Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 107
107.1 Chapter XVII. 9–13 PL 35, 1912
1. When the Lord was speaking to the Father of those whom He already had as disciples, He said this also among other things: “I pray for them. I pray not for the world, but for those whom Thou hast given me.” By the world, He now wishes to be understood those who live according to the lust of the word, and stand not in the gracious lot of such as were to be chosen by Him out of the world. Accordingly it is not for the world, but for those whom the Father hath given Him, that He expresses Himself as praying: for by the very fact of their having already been given Him by the Father, they have ceased to belong to that world for which He refrains from praying.
Cum de his quos jam discipulos habebat, Dominus loqueretur ad Patrem, inter alia etiam dixit hoc: Ego pro eis rogo: non pro mundo rogo, sea pro his quos dedisti mihi. Mundum vult modo intelligi, qui vivunt secundum concupiscentiam mundi, et non sunt in ea sorte gratiae, ut ab illo eligantur ex mundo. Non itaque pro mundo, sed pro his quos ei Pater dedit, rogare se dicit: per hoc enim quod eos illi Pater jam dedit, factum est ut non pertineant ad eum mundum pro quo non rogat.
107.2 PL 35, 1912
2. And then He adds, “For they are Thine.” For the Father did not lose those whom He gave, in the act of giving them to the Son; since the Son still goes on to say, “And all mine are Thine, and Thine are mine.” Where it is sufficiently apparent how it is that all that belongs to the Father belongs also to the Son; in this way, namely, that He Himself is also God, and, of the Father born, is the Father’s equal: and not as was said to one of the two sons, to wit, the elder, “Thou art ever with me; and all that I have is thine.” For that was said of all those creatures which are inferior to the holy rational creature, and are certainly subordinate to the Church; wherein its universal character is understood as including those two sons, the elder and the younger, along with all the holy angels, whose equals we shall be in the kingdom of Christ and of God: but here it was said, “And all mine are Thine, and Thine are mine,” with this meaning, that even the rational creature is itself included, which is subject only to God, so that all beneath it are also subject to Him. As it then belongs to God the Father, it would not at the same time be the Son’s likewise, were He not equal to the Father: for to it He was referring when He said, “I pray not for the world, but for those whom Thou hast given me: for they are Thine, and all mine are Thine, and Thine are mine.” Nor is it morally admissible that the saints, of whom He so spake, should belong to any save to Him by whom they were created and sanctified: and for the same reason, everything also that is theirs must of necessity be His also to whom they themselves belong. Accordingly, since they belong both to the Father and to the Son, they demonstrate the equality of those to whom they equally belong. But when He says, speaking of the Holy Ghost, “All things that the Father hath are mine; therefore said I, that He shall take of mine, and shall show it unto you,” He referred to those things which concern the actual deity of the Father, and in which He is equal to Him, in having all that He has. And no more was it of the creature, which is subject to the Father and the Son, that the Holy Spirit was to receive that whereof He said, “He shall receive of mine;” but most certainly of the Father, from whom the Spirit proceedeth, and of whom also the Son is born.
Deinde subjungit, Quia tui sunt. Neque enim quia Pater eos Filio dedit, amisit ipse quos dedit: cum adhuc Filius sequatur, et dicat, Et mea omnia tua sunt, et tua mea. Ubi satis apparet quomodo unigeniti Filii sint omnia quae sunt Patris; per hoc utique quod etiam ipse Deus est, et de Patre Patri est natus aequalis: non quomodo dictum est uni ex duobus filiis, majori scilicet, Tu semper mecum es, et omnia mea tua sunt . Illud enim dictum est de his omnibus creaturis quae infra creaturam sanctam rationalem sunt, quae utique subduntur Ecclesiae; in qua universa Ecclesia et illi duo intelliguntur filii major et minor, cum omnibus Angelis sanctis, quibus erimus aequales in regno Christi et Dei : hoc autem ita dictum est, Et mea omnia tua sunt, et tua mea, ut hic sit etiam ipsa creatura rationalis, quae non nisi Deo subditur, ut ei quae infra illam sunt cuncta subdantur. Haec ergo cum sit Dei Patris, non simul esset et Filii, nisi Patri esset aequalis: de ipsa quippe agebat, cum diceret, Non pro mundo rogo, sed pro his quos dedisti mihi: quia tui sunt, et mea omnia tua sunt, et tua mea. Nec fas est ut sancti, de quibus haec locutus est, cujusquam sint, nisi ejus a quo creati et sanctificati sunt: ac per hoc et omnia quae ipsorum sunt, necesse est ut ejus sint cujus et ipsi sunt. Ergo cum et Patris et Filii sunt, aequales eos esse demonstrant, quorum aequaliter sunt. Illud autem quod ait, cum de Spiritu sancto loqueretur, Omnia quae habet Pater, mea sunt; propterea dixi quia de meo accipiet et annuntiabit vobis ; de his dixit quae ad ipsam Patris pertinent divinitatem, in quibus illi est aequalis, omnia quae habet habendo. Neque enim Spiritus sanctus de creatura quae Patri est subdita et Filio, fuerat accepturus quod ait, de meo accipiet; sed utique de Patre de quo procedit Spiritus, de quo est natus et Filius.
107.3 PL 35, 1913
3. He proceeds: “And I am glorified in them.” He now speaks of His glorification as already accomplished, although it was still future; while a little before He was demanding of the Father its accomplishment. But whether this be the same glorification, whereof He had said, “And now, O Father, glorify Thou me with Thine own self with the glory which I had with Thee before the world was,” is certainly a point worthy of examination. For if “with Thee,” how can it be “in them”? Is it when this very knowledge is imparted to them, and, through them, to all who believe them as His witnesses? In such a way we may clearly understand Christ as having said of the apostles, that He was glorified in them; for in saying that it was already accomplished, He showed that it was already foreordained, and only wished what was future to be regarded as certain.
Et clarificatus sum, inquit, in eis. Nunc suam clarificationem tanquam facta sit dicit, cum adhuc esset futura: superius autem a Patre poscebat ut fieret. Sed utrum ipsa sit clarificatio, de qua dixerat, Et nunc clarifica me tu, Pater, apud temetipsum, claritate quam habui, priusquam mundus esset, apud te ; utique requirendum est. Si enim apud te, quomodo in eis? An cum hoc ipsum innotescit eis, ac per ipsos omnibus qui credunt eis testibus suis? Possumus plane sic intelligere dixisse Dominum de Apostolis, quod clarificatus sit in eis: dicendo enim esse jam factum, ostendit jam fuisse praedestinatum, et certum haberi voluit quod esset futurum.
107.4 PL 35, 1913
4. “And now,” He adds, “I am no more in the world, and these are in the world.” If your thoughts turn to the very hour in which He was speaking, both were still in the world; to wit, He Himself, and those of whom He was so speaking: for it is not in respect of the tendency of heart and life that we can or ought to understand it, so that they should be described as still in the world, on the ground that they still savored of the earthly; and that He was no longer in the world, because divine in the disposition of His mind. For there is one word used here, which makes any such understanding altogether inadmissible; because He does not say, And I am not in the world; but, “I am no more in the world:” thereby showing that He Himself had been in the world, but was no more so. And are we then at liberty to believe that He at one time savored of the worldly, and, delivered at length from such a mistake, no longer retained the old disposition? Who would venture to shut himself up in so profane a meaning. It remains, therefore, that in the same sense in which He Himself also was previously in the world, He declared that He was no longer in the world, that is to say, in His bodily presence; in other words, showing thereby that His own absence from the world was now in the immediate future, and theirs later, when He said that He was no longer here, and that they were so, although both He and they were still present. For He thus spake, as a man in harmony with men, in accordance with the prevailing custom of human speech. Do we not say every day, he is no longer here, of one who is on the very point of departure? And such in particular is the way we are wont to speak of those who are at the point of death. And besides all else, the Lord Himself, as if foreseeing the thoughts that might possibly be excited in those who were afterwards to read these words, added, “And I come to Thee:” explaining thereby in some measure why He said, “I am no more in the world.”
Et jam, inquit, non sum in mundo, et hi in mundo sunt. Si horam prorsus illam qua loquebatur attendas, utrique adhuc in mundo erant; et ipse scilicet, et illi de quibus hoc dicebat: non enim secundum provectum cordis et vitae id accipere possumus vel debemus, ut illi propterea adhuc esse dicantur in mundo, quod mundana adhuc sapiant; ille autem jam non esse in mundo, sapiendo divina. Positum est hic enim verbum unum, quod nos ita intelligere omnino non sinat: quia non ait, Et non sum in mundo; sed, Jam non sum in mundo: per hoc ostendens fuisse se in mundo, jam non esse. Numquid ergo fas est ut eum credamus aliquando mundana sapuisse, et ab hoc errore liberatum jam illa non sapere? Quis tam impio sensu se induerit? Restat igitur ut secundum id quod ipse etiam in mundo prius erat, in mundo se dixerit jam non esse; profecto praesentia corporali, a mundo scilicet absentiam suam jam cito futuram, illorum autem tardius, per hoc ostendens, quod se jam non hic esse, illos autem hic esse dixit, cum et ipse hic et illi adhuc essent. Sic enim est locutus, homo congruens hominibus, ut mos loquendi sese habet humanus. An non quotidie dicimus, Jam non est hic, de aliquo quantocius abituro? Et maxime hoc de morituris solet dici. Quanquam et ipse Dominus tanquam praevidens quid lecturos movere posset adjecit, Et ego ad te venio: sic exponens quodammodo cur dixerit, Jam non sum in mundo.
107.5 PL 35, 1913
5. Accordingly He commends to the Father’s care those whom He was about to leave by His bodily absence, saying: “Holy Father, keep through Thine own name those whom Thou hast given me.” That is to say, as man He prays to God in behalf of His disciples, whom He has received from God. But attend to what follows: “That they may be one,” He says, “even as we.” He does not say, That they may be one with us, or, that they and we may be one, as we are one; but He says, “That they may be one, even as we:” meaning, of course, that in their nature they may be one, even as we are one in ours, which certainly would not be spoken with truth, unless in this respect, that He, as God, is of the same nature as the Father also, in accordance with what He has said elsewhere, “I and the Father are one;” and not with what He also is as man, for in this respect He said, “The Father is greater than I.” But since one and the same person is God and man, we are to understand the manhood in respect of His asking; but the Godhead, in as far as He Himself, and He whom He asks, are one. But there is still a passage in what follows, where we must have a more careful discussion of this subject.
Commendat ergo eos Patri, quos corporali absentia relicturus est, dicens: Pater sancte, serva eos in nomine tuo quos dedisti mihi. Nempe sicut homo Deum rogat pro discipulis suis, quos accepit a Deo. Sed attende quod sequitur: Ut sint, inquit, unum sicut et nos. Non ait, Ut nobiscum sint unum, aut, simus unum ipsi et nos, sicut unum sumus nos; sed ait, Ut sint unum sicut et nos. Ipsi utique in natura sua sint unum, sicut et nos in nostra unum sumus. Quod procul dubio verum non diceret, nisi secundum hoc diceret, quod ejusdem naturae Deus est cujus et Pater, secundum quod alibi dixit, Ego et Pater unum sumus : non secundum id quod etiam homo est; nam secundum hoc, Pater major me est , dixit. Sed quoniam una eademque persona est Deus et homo, intelligimus hominem in eo quod rogat: intelligimus autem Deum in eo quod unum sunt et ipse et ille quem rogat. Sed est adhuc in consequentibus locus ubi de hac re diligentius disputandum est.
107.6 PL 35, 1914
6. But here He proceeds: “While I was with them, I kept them in Thy name.” Since I am coming, He says, to Thee, keep them in Thy name, in which I myself have kept them while I was with them. In the Father’s name, the Son as man kept His disciples, when placed side by side with them in human presence; but the Father also, in the name of the Son, kept those whom He heard and answered when praying in the name of the Son. For to them had it also been said by the Son Himself: “Verily, verily, I say unto you, whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, He will give it you.” But we are not to take this in any such carnal way, as that the Father and Son keep us in turn, with an alternation in the guardianship of both in guarding us, as if one succeeded when the other departed; for we are guarded all at once by the Father, and Son, and Holy Spirit, who is the one true and blessed God. But Scripture does not exalt us save by descending to us: as the Word, by becoming flesh, came down to lift us up, and fell not so as to remain Himself in the depths. If we have known Him who thus descendeth, let us rise with Him who lifteth us up; and let us understand, when He speaks thus, that He is marking a distinction in the persons, without making any separation of the natures. While, therefore, the Son in bodily presence was keeping His disciples, the Father was not waiting the Son’s departure in order to succeed to the guardianship, but both were keeping them by Their spiritual power; and when the Son withdrew from them His bodily presence, He retained along with the Father the spiritual guardianship. For when the Son also as man assumed the office of their guardian, He did not withdraw them from the Father’s guardianship; and when the Father gave them to the guardianship of the Son, in the very giving He acted not apart from Him to whom He gave them, but gave them to the Son as man, yet not apart from that same Son Himself as God.
Hic autem sequitur: Cum essem cum eis, ego servabam eos in nomine tuo. Me, inquit, veniente ad te, serva eos in nomine tuo, in quo eos quando cum eis eram, et ipse servabam. In nomine Patris servabat discipulos suos Filius homo, cum eis humana praesentia constitutus: sed etiam Pater in nomine Filii servabat quos in nomine Filii petentes exaudiebat. His quippe idem Filius dixerat: Amen, amen dico vobis, si quid petieritis Patrem in nomine meo, dabit vobis . Neque hoc tam carnaliter debemus accipere, velut vicissim nos servent Pater et Filius, amborum in nobis custodiendis alternante custodia, quasi succedat alius quando discesserit alius: simul enim nos custodiunt Pater et Filius et Spiritus sanctus, qui est unus verus et beatus Deus. Sed Scriptura nos non levat, nisi descendat ad nos: sicut Verbum caro factum descendit ut levaret, non cecidit ut jaceret. Si descendentem cognovimus, cum levante surgamus; et intelligamus, cum ita loquitur, personas eum distinguere, non separare naturas. Quando ergo servabat discipulos suos Filius praesentia corporali, non exspectabat Pater ad custodiendum succedere Filio discedenti; sed eos ambo servabant potentia spirituali: et quando ab eis abstulit Filius praesentiam corporalem, tenuit cum Patre custodiam spiritualem. Quia et custodiendos quando Filius homo accepit, custodiae paternae non eos abstulit: et cum Pater Filio custodiendos dedit, non dedit sine ipso cui dedit; sed dedit homini Filio, non sine Deo eodem ipso utique Filio.
107.7 PL 35, 1914
7. The Son therefore goes on to say: “Those that Thou gavest me, I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the Scripture might be fulfilled.” The betrayer of Christ was called the son of perdition, as foreordained to perdition, according to the Scripture, where it is specially prophesied of him in the 109th Psalm.
Sequitur ergo Filius, et dicit: Quos dedisti mihi, custodivi: et nemo ex his periit, nisi filius perditionis, ut Scriptura impleatur. Filius perditionis dictus est traditor Christi, perditioni praedestinatus, secundum Scripturam quae de illo in psalmo centesimo octavo maxime prophetatur.
107.8 PL 35, 1914
8. “And now,” He says, “come I to Thee; and these things I speak in the world, that they may have my joy fulfilled in themselves.” See! He says that He speaketh in the world, when He had said only a little before, “I am no more in the world:” the reason of which we have there explained, or rather have shown that He Himself explained it. Accordingly, on the one hand, as He had not yet departed, He was still here; and because He was on the very point of departure, in a kind of way He was no more here. But what this joy is whereof He says, “That they may have my joy fulfilled in themselves,” has already been elucidated above, where He says, “That they may be one, even as we are.” This joy of His that is bestowed on them by Him, was to be fulfilled, He says, in them; and for that very end declared that He had spoken in the world. This is that peace and blessedness in the world to come, for the attaining of which we must live temperately, and righteously, and godly in the present.
Nunc autem, inquit, ad te venio; et haec loquor in mundo, ut habeant gaudium meum impletum in semetipsis. Ecce in mundo se loqui dicit, qui paulo ante dixerat, Jam non sum in mundo: quod cur dixerit, ibi exposuimus, imo ipsum id exposuisse docuimus. Ergo et quia nondum abierat, hic adhuc erat; et quia mox fuerat abiturus, hic quodammodo jam non erat. Quod sit autem hoc gaudium de quo ait, ut habeant gaudium meum impletum in semetipsis, jam superius expressum est, ubi ait, Ut sint unum sicut et nos. Hoc gaudium suum, id est, a se in eos collatum, in eis dicit implendum; propter quod locutum se dixit in mundo. Haec est pax illa et beatitudo in futuro saeculo, propter quam consequendam temperanter et juste et pie vivendum est in hoc saeculo.