbor as yourself" (Lev 19:18).
-
-<p>Nevertheless, there are three
-special reasons why this commandment is said to be new. First, because of the
-newness, the renewal, it produces: "You have put off the old nature with its
-practices and have put on the new nature, which is being renewed in knowledge
-after the image of its creator" (Col 3:9). This newness is from charity, the
-charity to which Christ urges us. Secondly, this commandment is said to be new
-because of the cause which produces this renewal; and this is a new spirit.
-There are two spirits: the old and the new. The old spirit is the spirit of
-slavery; the new is the spirit of love. The first produces slaves; the second,
-children by adoption: "For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall
-back into fear, but you have received the spirit of sonship" (Rom 8:15); "A new
-heart I will give you, and a new spirit I will put within you" (Ez 36:26). The
-spirit sets us on fire with love because "God's love has been poured into our
-hearts through the Holy Spirit" (Rom 5:5). Thirdly, it is a new commandment
-because of the effect it established, that is, a New Covenant. The difference
-between the New and the Old Covenant is that between love and fear: as we read
-in Jeremiah (31:31): "I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel."
-Under the Old Covenant, this commandment was observed through fear; under the
-New Covenant it is observed through love. So this commandment was in the Old
-Law, not as characteristic of it, but as a preparation for the New Law.
-
-<p>1837 The import of the commandment is mutual love; thus he
-says: <b>that you love one another</b>. It is of the very nature of friendship
-that is not imperceptible; otherwise, it would not be friendship, but merely
-good-will. For a true and firm friendship the friends need a mutual love for
-each other; for this duplication makes it true and firm. Our Lord, wanting
-there to be perfect friendship among his faithful and disciples, gave them this
-command of mutual love: "Whoever fears the Lord directs his friendship aright"
-(Sir 6:17).
-
-<p>1838 The standard for this mutual love is given when he
-says, <b>as I have loved you</b>. Now Christ loved us three ways: gratuitously,
-effectively and rightly.
-
-<p>He loved us gratuitously because he
-began to love us and did not wait for us to begin to love him: "Not that we
-loved God, but because he first loved us" [1 Jn 4:10]. In the same way we
-should first love our neighbors and not wait to be loved by them or for them to
-do us a favor.
-
-<p>Christ loved us effectively, which
-is obvious from what he did; for love is proven to exist from what one does.
-The greatest thing a person can do for a friend is to give himself for that
-friend. This is what Christ did: "Christ loved us and gave himself up for us"
-(Eph 5:2). So we read: "Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down
-his life for his friends" (15:13). We also should be led by this example and
-love one another effectively and fruitfully: "Let us not love in word or in
-speech but in deed and in truth" (1 Jn 3:18).
-
-<p>Christ also loved us rightly. Since
-all friendship is based on some kind of sharing (for similarity is a cause of
-love), that friendship is right which is based on a similarity or a sharing in
-some good. Now Christ loved us as similar to himself by the grace of adoption,
-loving us in the light of this similarity in order to draw us to God. "I have
-loved you with an everlasting love; and so taking pity on you, I have drawn
-you" [Jer 31:3]. We also, in the one we love, should love what pertains to God
-and not so much the pleasure or benefits the loved one gives to us. In this
-kind of love for our neighbor, even the love of God is included.
-
-<p>1839 Then when he says, <b>By this all men will know that
-you are my disciples</b>, he gives the reason for following this command. Here
-we should note that one who is in the army of a king should wear this emblem.
-The emblem of Christ is the emblem of charity. So anyone who wants to be in the
-army of Christ should be stamped with the emblem of charity. This is what he is
-saying here: <b>By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you
-have love for one another</b>. I mean a holy love: "I am the mother of
-beautiful love and of fear and of knowledge and of holy hope" [Sir 24:24].
-
-<p>Although the apostles received many
-gifts from Christ, such as life, intelligence and good health, as well as
-spiritual goods, such as the ability to perform miracles - "I will give you a
-mouth and wisdom" (Lk 21:15) - none of these are the emblem of a disciple of
-Christ, since they can be possessed both by the good and the bad. Rather, the
-special sign of a disciple of Christ is charity and mutual love; "He has put
-his seal upon us and given us his Spirit" (2 Cor 1:22).
-<BR><BR><BR>
-<p align=center><b>LECTURE 8
-
-<BLOCKQUOTE><p>36 Simon Peter said to him, "Lord, where are you going?"
-Jesus answered, "Where I am going you cannot follow me now; but you shall
-follow afterward." 37 Peter said to him, "Lord, why cannot I follow you now? I
-will lay down my life for you." 38 Jesus answered, "Will you lay down your life
-for me? Truly, truly, I say to you, the cock will not crow, till you have
-denied me three times."</BLOCKQUOTE></b>
-
+newness. Thus he says, <b>a new commandment</b>. But did not the
+Old Testament or Law have a commandment about the love of one's
+neighbor? It did, because when Christ was asked by a lawyer which
+was the greatest commandment, he replied: "You shall love the Lord
+your God," and continued, "You shall love your neighbor as
+yourself" (Mt 22:37). This is found in Leviticus: "You shall love
+your neighbor as yourself" (Lev 19:18).</p>
+<p>Nevertheless, there are three special reasons why this
+commandment is said to be new. First, because of the newness, the
+renewal, it produces: "You have put off the old nature with its
+practices and have put on the new nature, which is being renewed in
+knowledge after the image of its creator" (Col 3:9). This newness
+is from charity, the charity to which Christ urges us. Secondly,
+this commandment is said to be new because of the cause which
+produces this renewal; and this is a new spirit. There are two
+spirits: the old and the new. The old spirit is the spirit of
+slavery; the new is the spirit of love. The first produces slaves;
+the second, children by adoption: "For you did not receive the
+spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the
+spirit of sonship" (Rom 8:15); "A new heart I will give you, and a
+new spirit I will put within you" (Ez 36:26). The spirit sets us on
+fire with love because "God's love has been poured into our hearts
+through the Holy Spirit" (Rom 5:5). Thirdly, it is a new
+commandment because of the effect it established, that is, a New
+Covenant. The difference between the New and the Old Covenant is
+that between love and fear: as we read in Jeremiah (31:31): "I will
+make a new covenant with the house of Israel." Under the Old
+Covenant, this commandment was observed through fear; under the New
+Covenant it is observed through love. So this commandment was in
+the Old Law, not as characteristic of it, but as a preparation for
+the New Law.</p>
+<p>1837 The import of the commandment is mutual love; thus he says:
+<b>that you love one another</b>. It is of the very nature of
+friendship that is not imperceptible; otherwise, it would not be
+friendship, but merely good-will. For a true and firm friendship
+the friends need a mutual love for each other; for this duplication
+makes it true and firm. Our Lord, wanting there to be perfect
+friendship among his faithful and disciples, gave them this command
+of mutual love: "Whoever fears the Lord directs his friendship
+aright" (Sir 6:17).</p>
+<p>1838 The standard for this mutual love is given when he says,
+<b>as I have loved you</b>. Now Christ loved us three ways:
+gratuitously, effectively and rightly.</p>
+<p>He loved us gratuitously because he began to love us and did not
+wait for us to begin to love him: "Not that we loved God, but
+because he first loved us" [1 Jn 4:10]. In the same way we should
+first love our neighbors and not wait to be loved by them or for
+them to do us a favor.</p>
+<p>Christ loved us effectively, which is obvious from what he did;
+for love is proven to exist from what one does. The greatest thing
+a person can do for a friend is to give himself for that friend.
+This is what Christ did: "Christ loved us and gave himself up for
+us" (Eph 5:2). So we read: "Greater love has no man than this, that
+a man lay down his life for his friends" (15:13). We also should be
+led by this example and love one another effectively and
+fruitfully: "Let us not love in word or in speech but in deed and
+in truth" (1 Jn 3:18).</p>
+<p>Christ also loved us rightly. Since all friendship is based on
+some kind of sharing (for similarity is a cause of love), that
+friendship is right which is based on a similarity or a sharing in
+some good. Now Christ loved us as similar to himself by the grace
+of adoption, loving us in the light of this similarity in order to
+draw us to God. "I have loved you with an everlasting love; and so
+taking pity on you, I have drawn you" [Jer 31:3]. We also, in the
+one we love, should love what pertains to God and not so much the
+pleasure or benefits the loved one gives to us. In this kind of
+love for our neighbor, even the love of God is included.</p>
+<p>1839 Then when he says, <b>By this all men will know that you
+are my disciples</b>, he gives the reason for following this
+command. Here we should note that one who is in the army of a king
+should wear this emblem. The emblem of Christ is the emblem of
+charity. So anyone who wants to be in the army of Christ should be
+stamped with the emblem of charity. This is what he is saying here:
+<b>By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you have
+love for one another</b>. I mean a holy love: "I am the mother of
+beautiful love and of fear and of knowledge and of holy hope" [Sir
+24:24].</p>
+<p>Although the apostles received many gifts from Christ, such as
+life, intelligence and good health, as well as spiritual goods,
+such as the ability to perform miracles - "I will give you a mouth
+and wisdom" (Lk 21:15) - none of these are the emblem of a disciple
+of Christ, since they can be possessed both by the good and the
+bad. Rather, the special sign of a disciple of Christ is charity
+and mutual love; "He has put his seal upon us and given us his
+Spirit" (2 Cor 1:22).<br />
+<br />
+<br /></p>
+<p align="center"><b>LECTURE 8</b></p>
+<blockquote>
+<p><b>36 Simon Peter said to him, "Lord, where are you going?"
+Jesus answered, "Where I am going you cannot follow me now; but you
+shall follow afterward." 37 Peter said to him, "Lord, why cannot I
+follow you now? I will lay down my life for you." 38 Jesus
+answered, "Will you lay down your life for me? Truly, truly, I say
+to you, the cock will not crow, till you have denied me three
+times."</b></p>
+</blockquote>
 <p>1840 Above, John mentioned the defection of one of the
-disciples, Judas the traitor; here he tells of the failure of another, Peter,
-who denied Christ. First we see the occasion of Christ's prediction; secondly,
-the prediction of Peter's denial. He does two things about the first: he
-mentions Peter's desire; secondly, his confidence, <b>Why cannot I follow you
-now? </b>He does two things about the first: he shows Peter expressing his
-desire; secondly, he shows that its fulfillment will be delayed, <b>you cannot
-follow me now</b>.
-
+disciples, Judas the traitor; here he tells of the failure of
+another, Peter, who denied Christ. First we see the occasion of
+Christ's prediction; secondly, the prediction of Peter's denial. He
+does two things about the first: he mentions Peter's desire;
+secondly, his confidence, <b>Why cannot I follow you now?</b> He
+does two things about the first: he shows Peter expressing his
+desire; secondly, he shows that its fulfillment will be delayed,
+<b>you cannot follow me now</b>.</p>
 <p>1841 Peter's desire is shown by the quick way he questioned
-Christ: <b>Simon Peter said to him, Lord, where are you going?</b> Peter had
-heard our Lord say that he would be with them just for a little while, and he
-became anxious about Christ's leaving them. So he asks, <b>Where are you going?</b>
-Chrysostom says about this: "Peter's love was indeed great, and more furious
-than a fire that nothing could stop."<a href="#_ftn49" name="_ftnref49">[49]</a>
-This is why even after Christ had said, "Where I am going you cannot follow,"
-Peter still wanted to follow him. So he asked where he was going, just like we
-read in the Song of Songs: "Whither has your beloved gone, O fairest among
-women? Whither has your beloved turned, that we may seek him with you?" (6:1).
-
+Christ: <b>Simon Peter said to him, Lord, where are you going?</b>
+Peter had heard our Lord say that he would be with them just for a
+little while, and he became anxious about Christ's leaving them. So
+he asks, <b>Where are you going?</b> Chrysostom says about this:
+"Peter's love was indeed great, and more furious than a fire that
+nothing could stop."<a href="#_ftn49" name="_ftnref49" id=
+"_ftnref49">[49]</a> This is why even after Christ had said, "Where
+I am going you cannot follow," Peter still wanted to follow him. So
+he asked where he was going, just like we read in the Song of
+Songs: "Whither has your beloved gone, O fairest among women?
+Whither has your beloved turned, that we may seek him with you?"
+(6:1).</p>
 <p>1842 Yet he cannot now have what he desires, since for the
-present he is prevented from following Christ. <b>Where I am going you cannot
-follow me now; but you shall follow afterward</b>. This is like saying: You are
-still imperfect, and thus not able to follow me now; but later, when you are
-perfect, you will follow me. This is similar to what we will read further on:
-"Truly, truly, I say to you, when you were young," that is, imperfect, "you
-girded yourself…but when you are old," and have climbed the mountain of
-perfection, "you will stretch out your hands, and another will gird you"
-(21:18).
-
+present he is prevented from following Christ. <b>Where I am going
+you cannot follow me now; but you shall follow afterward</b>. This
+is like saying: You are still imperfect, and thus not able to
+follow me now; but later, when you are perfect, you will follow me.
+This is similar to what we will read further on: "Truly, truly, I
+say to you, when you were young," that is, imperfect, "you girded
+yourself&hellip;but when you are old," and have climbed the
+mountain of perfection, "you will stretch out your hands, and
+another will gird you" (21:18).</p>
 <p>1843 When John says, <b>Peter said to him</b>, he indicates
-Peter's confidence. Peter had understood what our Lord had just said as
-expressing some doubt about the perfection of Peter's love. Love is perfect
-when one exposes oneself to death for a friend: "Greater love has no man than
-this, that a man lay down his life for his friends" (15:13). And so because Peter
-was ready to die for Christ, he declared that he was perfect in love when he
-said, <b>I will lay down my life for you</b>, that is, I am ready to die for
-you. He really meant this, and was not pretending. Still, we do not know the
-strength of our own love until it meets some obstacle to be overcome: "I am not
-aware of anything against myself, but I am not thereby acquitted" (1 Cor 4:4).
-
+Peter's confidence. Peter had understood what our Lord had just
+said as expressing some doubt about the perfection of Peter's love.
+Love is perfect when one exposes oneself to death for a friend:
+"Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life
+for his friends" (15:13). And so because Peter was ready to die for
+Christ, he declared that he was perfect in love when he said, <b>I
+will lay down my life for you</b>, that is, I am ready to die for
+you. He really meant this, and was not pretending. Still, we do not
+know the strength of our own love until it meets some obstacle to
+be overcome: "I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am
+not thereby acquitted" (1 Cor 4:4).</p>
 <p>1844 Next, John shows Jesus predicting the denial of Peter.
-First, Jesus checks Peter's presumption; secondly, he predicts his denial.
-
-<p>1845 As to the first we should note that after Christ said <b>you
-cannot follow me now</b>, Peter was confident of his own strength and said that
-he could follow Christ and die for him. Our Lord checked him by saying, <b>Will
-you lay down your life for me? </b>It is like saying: Think what you are
-saying. I know you better than you know yourself; you do not know how strong
-your own love is. So do not assume that you can do everything. "So do not
-become proud, but stand in awe" (Rom 11:20). A similar thought is found in
-Matthew (26:41): "The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak."
-
-<p>Our Lord allowed Peter to be
-tempted and to fall so that when he became head of the Church he would have an
-unpretentious opinion of himself and have compassion for his subjects when they
-sinned: "For we have not a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our
-weakness, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without
-sinning" (Heb 4:15). In Peter, some temptations grew into sins. But Christ was
-tempted as we are, not because he committed sin, but because the temptations
-were penal in character.
-
+First, Jesus checks Peter's presumption; secondly, he predicts his
+denial.</p>
+<p>1845 As to the first we should note that after Christ said
+<b>you cannot follow me now</b>, Peter was confident of his own
+strength and said that he could follow Christ and die for him. Our
+Lord checked him by saying, <b>Will you lay down your life for
+me?</b> It is like saying: Think what you are saying. I know you
+better than you know yourself; you do not know how strong your own
+love is. So do not assume that you can do everything. "So do not
+become proud, but stand in awe" (Rom 11:20). A similar thought is
+found in Matthew (26:41): "The spirit indeed is willing, but the
+flesh is weak."</p>
+<p>Our Lord allowed Peter to be tempted and to fall so that when he
+became head of the Church he would have an unpretentious opinion of
+himself and have compassion for his subjects when they sinned: "For
+we have not a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our
+weakness, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are,
+yet without sinning" (Heb 4:15). In Peter, some temptations grew
+into sins. But Christ was tempted as we are, not because he
+committed sin, but because the temptations were penal in
+character.</p>
 <p>1846 Christ predicts Peter's denial when he says, <b>Truly,
-truly, I say to you, the cock will not crow, till you have denied me three
-times</b>. This causes a problem as it seems to be false: for in [some versions
-of] Mark (14:68) we read that the cock crowed immediately after his first
-denial. Augustine answers this in two ways.<a href="#_ftn50" name="_ftnref50"
-title="">[50]</a>
-In the first way he says that our Lord was expressing Peter's state of mind
-rather than his actions: for such fear had overcome Peter's soul that he was
-ready, by the time the cock crowed, to deny our Lord not only once but three
-times. So the meaning is: you will be ready to deny me three times before the
-cock crows. He explains it another way by saying the prediction refers to the
-very beginning of Peter's denial. Something is said to happen before something
-else even it if only begins to happen. Now our Lord predicted three denials;
-they began before the first cock-crow, although the entire series was not
-completed before it. Here the meaning is: your triple denial will begin before
-the cock crows.
-
+truly, I say to you, the cock will not crow, till you have denied
+me three times</b>. This causes a problem as it seems to be false:
+for in [some versions of] Mark (14:68) we read that the cock crowed
+immediately after his first denial. Augustine answers this in two
+ways.<a href="#_ftn50" name="_ftnref50" title="" id=
+"_ftnref50">[50]</a> In the first way he says that our Lord was
+expressing Peter's state of mind rather than his actions: for such
+fear had overcome Peter's soul that he was ready, by the time the
+cock crowed, to deny our Lord not only once but three times. So the
+meaning is: you will be ready to deny me three times before the
+cock crows. He explains it another way by saying the prediction
+refers to the very beginning of Peter's denial. Something is said
+to happen before something else even it if only begins to happen.
+Now our Lord predicted three denials; they began before the first
+cock-crow, although the entire series was not completed before it.
+Here the meaning is: your triple denial will begin before the cock
+crows.</p>
 <p>1847 There is also a question about where these words were
-spoken. Matthew and Mark say that our Lord said this to Peter after they had
-left the upper room; but Luke and John say he said this in the upper room. It
-is after the farewell discourses that John has Jesus saying, "Rise, let us go
-hence" (below 14:31). In answer to this we should say that it is true that our
-Lord said this in the upper room. Matthew and Mark did not follow the order of
-history, but of memory.
-
-<p>One could also say, with Augustine,
-that our Lord said this three times.<a href="#_ftn51" name="_ftnref51">[51]</a>
-A close inspection of our Lord's words which led to his predicting the denial
-of Peter shows that three different things were said. In Matthew we read that
-our Lord said: "You will all fall away because of me this night" (Mt 26:31);
-and Mark says the same (Mk 14:27). Peter answered: "Though they all fall away
-because of you, I will never fall away" (Mt 26:33). Then Jesus said: "This very
-night, before the cock crows, you will deny me three times" (Mt 26:34). In
-Luke, however, we read that Jesus said: "Satan demanded to have you, that he
-might sift you like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail"
-(Lk 22:31). Peter then said, "Lord, I am ready to go with you to prison and to
-death" (Lk 22:33). Our Lord answered this: "I tell you, Peter, the cock will
-not crow this day, until you three times deny that you know me" (Lk 22:34). But
-here, in John, when Peter asked our Lord where he was going, our Lord replied:
-"the cock will not crow, till you have denied me three times." We can conclude
-from this that our Lord predicted Peter's denial several times.
-
-</div>
-
-<div><br clear=all>
-
-<hr align=left size=1 width="33%">
-
-<div id=ftn1>
-
-<p><a href="#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1">[1]</a>
-St. Thomas refers to Jn 13:1 in the <i>Summa Theologiae:
-</i>III, q. 46, a. 9, s. c. and ad 1; q. 74, a. 4, obj. 1. 
-
-</div>
-
-<div id=ftn2>
-
-<p><a href="#_ftnref2" name="_ftn2">[2]</a>
-Summa-
-
+spoken. Matthew and Mark say that our Lord said this to Peter after
+they had left the upper room; but Luke and John say he said this in
+the upper room. It is after the farewell discourses that John has
+Jesus saying, "Rise, let us go hence" (below 14:31). In answer to
+this we should say that it is true that our Lord said this in the
+upper room. Matthew and Mark did not follow the order of history,
+but of memory.</p>
+<p>One could also say, with Augustine, that our Lord said this
+three times.<a href="#_ftn51" name="_ftnref51" id=
+"_ftnref51">[51]</a> A close inspection of our Lord's words which
+led to his predicting the denial of Peter shows that three
+different things were said. In Matthew we read that our Lord said:
+"You will all fall away because of me this night" (Mt 26:31); and
+Mark says the same (Mk 14:27). Peter answered: "Though they all
+fall away because of you, I will never fall away" (Mt 26:33). Then
+Jesus said: "This very night, before the cock crows, you will deny
+me three times" (Mt 26:34). In Luke, however, we read that Jesus
+said: "Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like
+wheat, but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail" (Lk
+22:31). Peter then said, "Lord, I am ready to go with you to prison
+and to death" (Lk 22:33). Our Lord answered this: "I tell you,
+Peter, the cock will not crow this day, until you three times deny
+that you know me" (Lk 22:34). But here, in John, when Peter asked
+our Lord where he was going, our Lord replied: "the cock will not
+crow, till you have denied me three times." We can conclude from
+this that our Lord predicted Peter's denial several times.</p>
+<div><br clear="all" />
+<hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" />
+<div id="ftn1">
+<p><a href="#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1" id="_ftn1">[1]</a> St. Thomas
+refers to Jn 13:1 in the <i>Summa Theologiae:</i> III, q. 46, a. 9,
+s. c. and ad 1; q. 74, a. 4, obj. 1.</p>
 </div>
-
-<div id=ftn3>
-
-<p><a href="#_ftnref3" name="_ftn3">[3]</a> <i>Tract.
-in Io</i>., 55, ch. 2, col 1785; cf. <i>Catena
-Aurea</i>,<i> </i>13:1-5.
-
+<div id="ftn2">
+<p><a href="#_ftnref2" name="_ftn2" id="_ftn2">[2]</a> Summa-</p>
 </div>
-
-<div id=ftn4>
-
-<p><a href="#_ftnref4" name="_ftn4">[4]</a>
-Summa-will can be moved by God, by internal suggestion and external suggestion
-
+<div id="ftn3">
+<p><a href="#_ftnref3" name="_ftn3" id="_ftn3">[3]</a> <i>Tract. in
+Io</i>., 55, ch. 2, col 1785; cf. <i>Catena Aurea</i>, 13:1-5.</p>
 </div>
-
-<div id=ftn5>
-
-<p><a href="#_ftnref5" name="_ftn5">[5]</a>
-St. Thomas refers to Jn 13:4 in the <i>Summa
-Theologiae:</i> III, q, 74, a. 4, obj. 1; Jn 13:5: <i>ST</i> III, q. 46, a. 9,
-ad 1; Jn 13:10: <i>ST</i> III, q. 72, a. 6, ad 2; q. 83, a. 5, ad 1. 
-
+<div id="ftn4">
+<p><a href="#_ftnref4" name="_ftn4" id="_ftn4">[4]</a> Summa-will
+can be moved by God, by internal suggestion and external
+suggestion</p>
 </div>
-
-<div id=ftn6>
-
-<p><a href="#_ftnref6" name="_ftn6">[6]</a> Origen, <i>In Ioan.</i>, XXXII, ch.
-2; PG 14, col. 405; cf. <i>Catena Aurea</i>,
-13:1-5.
-
-</div>
-
-<div id=ftn7>
-
-<p><a href="#_ftnref7" name="_ftn7">[7]</a> Origen, <i>In Ioan.</i>, XXXII, ch. 4; PG 14, col. 411; cf. <i>Catena Aurea</i>,
-13:6-11.
-
+<div id="ftn5">
+<p><a href="#_ftnref5" name="_ftn5" id="_ftn5">[5]</a> St. Thomas
+refers to Jn 13:4 in the <i>Summa Theologiae:</i> III, q, 74, a. 4,
+obj. 1; Jn 13:5: <i>ST</i> III, q. 46, a. 9, ad 1; Jn 13:10:
+<i>ST</i> III, q. 72, a. 6, ad 2; q. 83, a. 5, ad 1.</p>
 </div>
-
-<div id=ftn8>
-
-<p><a href="#_ftnref8" name="_ftn8">[8]</a> Origen, <i>In
-Ioan.</i>, XXXII, ch. 5; PG 14, col. 412; cf.
-<i>Catena Aurea</i>, 13:6-11.
-
+<div id="ftn6">
+<p><a href="#_ftnref6" name="_ftn6" id="_ftn6">[6]</a> Origen,
+<i>In Ioan.</i>, XXXII, ch. 2; PG 14, col. 405; cf. <i>Catena
+Aurea</i>, 13:1-5.</p>
 </div>
-
-<div id=ftn9>
-
-<p><a href="#_ftnref9" name="_ftn9">[9]</a> <i>In Ioannem hom</i>., 70, ch.
-2; PG 59, col. 383; cf. <i>Catena Aurea</i>,
-13:6-11.
-
+<div id="ftn7">
+<p><a href="#_ftnref7" name="_ftn7" id="_ftn7">[7]</a> Origen,
+<i>In Ioan.</i>, XXXII, ch. 4; PG 14, col. 411; cf. <i>Catena
+Aurea</i>, 13:6-11.</p>
+</div>
+<div id="ftn8">
+<p><a href="#_ftnref8" name="_ftn8" id="_ftn8">[8]</a> Origen,
+<i>In Ioan.</i>, XXXII, ch. 5; PG 14, col. 412; cf. <i>Catena
+Aurea</i>, 13:6-11.</p>
 </div>
-
-<div id=ftn10>
-
-<p><a href="#_ftnref10" name="_ftn10">[10]</a> <i>Tract.
-in Io</i>., 56, ch. 1, col. 1788; cf. <i>Catena
-Aurea</i>,<i> </i>13:6-11.
-
+<div id="ftn9">
+<p><a href="#_ftnref9" name="_ftn9" id="_ftn9">[9]</a> <i>In
+Ioannem hom</i>., 70, ch. 2; PG 59, col. 383; cf. <i>Catena
+Aurea</i>, 13:6-11.</p>
 </div>
-
-<div id=ftn11>
-
-<p><a href="#_ftnref11" name="_ftn11">[11]</a> Origen, <i>In Ioan.</i>, XXXII, ch.
-5; PG 14, col. 412; cf. <i>Catena Aurea</i>, 13:6-11.
-
+<div id="ftn10">
+<p><a href="#_ftnref10" name="_ftn10" id="_ftn10">[10]</a>
+<i>Tract. in Io</i>., 56, ch. 1, col. 1788; cf. <i>Catena
+Aurea</i>, 13:6-11.</p>
 </div>
-
-<div id=ftn12>
-
-<p><a href="#_ftnref12" name="_ftn12">[12]</a> Clement, <i>Itinerary.</i>
-
+<div id="ftn11">
+<p><a href="#_ftnref11" name="_ftn11" id="_ftn11">[11]</a> Origen,
+<i>In Ioan.</i>, XXXII, ch. 5; PG 14, col. 412; cf. <i>Catena
+Aurea</i>, 13:6-11.</p>
 </div>
-
-<div id=ftn13>
-
-<p><a href="#_ftnref13" name="_ftn13">[13]</a><i>Epistola
-64, </i> ch. 5, no. 10; PL 33, col. 178; cf. <i>Catena Aurea</i>,<i>
-</i>13:6-11.
-
+<div id="ftn12">
+<p><a href="#_ftnref12" name="_ftn12" id="_ftn12">[12]</a> Clement,
+<i>Itinerary.</i></p>
+</div>
+<div id="ftn13">
+<p><a href="#_ftnref13" name="_ftn13" id=
+"_ftn13">[13]</a><i>Epistola 64,</i> ch. 5, no. 10; PL 33, col.
+178; cf. <i>Catena Aurea</i>,13:6-11.</p>
 </div>
-
-<div id=ftn14>
-
-<p><a href="#_ftnref14" name="_ftn14">[14]</a> <i>Tract.
-in Io</i>., 56, ch. 3, col. 1788; cf. <i>Catena
-Aurea</i>,<i> </i>13:6-11.
-
+<div id="ftn14">
+<p><a href="#_ftnref14" name="_ftn14" id="_ftn14">[14]</a>
+<i>Tract. in Io</i>., 56, ch. 3, col. 1788; cf. <i>Catena
+Aurea</i>, 13:6-11.</p>
 </div>
-
-<div id=ftn15>
-
-<p><a href="#_ftnref15" name="_ftn15">[15]</a> <i>In Ioannem hom</i>., 70, ch.
-2; PG 59, col. 384; cf. <i>Catena Aurea</i>, 13:6-11.
-
-</div>
-
-<div id=ftn16>
-
-<p><a href="#_ftnref16" name="_ftn16">[16]</a> Origen, <i>In Ioan.</i>,
-XXXII, ch. 6; PG 14, col. 416; cf. <i>Catena Aurea</i>, 13:6-11.
-
+<div id="ftn15">
+<p><a href="#_ftnref15" name="_ftn15" id="_ftn15">[15]</a> <i>In
+Ioannem hom</i>., 70, ch. 2; PG 59, col. 384; cf. <i>Catena
+Aurea</i>, 13:6-11.</p>
 </div>
-
-<div id=ftn17>
-
-<p><a href="#_ftnref17" name="_ftn17">[17]</a>
-St. Thomas refers to Jn 13:13 in the <i>Summa
-Theologiae:</i> II-II, q. 132, a. 1, ad 1; Jn 13:15: <i>ST </i>III, q. 37 a. 1,
-obj. 2; Jn 13:17: <i>ST</i> I-II, q. 4, a. 6, s. c.; q. 5, a. 7, s. c.; q. 7,
-a. 2, ad 3; Jn 13:18: <i>ST </i>III, q. 36, a. 3, s. c.
-
+<div id="ftn16">
+<p><a href="#_ftnref16" name="_ftn16" id="_ftn16">[16]</a> Origen,
+<i>In Ioan.</i>, XXXII, ch. 6; PG 14, col. 416; cf. <i>Catena
+Aurea</i>, 13:6-11.</p>
 </div>
-
-<div id=ftn18>
-
-<p><a href="#_ftnref18" name="_ftn18">[18]</a>  Origen,
-<i>In Ioan.</i>, XXXII, ch. 57 PG 14, col. 430; cf.
-<i>Catena Aurea</i>, 13:12-20.
-
+<div id="ftn17">
+<p><a href="#_ftnref17" name="_ftn17" id="_ftn17">[17]</a> St.
+Thomas refers to Jn 13:13 in the <i>Summa Theologiae:</i> II-II, q.
+132, a. 1, ad 1; Jn 13:15: <i>ST</i> III, q. 37 a. 1, obj. 2; Jn
+13:17: <i>ST</i> I-II, q. 4, a. 6, s. c.; q. 5, a. 7, s. c.; q. 7,
+a. 2, ad 3; Jn 13:18: <i>ST</i> III, q. 36, a. 3, s. c.</p>
 </div>
-
-<div id=ftn19>
-
-<p><a href="#_ftnref19" name="_ftn19">[19]</a> Ambrose, <i>Expos sec. Lucam</i>, X, ch .3 ; PL 15, col.
-1804-5.
-
+<div id="ftn18">
+<p><a href="#_ftnref18" name="_ftn18" id="_ftn18">[18]</a> Origen,
+<i>In Ioan.</i>, XXXII, ch. 57 PG 14, col. 430; cf. <i>Catena
+Aurea</i>, 13:12-20.</p>
 </div>
-
-<div id=ftn20>
-
-<p><a href="#_ftnref20" name="_ftn20">[20]</a> <i>Tract.
-in Io</i>., 58, ch. 3, col. 1793; cf. <i>Catena
-Aurea</i>,<i> </i>13:12-20.
-
+<div id="ftn19">
+<p><a href="#_ftnref19" name="_ftn19" id="_ftn19">[19]</a> Ambrose,
+<i>Expos sec. Lucam</i>, X, ch .3 ; PL 15, col. 1804-5.</p>
 </div>
-
-<div id=ftn21>
-
-<p><a href="#_ftnref21" name="_ftn21">[21]</a> Ibid.; cf. <i>Catena Aurea</i>,<i> </i>13:12-20.
-
+<div id="ftn20">
+<p><a href="#_ftnref20" name="_ftn20" id="_ftn20">[20]</a>
+<i>Tract. in Io</i>., 58, ch. 3, col. 1793; cf. <i>Catena
+Aurea</i>, 13:12-20.</p>
 </div>
-
-<div id=ftn22>
-
-<p><a href="#_ftnref22" name="_ftn22">[22]</a> <i>Tract.
-in Io</i>., 58, ch. 4, col. 1794; cf. <i>Catena
-Aurea</i>,<i> </i>13:12-20.
-
+<div id="ftn21">
+<p><a href="#_ftnref21" name="_ftn21" id="_ftn21">[21]</a> Ibid.;
+cf. <i>Catena Aurea</i>, 13:12-20.</p>
 </div>
-
-<div id=ftn23>
-
-<p><a href="#_ftnref23" name="_ftn23">[23]</a>
-Augustine, <i>De Agone Christiano</i>, ch. XI, 12; PL 40,  col. 297.
-
+<div id="ftn22">
+<p><a href="#_ftnref22" name="_ftn22" id="_ftn22">[22]</a>
+<i>Tract. in Io</i>., 58, ch. 4, col. 1794; cf. <i>Catena
+Aurea</i>, 13:12-20.</p>
 </div>
-
-<div id=ftn24>
-
-<p><a href="#_ftnref24" name="_ftn24">[24]</a> Origen, <i>In Ioan.</i>, XXXII, ch.
-8; PG 14, col. 424; cf. <i>Catena Aurea</i>,
-13:12-20.
-
+<div id="ftn23">
+<p><a href="#_ftnref23" name="_ftn23" id="_ftn23">[23]</a>
+Augustine, <i>De Agone Christiano</i>, ch. XI, 12; PL 40, col.
+297.</p>
 </div>
-
-<div id=ftn25>
-
-<p><a href="#_ftnref25" name="_ftn25">[25]</a>
-Augustine, <i>Epistola 78</i>, ch. 8; PL  33, col. 272.
-
+<div id="ftn24">
+<p><a href="#_ftnref24" name="_ftn24" id="_ftn24">[24]</a> Origen,
+<i>In Ioan.</i>, XXXII, ch. 8; PG 14, col. 424; cf. <i>Catena
+Aurea</i>, 13:12-20.</p>
 </div>
-
-<div id=ftn26>
-
-<p><a href="#_ftnref26" name="_ftn26">[26]</a>  Origen, <i>In Ioan.</i>, XXXII, ch.
-10; PG 14, col. 431 cf. <i>Catena Aurea</i>, 13:12-20.
-
+<div id="ftn25">
+<p><a href="#_ftnref25" name="_ftn25" id="_ftn25">[25]</a>
+Augustine, <i>Epistola 78</i>, ch. 8; PL 33, col. 272.</p>
 </div>
-
-<div id=ftn27>
-
-<p><a href="#_ftnref27" name="_ftn27">[27]</a> <i>Tract.
-in Io</i>., 59. ch. 2, col. 1796; cf. <i>Catena
-Aurea</i>,<i> </i>13:12-20.
-
+<div id="ftn26">
+<p><a href="#_ftnref26" name="_ftn26" id="_ftn26">[26]</a> Origen,
+<i>In Ioan.</i>, XXXII, ch. 10; PG 14, col. 431 cf. <i>Catena
+Aurea</i>, 13:12-20.</p>
 </div>
-
-<div id=ftn28>
-
-<p><a href="#_ftnref28" name="_ftn28">[28]</a>
-St. Thomas refers to Jn 13:26, 27 in the <i>Summa
-Theologiae:</i> III, q. 81, a. 2, obj. 3. 
-
+<div id="ftn27">
+<p><a href="#_ftnref27" name="_ftn27" id="_ftn27">[27]</a>
+<i>Tract. in Io</i>., 59. ch. 2, col. 1796; cf. <i>Catena
+Aurea</i>, 13:12-20.</p>
 </div>
-
-<div id=ftn29>
-
-<p><a href="#_ftnref29" name="_ftn29">[29]</a> Comm.
-in Matt., I; PL 26, col. 38C.
-
+<div id="ftn28">
+<p><a href="#_ftnref28" name="_ftn28" id="_ftn28">[28]</a> St.
+Thomas refers to Jn 13:26, 27 in the <i>Summa Theologiae:</i> III,
+q. 81, a. 2, obj. 3.</p>
+</div>
+<div id="ftn29">
+<p><a href="#_ftnref29" name="_ftn29" id="_ftn29">[29]</a> Comm. in
+Matt., I; PL 26, col. 38C.</p>
 </div>
-
-<div id=ftn30>
-
-<p><a href="#_ftnref30" name="_ftn30">[30]</a> <i>Tract.
-in Io</i>., 60, ch. 1, col. 1797; cf. <i>Catena
-Aurea</i>,<i> </i>13:21-30.
-
+<div id="ftn30">
+<p><a href="#_ftnref30" name="_ftn30" id="_ftn30">[30]</a>
+<i>Tract. in Io</i>., 60, ch. 1, col. 1797; cf. <i>Catena
+Aurea</i>, 13:21-30.</p>
 </div>
-
-<div id=ftn31>
-
-<p><a href="#_ftnref31" name="_ftn31">[31]</a> <i>In Ioannem hom</i>., 72, ch.
-1; PG 59, col. 389, 390; cf. <i>Catena Aurea</i>, 13:21-30.
-
+<div id="ftn31">
+<p><a href="#_ftnref31" name="_ftn31" id="_ftn31">[31]</a> <i>In
+Ioannem hom</i>., 72, ch. 1; PG 59, col. 389, 390; cf. <i>Catena
+Aurea</i>, 13:21-30.</p>
 </div>
-
-<div id=ftn32>
-
-<p><a href="#_ftnref32" name="_ftn32">[32]</a> <i>Tract.
-in Io</i>., 62, ch. 3, col. 1802; cf. <i>Catena
-Aurea</i>,<i> </i>13:21-30.
-
+<div id="ftn32">
+<p><a href="#_ftnref32" name="_ftn32" id="_ftn32">[32]</a>
+<i>Tract. in Io</i>., 62, ch. 3, col. 1802; cf. <i>Catena
+Aurea</i>, 13:21-30.</p>
 </div>
-
-<div id=ftn33>
-
-<p><a href="#_ftnref33" name="_ftn33">[33]</a>
-Summa-God is in the soul essentially, but the devil cannot be. 
-
+<div id="ftn33">
+<p><a href="#_ftnref33" name="_ftn33" id="_ftn33">[33]</a>
+Summa-God is in the soul essentially, but the devil cannot be.</p>
 </div>
-
-<div id=ftn34>
-
-<p><a href="#_ftnref34" name="_ftn34">[34]</a>
-St. Thomas refers to Jn 13:29 in the <i>Summa
-Theologiae:</i> II-II, q. 188, a. 7. 
-
+<div id="ftn34">
+<p><a href="#_ftnref34" name="_ftn34" id="_ftn34">[34]</a> St.
+Thomas refers to Jn 13:29 in the <i>Summa Theologiae:</i> II-II, q.
+188, a. 7.</p>
 </div>
-
-<div id=ftn35>
-
-<p><a href="#_ftnref35" name="_ftn35">[35]</a> <i>Tract.
-in Io</i>., 62, ch. 4, col. 1802-3; cf. <i>Catena
-Aurea</i>,<i> </i>13:21-30.
-
+<div id="ftn35">
+<p><a href="#_ftnref35" name="_ftn35" id="_ftn35">[35]</a>
+<i>Tract. in Io</i>., 62, ch. 4, col. 1802-3; cf. <i>Catena
+Aurea</i>, 13:21-30.</p>
 </div>
-
-<div id=ftn36>
-
-<p><a href="#_ftnref36" name="_ftn36">[36]</a> Ibid.,
-5, col. 1803; cf. <i>Catena Aurea</i>,<i> </i>13:21-30.
-
+<div id="ftn36">
+<p><a href="#_ftnref36" name="_ftn36" id="_ftn36">[36]</a> Ibid.,
+5, col. 1803; cf. <i>Catena Aurea</i>, 13:21-30.</p>
+</div>
+<div id="ftn37">
+<p><a href="#_ftnref37" name="_ftn37" id="_ftn37">[37]</a> Ibid.;
+cf. <i>Catena Aurea</i>, 13:21-30</p>
 </div>
-
-<div id=ftn37>
-
-<p><a href="#_ftnref37" name="_ftn37">[37]</a> Ibid.; 
-cf. <i>Catena Aurea</i>,<i> </i>13:21-30
-
+<div id="ftn38">
+<p><a href="#_ftnref38" name="_ftn38" id="_ftn38">[38]</a> <i>In
+Ioannem hom</i>., 72, ch. 2; PG 59, col. 392.</p>
 </div>
-
-<div id=ftn38>
-
-<p><a href="#_ftnref38" name="_ftn38">[38]</a> <i>In
-Ioannem hom</i>., 72, ch. 2; PG 59, col. 392.
-
+<div id="ftn39">
+<p><a href="#_ftnref39" name="_ftn39" id="_ftn39">[39]</a> <i>In
+Ioannem hom</i>., 72, ch. 2; PG 59, col. 391, 392; cf. <i>Catena
+Aurea</i>, 13:21-30.</p>
 </div>
-
-<div id=ftn39>
-
-<p><a href="#_ftnref39" name="_ftn39">[39]</a> <i>In Ioannem hom</i>., 72, ch.
-2; PG 59, col. 391, 392; cf. <i>Catena Aurea</i>, 13:21-30.
-
+<div id="ftn40">
+<p><a href="#_ftnref40" name="_ftn40" id="_ftn40">[40]</a> Origen,
+<i>In Ioan.</i>, XXXII, ch. 16; PG 14, col. 443; cf. <i>Catena
+Aurea</i>, 13:21-30.</p>
 </div>
-
-<div id=ftn40>
-
-<p><a href="#_ftnref40" name="_ftn40">[40]</a> Origen, <i>In Ioan.</i>, XXXII, ch. 16; PG 14, col. 443; cf. <i>Catena Aurea</i>,
-13:21-30.
-
-</div>
-
-<div id=ftn41>
-
-<p><a href="#_ftnref41" name="_ftn41">[41]</a>Ambrose,
-<i>Hexaemeron</i>, III,  ch. 7, no. 30; PL col. 168B, see also Sermo III De
-Caritate, 11; PL 18, col. 142A.
-
+<div id="ftn41">
+<p><a href="#_ftnref41" name="_ftn41" id="_ftn41">[41]</a>Ambrose,
+<i>Hexaemeron</i>, III, ch. 7, no. 30; PL col. 168B, see also Sermo
+III De Caritate, 11; PL 18, col. 142A.</p>
 </div>
-
-<div id=ftn42>
-
-<p><a href="#_ftnref42" name="_ftn42">[42]</a>Chrysostom,
-<i>In Ioannem hom</i>.,
-72, ch. 2; PG 59, col. 392; cf. <i>Catena
-Aurea</i>, 13:31-32.
-
+<div id="ftn42">
+<p><a href="#_ftnref42" name="_ftn42" id=
+"_ftn42">[42]</a>Chrysostom, <i>In Ioannem hom</i>., 72, ch. 2; PG
+59, col. 392; cf. <i>Catena Aurea</i>, 13:31-32.</p>
 </div>
-
-<div id=ftn43>
-
-<p><a href="#_ftnref43" name="_ftn43">[43]</a>
-Summa-1827-1830, the glory of Christ.
-
+<div id="ftn43">
+<p><a href="#_ftnref43" name="_ftn43" id="_ftn43">[43]</a>
+Summa-1827-1830, the glory of Christ.</p>
+</div>
+<div id="ftn44">
+<p><a href="#_ftnref44" name="_ftn44" id="_ftn44">[44]</a>
+Gloss.</p>
 </div>
-
-<div id=ftn44>
-
-<p><a href="#_ftnref44" name="_ftn44">[44]</a> Gloss.
-
+<div id="ftn45">
+<p><a href="#_ftnref45" name="_ftn45" id="_ftn45">[45]</a>
+Augustine, <i>Tract. in Io</i>., 63, ch. 3, col. 1805; Hilary,
+<i>De Trin</i>., 11, ch. 42; PL 10; Cf. <i>Catena Aurea,</i>
+13:31-32.</p>
 </div>
-
-<div id=ftn45>
-
-<p><a href="#_ftnref45" name="_ftn45">[45]</a>
-Augustine, <i>Tract. in Io</i>., 63, ch. 3, col. 1805; 
-Hilary, <i>De
-Trin</i>., 11, ch. 42; PL 10; Cf. <i>Catena Aurea, </i>13:31-32.
-
+<div id="ftn46">
+<p><a href="#_ftnref46" name="_ftn46" id="_ftn46">[46]</a> Origen,
+<i>In Ioan.</i>, XXXII, ch. 17, 18; PG 14, col. 445-451; cf.
+<i>Catena Aurea</i>, 13:31-32.</p>
 </div>
-
-<div id=ftn46>
-
-<p><a href="#_ftnref46" name="_ftn46">[46]</a> Origen,
-<i>In Ioan.</i>, XXXII, ch. 17, 18; PG 14, col. 445-451; cf. <i>Catena Aurea</i>, 13:31-32.
-
+<div id="ftn47">
+<p><a href="#_ftnref47" name="_ftn47" id="_ftn47">[47]</a> Ambrose,
+<i>Hexaemeron</i>, III, ch. 7, no. 30; PL col. 168B.</p>
 </div>
-
-<div id=ftn47>
-
-<p><a href="#_ftnref47" name="_ftn47">[47]</a>
-Ambrose, <i>Hexaemeron</i>, III,  ch. 7, no. 30; PL col. 168B.
-
+<div id="ftn48">
+<p><a href="#_ftnref48" name="_ftn48" id="_ftn48">[48]</a> Origen,
+<i>In Ioan.</i>, XXXII, ch. 19; PG 14, col. 453 ; cf. <i>Catena
+Aurea</i>, 13:33-35.</p>
 </div>
-
-<div id=ftn48>
-
-<p><a href="#_ftnref48" name="_ftn48">[48]</a> Origen, <i>In Ioan.</i>, XXXII, ch.
-19; PG 14, col. 453 ; cf. <i>Catena Aurea</i>,
-13:33-35.
-
+<div id="ftn49">
+<p><a href="#_ftnref49" name="_ftn49" id="_ftn49">[49]</a> <i>In
+Ioannem hom</i>., 63, ch. 3; PG 59, col. 31; cf. <i>Catena
+Aurea</i>, 13:36-38.</p>
+</div>
+<div id="ftn50">
+<p><a href="#_ftnref50" name="_ftn50" id="_ftn50">[50]</a>
+<i>Tract. in Io.</i>, 66, ch. 2, col. 1880-1; cf. <i>Catena
+Aurea,</i> 7:9-13.</p>
 </div>
-
-<div id=ftn49>
-
-<p><a href="#_ftnref49" name="_ftn49">[49]</a> <i>In
-Ioannem hom</i>., 63, ch. 3; PG 59, col. 31;
-cf. <i>Catena Aurea</i>, 13:36-38.
-
+<div id="ftn51">
+<p><a href="#_ftnref51" name="_ftn51" id="_ftn51">[51]</a> <i>De
+consensus evangelistarum</i>, 3, ch. 11; PL 34; cf. <i>Catena
+Aurea</i>, 13:36-38.</p>
 </div>
-
-<div id=ftn50>
-
-<p><a href="#_ftnref50" name="_ftn50">[50]</a> <i>Tract.
-in Io.</i>, 66, ch. 2, col. 1880-1; cf. <i>Catena
-Aurea, </i>7:9-13.
-
 </div>
-
-<div id=ftn51>
-
-<p><a href="#_ftnref51" name="_ftn51">[51]</a> <i>De consensus evangelistarum</i>, 3, ch. 11; PL 34; cf. <i>Catena Aurea</i>, 13:36-38.
-</body></html>
+</blockquote>
+</body>
+</html>