Mercurial > hg > Aquinas
diff john/english/John3.html @ 31:25a799388159
originals from http://www.josephkenny.joyeurs.com/CDtexts/SSJohn.htm
| author | ht |
|---|---|
| date | Tue, 24 Nov 2009 20:16:17 +0000 |
| parents | |
| children | 178aed5d2c3c |
line wrap: on
line diff
--- /dev/null Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 +0000 +++ b/john/english/John3.html Tue Nov 24 20:16:17 2009 +0000 @@ -0,0 +1,1438 @@ +<html> +<head> +</head> +<body style=text-align:justify><blockquote> +<p style="text-align: center"><span style="font-size: 60pt">3</span></p> +<p style="text-align: center; margin-bottom: 0.125in"><span style="font-weight: bold">LECTURE 1</span></p> +<BLOCKQUOTE><p>1 There was a certain Pharisee named Nicodemus, a member of the Sanhedrin. 2 He came to +Jesus at night and said to him, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God, for no +one could perform the signs you perform, unless he had God with him.” 3 Jesus responded +and said to him,</p> +<p style="margin-left: 0.5in">“Amen, amen, I say to you,<BR> +unless one is born again,<BR> +he cannot see the kingdom of God.”</p> +<p>4 Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born again when he is already an old man? Is it +possible for him to return to his mother’s womb and be born all over again?” 5 Jesus replied,</p> +<p style="margin-left: 0.5in">“Amen, amen, I say to you,<BR> +unless one is born again of water and the Holy Spirit,<BR> +he cannot enter the kingdom of God.<BR> +6 What is born of flesh is itself flesh;<BR> +and what is born of Spirit is itself spirit.”</p></BLOCKQUOTE> +<p>423 Above, the Evangelist showed Christ’s power in relation to changes affecting nature; +here he shows it in relation to our reformation by grace, which is his principal subject. +Reformation by grace comes about through spiritual generation and by the conferring of +benefits on those regenerated. First, then, he treats of spiritual generation. Secondly, of the +spiritual benefits divinely conferred on the regenerated, and this in chapter five.</p> +<p>As to the first he does two things. First, he treats of spiritual regeneration in relation to the +Jews. Secondly, of the spreading of the fruits of this regeneration even to foreign peoples, and +this in chapter four. Concerning the first he does two things. First, he explains spiritual +regeneration with words. Secondly, he completes it with deeds (3:22).</p> +<p>As to the first he does three things. First, he shows the need for a spiritual regeneration. +Secondly, its quality (3:4). Thirdly, its mode and nature (3:9). As to the first he does two +things. First, he mentions the occasion for showing this need. Secondly, the need itself for +this regeneration (3:3).</p> +<p>The occasion was presented by Nicodemus; hence he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">There was a certain Pharisee +named Nicodemus. </span>And he describes him as to his person, from the time, and from his +statements.</p> +<p>424 he describes his person in three ways. First, as to his religion, because he was a Pharisee, +hence he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">There was a certain Pharisee. </span>For there were two sects aniong the Jews: the +Pharisees and the Sadducees. The Pharisees were closer to us in their beliefs, for they +believed in the resurrection, and admitted the existence of spiritual creatures. The Sadducees, +on the other hand, disagree more with us, for they believed neither in the resurrection to come +nor in the existence of spirits. The former were called Pharisees, as being separated from the +others. And because their opinion was the more credible and nearer to the truth, it was easier +for Nicodemus to be converted to Christ. “I lived as a Pharisee, according to the strictest sect +of our religion” (Acts 26:5).</p> +<p>425 As to his name he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">named Nicodemus, </span>which means “victor,” or “the victory of the +people.” This signifies those who overcame the world through faith by being converted to +Christ from Judaism. “This is the victory that overcomes the world, our faith” (1 Jn 5:4).</p> +<p>426 Thirdly, as to his rank he says, a <span style="font-weight: bold">member of the Sanhedrin. </span>For although our Lord did +not choose the wise or powerful or those of high birth at the beginning, lest the power of the +faith be attributed to human widsom and power—“Not many of you are learned in the worldly +sense, not many powerful, not many of high birth. But God chose the simple ones of the +world” (1 Cor 1:26)—still he willed to convert some of the wise and powerful to himself at +the very beginning. And he did this so that his doctrine would not be held in contempt, as +being accepted exclusively by the lowly and uneducated, and so that the number of believers +would not be attributed to the rusticity and ignorance of the converts rather than to the power +of the faith. However, he did not will that a large number of those converted to him be +powerful and of high birth, lest, as has been said, it should be ascribed to human power and +wisdom. And so it says, “many of those in authority believed in him” (below 12:42), among +whom was this Nicodemus. “The rulers of the people have come together” (Ps 46:10).</p> +<p>427 Then he describes him as to the time, saying, <span style="font-weight: bold">he came to Jesus at night. </span>In regard to +this, it might be noted that in Scripture the quality of the time is mentioned as to certain +persons in order to indicate their knowledge or the condition of their actions. Here an obscure +time is mentioned, <span style="font-weight: bold">at night. </span>For the night is obscure and suited to the state of mind of +Nicodemus, who did not come to Jesus free of care and anxiety, but in fear; for he was one of +those of whom it is said that they “believed in him; but they did not admit it because of the +Pharisees, so that they would not be expelled from the synagogue” (below 12:42). For their +love was not perfect, so it continues, “For they loved the glory of men more than the glory of’ +God.”</p> +<p>Further, night was appropriate to his ignorance and the imperfect understanding he had of +Christ: “The night has passed, and day is at hand. So let us cast-off the works of darkness” +(Rom 13:12); “They have not known or understood; they are walking in darkness” (Ps 81:5).</p> +<p>428 Then he is described from his statements, when he says that Nicodemus said to Jesus: +<span style="font-weight: bold">Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God. </span>Here he affirms Christ’s office as +teacher when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">Rabbi, </span>and his power of acting, saying, <span style="font-weight: bold">for no one could perform the +signs you perform, unles he had God with him. </span>And in both remarks he says what is true, +but he does not affirm enough.</p> +<p>He is right is calling Jesus <span style="font-weight: bold">Rabbi, </span>i.e., Teacher, because, “You call me Teacher and Lord; and +you do well, for so I am,” as we read below (13:13). For Nicodemus had read what was +written in Joel (2:23): “Children of Sion, rejoice, and be joyful in the Lord your God, because +he has given you a teacher of justice.” But he says too little, because he says that Jesus came +as a teacher from God, but is silent on whether he is God. For to come as a teacher from God +is common to all good prelates: “I will give you shepherds after my own heart, and they will +feed you with knowledge and doctrine,” as it says in Jeremiah (3:15). Therefore, this is not +unique to Christ even though Christ taught in a manner unlike other men. For some teachers +teach only from without, but Christ also instructs within, because “He was the true light, +which enlightens every man” (above 1:9); thus he alone gives wisdom: “I will give you an +eloquence and a wisdom” (Lk 21:15), and this is something that no mere man can say.</p> +<p>429 He affirms his power because of the signs he saw. As if to say: I believe that you have +come as a teacher from God, <span style="font-weight: bold">for no one could perform the signs you perform. </span>And he is +speaking the truth, because the signs which Christ did cannot be worked except by God, and +because God was with him: “He who sent me is with me” (below 8:29). But he says too little, +because he believed that Christ did not perform these signs through his own power, but as +relying on the power of another; as though God were not with him by a unity of essence but +merely by an infusion of grace. But this is false, because Christ performed these signs not by +an exterior power but by his own; for the power of God and of Christ is one and the same. It +is similar to what the woman says to Elijah: “Because of this I know that you are a man of +God” (1 Kgs 17:24).</p> +<p>430 Then when he says that Jesus answered, <span style="font-weight: bold">Amen, amen, I say to you</span>, he sets down the +necessity for spiritual regeneration, because of the ignorance of Nicodemus. And so he says, +<span style="font-weight: bold">Amen, amen</span>. Here we should note that this word, <span style="font-weight: bold">amen</span>, is a Hebrew word frequently +employed by Christ; hence out of reverence for him no Greek or Latin translator wanted to +translate it. Sometimes it means the same as “true” or “truly”; and sometimes the same as “so +be it.” Thus is the Psalms 71 (v 19), 88 (v 53), and 106, where we have, “So be it, so be it,” +the Hebrew has “Amen, amen.” But John is the only Evangelist who duplicates or makes a +twin use of this word. The reason for this is that the other Evangelists are concerned mainly +with matters pertaining to the humanity of Christ, which, since they are easier to believe, need +less reinforcement; but John deals chiefly with things pertaining to the divinity of Christ, and +these, since they are hidden and remote from men’s knowledge and experience, require +greater formal declaration.</p> +<p>431 Next we should point out that at first glance this answer of Christ seems to be entirely +foreign to Nicodemus’ statement. For what connection is there between Nicodemus’ +statement, <span style="font-weight: bold">Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God, </span>and the Lord’s reply, +<span style="font-weight: bold">unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.</span></p> +<p>But we should note, as has already been stated, that Nicodemus, having an imperfect opinion +about Christ, affirmed that he was a teacher and performed these signs as a mere man. And so +the Lord wishes to show Nicodemus how he might arrive at a deeper understanding of him. +And as a matter of fact, the Lord might have done so with an argument, but because this +might have resulted in a quarrel—the opposite of which was prophesied about him: “He will +not quarrel” (Is 42:2)—he wished to lead him to a true understanding with gentleness. As if to +say: It is not strange that you regard me as a mere man, because one cannot know these +secrets of the divinity unless he has achieved a spiritual regeneration. And this is what he +says: <span style="font-weight: bold">unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.</span></p> +<p>432 Here we should point out that since vision is an act of life, then according to the diverse +kinds of life there will be diversity of vision. For there is a sentient life which some living +things share in common, and this life has a sentient vision or knowledge. And there is also a +spiritual life, by which man is made like God and other holy spirits; and this life enjoys a +spiritual vision. Now spiritual things cannot be seen by the sentient: “The sensual man does +not perceive those things that pertain to the Spirit of God” (1 Cor 2:14), but they are +perceived by the spiritual vision: “No one knows the things of God but the Spirit of God” (1 +Cor 2:11). So the apostle says: “You did not receive the spirit of slavery, putting you in fear +again, but the spirit of adoption” (Rom 8:15). And we receive this spirit through a spiritual +regenaration: “He saved us by the cleansing of regeneration in the Holy Spirit” (Ti 3:3). +Therefore, if spiritual vision comes only through the Holy Spirit, and if the Holy Spirit is +given through a cleansing of spiritual regeneration, then it is only by a cleansing of +regeneration that we can see the kingdom of God. Thus he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">unless one is born again of +water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. </span>As if to say: It is not +surprising if you do not see the kingdom of God, because no one can see it unless he receives +the Holy Spirit, through whom one is reborn a son of God.</p> +<p>433 It is not only the royal throne that pertains to a kingdom, but also the things needed for +governing the kingdom, such as the royal dignity, royal favors, and the way of justice by +which the kingdom is consolidated. Hence he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">he cannot see the kingdom of God, </span>i.e., +the glory and dignity of God, i.e., the mysteries of eternal salvation which are seen through +the justice of faith: “The kingdom of God is not food and drink” (Rom 14:17).</p> +<p>Now in the Old Law there was a spiritual regeneration; but it was imperfect and symbolic: +“All were baptized into Moses, in the cloud and in the sea” (1 Cor 10:2), i.e., they received +baptism in symbol. Accordingly, they did see the mysteries of the kingdom of God, but only +symbolically: “seeing from afar” (Heb 11:13). But in the New Law there is an evident +spiritual regeneration, although imperfect, because we are renewed only inwardly by grace, +but not outwardly by incorruption: “Although our outward nature is wasting away, yet our +inward nature is being renewed day by day” (2 Cor 4:16). And so we do see the kingdom of +God and the mysteries of eternal salvation, but imperfectly, for as it says, “Now we see in a +mirror, in an obscure manner” (1 Cor 13:12). But there is perfect regeneration in heaven, +because we will be renewed both inwardly and outwardly. And therefore we shall see the +kingdom of God in a most perfect way: “But then we will see face to face,” as is said in 1 +Corinthians (13:12); and “When he appears we will be like him, because we will see him as +he is” (1 Jn 3:2).</p> +<p>434 It is clear, therefore, that just as one does not have bodily vision unless he is born, so one +cannot have spiritual vision unless he is reborn. And according to the threefold regeneration, +there is a threefold kind of vision.</p> +<p>435 Note that the Greek reading is not “again,” but <i>anothe, </i>i.e., “from above,” which Jerome +translated as “again,” in order to suggest addition. And this is the way Jerome understood the +saying, <span style="font-weight: bold">unless one is born again. </span>It is as if he were saying: Unless one is reborn once more +through a fraternal generation.</p> +<p>Chrysostoin, however, says that to be “born from above” is peculiar to the Son of God, +because he alone is born from above: “The one who came from above is above all things” +(below 3:31). And Christ is said to be born from above both as to time (if we may speak +thus), because he was begotten from eternity: “Before the daystar I begot you” (Ps 109:3), and +as to the principle of his generation, because he proceeds from the heavenly Father: “I came +down from heaven not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me” (below 6:38). +Therefore, because our regeneration is in the likeness of the Son of God, inasmuch as “Those +whom he foreknew he predestined to become conformed to the image of his Son” (Rom +8:29), and because that generation is from above, our generation also is from above: both as +to the time, because of our eternal predestination, “He chose us in him before the foundation +of the world” (Eph 1:4), and as to its being a gift of God, as we read below (6:44), “No one +can come to me unless the Father, who sent me, draws him”; and “You have been saved by +the grace of God” (Eph 2:5).</p> +<p>436 Then when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">Nicodemus said to him, </span>he gives the manner of and the reason for +this spiritual regeneration. First, the doubt of Nicodemus is set forth. Secondly, Christ’s +response (v 5).</p> +<p>437 As to the first we should note that as stated in 1 Corinthians (2:14): “The sensual man +does not perceive those things that pertain to the Spirit of God.” And so because Nicodemus +was yet carnal and sensual, he was unable to grasp, except in a carnal manner, the things that +were said to him. Consequently, what the Lord said ,to him about spiritual regeneration, he +understood of carnal generation. And this is what he says: <span style="font-weight: bold">How can a man be born again +when he is already an old man?</span></p> +<p>We should note here, according to Chrysostom, that Nicodemus wanted to object to what was +said by the Savior. But his objection is foolish, because Christ was speaking of spiritual +regeneration, and he is objecting in terms of carnal regeneration. In like manner, all the +reasons brought forth to attack the things of faith are foolish, since they are not according to +the meaning of Sacred Scripture.</p> +<p>438 Nicodemus objected to the Lord’s statement that a man must be born again according to +the two ways in which this seemed impossible. In one way, on account of the irreversibility of +human life; for a man cannot return to infancy from old age. Hence we read, “I am walking +on a path,” namely, this present life, “by which I will not return” (Jb 16:23). And it is from +this point of view that he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">How can a man be born again when he is already an old +man? </span>As if to say: Shall he become a child once more so that he can be reborn? “He will not +return again to his home, and his place will not know him any more” (Jb 7:10). In the second +way, regeneration seemed impossible because of the mode of carnal generation. Forin the +beginning, when a man is generated, he is small in size, so that his mother’s womb can +contain him; but later, after he is born, he continues to grow and reaches such a size that he +cannot be contained within his mother’s womb. And so Nicodemus says, <span style="font-weight: bold">Is it possible for +him to return to his mother’s womb and be born all over again? </span>As if to say: He cannot, +because the womb cannot contain him.</p> +<p>439 But this does not apply to spiritual generation. For no matter how spiritually old a man +might become through sin, accordto the Psalm (31:3): “Because I kept silent, all my bones +grew old,” he can, with the help of divine grace, become new, according to the Psalm (102:5): +“Your youth will be renewed like the eagle’s.” And no matter how enormous he is, he can +enter the spiritual womb of the Church by the sacrament of baptism. And it is clear what that +spiritual womb is; otherwise it would never have been said: “From the womb, before the +daystar, I begot you” (Ps 109:3). Yet there is a sense in which his objection applies. For just +as a man, once he is born according to nature, cannot be reborn, so once he is born in a +spiritual way through baptism, he cannot be reborn, because he cannot be baptized again: +“One Lord, one faith, one baptism,” as we read in Ephesians (4:5).</p> +<p>440 Then we have the answer of Christ. Concerning this he does three things. First, he +answers the arguments of Nicodemus by showing the nature of regeneration. Secondly, he +explains this answer with a reason (v 6). Thirdly, he explains it with an example.</p> +<p>441 He answers the objections by showing that he is speaking of a spiritual regeneration, not +a carnal one. And this is what he says: <span style="font-weight: bold">unless one is born again of water and the Holy +Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. </span>As if to say: You are thinking of a carnal +generation, but I am speaking of a spiritual generation.</p> +<p>Note that above he had said, <span style="font-weight: bold">he cannot see the kingdom of God, </span>while here he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">he +cannot enter the kingdom of God, </span>which is the same thing. For no one can see the things of +the kingdom of God unless he enters it; and to the extent that he enters, he sees. “I will give +him a white stone upon which is written a new name, which no one knows but he who +receives it” (Rv 5:5).</p> +<p>442 Now there is a reason why spiritual generation comes from the Spirit. It is necessary that +the one generated be generated in the likeness of the one generating; but we are regenerated +as sons of God, in the likeness of his true Son. Therefore, it is necessary that our spiritual +regeneration come about through that by which we are made like the true Son. and this conies +about by Our having his Spirit: “If any one does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not his” +(Rom 8:9); “By this we know that we abide in him, and he in us: because he has given us of +his Spirit” (1 Jn 4:13). Thus spiritual regeneration must come from the Holy Spirit. “You did +not receive the spirit of slavery, putting you in fear again, but the spirit of adoption” (Rom +8:15); “It is the Spirit that gives life” (below 6:63).</p> +<p>443 Water, too, is necessary for this regeneration, and for three reasons. First, because of the +condition of human nature. For man consists of soul and body, and if the Spirit alone were +involved in his regeneration, this would indicate that only the spiritual part of man is +regenerated. Hence in order that the flesh also be regenerated, it is necessary that, in addition +to the Spirit through whom the soul is regenerated, something bodily be involved, through +which the body is regenerated; and this,is water.</p> +<p>Secondly, water is necessary for the sake of human knowledge. For, as Dionysius says, divine +wisdom so disposes all things that it provides for each thing according to its nature. Now it is +natural for man to know; and so it is fitting that spiritual things be conferred on men in such a +way that he may know them: “so that we may know what God has given us” (1 Cor 2:12). But +the natural manner of this knowledge is that man know spiritual things by means of sensible +things, since all our knowledge begins in sense knowledge. Therefore, in order that we might +understand what is spiritual in our regeneration, it was fitting that there be in it something +sensible and material, that is, water, through which we understand that just as water washes +and cleanses the exterior in a bodily way, so through baptism a man is washed and cleansed +inwardly in a spiritual way.</p> +<p>Thirdly, water was necessary so that there might be a correspondence of causes. For the cause +of our regeneration is the incarnate Word: “He gave them power to become the sons of God,” +as we saw above (1:12). Therefore it was fitting that in the sacraments, which have their +efficacy from the power of the incarnate Word, there be something corresponding to the +Word, and something corresponding to the flesh, or body. And spiritually speaking, this is +water when the sacrament is baptism, so that through it we may be conformed to the death of +Christ, since we are submerged in it during baptism as Christ was in the womb of the earth +for three days: “We are buried with him by baptism” (Rom 6:4).</p> +<p>Further, this mystery was suggested in the first production of things, when the Spirit of God +hovered over the waters (Gn 1:2). But a greater power was conferred on water by contact with +the most pure flesh of Christ; because in the beginning water brought forth crawling creatures +with living souls, but since Christ was baptized in the Jordan, water has yielded spiritual +souls.</p> +<p>444 It is clear that the Holy Spirit is God, since he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">unless one is born again of water +and the Holy Spirit </span>(<i>ex aqua et Spiritu Sancto</i>).<i> </i>For above (1:13) he says: “who are born not +from blood, nor from the desires of the flesh, nor from man’s willing it, but from God (<i>ex +Deo</i>).” From this we can form the following argument: He from whom men are spiritually +reborn is God; but men are spiritually reborn through the Holy Spirit, as it is stated here; +therefore, the Holy Spirit is God.</p> +<p>445 Two questions arise here. First, if no one enters the kingdom of God unless he is born +again of water, and if the fathers of old were not born again of water (for they were not +baptized), then they have not entered the kingdom of God. Secondly, since baptism is of three +kinds, that is, of water, of desire, and of blood, and many have been baptized in the latter two +ways (who we say have entered the kingdom of God immediately, even though they were not +born again of water), it does not seem to be true to say that <span style="font-weight: bold">unless one is born again of +water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.</span></p> +<p>The answer to the first is that rebirth or regeneration from water and the Holy Spirit takes +place in two ways: in truth and in symbol. Now the fathers of old, although they were not +reborn with a true rebirth, were nevertheless reborn with a symbolic rebirth, because they +always had a sense perceptible sign in which true rebirth was prefigured. So according to this, +thus reborn, they did enter the kingdom of God, after the ransom was paid.</p> +<p>The answer to the second is that those who are reborn by a baptism of blood and fire, +although they do not have regeneration in deed, they do have it in desire. Otherwise neither +would the baptism of blood mean anything nor could there be a baptism of the Spirit. +Consequently, in order that man may enter the kingdom of heaven, it is necessary that there +be a baptism of water in deed, as in the case of all baptized persons, or in desire, as in the case +of the martyrs and catechumens, who are prevented by death from fulfilling their desire, or in +symbol, as in the case of the fathers of old.</p> +<p>446 It might be remarked that it was from this statement, <span style="font-weight: bold">unless one is born again of water +and the Holy Spirit, </span>that the Pelagians derived their error that children are baptized not in +order to be cleansed from sin, since they have none, but in order to be able to enter the +kingdom of God. But this is false, because as Augustine says in his book, <i>The Baptism of +Children, </i>it is not fitting for an image of God, namely, man, to be excluded from the kingdom +of God except for some obstacle, which can be nothing but sin. Therefore, there must be +some sin, namely, original sin, in children who are excluded from the kingdom.</p> +<p>447 Then when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">What is born of flesh is itself flesh, </span>he proves by reason that it is +necessary to be born of water and the Holy Spirit. And the reasoning is this: No one can reach +the kingdom unless he is made spiritual; but no one is made spiritual except by the Holy +Spirit; therefore, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born again of the Holy +Spirit.</p> +<p>So he says, what is born of flesh (<i>ex carne</i>) is itself flesh, i.e., birth according to the flesh +makes one be born into the life of the flesh: “The first man was from the earth, earthly” (1 +Cor 15:47); <span style="font-weight: bold">and what is born of Spirit </span>(<i>ex Spiritu</i>) , i.e., from the power of the Holy Spirit, +<span style="font-weight: bold">is itself spirit, </span>i.e., spiritual.</p> +<p>448 Note, however, that this preposition <i>ex </i>(from, of, by) sometines designates a material +cause, as when I say: “A knife is made of (<i>ex</i>)<i> </i>iron”; sometimes it designates an efficient +cause, as when I say: “The house was built by (<i>ex</i>)<i> </i>a carpenter.” Accordingly, the phrase, +<span style="font-weight: bold">what is born of </span>(<i>ex</i>)<i> </i>flesh is itself flesh, can be understood according to either efficient or +material causality. As efficient cause, indeed, because a power existing in flesh is productive +of generation; and as material cause, because some camal element in animals makes up the +animal generated. But nothing is said to be made out of spirit (<i>ex spiritu</i>)<i> </i>in a material sense, +since spirit is unchangeable, whereas matter is the subject of change; but it is said in the sense +of efficient causality.</p> +<p>According to this, we can discern a threefold generation. One is materially and effectively +from (<i>ex</i>)<i> </i>the flesh, and is common to all who exist according to the flesh. Another is +according to the Spirit effectively, and according to it we are reborn as sons of God through +the grace of the Holy Spirit, and are made spiritual. The third is midway, that is, only +materially from the flesh but effectively from the Holy Spirit. And this is true in the singular +case of Christ: because he was born deriving his flesh materially from the flesh of his mother, +but effectively from the Holy Spirit: “What she has conceived is of the Holy Spirit” (Mt +1:20). Therefore, he was born holy: “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of +the Most High will overshadow you. And so the Holy One who will be born from you, will be +called the Son of God” (Lk 1:35).</p> +<p style="margin-bottom: 0.125in; margin-bottom: 0.125in"> </p> +<CENTER><p><B>LECTURE 2</B></p></CENTER> +<BLOCKQUOTE><p style="margin-left: 0.5in">7 “Do not be surprised that I said to you,<BR> +you must be born again.<BR> +8 The wind blows where it wills,<BR> +and you hear its sound, but you do not know<BR> +where it comes from or where it goes.<BR> +So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.”</p> +<p>9 “How can all this happen?” asked Nicodemus. 10 Jesus replied: “You are a teacher in Israel +and you do not know these things? +<P style="margin-left: 0.5in">11 “Amen, amen I say to you,<BR> +that we know of what we speak,<BR> +and we bear witness of what we see;<BR> +but you do not accept our testimony.<BR> +12 If I spoke of earthly things,<BR> +and you did not believe me,<BR> +how will you believe if I tell you of heavenly things?<BR> +13 No one has gone up to heaven<BR> +except the One who came down from heaven,<BR> +the Son of Man, who lives in heaven.<BR> +14 Just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the desert,<BR> +so must the Son of Man be lifted up,<BR> +15 so that everyone who believes in him may not be lost,<BR> +but have eternal life.”</p></BLOCKQUOTE> +<p>449 Above, in his instruction on spiritual generation, the Lord presented a reason; here he +gives an example. For we are led to see that Nicodemus was troubled when he heard that +<span style="font-weight: bold">what is born of Spirit is itself spirit. </span>And so the Lord says to him, <span style="font-weight: bold">Do not be surprised that +I said to you, you must be born again.</span></p> +<p>Here we should note that there are two kinds of surprise or astonishment. One is the +astonishment of devotion in the sense that someone, considering the great things of God, sees +that they are incomprehensible to him; and so he is full of astonishment: “The Lord on high is +wonderful” (Ps 92:4), “Your testimonies are wonderful” (Ps 118:129). Men are to be +encouraged, not discouraged, to this kind of astonishment The other is the astonishment of +disbelief, when someone does not believe what is said. So Matthew (13:54) says: “They were +astonished,” and further on adds that “They did not accept him.” It is from this kind of +astonishment that the Lord diverts Nicodeintis wheii he proposes an example and says: <span style="font-weight: bold">The +wind</span> (<i>spiritus</i>, wind, spirit)<span style="font-weight: bold"> blows where it wills. </span>In the literal sense, the same words can he +explained in two ways.</p> +<p>450 In the first way, according to Chrysostom, spiritus is taken for the wind, as in Psalm 148 +(v 8): “The winds of the storm that fulfill his word.” According to this interpretation, he says +four things about the wind. First, the power of the wind, when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">the wind blows +where it wills. </span>And if you say that the wind has no will, one may answer that “will” is taken +for a natural appetite, which is nothing more than a natural inclination, about which it is said: +“He created the weight of the wind” (Jb 28:25). Secondly, he tells the evidence for the wind, +when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">and you hear its sound, </span>where “sound” (<i>vox</i>, voice, sound) refers to the sound +the wind makes when it strikes a body. Of this we read: “The sound (<i>vox</i>) of your thunder was +in the whirlwind” (Ps 76:19).</p> +<p>Thirdly, he mentions the origin of the wind, which is unknown; so he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">but you do not +know where it comes from, </span>i.e., from where it starts: “He brings forth the winds out of his +storehouse” (Ps 134:7). Fourthly, he mentions the wind’s destination, which is also unknown; +so he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">or where it goes</span> you do not know, i.e., where it remains.</p> +<p>And he applies this similarity to the subject under discussion, saying, <span style="font-weight: bold">So it is with everyone +who is born of the Spirit. </span>As if to say: If the wind, which is corporeal, has an origin which is +hidden and a course that is unknown, why are you surprised if you cannot understand the +course of spiritual regeneration.</p> +<p>451 Augustine objects to this explanation and says that the Lord was not speaking here about +the wind, for we know where each of the winds comes from and where it goes. For “Auster” +comes from the south and goes to the north; “Boreas” comes from the north and goes to the +south. Why, then, does the Lord say of this wind, you do not know where it comes from or +where it goes?</p> +<p>One may answer that there are two ways in which the source of the wind might be unknown. +In one way, in general: and in this way it is possible to know where it comes from, i.e., from +which direction of the world, for example, that Auster comes from the south, and where it +goes, that is, to the north. In another way, in particular: and in this sense it is not known +where the wind comes from, i.e., at which precise place it originated, or where it goes, i.e., +exactly where it stops. And almost all the Greek doctors agree with this exposition of +Chrysostom.</p> +<p>452 In another way, <i>spiritus</i> is taken for the Holy Spirit. And according to this, he mentions +four things about the Holy Spirit. First, his power, saying, <span style="font-weight: bold">The Spirit blows where it wills, +</span>because it is by the free use of his power that he breathes where he wills and when he wills, +by instructing hearts: “One and the same Spirit does all these things, distributing to each as he +wills” (1 Cor 12:11). This refutes the error of Macedonius who thought that the Holy Spirit +was the minister of the Father and the Son. But then he would not be breathing where he +willed, but where he was commanded.</p> +<p>453 Secondly, he mentions the evidence for the Holy Spirit, when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">and you hear its +voice: </span>“Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts” (Ps 94:8).</p> +<p>Chrysostom objects to this and says that this cannot pertain to the Holy Spirit. For the Lord +was speaking to Nicodemus, who was still an unbeliever, and thus not fit to hear the voice of +the Holy Spirit. We may answer to this, with Augustine, that there is a twofold voice of the +Holy Spirit. One is that by which he speaks inwardly in man’s heart; and only believers and +the saints hear this voice, about which the Psalm (84:9) says: “I will hear what the Lord God +says within me.” The other voice is that by which the Holy Spirit speaks in the Scriptures or +through those who preach, according to Matthew (10:20): “For it is not you who speak, but +the Holy Splirit who is speaking through you.” And this voice is heard by unbelievers and +sinners.</p> +<p>454 Thirdly, he refers to the origin of the Holy Spirit, which is hidden; thus he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">but you +do not know where it comes from, </span>although you may hear its voice. And this is because the +Holy Spirit comes from the Father and the Son: “When the Paraclete comes, whom I will +send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father” (below 15:26). +But the Father and the Son “dwell in inaccessible light, whom no man has seen or is able to +see” (1 Tim 6:16).</p> +<p>455 Fourthly, he gives the destination of the Holy Spirit, which is also hidden; and so he says, +you do not know where it goes, because the Spirit leads one to a hidden end, that is, eternal +happiness. Thus it says in Ephesians (1:14) that the Holy Spirit is “the pledge of our +inheritance.” And again, “The eye has not seen, nor has the ear heard, nor has the heart of +man conceived, what God has prepared for those who love him” (1 Cor 2:9).</p> +<p>Or, <span style="font-weight: bold">you do not know where it comes from, </span>i.e., how the Spirit enters into a person, <span style="font-weight: bold">or +where it goes, </span>i.e., to what perfection he may lead him: “If he comes toward me, I will not +see him” (Jb 9:11).</p> +<p>456 <span style="font-weight: bold">So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit, </span>i.e., they are like the Holy Spirit. And +no wonder: for as he had said before, “What is born of Spirit is itself spirit,” because the +qualities of the Holy Spirit are present in the spiritual man, just as the qualities of fire are +present in burning coal.</p> +<p>Therefore, the above four qualities of the Holy Spirit are found in one who has been born of +the Holy Spirit. First of all, he has freedom: “Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is +freedom” (2 Cor 3:17), for the Holy Spirit leads us to what is right: “Your good Spirit will +lead me to the right path” (Ps 142:10); and he frees us from the slavery of sin and of the law: +“The law of the Spirit, of life in Christ, has set me free” (Rom 8:2). Secondly, we get an +indication of him through the sound of his words; and when we hear them we know his +spirituality, for it is out of the abundance of the heart that the mouth speaks.</p> +<p>Thirdly, he has an origin and an end that are hidden, because no one can judge one who is +spiritual: “The spiritual man judges all things, and he himself is judged by no one” (1 Cor +2:15). Or, we do not know where such a person comes from, i.e., the source of his spiritual +birth, which is baptismal grace; or where he goes, i.e., of what he is made worthy, that is, of +eternal life, which remains concealed from us.</p> +<p>457 Then the cause and reason for spiritual regeneration are set forth. First, a question is +asked by Nicodemus; secondly, the Lord’s answer is given (v 10).</p> +<p>458 It is apparent from the first that Nicodemus, as yet dull, and remaining a Jew on the level +of sense, was unable to understand the mysteries of Christ in spite of the examples and +explanations that were given. And so he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">How can all this happen?</span></p> +<p>There are two reasons why one may question about something. Some question because of +disbelief, as did Zechariah, saying: “How will I know this? For I am an old man, and my wife +is advanced in age” (Lk 1:18); “He confounds those who search into mysteries” (Is 40:23). +Others, on the other hand, question because of a desire to know, as the Blessed Virgin did +when she said to the angel: “How shall this be, since I do not know man?” (Lk 1:34). It is the +latter who are instructed. And so, because Nicodemus asked from a desire to learn, he +deserved to be instructed.</p> +<p>459 And this is what follows: <span style="font-weight: bold">Jesus replied. </span>First the Lord chides him for his slowness. +Secondly, he answers his question (v 13).</p> +<p>460 He chides him for his slowness, basing himself on three things. First, the condition of the +person to whom he is speaking, when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">You are a teacher in Israel. </span>And here the +Lord did not chide him to insult him. Rather, because Nicodemus, presuming on his own +knowledge, was still relying on his status as a teacher, the Lord wished to make him a temple +of the Holy Spirit by humbling him: “For whom will I have regard? For he who is humble and +of contrite spirit” (Is 66:2). And he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">You are a teacher, </span>because it is tolerable if a simple +person cannot grasp profound truths, but in a teacher, it deserves rebuke. And so he says, You +are a teacher, i.e., of the letter that kills (2 Cor 3:6), <span style="font-weight: bold">and you do not know these things? </span>i.e., +spiritual things. “For although you ought to be teachers by now, you yourselves need to be +taught again” (Heb 5:12).</p> +<p>461 You might say that the Lord would have rebuked Nicodemus justly if he had spoken to +him about matters of the Old Law and he did not understand them; but he spoke to him about +the New Law. I answer that the things which the Lord says of spiritual generation are +contained in the Old Law, although under a figure, as is said in 1 Corinthians (10:2): “All +were baptized into Moses, in the cloud and in the sea.” And the prophets also said this: “I will +pour clean water upon you, and you will be cleansed from all your uncleanness” (Ez 36:25).</p> +<p>462 Secondly, he rebukes him for his slowness on account of the character of the person who +is speaking. For it is tolerable if one does not acquiesce to the statements of an ignorant +person; but it is reprehensible to reject the statements of a man who is wise and who +possesses great authority. And so he says, Amen, amen I say to you, that we <span style="font-weight: bold">know of what +we speak, and we bear witness of what we see. </span>For a qualified witness must base his +testimony on hearing or sight: “What we have seen and heard” (1 Jn 1:3). And so the Lord +mentions both: <span style="font-weight: bold">we know of what we speak, and we bear witness of what </span>we see. Indeed, +the Lord as man knows all things: “Lord, you know all things” (below 21:17); “The Lord, +whose knowledge is holy, knows clearly” (2 Mc 6:30). Further, he sees all things by his +divine knowledge: “I speak of what I have seen with my Father,” as we read below (8:38).</p> +<p>He speaks in the plural, we know, we see, in order to suggest the mystery of the Trinity: “The +Father, who dwells in me, he does the works” (below 14:10). Or, we know, i.e., I, and others +who have been made spiritual, because “No one knows the Father but the Son, and he to +whom the Son wishes to reveal him” (Mt 11:27).</p> +<p><span style="font-weight: bold">But you do not accept our testimony, </span>so approved, so solid. “And his testimony no one +accepts (below 3:32).</p> +<p>463 Thirdly, he rebukes him for his slowness because of the quality of the things under +discussion. For it is not unusual when someone does not grasp difficult matters, but it is +inexcusable not to grasp easy things. So he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">If I spoke of earthly things, and you did +not believe, how will you believe if I tell you of heavenly things? </span>As if to say: If you do not +grasp these easy things, how will you be able to understand the progress of the Holy Spirit? +“What is on earth we find difficult, and who will search Out the things in heaven,” as is said +in Wisdom (9:10).</p> +<p>464 But one might object that the above does not show that the Lord spoke of earthly things +to Nicodemus. I answer, according to Chrysostom, that the Lord’s statement, <span style="font-weight: bold">If I spoke of +earthly things, </span>refers to the example of the wind. For the wind, being something which is +generable and corruptible, is regarded as an earthly thing. Or one might say, again according +to Chrysostom, that the spiritual generation which is given in baptism is heavenly as to its +source, which sanctifies and regenerates; but it is earthly as to its subject, for the one +regenerated, man, is of the earth.</p> +<p>Or one might answer, according to Augustine, that we must understand this in reference to +what Christ said earlier: “Destroy this temple,” which is earthly, because he said this about +the temple of his body, which he had taken from the earth.</p> +<p><span style="font-weight: bold">If I spoke of earthly things, and you did not believe, how will you believe if I tell you of +heavenly things? </span>As if to say: If you do not believe in a spiritual generation occurring in +time, how will you believe in the eternal generation of the Son? Or, if you do not believe +what I tell you about the power of my body, how will you believe what I tell you about the +power of my divinity and about the power of the Holy Spirit?</p> +<p>465 <span style="font-weight: bold">Jesus replied. </span>Here he answers the question. First, he lays down the causes of spiritual +regeneration. Secondly, he explains what he says (3:16). Now there are two causes of spiritual +regeneration, namely, the mystery of the incarnation of Christ, and his passion. So first, he +treats of the incarnation; secondly, of the passion (3:14).</p> +<p>466 Here we should consider, first of all, how this answer of Christ is an adequa~,e reply to +the question of Nicodemus. For above, when the Lord was speaking of the Spirit, he said: <span style="font-weight: bold">you +do not know where it comes from or where it </span>goes. We understand by this that spiritual +regeneration has a hidden source and a hidden end. Now the things in heaven are hidden from +us: “Who will search out the things in heaven?” (Wis 9:16). Therefore, the sense of +Nicodemus’ question, <span style="font-weight: bold">How can all this happen? </span>is this: How can something come from the +secret things of heaven or go to the secret things of heaven? So before answering, the Lord +expressed this interpretation of the question, saying, <span style="font-weight: bold">how will you believe if I tell you of +heavenly things?</span></p> +<p>And immediately he begins to show whose prerogative it is to ascend into heaven, namely, +anyone who came down from heaven, according to the statement of Ephesians (4:10): “He +who descended is he who ascended.” This is verified even in natural things, namely, that each +body tends to a place according to its origin or nature. And so in this way it can come about +that someone, through the Spirit, may go to a place which carnal persons do not know, i.e., by +ascending into heaven, if this is done through the power of one who descended from heaven: +because he descended in order that, in ascending, he might open a way for us: “He ascends, +opening the way before them” (Mi 2:13).</p> +<p>467 Some have fallen into error because of his saying, <span style="font-weight: bold">the One who came down from +heaven, the Son of Man. </span>For since Son of Man designates human nature, which is composed +of soul and body, then because he says that the Son descended from heaven, Valentinus +wanted to maintain that he even took his body from heaven and thus passed through the +Virgin without receiving anything from her, as water passes through a pipe; so that his body +was neither of an earthly substance nor taken from the Virgin. But this is contrary to the +statement of the Apostle, writing to the Romans (1:3): “who was made from the seed of +David according to the flesh.”</p> +<p>On the other hand, Origen said that he descended from heaven as to his soul, which, he says, +had been created along with the angels from the very beginning, and that later this soul +descended from heaven and took flesh from the Virgin. But this also conflicts with the +Catholic faith, which teaches that souls do not exist before their bodies.</p> +<p>468 Therefore, we should not understand that the Son of Man descended from heaven +according to his human nature, but only according to his divine nature. For since in Christ +there is one <i>suppositum</i>, or hypostasis, or person of the two natures, the divine and human +natures, then no matter from which of these two natures this <i>suppositum</i> is named, divine and +human things can be attributed to him. For we can say that the Son of Man created the stars +and that the Son of God was crucified. But the Son of God was crucified, not according to his +divine nature, but according to his human nature; and the Son of Man created the stars +according to his divine nature. And so in things that are said of Christ, the distinction is not to +be taken with respect to that about which they are said, because divine and human things are +said of God and man indifferently; but a distinction must be made with respect to that +according to which they are said, because divine things are said of Christ according to his +divine nature, but human things according to his human nature. Thus, to descend from heaven +is said of the Son of Man, not according to his human nature, but according to his divine +nature, according to which it was appropriate to him to have been from heaven before the +incarnation, as is said, “Heaven belongs to the Lord” (Ps 113:16).</p> +<p>469 he is said to have come down, but not by local motion, becatise then he Would not have +remained in heaven; for nothing which moves locally remains in the place from which it +comes down. And so to exclude local motion, he adds, <span style="font-weight: bold">who lives in heaven. </span>As if to say: He +descended from heaven in such a way as yet to be in heaven. For he came down from heaven +without ceasing to be above, yet assuming a nature which is from below. And because he is +not enclosed or held fast by his body which exists on earth, he was, according to his divinity, +in heaven and everywhere. And therefore to indicate that he is said to have come down in this +way, because he assumed a [human] nature, he said, <span style="font-weight: bold">the Son of Man </span>came down, i.e., insofar +as he became Son of Man.</p> +<p>470 Or it can be said, as Hilary does, that he came down from heaven as to his body: not that +the material of Christ’s body came down from heaven, but that the power which formed it +was from heaven.</p> +<p>471 But why does he say, <span style="font-weight: bold">No one has gone up to heaven except the Son of Man, who lives +in heaven? </span>For have not Paul and Peter and the other saints gone up, according to 2 +Corinthians (5:1): “We have a house in the heavens.” I answer that no one goes up into +heaven except Christ and his members, i.e., those believers who are just. Accordingly, the +Son of God came down from heaven in order that, by making us his members, he might +prepare us to ascend into heaven: now, indeed, in hope, but later in reality. “He has raised us +up, and has given us a place in heaven in Christ Jesus” (Eph 2:6).</p> +<p>472 Here he mentions the mystery of the passion, in virtue of which baptism has its efficacy: +“We who have been baptized into Christ Jesus, have been baptized into his death” (Rom 6:3). +And with regard to this he does three things. First, he gives a symbol for the passion. +Secondly, the manner of the passion. Thirdly, the fruit of the passion.</p> +<p>473 He takes the symbol from the old law, in order to adapt to the understanding of +Nicodemus; so he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">Just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the desert. </span>This refers to +Numbers (21:5) when the Lord, faced with the Jewish people saying, “We are sick of this +useless food,” sent serpents to punish them; and when the people came to Moses and he +interceded with the Lord, the Lord commanded that for a remedy they make a serpent of +bronze; and this was to serve both as a remedy against those serpents and as a symbol of the +Lord’s passion. Hence it says that this bronze serpent was lifted up as a sign (Nm 21:9).</p> +<p>Now it is characteristic of serpents that they are poisonous, but not so the serpent of bronze, +although it was a symbol of a poisonous serpent. So, too, Christ did not have sin, which is +also a poison: “Sin, when it is fully developed, brings forth death” (Jas 1:15); but he had the +likeness of sin: “God sent his own Son, in the likeness of sinful flesh” (Rom 8:3). And thus +Christ had the effect of the serpent against the insurgence of inflamed concupiscences.</p> +<p>474 He shows the manner of the passion when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">so must the Son of Man be lifted +up: </span>and this refers to the lifting up of the cross. So below (12:34) when it says, “The Son of +Man must be lifted up,” it also has, “He said this to indicate the manner of his death.”</p> +<p>He willed to die lifted up, first of all, to cleanse the heavens: for since he had cleansed the +things on earth by the sanctity of his life, the things of the air were left to be cleansed by his +death: “through him he should reconcile all things to himself, whether on earth or in the +heavens, making peace through his blood” (Col 1:20). Secondly, to triumph over the demons +who prepare for war in the air: “the prince of the power of the air” (Eph 2:2). Thirdly, he +wished to die lifted up to draw our hearts to himself: “I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will +draw all to myself” (below 12:32). And fourthly, because in the death of the cross he was +lifted up in the sense that there he triumphed over his enemies; so it is not called a death, but +a lifting up: “He will drink from the stream on the way, therefore he will lift up his head” (Ps +109:7). Fifthly, he willed to die lifted up because the cross was the reason for his being lifted +up, i.e., exalted: “He became obedient to the Father even to death, the death of the cross; on +account of which God has exalted him” (Phil 2:8).</p> +<p>475 Now the fruit of Christ’s passion is eternal life; hence he says, so <span style="font-weight: bold">that everyone who +believes in him, </span>performing good works, <span style="font-weight: bold">may not be lost, but have eternal life. </span>And this +fruit corresponds to the fruit of the symbolic serpent. For whoever looked upon the serpent of +bronze was freed from poison and his life was preserved. But he who looks upon the lifted up +Son of Man, and believes in the crucified Christ, he is freed from poison and sin: “Whoever +believes in me will never die” (below 11:26), and is preserved for eternal life. “These things +are written that you may believe ... and that believing you may have life in his name” (below +20:3 1).</p> +<p style="margin-bottom: 0.125in; margin-bottom: 0.125in"> </p> +<p style="text-align: center; margin-bottom: 0.125in"><span style="font-weight: bold">LECTURE 3</span></p> +<BLOCKQUOTE><p style="margin-left: 0.5in">16 “For God so loved the world +<BR>that he gave his Only Begotten Son, +<BR>so that whoever believes in him should not perish, +<BR>but have eternal life. +<BR>17 God did not send his Son into the world +<br>to judge the world, +<br>but that the world might he saved through him. +<br>18 Whoever believes in him is not judged; +<br>but whoever does not believe is already judged, +<br>since he does not believe in the name of the +<br>Only Begotten Son of God. +<br>19 The judgment of condemnation is this: +<br>the light came into the world, +<br>and men loved darkness more than the light, +<br>because their deeds were evil. +<br>20 Everyone who practices evil hates the light, +<br>and does not approach the light +<br>for fear that his deeds might be exposed. +<br>21 But everyone who practices the truth +<br>comes to the light, +<BR>to make clear that his deeds are done in God.”</p></BLOCKQUOTE> +<p>476 Above, the Lord assigned as the cause of spiritual regeneration the coming down of the +Son and the lifting up of the Son of Man; and he set forth its fruit, which is eternal life. But +this fruit seemed unbelievable to men laboring under the necessity of dying. And so now the +Lord explains this. First, he proves the greatness of the fruit from the greatness of God’s love. +Secondly, he rejects a certain reply (v 17).</p> +<p>477 Here we should note that the cause of all our good is the Lord and divine love. For to +love is, properly speaking, to will good to someone. Therefore, since the will of God is the +cause of things, good comes to us because God loves us. And God’s love is the cause of the +good of nature: “You love everything which exists” (Wis 11:2 5). It is also the cause of the +good which is grace: “I have loved you with an. everlasting love, and so I have drawn you” +i.e., through grace (Jer 3 1:3). But it is because of his great love that he gives us the good of +glory. So he shows us here, from four standpoints, that this love of God is the greatest.</p> +<p>First, from the person of the one loving, because it is God who loves, and immeasurably. So +he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">For God so loved: </span>“He has loved the people; all the holy ones are in his hand” (Dt +33:3). Secondly, from the condition of the one who is loved, because it is man, a bodily +creature of the world, i.e., existing in sin: “God shows his love for us, because while we were +still his enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son” (Rom 5:8). Thus he +says, <span style="font-weight: bold">the world. </span>Thirdly, from the greatness of his gifts, for love is shown by a gift; as +Gregory says: “The proof of love is given by action.” But God has given us the greatest of +gifts, his Only Begotten Son, and so he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">that he gave his Only Begotten Son. </span>“God did +not spare his own Soil, but delivered him up for all of us” (Rom 8:32).</p> +<p>He says his Son, i.e., his natural Son, consubstantial, not an adopted son, i.e., not those sons +of which the Psalmist says: “I said: You are gods” (Ps 81:6). This shows that the opinion of +Arius is false: for if the Son of God were a creature, as he said, the immensity of God’s love +through the taking on of infinite goodness, which no creature can receive, could not have +been revealed in him. He further says <span style="font-weight: bold">Only Begotten, </span>to show that God does not have a love +divided among many sons, but all of it is for that Son whom he gave to prove the immensity +of his love: “For the Father loves the Son, and shows him everything that he does” (below +5:20).</p> +<p>Fourthly, from the greatness of its fruit, because through him we have eternal life. Hence he +says, <span style="font-weight: bold">so that whoever believes in him should not perish, but have eternal life, </span>which he +obtained for us through the death of the cross.</p> +<p>478 But did God give his Son with the intention that he should die on the cross? He did +indeed give him for the death of the cross inasmuch as he gave him the will to suffer on it. +And he did this in two ways. First, because as the Son of God he willed from eternity to +assume flesh and to suffer for us; and this will he had from the Father. Secondly, because the +will to suffer was infused into the soul of Christ by God.</p> +<p>479 Note that above, when the Lord was speaking about the coming down which belongs to +Christ according to his divinity, he called him the Son of God; and this because of the one +<i>suppositum</i> of the two natures, as was explained above. And so divine things can be said +about the <i>suppositum</i> of the human nature, and human things can be said about the +<i>suppositum</i> of the divine nature, but not with reference to the same nature. Rather, divine +things are said with reference to the divine nature, and human things with reference to the +human nature. Now the specific reason why he here calls him the Son of God is that he set +forth that gift as a sign of the divine love, through which the fruit of eternal life comes to us. +And so, he should have been called by that name which indicates the power that produces +eternal life; and this power is not in Christ as Son of Man but as Son of God: “This is the true +God and eternal life,” as we read in 1 John (5:20); “In him was life” (above 1:4).</p> +<p>480 Note also that he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">should not perish. </span>Someone is said to be perishing when he is +hindered from arriving at the end to which he is ordained. But the end to which man is +ordained is eternal life, and as long as he sins, he turns himself from that end. And although +while he is living he cannot entirely perish in the sense that he cannot be restored, yet when +he dies in sin, then he entirely perishes: “The way of the wicked will perish” (Ps 1:7).</p> +<p>He indicates the immensity of God’s love in saying, <span style="font-weight: bold">have eternal life: </span>for by giving eternal +life, he gives himself. For eternal life is nothing else than enjoying God. But to give oneself is +a sign of great love: “But God, who is rich in mercy, has brought us to life in Christ” (Eph +2:5), i.e., he gave us eternal life.</p> +<p>481 Here the Lord excludes an objection that might be made. For in the old law it was +promised that the Lord would come to judge: “The Lord will come to judge” (Is 3:14). So +someone might say that the Son of God had not come to give eternal life but in order to judge +the world. The Lord rejects this. First, he shows that he has not come to judge. Secondly, he +proves it (v 18).</p> +<p>482 So he says: The Son of God has not come to judge, because <span style="font-weight: bold">God did not send his Son, +</span>referring to his first coming, <span style="font-weight: bold">into the world to judge the world, but that the world might +be saved through him. </span>The same thing is found below (12:47): “I did not come to judge the +world, but to save the world.”</p> +<p>Now man’s salvation is to attain to God: “My salvation is in God” (Ps 61:8). And to attain to +God is to obtain eternal life; hence to be saved is the same as to have eternal life. However, +because the Lord says, “I did not come to judge the world,” men should not be lazy or abuse +God’s mercy, or give themselves over to sin: because although in his first coming he did not +come to judge but to forgive, yet in his second coming, as Chrysostom says, he will come to +judge but not to forgive. “At the appointed time I will judge with rigor” (Ps 74:3).</p> +<p>483 However, this seems to conflict with what is said below (9:39): “1 came into this world +to judge.” I answer that there are two kinds of judgment. One is the judgment of distinction, +and the Son has come for this in his first coming; because with his coming men are +distinguished, some by blindness and some by the light of grace. The other is the judgment of +condemnation; and he did not come for this as such.</p> +<p>484 Now he proves what he had said, as though by a process of elimination, in the following +way: Whoever will be judged will be either a believer or an unbeliever. But I have not come +to judge unbelievers, because they are already judged. Therefore, from the outset, God did not +send his Son to judge the world. So first he shows that believers are not judged. Secondly, +that unbelievers are notjudged (v 18).</p> +<p>485 He says therefore: I have not come to judge the world: because he did not come to judge +believers, for <span style="font-weight: bold">Whoever believes in him is not judged, </span>with the judgment of condemnation, +with which no one who believes in him with faith informed by love is judged: “Whoever +believes ... will not encounter judgment, but will pass from death to life” (below 5:24). But he +is judged with the judgment of reward and approval, of which the Apostle says: “It is the Lord +who judges me” (1 Cor 4:4).</p> +<p>486 But will there be many believing sinners who will not be damned? I reply that some +heretics [e.g., Origen] have said that no believer, however great a sinner he may be, will be +damned, but he will be saved by reason of his foundation of salvation, namely, his faith, +although he may suffer some [temporary] punishment. They take as the basis of their error the +statement of the Apostle: “No one can lay a foundation other that the one that has been laid, +that is, Jesus Christ” (1 Cor 3:11); and further on: “If a man’s building burns ... he himself +will be saved as one fleeing through fire” (3:15).</p> +<p>But this view is clearly contrary to what the Apostle says in Galatians (5:1): “It is obvious +what proceeds from the flesh: lewd conduct, impurity, licentiousness ... Those who do such +things will not inherit the kingdom of God.” Therefore we must say that the foundation of +salvation is not faith without charity (unformed faith), but faith informed by charity. +Significantly therefore the Lord did not say, “whoever believes him,” but <span style="font-weight: bold">whoever believes +in him, </span>that is, whoever by believing tends toward him through love <span style="font-weight: bold">is not judged, </span>because +he does not sin mortally, thereby removing the foundation.</p> +<p>Or one could say, following Chrysostom, that everyone who acts sinfully is not a believer: +“They profess to know God, but they deny him by their actions” (Ti 1:16); but only one who +acts worthily: “Show me your faith by your works” (Jas 2:18). It is only such a one who is not +judged and not condemned for unbelief.</p> +<p>487 Here [the Lord] shows that unbelievers are not judged. First he makes the statement; +secondly, he explains it (v 19).</p> +<p>488 Concerning the first we should note, according to Augustine, that Christ does not say, +“whoever does not believe is judged,” but rather <span style="font-weight: bold">is not judged. </span>This can be explained in three +ways. For, according to Augustine, whoever does not believe is not judged, because he is +already judged, not in fact, but in God’s foreknowledge, that is, it is already known to God +that he will be condemned: “The Lord knows who are his” (2 Tim 2:19). In another way: +according to Chrysostom, <span style="font-weight: bold">whoever does not believe is already judged, </span>that is, the very fact +that he does not believe is for him a condemnation: for not to believe is not to adhere to the +light—which is to live in darkness, and this is a momentous condemnation: “All were bound +with one chain of darkness” (Wis 17:17). “What kind ofjoy can I have, I who sit in darkness +and do not see the light of heaven?” (Tb 5:12). In a third way: also according to Chrysostom, +<span style="font-weight: bold">whoever does not believe is not judged, </span>that is, being already condemned, he displays the +obvious reason for his condemnation. This is like saying that a person who is proven guilty of +death is already dead, even before the sentence of death has been passed on him, because he +is as good as dead.</p> +<p>Hence Gregory says that in passing judgments there is a twofold order. Some will be +sentenced by a trial; such are the ones who have something not deserving of condemnation, +namely, the good of faith, that is, sinners who believe. But unbelievers, Whose reason for +condemnation is manifest, are sentenced without trial; and of these it is said, <span style="font-weight: bold">whoever does +not believe is already judged. </span>“In judgment the wicked will not stand” (Ps 1:6), that is, stand +in trial.</p> +<p>489 It should be noted that to be judged is the same as to be condemned; and to be +condemned is to be shut out from salvation, to which only one road leads, that is, the name of +the Son of God: “There is no other name under heaven given to men, by which we are saved” +(Acts 4:12); “O’God, save me by your name” (Ps 53:3). Therefore, those who do not believe +in the Son of God are cut off from salvation, and the cause of their damnation is evident.</p> +<p>490 Here the Lord explains his statement that unbelievers have an evident cause for their +condemnation. First, he sets forth the sign which shows this. Secondly, the fittingness of this +sign (v 20).</p> +<p>491 In the sign he sets forth he does three things. First, he mentions the gift of God. Secondly, +the perversity of mind in unbelievers. Thirdly, the cause of this perversity.</p> +<p>So he says: It is abundantly clear that <span style="font-weight: bold">whoever does not believe is already judged, </span>because +<span style="font-weight: bold">the light came into the world. </span>For men were in the darkness of ignorance, and God +destroyed this darkness by sending a light into the world so that men might know the truth: “I +am the light of the world. He who follows me does not walk in darkness, but will have the +light of life” (below 8:12); “To enlighten those who sit in darkness and in the shadow of +death” (Lk 1:78). Now the light came into the world because men could not come to it: for +“He dwells in inaccessible light, whom no man has seen or is able to see” (1 Tim 6:16).</p> +<p>It is also clear from the perversity of mind in unbelievers who <span style="font-weight: bold">loved darkness more than the +light, </span>i.e., they preferred to remain in the darkness of ignorance rather than be instructed by +Christ: “They have rebelled against the light” (Jb 24:13); “Woe to you who substitute +darkness for light, and light for darkness” (Is 5:20).</p> +<p>And the cause of this perversity is that <span style="font-weight: bold">their deeds were evil: </span>and such deeds do not conform +to the light but seek the darkness: “Let us cast off the works of darkness” (Rom 13:12), i.e., +sins, which seek the darkness; “Those who sleep, sleep at night” (1 Thes 5:7); “The eye of the +adulterer watches for the darkness,” as we read in Job (24:15). Now it is by withdrawing from +the light,which is unpleasant to him, that one does not believe the light.</p> +<p>492 But do all unbelievers produce evil works? It seems not: for many Gentiles have acted +with virtue; for example, Cato, and many others. I answer, with Chrysostom, that is it one +thing to work by reason of virtue, and another by reason of a natural aptitude or disposition. +For some act well because of their natural disposition, because their temperament is not +inclined in a contrary way. And even unbelievers can act well in this way. For example, one +may live chastely because he is not assailed by concupiscence; and the same for the other +virtues. But those who act well by reason of virtue do not depart from virute, in spite of +inclinations to the contrary vice, because of the rightness of their reason and the goodness of +their will; and this is proper to believers.</p> +<p>Or, one might answer that although unbelievers may have done good things, they do not do +them for love of virute but out of vainglory. Further, they did not do all things well; for they +failed to render to God the worship due him.</p> +<p>493 Then when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">Everyone who practices evil hates the light, </span>he shows the +appropriateness of the sign he used. First, with respect to those who are evil. Secondly, with +respect to the good.</p> +<p>494 So he says: The reason why they did not love the light is that their works were evil. And +this is plain because <span style="font-weight: bold">Everyone who practices evil hates the light. </span>He does not say, +“practiced,” but rather practices: because if someone has acted in an evil way, but has +repented and is sorry,seeing that he has done wrong, such a person does not hate the light but +comes to the light. But Everyone who practices evil, i.e., persists in evil, is not sorry, nor does +he come to the light, but he hates it; not because it reveals truth, but because it reveals a +person’s sins. For an evil person still wants to know the light and the truth; but he hates to be +unmasked by it. “If the dawn suddenly appears, they regard it as the shadow of death” Qb +24:17). And so he <span style="font-weight: bold">does not approach the light; </span>and this <span style="font-weight: bold">for fear that his deeds might be +exposed. </span>For no one who is unwilling to desert evil wants to be rebuked; this is fled from and +hated. “They hate the one who rebukes at the city gate” (Am 5:10); “A corrupt man does not +love the one who rebukes him” (Prv 15:12).</p> +<p>495 Now he shows the same things with respect to the good, who practice the truth, i.e., +perform good works. For truth is found not only in thought and words. but also in deeds. +Everyone of these <span style="font-weight: bold">comes to the light.</span></p> +<p>But did anyone practice the truth before Christ? It seems not, for to practice the truth is not to +sin; and “before Christ all have sinned” (Rom 3:23). I answer, according to Augustine, that he +practices the truth in himself who is displeased at the evil he has done; and after leaving the +darkness, keeps himself from sin, and repenting of the past, <span style="font-weight: bold">comes to the light, </span>with the +special intention of making his actions known.</p> +<p>496 But this conflicts with the teaching that no one should make public the good he has done; +and this was a reason why the Lord rebuked the Pharisees. I answer that it is lawful to want +one’s works to be seen by God so that they may be approved: “It is not the one who +commends himself who is approved, but the one whom God commends” (2 Cor 10:18); “My +witness is in heaven,” as is said in Job (16:20). It is also lawful to want them to be seen by +one’s own conscience, so that one may rejoice: “Our glory is this: the testimony of our +conscience” (2 Cor 1:12). But it is reprehensible to want them to be seen by men in order to +be praised or for one’s own glory. Yet, holy persons desire that their good works be known to +men for the sake of God’s glory and for the good of the faith: “Let your light so shine before +men that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father in heaven” (Mt 5:16). Such a +person <span style="font-weight: bold">comes to the light to make clear that his deeds are done in God, </span>that is, according +to God’s commandment or through the grace of God. For whatever good we do, whether it be +avoiding sin, repenting of what has been done, or doing good works, it is all from God: “You +have accomplished all our works” (Is 26:12).</p> +<p style="margin-bottom: 0.125in; margin-bottom: 0.125in"> </p> +<p style="text-align: center; margin-bottom: 0.125in"><span style="font-weight: bold">LECTURE 4</span></p> +<BLOCKQUOTE><p>22 After this Jesus and his disciples came to Judean territory; he stayed there with his +disciples and was baptizing. 23 But John also was baptizing at Aenon near Salim, where the +water was plentiful, and people kept coming and were baptized. 24 John, of course, had not +yet been thrown into prison. 25 A controversy arose between the disciples of John and the +Jews concerning purification. 26 They went to John and said to him, “Rabbi, the man who +was with you across the Jordan, the one of whom you have given testimony, he is here +baptizing, and all the people are flocking to him.”</p></BLOCKQUOTE> +<p>497 Above, the Lord gave us his teaching on spiritual regeneration in words, here he +completes his teaching through action, by baptizing. First, two kinds of baptism are +mentioned. Secondly, a question about their relationship is raised (v 25). As to the first, two +things are done. Mention is first made of the baptism of Christ. Secondly, of the baptism of +John.</p> +<p>498 He says first, <span style="font-weight: bold">After this, </span>i.e., the teaching on spiritual regeneration, <span style="font-weight: bold">Jesus and his +disciples came to Judean territory. </span>There is a question here about the literal meaning. For +above, the Evangelist had said that the Lord had come from Galilee to Jerusalem, which is in +Judean territory, where he taught Nicodemus. So how, after teaching Nicodemus, can he +come into Judea, since he was already there?</p> +<p>Two answers are given to this. According to Bede, after his discussion with Nicodemus, +Christ went to Galilee, and after remaining there for a time, returned to Judea. And so <span style="font-weight: bold">After +this Jesus and his disciples came to Judean territory, </span>should not be understood to mean +that he came into Judea immediately after his talk with Nicodemus. Another explanation, +given by Chrysostom, is that he did come into the territory of Judea immediately after this +discussion: for Christ wanted to preach where the people gathered, so that many might be +converted: “I have declared your justice in the great assembly” (Ps 3 9:10); “1 have spoken +openly to the world” (below 18:20). Now there were two places in Judea where the Jewish +people gathered: Jerusalem, where they went for their feasts, and the Jordan, where they +gathered on account of John’s preaching and his baptism. And so the Lord used to visit both +places; and after the feast days were over in Jerusalem, which is in one part of Judea, he went +to another part, to the Jordan, where John was baptizing.</p> +<p>499 As for the moral sense, Judea means “confession,” to which Jesus came, for Christ visits +those who confess their sins or speak in praise of God: “Judea became his sanctuary” (Ps +113:2). He stayed there, because he did not make a merely temporary visit: “We will come to +him, and make our abode with him,” as it says below (14:23). <span style="font-weight: bold">And was baptizing, </span>i.e., +cleansing from sin; because unless one confesses his sins he does not obtain forgiveness: “He +who hides his sins will not prosper” (Prv 28:13).</p> +<p>500 Then when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">But John also was baptizing, </span>the Evangelist presents the baptism of +John. And in regard to this he does four things. First, he presents the person who is baptizing. +Secondly, the place of the baptism. Thirdly, its fruit. Fourthly, the time.</p> +<p>501 John is the person who is baptizing-, so he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">John also was baptizing. </span>There is a +question about this: Since John’s baptism was ordained to the baptism of Christ, it seems that +John should have stopped baptizing when Christ started to baptize, just as the symbol does +not continue when the truth comes. Three reasons are given for this. The first is in relation to +Christ, for John baptized in order that Christ might be baptized by him. But it was not fitting +that John baptize just Christ; otherwise, on this point alone, it might seem that John’s baptism +was superior to Christ’s. Accordingly, it was expedient that John baptize others before Christ, +because before Christ’s teaching was to be made public it was necessary that men be prepared +for Christ by John’s baptism. In this way, the baptism of John is related to the baptism of +Christ as the catechesis or religious instruction given to prospects to teach and prepare them +for baptism is related to the true baptism. It was likewise important that John baptize others +after he had baptized Christ, so that John’s baptism would not seem to be worthless. For the +same reason, the practice of the ceremonies of the old law was not abolished as soon as the +truth came, but as Augustine says, the Jews could lawfully observe them for a time.</p> +<p>The second reason relates to John. For if John had stopped baptizing at once after Christ +began baptizing, it might have been thought that he stopped out of envy or anger. And +because, as the Apostle says, “We ought to look after what is good, not only before God, but +also before all men” (Rom 12:17), this is the reason why John did not stop at once.</p> +<p>The third reason relates to John’s disciples, who were already beginning to act like zealots +toward Christ and his disciples, because they were baptizing. So if John had entirely stopped +from baptizing, it would have provoked his disciples to an even greater zeal and opposition to +Christ and his disciples. For even while John continued baptizing, they were hostile to +Christ’s baptism, as later events showed. And so John did not stop at once: “Take care that +your freedom does not become a hindrance to those who are weak,” as is said in 1 +Corinthians (8:9).</p> +<p>502 The place of his baptism was <span style="font-weight: bold">at Aenon near Salim, where the water was plentiful. +</span>Another name for Salim is Salem, which is the village from which the king Melchizedek +came. It is called Salim here because among the Jews a reader may use any vowel he chooses +in the middle of his words; hence it made no difference to the Jews whether it was +pronounced Salim or Salem. He added, <span style="font-weight: bold">where the water was plentiful, </span>to explain the name +of this place, i.e., <span style="font-weight: bold">Aenon, </span>which is the same as “water.”</p> +<p>503 The fruit of his baptism is the remission of sins; thus he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">people kept coming and +were baptized, </span>i.e., cleansed: for as is stated in Matthew (3:5) and in Luke (3:7), great +crowds came to John.</p> +<p>504 The time is indicated when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">John had not yet been thrown into prison. </span>He says +this so that we may know that he began his narrative of Christ’s life before the other +Evangelists. For the others began their account only from the time of John’s imprisonment. +So Matthew (4:12) says: “When Jesus heard that John had been arrested, he withdrew into +Galilee.” And so, because they had passed over the things that Christ did before John’s +imprisonment, John, who was the last to write a Gospel, supplied these omissions. He +suggests this when he says: <span style="font-weight: bold">John had not yet been thrown into prison.</span></p> +<p>505 Note that by divine arrangement it came about that when Christ began to baptize, John +did not continue his own baptizing and preaching for very long, in order not to create +disunion among the people. But he was granted a little time so that it would not seem that he +deserved to be repudiated, as was mentioned before. Again, by God’s arrangement, it came +about that after the faith had been preached and the faithful converted, the temple was utterly +destroyed, in order that all the devotion and hope of the faithful could be directed to Christ.</p> +<p>506 Then when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">A controversy arose</span>, he brings in the issue of the two baptisms. +First, the issue is mentioned. Secondly, it is brought to John’s attention (v 26). Thirdly, the +issue is resolved.</p> +<p>507 Because both John and Christ were baptizing, the disciples of John, out of zeal for their +teacher, started a controversy over this. And this is what he says, A controversy arose, i.e., a +dispute, <span style="font-weight: bold">between the disciples of John, </span>who were the first to raise the issue, <span style="font-weight: bold">and the Jews, +</span>whom the disciples of John had rebuked for preferring Christ, because of the miracles he did, +to John, who did not do any miracles. The issue was <span style="font-weight: bold">concerning purification, </span>i.e., baptizing. +The cause of their envy and the reason why they started the controversy was the fact that John +sent those he baptized to Christ, but Christ did not send those he baptized to John. It seemed +from this, and perhaps the Jews even said so, that Christ was greater than John. Thus, the +disciples of John, having not yet become spiritual, quarreled with the Jews over the baptisms. +“While there is envy and fighting among you, are you not carnal?” (1 Cor 3:3).</p> +<p>508 They referred this issue to John; hence he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">They went to John. </span>If we examine this +closely, we see that they were trying to incite John against Christ. Indeed, they are like the +gossip and the double-tongued: “Those who gossip and are double-tongued are accursed, for +they disturb many who are at peace” (Sir 28:15).</p> +<p>So they bring up four things calculated to set John against Christ. First, they recall the +previous unimportant status of Christ. Secondly, the good John did for him. Thirdly, the role +which Christ took on. Fourthly, the loss to John because of Christ’s new role.</p> +<p>509 They recall Christ’s unimportance when they say, <span style="font-weight: bold">the man who was with you, </span>as one of +your disciples; and not the one you were with as your teacher. For there is no good reason for +envy if honor is shown to one who is greater; rather, envy is aroused when honor is given to +an inferior: “I have seen slaves on horses, and princes walking like slaves” (Ecc 10:7); “I +called my servant, and he did not answer me” (Jb 19:16). For a master is more disturbed at +the rebellion of a servant and a subject than of anyone else.</p> +<p>510 Secondly, they remind John of the good he did Christ. Thus they do not say, “the one +whom you baptized,” because they would then be admitting the greatness of Christ which was +shown during his baptism when the Holy Spirit came upon him in the form of a dove and in +the voice of the Father speaking to him. So they say, <span style="font-weight: bold">the one of whom you have given +testimony, </span>i.e., we are very angry that the one you made famous and admired dares to repay +you in this way: “The one who ate my bread has lifted his heel against me” (Ps 40:10). They +said this because those who seek their own glory and personal profit from their office become +dejected if their office is taken over by someone else</p> +<p>511 And so thirdly, they even add that Christ took over John’s office for himself, when they +say, <span style="font-weight: bold">he is here baptizing, </span>i.e., he is exercising your office; and this also distrubed them very +much. For we generally see that men of the same craft are envious and underhanded with +respect to one another; a potter envies another potter, but does not envy a carpenter. So, even +teachers, who are seeking their own honor, become sad if another teaches the truth. In +opposition to them, Gregory says: “The mind of a holy pastor wishes that others teach the +truth which he cannot teach all by himself.” So also Moses: “Would that all the people might +prophesy,” as we read in Numbers (11:29).</p> +<p>512 Yet they were not satisfied with merely disturbing John, rather they report something that +should really excite him, that is, the loss that John seemed to be having because of the office +Christ took over. They give this when they say: <span style="font-weight: bold">and all the people are flocking to him, </span>i.e., +the ones who used to come to you. In other words, they have rejected and disowned you, and +now are all going to his baptism. It is clear from Matthew (11:7) that they used to go to John: +“What did you go into the desert to see?” The same envy affected the Pharisees against +Christ; so they said: “Look, the whole world has gone after him” (below 12:19). However, all +this did not set John againt Christ, for he was not a reed swaying in the wind, and this is clear +from John’s answer to their question.</p> +<p style="margin-bottom: 0.125in; margin-bottom: 0.125in"> </p> +<p style="text-align: center; margin-bottom: 0.125in"><span style="font-weight: bold">LECTURE 5</span></p> +<BLOCKQUOTE><p>27 John replied and said:</p> +<p style="margin-left: 0.5in">“No one can lay hold of anything +<br>unless it is given to him from heaven. +<p>28 “You yourselves are witnesses to the fact that I said: I am not the Christ, but the one sent +before him.</p> +<p style="margin-left: 0.5in">>29 “It is the groom who has the bride. +<br>The groom’s friend waits there and listens to him, +<br>rejoicing at hearing his voice. +<br>Therefore in this case my joy is complete. +<br>30 He must increase, +<br>and I must decrease. +<br>31 The One who came from above +<br>is above all things. +<br>He who is of earth is earthly, +<br>and speaks of earthly things. +<br>32a The One who comes from heaven +<br>is above all things, +<br>and he testifies to what he sees, +<BR>and to what he hears.</p></BLOCKQUOTE> +<p>513 Here we have John’s answer to the question presented to him by his disciples. Their +question contained two points: a complaint about the office Christ took on, and so they said, +<span style="font-weight: bold">he is here baptizing; </span>and about Christ’s increasing fame and reputation among the people, +and so they said, <span style="font-weight: bold">all the people are flocking to him. </span>Accordingly, John directs his answer to +these two complaints. First he answers the complaint about the office Christ took on. +Secondly, the complaint about Christ’s increasing reputation (v 30). As to the first he does +two things. First, he shows the source of Christ’s office and of his own. Secondly, their +difference (v 28). Thirdly, how Christ and he are related to these offices.</p> +<p>514 As to the first, note that although John’s disciples broach their question maliciously, and +so deserve to be rebuked, John nevertheless does not sharply reprove them; and this because +of their imperfection. For he feared that they might be provoked by a rebuke, leave him, and, +joining forces with the Pharisees, publicly harass Christ. In acting this way he was putting +into practice what is said of the Lord: “The burised reed he will not break” (Is 42:3). Again, +we should also note that he begins his answer not by telling them what is great and wonderful +about Christ, but what is common and obvious; and he did this on account oftheir envy. For +since the excellence of a person provokes others to envy, if John had stressed Christ’s +excellence at once, he would have fed the fire of their envy.</p> +<p>515 Thus he states something unpretentious, and says, <span style="font-weight: bold">No one can lay hold of anything +unless it is given to him from heaven; </span>and he said this to them in order to inspire them with +reverence. As if to say: If all men are going to him, it is God’s doing, because <span style="font-weight: bold">no one can lay +hold of anything, </span>in the order of perfection and goodness, unless it is given to him from +heaven. Therefore, if you oppose him, you oppose God. “If this plan or work is from men, it +will fail,” as is said in Acts (5:38). This is the way Chrysostom explains it, applying these +words to Christ.</p> +<p>Augustine, on the other hand, does much better when he refers them to John. <span style="font-weight: bold">No one can lay +hold of anything unless it is given to him from heaven: </span>as if to say: You are zealous on my +behalf and you want me to be greater than Christ; but that has not been given to me, and I do +not wish to usurp it: “No one takes this honor on himself” (Heb 5:4). This is the origin of +their offices.</p> +<p>516 Then follows the difference of their offices, when he says, You yourselves are witnesses. +As if to say: From the testimony which I bore to him, you can know the office committed to +me by Christ: for You yourselves are witnesses, i.e., you can testify, <span style="font-weight: bold">to the fact that I said: I +am not the Christ</span>—“He declared openly and did not deny” (above 1:20)—<span style="font-weight: bold">but the one sent +before him, </span>as a herald before a judge. And so from my own testimony you can know my +office, which is to go before Christ and prepare the way for him: “There was a man sent by +God, whose name was John” (above 1:6). But the office of Christ is to judge and to preside. If +we look at this closely we can see that John, like a skilful disputant, answers them with their +own arguments: “I judge you out of your own mouth,” as said in Luke (19:22).</p> +<p>517 He shows how John is related to his own office when he says: <span style="font-weight: bold">It is the groom who has +the bride. </span>First, he gives a simile. Secondly, he applies it to his own situation. With respect +to the first he does two things. First, he gives a simile which applies to Christ; and secondly, +to himself.</p> +<p>518 As to the first, we should note that on the human level it is the groom who regulates, +governs and has the bride. Hence he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">It is the groom who has the bride. </span>Now the +groom is Christ: “Like a bridegroom coming out of his bridal chamber” (Ps 18:6). His bride is +the Church, which is joined to him by faith: “I will espouse you to myself in faith” Mos 2:20). +In keeping with this figure, Zipporah said to Moses: “You are a spouse of blood to me” (Ex +4:25). We read of the marriage: “The marriage of the Lamb has come” (Rv 19:7). So, because +Christ is the groom, he has the bride, that is, the Church; but my part is only to rejoice in the +fact that he has the bride.</p> +<p>519 Consequently he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">The groom’s friend waits there and listens to him, rejoicing at +hearing his voice. </span>Although John had said earlier that he was not worthy to unfasten the strap +of Jesus’ sandal, he here calls himself the friend of Jesus in order to bring out the faithfulness +of his love for Christ. For a servant does not act in the spirit of love in regard to the things +that pertain to his master, but in a spirit of servitude; while a friend, on the other hand, seeks +his friend’s interests out of love and faithfulness. Hence a faithful servant is like a friend to +his master: “If you have a faithful servant, treat him like yourself” (Sir 33:31). Indeed, it is +proof of a servant’s faithfulness when he rejoices in the prosperity of his master, and when he +obtains various goods, not for himself, but for his master. And so because John did not keep +the bride entrusted to his care for himself, but for the groom, we can see that he was a faithful +servant and a friend of the groom. It is to suggest this that he calls himself <span style="font-weight: bold">the groom’s +friend.</span></p> +<p>Those who are friends of the truth should act in the same way, not turning the bride entrusted +to their care to their own advantage and glory, but treating her honorably for the honor and +glory of the groom; otherwise they would not be friends of the groom but adulterers. This is +why Gregory says that a servant who is sent by the groom with gifts for the bride is guilty of +adulterous thoughts if he himself desires to please the bride. This is not what the Apostle did: +“I espoused you to one husband in order to present you to Christ as a chaste virgin” (2 Cor +11:2). And John did the same, because he did not keep the bride, i.e., the faithful, for himself, +but brought them to the groom, that is, to Christ.</p> +<p>520 And so by saying, <span style="font-weight: bold">the groom’s friend, </span>he suggests the faithfulness of his love. Further, +he suggests his constancy when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">waits, </span>firm in friendship and faithfulness, not +extolling himself above what he really is: “I will stand my watch” (Hb 2:1); “Be steadfast and +unchanging” (1 Cor 15:58); “A faithful friend, if he is constant, is like another self” (Sir +6:11).</p> +<p>He suggests his attention when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">and listens to him, </span>i.e., attentively considers the way +in which the groom is united to the bride. For according to Chrysostom, these words explain +the manner of this marriage, for it is accomplished through faith, and “faith comes through +hearing” (Rom 10:17). Or, he <span style="font-weight: bold">listens to him, </span>i.e., reverently obeys him, by caring for the +bride according to the commands of the groom: “I will listen to him as my master,” as is said +in Isaiah (50:4). This is in opposition to those evil prelates who do not follow Christ’s +command in governing the Church.</p> +<p>Likewise, he hints at his spiritual joy when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">rejoicing at hearing his voice, </span>that is, +when the groom talks to his bride. And he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">rejoicing </span>(literally, “rejoicing with joy”), to +show the truth and perfection of his joy. For one whose rejoicing is not over the good, does +not rejoice with true joy. And so, if it made me sad that Christ, who is the true groom, +preaches to the bride, i.e., the Church, I would not be a friend of the groom; but I am not sad.</p> +<p>521 Therefore in this case my joy is complete, namely, in seeing what I have so long desired, +that is, the groom speaking to his bride. Or, my joy is complete, i.e., brought to its perfect and +due measure, when the bride. is united to the groom, because I now have my grace and I have +completed my work: “I will rejoice in the Lord, and I will take joy in God, my Jesus” (Hb +3:18).</p> +<p>522 Then when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">He must increase, and I must decrease, </span>he answers their question +as to their complaint about the increasing esteem given to Christ. First, he notes that such an +increase is fitting. Secondly, he gives the reason for it (v 31).</p> +<p>523 So he says: You say that all the people are flocking to him, i.e., to Christ, and therefore +that he is growing in honor and esteem among the people. But I say that this is not +unbecoming, because He must increase, not in himself, but in relation to others, in the sense +that his power becoipe more and more known. <span style="font-weight: bold">And I must decrease, </span>in the reverence and +esteem of the people: for esteem and reverence are not due to me as if I were a principal; but +they are due to Christ. And therefore since he has come, the signs of honor are diminishing in +my regard, but increasing in regard to Christ, just as with the coming of the prince, the office +of the ambassador ceases: “When the perfect comes, what is imperfect will pass away” (1 Cor +13:10). And just as in the heavens the morning star appears and gives light before the sun, +only to cease giving light when the sun appears, so John went before Christ and is compared +to the morning star: “Can you bring out the morning star?” (Jb 38:32).</p> +<p>This is also signified in John’s birth and in his death. In his birth, because John was born at a +time when the days are getting shorter; Christ, however, was born when the days are growing +longer, on the twenty-fifth of December. In his death, because John dies shortened by +decapitation; but Christ died raised up by the lifting up of the cross.</p> +<p>524 In the moral sense, this should take place in each one of us. Christ must increase in you, +i.e., you should grow in the knowledge and love of Christ, because the more you are able to +grasp him by knowledge and love, the more Christ increases in you; just as the more one +improves in seeing one and the same light, the more that light seems to increase. +Consequently, as men advance in this way, their self-esteem decreases; because the more one +knows of the divine greatness, the less he thinks of his human smallness. As we read in +Proverbs (30:1): “The revelation spoken by the man close to God”; and then there follows: “I +am the most foolish of men, and the wisdom of men is not in me.” “I have heard you, but now +I see you, and so I reprove myself, and do penance in dust and ashes,” as we read in Job +(42:5).</p> +<p>525 Then when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">The One who came from above is above all things, </span>he gives the +reason for what he has just said. And he does this in two ways. First, on the basis of Christ’s +origin. And secondly, by considering Christ’s teaching.</p> +<p>526 Regarding the first, we should note that in order for a thing to be perfect, it must reach +the goal fixed for it by its origin; for example, if one is born from a king, he should continue +to progress until he becomes a king. Now Christ has an origin that is most excellent and +eternal; therefore he must increase by the manifestation of his power, in relation to others, +until it is recognized that he is above all things. Thus he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">The One who came from +above, </span>that is, Christ, according to his divinity. “No one has gone up to heaven except the +One who came down from heaven” (above 3:13); “You are from below, I am from above” +(below 8:23).</p> +<p>527 Or, he <span style="font-weight: bold">came from above, </span>as to his human nature, i.e., from the “highest” condition of +human nature, by assuming it according to what was predominant in it in each of its states. +For human nature is considered in three states. First, is the state of human nature before sin; +and from this state he took his purity by assuming a flesh unmarked by the stain of original +sin: “A lamb without blemish” (Ex 12:5). The second state is after sin; and from this he took +his capability to suffer and die by assuming the likeness of sinful flesh as regards its +punishment, but not in its guilt: “God sent his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh” (Rom +8:3). The third state is that of resurrection and glory; and from this he took his impossibility +of sinning and his joy of soul.</p> +<p>528 Here we must be on guard against the error of those who say that there was left in Adam +something materially unmarked by the original stain, and this was passed on to his +descendants; for example, to the Blessed Virgin, and that Christ’s body was formed from this. +This is heretical, because whatever existed in Adam in a material way was marked by the +stain of original sin. Further, the matter from which the body of Christ was formed was +purified by the power of the Holy Spirit when he sanctified the Blessed Virgin.</p> +<p>529 <span style="font-weight: bold">The One who came from above, </span>according to his divinity as well as his human nature, +<span style="font-weight: bold">is above all things, </span>both by eminence of rank: “The Lord is high above all nations” (Ps +112:4), and by his authority and power: “He has made him the head of the Church,” as is said +in Ephesians (1:22).</p> +<p style="margin-bottom: 0.125in; margin-bottom: 0.125in"> </p> +<p>530 Now he gives the reason for what he had said above (v 30), by considering the teaching +of Christ. First, he describes the doctrine of Christ and its grandeur. Secondly, the difference +in those who receive or reject this doctrine (v 32b). He does two things with respect to the +first. First, he describes John’s doctrine. Secondly, he describes the doctrine of Christ (v 32).</p> +<p>531 As to the first we should note that a man is known mainly by what he says: “Your accent +gives you away” (Mt 26:73); “Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks” (Mt +12:34). This is why the quality of a teaching or doctrine is considered according to the quality +of its origin. Accordingly, in order to understand the quality of John’s doctrine, we should +first consider his origin. So he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">He who is of earth, </span>that is John, not only as to the matter +from. which he was made, but also in his efficient cause: because the body of John was +formed by a created power: “They dwell in houses of clay, and have a foundation of earth” +(Jb 4:19). Secondly, we should consider the quality of John himself, which is earthly; and so +he says, is earthly. Thirdly, the quality of his teaching is described: he <span style="font-weight: bold">speaks of earthly +things. </span>“You will speak of the earth” (Is 29:4).</p> +<p>532 But since John was full of the Holy Spirit while still in his mother’s womb, how can he +be said to speak of earthly things? I answer that, according to Chrysostom, John says he +speaks of earthly things by comparison with the teaching of Christ. As if to say: The things I +speak of are slight and inferior as becomes one of an earthly nature, in comparison to him “in +whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge” (Col 2:3); “As the heavens are +high above the earth, so my ways are high above your ways” (Is 55:9).</p> +<p>Or we could say according to Augustine, and this is a better explanation, that we can consider +what any person has of himself and what he has received from another. Now John and every +mere human of himself is of the earth. Therefore, from this standpoint, he has nothing to +speak of except earthly things. And it’ he does speak of divine things, it is due to a divine +enlightenment: “Your heart has visions, but unless they come from the Almighty, ignore +them” (Sir 34:6). So the Apostle says, “It is not 1, but the grace of God which is with me” (1 +Cor 15:10); “For it is not you who speak, but the Holy Spirit who is speaking through you” +(Mt 10:20). Accordingly, as regards John, he <span style="font-weight: bold">is earthly and speaks of earthly things. </span>And if +there was anything divine in him, it did not come from him, as he was the recipient, but from +the one enlightening him.</p> +<p>533 Now he describes the doctrine of Christ. And he does three things. First, he shows its +origin, which is heavenly; hence he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">The One who comes from heaven is above all +things. </span>For although the body of Christ was of the earth as regards the matter of which it was +made, yet it came from heaven as to its efficient cause, inasmuch as his body was formed by +divine power. It also came from heaven because the eternal and uncreated person of the Son +came from heaven by assuming a body. “No one has gone up to heaven except the One who +came down from heaven, the Son of Man, who lives in heaven” (above 3:13).</p> +<p>Secondly, he shows the dignity of Christ, which is very great; so he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">is above all things. +</span>This was explained above.</p> +<p>Thirdly, he infers the dignity of Christ’s doctrine, which is most certain, because <span style="font-weight: bold">he testifies +to what he sees and to what he hears. </span>For Christ, as God, is truth itself; but as man, he is its +witness: “For this was I born, and for this I came into the world: to testify to the truth” (below +18:37). Therefore, he gives testimony to himself: “You testify to yourself” (below 8:13). And +he testifies to what is certain, because his testimony is about what he has heard with the +Father: “I speak to the world what I have heard from my Father” (below 8:26); “What we +have seen and heard” (1 Jn 1:3).</p> +<p>534 Note that knowledge of a thing is acquired in through sight and in one way another way +through hearing. For by sight, a knowledge of a thing in acquired by means of the very thing +seen; but by hearing, a thing is not made known by the very voice that is heard, but by means +of the understanding of the one speaking. And so, because the Lord has knowledge which he +has received from the Father, he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">to what he sees, </span>insofar as he proceeds from the +essence of the Father; <span style="font-weight: bold">and to what he hears, insofar </span>as he proceeds as the Word of the +Father’s intellect. Now because among intellectual beings, their act of being is other than +their act of understanding, their knowledge through sight is other than their knowledge +through hearing. But in God the Father, the act of being (<i>esse</i>)<i> </i>and the act of understanding +(<i>intelligere</i>) are the same. Thus in the Son, to see and hear are the same thing. Moreover, +since even in one who sees there is not the essence of the thing seen in itself but only its +similitude, as also in the hearer there is not the actual thought of the speaker but only an +indication of it, so the one who sees is not the essence of the thing in itself, nor is the listener +the very thought expressed. In the Son, however, the very essence of the Father is received by +generation, and he himself is the Word; and so in him to see and to hear are the same.</p> +<p>And so John concludes that since the doctrine of Christ has more grandeur and is more certain +than his, one must listen to Christ rather than to him.</p> +<p style="margin-bottom: 0.125in; margin-bottom: 0.125in"> </p> +<p style="text-align: center; margin-bottom: 0.125in"><span style="font-weight: bold">LECTURE 6</span></p> +<BLOCKQUOTE><p style="margin-left: 0.5in">32b “And his testimony no one accepts. +<br>33 But whoever accepts his testimony +<br>has given a sign [or certifies] that God is true. +<br>34 For the One whom God sends +<br>speaks the words of God, +<br>for God does not bestow the Spirit in fractions. +<br>35 The Father loves the Son, +<br>and has put everything into his hands. +<br>36 Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life. +<br>But whoever is unbelieving in the Son +<br>will not see life; +<BR>rather, the anger of God rests on him.”</p></BLOCKQUOTE> +<p>535 Above, John the Baptist commended the teaching of Christ; here, however, he considers +the difference in those who receive it. Thus, he treats of the faith that must be given to this +teaching. And he does three things. First, he shows the scarcity of those who believe. +Secondly, the obligation to believe (v 33). Lastly, the reward for belief (v 36).</p> +<p>536 He says therefore: I say that Christ has certain knowledge and that he speaks the truth. +Yet although few accept his testimony, that is no reflection on his teaching, because it is not +the fault of the teaching but of those who do not accept it: namely, the disciples of John, who +did not yet believe, and the Pharisees, who slandered his teaching. Thus he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">And his +testimony no one accepts.</span></p> +<p>537 <span style="font-weight: bold">No one</span> can be explained in two ways. First, so that it implies a few; and so some did +accept his testimony. He shows that some did accept it when he adds, “But whoever accepts +his testimony.” The Evangelist used this way of speaking before when he said: “He came unto +his own, and his own did not receive him” (above 1:11): because a few did receive him.</p> +<p>In another way, to accept his testimony is understood as to believe in God. But no one can +believe of himself, but only due to God: “You are saved by grace” (Eph 2:8). And so he says, +his testimony no one accepts, i.e., of himself, but it is given to him by God.</p> +<p>This can be explained in another way by realizing that Scripture refers to people in two ways. +As long as we are in this world the wicked are mingled with the good; and so Scripture +sometimes speaks of “the people,” or “they,” meaning those who are good; while at other +times, the same words can refer to the wicked. We can see this in Jeremiah (26): for first it +says that all the people and the priests sought to kill Jeremiah, and this referred to those who +were evil; then at once it says that all the people sought to free him, and this referred to those +who were good. In the same way, John the Baptist says, looking to the left, i.e., toward those +who are evil, <span style="font-weight: bold">And his testimony no one accepts; </span>and later, referring to those on the right, +i.e., to the good, he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">But whoever accepts his testimony.</span></p> +<p>538 <span style="font-weight: bold">But whoever accepts his testimony. </span>Here he speaks of the obligation to believe, i.e., to +submit oneself to divine truth. As to this he does four things. First, he presents the divine +truth. Secondly, he speaks of the proclamation of the divine truth (v 34). Thirdly, of the +ability to proclaim it ( v 34b). Fourthly, he gives the reason for this ability (v 35).</p> +<p>539 Man’s obligation to the faith is to submit himself to divine truth, and so he says that if +few accept his testimony that means that some do. Hence he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">whoever accepts his +testimony, </span>i.e., whoever he may be, <span style="font-weight: bold">has given a sign, </span>i.e., he ought to affix a certain sign or +has in fact placed a seal in his own heart, that Christ is God. And he [Christ] is true, because +he said that he is God. If he were not, he would not be true, but it is written: “God is true” +(Rom 3:4). Concerning this seal it is said: “Set me as a seal on your heart” (Sg 8:6), and “The +foundation of God stands firm, bearing a seal, etc.” as we read in 2 Timothy (2:19).</p> +<p>Or, following Chrysostom, he has given a sign, i.e., he has shown <span style="font-weight: bold">that God, </span>that is, the +Father, <span style="font-weight: bold">is true, </span>because he sent his Son whom he promised to send. The Fvangelist says this +to show that those who do not believe Christ deny the truthfulness of the Father.</p> +<p>540 Then immediately he adds a commendation of divine truth, saying, <span style="font-weight: bold">For the One whom +God sends speaks the words of God. </span>As if to say: He has given this as a sign, namely, that +Christ, whose testimony he accepts, <span style="font-weight: bold">the One whom God sends speaks the words of God. +</span>Consequently, one who believes Christ believes the Father: “I speak to the world what I have +heard from the Father” (below 8:26). So he expressed verbally nothing but the Father and the +words of the Father, because he has been sent by the Father, and because he is the Word of +the Father. Hence, he says that he even bespeaks the Father.</p> +<p>Or, if the statement <span style="font-weight: bold">God is true </span>refers to Christ, we understand the distinction of persons; for +since the Father is true God, and Christ is true God, it follows that the true God sent the true +God, who is distinct from him in person, but not in nature.</p> +<p>541 The ability to proclaim divine truth is present in Christ in the highest degree, because he +does not receive the Spirit in a partial way; and so he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">for God does not bestow the +Spirit in fractions.</span></p> +<p>You might say that although God sent Christ, yet not all that Christ says is from God, but only +some of the things; for even the prophets spoke at times from their own spirit, and at other +times from the Spirit of God. For example, we read that the prophet Nathan (2 Sm 7:3), +speaking out of his own spirit, advised David to build a temple, but that later, under the +influence of the Spirit of God, he retracted this. However, the Baptist shows that such is not +the case with Christ. For the prophets receive the Spirit of God only fractionally, i.e., in +reference to some things, but not as to all things. Consequently, not all they say are the words +of God. But Christ, who received the Spirit fully and in regards to all things, speaks the words +of God as to all things.</p> +<p>542 But how can the Holy Spirit be given in fractions, since he is immense or infinite, +according to the Creed of Athanasius: “Immense is the Father, immense the Son, immense the +Holy Spirit”? I answer that the Holy Spirit is given in fractions, not in respect to his essence +or power, according to which he is infinite, but as to his gifts, which are given fractionally: +“Grace has been given to each of us according to degree” (Eph 4:7).</p> +<p>543 We should note that we can understand in two ways what is said here, namely, that God +the Father did not give the Spirit to Christ in a partial way. We can understand it as applying +to Christ as God, and, in another way, as applying to Christ as man. Something is given to +someone in order that he may have it: and it is appropriate to Christ to have the Spirit, both as +God and as man. And so he has the Holy Spirit with respect to both. As man, Christ has the +Holy Spirit as Sanctifier: “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because the Lord has anointed +me” (Is 6 1:1), namely, as man. But as God, he has the Holy Spirit only as manifesting +himself, inasmuch as the Spirit proceeds from him: “He will give glory to me,” that is, make +known, “because he will have received from me,” as is said below (16:14).</p> +<p>Therefore, both as God and as man, Christ has the Holy Spirit beyond measure. For God the +Father is said to give the Holy Spirit without measure to Christ as God, because he gives to +Christ the power and might to bring forth (<i>spirandi</i>)<i> </i>the Holy Spirit, who, since he is infinite, +was infinitely given to him by the Father: for the Father gives it just as he himself has it, so +that the Holy Spirit proceeds from him as much as from the Son. And he gave him this by an +everlasting generation. Similarly, Christ as man has the Holy Spirit without measure, for the +Holy Spirit is given to different men in differing degrees, because grace is given to each “by +measure” [cf., e.g., Mk 4:24; Mt 7:2]. But Christ as man did not receive a certain amount of +grace; and so he did not receive the Holy Spirit in any limited degree.</p> +<p>544 It should be noted, however, that there are three kinds of grace in Christ: the grace of [the +hypostatic] union, the grace of a singular person, which is habitual, and the grace of headship, +which animates all the members. And Christ received each of these graces without measure.</p> +<p>The grace of union, which is not habitual grace, but a certain gratuitous gift, is given to Christ +in order that in his human nature he be the true Son of God, not by participation, but by +nature, insofar as the human nature of Christ is united to the Son of God in person. This union +is called a grace because he had it without any preceding merits. Now the divine nature is +infinite; hence from that union he received an infinite gift. Thus it was not by degree or +measure that he received the Holy Spirit, i.e., the gift and grace of union which, as gratuitous, +is attributed to the Holy Spirit.</p> +<p>His grace is termed habitual insofar as the soul of Christ was full of grace and wisdom: “the +Only Begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth” (above 1:14). We might wonder if Christ +did receive this grace without measure. For since such grace is a created gift, we must admit +that it has a finite essence. Therefore, as far as its essence is concerned, since it is something +created, this habitual grace was finite. Yet Christ is not said to have received this in a limited +degree for three reasons.</p> +<p>First, becatise of the one who is receiving the grace. For it is plain that each thing’s nature has +a finite capacity, because even though one might receive an infinite good by knowing, loving +and enjoying it, nevertheless one receives it by enjoying it in a finite way. Further, each +creature has, according to its species and nature, a finite amount of capacity. But this does not +make it impossible for the divine power to make another creature possessing a greater +capacity; but then such a creature would not be of a nature which is specifically the same, just +as when one is added to three, there is another species of number. Therefore, when some +nature is not given as much of the divine goodness as its natural capacity is able to contain, +then it is seen to be given to it by measure; but when its total natural capacity is filled, it is not +given to it by measure, because even though there is a measure on the part of the one +receiving, there is none on the part of the one giving, who is prepared to give all. Thus, if +someone takes a pail to a river, he sees water present without measure, although he takes the +water by measure on account of the limited dimensions of the pail. Thus, the habitual grace of +Christ is indeed finite according to its essence, but it is said to be given in an infinite way and +not by measure or partially, because as much was given to him as created nature was able to +hold.</p> +<p>Secondly, Christ did not receive habitual grace in a limited way by considering the gift which +is received. For every form or act, considered in its very nature, is not finite in the way in +which it is made finite by the subject in which it is received. Nevertheless, there is nothing to +prevent it from being finite in its essence, insofar as its existence (<i>esse</i>) is<i> </i>received in some +subject. For that is infinite according to its essence which has the entire fulness of being +(<i>essendi</i>): and this is true of God alone, who is the supreme <i>esse. </i>But if we consider some +“spiritual” form as not existing in a subject, for example, whiteness or color, it would not be +infinite in essence, because its essence would be confined to some genus or species; +nevertheless it would still possess the entire fulness of that species. Thus, considering the +nature of the species, it would be without limit or measure, since it would have everything +that can pertain to that species. But if whiteness or color should be received into some +subject, it does not always have everything that pertains necessarily and always to the nature +of this form, but only when the subject has it as perfectly as it is capable of being possessed, +i.e., when the way the subject possesses it is equivalent to the power of the thing possessed. +Thus, Christ’s habitual grace was finite according to its essence; yet it is said to have been in +him without a limit or measure because he received everything that could pertain to the nature +of grace. Others, however, do not receive all this, but one receives in one way, and another in +another way: “There are different graces”</p> +<p>The third reason for saying that the habitual grace of Christ was not received in a limited way +is based on its cause. For an effect is in some way present in its cause. Therefore, if someone +has an infinite power to produce something, he is said to have what can be produced without +measure and, in a way, infinitely. For example, if someone has a fountain which could +produce an infinite amount of water, he would be said to have water in an infinite way and +without measure. Thus, the soul of Christ has infinite grace and grace without measure from +the fact that he has united to himself the Word, which is the infinite and unfailing source of +the entire emanation of all created things.</p> +<p>From what has been said, it is clear that the grace of Christ which is called capital grace, +insofar as he is head of the Church, is infinite in its influence. For from the fact that he +possessed that from which the gifts of the Spirit could flow out without measure, he received +the power to pour them out without measure, so that the grace of Christ is sufficient not +merely for the salvation of some men, but for all the people of the entire world: “He is the +offering for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the entire world” ( 1 Jn 2:2), +and even for many worlds, if they exsited.</p> +<p style="margin-bottom: 0.125in; margin-bottom: 0.125in"> </p> +<p>545 Christ also had the ability appropriate for declaring divine truth, because all things are in +his power; hence he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">The Father loves the Son, and has put everything into his +hands. </span>This can refer to Christ both as man and as God, but in different ways. If it refers to +Christ according to his divine nature, then <span style="font-weight: bold">loves </span>does not indicate a principle but a sign: for +we cannot say that the Father gives all things to the Son because he loves him. There are two +reasons for this. First, because to love is an act of the will; but to give a nature to the Son is to +generate him. Therefore, if the Father gave a nature to the Son by his will, the will of the +Father would be the principle of the generation of the Son; and then it would follow that the +Father generated the Son by will, and not by nature; and this is the Arian heresy.</p> +<p>Secondly, because the love of the Father for the Son is the Holy Spirit. So, if the love of the +Father for the Son were the reason why the Father put everything into his hands, it would +follow that the Holy Spirit would be the principle of the generation of the Son; and this is not +acceptable. Therefore, we should say that <span style="font-weight: bold">loves </span>implies only a sign. As if to say: The perfect +love with which <span style="font-weight: bold">the Father loves the Son, </span>is a sign that the Father <span style="font-weight: bold">has put everything into +his hands, </span>i.e., everything which the Father has: “All things have been given to me by my +Father- (Mt 11:27); “Jesus, knowing that the Fallier had given all things into his hands” +(below 13:3).</p> +<p>But if loves refers to Christ as man, then it implies the notion of a principle, so that the Father +is said to have put everything into the hands of the Son, everything, that is, that is in heaven +and on earth: “All authority has been given to me, in heaven and on earth,” as he says in +Matthew (28:18); “He has appointed him [the Son] the heir of all things” (Heb 1:2). And the +reason why the Father gives to the Son is because he loves the Son; hence he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">The +Father loves the Son, </span>for the Father’s love is the reason for creating each creature: “You love +everything which exists, and hate nothing which you have made” (Wis 11:25). Concerning +his love for the Son we read in Matthew (3:17): “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well +pleased”; “He has brought us into the kingdom of the Son of his love,” that is, i.e., of his +beloved Son (Col 1:13).</p> +<p>546 Then when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, </span>he shows the fruit of +faith. First, he sets forth the reward for faith. Secondly, the penalty for unbelief (v 36b).</p> +<p>547 The reward for faith is beyond our comprehension, because it is eternal life. Hence he +says, <span style="font-weight: bold">Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life. </span>And this is shown from what has already +been said. For if the Father has given everything he has to the Son, and the Father has eternal +life, then he has given to the Son to be eternal life: “Just as the Father possesses life in +himself, so he has given it to the Son to have life in himself” (below 5:26): and this belongs +to Christ insofar as he is the true and natural Son of God. “That you may be in his true Son, +Christ. This is the true God and eternal life” (1 Jn 5:20). <span style="font-weight: bold">Whoever believes in the Son </span>has +that toward which he tends, that is, the Son, in whom he believes. But the Son is eternal life; +therefore, whoever believes in him has eternal life. As it says below (10:27): “My sheep hear +my voice ... and I give them eternal life.”</p> +<p>548 The penalty for unbelief is unendurable, both as to the punishment of loss and as to the +punishment of sense. As to the punishment of loss, because it deprives one of life; hence he +says, <span style="font-weight: bold">whoever is unbelieving in the Son will not see life. </span>He does not say, “will not have,” +but will not see, because eternal life consists in the vision of the true life: “This is eternal life: +that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent” (below +17:3): and unbelievers will not have this vision and this knowledge: “Let him not see the +brooks of honey” (Jb 4:19), that is, the sweetness of eternal life. And he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">will not see, +</span>because to see life itself is the proper reward for faith united with love.</p> +<p>The punishment of sense is unendurable because one is severely punished; so he says: <span style="font-weight: bold">the +anger of God rests on him. </span>For in the Scriptures anger indicates the pain with which God +punishes those who are evil. So when he says, the anger of God, the Father, rests on him, it is +the same as saying: They will feel punishment from God the Father.</p> +<p>Although the Father “has given all judgment to the Son,” as we read below (5:22), the Baptist +refers this to the Father in order to lead the Jews to believe in the Son. It is written about this +judgment: “It is a terrible thing to fall into the hands of the living God” (Heb 10:31). He says, +<span style="font-weight: bold">rests on him</span>, because this punishment will never be absent from the unbelieving, and +because all who are born into this mortal life are the objects of God’s anger, which was first +felt by Adam: “We were by nature,” that is, through birth, “children of anger” (Eph 2:3). And +we are freed from this anger only by faith in Christ; and so the anger of God rests on those +who do not believe in Christ, the Son of God.</p> +</body> + +</html>