But that the word may be fulfilled which is written in their law: They hated me without cause.

“(Hom. lxxvii. 1) And that the disciples may not say, Why then hast Thou brought us into such difficulties? Couldest not thou foresee the resistance and hatred we should meet with, He quotes the prophecy: But this cometh to pass, that the word might be fulfilled that is written in their law, They hated Me without a cause.”

“Above, the Lord, treating of the persecution which was to come upon the disciples from the Jews, assigned the reason: because they do not know him who sent him. But because ignorance is wont to excuse, therefore here he shows them to be inexcusable; and this in two ways. First, through the things which he himself personally did and taught concerning them; second, through the things which were to come in his absence, at the place "But when the Paraclete shall come," etc. Concerning the first he does two things. First he shows them to be inexcusable on account of the teaching of the truth; second, on account of the evidence of signs, at the place "If I had not done the works." Concerning the first he does three things. First he shows what could avail them for excuse; second he shows that they lack this support, at the place "but now they have no excuse for their sin"; third he shows from what root their persecution proceeds, at the place "he who hates me, hates my Father also." He says therefore that "they will do all these things to you on account of my name"; and indeed they could be excused of these things if he had not come and had not spoken to them; that is, if he had not shown himself personally, and had not personally taught them, "they would not have sin." But against this: Romans 3:23, "all have sinned and need the grace of God." But it must be said that the Lord is not speaking here of just any sin, but of the sin of unbelief, namely that they do not believe in Christ: which is called "sin" by antonomasia, because while this sin exists, no other sin can be remitted, since no sin is remitted except through faith in Jesus Christ, through whom is justice, as is said in Romans 5:1. And therefore it is the same as what he says, "they would not have sin," as if he were saying: it would not be imputed to them that they do not believe in me. And this, first, because "faith is from hearing," Romans 10:17. Hence if he had not come and had not spoken to them, they could not have believed. But it is not imputed to anyone as sin if he does not do what he is in no way able to do. And if it be said that they were bound, and could believe, even if Christ had not come, since it had been announced to them through the prophets — Romans 1:2, "which he had promised before through his prophets in the holy Scriptures concerning his Son," etc. — it must be answered that the Jews could not, of themselves, believe and understand even the very words of the prophets, unless they were shown to them by divine help; Daniel 12:9, "the words are closed up and sealed until the time." Hence in Acts 8:31 the eunuch said: "How can I understand, unless someone show me?" Thus, then, if Christ had not come, they would not have this sin, namely of unbelief, although they would have had other actual sins on account of which they would have been punished. And the same reasoning holds for all those to whom the preaching of the word of God could not reach. Hence the sin of unbelief is not imputed to them unto condemnation; but, deprived of the benefit of God on account of their other actual and original sins, they will be damned. But it must be known that for many the coming and teaching of Christ turned to good, namely for those who received him and kept his word; and for many to evil, namely for those who would neither hear him nor believe him; Isaiah 8:14, "he shall be for a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense to the two houses of Israel; for a snare and a ruin to the inhabitants of Jerusalem"; Luke 2:34, "this child is set for the ruin and for the resurrection of many." Thus, then, he has set forth by what means they could be excused of unbelief. But they lack this support of excuse, because Christ both showed himself to them personally and taught them. Hence he says "but now" — that is, since I have come and have spoken — "they have no excuse," namely by reason of ignorance, "for their sin"; Romans 1:20, "so that they are inexcusable: because, when they knew God, they did not glorify him as God." But that they themselves knew Christ is clear from Matthew 12:7: "This is the heir; come, let us kill him." But they knew him to be the Christ promised in the law, but not to be God: for if they had known this, "they would never have crucified the Lord of glory." Therefore ignorance does not avail them for excuse: because they did not do this out of ignorance, but from another root, namely from hatred and deliberate malice. Hence he adds "he who hates me, hates my Father also," as if to say: not ignorance, but the hatred which they had toward me, is unto sin for them, and this, because it overflows into hatred of the Father. For since the Son and the Father are one in essence, truth, and goodness, and all knowledge of anyone is through the truth which is in him, whoever loves the Son, loves the Father also; and whoever knows the one, knows the other also; and he who hates the Son hates the Father also. But here there is a twofold question. The first, whether anyone can hold God in hatred. To which it must be said that no one can hold God in hatred insofar as he is God. Since God is the pure essence of goodness, which, since it is lovable in itself, it is impossible that it be hated by anyone in itself. Hence this is the reason why it is impossible for an evil man to see God. For it is impossible for God to be seen by anyone without being loved; but he who loves God is good; hence these are incompatible, namely that someone should see God and be evil. Yet someone can hold God in hatred with respect to something else — for instance, he who loves pleasure hates God as forbidding the enjoyment of pleasures, and he who seeks impunity hates the justice of God as punishing. The second question is this: because no one can hate what he does not know; but the Jews were ignorant of the Father — above, in the same place, "they do not know him who sent me" — therefore what he says, "and hates my Father also," does not seem to be true. But it must be said, according to Augustine, that someone can love or hate a thing which he has never seen, nor knows according to the truth, but through rumor speaking well or ill of it. But this can happen in two ways. In one way, that it be hated or loved according to its very person, or according to what is told about it; as if I hear that someone is a thief, I hate him, not because I know or hate his very person, but because I commonly hate every thief: hence if he were a thief, and I did not know him to be a thief, I would hold him in hatred, and yet I would not know that I hated him. But the Jews held in hatred Christ, and the truth which he preached. Hence, since the very truth which Christ preached was in the will of God the Father, as were the works which Christ did, in like manner as they hated Christ, they held the Father in hatred, although they themselves did not know that those things were in the will of the Father. Here he shows them to be inexcusable through the evidence of signs. For they could say that they are not convicted by the words which he speaks against them; and therefore he confirms his words with marvelous deeds, saying: "If I had not done among them the works which no other man has done, they would not have sin." First he shows that they could be excusable to some extent; second he shows the root of their sin; third he adduces an authority. He does the second at the place "but now they have seen and hated both me and my Father"; the third, at the place "that the word may be fulfilled which is written in their law." Concerning the first, a twofold question is raised. One, which concerns the truth of the antecedent, namely "if I had not done the works which no other man has done," etc.: and it is asked whether Christ did among them any good works which no one else had done. And it seems that not: for if it be said that Christ raised the dead, this both Elijah and Elisha also did. If Christ walked upon the sea, Moses divided the sea. But Joshua did what is greater, namely, made the sun stand still. Unfittingly, therefore, Christ seems to reprove them, nor does the consequence seem to hold true. I respond. It must be said, according to Augustine, that the Lord is not speaking here of any miracles whatsoever done "among them," that is, in their sight, but of works done "in them," that is, in their persons. For in the curing of the sick no one did as much in them as Christ did — although also in other respects likewise, since no other man was made God, and no one was born of a virgin except Christ. He did, then, in them works which no one else did in the curing of the sick; and this in three respects. First, indeed, in magnitude: because he raised a man dead four days, he gave sight to one born blind, "which has not been heard of from all ages," as is said above, John 9:32. Second, in multitude: because he healed all, however many, who were sick, as is said in Matthew 14:35 and following, which no one else did. Third, in manner: because others acted by invoking, showing that they did not act by their own power; but Christ acted by commanding, because by his own power; Mark 1:27, "What is this new doctrine? For with authority and power he commands even the unclean spirits, and they obey him." Thus, then, although others raised the dead and did other miraculous things which Christ did, yet not in that manner, nor by their own power, as Christ did. Likewise, what is said of the standing still of the sun is less than the fact that Christ, in dying, made the moon go backward, and changed the whole course of the firmament, as Dionysius says. The second question concerns the truth of the conditional, namely whether, if Christ had not done in them the works which no one else did, they would be immune from the sin of unbelief. Response. It must be said: if we speak of any miracles whatsoever, they would have an excuse, if these had not been done in them by Christ. For no one can come to Christ through faith unless drawn; above, John 6:44, "No one can come to me, unless the Father, who sent me, draw him." And therefore in Song of Songs 1:3 the bride says: "Draw me after you: we will run in the odor of your ointments." Hence if there were no one who had drawn them to faith, they would be excusable of unbelief. But it must be noted that Christ drew them by word, by visible and invisible signs, namely by moving and instigating hearts within; Proverbs 21:1, "the heart of kings is in the hand of God." The interior instinct to act well is therefore a work of God, and those who resist it sin: otherwise Stephen would have said in vain, Acts 7:5, "You have always resisted the Holy Spirit." And Isaiah 50:5, "The Lord has opened my ear" — that is, of the heart — "and I do not contradict." This, therefore, which the Lord says, "if I had not done among them the works which no other man has done," is to be understood not only of visible works, but also of the interior instinct and the drawing of teaching: which indeed, if he had not done in them, they would not have sin. Thus, then, it is clear how they could be excused, namely by this: if he had not done miraculous works in them. Here he shows from what root they would incur the sin of unbelief: namely from hatred, on account of which, though the works were seen, they did not believe. Hence he says "but now they have seen" — namely the works which he did in them — "and have hated both me and my Father"; Proverbs 1:29, "because they held discipline hateful, and did not receive the fear of the Lord." And, as Gregory says, there are not a few in the Church who not only do not do good things, but even persecute them, and detest in others even the things which they themselves neglect to do: hence the sin of such people is perpetrated not from weakness or ignorance, but from deliberate intent alone. Because they could say: if it is so that the Jews hated you and your Father, why do you work miracles among them? Therefore, responding, he says that he does this "that the word may be fulfilled which is written in their law." But here a difficulty is raised on this point: that although it is written in the Psalms, he says that it is written in their law. To which it must be said that "law" is taken in Scripture in three ways. For sometimes commonly for the whole Old Testament; and thus it is taken here, because the whole teaching of the Old Testament is ordered to the observance of the law; Luke 23:42, "Remember me," etc. Sometimes it is taken as it is divided over against the Hagiographa and the Prophets; Luke, last chapter, 44, "it is necessary that all things be fulfilled which are written in the prophets, and the law" — namely, of Moses — "and the Psalms"; under which the Hagiographa are also numbered. But sometimes "law" is taken as it is divided only over against the Prophets; and then the Hagiographa are numbered with the Prophets. He says, then, "that the word may be fulfilled which is written in their law" (that is, in Psalm 34:19), "that they hated me without cause"; that is, not for the sake of obtaining some advantage, or avoiding some disadvantage — for it is on account of these that a man hates certain things, which were not the case in Christ; rather he gave them occasion for love, healing and teaching them; Acts 10:38, "he went about doing good"; Jeremiah 18:20, "Shall evil be rendered for good, that they have dug a pit for my soul?" The same, Jeremiah 2:5, "What iniquity have your fathers found in me, that they have gone far from me?" Here he shows that they are not excusable on account of the things that were to come after him, because they were to have other testimonies, namely of the Holy Spirit, and also of the apostles; and first he sets forth what was to come on the part of the Holy Spirit; second, what was to come on the part of the apostles, at the place "and you also shall bear witness," etc. As regards the Holy Spirit he touches on four things. First, indeed, freedom; second, sweetness; third, procession; fourth, operation. Freedom, indeed, or power, when he says "when the Paraclete shall come," etc. For he is properly said to "come" who goes of his own accord and by his own authority; and this befits the Holy Spirit, who "breathes where he wills," above, John 3:8. Wisdom 7:7, "I called upon him, and the spirit of wisdom came upon me." This, then, which he says, "I will send," does not designate coercion, but origin. He touches on sweetness when he says "Paraclete," that is, comforter. For since he is the love of God, he makes us despise earthly things, and cleave to God; hence he excludes sorrow and sadness from us, and ministers joy concerning things divine; Galatians 5:22, "the fruit of the Spirit is charity, joy, peace," etc.; Acts 9:31, "the Church was filled with the consolation of the Holy Spirit," etc. Third, he sets forth a twofold procession of the Holy Spirit. First, indeed, the temporal, when he says "whom I will send you from the Father," etc. Where it must be known that the Holy Spirit is said to be sent, not as though changing place, since he himself fills the whole world, as is said in Wisdom 1:7, but because in a new way, through grace, he begins to dwell in those whom he makes the temple of God; 1 Corinthians 3:15, "you are the temple of God, and the Spirit of God will dwell in you." Nor is it contrary that the Holy Spirit is said to be both sent and to come: for in this, that he is said to come, the majesty of his own divinity manifestly appears, "who works as he wills," 1 Corinthians 12:6. But he is said to be "sent" in order that his procession from another be shown: for that he sanctifies the rational creature by indwelling it, he has from another, from whom he has that he is, just as the Son has from another whatever he operates. It must also be noted that the mission of the Holy Spirit is commonly from the Father and the Son: which is signified in Revelation, last chapter, 1, "he showed me a river of water of life" — that is, the Holy Spirit — "proceeding from the throne of God and of the Lamb" — that is, of Christ. Therefore, concerning the mission of the Holy Spirit, he makes mention of the Father and the Son, by whom he is sent with equal and the same power. And therefore sometimes he introduces the Father as sending, yet not without the Son; as above, John 14:26, "But the Paraclete, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name." But sometimes he introduces himself as sending, not without the Father, as here when he says "whom I will send you from the Father," because, namely, the Son has from the Father whatever he does; above, John 5:19, "the Son cannot do anything of himself." Second, he sets forth the eternal procession, where likewise he shows the Holy Spirit to pertain to the Son, when he says "the Spirit of truth" — for he himself is the truth; above, John 14:6, "I am the way, the truth, and the life" — and to pertain to the Father, when he says "who proceeds from the Father." Thus, then, what he says, "the Spirit of truth," is the same as if he said "the Spirit of the Son"; Galatians 4:6, "God has sent the Spirit of his Son into your hearts." And because this name "spirit" imports a certain impulsion, and every motion has an effect suited to its principle, just as heating produces something hot, it follows that the Holy Spirit makes those into whom he is sent similar to him whose spirit he is; and therefore, since he is the Spirit of truth, "he teaches all truth," as is said below, John 16:13; and Job 32:8, "the inspiration of the Almighty gives understanding." And likewise, because he is the Spirit of the Son, he makes sons; Romans 8:15, "you have received the spirit of adoption of sons." But he says "the Spirit of truth" to distinguish it from the spirit of lying; Isaiah 19:14, "the Lord has mingled in the midst of Egypt the spirit of error"; 3 Kings, last chapter, 22, "I will go out, and I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets." But because he says "who proceeds from the Father" and does not add "from the Father and the Son," the Greeks say that the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Son, but only from the Father; which cannot be the case at all. For the Holy Spirit could not be distinguished from the Son unless either he himself proceeds from the Son, or conversely the Son from him; which no one says. For it cannot be said that in the divine persons, which are altogether immaterial and simple, there is a material distinction, which is according to a division of quantity, under which matter underlies. Hence it is necessary that the distinction of the divine persons be after the manner of a formal distinction, which must be according to some opposition. For whatever forms are not opposed are compatible with one another in the same subject, and do not diversify the supposit, as white and large. Hence in the divine persons, because "innascibility" and paternity are not opposed, they pertain to one person. If, therefore, the Son and the Holy Spirit are distinct persons proceeding from the Father, it is necessary that they be distinguished by certain opposed properties: not, however, opposed according to affirmation and negation, or according to privation and possession, because in that case the Son and the Holy Spirit would stand to one another as being and non-being, and as the perfect and the deprived, which is repugnant to their equality; nor even according to the opposition of contraries, of which one is more perfect than the other. Hence it remains that the Holy Spirit is distinguished from the Son only by relative opposition. But this opposition can only exist from the fact that one of them is referred to the other. For diverse relations of two things to some third thing are not directly opposed to one another, except perhaps consequently, by accident. Hence it remains that, in order for the Holy Spirit to be distinguished from the Son, opposed relations must be attributed to them, by which they are opposed to one another. Nor can any others be found except relations of origin, according as one is from the other. Therefore, granted the Trinity of persons, it is impossible that the Holy Spirit not be from the Son. But some say that the Holy Spirit and the Son are distinguished according to a difference of processions, inasmuch as the Son is from the Father by being born, and the Holy Spirit by proceeding. But the same question still returns, which arises from the aforesaid opinion, as to how these two processions differ. For it cannot be said that they are distinguished through different things received through generation, as the generation of a man and of a horse differ according to the different natures communicated. For the Son receives the same divine nature from the Father by being born, and the Holy Spirit by proceeding. Hence it remains that they are distinguished only according to the order of origin, inasmuch, namely, as the nativity of the Son is the principle of the procession of the Holy Spirit. Hence if the Holy Spirit were not from the Son, he would not be distinguished from the Son, nor would procession be distinguished from nativity. Hence even the Greeks confess a certain order of the Son and the Holy Spirit. For they say that the Holy Spirit is of the Son, and that the Son works through the Holy Spirit; but not the reverse. And some even grant that the Holy Spirit is from the Son, yet they are unwilling to grant that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son. But in this they are manifestly obstinate. For we use the word "procession" for all things which are in any way from another. And therefore this word, by reason of its commonality, is fitted to signify the existence of the Holy Spirit from the Son, which has no example among creatures from which some proper name of its own could be assumed, as the name "generation" is taken for the Son. For among creatures there is not found any person proceeding after the manner of will, as love, in the way that there is found some person proceeding after the manner of nature, as a son. And therefore, in whatever way the Holy Spirit has an order to the Son, it can be concluded that he proceeds from him. Yet some of the Greeks say that it must not be said that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, because this preposition "from" or "ab," among them, designates a principle not from a principle, which befits the Father alone. But this is not compelling: because the Son together with the Father is one principle of the Holy Spirit, just as also of creatures. But although the Son has from the Father that he is a principle of creatures, nevertheless creatures are said to be from the Son; hence by the same reasoning it can be said that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son. Nor does it stand in the way that it is said here "who proceeds from the Father," but not "from the Father and the Son": because likewise it is said "whom I will send," and yet the Father is understood to send, through the fact that "from the Father" is added; so too, through the fact that "the Spirit of truth" — that is, of the Son — is added, it is understood that he proceeds from the Son. For always, as has been said, the Son is joined to the Father, and conversely, with regard to the procession of the Holy Spirit; and thus in a different manner of speaking, for the purpose of designating the distinction of the persons. Fourth, he sets forth the operations of the Holy Spirit when he says "he shall bear witness": and this in three ways. First, indeed, by instructing the disciples, and affording them confidence to bear witness; Matthew 10:20, "For it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father who speaks in you." Second, by communicating his teaching to those believing in Christ; Hebrews 2:4, "God bearing witness with signs and wonders, and various distributions of the Holy Spirit." Third, by softening the hearts of those who hear; Psalm 103:30, "Send forth your spirit, and they shall be created." Lastly, he sets forth what was to come on the part of the disciples, when he says "and you also shall bear witness," inspired by the Holy Spirit; Acts 1:8, "you shall be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the end of the earth." And concerning this twofold testimony it is said, Acts 5:32, "we are witnesses of this thing, and the Holy Spirit, whom the Lord has given to all who obey him." And he adds the fitness of their testimony, when he says "because you have been with me from the beginning" — namely, of the preaching and the working of miracles — so that they could testify from sight and hearing, according to that word of 1 John 1:1, "what we have seen and heard we announce to you." From which it can also be gathered that Christ did not work miracles in his boyhood, as is held in certain apocryphal writings, but only from the time when he gathered the disciples.”

“But that the word may be fulfilled which is written in their law {i.e., in the Old Test., viz. Ps. lix. 5, and xxv. 29), they hated Me gratis (Vulg.), i.e. without a cause, without My fault, and therefore wickedly and unjustly. For I have given them no other cause of hate, but supremest love. Observe the word that does not signify the end intended, but denotes that which happened as a matter of Digitized by C ^GOgl THE GREEK SCHISM. 145 fact from the unbelief and obstinacy of the Jews. The meaning is, And thus there followed that which David and Isaias foretold would be, viz. that the Jews would without a cause pursue Christ with hate”

“Written in their law - See on Joh 10:34 (note). These words are taken from Psa 69:4. This psalm is applied to Christ, Joh 2:17; Joh 19:28; to the vengeance of God against Judea, Act 1:20. The psalm seems entirely prophetic of Christ. His deep abasement is referred to, Psa 69:2-5; his prayer for his disciples and followers, Psa 69:6; that for himself, in the garden of Gethsemane, Psa 69:15-19; his crucifixion, Psa 69:20-22; the vengeance of God against the Jews, from Psa 69:23-29; the glorious manner in which he gets out of all his sufferings, Psa 69:30; the abolition of the Mosaic rites and ceremonies, Psa 69:31, compared with Isa 66:3; and, finally, the establishment of the Gospel through the whole world, in Psa 69:33 and following verses. The reader will do well to consult the psalm before he proceeds.”