15. (Vers. 14.). If you ask anything in my name, this I will do: and he does not repeat the name of the Father, to show that even if they ask from him himself, they obtain it, since he is equal to the Father; 1 John 3: "If our heart does not condemn us, we have confidence before God; and whatever we ask, we shall receive from him."
Questions.
16. Question 1. But it is first asked concerning this, that the Lord says to the disciples: Where I go, you know, and the way you know:
1. Because Thomas immediately asks as one who is ignorant, and says that he does not know.
2. Likewise, Philip asks about the terminus, namely about the Father, and in this shows that he does not know: therefore either the Lord spoke falsely, or they were asking what they already knew.
To this there is a threefold response: in the first way, that the Lord was not speaking about all of them, but about some. But this solution is not fitting, because the Lord in the preceding passages excepted Judas: I do not speak of all of you.
In another way it is answered that they knew both the way and the terminus, but not under that aspect under which he was speaking, just as I know Coriscus, but not insofar as he is approaching: and therefore I can, while knowing Coriscus, inquire and doubt about him under the aspect of one approaching .
In another way it is said that they knew, but were not attending to it or actually considering it; and therefore Philip was rebuked for his lack of consideration.
17. Question II. But then there is a question about the Lord's response to Thomas: I am the way, the truth, and the life.
How is the same one, who goes, the way? How also is he himself the life and the terminus? This seems very unfitting.
It must be said that he himself is the one who goes, and through whom one travels, and to whom one arrives: and thus he is the truth, which goes; the way, through which one travels; the life, to which one arrives. And this is on account of the plurality of natures: because as man, he goes; because as God, he is the terminus; because as mediator of God and men, he makes the way.
18. Question III. Likewise there is a question about the response he gives to Philip: I have been with you for so long a time, and you have not known me?
It seems from this that Philip had not yet believed in Christ.
But then how was it said above to him that he was clean, since no one is clean except through faith?
If you say that he did believe: how then, since he says that the Father and the Son are of one essence, was he seeking to see the Father? It seems that he believed something contrary to the faith.
To this it must be said that Philip believed in him and believed him equal to the Father and one in substance; he believed this habitually. But because at that time he heard the Son speaking distinctly about the Father, he wanted and sought to see him distinctly: which he would not have sought if he had considered the unity of essence. Therefore from such a surreptitious movement he sinned venially, and therefore he is rebuked by the Lord.
19. Question IV. Likewise, what does he mean when he says: He who sees me sees the Father also?
For the Son was made visible, but the Father remained invisible. If you say that he speaks according to the Divinity, this amounts to nothing, because no one has ever seen God, neither the Father nor the Son, because if the Son, then also the Father.
I respond: It must be said that he speaks of the vision of the Divinity, not of the humanity. But this is in two ways, namely through faith, as we see now through a mirror in an enigma; and through direct appearance. And he speaks here of the vision through faith: because no one perfectly believes in the Son without also believing in the Father.
20. Question V. Likewise there is a question about what he says: I am in the Father, and the Father is in me.
To the contrary: Then it is argued from this: therefore the Father is in the Father.
It is also asked: why is this proposition not accepted: The Father is in the Father?
I respond: It must be said that this preposition in, because it is a preposition, implies distinction; but because it is this preposition, it implies unity of essence; therefore it is conceded that the Father is in the Son, and the Son is in the Father. But it does not follow that the Father is in the Father; rather, there is here a fallacy of accident, just as in this case: I am similar to you, and you to me; therefore I am similar to myself — a fallacy of accident, because similarity implies both agreement and distinction.
21. Question VI. Likewise, there is an inquiry about what he says: He who believes in me, the works that I do, he also shall do.
1. This is false, because those works were of infinite power; therefore no one does them except God.