1336. Dicit ergo, quantum ad primum, vocaverunt ergo, scilicet Pharisaei, rursum hominem qui fuerat caecus: nam parentes interrogati remiserant eos ad caecum, et dixerunt ei: da gloriam Deo. Unum dicunt, sed aliud intendunt. Intendunt quidem ut cogant eum dicere, se non fuisse illuminatum a Christo, vel, si hoc non possunt, saltem confiteatur se ab eo aliquo maleficio curatum. Hoc tamen non aperte dicunt; sed tacite et sub praetextu religionis. Ad hoc enim inducere volunt dicentes da gloriam Deo; quasi dicant: illuminatus es; sed hoc non est nisi a Deo: ergo hoc nulli alii attribuas nisi Deo, et non isti, scilicet Christo, quia si hoc facis, ostendis te non accepisse a Deo curationis beneficium, quia Deus per peccatores non operatur miracula. Unde subdunt nos scimus quia hic homo peccator est; quasi dicerent: confitere quoniam hic nihil operatus est, nega quod accepisti. Sed, ut Augustinus dicit, si hoc fecisset, non dedisset gloriam Deo, sed potius ingratus existens blasphemasset. Sed vere mendacium locutus est stylus Pharisaeorum, dicentium nos scimus quoniam hic homo peccator est; nam supra VIII, v. 46, eumdem de peccato arguere non potuerunt, cum dixit: quis ex vobis arguet me de peccato? Nec mirum, quia hoc dicitur I Petr. II, 22: peccatum non fecit, nec inventus est dolus in ore eius. 1336. In regard to the first he says, they therefore called the man again who had been blind, for his parents had referred them to the blind man, and said to him: give the glory to God. They say one thing but mean another. For they wish to force him to say that his sight was not restored by Christ, or if they are unable to do this, to force him to admit that he was cured by him through sorcery. They do not say this openly, but implicitly, with an appearance of devotion. They attempt this by saying, give the glory to God. As if to say: your sight has been given to you. But only God can do this. Therefore, you should not attribute this to anyone but God, and not to this man, that is, Christ, because if you do this you are indicating that you have not received the gift of your healing from God, for the reason that God does not perform miracles through sinners. Thus they add, we know that this man is a sinner, as if to say: to admit that this man has not done anything, you must deny what you have said. But, as Augustine says, if he had done this, he would not be giving glory to God but rather, being ungrateful, would be blaspheming. But in truth, the Pharisees were lying when they said, we know that this man is a sinner; for they could not convict him of sin, and he said: who among you will convict me of sin? (John 8:46) And no wonder, because he committed no sin; no guile was found on his lips (1 Pet 2:22). 1337. Hic ponitur caeci constantia: nam stomachatus contra Pharisaeorum duritiam, et impatiens ad verba eorum, cum veritatis assertione dicit si peccator est, nescio. 1337. Here we see the steadfastness of the blind man. For amazed at the hardness of the Pharisees, and impatient with what they were saying, he says, in all truth, if he is a sinner, I do not know. Sed, cum supra dixerit quia propheta est, numquid hoc propter timorem quasi dubitans dicit si peccator est, nescio? Absit; sed quasi indignatus Pharisaeos irridens. Quasi dicat: vos asseritis eum peccatorem; sed hoc ego nescio quod sit peccator, et miror quod hoc asseritis, quia opus fecit quod non videtur esse peccatoris, quia caecus cum essem, modo video, eius beneficio. Secundum Augustinum, hoc dicit ut neque pateretur calumniam, neque veritatem subcelaret. Fortassis enim si dixisset, scio eum iustum, quod verum erat, calumniati fuissent eum. Sed, secundum Chrysostomum, ideo hoc dixit ut daret eis maius testimonium, scilicet ipsius miraculosae operationis, et suam responsionem faceret fide dignam ab accepto beneficio. Yet because he had said before that he is a prophet (John 9:17), is he not now saying, if he is a sinner, I do not know, out of fear, as if he were doubtful? Not at all! Rather, he is angry and mocking the Pharisees. He is saying in effect: you assert that he is a sinner; but I do not know that he is a sinner, and I am amazed that you assert this, because he accomplished a work which does not seem to be the work of a sinner: one thing I know, that before I was blind but now I see, by his kindness. According to Augustine, he said this in order not to be maligned nor to conceal the truth. For perhaps if he had said, I know that he is a just man, which was true, they would have maligned him. But according to Chrysostom, he said this to give them a more impressive testimony to the miracle, and to make his answer believable by calling attention to the gift itself he received. 1338. Hic iterato interrogant, ut calumniam inferant, et 1338. They again question the man born blind in order to malign him. primo ponitur dolosa Pharisaeorum interrogatio; First, we have the cunning interrogation of the Pharisees; and secundo respondentis caeci derisio, ibi respondit eis etc. second, the contemptuous reply of the blind man: he answered them: I have told you already. 1339. Dicit ergo quantum ad primum, dixerunt ergo illi: quid fecit tibi? Quia enim caecus confessus fuerat se a Christo visum recepisse, quod isti non quaerebant, sed potius in ipso modo faciendi, contra Christum calumniam inferre intendebant. Ideo non dicunt, qualiter vidisti? Sed quomodo aperuit tibi oculos? Quasi dicant: numquid aliquo praestigio seu maleficio hoc fecit? Secundum illud Ps. XXXVIII, 13: qui quaerebant mala mihi, locuti sunt vanitates, et dolos tota die meditabantur. 1339. He says, with respect to the first, they said to him: what did he do to you? For, because the blind man confessed that he received his sight from Christ, which they were not asking, but rather they were intending to calumniate Christ in this way of putting the question. So they did not ask how is it that you see? but how did he open your eyes? It was like saying: he did this by some trick or sorcery, didn’t he? As, those who seek my hurt speak of ruin, and meditate treachery all the day long (Ps 38:12). 1340. Hic ponitur responsio: quia enim caecus quasi iam viderat, ideo non remisse, sed audacter de reliquo eis loquitur. Unde primo irridet Pharisaeorum iteratam interrogationem, dicens dixi vobis iam, et audistis: quid iterum vultis audire? Quasi dicat: ex quo semel dixi vobis, quid iterum vultis audire? Hoc enim insipientis est. Videtur enim quod non attenditis ad ea quae dicuntur. Unde non est ultra respondendum vobis, inaniter interrogantibus, et cavillari potius quam discere volentibus; Eccli. XXII, v. 9: cum dormiente loquitur qui narrat stulto sapientiam: et in fine narrationis dicit: quis est hic? 1340. Now the man’s answer is given. The man born blind, because he really had received his sight, answers them further, not timidly, but with boldness. He first belittles the repeated questioning of the Pharisees, saying, I have told you already and you have heard: why do you want to hear it again? This was like saying: I told you once. Why do you want to hear it again? That is foolish. It looks like you are not paying attention to what I am saying. So, I have nothing further to say to you because your questioning is useless, and you want to cavil rather than learn. As it is written: he who tells a story to a fool tells it to a drowsy man; and at the end he will say: what is it? (Sir 22:8) Secundo deridet praesumptuosam Pharisaeorum intentionem, dicens numquid et vos vultis discipuli eius fieri? Quando enim aliquis diligenter inquirit: aut hoc facit bona intentione, ut scilicet ei adhaereat, aut mala, ut eum condemnet. Quia ergo isti diligenter quaerebant, et caecus non ausus est eis imponere quod mala intentione quaererent, declinat ad aliam partem, dicens numquid et vos vultis discipuli eius fieri? Quasi dicat: si non quaeritis malitiose, ergo vultis adhaerere ei; Ier. XIII, 23: si mutare potest Aethiops pellem suam, aut pardus varietates suas; et vos poteritis bene facere. Et, ut Augustinus dicit, illuminatus libenter volebat istos illuminare. Unde signanter dicit et vos, quasi se innuens discipulum; quasi dicat: numquid et vos vultis, ut et ego sum, discipuli eius fieri? Ego iam video, vestrae illuminationi non invideo. Et, ut Chrysostomus dicit, ex ista caeci constantia apparet quam forte quid sit veritas, quae si despectos assumpserit, claros et fortes eos facit. Et quam imbecille quid sit mendacium, quod etsi cum fortibus fuerit, imbecilles eos monstrat et reddit. Second, he mocks the presumptuous intention of the Pharisees, saying, will you also become his disciples? When someone carefully investigates a matter, he does so either with a good intention, to accept it, or with an evil intention, to condemn it. Now because the Pharisees were carefully investigating this, and because the man born blind did not dare impute an evil intention to them, he takes the alternative, saying, will you also become his disciples? He means by this: if you are not investigating this maliciously, you therefore wish to join him: as it is written, can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard his spots? Then also you can do good who are accustomed to do evil (Jer 13:23). As Augustine says, the one who had received his sight gladly desired to give them light. Thus, he significantly says, will you also, implying that he himself was a disciple. He is saying in effect: will you also become his disciples as I am? I already see, and do not envy your coming to the light. And as Chrysostom says, from the steadfastness of the blind man we can see how strong truth really is, for when it convinces the lowly, it makes them noble and strong. And we can see how weak is a lie, which even if it is maintained by the powerful, shows and makes them weak. 1341. Hic irrogatur caeco a Pharisaeis maledictio, et 1341. Next, the Pharisees revile the man born blind. primo ponitur Pharisaeorum ad caecum maledictio; First, we see them revile him; secundo caeci ad Pharisaeos redargutio, ibi respondit ille. then, second, the defense of the blind man: the man answered. Circa primum duo facit. He does two things concerning the first: Primo ponitur Pharisaeorum maledictio; first, he presents the revilement of the Pharisees; secundo maledictionis occasio, ibi nos autem Moysi discipuli sumus. second, the reason behind it: but we are the disciples of Moses. 1342. Dicit ergo quantum ad primum: maledixerunt ei, scilicet Pharisaei caeco, et dixerunt: tu discipulus eius sis. Quae quidem maledictio est, si pravum cor eorum discutias, non si verba perpendas: immo est summa benedictio. Et tale maledictum sit super nos, et super filios nostros; supra VIII, v. 31: vere discipuli mei eritis, si manseritis in sermone meo. Ideo tamen Evangelista dixit maledixerunt, quia ex malo eorum corde procedebant; Prov. XXV, 23: quomodo si ornare velis vas fictile argento sordido, sic labia tumentia cum pessimo corde sociata. Et de hac maledictione dicitur in Ps. CVIII, v. 28: maledicent illi, et tu benedices; et Matth. V, 11: beati eritis cum maledixerint vobis etc. 1342. With respect to the first he says, and they reviled him therefore and said: you are his disciple. This is, indeed, scornful, if you consider their vicious hearts. But if you consider their words, it is the greatest blessing. May we and our children be treated with such scorn! If you remain in my word, you will truly be my disciples (John 8:31). Still, the Evangelist stated that they reviled him by saying this because what they said came from their evil hearts: like the glaze covering an earthen vessel are smooth lips with an evil heart (Prov 26:23). We read about this revilement elsewhere: let them curse, but do thou bless (Ps 109:28); and: blessed are you when men revile you (Matt 5:11). 1343. Causam maledictionis subiungit consequenter cum dicit nos autem Moysi discipuli sumus. Reputabant enim maledictionem quod caecus dixerat eis, quod fierent discipuli Christi; cum ipsi gloriarentur se esse discipulos Moysi, quem maiorem reputabant. Et ideo primo proponunt suam conditionem, dicentes nos autem Moysi discipuli sumus. Eccli. XXIV, 33: legem mandavit Moyses in primitiis iustitiarum etc. Sed falsa est eorum gloria, quia nec eum sequebantur, nec praecepta eius implebant; supra III, 36: si crederetis Moysi, crederetis forsitan et mihi; quasi dicat: nec sequimini servum, et deorsum ponitis contra Dominum. 1343. He next adds the reason for their reviling when he says, we are the disciples of Moses. They were thinking of how they were ridiculed by the man born blind when he asked if they wanted to become Christ’s disciples; for they took pride in being disciples of Moses, whom they thought was greater. First, they set forth their own situation, saying, we are the disciples of Moses. Moses commanded a law in the precepts of justices (Sir 24:33). But this pride of theirs is false, because they neither followed Moses nor fulfilled his commands: if you believed Moses, you would perhaps believe me also (John 5:46); this was like saying: you do not follow the servant, and later go against his Lord. Secundo extollunt Moysi dignitatem, cum dicunt nos scimus quia Moysi locutus est Deus. In quo verum dicunt, quia, ut dicitur Ex. XXXIII, 11, loquebatur Dominus Moysi facie ad faciem, sicut loqui solet homo ad amicum suum; et Num. XII, 6, dicit Dominus: si fuerit inter vos propheta Domini, in visione apparebo ei, vel per somnium loquar ad illum. At non talis servus meus Moyses, qui in omni domo mea fidelissimus est: ore enim ad os loquor ei. Unde excellentiori modo loquebatur cum eo quam cum aliis prophetis. Et de hac locutione hic ipsi loquuntur. Constat autem quod cum ad Moysem Deus loqueretur Verbum suum, quod dignitas Moysi est ex Verbo Dei. Et sic Verbum maioris dignitatis est quam Moyses; Hebr. c. III, 3: amplioris gloriae iste, scilicet Christus, prae Moyse dignus habitus est, quanto ampliorem honorem habet domus, qui aedificavit illam. Second, they praise the dignity of Moses when they say, we know that God spoke to Moses. Here they are telling the truth, for as we read: the Lord used to speak to Moses face to face, as a man speaks to his friend (Exod 33:11); and, if there is a prophet among you, I, the Lord, make myself known to him in a vision, I speak with him in a dream. Not so with my servant Moses; he is entrusted with all my house. With him I speak mouth to mouth (Num 12:6). Thus God spoke to Moses in a more excellent way than to the other prophets. And it is about this that they are speaking. However, it is clear that since God spoke his Word to Moses, the dignity of Moses came from the Word of God. And so the Word of God is of greater dignity than Moses: yet Jesus has been counted worthy of as much more glory than Moses as the builder of a house has more honor than the house (Heb 3:3). Tertio occulte insinuant Christi dignitatem, cum dicit hunc autem, scilicet Christum, nescimus unde sit: quod quidem verum est, non tamen secundum eorum intentionem. Nesciebant enim Patrem, unde Christus erat; supra VIII, 19: neque me scitis, neque Patrem meum. Sed falsum est quantum ad eorum intentionem. Dixerunt enim hunc autem nescimus unde sit; quasi dicant: nullius auctoritatis est, et quasi apocryphum, ita ut non constet de eo an a Deo venerit; per quod videbantur ei imponere illud Ier. XXIII, v. 21: non mittebam eos, et ipsi currebant. Third, they hint at the dignity of Christ in a veiled manner when they say, as for this man, Christ, we do not know from where he comes. This is true, but not the way they understood it: for they did not know the Father, and Christ was from the Father: you know neither me nor my Father (John 8:19). But their statement is false as they understood it, for when they said, we do not know where from where he comes, they meant he had no authority and was unverified, so that is was not clear whether or not he came from God. They seem to be applying to him the words: I did not send you prophets, yet they ran (Jer 23:21). 1344. Hic ponitur caeci contra Pharisaeos argutio, et 1344. Now, the blind man’s argument against the Pharisees is presented. primo admiratur eorum duritiam; First, he is amazed at their hardness of heart; secundo confutat eorum falsitatem, ibi scimus autem quia peccatores Deus non audit. second, he refutes their false opinion: now we know that God does not hear sinners. 1345. Sciendum autem circa primum, quod non ea quae frequenter fiunt, et secundum communem modum miramur; sed insolita et ardua, sive bona, sive mala sint, admiramur. Nam insolita bona et ardua admiramur, secundum illud Esther XV, 17: valde enim admirabilis es, Domine, et facies tua plena est gratiarum. Admiramur etiam ardua mala, secundum illud Ier. II, 12: super hoc obstupescite, caeli . . . duo enim mala fecit populus meus. 1345. Concerning the first, we must recall that we are not amazed at what happens frequently, and in the usual way; but we are amazed at what is unusual and great, whether this be good or evil. We are struck by unusual and great good: you are wonderful, my Lord, and your countenance is full of grace (Esth 15:17). We are also amazed at great evil: be appalled, O heavens, at this . . . for my people have committed two evils (Jer 2:12). Secundum hoc ergo respondens caecus, dixit eis in hoc mirabile est qui vos nescitis unde sit, quasi dicat: si aliquem parvum et nobis similem non reputaretis alicuius auctoritatis, non esset mirandum; sed quia videtis expressum et evidens signum divinae virtutis in Christo, et dicitis quia vos nescitis unde sit, valde mirabile est, praesertim quia aperuit mihi oculos. In line with this, the blind man says in answer, why, this is a marvel! You do not know from where he comes. He is saying in effect: it would not be remarkable if you regarded someone insignificant and like me as having no authority. But it is extremely amazing that you can see an explicit and evident sign of divine power in Christ and say that you do not know where he comes from, especially because he did open my eyes. 1346. Falsitatem eorum confutat dicens scimus autem quia peccatores Deus non audit. Utitur tali ratione. Quemcumque Deus audit, est a Deo; sed Deus exaudivit Christum: ergo est a Deo. 1346. The man born blind refutes their false opinion by saying, we know that God does not hear sinners. He is reasoning this way: whomever God hears is from God; but God heard Christ; therefore, Christ is from God. Primo ergo ponit primam; He first states his main premise; secundo assumit minorem, ibi a saeculo non est auditum etc.; et then the minor premise: from the beginning of the world; tertio infert conclusionem, ibi si non esset hic a Deo, non poterat facere quidquam. and third, he draws his conclusion: unless this man were of God, he could not do anything. Circa primum duo facit. He does two things abut the first: Primo insinuat quos Deus non audiat; first, he mentions those whom God does not hear; secundo ostendit quos Deus audiat, ibi sed si quis Dei cultor est . . . hunc exaudit. second, those he does hear: but if a man is a servant of God and does his will, he hears him. 1347. Non audit autem Deus peccatores; et quantum ad hoc dicit scimus quia peccatores Deus non audit, quasi dicat: in ista opinione ego et vos consentimus, quod non exaudiantur peccatores a Deo. Unde in Ps. LXXI, 42: clamaverunt ad Dominum, et non exaudivit eos; Prov. I, 28: tunc invocabunt me, et non audiam. 1347. God does not hear sinners. In regard to this he says, we know that God does not hear sinners. He is saying: both you and I agree that sinners are not heard by God. Thus it is said, they cried to the Lord and he did not hear them (Ps 17:42); and again, then they will call upon me, but I will not hear (Prov 1:28). Sed contra. II Paral. VI, 36: si autem peccaverint tibi, neque enim est homo qui non peccet, et reversi fuerint ad te in toto corde suo . . . aperiantur, quaeso, oculi tui, et aures tuae intentae sint ad orationem quae fit in loco isto. Lc. XVIII, 14, de publicano dicitur, quod descendit iustificatus in domum suam. Et propter hoc dicit Augustinus, quod caecus iste adhuc loquitur ut inunctus, nondum perfecte sciens. Nam et peccatores exaudit Deus, alias frustra publicanus diceret: Domine Deus, propitius esto mihi peccatori. But there are statements which contradict this: if they sin against thee, for there is no man who does not sin, but later repent with all their heart, then hear from heaven and forgive your people (2 Chr 6:36–39); and we read that the tax collector went down to his house justified (Luke 18:14). Because of this Augustine says that this blind man is speaking as one who has not been anointed, as one who does not yet have complete knowledge. For God does hear sinners, otherwise it would have been futile for the tax collector to have prayed: God, be merciful to me a sinner (Luke 18:17). Si autem verbum caeci salvare volumus, dicendum est, quod Deus non exaudivit peccatores in peccatis persistentes; exaudivit tamen peccatores de peccatis poenitentes, qui magis sunt computandi in numero poenitentium, quam peccatorum. Accordingly, if we wish to save the statement of the blind man we must say that God does not hear those sinners who persist in their sinning; but he does hear those sinners who are sorry for their sins, and who should be regarded more as repentant than as sinners. 1348. Sed insurgit dubitatio. Constat enim quod miracula non fiunt ab hominibus propria virtute, sed per orationem. Peccatores autem frequenter miracula faciunt, secundum illud Matth. VII, 22: nonne in nomine tuo prophetavimus . . . et virtutes multas fecimus? Et tamen Deus non novit eos. Non videtur ergo verum quod caecus dicit scimus quia peccatores Deus non audit. 1348. Yet there is a difficulty here. It is clear that miracles are not accomplished by us due to our own power, but through prayer. But sinners often perform miracles: Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name . . . and do many mighty works in your name? (Matt 7:22) And yet God did not know them. Thus, what the blind man said does not seems to be true, namely, we know that God does not hear sinners. Ad hoc est duplex responsio. Una communis. Oratio enim duo habet, quia scilicet impetrat, et meretur: quandoque ergo impetrat, et non meretur; quandoque autem meretur, et non impetrat. Et sic nihil prohibet orationem peccatoris impetrare quod petit, absque hoc quod mereatur. Sic ergo Deus audit peccatores, non per modum meriti, sed inquantum ex divina virtute, quam praedicant, impetrant quod petunt. Alia est specialis, in casu isto quo loquebatur, scilicet quando miraculum factum notificabat personam Christi. There are two answers to this. The first is general. Prayer has two characteristics, that is, it can obtain what it asks for and it can merit. Thus, sometimes it obtains what it asks, and does not merit; at other times, it merits and does not obtain. And so nothing prevents the prayer of a sinner from obtaining what it asks although it does not merit. This is the way that God hears sinners; not as a matter of merit, but they obtain what they ask from the divine power, which they acknowledge. The other answer is special and applies to this particular case, when the miracle that was done makes known the person of Christ.