ostenderat prius a Patre clarificandum Filium, ut Patrem clarificaret Filius. Modo autem dixit, Ego te clarificavi super terram, opus consummavi quod dedisti mihi ut faciam: et nunc clarifica me; tanquam prior ipse Patrem clarificaverit, a quo deinde ut clarificetur exposcit. Ergo intelligendum est utroque verbo superius usum secundum id quod futurum erat, eoque ordine quo futurum erat, Clarifica Filium, ut te clarificet Filius: modo vero usum fuisse verbo praeteriti temporis de re futura, ubi ait, Ego te clarificavi super terram, opus consummavi quod dedisti mihi ut faciam. Deinde dicendo, Et nunc clarifica me tu, Pater, apud temetipsum, quasi posterius esset clarificandus a Patre, quem prius ipse clarificaverat; quid ostendit, nisi superius ubi ait, Ego te clarificavi super terram, ita locutum se fuisse, tanquam fecisset quod facturus esset; hic autem poposcisse ut Pater faceret, per quod illud Filius facturus esset, id est, ut Pater clarificaret Filium, per quam Filii clarificationem etiam Filius clarificaturus esset Patrem? Denique si de re quae futura erat, ponamus etiam futuri temporis verbum, ubi pro tempore futuro posuit ipse praeteritum, nulla sententiae remanebit obscuritas: veluti si dixisset, Ego te clarificabo super terram, opus consummabo quod dedisti mihi ut faciam: et nunc clarifica me tu, Pater, apud temetipsum. Nempe ita planum est, sicut illud ubi ait, Clarifica Filium tuum, ut Filius tuus clarificet te: et ipsa est omnino sententia, nisi quia et hic dictus est ejusdem clarificationis modus, ibi autem tacitus; tanquam illud isto exponeretur eis quos poterat permovere, quomodo Pater Filium, et maxime quomodo Patrem clarificaret et Filius. Dicendo enim clarificari a se Patrem super terram, se autem a Patre apud eumdem Patrem, modum profecto utriusque clarificationis ostendit. Ipse quippe Patrem clarificavit super terram, eum gentibus praedicando; Pater vero ipsum apud semetipsum, ad suam dexteram collocando. Sed ideo postea de clarificando Patre ubi ait, Ego te clarificavi, verbum praeteriti temporis ponere maluit, ut monstraret in praedestinatione jam factum, et pro jam facto habendum quod certissime fuerat futurum; id est, ut a Patre apud Patrem glorificatus, Patrem super terram glorificaret et Filius.
He had shown earlier that the Son was to be glorified by the Father, so that the Son might glorify the Father. But now He has said, I have glorified Thee upon the earth, I have finished the work which Thou gavest Me to do: and now glorify Me; as though He Himself had first glorified the Father, by Whom He then asks to be glorified. We must therefore understand that above He used both verbs according to what was going to be, and in the order in which it was going to be, Glorify the Son, that the Son may glorify Thee; but that now He used a verb of past time about a future thing, where He says, I have glorified Thee upon the earth, I have finished the work which Thou gavest Me to do. Then, by saying, And now glorify Thou Me, Father, with Thine own self, as though He were afterwards to be glorified by the Father, Whom He Himself had first glorified, what does He show, except that above, where He says, I have glorified Thee upon the earth, He had spoken as though He had done what He was going to do; but that here He asked that the Father should do that through which the Son was going to do the other thing, that is, that the Father should glorify the Son, through which glorifying of the Son the Son too was going to glorify the Father? Finally, if concerning a thing which was future we put a verb of future time as well, where He Himself put the past in place of the future tense, no obscurity of meaning will remain: as if He had said, I will glorify Thee upon the earth, I will finish the work which Thou gavest Me to do: and now glorify Thou Me, Father, with Thine own self. It is surely as plain as that where He says, Glorify Thy Son, that Thy Son may glorify Thee: and it is altogether the same meaning, except that here the manner of this same glorifying is stated, while there it is left unsaid; as though the one were being explained by the other to those whom it could perplex how the Father glorified the Son, and above all how the Son too glorified the Father. For by saying that the Father is glorified by Him upon the earth, but He Himself by the Father with that same Father, He has indeed shown the manner of each glorifying. For He Himself glorified the Father upon the earth by preaching Him to the nations; but the Father glorified Him with Himself by setting Him at His right hand. But the reason why afterwards, concerning the glorifying of the Father, where He says, I have glorified Thee, He preferred to put a verb of past time, was to show that in predestination it was already done, and that what was most certainly to come must be held as already done; that is, that, glorified by the Father with the Father, the Son too should glorify the Father upon the earth.
6. Sed hanc praedestinationem in sua clarificatione manifestius aperuit, qua eum clarificavit Pater, in eo quod adjunxit, Claritate quam habui, priusquam mundus esset, apud te. Ordo verborum est, quam habui apud te, priusquam mundus esset. Ad hoc valet quod ait, Et nunc clarifica me; hoc est, sicut tunc, ita et nunc; sicut tunc praedestinatione, ita et nunc perfectione: fac in mundo, quod apud te jam fuerat ante mundum; fac in suo tempore, quod ante omnia tempora statuisti. Hoc quidam sic intelligendum putarunt, tanquam natura humana quae suscepta est a Verbo, converteretur in Verbum, et homo mutaretur in Deum; imo, si diligentius quod opinati sunt cogitemus, homo periret in Deo. Non enim quisquam ex ista mutatione hominis vel duplicari Dei Verbum dicturus
6. But He disclosed this predestination more plainly in His own glorifying, by which the Father glorified Him, in that He added, With the glory which I had, before the world was, with Thee. The order of the words is, which I had with Thee, before the world was. To this end avails what He says, And now glorify Me; that is, as then, so also now; as then by predestination, so also now by accomplishment: do in the world what had already been with Thee before the world; do in its own time what Thou didst appoint before all times. Some have thought that this is to be understood as though the human nature which was taken up by the Word were to be changed into the Word, and the man were to be changed into God; nay rather, if we consider more carefully what they have supposed, the man would perish in God. For no one, on account of this change of the man, is going to say either that the Word of God is doubled